Paulina Cylka: We invited you to talk about the award that the Sybir Memorial Museum has proudly highlighted over the past several months – the European Museum of the Year Award (EMYA), presented by the European Museum Forum with the support of the Council of Europe. This distinction is part of a broader competition program. Could you explain to our readers what this program entails?

Dominika Mroczkowska-Rusiniak: The program is run by the European Museum Forum (EMF), an independent non-governmental organization founded in 1977 at the initiative of journalist and museologist Kenneth Hudson. From the beginning, the EMF has operated with the support of the Council of Europe. Its mission is to promote innovation and development in European museology, encourage the exchange of experiences and ideas, and foster networking among museums.

Paulina: So, any museum can participate?

Dominika: Museums from Council of Europe member states – currently 46 countries – are eligible to apply. It doesn’t matter whether they’re large or small, or whether they’re located in big cities or small towns. The key criterion is that the museum has opened in the last three years or has undergone significant modernization or expansion.

Paulina: So the Sybir Memorial Museum qualified because it opened in 2021?

Dominika: Exactly. From the time a museum opens, it has three years to submit an application to EMYA. On average, about 45 museums of various types apply each year – national museums, open-air museums, city museums, archaeological museums, and more.

Paulina: The Forum includes a Supervisory Board and a team of evaluators. You’re one of them, right? What does your role involve?

Dominika: Yes, I serve as an evaluator. Our role is to review applications and then personally visit each nominated museum. What sets EMYA apart from other awards is that evaluations are based not just on written applications, but also on in-person visits and detailed reports.

Paulina: Evaluators can’t assess museums from their own country, which is why you went abroad and a museologist from Switzerland visited us?

Dominika: Exactly. Evaluators do not assess museums from their own country, nor do they participate in discussions about them. I can only contribute objective information if there’s something relevant to the assessment that wasn’t included in the application.

Paulina: But you can’t share your personal opinion?

Dominika: Correct. I can only provide factual clarifications, for example, if an educational event was held but wasn’t mentioned in the report. That’s the only time I may speak during discussions about a Polish museum.

Paulina: So, one evaluator visits officially, but there’s also an “undercover” visit. Can you tell us about that?

Dominika: Yes. First, an evaluator contacts the museum to arrange an official visit, which typically lasts four to five hours. During the visit, the evaluator meets with staff, tours the exhibition, and takes photographs. A comprehensive report is then written – often a dozen or more pages – covering various aspects of the museum’s operation. We refer to the application, but our observations carry more weight, especially regarding what Kenneth Hudson called “public quality,” which is sometimes hard to define.

Paulina: Things like being greeted at the door, buying a ticket?

Dominika: Exactly. We assess the entire visitor experience from start to finish. Applications can paint a certain picture, but being there in person often reveals more than what’s on paper.

If the evaluator believes the museum meets the criteria for an EMYA or the Council of Europe Museum Prize, they inform the team. Then a second, unannounced visit is made – the so-called “secret visit.” A different evaluator comes anonymously, just like any other visitor. They borrow an audioguide, check the cloakroom, visit the café, tour the exhibit – everything a typical guest would do. A second report is then written.

Paulina: “Our” secret evaluator – I heard it was a woman – blended in so well that we still don’t know who she was or when she visited.

Dominika: That’s right. No disguises, just anonymity. She was very impressed by both the museum and the city. She’s originally from Argentina, now lives in Europe, and teaches at a university in Gothenburg, Sweden. This was her second visit to Poland – the first was for an EMYA conference at the POLIN Museum – and it made a strong impression on her.

Paulina: We’re glad we were ready to welcome visitors from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Dominika: I think you’ll welcome even more of them after this award.

Paulina: To summarize: the European Museum Forum runs two main awards – the Council of Europe Museum Prize and the European Museum of the Year Award. You mentioned the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw – the first and so far only Polish winner of EMYA?

Dominika: Yes, 2016 was a special year. For only the second time since 1977, both major prizes went to museums from the same country. The European Museum of the Year Award went to POLIN, and the Council of Europe Museum Prize to the European Solidarity Centre in Gdańsk.

Having worked both as a correspondent and now as an evaluator, I can say this is a major recognition of the hard work of museum professionals across all departments. The criteria are demanding, and the level of competition is extremely high. Winning is truly an exceptional honor.

Paulina: The Council of Europe Museum Prize was awarded to the Sybir Memorial Museum in December 2023. The Director received it in Strasbourg on April 16. How is the winner chosen?

Dominika: The process is slightly different from that of EMYA. After we evaluators visit and write our reports, we meet in November for two days to discuss all candidate museums and nominate three for the Council of Europe Museum Prize. But the final decision isn’t ours. The shortlist is presented to the Culture Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which votes to select the laureate. Our role ends with the nomination – the final choice is entirely up to the Committee.

Please remind us what values ​​the Council of Europe Museum Prize refers to and which of the museums have a chance to receive it?

 The Council of Europe Museum Prize is an award that honours a museum that focuses on the protection and promotion of human rights, democracy and the law-abidingness; a museum whose exhibitions, scientific and educational activities contribute to the popularisation of European cultural heritage as well as to respecting human rights and democracy. The aim of this award is also to draw attention to the diversity of Europe’s cultural heritage and to what extent this heritage can impact both a local and European level.

 Does this mean that the juror who visited us was presenting our museum in Strasbourg?

 No. There were three museums presented and it was done by a juror who had not been to any of them, but had a report of our deliberations, applications and our reports. Of course, while preparing this presentation, he contacted the jurors who had been to a particular museum to consult the details.

