Welcome to the Rivers Museums. Matters of Policy podcast, this is a podcast in which we explore the museum's collections development policy,
speaking with guests from across the globe to delve into the language used and consider what really matters in this policy.
Hi, it's Bessie, and I joined Meghan Dr. Carrick from public, is an instructor in museum studies at the University of Toronto,
who is committed to decolonising the museum through working with collections.
She has worked with the Haida Repatriation Committee, which has heavily impacted her collections and museum work,
and has worked with the Pitt Rivers and the Haida and joint efforts in the past.
So we're thrilled to talk to you today. Thank you so much for agreeing to come here and speak with us.
Well, thank you for the invitation and to talk about, you know, relatively nerdy collections, things.
Yeah, we've been most of what we've been doing thus far has been focussing on the collections development policy,
which is supposed to be reviewed every five years. I think this year is sort of us constituting the very big overhaul review,
and the main thing that we wanted to talk about was the Rivers mission statement.
How do you think that the Rivers mission statement really compares to other museums mission statements,
especially those who have made the commitment to sort of decolonised? Is that really an important aspect of that whole process?
I don't think the mission statement is all that far out of line from other mission statements in terms of museums.
You know, it's interesting you ask about mission statements in regards to decolonisation, and it's a very specific act at a museum.
Wide level decolonisation is still relatively new.
So if I think about, you know, the collections policy and that it was written and approved in sort of twenty fifteen twenty sixteen,
you know, and and it encourages a five year review,
the same thing is sort of true mission statement specifically sort of every five years,
it wouldn't be uncommon for a museum to revisit their mission statement and figure out if it needs changing or not.
And so in that sense, it is. It is an ongoing process for any museum and particularly those, I suppose,
that are interested in decolonisation to think about their mission statement and what they would like to achieve.
I, you know, if I think sort of globally right now and if I think about the shift in definition of museum that
icon was looking to put forward and the fact that that actually has not yet succeeded or changed.
I don't know that there's anything predictable about what a mission statement for a decolonising institution would look like.
And I think actually one of the big challenges is for those encyclopaedic or universal museums and museums far beyond the scope of Pitt rivers,
and they have a very challenging time in terms of creating a institutional wide mission statement that resonates with all departments, right?
And. Yeah. I don't know if that fully answers your question,
but I don't think there is a norm yet for what a mission statement looks like in terms of decolonising.
No, that's fantastic to hear. Thank you. Yeah, I think just kind of going off on that,
and I think it is worth saying as well that the mission statement that is featured on the corrections
department policy isn't necessarily the same mission statement as is on the strategic plan,
which came out in 2017.
So presumably, obviously, the the new collection policy would include an updated mission statement, either that that's on the strategic plan.
I'll just put in the chat the one that I.
Has this kind of more updated, but this all said, if you Google, you know, Pitt Rivers mission statement, the old one does come up.
If you look at the collections development policy, the old cup does come up.
So you know it is worth analysing as part of that and also as a representative to the rest of the document as well.
So I think in terms of that, I'll give you a chance to read what a number of the things that we pointed out.
And in some of the questions that we've maybe sent you before has.
Centred around things that maybe not represented in this, but also maybe are with slightly different wording.
So I think on that is, you know, how much do you think the language is really?
Important, and the language is maybe incongruous with the institution's stated goals.
I think the biggest. Tension between mission statements, generally speaking, and decolonial work in museums.
Is that mission statements, generally speaking?
Tend to understand museums as benevolent places, as places of good and decolonising practise and decolonisation as as an approach,
as a goal actually contends with the opposite and reckons with the fact that museums have created harm and violence and are not inherently benevolent.
So I think that's the sort of the biggest tension for me across institutions and not only in terms of,
say, the Pitt rivers more up to date mission statement. I, you know, for museums, there is a lot of reckoning to be done.
But if we think about what a mission statement is, it is about a future goal and to work towards and to build something.
And so in that sense, you know, is the mission statement the place where you reckon in terms of culpability, historic culpability?
Or is it a place where perhaps you 4front future responsibility and those might
look relatively the same and they might appear in the same mission statement?
It's not impossible, but I think part of it is sort of understanding like what does the mission statement help an institution do?
And it helps it make decisions and and work towards a future goal.
Do you think the retrospective analysis could be part of that future goal?
Sure. Yes, without question.
