The United Nations has declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity. Defined as the variety of life on Earth, biodiversity refers not only to the world’s diverse array of species, from animals to plants to micro-organisms, but also to the genetic variation within species, and the ecosystems where species live and interact. Whether through exhibitions, workshops, outreach programs, community partnerships, or Public Participation in Scientific Research projects, science centers can play an important role in increasing public understanding of biodiversity, its value, the threats it faces, and what can be done to help.

Contents

• Biodiversity: Time for Action, by Gérard Cobut
• The Calumet Environmental Education Program: A Model for Science Learning, by Kirk Anne Taylor
• An Oasis in the City: Tokyo’s Institute for Nature Study, by Miki Takahashi
• Variety is the Spice of Life: Biodiversity and its Conservation as a Basic Commitment, by Francisco J. Franco del Amo and Francisco Armesto Ramón
• Biodiversity in China, by Frances Leung
• Lessons from the Tree of Life, by Jane Pickering and Ellen Giusti
• Partnering for Conservation in the Solomon Islands, by Brian Weeks, Catherine Smith, and Eleanor Sterling
• Grassroots Gardening, by Jenny Fortier and Dana Murchison
• Making Big Abstract Science Accessible, by Marilyn Hoyt and Dan Wharton
• Public Participation in Scientific Research

Subscribe/order back issues

“I always wanted to be able to connect what I taught in class to a real-world situation. [The Calumet Environmental Education Program (CEEP)] allows students to not only learn about environmental issues, but also take action on an issue. I feel my students learned more during this year than any other year.”
—Milton Katsaros, CEEP Teacher

In 2002, the Field Museum in Chicago launched the Calumet Environmental Education Program (CEEP) as a new model of conservation education that translates science into action for students and teachers. Developed by the museum’s Division of Environment, Culture, and Conservation (ECCo), CEEP began as a pilot project for schools in the Calumet region of southeast Chicago. Since its inception, CEEP has grown to serve more than 2,700 students and 100 teachers from 23 Calumet schools annually. Students in grades 4 to 12 learn about local biodiversity through a consecutive ladder of environmental education programs that build content knowledge grade level upon grade level.

ECCo uses museum collections and resources to promote environmental conservation and cultural understanding through programs in Chicago and South America, engaging the human communities that live in and around the world’s biologically rich landscapes. We work with partner organizations to identify and use communities’ strengths to protect biological diversity and cultural heritage. CEEP enables ECCo to work with schools and community partners, including the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Chicago State University, the Calumet Stewardship Initiative (an alliance of over 20 community-based organizations), and the Chicago Department of Environment, to address pressing environmental concerns in the Calumet region.

Stretching along the southern shores of Lake Michigan from southeast Chicago to northwest Indiana, the Calumet region contains outstanding pockets of rich natural areas, intermingled with abandoned steel mills, landfills, and ongoing industrial activity. Despite a historic legacy of contaminated waterways and hazardous waste sites, the Calumet region is home to several critical remnants of endangered Great Lakes ecosystems. This natural biodiversity and the need for conservation, together with the existing infrastructure of community leaders and organizations to implement these changes, make Calumet an ideal location for a program like CEEP.

Integrated curriculum

The CEEP curriculum has three components—Mighty Acorns (grades 4–6), Earth Force (grades 7–8), and Calumet Is My Back Yard (CIMBY) (grades 9–12)—which engage students in science by letting them apply what they have learned to real-life community conservation issues.
• In Mighty Acorns, students visit a local natural area three times a year, participating in exploration of local biodiversity, educational activities that illustrate basic ecological concepts, and stewardship activities, such as removing invasive species and spreading native seeds.
• Earth Force helps youth develop the problem-solving skills needed to create long-term solutions to community environmental issues. Students choose a local environmental issue—such as toxic cleaning solutions in schools or air pollution—and develop and implement a community project to address it.
• CIMBY students participate in stewardship and ecological monitoring activities in local natural areas throughout the year. On leadership days, students visit a variety of ecosystems and share ideas about conservation with students from other schools. In the summer, interested students participate in science and conservation internships.

The CEEP curriculum model was designed to build upon the Chicago Public Schools’ initiative to cultivate clusters of schools that work together to improve the effectiveness of education at every grade level. Consequently, CEEP was piloted with one high school and its eight elementary feeder schools. The subject matter that students learn in their regular classes is integrated into field experiences so that students gain a greater understanding of the environment and acquire skills they need to act on what they have learned. Learning outcomes for each grade level are driven by Illinois Learning Standards.

One significant advantage of having a common curriculum for the CEEP cluster of schools is that it has enabled us to provide common professional development for all the teachers in that cluster. CEEP was designed to expand teachers’ knowledge of local biodiversity and basic ecological concepts. During CEEP workshops, teachers integrate environmental content into their existing classroom curricula, practice environmental education activities, and coordinate activities with teachers from other grades.

