Museums and the Challenge of Change: Old Institutions in a New World [1 ed.] 0367488299, 9780367488291

Citation preview

MUSEUMS AND THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE

Museums and the Challenge of Change explores the profound challenges facing museums and charts ways forward that are grounded in partnership with audiences and communities on-site, online, and in wider society. Facing new generations with growing needs and desires, growing population diversity, and a digital revolution, the museum sector knows it must change – but it has been slow to respond. Drawing on the expertise and voices of practitioners from within and beyond the sector, Black calls for a change of mind-set and radical evolution (transformation over time, learning from the process rather than a ‘big bang’ approach). Internally, a participative environment supports social interaction through active engagement with collections and content – and Black includes an initial typology of participative exhibits, both traditional and digital. Externally, the museum works in partnership with local communities and other agencies to make a real difference, in response to societal challenges. Black considers what this means for the management and structure of the museum, emphasising that it is not possible to separate the development of a participative experience from the ways in which the museum is organised. Museums and the Challenge of Change is highly practical and focused on initiatives that museums can implement swiftly and cheaply, making a real impact on user engagement. The book will thus be essential reading for museum practitioners and students of museum studies around the globe. Graham Black has worked in and with museums for over 40 years. Today, he combines his role as Professor of Museum Development at Nottingham Trent University, UK, with museum consultancy. Exhibitions on which he has acted as Interpretive Consultant have twice won the UK £100,000 Art Fund Prize, amongst many other awards. His previous publications include two books: The Engaging Museum, published in 2005, and Transforming Museums in the 21st Century, published in 2012, both with Routledge. In recent years, his belief that future museum content should be much more agile, fast-moving, cheap, and responsive has meant he has moved away from large, expensive re-display projects to working with local communities and organisations taking approaches that he believes can make a difference.

MUSEUMS AND THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE Old Institutions in a New World

Written and edited by Graham Black

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Graham Black; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Graham Black to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Black, Graham, editor. Title: Museums and the challenge of change : old institutions in a new world / edited by Graham Black. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020038301 (print) | LCCN 2020038302 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367488291 (hbk) | ISBN 9780367488307 (pbk) | ISBN 9781003043010 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Museums—Social aspects. | Museum attendance. | Museums and community. | Museum visitors. | Museums— Technological innovations. Classification: LCC AM7 .M8819 2021 (print) | LCC AM7 (ebook) | DDC 069—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020038301 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020038302 ISBN: 978-0-367-48829-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-48830-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-04301-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For Carolyn

CONTENTS

List of figures List of contributors Acknowledgements Preface Introduction: the challenge of change

x xiii xvi xviii 1

SECTION I

Context

19

1

Societal change

21

2

Museums and the digital revolution

40

A Social media and participation: the selfie as a curious cultural artefact Jenny Kidd

53

B

Museums and participatory culture: Wikimedia and GLAM Rebecca O’Neill

C “A series of interesting choices”: gaming and gamification as participation Daniel Brown

60

67

viii

Contents

SECTION II

Museums in the wider world

77

3

Engaging diverse audiences

79

4

The activist museum

93

D Making the museum of making at Derby Silk Mill Tony Butler E

F

103

Participation, trust, and telling difficult histories in museums Elizabeth Crooke

113

Public health and museums: building a strategic partnership Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan

123

G Facing the challenges of truly being of, by, and for all Merel van der Vaart, Catrien Schreuder, Dorien Theuns, Deirdre Carasso

131

SECTION III

Developing the participative experience

143

5

The informal museum learning experience

145

6

Creating an inclusive and participative museum environment

160

Creating participative exhibits and activities

172

H Slow participation: the case of the Baden State Museum Johannes C. Bernhardt

196

7

I

J

Joint creativity for democratic transformations in museums Kirsten Drotner

204

A case study on digital technology, AI, and participation at the National Palace Museum, Taipei Hsiao-Te Hsu

211

Contents

ix

K Designing for interpersonal museum experiences Anders Sundnes Løvlie, Lina Eklund, Annika Waern, Karin Ryding, and Paulina Rajkowska

224

L

240

On dialogue and the museum as a social space Mette Houlberg Rung

M Showcasing science and facilitating interaction: science slams for museums Philipp Schrögel

249

SECTION IV

Managing change

255

8

257

Managing change N Design (re)thinking a legacy institution: strategic planning at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University Scott Cooper P

National Museums Northern Ireland: managing change, a case study Kathryn Thomson

266

274

Concluding thoughts

293

9

295

Concluding thoughts: if not now, when?

Index

300

FIGURES

0.1 1.1 A.1 3.1 D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 E.1 E.2 E.3 G.1

G.2 G.3

G.4 G.5 G.6

Museum Futures ‘Museum Lates’ event at National Museum Scotland The @GettyMuseum Challenge call to action Museum Access Zones Derby Silk Mill, frontage on to River Derwent STEAM learning session with Dale Community Primary School Curator Daniel Martin with participant at Art of Artefacts workshop The Civic Hall, artist’s impression The 2009 Troubles Exhibition, Ulster Museum A leather jacket from the punk band The Outcasts displayed at the entrance to The Troubles and Beyond exhibition People’s stories displayed at The Troubles and Beyond exhibition A group photo taken after the local banner parade, part of the Banners and Stories project, one of the first co-creative projects the museum undertook (2017) Participants in the belly-painting festival (2019) Schiedammers eating together in the foyer during an Iftar organised at the request of, and together with community partners (2019) One of the boxing matches, held in the museum lobby (2019) The Modest Fashion exhibition (2019) Sharing different perspectives. ‘Ask away’ event, where visitors were invited to share their curiosity about modest fashion with women who dress modestly (2019)

9 29 54 87 104 106 108 110 118 119 120

132 135

136 137 138

139

Figures

6.1 The Holistic Museum Experience 7.1 Slow Art Sunday, Ulster Museum Belfast 7.2 & 7.3 Match SMK, Danish National Gallery H.1 Karlsruhe Palace/Baden State Museum H.2 Archaeology in Baden – Expothek H.3 MuseumCamp 2018 J.1 The Universal World of Ferdinand Verbiest (Kunyu Quantu Interactive Installation) J.2 Up the River During Qingming VR – The Rainbow Bridge J.3 The Spirit of Autobiography VR J.4 The Tibetan Dragon Sutra Immersive Interactive Installation J.5 Marvels in the Sea Immersive Interactive Theater J.6 ANiMAL – Art Science Nature Society at the City University of Hong Kong J.7 The Magic STEAM Train Project K.1 Participants playing Never Let Me Go in the National Gallery of Denmark, Copenhagen K.2 Participant using the Gift app by Blast Theory in Brighton Museum K.3 Alice in Wonderland. Oil painting by George Dunlop Leslie, c1879 K.4a–f Text in the One Minute Experience app, about the painting Gabrielle, Niece of the Artist by Glyn Philpot K.5 Advertisement for the Your Stories exhibition by NextGame and the National Museum in Belgrade L.1 Conversation starter cards in the exhibition Danish Golden Age – Word-class art between disasters L.2 Tables in the Anna Ancher exhibition, showing the stacks of sheets used for the visitors’ Questions for Anna Ancher L.3 Close-up of the question and answer sheets in the Anna Ancher exhibition M.1 A science slam in the Museum of Natural History Berlin N.1 Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University N.2 Every staff member, trustee, and partner was involved in the process N.3 New ‘Identity Model’ for the Academy of Natural Sciences P.1 The business model P.2 The scale of the challenge P.3 Defining the Vision P.4 A common purpose – focusing on the ‘sweet spot’ where roles intersect P.5 The five key areas of audience activity P.6 Game of Thrones Tapestry, first panel

xi

161 176 177 197 199 201 215 216 216 217 218 219 220 226 227 229 231 237 244 245 246 253 267 268 271 275 276 279 281 282 284

xii

P.7 P.8

Figures

Game of Thrones Tapestry Bob Johnston, Basket Weaver, in his workshop at the Ulster Folk Museum P.9 Replica of the Game of Thrones throne created by Bob Johnston on display at the Hotel de Doyen in Bayeux P.10 The Troubles and Beyond Gallery

285 286 288 289

CONTRIBUTORS

Johannes C. Bernhardt is Digital Manager at the Baden State Museum and pre-

viously led the Creative Collections project, which is dedicated to the participative development of digital concepts and the integration of the museum in the culture of digitality. Daniel Brown is a specialist for digital products, responsible for strategies and

participation dynamics in both startups and corporates. He also provides his skills and expertise to museums and cultural institutions. Tony Butler is Executive Director of Derby Museums. He was previously Director of the Museum of East Anglian Life, where he also founded the Happy Museum Project. Deirdre Carasso was appointed Director of The Stedelijk Museum Schiedam in

2016. Previously she worked in Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, first as head of education, public programmes and education, later as director of development. Scott Cooper has been President and Chief Executive Officer of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University since December 2017. Prior to that he was the Vice President of Collections, Knowledge and Engagement at the Royal British Columbia Museum. Elizabeth Crooke is Professor of Heritage and Museum Studies, Ulster Univer-

sity, where she works closely with the museum sector, with a particular involvement in community engagement.

xiv

Contributors

Duncan Dornan was appointed Head of Museums and Collections at Glasgow

Life in 2013. Glasgow Museums runs Glasgow Life’s nine civic museums, which welcomed more than 4,000,000 visits in 2019–20. Kirsten Drotner is Professor of Media Studies, University of Southern Denmark, where she directs R&D work with the museum sector, with a particular focus on communication for cultural citizenship. Lina Eklund is Lector in Human Computer Interaction at Uppsala University,

Sweden, where she works on digital sociality, with a particular focus on museums and games. Hsiao-Te Hsu is the Chief Curator of the Department of Education, Exhibition

and Information Services at the National Palace Museum, Taipei and specialises in educational outreach, digital content development, and law and business management. Jenny Kidd is Reader in Digital Culture at Cardiff University. She works in close collaboration with colleagues in the cultural and creative industries, in particular on digital projects. Anders Sundnes Løvlie is Associate Professor at the IT University of Copenha-

gen and works with experience design, play, and media. He was coordinator for the Gift project (gifting.digital). Mark O’Neill worked in museums in Glasgow for 30 years, including as head

of service. He is now Chair of the Jury of the European Museum of the Year Award. Rebecca O’Neill is Project Coordinator for Wikimedia Community Ireland,

working closely with cultural and educational organisations, drawing on her experience of working in the museum sector and doctoral research. Paulina Rajkowska is a PhD student at Uppsala University. She is a lecturer

teaching within the fields of HCI, Social Media and Communication Studies. Mette Houlberg Rung is an art interpreter and researcher at Statens Museum for

Kunst (National Gallery of Denmark) in Copenhagen, Denmark. Karin Ryding is a PhD fellow at the IT University of Copenhagen and works on play design with a particular focus on performativity, relationality, and affect. Catrien Schreuder was appointed head of collections and exhibitions of the Ste-

delijk Museum Schiedam in November 2018. She is an art historian specializing

Contributors xv

in postwar Dutch art. She has worked in museums for more than 20 years, always in roles tasked with broadening audiences. Philipp Schrögel is a research scientist at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.

Besides being a science communication researcher, he also is the organizer and moderator of several science slam events in Germany. Pete Seaman is Associate Director at Glasgow Centre for Population Health, a

cross-sector organisation that works to generate evidence, insight, and support for the development of new approaches to improve health and reduce inequality. Dorien Theuns has been working for the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam since the

start of 2019. As city programmer, she works with individuals and organizations from Schiedam to make the museum more of/by/for all. Kathryn Thomson has been Chief Executive of National Museums NI since March 2016. Prior to that she was Chief Operating Officer at Tourism NI for 11 years. Merel van der Vaart is city history curator at the Stedelijk Museum, Schiedam since the start of 2019 and is pursuing her PhD at the Amsterdam School for Heritage, Memory and Material Culture, University of Amsterdam. Amongst other posts, she worked previously as associate curator of public history at the Science Museum, London. Annika Waern is Professor in Human Computer Interaction at Uppsala Univer-

sity, Sweden, where she works on design for embodied play and playfulness over a number of domains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I must thank the contributors who generously gave of their time and expertise – both in developing their papers and for commenting on my work. Their input has transformed the book. I wish also to thank Daisy Li for her invaluable support in translating Hsiao-Te Hsu’s paper into English and answering my related queries. I am grateful to those in recent years who have invited me to present papers, allowing me to test my ideas as they developed, including the Alberta Museums Association; the Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe; the Bundesakademie fur Kulturelle Bildung, Wolfenbüttel; the Commonwealth Association of Museums; the German Association for Education in Museums; Hamburg Museums; the Irish Museums Association; the Leibniz Foundation, Berlin; National Museums Northern Ireland; the National Museum of Culture, Oslo; the Horizon 2020 funded ‘Reach’ Project; the Slovenian Museums Association; and the Tretyakov Art Gallery and Technical University, Moscow. I am fortunate that the following kindly read and commented on much of my content: Katja Gondert, coordinator on behalf of NORDMETALL Stiftung of the Hamburg ‘Relevant Museum’ Audience Development project. Andreas Grünewald of the Bundesakademie fur Kulturelle Bildung, Wolfenbüttel. Danielle O’Donovan, Programmme Manager, Nano Nagle Place, Cork. Nicole Scheda, Head of LVR-Industriemuseum Gesenkschmiede Hendrichs, Solingen. Chris Reynolds of Nottingham Trent University and William Blair, Director of Collections, National Museums Northern Ireland, for involving me in the work of the Ulster Museum.

Acknowledgements xvii

Heidi Lowther of Routledge for her enthusiasm for the book and for gently steering me though the process. Ramachandran Vijayaraghavan and his colleagues at Apex CoVantage for their support throughout the production process. I am grateful to my university colleagues Stuart Burch and Deborah Skinner for their practical and creative support – and for ‘being there’ for me. My wife, Carolyn, has again good-humouredly put up with my obsessiveness while writing the book. Throughout the book I have tried to credit all those whose work I have consulted or adapted over the past 45 years, or who have inspired my own thinking. If I have missed anyone, it is by accident. Finally, my thanks go to organiser JD, Frankie Hibbins and my fellow members of the Bridge4 Parkinson’s Disease gym group in Leicester – your comradeship and support really matters.

PREFACE

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us . . . ( Dickens, 1859: 1)

As Charles Dickens could have said, it is the best of times yet also the worst of times to work in museums. It is the best of times because we have become more outwards-focused, while also having opportunities to engage our audiences in ways that our predecessors could only have dreamed of. It is the worst of times, however, for those museums that are failing to keep up with societal change and/ or are under financial pressure, putting their very survival at stake and many jobs at risk. And the reason for the constant turbulence is ‘Change’. Our world and thus our publics are in a constant state of evolution. Museums, those supposed symbols of continuity, are being buffeted from all sides. Change is a constant; it is everywhere and it is inevitable, for museums as for the rest of society. And, as everywhere else, change brings challenges for our sector – not least knowing that society will move on whether or not museums move with it. And change today was already happening at a faster rate than ever before. Then came the COVID19 pandemic, which sped up things even more and has had a dramatic impact on the museum sector, adding to the challenges faced. But challenges bring opportunities as well as threats. This book sets out both to explore and to suggest some ways forward. There will, of course, never be a single answer. The book is the third and final element in what has turned out to be a trilogy exploring the evolution of interpretive purpose and practice in the audiencecentred museum, following in the footsteps of The Engaging Museum (2005) and Transforming Museums in the 21st Century (2012), both published by Routledge.

Preface

xix

It comes as the culmination of my 45-year career working in and with museums. Re-reading the first book, I find that most of my thinking has remained the same. I believe more strongly than ever in access for all and the need and responsibility to diversify museum audiences to ref lect wider society. I continue to promote the museum visit as a holistic experience. Like all interpreters, I remain committed to an approach based on direct audience participation leading to learning. I am still convinced that museums are defined by their collections, but what matters most is what we do with them. I still seek to combine innovative practice with academic underpinning. From the second book, I continue to focus on turning ‘visitors’ into ‘users’, to ref lect a move away from the one-off visit to sustained engagement, and the need for a new relationship between the museum, its users, and its local communities based on a partnership of equals sharing a journey. What I have learned, however, is that my practice must constantly evolve in response to the changes taking place in society. So in this third – and final – book I try to rise above the day-to-day challenges facing museums to explore the actions we can and should take to retain responsibility for our own foreseeable future. Unlike my previous books, I also recognised that it was not a text I could produce on my own. The book includes 15 contributed chapters, involving 24 authors. I feel fortunate, honoured, and grateful that so many from both within and outside the sector so willingly shared their ideas and experiences. The book is transformed as a result. Graham Black, July 2020

Reference Dickens, C. (1859) A Tale of Two Cities, London: Chapman & Hall

INTRODUCTION The challenge of change

Change, participation, and an underpinning philosophy Two words and an underpinning philosophy provide the foundation for this book. The words are ‘change’ and ‘participation’. The underpinning philosophy is defined by Scott Cooper in his chapter: what the commercial sector often practices, and natural history museums always preach – “it is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most responsive to change.” Scott Cooper, referencing a quote itself adapted from Charles Darwin The Oxford English Dictionary (OED, 2010) defines the verb ‘to change’ as ‘the process of replacing something with something new or different’. The word is also a noun, ‘the act or result of something becoming different’. ‘Participation’ is ‘the act of taking part in an activity or event’ (OED, 2010). But the reality for both words is much more complex. ‘Change’ cannot exist on its own – we need to know why, from what to what, for whom, how do you make it happen, what difference will it make, what does it mean for us – and none of these questions is easy to answer. It is no surprise, therefore, that ‘The Challenge of Change’ is a term beloved by management gurus. Type it into Google and you will get 1,560,000,000 results in 0.68 seconds. From this, one can safely deduce that museums are not alone in facing the issue. ‘Participation’ is portrayed in this book, and across the museum sector, as part of the solution to the urgent need for change. But, beware: it is one of those words – ‘community’ is another – designed to elicit a warm-glow, feel-good,

2

Introduction

happy mood rather than stimulate analysis of its meaning or practice. And the term has a complex recent history. It was used regularly by social campaigners in the 1960s and 1970s – concerned with empowering people through inclusion in the political decision-making process (Carpentier, 2011: 14). The original political meaning gained fresh relevance for museums across the Western world in the 1990s, as they established new roles for themselves as sites of social action. As a result, museum professionals tend to associate the term with community engagement – personified in the work of Nina Simon (e.g. 2010). However, this is only a part of the story. The term is ‘an infinitely malleable concept, “participation” can be used to evoke – and to signify – almost anything that involves people’ (Cornwall, 2008: 269). One website (Nonformality.org, 2012) outlines 36 separate models of participation. And, when you look at current museum practice, there are at least ten inter-related strands, introduced in Box 0.1. Each of these is complex in its own right. For example, in strand one, there is a world of difference between the right to participate and equality of opportunity to participate. This book explores 2–10, and it is underpinned by the Universal Declaration.

Box 0.1

Aspects of participation related to museums

1 Participative rights: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27 – ‘the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the community’ 2 Participative environment and exhibits in displays: open-ended involvement 3 Participative learning: learning through social interaction and active engagement 4 Contributing content: from user-generated content to co-creation 5 Participatory cultures and practice: creative collaboration, sharing expertise, supporting each other 6 Researching and documenting collections: e.g. tagging, community collecting 7 Community engagement: working with local communities as equal partners 8 Digital Social Innovation: bringing together museums, digitality and the social challenges facing modern society 9 Participation through volunteering: developing volunteering opportunities that meet the needs of individuals, communities, and partner organisations 10 Participative governance: direct user involvement in defining the ethos and future direction of the museum.

To further complicate matters, most of the time this book uses the adjectival form ‘participative’ rather than ‘participatory’ to ref lect this broad range of definitions rather than focus largely on community engagement. ‘Participatory’ is

Introduction

3

used when the emphasis is on community engagement, or when referencing, for example, ‘participatory cultures’ (see Chapter 2).

Acknowledging the problem The first step along the road to change is to recognise that a problem exists and must be addressed. The constant problem for museums, as institutions of continuity and longevity, is that people and societies change. Museums are, fundamentally, followers. While communicating a sense of permanence, they have actually had to renew themselves constantly as society has evolved, continuing to marry their goals both with those of their political masters and funders, and with the changing expectations of the audiences and communities they have sought to serve. Yet, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, many of today’s museum professionals had failed to face up to the extent to which the modern world and, therefore, their audiences were changing. They were comfortable with the status quo and in dealing with the past but seemed to find present uncertainties and future unknowns much more difficult to come to terms with. For others, there was a deep loss of confidence as their ideas of what museums should be and do were challenged by the different attitudes and expectations of new generations and communities. Most had still to fully grasp the impact of the digital revolution or of the rapid increase in population diversity across Western society. Fundamentally, museums were old-fashioned institutions struggling to come to terms with a new, rapidly transforming, world. But the more than 100 days of enforced lockdown, the global nature of the pandemic, the mad rush to digital – and then the huge surge in support for the Black Lives Matter movement following the death of George Floyd at police hands in Minneapolis – must surely have convinced most working in the sector that, pandemic or no pandemic, museums need fundamental change if they are to remain relevant to a society that is now developing at web speed, socially/ culturally and digitally. As Scott Cooper says in his chapter, the world will continue to move on whether or not museums move with it. However, responding effectively requires a new mind-set, visionary leadership, a transformation of the core museum experience, and a related restructuring of the museum as an organisation. It will not happen without whole-hearted commitment by everyone involved, but there is no alternative, and no hiding place, if museums are to have a future. This book calls on the sector to face up to its challenges, first by acknowledging them and then by turning them into opportunities. It argues that historic museum roles remain unchanged. The challenges, as always, lie in museum relationships with and relevance to their publics – and their funders. In response, the book proposes a path that seeks to retain existing audiences but also actively engages a much wider segment of society than most museums currently attract. The ambition should be for steady but radical evolution, NOT sudden ‘big bang’ change. What will transform museums will be a combination of clear vision,

4

Introduction

long-term commitment and ‘the painstaking trial-and-error work of discovery, adaptation and improvement that slowly turns an idea into a fact’ (Colvile, 2020: 11). We do not need a constant search for the new. We are a collaborative profession. We can draw hugely from each other’s work and ideas, adapting and refining them to the specific requirements of our individual institutions. But, to make this happen, we need a senior management confident enough in itself to both give its staff freedom to think, experiment, make mistakes and learn from them, and involve our users and communities in the process. There is no single answer but, rather, as Scott Cooper puts it, ‘many possible solutions to a complex ecology of challenges’. The ways forward will be as diverse as the museums sector itself and as the demands of society at large. As such, the book could not be single-voiced. Alongside my text, 24 fellow contributors, from both within and outside the sector, have generously shared their ideas and experiences across a thought-provoking 15 chapters. My chapters focus primarily on the experience of museums in the UK and USA – ref lecting my own understanding, the sheer scale of publications on museums in those two countries, and, crucially, the impact of substantial cuts in public funding in them. Some balance is provided by my fellow contributors, who bring on board aspects of the museum experience in Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Taiwan. There is no attempt to provide comprehensive coverage – rather, the ambition is to provide a vibrant f lavour of the remarkable activity taking place in and around museums today. There is, of course, a sting in the tail – if museums do not rise to the challenges, as both Anders Sundnes Løvlie and his colleagues and Rebecca O’Neill demonstrate in their chapters, people can and will do things for themselves. The remainder of this introduction looks at key challenges, considers alternative futures, and then asks, gently, where do we go from here. The book itself is in four sections, each with a chapter or chapters by me, followed by those of the other contributors.

Facing up to the challenges Museums are facing a perfect storm of challenges, including justifiable accusations of elitism; an inability to meet the expectations of new generations of their core audience; remaining peripheral to most people’s lives; failure to change content to bring people back; growing competition; a failure to ref lect the diversity of contemporary society; and substantial cuts in public revenue funding – all calling into question their ability to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world.

Elitism By focusing largely on white, well-educated baby-boomer professionals as their core audience – whether local or tourist – museums have continued to be dominated by a social elite:

Introduction

5

[In the UK] . . . high socio-economic background, university-level educational attainment and a professional occupation are still the most reliable predictors of high levels of engagement and participation in a wide range of cultural activities. . . . The higher social groups accounted for 87% of all museum visits, the lower social groups for only 13%. Warwick Commission (2015: 33 and 34) In the UK, the two most highly culturally engaged groups account for only 15% of the general population and tend to be of higher socio-economic status ( Warwick Commission, 2015: 33). The USA equivalent is 16%, as regular users of cultural organisations (Dilenschneider, 2019a).

Failure to match the expectations of new generations of their core audience The baby boomer generation is ageing. Their inf luence on museums is in slow decline. As society changes, the existing museum offer (open when most people are at work or school; largely static, passive displays; few events; lack of opportunities to contribute or to personalise collections; little contact with staff; etc.) is increasingly at odds with the expectations of the next generations of professional class audiences. The Millennials (born 1981–1996) and Generation Z (born since 1997) were the future once, now they are the present. They are not enthused by the traditionally didactic museum display approach: ‘for a constituency accustomed to accessing knowledge in seconds through their phones the passive, didactic approach of most museum displays holds little appeal’ (Saha, 2019). And neither generation is using museums as loyally as their predecessors: We do not have any proof yet that the new generation of millennials is really going to fulfil the same role [as the baby-boomers] and be as engaged in our institution. We have a hard enough time getting them to come in the first place, so how do we know they will sustain us in the future. Fantoni (2016: no page number) The risk is of ‘negative substitution’, where more of the core audiences are leaving museums than new ones are arriving. It is ‘taking place because the market is growing more diverse, while perceptions of cultural organizations as being places for a certain kind of person have remained largely static’ (Dilenschneider, 2017). In 2019, she noted that 67% of cultural organisations in the USA reported flat or falling attendance since 2009, despite a 7% growth in population over that period (Dilenschneider, 2019b)

Peripheral to most people’s lives And, as Box 0.2 demonstrates for the UK, museums remain peripheral to most people’s lives, with nearly 80% hardly if ever using museums and lack of interest the main reason for not visiting (Aust and Vine, 2007).

6

Introduction

Box 0.2

Museums remain peripheral to people’s lives

UK: 49.5% had not attended in last year 28.9% attend once or twice a year 16.6% attend 3–4 times a year 4.1% attend monthly 0.5% attend weekly Source: after DDCMS, 2019: 18

Failure to change content to bring audiences back And, having bought into the production values pushed by commercial design companies, many museums find themselves with expensive displays that linger on long after their sell-by date because they are too costly to replace – reinforcing a widespread belief amongst the public that museum content never changes. This supports the one-off visit, where even regular museum goers feel they have ‘done’ a specific museum and have no reason to return.

Growing competition What is more, in this already difficult environment, audiences are increasingly fragmented, with competition for their scarce leisure time fiercer than ever. If they do not get what they want from museums, there are plenty of other choices, and many of our competitors are better at serving their audiences than museums are.

Failure to match the diversity of contemporary society Meanwhile, populations across Western society are becoming more diverse, but most museum audiences are not. Unless the sector does something about it urgently – and at scale – museum audiences will be increasingly less diverse than the population at large, the sector will serve an ‘ever-shrinking fragment of society’ (AAM, 2010: 5), and their relevance to society as a whole will be more frequently questioned. And continuing relevance is the most important challenge of all. Potential audiences and local communities will not engage with the museum unless they feel it is relevant to their lives. But relevance, like society at large, is in a state of constant evolution – meaning each new generation of museum staff must define their own understanding of what the term means – and all depends on whose concept of relevance. To the museum profession, it tends to be institution driven, defined by the mission the museum sets for itself. But, to the museum audience, relevance will be based on the goals of the user rather than those of the museum.

Introduction

7

To remain relevant, people must continue to value the collections museums hold and the experience of museum visiting, and communities must value their relationships with museums because it matters to them and, as a result, they feel valued in turn. Only then will people be motivated to engage, to take part, to immerse themselves – no longer visitors but part of the museum community. But, as Kathryn Thomson points out in her chapter, we currently have a widening ‘relevance gap’ between how museums perceive their position and how the public views them.

Funding To make matters worse, museums are seeing severe reductions in public spending sitting alongside the increasing demands being placed on the sector. This has been felt most strongly in the UK and USA, where publicly funded museums have faced substantial and ongoing public sector revenue cuts, leading to a focus on survival and a search for alternative sources of income generation rather than on social impact or planning for the future. In the UK, museums have faced government pressure to follow the American model of limited public revenue support sitting alongside income from fund-raising, endowments, donations, sponsorship, and commercial activity, with directors forced to become increasingly entrepreneurial. When Tony Butler became Executive Director of Derby Museums Trust in 2014, a medium-sized museums service in the East Midlands of England, some 97% of their income came from two sources, Derby City Council and the non-governmental Arts Council England. By 2018, revenue funding from the city council had fallen by 40%, with cuts continuing, while earned income had increased by then to 27% of revenue (Butler and Fogarty, 2020: 197). But this is not a ref lection of a switch from public service to capitalism, red in tooth and claw. Rather it is much more a case of: ‘you can’t be relevant to your community if you are not financially sustainable’ (Winesmith, quoted in Butler and Fogarty, 2020: 197). Museums continue to see themselves as there to serve society, a view shared by the public at large. What is more, the funding that is provided comes with growing demands. In the UK, both local authorities and non-governmental funding bodies such as Arts Council England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund use their grant-giving powers to push museums to become more outward-focused and to develop agendas for audience diversification and social impact – but see Chapter 3 for what this has meant in practice. In the USA, the top 2–3% of arts institutions continue to receive half of the available philanthropic giving (Winesmith, quoted in Cohen and Nelson, 2020: 185). But, crucially, this giving has moved away from a focus on the art collection to an expectation of social impact and the role the institutions play in their local communities. In this, Cohen references the Social Return on Investment (SORI) – relating to values not ref lected in financial statements, for example in community or environmental impacts, in Cohen’s case, ‘if I give you X number of resources or dollars, I will see certain kinds of shifts’ (Cohen and Nelson, 2020: 185–186).

8

Introduction

Reductions in public funding alongside a growing emphasis on the social role of museums does not relate solely to the UK and USA. There was international recognition by the late 1970s, amongst public funding bodies, that ‘If museums were to fail to respond to social change and to reflect it, they would indeed cease to justify public support’ (Hudson, 1977). From Europe to Australia, governments are increasingly expecting museums to make ‘a positive difference’ through social impact (Kelly, 2006; Scott, 2015). In 2016, a report to the European parliament noted: Focusing on the audience has brought a fundamental change to the philosophy and methodology of museums. It has created openness to the needs of society. Eccles (2016: 2.12, p. 6) At the same time: Over the last few years, the entire cultural sector, including libraries and museums, has been seriously affected by economic austerity in Europe. Many institutions have faced reductions in public funding. Eccles (2016: 3.42, p. 10) Thus, despite cuts in revenue funding, there is a growing expectation amongst public sector funders, and sponsors, that museums must actively respond to social change. In Hamburg, for example, the city authorities and sponsor NORDMETALL Stiftung are collaborating on the Relevant Museum Project, with a shared ambition to diversify audiences to the city’s museums and strengthen their relevance as inspiring and engaging spaces for their communities. What had originally started in 2019 with a conference on audience focused strategies, with best practice cases from the UK, at which I was fortunate to be asked to speak, has been transformed into a co-creative programme encouraging cross-institutional and cross-departmental formats. Accelerated by COVID-19 challenges, the Hamburg-based foundation has put the urge for change within the museum sector at the core of its arts funding strategy by establishing and supporting networks, while constantly adapting in an agile approach (Katja Gondert pers. comm – see: www.nordmetall-stiftung.de/projekte/das-relevante-museum/). The chapter in this book by Merel van der Vaart et al shows an expectation of broader audiences in return for public funding in the Netherlands. Examples can be found across Europe (see, for example, Bodo et al., 2009). Overall, if you are losing relevance to your core audience, leaving it at risk of slipping away, and there is fierce competition for those you still have; if you are failing to find a sustainable alternative audience; if you have not engaged at scale with the increasingly diverse communities that surround you; and if your main funders are questioning your value to society – you have problems that need to be addressed urgently. There is little choice but to recognise that museums must change radically in response to contemporary society’s demands or they will lose their audiences and

Introduction

9

funding and die: ‘a threat that was unimaginable a decade ago but is now a reality for many museums’ (Foley and Trinkley, 2014: 125).

Alternative futures Museums are complex, living organisms. The transformation required in response to these problems will be neither simple nor straightforward. Like Smith (2012), we can ask, ‘What would a museum built from the ground up for speed and agility, rather than stability and longevity, look like?’ But if you believe in the timelessness of the core roles and qualities of museums – which include stability and longevity – you cannot begin afresh (see Scott Cooper’s discussion of this). The need is not for revolution but for speedier evolution, based on clarity of ambition and vision. The problem is that we have overlapping and at times conf licting visions of the future museum, illustrated in Figure 0.1, introduced here and explored in depth through the course of the book.

FIGURE 0.1

Museum Futures.

The status quo museum To most museum professionals, including myself, the core roles and responsibilities of public museums have remained constant: 1

2

3 4

The collections jointly held by museums together represent the physical and cultural memory of humankind and of the world we live in – inadequate and deeply f lawed, but all we have. Museums care for these collections in perpetuity on behalf of the whole of humanity. Museums research those collections and ensure access for all to them and to what we know about them. Through this, everyone gains a greater understanding of the world we live in, and our place in it. As educational institutions, museums use their unique qualities to make a meaning ful difference to people’s lives. These functions sit alongside expectations specific to individual institutions. Marrying the general to the specific gives each museum its uniqueness and brings vibrancy to the sector.

Introduction

10

These roles are reinforced by a timeless group of qualities ascribed to museums and the museum experience, outlined in Box 0.3:

Box 0.3

Timeless qualities of museums

Responsibility: for collections held on behalf of the public at large Longevity: the museum cares for its collections in perpetuity Authenticity: its collections are the ‘real thing’ Accessibility: physical and intellectual access to its collections and research Mixed audience: open to all to share same museum space and experience Educational: help people improve their lives through developing their cultural capital, creativity, skills, etc. Trustworthiness and Integrity: the museum behaves honestly and the public trusts the accuracy of what the museum says Transparency: proves its integrity by being transparent in all that it does Authority: centre of expertise on its collections and its field Relevance: duty to constantly evolve to remain relevant to society it serves

And these, in turn, have substantial support from the public, both museum users and non-users. A USA survey of public opinion carried out on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums, outlined in Box 0.4, demonstrates the high value that the public places in museums.

Box 0.4

USA public opinion on museums

 

Visitors

Non-visitors

Believe in value of museums Museums as educational experiences for all Museums as economic engines in communities

90% 99.5% 95%

82% 87% 89%

Source: after AAM (2018)

A broader survey of public opinion on cultural heritage, across the European Union found that: More than eight in ten (84%) think cultural heritage is important to them personally. The same proportion of respondents (84%) think cultural

Introduction

11

heritage is important for their local community, 87% think it is important for their region and 91% think cultural heritage is important for their country. TNS Opinion and Social (2017: 4) However, both these surveys involve the public answering set questions, limiting their value. An attitudes survey, based on a series of day-long deliberative workshops and with a representative sample of the public, and carried out on behalf of the UK Museums Association in 2013, is much more interesting. It revealed a: consistent perception of museums’ current and essential purposes, and museums ‘spreading themselves too thinly’ is a concern. There is strong feeling that museums should concern themselves with what they are good at first and foremost. This stems from the idea that taking on additional purposes may undermine the essential purposes for which museums are presently revered. Britain Thinks (2013: 3) The survey provides a clear picture of what people saw as essential, high priority and low priority roles, outlined in Box 0.5. And first impressions of the survey suggest that the public strongly believed that any additional objectives should relate to the essential purposes and not undermine them. In particular, they expressed concern that museums were spreading themselves too thinly, putting their essential roles at risk, and tackling elements for which they were not necessarily best suited. The priorities defined in this study were supported by a UK survey of public attitudes to arts and culture in general. This found that ‘providing education’ was considered the main way the arts and culture contributed to their personal lives, ‘providing entertainment’ was the main way they supported life in Britain, and ‘supporting tourism’ was the most important goal for any government investment in the arts (ComRes, 2015: 7). Recognition of the historic roles and qualities of museums, the apparent results of public attitudes surveys, and the pressure museums face to both cut costs and increase income generation all tend to favour the status quo. But, as already discussed earlier, this is the one vision of the future museum that cannot succeed. While historic roles and qualities have not changed, society has. Continued relevance does not depend on changing the roles but in finding new ways to apply them in contemporary society. To maintain museums as they are is to commit institutional suicide. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Britain Thinks report caused great concern amongst those who were trying to re-focus museums as inclusive sites of social action. This is ref lected in a lively webchat which reached the conclusion that UK museums had failed to make people aware of the importance of this work (Museums Association, 2013). The response to the report and to the webchat led to the Association’s Museums Change Lives campaign ( Museums Association, 2017 – new edition, 1st edition 2013).

Introduction

12

And there is strong evidence that the surveys presented an overly narrow view of public attitudes – for example, that the public is not against museum involvement in inherently political issues – see Elizabeth Crooke’s chapter, for example.

Box 0.5

UK public’s view on what museums are for

Essential roles • • •

Care and preservation of heritage Holding collections and mounting displays Creating knowledge for and about society

High priority • •

Promoting economic growth through tourism, investment, and regeneration Facilitating individual development through education, stimulation, and building skills Promote happiness and wellbeing

•

Low priority • • •

Fostering a sense of community Helping the vulnerable Protecting the environment

Purposes challenged by public • • •

Providing a forum for debate Promoting social justice and human rights Promoting a subjective/political viewpoint

Source: after Britain Thinks (2013: 4–6)

Museum as leisure/tourist destination This is a role initially thrust upon museums by both their political masters and public demand, but then enthusiastically supported within the sector as both a means of providing justification for public funding and as a source of income generation. It is a role that continues to be heavily supported by the public, as the surveys referenced earlier demonstrate. And, unsurprisingly, many of the tourists who f lock to museums are the core museum audience on holiday. The impact of heritage tourism on museums is discussed in Chapter 1. The conflicting demands of tourism and community engagement are discussed in Chapter 3.

Introduction

13

The inclusive museum The inclusive museum reaches out beyond its walls to engage individuals and communities who have previously seen museums as ‘not for them’ – demonstrating its relevance to the increasingly diverse communities it serves. It has primary ambitions to both achieve an audience that, in its diversity, matches wider society and to improve people’s lives. In practice, the arts sector in the UK, including museums, has gone beyond prioritising audience diversity to focus on the concept of ‘Value’ – itself ‘a tricky concept’ (Scott, 2015: 105), with ‘public value’ defined as making ‘a positive difference in the individual and collective lives of citizens’ (Moore and Moore, 2005: 17, quoted in Scott, 2015: 108). A museum that focuses on its relevance to contemporary society will place people and communities at the heart of what it does – and will use its unique qualities to touch people’s lives in the present and seek to make a meaningful difference to individuals, to families, to communities, and to society at large. The ability of museums to achieve these ambitions at scale, across society, is discussed in Chapter 3.

The activist museum The Activist Museum reaches outwards to take a pro-active role in response to societal challenges. Here we see the museum abandoning its so-called neutrality to confront inequalities, injustices, and social and environmental crises head-on – issues which not long ago would have been considered inappropriately political. The potential roles of the activist museum are discussed in Chapter 4.

The participative museum On a pedantic note, I use ‘participative’ rather than ‘participatory’ to distinguish it from a focus largely on community engagement. As discussed above, there are at least ten aspects of the term ‘participation’ ref lected in museums. The participative museum brings all the elements of museum futures together. It sees the established museum experience model transformed into one where participation is part of the culture of the organisation, in response to a public that is increasingly unwilling to accept a passive role. It ref lects the expectations of a consumer society and the impact of the digital revolution and other factors on the attitudes and expectations of people at large. Museum audiences will see the traditional didactic display replaced by exhibitions and activities that motivate them to engage, take part, immerse themselves in content – in other words, to participate – because they want to be involved. People will also see the museum re-imagined as a social space, somewhere they would like to go back to – a space they can inhabit and invest in, feeling at home there. All of this will attract a more diverse audience.

14

Introduction

But the change in culture will also ref lect a wider transformation of the museum as an organisation into one, internally, of dispersed leadership and teamworking and, externally, of an outward-facing institution proactively seeking to partner its local communities. Societal change, including the impact of consumerism, generational shift, and growing diversity, is discussed in Chapter 1; the digital revolution in Chapter 2; and the development of the participative museum experience in chapters five, six, and seven. But the whole of the book is about the potential of the participative museum.

Concluding thoughts: where do we go from here? Lost tourist driver to Irish farmer (leaning on field gate): “Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to there.” Irish farmer (still leaning on gate): “Sure, if I wanted to get to there, I wouldn’t start from here.” This gentle Irish humour (and I consider myself both gentle and Irish) sums up the dilemma facing all of us who work in or with museums today. We know our institutions must change. We even have a rough idea of where we need to get to – where each museum fits into the alternative futures. As Chapter 3 will discuss, there are at least three areas of potential conf lict here – between core and more diverse audiences, between traditional and social roles, and between engaging diverse audiences and generating income as leisure and tourism destinations. And underpinning these is a much more fundamental struggle, a ‘tale of two visions’, outlined in Box 0.6, and based on Heimans and Timms (2018), who contrast ‘Old Power’, which is leader-driven, jealously guarded, closed, and inaccessible, with ‘New Power’, which is open, participative, and peer-driven. Thus, for museums, on the one hand sits ‘old power’ institutions – hierarchical, divided into departmental silos, inward-looking, single-voiced – content to maintain the status quo. On the other, we can see a ‘new power’ vision of a collaborative, outward-facing, inclusive, polyvocal, participative museum that sets out to apply its core roles and qualities to encompass the expectations of contemporary society. In reality, change is inevitable – the real battle will be between those who try to keep it to a minimum and those who wholeheartedly welcome the opportunities that societal change offers. It is the latter museums that will thrive in the long term. Most museum professionals I meet are fully aware of the need for radical change, yet little has happened – there is a big difference between knowing and

Introduction

Box 0.6 futures

15

‘A tale of two visions’: alternative museum

The ‘Old Power’ inward-looking museum

The ‘New Power’ confident, outward-facing museum

Hierarchical, controlling

Collaborative, democratic, team-driven, dispersed decision making, sharing power within and beyond the museum Porous, reaching out, global Activist Comprehensive, continuing research on users and non-users ‘Trust’ is two-way – public trusts museum and museum trusts public Working in partnership with users and communities Partnered professional and amateur Agile, fast-moving, cheap, frequent events programming, ‘always something new’

Enclosed, inward-looking ‘Neutral’ Limited, largely quantitative visitor research Retain ‘trust’ of public Stand-alone – strict boundary between institution and users Professional Static, expensive, exhibitiondominant, slow to change, operationally rigid Prioritising collections, with museum as gatekeeper Elitist – focus on curatorial ‘excellence’ and the single voice of authority On-site Focused on the visit Traditional museum offer – read, listen, contemplate, didactic Interactive, To/For Content provider Didactic content delivery Museum in control of visit Dull environment

Prioritising use of collections with audience, including open access Inclusive – focus on ensuring relevance to whole of society and incorporating diverse voices, underpinned by continuing expertise On-site, online, and mobile Focused on engagement across mediums Expectation of active engagement, involvement of social media, multiple perspectives, etc. Participative, With/By Content provider + platform Focus on learning through social interaction Personalised experience Immersive, welcoming environment

Source: built on Scarff (2019)

doing something about it. We have long-established institutions in which the old ways are mentally and structurally embedded. They are exceptionally hard to transform. But, as the remainder of this book makes very clear, change is both essential and urgent. Museums can either act now, pro-actively, or wait to have it forced upon them. I hope this book helps start many journeys.

16

Introduction

References AAM (2010) Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Demographic-Change-and-the-Future-of-Museums.pdf AAM (2018) Museums and Public Opinion, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ Museums-Public-Opinion-FINAL.pdf Aust, R. and Vine, L. (eds) (2007) Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport, Annual Report 2005/6, London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport Bodo, S., Gibbs, K. and Sani, M. (2009) Museums as Places for Intercultural Dialogue, Selected Practices from Europe, the MAP for ID Project, UNESCO, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/service/Handbook_MAPforID_EN.pdf Britain Thinks (2013) Public Perceptions of – And Attitudes to – The Purposes of Museums in Society, London: Britain Thinks, for UK Museums Association, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=954916 Butler, T. and Fogarty, L. (2020) Conversation 11: Tony Butler + Lori Fogarty, in Winesmith, K. and Anderson, S. (eds) The Digital Future of Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 189–205 Carpentier, N. (2011) Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle, Bristol: Intellect Books Cohen, A. and Nelson, T. (2020) Conversation 10: Arthur Cohen + Tonya Nelson, in Winesmith, K. and Anderson, S. (eds) The Digital Future of Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 172–188 Colvile, R. (2020) Forget the Lightbulb Moments: Review of Matt Ridley (2020) ‘How Innovation Works’, The Times, Saturday Review, 13 June 2020, p. 11 ComRes (2015) Arts Council England Public Surveys: A Report for Arts Council England, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/stakeholder-focuspublic-surveys-2015 Cornwall, A. (2008) Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, Meanings and Practices, Community Development Journal,43(3), July, pp. 269–283 Dilenschneider, C. (2017) Negative Substitution: Why Cultural Organisations Must Better Engage New Audiences FAST, posted on 25/01/2017, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www. colleendilen.com/2017/01/25/negative-substitution-why-cultural-organizationsmust-better-engage-new-audiences-fast-data/ Dilenschneider, C. (2019a) Active Visitors: Who Currently Attends Cultural Organisations?, posted on 23/01/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.colleendilen.com/2019/ 01/23/active-visitors-currently-attends-cultural-organizations-data/ Dilenschneider, C. (2019b) Population Up, Cultural Organisation Attendance Down. What Gives?, accessed on 30/06/2030 at: www.colleendilen.com/2019/02/27/populationup-cultural-organization-attendance-down-what-gives-data/ Eccles, D. (2016) The Libraries and Museums of Europe in Times of Change, Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report Doc. 13984, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS 5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yM jMwOCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL3NlbWFudGljcGFjZS5uZXQvWHNsd C9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWl kPTIyMzA4 Fantoni, S.F. (2016) To Charge or Not to Charge – Museums and the Admission Dilemma, MuseumNext, Dublin, 2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://vimeo. com/165112246

Introduction

17

Foley, C.M. and Trinkley, R. (2014) Intentionality and the Twenty-First Century Museum, Journal of Museum Education, 39(2), July, pp. 125–131 Heimans, J. and Timms, H. (2018) New Power: How It’s Changing the 21st Century – And Why You Need to Know, London: MacMillan Hudson, K. (1977) Museums for the 1980s: A Survey of World Trends, Paris: UNESCO; London: MacMillan Kelly, L. (2006) Measuring the Impact of Museums on Their Communities: The Role of the 21st Century Museum, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.researchgate.net/publica tion/253800241_Measuring_the_impact_of_museums_on_their_communities_ The_role_of_the_21st_century_museum Moore, M. and Moore, G. (2005) Creating Public Value Through State Arts Agencies, Minneapolis: Arts Midwest Museums Association (2013) Webchat Museums 2020, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/campaigns/museums2020/27032013-webchat-publicattitudes-to-museums?csort=like Museums Association (2017) Museums Change Lives, London: Museums Association, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1001738 Nonformality.org (2nd ed., 2012) Participation Models: A Chase Through The Maze, accessed on 23/10/2010 at: http://arts.gov/news/2013/national-endowment-artspresents-highlights-2012-survey-public-participation-arts OED (2010) The Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford: Oxford University Press Saha, R. (2019) Digital Engagement Strategies for the 21st Century Museum, posted on 29/04/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://amt-lab.org/blog/2019/4/digitalengagement-strategies-for-the-21st-century-museum Scarff, L. (2019) Thinking Outside In: Being Relevant and Staying On-Mission in a 21st Century Museum. Paper given at the Irish Museums Association Annual Conference, Cork, 1–2 March 2019 Scott, C. (2015) Museum Measurement: Questions of Value, in McCarthy, C. (ed) Museum Practice, Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 97–122 Simon, N. (2010) The Participatory Museum, Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0 Smith, K.J. (2012) The Kinetic Museum, posted on 31/01/2012, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://kovenjsmith.com/archives/468/ TNS Opinion & Social (2017) Special Eurobarometer 466: Cultural Heritage, TNS for European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport & Culture Warwick Commission (2015) Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth. The 2015 Report by the Warwick Commission on the Future of Cultural Value, University of Warwick, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/ futureculture/finalreport/warwick_commission_report_2015.pdf

SECTION I

Context

Section I Introduction Section I explores the context for change. Today, Western society is engulfed in a perfect storm of generational shift, increasing population diversity, a digital revolution, and, thanks partly to COVID-19, economic chaos, all happening at web speed. If museums are to respond effectively, as they must, there is a greater need than ever to understand what this all means for the sector. This section explores key elements of current societal change as they affect museums. Chapter 1 explores societal change in terms of major trends. Chapter 2 looks specifically at the impact of the digital revolution and the rise of social media that is substantially responsible for the speed of current change. Together they make clear the urgent need for museums to transform themselves. The contributory chapters focus on the attitudes, expectations and behaviours of Millennials and Generation Z, centred on their relationship with the digital, and how museums can and are responding. One message shines through – many in these generations are deeply interested in what museums can offer, but on their own terms. If we do not meet their terms, they will go elsewhere. Jenny Kidd examines the increased effort being made by cultural institutions to gain traction around their content within social networks, in particular selfies. Here we see vividly the potential for museums to shift from seeing social networks principally in terms of ‘promotional broadcasting’ to cultural participation. Rebecca O’Neill discusses the relationship between Wikimedians – those who engage with Wikipedia and/or other Wikimedia projects – and museums. This is participatory culture in action. And Wikimedians are going to be interested in working with your collections whether you engage with them or not.

20

Context

Daniel Brown introduces ‘Gamification’ – adding gaming elements and game design theory to mundane tasks, processes, and experiences – and its potential as a fun learning tool in exhibitions. He proposes an ‘experience framework’ that connects gaming participation to museum participation and demonstrates this through a case study in Cologne. Many of the other papers have a direct relevance to this theme – I would, in particular, point to those by Hsiao-Te Hsu, Kirsten Drotner, and Philipp Schrögel.

