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.
I am, yep. And today I joined Betty to talk to Dr. Laura from Bokova.
Hi, I'm Betsy. Lara is the director of the Pitt Rivers Museum and the principal investigator of the Labelling Matters Project.
Lara's current research interests include repatriation and redress,
with a focus on the importance of collaboration, inclusivity and reflective enquiry.
OK. Welcome. It's an absolute honour to have you on our medRxiv policy podcast.
You say it's an honour to have me on the podcast, but it's actually an honour for me to be talking to you guys,
and I think we're really pleased with the work that you're doing. It's also brought me to question whether we need to have all those old documents
online if we can just discuss a little bit about the collection's development policy.
So if you could tell us a little bit about its history and how it's used in the museum?
Yeah. So I can be quite brief about the history. I don't know.
I don't know how it was formed, and I do know how similar documents that I was very, you know, leading on myself have been shaped.
But I don't know about this document,
but I do know that Julianne Nicholson played a really important role in sort of bringing together all the different elements of the document.
The role today is, I think, quite minimal to a certain degree.
I think that it doesn't really reflect or practise and or our philosophy as much anymore, but obviously it remains the document that stands.
One of the things that we actually have started recently is to go into the process of rewriting the policies.
There's a number of policies, there's an access policy,
there's an environmental sustainability policy, there's an equity, diversity and inclusion policy.
There's a return policy. And so little by little, we've been, you know, sort of starting with different policies that we'll be writing.
The collection development policy is one that we are rewriting in the next couple of months
is when it needs to be rewritten because we're going to go for accreditation again.
We would have probably done that a year ago or a year and a half ago already because I committed to what we were up fragmentation again.
But that was all stalled because of COVID. But I do want to go back to what these documents are for museums and what they can be, I suppose.
So I worked in the Netherlands sort of first at the National Museum of Ethnology,
where we had a collections development policy and from 2000 till 2012 or so.
And in 2012, we had a big merger with the Tropper Museum and with the Africa Museum,
which is a museum in the east of of the Netherlands and a museum in Amsterdam and then a museum in LED.
And we merged. And it was the moment that we obviously were also merging our collections in and took a fresh look again at what actually this,
you know, these collection development policies, what they could be, what they should be.
We needed to rethink ourselves and reinvent ourselves more or less.
And also think about, you know, what is it that we want to do in the future around collecting acquisitions?
And we very strongly decided to sort of go back to really critically looking at what
the documents that we have in the practises that we had and the policy that we had.
I let that process at the time, which was, I think,
between 2013 until 2015 or so that we worked on that and it took two years, lots of conversations across different sections.
And obviously, because we all came from different institutions, we were all questioning each other's practises.
There was also a bit of animosity because, you know, each considered each other, either too old fashioned or too sort of hip or whatever.
Actually, the merger process was a really useful process because it brought together these different ways of working different thoughts.
And then we have wonderfully useful conversations actually across.
And at the time, what we decided to do is to not use the model that the Dutch usually used for this.
But we used a model which was an Australian model, which was sort of really sort of focussed on significance of collections.
So we did a complete relooking at the whole collections.
We describe the whole collections differently and then had lots of conversations around what should we still be acquiring?
What should we still be acquiring actively and passively?
Because I think a lot of collections coming through passive collecting is what is sort of one could call it,
that's how we called it, where it's just somebody who approaches you and says,
you know, like yesterday,
I got a message from somewhere in the Netherlands saying the museum has been named as somebody who is going to be left a legacy.
These objects are yours now. And I think in the.
Museums would decide, OK, so we need to take this in and, you know, thankfully accept or do we actually say this is not really any longer?
It doesn't fit with our purpose or it doesn't fit with the sort of materials that we would be collecting.
And so one of the things that you then need to decide is what do you do with those passive
collections that you're actually not going to bring in to your collections anymore?
Do you, for example, go to communities of origin? Do you go to countries of origin?
Do if, for example, if, well, what I try to do in the Netherlands at the time was around pre-colonial material because
that's my sort of field of expertise personally was to go to the embassies and say,
Look, we've been offered these collections. We're not going to accept them, but they are from, you know, they were illegally taken.
They are from the archaeological record.
Is this something that you would want to take up with your Institute of Instituto de Trower and then do you want to discuss it with them,
whether they want it back? So that's the sort of possible, yes, sort of way forward that one could find.