Lessons learned

CEEP was initiated with the expressed intention of evaluating this integrated environmental education model. An evaluation protocol was developed by an external evaluator, Terrie Nolinske of TNI Consultants in Professional Development. The assessment protocol consisted of attitude and knowledge surveys given to students and teachers at the beginning (pre-test) and end (post-test) of the school year for three consecutive years, from 2002 to 2005. An independent statistician reviewed the assessment protocol to verify that attitude and knowledge changes were a result of CEEP. Of the 62 teachers that took part in the program from 2002 to 2005, 54 completed the evaluation. We also analyzed the responses of the 111 students who participated in the program for all three school years consecutively.

Highlights of the CEEP evaluation demonstrate the power of professional development and hands-on learning to effect change in both students and teachers.
• Students and teachers made statistically significant gains in knowledge about biodiversity, the local community, and local environmental issues.
• Teachers were able to compose teaching objectives specific to the environment, focusing on the goal of preparing students for further environmental study.
• Teachers reported feeling more confident about their knowledge of environmental issues. In 2002, 69 percent of teachers reported that a “lack of knowledge makes it difficult to include environmental content in my teaching.” In 2005, only 14 percent agreed with this statement.
• Students reported that CEEP stimulated their interest in science through activities and field trips.

Moving forward, we intend to expand the CEEP model to additional schools in Calumet. We are also working to connect CEEP with existing programs run by our partner organizations so that we can offer schools a slate of programs that build on one another year after year. This approach enables us to strategically allocate our collective resources throughout the region.

Kirk Anne Taylor is urban conservation manager at the Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois. The 2005 CEEP evaluation is available online at www.fieldmuseum.org/ceeppublication/pdfs/TNI_Executive_Summary.pdf (pdf, 40 pp.)

According to Positive Youth Development theory, youth programs should promote positive relationships, provide safe environments, build confidence and competence through meaningful work, foster leadership opportunities, and recognize youth for their assets. Science centers incorporate all of these elements into their youth programs, while introducing youth to science careers, developing their science literacy, or giving them tools to address global issues. In this issue, we look at a variety of youth programs, aimed at young people ages 10 to 19.

Contents

• A Journey with CAUSE: Putting Positive Youth Development into Museum Youth Programs, by Angela Wenger and Susan Foutz
• Finding a Second Family, by Rariety Monford
• Creating Empowerment at Thinktank, by Nick Winterbotham
• The Science Career Ladder Dissemination Project, by Preeti Gupta
• Think Globally, Play Locally: Bringing Social and Global Issues to Teens, by Karen Hager
• School Science Society: Making Science Relevant to Youth, by Sara Calcagnini
• Girls’ I.D.ea of Science, by Jennifer Stancil
• Girls, Science, and Policy, by Jennifer Stancil
• Girls on the RISE
• Engaging America’s Youth, by Judy Koke and Lynn D. Dierking
• ASTC’s Handbook for Youth Programs
• Building Bridges to Technology: SAASTA’s Techno Youth Program, by Bafedile Kgwadi

Subscribe/order back issues

The New Jersey Academy for Aquatic Sciences (the Academy) in Camden is now in the 17th year of its Community and Urban Science Enrichment Program (CAUSE). The program was created to address one of the Academy’s key mission elements: to provide educational and economic opportunity to Camden City residents.

Through the CAUSE program, local high school students receive training in marine science and biology, and work as mentors for younger students and as educators. To date, 150 students have participated in the program. The current demographics of the CAUSE teens are 41 percent African American, 54 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent of mixed backgrounds. By gender, 56 percent are female, and 44 percent are male. The overwhelming majority of participants are from low-income households.

What has become very clear to us over time is that an enrichment program to widen the pipeline to science careers for underrepresented youth is not enough. Building a solid pathway utilizing Positive Youth Development (PYD) strategies will lay the foundation for the journey toward individual success.

Positive Youth Development

The social and economic constraints of minority groups perpetuate educational and employment disparities, particularly when a student’s cultural life is not accounted for in the science education process (Seiler, 2001). Currently, approaches to addressing educational inequities have had little impact on reducing the achievement gap between U.S. minority and majority groups. As such, the number of U.S. middle and high school students from minority backgrounds who pursue science as a viable educational or career goal remains low. Their science experiences are not connected with how they envision their own futures, nor do they provide culturally relevant opportunities to promote their belief in themselves as empowered and capable of achieving (Basu and Barton, 2007; Tang, Pan, and Newmeyer, 2008). Voluntary, community-based programs that use science to build youth empowerment in a culturally relevant manner are needed to address this problem.

PYD theory and practice focus on meeting the cognitive, social, and emotional needs of youth through programs that have the following critical elements:
• Positive relationships with peers and adults
• Safe environments in which to learn and practice healthy behaviors
• Building confidence and competence through challenging and meaningful work
• Fostering voice and leadership opportunities
• Allowing youth to be appreciated and recognized for their assets rather than their deficits.

Museum youth programs have the opportunity to combine all of these elements. Through PYD strategies, learning pursuits become personally relevant, build self-efficacy, and hone interests (Larson, 2000).

Museum programs: More than workshops

There are numerous informal science education programs serving youth facing multiple risk factors in the United States. Many of them provide hands-on, workbased experiences that prepare youth for higher education and the workforce through building knowledge, social competence, confidence, and 21st-century work skills (ASTC, 2001).

