Deeply disappointed and angry at arts evaluators who are seemingly okay, using surveillance tech, like Placer.AI, because they see it as a shortcut to more direct and relational data collection.
Yes, let's give money to these assholes who buy and sell your data by scraping location and financial data up indiscriminately from anyone with any sort of device.
But I guess I'm the stupid one, because I'm the one that's unemployed.
I totally get that producing the thing - whether it's a program, materials, or etc - is the priority.
But why is evaluating what actually happened, effects, and/or people's reactions so rarely a priority? I don't get why it's often a binary with so many people (e.g., it "worked" or it didn't). There's potentially so much more to learn from whatever happened!
Plus, you know, evaluation shows that you honor and care about people and effort they put in.
I mean, the irony is so goddamn deep.
You want to have a personal, authentic discussion with people about their careers and how that interfaces with resistance and social justice - and you have a fuckin AI chatbot that's taking notes and sharing it with who knows what. Because convenience.
SIGH.
I literally do not know why I need to keep having this discussion with adults when literal KIDS get it.
Museums, we don't have to be this way.
Yeah, this husk of the IMLS that remains can get lost with this re-alignment with bigotry.
It'll be years if not a full decade of recovery. So many people have been screwed this past year, and now we should take this "opportunity" to do further harm?
Nah. How's about no.
#IMLS #RealEvalTalk #museums #libraries #glam #funding #uspol
Former Institute of Museum and Library Services leaders from both political parties expressed concern that the new funding guidelines could encourage a more constrained or distorted view of American history.
@nyhan Ugh. Yeah. Depends on who's going to read it, I suppose... And if there was a reasonable hope that the statement would bring about some change in process and data collection.
And at least two instances, I've had to include statements like that in reports because of the context and environment. I really didn't want to do it at first, but it was needed if I was going to honor the people I was working alongside. I have a feeling it wouldn't have been documented otherwise.
@DrSaucy @404mediaco Agreed, yet I'm sure we both have seen all kinds of work done under the banner of science that doesn't use any sort of validation or ACQ. With all the recent cuts to social science and data analysis work, I'm guessing there's going to be more people looking for shortcuts, so they won't do the things we know to do. It'll get pushed to an intern or put on the docket of someone without the necessary knowledge base.
This is so incredibly short sighted and intentionally ignorant, too. Laying off so many staff - and the entire evaluation department (!!!) - in response to fascist-led federal cuts will hurt the museum and surrounding communities for years. Evaluation staff at SMM did all kinds of good and thoughtful work all around the state and were committed to equitable evaluation principles.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/07/09/science-museum-of-minnesota-lays-off-43-employees
#museums #glam #EquitableEvaluation #FundingCuts #UnforcedError #RealEvalTalk #imls #nsf
So, you know how there's been this whole museums are not neutral movement for damn near a decade?
I hope museum executives who resisted that movement - who resisted acknowledging the reality of that statement and what it asks of them and their organizations - now realize the cost of their inaction, the cost of clinging to their status quo.
I can't tell you how often (my) reports were ignored because of the risk or because change wasn't convenient.
I'm entirely baffled by evaluators continuing to promote the embrace of generative AI. They almost universally dismiss deep ethical and practical concerns with a hand wave and/or a shrug.
When it comes to my profession, I'll remember 2024 as the year that I lost respect for many of my colleagues and professional organizations. I hope 2025 will be the year they wake up and change course.
@peter_mcmahan If some researchers and evaluators can't be bothered to write the questions, analyze the data, and report findings
- and all of these are things I've heard researchers publicly crowing in pride about -
then why should people bother responding?
Jeremy