Throughout the roundtables, participants returned to a topic that affected each of them in different, but equally important, ways: ensuring that museum decision-makers allocate appropriate staff time and resources specifically to DEAI initiatives and activities. Some questions that sparked further conversation across roundtable sessions were:

• Who is responsible for DEAI work and how are they supported?
• Should there be a dedicated staff team led by a chief diversity officer (CDO) or other DEAI-related position, or should DEAI goals be distributed across the institution based on department? How is the CDO, DEAI consultant, etc., chosen?
• If a museum creates a department specifically tasked with carrying out its institutional DEAI plan, how will resources, staff, and time be allocated to that team?
• What should the reporting structure for DEAI-related tasks be?

Conversations centered on how “DEAI needs to be seen as more than an add-on, especially given the current socio-politico-cultural climate,” as one participant shared. The DEAI push within museum spaces since 2020 spurred a number of high-profile hires at institutions across the country, and while there has been some modest progress in the field overall, much work still remains.

Positionality of DEAI Roles

There will be no one-size-fits-all DEAI plan, but two common approaches identified were to:

• Create a standalone department tasked with carrying out the DEAI plan, with a cross-departmental staff that reports directly to a decision-maker at the museum
• Divide DEAI goals and responsibilities across the institution, with adequate resources and time to dedicate staff energy toward achieving specific departmental goals

Roundtable participants expressed support for either or both of these approaches, but felt that in either structure an important question remained: to whom should the CDO, Director of Inclusion, etc., and their team report? The DEAI practitioners group, for example, stressed the importance of having a clear and well-communicated reporting structure, with one participant noting that “these roles can’t just depend on the ‘good graces’ of HR to exist.” From the discussion, it was clear that this was not to say that a museum’s HR department has no role in helping guide high-level DEAI goals, but that the DEAI team should be empowered to use its cross-institutional knowledge to further the museum’s DEAI mission. This mirrors what Artnet Art Market editor Tim Schneider wrote in a reflection on the publication’s Burns-Halperin Report, that DEAI leaders should report directly to the museum’s chief officers and board, making them “more likely to be seen as an empowered ally to rank-and-file staff, and…to usher in the kind of holistic shift they were ostensibly brought in for.” One participant during the BTA roundtable session echoed this sentiment, noting that it is important to have someone in a position to be able to “lead conversations in the boardroom and on the [museum’s] executive committee.”

The “Burden” of DEAI Work

Participants in the non-leadership roundtables also spoke about a pattern in DEAI work: museum decision-makers develop well-intentioned plans, statements, and initiatives full of ambitious and aspirational goals, which then become the responsibility of a small group or even a “team of one” to execute. As one participant shared, “there is a focus on surface-level change, with more demands and equal (or fewer) resources [for DEAI-related responsibilities]. The work then falls disproportionately on folks often with compounded marginalizations, while supportive structures for baseline workers’ needs are not met.” This comment makes it clear that while this pattern of disproportionate responsibility would be a concern in any case, it’s especially worrying when those given the responsibilities are often on the receiving end of the systemic harm they are working to undo.

Unrealistic workloads, inequitable or inadequate staffing, lack of meaningful financial support, lack of a community of other practitioners, and lack of overall resources can lead to DEAI practitioner burnout, as reported by numerous publications. Schneider posits that it is unclear “how many of these [DEAI-related] hires were simply a short-term PR strategy rather than the cornerstone of evolved practices that will stand the test of time.” This quote highlights that while creating a DEAI plan is an important first step, the difficult and emotionally taxing work of seeing it through requires a specific skill set and investment. Having a dedicated DEAI leader, as well as an advocate for the necessary resources and support for this work, legitimizes the undertaking itself. DEAI work is a specialized field that spans a wide array of practices, teachings, research areas, and lived realities. Input from roundtable participants, and other writing on the topic, indicate that an institution’s DEAI “champions” may not want to be chosen solely based on their experience of having a marginalized identity, but rather the choice can draw on that identity and incorporate it into a holistic strategy.

The importance of recognizing the emotional and mental toll of DEAI work, and actively supporting policies of care and recovery for staff members in DEAI roles, also came up. Museum professionals of color, especially Black folks in the museum field, as this Harvard Business Review article details, “are also often asked to educate non-Black individuals about racism and…to lead the antiracism charge in their organizations…fulfilling them requires both physical and emotional labor, which can heighten existing fatigue.” One participant stated during the CEO roundtable that a DEAI plan should show up as “an acknowledgment of harm” that the institution, intentionally or not, has perpetuated against its staff from marginalized identities. It should, they continued, outline the “steps that will be taken to repair harm,” which can take many forms: making spaces for collective healing and care; creating employee resource groups to advocate for and promote more inclusive spaces; reimagining what self-care looks like; and more. They further reiterated, and others agreed, that these all will require active buy-in from museum decision makers and are DEAI goals as important as any other.

“Top-Down” vs. “Bottom-Up” Approaches

Ultimately, the final decision on what goes into a DEAI plan lies with top decision-makers at the institution. While some roundtable participants saw the benefit in this process—“the work really gets going at the senior leadership & [among] board members” with the power to action their museum’s goals, as one DEAI professional said—many participants that are not in leadership positions expressed discomfort with a “top-down” approach.