1 SOCIETAL CHANGE

The Challenge: to understand better the current state of change in Western society and recognise how this affects both museums and their potential audiences.

Introduction Museums are no strangers to societal change. What is different today is its speed and scale. But momentum has been building since the 1950s. Trends explored in this chapter cover: the rise of white-collar society and decline of the manual workforce; leisure, the ‘new consumer’ and the museum as a leisure & tourism destination; generational shift; and population diversity. As I write this during the COVID-19 lockdown, I add some speculation on the long-term impact of the pandemic at the very end of the book.

White collar society and the decline of the working class Museums have long used socio-economic strata based on education, occupation, income, wealth, and social status to define their visitors. For the past 70 years, this form of research has consistently revealed a core audience of predominantly white, well-educated, and well-paid white-collar workers and their families from the baby boomer generation. They have come to museums in unprecedented numbers and have driven the demand for cultural services generally. Since the 1950s, the Western world’s white-collar population of administrators, salespeople, managers, and professionals has grown exponentially, ref lected in the transformation of the jobs market from manufacturing industry to services. And these changes have been accompanied by expanding educational opportunities; not only increasing aff luence but also the leisure time (including

22

Context

paid holiday entitlement) to spend it; the gradual merging of high and popular culture (ref lected in the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to Bob Dylan in 2016); and the democratisation of travel through car ownership, package holidays, and, later, cheap flights. All of this has been accompanied by the spread of television and more recently the internet. Results have included: • • • • •

higher living standards for (nearly) all the growth of government and government expenditure the development of a welfare state to support social cohesion growing equality for women, and recognition of higher education as key to creating professional standards. after Perkin, 2nd ed. (2002: 2)

This period has also seen the rise of the professionally managed giant corporation as the dominant player in national and international economies, and the global economy increasingly dominated by the executives of transnational corporations – even more so in recent years, with the emergence of technology companies, including Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Crucially, the growth of the white-collar population is not restricted to Western society. September/October 2018 was a key tipping point when more than half the world’s population could be defined as middle class or wealthier (Kharas and Hamel, 2018), ref lecting the impact of globalisation: Globalisation is the increasing integration and interdependence of countries’ economies, societies, technology, cultures, politics and ecology. State boundaries have become more f luid, with people, money and information moving faster and on a greater scale between states than ever before. Technology has led to ever greater integration. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2009: 2) But globalisation brings with it fierce globalised competition. Economists, businesspeople, and many of those in power, see this as a source of business opportunities. But their view is not necessarily shared by local communities in the developed world, who have seen skilled jobs exported and cheap migrant labour imported – leaving the least skilled local workers the worst affected (Borland, 2016). The rise of industry in the developing world has lifted millions of people out of poverty and resulted in a global triumph in terms of improvement in income distribution, but it was built on the export of manufacturing jobs from the Western world. This has meant that the only part of the world where there has been a systematic worsening of income distribution, and consequent fall in living standards, has been in Western countries. The UK has witnessed the collapse of traditional industries such as coalmining, steelmaking, shipbuilding, and textiles, alongside the export of jobs, all leading to a sustained decline in the skilled manual workforce. This has

Societal change

23

been accompanied by decades of social mobility as children from working class backgrounds acquired educational qualifications and gained white collar jobs. In the USA, for example, in 1940 some 29% of employees were white collar – by 2006 the figure was 60%. Over the same timeframe, manual workers declined from 36% to 23% (Texeira and Abramowitz, 2008: 2). However, while the manual working class, both skilled and unskilled, may have become much smaller, it is still present, and many in it feel disempowered (MacKinnon et al., 2011). But, of course, nothing is as straightforward as it first appears. Significant technological advance sits alongside job exports as a major cause of reduced employment opportunities. And, today, across the Western world, manufacturing jobs are themselves becoming more specialist, transformed by the increasing use of digital tools and the growing importance of quality control during production (Bisello and Fernandez-Macias, 2018).

Leisure, the ‘new consumer’ and the museum as a leisure destination Leisure as a public good For most of our history, leisure was a privilege of the wealthy. In Western society, beyond the sabbath, the right of most people to leisure time came with industrialisation and associated urbanisation, with the Saturday half-day commonplace by the late 19th century. Newly created public museums were part of a wider movement for social reform that included state-funded education, parks, and libraries, targeted at using leisure time to help working people better themselves. As such, ‘museums were at the forefront of reform, and could be radically inclusive institutions where women, men and children of all classes had a right to attend’ (O’Neill, 2020: 8). In 1886, in East Manchester, Ancoats Art Museum was created by philanthropist Thomas Coglan Horsfall ‘in the hope that it may become common ground on which men and women of various classes may meet in goodwill, sympathy and friendship’ (quoted in Ward, 2020: 126). And in 1891 James Paton, appointed in 1876 as Glasgow’s first Superintendent of Museums, said ‘the museum is of the people and for the people, for rich and poor, for high and low’ (quoted in O’Neill et al., 2020: 99). We can see similar sentiment in the work of John Cotton Dana and Benjamin Ives Gilman in the USA and in Alfred Lichtwark as first Director of the Hamburger Kunsthalle in Germany, and no doubt many others. Many museums introduced free admission days to coincide with times when working people were available and put considerable effort into engaging them with collections. Some sought to directly support them to develop their skills. In 1858, the Victoria and Albert Museum in London was the first museum in the world to introduce evening openings, made possible by gas lighting, so that tradesmen could improve the quality of their workmanship by learning from the collections. The writer Oscar Wilde wrote: ‘I go every Saturday night to see

24

Context

the handicraftsman, the woodcutter, the glass blower and the worker in metals’ ( Wilde, 1882). After the First World War, demands for social reconstruction included extra leisure time and facilities, and the paid working week gradually became shorter. In the UK, in 1938, the Holidays with Pay Act for the first time gave many workers the right to a week’s paid holiday (Snape, 2018). In 1938, 40% of employees in the UK had some form of paid holiday entitlement; this rose to 91% by 1950, and 95% in 1970. Today, in principle, those living in the developed world have more leisure time than ever, and more money to spend on it. But with lives lived at pace, dual income households and technology ensuring work bleeds into family time, there is frequently less time spent together (see Millennials). Yet, in principle, leisure time continues to increase, with a sharp contrast between the USA and European Union: Americans rack up an average of 25.1 working hours per week, while Germans only work an average of 18.6 hours per week. The average American also works 46.2 weeks per year, six weeks more than the average French worker. While France and Germany worked more than the US in the 1960s, this trend has reversed as the average working time has increased for US workers and sharply decreased for their French and German counterparts. Pandiloski (2015: no page number) Meanwhile, Sweden has taken the lead in moving towards a six-hour workday, with employers claiming this resulted in increased productivity.

Leisure and the ‘new consumer’ Despite the huge expansion in leisure time for working people, they were not visiting museums in large numbers. By the 1960s when sustained research began into who museum visitors actually were and why they visited, the overwhelming majority came from the maturing, well-educated, white-collar class baby boomers (e.g. Hood, 1983, 1993). By the 1980s, in line with broad consumer trends, they were turning into ‘new consumers’ – aff luent; highly informed; welleducated; media-savvy; socially and culturally diverse; more individualistic; extensively travelled; aware of more choice in how to spend their discretionary leisure time and money; having increasingly demanding expectations of quality, choice and variety; and seeking personalised experiences in which they could take an active role (after Middleton, 1998; Poon, 1993; Sharpley, 1996). Deloitte (2016: 7) speaks of them as no longer focused on buying things but instead ‘looking to enrich their lives through experiences, aiming to make their everyday life more enjoyable and memorable’. Meanwhile, the wide adoption of devices such as smart phones and tablets, and improved customer experiences online, have enabled potential audiences

Societal change

25

to make more spontaneous decisions and increased transparency by providing people with more information. They can now easily share and compare experiences with their peers through review websites and social media. Museum staff, including directors, should start each Monday morning by checking their latest TripAdvisor reviews!

Museum as leisure and tourism destination Museum audiencing is a form of consumption and most people seem to be in consumer mode. Longhurst et al. (2004: 121)

The response of museums to the demands of their ‘new consumer’ audiences placed them solidly within broad trends, ‘towards the provision of a visitorattraction experience competing in the leisure market’ (McIntyre, 2009: 156). It took time for the museum sector to recognise that the lifestyle expectations of new consumers involved transferring their concept of the ideal leisure experience – one which is ‘fun, entertaining, exciting, relaxing, a place where one could take friends, a place where one could get lost in’ (Boomerang, 1998: 41–42; Black, 2005: 80–81) – to the museum environment. Museum attendance was to be a social activity: more and more museums are putting themselves in their “customers’ shoes.” They are adopting both the mind-set and infrastructure to do what it takes to make visitors want to come, to feel welcome when they arrive, cared for and engaged during their stay. And by the time they leave, they’re eager to return. Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund (2000: 3) The larger museums led the way in creating leisure environments in which their users could immerse themselves and simply ‘be there’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999: 35), with an emphasis on visitor services and on ancillary spaces and activities. Thus, we now see the quality restaurant and shop; the theatre with lectures, film, and live performance; dynamic events programming; evening openings and activities; and the external plaza for promenading and events. The blockbuster exhibition sits alongside these as essential to the museum’s offer. In this context, the ‘movement away from static displays of objects and information towards active, or interactive, experiences (discussed later in the book) is seen to be necessary to attract visitors and hold their interest’ ( McIntyre, 2009: 157). And it is not enough just to be there. You must also be able to share it. This means instant status updates, including selfies, to friends back home, whether you are on a day trip or holiday – proof that you are really there.

26

Context

The Pompidou Centre in Paris, established in 1977, open late into the evening, ‘filled with life, food and drink’ and with an animated external plaza and underground shopping mall, is probably the precursor of this model, at least in Europe (Davis, 1990: 41) – with viewing the art only one of many activities to choose from. It is no surprise that Tate Modern was an immediate success when it opened in London in 2000, and that the Great Court at the British Museum has become a place to meet. And customer service is key: a report by VisitBritain based on a survey of international tourists highlighted ‘a warm and friendly welcome’ as being of crucial importance (VisitBritain, 2019). Meanwhile, the leisure audience was supplemented by the rise of cultural and heritage tourism. Tourism has increased exponentially since 1950, when there were an estimated 25 million international tourist arrivals worldwide. Annual growth has averaged over 6%, exceeding one billion international arrivals for the first time in 2012 (United Nations World Tourism Barometer, no date). In 2019, ref lecting the impact of globalisation before the arrival of COVID-19, China was the largest source market for international tourists with 159 million tourists spending £211 billion a year. According to VisitBritain, one job was created in the UK tourism industry for every 22 Chinese visitors (Haslam, 2020). In the UK, under the Thatcher government of the 1980s, museums were no longer accepted simply as a ‘public good’ but were expected to demonstrate their value and justification for public funding. This coincided with the rise of the ‘Heritage Industry’ and heritage tourism. In this environment, attracting leisure and tourist audiences helped to legitimise museums in the eyes of their political masters. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, tourism had become the UK’s fifth largest industry, with museums and heritage sites ‘a cornerstone of Britain’s tourism offer’ (Museums Association, 2013a). Some 43% of international tourists visited a museum or gallery while in the UK (NMDC, 2018), while over 50% of visitors to national museums in London were international tourists, including over 60% of visitors to the Tower of London, the British Museum, the National Gallery, and Royal Museums Greenwich. In 2018/19, four of the top five and seven of the top ten visitor attractions in the UK were national museums in London (ALVA, 2019) – and these museums have become markedly entrepreneurial: ‘working together to improve destination marketing and the visitor experience’ (NMDC, 2013: 1). They work closely with VisitBritain and the marketing agency London and Partners and put considerable effort into raising their profile abroad through social media, touring exhibitions, links to international media, etc. Similarly in Denmark, for example, the audiences for the bigger museums can consist of up to 80% tourists (81% for Danish Design Museum, 70% at the National Museum, see Denmark Ministry of Culture, 2017). UK tourism insiders suggest international tourism will return to pre-pandemic levels by 2024/5. And this is before we consider the growth of car ownership and the resulting huge rise in leisure day trips, the backbone of the visitor market in the UK and many other countries. In 2018, the average person in the UK made 395 car trips, over 40% of them for leisure (Df T, 2019). Outside London, a substantial majority of UK museum visitors come by car.

Societal change

27

The relationship between museums and the leisure and tourism industry has become symbiotic. Many museums worldwide depend on tourism, both domestic and international, to generate visitor numbers and income while heritage tourism is now a key element in the tourist trade – the industry needs museums as visitor destinations. Some 76% of USA leisure travellers participate in cultural or heritage activities, including visiting museums (AAMa, no date). This scale of tourist use has had a profound impact on the business models of the museums affected, on the fundamental roles of museums in relation to local/national identity and, as will be discussed later, on the conf licting museum ambition to diversify audiences.

Generational shift Baby boomers (born between 1946–1964), having dominated museum and heritage audiences for decades, are increasingly passing retirement age. Their availability in retirement, relative wealth, educational status, and mobility will have a continued but reducing impact on demand as they age, and thus on the nature of museum and tourism provision, but power and initiative are switching to the wired-up Millennial generation (born 1981–1996) and Generation Z (born since 1997). Millennials, at 75 million, make up nearly a quarter of the USA population and are the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in USA history. The oldest millennials are now in their forties and, by 2025, they will form 75% of the global workforce (Deloitte, 2018). They are slower than previous generations to get married, have children, or leave their parents’ home (Frey, 2018a). Their preference for technology, search for challenge and personal value, and expectations of a high-quality personal experience have resulted in very different demands being made of museums – not least in what they expect from museum content, including the representation of multiple perspectives, how they seek to engage with that content, a capacity for collaboration, and an emphasis on creativity. Underpinning all of this is attitudinal change associated with the digital revolution. Business consultancies such as Price Waterhouse Cooper (2019), Nielsen (2015) and Forbes (Rosenbaum, 2016), have been swift to latch on to Millennial behaviours, suggesting additional characteristics to the concept of the ‘new consumer’, to ref lect the impact of technology. Thus, we end up with the ‘empowered’ (Rosenbaum) consumer of Box 1.1. Millennials do visit museums, but they want to take part and will not settle for the traditional didactic museum display, having ‘little patience for static galleries and scholarly presentations’ (Cannell, 2018). However, when working with a young audience in Denmark it is clear that they are interested in the content, but they want to adapt, select and use it for their own, personalised purpose. They are not interested in technology for its own sake (there, the older audience is more in line). Rather they want quirky, surprising, and unique experiences that they can then share on social media (Mette Houlberg Rung, pers. comm).

Context

28

Box 1.1 • • • • • • •

The empowered consumer

affluent, highly informed, well-educated, media-savvy socially and culturally diverse more individualistic extensively travelled aware of more choice in how to spend their discretionary leisure time and money have increasingly demanding expectations of quality, choice, and variety seek personalised experiences in which they can take an active role

PLUS • • • • •

Connected and distracted – the latter due to the whole range of new media and technology constantly assaulting them Mobile – living their lives on their smartphones Smart – with access to multiple sources of information Hands-on – in retaining control over their decision-making Loyal and committed – if their expectations are met but expect a museum commitment to them in return.

In the USA, research by Sommer (2018) found their main motivations for visiting were to have a unique experience (28%), discover something new (28%), and spend time with friends or family (22%). Overall, they hoped to learn something new together in a unique/original way. These findings appear to contradict other USA studies by Lock (2018) and LaPlaca Cohen (2017: 11) – the latter the largest study in the world about the attitudes and behaviours of cultural audiences (Cohen and Nelson, 2020: 174) – who both found in surveys of all museum visitors, not just Millennials, that ‘having fun’ with the family members or social group they had come with was the primary motivation, at 81% of respondents. However, LaPlaca Cohen found that the vast majority of users also wanted to learn about the display content and experience something new ( LaPlaca Cohen, 2017). Supporting Sommer, research by McClure (2016) found Millennials ‘value experiences and authenticity over pretty much anything else’. But did Sommer and McClure ask their interviewees if they wanted to enjoy themselves? Sommer also found that, true to popular stereotype, Millennials tend to seek events and programmes where alcohol and food is present. This is part of increasing evidence that relevant programming is key to matching Millennial lifestyle requirements, reflected in the success of ‘Museum Lates’. Such evening and nighttime events have been a feature in the UK since 2001 when the Victoria and Albert Museum in London started its regular ‘Friday Lates’. They have now spread

Societal change

29

worldwide. The longest running and most successful late-night gallery programme in Australia is Art after Hours at the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney. Dallas Museum of Art opens until midnight on the third Friday of each month, with performance, concerts, readings, film screenings, tours, and family programmes. Brooklyn Museum, in discussing their 1stFans events on the first Saturday of each month states ‘the in-person benefits rock – people socialise and make new friends while attending awesome meet-ups around museum content’ (Brooklyn Museum, 2010). Here, as at the other venues, a sense of belonging comes from a membership that brings lifestyle and social benefits as well as engagement with collections and the museum. Lates programming represents a game changer for medium-sized and larger museums in terms of engaging Millennial audiences in the evenings, when they are actually available. But there is still much to learn in ensuring it is a museumrelated event as well as a social gathering. For example, evaluation of the highly successful ‘Museum Lates’ programme at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh showed how important it was to ensure that more of the museum activities, particularly those that involved queues or longer periods of engagement, were in the social zone, not separate from it (Barron and Leask, 2017). These adult-only ticketed events provide an opportunity to showcase the museum in a different light to both new and existing audiences – daytime visitors who are usually enthusiastically dragged around interactive galleries by their

FIGURE 1.1

‘Museum Lates’ event at National Museum Scotland

Source: © Ruth Armstrong Photography

Context

30

children can relax and explore more ref lective exhibits, or maybe have a go at the interactives for themselves – combined with a unique social ambience and a variety of performances and creative activities that bring collections and museum spaces to life (Claire Allan, National Museum Scotland, pers. comm). It is also oversimplistic to think you can cater for Millennials by just adding technology and evening social events – they are not impressed simply because a screen or a digital facility is included. As Mette Houlberg Rung’s chapter highlights, 39% of visitors to the Danish National Gallery in Copenhagen (SMK) are between 14 and 30 years old (although this high percentage is not the case for most Danish museums – see Denmark Ministry of Culture, 2017). The Lates programme, SMK Fridays, is one factor, with their ‘intelligent get-together’ with talks, beer, a burger bar, and a boat trip. But it is by no means the only one. They are selective and critical. Koke (2018) highlighted the importance of motivation in Millennial engagement with museum content, applying Falk’s five key motivational descriptions of museum visitors: experience seeker, explorer, facilitator, recharger, and professional/hobbyist ( Falk, 2009). For an alternative to Lates events that also clearly engages Millennials and Generation Z both intellectually and socially, see Philipp Schrögel’s chapter on Science Slams in Germany.

Box 1.2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Generation Z expectations of museums

Clear museum vision that allows visitors to align themselves (or not) with the museum’s objectives Experience oriented Information available on-demand Personalized content Call to action – How can I get involved? Content that can assist with ‘Lifehacking’ – ‘how can the museum help me to change my life?’ Social Media, to facilitate connecting, learning, showing off, and expressing oneself Multicultural, multigenerational, multi-story, multi-history approach Gender neutral Event Driven Multi-screens (smartphones, touch screens, digital signage, changing content) Multi-dimensional Facilitate co-creation Global (their social network friends are worldwide – 26% would need to fly to meet them all)

Source: after Walhiner (2016)

Societal change

31

Meanwhile, the first members of Generation Z have reached their early twenties and require more attention. As one blogger put it: Generation Z are the current “social generation” and they are now entering the workforce, socialising as adults with disposable income and looking for physical spaces to inhabit . . . they don’t just want to look at interesting collections, after all they can do that from their smartphones. They are looking for physical spaces they can invest in, communities they can engage with and tribes to belong to, and museums have a huge opportunity to be the recipient of their time and money. Straughan (2019) They are the first generation to grow up with fast broadband – for them ‘Social media, constant connectivity and on-demand entertainment and communication . . . are largely assumed’ (Dimock, 2019). Their expectations of museums, as defined by Walhiner (2016), are closely related to new technology and, especially, social media, illustrated in Box 1.2.

Box 1.3 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

The BBC seven social classes

The Elite – wealthiest and most privileged group, c.6% of UK population, enjoy high cultural activities, e.g. opera, classical music Established middle class – second wealthiest, work in traditional professions, c.25% of UK population. Most graduates found here take part in wide range cultural activities Technical middle class – work in science or tech, c.6% of UK population, mix with each other, less culturally engaged, prefer social media and emerging culture New affluent workers – economically secure but not well off, c.15% of UK population, unlikely to come from middle class, few have been to university, wide range of cultural interests Traditional working class – oldest average age, own their home, c.14% UK population, few have been to university, do not like emerging culture Emergent service sector – financially insecure, c.19% of UK population, second most likely group to have gone to university, high social and cultural capital, enjoy wide range cultural activities The Precariat – poorest and most deprived social group, in unstable & low-earning jobs, c.15% UK population, do not have a broad range of cultural interests

Source: based on BBC (2013) and Horton (2019)

Context

32

But the world of the Millennials and Generation Z is also about being better educated but earning less than the previous generation, with many also carrying high levels of student debt, and it is about jobs that are often poorly paid and/or based around zero-hours contracts. The continuing swing to a service economy, for example now accounting for around 80% of the UK economy (ONS, 2016), has added complexity to models of social stratification. In April 2013, the BBC introduced its Social Class Calculator, with people grouped under seven headings, outlined in Box 1.3. The classes and their characteristics were devised by the BBC in collaboration with an academic panel. The initial survey was completed voluntarily by 161,000 people in Britain, mostly from England and largely describing themselves as ‘white’. It reflected the skewed demographic of a BBC audience, with wealthier, well-educated people over-represented. However, the BBC states that this was allowed for in the results. Being the BBC, there was a particular interest in cultural capital, ref lected in the survey questions – and this is of great relevance to our understanding of museum audiences. Our core audience of well-educated professionals has split, with the two key elements – the ‘established middle class’ and the ‘emergent service sector’ (often the siblings of the former) expecting the same lifestyle requirements to be met but then seeking very different experiences – with the latter largely Millennials or Generation Z.

Millennial families in a rapidly changing society Social changes in the family ref lect the consequences of trends in the wider world. Major trends in family patterns and structures are outlined in Box 1.4.

Box 1.4 • • • • •

• •

Trends in family patterns and structures

Further shift from extended to nuclear family Increasing family diversity in structure Extended adolescence and delay in acquisition of adult status, reinforced by the deteriorating labour market position of young people Delayed partnership formation, rising co-habitation and marriages occurring later if at all Postponement of child-bearing and having fewer children (often below replacement level) – over 80% of families in Western society have no more than two children Higher separation and divorce rates New technologies have become important tools, influencing how parents raise their children and how they organise their domestic lives

Source: based on Social Trends Institute (2017) andCulture Vulture (2017)

Societal change

33

Growing aff luence and fewer children may lead to a higher standard of economic life but does not necessarily mean that parents pay more attention to their children. The combination of dual income households and the transformation of work and employment resulting from globalisation and the information revolution are profoundly altering the way particularly white collar family members live and relate to each other, made worse by soaring divorce rates. Most working parents seem to get the work/life balance wrong, illustrated in Box 1.5.

Box 1.5 • • •

Getting the work/life balance wrong

Seventy-two percent of parents catch up on work at home in the evenings and at weekends, with 41%saying this is often or all the time Only a third of parents manage to leave work on time every day. Many stay later at work regularly Forty-eight percent said working hours regularly got in the way of spending time with their children. A third said that work pressure negatively affected their relationship with their partner and a quarter said it led to rows with their children

Source: after Bright Horizons (2017)

Thus, families are spending less time together especially during the working week – and, ‘when they do get together, most of the time is spent in silence in front of the TV, smartphones and tablets’ (Culture Vulture, 2017: 14). Equally, they are using modern technology and media to keep in touch. And many parents feel enormous guilt about the lack of quality time spent together, so they want the times they do something together to be precious. This may mean engaging with technology – perhaps gaming together – or, equally, switching off technology to have a more authentic experience. Museums must cater to both.

Population diversity Ageing Population ageing is one of the most significant demographic and social trends of the 21st century (CEB, 2014: 3). Across Western society, people are both living longer and having fewer children, so the structure of the population is changing. In the USA, older adults are projected to outnumber children by 2034 (Moore, 2020). In the UK, an estimated 21.8% of the population will be over 65 (the traditional retirement age) by 2030, rising to 25% by 2050. In the EU, 19% of the population was aged 65 or over in 2018, projected to reach 29% by 2060

34

Context

(CEB, 2014: 8), while a ‘Consistently low birth rate and higher life expectancy are transforming the EU’s age pyramid’ (Eurostat, 2019a). In the longer term, an ageing population is expected to become the global norm, a process that has already begun: The world today is getting steadily older – mature, settled adults over the age of 30 are now half the population and growing. . . . For the first time ever there are as many people over the age of 30 as under the age of 30, a tipping point that has profound implications for the global economy. Kharas and Fengler (2019) As the proportion of people of working age shrinks, while the number of those retired is expanding, there will have to be more participation in the global workplace by women and the elderly. Overall, ‘it will have a considerable impact on most aspects of society and the economy, including housing, health care and social protection, labour markets, the demand for goods and services, microeconomic and fiscal sustainability, family structures and intergenerational ties’ ( Eurostat, 2019b). This underpins the key role museums could play in social and wellbeing issues as the ageing population increasingly struggles with isolation and loneliness (see Chapter 4 and the chapter by Mark O’Neill et al).

Migration The ageing local population is paralleled by growing migration. Price Waterhouse Cooper (est. 2016) estimate that, by 2030, 85% of population growth in the G7 economies could be from net migration. In the USA, the growth in minority populations follows waves of immigration in the 1980s and 1990s – as a result, 92% of the growth in population between 2000–2014 was from multicultural groups (Nielsen, 2015). It is now predicted that minorities will shortly be the source of all the growth in the nation’s youth and working age population (Frey, 2018b). As noted earlier, the resulting Millennials population is the most ethnically diverse in the history of the USA, with 44% self-identifying as part of a minority racial or ethnic group (McClure, 2016). And the greatest growth between 2018–2060 is projected to be for those of mixed race (176%), Asian (93%), and Hispanics (86%).

Diversity Western populations are also becoming increasingly diverse. In 2018, 13.8% of the UK population came from Black or minority ethnic backgrounds, rising to 40% in London. Migration has been a feature of the UK since the 1950s. It became a major inf luence on population growth in the UK in the early 1990s, and the main source of growth since 1998, following an inf lux of people from

Societal change

35

the European Union. The UK also continues to receive sustained migration from the Indian sub-continent. Poland took over from India as the most common non-UK place of birth, but there has been a significant decline in the Polish population since the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the UK’s subsequent departure from the European Union in 2020. As in the USA, the percentage of people of mixed race in the UK population is believed to be growing rapidly but it is difficult to define. The 2011 UK census found 2.3% of the population was of mixed race, but this depended on people self-identifying, and it is likely that many did not. In the USA, three-quarters of those of mixed ethnic descent marry someone from a minority group. By contrast, in Britain, three-quarters of marriages of those of mixed ethnicity are to somebody white, often making ethnic identity a matter of choice more than ascription by the second and third generation. And there is a long history of assimilation, for example by Jews and the Irish (Katwalla, 2018). There is substantial ethnic diversity across western Europe. As in the USA, there are native peoples (e.g. Basques, Sami, Roma). There was also considerable inward migration postwar. Historical migration of borders after the two wars and the fall of the Soviet Union has left many national minorities outside their traditional homelands. So, diversity across Europe is multi-layered, and the massive waves of refugees and economic migrants from the Near East and Africa since 2014 (3.7million first-time asylum applications in 2014–2017 alone with low-skilled men representing 30% of all arrivals), with the accompanying high level political divisions and emotional media coverage, have raised pubic concerns considerably (EPRS, 2018: 21).

Concluding thoughts The scale and speed of societal change outlined in this chapter is mind-boggling. How is your museum responding (built from Phillips, 2004: 369)? • • • • • • • • • •

Is there a sense of urgency? Have the management team discussed these trends and agreed the ones most affecting your museum? Have you looked specifically at the local manifestations of these trends? – and how these will affect your museum? What, honestly, is your current relationship with local communities? Is your institution transparent – has the whole staff been involved in discussions – do they understand the implications? Has someone been appointed to look at how other museums are responding? What if the trends accelerate? Have you a strategic response planned? Does your institution respond positively to change? What are you truly willing to give up or change to engage and sustain new audiences?

36

Context

References AAM(a) (no date) Museum Facts, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 19/03/2020 at: http://ww2.aam-us.org/about-museums/museum-facts ALVA (2019) Latest Visitor Figures, London: Association of Large Visitor Attractions, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.alva.co.uk/details.cfm?p=423 Barron, P. and Leask, A. (2017) Generation Y and ‘Lates’ Events at the National Museum of Scotland, Museum Management and Curatorship, 32(5), pp. 473–490 BBC (2013) Social Class Calculator, posted on 02/04/2013, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-2200097 Bisello, M. and Fernandez-Macias, H. (2018) Are Blue-collar Jobs Turning White? Blog, European Commission: Eurofound, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.eurofound. europa.eu/publications/blog/are-blue-collar-jobs-turning-white Black, G. (2005) The Engaging Museum, London: Routledge Boomerang! Integrated Marketing and Advertising Pty Ltd (1998) Powerhouse Museum Brand Audit and Positioning Options, Sydney: Internal Report for the Powerhouse Museum, quoted in Scott, C. (2000) Ch. 3 Positioning museums in the 21st century, in Lynch et al. (ed) Leisure and Change: Implications for Change in the 21st Century, Sydney: Powerhouse Museum & University of Technology, pp. 37–48, quote from pp. 41–42 Borland, J. (2016) The Least-skilled Workers Are the Worst Affected by Globalisation, London: The Conversation Trust, posted on 29/08/2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://the conversation.com/the-least-skilled-workers-are-the-losers-in-globalisation-63655 Bright Horizons (2017) The Modern Families Index 2017, Bright Horizons for Working families, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.workingfamilies.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/01/Modern-Families-Index_Full-Report.pdf Brooklyn Museum (2010) 1stFans: Shifting Focus and Moving to Meet.up.com, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2010/ 11/03/1stfans-shifting-focus-and-moving-to-meetupcom/ Cannell, M. (2018) The Millennial Museum, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://labsaam-us.org/buildingculturalaudiences/ the-millennial-museum CEB (2014) Ageing Populations in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for the CEB, Council of Europe Development Bank, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://coebank.org/ media/documents/Study_Ageing.pdf Cohen, A. and Nelson, T. (2020) Conversation 10: Arthur Cohen + Tonya Nelson, in Winesmith, K. and Anderson, S. (eds) The Digital Future of Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 172–188 Culture Vulture (2017) The 21st Century Family, Culture Vulture 8, accessed on 30/ 06/2020 at: www.mindshareworld.com/sites/default/files/Culture%20Vulture_Issue% 20%238_21st%20Century%20Family.pdf Davis, D. (1990) The Museum Transformed: Design and Culture in the Post-Pompidou Age, New York: Abbeville Press Deloitte (2016) Passion for Leisure: A View of the UK Leisure Consumer, accessed on 30/ 06/2020 at: www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/consumerbusiness/deloitte-uk-cip-leisureconsumer.pdf Deloitte (2018) Deloitte Millennial Survey, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www2.deloitte.com/ content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-2018-millennialsurvey-report.pdf

Societal change

37

Denmark Ministry of Culture (2017) National User Survey, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://slks.dk/omraader/kulturinstitutioner/museer/statistik-om-museer/den-nationalebrugerundersoegelse/ Df T (2019) National Travel Survey, Statistical Release, England 2018, London: Department for Transport, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/823068/national-travelsurvey-2018.pdf Dimock, M. (2019) Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins, Pew Research Centre, posted on 17/01/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.pewre search.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ EPRS (2018) Global Trends to 2035: Economy and Society, Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/STUD/2018/627126/EPRS_STU(2018)627126_EN.pdf Eurostat (2019a) Population Structure and Ageing, Brussels: EU Statistics, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_ structure_and_ageing Eurostat (2019b) Ageing Europe, 2019 Edition, Brussels: EU Statistics, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-0219-681 Falk, J. (2009) Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Frey, W.H. (2018a) The Millennial Generation – A Demographic Bridge to America’s Diverse Population, Washington, DC: Brookings, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.brook ings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-jan_brookings-metro_millennials-ademographic-bridge-to-americas-diverse-future.pdf#page=6 Frey, W.H. (2018b) The USA Will Become Minority White in 2045, Census Projects, Washington, DC: Brookings, posted on 14/03/2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://Brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minoritywhite-in-2045-census-projects Haslam, C. (2020) Could Virus Push Global Tourism to the Brink, Sunday Times Travel Section, 2 February 2020, p. 2 Hood, M.G. (1983) Staying Away: Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums, Museum News, April 1983, pp. 50–57 Hood, M.G. (1993) After 70 Years of Audience Research, What Have We Learned? Who Comes to Museums, Who Does Not, and Why? Visitor Studies, 5(1), pp. 16–27 Horton, H. (2019) The Seven Social Classes of 21st Century Britain. Where Do You Fit in? The Daily Telegraph, posted 13/08/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https:// telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12037247/the-seven-social-classes-of-21st-centurybritain-where-do-you-fit-in.html Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2009) Globalisation, UK Poverty and Communities: Work in Progress, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.jrf. org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/investigations-globalisation.pdf Katwalla, S. (2018) How Should We Respond to the Rise of Mixed Race Britain, London: Unherd, posted on 06/2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://unherd.com/2018/06/ respond-rise-mixed-race-britain/ Kharas, H. and Fengler, W. (2019) Double Tipping Points in 2019: When the World Became Mostly Rich and Largely Old, posted on 09/10/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www. brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2019/10/09/double-tipping-points-in2019-when-the-world-became-mostly-rich-and-largely-old/

38

Context

Kharas, H. and Hamel, K. (2018) A Global Tipping Point: Half the World Is Now Middle Class or Wealthier, Austria: World Data Lab, reported in the Brookings Institute on 26/09/2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.brookings.edu/blog/futuredevelopment/2018/09/27/a-global-tipping-point-half-the-world-is-now-middleclass-or-wealthier/ Koke, J. (2018) Information Please: Engaging the Millennial Museum-goer, Museum, American Aliance of Museums, January–February 2018, pp. 15–17 LaPlaca Cohen (2017) Culture Track 17, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://2017study. culturetrack.com/home Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund (2000) Service to People: Challenges and Rewards: How Museums Can Become More Visitor-Centred, New York: Wallace Foundation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/HowMuseums-Can-Become-Visitor-Centered.pdf Lock, S. (2018) Museums in the USA: Statistics and Facts, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://statista.com/topics/1509/museums Longhurst, B., Bagnall, G. and Savage, M. (2004) Audiences, Museums and the English Middle Class, Museum and Society, 2(2), July, pp. 104–124 MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A., Featherstone, D., Ince, A. and Strauss, K. (2011) Globalisation, Labour Markets and Communities in Contemporary Britain, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42530265. pdf McClure, S.E. (2016) The Mythical Millennial in Museums, MuseumNext, Dublin, 2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumnext.com/article/the-mythicalmillennial-in-museums McIntyre, C. (2009) Museum and Art Gallery Experience Space Characteristics: An Interesting Show or a Contemplative Bathe, International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2009), pp. 155–170, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.onelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ pdf/10.1002/jtr.717 Middleton, V.T.C. (1998) New Visions for Museums in the 21st Century, London: Association of Independent Museums Moore, M. jr (2020) Ageing in the Right Place: Technology Will Play a Big Role in the Future of Ageing, Herald Tribune, Herald Tribune, posted on 03/02/2020, accessed on 07/02/2020 at: https://heraldtribune.com/news/20200203/aging-inright-place-technology-will-play-big-role-in-future-of-aging Museums Association (2013a) Webchat Museums 2020, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/campaigns/museums2020/27032013-webchatpublic-attitudes-to-museums?csort=like Nielsen (2015) New America, New Consumers: Demographics, Nielsen Insights, posted on 02/07/2015, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/ 2015/new-america-new-consumers/ NMDC (2013, updated 2018) Museums and Tourism, London: National Museum Directors Conference, p.  1, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/ what-we-do/encouraging_investment/tourism/ O’Neill, M. (2020) Introduction, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–16 O’Neill, M., Seaman, P. and Dornan, D. (2020) Thinking Through Health and Museums in Glasgow, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 95–111 ONS (2016) Five Facts About the UK Service Sector, London: Office for National Statistics, issued 29th September 2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.ons.gov.uk/economy/

Societal change

39

economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/fivefactsabouttheukservicesector/ 2016-09-29 Pandiloski, P. (2015) The Rise of European Leisure, Brown Political Review, posted on 24/10/2015, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2015/10/ the-rise-of-european-leisure/ Perkin, H. (2002) The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880 (2nd ed.), London: Routledge Phillips, W. (1993, reprinted 2004) Institution-wide Change in Museums, in Anderson, G. (ed) Reinventing the Museum, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 367–374 Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The Experience Economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, Wallingford: CAB International Price Waterhouse Cooper (2019) Global Consumer Insights Survey, London: Price Waterhouse Cooper, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/con sumer-markets/consumer-insights-survey/new-consumer-habits.html Rosenbaum, S. (2016) The New World of the Empowered Consumer, Forbes, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosenbaum/2015/07/16/the-new-worldof-the-empowered-consumer/#57a716e34aab Sharpley, R. (1996) Tourism and Consumer Culture in Post-modern Society, in Robinson, M., Evans, N. and Callaghan, P. (eds) Proceedings of the Tourism and Culture: Towards the 21st Century Conference, Sunderland: Centre for Travel and Tourism/ Business Education Publishers, pp. 203–215 Snape, R. (2018) Leisure Studies, Leisure History and the Meanings of Leisure, posted on 26/06/ 2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://leisurestudies.org/leisure-studies-leisurehistory-and-the-meanings-of-leisure/ Social Trends Institute (2017) Families in a Changing Society, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.socialtrendsinstitute.org/news/families-in-a-changing society Sommer, H. (2018) Assessing Millennial Engagement in Museum Spaces, Theory & Practice, 1, 2018, no page numbers, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://articles.themuseum scholar.org/tp_vol1sommer Straughan, C. (2019) The Tools and Tactics Successful Museums Use to Attract New Visitors, MuseumNext, June 2019, posted on 12/06/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumnext.com/article/how-to-attract-new-visitors-to-your-museum/ Texeira, R. and Abramowitz, A. (2008) The Decline of the White Working Class and Rise of the Mass Upper Middle Class, Brookings Working Paper, April 2008, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.brookings.edu/research/ the-decline-of-the-white-working-class-and-the-rise-of-a-mass-upper-middle-class United Nations World Tourism Barometer (no date), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https:// unwto.org/barometer VisitBritain (2019) The Visitor Experience in Britain, London: VisitBritain, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/f iles/vb-corporate/foresight_ 154_-_the_visitor_experience_-_may_2019_update.pdf Walhiner, M. (2016) Museum Digital Revolution, Museum Planner blog, 14 December 2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://museumplanner.org/museum-digital-revolution Ward, E. (2020) Transforming Health, Museums and the Civic Imagination, in Hooper, G. and O’Neill, M. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 125–137 Wilde, O. (1882) The Art of Handicraft, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.bostonmaga zine.com/property/2015/03/03/oscar-wilde-lecture/

2 MUSEUMS AND THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION

The challenge: to outline the impact of the digital revolution and social media, particularly on Western society and specifically on museums.

Introduction The combination of Smartphone and social media is a worldwide phenomenon, ubiquitous in our daily lives – ‘shaping the ways we think, work, play, experience, communicate and consume’ (Ntalla, 2017: 2) – and linked closely to the issue of participation. It is the end-product, to date, of an ongoing revolution in digital technology. We now live in a time when mass one-way communication has been replaced by mass participation: Arguably, so far, consumer technology has been the biggest contemporary force for change that we are noticing, wherever connected devices can be afforded en masse. Digital is making more of us less physically active, less private, more exposed to new information, more globally connected, and more active in choosing, creating and contributing to content. Bridgetmck (2015) Nothing epitomises Millennials and Generation Z more than their relationship with new technology and associated social media – something that has also inf luenced many of their elders. Its impact on museums and their audiences has already been profound and is only just beginning – speeded up by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, when museums turned to social media and websites to maintain a relationship with their users (see the next section and Chapter 9).

Museums and the digital revolution 41

This chapter builds on the wider discussion of societal change in Chapter 1, looking at the digital revolution and its growing impact. It does not discuss digital informal learning, which is explored in Chapter 5.

The digital revolution Most of us are familiar with the concept of the ‘Information Age’, coined in the later 20th century to characterise the rapid shift from traditional industry to an economy based on information technology, with the invention in 1989, and public launch in 1991, of the World Wide Web, and the subsequent rise of a ‘network society’ in the 1990s following the widespread development and adoption of the internet (Castells, 2009). Thus, we see a world economy increasingly dependent on knowledge and information, and the technology needed to process these. In retrospect, this has become known as Web 1.0, with its focus on information provision and the development of global just-in-time supply chains. However, networking quickly became a cultural and social phenomenon. Castells, writing in 1996, spoke of the network architecture as ‘dynamic, open-ended, f lexible, potentially able to expand endlessly, without rupture’ (Castells, 2009: 162). He was right. One consequence of the business need to develop and operate new technologies and to construct and maintain the necessary networks was the rise of a new, highly skilled technology workforce – one with very different expectations of work and workplace: The default techie mindset is: we’re new and different. We’re disruptors. We’re free from the shackles of the past . . . that stif le innovation. anonymous west coast USA executive quoted in Arlidge (2018) Blakeman, speaking of ‘self-motivated adults who are able to make decisions and don’t need to be managed, just led’ described this in his TED talk: the front office looks pretty much the same way it did a hundred years ago, with managers in ties making all the decisions. These Industrial Age management practices, which recreated humans as extensions of machines, are colliding with the emerging Participation Age workforce that wants to Make Meaning at work, not just money. . . . The hallmarks of the Participation Age are simple, participation and sharing. Blakeman (2018) McLagan and Nel had first defined the ‘Age of Participation’ as an alternative approach to business governance in 1995, but the key recent drivers have been Simon Simek and Frederic Laloux. Simek’s ‘Golden Circle’, focused on a management approach that sought to inspire the workforce rather than just pay them, with Apple as his core case study (Simek, 2011). Laloux wrote of ‘Teal

42

Context

organisations’ based on collaboration and self-management with no need for hierarchies or central command (Laloux, 2014). A further element was explored by Heimans and Timms (2018), with their concepts of ‘old power’ and ‘new power’, discussed in the book introduction. Meanwhile, the use of new technology in an open, participative and peer-driven manner moved swiftly into society at large. In 2004, Tim O’Reilly coined the term Web 2.0 to describe a trend in the use of Web technology to create communities for information sharing and collaboration (Rockenbach and Fabian, 2008). In 2006, Jenkins gave the name ‘participatory culture’ to these communities: a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement strong support for creating and sharing creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to novices. In a participatory culture, members also believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least, members care about others’ opinions of what they have created). Jenkins et al. (2006: xi) Here we have people taking part, working together creatively, sharing and contributing freely, supporting each other, feeling a sense of belonging, and believing in the importance of their contributions. With them, the focus shifted from commercial recipients of information to active users engaged in the process of information and content creation ( Daniel Brown, pers. comm., describes it as being a ‘creators’ internet’) – and bringing with them a new range of highlevel skills including problem-based inquiry, critical thinking, and visual literacy, alongside an ability to use these creatively (Rockenbach and Fabian, 2008). New technology then supported their creativity (e.g. YouTube), made possible new levels of collaboration (e.g. Wikipedia), and drove attitudinal change – hence the ‘Age of Participation’. Today’s Millennials lived through an age without digital tech but have since become the customer base for that tech. Generation Z, at least in Western society, grew up with it and have ‘spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age’ (Prensky, 2001: 1). Yet what extended this participative revolution beyond the initiated technology lovers to affect all our lives was not the technology itself but the evolution of early examples of collaborative software into what became known as ‘Social Media’: the tools and platforms people use to publish, converse and share content online. The tools include blogs, wikis, podcasts, and sites to share photos and bookmarks. An important component of social media is the idea of social networking. Kelly (2009: 2)

Museums and the digital revolution 43

And social networking is key to understanding what has happened since. At a basic level, people began to communicate differently. With instant global connections 24/7, WITNESS – RECORD – SHARE became the norm (Vargas, 2007, quoted in OP&A, 2007a: 2). Web-based email was born in 1994, as was Amazon, eBay in 1995, and Google in 1996. Wikipedia first went live in 2001. Facebook was launched in 2004, YouTube in 2005, Twitter in 2006, Instagram in 2010, Snapchat in 2011, and TikTok in 2016. In the years since, the world has been transformed, and it is continuing to change at a pace beyond our comprehension, with participation at its heart: a key feature of . . . our lives . . . content we shape and produce ourselves by sharing, liking, tweeting, instagramming and blogging, preferably as and when it happens since instant status updates are the ultimate proof of participation. Jalving (2017: 8) In practice, technology and media must be viewed together. The world-changing event came with the evolution of small hand-held computers with multi-media facilities into powerful smartphones – with the sale of the first iPhones in 2007, the Android operating system following in 2008 and the iPad in 2010 (Delwiche and Henderson, 2013: 7). These allowed people on the move ‘to connect, communicate globally, and customize their experiences to their own preferences and needs, [ensuring] public expectations of participation have taken root in every fertile inch of our human culture’ (McLean, no date: 1). And being able to connect to your social networks anywhere, anytime has led to the emergence of a media environment unlike anything experienced before, one that is still evolving. It is important to note, however, that there is also a growing concern/ backlash over social media and other forms of online participation, including: • • •

•

• •

Concern about smartphones/social media replacing face-to-face sociability (e.g. Syvertsen and Enli, 2019) ‘The end of comments’, backlash against online comments (e.g. Løvlie, 2018) Contemporary concerns about the role of social media in fomenting rightwing populism (Trump, Brexit, Cambridge Analytica, etc.), fake news, conspiracy theories, inf luencing elections, disinformation campaigns, ‘astroturfing’, etc. Abusive behaviour online, including Trolling; the gamergate controversy over sexism and harassment in video game culture; and the chat site 8chan’s links to right-wing extremism. Cancel culture and other forms of online shaming in terms of what this means for freedom of speech. Some people are deleting their Facebook accounts, with ‘Zuckerberg’ becoming a derogatory term (e.g. Clayton, 2020). This will probably have little effect on Facebook’s dominant position but might be relevant among some museum audience groups.

44

Context

As Anders Sundnes Løvlie – to whom I am grateful for these comments on the downside of social media – points out (pers comm), none of this alters the main argument of the chapter, but it is an important part of our contemporary context. Many people are wary of the dark side of social media, and that also affects their expectations towards, for example, museum exhibitions. These issues are also very much at the forefront of attention for those who are working with social media and online participation.

Implications for the museum experience Under the inf luence of the Smartphone and related social media, participation has become a take-for-granted expectation. This in turn is having a direct effect on how people engage with the wider world, including with culture: Contemporary notions of creativity, shaped by Web 2.0, centre on shared construction of cultural identity and an ethos of participatory experience. . . . This shift is about more than just technology. People are thinking about the experience of culture differently than in the past, placing value on a more immersive and interactive experience than is possible through mere observation. Brown and Novak-Leonard (2011, reprinted 2014) Participative digital engagement and sharing is now integral to the lives, behaviour, and experiences of contemporary museum users – and, both onsite and online, it is having an impact on the overall museum experience. This is a fundamental issue. It has a profound effect on people’s expectations of museums, today

Box 2.1

A digital context for the museum experience

USER-CENTRICITY: audience first MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY: live lives with smartphones – need free Wi-Fi, seamless digital infrastructure CONNECTED & DISTRACTED: constant media assault by choice (filtered by Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles) HYBRID PLATFORMS: merge on-site, online, mobile GLOBAL: exposure to global cultures, trends, and activities COLLECTIONS: expect access + information + to use SMART: access to multiple sources of information EXPERIENCE EXPECTATIONS: personalise, participate, contribute, share – active experience CONTENT: inclusive, polyvocal CREATIVE COLLABORATION: global links

Museums and the digital revolution 45

and into the future, particularly leading to increasing demands for personalised, immersive, and shareable experiences – and ones that are at a time and place that suits. It has also resulted in a digital context to visits to cultural venues including museums, sitting alongside the personal, social, and physical contexts defined by Falk and Dierking (2000), outlined in Box 2.1. While the long-term implications for museums are impossible to know, there is enough understanding to suggest the following: 1

Threat to museum authority •

2

Digital practicalities •

•

3

With the digital revolution bringing new ways to access content, to create and circulate your own material, and to bring people together, the power of the museum as gatekeeper to collections is under threat, while user-generated content places multiple voices and perspectives on a platform alongside the authoritative voice of the museum. Terms from ‘democratisation’, ‘relevance’, and ‘participation’ to ‘empowerment’ and ‘co-production’ point to a future for museums based on equal partnerships with audiences and communities. Many curators fear this as diminishing the role and authority of the expert.

A ‘living’ Digital Strategy to ensure direction, the development of a participative digital mind-set by all museum staff, not just the digital expert(s), and a re-imagining of the user experience. It will need frequent adaptation as the digital landscape shifts, hence ‘living’. A seamless digital infrastructure – free high speed Wi-Fi and Quick Charge charging points for your phone – will be a taken-for-granted norm, enabling the museum to mirror digital lifestyles and be welcoming, particularly to young people. This must be f lexible enough to adapt with evolving technology and changing user needs and expectations.

