With a view to society

LIB: Professor Rödder, you are holding the new chair for sociology with a focus on science communication and museum development at the University of Hamburg. What is different when sociological questions become relevant in a natural history museum?

Prof Dr Simone Rödder: Establishment of this professorship demonstrates that natural history museums have surpassed their position as places that merely present nature and science to people. They strive to understand how people think about nature, what social conflicts arise, and how knowledge about nature is created and communicated. This fundamentally changes their traditional self-conception. Museums now merge knowledge about nature with social knowledge. They explicitly align their offerings and activities with questions of sustainability.

LIB: Professor Misof, what are your expectations for this new alignment?

Prof Dr Dr hc Bernhard Misof: Natural history museums of the future – like ours – are going to maintain a dialogue with people and consider the future. A genuine discourse about how we want to live is only possible if we listen to people and understand their needs. As a natural history museum, we can showcase science and discuss desirable courses of action. Without considering the prior knowledge and social contexts from which people hail, however, this will never become a complete dialogue. We have a gap to fill there.

LIB: Professor Rödder, what new perspective do you bring as a sociologist?

S. Rödder: As a sociologist, I contribute the approach that sustainability issues such as loss of biodiversity and climate change should not be discussed as individual issues first and foremost. In exhibitions and educational programmes, we want to highlight and make visible their institutional and infrastructural dimensions – for example, the influence of agriculture or politics.

LIB: Professor Misof, what change in perspective do you see?

B. Misof: Our collections are undergoing a certain transformation right now. We’re moving away from collecting individual specimens and towards describing changes in biodiversity and developing future perspectives. Twenty years ago, habitat and genetic diversities weren’t even on the radar of museums. Now, we’re not just collecting individual objects as representatives of a species, we also compile collections of genetic information. We see the beginning of environmental sample collections that represent the state of a habitat and its species composition as well. More and more, our collections serve the purpose of understanding processes, rather than merely documenting diversity. It makes a crucial difference.

LIB: What is the role of interaction between humans and nature here?

B. Misof: A modern natural history museum researches not only evolutionary and geological processes of change but also anthropogenically caused change. We look at what is happening in our agricultural ecosystems, or at how meadows and forests are changing in interaction with humans. We combine knowledge on species with socio-ecological and sociological issues to understand not only the changes in nature, but also the interaction between humans and nature and changes in societies – in order to eventually develop forecasts or models for the future.

LIB: What is the role of projects that involve farmers in this context?

B. Misof: It’s essential. We want to know how to understand and develop resilient agroecosystems in light of the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. We examine the role of farmers in changing cultivation and management methods or in developing new expertise to assess and understand biodiversity. Another question may relate to the influence of biodiversity on production methods. Involvement of external stakeholders and work across discipline boundaries are essential here. We apply the same approach in our museums as well, not merely displaying objects but also discussing habitats, interactions between humans and their environments, solutions, and societal challenges.

S. Rödder: I would like to add that this includes gaining a better understanding of our visitors. Our visitor research, for example, focuses on their connection to nature. We know that visitors to our museums are more closely connected to nature than average citizens. We want to use qualitative methods to better understand precisely what this means and how we can promote this connection to nature through museum programmes, but also by engaging with the public, for example with our museum bus.

LIB: What attitude should the museum adopt towards its visitors?

S. Rödder: This is a relevant question that we are currently discussing in the context of the “activist museum”: Should the Natural History Museum offer space for diverse perspectives and controversial debates? Should it take a clear political stance? Looking at it from the point of view of scientific communication, we have the central goal of reaching as many audiences as possible. This requires the greatest imaginable scope of inclusiveness and is at odds with holding a clear political stance. Instead of moralising or pointing fingers, we should strive to create spaces for diverse voices and constructive dialogues while simultaneously keeping in mind that we wish to deepen the understanding of sustainability problems and provide action-oriented impulses.

LIB: Do modern museums need to use more emotional appeal to make the biodiversity crisis, such as the climate crisis, more visible?

S. Rödder: Emotional content can be very powerful for mobilising, raising awareness, and strengthening trust. However, scientific relevance and urgency are not actually particularly relevant criteria for media and public attention. Other things are far more important here: extreme weather will bear reporting on. Biodiversity change is a local and quieter issue, less prominently presented and thus often coming with less news value.

LIB: What are the most important levers for effectively transferring scientific findings into politics and society?

B. Misof: Security, prosperity, and productivity are the three crucial key factors for maintaining a dialogue with political decision-makers. We need to more clearly demonstrate the consequences we face and what we must do to change and stabilise the situation.

S. Rödder: The fact that museums are some of the most trusted institutions in society should not be underestimated: In this time of polarisation and disinformation, we can assert great local influence to support science, nature, and an understanding of it.

LIB: How can the museum be used as a space for dialogue between science, politics, business, and citizens? Where are the limits here?

S. Rödder: One limit is that visitors with higher levels of education are overrepresented, and the opposite is true of those with lower levels of education. This can be seen across all museums, including ours – even in Hamburg, where admission is free. This suggests that financial barriers are not the only obstacle but that we need to put in intense work to better reach these target groups and develop structures with partners in children’s, youth, and adult education.

LIB: What should visitors take away from a museum visit?

B. Misof: I think that the most important thing is that people should leave a museum with smiles on their faces. The museum must not be a dystopian space. We need to ensure that people take away positive experiences that they can learn from for their own lives.

S. Rödder: When I talk to people about the museum, I notice that many share vivid childhood memories of visiting. These are positive, emotional memories that we can build on. My greatest wish is that every child in Hamburg and every child in Bonn should have an opportunity to visit our museums at least once.