During the BIPOC museum professional roundtable, one participant commented on the “[perceived] lack of transparency, sometimes [in their experience] from higher-up leadership making decisions about what DEAI looks like, [which] does not always trickle down to what that looks like to staff.” The frustration expressed by participants also extended to the inability to contribute to their institution’s DEAI efforts, highlighting, in their words, “the irony of pushing to create a more inclusive space without being very inclusive.”

Looking to external audiences, community members and stakeholders also factor into an institution’s DEAI approach. At the 2023 AAM Annual Meeting in Denver, CO, an in-person session invited attendees to respond to the roundtable questions by engaging in discussion and adding their thoughts to sticky notes. The AAM team then categorized those thoughts into broad themes for additional analysis, one of which was “Community and Staff Buy-In.” Several participants suggested DEAI work “moving from internal-only to involving the community” and engaging stakeholders “in their field of influence,” which can lead to “bolstering support and pushing leadership” to sign on to institutional planning, among many other ideas. These contributions to the wider roundtable process indicate, at least among the Annual Meeting attendees, a recognition of the need for DEAI plans to account for how goal-setting, decision-making, ideation, communication, and reporting will occur.

The prevalence of DEAI plans is a sign of meaningful progress, and it is important to name that while working to mitigate potential areas of inequity, practicing the DEAI values museums are trying to embed within their organizations. Institutions might consider what their DEAI plans look like from every stratum of their organization, regardless of department or qualification. To that end, many roundtable participants also expressed the opinion that DEAI initiatives should “move past surface level policies and performative actions and solicit the input of all staff to create a plan that serves both the internal and external needs of the institution.” One participant said that museum decision-makers should, “[see] all roles as equal contributors to…the whole,” always coming back to equity in the workplace. Another noted that “staff of color are generally in ‘lower’ roles and trying to work their way up…[DEAI assessments] need to talk to someone at every level of a museum’s structure.”

Developing a staff survey to assess what the DEAI plan’s internal audience thinks of the progress being made can also help decision-makers determine the allocation of energy and resources. Another participant noted that while their museum’s director and marketing manager will ask for staff input for external communications, when it comes to deeper discussions, “[we all] need to recognize the importance of everyone’s perspectives in the institution.”

The DEAI Challenge for Smaller Museums

While many roundtable participants worked at large or medium-sized museums and brought those important perspectives, equally important was understanding the role that smaller institutions play in tackling DEAI challenges. Smaller museums make up the majority of institutions in the United States, so their approaches to this sector-wide challenge can provide helpful insight to the field.

While what constitutes a “small museum” will vary by discipline, according to the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH), small museums “have annual budgets of less than $250,000, operate with a small staff with multiple responsibilities, and employ volunteers to perform key staff functions.” In other words, the staff, board, and volunteers at small museums—whether an art museum or historic house, children’s museum, or nature center—have to “do more with less,” requiring creative approaches to address their unique DEAI challenges. Creativity in the museum’s plan of action is paramount in such an environment, and recognizing the assets smaller institutions already possess is one direction that they, and all museums, may want to consider.

One approach is to leverage already-existing relationships in the community that a small museum is part of, working with other organizations to bring the mission of the museum to a larger audience. The Renton History Museum in Renton, WA, took such an approach, as described in this 2010 post on the Center for the Future of Museums blog. One major challenge the museum faced, says Director Elizabeth Stewart, was feeling “intimidated by the challenges facing museums [of all sizes], the increasing ethnic diversity of our community being one of the most significant.” The solution? Participating in a local college’s student showcase and leveraging the museum’s English as a Second Language (ESL) programming partnership with the college to tell the stories of ESL communities in the area. This was not part of a specific DEAI plan, but the larger theme of looking to and working with community partners to expand the museum’s reach—as well as using existing museum relationships to reflect the community-at-large—relates strongly to the spirit of DEAI. Although the task may seem insurmountable, it does not have to be impossible, and it is important to recognize the unique ways smaller museums approach this sector-wide challenge.

Staffing: So now what?

Building a DEAI museum plan does not occur in a vacuum, and it cannot be separate from the larger structural inequities that exist in the field at present. From an internal lens, these inequities can most readily be seen through staff demographics and the allocation of time, resources, and responsibilities across the institution. This became clear through each of the roundtable sessions, especially those with museum professionals of color and DEAI practitioners—participants noted that any plan must therefore radically reimagine how their institutions manage these qualities.

The questions posed during our roundtable discussions are helpful starting points to get your staff, board, DEAI committee, or other decision-making personnel thinking about what a new staff structure and functionality could look like. They are not, however, questions that we as a field have successfully found long-lasting answers to, and we have the opportunity to collectively find those answers. Resources like MASS (Museums as Sites for Social) Action’s Readiness Assessment and the Tool for Organizational Self-Assessment Related to Racial Equity by Coalition of Communities of Color and All Hands Raised are handy guides for museums to determine where on their DEAI journey they fall. Ultimately, it is the individuals that make up the museum that will best know what work still needs to be done, and courageous leadership from every stratum of the museum can help determine the shape of that work.