What can museums do to get more immigrants through their doors?

Reaching out to newcomers: the National Gallery of Denmark. Image: SMK Statens Museum for Kunst (officiel)/Flickr/creative commons.

As the bastions of a local and national culture, museums can often feel steeped in tradition and history rather than the problems of today. Yet in recent years, this has been changing, with some museums embracing a social justice agenda, aware that they need to become more relevant for 21st century society.

As part of my recent work on how museums can address the pressing social and economic needs of immigrants, I carried out research in five museums and art galleries in Copenhagen, Manchester and Paris.

I found that museums have a unique role to play in providing opportunities for immigrants to learn the language of their host country and to gain employment skills. But despite ongoing programmes to provide these skills, they still struggle to attract less-privileged immigrants – and actually reinforce the view of museums as elitist places.

Part of my research focused on Manchester Museum, which offered two volunteering programmes for a diverse range of participants, including immigrants. The In Touch Volunteer Programme ran between 2007 and 2010, followed by the Inspiring Futures: Volunteering for Wellbeing programme between 2013 and 2016. In addition, Manchester Museum and Manchester Art Gallery provide regular free English conversation classes through an ongoing programme called English Corner.

Good for skills development

Museums play a key role in developing the communication skills essential for learning a foreign language. Their objects are particularly powerful in helping learners to bring their everyday experiences and life stories into the class – a strategy called “bringing the outside in”. A 2007 study of English language lessons found such strategies were essential, helping students to construct more complex sentences as well as to speak more fluently.

This process occurred most clearly at an English Corner session organised for a group of refugee women at Manchester Museum. One woman from Somalia, who I interviewed a week after the museum session, spoke almost solely about a bowl from her community used as handling object during the session. She obviously felt very proud that such an object was at the museum and that she was able to touch it and explain its different functions to others.

Butterflies welcome visitors at Manchester Museum. Image: tom_t.photography/Flickr/creative commons.

Museums can also provide immigrants with essential employment skills that can boost their self-esteem and self-confidence. Volunteers on Mancheter Museum’s Inspiring Future programme took part in ten sessions on developing heritage knowledge. They then worked for 60 hours in the museum galleries on handling tables where they were responsible for interacting with the public around a specific artefact that they could touch. The volunteers I interviewed felt privileged to be able to touch these historically loaded objects – it gave them social prestige and turned them into experts.

An independent evaluation of the programme, conducted by the Envoy Partnership, found these volunteering activities boosted the self-confidence of participants. While they all reported feeling low self-confidence at the start of the project, a year after the volunteering experience, most reported that they often felt self-confident, and even more so after two years. They said it was a direct result of the programme.


Some immigrants left out

But despite the importance of these programmes to help develop language and employment skills, most of them actually marginalised or excluded less-privileged immigrants or those who were not fluent in the language of the host country.

Even when programmes were organised with less privileged immigrants, such as refugees and asylum seekers in mind, they often did not come to the museum without being brought in. The official evaluations of the volunteering programmes at Manchester Museum confirm these trends. While recent migrants and asylum seekers were a target group of the In Touch programme, only 13 out of a total 203 participants had refugee or asylum seeker status, and 28 participants were of black or minority ethnic background, which could have included immigrants.

The successor programme, Inspiring Futures, no longer specifically targeted recent migrants and asylum seekers. Its first-year evaluation indicated that 85.7 per cent of participants were white – and those I interviewed were all from the US. The second-year evaluation indicated that the programme had become even more ethnically homogeneous, with under 10 per cent of participants from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The trends were slightly different in Copenhagen, as the programmes I studied – language learning and employment projects at the National Gallery of Denmark and Thorvaldsens Museum – solely recruited immigrants. Yet, those immigrants they did recruit were usually from relatively comfortable backgrounds. When immigrants from less privileged backgrounds were recruited, they showed weaker outcomes and less progression than other participants.

The ConversationMuseums must better understand the issues faced by less-privileged immigrants and the reasons why they do not attend programmes that target them. By developing innovative programmes to provide language and employment skills that tackle multiple forms of exclusion, and expanding their activities beyond their walls, they could start to reach out to these immigrants and asylum seekers.