And when I think about the work of museums and when I think about the work of the Paris Museum,
most of the folks and most of the work I see being done there is precisely doing that reckoning and.
And it's doing it in a way that. And is hoping I would, you know, I would say, to inspire and share knowledge.
Right. And it's an interesting question, right? In terms of.
What is what is the objective or what is the desired outcome in terms of visitors
to our institutions and inspiring visitors is not necessarily a bad thing,
right? And it might be that we inspire visitors to change, right?
We might inspire visitors to change their understanding of history,
to change their understanding of colonialism, of, you know, British imperialism and.
And so. You know, these are in some ways these are quite small semantic shifts, and they can be very powerful to people.
I don't want to undermine the value of words. And I know that the Label Matters project is really significant.
And the words matter projects in Europe is really significant.
So I'm not trying to undermine the value of specific words, but I guess I'm also trying to think about,
you know, what is it that we what our mission statements to do?
And I also think it's so interesting how you talk about this assumption in particularly the
first mission statement of the museum as a benevolent place that exists for public service.
And we've been talking a lot about sort of this definition of the public.
And do you see any shifts between the first mission statement in the collections development policy and the
second one that Betty has in the chat in terms of which public they're really trying to serve and address here?
Well, the widest possible public is the original statement.
Global audiences when suggest the widest possible public is still of interest and.
If you are an institution such as the Pitt Rivers with amazingly global collections really from all the continents,
maybe save Antarctica, and even then, I'm not sure there may be Antarctic materials.
You do have wide and varied publics, there is no doubt about it.
And. There is a real challenge, I think, for institutions that gathered globally, that collected globally,
extracted globally to figure out exactly to whom they are predominantly responsible when
the collections come from a different place than your funding comes from right there.
It's not an easy question actually to figure out how do you how do you serve local audiences?
And in a place like Oxford, that's even a complicated question. You know, the town and gown question in Oxford, who is your public?
Is your public, the university public or is your public, the Oxford and Oxfordshire public right?
Is your public or British public? Or is your public actually a global public as well?
And within that, you know, communities of origin and source communities?
Right. And the truth is, it's all of those. Right.
One of the things that's sort of clear to me in these mission statements is that
the Pitt Rivers Museum is seeking to reach beyond being a university museum,
or maybe more aptly to understand that a university museum is actually a public museum.
That's that's the biggest sort of shift I see in these. Do you hit the nail on the head with that?
I think because we've been having a lot of trouble, particularly with.
There are so many different semantic shifts that could occur in these mission statements because you have,
of course, your Oxford public with its own specific social shifts and then you have your British public.
But of course, you have a lot of Diaspora communities in Britain as well.
And we were mainly thinking, how exactly is it possible for the museum to express in its mission statement that it not only is seeking to decolonise,
which means prioritising communities that it might not necessarily have before, but also to make it an equal museum for everybody.
And how to say that this museum is for everybody and really what is just three or four short sentences?
Absolutely. And I've actually been talking with Alice Stevenson, who's a professor of museum studies,
and Alice and I were post-docs together at the Kent Rivers Museum. That's where we met.
And we've actually been really interested lately in this tension between the the
critical and decolonial critique of the Universal Museum or the Encyclopaedia Museum.
And yet when we think about the language around accessibility, universal design is a really positive thing.
And so there's, you know, universal as a term is used both very negatively and very positively,
both in terms of the needed change in museum and in society.
And so we're trying to think through, you know,
what does that word universal mean and in what context and how do we imagine it and use it the way that I've looked at it through my research sort,
my master's is the encyclopaedia or universal having that kind of want of a better phrase,
a dirty word connotation, and you don't want to put it onto something like that.
And if you immediately if you put that and suddenly have a mission statement or
in a policy document that it's just going to ring alarm bells in someone's head,
but then how do you kind of remove it from the meaning that is kind of maybe predisposed to a conundrum?
Yeah, I suspect it's one of the reasons why they're using global rather than universal.
One of the interesting things I think in the new mission statement is that anthropology is no longer present.
And so the museum is almost decoupling itself from anthropology, which is which is an interesting strategy to take.
I don't I don't have an opinion of whether that's good or bad. I think it just sort of is.
And it might be that anthropology is also too unfamiliar a word for most publics, right?
Or it's a word like universal that has very negative connotations for important publics, for source community publics, for example.
And so it may be one of the reasons why we don't see sort of anthropology, in particular archaeology in particular in the new statement.
