The Right Kind of Rejection

Note: this post originally published on LinkedIn

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/28946154@N00/3043955183/

I've spent nearly two decades working in museums. I love it. That being said, I don't love every part of it. I had an experience this week that gave me pause to think a bit (and now to write a bit) about our field - and frankly this may apply to any number of other fields, although that's not for me to say.

I am a strong advocate for professionalization. I believe in the power of a commitment to being the best that we can be. I try to apply that to my own work, to the work of my institution and its staff, and - when I can - across our field more widely. Professionalization in the museum sector remains a debate, but I'm firmly in the "yes, please" camp.

Professions are advanced by many methods, but one tried-and-true approach is sharing. In order to share, we submit our work - perhaps as articles for publication, projects for recognition, and/or proposed conference sessions and workshops. Sharing drives wider dissemination and supports iteration - we build on one another's work, and thus need not re-invent the wheel time and again. "Research is a pyramid, with previous discoveries serving as the foundation for later research".

Once submitted, our work is subjected to judgment: somebody, or some body of somebodies, reviews-evaluates-decides whether our submissions are worthy to be shared, via whatever channel is at the judges' disposal - journals, websites, awards, conference sessions, webinars, etc.

Next: we receive word. We find out if our submission was accepted. Typically, this news comes in one of two forms:

1. The simple Yes/No This response is often couched in carefully-crafted positive-sounding messages. Something along the lines of "Thank you for your outstanding submission. We received a great many worthy entries, and the decision-making process was very difficult this year. Unfortunately, your submission was not selected. But we encourage you to submit again next time!" It's almost a version of the infamous "it's not you, it's me" cliche.

2. Detailed Feedback Regardless of acceptance or rejection, word comes back WITH detailed feedback from the judges. By carefully considering the feedback, the submitter can learn: What were the strengths? Weaknesses? Any blind spots? What could be improved? Why was the submission accepted/rejected? What could be done to make things better, both in terms of the work itself and any later submissions? What are the next steps we can take to make this better? And one final note: receiving such feedback communicates a level of respect and actual encouragement from the judges to the submitter.

Question: Which of these two responses serves to advance the field? I believe the answer is obvious: it's number 2. The information that we receive as feedback is vitally important, for all of the parties involved.

Submitters learn the parameters around measures of success, understand how their peers evaluate their work, become informed about subsequent work and subsequent submissions – learning concrete ways to improve over time.

• Contrast that with folks who are rejected but receive no feedback: they have no understanding about how the work was evaluated, develop suspicion of bias or politics having been involved, gain no concrete steps to improve subsequent work, and ultimately lose motivation to try again - regardless of the syrupy language in the rejection notice. Ouch.

Judges also benefit by providing clear and constructive feedback. First and foremost, shouldn't that be their role in the first place? If they cannot honestly and professionally evaluate work and provide clear reasons for their conclusions, I'd proclaim them unfit to judge. And all of the time they've committed to judging: shouldn't that investment of time result in adding value to the profession? As a judge, it's your opportunity to inform, teach and inspire - please take advantage of that. It's your chance to contribute to the field.

My point: to contribute to the professionalization of our chosen field, all of us should make the commitment to respect one another and collaborate as strongly as we can. That includes providing clear, constructive and timely feedback to each other whenever possible.

Alternatively, I suppose we could just submit everything to the Journal of Universal Rejection.