Stepping outside of the robotics and stem classes and into discussions about museum curation definitely left me feeling bit out of my element. As a Robotics major, my daily life revolves around C++, 3D printers, and definitive answers, either your code compiles and the robot moves, or it doesn’t. The museum world, on the other hand, deals in nuances, interpretation, and deep social history. However, as I have dug deeper into how museums operate, I have realized that these two fields can actually work together.
So, how exactly do these two realms relate? The biggest areas are accessibility and preservation. By utilizing tools such as 3d scanners or digital fabrication tools like resin 3D printers and CNC routers, engineers can help to reverse-engineer and print highly accurate, interactive replicas of fragile artifacts for a more immersive experience while also allowing visually impaired visitors to be able to participate in the museum experience. We can also take this into the field. By utilizing mapping technology paired with drones we can map an archaeological site that allows for curators to utilized massive generated 3D maps of a site. This minimizes any human disturbances to the site while also digitally preserving architectural history that can then be shared with exhibits globally
On the other hand, the museum world has a lot to teach engineers about communication and project management. Building a complex robot requires a massive, interdisciplinary team, but engineers are not always known for our incredible interpersonal skills. Psychologist Bruce Tuckman’s model of team development notes that every new group starts in the “Forming” stage, where members are overly polite, looking to a leader for guidance, and often hesitant to share conflicting opinions. I have seen this firsthand in engineering projects where nobody wants to step on toes, which ultimately stalls progress.
To actually get a project off the ground, a team must push through the uncomfortable “Storming” phase where personalities face off against each other over how to solve a problem. Meanwhile, curators frequently rely on a consensus model to navigate complex ethical decisions. In the article “Decision-Making Models” by Judith Stein states “consensus does not mean everyone gets exactly what they want; it means “everyone on the team has had ample opportunity to have his or her ideas considered and can fully support the team’s decision”. Engineers often just default to whoever’s code works first, but practicing this deliberate, voluntary consensus model is likely a far better approach towards ensuring that the whole team is actively involved and committed towards the final design.
Ultimately, thinking like a curator is teaching me that the best technology is built collaboratively, not in a vacuum. Integrating thoughtful group models ensures that an engineering team actually resolves any of the unspoken uncertainties and reach the highly efficient “Performing” stage, where everyone actually knows what their part is and what they are doing.
Leave a Reply