Digital access •

•

The museum’s reach now stretches across the world. This means a huge new audience to reach out to. It also means each museum is competing on a semi-global stage! Museum entrances now include not only the physical door but also search engine results pages and website home pages, while ‘meeting the information needs of online visitors has become an important part of the museum professional’s job’ (Marty, 2008: 81). Many websites, whatever the country of origin, now include an English language element, but the reach will never be fully global without other languages and an understanding of target localities. There is the potential for museums to achieve a huge increase in access to their collections and research. But this brings with it an expectation of

46

Context

the immediate availability of comprehensive and deliverable high resolution images, information, and interpretation relating to those collections, accessible on your preferred device. See Rebecca O’Neill’s article for the importance of such access: ‘If an object, document, or body of knowledge is only accessible to those within an institution or to those who already know of its existence, it will remain obscure to the rest of humanity’. The voluntary activity of people such as Wikimedians can help museums use their collections to fill profound gaps in our knowledge and understanding. This is particularly important for telling the stories of those groups who have always been on the periphery. 4

Responding to user expectations and behaviour •

•

•

•

• •

An underpinning Digitality – derived from Negroponte (1995), this term refers to the basic condition of living in a digital culture. ‘Digital technology is no longer a separate entity, but truly embedded in the lives of young people’ (MHM, 2018: 40). At this early stage, however, we have yet to fully understand the impact of growing up and living in an ‘always on’ technological environment on people. Every museum will require an embedded digital approach, and comprehensive digital content, that recognises most, especially young, people are instantly and constantly connected (MHM, 2018: 13). The replacement of a visitor-centred ethos, ‘where audiences matter as much as collections’ (Samis and Michaelson, 2017: 2), with User-centricity, which places the needs and expectations of users as the central focus. Recognition that social circles, especially for younger people, exist both locally and online: ‘understanding young people’s social circles in isolation from technology is now impossible’ (MHM, 2018: 5). The potential for engaged users to become active contributors and even stakeholders in the museum. Museums may increasingly take a ‘Digital First’ approach, based on contemporary printing practice that material should be published in new media first. For museums it would suggest they: shift focus from the exhibition first to the online experience first, as this is where the audiences most likely first will encounter the museum and the topics you wish to talk about. And in order to connect online and onsite we need to look at experiences that are seamlessly delivered across the entire museum ecosystem. Hartig (2018)

5

Interpretation and learning •

The digital revolution brings with it enormous new learning opportunities – building and practicing new skill sets and new approaches to learning. As most museum learning is underpinned by social interaction, it is

Museums and the digital revolution 47

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

likely to involve onsite, mobile, and online activity. This is discussed in Chapter 5. The digital revolution, and particularly social media, is tipping the balance away from outcomes towards the learning process, with its emphasis on dialogue, sharing, and interaction, as ‘engagement becomes the exhibition’ (Fairclough, 2012: xvi). Social media is also playing a growing role in fostering a sense of belonging amongst users, sharing the moment, circulating and commenting on content, enjoying other people responding to their thoughts, feeling they are a part of a community – a circle of friends with shared interests created around the museum. The museum itself can provide rare behind-the-scenes insights as well as more obvious material on exhibitions: ‘an open forum that allows museums, at the click of a button, to show the world what it has to offer’ (Dawson, 2020). And the big sites have millions of followers. The Art Newspaper’s list of most visited websites placed the Museum of Modern Art in New York first, with 12.4 million followers. Tate Modern and Tate Britain in London was the highest of five UK sites in the top ten, with 9.3 million, while the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam came in seventh with 5.6 million ( Dawson, 2020). The digital revolution will transform an on-site only experience into one that merges on-site, online, and mobile (anywhere, anytime) and takes the museum beyond its walls. Virtual displays, podcasts, etc., are already an integral part of the user experience, while YouTube is an increasingly important access point to museum content for teenagers (MHM, 2018: 13). Multi-perspectivity – multiple voices and perspectives, all at one time – will become the norm, sitting alongside the authoritative voice of the museum, and frequently beyond its control. Polyvocality is not enough – it could mean curatorial control permitting many voices but all from the same point of view. New technology should allow the museum both to develop new ways of engagement and to enhance existing ones – providing a much more participative experience – to actively explore together, to personalize the experience, to take part, to encounter different perspectives, to decide for themselves, to contribute, to share experiences with friendship groups via Snapchat, Instagram, etc. Younger audiences, in particular, will seek to use collections and information on them. The way that they act is ensuring that the borders between the physical and virtual are gradually disappearing. Many already take material online and actively share, sort, classify, collaboratively re-think, re-classify, re-publish, and re-use as they see fit. To meet their needs will involve developing new models of engagement – ‘Smart Participation’. And, if our audiences cannot engage/participate in the ways they want to, they will go elsewhere.

48

Context

6

Participatory Cultures •

•

7

Digital expertise •

8

The internet is not only a means of access to content; it can also act as a forum for research and for creative collaboration. In such an environment, the museum could become an active agent within digital culture. This brings potential for museums to sit at the heart of digital networks that encourage increased connectivity, collaboration, and commitment to participation, enhancing people’s access to their cultural heritage. On the downside, if museums fail to become part of that network, they will be left behind. No matter the size of the institution, we can build communities of enthusiasts who ‘value the creative process and . . . engaging socially in creative activities’ (Giaccardi, 2012: 3) – on-site and online – on a shared journey. See (3) and Rebecca O’Neill’s article.

The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the growing awareness within museums of the huge impact new technology and associated media are going to have on all aspects of their work. With this awareness has come recognition of the need for museums to build their digital capacity. In the UK this has led to the creation of a Digital Skills for Heritage Programme, funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. More recently, the Digital Culture Compass was established in the UK to provide an online toolkit that would help arts and heritage organisations to integrate digital technology into their work (https://digitalculturecompass. org.uk/). There is much more to be done, however, and it seems likely that small museums will fall further behind the larger institutions in developing their digital skills.

Participative governance •

You cannot separate the development of a participative museum experience – whether traditional or digital – from how the museum is run. Institutional change is inevitable. Museums need to match the innovation seen in technological and software development with an equally innovative approach to both organisational management and the visitor experience. This is discussed in Chapter 8 and in the chapters by Scott Cooper and Kathryn Thomson.

Concluding thoughts The UK Taking Part Survey for 2018/19 found that, while 26.6% of UK adults visited a museum website or app, the most common reasons were ‘to find out about an exhibition or event’ (74.3%), ‘to check opening times’ (65.1%), and ‘to order tickets for an exhibition or event’ (38.4%) (DDCMS, 2019: 20). This

Museums and the digital revolution 49

would suggest that this chapter is about potential, not reality, and that there is a long way to go before the coming together of on-site, online, and mobile in terms of the museum experience happens on a serious scale. But then came the COVID-19 pandemic! When this led to a worldwide closure of museums and other cultural institutions to the public, in March–April 2020, there was a mad rush online by these institutions in an attempt to maintain relationships with their audiences (see Chapter 9). As Johannes Bernhardt says in his chapter, the crisis ‘has given a new urgency to the concept of the digital museum’. But, the problem was that most museums in their online provision ‘are falling into transmitter-receiver scenarios that should already have been overcome and simply continue their usual work by digital means’ – so, largely dull virtual tours with little that was designed to ref lect the way people use the internet and, in particular, a lack of the social content most users want. Few institutions followed the example of the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London, which put out a call on YouTube to find out what its subscribers wanted – this turned out to be not about exhibitions that people could not visit but ‘more fashion and more behind-the-scenes stuff ’ (Price, 2020: 51). Those institutions that sought a participative response were well rewarded. The Royal Academy in London tweeted ‘who can draw us the best ham’ and received around 400 responses and 7000 likes. The V&A uploaded a ‘Design a Wig’ interactive (https://vam.ac.uk/articles/design-a-wig) that proved ‘incredibly popular’ (Price, 2020: 51). The Getty Museum began with a challenge ‘to recreate a work of art with objects (and people) in your home’ (see Jenny Kidd’s chapter), then moved on to create an art generator that allowed people to select from more than 79,000 artworks to download and adapt into the ‘museum’ in the hugely successful Nintendo Animal Crossing: New Horizons video game. Back in the UK, the ‘Kids in Museums’ charity, which normally makes an annual Family Friendly Museum award, in 2020 made it a Kids in Museums family Friendly Award from Home. They received over 400 nominations, including international ones, narrowing these down to a shortlist of 25 (Kids in Museums, 2020). Even though, as I write, museums are beginning to reopen their physical sites, this rush to digital has proved conclusively that it is time for museums to have a significant rethink about their digital practice – both on-site and online – being pro-active rather than waiting until further change is imposed on them from outside. This new world provides remarkable opportunities for museums to engage their audiences in ways that were not possible before – made even more the case once we recognize that we are only at the beginning. Change brought on by technology is not going to stop any time soon – in fact it is going to get faster. We can see glimpses of this in the profound differences already being made in the workplace by Industry 4.0, from robotics and the ‘internet of things’ to Artificial Intelligence – see the chapter by Hsiao-Te Hsu. There will be other developments that we currently cannot even imagine. Overall, a common comment is that technology will evolve more in the next five years than in the past ten. And we already know that what starts in industry

50

Context

quickly moves into society at large. It is no surprise, therefore, to discover that museums are partnering technology creatives to explore the impact this could have on the future of visitor engagement, not least in terms of immersive mixed reality experiences. See, for example, the Future Audiences Project ( https://future audiences.org.uk), involving the Natural History and Science Museums in London. Technology will continue to change but, crucially, what we want it to do will not – it will still be there as a tool to support user enjoyment, engagement, inspiration, and learning. And, while it is not that difficult for those with specialist knowledge to anticipate technological development in the foreseeable future (say by 2030–2050), it is an entirely different matter to predict major shifts in how people behave. I am aware of no one in the 1990s, for example, who accurately predicted the worldwide impact of social media and its effect on mainstream human attitudes and cultural mores. So, while it is reasonable to predict the further integration of artificial intelligence into the fabric of our everyday lives (Hannon, 2018), who knows what this will lead to in terms of shifts in attitudes and behaviour – and, from our perspective – how this will affect people’s engagement with museums and their collections. Hsiao-Te Hsu’s chapter paints a vivid picture of what museums can already do with the latest technologies.

References Arlidge, J. (2018) $1M on Art? Computer Billionaire Says No, Sunday Times, 7 October 2018, p. 28 Blakeman, C. (2018) The Emerging Work World in the Participation Age, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://singjupost.com/the-emerging-work-world-in-the-participa tion-age-chuck-blakeman-at-tedxmilehigh-transcript/ Bridgetmck (2015) Towards the Sociocratic Museum, posted on 13/01/2015, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://medium.com/code-words-technology-and-theory-in-themuseum/towards-the-sociocratic-museum-223390e2a00b Brown, A.S. and Novak-Leonard, J.L. (2011, reprinted 2014) Getting in on the Act: How Arts Groups Are Creating Opportunities for Active Participation, San Francisco, CA: James Irvine Foundation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://irvine-dot-org.s3.amazonaws. com/documents/12/attachments/GettingInOntheAct2014_DEC3.pdf Castells, M. (1996/2009) An Introduction to the Information Age, reprinted in Thornham, S., Bassett, C. and Marris, P. (eds) Media Studies: A Reader (3rd ed.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 152–164 Clayton, J. (2020) Could a Boycott Kill Facebook? accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.bbc. co.uk/news/technology-53225139 Dawson, A. (2020) Which Museums Have the Biggest Social Media Followings, The Art Newspaper, posted on 31/03/2020, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.theartnewspaper. com/analysis/museum-masters-of-the-social-media-universe DDCMS (2019) Taking Part Survey England, Adult Report for 2018/19, London: Department for Digital, Culture, Culture, Media and Sport, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/832874/Taking_Part_Survey_Adult_Report_2018_19.pdf

Museums and the digital revolution 51

Delwiche, A. and Henderson, J.J. (eds) (2013) The Participatory Cultures Handbook, London: Routledge Fairclough, G. (2012) Introduction, in Giaccardi, E. (ed) Heritge and Social Media, London: Routledge, pp. xiv–xvii Falk, J. and Dierking, L. (2000) Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press Giaccardi, E. (2012) Introduction: Reframing Heritage in a Participatory Culture, in Giaccardi, E. (ed) Heritage and Social Media, London: Routledge, pp. 1–10 Hannon, C. (2018) Nesta’s 2019 Predictions: The Shock of the ‘New Normal’, posted on 4/12/2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/nestas-2019predictions-the-shock-of-the-new-normal/ Hartig, K. (2018) The Museum Experience as Digital First – Strategic Approaches to Content, Conversation and Audience Engagement, posted on 29/04/2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://medium.com/@kajsahartig/the-museum-experience-as-digital-f irststrategic-approaches-to-content-conversation-and-audience-ada4b3f bc6bf Heimans, J. and Timms, H. (2018) New Power: How It’s Changing the 21st Century – And Why You Need to Know, London: MacMillan Jalving, C. (ed) (2017) The Art of Taking Part: Participation at the Museum, ARKEN Bulletin, Vol. 7, Denmark: ARKEN Museum of Modern Art, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://issuu.com/arken_museum/docs/bulletin_2017 Jenkins, H. with Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K. and Robison, A.J. (2006) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/confronting-challenges-participatory-culture Kelly, L. (2009) The Impact of Social Media on Museum Practice, Paper presented at the National Palace Museum, Taipei, 20 October 2009, accessed on 17/07/2019 at: https://aus tralianmuseum.net.au/document/the-impact-of-social-media-on-museum-practice Kids in Museums (2020) Shortlist Announced for the Family Friendly Museum Award from Home, posted and accessed on 20/07/2020 at: https://kidsinmuseums.org.uk/2020/07/ shortlist-announced-for-the-family-friendly-museum-award-from-home/ Laloux, F. (2014, English edition 2016) Reinventing Organisations: A Guide to Creating Organisations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness, London: Nelson Parker Løvlie, A.S. (2018) Constructive Comments? Journalism Practice, 12(6), pp.  781–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1473042 Marty, P.F. (2008) Museum Websites and Museum Visitors: Digital Museum Resources, Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), pp. 81–99 McLagan, P. and Nel, C. (1995) The Age of Participation, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers McLean, K. (no date) Museum Exhibit Prototyping as a Method of Community Conversation and Participation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.afsnet.org/ resource/resmgr/Best_Practices_Reports/McLean_and_Seriff_Museum_Exh.pdf MHM (2018) Young People’s Cultural Journeys, Morris Hargreaves McIntyre for Arts Connect, June 2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.artsconnect.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2018/06/Arts-Connect-CCJ-report-FINAL.pdf Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Ntalla, I. (2017) The Interactive Museum Experience: Investigating Experiential Tendencies and Audience Focus in the Galleries of Modern London and the High Arctic Exhibition. Unpublished Post-Doctoral thesis, City, University of London, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/17280/1/Ntalla%2C%20Irida-Redacted.pdf

52

Context

OP&A (2007a) 2030 Vision: Anticipating the Needs and Expectations of Museum Visitors of the Future, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Office of Policy & Analysis, accessed on 30/06/2030 at: www.si.edu/content/opanda/docs/rpts2007/07.07.2030vision. final.pdf Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon, 9(5), Maryland: MCB University Press, October 2001, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.marcprensky. com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants% 20-%20Part1.pdf Price, K. (2020) Has the Temporary Closure of Museums Forced Them to Think Differently About Digital? Art Quarterly, Summer 2020, p. 51 Rockenbach, B. and Fabian, C.A. (2008) Visual Literacy in the Age of Participation, Art Documentation, 27(2), Fall, pp. 26–31 Samis, P. and Michaelson, M. (2017) Creating the Visitor-Centred Museum, Abingdon: Routledge Simek, S. (2011) Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, London: Penguin Syvertsen, T. and Enli, G. (2019) Digital Detox: Media Resistance and the Promise of Authenticity, Convergence, May, doi:10.1177/1354856519847325

A SOCIAL MEDIA AND PARTICIPATION The selfie as a curious cultural artefact Jenny Kidd

Introduction As I write this piece in the early summer of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic is at the top of national and international agendas, sending shockwaves through our political, social, and cultural life. Many museums around the world have had to shut their doors, and those that are now re-opening are doing so tentatively, with strict physical distancing measures in place. Our cultural life is for now primarily a virtual one; streamed theatrical performances, online book groups, and virtual tours. We have seen an acceleration and intensification of museums’ digital practices during this period, a development that has not been without critique: Is a global health emergency the right context within which to transition into new spaces, promote digital archives, court new audiences, or trial a new institutional voice, for example? Notwithstanding that critique, the ‘pivot to digital’ continues apace. One notable trend has been the increased effort being made by cultural institutions to gain traction around their content within social networks, and it is this activity that I focus on in this contribution. In particular, I explore selfies – initially through the prism of the #GettyMuseumChallenge – as a form of cultural participation. Through such initiatives we see vividly the potential for a more dynamic and playful communications interplay, one where museums shift from an understanding of social networks principally in terms of ‘promotional broadcasting’ ( Jarreau et al., 2019; see also Kidd, 2011, 2014), and try instead to embrace the affordances and logics of social networks.

The #GettyMuseumChallenge In many countries the COVID-19 lockdown happened swiftly, and comprehensively. Physical access to cultural institutions was suddenly impossible, and many

54

Jenny Kidd

museum staff began working from home. Within a matter of hours media and cultural institutions were circulating existing digital assets online, and social media managers became in many cases the primary interface with users and audiences. Within that context, on 25 March 2020, the Getty Museum issued a challenge on social media which garnered huge interest, and a great many responses.

FIGURE A.1

The @GettyMuseum Challenge call to action.

Source: reproduced with permission from The Getty Museum

Social media and participation

55

The vibrancy and creativity of the responses is marked (see, e.g., Waldorf and Stephan, 2020). People of all ages from around the globe embraced the challenge, sharing photos featuring their interpretations of artworks from the Getty collection, and of course from other institutions as well. More than a month later there were still many hundreds of contributions being added daily to #GettyMuseumChallenge and the initial post had been shared tens of thousands of times. Against a backdrop of intense financial upheaval for the sector, interest in the #GettyMuseumChallenge helped keep culture on the agenda, and international media attention followed. According to The Viral Take there was something particular to the lockdown context that made the challenge so appealing (Viral Take, 2020). People were of course ‘imprisoned’ in their homes with limited resources, and this gave the contributions a quirky and very much homemade aesthetic. The reuse of household items in the photographs ranged from the surreal to the preposterous, and many people centred props that spoke to the particular conditions of lockdown: stockpiled foodstuffs, toilet rolls, sanitising sprays, and thermometers for example. Photos featuring user, audience, or visitor recreations of artworks are of course not new. In the context of a more traditional visit, we might term these activities ‘visitor social photography’ and encourage sharing via the hashtag #MuseumSelfie. What was really striking about the #GettyMuseumChallenge was how comprehensively it crept into the social media feeds of a broader public eager to share. In the context of lockdown these art selfies became performances of strength and positivity, as familiar as they were strange.

What kind of a thing is a museum selfie? [S]ocial photography has become ubiquitous and easily accessible to museum visitors. Weilenmann et al. (2013)

We know that social photography – photos taken on smartphones and shared amongst networks (primarily social networks) – is a big deal. We encounter it daily in our social media feeds and see how selfies in particular define and package ‘celebrity’ (Kidd, 2015). The selfie is stubbornly ambiguous however, difficult to read and to value (Senft and Baym, 2015), and this is no less true within the context of a museum or gallery visit. What kinds of selves are created within such a format? Indeed, what kind of museums? (Burness, 2016). It is easy to dismiss social photography as trite and narcissistic; we see this frequently in press reporting about selfies. But research is starting to unpack a multitude of alternative ways we might understand their significance: •

A selfie can help to construct and explore new patterns of intimacy and creativity (Miguel, 2016). A photograph can express and create ‘self’ through everyday creativity, or what Jean Burgess has called ‘vernacular creativity’ (Burgess, 2006). It gives us a simple and nigh on ubiquitous means to self-represent.

56

Jenny Kidd

•

Allied to that, a selfie can be understood as a performance of power; for example, for those who post photos for Trans Day of Awareness, or those who use them to highlight everyday acts of violence (as reported in Nemer and Freeman, 2015). A selfie can provide a crucial ‘civic refuge’ for those ‘robbed of citizenship’ (Azoulay, 2008), ‘bearing witness’ to the experiences of migrants for example (Allan, 2016). A selfie can support collaborative ‘photowork’, sharing, and display (Lindley et al., 2008).

•

•

A selfie is then a rather curious individual and cultural production; complex and even consequential. So, what work can a selfie do within a museum context? According to the (now burgeoning) literature, it can do quite a number of things. It can offer up different stories and different truths; posing new questions, suggesting different interpretations, and perhaps even suggesting different value systems. It can inspire empathy, play, creativity, and curiosity- we see that demonstrated ably by the #GettyMuseumChallenge. It can, potentially, lead to more or better social interactions in and around museums, and new ways of place- and brand-making ( Burness, 2016). It can position an institution as part of a ‘live’ cross-platform multi-media conversation (Weilenmann et al., 2013), and in this respect can help construct museum identities, as Allie Burness has noted: By taking self-representational social photographs, visitors perform their sense of self using museum objects and, in so doing, create their own identity as well as the identity of the museum. Burness (2016: 105, italics in original) There is a quite radical potential for social photography in museums then, but it is a challenging landscape to navigate. There are a number of things we need to be mindful of as we court engagement in these spaces.

Some of the challenges It is seductive to assume that social photography is a democratised medium, but we must remember that social networks do not constitute a diverse and open conversation anyone can take part in. Far from it; in these platforms someone is always excluded. Evidence confirms that digital exclusion is still a big problem; a matter of education, age, race, gender, ability, and geography. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Office for National Statistics charts persistent inequalities when it comes to digital provision (see for example ONS, 2019). It is a sobering observation that generally it is those same people who are disenfranchised in the rest of society who become disenfranchised online. We also know that not all social photography is perceived to be of equal value

Social media and participation

57

at the point of creation; inf luencer selfies, for example, are more hotly anticipated than those of the average visitor and the simple truth is that museums probably place a greater value on them. How we understand the significance of a selfie for museums then is challenging, and changes over time and in difference contexts. Alongside this question of value, there is a challenge associated with the platforms we use for such activities. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, for example, all have very different logics underpinning them and operate with different kinds of (written and unwritten) permissions in place for users to work within and around. A social photo can be difficult to interpret outside of the platform where it originates and then is shared (it might not translate from Snapchat to Twitter for example). The use of such resources within and by institutions is thus a matter of shared literacy for both museum professionals and users. We need to better understand those logics, the business models that underpin the platforms, and importantly, how those interact with questions about civil liberties. Such concerns segue into challenges associated with uses of data, digital accessioning, and stewardship over time. Consideration of social photography for collection and preservation purposes is of course a part of that picture (Hepner, 2019). That this is now being more actively explored indicates a shift from perspectives on this activity that understand it simply as a form of ‘ephemeral storytelling’ (Villaespesa and Wowkowych, 2020) to an acknowledgement of the contribution social media now make to our construction of nation, community, self, and identity. Acquisition of such materials presents ethical and practical challenges, however, that we are only beginning to understand (Boogh et al., 2020). Of course, social media usage – including the sharing of social photographs #SelfieTime. Some such as selfies – doesn’t appeal to everyone. We don’t all see it as cacophonous, too difficult to contain, and view its slippage into other spaces and activities as problematic. One of the most challenging features of these activities is the way they habitualise swiping and scrolling, meaning that content  – whether circulated by institutions or visitors – is always competing with something potentially more exciting on the next screen. Gaining visibility, traction, and attention is not easy within this space. There are also instances where social photography has been deemed problematic in the extreme for museums. Cultural institutions in large part have moved to a point of acceptance of visitor social photography although, in the early 2010s, many cultural institutions were outrightly hostile. It is probably true that they too readily bought into the broader panicked discourse about the selfie as narcissistic, faddy and all the more troublesome because it spoke to our concerns about the behaviours of ‘the young’. Bans on selfie sticks were the norm, and dedicated selfie spots were often suggested with graphic markers on the f loor in order to contain the activity. Persistent bans on photography at some sites indicate that the kinds of performance ritualized in the selfie continue to be deemed unwelcome or inappropriate within some contexts.

58

Jenny Kidd

Selfies make some people uneasy because of the intense centrality of self, that self ’s hyper visibility being off-putting. But as has been outlined here there are other concerns for museums, archives, and galleries: about ownership, control, and questions of taste. As museums have become more tolerant – and even welcoming – of social photography we now see appeals to the playfulness and connectivity they can centre. The accumulated riches of #GettyMuseumChallenge demonstrate well how far some institutions have come.

Concluding thoughts However we understand the contributions on #GettyMuseumChallenge and through other such initiatives, it is important to realise that these images are not disembodied digital heritage encounters. They are instead written powerfully on the body and can create new meanings and memories. They are opportunities for engagement, dialogue, and challenge. Visitor social photography is really exciting stuff that we need to understand more about, as we no doubt do about museums’ uses of social media more broadly. This was never more apparent than during the 2020 lockdown when the work of museum social media managers – who already dedicate their professional lives to navigating these spaces with sensitivity and passion – became so intensely visible, and so important as a point of connection. Senft and Baym remind us of the relationship between a social photo and the ‘digital superpublic, outliv[es] the time and place in which it was original[ly] produced, viewed, or circulated’ (Senft and Baym, 2015: 1589). Selfies – and other forms of participatory culture in this model – are complex. But they are significant for the noisy, playful, and sometimes incoherent digital public that they give us access to.

References Allan, S. (2016) Photojournalism and Citizen Witnessing, in Franklin, B. and Eldridge, S. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 487–497 Azoulay, A. (2008) The Civil Contract of Photography, New York: Zone Books Boogh, E., Hartig, K., Jensen, B., Uimonen, P. and Wallenius, A. (eds) (2020) Connect to Collect: Approaches to Collecting Social Digital Photography in Museums and ArchivesStockholm: Nordiska Museet Burgess, J. (2006) Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling, Continuum Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 20(2), pp. 201–214 Burness, A. (2016) New Ways of Looking: Self-representational Social Photography in Museums, in Stylianou-Lambert, T. (ed) Museums and Visitor Photography: Redefining the Visitor Experience, Edinburgh and Boston: Museums Etc, pp. 90–127 Hepner, C. (2019) Selfies Worth Saving? Social Media Collecting in Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://ad-hoc-museum-collective.github.io/GWU-museumdigital-practice-2019/essays/essay-4/

Social media and participation

59

Jarreau, P.B., Dahmen, N.S. and Jones, E. (2019) Instagram and the Science Museum: A Missed Opportunity for Public Engagement, Journal of Science Communication, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18020206 Kidd, J. (2011) Enacting Engagement Online: Framing Social Media Use for the Museum, Information Technology & People, 24(1), pp. 64–77 Kidd, J. (2014) Museums in the New Mediascape, London and New York: Routledge Kidd, J. (2015) Representation: Key Concepts in Media and Culture, London and New York: Routledge Lindley, S.E., Durrant, A., Kirk, D.B. and Taylor, A.S. (2008) Collocated Social Practices Surrounding Photos, Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2008, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008 Miguel, C. (2016) Visual Intimacy on Social Media: From Selfies to the CO-Construction of Intimacies Through Shared Pictures, Social Media and Society, 2(2) Nemer, D. and Freeman, G. (2015) Empowering the Marginalized: Rethinking Selfies in the Slums of Brazil, International Journal of Communication, 9, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3155 ONS (2019) Exploring the UK’s Digital Divide, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www. ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternet andsocialmediausage/articles/exploringtheuksdigitaldivide/2019-03-04 Senft, T., Senft, M. and Baym, N.K. (2015) What Does the Selfie Say? Investigating a Global Phenomenon, International Journal of Communication, 9(2015), pp. 1588–1606 Villaespesa, E. and Wowkowych, S. (2020) Ephemeral Storytelling With Social Media: Snapchat and Instagram Stories at the Brooklyn Museum, Social Media and Society, 6(1), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/205630511 9898776 Viral Take (2020) Getty Museum Challenge Spreads a Smile on the Faces of People Imprisoned in Homes Under the Feat of Corona, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.theviraltake.com/ museum-challenge-spreads-a-smile-on-the-faces-of-people-imprisoned-in-homesunder-the-fear-of-corona-the-viral-take/ Waldorf, S. and Stephan, A. (2020) Getty Artworks Re-Created with Household Items by Creative Geniuses the World Over, Getty Museum, accessed on 30/03/2020 at: https:// blogs.getty.edu/iris/getty-artworks-recreated-with-household-items-by-creativegeniuses-the-world-over/ Weilenmann, A., Hillman, T. and Jungselius, B. (2013) Instagram at the Museum: Communicating the Museum Experience Through Social Photo Sharing, CHI ’13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pages 1843–1852

B MUSEUMS AND PARTICIPATORY CULTURE Wikimedia and GLAM Rebecca O’Neill

Introduction For some in cultural institutions, Wikipedia and its sister projects still invoke feelings of fear and mistrust, with concerns around the who, what, and why that is written on the website, and especially what is written about their institutions and their collections. These fears are in spite of the fact that Wikipedia, at the time of writing, is 20 years old, and that when studies have been conducted into its verifiability it performs as well as – if not better than – its informational and encyclopaedic brethren ( Jemielniak, 2014: 1–3). That said, there is a change afoot in how many cultural institutions are approaching Wikipedia, and like many overnight successes, it has been years in the making. Within the world of Wikipedians and Wikimedians – those who engage with Wikipedia and/or other Wikimedia projects – cultural institutions are referred to as GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums). As so much of the core content of Wikipedia is concerned with history, knowledge, and material culture, there is an inherent interest from Wikimedians in the collections of GLAMs from across the world. Put simply, most important historical artefacts, people, places, or documents will have a Wikipedia article written about them. Those creating or editing those articles will be looking for information, images, and resources to improve, expand, and illustrate the articles in question. What this means in practical terms, for those working in GLAMs, is that Wikimedians are going to be interested in working with your collections whether you engage with them or not. They will source a less than ideal image that is available under an open licence, despite the fact it has lens f lare and the backs of other museum visitors in the shot because an image they can use is better than nothing at all. They will use the best third-party resources detailing objects in your collection if you don’t make that information more readily available. They will do

Museums and participatory culture

61

all of this, potentially without ever visiting your institution, possibly at a remove of hundreds or thousands of miles, or they could be only down the road. They will do it because they fundamentally believe in the importance of the topic and want to see it represented on the largest encyclopaedia that has ever been written. However, this is all based on the collections that are best known to the wider world. Like all of those stories about “hidden” items in archives, and previously “undiscovered” stories that those working in a GLAM know intimately, Wikipedians will only write about the things that have a chance of being discovered. In short, they cannot write about the people, places, cultures, historical moments, or material culture that remain in collections with no external footprint, digital or otherwise. If an object, document, or body of knowledge is only accessible to those within an institution or to those who already know of its existence, it will remain obscure to the rest of humanity. This compounds all of the gaps in knowledge representation that have been acknowledged on Wikipedia (Wade and Zaringhalam, 2018: no page number). The remedy is better, reliable, more representative sources being made readily available. For this piece I will primarily be talking about three of the Wikimedia projects – English language Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikidata. Wikipedia has the most brand recognition of the Wikimedia projects, and is the one that generally receives the most attention, both by the public and academia. It is the largest encyclopaedia that has ever been written, with the English language edition surpassing six million articles in January 2020 (Wikipedia Contributors, 2020: no page number). The English language version first went live in January 2001; while it is the largest of over 300 language editions of Wikipedia, it not always the most relevant to a GLAM depending on the context. Wikimedia Commons is the site that hosts all the media files used to illustrate Wikipedia articles and other Wikimedia projects, and is often referred to simply as Commons. This includes not only photographs but also video and sound files, scans of public domain books, and illustrations. Like Wikipedia, everything hosted on Commons must be published by the creator under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence, a Creative Commons Zero (CC-0) licence, or be in the public domain. Critically, for cultural institutions, if you publish images, data, or other resources under a Creative Commons licence that has non-derivative or non-commercial restrictions, they cannot be uploaded or used on Wikimedia projects. Wikidata is the youngest of the Wikimedia projects, having been founded in 2012. It is a linked database in which objects, topics, or concepts are treated as items with unique alphanumeric numbers – such as Douglas Adams, who is listed as Q42. It serves as a method of linking all the different language editions of a subject together via one access point, as well as media files relating to the subject, and can link outwards to other online databases. For GLAMs, this means that entries can link to collections databases or library and archival records. The data can be queried to produce maps, timelines, datasets, and even lists of missing articles on a specific language Wikipedia.

62

Rebecca O’Neill

Setting the scene Wikimedia Community Ireland (WCI) is the recognised affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity behind Wikipedia, in Ireland. Founded in 2014, it is largely a voluntary group that advocates for the use of Wikimedia projects by those working in varying fields in Ireland. There are groups like this, and larger organisations called chapters, all across the world. The majority of these groups are geographically based, as with WCI, but they can be thematic (interested in a particular subject, like libraries or medicine), language-based, or even be focused on a particular campaign, such as Art+Feminism. Since the inception of WCI, one of our core goals has been to improve the representation of Irish culture on English and Irish language Wikipedia and beyond. In the very early days of the English Wikipedia, much of the content relating to Ireland was written from a British or American perspective. While this has improved, there are still many articles that would be vastly enhanced by a more geographically diverse set of editors working on them, drawing in resources that better represent the Irish experience historically and culturally. This manifests itself in two ways – the literature that is drawn on for references within relevant articles, and from where images are sourced to illustrate articles. Up until recently, there has not been a culture of publishing images or other resources from Irish GLAMs under an open licence. This is in contrast to the United Kingdom and the United States, where some of the largest institutions have either started publishing images under open licences, or already publish all content under a public domain licence, such as the British Library and the Library of Congress. This means that when an editor goes looking for an image about an Irish historical figure, an Irish archaeological site, or an Irish cultural phenomenon, they are more likely to find an image published by a non-Irish GLAM. Immediately this raises issues about the lens through which something is being written or illustrated, by whom is the history being written, and what implications does that have for how a subject is presented and perceived. To further explore the impact, big and small, that engaging with Wikimedia projects can have within a specific context the following are two of the programmes that WCI have conducted in the last number of years.

Wiki Loves Monuments – cultural data in the wild The first project that WCI embarked on in 2014 was to run the inaugural Irish edition of the international photography competition, Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM). Founded in the Netherlands in 2010, WLM encourages people to take photos of listed or protected built heritage and to upload those images to Wikimedia Commons under an open licence with the incentive of winning prizes. The ultimate goal is to have at least one picture of every listed structure in a country, with the additional benefits of inspiring people to write about those sites, and finally that those images would be free for anyone to use on Wikimedia

Museums and participatory culture

63

or elsewhere. The monuments listed in any given country must be those recognised by the relevant governmental department as being of note. In Ireland, this breaks down in to two groups – National Monuments, which are broadly structures constructed before 1700, and those listed on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) of structures built post-1700. Although in Ireland the vernacular term ‘listed building’ is used for buildings catalogued by the NIAH, this does not ref lect how structures are treated by the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Why would such a project be of interest to those working within GLAMs? The answer is simple – data. The first task in setting up the competition was to compile a list of eligible sites so that we could point photographers in the right direction, literally. As not all sites are accessible, on public land, or safe to visit, the first task was to assemble a list of sites that we could be confident the public can visit safely and unhindered. In the first year, this amounted to around 500 locations. These were predominantly archaeological sites such as dolmens, cairns, ruined churches, or stone circles. The datasets we worked from were not fit for our purpose as they were primarily for use by archaeologists within their work, or the government in monitoring or otherwise administering the sites. Much of our initial work was drawing out the sub-datasets into something that could translate into markers on a map, and to automatically tag images with categories as they were uploaded. In the years since 2014, we have been able to draw in more datasets from local authorities, privately owned but tax-registered heritage sites which open to the public, and NIAH sites which were publicly accessible, as well as heritage sites that have contacted us to be included. Our list now stands at 6930 locations eligible to be photographed. These include castles, round towers, and churches, but also libraries, bridges, follies, railway buildings, lighthouses, and even fountains. Many of these sites will have obvious connections to collections in GLAMs, to archaeological, manuscript, photographic, or document collections. Others will have more nuanced or less pronounced links, through the builders, materials, or multiple histories a site may have. For example, a building may have begun life as a Methodist church, before going on to become a music hall, a school, or even a heritage centre itself. Each year we find that individual photographers may upload images they have of a site over many years, which can track the evolution, development or neglect and ruin of a site over time. For a local museum or other cultural organisation, having access to such a bank of images, all available under an open licence, is a powerful tool for understanding, interrogating, communicating, and ultimately having a conversation about a site, group of buildings, or a whole village or town with its own community, or further afield. As of 2019, 2858 of the 6930 sites we have listed as part of WLM have photographs uploaded to Commons, so we have a long way to go before we have full coverage. Some of these sites are more challenging photographically or may take more effort on the part of the photographer to seek out, but they are all deemed to be part of the built heritage of Ireland. They all have a role to play in telling and illustrating the many stories of and from Ireland.

64

Rebecca O’Neill

Hunt Museum, Limerick – a museum lets its images go While some GLAMs have been quick to use open licences when publishing images or other digital assets online, most institutions in Ireland have been slower than some of their UK or EU contemporaries to do so. In recent years there have been more discussions within the cultural sector, from individuals working in the sector as well as from the Irish government, about the use of CC licences for publicly funded GLAMs and projects. One such institution is the Hunt Museum, Limerick. The Hunt Museum is an unusual case within the Irish GLAM landscape. It is based on a core collection of 2000 objects, amassed by one couple, John and Gertrude Hunt. It has been housed in the former Custom House in Limerick city since 1997, where its collections and remit have grown. It has collaborations and partnerships with the Limerick School of Art, University of Limerick, and a number of local museums and galleries. The Museum launched a new strategy in 2019, which explicitly states an aim to publish digitised objects under an open licence, and to work with projects such as Wikipedia for the benefit of readers and editors alike (Hunt Museum, 2019: 5, 10). As a pilot project, a collection of clothes by the designer Sybil Connolly was selected to be photographed and for those images to be uploaded to Commons. Connolly was an important Irish fashion designer in the 1950s and 1960s, with figures such as Jackie Kennedy wearing her dresses. Due to the recent nature of Connolly’s work, most of the coverage and photography of her and her work is still in copyright of the relevant newspapers, photographers, and publications. As the Hunt Museum knew it wanted to make the images public from the inception of the exhibition, it built in from the beginning the ability to publish the photographs of the exhibited clothes under a public domain or CC-0 licence. Forty-five images were uploaded to Commons during a set of Wikipedia-editing workshops in the Museum over the course of three days in May 2018 (O’Neill, 2018: no page number). The editing took place in the galleries, surrounded by the exhibited material, with members of the public, museum staff, and volunteers editing pages about or relating to Connolly. Owing to her use of distinctive Irish materials such as linen, lace, and wool tweed, special interest groups were invited to attend and lend their expertise to the editing event. Almost 6000 words were added to 12 articles, with a number of the 45 images of Connolly’s work being added to relevant articles and pages. What makes this contribution even more important is the representative power of the images. They are the creative outputs of a woman, from a country that is generally less well represented than other English-speaking countries, of objects relating to the history of women’s fashion, and the products of Irish craft-making. On a platform that has been traditionally biased towards a male UK/US-centric view of the world, these images hold more power than is

Museums and participatory culture

65

immediately obvious. This is not to say that they are not very selective in the form of Irish or women’s history they represent. These were objects of status and wealth, and therefore only speak to a narrow segment of the Irish experience in the 1950s and 1960s, both locally and internationally. However, employing the tool GLAMorgan, which collates and analyses how images are used across Wikimedia projects, the wider utility of the images becomes obvious. While some images are used to illustrate the articles relating to Connolly and the various craft materials she used, a detail of a coat illustrates the article on crochet and has been viewed over 18,000 times, and the image of an evening gown has been added to the article of the same name and has been viewed over 5,000 times. These images can be used to represent the highly specific as well the incredibly general, while drawing attention to the work of a particular person, time, and place.

Concluding thoughts As a group representing a community whose whole raison d’être is the freeing of knowledge and culture of all kinds, where does WCI want to go now, and whom do we want to work with? Very simply, we want to work most with those whose stories have always lived on the periphery. For Irish culture this can be wide ranging – for example, the history of women from and in Ireland, experiences of non-Christians in Ireland, people of colour throughout Irish history, Irish LGBTQAI+ culture and history, and ethnic minorities such as the Travelling Community. These narratives and communities have become the focus of much Irish museum outreach and collaboration in recent years. This is important to the Wikimedia movement as creating content and revealing sources on these neglected areas of knowledge makes the process of getting this information onto Wikipedia so much easier. Much is made of hidden histories, forgotten archives, and rediscovered stories, but the truth is that often these are not hidden or forgotten to those working in these collections and institutions, they are just unknown to those outside. By setting images, resources, and digitised objects free, Wikimedians could do more to increase outreach to international communities than most GLAMs can ever dream of, and they would do it in their spare time for the sheer enjoyment and belief that what they are doing is important. I would suggest that it is in that motivation that they have the most in common with those who work within GLAMs and with physical collections, and that this common goal should unite us in working together.

References Hunt Museum (2019) Hunt Museum Strategy 2025, Changing Lives with Culture, Creativity and Learning, Limerick: Hunt Museum Jemielniak, D. (2014) Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

66

Rebecca O’Neill

O’Neill, R. (2018) Ireland Report: First Irish GLAM Upload to Wikimedia Commons; Hunt Museum Is First Irish GLAM to Donate Images to Wikimedia Commons, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/May_ 2018/Contents/Ireland_reports Wade, J. and Zaringhalam, M. (2018) Why We’re Editing Women Scientists onto Wikipedia, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05947-8 Wikipedia Contributors (2020) Wikipedia: Six Million Articles, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Six_million_articles

C “A SERIES OF INTERESTING CHOICES” Gaming and gamification as participation Daniel Brown

Introduction This chapter proposes a framework connecting gaming participation and museum participation. It then demonstrates this framework in action through a portfolio of gaming opportunities offered alongside an exhibition at the Kölnische Stadtmuseum. At the 1989 Games Developer Conference, Sid Meier stated that ‘a game is a series of interesting decisions’ – a much quoted and discussed early definition of computer game mechanics and game design theory (Meier, 2012). Since then Gaming, that is Computer Gaming, has become a well-established part of our digital culture. The industry was evaluated at $120 billion USD in 2019 (Webb, 2019) and is an integral part of today’s ‘Experience Economy’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1998). From the first consoles to MMORPG, mobile games and Esports, Gaming has become more than just an enjoyable pastime. It has become a social, and especially participative, experience through the development of ‘Let’s Play’ formats or Live Gaming via Twitch, albeit one that is rooted in spectatorship (Quandt and Kröger, 2014; Fjaellingsdal, 2014; Recktenwald, 2014, 2018: 9). Gaming is also finding its way into non-gaming sectors through its younger cousin ‘Gamification’, the introduction of gaming elements and game design theory into mundane tasks, processes, and experiences. Deemed a ‘practice of marketers and consultants who seek to construct and exploit an opportunity for benefit’ by its critics (Bogost, 2015), the sector has nevertheless grown into a sizeable market with a global value of $7.17 billion USD in 2019 (Mordor Intelligence, 2019). Regardless of the criticism, gamification has a positive impact on non-gaming scenarios (Robson et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018; Rigby, 2015; Palmer et al., 2012).

68

Daniel Brown

Based on the economic and cultural success of ‘Gaming’ and ‘Gamification’, these have also become an interesting choice for the museum experience, albeit a debated one (Styx, 2019; Marshall, 2020; Mortensen and Kapper, 2015). Gaming and Gamification is seen as part of the educational aspect of a museum, a fun learning tool that complements the exhibition (Wright, 2017: 112). Yet as Visser noted, elements of gamification are not just fun, ‘they’re just as likely distractions’ (Visser, 2015). Just like Sid Meier described gaming as ‘a series on interesting choices’, it would be apt to see if gaming or gamification present themselves as interesting choices for fostering and promoting participation in the museum.

Explorations along the spectrum of participation Participation is a powerful practice, whose various states have been thoroughly explored since Sherry R. Arnstein published her ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (Arnstein, 1969; Smith, 2013; Creighton, 2005). There is, for example, the proposition of a ‘Participatory Culture’ for Media Learning ( Jenkins et al., 2009: 5) or the ‘Participation Paradigm’ as proposed by Livingstone (Livingstone, 2013), while participation is also argued to be an integral part of our daily lives based on the assumption that ‘instant updates are the ultimate proof of participation’ ( Jalving, 2017: 8). Jalving argues along two exemplar lines of activity when defining participation: one activity is ‘taking part’ in an experience whereas the other activity is the ‘creation’ of a new experience. Jalving does not solely base her argument on activity alone but also on technology, new cultural policies and the experience economy ( Jalving, 2017: 8). For a ‘Museum Discourse’ on participation, she argues that ‘participation is seen as a tool that makes the museum relevant to new groups of users’ ( Jalving, 2017: 10). Black also notes that museums are facing increasing demands from new, already ‘learned’ audiences of ‘Millennials’ or ‘Generation Z’, subject to behavioural and demographic change, and must respond to ensure the future relevance of the museum to them (Black, 2018: 302). These new audiences ask for a different experience than most current museum goers and Jalving notes an experiencing and experience-creating as well as tech-savvy audience that creates ‘proof of participation’ ( Jalving, 2017: 8). Black describes ‘well-educated but less committed generations’ who are far less loyal to museums than their baby boomer predecessors (Black, 2018: 2). Whereas Black offers a range of measures to create more participative spaces, research into arts participation by Brown and Novak-Leonard (2011) suggested an interesting spectrum of degrees and depths of participation and involvement which they named the ‘Audience Involvement Spectrum’. The spectrum unfolds across a horizontal axis of ‘Audience Involvement’, which ranges from ‘Receptive’ to ‘Participatory’, whose part of the axis holds varying levels of ‘Creative Control’, moving from ‘Curatorial’, the lowest, across ‘Interpretive’ to ‘Inventive’, the highest level of creative control (Brown and Novak-Leonard, 2011: 4).

“A series of interesting choices” 69

Inside this spectrum of audience involvement, Brown and others mark five distinct types of experience: ‘Spectating’ and ‘Enhanced Engagement’ as experiences on the ‘Receptive’ scale, offering no actual expression of creativity or involvement, to ‘Crowd Sourcing’, ‘Co-Creation’ and ‘Audience-as-Artist’, with the last having the highest level of participant activation (Brown and NovakLeonard, 2011: 16–18), wherein new content is created and shared. This spectrum encompasses some central elements like ‘experience’, ‘participation’. and ‘audience’ and it shall be used to create compatibility with the perspectives of the ‘Gaming Industry’ and ‘Experience Economy’.

‘Are you not entertained?’ frameworks for measuring participation Pine and Gilmore defined an experience as an intentional interaction of services and goods ‘to engage individual customers in a way that creates a memorable event’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1998). These experiences are ultimately personal and individualized – no two people can have the same experience (Pine and Gilmore, 1998: no page number). They warn that experience cannot be equated with entertainment (Pine and Gilmore, 1998: no page number), later noting ‘that staging experiences is not about entertaining customers; it’s about engaging them’ ( Pine and Gilmore, 2011: 48). They propose a characterization of experiences inside a two-dimensional grid, the ‘Four Realms of Experience’: one dimension being ‘Customer Participation’ ranging from ‘Passive’ to ‘Active’ and employed as a horizontal axis, the other being ‘Connection’, described as the environmental connection uniting customers with an experience, here used as a vertical axis with ‘Absorption’ and ‘Immersion’ as opposite pairs (Pine and Gilmore, 1998: no page number) (Pine and Gilmore, 2011: 45–46). Within these dimensions, Pine and Gilmore present us with the previously mentioned ‘Four Realms of Experience’: ‘Entertainment’, ‘Educational’, ‘Escapist’, and ‘Esthetic’ (Pine and Gilmore, 2011: 47). ‘Entertainment’ is presented as the oldest of these realms, a passive absorption of an experience. Both ‘Educational’ and ‘Escapist’ are based on active participation that engages the customer (Pine and Gilmore, 2011: 47–53) and ‘Esthetic’ is very passive immersion that – in its description by the authors – reminds the reader of the museum visit: ‘In such experiences, individuals are immersed in an event or environment but have little or no effect on it, leaving the environment (but not themselves) essentially untouched’ (Pine and Gilmore, 2011: 53). The ‘richest’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1998: no page number) and most ‘engaging’ ( Pine and Gilmore, 2011: 64) experiences transcend these boundaries to include all four. A caveat must be applied, however: Pine and Gilmore focused on the nature of the experiences. As for ‘Gaming’ or ‘Gamification’, a similar framework was constructed through adapting the ‘Four Realms of Experience’ (Robson et al., 2014: 352).

70

Daniel Brown

They present a definition of ‘Gamification’ that is founded on the premise that the term ‘Gamification’ itself is misleading. (Robson et al., 2014: 352). To them, ‘Gamification’ turns . . . traditional organisational processes into fun, game-like experiences [by] the application of lessons from the gaming domain in order to change stakeholder behaviour and outcomes in non-gaming situations’ (Robson et al., 2014: 352). While retaining the original architecture of the ’Four Realms’ framework, Robson and others introduce ‘Player Participation’ and ‘Player Connection’ as the relevant axes (Robson et al., 2014: 352), allowing for new re-definitions that outline agency in these experiences (see Box C.1). Their re-redefinitions switch from the nature of the experience to the player’s activity inside the experience.

Box C.1 Four realms framework adapted for gamification Experience Realms (Pine and Gilmore, 1998, 2011)

Experience Framework ( Robson et al., 2014)

Experience Esthetic Educational Escapist

Observation Spectatorship Apprenticeship Performance

To connect ‘Gaming Participation’ and ‘Museum Participation’, it would be apt to map the ‘Experience Framework’ onto the ‘Audience Involvement Spectrum’ to create a more unified, albeit experimental framework for analysis. By placing an origin coordinate on a shared experience event, called the ‘Museum Visit’ and characterized by ‘Spectating’ and ‘Observation’, passive absorption, we create a starting point for comparison. Progressing from there on, ‘Enhanced Engagement’ and its description ‘passive activation’ correspond to ‘Spectatorship’ and its ‘passive immersion’. Moving closer towards a more active participation, both ‘Crowd-Sourcing’ and ‘Co-Creation’ provide a certain degree of activity and immersion, sharing traits with ‘Apprenticeship’, active absorption into the experience. However, the aspect of active contribution is also one of the traits of ‘Performance’ and ‘Audience-as-Artist’. Here, the border between absorption and immersion blurs as participation seemingly increases. (see Box C.2). In the next step, I shall apply this experimental framework to a recent museum event in Cologne and discern how we may classify and indeed discover those parts of the museum experience where ‘Gamification’ had an impact on ‘Participation’.