So instead, it thinks about cross-disciplinary study, which opens up that possibility for indigenous studies, area studies,
Southeast Asian studies, for example, and to come in and inform in dialogue with anthropology and archaeology.
Perhaps, you know, photography, art history, those sorts of disciplinary approaches as well.
We had a lot of conversations with Miranda, as well as a couple of other people at the rivers about sort of policy and practise.
So the policy at the moment is not and not exactly aligned with their practise or in fact, at all.
If we're going off of what both of the mission statement in the collection's development policy and the CDP
as a whole says so their practise might be more in line with their vision statement or their strategic plan,
but it's not necessarily in line with their collection.
So in policy and I learnt from Dr. Dallas that that a strategic plan is something that's very well subject to change every five years.
So what do you think is the most important thing to change if a museum is seeking to decolonise, should it be practised?
Follows policy or should it be policy, follows practise or is both OK?
Well, I think both need to happen. I am far more invested in practise than policy.
Now, having said that, if you are the kind of institution that puts your policies all over your website,
then that becomes a public facing expression of your values and your work ethic,
and people will look at those and and assess you based on those things.
So policy is not unimportant, and policy is sometimes the thing we turn to when we have an unusual circumstance or an unforeseen event.
Or decision making moment or what not? That's where your policy comes into play.
But it is the case that strategic planning and policy and practise are always in a state of continual revision and reiteration.
And they should be informing each other five years in terms of renewing a collections policy is actually quite quick.
Lots of institutions, smaller institutions, for example,
might not have the labour power to do it every five years to do it thoroughly and with real sort of thoughtful intention.
So five years in my mind is actually quite sensible in terms of the workload and
adjusting and getting the new policy up and running and getting everyone to adapt to it.
If you if you were to change your policy too often, people would never know what it is.
Right? It would be too much in flux. And in that sense, it would.
And it could potentially sort of no longer be a unifying tool,
but actually be a sort of a confusing tool, and it would take too much of your time and practises.
Oftentimes, we put things in practises because it's easier to change practises, right?
If you put it in a policy document, this policy, it has to go to the visitors, to the governing body for it to change.
Practises usually do not need to go to a governing body in terms of changing.
It's a far more local document and we can adapt it more readily and we can, you know, we can do it without higher level interference, in a sense.
So practise, I think, is critical and. But I, you know, I do think they are reciprocally informing they they should be working in tandem.
And really, you know, the strategic plan or the vision statement and policy and practise should all be working in concert.
You know, it is interesting to me that the mission statement was updated in 2017 by the collections.
Policy isn't. And, you know, sometimes when you have a throwaway clause like, you know, the policy will reflect the,
you know, the museum's mission statement, see whatever document that sort of cross-referencing.
That can also make a policy weak because nothing is actually in it.
And right, you've just outsourced all of the important bits. But I think a five year sort of review and.
And thinking about. What are the pressing issues, what is on the horizon, what are people foreseeing?
I think is reasonable.
You know, one of the things I notice is that the collections development policy as well is closely tied to the Museums Association,
right, and their code of Ethics and their accreditation process.
And so we also when we're writing policy or when we're thinking about policy, we are also looking at those external bodies as well, right?
And one of the challenges with the icon re definition for a lot of museums was
that all of their accreditation policies were linked to the icon definition.
And so when the icon definition changed, it would actually mean that there was a whole sort of a flow of work that would need to follow.
Entire countries and museum associations would need to redo their own tools because they build on icon.
So there's always a sort of a domino effect of this work. But long story short, I think practise is actually where it's at.
Yeah, I think this is something that Stephanie come up through. Our conversations are research as well as like back and mentioned,
we kind of had a workshop with some of the staff where we had this conversation around practise and policy and implementing it and.
A lot of the discussions have been.
You know, the policy itself needs to meet accreditation standards,
but the accreditation standards are set by this person and this is put out by this and then it just goes on and on and on and I guess.
What do you think can have on your experience? Should the first step be?
I mean, you said kind of practise its most important bit. If everyone's out saying to everyone else in terms of the policy side, then you know,
if you would go into an organisation and say, OK, you need to implement something step one.
And if decolonial practise, what would what would that first thing be, really?
I think there's two step ones and one is internal to the museum and one is specific to sort of museum associations.
So step one in terms of museum associations is a real significant need to revisit accreditation.
And we can talk about that more if you want. But I think there's a huge need to reconfigure accreditation a.