The body of work that addresses learning science in informal settings continues to grow. Studies generally support youth development programs as having a positive effect on academic outcomes, science interest and attitudes, or college attainment (Barnett, et al., 2006; Cooper, et al., 2002; Ellis, 1993; Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Peternel, 2009; James, 2008; and Fadigan and Hammrich, 2004). The most salient aspects of these program studies have revealed that informal learning settings are supportive environments for authentic science learning, social interactions, and positive relationships with program staff. All of these aspects are fundamental tenets of PYD practice (Shernoff and Vandell, 2008).

Serving the “whole child”

The CAUSE program initially sought to build science engagement and literacy in order to increase the number of underserved youth pursuing science-related fields in higher education. However, we found that in order for the youth to truly find success, we would need to go beyond just exposing them to topics in science. The youth would ultimately need to 1) experience personal growth, self-esteem, and self-confidence; 2) develop life skills, including resiliency and social skills; 3) personally support and value diversity; and 4) have opportunities for leadership.

The Academy felt that our program would have to expand to address each participant’s individual developmental goals in order to meet the needs of the “whole child.” In response, we assembled a team that had a mixture of youth development and counseling expertise, science content knowledge, inquiry-based learning acumen, and career development experience. Most importantly, we insisted upon a 1:10 full-time adult-to-student ratio. This ensured that each teen could have the personal time required for tutoring, mentoring, and counseling.

We then added program elements to the existing framework to permit personal and team growth. For example, we incorporated more frequent feedback to the youth. At the beginning of the year, we worked with each teen individually to codevelop annual goals for both personal and professional growth. We then checked in with them at the midprogram point and also reflected back on their progress at the end of each year. In addition, we added more opportunities for youth to develop leadership skills through youth-driven committees. We also worked to make the program relevant to youth culture by communicating using digital technologies and incorporating peer-produced activities, and to our participants’ ethnic cultures through activities such as diversity awareness workshops.

Ultimately, we had to tackle the multiple external pressures that many of our youth face on a daily basis, as well as their social, cognitive, and emotional developmental needs, to allow successful science engagement to occur. External pressures can be daunting because they are often out of the control of the museum and the youth.

Youth who struggle with difficult home lives find that the Academy environment has supportive staff, safe facilities during times when risky behavior is most likely to occur, and rewarding activities that build self-esteem. We also provide access to caring adults, peers, and community resources to help them navigate challenging situations. For example, our biweekly, teen-driven rap sessions allow young people to discuss troubling issues in their lives, such as abuse and peer pressure, in a nonjudgmental environment.

We also support teens’ academic needs by connecting with teachers and school counselors and by providing tutoring support as needed. Finally, interns are paid for the work that they do. Many youth are required to contribute to the household income and cannot participate in volunteer programs.

Few museum youth programs have existed as long as the CAUSE program. Solid philosophical foundations, institutional support, program flexibility, and constant fine-tuning of the program have ensured its longevity.

Evaluation: Guideposts for the journey

We embarked on a summative evaluation process in 2007 to discover the long-term impacts of the CAUSE program as both a science enrichment and youth development program. We aimed to discern the effectiveness of the program model and components contributing to the program’s success.

We partnered with the Institute for Learning Innovation to conduct a two-phase study. Phase I focused on the long-term impacts of the CAUSE program. In all, 41 CAUSE alumni and 13 current participants responded to our survey. Findings indicated that the program is highly successful: Both alumni of the program and current participants indicated that the program had affected their views on science and teaching, academic path, career choices and workplace preparedness, community leadership ability, and life choices.

Key findings included:
• Participants spent an average of 3.2 years in CAUSE and demonstrated a deep investment in the program, calling CAUSE a family and a source of support in their lives.
• Alumni of the program were strongly committed to continuing their education: 100 percent of CAUSE seniors have graduated from high school, and 97 percent have undertaken some type of postsecondary education. (This is particularly notable given that all Camden high schools have dropout rates exceeding 50 percent and that CAUSE teens are recruited without regard to school performance.)
• Alumni continued their involvement with science, education, and community service after they left the CAUSE program; 78 percent reported majoring in the sciences or social sciences.
• The program’s greatest reported impacts were on participants’ workplace preparedness. The following workplace skills were rated highly: Work as part of a team, Interact with others in social situations, Engage in public speaking, and Be a responsible employee.
• Aspects of the program related to respecting diversity were the next highest rated. The program cultivated a culturally diverse environment, and participants highly valued the lessons they learned from this diversity.
• Participants attributed to the program a greater knowledge of their personal strengths and weaknesses, as well as a willingness to accept responsibility.
• The CAUSE program positively impacted participants’ ability to continue their education by providing support for making education-related decisions and encouraging participants who did not think college was an option to pursue postsecondary education.
• The program positively impacted participants’ awareness of careers and confidence in choosing a career.
• The CAUSE program introduced participants to careers in science and teaching. The program also was a factor in participants’ awareness and appreciation of science generally.
• Participants felt grateful for the mentoring they had received in the program, and desired to mentor others as a result.

Phase II specifically focused on the nature of the CAUSE program model. Using a case study design, the program model, values, and activities were investigated and described. The program was then compared to an existing framework from the PYD field, outlined by Milbrey McLaughlin in Community Counts (2000).