Sophia Labadi, Senior Lecturer in Heritage and Archaeology, University of Kent.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Could more cities charge employers for parking spaces to help fund local infrastructure?

Look at all that lovely, empty space. Image: Getty.

As government budget cuts continue to bite and competition for funding increases, it’s becoming harder for UK cities to secure the money needed to build or maintain good quality infrastructure. For example, Sheffield’s Supertram network faces a £230m funding gap, and could close unless transport executives can raise the funds to renew the network.

But if central government won’t provide funding, there are other ways for city authorities such as Sheffield to generate income for much needed transport infrastructure. One idea is a workplace parking levy, which is a charge placed on all workplace car parking spaces within a specific boundary.

The premise is simple: each year, the business who owns that space must pay the local authority a set amount of money. Businesses may chose to pay this themselves, or pass the charge on to their employees through car parking fees. The money collected from the levy is used to help fund transport projects within the local area, while also encouraging commuters to shift away from cars and onto other modes of transport.

Pioneer cities

After being adopted in Australian and Canadian cities, the levy was first introduced to the UK in 2012 in the city of Nottingham. During its first year, the charge raised £7m and has continued to raise funds since. The money has allowed Nottingham to keep up its contributions to the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) that was used to pay for an expansion of the city’s tram network, along with other important transport improvements.

Currently, the cost per space stands at £402 per year, although there are some notable exceptions to the charge: businesses with fewer than 11 spaces don’t have to pay, and there’s no charge for emergency services and disabled parking.

Other cities have begun to follow Nottingham’s path. Both Oxford and Cambridge have made steps towards introducing their own versions of the levy to fund transport improvements.

Manchester considered the levy as a tool to help improve the city’s air quality, although a proposal was recently rejected by the city council on the basis that the levy would need to be applied across the whole of Greater Manchester to work. Sheffield made a small reference to the potential use of a levy in its recent draft transport vision, although it’s not clear how well developed these plans are.

Together with colleagues from the universities of Nottingham and Southampton, I’ve undertaken research which included interviewing a range of key people from Nottingham’s city council, the local tram operator, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as politicians and managing directors of several Nottingham-based businesses, to find out what made Nottingham’s workplace parking levy a success.


Recipe for success

For one thing, Nottingham is a politically stable city. Labour are the dominant party within the local council and have been since 1991, so councillors are less concerned about suffering electoral losses in response to a poorly received policy, and more confident about implementing more radical ideas.

Nottingham’s boundary is also tightly drawn, which meant that deciding where to apply the charge was more straightforward. Manchester’s experience shows that larger cities may have more difficulty in determining who is subject to the charge.

Initially, some businesses saw the charge as a “tax” on them and opposed the policy; media reports at the time warned of businesses leaving the city and moving to nearby economic centres, such as Derby. But there is no evidence to suggest that these worries have materialised in the longer term.

Identifying a piece of infrastructure, such as a tram system, that will be built using funds from the levy also appeared to be an important argument to “sell” the charge to sceptics. So although there was opposition to the workplace parking levy, there was also a lot of support for the tram expansion and the benefits this could bring.

An opportunity to invest

The workplace parking levy offers cities an opportunity to collect and invest large amounts of money in their own infrastructure; or to leverage even greater amounts of money from other sources, which might otherwise be unfeasible.

For Nottingham, a large part of its success is based on the fact that it preemptively used the money raised through the workplace parking levy to leverage significant finance from the UK government, through the PFI deal. To secure these funds to pay for the tram expansion, Nottingham agreed to commit to repaying 35 per cent of the value of the PFI (estimated at £187m). The council has used the levy on an ongoing basis to help it meet these costs.

The experience of Nottingham and other pioneer cities shows that while the workplace parking levy is based on a rather simple premise, introducing one is not a simple process. There will undoubtedly be opposition; the local authority may need to work hard to emphasise the benefits, in order to adopt the policy. And of course, every city and town is different, so there’s no single path to success.

But as local authorities continue tightening their belts in response to ever more challenging budgets, it may not be long before we see more places taking steps to introduce their own workplace parking levy.

The Conversation

Stephen Parkes, Research Associate, Sheffield Hallam University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.