And then we have really crucial conversations, I think, around acquisitions.
And that's what I hope we are now also at the Pitt Rivers Museum. Obviously, there's only that much stuff is much more reduced than what, you know,
the stuff that we had in the Netherlands, where we had 175 people working in the museums here.
It's a small group of staff, about 50 people of which, you know, only few are curatorial.
But luckily, I think which is quite nice in a bit of a museum.
There is a tendency to make sure that we are bringing in more not only curatorial staff.
I think in the Netherlands it was very much a curatorial decision what was going to be collected.
I think here because of the handling collection and you know, we can debate about,
you know, the sort of way it should be called the handling collection. Yes or no.
But because of the handling collection and also because of the work with communities,
we're sort of starting to see more of a sort of joined up working with, you know, research.
Also, the fact that we are a university museum, which was not the case for the museums I worked in in the Netherlands, which were national museums.
The fact that we were University Museum makes it so that we will be working more closely with research, for example.
So I think these documents give us these moments where much like when we're sort of writing new strategies,
which are usually also sort of for a couple of years,
they give us these moments that we can reflect, sit together, discuss and then make, you know, just sort of.
There's also a bit of boring practise of writing policy documents. At least I find it quite stimulating.
I guess it's there's a sort of limited ness to what a policy can do.
It doesn't feel like a document that is very creative or imaginative, necessarily.
The moment when we write these policies, which aren't always sort of the most exciting moments,
but I think the writing itself of policy can be quite sort of tedious and and restricted.
But the moments that we are deciding on policy do give us the time to reflect and to have conversations
that actually can be quite important for an institution to make sure that we're all on the same page.
And I think unlike last time when I came in and we were writing the collections development
policy and all of the accreditation documents had just been sent off to accreditation.
We then started the strategy work, which took about a year.
Now we are going to be writing our new strategy because this strategy is up until 2022.
But we're also going to make sure that the new work that we've been doing and
everything that's obviously in sort of more recent programming based on publications,
recent exhibitions that is all much more accurate, a reflection of what we are doing and thinking.
And and I suppose it's an interesting reflection of our trajectory of the process that we've been on in the past couple of years.
And it's really crucial that we are critically reflecting on why do we have these documents?
Who do we write them for? Who should be involved in writing them?
And I think that these were this will be a really useful process,
and I'm really keen to see the development and to be inspired also of where can we take it next?
Yeah, I definitely think something that's come up is that disjointed ness between the strategic plan and the policy,
obviously, because of the times that they were written.
So for me, if I look at our reach and impact like, for example, over the last year we reached with the messaging that we had that was on target.
You know, there's this analytic tools that you can use to see six point eighty three billion people, billion people, which is crazy.
That's potential reach. And that was about 400 press outlets or so.
So I think that was very much on message. That was the sort of.
Where we are saying we no longer want to be, you know, sort of an institution that is actually,
you know, sort of projecting stereotypes, we are respectful of indigenous communities.
That's why we're taking off display human remains. That's why we're reaching out to communities.
So that's one bit of the biggest reach that we have. Then we have the reach that is our museum usually is about half a million people that come in.
I think that's where there's still quite a bit of mixed messaging.
Now, obviously, we've now put in the intervention of the labelling matters and we've put in the intervention on human remains.
But there's still quite a bit of trouble. Some things that are sort of that people will find where it might feel quite mixed messaging,
where it's mostly, you know, colonial collectors that are being named.
And we're still using quite old fashioned and outdated and derogatory nomenclature, both in top names and in antonyms.
And, you know, sort of that's where there's still some mixed messaging, I think not in the special exhibitions.
That's where it's really clear we transfer low. We are working on anti-racism.
We're sort of, you know, doing a lot of work with refugees etc,
but that's half a million normally not this year, but normally that's about half a million.
And then there's about 600000 that come to our website and those are the resources that they will find there.
No one goes to our About US page apart from maybe a student who's been given that as a task,
which is really crucial because they'll be the ones who are going to be critically looking at these things.
So it's either Prince looking at our press pages, which are on message and or people who are looking at what's on or looking out,
for example, our critical change pages or pages on human remains.
If we look up who is reading them, I think the balance is OK that we've not updated that document first.
But there are students who are looking into that. There's people who are going to be looking out, OK, this sounds interesting.