Using McLaughlin’s aspects of successful youth development (i.e., youth-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered), we found the CAUSE program to be closely aligned with this empirically based framework. It was apparent that the CAUSE model is largely effective, closely resembling a successful youth development program and achieving youth development.

Key findings were:
• The staff values an asset-based, “whole-child” approach to youth development, taking into account the range of support and opportunities youth need to be successful.
• The youth-centered aspects of CAUSE are evident in the program’s intentional approach to mentoring and supporting youth’s diverse needs.
• Knowledge-centered aspects of CAUSE are reflected in the college-level marine biology instruction and knowledge that underpin the program.
• Assessment-centered aspects are regularly incorporated at the program, staff, and youth levels. These include workshop evaluations, staff-student goal setting, youth journals, and teaching observation rubrics.
• The community-centeredness of CAUSE is evident in the safe environment founded on family-like relationships within the program.

What we, and other youth development programs, have found is that the ensuing confidence and capacity the youth acquire truly leads to success in science, but more importantly, in life.

Angela Wenger is executive vice president and chief operating officer at the New Jersey Academy for Aquatic Sciences, Camden, and chair of the Mid-Atlantic YouthALIVE! (Youth Achievement through Learning, Involvement, Volunteering, and Employment) Network. Susan Foutz is research associate at the Institute for Learning Innovation, Edgewater, Maryland.

References

Barnett, M., et al. “Using the urban environment to engage youths in urban ecology field studies.” The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 37, no. 2 (2006).

Basu, S.J., and A.C. Barton. “Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 3 (2007).

Cooper, C.R., et al. “Bridging multiple worlds: How African American and Latino youths in academic outreach programs navigate math pathways to college.” Applied Developmental Science, vol. 6, no. 2 (2002).

Ellis, R.S. “Impacting the science attitudes of minority high school youth.” School Science and Mathematics, vol. 93, no. 8 (1993).

Fadigan, K.A., and P.L. Hammrich, “A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 41, no. 8 (2004).

From Enrichment to Employment: The YouthALIVE! Experience. Washington, D.C.: Association of Science-Technology Centers, 2001.

James, S.M. “Identity and science learning in African American students in informal science education contexts.” Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 69, no.1-A (2008).

Larson, R.W. “Toward a psychology of Positive Youth Development.” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1 (2000).

Lee, S.-Y., P. Olszewski-Kubilius, and G. Peternel. “Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in Project EXCITE.” Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 2 (2009).

McLaughlin, M. Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development. Washington, D.C.: Public Education Fund Network, 2000,
www.publiceducation.org/pdf/Publications/support_services/communitycounts.pdf

Seiler, G. “Reversing the ‘standard’ direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 38, no. 9 (2001).

Shernoff, D.J., and D.L. Vandell. “Youth engagement and quality of experience in afterschool programs.” Afterschool Matters: Occasional Paper Series, no. 9 (Fall 2008).

Tang, M., W. Pan, and M.D. Newmeyer. “Factors influencing high school students’ career aspirations.” Professional School Counseling, vol. 11, no. 5 (2008).

Those of us working in the field believe that science centers make important contributions to individuals, communities, and nations. But how can we document and demonstrate that science centers are making a difference? This issue presents a “public value” framework and describes evidence to help centers make the case for their essential contributions. Whether they’re helping people develop positive attitudes toward science, recruiting science teachers, or increasing access to science and technology, science centers have tangible, positive impacts on society.

Contents

• Evidence for Learning in Science Centers and Museums, by Kirsten M. Ellenbogen
• Youth Exploring Science: Benefits for Teens and the Community, by Cynthia Graville-Smith
• Science Explainers: A Ladder to STEM Careers
• Being Purposeful: Planning for, Initiating, and Documenting Public Value, by Lynn D. Dierking
• Putting Public Value to the Test, by David E. Chesebrough
• The Value of a Visit: Does Visiting a Science Center Motivate Students to Study More Science?, by Sue Cavell and Harry White
• Who Wants to Be a Science Teacher? A Science Center’s Role in Resolving a Teacher Shortage, by Judith Lombana and Angela Walters
• Maloka: Reaching People Where They Live, by Nohora Elizabeth Hoyos and Sigrid Falla
• By the Numbers: Highlights from the ASTC Statistics Survey Data, by Christine Ruffo
• Surrounded by Science: ISE Summit 2010, by Wendy Pollock

Subscribe/order back issues

The public value of science centers is connected to the manner in which they relate to their audiences. Maloka in Bogotá, Colombia, has developed outreach programs for ethnically and socioeconomically diverse audiences nationwide. Our programs aim to reach people where they live, by taking resources directly into their communities and responding to the realities of each region. In particular, our programs are designed to reach vulnerable populations who may never visit our science center, including those who live in remote communities, and others who live in Bogotá but feel a disconnect from science and technology. We aim to start a dialogue and promote lifelong learning by making visible the connections between people’s daily lives and science and technology.