The second sort of first step, I guess the internal first step, I think, is to start with a question of values.
And I think this is especially critical when we talk about collections work because so often collections work is understood as rote,
best practise universal that anyone can do it and it's just a matter of following instructions.
And I don't think that's taken us to a particularly good place.
Pitt Rivers Museum, I think, is an institution that has put significant intellectual time and energy into collections work,
and they have really thought about the values behind collections for the ethics of collections work,
how to re-imagine collections, work and all,
while still having to grapple with the very realities of what it is to maintain a music museum collection.
Right. The documentation backlog has been going on.
I don't know what like for 15 years now, at least, right?
Just sort of like chugging along as this thing that really needs to happen.
That's the reality and the scale of museum work and change and change in a museum and fulfilment of a basic museum functions.
But, you know, I think there's been really amazing collections, work being done and time spent and energy put into the value of collections, work and.
I think institutions need to be able to be more creative and open in terms of what their priorities are for collections work.
And I think there have to be multiple options.
So one of the things in the collections policy at the Pitt Rivers Museum that is apparent and that you yourselves picked up on,
is this and two notions of preservation and documentation?
Really good documentation. Really good documentation, sounds nerdy and maybe doesn't sound like an anti-colonial or a colonial practise, but it is.
So many museum collections are so under documented or poorly documented, superficially documented that actually no one can find their stuff.
And if you can't find your stuff, you can't ask for it back. And if you can't find your stuff, you can't go and visit it.
And if you can't find your stuff, you can't correct the historical record, right?
So well documented collections, even if at times the leg is like the terms are out of date, a little unpopular, probably even racist in some cases,
having the sort of the courage to put your documentation out into the public and also spending time to make fulsome records means that.
People can reconnect with their items more directly.
They can find them more easily,
and then we know that when people come and visit with their material belongings with their ancestral belongings, the records are secondary.
Right. Their first engagement is with their ancestors, who are right there in front of them and to touch them and hold them and be with them again.
And then the second instance is, and what does the record say? Right.
But there's there's they can have that immediate engagement because they can find their belongings to start.
You know, the question around preservation is one that I think museums are starting to reconsider a little bit more broadly.
We're starting to think about, you know, natural life cycles of objects and the pressures of, you know, long term storage and and and,
you know, thinking around the difference between preservation and posterity and people claiming that posterity is now.
Bob James, you know, Jennifer Shannon making an argument that it's not about one hundred years from now.
It's about the moment, the present moment. Right. So people are starting to rethink that.
And so I would like to see. Accreditation, change and sort of museums have the courage and bravery and ability to identify different priorities.
Maybe it's creative engagement and creative cultural production. Maybe it's about, you know, posterity being now, not 100 years from now.
Or maybe it's even a shorter window. This generation 20 years.
We're going to focus on are we're going to focus on youth engagement and whatever youth want to do with the collection.
Fine. We'll let him do that, right? And maybe it's about Preservation Long-Term, and that's OK.
And maybe it is about really good documentation and and that's OK.
But like, let's open the number of possibilities that are allowable.
I think that would get us closer to a decolonial practise.
Oh, no, I was just going to briefly comment on.
The documentation in the records I know from my own attempts at looking for specific objects in certain collections catalogues online,
it's quite difficult and a lot of them looking at it, it.
The idea of freely exploring so going in and being led from page to page to page page or okay,
I have an accession number and I can only find that specific object if I have the accession number and how different
museums present that and documentation and their websites and updating that as part of that is vital to make it accessible.
And that was just a comment on that. Yeah, go. I mean, one of the things we're doing right now with the Great Lakes Research Alliance,
we have our own database that digitally reunites Great Lakes material heritage that is dispersed globally.
The Pitt Rivers is a partner and the Great Lakes records are part of that database and we're working towards a public platform.
So currently it's password protected and it's relatively easy to be a member of grass.
But nonetheless, you become a member and you get access and we're looking to have a public platform.
Our first public is indigenous artists and indigenous youth.
And then our second public would be indigenous language learners and teachers and teachers in indigenous schools.
And then our third public is sort of a broader Canadian public. So we have this question around publics as well.
And we need a broader Canadian public to change right to change their understanding of history of Canada.
So they're not unimportant. But we are looking to take an approach where when people are online and in our
database and when they encounter a heritage item or an ancestral belonging,
that it is described for them in a way that you would want your relatives to be described, right?