They're being mentioned. That's up there, sort of, you know, driving some of the changes. Let me go, look at their policies.
They will then find policies from 2015 and early 2016, which don't reflect anything of what we've been thinking lately.
So you're absolutely right to say that needs to change.
The other big reach, I think that we've had recently has been with our online webinars think 15 percent of the audience is the life audience is local,
50 percent is from the UK and just from one of them.
We know that's about 120 towns in the UK from across the whole UK, which is quite brilliant in a sort of.
We would never do that if if we wouldn't have had the pandemic, we would not be able to reach so many people.
It would all be people who have the privilege of studying in Oxford or living in Oxford,
sort of who would be able to come to those who would have the privilege to be able to travel
for any of the rest of them are international from about 75 different countries in the world.
So I do feel that it's clear that our messaging, we have a lot to build from and we can easily use up to now update the policy.
I think that going forward, we need to think more carefully.
If there is such a big switch, such a big change process, how do we make sure that we also, even if it's to say, OK,
we've taken our policies down because they no longer reflect our current practise while we are changing, you know, sort of the policy?
So I think that's what from your very helpful workshop, I'm all right.
OK, great. Amazing. Yeah, I think you also mentioned already that practise doesn't always reflect policy or goes beyond policy.
And I think it's really good to take a moment to acknowledge that the museum has done way more with respect to representation,
diversity, inclusivity than currently reflected in the document.
And you talked about it briefly,
but could you elaborate a bit more on the recent work the museum has been doing to restore the imbalance of voices in the museum space,
which is currently still in the document? You guys are focussing on policy and rightfully so.
I think the practise is very much what is being questioned on a daily basis where people are actually saying, Why are you still talking for us?
I think on the one hand, there's a sort of there's a lack of imagination in ethnographic museums.
If it's only Eurocentric whiteness, that is sort of being projected out and is let in.
And it's with the collections that we have,
which could tell millions of stories which could actually bring in so much interest in each other's different ways of being different,
ways of knowing different ways of seeing, making coping. We would be limiting ourselves by just having to say more people talk more about
which supposed knowledge that they've sort of taken from books or whatever.
So what we want to do is to make sure that we're no longer limiting the stories that are being told in the museum.
And we are ensuring that actually we are making space for more stories that we are
making space for people who've been long underrepresented to say it a bit crudely,
maybe, but I think.
Truly, is that it's really sort of we have to move away from supporting patriarchy by allowing for those voices to mostly be white male elite.
I think we also would be moving away from continuing Colonial City to by only prioritising certain voices,
those who are supposedly educated over those who have lived knowledge.
So I think that's where we're sort of looking at how can we ensure that those who are invited to speak,
those who are invited to write, those who are invited to make.
And then also those who are going to be collecting with.
How can we make sure that that power balance, which is obviously, you know, colonialism is all about, you know, power balances.
It is a skewed power balance where one part of humanity tries to oppress the others to extract their resources and enrich themselves.
And it does that by ensuring that its power structures, its political power structures are imposed on those people and they're made to pay taxes.
And that's sort of so that they can enrich their own area.
But I think we've done quite clearly in some of our messaging is say that is a fact.
Sometimes when the government or elders are sort of anxious about, you know, sort of that we're erasing history.
No, we're telling more accurate versions of history.
We're being more precise, we're being more honest, more truthful.
So I think that is really where I just disagree with anything of what we are doing is erasing anything.
But I'm actually saying, no, we're being more truthful, more honest, and we're giving more accurate reflections of where our disciplines are today.
Both, you know, history, archaeology, anthropology. I mean, I'm not saying that any of those disciplines have sort of achieved any d'école analogy,
but there's no reason for us to get stuck in the 19th century forever or the 20th century.
So I suppose it's a wide range of projects that we've been doing,
which sort of reflects the need for intersectionality in the approach of the colonial city.
So on the one hand, we've been focussing on bringing in these different voices,
and that meant the sometimes reach out to communities or maker communities could be, you know, contemporary artists.
It could be delegates of originating communities, indigenous peoples.
Sometimes they will also seek us out. That could be for research could beat up there.
You know, there's there's a delegation coming to the UK and they come in and we would make sure that we're prioritising that work when
indigenous communities are coming or local communities would also be working a lot with the local communities of Oxford.
So that's the work that our public engagement team, people like Beth and Jose,
working with people who are living with disabilities or living with dementia.