“A series of interesting choices” 71

Box C.2 Connecting gamification participation and museum participation Experience Framework ( Robson et al., 2014)

Audience Involvement Spectrum (Brown and Novak-Leonard, 2011)

Observation Spectatorship Apprenticeship Performance

Spectating Enhanced Engagement Crowd Sourcing Co-Creation Audience-as-Artist

‘Köln am Rhein – Oder: Von Zeit zu Zeit’ – games and gamification for a museum exhibition The Kölnische Stadtmuseum is the City of Cologne’s city museum, built in 1888 and dedicated to the history of Cologne from the Middle Ages to the Present (KSM, no date). According to its purpose, the Kölnische Stadtmuseum collects, preserves, and displays material objects from the city’s past as opposed to the Historische Archiv, which collects all written records related to the City of Cologne (KSM, no date). Since the accidental f looding of the permanent exhibition in 2015, the museum has utilized the ‘Alte Wache’ exhibition space to host several temporary exhibitions. In 2020, the museum will move to another location within the city, the former ‘Franz Sauer’ department store, while a new museum building is planned as part of Cologne’s future museum quarter, the ‘Historische Mitte’ (Stadt Köln, no date). From August 2019 to January 2020, the Kölnische Stadtmuseum featured a new temporary exhibition called ‘Köln am Rhein – Oder: Von Zeit zu Zeit’. This exhibition is the 25th anniversary of a past exhibition from 1994, dedicated to the change of Cologne as a city through the ages and hosted photographs by Hugo Schmölz and his son, Karl Hugo Schmölz, as well as recent images from 1993/94 and 2018/19 provided by the Rheinische Bildarchiv. The Stadtmuseum also hosted another temporary exhibition: ‘Köln an der Seine – Der Pavillon der Stadt Köln auf der Pariser Weltaustellung 1937’. This exhibition reconstructed the City of Cologne’s pavilion in Paris during the 1937 World Exhibition connecting it to the other exhibition through photographs by Hugo Schmölz from the pavilion (KSM, 2019a). Accompanying both exhibitions were a portfolio of events and assets that offered access, information, or special experiences. For the brevity of this chapter, the experimental framework shall be applied to those events and assets accompanying the exhibition ‘Köln am Rhein’.

72

Daniel Brown

A portfolio of gaming museum experiences Supporting the exhibition was a set of events and assets that provided an alternative experience to the common ‘Museum Visit’ (KSM, 2019b). Some of the events associated with the so called ‘Köln-Tag’ – free entry and special programmes are offered to the citizens of Cologne on the first Thursday of the month – provide guided tours in French as well as tours with a quiz and drinks afterwards. This latter format shares hallmarks with the ‘histo.bar’, which was also part of the event portfolio. Four items stand out in the event portfolio (KSM, 2019b): • • • •

a ‘histo.bar’ event; an Instawalk titled ‘#instaschmölz’; a Call-for-Contributions asking for user-generated content; and an app as interactive exhibition guide, which is a mobile-optimized game.

The ‘histo.bar’ offers a different kind of experience: speed tours, drinks, talks, and a quiz as a gaming element organized by the ‘Netzwerk Kölnische Geschichte’. For this event, it provided three thematic tours through both exhibitions as well as a ‘histo.bingo’ quiz on the countries that took part in the 1937 World exhibition, for which the visitors were handed Bingo-cards in advance. The organized ‘#instaschmölz’ Instawalk, led participants through the inner wards of Cologne to places photographed by Schmölz and Son that were not used in the exhibition. Participants were asked to contribute their ‘modern’ recreations of the scenes on Instagram under a specific hashtag. As regards the Call-for-Contributions, people were asked if they had an old photograph of a landmark in Cologne. The task was to recreate the old image from the same perspective in a new image and contribute by either posting this on Instagram with an accompanying pre-specified hashtag or sending both images to the Kölnische Stadtmuseum, where the juxtaposed images would be displayed on a tablet as part of the exhibition. The mobile game created for the ‘Köln am Rhein’ exhibition was based on a digital scavenger hunt created for the prior exhibition on gaming history with external partners. The game was designed for in-house use and was advertised to museum visitors when buying their tickets, asking them to leave their highest score, name, and email address after their visit, if they played the game. A roll-up banner was placed inside the exhibition, detailing the first steps, an insta-access QR-Code and free Wi-Fi access. Staff were also instructed to help visitors with the game. When accessing the game, players had the choice between ‘Erwachsen’ (Grown-Up) and ‘Kind’ (Kid) and were then instructed in the use of the game, with the contents, copy, and tone changing according to the chosen level. The mechanics were straightforward: players were asked to complete simple tasks like answering questions, re-arranging images, or simple point-and-click activities connected to an object, with a time limit at each task. The game guided the players towards the objects featured in the game

“A series of interesting choices” 73

and provided additional information on the exhibit after the associated task was completed. In total, both the ‘Grown-Up’ and ‘Kid’ difficulty level featured a total of 14 exhibits and tasks each.

Analysis Considering these four items from the event and asset portfolio accompanying the ‘Köln am Rhein’ exhibition in light of our experimental framework, there are some interesting observations to be made, when the ‘Museum Visit’ is taken as the archetype for comparison. While the ‘histo.bar’ event altered the experience of the ‘Museum Visit’ to a more immersive experience, the gaming element ‘histo.bingo’ alters the participation of the visitors through the usual ‘Bingo’ game mechanics (exclaiming ‘Bingo’ loudly) to the degree that the visitors become part of the experience. This moves the level of experience and participation from ‘Observation’ to ‘Spectatorship’ and ‘Spectating’ to ‘Enhanced Engagement’. An argument has to be made for InstaWalks as a gamified experience, as they possess mechanics (walking together, upload with hashtags) and rules (theme or topic that determines hashtags, informal leader board through amount of ‘Likes’ and ‘Reposts’). Coupled to the experience of exploring unfeatured photographs by the Schmölz’s, the InstaWalk ‘#instaschmölz’ takes the ‘Museum Visit’ experience outside the museum itself and offers the participants of the InstaWalk the option to be creators of a ‘secondary’ exhibition. By placing this ‘secondary exhibition’ on Social Media, the museum also relinquishes curatorial control of the user-generated content. By doing so, ‘Observation’ is altered to ‘Audienceas-Artists’, arguably with traces of ‘Crowd Sourcing’, whereas mere ‘Spectating’ is taken to ‘Performance’ levels. The Call-for-Contributions offered the opportunity to create user-generated content originating from the personal archives of active followers on Facebook and Instagram. Again, we find rudimentary game mechanics and rules (find an old picture, recreate, post new image here with hashtag or send in) which takes participation from ‘Spectating’ to ‘Audience-as-Artist’-levels as well as ‘Observation’ to ‘Performance’ . However, we have to discriminate between the ‘Post on Social’ and ‘Send In’ mechanics: “Post on Social’ creates the full ‘Audienceas-Artist’/‘Performance’ level of participation and experience, whereas ‘Send In’ allows for some curatorial control through the museum, creating a level of ‘CoCreation’/‘Crowd Sourcing’ and also ‘Apprenticeship’. The accompanying game provides a full-blown gaming experience with game mechanics and rules. This is actually tricky to classify. On the one hand, in terms of participation, the players of this game do not actually contribute to the experience; there is no creative output. This would place it between ‘Spectating’ and ‘Enhanced Engagement’. On the other hand, as a game, it should move the player experience from ‘Observation’ to ‘Performance’. Yet there is no active participation or contribution to the ‘Museum Visit’ experience, so we are looking at ‘Enhanced Engagement’ or ‘Spectatorship’ at most.

74

Daniel Brown

One explanation may be that, by introducing a game that only takes a portion of objects of the exhibition into account and alters the ‘path-finding’ through the exhibition, a separate experience is created for the players. By doing so, the game creates no more than ‘Enhanced Engagement’ as regards participation. However, it moves the visitor’s active experience inside the game towards ‘Performance’ through its mechanics and rules (providing the right input before time runs out).

Concluding thoughts By applying the experimental framework to the event and asset portfolio of the examined exhibition, a few interesting findings surface. • • •

Creating a game to accompany the exhibition may create an alternative experience for the users of the game and not enhance their participation. Format-inherent mechanics and rules may enable participation by relinquishing control to users. Technology-inherent mechanics and rules may enforce participation. It should be noted that modern consumer-tech mechanics and rules already have Gamification coded into their structure.

Introducing gamification and games into the museum experience may help foster participation and attract new audiences. Yet just throwing games and gaming elements into the museum experience does not necessarily improve it. Fullblown games, even if focused on museum content, may distract and syphon off participation from the museum visitor, even if low-tech gaming like Bingo is considered. Game elements introduced with mechanics and rules – either through format or tech – may contribute to participation, perhaps by moving control inside the gamified experience to the user. Such an ancillary format or use of tech may help engage new audiences and allow these audiences to participate where traditional experiences enact more prohibitions through their mechanics and rules. Furthermore, museums introducing gaming and gamification should consider how much participation they are willing to create and foster in the long run. However, introducing gaming and gamification in the museum experience should be done with the audience in mind. User behaviour and user options based on the mechanics and rules imposed by tech or format should be anticipated. The aim should be to enhance the experience of the museum visit as well as attract and retain new audiences for the future.

Acknowledgements The author expresses his utmost thanks to the Kölnische Stadtmuseum and to the Netzwerk Kölnische Geschichte for providing information and insight.

“A series of interesting choices” 75

References Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A Ladder of Participation, Journal of the American Institute for Planners, 35(5), pp. 216–224 Black, G. (2018) Meeting the Audience Challenge in the ‘Age of Participation’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 33(4), pp. 302–319 Bogost, I. (2015) Why Gamification Is Bullshit, in Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S. (eds) The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 65–80 Brown, A.S. and Novak-Leonard, L. (2011) Getting in on the Act: How Arts Groups Are Creating Opportunities for Active Participation, San Francisco: James Irvine Foundation Creighton, J.L. (2005) The Public Participation Handbook; Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement, San Francisco: Wiley Fjaellingsdal, K. (2014) Let’s Graduate – A Thematic Analysis of the Let’s Play Phenomenon, Trondheim: University of Trondheim, Jalving, C. (2017) Introduction, in ARKEN Bulletin the Art of Taking Part: Participation in the Museum, Vol. 7, Denmark: ARKEN Museum of Modern Art, pp. 5–17, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://issuu.com/arken_museum/docs/bulletin_2017 Jenkins, H., Puroshotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K. and Robison, A. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Kim, S., Song, K., Lockee, B. and Burton, J. (2018) Gamification in Learning and Education: Enjoy Learning Like Gaming, Cham: Springer Verlag KSM/Kölnisches Stadtmuseum (2019a) Köln an der Seine, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://koelnisches-stadtmuseum.de/KOELN-AN-DER-SEINE KSM/Kölnisches Stadtmuseum (2019b) Event-Flyer, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https:// koelnisches-stadtmuseum.de/download/f lyer_koeln_am_rhein_8-2019.pdf KSM/Kölnisches Stadtmuseum (no date) Unsere Sammlung, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://koelnisches-stadtmuseum.de/ueberblick-Unsere-Sammlung Livingstone, S. (2013) The Participation Paradigm in Audience Research, The Communication Review, 16(1–2), pp. 21–30 Marshall, A. (2020) How to Avoid the ‘Gamification’ Trap in Your Museum, Museum Next, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumnext.com/article/how-to-avoid-thegamification-trap-in-your-museum/ Meier, S. (2012) Interesting Decisions, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://gdcvault.com/ play/1015756/Interesting Mordor Intelligence (2019) Gamification Market – Growth, Trends and Forecast (2020– 2025), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/ gamification-market Mortensen, C.H. and Kapper, L. (2015) Beyond Simple Nostalgia: Transforming Visitors’ Experience of Retro-gaming and Vintage Computing in the Museum, Aktuel forskning. Institut for Kulturvidenskaber. Særnummer, 2015, pp. 63–74 Palmer, D., Lunceford, S. and Patton, A. (2012) The Engagement Economy: How Gamification Is Reshaping Businesses, Deloitte Insights, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www2. deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-review/issue-11/the-engagement-economyhow-gamification-is-reshaping-businesses.html Pine II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998) Welcome to the Experience Economy, Harvard Business Review, July–August 1998, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://hbr.org/1998/07/ welcome-to-the-experience-economy Pine II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (2011) The Experience Economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press

76

Daniel Brown

Quandt, T. and Kröger, S. (2014) Multiplayer: The Social Aspects of Digital Gaming. Routledge Studies, in European Communication Research and Education, Vol. 3, London: Routledge Recktenwald, D. (2014) Interactional Practices in Let’s Play Videos. Master’s Thesis, Saarbrücken: Saarland University, Recktenwald, D. (2018) The Discourse of Online Live Streaming on Twitch: Communication between Conversation and Commentary. PhD Thesis, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Rigby, C.S. (2015) Gamification and Motivation, in Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S. (eds) The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 113–138 Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J., McCarthy, I. and Pitt, L. (2014) Understanding Gamification of Consumer Experiences, Advances in Consumer Research, 42, pp. 352–556 Smith, G. (2013) Democratic Innovation – Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Stadt Köln (no date) Historische Mitte Köln, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.stadt-koeln. de/artikel/62151/index.html Styx, L. (2019) How Can Games in Museums Enhance Visitor Experience?, accessed on 30/06/ 2020 at: www.museumnext.com/article/how-can-games-in-museums-enhancevisitor-experience/ Visser, J. (2015) Games, Gamification and the Optimal Conditions for Learning, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://themuseumofthefuture.com/2015/04/11/games-gamificationand-the-optimal-conditions-for-learning/ Webb, K. (2019) The $120 Billion Gaming Industry Is Going Through More Change than It Ever Has Before, and Everyone Is Trying to Cash in, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.businessin sider.de/international/video-game-industry-120-billion-future-innovation-2019-9/ Wright, L. (2017) New Frontiers in the Visitor Experience, in Hossiani, A. and Blankenberg, N. (eds) Manual of Digital Museum Planning, London: Rowman, pp. 109–120

SECTION II

Museums in the wider world

Section II Introduction Through two chapters and four contributory chapters (with links to others), this section tackles two fundamental issues: •

•

the huge socio-economic, ethnic, and racial disparities in museum audiences and the ability or otherwise of museums to generate and then sustain diverse audiences representative of wider society; and the capacity of museums to ‘make a positive difference’ by tackling major societal challenges.

Chapter 3 tackles the poverty of aspiration across the sector to diversify audiences, while acknowledging individual success stories. What does it take to sustainably engage diverse communities? Chapter 4 looks at the real potential for museums in tackling major societal issues – but this depends on whether or not the sector can form partnerships with both other agencies and local communities, making it possible to both campaign internationally and act locally. In the contributed chapters, Tony Butler looks at a remarkable example of museum/community partnership, where local people are given responsibility for a major museum redevelopment. Elizabeth Crooke explores how museums in Northern Ireland engage local communities with difficult pasts. Mark O’Neill and his colleagues discuss an outstanding example of partnership, in promoting the wellbeing of the people of Glasgow. Merel van der Vaart and her colleagues outlines the experience of their museum working with local communities and as part of the Nina Simon’s community-centred Of/By/For All project.

3 ENGAGING DIVERSE AUDIENCES

The challenge: to achieve and then sustain audiences that reflect the diversity of contemporary society.

Introduction Diversity is now a basic characteristic of the Western world, ref lected in growing racial, ethnic, and cultural differences across populations. There are, for example, over 180 nationalities living in Amsterdam. How nation states acknowledge and incorporate this diversity is one of the great challenges of our age, with major implications for our cultural institutions. Thus access and participation by marginalised and minority groups – linked to recognition and respect for difference – has become a key objective of governmental arts and cultural policies (Ang, 2005). Museums are expected to break down ‘barriers’ to participation, to take on new roles and to demonstrate social purpose for an everincreasing range of culturally diverse constituencies. But, to date, the sector has failed to respond at scale. As the book Introduction and Chapter 1 demonstrated, loss of relevance – due in part to the inability of museums to ref lect this diversity or to respond to related social issues – has been of growing concern within the sector and to its public funders across the Western world since the 1980s, and that concern is now approaching crisis point. Museums urgently need to transfer their focus from the already well-educated to become institutions of mass public engagement (O’Neill, 2020: 5), where everyone feels welcomed, represented and included. And most museums are not inclusive now: there are so many kids in this country who look at places like museums and concert halls and other cultural centers and they think to themselves, well,

80 Museums in the wider world

that’s not a place for me, for someone who looks like me, for someone who comes from my neighbourhood. I guarantee you that right now, there are kids living less than a mile from here who would never in a million years dream that they would be welcome in this museum. . . . Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, I was one of those kids myself. So I know the feeling of not belonging in a place like this. Michelle Obama (2015) Many museums have tried to broaden audiences. Yet, after approaching 30 years of audience development work in the UK, for example, 87% of museum visits are still made by the higher social classes and only 13% by everyone else, with equally huge racial disparity, a situation likely to be repeated across Western society – and little indication of this being reversed any time soon. While much has been learned and some museums have made a real difference to many of the individuals and groups they have worked with, there has been a failure ‘to scale from intensive and expensive small group work to create sustainable change in the overall inequalities in the demographics of museum visitors’ (Graham, 2020: 81) across the sector as a whole. How can museums – especially those with no track record or proven success in the field – address this? We are not talking about outreach, which is expensive and, arguably, divisive. . . . If free admission isn’t getting impoverished communities into museums, what will? What are museums prepared to give up to achieve this? Moving museums’ mindsets is fundamental. . . . There is still massive poverty of aspiration. Selwood (2013) The sector must face up to the continuing failure of most museums to achieve an audience that is representative of wider society. This chapter considers the need to change from expensive small projects to diversify at scale. It suggests this has not happened for three reasons: a failure to focus on the fundamental task of growing and then sustaining a diverse audience; the political challenge of ‘impact’; and the reality that too many ‘old power’ museums are happy to leave community work on the margins of their activities.

A failure to focus on growing a diverse audience – at scale This would normally be seen as an achievable but difficult challenge requiring commitment and sustained effort over many years. It would begin with research on and conversations with target audiences, including local communities, gaining an understanding of the specifics of local issues, as the first step towards building long-term relationships. With a much greater understanding of those audiences, the museum could then develop a sustained strategic approach using a framework such as that illustrated in Box 3.1.

Engaging diverse audiences 81

Box 3.1 Framework for a strategic plan Where are we now?

Where do we want to get to?

How will we get there?

What resources will we need?

How will we know when we have got there?

As background to this, we already have a reasonable understanding of why people choose not to visit museums. The answers given in numerous surveys are horribly familiar: • • • • • •

not interested for a certain type of person, not for people like us nothing that represents us a visit would be boring – too much like school nothing for our children not something that would be recommended by our friends

Mette Houlberg Rung’s chapter adds a further dimension – Danish research suggests that while ‘not interested’ is the main reason for not visiting, the second most important was having no one to visit with. This adds to the evidence that social environment has a substantial impact on whether people feel a museum is for them and if they can recommend it to others. How can we help people who don’t know anyone to visit with to tap into a group/social situation? The AAM report on Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums, looking specifically at ethnicity and race in the USA – but relevant across the Western world – highlighted seven core reasons why people do not visit: • • • • • • •

no strong tradition of museum-going habits, whether these were fostered in childhood or other family experience and tradition the influence of social networks to encourage museum-going rather than other leisure activities – if none of your friends go to museums, you don’t go either historically grounded cultural barriers to participation that make museums feel intimidating and exclusionary to many people the lack of specialized knowledge and a cultivated aesthetic taste to understand and appreciate what are perceived by many as elite art forms, especially in art museums changing patterns of work and leisure and the changing structure and dynamics of family life financial barriers to entry factors that operate on a personal level. after AAM (2010: 13–14)

82 Museums in the wider world

Alongside these, the report recognised that ‘education and income, which relate in complicated ways to race and ethnicity, will almost certainly continue to structure museum visitorship in the future’. It went on to raise a further issue – will different racial and ethnic groups require different strategies and programmes? And Hood, in her ground-breaking research first published in1983, defined a basic problem with the museum experience on offer. She recognised that people made choices on what they did with their leisure time, based on competing alternatives and which of these most satisfied their criteria of a desirable leisure experience. She concluded amongst other things that non-visitors to museums in their leisure activities seek being with people, participating actively and being at ease in their surroundings. They do not feel these are present at all, or hardly at all, at a museum – in fact, they see museums as formal, formidable places (after Hood, 1983, republished 2004: 153–154). Hood (2004: 153) also found that the solidly middle class museum professionals shared values with those from the higher social groups (who are the frequent museum visitors) and thus tended to emphasise the very qualities that are least appealing for occasional and non-visiting populations. With research on specific local circumstances added to this general understanding, the next task is to replace a mind-set that says the museum does not need to change to one where you recognise that it is people who do not need to change. You are then in a position to begin to tackle barriers to inclusion. I suggest breaking initial challenges down under four key headings – access, inclusive practice, participation/partnership, and representation – illustrated in Box 3.2. More complex and deeper issues can be tackled over time as relationships with audiences and communities grow.

Box 3.2 Access

Breaking down initial barriers to inclusion • • • • •

• Inclusive practice • • •

• • •

Good pre-visit information Free or cheap entry Warm, supportive atmosphere Good physical and conceptual orientation Physically accessible throughout, with everyone able to follow same routes Plenty of seating More inclusive external image Build relationship with local popular media to ensure constant coverage All staff given diversity training – recognition of implicit bias, power and privilege, institutional racism, open-mindedness Support otherness Accommodate and embrace different world views Opening hours that ref lect when people able to come

Engaging diverse audiences 83

Participation/ partnership

Representation

• Good pre-visit support for disabled • Welcome on arrival – staff trained in how to greet families and those with disabilities • Friendly FoH staff and enablers across site • Good, cheap café • Children’s welcome leaf let + plenty for families to do together, including trails to encourage use of whole site • Inclusive language • Range of display approaches to meet different needs and do together • Regular events and activities to ensure ‘always something new’ • Choose one’s own level of engagement • Regular opportunities to engage with staff • Open access to high resolution collection images and documentation • ‘Take-aways’ and follow-up online • Encouragement and support to become more actively involved in museum – including crowdsourcing and co-creation • Museum actively reaching out to partner local communities, schools, and other agencies • Inclusive collections • Staff and volunteers representative of wider society • Relevance – content everyone can relate to • Relevant temporary exhibition and associated programming • Multiple voices and perspectives • Encouragement to contribute to content

There are a multitude of other actions that could be taken – including establishing relationships with those from target audiences who are already visiting museums as a platform for reaching out; and actively engaging with segments of the non-visiting public – for example schools in deprived areas. The most important but most difficult will be to re-configure the core offer to engage that broader audience. All will have impact in the long term. There are some remarkable beacons of light that reveal what can be achieved. In the UK, services like Glasgow museums have a long history of engaging all of the local population – and have built up a very loyal audience in return. But to change at scale – to turn Glasgow Museums, and their equivalents across the world, into the norm – requires both a sustained focus on the task at hand and a shared commitment not just in individual museum services but across the sector. This means not just an acceptance that the core offer will need to change but – instead – an enthusiastic embracing of the challenge. As David Fleming makes clear, however, this ‘is not anti-scholarship; not anti-collections;

84 Museums in the wider world

not anti-research; not anti-quality; not anti-intellectual. In fact, the democratic museum demands scholarship, collections, research, quality and intellectualism’ (Fleming, no date: no page number). Sustained effort will have an effect. However, rather than keeping to this single task, museums have instead challenged themselves to go beyond reaching out to individuals, families, and social groups to engage with whole communities (definable by locality, racial, or ethnic group or other reason for people coming together) with a belief that, in doing so, they can improve people’s lives, an alltogether more difficult task, and one with no guarantee of success.

Community partnership is not new There is nothing new to the enthusiastic commitment of local communities to museum development. I do not know enough to speak of the developments taking place, for example, in South America today, but I can look at the UK’s past. One of the offshoots of the societal movements of the 1960s was a ‘new social history’. The past was no longer just about the actions of elites – the life experiences of everyone contributed to the national story. In the UK, as discussed in Chapter 1, this period also saw the decline and then collapse of traditional industries – coalmining, steel-making, ship-building, textiles. Social historians and both professionals and amateurs from the newly developing discipline of industrial archaeology came together with local working people to record and frequently preserve the surviving evidence not just of those industries but also of the communities who served them, for example: The history of industry in Wales is not just a history of machines and of technological processes, but a history of people and of communities that were concerned with making a living. Jenkins (1992: 51) One result was that a new type of museum emerged – of local, social, and industrial history – independent of public sector control or funding. They came to be described as ‘independent museums’ to distinguish them from the publicly funded sector. New collections were developed, including oral histories as well as objects. A few – including Beamish and Ironbridge – borrowed ideas from Sweden and the USA and developed as large-scale, open-air museums. Most were small and volunteer-run. They had to charge for admission to survive and, because they depended on earned income, there was an absolute focus on the audience. Most are still active today – in the UK linked together through the Association of Independent Museums. Existing public sector museums were condemned as dominated by a narrow social grouping, isolated from the modern world, elitist, obsolete, and a waste of public money (Hudson, 1977: 15) – charges that are still being levelled today. The established museum profession was initially slow to respond but then began

Engaging diverse audiences 85

to develop its own social and industrial museums and galleries. But the disciplinary silos continued – Art, Costume and Decorative Arts for the elites, Social and Industrial History for the masses. This engagement with local communities was different to today, however, in that all involved shared a unity of purpose and sense of urgency focused on preserving the past. Yet this whole experience should still make clear to the contemporary museum sector that what communities bring to the table has more to offer museums than museums can offer them.

Where are we now? At the very time when independent community action to safeguard their pasts was nearing its peak, David Fleming was starting his career in public sector museums and discovering for himself the gap that existed between them and wider society. He went on to become Director of Tyne & Wear museums service and then of National Museums Liverpool – both massively successful in attracting and retaining a diverse audience. He believes firmly that the ‘neglect of a large proportion of the population was a result of failure by the museum establishment’: I started working in museums in 1981. .  .  . My basic misunderstanding about museums was that I thought they were places where people like my parents and sister, who left school with no qualifications and with a limited confidence in their own intellectual capacity, could discover new avenues to learning and self-improvement. Somehow, in my naivety, I had got the idea that these great public institutions had been created for that end. I realised when I began to work in museums that I was being delusional. I realised that museums were dominated by educated people who didn’t share my views. Fleming, no date: no page number He became part of a new generation of curators and education officers dedicated to changing this, with their ideas ref lected in a new museology (Vergo, 1989) focused on equality of access. They have had a profound effect on the sector as a whole. But this was only one of the reasons why a sector-wide quest for community engagement happened in the 1990s. There was growing pressure from groups and communities who felt unrepresented in museums and wrongly excluded from them and increasingly demanded to be acknowledged and respected – a demand that continues to get louder (as I write, in response to the death of George Floyd at police hands in Minneapolis). Legislation in areas such as race relationships and disability discrimination played its part. But the key change was political. For example, in the UK in the1990s, Thatcherism gave way to New Labour and, with it, the priorities for publicly funded museums followed the European Union model in moving from economic to learning and tackling

86 Museums in the wider world

social exclusion – from targeting the wallets of tourists (although this was to continue as well) to engaging the side-lined and excluded in society and the increasingly diverse communities in their localities. The now inclusive museum would throw its doors wide open to individuals and communities who had previously seen museums as ‘not for them’. The trouble was, and is, that this did not prioritise growing and diversifying the audience but instead having ‘impact’ or ‘public value’ (see book Introduction). Museums would demonstrate their relevance to contemporary society by becoming agents for physical, economic, and social regeneration. They would be celebrants of cultural diversity and promoters of social inclusion. They would be recognised as community meeting places of dialogue and toleration, committed to civil engagement and community empowerment. They would acknowledge their complicity in a legacy of exclusion, racism, oppression, and the theft of cultural property, inextricably linked to colonial history and the white European worldview – and implement plans to decolonise their contents. They would use their unique qualities to make a meaningful difference to individuals, to communities, to society at large; to provide opportunities for learning and inspiration; to respond to social challenges; to take a pro-active role in building community and responding to society’s challenges; to change lives (e.g. Museums Association, 2017; Silverman, 2010; Janes, 2009). These are ambitions that most of us would agree wholeheartedly with, and much of the related work was outstanding, but almost all was both on a small scale and expensive. And, in setting themselves up as public servants, working on behalf of local communities to improve the lives of the inhabitants, it looked too often as if museums were handing out largesse to grateful beneficiaries. Bernadette Lynch’s study of the connection between museums and communities in the UK concluded that, despite innovative practice, community partners often felt that their role was one of ‘supplicant’ rather than the more desired ‘active agent’ ( Lynch, 2011: 22). If museums are to see a sustained growth in community audiences, they need to stop thinking of themselves ‘as agents who reform others’ and instead ‘see themselves as collaborators’ in partnership with their communities (Graham, 2020: 91). There is a second problem, however – one of conf licting mind-sets and priorities, underpinned by a lack of resources. Public museums are under immense pressure to become more entrepreneurial, to develop new income streams, and to attract tourists and new generations of core audiences. Yet they are also expected to re-position themselves as community enablers. The result is very different, at times contradictory and conf licting, needs and expectations. Meanwhile, the changes required to go down a route of partnership with local communities go far beyond what most people working in the sector seem willing or able to commit to. Too many museum directors were happy to receive external grants for community engagement work but left this and the staff involved on the margins of their museum’s activity, with the core

Engaging diverse audiences 87 OUTREACH OGRAMMING PR

CORE

FIGURE 3.1

Museum Access Zones.

Source: after O’Neill (2012)

of the museum unaffected. As O’Neill almost puts it, the result is ‘Museum Access Zones’, with an inner core content and audience, a ring of temporary exhibitions and programming that brings the core audience back and an outer outreach ring with ghettoised staff and community groups given ‘no role that is integral to the museum’ (O’Neill, 2012), illustrated in Figure 3.1. And it has frequently been those ghettoised staff who were the first to lose their jobs in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most museums retain a hierarchical management and operational structure, a continued emphasis on their authority as experts, ignoring other perspectives, and a core offer aimed at their professional, well-educated audience. Up to 60% of museum budgets continue to be spent on collections care and conservation (Merriman, 2008). And, crucially, there is rarely a sustained effort to diversify staff or volunteers – only 6% of UK museum staff identify as BAME, compared with 16% of the working population, while 7% have disabilities, compared with 21% of the working population (ACE, 2020). In terms of leaders, Diversity Arts Australia (2019) established, amongst other findings, that Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Australians, while making up 39% of the population, provided just 7% of the leaders of museum and heritage organisations. Some 64% of museum and heritage organisations had no CALD leaders at all. Inclusion is a long-term process, not a quick fix, but it has to begin from the inside – in the mind-sets of museum staff and in changing both the museum’s culture and its structure and operation. The American Alliance of Museums’ Diversity, Equity, Accessibility and Inclusion Working Party final report (AAM, 2018) highlighted five ‘insights’ about the key components of this internal work:

88 Museums in the wider world

1 2 3 4 5

Every museum professional must do personal work to face their unconscious bias Debate on definitions [of diversity, etc.] must not hinder progress Inclusion is central to the effectiveness and sustainability of museums Systemic change is vital to long-term, genuine progress Empowered, inclusive leadership is essential at all levels of an organization.

These internal challenges, in turn, provide an underpinning for the outwardfacing museum, the transformation of its core public provision and the building of long-term relationships with local communities.

Community partnerships Community support grounds the museum in its locality and brings dynamism and an external view in helping the museum define its purpose and vision, while stimulating the museum to be outward facing. They help to re-shape the museum’s external image/profile – how the museum is seen, including by other agencies who could become partners. They enhance its relevance to contemporary society while helping build networks beyond the museum walls. They bring expertise and experience the museum does not have and add multiple perspectives to content, transforming the museum experience for all. And, of course, they add footfall and income, and their presence meets political expectations for the museum. Museums need partnerships with their communities more than communities need them. However, both ‘community’ and ‘partnership’ are difficult words. Together they represent who the museum is seeking to engage with and the basis of that engagement. Currently, in almost all cases, power still rests with the museum in deciding who will receive its largesse, what it is offering and what it expects in return. And what community partners have to offer plus, particularly, what is in it for them receives scant attention from the museum: The ability to exert real inf luence, an oft-forgotten but all-important element of these collaborations, is left out – without which the ‘partners’ are left with very little at all. Meanwhile the museum’s rhetoric of service continues to place the partner in the role of ‘beneficiary’ and the giver (the museum and its staff ) in the role of ‘carer’. Lynch (2020: 37) Lynch, in seeking to explore the difference between participation and a genuine partnership, sought the views of various sympathetic UK museum directors. Overall, they saw community participation meaning you are still involved on someone else’s agenda – the community is invited to take part on the museum’s terms, and the extent of that participation depends on the boundaries set by the museum. By contrast, partnership should involve an equal sharing of power and responsibility, and interdependence, in success and failure. It means recognising the rights of the partnering community. So, to paraphrase Stein (2012: 220):

Engaging diverse audiences 89

• •

Will museums determine that there is inherent value in the opinions, expertise, and interests of users and invested communities, or will they not? Are museums prepared to partner with users in offering opportunities for them to take some role of ownership?’

To this I would add, are museums willing to involve community partners in inf luencing their actual operation and ethos? And can museums accept that everything cannot relate to their own ambitions alone? They must look for those areas where their agendas and community needs meet. A museum commitment to a partnership of equals with its local communities requires a wholehearted attitude and philosophy and a clear focus on longer-term impact and solutions. Structural change within organisations to make this possible includes a more representative museum staff and a change in the nature of jobs to deliver, for example, on newly established inclusivity objectives. It also needs staff to develop new skills and personal priorities – in building relationships and working sensitively with communities, in sharing expertise, in making people feel they are at the heart of what the museum does – valuing local communities as equal partners and recognising what they bring to the table. In institutional terms it requires belief, clarity of vision, and sustained commitment. There is good work taking place. In the UK, one of the most exciting initiatives in recent years is the Our Museum initiative of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. This is an ongoing project that began in 2008 and is specifically intended to facilitate a process of development and organisational change within UK museums and galleries that are committed to active partnership with their communities. What makes the project so special is both its long-term commitment and that the Foundation has involved a sample of nine institutions, large and small – ranging from National Museums Wales to the Ryedale Folk Museum – and their associated communities in a ref lective, collaborative exercise where they have shared experiences and learned from each other, based around the concept of museums and communities as active partners. Crucially, the initiative has shown how organisational change processes play a significant role in placing community needs, values and collaboration at the heart of museum practice – and ‘confirmed the many challenges of creating meaningful organisational change in complex institutions’ (Moriarty and Medlyn, 2016: 4). But real change at scale requires the sector to come together under a shared and sustained vision. In the USA, MASS Action (Museum as Site for Social Action) was launched with a gathering of 50 museum practitioners in October 2016 at Minneapolis Institute of Art, to explore how museums could be changed from the inside to become sites of social action, partnering with their local communities. Their most recent ‘convening’ took place in October 2018, involving some 65 museums. They have also developed a toolkit of resources to share strategies and experiences across the profession (www.museumaction.org). And Nina Simon’s OF/BY/FOR ALL global initiative, with an initial 20 institutions involved and its challenge of inf luencing the lives of one million

90 Museums in the wider world

people, is turning into an outstanding example of thinking big (Simon, 2018). The chapter by Merel van der Vaart and her colleagues concerns the only nonEnglish-speaking museum initially involved in this project – the Stedelijk Museum, the city museum of the Dutch city of Schiedam, known internationally for its modern and contemporary art exhibitions. Other, smaller collaborations in the USA include the Incluseum (https:// incluseum.com) which, amongst other things, has produced a checklist for creating anti-oppressive spaces online, and the Empathetic Museum (see next section). Both have blogs. And people of colour are also taking action on their own behalf. In the USA, Museum Hue was established in 2015 ‘to create community and opportunities for creatives of color’ (www.museumhue.com/about-hue). It now has more than 150 institutional members and its work has included the creation of a directory of more than 100 ‘culturally-responsive’ museums across the USA. Its activities include ‘Hueseum tours’ where ‘Once a month we roll deep to a museum to bust myths, breakdown our priorities and put plans in place to demystify and democratize the arts sector’. Founded in the UK in 2014, Museum Detox is a professional network and support system for museum and heritage workers in the UK who identify as of colour. It works to build awareness of diversity issues amongst cultural organisations, to achieve ‘fair representation and inclusion of BAME cultural, intellectual and creative contributions’ and ‘challenges and works to deconstruct systems of inequality that exist, to enable a sector where the workforce and audience is ref lective of the UK’s 21st century population’ (www.museumdetox.org/ museumdetox-about-us).

Concluding thoughts The Empathetic Museum describes itself as a group of museum industry professionals – including educators, designers, interpretive planners, and administrators – who came together at an AAM Unconference in 2014 around the question of ‘How could we, as an industry, approach the need for greater equality and representation using empathy as our lens?’ They maintain an Honour Roll, run an extensive blog and organise professional development workshops. I admire their passionately held beliefs and ambitions but see their approach as demonstrating starkly the contrasting objectives of, on the one hand, setting out to grow audience diversity and, on the other, prioritising impact. I know of them largely for their Maturity Model, which they define as ‘A Metric for Institutional Transformation’ (http://empatheticmuseum.weebly.com/maturitymodel.html). This looks at five ‘characteristics’: Civic Vision; Institutional Body Language; Community Resonance; Timeliness and Sustainability; and Performance Measures. For each characteristic, the museum is measured in terms of levels of maturity in empathetic practice, ranging from Regressive (Lowest Maturity), through Emergent (Low Maturity) and Planned (Medium Maturity)

Engaging diverse audiences 91

to Proactive (Advanced Maturity). For each of these, there are boxes to tick in terms of your institution’s current level of achievement. Under ‘Community Resonance’, which I assume is the most important of the five characteristics, we see ‘Concerned with “attracting wider audiences”’ placed as the first box to tick under Regressive (Lowest Maturity), as if it were a sin. The accompanying two boxes suggest that a museum seeking to attract wider audiences is ‘uninterested in investigation of institutional connections to exclusion, racism, sexism, white privilege, etc.’ and has a ’perception that community issues have little connection to the museum’. ‘Regressive’ itself means, according to the OED, ‘returning to a former or less developed state’; more informally ‘going backwards’. This model fails to appreciate that you cannot attract let alone sustain a substantial diverse audience without transforming your core offer. As discussed earlier, this involves radical change in the organisation and operation of the museum but also of mind-set – and changing mind-set includes confronting your own and your institution’s biases. Far from being a sin, ‘attracting {then sustaining] wider audiences’ is one of the ultimate challenges contemporary museums face. People will not come to your site unless they both feel welcomed and see others like themselves already involved. This, in turn, will only happen if they believe you are committed to diversifying audiences. Thus, ‘welcoming’ a diverse audience is not enough. There must also be plenty of people with a BAME background on the staff, in management and on the governing bodies. But it is only when diverse audiences are engaging voluntarily, wholeheartedly, and repeatedly with museums that deeper ambitions can be achieved. What is more, in practice, all this must happen without losing existing audiences and while under pressure to grow income. Currently, we share the same ambitions. The issue is over what it takes to achieve them. The good news is that attracting wider audiences and impact are not incompatible. The chapter by Merel van der Vaart and her colleagues is an account of one museum working to do both.

References AAM (2010) Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/Demographic-Change-and-the-Future-of-Museums.pdf AAM (2018) Facing Change, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AAM-DEAIWorking-Group-Full-Report-2018.pdf ACE (2020) 5th Annual Diversity Report, February 2020, London: Arts Council England Ang, I. (2005) The Predicament of Diversity: Multiculturalism in Practice at the Art Museum, Ethnicities, 5(3), pp. 305–320, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0005/156956/Ang_ThePredicamentOfDiversity_CCRCopyFinal.pdf Diversity Arts Australia, BYP Group and Western Sydney University. (2019) Shifting the Balance: Cultural Diversity in Leadership Within the Australian Arts, Screen and Creative Sectors, Sydney, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://diversityarts.org.au/app/uploads/ Shifting-the-Balance-DARTS-small.pdf

92 Museums in the wider world

Fleming, D. (no date) Democratic Museums: The Importance of Broadening Audiences, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://museum-id.com/democratic-museum-importance-broad ening-audiences-david-f leming/ Graham, H. (2020) Breaking Out of the Museum Core, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 80–94 Hood, M.G. (1983 republished 2004) Staying Away: Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums, in Anderson, A. (ed) Reinventing the Museum (1st ed.), Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, pp. 150–157 Hudson, K. (1977) Museums for the 1980s: A Survey of World Trends, Paris: UNESCO; London: MacMillan Janes, R.R. (2009) Museums in a Troubled World: Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse?, London: Routledge Jenkins, J.G. (1992) Getting Yesterday Right: Interpreting the Heritage of Wales, Cardiff: University of Wales Press Lynch, B. (2011) Whose Cake Is It Anyway? London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.phf.org.uk/publications/whose-cake-anyway/ Lynch, B. (2020) Partnerships in Museums, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G.(eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 33–47 Merriman, N. (2008) Museum Collections and Sustainability, Cultural Trends, 17(1), pp. 3–21 Moriarty, G. and Medlyn, S. (2016) Our Museum Special Initiative: An Evaluation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.phf.org.uk/our-museum-special-initiative-an-evaluation Museums Association (2017) Museums Change Lives, London: Museums Association, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=1001738 Obama, M. (2015)Remarks by the First Lady at Opening of the Whitney Museum, New York: Whitney Museum, 30 April 2015, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives. gov/the-press-office/2015/04/30/remarks-first-lady-opening-whitney-museum O’Neill, M. (2012) Keynote, in UK Museums Association Conference and Exhibition, Edinburgh 8–9 November 2012, quoted in Graham, H. (2020) Breaking Out of the Museum Core, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 80–94 O’Neill, M. (2020) Introduction, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G.(eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–16 Selwood, S. (2013) The Conversation, Museums Journal, December 2013, p. 16 Silverman, L. (2010) The Social Work of Museums, London: Routledge Simon, N. (2018) Launching the First Wave of the OF/BY/FOR ALL Change Network, Museum 2.0 blog, 26 September 2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://museumtwo. blogspot.co.uk Stein, R. (2012) Chiming in on Museums and Participatory Culture, Curator: The Museum Journal, 55(2), pp. 215–226 Vergo, P. (ed) (1989) The New Museology, London: Reaktion Books

4 THE ACTIVIST MUSEUM

The Challenge: to use the museum’s unique qualities to tackle major social challenges on a local, regional, national or even international front.

Introduction The concept of museum ‘activism’ goes beyond community engagement ‘seeking to purposefully bring about change beyond the walls of the institution’ ( Janes and Sandell, 2019: xxvii), to ‘take actions to make the world better . . . stronger, more just’ (Anderson, 2019: 1). No longer restricted to the safety of its walls or limited by its opening hours, the museum abandons its so-called neutrality to confront inequalities, injustices, social, and environmental crises on a local, regional, national, and even international scale head-on – issues which not long ago would have been considered inappropriately political. In turn, this translates into ‘how the museum connects with the contemporary world, challenges assumptions and the status quo, and invites new voices into the larger conversation’ (Anderson, 2019: 2). Museums can do this because they are amongst society’s most trusted institutions (see Elizabeth Crooke’s chapter). As such, they have sought to develop a response to a changing society that is: • • • • •

Ethical – the right thing to do Beneficial – the evidence shows that museums really can make a difference Practical – clear, achievable, measurable goals Political – public sector funders expect museums to both broaden their audience base and be of value to society Financially appropriate – potential new income streams

94 Museums in the wider world

The chapter begins by defining key areas of social challenge before moving on to provide examples of museums in action, also highlighting the importance of multi-agency working. It concludes on a positive note – museums really can do this. But they will achieve little acting on their own, nor will success come overnight. Collaboration, partnership, and a valuing by other agencies of what museums can bring to the table are central to impact. And it takes sustained hard work by the museum for this to happen. As an example, the UK National Centre for Citizenship and the Law (NCCL), began life in Nottingham as the education department of the Galleries of Justice, now the National Justice Museum, a museum of law established in the late 1990s and supported from the beginning by the legal profession, judiciary, and police at local, regional, and national level. The ambition of the education team was to work with children and young people, their families, schools, and communities to achieve social change by preventing and diverting crime and anti-social behaviour. It now has a national remit. Katy Archer, previously head of NCCL and now Director of the People’s History Museum in Manchester, sought to explain its success: By speaking the right language, mapping services against relevant frameworks and policies, demonstrating clear and measurable outcomes, networking and building partnerships, NCCL has been able to effectively develop its national remit and portfolio. Archer, no date: 12 Overall, she saw the key factors as: 1 2 3 4

5 6

Commitment and sustained HARD WORK. IDENTIFY THE NEED for the work – a strong, clear remit linked to a specific, definable need. START SMALL – build from experience. EVALUATE from the outset, to build strong evidence of impact – that you make a difference. Translate the results into language and terminology that potential partners understand. Years of NETWORKING and relationship building by staff, trustees, and patrons with relevant agencies and voluntary sector organisations. Building innovative and effective PARTNERSHIPS with these other bodies, linked to policies and agendas at local, regional, and national level as part of a multi-agency approach to preventing and reducing youth offending.

Key areas of social challenge Museums cannot do everything. The immediate need is to define areas that museum audiences feel passionately about and where museums can bring their unique qualities and specific expertise to bear, for example natural history museums and climate change – and then use these as a planning framework for the sector. NESTA, the

The activist museum 95

UK National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, has defined six key challenges, outlined in Box 5.1, which I believe fit this role.

Box 5.1 1 2 3 4 5 6

Key areas of social challenge

Health and Care: ageing society, social care, well-being, disability, etc. Skills & Learning: reduce inequality of access/outcomes, democratisation of creativity, etc. Food, environment & climate change: sustainability, raising public awareness, etc. Migration & integration: long-term integration challenges, including education, training, community engagement, etc. Digital democracy: growing mistrust in democratic institutions, rise populism, emergence misinformation, etc. Cities and urban development: social & demographic change, cohesion, loneliness, etc.

Source: after Nesta (2020)

Museums in action Using Nesta’s key areas of social challenge, one can begin to chart the roles museums can play.

Health and care: with a focus on wellbeing Wellbeing is a complex concept that includes a ‘broader measure of health and ability to function and implies a system that values goals other than personal happiness’ (Merritt, 2016: no page number). The social wellbeing of communities is a recent but growing area of interest, recognising that Western populations are ageing (see Chapter 1) and that health inequalities are driven by underlying social factors. Taking the UK as an example, David Cameron, as prime minister, sought to introduce a General Well-being Index in 2010, the national parliament’s All-party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing was formed in 2014, while the devolved Welsh government introduced its Wellbeing of Future Generations Act in 2015. The UK National Health Service (NHS) now gives guidance on improving mental wellbeing involving connecting with other people, being physically active, learning new skills, giving to others, and giving attention to the present moment (mindfulness). In response, health and social care practitioners are now offering schemes described as ‘social prescribing’ – ‘the process whereby healthcare professionals refer patients to non-clinical sources of support in the community to improve their health and well-being’. (Chatterjee, 2020: 114). Since 2019,

96 Museums in the wider world

the NHS has been encouraging social prescribing by funding link workers with good knowledge of community assets within primary care networks – it is up to UK museums to convince those workers of what they can offer (Tierney, 2020). Museums have actually been involved in this field for many years, for example in holding object-handling sessions for people with dementia. Today, there is growing recognition across healthcare of the benefits museums can provide, and museum involvement in this field has strong public support (see Box 0.5). In practice, museums can readily match NHS guidance through: • • • • • •

Positive social experiences leading to reduced social isolation Opportunities for learning and acquiring new skills Calming experiences and increased positive emotions, like optimism Increased self-esteem and sense of identity Positive distraction from clinical environments Increased communication between families, carers and health professionals. after Chatterjee (2020: 113)

And there is hard, quantifiable evidence of the impact museums can have. Kirsten Drotner’s chapter references work by the National Endowment the Arts and AAM in the USA on creativity and ageing. The chapter by Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan discusses the creation of a Museum-Public Health Partnership in Glasgow, involving the city’s museums (GM) and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH). Crucially, as part of this partnership, detailed, long-term statistical research by epidemiologists found that regular museum visitation (three to five times a year) ‘has such an impact that people live longer as a result’. The chapter by Tony Butler, now Director of Derby Museums, explores giving control of the re-development of the city’s Silk Mill Museum to the local community. This major scheme builds from the principles of the Happy Museum Project, founded by him in 2011, when director of the Museum of East Anglian Life. He saw at first hand the benefits to his community of engaging with a wide range of practical projects at the museum. (Happy Museum Project, no date).

Skills and learning This has been a core function of public museums since their beginnings. It still has strong support both within the sector and from the public at large – both in terms of structured learning for schools and colleges and informal learning by wider audiences (see Chapter 5). This function is particularly relevant today because of the potential of museums to deliver 21st-century skills – knowing how to learn, adapt, interact, think creatively and critically, innovate, make meanings, communicate, and collaborate (see Black, 2012: Chapter 4). At the heart of this is the ability of museums to foster creative and innovative thinking, the subject of Kirsten Drotner’s chapter.

The activist museum 97

Food, environment, and climate change Climate change is one of the defining issues of our age, and one in which museums are becoming increasingly involved internationally, from developing sustainability strategies for their sites to taking part in protest. Examples include the Coalition of Museums for Climate Justice, led by Robert Janes (https:// coalitionofmuseumsforclimatejustice.wordpress.com/), and the Museums and Climate Change Network (MCCN), which first came together in 2013 at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (MCCN, no date). Both their websites look at the museums involved and their activities, giving evidence of the sheer scale of actions involved globally. I would highlight the continuing remarkable work of the Field Museum, Chicago (see climatechicago.fieldmuseum.org). Museums bring two major benefits to this issue. First, their expertise and research linked to the evidence their collections and research contain of the impact of climate change. The second is their ubiquity and connectedness – they can campaign internationally but also act locally. See, for example, Henry McGhie’s ‘Curating Tomorrow’ blog and consultancy (McGhie, no date). For campaigning locally, there is much to learn from organisations like the Transition Town Network, a global grassroots movement of communities addressing climate change by making changes in how they live, where they live ( Jennings, 2019).