Setting sail

Because there are many municipalities in Colombia without roads or land access, Maloka worked alongside the nation’s Ministry of Communications on the Connectivity Navigator and Pacific Navigator programs. We journeyed by boat on the Magdalena River (the main river of our country) and the Pacific coast to Colombia’s smallest, poorest, and most remote villages. The boats were outfitted as floating classrooms, with computers connected to the satellite Internet system. In all, the Ministry of Communications trained people in 42 communities in how to use the Internet in order to facilitate development and improve quality of life. All the communities either have Internet now or soon will through the Ministry’s efforts. Maloka’s role was to learn about the communities’ realities and share their stories on the project web site (http://colombiaseconecta.gov.co), which has been visited by more than 323,000 people. Through this web site, Maloka also provides tools to help these communities learn more about using the Internet, cell phones, and other mobile technologies.

Cycling for science

As mentioned above, some of Maloka’s programs reach vulnerable public sectors within Bogotá itself. Though these populations are not geographically remote from Maloka, they feel remote and distanced from science and technology topics. They often have no interest in visiting the science center, either because of economic difficulties or because they do not feel a clear connection between science and their daily lives. Therefore, we must make a special effort to carry relevant messages directly to these populations.

Through the Maloka Cycle Science program, we send educators on specially designed bicycles to the Cycle Route, where the streets are closed to traffic on Sundays, and Bogotanos from all walks of life go out bicycling. Maloka’s bicycles carry hands-on activities and are fitted with posters that contain information on science and technology. The public can learn about a diverse range of topics and make close connections between science, technology, and their everyday lives. Activities are designed to answer questions about exercising, such as: Why do I sweat? What do I need to eat to be healthy? How do skaters perform their maneuvers without falling down? For that last example, we invited skaters to do demonstrations and we created hands-on activities that explained the physics of their movements. On an average Sunday, we engage 500 people in activities, and more than 10,000 people can see a different face of Maloka in the streets.

In order to create strong public value, science centers must be able to relate to their communities and understand their realities. They need to cultivate the ability to attract diverse audiences or bring relevant programming directly into communities. In this way, centers can empower individuals to participate actively in learning, knowledge, and innovation processes.

Nohora Elizabeth Hoyos is general director, and Sigrid Falla is associate director of research and development at Maloka, Bogotá, Colombia.

At a time of financial challenge, when a CEO’s first tendency might be to hunker down and ride out the storm, it may seem counterintuitive to pursue renewal, form new partnerships, and make long-range plans. But according to our November/December contributors, leaders who keep their institutions focused outward and forward in this way may be doing just what it takes to guarantee long-term survival. In this issue, we analyze the art of adaptive leadership, discover how the Noyce Leadership Institute program is helping its CEO Fellows strengthen themselves and their communities, learn how two Fellows have been applying NLI lessons in their institutions, and recall some high points of ASTC leadership over the past three decades.

Contents
• Leading for Continuity and Change, by Lynn Luckow
• The Practice of Leadership in a Changing Environment, by Julie I. Johnson and Randy C. Roberts
• Referents for Renewal: Finding Inspiration in Unlikely Places, by Dennis Bartels
• A Fellowship of Leaders: Building a Community to Serve Communities, by Jennifer Zoffel
• The Business of Leadership: Lessons for CEOs in Hard Times, by Kirk Ramsay
• ASTC Exhibition Services: Advancing the Science Center Movement, by Wendy Pollock
• Passing the Helm: Bonnie VanDorn’s Legacy, by Nancy Stueber

Subscribe/order back issues

“Leadership is not a job or a position, but a way of influencing others towards ends recognized as valuable and fulfilling.”

—Amanda Sinclair, Leadership for the Disillusioned: Moving Beyond Myths and Heroes to Leading That Liberates

Who are the leaders in your organization? Close your eyes and think for a moment. Who is the first person that comes to mind? Is it your director/president? Someone from senior management? The coordinator of community outreach? What about the head of security or the ticket taker at the front door? Is it you?

We often think of the words leader and director in the same breath, but this way of thinking sets up a situation where staff members across the institution treat the identified leader with such deference that they abdicate their own power to make a difference in achieving organizational outcomes. Those who are not in positions of assigned authority may tend to wait for vision and direction from “on high,” rather than taking initiative to create positive change.

Today, museums are operating in a climate of change that calls for new ways of thinking about how leaders and followers across the institution take and support initiative in service of creating value. While it may be less stressful for those without positional power to give over responsibility to those with formal authority, the organization thereby ultimately becomes less creative and connected. When all are engaged in the work and take responsibility for direction, then our organizations will achieve alignment and balanced pursuit of goals.

Leading from within

In understanding leadership at all levels of an organization, it is important to recognize the distinction between and overlap of management and leadership. In his 1990 book A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, John P. Kotter points out that in some ways the function of management (to provide order and consistency) is in direct opposition to the function of leadership (to produce change and movement). Although these two disparate aims can reside in single individuals, their purposes are distinct.

Management emphasizes planning, organizing, and operating efficiently and effectively. Leadership, on the other hand, is not a linear process by which organizational direction is set out for followers, but rather an interactive practice that includes participation across levels of position and power. It is an activity that is available to all who are engaged. Leadership is a dynamic relationship between the fluid roles of leaders and followers.