Parkinson. We're working with school refusers, young kids who don't want to go to school anymore or who are at risk of being excluded from school.
But to bring in those different narratives and to bring in those different experiences and people's, you know,
rich portfolios of lived experience brings in new layers of life into the museum,
new narratives into the museum and I guess maybe more than other places.
What we struggle with is how we make those stories be heard in a museum that is so chock full of objects.
So it's on the one hand we reach out. We make sure that we are responsive.
On the other hand, one of the things that several of the curatorial team have been doing very actively also is work with contemporary artists
because we know that contemporary artists in their critical engagement with the space that is the Pitt Rivers Museum,
they're on the one hand inspired by it, but they also can really give new readings.
That's what art obviously does really well is to problem with those things,
and they do it without the need for lots of, you know, sort of writing necessarily or speaking necessarily.
So I think one of the most impactful interventions in the museum over the past couple of years have been one of them was Nyama Roma,
who's a fashion photographer from Tibet, whose work was really sort of hung up in the museum as if it were contemporary art interrogating the space,
interrogating the whole idea of stereotyping people and bringing in a sort of cultural vibrancy in the museum.
Also, because of the portrait that she make, I'm not going to go into detail about what the sort of intellectual thinking was behind it,
but it did activate the museum in a way to almost everybody who got it understood what what it was trying to do immediately.
And so that sort of contrasted really sharply with the usual reaction to the Beethoven Museum,
which is one that can be a double one depending on where people have their roots and the sort of person.
All lived experience of colonialism and colonial city impact, how you experience a bit of museums by far largest proportion of people.
Have a great sense of being overwhelmed for some of those people,
that is a really pleasant feeling and somehow it gives us these sort of cognitive reaction and emotional reaction of nostalgia.
And of all you have, this is how museums should be filled with objects.
And lots of people sort of actually also comment on that, that they say, Oh, it makes me feel like my grandmother's attic.
Or so there's this sort of exoticism colonial city that is, you know, there's all these tropes that are really colonial tropes that come out.
There's other people who will come in and especially people that come from that side of empire that suffered its violence,
that did not profit from its accumulation of wealth,
but actually suffered its violence like indigenous peoples, peoples with sort of roots or heritage in places that suffered the violence of empire.
They will feel really uncomfortable in the space. When I started, the Draws Must Fall campaign was very active.
I was following Twitter, and so one of the tweets of RhodesMustFall was, you know, rivers museums, one of the most violent spaces in Oxford.
At that time, I was part of a project called Hashtag Decolonise, a museum which was led by Hold On,
which saw me and and just about and Simon as a park in the Netherlands when we were really questioning a lot of
our practises and a lot of our label writing and a lot of our sort of the euphemisms that were in the museum.
And we had these projects, which was the EU funded project called Witches,
that sort of was able to pay for some of the costs of that project, which, you know, I was involved in.
And then later, Wayne also becoming involved in and hold on.
And Elias actually. Eliasson, who's also in the Netherlands, had sort of challenged the museum at the time about its call on reality,
and White kept projecting these same problematic ideas to people.
So to me, a lot of what RhodesMustFall was saying was very much trying to very closely what was happening in the Netherlands,
a bit near sort of decolonising movements both around the curriculum and museums, but also in the states,
you know, because in the states, there was a huge movement, radical ideology,
which obviously all of those movements built on indigenous movements, civil rights movements, which have been going on for hundreds of years.
But I think it was an important part for me to also think, OK,
this is great because we'll have people that we can work with when I get to the big, diverse museum, which are, you know, student activists,
etc. They can be great, you know, incredibly strong in demanding change, in ensuring that you're also keeping up with,
you know, sort of most recent, more contemporary thinking and ethics, I suppose.
It was also clear when I joined them when we were trying to reach out to other communities,
that might be where we would expect them to be really sort of interested in a museum that,
for example, for the First Peoples collective, which was a collective of students that our First Peoples saw of indigenous origin.
They actually went when we had a meeting. They told us we try to avoid to be driven by all means because it's such a hurtful place.
It's such a damaging place we do not want. But when I see that of visit involved, I won't go.
When I see that picture ever is, it's in the rivers. I will. Certainly, I'll just walk around it.
Know, since I was people like Gerard Field and Jessica, so there was a whole group there who were sending very clear messages.
