Response to Renaissance Review
It was perhaps inevitable that when the Renaissance Review (http://tinyurl.com/nn6bgu) was finally published people immediately expected the worst. The wait for its publication lead to an assumption that MLA was hoping to bury bad news. When it was finally published, the timing was unfortunate – the first day of Parliamentary Recess, just as the schools are breaking up and people are preparing for holidays – giving the feeling that MLA hoped the Review would slip out without anybody noticing.
And initially it does make grim reading. The report is full of phrases that make neat soundbites:
· “it is unclear what specific contributions its various programmes have made, or are making, to Renaissance’s objectives, It could be argued that Renaissance has not yet amounted to more than the sum of its parts”;
· “the Renaissance manager has never been sufficiently senior to merit a place on the organisation’s executive board…the implication is that MLA has not been committed to Renaissance wholeheartedly”;
· “Renaissance’s emphasis on ‘quick wins’ and short-termism both run counter to the Task Force’s original ethos of long-term transformation and consolidation”;
· “it was, perhaps, inevitable that the realisation of Renaissance would stray from the original vision, and understandable that it has shifted direction over the years. It could be argued that weaknesses in management both at MLA and in many of the hubs have contributed to this.”
I could go on and fill this blog with similar quotes, but I would recommend that you read the 12 page Executive Summary that opens the report.
But dig a little deeper and there is good news. The report is unwavering in its support of Renaissance in the Regions as a good thing. Early on the report states “Renaissance is the UK government’s most important intervention in English non-national museums since the Museums Act of 1845”. It is equally robust throughout the report in its support of the concept of Renaissance. Its continued existence, and the constant flow of money from central government to regional museums, is seen to be a success in itself. At no stage does the report suggest that Renaissance was been a waste of effort and should be wound up. Quite the reverse, in fact, since the recommendations made in the report are made on how Renaissance’s management and reporting should be improved – improved rather than destroyed.
This is perhaps something of a weakness in the report. You do feel that you are having to dig for the good news. The report does justify itself here: “The research undertaken for this Review found that MLA’s accounts of the achievements of the hub museums are inadequate: inconsistent in their use of quantitative measures, and unfocused in their qualitative analyses”. However, the absence of rigorous evaluation of the scheme does not preclude the inclusion of anecdotal evidence of achievements. This report could have been an opportunity to present to Government some independently gathered examples of success. MLA could have used such a report as an advocacy tool (albeit one that it considered a curate’s egg). Instead, I fear that the report will not reach the audiences it should.
This is because, at its core, the report is critical of MLA in its governance, management and evaluation of the scheme. The report is very clear in how these weaknesses can be addressed, including establishing a strong National Renaissance Board and “assuming that MLA continues to manage Renaissance, it should report to the National Renaissance Board on matters pertaining to Renaissance”. The recommendations in the report (and there are many) are not radical, but good, solid measures that will enable Renaissance to reach the potential that it has always had but has been unable to deliver. The question now is, does MLA’s Board and Senior Executive have the strength and courage to act on the recommendations. The already weak credibility of the organisation could depend on what it does next.
Paul Fraser Webb, Museum Consultant
If you would like to respond to Paul’s blog use the ‘Leave a reply’ box below.
