AAM is only one part of the greater museum DEAI ecosystem, which includes many other practitioners, museum professionals, and organizations. As such, we must focus on the areas of DEAI that we can best contribute to—standards and accreditation. As we begin to incorporate feedback and input from the field regarding how to best embed DEAI into these requirements, we have to answer the question: how does one determine a museum’s commitment to excellence in DEAI?

To gather feedback on how to do that, the roundtable hosts—Grace, Dr. Cole, and the rotating co-host—posed the same question to each roundtable gathering: “If you were sent to assess a museum for accreditation, what would you like to see as evidence of that museum’s commitment to DEAI excellence?” It is no surprise that the topic of accountability permeated each of the roundtable discussions. Participants discussed who should determine how much progress has been made, what metrics museums should use to assess their DEAI progress, and how museums should be communicating about that progress, both internally and externally. Here were some of the major themes of those conversations.

Power

Who gets to decide how well a museum is doing in its DEAI efforts? To whom is the museum accountable?

Roundtable participants shared that the museum field has a tendency to self-evaluate, including its DEAI initiatives. However, perceptions of how a museum is doing can vary even within the institution—let alone with its communities. When the hosts spoke with DEAI leaders and CEOs, arguably those with the most power to drive DEAI changes, they felt positively about their museums’ DEAI progress, while BIPOC museum professionals in non-leadership positions were often disappointed in the perceived lack of progress in their institutions.

This perception gap exists between those with different levels of institutional power and between those who felt different degrees of being personally impacted by the DEAI efforts. For example, museum CEOs have the benefit of a high-level view of their institutions and the ecosystems in which they operate, including the impact the boards of trustees have. They also often have the benefit of a perspective informed over time. They can chart the progress of DEAI priorities over years of engagement in the field and feel optimistic about how far they have seen it evolve, even if it has been slow. They can also understand why the change is slow, if they have been engaged in DEAI for many years and intimately understand the challenges of funding, staffing, and pacing (discussed in the other roundtable essays) that are taken into consideration when evaluating progress. Several of the CEOs that participated shared how they have navigated through “difficult board conversations, political culture wars, and weary funders” to “drag their institutions forward inch by inch.” For this group, small wins are the evidence of what can feel like herculean efforts.

The museum DEAI leaders group (made up of those responsible for directing the DEAI work at their institutions, such as Chief Diversity Officers) acknowledged their own areas of disappointment, but were still generally optimistic about the progress being made in the last few years, if somewhat less so than their CEO counterparts. This may be because their vantage point gives them a nuanced perspective of what progress means. They balance their philosophical aspirations for their institutions with the practical strategies and tactics required to actually move the needle. They are familiar with the time-consuming process of changing culture through raising awareness and understanding of DEAI concepts and practices, assessing their institution’s policies, practices, and processes for equity, and navigating the complex relational work required to build the trust and buy-in to make real change. One participant described a challenge associated with DEAI work as “convincing people that [it] is important.” In other words, they recognize that DEAI progress is like a chess game that requires careful strategy, sacrifices, prioritization, negotiation, and focus on long-term goals. Each small win is the result of countless hours of intellectual, physical, and emotional labor which can often go unseen by their peers.

In contrast, the two groups of museum professionals in non-leadership positions expressed more disappointment and skepticism about the progress at their institutions. During the roundtable discussion with emerging museum professionals, participants said they felt powerless to enact the DEAI changes they knew were needed because of a lack of authority or opportunities to share ideas with decision-makers. They spoke of a lack of transparency from leadership about the steps they were taking to advance DEAI. Though their museums claim to hold inclusive values, these participants believed that these values carried over into designing internal DEAI processes that took their perspectives and needs into account or allowed them to be a part of the planning.

These perspectives were echoed by the group of BIPOC museum professionals of varying career levels, who also expressed a lack of opportunity to engage meaningfully in the DEAI planning process. The frustrations that these participants expressed were also compounded by the fact that non-leadership BIPOC professionals are often the most impacted by the progress, or lack of progress, of DEAI efforts. For example, within art museums, staff with marginalized identities often make up the majority of non-managerial and non-decision-making roles, according to a 2022 demographic survey from the Mellon Foundation. When these staff report not feeling any change in their day-to-day experiences within the museum, the small wins that leaders celebrate can feel hollow and, in the words of one participant, “check-boxy,” especially when the process that yielded them seems opaque. Roundtable participants in this group expressed they didn’t have the “luxury of a bird’s-eye perspective on institutional change,” and described their experience of “combating daily microaggressions, oppressive systems, low wages, and disenfranchisement inside of the institutions” they are trying to love and support. And when they press to see more progress on these issues, as some participants shared, they feel they are “being told they are too radical, too whiny, too demanding, and too unrealistic.”

These gaps in perception made clear that museum leadership and staff would benefit from the creation of more opportunities for institution-wide dialogue about DEAI issues and the inclusion of voices of staff from varied positions, tenures, and identities when conducting institutional self-assessments and evaluations. Emerging museum professionals can gain perspective about the long-term investments and strategies of DEAI work, while those in leadership positions can better understand how to center the lived experiences of those most impacted by the work. As they try to steer their institutions into a more equitable future, leaders can hold the tension that DEAI is not an intellectual or philosophical exercise for many in this field, but a daily lived reality where value, belonging, and humanity are at stake.

Transformation

What are we measuring?

In each of the roundtables, discussion turned to what exactly museums should be measuring to determine their commitment to DEAI excellence. What indicators should we be looking for as evidence of this commitment? While the specific recommendations varied across the four roundtable discussions, they can generally be characterized as balancing between:

• Internal vs. external efforts,
• Quantitative vs. qualitative data, and
• Aspirational vs. practical goals.