You are a hurtful space to us. What I noticed is that our team at the time were not very much engaging with that in ways that I would expect us to be.
I think going back to what you're talking about, the power imbalance within the space and having those voices of people,
you know, actively avoiding the space because it's such a hurtful space for them and something that you mentioned,
I know in the workshop as well was how the colonial collectors are named and then the artists or even
actually named as an anthropologist or artist and giving that power imbalance is present within the space.
It's present in the policy itself.
And just wondering if in terms of changing it, to align it with a strategic plan with the work you've been doing since you started,
what would be the best way to change that power balance in terms of the naming?
I mean, obviously understand that a lot of the cases of records, I'm there to name the people who made them.
So yeah, it's just wondering if you could kind of comment on that.
The work that Miranda and Megan, also Megan O'Brien and Miranda Thompson of them did, I think two years ago now together with Berlin,
where sort of they did an analysis of our databases and how much information was actually in there?
And how often did we know the indigenous maker or trader or, you know, sort of philosopher who was.
Behind any of the objects that we have five percent is where we did actually have that information.
And everywhere else, it was really cleared up. The collector or the person who brought it into the museum was sort of prioritised.
That was important information. It's also very visible in the Maasai Living Cultures project, where we worked with the Maasai Restarting 2017,
when as part of an indigenous leadership programme inside share,
who are sort of participatory video making NGO based here in Oxford, they said, We're going to have a number of indigenous leaders coming.
Why don't we have a session where you bring out some of the objects of those
areas and see whether they want to sort of know either partner or question or,
you know, sort of express concerns?
And so one of the indigenous leaders was somewhere in Nigeria who is a part winning human rights activist of the Tanzanian Maasai,
and he had a really strong reaction and immediately sort of said, OK, I don't understand how these objects ever were taken.
These are things we would never do away with. Why are you saying that they were collected?
What do you mean they weren't just lying on the floor? These are objects that were taken from people, probably on their deathbeds.
So he was really immediate in sort of demanding a different attitude.
One of the things that they asked and they said, Why is it that the missionaries are being mentioned,
but the people who they were taken from the people who make objects?
And why did you not reach out to us? These objects have been here for over 100 years.
How come you're you've not even asked us about them? Well, you know that we still have a huge amount of knowledge.
And I think that is sort of the reaction of many indigenous people in some indigenous communities,
especially those in sort of settler countries like the US and Australia, New Zealand and Canada have really long standing,
I suppose, experience with, you know, sort of demanding of access, first of all, which have a big spark,
especially in the 1992, when, you know, the whole Colombo's was being sort of almost celebrated still.
And that's when indigenous movements just very crucially and importantly organised
themselves by combating the nonsense of that being a celebrated moment.
And I think that these were also some of those nation states, you know, also in the 50s and 60s.
But there's been a longstanding resistance from the first moments of colonialism.
But in the sort of written scholarly of academic museums, certainly from the 50s, 60s, you know,
sort of Custer died for our sins, and there's a whole range of sort of literature that sort of demands change there.
I think that is different in other places where the nation states have been even
more oppressive or less concern on indigenous peoples are even recognised.
And so there's a whole range there, which is similar to, you know, Tanzania, Kenya, Kenya is very different from Tanzania.
But again, that's where indigenous communities almost everywhere in the world are still living a huge amount of oppression.
And I think, you know, the recent examples of Canada are very clear where you know, the trauma, the continued destruction and continued oppression.
Same in villages in Mexico, where I worked with kids are being, you know,
fine because they speak their mother tongue, because they speak indigenous languages.
And so there's there's a continuous oppression there,
which are museum and our collections need to speak to and need to be part of a process of redress.
And I think that is where that's very much in our strategy.
It's also part of our practise, but it now needs to be written into policy so that it's guaranteed beyond the people who are,
you know, in the museum today. We're part of organically part of its organism for a while.
But if we at least put it into policy, move it from practise to policy, we will guarantee that at least there's also a more structural,
systemic change that we, you know, we are guaranteeing that it outlive our presence in the museum.
I think that is a really important aspect of work that needs to happen.
I think something that's come up that would be in future episodes and discussions with other
guests is do we need to have a colonial exploitation act that can kind of mirror alongside that?
You know, maybe. And we'll go on to talk about the accreditation relationship with the Museum of the policy.