 Let’s now discuss the European Museum of the Year Award, known as well as the “European Museum of The Year”.

It has become common in the Polish language to call it the “EMYA award”. It is voted in parallel with the Council of Europe Museum Award, but it operates on slightly different principles. It is awarded to a museum for what Kenneth Hudson called public quality, meaning the exceptional quality a given museum serves to its public. This award combines appreciation of the museum’s activities in its approach to presenting exhibitions, creative educational activities, and extensive scientific and promotional practices that at the same time serve democratic values ​​and human rights. The exhibition is very important, but it does not have to be outstanding works of art, that is not the point.

 When assessing a museum and nominating it for an award, the jury also pays attention to whether the museum involves the local community, strives for sustainable development, and tries to connect people with different political or social beliefs. This assessment is sometimes very difficult to pinpoint, because sometimes the award is decided by one program, one specific activity, and if you look at the history of awards and which museums have received them – you can see that the size of the museum or its budget do not matter at all.

 I understand that it is more about the museum’s social involvement?

 Yes, and this is what the museum gives to the local community – the museum does not function for itself, but is part of the urban fabric and part of the community that also co-creates the museum.

During the evaluation and selection of the winner, the entire museum’s space as a whole is also taken into account. It includes not only permanent and temporary exhibitions, but all facilities for visitors. We pay attention to accessibility for people with special needs, whether there is a café or restaurant, whether there is a museum shop, space for rest and dedicated calming room. All this is taken into account and discussed very carefully, and then processed when it comes to the award.

 It is not easy to get this award, I must admit. We have a lot of really good museums, and it is known that the museums that apply for this award have well thought-out applications. It rarely happens that a poorly prepared museum applies.

 I would like to ask about your experience in evaluating museums. How long have you been a juror in the competition?

 I have been in this role for two years. A juror is appointed by the Supervisory Board of the European Museum Forum, and their tenure lasts for a maximum of 6 years. My task, and that of the other jurors, is to assess the museum, admit it to the competition or nominate it for one of the awards. The jurors visit about 5-6 museums each year. Before such a visit, we first familiarize ourselves with the application, browse the website, social media, and see how the museum communicates with its recipients. We also prepare a list of questions or issues that we would like to raise during such a visit.

During the visit itself, we meet with the management, sometimes also with a larger group of employees, e.g. from the educational or promotional departments. After viewing the exhibition and being guided by a designated person, we also visit the museum on our own. This is a moment to think for a while, to be alone in the museum, to make photographic documentation, but also to cool down after the meetings, which are usually very intense.

I understand that the idea is to get a feel for what it’s like to visit a museum as an average visitor, not someone who is treated specially?

Yes, this is important when evaluating a given museum. I very often observe other visitors. I like to observe how they behave, whether they read all the texts or skip some. Of course, I know that people visit museums in very different ways and the fragment I see is not the rule, but very often it says a lot about the museum.

These reports are a challenge, usually a dozen or so pages, along with photos. We describe various aspects of the museum’s activities, including the atmosphere in the museum. This is something that we cannot read from an application. We can only experience it when we are there. That is why these visits are so long. It happened several times that a juror returned to the museum the next day.

Why?

Precisely because she/he felt that still had to spend some more time in this institution. For example, there were very long meetings with the management and guided tours, and he needed to be alone to think about and observe certain things.

A visit to a museum is an experience, also a huge event to live through. Especially in the case of your museum The Sybir Memorial Museum, with a very specific topic, difficult for someone who does not know history. Of course, the jurors are very well prepared, they know the applications, but it is clear that I, as a juror from Poland, will know much more about the history of Siberia than a juror from Switzerland.

Often there is a moment of collision with the theme of what you are visiting, so it is needed to take a while to calm down and composure. We usually write these reports right after returning, but sometimes it happens that we go to other museums in a given country and only when we return, we start analyzing and describing.

We then meet in November, after visiting all the museums and after anonymous visits, for a two-day session. We discuss the visits, the reports, discuss the nominations for the individual awards and hold a vote. Usually, several museums are nominated for each award. You have to be very well prepared, have strong arguments, if you want the museum that you consider the best or that you think meets all the criteria for a given award to win. It is an incredible experience. The sessions are sometimes stormy, we argue, we discuss very strongly, but we have to award the prize during these two-day sessions and these decisions have to be unanimous.

 Do you vote until a unanimous vote is reached?

 Yes, we laugh that we don’t leave the room until we have finally decided which museums receive awards.

 What do you value most about your work as a juror?

 There are several aspects here that seem extremely important to me. The first is of course the opportunity to meet museum workers from various European institutions. This is an incredible experience, because you visit various museums: narrative, archaeological, small city and gigantic, with huge budgets. Each museum is different, has a different policy of communicating with the recipient, understands the methods of work in the museum and approaches to various topics differently.

 It is also an opportunity to follow new trends in European museums. When visiting museums, we pick up on certain common features, then these features and trends are reflected at the annual conference of the European Museum Forum, where all nominated museums present themselves. We group them into thematic panels and museums have the opportunity to present and discuss their work.

As we have already said, as a juror from Poland you cannot judge Polish museums. Can you tell us which countries you have traveled to and which museums you have visited?

 Yes, of course, it is not a secret. (The voting process is secret and until May it is a secret who received the main prize and the subsequent ones, awarded as part of the European Museum Forum.) Last year I visited museums in Estonia, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Norway.