How the museum management handles the problems related to the intercultural matters.
Overview
For this anonymous case model, the individual that was being interviewed worked at a museum in the Netherlands. Moreover, the museum often works together with the museum from abroad. Thus, it can be stated that the museum also operates in an international environment. Furthermore, the main responsibility of the person being interviewed lies around curating an exhibition. As a result, the person is involved in international interactions with other museums.
Furthermore, the person is also responsible for correctly interpreting the meaning of the artefacts of their origin. The interpretation of the message is vital for the museum to have it correctly because it could affect international relationships with other museums. As a result, museums may become inhibitive to lending other artefacts for exhibitions because it may be prohibitive for those museums to work together with a museum that does not, in their eyes, take their artefacts and history seriously. In addition, the correct meaning is vital because the museum itself also heavily depends on international visitors.
Moreover, once an issue has been discovered with the story of one of the historical artefacts, it is rather challenging to implement any changes or adjustments, due to relatively complicated process, that passes through several parties and authorities. Additionally, once the consensus has been reached, the supreme parties (higher in the hierarchy) tend to be hesitant to change it in the middle of the exhibition. This can especially become problematic with showcase pieces from Africa or Asia, mainly because of massive cultural differences and the Dutch history that plays a vital role in both these continents’ history, especially particular countries. What is more, this has already happened in the museum’s history, whereby the museum was undecisive whether they should change the story of the painting, which did not completely align with the story of its origin.
Additionally, although it is not a common event, sometimes museums must do some additional research regarding the provenance. It can happen to be an issue within the museum’s sphere. It is because there are many factors and new discoveries that affect the history and the origin of the object. For example, a foreign country is aware about the artifacts exhibited from their area. Despite solid research, there appears new information and details that require a constant update made by the museum. Therefore, it is at the highest importance of the museum management to increase the awareness of people on how things happen behind-the-scenes in the museum administration. What is worth mentioning, people tend to capture the tip of the iceberg (their outward expression) in general manner (Praxis, n.d.). Nevertheless, it is crucial to understand the complicated and complex process that involves many parties and procedures, that results in a valuable exhibition. Further, even though the museum aims for diversity within its employee base, which is partly justified there. However, is a clear difference between the visible people and individuals working behind the scenes of the museum. As a result, historical pieces are often inspected by individuals who have no clear connection (roots) with the historical piece origin and, therefore, there is a higher chance of these misinterpretations.
Hofstede Dimensions
Outcome
Power distance
The Netherlands scores relatively low when looking at the power distance (38). As a result, it can be stated that society is seen as feministic. However, the person has stated that there is a noticeable power distance between the interviewee and the staff within the museum, especially the higher hierarchy. Furthermore, Indonesia is seen as a society whereby there is a higher power distance and, therefore, it can be stated that the society carries a lot of masculinity. Moreover, as a result of this, these societies are often driven by pride. What is more, these societies often have a greater attachment to their ancestors and their history (Hofstede, G., Pedersen, B., 2002).
Consequently, because the nation has a greater attachment to its history, it is vital for them that when a piece is lent to another museum that the meaning of the art is correctly reflected. Therefore, it is prohibitive for these museums to lend artefacts to international collaboration exhibitions when the context is even minorly adjusted. Furthermore, when these types of occasions occur in this case, the Indonesia museum would be inhibitive to lending another piece to the, in this case, Dutch museum. This could be seen as the tip of the Iceberg model because the museum would be inhibitive to sharing other important historical pieces. At the same time, it is prohibitive for the Indonesian museum to lend artefacts when the context is switched.
Individualism
The Netherlands can be stated as a society that is high on individualism. This can be seen because the nation scores (80) on the dimensions of Hofstede (n.d.). Therefore, the nation’s citizens are driven by pride in a certain way regarding their accomplishments. Furthermore, when it comes to the Dutch museum, there is also a sense of an individualistic working environment; this environment is mainly connected to an area that cannot be seen in the public eye. Therefore, when it comes to examining artefacts, individuals often take pride in the research they have conducted, the interviewee stated.
Furthermore, the Netherlands is also a low context society. Hence, when certain research has been conducted, they may sometimes have lacked to look at the narrative of the art piece from a broader perspective because it is not prohibitive to do so due to low context society. Furthermore, Indonesia scores relatively low on individualism (30). This is mainly caused by the power distance of the nation, meaning the citizens are way less driven towards their accomplishments and more towards collectivism.
Moreover, these types of societies tend to be higher context-driven societies (Hofstede, G., Pedersen, B., 2002). Consequently, the employees of this case, the Indonesia museum, would need clear instruction on what they tend to do, and they would be inhibitive to do without. As a result, there is a lower chance of their misinterpretation.
Time oriented
The Netherlands is a society that is leaning toward long-term orientation scoring (67). This mainly indicates that the nation is more focused on the future rather than the past. Moreover, the interviewee stated that this is also partly correct within the museum itself because the museum is there to preserve and maintain the art pieces and tell their stories. However, the museum’s main aim is also to make visitors aware of the past, but it is inhibitive to force these kinds of opinions on visitors. Nevertheless, in a certain way, they learn from the flaws or accomplishments that have happened in the past. Furthermore, Indonesia scores also relatively high on long-term orientations scoring (62) (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). However, as mentioned before, the nation is also differently driven due to its high context society, high masculinity, and collectivism, which causes them to be more focused on the history of the nation. Consequently, because the Dutch society has a long-term orientation in a combination of low-context society, the people working at the museum may misinterpret the meaning of the historical piece even if it is for a minor, but it can heavily influence a story. Therefore, the fear of failure could potentially inhibit the collaboration between the museums.
Possible solutions
Historical pieces always play an important role in a culture. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for a museum that borrows the pieces to share the correct information with their guest. Even though the interviewee stated that it is prohibitive for museums to share incorrect information; however, from time to time, it still happens. As a result, the museum must emphasize the matter of uncertainty avoidance because both nations score relatively high on this perspective. This entails that the museum should have the urge to check if the information that is being shared with the public is correct. Furthermore, the museum should empathize with the feministic style of the Netherlands, whereby there are little to no hierarchy systems. As a result of this, it becomes easier for individuals to engage when information that is being shared is incorrect. Further, the interviewee stated that there is not enough diversity within the museum itself of individuals who examine the pieces. When a piece is examined, it is crucial to have a cultural background with the artefact. Hence, the museum should enforce that it is not prohibitive to contact the museum of the artefact’s origin for a second opinion about the story. Therefore, the museum should differ from its individualistic sense of wanting to credit for its accomplishments. Moreover, the museum should also implement regulations that are inhibitive or even prohibitive in doing research when nothing has the regular information. Therefore, the museum should switch to a high-context system.
Bibliography
Hofstede, G. J., Pedersen, P. B., (2002). Exploring Culture. Yarmouth, Massachusetts, USA. Intercultural Press.
Praxis (n.d.). Systems thinking. Library
https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/systems-thinking
Primary source: Personal interview (June 3rd, 2022).
TCPS Institute (n.d.). Hofstede dimensions. Cultural bridges tool. Image source.
https://tcps.institute/cultural_bridges_tool.html
Authors
Stefan Smal (LinkedIn)
Student: International Business Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, year 2
Maciej Rykowski (linkedin)
Student: International Business Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, year 2