But do you think that that could be something that would look kind of in the future and could employ that policy
aspect that will ensure that this will last multiple generations will have that attitude and have that relationship.
So spoliation was a sort of international actually almost agreement, right?
Because it, you know, it also goes in most of Europe. U.K. also.
So I don't want to wait for that to happen because I'm not certain that it will happen,
but we can see that there's important shifts movement in Germany, in the Netherlands.
Even in France, to a certain degree, in Scandinavia in sort of where actually something similar is happening, right?
So what we've done here and that started in 2016 actually already with a document
that Laura Pearce had draughted is that we had the human remains returns policy.
But we wanted one for cultural objects. The first version that we have is very much based on human remains policy that we now want to rewrite,
and we hope to be invited in the next couple of months. But we know the election is going to be working on that.
So the first version was really not great. It was very Oksana, and I don't think anyone would have understood outside of Oxford,
and we wanted it to be something that actually would be useful to any claimant so that it gave clarity.
It took four years for council to agree them. First, we have to read them quite quickly.
Actually, they were agreed or two years before they were finally agreed across the whole of the university.
They were agreed for the divorce museum. So our visitors were very supportive.
We have the procedures in place about return and they outline very similar.
One could say, as with spoliation, but I guess the difference with spoliation is that the institutions themselves were required to do research.
I think that I'm not going to wait for us to be required to do that. We're already starting with that provenance research.
So Marina has over the last year, year and a half been doing quite a bit of research.
Digging into the human remains a bit more. Being more clear about where did they come from?
Many cases we just don't have enough information,
but we are now reaching out to more and more communities and working with communities to ensure that redress can happen.
I'm not pro proactive repatriation.
I am pro proactive transparency, reaching out to communities and saying We want to let you know that these materials are here.
I'm not pro saying they're here and we're going to give them back to you because I think that would be quite expecting that they want them back.
It's thinking for the communities. I don't think that that gives a correct power balance.
I think it's about sort of ensuring that people know that these collections are here and to
then find a case by case approach because different communities want different approaches.
Those procedures were agreed in July 2020 by council.
So those are in place. The work on provenance is something that is one of the things that we're working on now is to make sure that at
least we know what we have from which country and have lists that are sort of per country that will be online.
Also, we've put the list of human remains online where people can just go all again for a country,
even though normally we don't classify a country because a bit obvious has a bit of sort of entities of this type logical classification.
It's usually regional and to some countries where it will start.
We've also done and this work was led by Meghan first and then, together with Julia and different members of the staff,
looked into the way that we use group cultural group names and adjusted those because there were many of them are very outdated.
So trying to go to the cultural groups and agree how they would prefer to be referred to again,
that's a huge task for a very small actually, in fact museum to do.
That's where we're going to be working more and more to get her alongside other museums also.
We've had the Rethinking Relationship project where we are working with the Hortman, Liverpool Cambridge with Jesse Niala,
who's been working with communities in Kenya and in Nigeria on collections that are here in the UK.
We are going to put in a bit for continuation of that project and expanding the number of countries that we would be working with.
Then obviously, Marenco has been working with different contemporary artists from different parts in the world.
Chris has projects working with Aboriginal communities in Australia, but also to some in South Africa.
And then Dan Hicks has a number of quite well funded projects now.
One of them is going to start another one's already on the way, doing quite a bit of provenance research, especially in the punitive campaigns.
I don't know how many countries, but it's a huge amount of countries that are doing work with, even though we are really quite badly resourced.
If you compare it to, you know, a place like the British Museum or any of the of the national museums in Europe,
actually sort of the number of countries that we have relationships with is really across the globe.
They challenge us. I think that is what I like about this relationship.
There challenges to not be set in this institutional politics or institutional ways of working, but they challenge us to be flexible, to be adaptable,
to make sure that we are actually listening, learning,
understanding better what it is that these collections can be in a future where hopefully it will be less in opposition to each other.
Less oppressive, less extractive. But it's it often goes very slowly, it often takes many, many years, and that can be quite challenging.
You know, there is change, but change sometimes happens very, very slowly.
So I think that is where I want to thank you guys. That was the Rivers Museum's Matters of Policy podcast produced by Darcy Woodhouse.
It will make a man, Alexis Varela and Bobble Hat Sound Music by Jack Forcett voiceover Baiju,
who led a special thank you to Muranga Thomas from Oslo and the Knowledge Exchange.