Migration and integration As Chapter 1 demonstrates, mass migration is a major global reality. Integrating large, diverse new populations into existing communities, mainly in cities, is a huge challenge. It can lead to polarisation and exclusion on the one hand, and both enrichment and the creation of new cultural resources on the other. Either way, museums have made an international response. City museums have been particularly heavily involved in this task for a number of years. Migration: Cities was a three-year Special Project of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), begun in 2016. It was led by ICOM’s International Committee for the Collections and Activities of Museums of Cities (CAMOC) and International Committee for Regional Museums (ICR) along with the Commonwealth Association of Museums (CAM), an ICOM affiliated organisation. One ambition was to create a website for city, migration, and other museums to share information, resources, and experiences (ICOM, no date). As with climate change, the issue of migration needs museums to collaborate internationally but work locally. The Cardiff Story Museum explores the history of Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, as a city build on migration. Recently it has been cooperating with other agencies to engage with refugee families from Syria, encouraging them to come to the museum as their space. Here we see, also, an unsung strength of museums. Victoria Rogers, the manager of the museum, speaks passionately about the museum as a place where refugees and their children can meet and interact with other visitors – and of working with

98 Museums in the wider world

police and youth services to bring young people and refugees together, ‘putting faces to statistics’ (Museums Association, 2019).

Digital democracy Today Western democratic institutions, and the representative form of democracy they encapsulate, are faced with declining public trust and confidence and the rise of a populist agenda. While those institutions and the means of public engagement with them are unchanged over decades, the rest of the world has been transformed by a digital revolution (Simon et al., 2017: 4). Could the digital provide the way forward in broadening and deepening public engagement with the democratic process – and what, if anything, can museums do about this? The first stage for museums, and one that many are heavily involved in, lies in democratising their own actions. Digitisation of collections and associated documentation provides much greater public access, particularly if the museum provides high resolution images free to use. Democratisation also brings with it authenticity and transparency in actions and the representation of multiple perspectives, with the voices of others placed alongside that of the museum. But can the digital revolution go beyond this to help museums in their ambitions as agents for social change? Eid (2019) explores in detail one area offering real potential, namely in museums engaging with the digital social innovation movement. Digital Social Innovation (DSI) is an emerging field of study that seeks to use digital technologies to improve people’s lives. NESTA has defined DSI as: A type of social and collaborative innovation in which innovators, users and communities collaborate using digital technologies to co-create knowledge and solutions for a wide range of social needs and at a scale and speed that was unimaginable before the rise of the Internet. Stokes (no date) interviewed by Social Innovation Community As I write, there are 2274 organisations involved in the European network of digital social innovation (digitalsocial.eu) seeking to use digital technologies to tackle social challenges. To date, they have collaborated on 1470 projects, involving ‘creative open source and/or design-orientated practices to develop innovative products or services that address social challenges in areas like healthcare, education, democracy, corruption, environment and employment’ (Malde and Kennedy, 2018: 16). Examples can be found on the digitalsocial. eu website. Museums have been slow to play a part in this. Malde and Kennedy’s report Connecting digital practice with social purpose analysed the experience of two

The activist museum 99

colleagues from each of 18 participating arts and heritage organisations in the UK – from the National Gallery, Tate and National Museums Wales to Chester Zoo – around the research question: ‘In what ways can the relationship between digital practice and social purpose be understood and practiced by arts and heritage organisations?’ Malde and Kennedy (2018: 14) Aspects explored included specific social issues, democratising organisational processes, engaging young people and providing a platform for expression. The digital element can be the main aspect of the project or act as an enabler, for example through communication, awareness raising, or income generation (Malde and Kennedy, 2018: 18). In an earlier article, Malde (2017) highlighted cities such as Sao Paulo and Barcelona, which are using FabLabs (digital fabrication labs) to empower citizens to develop ideas that improve urban governance and meet local needs. Other examples he gave of digital social innovations include the work of charities in using mobile, mapping, and cloud technologies to enhance the way they deliver social services in the developing world.

Cities and urban development This brings together all of the other issues: the isolation and loneliness tackled under one; the opportunities for building personal and community capital through the learning role of museums discussed under two and in Chapter 5; campaigning for sustainable development under three; the draw of cities to generations of migrants under four; and the importance of digital democracy as a counter to populism and as a means for communities to enhance their own lives under five. It then adds others, all amplified by the nature of urban living – thus, for example, the work of NCCL with young people on the verge of crime discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Going beyond the Nesta challenges, one should also consider the potential for museums to engage with difficult issues including racism, the legacy of colonialism and communities divided by past conf lict. Because the public at large recognise museums as trustworthy, authentic, and credible (Britain Thinks, 2013), museums have real potential to explore these themes through their collections in a meaningful way that challenges peoples’ outlook, supports exploration of the relationship between the past and the present and engages people meaningfully in debates about the future. Trust is particularly important where museums are working with communities who are divided by a shared but conf lictual past – allowing the museum to begin to counter myth and invention, nostalgia, the false, the romanticised, the unchallenging, the selective, the biased.

100 Museums in the wider world

From 1969–1998, Northern Ireland was engulfed in a virtual civil war. In the peace process that has been under way since 1998, museums alongside other cultural organisations across the province have been charged with being places where it is safe for communities to explore and discuss Northern Ireland’s past together. For the impact of this see, for example, Black and Reynolds (2020). The work of museums in places like Sarajevo and Beirut is remarkable. And, on a global level, we have the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. Founded in 1999 with nine members, this worldwide network of historic sites and museums dedicated to remembering past struggles for justice and human rights and addressing their contemporary legacies now has 275 members in 65 countries. The speed with which this body can respond to contemporary issues was apparent in its rapid creation of a ‘public square’ within its website on combatting the impact of COVID-19 together (www.sitesofconscience.org/ en/covid-19).

Concluding thoughts There is quantifiable evidence of what activist museums, working in wider partnerships, can achieve – tackling the underlying causes of social problems, not just alleviating the symptoms. The potential for history museums to engage communities with their pasts highlights the importance of trust. The capacity of all museums to enhance the wellbeing of the lonely, the isolated, the mentally ill and those with dementia is considerable. The role of museums in campaigning against climate change is indisputable. In all of these issues museums, working with others, can make a real difference – can help change people’s lives – and can do so at scale. And there is growing understanding of this in wider circles. In the UK, the devolved Scottish government published its new culture strategy in February 2020. Its pledges included: ‘to place culture as a central consideration across all policy areas including health and wellbeing, economy, education, reducing inequality and realising a greener and more innovative future’ (Adams, 2020: 12). There is, however, a real problem over increasingly scarce resources. The public attitudes survey commissioned by the UK Museums Association (Britain Thinks, 2013), ref lected substantial concern at museums spreading themselves too thinly. Others have much more fundamental concerns: the arguments for societal benefit have been too instrumental. The museum has become a driver toward goals external to it; to put it crudely, it is supposed to help solve the world’s problems. Thomas (2019: no page number) Underpinning most of the criticism is a view that museums should concentrate on what they do best and focus on the use of their collections. But that is exactly what activist museums do.

The activist museum 101

References Adams, G.A. (2020) Scotland’s Strategic Papers Set Out an Ambitious Vision, Museums Journal, April 2020, London: Museums Association, pp. 12–13 Anderson, G. (2019) Mission Matters: Relevance and Museums in the 21st Century, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums Archer, K. (no date) Learn About the Past, Act in the Present, Change the Future, in MuseumsEtc (ed) Ten Must Reads: Inclusion, Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc Black, G. (2012) Transforming Museums in the 21st Century, Abingdon: Routledge Black, G. and Reynolds, C. (2020) Engaging Audiences with Difficult Pasts: The Voices of ’68 Project at the Ulster Museum, Belfast, Curator, 63(1), January 2020, pp. 17–38, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cura.12346 Britain Thinks (2013) Public Perceptions of – And Attitudes to – The Purposes of Museums in Society, London: Britain Thinks, for UK Museums Association, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=954916 Chatterjee, H. (2020) Partnership for Health: The Role of Cultural and Natural Assets in Public Health, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 112–124 Eid, H. (2019) Digital Social Innovation and the Evolving Role of Digital in Museums, Museums & the Web, 2–6 April 2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://mw19.mwconf. org/paper/digital-social-innovation-and-the-evolving-role-of-digital-in-museums/ Happy Museum Project (no date) What We Do, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://happy museumproject.org/what-we-do/5-years-project/ ICOM (no date) Migration: Cities, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.migrationcities.net/ the_project Janes, R.R. and Sandell, R. (eds) (2019) Museum Activism, Abingdon: Routledge Jennings, H. (2019) Museums Can Play Key Role in Climate Activism, Museums Journal, April 2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/ comment/01042019-museums-can-play-key-role-in-climate-activism Malde, S. (2017) Museums Doing Digital and Museums Doing Good – Can We Forge a Connection, posted on 27/09/2017, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://medium.com/@ SejulM/museums-doing-digital-and-museums-doing-good-can-we-forge-aconnection-be45ab5b67ab Malde, S. and Kennedy, A. (2018) Let’s Get Real 6, London: Culture24, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.keepandshare.com/doc/8226734/let-s-get-real-6-culture-24rgb-single-page-pdf-10-5-meg?da=y MCCN (no date) About Us, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://mccnetwork.org/about-us McGhie, H. (no date) Curating Tomorrow, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.curating tomorrow.co.uk Merritt, E. (2016) Because You Get What You Measure, posted on 01/05/2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/2016/05/01/happiness-because-you-get-what-youmeasure/?utm_source=American+Alliance+of+Museums&utm_campaign=977d7a0f0aEMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_06_24_01_45&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ f06e575db6–977d7a0f0a-37319473 Museums Association (2019) Making Cardiff a Home, London: Museums Association, accessed on 15/04/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/video/23112016-cardiff-story NESTA (2020) Mapping Digital Social Innovation: How Tech Is Tackling Society’s Biggest Challenges, London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nesta.org.uk/feature/mapping-digital-social-innovation/

102 Museums in the wider world

Simon, J., Boss, T. and Boelman, V. (2017) Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement, London: Nesta, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nesta.org.uk/report/ digital-democracy-the-tools-transforming-political-engagement/ Stokes, M. (no date) Interview by Social Innovation Community, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.siceurope.eu/network/digital-social-innovation/digital-social-innovationintimately-related-all-other-areas Thomas, N. (2019) What Are Museums Really for? Apollo, the International Art Magazine, October 2019 issue, posted on 23/09/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.apollomagazine.com/defining-museums-in-the-21st-century/ Tierney, S. (2020) Museums Must Be Part of Social Prescribing, Museums Journal, April 2020, London: Museums Association, p. 14

D MAKING THE MUSEUM OF MAKING AT DERBY SILK MILL Tony Butler

Introduction By 1969, Arthur Thorpe had been Curator of Derby Museum for over 35 years. He had run the museum during the Second World War and witnessed the beginnings of post-industrial decline. His enthusiasm for the city’s Cultural Heritage was undimmed. He wrote a paper for the Public Libraries, Museum and Art Gallery committee of Derby Council extolling the virtues of establishing a new Industrial Museum in Derby Silk Mill (widely acknowledged as the site of the World’s First Factory). Such a museum would need the assistance of a number of skilled technicians and craftsmen as well as industrial archaeologists . . . it is astonishing how widespread is not only the interest of persons skilled and trained in the techniques of today but also how eager they often are to take a voluntary part in the preservation and re-construction of historical processes and practices. Derby Industrial Museum opened in 1974 and featured displays of the city’s manufacturing heritage. It charted the growth of industry from the Silk Mill’s foundation in 1720 and the early ceramics trade to Derby’s position as one of Britain’s principle railway towns and its leading role in civil aviation via global companies such as Rolls-Royce. Thirty-seven years later the museum was mothballed by Derby City Council. Its visitor numbers were in decline and its dwindling core audience was reduced to specialists and enthusiasts. The didactic, ‘great man’ historiography was not relevant to a modern audience with an expectation of encountering a range of views, first-hand testimony, and active participation. The closure of the Industrial Museum, coincided with the transfer of Derby City Council Museum Service to a newly formed charitable trust, Derby Museums. The creation of the trust, under founding principles of entrepreneurship,

104

Tony Butler

FIGURE D.1

Derby Silk Mill, frontage on to River Derwent.

Source: Photograph: © Derby Museums

Making the museum of making

105

participation, and social benefit, provided the impetus for a reappraisal of the Silk Mill site. New governance arrangements severed direct control from the city council, which had tried unsuccessfully to win Heritage Lottery Funding to redevelop the museum in 2008. The die was cast, as to the future of the Silk Mill site, when ‘the keys’ were given to Hannah Fox, who arrived as Project Director in 2011 just before the new Museum Trust was formed. Fox had a background in delivering community heritage programmes. More significantly, with a professional background in design, she was uniquely placed to lead the process of re-imagining the museum. In just eight years, under her leadership, the project has not only transformed and rejuvenated a significant heritage site but has had a profound effect on museum making around the UK and beyond.

Asset based and human centred The underlying principles of the Silk Mill development programme were Asset Based and Human Centred. An asset-based approach takes as its starting point the existing assets and strengths of the community, particularly the strengths inherent in community-based associations and other social networks. It defines assets not just as physical capital assets such as buildings [or collections] but the distinctive qualities of the environment and the skills of people within the community. (Mathie and Cunningham, 2003). A successful and resilient asset-based organisation has a balanced ‘sheet’ of assets – physical, financial, human, and cultural. Human-centred design is used by organisations all over the world to develop products and services closely allied with the needs and desires of users. Developed in the 1980s as a route towards enabling users to directly influence design decisions, human-centred design utilises deep contextual research, an empathy with users, the iteration of multiple ideas and ongoing prototyping and testing to develop new products and services which, as a result, exhibit a tighter fit to human needs. Human-centred design is focused on making something new. It reaches across a vast spectrum from consultation with users, through to the deep involvement of end users in design decisions; what might be called co-production. As a concept, it sits comfortably in the museum sector where learning and community involvement has been a defining characteristic of professional debates and academic study for the last three decades. In Derby, human-centred design has been harnessed to mobilise the human, intellectual, physical, and cultural assets as a route to tending cultural heritage and nurturing community. The mothballing of the Silk Mill presented an opportunity to reshape the building from the ground up. During 2011–13, over 100 workshops and activities were co-produced with community volunteers and partners, in order to seek consensus on what the museum’s purpose should be and who it should be for. A plethora of suggestions were made: music venue,

106

Tony Butler

contemporary art gallery, costume museum – all ideas were considered, but a synthesis was formulated which was to honour the city’s history and its iconic building. An important inf luence was the cultural context of the city of Derby. Known as a hotbed of 18th-century intellectual and artistic Enlightenment thought, Derby nurtured significant artists such as Joseph Wright of Derby, philosophers such as Erasmus Darwin, and industrialists such as Richard Arkwright and Jedediah Strutt. This historical conf luence of science and arts inf luenced a notion that experimentation and creativity were intertwined and should be the essential ingredients for the museum. In particular, this legacy broadened the educational focus of the museum, moving from an emphasis on STEM (Science Technology, Engineering and Maths) to STEAM, thus integrating Art with the ‘sciences’. Further impetus to ensure the development was relevant to the needs of the city came from the findings of a 2012 education commission under the auspices of Bishop of Derby Alistair Redfern. Despite the wealth created by three major manufacturers based in the city (Rolls-Royce, Bombardier, and Toyota), young people were not leaving local schools with the skills or ambition needed to enter the technical roles required by business. Bishop Alistair noted in 2012 that Derby ‘needs to convince young people that it’s okay to aspire to greatness’.

FIGURE D.2

STEAM learning session with Dale Community Primary School.

Source: Photograph © Derby Museums

Making the museum of making

107

Making By the end of 2013, with some seed funding from Derby City council, the ground f loor of the Silk Mill was stripped out and developed as an open experimental space. In addition, a workshop was created which included 3D printers, CNC machine routers, IT with open sourced software laser cutters, lathes, saws, and hand tools. This workshop was created as a public facility and essential to the principle that the community would be making the Museum of Making. The workshop was instrumental in community building. It provided a focus for learning and engagement for young people about industrial processes inspired by Derby’s collections of industry and social history. It acted as a rallying point to develop more detailed plans for the transformation of the whole building. Together with architects Bauman Lyons and ‘makers in residence’, Studio Tilt, Derby Museums created opportunities for the community to co-produce plans for fit-out and storytelling. Volunteers designed and made display cases, furniture, and a mobile kitchen. They encouraged and looked after each other as part of a collective enterprise. Co-production grew on a mutually beneficial basis. One volunteer used the workshop to grow a micro business in the development and manufacture of bespoke skateboards, in return he taught coding to 10–11 year olds from a local primary school. Making activities had a palpable impact on participants’ wellbeing. Researchers from Derby University measured the physical benefits of making by testing blood pressure and cortisol levels via cheek swabs of participants both before and after activities. While blood pressure remained unchanged, cortisol levels reduced, boosting the immune system. Making was making people happy.

Planning the full scheme This collaborative and creative approach to community building based on the social and cultural networks in the city was a prime factor in national funding bodies (National Lottery Heritage Fund, the D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership and Arts Council England) investing £17m to fund a full scheme to develop Derby Silk Mill as the Museum of Making. The development phase of the project during 2015–17 further enshrined co-production principles and honed the vision for the museum. A series of prototyping workshops were held to understand the needs of users and the types of activities which would be popular in the new museum. One such programme was the Art of Artefacts, led by designers Leach (now Creative Core). This sought to better understand how audiences responded to objects in the museum. The former Industrial Museum used objects to illustrate a linear narrative of the development of industry in the city. Participants in the Art of Artefacts workshops were instead asked to select and place objects in a makeshift display wall in the way that interested them most. What seemed to fascinate visitors particularly was the material, shape, and form of objects rather than their use as a device to tell a story. By the end

108

Tony Butler

FIGURE D.3

Curator Daniel Martin with participant at Art of Artefacts workshop.

Source: Photograph © Derby Museums

of the development phase it was clear that audiences saw the museum as a place that should put equal emphasis on learning and making; narrative and materiality. Alongside these targeted activities, everyday participation was encouraged. The Hub, a mobile collections preparation workspace brought curators and volunteers out into the gallery space. Staff interacted with the public, encouraging them to handle and sometime prepare or conserve objects. Frequently this teased out stories from people who had once used these objects, more often than not adding to the museum’s body of knowledge and filling in gaps in the stories of the collections. In a city of makers, engineers, technicians, and craftspeople a vision for the new museum emerged. This drew on the global importance of the site, the legacy 300 years of manufacturing, the value of involving the community in museum making and the imperative of building aspirations in young people: The Museum of Making – inspired by the makers of the past, made by the makers of today, empowering the makers of the future. Community partners continued to play an essential part in the practical creation of the museum as the project moved into the construction phase. A large team of collections co-producers has been involved in a three-year programme to decant,

Making the museum of making

109

document, and recant collections into the new museum. Fixtures and fittings for the new museum are made in an enhanced on-site workshop. From the outset the programme committed to making more of the museum collections available to the public. The Art Of Artefacts project laid the basis for a materials taxonomy which will inform a mass display gallery so that the museum could live up to its commitment to make 100% of its collections of social and industrial history available to the public. While a more traditional historiographical narrative will be created on the first f loor, the dense display of collections on the second f loor, grouped by materials (wood, ceramic, metal, glass, textile, stone, organic, and synthetic) will enable closer inspection by visitors. Much more of the collection is to be available online facilitated by a large-scale 3-D scanning programme. The third f loor of the building will house a co-working hub. Here creatives and makers can hire workspace and use of facilities to test and prototype their own products. This is the spirit in which manufacturing is being brought back to the site of the world’s first factory. Mutual relationships built with volunteers and civil society groups was replicated with businesses and companies. ‘Legacy’ companies such as Smith of Derby, a clock manufacturer, have been involved with the programme. Established in 1856, the company is one of the few turret clock manufacturers and restorers still extant in the UK. Smith’s extended their apprenticeship programme to include the restoration of a Harrison turret clock formerly installed in Derby Guildhall in 1842. The clock was retired from Derby Guildhall in 1976, when it became a non-working exhibit in the former Industrial Museum. Restoration work by Smith’s apprentices will see the clock installed in the new Museum of Making when it re-opens. The most significant relationship with the commercial sector has been a longstanding partnership with Rolls-Royce. The importance of the company to the city was well stated in the former Industrial Museum, with a RB211 turbofan aero-engine which turned Rolls-Royce into a global leader prominently displayed. In the years building up to the opening of the Museum of Making, the development programme was well supported by the company. Rolls Royce ‘STEM ambassadors’ led family workshops during activity days. In turn, in 2015 Derby Museums was commissioned by Rolls Royce to produce a commercial exhibition made in its workshop to coincide with the launch of its latest generation of engines, the Trent XWB. Rolls-Royce has donated a Trent 1000 engine as a signature exhibit for the new museum. Furthermore, by building a trusting relationship over many years, the company has now agreed to financially support the creation of the Institute of STEAM, which will encapsulate all new learning programmes throughout the organisation. The programme has sought to engage industry at all levels, ensuring it is relevant to the needs of the modern economy. Make Works Derbyshire is an online gazetteer, which has mapped makers, manufacturers, and materials in the county. Each listing is accompanied by a short film made by volunteer filmmakers from Derby College and University. The platform allows for makers to tell their story in a bitesize listing and features a taxonomic approach replicated in

110

Tony Butler

the Museum of Making, including makers working in textiles, ceramics, composite, and wood. There has a been a marked change of emphasis during the lifetime of the project in the interpretation and storytelling within the museum. This also ref lects a change in emphasis of historiographical trends in museums over the last decade. Originally conceived to illustrate the city of Derby as a cradle of national innovation and creativity in ‘the valley that changed the world’, the museum has now placed much greater emphasis on its legacy of climate change and post-colonial narratives. This ref lects the fact that, despite being initially powered by water, the mill changed to coal power in the 1830s. Situated next to the Derbyshire/ Nottinghamshire coalfield, the extractive industries hugely inf luenced economy and society in the area. A spur to this change in narrative direction was Derby Museums’ participation in a UK Arts and Humanities Research Council programme Stories of Change, led by a team from Sheffield University, which examined how energy has inf luenced the human geography and culture of the Derwent Valley. The project proposed to support lively public and political conversations about energy by looking in a fresh way at its past, present, and future. In doing so, it provided a taste of what the new museum could be – a civic space not just to celebrate past endeavours but

FIGURE D.4

The Civic Hall, artist’s impression.

Source: Photograph © Creative Core for Derby Museums

Making the museum of making

111

to face the challenges of an uncertain future. This is borne out in the design of the museum and the creation of a new three storey high atrium in the courtyard of the building. To be known as the Civic Hall, this will be a place for the convening of events and activities, debates, and conversations about how making and industry has contributed to global challenges and explore innovation to solve them. And the desire to interpret the site’s climate legacy has been matched by a commitment to ensure environmentally sustainable principles are kept during the construction. The Museum of Making will achieve BREAAM ‘very good’ – the highest possible standards for a redeveloped historic building. Moreover this sort of space for public history enables further exploration of the connections between industrialisation and the UK’s colonial past. It is in this area that there has been more ambivalence in the relationship between building community and radical story telling. The reframing of the narrative has been curator led. Challenging community assumptions around slavery and exploitation is more uncomfortable than challenge around climate change. There may a case to answer that building community around making and participation actually reinforces existing narratives of Derby (and Britain) as an exceptional, creative pioneer, whose heroic achievements gloss over colonial violence. Issues such as these will be discussed through a new leadership programme initiated by Derby Museums in association with the US based National Arts Strategies. This twoyear programme is designed to support creative and community practitioners to explore new tools and frameworks which will assist their arts and culture projects in driving transformational change in the places where they live At Derby Silk Mill, the manufacturing revolution which began in the first decades of the 18th century was supercharged by the availability of cheap raw materials such as silk and cotton. Documents relating to the Mill show that silk was imported from the southern American colonies in the 18th century by way of indentured labour and enslaved people from Africa. The exploitation of people and nature is often obscured by a prevailing heroic narrative of ingenuity and resourcefulness; deeper public participation will mean more rounded and critical storytelling within the museum. The challenges of our age will not be solved just by making and consuming but by working in the public realm to solve problems so that we can live together on our crowded planet. Although there has been an impressive level of public collaboration for an inclusive approach to participation, the museum acknowledged that there were still many barriers to overcome to embed active engagement in culture. In late 2016, the museum conducted non-user research in areas of the city where there was low participation in cultural activity. Respondents suggested that ‘museums are too much like school’, ‘our children would be bored’, and ‘it’s not the sort of thing people like us do’. Nevertheless, many described rich leisure lives such as going to festivals, cinemas, and parks, but they were not that interested in heritage. In response, Derby Museums developed ‘The Makory’, a re-purposed mobile library, used for making activities in the community. The vehicle went

112

Tony Butler

to communities and schools in the city where there was both low academic participation and attainment. The success of the programme will be measured in the continued involvement of those communities over time.

Concluding thoughts Museums enable individuals and communities to learn together. Museum learning is all of the things much orthodox learning is not: curiosity driven, non-judgemental, non-compulsory, engaging, and fun. The people of the future will need to be resilient, resourceful, creative, and empathetic systems thinkers – exactly the kind of capacities museum learning can support. From 2013, Derby Museums heeded Bishop Alistair Redfern’s call for young people. Students aged 15–18 worked at the Silk Mill with artists, scientists, inventors, and design specialists, to develop their ideas and prototype a potential solution to a challenge based on a cuttingedge theme. The annual themes ranged from Synthetic Biology and Energy of the Future to Biomechanics. The programme took students through the steps required to shift their own perceptions of their capacity for innovation, from an initial introduction to the annual theme, to an in-depth R&D period supported by mentors, before finally pitching to a specialist panel of judges. Building on this programme and supported by sponsorship of £250,000 from manufacturer IMI, the Midlands Maker Challenge will present a similar challenge to schools, colleges, and universities across the region from 2021. Supported by engineers from IMI a series of challenges briefings and ideas development days at the Museum of Making will be offered to potential applicants, sharing designthinking approaches and tools. These days will also encourage and enable new collaborations to be formed. As this grand project approaches completion, participation is still highly evident. Despite the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a revised opening date of Spring 2021, the workshop has been reactivated and designers and volunteers are making the fixtures and fittings for displays. Collections volunteers are preparing for the recant of objects back into the museum. Interactives, designed by apprentices at Rolls-Royce, are being tested and commissioned. The process of museum making has emphasized participation and iteration, building on the existing social networks within the city and building new community as the museum takes shape. Participation and collaboration are everywhere and habitual; it’s meant that the museum is made with people in mind.

Reference Mathie, A. and Cunningham, G. (2003) From Clients to Citizens: Asset-Based Community Development as a Strategy for Community-Driven Development, Development in Practice Journal, 13, pp. 474–486

E PARTICIPATION, TRUST, AND TELLING DIFFICULT HISTORIES IN MUSEUMS Elizabeth Crooke

Introduction In this book, Graham Black describes what is required to maintain a museum’s relevance as being in a state of constant evolution. This changing museum landscape is demonstrated by the themes of two UK Museums Association annual conferences, both held in Belfast but 30 years apart. In 1988, the subject of the MA conference was marketing; when the conference was next to return to the city in 2018, their attention had turned to dissent. What links the two conferences was the reaction of some within the museum sector to the two themes. Ref lecting on the 1988 conference in the Manual of Curatorship, Peter Lewis noted that ‘the museum world remained distrustful’ of the notion that marketing was relevant to the museum’ (Lewis, 1992: 148). In some quarters, the same is found in relation to the theme of dissent and, in this case, objection goes beyond those who regret changing ways in museum practice. Today the demand for change in museums is far more fundamental. The recent focus on dissent is asking for a radical overhaul of museum purposes that has the potential to address every aspect of museum practice. What this overhaul might look like is evident here in Black’s exploration of museum futures in the book’s introduction. In his ‘tale of two visions’ Black paints a picture of ‘old power’ in the museum, which is hierarchical, inward looking, static, seeking ‘neutrality’ and didactic, with a single voice of authority. Alternatively, the sector can strive for ‘new power’, which is outward-facing, collaborative, inclusive and polyvocal and participative. This new power speaks to the idea of dissent and also to cultural and political challenges we are observing locally and globally. In this chapter I explore trust in the museum and consider it in the light of museum practice in Northern Ireland. By doing so, this chapter brings further ideas previously presented in Transforming Museums in the twenty-first century, in which Black describes the established museum brand as one based upon ideas of

114

Elizabeth Crooke

‘authenticity, trust, cultural provision and learning opportunities’ (2012: 46). The transformation Black called for was essentially one that asked for movement and widening of trust: the museum should trust the visitor to speak, to create, and to lead. This was a transference of authority that would lead to shared roles; only with that shift could we expect the visitor to trust in and engage with the museum.

Trust and the museum Public trust is an idea that is mooted as precious and maybe one of the most important assets the museum must preserve. This is the case despite there being no clear agreement about what it is exactly that we are putting our trust in, whether that trust is well founded, and what the consequences might be should that trust be broken. For the American Alliance of Museums ‘public trust’ is presented in relation to museums as custodians for collections: ‘public trust is the principle that certain natural and cultural resources are preserved for public benefit’ (AAM, 2019). Alternatively, Besterman refers to a ‘contract of trust’ between museums and the public, framed in a negotiation of museum ethics (2006: 431). In an exploration of race and identity, museum director Regina Faden cites an American Alliance of Museums survey that places museums as having ‘the privilege of being the most trusted institutions in the country’ (2007: 78). A few years later, a study undertaken by BritainThinks (2013), on behalf of the Museums Association, found museums viewed as ‘one of the last vestiges of trust’ (2013: 6). Regarding controversial subjects, participants in that study asked rather than raising controversy museums should instead present ‘factual and unbiased information’. It was not that museums should not broach contentious subjects; rather, museums ‘should remain neutral in the displaying of information, rather than act as a leader in telling people what to think’ (BritainThinks, 2013: 6). This was referred to in the report as museums taking ‘a moral standpoint, as opposed to a political standpoint’; consequently, ‘the public want to keep their trust in museums by believing they are being given unbiased and non-politically driven information’ (BritainThinks, 2013: 6). This notion that trust can only be placed in the neutral museum is challenged by Museum Activism, the collection of essays edited by Janes and Sandell (2019), which can be read as a call to action for those in museums to be part of the solution for global problems of climate change, the erosion of trust, the unevenness of human rights, and the inequitable distribution of wealth ( Janes and Sandell, 2019: 4–6). They write that, at the outset, the suggestion that museums might comment on inequalities, injustices and environmental crises was met with scepticism and derision, it was thought ‘inappropriately political and partisan’ and ‘a serious threat to public trust’ (2019: 1). This idea of trust seems to be founded on a notion of a museum’s independence and even its neutrality. As Elizabeth Merritt wrote in a blog for the Center for the Future of Museums (American Alliance of Museums), ‘people trust museums because they think we present unmediated facts, in the form of our collections’ (Merritt, 2015). What is perhaps not

Participation, trust, and telling

115

appreciated is the extent of interpretation undertaken by ‘selecting and arranging objects that support a particular argument or point of view’ (Merritt, 2015). The debate following Merritt’s blog post questions whether the public trust in museums is one that is well founded. John Gardiner of the National Archives, who was paraphrased in Merritt’s contribution, suggested in reply to Merritt that museums have acquired such trust through the authority that is assumed from the moment the visitor approaches the museum. In his experience, despite the multiple choices and perspectives curators have, ‘the objects we exhibit and the institutional contexts in which we work confer authority and validity on our work’. This, he adds, is ‘an authority and validity that I’m uncomfortable claiming’ (Gardiner, posting in reply to Merritt, 2015). It is undeniable that museums are ascribed and very often relish a position of authority. In the early 2000s James Wood, Director of the Institute of Art, Chicago, provided an 8-point exploration of museum authority that was focused upon the power of the object, expertise, memory preservation, quality, leadership, stability, integrity, and a museum’s civic distinction, including the museum building as ‘its august urban presence’ (Duncan, 2002: 105). Although this might appear dated to some, we have not departed entirely from such elevated ideas of museums. This impression of detached expertise continues to be forged by the social processes of museum histories, architectures and displays, so that a museum becomes ‘a building that commands authority through the “authentic” fragments that it contains’ ( Jones and MacLeod, 2016: 208). This authority gives the stories told in museums greater status and impact – there is something very convincing about professionally produced glossy exhibitions with beautifully lit and well-designed text panels and labels. It is clear the association with the museum changes an object; evidently, once they enter museums objects have an added aura that enhances their importance (Dorrian, 2014). Furthermore, the long-held practice in museums of seldom naming the curator in museum displays suggests the objects and images in museums are present without bias and has the cultural authority to represent. The anonymity evident in museums and gallery displays is feeding the myth of neutrality in museums, which is now being challenged. Within museums the politicized past can be overt, or it can be hardly apparent. We live in a time when political interference in our cultural life is so engrained that it can often be barely perceptible (Gray, 2011) – or we have become so conditioned to that process that we don’t question it. David Fleming acknowledges he was trained ‘to think that museums are not political, they’re neutral – you see this all the time – they’re safe, neutral spaces, and so on’. Counter to this he argues ‘I like to think of museums as . . . they’re not really neutral at all. They are very political’ (MuseumNext, 2016).

Participation and contested histories The contemporary museum must negotiate its position on the spectrum of political activism, bringing audiences and funders with them. Black is arguing for a radical

116

Elizabeth Crooke

rethinking of how museums must operate, taking account of public attitudes, expectations, and behaviours. Because I work in the Northern Ireland context, my interest is in how we embrace the participative practices espoused by Black when the experiences presented in the gallery space are tremendously difficult to agree upon. Between 1968–1998, Northern Ireland experienced a conf lict that worldwide is referred to as ‘the Troubles’. Now in the region we have entered a ‘post conf lict’ period that co-exists with community division (for example, our school system, for the most part, educates Catholics and Protestants separately) and continuing paramilitary activity. This new phase is also identified as one of culture wars, in which groups are competing to control the depiction of their role in the conf lict and commemorate their losses according to preferred narratives (Crooke and Maguire, 2018; McDowell and Braniff, 2014), which in some cases has resulted in the formation of local makeshift museums (Markham, 2018). The many versions of the political reality of Northern Ireland are also ref lected in the museums telling the political history of the region. On the one hand we have the established and accredited national and local authority museum sector, amongst which is the Ulster Museum (part of National Museums NI), that work closely with the likes of the Community Relations Council and their sponsor department in central Government. On the other, the region has relatively new single-identity museums in receipt of public funding. It is amongst the latter we see the clearest example of communities using museums to concretize their preferred narratives and reinforce difference. In Derry/Londonderry this is separated along traditional lines, with the largely Nationalist story told in the Museum of Free Derry, and one more aligned to Unionist communities in the nearby Siege Museum. Adrian Kerr, of the Museum of Free Derry, wrote in favour of this division, arguing that because ‘there is no escaping the fact that we have very diverse perceptions of history’ and no doubt ‘maybe half the population of the north disagrees with the story we tell in the Museum of Free Derry’ . . . ‘the point is that we have the right to tell it, they have the right to disagree’ (Kerr, no date: 173–174). Recently both of these museums were significantly refurbished and extended with the aid of multi-million packages of EU Peace and tourism funding. The makeshift museums, however (explored by Markham, 2018), also offered along separate community lines, are generally maintained through community donation, and most are without the endorsement suggested by public money. A visit to single-identity museums, such as the Museum of Free Derry or the Siege Museum is not for everyone – particularly if they regard the spaces as far too politicised. By contrast, and unlike these single-identity museums, the crosscommunity project Healing Through Remembering (HTR), established in 2001, was the first organisation in Northern Ireland to combine the material culture of the Troubles with storytelling or testimony in a significant way. Their evolving exhibition has been touring community venues in Northern Ireland since 2012. From the outset, the approach was one of intercommunity dialogue, giving opportunity for people to speak for themselves and explore with others how

Participation, trust, and telling

117

best to deal with the history of conf lict and live together peacefully (healingthroughremembering.org). How have the public sector museums responded to the challenge of telling the Troubles story? When displaying the conf lict, national and local museums have each had their share of praise and counter-praise (Crooke, 2001; Maguire, 2017). No matter which museum we visit, the trust we place in the narrative on display will vary (Crooke, 2010) as will our appetite for the use of the museum space for what we might regard as political activism; furthermore, there will always be a concern with how to broker trust when telling such a difficult history. In the remainder of this contribution I apply the ideas that were introduced in the first section to the shifts that can be observed in how the Troubles has been displayed at the Ulster Museum in Belfast. Here, ref lecting Black’s dichotomy, we see a move from an ‘old power’ display that is static, didactic, and using single voice with a veil of neutrality, to a ‘new power’, one that can be considered more collaborative, inclusive, polyvocal, and participative. In 2009, the Ulster Museum reopened to the public after a £17million refurbishment which saw significant changes across the entire 80-year-old building. The Director of the time told the press that the museum’s ‘rejuvenation’ was ‘radical and deliberate’, providing facilities that allowed ‘new ways of exploring the collections and engaging with learning while offering both space and activity for ref lection and creativity’ (Cooke, cited by Meredith, 2009). The long-anticipated Troubles Gallery (Figure E.1), a new offer for the museum, was not received with such enthusiasm. Local journalist Fionola Meredith provided her readers with a fairly accurate description: ‘tucked away in a dim corner – it’s almost as if the museum wants visitors to overlook it – it’s a bland, overly-cautious response to the Troubles based on black and white photographs and dull swathes of text’ (Meredith, 2009). The monochrome 2009 exhibition was devoid of objects with no suggestion of public engagement in the development of the gallery. The text and panels told a didactic and dispassionate narrative of the troubles, avoiding any invitation to ask questions or explore the account – thus, demonstrating what Karine Bigand described as an ‘uneasy approach’ to telling the Troubles story (2011: 8). In an attempt to explain their method, the Museum Director described the new exhibition as ‘tentative’, adding ‘you can’t resolve this stuff. People might expect a definite exhibition. The impact of the Troubles is unresolved – so the gallery is unresolved’ (Tim Cooke cited in Bigand, 2011: 10). This gap was soon to be addressed; within five years the museum secured £370,000 from what is now the National Lottery Heritage Fund to develop a Troubles-related community engagement and collecting project, which also resulted in a new exhibition reopening in 2018 (Figure E.2). A number of the earlier failures were overcome by this new exhibition, the inclusion of objects being perhaps the most obvious. More significantly the approach taken in the development of the exhibition, and since, is one that is far more participatory. This change of approach can be demonstrated with regard

118

Elizabeth Crooke

FIGURE E.1

The 2009 Troubles Exhibition, Ulster Museum.

Source: Elizabeth Crooke (2010) 

Participation, trust, and telling

119

A leather jacket from the punk band The Outcasts displayed at the entrance to The Troubles and Beyond exhibition.

FIGURE E.2

Source: Elizabeth Crooke, 2020

to the captioning of an image documenting Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972 (as seen in Figure E.1). The original caption for the 2009 gallery, written by Bloody Sunday Trust (BST), named the person in the image who was shot seconds later. To the annoyance of the Trust, when the gallery opened, the name was removed and the caption ‘diluted’. Reversing this, the full BST caption was used in the 2018 gallery (Blair, 2020). Recognition of when trust has been broken, and how it must be rebuilt, is crucial to this new practice. National Museums NI describes the new Troubles gallery as a ‘critical development’ in the progress of the region towards being able to ‘understand our shared past in an unresolved present’ (NMNI, 2019: 9). Their concept for the gallery is to provide a ‘destination hub for the Troubles narrative’ that provides ‘an arena of multivocality’, enabling visitors to ‘engage with difficult subjects and exchange ideas’ (NMNI, 2019: 9). They present their new approach as based upon ‘authenticity, diversity and inclusivity’ originating with community engagement and the presence of more voices in the gallery (Figure E.3). As a result, NMNI believes it has provided ‘a shared space for local audiences to start conversations and a safe space’ one in which visitors can ‘explore multiple perspectives and hear multiple voices’

120

Elizabeth Crooke

FIGURE E.3

People’s stories displayed at The Troubles and Beyond exhibition.

Source: Elizabeth Crooke, 2020

Participation, trust, and telling

121

( NMNI, 2019: 9). They also hope that, with audience involvement, the gallery will change with time bringing ‘new objects, stories and testimonials’ (NMNI, 2019: 10; see also Logan, 2019).

Concluding thoughts In forging participative practice museums are learning from the community, charity, and voluntary sectors. The approach taken by Heritage Through Remembering, and latterly National Museums NI, uses difference as the starting point for exploration and a participatory approach leads to more engaged audiences, building an experience with the museum. The first phase of the National Museums NI Troubles gallery saw ‘neutrality’, in the didactic, monochrome exhibition, roundly rejected. This local reaction differs from the findings of the BritainThinks survey, which recommended an avoidance of controversy and pursuit of the ‘factual and unbiased’. Concurrently, as we pursue the participatory museum, we need to be open about the museum as a politicised space that is coded to the expectations of both internal and external agendas. The Ulster Museum is far from a sectarian space, in the sense of it being marked with memorials, f lags, and painted kerbstones as found elsewhere in Northern Ireland; however, it is still a politicized space, one that is shaped by the priorities of its governing and funding bodies and evident in museological practices. But the pursuit of an open, democratic, and political space is one that has more opportunity to foster trust.

References American Alliance of Museums (2019) Ethics, Standards and Professional Practices, accessed on 23/08/2019 at: www.aa-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/ public-trust-and-accountability-standards Besterman, T. (2006) Museum Ethics, in Macdonald, S. (ed) A Companion to Museum Studies, New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 431–441 Bigand, K. (2011) How Is Ulster’s History Represented in Northern Ireland’s Museums? The Cases of the Ulster Folk Museum and the Ulster Museum, E-rea. Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone, 8(3) Black, G. (2012) Transforming Museums in the Twenty-first Century, Abingdon: Routledge Blair, W. (2020) Image of 2009 Gallery [personal communication] BritainThinks (2013) Public Perceptions of – And Attitudes to – The Purposes of Museums in Society. A Report Provided by BritainThinks for Museums Association Crooke, E. (2001) Confronting a Troubled History: Which Past in Northern Ireland’s Museums? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(2), pp. 119–136 Crooke, E. (2010) The Politics of Community Heritage: Motivations, Authority and Control, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), pp. 16–29 Crooke, E. and Maguire, T. (2018) Heritage After Conf lict: Northern Ireland, Abington: Routledge Dorrian, M. (2014) Museum Atmospheres: Notes on Aura, Distance and Affect, The Journal of Architecture, 19(2), pp. 187–201

122

Elizabeth Crooke

Duncan, S.A. (2002) From Period Rooms to Public Trust: The Authority Debate and Art Museum Leadership, American Curator, 45(2), pp. 93–108 Faden, R. (2007) Museums and Race: Living Up to the Public Trust, Museums & Social Issues, 2(1), pp. 77–88 Gray, C. (2011) Museums, Galleries, Politics and Management, Public Policy and Administration, 26(1), pp. 45–61 Janes, R.R. and Sandell, R. (eds) (2019) Museum Activism, London: Routledge Jones, P. and MacLeod, S. (2016) Museum Architecture Matters, Museum and Society, 14(1), pp. 207–219 Kerr, A. (no date) Sitting on the Fence: What’s the Point? in MuseumsEtc (ed) Ten Must Reads: Inclusion: Empowering the Audience, Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc, pp. 160–189 Lewis, G. (1992) Museums and Marketing, in Thompson, J. (ed) Manual of Curatorship: A Guide to Museum Practice, Abington: Routledge, pp. 148–158 Logan, K. (2019) Collecting the Troubles and Beyond: The Role of the Ulster Museum in Interpreting Contested History, Difficult Issues, ICOM: Difficult Issues: Proceedings of the ICOM International Conference 2017, Heidelberg: Arthistoricum.net, pp. 166–178 Maguire, T. (2017) Curating Hatred: The Joe McWilliams’s Controversy at the Ulster Museum, Journal of Hate Studies, 13(1), pp. 61–83 Markham, K. (2018) Organised Innocence in the Paramilitary Museum, in Crooke, E. and Maguire, T. (eds) Heritage After Conflict: Northern Ireland, Abington: Routledge, pp. 49–65 McDowell, S. and Braniff, M. (2014) Commemoration as Conflict: Space, Memory and Identity in Peace Processes, London: Palgrave Macmillan Meredith, F. (2009) Revamped Ulster Museum Opens, Belfast Telegraph, 21 October 2009, accessed on 29/04/2020 at: www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ revamped-ulster-museum-opens-28499919.html Merritt, E. (2015) Trust Me, I’m a Museum. Centre for the Future of Museums Blog, accessed on 29/04/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/2015/02/03/trust-me-im-a-museum/ MuseumNext. (2016) In Conversation with David Fleming, Museum Director, 26 April 2016, Dublin, accessed on 6/08/2019 at: www.museumnext.com/article/david-f lemingmuseum-director/ National Museums NI (2019) Annual Report and Accounts 2018–19, Belfast: NMNI

F PUBLIC HEALTH AND MUSEUMS Building a strategic partnership Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan

Introduction Over the past decade Glasgow Museums (GM), the largest, most inclusive and most visited civic museum service in the UK, and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) have maintained a dialogue with the aim of creating a partnership to work out how both organisations could enhance their contribution to the wellbeing of the city’s residents. This chapter is a condensed version of a longer account of the development of the partnership (O’Neill et al., 2020). Here, the focus is on why both organisations simultaneously concluded that their current intellectual frameworks and ways of working were ceasing to be effective and that a new paradigm was required. It provides an interim report on what a new way of thinking and working might look like. In the absence of a single idea of progress, it may provide an indication of what progress in the contribution of cultural and health organisations to human wellbeing might become.

Questioning the museum paradigm GM’s review of the evidence for the health and wellbeing benefits of museums found that the strongest evidence was not based on evaluation of specific projects typical of its Open Museum (its award-winning outreach service) but came from large scale, long-term statistical studies carried by epidemiologists. These found that regular visitation (three to five times a year) had such an impact that people live longer as a result. The studies were controlled for age, income, education, gender, smoking, and chronic illness, and argued that cultural attendance was a separate variable (O’Neill, 2010). This finding affirmed GM’s commitment to increasing museum visiting amongst people whose health was most at risk due to the city’s inequalities. It also posed a question about the role of outreach and other community engagement projects. While the quality of this work and the

124 Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan

positive impact on the individuals and groups who were engaged was not in doubt, staff felt a growing dissatisfaction. In terms of health and wellbeing, the underlying approach could perhaps be seen as a treatment, where services which could benefit people’s health were provided in the museums or using museum objects in community settings. While these made a contribution, in the face of the scale of Glasgow’s health problems, it became imperative to ask whether this was the best approach. Further, in the context of declining budgets many wondered if this was the most effective use of precious resources. Even with significant additional resources, could the Treatment Model ever be developed on a scale sufficient to have an impact at a population level in the city?

Questioning the public health paradigm From GCPH’s perspective the fact that the city’s health inequalities remain ingrained, despite opportunities afforded by years of economic growth, raised questions about the fit and appropriateness of established ways of tackling population health issues through growth and provision of existing health services. There is a need to explore and harness the potential of a broader conceptualisation of health and wellbeing. Taking the timeframe across the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the same span over which the city’s economy transitioned from one of heavy industry to services, a shifting pattern of disease burden became evident. Disease conditions of the industrial period, in which museums and public health emerged, have proven tractable to the technologies and knowledge of health services and health improvement, with heart and respiratory diseases making a lessening contribution to mortality and morbidity in Scotland’s postindustrial society. Other conditions, however, remain resistant to improvement or are increasing their contribution. In particular, chronic liver disease, lung cancer and deaths from suicides, overdoses, and violence are having a growing impact. These highlight the limits of a modernist model of medicine and public health against an increased inf luence of ‘psycho-social factors’ as much about inequalities in society, the erosion of community, social cohesion, and shared sources of meaning and inclusion. Different responses and understandings of prevention and treatment from those yielded from medical science thus come to the fore. A balance is required that Michael Marmot identifies as (paying homage to Robert Tressell) that of ‘technical solutions and education of people and patients about healthy behaviour’ and ‘(creating) conditions for .  .  . fulfilling lives free from poverty and drudgery’ (Marmot, 2015). To wed fulfilment with the eradication of poverty and drudgery represents a challenge to the accepted technologies and praxis of public health. These difficulties are further compounded by a continuingly disconnected and privatised experience of community, family, and work – meaning loneliness and isolation have become public health issues both at a broad population level as well as when viewed through an inequalities lens. Research findings equating the impact of loneliness and social isolation as equivalent of smoking 15

Public health and museums

125

cigarettes a day have become well known (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010); evidence also indicates social isolation is higher in the most deprived neighbourhoods with lack of work contributing to social isolation and exclusion (GoWell, 2015). The intermediate effects of poverty and inequality in producing inequalities in health are at least three-fold. Marmot has described these intermediate effects as having material, psychosocial, and political outcomes (Marmot, 2015). With regard to the material and redistributive aspects, culture and museums roles are limited, as solutions tend to sit in the area of progressive taxation and within wider systems of social protection. However, the infrastructure of cultural services does represent a form of publicly owned (and therefore redistributed) wealth. Here the epidemiological evidence that cultural attendance is an ‘independent variable’ for health outcomes is as significant for GCPH as for GM ( Bygren et al., 2009). If cultural facilities provide direct individual health and wellbeing benefits, then ensuring equitable access and benefit for all in a population is essential.