Rather than understanding leadership in terms of the traits or qualities of a leader, one can understand it as a process. Such a view suggests that leadership is a phenomenon situated in context and available to everyone. Moving away from the heroic, “great man” theory that was prevalent in the 1980s, today’s understanding is more relational—envisioning leadership, as Joyce K. Fletcher notes in a 2004 article as a “multi-directional social process … aimed at collective outcomes.”¹ Leaders, then, are not solely those who are assigned to formal positions of authority. Equally important are the emergent leaders who establish informal authority based on how others respond to them in a given situation.

Think systems

How does this relate to museums? Museums cannot be totally understood by simply looking at the units of which they are composed—any more than mayonnaise can be understood by looking at eggs and oil. Museums are complex adaptive systems (CAS), made up of elements (individuals, teams, departments, divisions, etc.) that are interdependent.

CAS emphasizes the relationships and interactions among the elements. Through these interactions—which are based on shared knowledge, goals, previous history, and worldview—new learning, creativity, capabilities, and adaptability surface. It is important to note that what surfaces is the result of the interactions among elements and not the particular actions of an individual or a group. In addition, in CAS, history cannot be revisited (you cannot reset the museum to an earlier period of time), order is emergent (it is created out of the interactions), and the future is typically unpredictable.

Understanding museums in terms of CAS will bring new solutions for current times. Museums are social organisms, and the work in which they engage is exhilarating yet messy. Complexity science is a frame that enables us to embrace the messiness and see the strength and creativity that results when systems connect, collide, and/or coalesce. A CAS perspective supports thinking about leaders and followers as roles that individuals play at different times and in different contexts.²

So what does it mean to lead in complex adaptive systems? Who leads and who follows? The answer is, it depends.

Leading in a complex environment

In his 1989 book Managing as a Performing Art, Peter Vaill describes complex systems as environments of “permanent white water.” Navigating in permanent white water requires an approach to leadership that differs from that exercised in more stable environments and more hierarchical organizations.

Turbulent conditions call for what Ron Heifetz described in 1994, in Leadership Without Easy Answers, as “adaptive leadership.” According to Heifetz, two basic types of issues require steering: “technical challenges” and “adaptive challenges.” When facing technical challenges (those that have been faced and solved before, and for which solutions are clear), management is needed; when facing adaptive challenges (those for which no response has yet been developed or tested), leadership is needed.

Complex challenges frequently traverse barriers of knowledge, skill, and function. The solutions are often murky and may not easily be seen from the corner office. One of the greatest challenges in adaptive leadership is that in times of stress those not in formal positions of authority are often quite willing to give away power to those in assigned positions of authority.

Staff may tend to look to traditional leaders to provide answers they do not have, and traditional leaders may step up to the pressure by falling back on the technical solutions they know. This disables some of the most important personal and collective resources that could be available for accomplishing adaptive work at a time when creativity and divergent solutions are most needed.

Adaptive leadership suggests that solutions to those important challenges that are not routine are best addressed in the context of shared leadership, recognizing that those in authority do not—and should not—be expected to have all the answers. Heifetz identifies five strategic principles of leadership that those in authority can apply to engage the leadership resources within the organization:

(1) identify the adaptive challenge;
(2) keep the level of stress high enough to encourage action, but not so high that the top blows off;
(3) focus attention on issues rather than stress-reducing distractions;
(4) distribute the work at a rate that people can handle; and
(5) protect voices of leadership without authority.

When these principles are applied, emergent leaders and engaged followers are supported in leaving the safe shelter of dependence and deference, which may require sharing risks, costs, and responsibilities. They also share in the rewards of leadership.

Conclusion

The world in which museums operate is exciting and complex. There is constant competition for resources that must be allocated to achieve myriad priorities. The challenges of today are far more intricate than those of 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Understanding and embracing our organizations’ complex natures can provide energy and avenues for greater creativity and innovation. Incorporating a framework of relation-based leadership can open up the process to many—in particular, those who may not see themselves as being in positions of power.

This shift in concepts of power and authority may best be understood in the context of feminist leadership theory. Power within an organization can be granted on the basis of position or be derived from followers. If one continues to accept the traditional perspective of power as a zero-sum commodity, in which power taken by one equals power lost by another, the emplacement of power within an informal leader may seem threatening to management and control.

However, within the context of feminist theory, as Peter G. Northouse explains in Leadership: Theory and Practice, power is defined in terms of energy and strength, “a source of synergy … to be taught and shared.” In this context, power expands as it is distributed, creating more power. When an individual steps up to leadership, there is room for others to step up as well.

Museum professionals come to the field because they are passionate about their craft, their area of interest, and their potential to make a difference. The structures within our institutions can either support or limit the ability to employ creativity and passion in the service of leadership. How can museums fully engage the passions that exist for implementing the organization’s mission? How can museums be better positioned to engage with their communities to create public value?

In a forthcoming book, Richard A. Couto offers the following definition: “Leadership is taking initiative on behalf of shared values.” We propose that museums will best be positioned as leaders in their communities when it is understood that “taking initiative” is not confined only to the most senior levels of management.

The number of managers in a given organization is finite. We are not all managers, nor do we all aspire to be. However, we all can exercise leadership any day and every day in ways big and small. Leadership must be encouraged and supported across all organizational levels. Leaders at all levels must embrace their capacity to lead, and leadership development must be accessible to all who are engaged in the practice of leading. Nurturing and investing in leadership practice within museums will strengthen museums as leaders in their communities.