So right now, often when you encounter a museum object online, it's described in a very sort of scientific way.
And there's really good reasons for all of those fields and the format of it, and it's usually based on museum needs.
And I understand that because it's for the museum in large part,
but we're trying to rethink it a little bit just in terms of when people meet their ancestral belonging online.
Do they also feel like they're reading about or relative not reading about a museum artefact?
To be honest, the shift isn't huge. It's actually fairly small,
but it's really a shift in terms of just value and how you approach the writing
and the description and the ordering of information and the prioritising.
And even, you know, we're looking at how do you bundle information in particular ways.
And so that and. So that's not a strange thing.
Yeah, I think one of the things that so I was speaking to some of the guests who are going to appear in later
episodes talking about the kind of clinical nature of some of the language in the policy as well.
And that obviously is a policy is going to be clinical because that is what is required of the policy.
But specifically talking about Section 15,
which talks about the disposal of human remains and the language surrounding the disposal of human remains sounds very clinical.
And I think Alexis actually said that it sounds like you're taking out the rubbish, you know,
is really what you're talking about and the emotional connexion and the empathy that needs to be involved in that.
Yes, it is a policy and that comes alongside it,
but it doesn't negate the fact that you can also include just a level of awareness that if what you're dealing with in what you're discussing.
We've talked quite a bit about sort of emotional repatriation as well,
and I'm glad that you both brought that up because I think that it's so interesting that these museums were kind of boring,
especially the Pitt Rivers Museum in this time of the Enlightenment,
where sort of clinical educational material and empirical thought was very valued.
And not that that's a bad thing, but I think in a lot of ways museums do kind of reproduce that.
So it's so interesting to sort of bring emotions back into the policy.
And there was a really I think you were actually there, Kara at the Emotions of Removal webinar and sort of bringing emotions back into the museum.
And I don't I don't know if they have a place in policy,
but I would certainly be very interested to see a sort of more care and more love sort of brought back
into the Pitt Rivers CDP so that emotions are kind of where we make a space for them in the museum.
And I just, I think that idea of care as a preservation. Yeah, it does take away the clinical aspect of it because you are caring for something.
And it's it adds the emotional element. Yeah.
You know, care is a really interesting sort of concept. And, you know, when we think about it academically or even if we're going to, you know,
if we're thinking about decolonisation or anti-colonial practise, you know, there's a feminist ethics of care and scholarship.
There is an indigenous ethics of care and scholarship. And you know, and even in terms of, you know, feminist ethics of care,
these are often coming from communities of African-American and black female scholars.
And, you know, indigenous scholars. We have, you know, kitchen table methodologies.
And so it is a different approach to knowledge sharing.
Right? You know, if I think about Pitt Rivers mission statement to inspire and share knowledge, right?
What is it if if that sharing of knowledge comes through that feminist ethic of care and that sense of knowledge sharing?
And what what does that look like? And do you have to be specific and explicit that you're having a feminist ethic of care?
Maybe, maybe it'd be great to have that in there? Or is that a thing that you actually just do in your practise?
Right. And what does it mean to bring that ethic of care into your practise?
And I'm really quite interested in the Manchester Museum and which has a very strong ethic of health and wellbeing,
and that comes from the director and then, you know, funnels through the entire museum and that's really leading vision there.
I've also been working in terms of ethics of collections, care and thinking about healthy ageing,
as described by the World Health Organisation and how the descriptions for healthy ageing in humans can be adapted and thought about in terms of
care of museum artefacts and and the possibilities for that to give us a different ethics of care that understands ageing as normal as productive.
That that that ageing is not inherently negative,
but there's a lot of benefits to ageing individuals and that and that there is value in ageing individuals.
And so, yeah, so that's, you know, an ethic of care and exploring at the moment.
We'd love to get sort of your final thoughts on how changing the policy can sort of relate to the Labelling Matters project.
And we know that there's a big movement in the Pitt rivers right now to sort of re-examine language.
And that's it's fantastic that they're focussing on that.
But I think also the next step of the project is going to be focussing on, you know,
examining sort of the emotions of these language and examining these languages and examining all of the
sorts of different things that can come together to create a museum impression instead of simply words.
So how do you think that the policy can sort of be changed to reflect this vast
global sort of movement that we're finding and where museums just need to change?
Oh, that's an interesting question. You know, there is that academic.