Museums and public health The psychosocial dimensions of public health connect with cultural services through their ability to support the conditions in which people can lead fulfilling lives. The pathways to impact here are two-fold. First, engagement with cultural services can stimulate personal development and growth that can be seen as a positive health and wellbeing benefit in its own right but also stimulates growth in a range of individual measures advantageous to wellbeing and improved life chances; self-confidence, self-esteem and self-efficacy. According to how the opportunity for cultural participation is delivered, it can also lead to increased opportunity to connect with others and therefore becomes protective against loneliness and social isolation (Taylor, 2015). In terms of the second pathway, White responds to the challenge as to why participation in arts-based activities is different from other forms of participation such as sport through quoting Francois Matarasso’s recognition that: The essential reason why the arts are so important is not the socio- economic outcomes they share with other activities, but with the human and cultural outcomes which are wholly distinctive to them, questions of identity, meaning and values and all the otherwise inexpressible thoughts and feelings that we are. White (2009: 53) This connects to an issue for citizens of a city that has undergone rapid transformation in a manner that has been experienced by many as profoundly dislocating and which has in many ways exacerbated inequality. Further, as a city which is described as ‘post-industrial’, a term which implies a past but does not signpost a direction, imaginings of Glasgow’s future are multiple and contested. Set against

126 Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan

a defining narrative of poor health and inequality, especially during the past decade of economic tumult, are narratives of the city’s resilience, its humour, its cultural contribution to the world, and its recent renaissance. The story of ill-health and lowered life expectancy can become, problematically for collective wellbeing, a story Glaswegians tell of themselves and others tell for them. A scientifically neutral description of place has the potential to become a morally charged description of the people who live there, evident in preoccupations with the behavioural ‘choices’ posited as an explanation for population health outcomes but also, just as damagingly, setting limits on the perceived possibilities for people and communities. Places which come to be known first and foremost by their indices of problems can be perceived as places that are not ‘proper’ and mythologised in ways that perpetuate negative imaginings of people as ‘passive, stuck and disconnected’ (Popay, 2003; Hanley, 2008). The GCPH’s Arts and Humanities Research Council funded Representing Communities project sought to explore the narratives created by statistics, official accounts, and extant cultural representations and use them as a foil to bring forth new narratives of the city’s well storied east end. From a public health perspective, as well as providing psycho-social benefits, culture becomes as a tool for unearthing, negotiating, telling, and retelling a common story and incorporating new stories for people living in one place, particularly in times of upheaval and discontinuity. The collaboration between GM and GCPH provides an element missing from modernist, 20th-century approaches to both health improvement and public health which has found itself limited by its inability to treat forms of ‘dis-ease’ caused by relational processes and to museums, even those which have successfully created inclusive services. For public health, the inclusion of subjective and inter-subjective dimensions as required fields of knowledge and action is supported by Hanlon et al.’s development of Wilber’s integrative model for 21st-century public health (Hanlon et al., 2012). Their model proposes complementary focuses on individual and emotional dimensions of experience allied with a focus on collective meaning-making and the creation of belonging as valid areas of both evidence and action. This also requires a step-change in museum functioning, to move beyond providing occasional health related services, but to utilise a wider range of agencies, disciplines, and approaches and become partners in public health. These require museums to not only become strategic contributors to health and wellbeing within their own sphere, but to work as co-learners with the disciplines of more traditional public health, in recognition that multiple forms of knowledge and expertise will bring solutions and promise.

Developing Glasgow Museums as a health promoting organisation In order to better understand the issues and explore how they could respond in a strategic and sustainable way, GM began a process of learning and change.

Public health and museums

127

The first step in the partnership was a process of mutual engagement in order to share understandings of each other’s roles, of the city’s health problems, and of the potential for collaboration. Staff from GCPH and GM made presentations about the issues with their current paradigms and their thoughts about emerging new ways of working. A series of workshops helped to develop a deeper understanding amongst both partners of the potential for museums to connect with communities in a way that helped address the psychosocial affects and the disempowerment consequences of inequality as part of a society-wide effort to improve conditions and provide a foundation for population health improvement. From a public health perspective, GM’s approach to inclusiveness is ‘universalist’, making the core as accessible to all. However, universalist approaches also require additional targeting to population groups for whom improvement would have greatest impact on reducing inequalities. In order to understand how effective GM’s engagement with communities was, they worked with two expert evaluators (for their approach, see Blamey and Mackenzie, 2007) These worked with staff to apply logic modelling to museum activities, in order to assess whether there were credible links between intended outcomes and the huge range of work which was undertaken, in terms of exhibitions, events, outreach, and learning projects. This process found that, while individual projects could be evaluated with positive results, in general it was difficult for GM to: achieve clarity about expected outcomes from services, programs and projects; develop standardised definitions and terms; create good quality documentation; articulate theories of change and identify evidence which would support them; move beyond short-term planning and funding of projects (‘projectitis’); to learn from pilots and to develop services which reached significant numbers. A parallel review of GM’s Open Museum found that while communities valued their work, many educational and outreach services took place in isolation from other museum processes – curatorial, conservation, customer services, security, technical, and collections management. While the Open Museum’s autonomy enabled it to be responsive to community needs and interests, this also made it difficult to develop a population level strategy (O’Neill and Dornan, 2016). GCPH and Glasgow Life, GM’s parent body, jointly commissioned research to understand not just the reasons why many people from lower socio-economic groups did not visit museums but also why, relatively speaking, so many did. The study found that those who did visit were likely to have learned the habit from their parents, to live in areas that had been regenerated or to work in the city centre. Those who did not visit and felt alienated from museums, saw them as dull and unchanging and serving not them but tourists and ‘yuppies’ (Social Marketing Gateway, 2014). Thus, the exclusion of people who were geographically isolated, and/or not participating in the economy was compounded by a feeling that major civic facilities were ‘not for them’. Again, this seemed to require a new strategic approach – no accumulation of outreach projects by GM and other cultural organisations would be able to break down these barriers. But

128 Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan

the fact that a significant number of residents in the city’s poorest areas did visit museums meant that there was a foundation to build on. Funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, the Our Museum project was designed to support museums in achieving a step-change in access. It began with a research phase in which ten museums which had the potential to make such a change were identified – including GM (Lynch, 2011). The Paul Hamlyn Foundation has subsequently funded two three-year programs for GM. While the Our Museum team were keen for GM to revise its governance structures, by incorporating community representatives on its Board, this was not a viable option – because GM is part of the much larger Glasgow Life, whose governance is determined by the requirements of its contract with the City Council. Responding to the Open Museum review, a range of Our Museum activities enabled staff from across the museum to develop a greater mutual understanding and to meet representatives from a wide range of communities and to explore together how more people could benefit from the museum. It became clearer that the whole museum service needed to become part of the process of connecting with communities. Thinking through how this might work, and how best to use the engagement skills of the Open Museum and Learning and Education staff to leverage the whole of Glasgow Museums as a health promoting service is a difficult and continuing process. An essential feature is a framework which connects projects which work intensively with small groups with the ideal of everyone feeling that museums are part of their everyday lives. But it is not a simple matter of creating a structure – based, for example, on targeted groups, or an advisory panels and consultations, or thematic projects on issues of, for example, loneliness, mental health, or poverty. It needs to be able to respond to emergent requirements, specific to communities and the places where they live and at the same time to avoid ‘projectitis’ and have a population level reach. At the time of writing, the elements of this approach would seem to be: •

•

•

•

To continue to develop the inclusive core displays, supported by events, to continuously increase the number of people who feel a sense of ownership and belonging in their museums To develop a more democratic, learning culture within GM, where learning is not simply the acquisition of more scholarly or technical knowledge, but a process where all staff learn with partners, and where connecting with communities is everyone’s responsibility To work with partners, such as the NHS and third sector organisations, to deploy GM’s community engagement expertise to move beyond one-off projects with priority groups, to create services which enable those groups to feel a sense of ownership of and belonging in Glasgow’s museums To co-create with partners and develop pathways to museum-visiting for those who are most excluded from society, pathways which enable them to incorporate museum visiting into their daily lives

Public health and museums

129

A shared vision of museums and public health Throughout these processes, GCPH and GM have worked on developing a shared vision of the potential contribution of museums to public health. This is founded on a sense of civic tradition, which saw the inclusive elements of Victorian municipal culture as a foundation on which to create a new paradigm. To the extent that this culture and the institutions which embodied it, such as museums, libraries, and parks, survive as part of the civic infrastructure, they have a potential contribution to make to public health (Klinenberg, 2018). Museums and other cultural institutions (especially libraries and parks) can have an important role in creating a city which supports the health of all its citizens, supporting the building of more resilient individuals, families, and communities. Museums are amongst the very few public spaces which serve as non-commercial sites of citizenship and belonging, owned by all. They are multi-generational – both in the sense that they can appeal to people of all ages and also that they have been visited by young people’s grandparents when they were children. Even though they need to be renewed regularly so that they are meaningful in the present, museums can bring a great sense of continuity to their communities. They offer a great variety of experience, where people can engage in free-choice learning, both in the simple sense that they are not compulsory, like school, but also insofar as visitors can choose what to look at, and decide what to pay attention to. Creating an institutional culture of welcome and access helps ensure that these buildings come as near as possible to being open, democratic spaces where all citizens, irrespective of their level of education or income, their physical or intellectual capacities, their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or country of origin feel at home. The combination of these buildings and their symbolic messages with powerful, inspiring, thought-provoking objects provides opportunities for emotional dimensions of experience for individuals and families, allied with a focus on collective meaning-making and belonging. Perhaps, above all, museums provide an overall symbolic narrative about the nature of the city, representing its ideal of inclusive citizenship and helping to reduce the impact of living in a stigmatised place. This narrative is embodied in physical spaces, often in monumental, prestigious, and beautiful architecture, which represent the status of that vision of citizenship. Wilkinson and Pickett argue that the vector through which increasingly visible inequality damages health is a sense of humiliation (2018). If this is true, the symbolic meaning and lived experience of equality through belonging in these prestigious sites of civic participation – museums that are ‘of the people and for the people, for rich and poor, for high and low’, as the founding curator of Glasgow’s main museum put it (Paton, 1891: 10) – is the foundation of their contribution to public health. At the point where this ideal of inclusiveness fails, where people feel that museums are ‘not for the likes of them’, the very prestige of museums means that they are not simply opportunities which are not taken up but active contributors to a damaging sense of isolation and humiliation. What drives GM’s partnership with health organisations is therefore the conviction

130 Mark O’Neill, Pete Seaman, and Duncan Dornan

that neutrality is not possible: unless museums are actively contributing to reducing health inequalities, we are actively making things worse.

References Blamey, A. and Mackenzie M. (2007) Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), pp. 439–455 Bygren, O., et al. (2009) Attending Cultural Events and Cancer Mortality: A Swedish Cohort Study, Arts & Health, 1(1), pp. 64–73 GoWell (2015) Briefing Paper 22: Loneliness in Glasgow’s Deprived Communities, Glasgow: GoWell Hanley, L. (2008) Estates: An Intimate History, London: Granta Books Hanlon, P., Carlisle, S., Hannah, M. and Lyon, A. (2012) The Future of Public Health, Maidenhead: Open University Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B. and Layton, J.B. (2010) Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review, PLOS Medicine, 7(7), p. e1000316 Klinenberg, E. (2018) Palaces for the People: How to Build a More Equal and United Society, London: Bodley Head Lynch, B. (2011) Whose Cake Is It Anyway? London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation Marmot, M. (2015) The Health Gap; The Challenge of an Unequal World, London: Bloomsbury, Oxford: Radcliffe O’Neill, M. (2010) Cultural Attendance and Public Mental Health – From Research to Practice, Journal of Public Mental Health, 9(4), pp. 22–29 O’Neill, M. and Dornan, D. (2016) Making a Bigger Difference in a Cold Climate, GEM Journal, 32, pp. 29–36 O’Neill, M., Seaman, P. and Dornan, D. (2020) Thinking Through Health and Museums, in O’Neill, M. and Hooper, G. (eds) Connecting Museums, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 95–111 Paton, J. (1891) An Art Museum and Its Structural Requirements, Proceedings of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow, 1890/91, pp. 1–11 Popay, J., et al. (2003) A Proper Place to Live: Health Inequalities, Agency and the Normative Dimensions of Space, Social Science & Medicine, 57(1), pp. 55–69 Social Marketing Gateway (2014) Sport and Cultural Participation in Glasgow, Glasgow: Social Marketing Gateway Taylor, P., et al. (2015) A Review of the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport, London: Department for Culture Media and Sport White, M. (2009) Arts Development in Community Health: A Social Tonic, Abingdon: CRC Press Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2018) The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-being, London: Allen Lane

G FACING THE CHALLENGES OF TRULY BEING OF, BY, AND FOR ALL Merel van der Vaart, Catrien Schreuder, Dorien Theuns, Deirdre Carasso

Introduction Starting in 2016, the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam has been reinventing itself. While still serving a national audience of art lovers, it is regaining relevance for a growing number of local communities. In 2019, the museum won the Dutch Museum Award, as the most hospitable and welcoming museum and it is now seen as one of the most innovative museums in The Netherlands. To further strengthen the museum’s ambition to truly serve the city’s many communities, the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam joined the OF/BY/FOR ALL Change Network. This international, non-profit organisation led by Nina Simon is helping cultural organisations transform themselves to become of, by, and for their local communities (see of byforall.org). The Stedelijk Museum Schiedam was one of the first wave of members in 2018, and the only one at the launch to be from a non-English speaking country. This chapter explores what this has meant for the museum to date, including some of the challenges.

Background In the autumn of 2014, the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam, the city museum of the small Dutch city of Schiedam, faced a crisis. For several years, visitor numbers had been declining, locals rarely visited and the museum, partly dependent on admission charges and retail for its income, faced severe financial problems. The local council was asked to pass a vote on whether they would offer the museum financial support. The museum addressed the councilmen and councilwomen that evening and invited them to come see for themselves how wonderful the collections were and how special it was to have this space for the finest Dutch postwar art in a city like Schiedam. This plea was not well received; the museum later learned many had seen the invitation as belittling – as if the museum was

132 Merel van der Vaart et al.

speaking down to a council that couldn’t see its value. Despite this ill-advised performance, the museum was saved that night, albeit by only one vote and with the strict instructions that things would have to change. The people of Schiedam were paying for this museum to remain open and therefore the museum would need to work hard to be relevant and welcoming to them. This was the second time in the history of the museum that a council vote radically changed its course. The first time, however, it was the museum itself that requested the change. In 1954, the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam asked the council for permission to change its collecting policy and to focus on art by living, young, and experimental artists. Their request was granted. It was a tremendous shift for a museum that until then had mostly been dedicated to local history, its mediocre collections ref lecting the minimal funding it received from local government. It was a smart move at a time when a small budget and good connections could go a long way in the contemporary art market. And as the museum’s art collection grew rapidly, the institution could place itself amongst a very small number of Dutch museums focusing on contemporary art at the time. Under consecutive directors the museum became one of the leading contemporary art museums of the country. For the city of Schiedam, the decision to focus on contemporary art was less obviously beneficial. Schiedam was, and

A group photo taken after the local banner parade, part of the Banners and Stories project, one of the first co-creative projects the museum undertook (2017).

FIGURE G.1

Source: Kim van Dee

Facing the challenges

133

has always been, a working-class city. For many inhabitants, the world of art does not feel relevant. However, the role of director Pierre Janssen, in particular, is interesting here. With no formal art (history) training or museum experience, he became director of the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam in 1957, aged only 30. Janssen was convinced museums should be accessible for all. ‘Especially in a city like Schiedam . . . I wanted to create something where people would enter without hesitation, where they would feel “this belongs to us”’ (Frenkel Frank, 2017). In the six years he stayed with the museum, Janssen developed 60 exhibitions on (contemporary) art, culture, and history. He also organised lectures, art classes, and other events for wide-ranging audiences. His charisma and enthusiasm, which landed him a national television show about art and country-wide fame, triggered an interest for modern art with many. Under Janssen, the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam embraced inclusivity into the early 1960s. But this focus on accessibility and inclusion didn’t last. Later directors were more interested in securing a leading position in the contemporary art world than engaging local, less experienced audiences. With the price of art rising and more and more (new) museums, often with bigger budgets, developing a similar collection policy, competition grew, and visitor numbers dwindled. In the eyes of art lovers, the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam was a hidden gem, but to the lives of most Schiedammers it was irrelevant. This brings us to the museum’s financial and existential crisis of 2014–2015, when one council vote made the difference between closure and keeping the museum open. In 2016, the museum board appointed Deirdre Carasso as the new director with a specific brief to both make the Stedelijk Museum Schiedam a museum for all Schiedammers and raise the museum’s national profile, growing visitor numbers from the local communities and from across the country. Since Carasso’s arrival much has changed. The majority of back office staff – exhibition makers, events managers, curators – have newly joined the museum, including the authors of this chapter. Between 2016 and 2019, visitor numbers more than doubled, reaching 72,000 visitors in 2019, 31% of whom were locals. The museum joined the first wave of the international OF/BY/FOR ALL Change Network in the autumn of 2018. Being part of this Network, means we have access to support from experts in this field as well as colleagues from around the globe who are facing similar challenges. We can also make use of the project’s framework, itself based on years of experience.

Diverse programming for a diverse city Since Janssen’s time, Schiedam has become a much more complex place. For those aged under 40, superdiversity has become the norm, whereas the older generations are majority white. Looking at the population as a whole, one-third of Schiedammers have what is referred to as a ‘non-western, bi-cultural background’. Many inhabitants face complex challenges in their day to day lives,

134 Merel van der Vaart et al.

often related to poverty, unemployment, and low literacy. This has led to segregation. More so than in many other places in the Netherlands, being of, by and for all, means being home to a wide variety of people who don’t usually meet and mingle, who hold implicit and explicit biases against one another and who experience the world in vastly different ways. How should a museum navigate this challenge? Our response to this question is to gradually transform the museum both organisationally and operationally. We are currently in a phase of (funded) experimentation, still learning every day. Something that played an important part in our organisation-wide transformation was the fact that we reached out to the many communities of Schiedam. We continue to invest time and energy in getting to know them, inviting them into the museum and meeting them where they gather. We continuously ask ourselves what it means to be a welcoming museum, both to seasoned museum-goers and people who might be less experienced. We carry out audience research focusing on the visitor experience, enjoyment and hospitality. Our ratings have risen from an average of 7.8 in 2017 to an 8.7 in 2019. However, informal feedback from visitors and the day-to-day experiences of our front of house staff are at least as important when it comes to understanding and increasing our hospitality. We aim to create a warm and welcoming public space. Our lobby, a former chapel, feels more like a living room than a traditional museum entrance. Here, you can meet others, have a coffee or use our lunch buffet and pay what you can. Anyone can play a record from our local record library. During the summer holiday, you can bring your plants to our lobby and we will take care of them, while you’re away. On most days, our front of house staff consists of lobby hostesses and security staff. At weekends, guides are present in the exhibition spaces to answer questions or engage visitors in conversation. All staff, but particularly those working front of house, is actively involved in improving our hospitality. Their expertise is valued, and they have access to awareness training around topics such as disability, and cultural diversity. Our offices are not hidden away but in plain view on the local high street. Passers-by are invited to simply knock on our director’s window if they want to have a chat with her. We maintain a close relationship with the shop owners around us, and community centres, neighbourhood managers, and other gathering places across the city, as well as our local media outlets. Over the coming period, we want to focus more on online ‘meeting spaces’, such as Facebook pages and popular local social media accounts to further extend the ways in which we are connected to local communities. This connection with the people around us continually feeds us with new ideas, understandings, and questions. A large part of the museum programme is shaped together with, and based on the suggestions of, locals. We try to say ‘yes’ to their plans whenever we can and explain why we have to say ‘no’ sometimes as well. For the remainder

Facing the challenges

FIGURE G.2

135

Participants in the belly-painting festival (2019).

Source: Luke J. Boden

of this chapter we will focus on the challenges we face while programming for diversity. As a result of being more connected with the city around us, our exhibition making process has changed. Although we still make traditional art historical exhibitions, we regularly let go of top-down programming, based on expertise and artistic autonomy. Instead, we place our collections, knowledge, and expertise in the service of themes that are relevant to our audiences and the communities around us. Our exhibition agenda is no longer only informed by an art historical discourse, or theory. What’s more, most of the time our exhibition themes are no longer chosen by us. Rather, we choose to listen to, and ask advice from, our audiences when searching for relevant themes. In some ways, our approach today echoes that of Janssen in the 1960s. Just like he did back then, we actively invite groups and individuals living and working in Schiedam to come to the museum and use the space on their own terms. Today, this invitation extends far beyond the museum visit. Where Janssen focused on educating his audiences, we focus on collaboration and cocreation with many different communities, and sometimes (co-)hosting their events. During the 2019 Christmas Holiday, we invited the local model railway society and artist Maarten Bel to collaborate and create a miniature winter wonderland together with the children of Schiedam. Two high schoolers, Isa and Lisa, created their own exhibition about social media, art, and body image,

136 Merel van der Vaart et al.

Schiedammers eating together in the foyer during an Iftar organised at the request of, and together with community partners (2019).

FIGURE G.3

Source: Hans Anderson

with the help of our experienced exhibitions team. And a local artist organised a belly painting festival to celebrate female fertility, inspired by African traditions. In some cases, a collaboration results in a long-lasting relationship, or further joined projects. Sometimes, a collaboration is a one-off. Either way, we always try to stay in touch with the people we worked with and keep ourselves informed about their situation. Working in this way, we are not only aiming for local relevance. We want to engage national audiences as well. And we are proud that so many people from across the country travel to Schiedam to visit us. A good example is the 2019 exhibition Modest Fashion, based on an idea of the Dutch-Moroccan artist and musician Rajae El Mouhandiz, who was then invited to be a guest curator of this exhibition. The exhibition explored the freedom of choice to dress modestly, or not, and the meaning of modest dress across time and space. While the exhibition explored modest fashion as a global phenomenon, we made sure to also include local perspectives and developed our events programme in close dialogue with the local, very diverse population of Schiedam. The exhibition turned out to be an important eye opener to both national and local audiences. We know not all exhibitions and events can attract multiple audiences. Most of the time, we try to be welcoming to all by programming hugely diverse events and exhibitions alongside each other. We believe we are the best museum we can be when diverse audiences feel at home, when everyone

Facing the challenges

FIGURE G.4

137

One of the boxing matches, held in the museum lobby (2019).

Source: Aad Hoogendoorn

can find something they can relate to, while being introduced to other voices, tastes, or traditions. Therefore, programming aimed at a national audience often co-exists with events and exhibitions developed by and for local communities. For example, an exhibition about ten important avant-garde artists who happened to be female ran alongside an exhibition about the city’s high street, primarily aimed at locals. During an exhibition of upcoming contemporary artists, we organised a boxing festival in the museum together with a local boxing gym. One of the boxing matches was between our director and sculptor Anne Wenzel. It’s an organisational challenge, but most staff have learned to enjoy testing the boundaries of what can happen inside a museum space. We want everything we organise to enhance our mission and vision, but we are quite experimental when it comes to form. The range of things that can happen inside a museum is surprisingly wide, when you let go of conventions.

Curatorial autonomy The contemporary art world is no stranger to divisive actions and opposing opinions. In 1967, a performance by Yayoi Kusama caused outrage amongst the Schiedam population, as it involved her painting dots on the naked body of Dutch artist Jan Schoonhoven. In 2019, the display of Pindakaasvloer

138 Merel van der Vaart et al.

(Peanut Butter Floor) by artist Wim T. Schippers caused people to question ‘is this really art?’ – a question that is posed each time the work is on show, ever since its inception in 1962. What was different this time, was that the legitimacy of the museum’s socially engaged identity was challenged by some who found this use of peanut butter wasteful in a time of foodbanks. And finally, the decision to display work by ‘folk’ artist Rien Poortvliet, famous for his drawings and paintings of game and gnomes, was seen by some as below the status of a serious art museum, such as ours. Although all these events triggered angry responses and caused offense for some, they all revolved around the question ‘is this art?’ or, perhaps, ‘is this worth displaying in a museum?’ And in the end, the museum was seen, and saw itself, as the ultimate judge of that question. So, when the museum was challenged about the display of a work by fashion designer Hussein Chalayan in the Modest Fashion exhibition, our default response might have been to defend curatorial autonomy, fearing artistic censorship. However, we soon noticed more was at play. As described earlier, the aim of the exhibition was to highlight freedom of choice to dress modestly, or not. The exhibition combined art, design and fashion from various times and places to unpack the concept of modest fashion, its potential meanings and its relation to freedom and coercion. The exhibition’s curators had chosen a video of

FIGURE G.5

The Modest Fashion exhibition (2019).

Source: Aad Hoogendoorn

Facing the challenges

139

Chalayan’s 1998 fashion show. It included a performance showing models wearing a niqab combined with robes of various lengths, from f loor-length, to a mere veil, revealing the model’s naked body. For Chalayan, who himself is TurkishCypriotic-British, this performance represented cultural friction, an important theme in much of his work. As some of our team were working with a diverse group of Muslim women to develop programming alongside this exhibition, we shared a still from Chalayan’s show. Some of the participants were deeply offended by this display of a religious garment in combination with a naked body. They told us they would not visit the exhibition if this image would be included and they predicted many Schiedam Muslims would feel the same way. Much debate, amongst ourselves, with the women involved and the guest curators ensued. Here we encountered a challenging dilemma. Our urge to defend the curatorial autonomy of the show’s curators was at odds with our desire to be a welcoming and safe space for all. Eventually, we decided to display the work, but to contextualise it, sharing some of the discussion we had had, providing different perspectives. The video was also given a less prominent position than we had initially planned. Was this the right call? We don’t know. We do know that having the conversation, instead of shutting it down under the guise of artistic freedom,

Sharing different perspectives. ‘Ask away’ event, where visitors were invited to share their curiosity about modest fashion with women who dress modestly (2019).

FIGURE G.6

Source: Aad Hoogendoorn

140 Merel van der Vaart et al.

made a tremendous difference for all involved. The women we worked with got to know Chalayan’s work better and they did visit the exhibition. We managed to ‘agree to disagree’ and work side by side respectfully, and some of the women worked with us on part of the events programme. We were confronted with the power dynamics that are embedded in the way museums traditionally work. These power dynamics favour us, as museum professionals, as experts, over the people we work with. Working with our communities challenges us to questions these power dynamics on a daily basis. And this brings us to a more fundamental challenge we are facing in our work.

Discomfort One of the corner stones of the OF/BY/FOR ALL approach is to identify a very specific community of interest and to work towards building a relationship with that community, before moving on to other communities. This way, an organisation can slowly build its network, developing deep and meaningful connections with one very specific community at a time. We use this approach of deep and long collaboration alongside our experimental and sometimes ad-hoc programming but with wide ranging community groups. The reasons we have chosen to work with many communities at the same time, while also developing deeper relationships with some, are threefold. First, we wanted to show the city we have changed our ways, by reaching out to many different groups. Second, we fear that focusing on one community of interest over a prolonged period of time, will lead to other communities feeling forgotten or ignored. Third, the more communities feel the museum is theirs, the better our chance of bringing them together. We strive to be what we call welcoming to all, most of the time. As a result, we often work around themes that hold relevance for a wide range of communities. When we want to address a topic that is urgent for a specific community, we do this by placing it within a broader theme or story because we know that making a one-off exhibition for an underrepresented audience is not a good way to develop a long-term relationship, and it can easily be seen as tokenistic. We hope that, by creating a museum where everyone can recognize themselves on a regular basis, we can create a space where people trust us enough to be challenged and be open to views and experiences that are different to their own. Much of our work happens without debate and conf lict. Not always though, as shown in the example earlier with the work of Hussein Chalayan. We, as authors of this text, all agree that discomfort is part of becoming OF/BY/FOR ALL. And that we are living through this transformation, often questioning the basic values on which our institution was founded. What we are still working through is how that discomfort should shape our work. Should we hold on to the idea of a museum as a ‘third place’, a neutral public space where people can meet, converse, and feel safe? We cherish this concept because we want to provide space for honest dialogue about societal differences. But it also causes discomfort and

Facing the challenges

141

debate within our team. Because at the same time we realize that the nature and history of the museum as an institution are not neutral. Not only our collections but also the way museums operate and classify the world are inextricably linked to the colonial history of Europe, prioritising a white European worldview, capitalism, and individualism. Choosing to be neutral can also be considered to be preventing us from more fundamental change. Many discussions, sometimes with discomfort, centre around the question whether or not we should choose a more activist approach.

Concluding thoughts We regularly encounter discomfort when our programme does not ref lect our personal emotional and political preferences or taste. Our staff is mostly white, cisgender, able bodied, highly educated, trained in a specific art historical tradition and from middle class families. Many are personally oriented towards the political left and some are involved in activism. We do acknowledge that the majority of our exhibitions are developed for a national middle class audience of art lovers – mirroring ourselves – and that the museum economically is largely dependent on this demographic. Becoming OF/BY/FOR ALL means challenging and perhaps excluding audiences who look like us more often. It also means challenging ourselves, getting connected with different and sometimes opposing ideological perspectives or artistic taste. The question is: should we treat all discomfort equally? Does this mean that there should also be space for voices – very present in local society – that question the rights and validity of LGBTQ+ folks, of people of colour, of disabled people? Our approach sometimes elicits racist comments from our communities. Our attempts to bring opposing viewpoints together have not always been appreciated. Should we sit with the discomfort of hearing messages of anger and frustration because of the possible opportunity to start dialogue or raise awareness? Should we ask our visitors to do the same? Some of us think not. Some think we should. This is the discomfort we ourselves will have to grapple with. What does it mean to be truly of, by, and for all?

Reference Frenkel Frank, D., ‘Pierre Janssen’, Avrobode 23/10/1960, quoted in Timmer, P. (2017) Pierre Janssen. Journalist/tv-presentator/museumdirecteur/kunstverteller. Translation by authors

SECTION III

Developing the participative experience

Section III Introduction This section is the beating heart of the book. Over the course of three chapters and six contributory chapters (plus links to others), it puts f lesh and bones on the concept of the participative museum. It points towards a gradual but radical evolution in both the nature of the museum experience on offer, in response to audience expectations, and in the mind-set and organisation of museums required to deliver and sustain it. Chapter 5 contrasts the didactic approach to user learning adopted by most museums with the exploratory, experiential, socially interactive approach preferred by the ‘empowered consumers’ who make up most of the museum audience. It finishes by considering the potential impact of the digital revolution on museum learning and with a brief reference to impact on formal learning in museums. Chapter 6 explores the planned development of a museum environment that both enhances the participation of existing users and also attracts and sustains more diverse audiences. Chapter 7 focuses on participative exhibits themselves, underpinned by a proposed typology, giving numerous examples including the digital. The contributed chapters provide insights into different aspects of participative practice. Kirsten Drotner examines the key issue of creativity, in particular as ‘a joint practice for the many’. This sits at the heart of the ‘21st century skills’ agenda and the future roles of museums in both formal and informal learning. Mette Houlberg Rung discusses how the Danish National Gallery (SMK) is actively stimulating dialogue around art works, both between users and between users and the museum. Johannes Bernhardt outlines a new vision for the core content of the Bayerisch Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe – one of ‘slow participation’ that combines the digital and the traditional and is backed by a citizen’s panel.

144 Developing the participative experience

Anders Sundnes Løvlie and his colleagues provide four case studies involving new technology that help the museum to tap into the social interaction and spirit of playfulness that underpins most museum visits. Hsiao-Te Hsu demonstrates the remarkable achievements possible through a full-blown application of the latest digital technology. Philipp Schrögel looks at the success of ‘Science Slams’ in Germany – a prime example of how museums can engage Millennials and Generation Z, in a way that combines academic content and social outing, to sit in the museum arsenal alongside Lates events.

5 THE INFORMAL MUSEUM LEARNING EXPERIENCE

The challenge: to diversify the didactic approach to learning favoured by museums to include the self-directed, agile, participative, exploratory, experiential, reflective, socially interactive experience favoured by most users.

Introduction Museums alone hold the physical memory of human culture and of the world we live in. They have a duty not just to provide access for everyone to this material but also to actively engage people with it in ways that enhance their understanding and skills and add to the quality of their lives. Education that is devoid of the cultural achievements of all of humankind is empty. Equally, education that fails to include an understanding of the interconnectedness of all aspects of life on earth puts us all at risk. Collections place museums at the heart of both these challenges. The public – both visitors and non-visitors – recognise this (see Box 0.5). Today, museums support state educational institutions (formal learning); provide organised but voluntary activities and programming (non-formal learning); and see audience engagement as underpinning museum provision for general visitors (informal learning). This chapter focuses on stimulating informal learning through active audience participation. It looks at the way informal museum audiences engage with museum content, the nature of the ‘traditional’ museum approach to informal learning, the contrasting agendas of audiences and museums, and the importance of research on the long-term impact of the visit. It then discusses the potential for digital learning before concluding with reference to the impact on formal learning in the museum.

The nature of audience engagement There is no clear definition of what museum learning for the recreational visitor is. At its heart, what is unique is that user engagement is centred around

146 Developing the participative experience

collections and the stories they hold. Here we see the informal contract between the museum and the public in action – relating to the museum’s timeless qualities as collector and carer of the authentic, worthy of public trust, expert, open and accessible to all, educational, supporting engagement. Both museums and their audiences emphasise the importance of collections being the ‘real thing’ – authentic evidence of our cultural and natural heritage. Amongst other things, this ensures that museum learning and the overall museum experience cannot be replicated anywhere else. An important minority of museum users seek an ‘informed and ref lective adult learning experience’ (McIntyre, 2009: 160) that enables them to interact internally with the art or objects in an ‘intra-personal way’. Meanwhile, the bulk of our non-captive, social audiences are in a recreational frame of mind. They come when they want, set their own agendas, do what they want and leave when they want. Their learning is informal and based on personal agency. It is voluntary, self-initiated and self-directed, and requires no special training or skills. It is exploratory, spontaneous, and frequently unexpected (Tishman, 2005: no page number). There is no teacher, no externally imposed curriculum, no examination, no certificate – and no compulsion to learn. The museum makes no demands, inviting learning rather than insisting on it, and giving people freedom of choice on the extent to which they engage with content. And it is a three-dimensional experience. Users move at their own pace through a specially designed space into which objects and associated information and activities are set – they are actively engaged physically, intellectually, and creatively, deciding what or what not to engage with and for how long. They explore, discover, react when their curiosity is piqued – so the impact is immediate and also unique to the individual/family/couple/social group. No two groups have the same experience. And the family/social group matters. Most people come in a group, seeking a shared experience and most of their learning takes place through social interaction, not as individuals – and, as Anders Sundnes Løvlie and his colleagues emphasise, that learning will be as much about each other as about the display contents. This all fits well into a general definition of the nature of informal learning as ‘unorganized, unsystematic and even unintentional at times, yet accounts for the great bulk of any person’s total lifetime learning’ (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974: 8). It also places museums in an ideal position to support the development of 21st-century skills – not least the four ‘C’s: creativity and innovation; critical thinking; communication and collaboration (see Chapter 6 and Kirsten Drotner’s chapter) – but also including self-motivation, making meanings for themselves, adaptability, and more.

The ‘traditional’ museum approach to audience engagement/ learning McIntyre demonstrates that there is nothing passive about those seeking a deep learning and/or aesthetic experience but rather a ‘desire to be involved in a

The informal museum learning experience

147

self-exploratory manner’ (McIntyre, 2009: 160). And the experience sought by most users is for a self-directed, agile, participative, exploratory, experiential, ref lective, socially interactive approach to museum learning. Both these ambitions contrast sharply with the didactic display approach taken by most museums. This continues to be based on the belief that displays should transmit an objective body of knowledge, and that this is most effectively achieved through the one-way communication of content in ordered, bite-sized pieces to be absorbed passively by visitors as observers. This is as close as the museum can get to a formal learning experience. Thus, when enthusiastic museum users arrive ready to engage, most face a 19th-century legacy of didactic, permanent exhibitions as three-dimensional illustrated lectures. I have twice written a critique of the permanent exhibition, in 2012 and 2016, concluding that the core public offer of the Western museum is unsuitable for 21st-century audiences. I acknowledged that there were many reasons why museums persisted with these displays, outlined in Box 5.1.

Box 5.1 Why museums continue to produce permanent exhibitions • • • • • •

Assumption visitors come primarily to learn, best achieved through permanent displays Efficient way to provide public access to core collections, given limited resources Give curators time to do other work Habit – museums have always done them and audiences expect them Support collections conservation – security, lighting, environment all sustained, and handling minimised Appear to involve little risk: • • • • •

• • • •

seemed to work in the past management knows what to expect curators and designers know how to ‘do’ them regular visitors familiar with them and unthreatened by them museum controls content – objects; associated stories; visitor experience

Familiar to funders, who understand what you are asking them to grant aid and see a lifespan for the end product Cater for irregular levels of audience usage Allow long-term programming and marketing Schools develop learning materials for children to use year after year, so want displays retained

148 Developing the participative experience

However, the reasons for condemning them were even more compelling. At a time when the speed of change in Western society is almost beyond our comprehension and when, as a result, museums need to be at their most audience-centred – participative, fast-moving, f lexible, dynamic, and experimental – permanent exhibitions as currently envisaged physically prevent change and also present potential audiences with an image of museums as dreary, didactic, passive, and never changing. This also perpetuates the one-off visit, with audiences feeling they have ‘done’ the museum and do not need to return. No wonder museums have difficulty sustaining core audiences let alone gaining new ones – they are struggling to survive with a 19th-century model in a 21st-century world. Since these publications, however, I have changed my mind, initially reluctantly but now with something approaching enthusiasm. First, I added a dose of reality – museums will never have the resources to constantly change main content. Enthusiasm came when I said to myself, if we are stuck with them, we better transform their nature, from passive knowledge transfer to active audience participation. Then I looked again at the behaviour of core museum users and realised they were already doing it, despite the museum’s best efforts – a conclusion also reached by Mette Houlberg Rung from her visitor research at the Danish National Gallery.

Conflicting agendas: audiences will not behave as museums desire Museum audiences bring with them pre-existing knowledge, experience, interest, and motivation, alongside broader characteristics such as educational level, inherent interests, attitudes, beliefs, social roles, life stage, and the other factors. In museum-specific terms we can add background knowledge and interest in museum content, such as levels of previous museum experience including visits as a child and ties to the museum locality (Fienberg and Leinhardt, 2002). And these audiences will always be diverse in terms of their motivation and how they seek to engage. People engage/explore/learn in different ways and prefer different media – much depends, therefore, on the ability of museums to develop content that is responsive to different audiences. All this directly inf luences depth of engagement on site and longer-term impact. Crucially, there is no ‘best’ way to learn. The key conclusion from research by Packer and Ballantyne is that: Overall, the findings support the conclusion that there is no significant learning advantage to either solitary or shared museum experiences. It would appear, rather, that solitary and shared learning experiences can be equally beneficial, but in different ways. Packer and Ballantyne (2005: 189) And, whatever experience the different audiences seek, it is unlikely to be the role of passive observer that is thrust on them by the museum. Thus, the

The informal museum learning experience

149

minority of deep engagers, who may come alone or with others, seek a museum environment that is supportive of their active self-development – meeting their ‘desire for space to “bathe-in” and “soak-up” a form of experiential learning in proximity to culturally significant objects’ and related information (McIntyre, 2009: 155), alongside associated opportunities for contemplation and ref lection. Museums must not lose sight of the need to provide this environment or of the ambition to deepen the engagement of all. Meanwhile, the majority of users – the ‘empowered consumers’ discussed in Chapter 1 – arrive as families, couples or social groups and see spending quality time together as the key reason for museum visiting (Audience Agency, 2018; Moussouri, 1997; NEA, 2015: 10). To them, the visit is a leisure activity as well as a cultural one (Christidou, 2016: 2) with, as discussed in Chapter 1, ‘having fun’ together the primary motivation for around 81% of respondents in the USA ( Lock, 2018; LaPlaca Cohen, 2017: 11). Most want a shared museum experience in which to relax, chat and interact, and they expect a high quality social and recreational environment that matches their lifestyle requirements and they feel at ease in. On site, users want to engage actively together with what is on offer – to explore, to discover, to broaden their horizons, and/or to engage their children (e.g. Allen, 2002; Blud, 1990; Miles, 1986). Most also expect to have new experiences, challenge themselves, and potentially learn something new (e.g. Hood, 1983 republished 2004). At least 55% of every age range of museum visitor in the UK stated that learning was one of the main motivations for their visit (Audience Agency, 2018: 8). In the USA, the When the Going gets Tough report saw 88% of exhibit goers say they wanted to learn new things (NEA, 2015: 10), while over 70% of respondents to the LaPlaca Cohen 2017 survey wanted to learn about the display content and experience something new as well as have fun (LaPlaca Cohen, 2017). The real issue is not about whether people want to learn but rather conf lict over HOW they want to learn and the need to recognise that they want to enjoy themselves at the same time. What should this mean in terms of museum provision? Like the deep-engagers, these audiences also seek new, personalised ways to actively engage with content (e.g. Poon, 1993; Sharpley, 1996). Some will want to expand their knowledge, others to discover together (Falk, 2009; Koke, 2018). Many will want to immerse themselves and simply ‘be there’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999: 35) – and to share this experience through social media. Most museum users have never explored displays in the focused manner that the didactic display approach anticipates: Adults and children want to determine for themselves when, where and how they experience the museum. However much exhibition curators and designers think or hope they can direct visitor attention and learning in specific ways, visitors ‘do it their way’. Even if the museum is successful in confining the visitors’ path through the exhibition, visitors choose what they will attend to and how deeply they will attend to it. Adams and Moussouri (2002: 14–15)

150 Developing the participative experience

McManus (1996: 60) makes clear that the interest of most visitors ‘is general and not focused in a studious, academic style’. Rounds emphasises that only a tiny percentage of visitors engage with content comprehensively. This can lead to curatorial misjudgements of visitors as non-diligent, unfocused, unsystematic, random, and haphazard meanderers (Rounds, 2004: 390). An alternative explanation is that they are browsing/scanning while seeking something that speaks to them – thus their partial use of exhibitions is ‘an intelligent and effective strategy for the visitor whose goal is to have curiosity piqued and satisfied’ (Rounds, 2004: 389). Meanwhile the HOW for this audience sees the museum visit as a ‘seamless integration of social learning and enjoyment’ (Perry, 2012: 12) – after all, people learn more when enjoying themselves. Much of the informal learning is based on social interaction (Rosenfeld, 1979). The ability to experience and interact together is at the heart of the museum experience. This does not mean that users spend all their time in their groups – ‘Visitors separate from and re-join each other following their own interests and paths’ (Kuf lik et al., 2011: 4). However, the inf luence of social interaction is pervasive – it will define what people look at, how they engage with it, the sharing of experiences and meaning making. Social groups will engage as they see fit – perhaps pinballing between exhibits that interest them or following the family approach of ‘forage, broadcast and comment’ documented by McManus (1994). The chapter by Anders Sundnes Løvlie and his colleagues takes this a step further, suggesting ‘the dialogue takes place between visitors who are interacting with each other. The museum is merely the context, the pretext of perhaps the backdrop for that interaction’. The social group’s learning is a pleasurable, communal, experience. It can, however, be enhanced by interaction with individuals outside their social group, including enablers and living history performers (Falk, 2007: 4), as well as by the physical environment and other display factors. Social interaction in museums is therefore both personal and mediated: personal in the sense of belonging to the people involved but mediated by the museum around its content – which means we have the ability to promote curiosity and thus influence people’s engagement with content and with each other. Much depends on the design of the learning experience. This, in turn, depends on how the museum expects people to learn. In practice, didactically driven museum displays consistently target individual users and many actually both get in the way of social engagement and actively discourage reflection by constantly moving visitors on to the next element or isolating individuals, for example through audio tours. And the continuing failure of museums to recognise the social nature of the majority of visits renders most summative display evaluations of limited value as they ‘prioritise the individual and tend to neglect the importance of social interaction in how visitors behave in and experience museums and galleries’ (Davies and Heath, 2013: 5).

Long-term impact Hohenstein and Missouri ( 2018: 4) define learning as ‘a relatively permanent change in thought or behaviour’. So, for museum learning to be relevant, it

The informal museum learning experience

151

should have a long-term impact. We know people can have memorable experiences in museums, so it is frustrating to note the continuing shortage of longitudinal studies that demonstrate this. Such studies are really important to the future of museums. What can we say for certain about the impact a museum visit can have in the long term – in terms of learning and attitudinal change – and what more can museums do to inf luence this? Museums urgently need to switch from user studies to impact studies. Some factors lie outside the museum’s control. First, people choose for themselves how often they visit museums or museum websites, and for how long – but length and regularity have a direct effect on learning. Second, the audience’s pre-visit history is crucial. Long-term impact will ref lect the previous experiences, agendas and identity characteristics people arrived with. These factors will have a major impact on the levels of engagement on-site, alongside the nature of the interaction between members of the visiting family or social group. But the museum too has inf luence, in that it can create the environment for memorable experiences, encourage active involvement, stimulate conversation during and after the visit and, crucially, encourage essential ref lection both during and after the visit, recognising that ‘Without the process of ref lecting on experience, learners will only get so far’ (Kolb, 1984). One key issue is to define the inf luence of the museum on one-off visitors. The little research available demonstrates that it will be very limited (Storksdieck, 2006; Bergevin, 2019). The few longitudinal studies that have been carried out have tended to focus on learning outcomes rather than aesthetic experience or attitudinal and behavioural change and it is, to say the least, challenging to assign causation to a brief visit. Bergevin’s key conclusion is that, whatever the impact on the day, without subsequent reinforcing experiences, visitors revert to pre-visit levels of commitment within a few weeks (Bergevin, 2019: 356). Studies by Anderson and others support this conclusion, suggesting rehearsal of the memories (sharing experiences with others through conversation or other means reinforces memories), emotional affect associated with the experience and the degree to which the planned agenda was fulfilled are key factors (Anderson, 2003; Anderson et al., 2007: 202; Medved and Oatley, 2000). And – taking us back to the pre-visit history of the audience – evaluating attitudinal or behavioural change is much more difficult than for learning precisely because of background experiences and other external inf luences. This makes it very difficult for a museum to claim post-visit behaviour is the result of the visit. Overall, these studies reinforce my view that museums should prioritise converting one-off visitors into more regular users.

Informal digital learning and the museum The digital revolution and rise of participatory cultures bring remarkable new informal learning opportunities. I have, therefore, given them a separate space in this chapter, accepting that there will be some overlap with what has gone

152 Developing the participative experience

before. We are still in the early stages of the digital revolution, so levels of usage are low, while the extent of longer-term impact on audience engagement is not yet clear. However, some aspects are emerging:

New technologies create a global reach for museum collections Digitization of artefacts, artworks and specimens makes collections more accessible to all, including a much wider international audience. However, this comes with expectations of high quality digital services and immediate, comprehensive access to collections and information about them.

The user learning experience will become a holistic one, combining physical and virtual The physical site is now only one of the spaces museums occupy – alongside ‘online space’ and ‘mobile space’ (Kelly, 2013: 54). This allows for different entry points and perspectives. Thus, the museum learning experience no longer begins when users enter the museum, nor need it end when they leave. People may initially be inspired to visit by online material. The museum visit itself becomes ‘unfinished work’ (Kidd, 2014: 23ff ) with users able to follow up online afterwards in their own time. They can also connect the context of a museum visit to other activities that take place before and after it. All of this adds to long-term impact.

Digital learning places power in the hands of the user New technologies and media lend themselves to self-directed exploration and discovery. The relationship between the medium and the user is one-to-one, with the learner in control. But the chances are that users want both freedom/ self-direction and an underpinning structure – recognising that most people do not arrive with a pre-determined plan for their visit.

Digital gaming can reinforce the role of playfulness as a key route to informal museum learning The Oxford English Dictionary defines playfulness as ‘the quality of being lighthearted or full of fun’. In museums it is invariably associated with activities for children. Yet, the characteristics of playful experiences, as defined by researchers for Lego, are that they are actively engaging, meaningful, socially interactive, joyful, and iterative (Lego Foundation, no date) – in other words, exactly what museums want for everyone’s museum learning experience. Yet, for those working with playful designs in museums, there is a major dilemma. In order to create engaging participative/playful designs targeting adults, these must have a low threshold for participation (little or no explanation needed) and be very much open for people to interpret and play with as they like, including being irreverent and silly. But that seems too often to provoke

The informal museum learning experience

153

resistance from museum professionals, who ask ‘where is the learning?’, and worry about trivialisation. As Anders Sundnes Løvlie puts it: ‘I would wish that there was a simple way to convince museum professionals that facilitating playful exploration of a topic may have a strong educational impact in its own right’ (pers comm) – see the chapter by him and his colleagues for examples.

New forms of museum learning experience are emerging New media can enhance the visitor experience and support learning on and off site: 1

2

The Media-Enhanced On-Site Experience. It is richly multi-sensory, contextualized, experiential, and immersive. It is narrative-driven. It draws a diversity of people together and provides a collective experience. The Media-Driven Off-Site Experience. It is personalized, on-demand, and global, and it enables a vast sharing of information and personal experience. Stogner (2009: 6)

Meanwhile, initiatives, such as online courses, webinars, MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), and digital badges democratize learning for those with access to the internet and enable committed learners to choose and shape their learning experiences. But the museum is not on its own in seeking to engage learners. Rather, it occupies the same spaces as other museums and alternative content and ‘experience providers’, such as Historypin, the Google Art Project, Europeana, f lickr, etc. (Kidd, 2014: 33). How do you make yourself heard and distinguish your offer from others?

Digital learning is intellectually empowering but requires an active audience Museums need to recognise their users as active cultural participants – seeking to access information, to ref lect and develop their own opinions, to question the established voice, to contribute their own experiences and interpretations, and share these within their online social circles as well as on-site. Users will take access to collections for granted – and to multiple sources of information about them, as well as the right to copyright-free use of the material. On-site they will assume the opportunity to personalise, participate, share, contribute – and will want content that is inclusive.

New technologies can foster engagement and learning, helping to build and share skills sets Young people in particular seek opportunities to be creators as well as consumers – to perceive the museum as a place where they can customise their visit through new models of engagement, including technology and media, bringing their creativity and innovative ideas into play. They want to work at the level of

154 Developing the participative experience

commitment they seek – whether that involves contributing to content, developing co-creative partnerships with the museum or taking and manipulating museum content as they see fit – possibly in association with others in the creative community, sharing, facilitating, collaborating, inspiring.

The internet supports collaborative research The internet has transformed collaborative research of collections, with initiatives for example linking World Culture museums and source communities, to complement existing research and knowledge, and enabling the virtual bringing together of Egyptian collections where contents of many sites were scattered across different museums.

The big risk is that new technology is transformative, but the organisational structure remains the same The continued tension between museum mind-set and digital era is no surprise. Some departments will have no choice but to modernise – education, marketing, visitor services. Others, like media teams, will emerge and work most effectively if there are close, collaborative links across teams. However, others will attempt to remain unchanged, within their hierarchies and staff structures, and silosclerosis can set in.