Julie I. Johnson is the John Roe distinguished chair of museum leadership at the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, and Randy C. Roberts is deputy director of the Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento, California. Both are in the Ph.D. in Leadership and Change program at Antioch University.

Readings

• Couto, Richard A. (ed.) Political and Civic Leadership: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, in press.
• Heifetz, Ronald A. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994.
• Kotter, John P. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free Press, 1990.
• Northouse, Peter G. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1997.
• Sinclair, Amanda. Leadership for the Disillusioned: Moving Beyond Myths and Heroes to Leading That Liberates. Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2007.
• Vaill, Peter. Managing as a Performing Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Footnotes

1. Fletcher, Joyce K. “The Paradox of Postheroic Leadership: An Essay on Gender, Power, and Transformational Change,” Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 5 (2004).
2. For more on CAS, see Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Mary Uhl-Bien, Russ Marion, Anson Seers, James Douglas Orton, and Craig Schreiber, “Complexity Leadership Theory: An Interactive Perspective on Leading in Complex Adaptive Systems,” in ECO, vol. 8, no. 4 (2006). Available free online at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8.

Climate change, genetic modification of foods, stem cell research, nanotechnology, ocean resource management, alternative energy production—these are just a few of the fields of current scientific and technical endeavor that directly impact human lives. In all of them, choices made by scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, and government officials both spark public interest and excite controversy. What is the responsibility of science centers to present exhibits and programs on “hot topics” like these? Should we be more active in promoting social applications of scientific knowledge? In this issue we hear from professionals who represent a range of responses.

Contents
• Powerful Words, Strong Commitments, by Lesley Lewis
• Aquariums as a Force for Change: New Roles for Conservation and Social Impact, by Julie Packard
• Many Experts, Many Audiences, by Larry Bell, Tiffany Lohwater, and Ellen McCallie
• Convening Conversations about Climate Change: The Adirondack Model, by Stephanie Ratcliffe
• Making Choices: What Visitors Want to Know about Current Science , by Susie Wilkening and James Chung
• Public Dialogue about Science: Creating Successful Experiences, by Kathy Sykes
• From Public Understanding to Public Engagement, by Richard Jones
• Global Warning: Next Steps for the Science Center Field, by Charlie Trautmann, Sheila Grinell, Emlyn Koster, and Kim Cavendish
• When Scientists Take a Stand: Plenary Speakers at ASTC 2009, by Sheila Grinell

Subscribe/order back issues

The last quarter century has brought with it unprecedented and disturbing changes in the health of our aquatic environment, from the collapse of fisheries to dead zones in the oceans. In response, aquariums worldwide have evolved in their missions, and many of us have launched initiatives to advance our conservation role by promoting public awareness of environmental issues and undertaking field conservation work. Some of us have taken our mission a step further, moving from informing and engaging people to mobilizing them to take action on behalf of conservation.

In 2004, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, in Monterey, California, took a bold step in this direction when we launched a new policy and advocacy center, the Center for the Future of the Oceans. Our experiences to date may serve as a useful roadmap for other institutions as they consider expanding their role in conservation and other issues of broad public concern.

Launching the Center

Unlike the mission of the aquarium itself (to inspire conservation of the oceans), we launched the Center for the Future of the Oceans with a mission to inspire action on behalf of the oceans. A set of key questions informed by thought leaders in the field of conservation guided the center’s initial work: What can an aquarium contribute to an otherwise crowded field of conservation players? Which issues are both important and also ripe for action? What resonates with our audience and connects to our on-site experience?

The creation of an aquarium-based conservation advocacy center was not without risk. We realized that people might not welcome our increased focus on conservation messages. Our visitors might not want to get personally involved with conservation action, or they might look to other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for this guidance. Some visitors and donors might disagree with our points of view or feel we should not be taking positions on issues. And this new focus might distract from the core business of ensuring that our aquarium continued to thrive. As our work unfolded, none of these issues turned out to be barriers; instead, the public response was overwhelmingly positive.

Our first major policy focus was to promote implementation of marine protected areas in U.S. state and federal waters. We had the opportunity to support a groundbreaking state law—the California Marine Life Protection Act—that mandated creation of a network of marine protected areas along the entire coast of California, a first in the United States. Our involvement ranged from providing our policy staff’s input on legal language to engaging our visitors to send more than 20,000 postcards to the governor in favor of new marine protected areas.

The second focus was sustainable seafood. Based on an exhibition we opened in 1997 that highlighted global fisheries’ problems and solutions, we launched Seafood Watch, an informational pocket guide to sustainable seafood choices. The guide and our sustainable seafood outreach program are now part of a global movement to change how fisheries operate. Together with other U.S. aquariums, NGO collaborators, and sustainability certification systems like the Marine Stewardship Council, we’re driving change in the way major U.S. seafood buyers do business. Results to date include commitments from big seafood buyers like Aramark and a growing family of celebrity chefs who work to share their convictions about the importance of fishing and farming sustainably.