Difference between emotion and affect as well that affects being perhaps a little bit more collective, maybe affect being a little bit more akin to,
say, collective memory and emotion being a little bit maybe more akin to individual or personal memory.
You know, it's an interesting thing. Emotion, emotion is not going to be the single answer, either, because if we've learnt anything in the last year,
it is that the burden of emotional labour is also not experienced equally and so.
We will need to think about it seriously, what it is when we ask both our staff and our publics to do that emotional work, and it's not to say that.
People don't need to do to work, whether their staff or publics. But also just to think about.
What is it if the museum expects it or demands it or or of who is it asking, you know, that emotional work to be done?
So I don't, I don't. It's again, it's not to say that the emotional component of museum work is not essential, but it's very complicated.
And one of the things that I learnt being in the UK coming from Canada and going to the UK is
that there is also a need to take seriously the emotional labour of unlearning imperialism and.
You know, most museum folks get into the business of museums because they have a trust that museums can be benevolent
places or they come from that understanding that a museum is a good place during their professional careers,
they often struggle with the ways that it's not a good place where it does create harm.
And that's difficult.
That's a difficult sort of professional identity to switch to really sort of embrace and internalise and then still to come out the other side.
Right. The museum still exists, and you could take the position to close them all down.
That's not a position I'm interested in taking.
I think there is huge value in museums, and I love the idea of people learning about humanity through material culture.
That's something that I share quite deeply. And I think museums are amazing places for that to happen and.
But yeah, you know, in the UK, this process of unlearning imperialism is going to be difficult and slow and and emotionally draining.
And it's not to say that people get, you know, but that we excuse people from that process, right as part of anti-colonial and anti-racist practise.
But it's just also that maybe there needs to be some empathy for how long that takes.
Scholars are really quick to judge the public, right?
They don't have the right language. They're not woke enough.
They, you know, they haven't spent three years studying anti-colonial anti-colonial theory,
critical race theory for 20 years, and we can in the academy, we can be too dismissive of the public.
And so I think one of the one of the challenges for museums and one of the opportunities in the museum is
that we actually get to go out and meet the public where they're at and think about what they're what,
they're obstacles and barriers to learning and and thinking anew.
And and I think that's really the sort of the amazing thing that can come through the labels matter projects right when you start to.
Re articulate a way of understanding for a public in a way that they don't shut down.
But where they actually can can process it and come back to it and start to pick up that vocabulary and internalise it in their own self.
I think that'll be amazing. Yeah, yeah, I think that's definitely true.
I mean, obviously that being in in the U.K., so having Bozkir and.
I think it is a lot of addressing to be done in a lot of.
Kind of hierarchical blame as well as part of that and.
But also, it is rewarding to, you know, to pursue that, to have that education, to educate yourself and be part of it.
And yeah, it's an interesting time to be getting into the profession, which I think you make a move hopefully appreciate.
This is like, you know, speak to some people and they say, Don't do it, you'll go crazy.
And then some people who say, do it because you might get crazy, but at the end of the day, like it's gratifying and rewarding.
And you know, it's through people making that work happen that.
I am now in the possession of kind of carrying on the torch the next step, so it's.
It's definitely very interesting. It's an amazing place to intervene because you are so close to the public and families and kids and adults,
and like the whole spectrum and docents and volunteers and like, there's you know, on the one level,
I think because museums are not always prioritised in terms of a capitalist economy,
we sort of fly under the radar and maybe are undervalued in terms of what we can do and the change we can create.
And sometimes I sort of depend on if I'm being cynical or optimistic.
You know, I sort of fluctuate between what have you seen, what change in the museum means?
But I actually think they they are important sites and they if we do change museums and we can demonstrate that change is possible, right?
We don't have to wait for other people to do things first. We can we can lead if we want, if we choose.
And and and so, so come into the museum world and then lead the change.
That is an absolutely fantastic and very hopeful place to sort of end our conversation.
Thank you so much for speaking with us and for giving us words.
Not only of change needs to happen, but also change possible and we can do it if we change all of these policies and commit to practise.
And I absolutely love that. It was lovely to meet you. Well, thanks so much for having me.
I really appreciate the invitation and I'm glad to meet you both. That was the Rivers Museum's Matters of Policy podcast produced by Betsy Woodhouse,
yet bomb maker man Alexis Barriere and Vocal Sounds Music by Jack Forcett.
Voiceover by Stephen. Not a special thank you to Muranga Thompson offline as the knowledge exchange.