Museums and formal learning In each of my previous two books (Black, 2005, 2012), I devoted a chapter to museums and structured educational provision to schools. I have not done so on this occasion because I have had little new to say beyond highlighting the ways in which the approaches put forward in this book further enhance the formal learning experience. I fully appreciate that school pupils make up a large percentage of users at many museums, and that many pupils pay a return visit with their families and so are an important element in the museum market. Engaging with schools in deprived areas is also a key way in which museums can reach out to more diverse communities. Underpinning this is my continuing profound belief in the remarkable learning experience that museums can provide for pupils and the impact this can have, outlined in Box 5.2.

Box 5.2 Ways museums can support structured education Museums can: •

Provide a unique learning experience for pupils which brings classroom teaching to life and supports sustained engagement with content;

The informal museum learning experience

• • • • •

• •

• • • • • •

155

Enhance delivery of the curriculum through inquiry-based project work and through working independently out of school; Inspire pupils through direct engagement, including physical access, with remarkable collections; Support different learning styles; Help pupils develop new knowledge and experience; Through inquiry-based learning, enable pupils to use key skills such as questioning, observing, comparing, investigating, predicting, reporting – and pupils can control the inquiry and learning process; Help pupils to develop transferable skills and concepts; Help pupils to develop 21st-century skills such as digital literacy, openmindedness, creative problem solving, critical thinking, communication and team-working, and foster their creative abilities; Offer opportunities for pupils to learn about their local communities; Offer opportunities for cross-curricular links; Offer opportunities for pupils to develop positive attitudes to their subjects and to learning more widely; Help develop children’s social skills and build relationships with teachers and their peers; Provide an enjoyable and memorable learning experience; and Change pupils’ attitudes to learning.

. . . all in a secure and stimulating environment. And we can PROVE all of this. Source: from Black (2012: 111)

So – what more does the participative approach outlined in this book mean museums can bring to the formal education table.

Environment As will be seen in Chapter 6, the participative environment will actively support schools’ use – not just in terms of a sense of welcome, but in the provision of multi-purpose spaces in galleries which can act as ‘dwell-points’ where school groups can come together, and in the presence of enablers who can support engagement. Open-ended participative exhibits that pupils can gather around will also support project-based learning.

New technology Museum learning and new technologies are made for each other, and new technology is going to be central to the re-thinking of formal education.

156 Developing the participative experience

While adult work and life patterns, and the social and cultural experiences of children, have been transformed over the last 50 years or so, schools have failed to keep pace with this change. In 2012, I stated that, at some point, the formal education system must respond but that, over the next 20 or so years, many of the key innovations in education were likely to take place outside the formal education system, with new technology and associated media playing a central role. One major impact of the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic has been to speed up online provision across the education sector, from teaching five year olds to universities. In 2012 I wrote: ‘New technology provides museums with the opportunity to allow pupils unprecedented virtual access to their collections, and can support investigation in depth and in ways that were hitherto impossible’ ( Black, 2012: 122). With new technology central to the participative museum, and a digital context in place, the museum scene is set for a radical change in the ways pupils can engage with our collections – including permission to use the online material as they see fit. This will sit alongside opportunities to handle the ‘real thing’ while on site, using new technology to support their research. As noted earlier, the use of new technology will also help pupils build and share skills sets.

Creativity In her chapter, Kirsten Drotner highlights the inf luential USA policy-led Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) which defines ‘learning and innovation skills’ as a key outcome for future students, and identifies these skills as creativity and innovation, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration – the socalled ‘4 Cs’ (P21, no date). In 2012, I wrote of the potential role of museums is supporting the development of 21st-century skills but focused on the ‘big C’ creative nature of the museum visit and the impact on the individual. Kirsten Drotner speaks much more of the ‘small c’ everyday working of ‘joint creativity’ and its collaborative nature, for example, in coming together as teams to solve problems. She states that ‘since creativity develops through collaborative processes of co-creation, where participants generate new ideas and explore new ways of doing things together, it means that museums may be better facilitators of creative learning than schools’. This sort of activity comes naturally to museum learning approaches. And there is potential for much more – and it is essential. Western schools, as I noted in 2012, continue to downgrade the arts and focus on STEM subjects. Museums have a vital role in ensuring the arts and cultural learning remain available to school-aged children.

Concluding thoughts We know that the current museum offer fails to meet the needs and expectations of both the new generations of well-educated professionals who are following

The informal museum learning experience

157

on from the baby boomers and the diverse communities and those from lower socio-economic groups who rarely if ever visit. This chapter has now added to that by highlighting the stark difference between how most museums present their content and how recreational audiences want to engage and learn from it – and this is before taking the potential ability of museums to deliver on 21st-century skills into account, let alone the impact of the digital revolution or community engagement. It is time for radical change to both the nature of the museum environment and the ways in which content is delivered – allowing for different pathways and for the central role of the museum to switch from expert to supporter as audiences create their own learning experiences.

References Adams, M. and Moussouri, T. (2002) The Interactive Experience: Linking Research and Practice, Interactive Learning in Museums of Art and Design Conference, London: Victoria & Albert Museum, 17–18 May 2002, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://media. vam.ac.uk/media/documents/legacy_documents/file_upload/5748_file.pdf Allen, S. (2002) Looking for Learning in Visitor Talk: A Methodological Exploration, in Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K. and Knutson, K. (eds) Learning Conversations in Museums, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 259–303 Anderson, D. (2003) Visitors’ Long-term Memories of World Expositions, Curator, 46(4), October, pp. 400–420 Anderson, D., Storksdieck, M. and Spoock, M. (2007) Understanding the Long-Term Impacts of Museum Experiiences, in Falk, J., Dierking, L. and Foutz, S. (eds) In Principle, in Practice: Museums as Learning Institutions, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 197–216 Audience Agency (2018) Museums Audience Report, London: The Audience Agency, November 2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.theaudienceagency.org/asset/1707 Bergevin, J. (2019) Narratives of Transformation: Stories of Impact from Activist Museums, in Janes, R.R. and Sandell, R. (eds) Museum Activism, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 348–358 Black, G. (2005) The Engaging Museum, London: Routledge Black, G. (2012) Transforming Museums in the 21st Century, Abingdon: Routledge Blud, L.M. (1990) Social Interaction and Learning Among Family Groups Visiting a Museum, Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(1), pp. 43–51 Christidou, D. (2016) Social Interaction in the Art Museum: Connecting to Each Other and the Exhibits, The International Journal of Social, Political and Community Agendas in the Arts, 20, pp. 1–12 Coombs, P.H. and Ahmed, M. (1974) Attacking Rural Poverty: How Non-formal Education Can Help, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press Davies, M. and Heath, C. (2013) Evaluating Evaluation: Increasing the Impact of Summative Evaluation in Museums and Galleries, London: King’s College London, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://visitors.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2004/01/Evaluating Evaluation_November2013.pdf Falk, J. (2007) Towards an Improved Understanding of Learning from Museums: Filmmaking as Metaphor, in Falk, J., Dierking, L. and Foutz, S. (eds) In Principle, in Practice: Museums as Learning Institutions, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 3–16

158 Developing the participative experience

Falk, J. (2009) Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Fienberg, J. and Leinhardt, G. (2002) Looking Through the Glass: Ref lections of Identity in Conversatios at a History Museum, in Leinhardt, G., Crowly, K. and Knutson, K. (eds) Learning Conversations in museums, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, pp. 167–212 Hohenstein, J. and Missouri, T. (2018) Museum Learning, Abingdon: Routledge Hood, M.G. (1983 republished 2004) Staying Away: Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums, in Anderson, A. (ed) Reinventing the Museum (1st ed.), Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, pp. 150–157 Kelly, L. (2013) The Connected Museum in the World of Social Media, in Drotner, K. and Schrøder, K.C. (eds) Museum Communication and Social Media, The Connected Museum, London: Routledge, pp. 54–71 Kidd, J. (2014) Museums in the New Mediascape, Farnham: Ashgate Koke, J. (2018) Information Please: Engaging the Millennial Museum-goer, Museum, January–February 2018, American Aliance of Museums, pp. 15–17 Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Kuf lik, T., Stock, O., Zancanaro, M., Gorfinkel, A., Jbara, S., Kats, S., Sheidin, J. and Kashtan, N. (2011) A Visitor’s Guide in an Active Museum: Presentations, Communications, and Ref lection, Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 3(3), Article 11, March, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.researchgate.net/publication/234768599_A_ visitor’s_guide_in_an_active_museum_Presentations_communications_and_reflection LaPlaca Cohen (2017) Culture Track 17, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://culturetrack. com/research/papers Lego Foundation (no date) Characteristics of Playful Experiences, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.legofoundation.com/en/why-play/characteristics-of-playful-experiences/ Lock, S. (2018) Museums in the USA: Statistics and Facts, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://statista.com/topics/1509/museums McIntyre, C. (2009) Museum and Art Gallery Experience Space Characteristics: An Interesting Show or a Contemplative Bathe, International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2009), pp. 155–170, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.onelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ pdf/10.1002/jtr.717 McManus, P. (1994) Families in Museums, in Miles, R. and Zavala, A. (eds) Towards the Museum of the Future, London: Routledge, pp. 81–118 McManus, P. (1996) Visitors: Their Expectations and Behaviour, in Durbin, G. (ed) Developing Museum Exhibitions for Lifelong Learning, London: The Stationery Office, pp. 59–62 Medved, M. and Oatley, K. (2000) Memories and Scientific Literacy: Remembering Exhibits from a Science Centre, Journal of Science Education, 22, pp. 1117–1132 Miles, R. (1986) Museum Audiences, International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 5, pp. 73–80 Moussouri, T. (1997) Family Agendas and Family Learning in Hands-On Museums, unpublished PhD thesis, Leicester: University of Leicester NEA (2015) When Going Gets Tough: Barriers and Motivations Affecting Arts Attendance, Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, Research Report 59, accessed on 01/03/2020 at: http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/when-going-gets-tough-revised2.pdf Packer, J. and Ballantyne, R. (2005) Solitary vs. Shared Learning: Exploring the Social Dimension of Museum Learning, Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(2), January, pp. 177–192 Perry, D.L. (2012) What Makes Learning Fun? Principles for the Design of Intrinsically Motivating Museum Exhibits, Lanham: AltaMira Press

The informal museum learning experience

159

Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The Experience Economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, Wallingford: CAB International Rosenfeld, S. (1979) The Context of Informal Learning in Zoos, Roundtable Reports, 4(2), pp. 1–3 and 15–16 Rounds, J. (2004) Strategies for the Curiosity-Driven Museum Visitor, Curator, 47(4), October, pp. 389–412 Sharpley, R. (1996) Tourism and Consumer Culture in Post-modern Society, in Robinson, M., Evans, N. and Callaghan, P. (eds) Proceedings of the Tourism and Culture: Towards the 21st Century Conference, Sunderland: Centre for Travel and Tourism/ Business Education Publishers, pp. 203–215 Stogner, M.B. (2009) The Media-Enhanced Museum Experience: Debating the Use of Media Technology in Cultural Exhibitions, presented at Media in Transition 6, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/legacy/mit6/papers/Stogner.pdf Storksdieck, M. (2006) Field Trips in Environmental Education, Berlin: Berliner WissenschaftsVerlag Tishman, S. (2005) Learning in Museums, Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Education, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/05/09/learning-museums-0

6 CREATING AN INCLUSIVE AND PARTICIPATIVE MUSEUM ENVIRONMENT

The challenge: to develop spaces that support a core museum experience which attracts, welcomes, and supports diverse audiences as they actively engage with collections and other content and with each other.

Introduction Museum spaces are not just neutral display areas and associated extra bits. In their location, diversity, accessibility, and atmosphere, they are key factors in the museum user experience. Spaces can be warm or cold, can stimulate exploration and discovery or support ref lective learning, can encourage social interaction, or can impose silence. This chapter explores central elements in planning, creating and sustaining the museum spaces and environment to provide multiple forms of engagement that will retain existing users, enthuse Millennials and Generation Z and both involve and include a much more diverse audience than museums receive today. This is not a simple or short-term exercise. In particular, winning over current non-participants will take many years of hard work and commitment. The chapter begins by looking at the current user experience. It emphasises the importance of a warm, welcoming environment then turns to what I see as seven essentials in defining the exhibition framework before a concluding section on the building of participative spaces into galleries.

Researching the current user experience From the audience’s perspective, a museum visit encompasses everything from initial consideration (potentially online), through participation on site to post-visit memories and, hopefully, a desire to follow up on the content explored and a resolution to visit again. Every aspect affects users, as ref lected

Inclusive and participative

FIGURE 6.1

161

The Holistic Museum Experience. 

in Figure 6.1. Growing evidence of this interrelatedness has led to a range of initiatives, from matching lifestyle expectations for existing core users (see Chapter 1), to working to break down barriers to wider audience participation (see Chapter 3).

Welcoming the non-participant Museums have spent many years working to tackle both physical barriers and other negative factors that actively discourage people from visiting. As discussed in Chapter 3, for non-users and marginalised communities, relevance starts with a sense of belonging, of feeling comfortable and at ease in their surroundings. They will expect a welcoming environment and one where they do not feel judged on what they wear, or fear that there is a museum language of behaviour that they

162 Developing the participative experience

have never been taught. Once inside, they will want to engage with friends and participate actively in what the museum has to offer (Hood, 1983: 51). To be truly inclusive means relevant representation in both staff and museum content, open acknowledgement of people’s and communities’ worth to the museum, and ensuring they are valued: ‘When people feel welcome, comfortable and awakened, they can begin to occupy a place and make it their own’ (McLean and Pollock, 2010: 104) – see, for example, the work of the Cardiff Story Museum with Syrian refugees introduced in Chapter 4 (Museums Association, 2019). Initial approaches to breaking down barriers were outlined in Box 3.2. Removing barriers is only a first step, however. The museum must also transform the core experience into one that current non-participants want to visit and engage with. As discussed in Chapter 5, this involves reconfiguring the offer from passive, didactic, seemingly never-changing exhibitions into spaces designed for active engagement where audiences explore, discover, interact, ref lect, and contribute in a manner that they choose – and also meet, relax, chat, and even discuss with members of staff.

Journey mapping Intense observation is central to more detailed understanding of the user experience. This includes non-verbal behaviours linked to engagement with content and each other, such as seeking attention, pulling over/willingness to be pulled over, pointing, taking photographs, drawing, exhibiting curiosity (Griffin, 2002: 4–5). It is visitor observation that underpins much of Chapter 5, in terms of how audiences move through contemporary displays, how they create their own experiences by pinballing between exhibits (Rounds, 2004), and how social interaction plays a central role (McManus, 1996). And observation is very effective across the range of museum types, not only in showcase and graphic panel displays. For example, it underpinned the transformation of the user experience at the Conner Prairie Interactive History Park, Indiana (Bergeron and Tuttle, 2013: 75ff ). Yet, the impact of such research on museum display approaches remains limited. Little has changed since Charles Screven wrote in 1986: Much progress has been made in designing the physical and aesthetic aspects of exhibition spaces. How the physical design affects the motivational, perceptual, affective and learning potentials of unguided visitors in the informal museum environment is less well understood by museum and exhibit planners. Screven (1986: 109) However, the evolution of visitor observation into ‘journey mapping’ heralds renewed focus. This process is increasingly being used to gain a greater understanding of the whole user experience, its strengths and weaknesses, to provide insights into visitor activities and behaviours, and to support the ongoing

Inclusive and participative

163

development of the visitor offer (e.g. Bliss, 2016; French, 2016; Grohe and Mann, 2019; Price, 2018). This relies on the museum having done detailed audience research, targeting both core audiences and those sectors where it wants to grow the audience. At the V&A in London, it resulted in a ‘customer experience map – a visualisation of the different journeys users take, with a view to improving their overall experience’. The team ‘created different user personas and mapped their journeys and the different touchpoints they might encounter’. A key result was recognition that ‘People [particularly front-of-house staff and volunteers] are what pulls together both the physical and digital elements of our visitor experience’ (Price, 2018). One resulting priority was to transform the volunteer team, which is now 28% BAME (black and minority ethnic) and 10% with disabilities. Today, mapping by the V&A also includes new technology, as the museum seeks to define what is required to create a seamless visitor experience by building ‘cohesive, visitor-focused experiences that bridge the physical and digital’ ( Price, 2018: no page number). At the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, audience research underpinned key questions the museum wanted the mapping process to answer: What is the experience for first time visitors? Is the experience different for repeat visitors? Is the experience different for younger adult and older adult audiences? How might we support the best possible first time visit as a first step in driving repeat visitation? Grohe and Mann (2019: no page number) Grohe and Mann, and French (2016), also make clear that journey mapping helps identify related organisational change. It is best carried out by a crossdepartmental team as the start of a process of actively improving the user experience. At the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, it has to date resulted in: • • • • • •

A shared vocabulary for discussing visitor needs and the visitor experience The visitor experience is now seen as a strategic focus for the Museum The visitor experience is woven through the Museum’s strategic plan New ways of working: more collaborative, iterative, data-informed Focus on testing ideas directly with visitors and on measurable outcomes New focus on Diversity & Inclusion: developed a D&I statement using the cross-departmental, iterative process that originated with the VX (visitor experience) work. Grohe and Mann (2019: no page number)

Ensuring a warm, welcoming environment The inclusive on-site museum experience starts with a warm, welcoming, and supportive environment. It recognises the importance of informal quality time spent interacting with family or friends. It provides spaces in which to actively

164 Developing the participative experience

participate and content which includes participative exhibits, ‘pathways’, ref lection zones, and comfortable seating – and positive encounters with staff and volunteers. Finally, it encourages and supports ref lection as a key element of the museum experience. The website is playing an increasingly important role in helping people plan their visit. It is a key tool now for those with disabilities in establishing the site’s suitability. With a post-COVID-19 switch to booked admissions, the role of the website can only grow – it must be as warm, welcoming, inclusive, and supportive as the physical site. The point of arrival is highly significant – the ‘moment of truth’, when visitors first come into physical contact with the site and its personnel. Is the building overwhelming – will it make people feel the museum is not for them? Will there be a sense of occasion inclusive of all? Is there a spirit of welcome? Is there a smiling face in the foyer, great orientation, and specific help for families and those with disabilities? A diverse staff and volunteers, representative of the local population, will make a big difference. Can you meet basic needs at once, including seating, access to toilets and the café? Does the orientation give people power to choose for themselves what they want to do, in what order and how long they might want to spend? See, for example, Price (2018) for how the V&A in London set about designing a new welcome experience, and Black (2005: 32–36) for the application of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to museums. As people then move through the galleries, will they continue to feel comfortable in their surroundings and have the sense of ease that comes with feeling they belong? Ambient temperature, light, and sound and colour schemes have a major impact on mood. Will people be able to engage with content in their own way, including opportunities to handle collections and chat with staff? Will there be plenty of opportunities for social interaction? What about places to rest and ref lect – comfortable seating giving encouragement to slow down? Can people engage and collaborate actively with each other around exhibits? Are there Instagrammable moments? The front-of-house team has a key role in putting people at ease. Their friendliness and supportiveness have a huge impact on visitor perceptions of the museum. They ‘wrap around’ the site, collections, and exhibitions to humanise the museum and make the atmosphere user-friendly, providing support and encouraging involvement and discovery. The right people can humanise the museum and make the atmosphere user-friendly, providing support and encouraging involvement and discovery. The problem we have is that, at too many museums, what audiences encounter are the same old security detail rather than gallery hosts or enablers.

Seven essentials in defining a new exhibition framework With a welcoming environment in place, and substantial research on existing and target audiences carried out (user research will never be complete), it is time

Inclusive and participative

165

to define an alternative approach to display development that ref lects the needs of people as much as of the exhibits. This is a planned exercise. Because the user experience is intertwined with almost every other aspect of the museum’s operation – positioning in the market, image projection, target audiences and audience development plans, access plans, operational management, collecting policies, outreach programmes, etc., as well as exhibitions and associated activities, and structured educational use – the process of developing a long-term strategy for the future direction of that experience has come to be known as ‘Interpretive Master Planning’ (see Black, 2005: Chapter 8). I recommend that this is a gradual process, building on lessons learned, not a ‘big bang’ approach. The planning of individual displays/galleries will vary from project to project. Because it involves both creativity and structure, there is no ‘right’ way to do it – people develop their own approach over time and adapt it to the individual circumstances of specific projects. I continue to feel most comfortable with the process of ‘Concept Development’ that I have previously put forward (Black, 2005: Chapter 9; Black 2000 is an online version), itself derived from the work of the interpreter John Veverka (1994: 32), and illustrated in Box 6.1.

Box 6.1

A framework for concept development

WHAT: what the exhibition is about WHY: the aims and objectives for the museum AND the expectations of the existing users and targeted current non-users WHO: target audiences and their needs and expectations HOW: the approaches to be taken to engage target audiences

The focus for the remainder of this chapter is on ‘How’, structured around the seven essentials defined in Box 6.2.

Box 6.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Seven essentials for exhibition planning

Take an agile approach to displays Plan for users to personalise their experiences Pilot and then implement gradually Plan to support different learning styles Pace displays to maintain attention and combat museum fatigue Make a special case for children Ensure ‘good goodbyes’

166 Developing the participative experience

Take an agile approach to displays If the permanent gallery is to survive – as it surely must – it should be very different to the didactic, never-changing displays we see today. This can only happen if it is driven by a different mind-set, one based on agile, easy-to-achieve, regular change. Guidelines for achieving this can be seen in Box 6.3.

Box 6.3 Developing a new, agile approach to creating museum displays 1 Design ‘cheap’ – avoid design approaches that are so expensive that content remains the same for many years. 2 Add participative exhibits, trails/activity packs and regular activities, talks, and performance to existing content 3 Stimulate user contributions as a core part of content. 4 Train and involve volunteers and communities in developing new content instead of only co-producing at the margins 5 Pilot all proposed new content – make user participation integral to this 6 Build in spaces for regular activities + schools’ use 7 Have someone manage and curate exhibitions and user content once open 8 Employ enablers to support participation. 9 Work towards a joint on-site, online, and mobile platform 10 Integrate IT into structured learning provision.

Plan for visitors to personalise their experience A focus on enabling museum users to devise their own, personalised experiences. This is something – as noted in Chapter 5 – most visiting groups already effectively create for themselves but will now be more directly based on principles of participation, contribution, and rewarding challenges. Discussions on how to stimulate conversation and encourage ref lection potentially point a way forward.

Pilot and then implement gradually Defining alternative approaches to display is much more difficult than the division of gallery space. There will not be a single solution. Museums should aim for multiple approaches tested through piloting and implemented gradually – taking the museum hierarchy, staff, and volunteers with you as well as the users. And the public love having their opinions sought – it also makes them feel much more a part of the museum. The alternative big bang approach would almost certainly result in expensive mistakes.

Inclusive and participative

167

Plan to support different learning styles An inclusive museum will recognise that different people explore and learn in different ways and respond to this in the way exhibitions are developed, allowing users to select. At its most basic, this means focusing on what has become known as the VARK model, illustrated in Box 6.4. If your exhibitions incorporate a palette of interpretive approaches that cater for these four learning styles, you will have provided an outline framework for most users that you can then build on.

Box 6.4 The VARK model Visual Auditory Read/write Kinaesthetic

See it Hear it/discuss it Read it/contribute Do it

Pace displays to maintain attention and combat museum fatigue Museum fatigue leads to a decrease in the ability or desire to engage – energy fails, minds wander, and attention fades, followed by a rapid decline in the quality of the museum experience. It is both physical and mental, with the audience overwhelmed by content. Minimising effort through good orientation and clear structure helps, while regular changes in the exhibition mood can bring people back to life! The latter is best achieved by establishing an experiential matrix to ensure a f low of different experiences interspersed with seated ref lection zones, illustrated in Box 6.5.

Box 6.5

Experiential matrix

Gallery area Contemplative Participative Immersive Aesthetic Contributory Seated ref lection zone

A

B

C

D

E

F

168 Developing the participative experience

Make a special case for children Museums have a major responsibility to engage children and be directly relevant to their lives. Museum visiting should be an enjoyable and memorable experience, somewhere that children want to be – somewhere to explore and discover things, somewhere that makes them feel good about themselves, a regular part of their lives. We need parents and schools to support this. And for museums, children who are brought to museums regularly are likely to be museum users as adults (arts socialisation). •

• •

•

• •

By welcoming children and their families, museums can instil a sense of belonging, of being part of a wider community. This, in turn, can help to break down barriers. A visit gives families opportunities to spend quality time doing things together. Museums are wonderfully positive environments for fostering children’s learning, providing remarkable opportunities that use all their senses and give direct access to the ‘real thing’ – encountering objects and talking about them, developing their object and visual literacy. This can be both with their schools and exploring with families and friends. Children can use museums to explore their own interests. It can also introduce unknown worlds and new experiences – for example enabling children to immerse themselves in different times and places or engaging with great art. Children can explore different cultures but also, potentially, take pride in seeing themselves and their community represented. Museum activities, on site and online, can prick children’s curiosity, fire their imaginations, and stir their creative juices. It can introduce them to different ideas and perspectives that are directly relevant to their lives. And this can continue long after the visit takes place.

Ensure good good-byes ‘Good good-byes’ carry on the conversation with users by ensuring they leave on a high note and are encouraged to return. These can include, for example, a conversation with a staff member, a display board listing future events, or an opportunity to record a favourite experience of the day. For families, takeaways of completed trails, stickers or badges awarded, drawings done, or photographs taken and forwarded, can encourage further conversation about the visit. In 2011, for example, the Museum of Modern Art in New York initiated a project that was an instant hit. Visitors were given a card with the words ‘I went to MoMA and . . .’ where they could draw or write their own impressions, experiences, and opinions. These could then be shared by being hung on the wall in the museum lobby. The project was later digitalised: the cards

Inclusive and participative

169

were scanned and projected onto the wall (Bungard and Meinhardt, 2011: no page number). For all, opportunities to follow up content or contribute online can be a key means of building a longer-term relationship between the museum and its users, as can signing up for emails about future events and activities.

Building participative spaces into museum galleries If we want users to give us their time and if we truly believe that social interaction is key to museum learning, we need to offer in return the opportunities, spaces, and participative exhibits they require to actively engage and to interact with each other. To do this involves the restructuring of permanent gallery spaces. Providing room for user interaction adds to spatial requirements, highly problematic when space is restricted, as it normally is. But, while each display element must justify its existence, it was invariably visitor needs that lost out in the past. This is madness. Galleries must include room for the needs of users as well as exhibits. Depending on the museum’s specific requirements, the following offer a range of possibilities: Multi-purpose spaces: incorporated into galleries, giving f lexibility for small group interaction, small-scale performance/living history, object-handling sessions, for school or family groups to gather, etc., with seating as a fallback when the space is not otherwise in use. Their f lexibility is key to the agility of the museum experience. Help desks and staff: easy to spot and used as a base by gallery enablers – and that you can watch before approaching. Staff should be welcoming but know when not to intrude. Small-scale temporary exhibition spaces: an opportunity to breathe new life into displays – to bring more of the collections out of store; as community showcases and opportunities for local societies to exhibit their work; to pilot innovative curatorial and display approaches and consult the public on what you are doing; a response to contemporary collecting; an opportunity for co-creation; a way to integrate display and associated programming; as a means of engaging audiences with contemporary and contentious issues; even for experimenting in the use of new media, not least augmented and virtual reality. Reflection zones: Ref lection is key to the social learning experience. It enables users to establish relevance (constructing new meanings and understandings in the process). Today, most displays push users on from one exhibit to the next. A major change in display approaches is required that gets people to stop, think, talk with companions, etc. Box 6.6 illustrates some of the participative approaches that can stimulate conversation and ref lection.

170 Developing the participative experience

Box 6.6 •

• • • • • •

Providing opportunities for reflection

‘Reflection zones’, with seating in circles (to encourage conversation), coffee tables holding books and articles and opportunities for people to leave their thoughts and read the contributions of others ‘Conversation spaces’ and people-watching within galleries will help users learn from and engage with each other Opportunities to practice an activity or skill Feedback and/or rewards to motivate further engagement Additional layered content on site and online Takeaways plus opportunities to contribute afterwards Online – to encourage continuing thought and conversation

Participative exhibit spaces: to house exhibits that social groups or families (perhaps even ‘strangers’) can gather around and engage with together – see Chapter 7. ‘Trail’ spaces: stopping points in front of selected exhibits for those using museum trails and activity backpacks (these need not only be for families). They need, where possible, room for children to lie on the f loor while drawing or completing a task, without getting in the way of other visitors. Contributory spaces: locations integral to the displays where users are encouraged to contribute thoughts and content – a potential overlap with ref lection zones. Many more people read the contributions than add content themselves, but the ambition is three-way ‘conversation’ between users and the museum, and between users themselves. ‘Pathways’ or ‘Entry Points’: giving users the chance to watch others participating, contributing, etc., before deciding whether to become more closely involved themselves -vital in helping people feel comfortable and confident in contributing. External spaces: the equivalent of a plaza outside the museum for events and enjoyable gathering. Overall, this chapter provides a framework for the development of participative content. The next chapter explores participative approaches to content delivery.

References Bergeron, A. and Tuttle, B. (2013) Magnetic: The Art and Science of Engagement, Washington, DC: The AAM Press Black, G. (2005) The Engaging Museum, London: Routledge Bliss, J. (2016) How the Smithsonian Built Their Journey Map, Posted on 06/05/2016, accessed 30/06/2020 at: www.customerbliss.com/smithsonian-built-journey-mapsamir-bitar-cb4/

Inclusive and participative

171

Bungard, B. and Meinhardt, J. (2011: no page number) ‘I Went to Moma and’ . . . It’s Back, New York: Museum of Modern Art, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.moma.org/ explore/inside_out/2011/12/07/i-went-to-moma-and-it-s-back/ French, A. (2016) Service Design Thinking for Museums: Technology in Contexts, Museums and the Web 2016, Posted on 29/01/2016, accessed on 30/06/2020 at Griffin, J. (2002) Museum Visitor Experiences and Learning. Notes on a paper presented at Why Learning? Seminar, Australian Museum/University of Technology, Sydney, 22 November 2002, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://australianmuseum.et.au/ Uploads/Documents/9322/janetteg.pdf Grohe, M. and Mann, L. (2019) Walking in the Shoes of Our Visitors: Human-centered Design and Organizational Change at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Museums & the Web, 2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://mw19.mwconf.org/paper/ walking-in-the-shoes-of-our-visitors-human-centered-design-and-organizationalchange-at-the-isabella-stewart-gardner-museum/ Hood, M.G. (1983) Staying Away: Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums, Museum News, April 1983, pp. 50–57 McLean, K. and Pollock, W. (2010) The Convivial Museum, Washington, DC: Institute of Museum & Library Services McManus, P. (1996) Visitors: Their Expectations and Behaviour, in Durbin, G. (ed) Developing Museum Exhibitions for Lifelong Learning, London: The Stationery Office, pp. 59–62 Museums Association (2019) Making Cardiff a Home, London: Museums Association, accessed on 15/04/2020 at: www.museumsassociation.org/video/23112016-cardiff-story Price, K. (2018) Designing a New Welcome Experience at the V&A, posted on 18/03/2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.vam.ac.uk/blog/digital/designing-a-new-welcomeexperience-at-the-va?gclid=Cj0KCQiAtrnuBRDXARIsABiN-7BcSL82eIFDJO1 TcEMcbf Rj0XvSMN-M0ix1cfykpAaGI4zZM5hKIf UaAoHkEALw_wcB Rounds, J. (2004) Strategies for the Curiosity-Driven Museum Visitor, Curator, 47(4), October, pp. 389–412 Screven, C.G. (1986) Exhibitions and Information Centers: Principles and Approaches, Curator, 25(3), pp. 187–212 Veverka, J. (1994) Interpretive Master Planning, Helena, MT: Falcon Press

7 CREATING PARTICIPATIVE EXHIBITS AND ACTIVITIES

The Challenge: to develop participative exhibits and activities that encourage museum users to spend more time in the museum and engage more fully with displays and collections.

Introduction This chapter focuses on audience participation in the museum experience. The chapter begins by defining the participative exhibit, contrasting it with the interactive. It outlines a typology of participative exhibits, giving numerous examples, and then looks at their evaluation. It concludes by suggesting a framework for a 21st-century multi-platform, non-hierarchical museum experience.

The gift of time My commitment to audience participation is based on a belief that it will lead to museum users spending longer in our galleries. The longer users spend engaging with museum content, the more they gain from the experience. Johannes Bernhardt defines this as ‘Slow Participation’. It is the central theme of his chapter, underpinning the re-conceptualising of the Baden State Museum in Karlsruhe. How to inf luence audience behaviour by creating opportunities to slow down is one of our greatest challenges – research at the Art Gallery of Ontario found the average visitor spent just 2.31 seconds in front of each work (Saha, 2019). But the importance of time given was recognised by Benjamin Gilman in the early 20th century: Daily watching the tired and listless wanderers that chief ly populate our galleries, we see plainly how little they gain compared with what can be gained. . . . what is more needed is that the works of art themselves shall

Participative exhibits and activities

173

have the opportunity of making their impression. To do this they require, among other things, time. . . . Viewed from this angle, the problem of the use of the museum by the public becomes a problem of inducing visitors to stay. Gilman (1918: 274–275) If we are to persuade people to stay, we must first create an environment in which they feel at home and encouraged to take part (see Chapter 6). We must also recognise that our users will not spend the extra time looking at everything in the museum – as discussed in Chapter 5, they will continue to be selective, scanning content and choosing which elements to engage with. The next stage is for museums to begin to supplement existing passive, didactic displays with opportunities for the self-directed, agile, participative, exploratory, experiential, socially interactive museum experience we know many in audiences seek – with observation, ref lection, and aesthetic experiences remaining a key part of that participation (see Chapter 5). If done gradually, and preferably based on regular piloting with audiences, the museum can take risks, learn as it goes along, build user support and more diverse audiences through them feeling involved, and develop its own participative mind-set. Crucially, the museum will come to recognise that displays are not finished when installed but only come to life when an audience is both present and participating.

Defining the participative exhibit An interactive exhibit is not the same as a participative one. It is still the single voice of the museum. The visitor does something, the exhibit does something back and the visitor is then expected to learn a specific piece of information dictated by the museum – so it is outcome-driven. Research at the Exploratorium in San Francisco, concluded that, for users, this meant: Their investigatory activity was driven almost exclusively by the museum: they followed the label’s directions about what to do, what to notice, and how to understand the experience . . . they rarely go beyond the museum’s instructions to ask and pursue their own questions. Gutwill and Allen (2010: 9) By contrast, participative exhibits, as outlined in Box 7.1, are about the process of learning and place the user in control. While interactive exhibits are normally restricted to one user, participative exhibits are designed for groups to gather round and engage with together. And use by groups will result in conversation, ref lection on what they have discovered and, hopefully, both personal understandings and alternative perspectives on content. But I would refer back to Chapter 5 here – the research evidence is that ‘solitary and shared learning experiences can be equally beneficial, but in different ways’ (Packer and Ballantyne, 2005: 189).

174 Developing the participative experience

Box 7.1 • • • • • • • • • • •

Participative exhibits

INTEGRATED into gallery they relate to AUTHENTIC – focused on engagement with real objects and stories Portray museum visit as ACTIVE experience ENJOYABLE Work with different AUDIENCES, across class boundaries and generations, and on different LEVELS Play to strengths of SOCIAL INTERACTION – doing and talking together Geared to MICRO-LEARNING moments rather than overall gallery outcomes OPEN-ENDED – driven by users. End-point can be outside museum’s control, supporting multiple perspectives Persuade users to spend more TIME Encourage REFLECTION and CONVERSATION Are MEMORABLE

Many participative exhibits and activities can be slotted into existing displays in the short term to change gallery dynamics and become part of the core offer, bringing jaded permanent galleries back to life. They should be located to allow users to watch other people engage with them before having a go. Crucially, these exhibits should be AGILE – cheap to develop and install and easy to replace. Because most are experimental and dependent on users wanting to engage, the way forward is to pilot. They should NEVER be viewed as ephemeral add-ons, secondary to the main display. Nor should such exhibits be rushed, left to the last minute, stuck in a corner, seen just as ‘something for the kids to do’ (Russick, 2010: 222). They need the wholehearted commitment of the entire exhibition team: If museums are serious about inviting visitors to participate, they need to design structures for participation that embrace the full spectrum of participatory behaviour and provide responsive value to those who engage. Simon (2011: 24)

A typology of participative exhibits Participative exhibits have long been a feature of children’s museums and some science museums and can now be found across the sector. It is even possible to suggest a draft typology: ‘taking part’, ‘creative response’, ‘contributing’, ‘belonging’, ‘empowering’, and ‘stimulating action’. I look initially at examples without new technology; digital use then follows.

Participative exhibits and activities

175

Analogue participative exhibits Taking part These meet the needs and expectations of most of the museum audience. Participative exhibits that elicit a direct response to collections exist in immense variety, not least for families. They can include: •

•

•

•

•

Object handling: Tactile engagement with the ‘real thing’ provides the most important difference between a museum visit and any other contact with the past. In most museums, only curators have intimate knowledge of and access to objects in their care. In a participative museum, every user should have the opportunity to handle authentic material. To hold Roman pottery or the fossilised remains of prehistoric creatures, and to discuss these with museum personnel able to share their expertise and enthusiasm will always stand out, and help the museum to both develop a love of objects amongst users and to teach object literacy. Johannes Bernhardt, in his chapter, brings physical and digital access to objects together. ‘Slow art’: International Slow Art Day was launched in 2010 and takes place every April. Its ambition – to persuade people to look at art slowly. It inspired Charlotte MacReynolds, Curator of Art for National Museums Northern Ireland, to run a monthly Slow Art Sunday at the Ulster Museum, Belfast, described in Box 7.2. See also Mette Houlberg Rung’s chapter for the stimulation of conversations around art works. Trails and activity packs have been provided at places like the V&A and Denver Art Museum for over 20 years and are now common. They give families a sense of purpose, can encourage close observation and discovery and ‘transform the otherwise adult spaces of the galleries into family environments’ ( Denver Art Museum, 2017: 3). As part of the pack, providing the children with a ‘discovery tool’, like a torch, adds another dimension. ‘Go Walkeez’, a pilot project at Durham Museum of Oriental Art, saw young children given a soft toy dog to take with them around the museum (video discussion at Spink and Morohashi, 2020). ‘MatchSMK’ is a simple board game installed in the Danish National Gallery. A board with an image of an artwork is placed in the centre of a table. Inspired by playing cards with contemporary photographs, the participants take turns to create surprising and funny stories about the artwork. The aim is to encourage plural and diverse stories about the artworks and stimulate personal and creative ref lections about the art (see photographs that follow). Voting is a perennial favourite. At Worcester City Art Gallery, U.K., curators selected their favourite 40 paintings and asked visitors to vote for their favourites and say why – allowing other visitors to respond to the comments in turn. Boston Art Gallery, Massachusetts, did this on a bigger scale

176 Developing the participative experience

FIGURE 7.1

Slow Art Sunday, Ulster Museum Belfast.

Source: National Museums NI

Box 7.2

Slow Art Sunday, Ulster Museum, Belfast

Sessions are conversational, last 45 minutes to an hour and involve exploring one or two works. Gallery Guides provide background, including their thoughts about a work, to break the ice between attendees and the art, and to give them confidence to consider their own feelings, what the artist’s intentions may have been and whether they were successful. Sometimes guides invite attendees to get up close to a work or far away. To squint at the work and analyse what way the light has been depicted. To ask themselves what choices the artist has made and why. All things that a typical visit to a packed gallery does not allow time for. I often encourage attendees to sketch the work to aid active observation. Some people are shy about drawing or speaking up – I encourage them to try to write down their responses. By the end, many people have changed their minds entirely about a work they initially disliked (or liked!) and are chatting to neighbours about their thoughts. It is wonderful to see. Source: MacReynolds, personal communication

Participative exhibits and activities

FIGURE 7.2

Match SMK, Danish National Gallery.

Source: © Louise Springborg

177

178 Developing the participative experience

FIGURE 7.3

Match SMK, Danish National Gallery.

Source: © Louise Springborg.

•

•

in its 2014 exhibition, Boston Loves Impressionism. Others at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the Brooklyn Art Gallery, the Hammer Museum, Los Angeles and Michener Art Museum, Pennsylvania, are discussed under Evaluation later. Participative elements can transform individual exhibitions. An exhibition of historic games toured by the British Museum was brought to life at New Walk Museum, Leicester, by the provision of replicas and an enabler to teach users how to play. The Hunt Museum, Limerick, Ireland, has had great success with ‘caption contests’, on-site and online, where users create humorous captions for museum objects.

Creative and/or innovative response Museums have outstanding potential as ‘agents for creativity’, providing access to creative experiences and inspiring individuals and communities to think and act creatively, a critical human resource in the 21st century (Vergeront, 2013). They also have a vital role in helping children, as school curricula increasingly abandon the Arts. The nature of creativity lends itself to the informal, free choice experience offered by all types of museums, not just art galleries. Building from Kirsten Drotner’s chapter, we can speak of ‘little c’ creativity, where

Participative exhibits and activities

179

people develop something new from existing elements, and the key potential for joint creativity, where people co-create together. Much creative activity in museums is programme driven, but opportunities can also be built into displays, such as: •

•

•

•

Art trollies filled with art materials have enabled generations of children to produce their own ‘works of art’ in galleries. Palo Alto Art Centre, California, has expanded the concept into ‘Art Carts’, including suggested activities as well as materials (Larson, 2017). Denver Art Museum has developed dedicated spaces as ‘Create Corners’, ‘designed so families can make their own creations’ (Denver Art Museum, 2017). ‘Makerspaces’, where children and adults, on their own or together, build items relating to displayed objects, have become important educational resources, especially in the USA (see, e.g., Brahms and Crowley, 2016). National Drawing Day, held each May, and organised by the National Gallery of Ireland, sees a celebration of drawing and creativity in dozens of locations across the island of Ireland. The Indianapolis Museum of Art staged Inspired by Matisse, alongside its Matisse Life and Colour exhibition in 2013. This involved a competition for drawings inspired by Matisse, with an Inspired by Matisse Studio opposite the gallery entrance which included large visuals, videos for inspiration and kiosks with software. Digital drawings could also be submitted online. The result was almost 4000 submissions and very positive visitor feedback. (Fantoni et al., 2014).

Contributing See the following section for a discussion on User Generated Content and User Created Content.

Belonging ‘Belonging’ goes beyond participative exhibits to incorporate opportunities for close involvement. It begins with feeling at ease enough to take part – you take part because you feel you belong – and you feel you belong because you are encouraged to take part. This sense of belonging then leads users towards becoming active members of the museum community, transforming their mindsets from that of one-off visitors to seeking a long-term meaningful and participative relationship. In return, it means museums engaging with users as active participants, contributors, and collaborators – not only responding to lifestyle expectations but also valuing the expertise and experience that users bring. It involves developing

180 Developing the participative experience

new approaches that encourage users to become more actively and regularly involved, such as: •

• •

Membership schemes – Tate, with its sites in London, Liverpool, and St Ives, has the largest arts membership scheme in Europe, now with around 150,000 members. Membership must mean much more than free admission to charging exhibitions, including not only a sense of meeting social needs but also ‘the excitement of having privileged access to something special and not readily available’ (Bergeron and Tuttle, 2013: 118). Regular social events such as “Lates” evenings (see Chapter 1). Enabling people to play an active role in planning the future of the museum (see, for example, Johannes Bernhardt’s chapter).

Empowering Historically, museums have maintained close control of the visit – deciding what audiences see, do, read, etc. A participative environment requires a different relationship. It is the audience not the museum that decides what to engage with, how they want to engage and for how long. They can then decide whether to unite their skills with museum content to develop their own responses to exhibits, to ref lect and construct their own meanings, to contribute content – and to be free to question, debate, collaborate, speculate. This applies to newly diverse communities as much as to existing core audiences.

Stimulating action There is a widespread assumption within the environmental movement that interpretation can inf luence visitor behaviour in favour of conservation, based on the principle that: ‘Curiosity leads to knowledge Knowledge leads to understanding Understanding leads to action’. Such an approach is a common feature in visitor management at environmentally sensitive sites – often protected natural areas established primarily for conservation purposes owing to rare or unique natural phenomena which, for these very reasons, then become popular visitor destinations. Evaluation of more than 20 projects designed to inf luence visitor behaviour at such sites suggests personal relevance is key to visitor response, as is message repetition (but over-repetition can have the opposite effect). Other researchers highlight the triggering of emotional responses and providing visitors with a tangible opportunity to act upon newly formed attitudes and intentions. Overall, however, the researchers concluded:

Participative exhibits and activities

181

The complexity of interrelationships between information assimilation, attitudes and behaviour change is extremely complex and difficult to evaluate. Munro et al. (2008: 10) Can participative exhibits inf luence museum user behaviour? This is particularly important to the activist museum. So why is there a shortage of long-term evaluation of related exhibits? Bergevin (see Chapter 5) demonstrated the short-term impact of one-off visits and the importance of follow-up. And the role of museums as safe spaces clearly matters. The underpinning principle of the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles is that ‘change happens when people are given the space to engage in conversations that move them’ (Katrikh, 2018: 8). To achieve this sort of challenging dialogue, the museum seeks first to create a safe environment in which it can occur – this ‘allows for individuals to take risks while understanding that they will not be penalized for contrary opinions’. Working with the Ulster Museum in Belfast on its gallery on the Northern Irish ‘Troubles’, Dierdre MacBride of the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council described the environment required as ‘a safe and open space in which dialogue and understanding . . . can occur . . . a space in which ref lection and possibly reconciliation can emerge even while we are dealing with hurtful living memory’ (MacBride, quoted in NMNI, 2018).

Smart participation The application of new technology and associated media – particularly if people use their own mobile devices – can add new dimensions to the user experience. Activities can be as varied as:

Taking part •

•

Taking selfies: In 2009, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York asked visitors to submit photographs of themselves beside their favourite works as part of its It’s Time We Met project. More than 1,000 photographs were submitted, with two selected to lead a new advertising campaign. See Jenny Kidd’s chapter on the potential significance of the museum selfie. Gaming: As the case study of the Kölnische Stadtmuseum in Daniel Brown’s chapter makes wonderfully clear, gaming has the ability to incorporate almost every element of the museum participation typology, and to transform the museum experience – and it need not be complicated or expensive. From the social experience of sharing fictional narratives that are history-based, in storyworlds (Digital Meets Culture, 2018) to teams competing in scavenger hunts, with objects as clues (Blair, 2009), gaming can stimulate ‘active prolonged engagement’ (Gutwill and Allen, 2010). Games engage users emotionally as well as intellectually. They reward engagement through feedback

182 Developing the participative experience

•

•

and access to another level. But it is early days. Most games have clear rules to follow with little chance of open-ended play. They tend to be set up for use by individuals, not groups. There is too much play and not enough learning. And good games can be expensive to create and regularly update. The chapter by Anders Sundnes Løvlie and his colleagues follows on well from that of Daniel Brown, providing four different case studies. And, importantly, two of these do not require museum involvement or even permission. AI, VR, AR, MR, Immersive Theatre and Interactive Installations: HsiaoTe Hsu’s chapter demonstrates in mouth-watering detail what these fields offer to an institution committed to engage younger audiences through digital innovation, and with the budget to make it happen.

Creative response •

‘Set the collection free’: How can museums enhance access to their collections, in a participative environment where many people already take material online and actively share, sort, classify, collaboratively re-think, re-classify, re-publish and re-use it as they see fit? And what impact will this have? See the example of the Hunt Museum, Limerick, Ireland, in Rebecca O’Neill’s chapter. See also the work of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, which launched Rijksstudio in 2012, giving free online access to hundreds of thousands of highresolution images from the collections – to be used as anyone saw fit. Many users responded by creating their own online ‘Rijksmuseum Collection’ galleries through selection of favourite images. By 2018, over 200,000 people had created their own Rijksstudio online (Gorgels, 2018). But, beyond this, the museum also invited the creative sector to use the images for free and sell the resulting products through Etsy. Here, Martijn Pronk, then head of publications, said: We have placed much of the collection in the public domain. It is out of our control. So even if we wouldn’t like a certain design there’s not much we could do. We knew this when we set the collection free. Pronk (2015)

•

•

In 2014, the museum actively embraced the designers, introducing an annual award for the best products, marketed as ‘create your own masterpiece’. The #GettyMuseumChallenge – issued on 25 March 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 lockdown, the museum challenged you to choose a work of art then recreate it in your home using household implements (and people) – see Jenny Kidd’s chapter. As noted in Chapter 2, the Getty then released many thousands of images for use in Nintendo’s video game Animal Crossing, New Horizons. Taking images in response to museum objects: In Oh Snap! in 2013, the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, selected and exhibited 13 new works of photography and invited people to submit their photographic responses online. Each day the museum printed out new submissions and displayed them beside their inspirations.

Participative exhibits and activities

• • •

183

Scanning objects – 3D printing, for example at the Baden State Museum in Karlsruhe (see Johannes Bernhardt’s chapter). Creating your own apps and blogs, with or without copyright clearance, with the ‘Ugly Renaissance Babies’ app as a literally classical example. Taking part in Hack Days: such as Coding DaVinci, the first German open data cultural hackathon (https://codingdavinci.de).

Contributing • • •

• •

See the following section for a discussion on User Generated Content and User Created Content. The development of a digital community that can also contribute to the museum – for example tagging at the Brooklyn Art Gallery. ‘My Brighton and Hove’ – a website launched in 2000 by Brighton Museum, UK, and now hugely successful, with thousands of pages. People upload pictures, memories, and comments about Brighton and Hove (www.mybright onandhove.org.uk). ‘My City, My Sounds’ – an app that allows people to record sounds of the city, then upload as in the Natural History gallery at Derby Museum, UK. Contributing to a museum crowdsourced project such as the British Museum’s MicroPasts ( https://crowdsourced.micropasts.org)

Stimulating action There are a few outstanding digital examples of this principle in the stimulus of pledges, including: •

•

At the Pledge Wall in the US National Holocaust Memorial Museum, visitors can pledge to take part in action against genocide. Within the museum, their written pledges are projected at large scale on to the wall. The ‘Power of Children’ exhibition at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis culminates at the ‘Tree of Promise’. Here, children can make a promise that will change the world and can send that promise home or to others via email. Those who complete their promises will be ‘recognised’ and congratulated by the Tree on their return.