A third policy focus was conservation and restoration of key threatened marine wildlife species in our care—in particular, sea otters, tunas, and sharks. Our conservation field research program had been under way for many years, but until we created the Center for the Future of the Oceans, we did not have the policy expertise to convert these scientific findings into action on behalf of wildlife conservation. For example, today we are working in partnership with advocacy NGOs to improve management regimes for threatened Atlantic bluefin tuna, to turn around the 90 percent population decline of what is now the world’s most valuable fish. A fourth area of focus—climate change and the oceans—is now in development as well.

Our vehicles for action have been both “grassroots” and “grasstops.” We created a group called the Ocean Action Team—now over 19,000 strong—to enable our visitors to participate in policy issues on an ongoing basis by signing up through our web site or on the exhibit floor. At the higher level, our trustees are helping to promote our issues based on their expertise, from a fisherman who guided language for marine protected areas to a former member of Congress who made visits to Capitol Hill.

Public perceptions

Starting in 2007, we undertook an ambitious public opinion research effort to guide our next steps for outreach and advocacy. We began by studying attitudes and awareness of our current and potential members through Internet-based surveys conducted by IMPACTS Research. These studies yielded some surprising results.

Even though we are first and foremost an aquarium, many people think of us as an ocean conservation organization. In an open-ended question, respondents listed us in the top 10 ocean conservation organizations, alongside NGOs such as Greenpeace and the Nature Conservancy.

Of course, the public also continues to think of us as an aquarium, and in this regard we actually have two personas: an attraction and a trusted authority. In California and the western United States, our brand recognition as an attraction is strongest, but our authority brand extends nationally. We already have a large number of people who are members but never visit us, and there is significant potential for this national constituency to grow. In fact, the majority of responding members said the primary benefit of membership in the Monterey Bay Aquarium is feeling that they contribute positively to the conservation of the world’s oceans.

The research also showed that Seafood Watch has surprisingly large awareness levels across the nation. What began as a modest outreach program has mushroomed through the distribution of millions of pocket guides through aquariums and other institutions nationwide, a major effort to garner national coverage in the food media, and other outreach activities. Along with direct impact on the practices of restaurant owners and big buyers, Seafood Watch is a portal to engaging people in broader conservation issues facing our oceans.

A framework for the future

In the past, we have thought of our conservation advocacy and policy work as an add-on to the education and research programs that are considered an essential part of most modern aquariums. Today, guided by our new thinking, our conservation work is an essential part of our business strategy for the future.

We must remain attentive to maintaining our reputation as one of the world’s great aquariums, continuing our investment in husbandry research and development and engaging people in new ways through our exhibits. But our ability to grow attendance at our site is limited by a high level of repeat visitation and stable population growth among likely paying guests.

If we want to engage more people as contributors to, and active supporters of, our conservation mission, we must move our focus far beyond our walls. This will require a stronger emphasis on Internet communications, and a new more integrated approach to outreach across our workgroups.

Our ultimate goal as an aquarium is to build a constituency that will work to protect and restore the world’s aquatic ecosystems, which sustain all life. Engaging and activating people in a meaningful, long-term relationship may take many forms, whether we are asking them to visit, give, or act.

These forms of engagement are mutually reinforcing. Visits can motivate action when visitors are inspired to adopt a personal conservation behavior during their visit or to join our Ocean Action Team. Action can motivate visits when a Seafood Watch pocket guide stimulates a dinner table conversation, and friends learn about the aquarium and its work. Doing meaningful conservation work that builds brand loyalty and respect is the best business investment we can make.

Implications for the broader museum community

What can the broader museum community learn from our experience at Monterey Bay Aquarium? Our experience and recent research examining public attitudes about the role of zoos, aquariums, and museums in environmental action provide clear direction.

First and foremost, people expect our institutions not only to inform but also to guide; they are seeking information they can trust in a sea of communication media. Regarding environmental issues, they believe their actions can make a difference, and they would like us to suggest specific things they can do toward this end. Young people know and care more about the environment than do adults; they are more willing to act, and they influence opinions of their parents. These findings present clear opportunities for us all.

All of these factors provide compelling reasons why I believe the time has come for our institutions—from zoos to aquariums to science museums—to mobilize for broader social impact, whether our issue is the environment or the quality of K–12 science education or how evolution is taught in our schools.

Regardless of our varied locations, institutional cultures, or community backdrop, I believe that people everywhere are desperately seeking a common vision of a sustainable future on Earth, one that is practical and attainable and that they can contribute to realizing. While our underlying concerns may vary, people everywhere hold in common a quest for integrity and a yearning for hope that they can make the world a better place.

Aquariums and other informal science institutions can offer these key elements. By understanding our audiences wherever we are, we can craft meaningful ways to respond to their interests and their desire to be part of the solution to the global environmental and social crises in which we find ourselves. Building on a strong reputation, we can have a much bigger impact. With so many issues at stake that require scientific understanding and action, there is no time to lose. It’s time to stretch our wings.

Julie Packard is executive director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, California. The author thanks Jim Hekkers, Monterey Bay Aquarium managing director; Scott Corwon, principal of IMPACTS Research; and the aquarium senior staff for their essential contributions to the work described here. This article is based on a paper presented at the 2008 International Aquarium Congress in Shanghai, China. For more information on the Center for the Future of Oceans and the Ocean Project public opinion research, visit www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cffo.asp or www.theoceanproject.org.