As three PhD researchers working in the Design and Digital curatorial team, we have a unique opportunity to interact with the museum in different ways, informed by our individual research interests. In our previous blog, we discussed how we came to be working with digital objects, our research projects, and some observations about the nature of embedded research. Here, we reflect more on how we hope to create wider-reaching impacts through our work.
Katherine Mitchell: Previously, Anna T, you spoke about research impact. Being in the museum, we’re constantly faced with a public audience. Does that change the way you think about your research? And Anna M, do you see your research as having a direct impact on museum practices and/or the public?
Anna Talley: Not to answer your question for you Anna M, but I think conservation has a very public facing impact. Every time an object goes on display, or there’s an exhibition, the buck stops with conservation. You have a massive role in the way that things get seen.
Anna Mladentseva: Yes. So, I’m about to begin practical work on the preservation technique of emulation, which allows you to run different, sometimes legacy, computer environments on any machine. I’m hoping that testing emulation out on mobile apps in the collection might allow visitors to interact with the objects in a more participatory way, particularly in the new V&A East Storehouse. Rather than displaying video documentation of an app in use, visitors could interact with the mobile app directly. Emulation would also ensure that this level of interaction can continue in 10 years from now, even when the original hardware and software are obsolete.
KM: Of course, we’re each focussing on the more “backstage” elements of museum work like acquisition workflows, collections management and conservation. But these processes are what connects visitors with the collection. In that respect, research is always public facing. But do you think it’s possible for research to change museum practice? And should it ultimately be responsible for that?
AM: In my research, I look at knowledge possessed by external communities of practice, so I hope that my research might encourage museums to better involve the wider public in its activities. But to use the example of emulation, it might take time for the museum to develop the infrastructure and expertise for this, and I think you’d get burnt out quickly if you were expecting a massive change. Recently, my supervisor used the metaphor of osmosis for describing embedded research. In osmosis, there’s a very high concentration of molecules on one side, and a very low concentration on the other side. Because these are separated by a semi-permeable membrane, some of the molecules on the high concentration side end up migrating across, although not all of them. So, as a researcher, you may have a very high concentration of ideas and a desire for change, and some of these ideas will certainly get absorbed by the institution, but maybe not all of them, and maybe not immediately. Katherine, how do you see your research?
KM: In the context of impact and change, the practice-theory connection is something I’m always questioning. Is it really possible for theoretical work to have meaningful day-to-day impact? And can work that addresses more practical institutional challenges also contribute significant academic inquiries? But ultimately, I see the role of embedded research as providing the space and time for experimenting outside of existing workflows and policies. These frameworks underpin the essential work of museums but can also restrict the more experimental and agile ways of collecting often needed for digital objects. So, I see research as working to the side of those frameworks – always engaging with them but operating independently as a more creative and speculative space to test ideas, which feels like a luxury. I also think it’s important to remember that we’re here to learn as much as to contribute. It’s a symbiotic relationship. We’re also independent researchers, and we retain an independent voice.
AT: I went into research because, before I started training as a design historian, I went to art school to be a graphic designer. I noticed myself spending more time in museums than the studio, so I became interested in research, but as a way to feed into practice. This relates to my aim to always conduct research with a public facing output. This outward focus for research was an essential element in my Masters programme, which had a whole module called ‘History as Public Practice’. The MA was embedded in the V&A so, naturally, the notion of a public practice was threaded through our work. For me, research needs an application – whether that’s for designers, museum professionals or the public. I wouldn’t be doing what I do if I didn’t believe it could make some sort of change.
KM: So, what does that application look like for you?
AT: What has been nice about the V&A project is that it’s short term. With a 3+ year PhD project, you can go into it being very ambitious about the impact you want to have, when in reality that impact is usually limited. That shouldn’t undermine the PhD, but you have to be realistic about expectations. You also have to work a lot harder for it to have a public facing impact. With my V&A project, the output is very clearly defined as something that will impact museum working practices, and I had three months to do it. So, the turnaround of research to output, and the experience of seeing a document that hopefully informs workflows, is really satisfying thing to do.
But in terms of the question, ‘Can you make a public impact?’ I think, when you’re working in a public institution, everything you’re doing should be in the public interest. If that’s changing working practices, that’s changing working practices for an object that belongs to the public. If you want to create access for that object, or you want to have better ways of preserving that object, it’s for the public. So even you perceive a focus on working practices to be something the public does not see, it does impact collections, which ultimately belong to the public.
KM: For me, what’s important about being an embedded researcher is also the opportunities we have outside of the PhD project directly. Researching in the museum provides a very different training and professional development, and access to expanded research communities – both outside academia, and outside your subject area. A PhD is so much more than the thesis, and being in the museum I’ve run workshops, given public talks, and communicated my research to non-specialist audiences. I’ve met artists, designers and donors, and I’ve been on studio visits. I’m also acquiring an object for the collection. All of this is fun and has definitely kept me going through thesis writing some days! Now I’m sounding nostalgic, although luckily I’m not leaving just yet. But Anna M, you’ve still got another 3 years here. Is there anything specific you’re hoping to do beyond the PhD?
AM: I’d love to have an impact on creating time-based media expertise and resources in the V&A. It would be great to create a disk imaging workstation for creating bit-by-bit copies of digital objects in Conservation, and to incorporate this process in the acquisition workflow. This would be useful in any future emulation-based solutions too. But these things take time, so maybe that’s a longer-term goal. Otherwise, I’d love to continue doing outreach and dissemination of my research through formats like this blog.
KM: So these are some of the legacies we hope to leave, but what are we taking forward? What are your hopes for after the PhD?
AT: I’ve got a year and a bit left on my PhD, which is not that much time! I’ve always said I want to be a curator, which is still true. I love being in museums, thinking about what needs to be acquired and shown, and how this can be done in an accessible way. But this placement has shown me the benefits of sitting slightly outside as an external researcher, still involved with some day-to-day processes but ultimately with a more focused scope and timeline for my work. It’s made me think more expansively about what it means to be a “researcher” as distinct from having a career that involves research, like a curator or a professor. I kind of like the idea of being a free agent – working with museums, doing a bit of teaching, writing for publications. What about you?
KM: I definitely came to my research project for itself, and from a desire to work in museums. Whilst I brought more of a media theorist specialism, being in the department has been a schooling in what it means to be a contemporary historian. Which is incredible. But it’s also made me reflect on the different possibilities for curating, both in smaller spaces, and beyond the role of curator exclusively. I’d love to develop in a curatorial role, and to pursue more research into digital art practices and communities at some point. Ideally, that research would be based in a museum still, but the relationship between museums and academia seems increasingly fluid and collaborative, so it’s a real privilege to already be sitting across these fields as a PhD student.
AM: Although I’m still in the early stages of the PhD, this experience is already enabling me to build my identity and portfolio as a conservator due to the practical work I’m doing alongside the thesis. In the future, I see myself somewhere along the conservator-researcher continuum, either as a time-based media conservator, lecturer in conservation, or other media technician or digital preservation jobs. Because software-based art conservation is an emerging field, and there are few official training routes for getting into this profession, this PhD is ultimately part of my training for becoming a conservator.
KM: Great, I look forward to seeing how your projects develop and what they lead to next.
