Some cases are complicated by what happens. Others by how they are subsequently communicated about. The cultural research around the Dutch Photo Museum, meanwhile, seems to incorporate both characteristics.
Last week, the website of research firm Unravelling published a case study on the cultural research it conducted on behalf of the museum's Supervisory Board. The publication was actively promoted via LinkedIn by the researchers involved. A day later, both the page on the Unravelling website and the LinkedIn posts had disappeared again.
This is really special. Websites are updated, texts are rewritten and sometimes publications disappear from view again, but not just like that. Moreover, it is remarkable that this case study was the only public insight into an investigation that has remained confidential until now. According to the museum's annual report, the report was shared only with (former) employees and a few key stakeholders. The wider public never got to see the study or its findings.
Moreover, the case study at Unravelling went beyond a description of research methods or process approach. Conclusions were presented on issues such as leadership, abuse of power, intimidation, fear and failing checks and balances. Numbers of respondents were mentioned, causes named and connections made. This made a confidential investigation part of the public debate after all, not as a report, but as a summary of a report.
This raises questions beyond the content of the research itself. Who decided that a confidential culture survey was suitable as a marketing case study? Was explicit permission given for this by the client? And did the employees and former employees who participated in interviews and surveys know that their contributions could eventually become indirectly part of a public promotional publication?
This point in particular is given added weight because investigations into social safety have become the subject of intense public debate in recent years. Government commissioner Mariëtte Hamer recently pointed out the risk of serious reputational damage to people when investigations are not carried out with sufficient care or when conclusions end up outside their original context. Her recommendations not only revolve around the quality of research, but also transparency, proportionality, expertise and independent supervision of the researchers themselves.
Against this background, the vanished case study becomes more interesting than it may have been intended to be.
It was notable, for example, that the study was critical not only of the museum's former board, but also of the governance of the organisation itself. According to the published summary, the checks and balances insufficient and the Supervisory Board was not sufficiently visible and approachable to employees for a long time. As a result, signals of tensions within the organisation were allegedly not picked up in a timely manner.
This makes the construction special. After all, the commissioner of the study became the subject of criticism at the same time. A public summary of the same study then appeared, after which it was removed without explanation. An explanation from Unravelling failed to materialise. So did a response from the Nederlands Fotomuseum. An apology to those involved was not forthcoming.
Interesting in this regard is also the position of the research firm itself. In its privacy statement, Unravelling stresses the importance of confidentiality, care and purposeful processing of research data. At the same time, its own complaints procedure shows that complaints are initially handled by the agency's own director. Only then is there the possibility of appeal to an independent complaints committee.
This is a remarkable construction for an organisation that examines others for governance, independence and social safety. In this sector in particular, there is a growing call that not only investigated organisations but also researchers themselves should visibly meet the standards they assess in others.
Perhaps that is ultimately the most fascinating aspect of this affair. Not the existence of a cultural enquiry. Not even its content. But the fact that a survey that was meant to bring clarity about culture, leadership and supervision ends up raising questions about culture, leadership and supervision itself.
Meanwhile, the Nederlands Fotomuseum is trying to look ahead. Santos has opened, a new board of directors has taken office and the annual report speaks of a new chapter. Yet the past continues to present itself in the details. A confidential report that is not public. A marketing case study that does appear. A publication that then disappears again. An industry working towards higher standards in social safety research.
It is precisely these details that make the unravelling of this case now at least as interesting as the cultural research it began with.
Nederlands 
English (UK) 
Français 