Last week in part one of this series, we looked at a working definition of transparency on which to base the context of our conversation. There was some good discussion in the comments about the concept in general and specifically about the differences between the valuation of museum collections and deaccessioning practices. Thanks to those of you who commented, and/or tweeted about the article.
Saying that transparency is a “good idea” is not enough to address concerns that many museums have about sharing information in this way. Today, we’ll spend some more time examining a few reasons why museum administrators should seriously consider an open approach to transparency as a strategic choice in running the museum.
Again, please chime in with thoughts / questions / analogies / etc… Your thoughts really add to and enrich the conversation. Do you think this would work in your museum? What would be the biggest concerns that would arise?