As many participants pointed out, museums have a much longer history of pursuing DEAI in external-facing operations–such as education, outreach, community engagement, and exhibitions departments–than internal operations. These efforts are important and suggestions for how and what to track were provided by participants. Collecting and disaggregating demographic data for museum audiences, artists, collections, speakers, and instructors can reveal where the field may need to continue to diversify programming and identify and work to close any disparity gaps in compensation, representation, etc. Creating and analyzing metrics related to visitors’ sense of welcome and belonging within institutions, ease of access to information in virtual spaces, and the power to influence the institution were suggested for assessing progress of these external efforts.

While roundtable participants celebrated these external efforts, many also agreed that internal efforts tend to lag behind in the field, creating dissonance and disappointment for museum workers. Many suggested that museums could strengthen their internal data-gathering and disaggregation, focusing on workforce demographics, compensation equity, and leadership opportunities. Several also noted that impactful DEAI efforts would be improved if they included a reevaluation of the internal museum structure, from the organizational chart and communications channels to the review of policies and procedures through an equity lens.

After the earlier discussion about who should be measuring DEAI progress, it was no surprise that every group stated strongly that any evaluation process for accreditation should include soliciting perspectives from museum staff at various levels and from different departments to demonstrate that DEAI responsibilities and commitments are embedded throughout the full organization. Any staff member should be able to share information about the museum’s DEAI work, including discussions and learnings in which they’ve personally participated.

Participants suggested a range of indicators museums could use to assess their commitment to DEAI excellence:

• All staff members can speak to the organization’s commitment to DEAI, including their own personal participation in DEAI efforts.
• There is evidence of ongoing community engagement that demonstrates feedback from the community and visitors is collected and acted upon.
• The organization has defined its DEAI-related terms specifically for its context—not just copied and pasted general definitions from another source (although referencing other sources is a good place to start).
• Staff, especially those with marginalized identities, feel they can be authentic at work, and do not need to assimilate to the dominant culture and hide or cover parts of their identity.
• Demographic data is gathered regularly and disaggregated to identify areas of inequity, and the findings are acted upon.
• The organization has an action plan with S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound) DEAI goals, and individual responsibilities for completing associated tasks are clear.
• Structures, systems, and policies have demonstrably changed because of DEAI efforts.
• There is evidence that the organization has been committed to DEAI over time and can demonstrate its ongoing progress.
• Museums are assessed as employers, not just community assets.
• The museum addresses its past and present harm by engaging in healing and repair work.

As AAM works to further embed DEAI in museum standards, these recommendations, among others, will be shared with our Accreditation Commission and Excellence in DEAI steering committee.

Many participants, especially those in non-leadership roles who would be most impacted by DEAI progress or failures, articulated a common fear: what if museum evaluations only serve to reward performative efforts designed to look good on the outside, rather than encouraging deep, transformational change from within? If an institution only measures outputs, instead of outcomes, it could create a false sense of progress, leaving those most marginalized even more vulnerable in institutions that have decided their checked boxes mean they no longer have work to do. To address this, evaluating DEAI excellence will need to take into consideration metrics that support and demonstrate ongoing, transformational change.

Communication

How should a museum communicate, internally and externally, about its DEAI journey?

As nonprofits competing for funding, museums are conditioned to only speak about themselves positively, touting that they are the best, the only, the most unique, and the most deserving. Celebrating a museum’s positive attributes and unique qualities is important, and our field can be more cognizant that this conditioning can be counterproductive when pursuing lasting DEAI change, which requires transparency with various stakeholders for accountability. How can museums be transparent about their histories, the harm they have caused, and the oppressive systems they have upheld in an honest and constructive way? This work can be hard and uncomfortable but avoiding it can only inhibit DEAI progress in the long run. During the roundtables, multiple participants shared that when their museum refuses to acknowledge these hard truths, the rest of what it communicates about its DEAI efforts feels disingenuous. Museum practitioners cannot expect anyone to be excited about, or engage in, DEAI work if they have not undertaken the difficult work of healing and reconciliation. This starts with telling the whole, nuanced truth, and accepting that multiple perspectives and experiences can be true at once.

Roundtable participants also expressed tension around the framing of DEAI progress in communications. On the one hand, institutions must celebrate their wins, even when they are small, because this helps build momentum and emotional capacity to continue the work. At the same time, many participants asserted the work is ongoing and never fully complete. Without that balance, museums risk alienating those most impacted by and engaged in DEAI work, either by appearing overly self-congratulatory and out of touch with ongoing struggles or by appearing defeatist and unappreciative of the physical, intellectual, and emotional labor of those championing DEAI work, who are quite often also those most marginalized.

While this balance may seem difficult to strike, it’s similar to how museum practitioners’ approach other areas of work such as education and fundraising—celebrating the success of programs and goals, but always assuming there is more work to be done. As with these other areas of our work, DEAI work as an ongoing process is not something to feel discouraged by, but an opportunity for continued growth and investment in the museum’s mission.

Accountability: So now what?

Throughout the various roundtable discussions, the topic of accountability took on many forms. The above is just a summary of the main themes of power, transformation, and communication that emerged. Museums will need to determine when and how to share their own DEAI journeys, and each institution will have its own starting point; Museum and Race’s Museum Report Card is one way to get the conversation started. Transformational change requires the work of everyone in the field to ask questions, contemplate answers, gather data, conduct research, take action, learn from mistakes, and continue iterating.