User generated content and user created content There is a distinction to be made between ‘generated’ and ‘created’. ‘Generated’ (UGC) refers to responses to museum content; ‘created’ (UCC) originates in the individual with the museum and its collections as source material (Kidd, 2014: 58). I define both as content created by individuals or groups and then shared for others to consider, so not including photographs, videos, etc., taken during a visit for private use. UGC and UCC include comments generated on-site (visitor

184 Developing the participative experience

books, comment cards, sketches, audio/video recordings, responses to other peoples’ comments, etc.) and online (tagging); and creative responses, mostly online, including commentaries, blogs, and wikis. Neither UGC nor UCC is a new development. Visitor books have been a feature of museums for generations, while artists have used collections as sources of inspiration since public art galleries first appeared. What is different today is the sheer scale and variety of contributions, made possible by the digital revolution. Neither UGC nor UCC is a random, throwaway act. Both are a ref lective response to what the museum offers. Both are underpinned by pre-existing knowledge (including of museum content and of the museum’s locality), experience (including of previous museum visiting), interest and motivation, alongside broader characteristics such as educational level, inherent interests, attitudes, beliefs, social roles, life stage, and the other factors (see Chapter 5). They should be taken seriously by the museum. However, there are three immediate problems. On the one hand, the singlevoiced, didactic museum display leaves little or no room for the alternative perspectives represented by UGC. On the other, staff who want to protect the role of museums as authoritative cultural institutions (Walker, 2008: 11), are wary of potentially inaccurate content that is outside editorial control – and concerned at how this might impact on public trust. But valuing user contributions does not mean curatorial absence. Audiences will continue to want the authoritative voice of the museum. What they increasingly will not do is accept museums as single-voiced and authoritarian – they will expect to have the opportunity to ref lect on and respond to that voice (Stein, 2011). The task for the museum is not to prevent UGC and UCC, or only encourage the innocuous or the perspective that matches the museum line, but to make a clear distinction between them and museum-generated content. I recognise, of course, that existing research suggests few members of the public actually make contributions. Best known is Jakob Nielsen’s (2006) work – quoted in Simon (2010) and elsewhere – which suggests that user participation in terms of contribution to social media and websites often follows a 90–9–1 rule: • • •

90% of users are ‘lurkers’ who read or observe but do not contribute 9% of users contribute from time to time 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions

But this is in relation to online activity and ref lects a very different environment to a museum gallery. It can be contrasted, for example, with the many thousands stimulated to contribute online and on-site, and intersect between the two, at Tate in London. This raises its own problems, from the practical to the ethical (see, for example, Kidd and Cardiff, 2017), but UGC is now integral to the Tate offer. The third problem is the fundamental issue of scarce museum resources. Given that at most museums few people contribute to content – how much time/ money should the museum allocate to engaging with them and encouraging

Participative exhibits and activities

185

more? Should there be no involvement? Should it go no further than providing a board for post-it notes, and should this be in an obscure corner or prominent (and who will restock the post-it notes)? Should the post-it notes be thrown away sporadically or should the museum respond? Should there be an active policy of stimulating UGC and curating the content? Should the museum make publishable images of its collections copyright-free, as at the Rijksmuseum and elsewhere, to encourage UCC? Should the museum go the whole hog and have staff take part in user forums or even work with user groups to create new content? If so, how do you manage expectations? If, like me, your vision of the future museum is one of users and museum personnel being part of the same museum community, you will recognise that UGC and UCC together have the potential to make a remarkable contribution to the development of the museum’s mission. A museum focused on its own voice and protecting its own authority will fail to free up the museum experience to give users more power/control of their own outcomes. Content that stimulates users to reflect and then provides opportunities for them to contribute is central to the participative museum. UGC and UCC decrease the museum’s power as a gatekeeper and can help convert visitors into users who feel part of the museum’s community. Giving prominence to their content shows the value the museum places on the expertise and understanding of its users. Crucially, it also diversifies content and the range of perspectives heard – revealing the museum as an ‘open place, one that encourages participation and is willing to engage with a variety of opinion and ideas to create richness’ (Durbin, no date, no page number). And it can turn into a three-way conversation involving the museum and its audiences (Kidd, 2014: 59–60). On-site, meaningful UGC will rarely happen of its own accord. Much depends on the design of contributory spaces, recognising that UGC is a process – the act of ref lecting and then contributing – as well as a product. The crucial thing is to ensure people feel at ease so they are both willing to ref lect and respond (in hard copy or via smartphone) and believe their views will be valued. Comfortable seating; tables with books, articles, newspaper cuttings; simple questions and balanced sign-written quotes on the walls; paintings and photographs; the opportunity to read and respond to the comments of others – all this can make a difference. As to UCC, people will produce it whether or not they have museum permission, let alone support. Rebecca O’Neill makes this very clear in her chapter, but she also emphasises how much benefit creative users can bring to the museum by making its collections accessible to a wider audience: ‘If an object, document, or body of knowledge is only accessible to those within an institution or to those who already know of its existence, it will remain obscure to the rest of humanity’. Like all communities (see Chapter 3), creative users offer more to the museum than it can offer them. A museum’s real worry should not be that people are wanting to write about it – but if no one wants to do so. It is likely to mean no one can be bothered. And, of course, most of the creative responses to content discussed earlier could fall under the heading of UCC.

186 Developing the participative experience

Evaluating participative exhibits and activities Evaluation is difficult at this early stage of understanding how and why people engage with participative exhibits, and their impact. What follows is no more than a few preliminary thoughts, looking at three key aspects: 1 2 3

The effectiveness of the exhibit/activity and the ability to stimulate user responses; Hierarchies of participation; and The ability of the exhibit/activity to inf luence user attitudes for the long term.

Effectiveness of the exhibit This considers ease of use; group/families’ engagement with the exhibit and with each other; and the ability of the exhibit/activity to stimulate user responses. Evaluation will depend on exhibit type, but there are also aspects in common, from design to the nature of engagement.

Evaluation through observation We can begin with the Family Science Learning Research Project established in the Philadelphia area in 1998. The results, published as Borun et al. (1998), defined seven characteristics of family friendly exhibits (p23): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Multi-sided – can cluster around the exhibit Multi-user – interaction allows for several sets of hands and bodies Accessible – can be comfortably used by children and adults (for example, varying exhibit heights – important also for those with disabilities) Multi-outcome – sufficiently complex to foster group discussion Multi-modal – appeals to different learning styles and levels of knowledge Readable – text in easily understood segments Relevant – links to visitors’ existing knowledge and experience.

When exhibit components that embodied these characteristics were added to existing exhibitions in the four PISEC museums, family learning was measurably increased. A pilot study observing family groups using tabletop digital exhibits at the Natural History Museum in London, by Price et al. (unpublished), identified how visitors use space and interact with digital exhibits and one another, using direct observation and video recording through cameras worn by participants. Key results were: 1 2 3

The significance of family pre-visit motivation to their engagement with interactive practices in the museum Digital exhibits do not exist in isolation. Gallery atmosphere inf luences how people use exhibits. Place exhibits where people can watch others using them before committing themselves.

Participative exhibits and activities

4 5 6

7 8

187

Overall, the interactive tabletops fostered scaffolding activity that was realized through touch, gesture, and bodily posture as well as through verbal interaction. Exhibit design affected how families grouped/split, body positioning and access (matching the PISEC results). Don’t fight the familiar – users expect the exhibits to behave like familiar smartphones and iPads. Ensure it takes minimal effort to figure out how exhibits work. People react to exhibits physically as well as intellectually – sharing, explaining, expressing, competing. The urge to touch is a powerful driver.

These are important results in terms of integrating digital exhibits (and other types of participative exhibit) into wider content, However, it is much more difficult to evaluate the impact of the exhibit, in terms of enhanced meaningful understanding. Bitgood’s interest lies in levels of attention, a necessity for participation. In his early research he concluded that: • • •

Attention is selective – when we focus attention on one thing, we tend to ignore others. Attention has focusing power – if highly motivated, we can focus our attention on something with considerable concentration. The capacity of attention is limited – it dissipates with time and effort. after Bitgood (2000: 31–45)

He later developed an Attention Value Model of Museum Visitors, speaking of three stages – capture, focus, engage, outlined in Box 7.3.

Box 7.3

Stages of attention

Capture Initial stage. Attention unfocused. Visitor aware of a range of stimuli. Orientation and searching used to seek focus. Easily distracted. Focus The narrowing of attention once it has been captured. Brief stage – e.g. seek identifying label. Still easily distracted. Engage Deep sensory-perceptual, mental and/or affective involvement with exhibit content – e.g. inquiry, critical thinking, emotional response. Source: after Bitgood (2010)

Bitgood’s view of value is that benefits should outweigh cost in terms of money, time, and effort. He also gives examples of the impact on design, for example: • •

Clear orientation to remove unnecessary effort Designing to sequence attention through a gallery/exhibition – ensuring every important exhibit has an equal chance of receiving attention

188 Developing the participative experience

•

Minimising competition, and distractions such as sound, to help visitors focus attention

However, attention does not exist in isolation. It follows on from motivation, itself linked to the pre-visit history of the audience. Attention must also relate to the pro-active and self-directed nature of informal learning in museums. And all of this should be viewed within the social-recreational context of informal museum visits.

Evaluation through professional judgement At this early stage, evaluation based on professional judgement has an important role. Earlier in this chapter, I wrote of the popularity of voting on art. But why do people vote and should the preferences of those who do vote be allowed to dominate? Nina Simon’s Museum 2.0 blog for the 10 October 2012 asked, What happens when you allow people to vote on art? (Simon, 2012). At Grand Rapids, Michigan, Brooklyn Art Gallery and the Hammer Museum, Los Angeles, large numbers of visitors (artists in the case of Brooklyn) attended, but only 12%, 27%, and 4% respectively voted. Simon commented that ‘my sense is that the biggest reason people didn’t vote is that for most visitors, voting wasn’t the point. The point was to be part of an exciting, dynamic, surprising new way to engage with art’. She also wrote that: ‘Voting on substantive outcomes is dangerous because not enough people participate to make serious decisions in good faith’. With prizes at stake at Grand Rapids and The Hammer Gallery, and selection for display in Brooklyn, all three galleries were re-assessing the role of voting. Ruberg added a further dimension, highlighting the conservative nature of American public taste (Ruberg, 2015). In looking at The People’s Choice exhibition at the Michener Art Museum in Pennsylvania, she asked: ‘When participatory curation turns museum visitors into gatekeepers, what art will they choose to put on display and what art will they choose to keep out of sight?’ (p2). The answer unfortunately was that: ‘The result was an exhibit that appealed to the largest number of voters yet excluded artwork that challenged dominant norms of gendered or racial privilege’ (p1). She raises core issues about the limitations of participation: The results of the People’s Choice exhibit serve as a challenge to curators, museum visitors, and new media scholars alike to continue questioning and reinventing the place of participatory media in cultural institutions. At a moment when participatory technology seems to promise the democratization of culture, it also opens up important opportunities to ref lect on the voices that democracy leaves behind. Ruberg (2015: 20)

Experience Published examples of sustained experimentation with participative exhibits are rare. The work of Fantoni and her colleagues at Indianapolis Museum of Art

Participative exhibits and activities

189

(Fantoni et al., 2014) is particularly refreshing in exploring ‘what worked, what didn’t, issues encountered, and possible solutions’ (p1), concluding: • • • • • • •

not all participative projects successfully engage visitors (p10) contests were particularly successful in stimulating creativity (p10) the projects both stimulated repeat interactions and appeared to increase engagement with the institution and art in general (p11) even if not all visitors choose to participate in the projects, they still value contributions by others (p11) with the online elements, the project also contributed to expanding the reach of the institution (p11) simplicity is key for the success (p11) pre-moderation was not necessary. Visitors enjoy seeing their image or works immediately displayed on the website or on site (p12).

Hierarchies of engagement A number of researchers have sought to define levels or hierarchies of participation, a complex challenge in both conceptual and practical terms. As a community activist, Simon prioritises collaboration and co-creation and downplays other forms of participation. She created her ‘Models for Participation’ by adapting the terminology of a Public Participation in Science Research project (Shirk et al., 2012), to provide a hierarchy that begins with Contributory and moves through Collaborative and Creative to Hosted (Simon, 2010: 184–191). At the bottom, Contributory projects are ones where ‘visitors are solicited to provide limited and specified objects, actions or ideas to an institutionally controlled process’ (Simon, 2010: 187). At the top, Hosted projects see outside groups taking over part of the institution. Simon’s models of participation should be viewed in association with her five stage ME to WE spectrum, illustrated in Box 7.4:

Box 7.4

Simon’s ME to WE spectrum

STAGE 5 STAGE 4 STAGE 3 STAGE 2 STAGE 1

Individuals engage with each other socially WE Individual interactions are networked for social use Individual interactions are networked for social use Individual interacts with content /I\ Individual consumes content ME

/I\ /I\

Source: based on Simon (2010: 26)

The focus here is on the social impact of participation, yet it downplays the early stages and also focuses on the behaviour of individuals, despite most visitors coming in family or social groups and engaging together.

190 Developing the participative experience

Brown and Novak-Leonard (2011) produced an ‘Audience Involvement Spectrum’(p4) to apply across cultural forms, which moved from Spectating through Enhanced Engagement, Crowd-sourcing and Co-creation to Audience-as-Artist. A vertical black line separates Spectating and Enhanced Engagement from the other elements in the spectrum, emphasising their perceived inadequacy. Spectating is defined as ‘the act of receiving the finished artistic product’, while Enhanced Engagement ‘can heighten anticipation and magnify impact’, but ‘for the most part [does] not involve creative expression on the part of the audience member’ (2011: 16). Brown and Novak-Leonard and Gilbride describe these two stages as ‘a “sit back and be told” culture’ (2011: 2) – I do not know where the informed, ref lective, aesthetic art gallery experience is expected to fit in here. In his chapter, Daniel Brown discusses this Spectrum, as part of the background to his framework connecting gaming participation to museum participation. He demonstrates that both gaming and museum participation align at points yet differ from each other. Participation evolves in and along the specific frameworks purposefully created for it and cannot follow a unified definition or description when switching frameworks or modalities. Visitor studies consultancies tend to define hierarchies in terms of their own diagnosis of learning motivations and outcomes (perhaps to distinguish themselves from competitors). Morris Hargreaves McIntyre (MHM), one of the largest visitor consultancies in the UK, categorises four drivers in ascending order: Social, Intellectual, Emotional, and Spiritual (Davies and Heath, 2013: 16): ‘The higher up the hierarchy, the greater the engagement, the more profound the outcome’ (MHM, 2005: 10). MHM provides no firm evidence for this hierarchy beyond saying that it was developed through focus groups. Yet it places social interaction, the basis of most informal learning in museums, at the bottom of the pile. And as Davies and Heath (2013: 16) put it, ‘why, precisely, should an emotional experience be superior to an intellectual one?’ Surely this is more about how consultancies choose to conceptualise visitors than about academic rigour. In my own conceptualisation of the museum user experience, I believe strongly that every aspect of the user’s engagement, including observation of museum exhibits and of course contemplation of art works, is participative because the user has chosen to do it. Museums can provide opportunities and stimulus to engage. Users choose what to engage with and for how long, as well as both when and how they interact with each other. Every element can provide opportunities for deep engagement. It depends on what users wants rather than on what motivations the museum seeks to impose on them.

Longer-term impact As I discussed towards the end of Chapter 5, to date museums have been poor at carrying out longitudinal studies and, when these have happened, they have tended to be about learning outcomes not ‘impact’. Impact – by which I mean change to people’s attitudes, opinions, lives – is notoriously difficult to evaluate

Participative exhibits and activities

191

because there is rarely a simple link between cause and effect. What is more, it is highly unlikely that impact will come from a single exhibit, more likely from an exhibition or even the museum as a whole, or related programming, and reinforced by other related experiences. I wrote of one aspect – communities and civil engagement – in 2010 (Black, 2010), using as an example, the work of Animating Democracy (Korza et al., 2005). Others, including Janes (2009) and Silverman (2010), have written more extensively on this. What has received much less attention has been the work of science museums and centres involving the public in dialogue about the future of science policy. This situation has been partially rectified by research in the European Union by Bandelli and Konijn (2015): museums are not only a location where public participation takes place, but they can be involved as institutions in the organisation, management and decisions relating to the policies discussed by the citizens. Visitors participate in discussions at the museum, and museums participate in discussions with policy makers. The mutual inf luences of these roles are increasingly more complex and intertwined. They impact how museums are perceived by their visitors and in broader public opinion. The dialogue that takes place in science centres has a significant impact outside the walls of the particular institution. Bandelli and Konijn (2015: 3) In particular, the results of the research showed a greater expectation of museums being able to inf luence policy in Eastern European countries with a more fragile infrastructure for science communication and debate: in these countries, where there are generally very few routes for citizens to get their voices heard on matters of science and technology, visitors want a stronger involvement of museums in policy, possibly because museums are seen as accessible and innovative institutions. Bandelli and Konijn (2015: 10)

Concluding thoughts As previously argued, there is a stark difference between how most museums present their content and how audiences want to engage and learn from it – in particular, museums have barely begun to address their social qualities. In practice, people will adapt the museum experience to their own needs, and use museum collections as they see fit, not as the museum dictates. To have a broad appeal – to attract and sustain a diverse audience – requires a welcoming environment a multi-layered experience and for the museum to trust its users to choose how they engage and what with rather than seeking to dictate what they learn. Participative exhibits should be a key part of this but so should

192 Developing the participative experience

spaces committed to an approach that is contemplative and ref lective. Both are of value, nether is superior. The museum should offer choice that is multi-platform and non-hierarchical (see Box 7.5). This choice will include introducing our audiences to the new and unexpected – we know from countless surveys that they want to discover something new.

Box 7.5 The multi-platform, non-hierarchical MUSEUM EXPERIENCE • •

Have fun Immerse • •

•

Participate: • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

enjoy being in the museum environment immerse in contemplative environment

talk aesthetic experience interact with family, friends, other visitors, staff engage together with participative exhibits take part in activities, events, programmes creatively adapt collection information reflect contribute to content – have your voice heard debate and dialogue share experience with people worldwide learn

Crowd-source Co-create/co-curate: community activism Audience as artist/creator Follow-up online Come back – ‘always something new’ Become involved in museum community Join museum in external campaigning

References Bandelli, A. and Konijn, E.A. (2015) Museums as Brokers of Participation: How Visitors View the Emerging Role of European Science Centres and Museums in Policy, Science Museum Group Journal, October 2015 (no page numbers), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://journal.sciencemuseum.ac.uk/browse/issue-03/museums-as-brokers-ofparticipation/

Participative exhibits and activities

193

Bergeron, A. and Tuttle, B. (2013) Magnetic: The Art and Science of Engagement, Washington, DC: The AAM Press Bitgood, S. (2000) The Role of Attention in Designing Effective Interpretive Labels, Journal of Interpretive Research, 5(2), Winter, pp. 31–45 Bitgood, S. (2010) An Attention-value Model of Museum Visitors, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43c3/da822d36a7f5a21a2f b3135c2f83d7a0c7b6.pdf Black, G. (2010) Embedding Civil Engagement in Museums, Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(2), June, pp. 129–146 Blair, E. (2009) Interactive Games Make Museums a Place to Play, posted on 12/01/2009, accessed on 30/06/2020 at:www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99244253 Borun, M., Dritsas, J., Johnson, J.I., Peter, N.E., Wagner, K.F., Fadigan, K., Jangaard, A., Stroup, E. and Wenger, A. (1998) Family Learning in Museums: The PISEC Perspective, Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Brahms, L. and Crowley, K. (2016) Learning to Make in the Museum: The Role of ‘Maker Educators’, Pre-publication chapter in Pepler, K., Halverson, E. and Kafai, Y. (eds) Makeology in K-12, Higher, and Informal Education: The Maker Movement and the Future of Learning, London: Routledge, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://upclose.pitt. edu/articles/Brahms_Crowley_Maker_Educator2016.pdf Brown, A.S. and Novak-Leonard, J.L. (2011, reprinted 2014) Getting in on the Act: How Arts Groups Are Creating Opportunities for Active Participation, San Francisco, CA: James Irvine Foundation, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://irvine-dot-org.s3.amazonaws. com/documents/12/attachments/GettingInOntheAct2014_DEC3.pdf Davies, M. and Heath, C. (2013) Evaluating Evaluation: Increasing the Impact of Summative Evaluation in Museums and Galleries, London: King’s College London, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://visitors.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2004/01/Evaluating Evaluation_November2013.pdf Denver Art Museum (2017) Kids & Their Grownups: New Insights on Developing Dynamic Museum Experiences for the Whole Family, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://denverart museum.org/about/research-reports Digital Meets Culture (2018) Focus on Museums and Games, posted on 21/03/2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.digitalmeetsculture.net/article/focus-on-museumsand-games/ Durbin, G. (no date) User Generated Content on Museum Websites, accessed on 14/03/2017 but no longer available online Fantoni, S.F., Jaebker, K. and Leason, T. (2014) Participatory Experiences in Art Museums: Lessons from Two Years of Practice, Museums and the Web 2014, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://mw2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/participatoryexperiences-in-art-museums-lessons-from-two-years-of-practice/ Gilman, B.I. (1918) Museum Ideals, Boston: Museum of Fine Art Gorgels, P. (2018) Rijksmuseum Mobile First: Rijksstudio Redesign and the New Rijksmuseum App, Museums and the Web, April 2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://mw18.mwconf.org/paper/rijksmuseum-mobile-first-redesign-rijksstudio-thenew-rijksmuseum-app/ Gutwill, J.P. and Allen, S. (2010) Group Inquiry at Science Museum Exhibits, San Francisco: Exploratorium Janes, R.R. (2009) Museums in a Troubled World: Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse? London: Routledge Katrikh, M. (2018) Creating Safe Spaces for Visitors and Staff in Museum Programs, Journal of Museum Education, 43(1), pp. 7–15 Kidd, J. (2014) Museums in the New Mediascape, Farnham: Ashgate

194 Developing the participative experience

Kidd, J. and Cardiff, R. (2017) A Space of Negotiation: Visitor Generated Content and Ethics at Tate, Museum and Society, 15(1), March, pp. 43–55, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies/museumsociety/volumes/ volume-15-2017 Korza, P., Bacon, B.S. and Assaf, A. (2005) Civic Dialogue, Arts and Culture: Findings from Animating Democracy, Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts Larson, L. (2017) Engaging Families in the Galleries Using Design Thinking, Journal of Museum Education, 42(4), pp. 376–384 MHM (2005) Never Mind the Width, Feel the Quality, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https:// mhminsight.com/articles/never-mind-the-width-5088 Munro, J.L., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Hughes, M. (2008) Environmental Interpretation Evaluation in Natural Areas, Journal of Ecotourism, 7(1), pp. 1–14 Nielsen, J (2006) Participation Inequality: Lurkers vs Contributors in Internet Communities, posted on 09/10/2006, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nngroup.com/articles/ participation-inequality/ NMNI. (2018) Ulster Museum Opens New ‘Troubles Gallery’, National Museums Northern Ireland, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nmni.com/news/ulster-museum-opensnew-troubles-galleryPacker, J. and Ballantyne, R. (2005) Solitary vs. Shared Learning: Exploring the Social Dimension of Museum Learning, Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(2), January, pp. 177–192 Price, S., Jewitt, C., Moussouri, T. and Vomvyla, E. (2015) The Role of Interactive Digital Exhibits in Supporting Interactive Family Interaction, University College London: unpublished research paper Pronk, M. (2015) A Few Questions to . . . Martijn Pronk from the Rijksmuseum, We Are Museums, blog, posted on 14/04/2015, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.wearemuseums. com/a-few-questions-to-martijn-pronk-from-the-rijksmuseum/ Ruberg, B. (2015) Curating with a Click: The Art that Participatory Media Leaves Behind, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://adanewmedia.org/2015/04/issue7-Ruberg/ Russick, J. (2010) Ch 10: Making History Interactive, in McRainey, D.L. and Russick, J. (eds) Connecting Kids to History with Museum Exhibitions, London: Routledge, pp. 219–239 Saha, R. (2019) Digital Engagement Strategies for the 21st Century Museum, posted on 29/04/2019, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://amt-lab.org/blog/2019/4/digitalengagement-strategies-for-the-21st-century-museum Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B.V., Krasny, M.E. and Bonney, R. (2012) Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design, Ecology and Society, 17(2), article 29. Silverman, L. (2010) The Social Work of Museums, London: Routledge Simon, N. (2010) The Participatory Museum, Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0 Simon, N. (2011) Participatory Design and the Future of Museums, in Adair, B., Filene, B. and Koloski, L. (eds) Letting Go: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, Philadelphia: Pew Centre for Arts & Heritage, pp. 18–33 Simon, N. (2012) Voting on Art and Its Surprising Consequences, MuseumTwo blogspot, posted on 10/10/2012, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://museumtwo.blogspot. com/2012/10/voting-on-art-and-its-surprising.html Spink, C. and Morohashi, K. (2020) Reimagining the Visitor Experience: Integrating Insights from Family Visitors, Museums & Heritage Show, 2020, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://youtu.be/32UUwXYCvns

Participative exhibits and activities

195

Stein, R. (2011) Is Your Community Better Off Because It Has a Museum? Final Thoughts about Participatory Culture (Part III), Indianapolis: Museum of Art, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=34408 Vergeront, J. (2013) Creativity and Museums, Museum Notes, 13 March 2013, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://museumnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/creativity-andmuseums.html Walker, K. (2008) Structuring Visitor Participation, in Tallon, L. and Walker, K. (eds) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience, Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, pp. 109–124

H SLOW PARTICIPATION The case of the Baden State Museum Johannes C. Bernhardt

Introduction The museum world is in a process of transformation. On the one hand, potential visitors increasingly diversify in terms of education, origin, age, and lifestyle; on the other hand, the digital revolution is penetrating all areas of life at a rapid pace and is going hand in hand with new forms of behaviour and expectations of visitors to museums. These developments pose new challenges for museums but also open up new possibilities for purposeful interaction with potential user groups. In fact, the traditional tasks of museums – collecting, preserving, researching, exhibiting, and communicating – no longer adequately address the current challenges. It is with good reason that there is a worldwide debate about a new definition of the museum. As a possible answer to this situation I would like to suggest the concept of slow participation. Although the concept may seem uncommon at first, it aims at the synthesis of processes already underway. On the one hand, it has been observed time and again that visitors to museums and exhibitions essentially have an experience of being overwhelmed and on average spend hardly more than 10–20 seconds viewing individual artworks and objects. In order to counter this situation, a real movement has emerged in recent years under the heading of ‘Slow Art’; the aim is to slow down museum visits and to support visitors in the in-depth experience of individual artworks or objects (see Chapter 7). On the other hand, the debate on active engagement and participation of visitors has been ongoing for a long time and aims at opening museums and involving visitors in collaborative, cooperative, or hosted projects. Taken together, slow participation can be understood as a form of participation that engages visitors deeply and long-term in the discussion of museum content and projects.

Slow participation

197

In the following chapter I will look at the Baden State Museum from this perspective. As a major cultural history museum in southern Germany, the house preserves cultural heritage from the Stone Age to the 21st century; in research, projects, and exhibitions, the focus is on linking the cultural heritage of the Baden region with the cultures of the world. The Baden State Museum is known for its large special exhibitions, most recently on such subjects as Ramses, the Etruscans, Mycenae and, on the occasion of its centenary in 2019, ‘Emperor and Sultan. Neighbours in the Heart of Europe 1600–1700’. As a case study, the chapter proceeds in three steps: first, the new museum concept of the Baden State Museum is presented, which aims to make the collections much more accessible; second, the prototype exhibition of this concept Archaeology in Baden, which allows for an in-depth experience of exhibited objects, is examined in more detail; third, there is a discussion of the Creative Collections project, which focuses on the participation of citizens in the further development of the museum. The chapter concludes with a brief exploration of further perspectives.

The new museum concept The Baden State Museum is located in Karlsruhe Palace, which was rebuilt after the evacuation of the collections and extensive destruction during the Second World War. Since a fundamental need for renovation has been identified for many years, the palace will be completely vacated in the coming years and both

FIGURE H.1

Karlsruhe Palace/Baden State Museum.

Source: © Badisches Landesmuseum, Photograph: Schoenen

198 Johannes C. Bernhardt

restored and modernised as one of the major building projects of the state of Baden-Württemberg. This offers the unique opportunity to rethink and further develop the museum as an institution. Therefore, the staff of the Baden State Museum has developed a new museum concept in a lengthy internal process. At the heart of the concept is the accessibility of the collections and a new definition of the visitors. In the current and very densely packed presentations of the Baden State Museum there are about 13,000 exhibits, which are juxtaposed with about 500,000 objects in the depots. In order to change this situation, the concept follows current trends and aims to systematically open the depots and restructure all permanent exhibitions. In the style of libraries, the museum is rethought as an archive of things, where visitors can access all objects of the collections. Therefore, the new format of the Expothek has been developed as the core of the new concept. Like a ‘display depot’, it visibly stores a large number of objects and, as in the reading rooms of libraries, provides direct access to the objects. The visitors are consistently redefined as active users of their own cultural heritage. The new museum concept is embedded in a comprehensive digital strategy. On the one hand, the digitisation of the collections and the building of a digital catalogue is being advanced in order to make the objects searchable and accessible to users. On the other hand, a new system for visitor management has been introduced. The traditional admission ticket is being replaced by a user ID which, after registration, is valid as an annual ticket, allows visits as often as desired and activates a user account. Integrated in the user ID is an NFC chip, which retrieves stored data such as postal codes and language selections and stores previous interactions with objects in the user account. In the future, the user ID will offer ticketing for guided tours or events, the use of lockers and payment in the museum shop and café as well as online reservations.

Archaeology in Baden The permanent exhibition Archaeology in Baden was opened in summer 2019 as the first prototype for the implementation of the new museum concept. The exhibition is focused on prehistoric archaeology and finds from the Baden region. The design was developed with a participative approach. It was conceived by students from the disciplines of architecture, communication design, computer science, and information science from two universities in Konstanz. The central task for those interdisciplinary teams was to divide the exhibition area of around 600 m2 into three rooms and to combine analogue and digital features in a pioneering way. In fact, the entire exhibition is designed to slow down the museum visit and to intensify the interaction between visitors and with the exhibited objects. In the first room, highlights of the collection are presented. When entering the room, users are welcomed by a large screen, which locates visitors on a map

Slow participation

199

using their ID and correlates them with the exhibited finds. Thirteen showcases with highlight exhibits provide an overview of space and orientation in time. The objects range from the Stone Age and the Metallic Revolution to the Celts, Romans, Germanic tribes and Merovingians. The showcases of the 13 highlight objects are equipped with their own screens, which can be activated with the user ID and offer in-depth texts in German and English as well as tracks designed for children. The screens also offer the possibility of loading new content on current research or stories about the objects at any time, so that visitors can both explore the content in depth and return to it on future visits. In the second room there is the Expothek. On both sides of the room there are f loor-to-ceiling showcases with drawers containing around 1,500 objects. In the middle of the room are three media tables, each with four workstations. Always present in the Expothek are Explainers, staff members who assist the visitors in exploring the exhibited objects and hand out the so-called ExpoPhones. Since there are no object labels in the exhibition, the objects can be identified with the ExpoPhones by means of augmented reality and be explored without any restrictions. If the users place the ExpoPhones on one of the media tables, the collected objects can be researched in more detail and games can be played. Above all, however, the infrastructure of the Expothek serves to enable direct contact with the exhibited objects. Using the digital catalogue and the user ID, objects can be booked online, presented at a personal appointment with the Explainers, and in many cases even taken in hand. Finally, registered users have the option of using

FIGURE H.2

Archaeology in Baden – Expothek.

Source: © Badisches Landesmuseum, Photograph: ARTIS – Uli Deck 

200 Johannes C. Bernhardt

a 3D digitisation station and scanning objects together with the Explainers. As the registration of the user ID is valid for one year, users can re-examine the objects as often as they like and completely according to their own interest. In the third room there is the ExpoLab. Three showcases display object ensembles such as the furnishings of a warrior’s grave. Two virtual reality glasses per ensemble allow an immersive experience of the past. When the users put on the virtual reality glasses, the real space dissolves and the object ensembles are put back into their original contexts. In the virtual past, the users experience longer stories such as the events that led to the death of the warrior, or life in a longhouse and the craft of a foundry. In order to make the scenes as accessible as possible and to make them perceptible for groups, monitors are mounted on one wall of the ExpoLab, which transmit in real time what users are currently experiencing in the virtual past. Since the scenes can be freely controlled by the users at any time, they offer another way of slowing down the museum visit and experiencing the objects up close. Archaeology in Baden is a prototype. By focusing on a few highlights, direct contact with all objects of the collection, and immersive contextualisation, it is intended to stimulate an in-depth experience of the exhibited objects. The exhibition is continuously evaluated by the museum’s department for visitor research and has so far been very well received by its users. Despite the rather small space, users often spend several hours there while a segment of regular users has also developed. Above all, however, the now established infrastructure of the digital catalogue, user ID, and Expothek offers a multitude of development opportunities in which the users can directly participate.

Creative Collections The Creative Collections project kicks off at this point. While there is still a lot of rather general talk about digitization in the museum world, the project is based on the concept of ‘Digitality’, which aims from the outset to interweave the analogue and the digital and has been described by Felix Stalder as the nucleus of a new kind of culture. Digital media offer users the opportunity to create their own systems of reference, to use social media to build new communities and to organize the f lood of digital information with the help of algorithmic search engines. This new culture is actually equivalent to the empowerment of users and per se participative: users create their own contexts of meaning. Therefore, the declared objective of the project is to think about digitality and participation in a synthetic way to further develop the digital infrastructure of the museum and to actively involve users in the development of new digital concepts. For this purpose, new participative formats have been introduced since 2018. On the one hand, citizens were invited to apply for membership of the museum’s advisory board via an open call for applications. Since far more citizens applied than there were places available, a broad spectrum of 50 advisory councillors could be selected. In order to work productively with the citizens, a modified

Slow participation

201

approach of ‘Design Thinking’ was used (see Scott Cooper’s chapter for a brief discussion of Design Thinking). The central idea was to put the citizens themselves in the role of concept developers and to support them in developing their own ideas by moderating the creative process. With ten trained staff members of the museum as Design Thinking moderators, the citizens collected already existing ideas in several teams of five to seven participants each and developed a shared idea into a simple prototype. The main focus was on digital applications onsite and online as well as digital citizen science projects. Alongside this, the MuseumCamp format was introduced, which is organised as a barcamp and provides an open forum for discussion about the museum of the future. The first MuseumCamp took place in November 2018 with 90–100 participants putting their own topics and ideas up for discussion and moderating around 30 sessions themselves. In this process, the citizens not only generated an enormous spectrum of ideas but also relationships and real friendships resulted from the purposeful cooperation. The further development of the museum became a joint and long-term project of museum staff and citizens. To continue this process, the museum x was established in 2019. The ‘x’ is meant in a programmatic sense: there are no predetermined answers, instead the focus is on the open question of what the museum of the future should look like and what the ‘x’ is all about. For this reason, museum x is designed as an open space that is accessible free of charge and can be used by citizens for their

FIGURE H.3

MuseumCamp 2018.

Source: © Badisches Landesmuseum, Photograph: Fabry 

202 Johannes C. Bernhardt

own projects and events. It is located in the Museum at the Market Square in the city centre, in order to connect the Baden State Museum with the city and its citizens. In this way, museum x ties in with the debate about ‘third spaces’ and offers a second prototype for the re-conception of the Baden State Museum and the testing of digital concepts. Alongside a first thematic cycle on ‘gaming in the museum’, with workshops and lectures, regular meetings with the citizens’ advisory board and a large number of cooperation events with citizens have been hosted in the museum x. Finally, the first Hackathon was organized in museum x, where 15 teams had 32 hours to develop functional prototypes based on the ideas of citizens from the participatory events.

Concluding thoughts Although slow participation was not decisive in the redesign of the Baden State Museum, it runs like a thread through the new museum concept, Archaeology in Baden and Creative Collections. Since the participative projects have revealed clear needs on the part of citizens for the personalisation of the museum experience, the networking of object data and for playful approaches such as escape rooms, several new digital formats are currently being implemented. To conclude, I want to present a few more perspectives that have emerged from the work done so far. On the one hand, the digital infrastructure of the Baden State Museum offers ideal conditions for citizen science projects. In principle, citizen science can be understood as another form of slow participation that brings together museum staff and interested citizens, each with their own backgrounds, skills, and contributions. In research-oriented museums of natural history, projects for data collection or processing of collections have proven to be particularly effective and can easily be transferred into digital crowdsourcing projects. In cultural history museums there are now also interesting examples such as the crowdsourcing project MicroPasts at the British Museum (see https://crowdsourced.micropasts. org/), but overall, approaches of citizen science are much less widespread in this context. This undoubtedly has to do with the very different premises of the concept of science. While the natural sciences are oriented towards the collection and classification of exact data, the humanities are always concerned with content that requires interpretation. Following numerous workshops with citizens and professionals, it therefore seems appropriate not to simply adapt the term ‘citizen science’ but to replace it with the term ‘citizen humanities’, to develop it programmatically and to focus on the digital facilitation of dialogue about the objects. On the other hand, the identified needs of citizens lead almost by themselves to the potentials of artificial intelligence. If there is a lot of discussion about the possible use of AI systems for user or mood analysis, AI systems can also be placed entirely at the service of the users to support them to deal with objects in depth. For example, an AI system can serve as a recommendation system,

Slow participation

203

that accesses external databases based on definable interests or user accounts and compiles additional information on objects. Users of the museum collections are thus provided with a basis for their own curating and can actively participate in the further development of the museum data. Moreover, in the development of AI, decisive progress has been made in the generation of comprehensible narratives. AI systems can place selected objects or self-curated objects in a meaningful context or at least make recommendations for additional material, so that users can place the objects in a scientific, narrative, or creative context according to their own interests. In this way, automatic centricity on each individual visitor can be achieved and the slow participation approach can be developed further in the direction of true co-creation. Finally, the COVID 19 crisis has given new urgency to the question of the ‘digital museum’. In fact, the disruption of museum work has catapulted the digital from an additional task to the only remaining channel for communication with the audience. In this laboratory situation, museums have developed a great variety of concepts and some successful new formats. However, the crisis has also shown that it will still take some time to integrate museums in the culture of digitality and that often the usual work is simply continued by digital means. In any case, the current situation helps to bring the criteria for a relevant museum in terms of digitality more clearly into focus. On the one hand, it should offer a digital platform for dealing with current topics in rapid response scenarios and for positioning their own content affirmatively, critically, or playfully. On the other hand, the experience of a museum cannot be replaced by the simple presentation of content on the internet, the digital platform must also offer a social and emotional experience, for example by integrating social media or real interactions. Finally and foremost, the platform should offer an environment for dialogue between the museum and its users as well as amongst the users themselves, both through relevant content and direct channels of communication. Slow participation, rapid response, and dialogue. The contours of the digital museum are already visible – the future is now!

I JOINT CREATIVITY FOR DEMOCRATIC TRANSFORMATIONS IN MUSEUMS Kirsten Drotner

Introduction Creativity is a buzzword in many policy documents of the early 21st century. The concept is taken as a solution to a range of pressing societal transformations, from climate change and work conditions, to technological shifts and new educational demands. For example, in the USA an inf luential policy-led Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) defines ‘learning and innovation skills’ as a key outcome for future students, and it identifies these skills as creativity and innovation, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration – the so-called ‘4 Cs’ (P21, no date). Similarly, in 2018 a report commissioned by the World Economic Forum stated that by 2022, ‘skills such as creativity, originality and initiative, critical thinking, persuasion and negotiation will .  .  . retain or increase their value’ (Centre, 2018: ix). Yet, reality checks within the spheres of work, education, and politics indicate that creativity is difficult to implement and act on, so most day-to-day processes continue along well-trodden paths. The divergence between policy visions and everyday practices does not invalidate calls to step up on creativity in order to tackle large-scale societal transformations. But it may invite a ref lection on where to look for the germination of creative processes. The key argument of this chapter is that we need to consider the cultural sector and civil society as key catalysts of creativity that fosters democratic change. The cultural sector is key because it offers tools of meaningmaking that are fundamental to people’s understanding of how the world is – and could be (Wertsch, 1998). Civil society is key because it feeds on and fosters ordinary people’s resources of collaboration to tackle real-world problems in a democratic way (Dahlgren, 2006). Furthermore, by studying how the two spheres cross-pollinate we may learn important lessons on how to advance creative processes for democratic change in other sectors of society. Such studies are key because they underpin how meaning-making visions can be turned into

Joint creativity

205

practice and because they can demonstrate cultural resources as fundamental to democracy, not as an appendix to social and political processes. Based on an outline of recent theories of creativity, the chapter exemplifies how museums may foster joint creativity for democratic transformations.

Museums and democratic transformations There are a number of reasons why museums are good places to start looking for cultural cross-pollination. First, many museums are founded on principles of public value and on being in the service of a common good. These principles imply an attention to what goes on beyond the museum walls and relate museum activities to wider societal issues. Second, together with libraries, museums are amongst the cultural institutions that are most widely distributed in society. This position means that museums hold the potential to know and interact with civilsociety practices that are close to local communities. Third, museums possess holdings that will often represent perspectives on the world that differ from everyday experience, be it abstract art, artefacts from the past, or from ‘exotic’ areas. This otherness of representation can form an opening for people to imagine different versions of reality and modes of experience diverging from what they take for granted. Taken together, the reasons indicate that fostering creativity in museums is not merely a question of museums being more user-friendly or more responsive to individual visitors’ changing needs and demands. It is basically about museums being catalysts of creative, democratic practices. The reasons also indicate that museums are well positioned to play this role. This is because many are attuned to public value and wider societal issues while at the same time being responsive to local communities and their different conditions of operation. But the main reason that museums can ignite creative transformations is that their substance, their holdings or objects, are meaning-making ‘machines’ that have the potential to prompt leaps of imagination and challenge assumed notions of how the world works. Still, many museums are far from realizing their potential of applying social creativity for democratic transformation. It takes both theoretical insight and sustained strategy development for museums to do so. Understanding what creativity is about forms a good, theoretical ballast.

What is joint creativity? The root of the term creativity is the Latin word creare, which means to form or bring into being. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as ‘the faculty of being creative; ability or power to create’ (Oxford, 2010: no page number). While the definition is somewhat circular, the noun implies an ability to generate something new, even useful, whether the new is knowledge, practices, or products. Importantly, creativity may involve coupling existing elements in unexpected ways or generating something never seen before. The first form of

206

Kirsten Drotner

creativity is sometimes referred to as everyday creativity, or ‘little-c creativity’ while the latter form of creativity is called ‘Big-C creativity’ (Runco and Richards, 1997; Gardener, 1993). Scholarly interest in creativity emerged in the late 19th century and, until recently, psychologists have led the way with studies on artists, scientists, or inventors and their individual abilities leading to ‘big C’ breakthroughs. In the last decades, disciplines such as anthropology, pedagogy, and sociology have helped widen the scholarly interest in creativity. Today, focus is very much on understanding how most people practice ‘little c’ in their everyday lives. Rather than defining creativity as an inborn trait for the few, much current research sees creativity as a joint practice for the many. It is a collaborative mode of cocreation tweaking routines and disbanding what we take for granted, thus allowing new perspectives and processes to emerge. The more recent theories of joint creativity are very relevant for museums which acknowledge their commitment to help foster democratic resources of societal engagement. First, since everybody possesses creative potentials, it means that museums can help realise these potentials without losing touch with a wide range of audiences. Second, since creativity may unfold as joint practices of problem-solution, it means that museums can develop creative processes as a means of interacting with the world beyond the museum. Third, since creativity develops through collaborative processes of co-creation, where participants generate new ideas and explore new ways of doing things together, it means that museums may be better facilitators of creative learning than schools. This is because participants do not define creative activities as ‘real’, that is curricular, learning, so they are less constrained by searching for existing or ‘correct’ solutions. Last, but not least, since creativity is a particular way of acting upon the world, and not a domain-specific experience, it means that all types of museum may join, irrespective of their holdings (art, culture, nature, science). While professional insights into recent theories of joint creativity are important for museums engaged in processes of societal transformation, the decisive aspect is how museums transform these insights into practices that can mobilise the democratic potentials of creative co-creation. Results drawn from empirical case studies can operate as eye-openers of such sustained strategy development.

Joint creativity in museums: what is the evidence? Over the past two decades, a number of projects and programmes have focused on fostering joint creativities in museums (Norris and Tisdale, 2014). National and international funding bodies and organisations have subsidised networking, exploration of best practices, and professional capacity building. For example, The Creative Museum was a three-year strategic partnership (2014–2017) funded via Erasmus+ Key Action 2 as part of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. ‘Capitalising on the emergence of new and democratizing digital technologies’, the project aimed ‘to extend the language of

Joint creativity

207

engagement through the medium of accessible, customisable, and personal digital experiences’. The means were to advance collaboration with maker communities and cultural industries and to document and share best practices (Creative, no date). Partners involved museums and a library as well as consultancy services and a makerspace. On a national level, the American Alliance of Museums hosted a national convention in 2020 on ‘Museums and Creative Ageing’ based on ongoing initiatives resulting from a National Endowment for the Arts study of 2001–2005 on creativity and ageing. The aim of the study was ‘measuring the impact of professionally conducted community based cultural programs on the general health, mental health, and social activities of older persons’ (Cohen, 2006: 1). It documented the positive health effects of community-based arts programmes including activities at art galleries and museums. In the UK, the National Museum Directors’ Conference (NMDC) commissioned a study amongst its members in 2003 to ‘seek out and identify creativity in other areas of educational, social and economic activities that are particular to Britain’s NMDC sector’ (NMDC, 2004: 46). Cataloguing an array of activities, the report proposes an ability of museums and galleries ‘to create social capital, educating and empowering individuals and groups alike, creating networks and stimulating dialogue . . . thereby enhancing both individual fulfilment and, through their contributions to the creative industries and broader economy, the well-being of the nation’ (NMDC, 2004: 2). While general conclusions cannot be drawn based on a few examples, the cases described earlier do indicate some key dilemmas in current practices and priorities. Overall policy discourses strongly inf luence why museums develop creative initiatives in the first place. As indicated in my introduction, the notion of creativity is strongly bound up with neoliberal discourses, where creative learning is seen as a lever of economic growth through innovation. But the notion of creativity also taps into Enlightenment discourses of citizens’ democratic rights to be exercised through productive engagements with different spheres of life, be it art, nature, or culture. So, when developing creative practices, museums navigate claims of economic value and public value. This exercise may lessen transparency for participants, if museum professionals are not absolutely clear about their aims. Another key dilemma is for whom museums develop creativity. The examples described indicate that initiatives are variously directed at (new) audiences and at museum professionals. This variation points to a dilemma of function and substance. Naturally, creative practices should differ according to their function as levers of democratic audience engagement or organisational change. When projects attempt to embrace both, they may risk attaining less than expected because they cannot precisely define which creative aspects they wish to focus on. Last, but not least, there is a dilemma of research. While a number of projects note that they are research-based, it is less than clear how research-based knowledge on creativity informs and is integrated into existing initiatives. For

208

Kirsten Drotner

example, the US study on creativity and ageing involved no in-depth analysis and evaluation of the creative processes with which participants engaged, and its indicators of success were measures of improved health. Insufficient integration of research on joint creativity risks diminishing museums’ options of effective strategy developments, since the knowledge base for these developments remains slim.

Focus on the processual nature of joint creativity If museums are to develop strategies that can catalyse the democratic potentials of creative co-creation, they need to navigate the dilemmas described earlier. To do so, museums would do well to form sustained interdisciplinary partnerships fostering creative processes that are both theory-driven and practice-based. Examples from two research and development (R&D) programmes that I have directed may serve as exemplars of why museums need to develop robust strategies on research-based studies integrating a focus on the processual nature of joint creativity. In 2009–2015, the R&D programme DREAM (Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials) conducted a number of studies on creative learning at what we termed semi-formal learning sites (DREAM, no date; Drotner et al., 2008; Drotner and Schrøder, 2010). The GLAM sector offers a raft of such sites where participants, often students, are involved in activities beyond the usual curricular confines of school yet acknowledged as learning activities by all involved. In one PhD project, we co-developed learning materials, including an app, to be used at a Danish Science Centre, Experimentarium, as part of a theme on energy (Simonsen, 2016). The app guided groups of students to collaborate on real-world challenges addressed at various kiosks, and the groups subsequently discussed their solutions with a young Experimentarium ‘pilot’. The science centre selected the challenges, which included exercises that helped students imagine unexpected solutions (for example: no electricity at certain parts of the week, no access to plastic). The app exercises acted as so-called ‘scaffolds’ for students’ collaborative co-creation. In learning theory, scaffolds are noted as particularly important in supporting creative processes because they limit certain options so that creative energy can be more focused (Wood et al., 1976). The scaffolds helped students come up with innovative solutions that not only challenged received notions of sustainable energy provision but also challenged the pilot’s prescribed solutions. The study documents that museums can operate as important sites of joint creativity for democratic transformations. Students deliberated their divergences and juggled different ideas along the way, and they expressed pride in arguing for ‘their’ solutions against a professional member of staff. The study also provides an important alternative to technology-led creative projects because it demonstrates that joint creativity is most successful when the creative process is defined by its substance and aims, not by technological devices.

Joint creativity

209

In 2016–2020, a Danish national R&D programme, Our Museum, helped advance cultural citizenship through research-based co-creation and evaluation of new museum engagements (Our Museum, no date). One of the 12 PhD programme projects co-designed and evaluated a new permanent exhibition at Limfjordsmuseet, a natural and cultural history museum in Northern Jutland, Denmark (Madsen, 2019). Based on studies documenting the deep social nature of museum visits, the design process highlighted that playful wonder and ref lection are key tools of joint creativity and knowledge formation. Designing for cultural citizenship involves serendipitous wayfinding and explorative activities that offer social meeting grounds, stimulating hands-on practices and joint deliberation. The evaluation of audience engagements at the exhibition demonstrates that joint creativity is most successful when playful wonder around the ‘strange’ holdings is combined with options of dialogue and what Donald Schön calls ‘ref lection in action’ (Schön, 1983). Such dialogues and ref lections offer important building blocks of democratic transformation. This is because they reach beyond individual experience and customized participation, demonstrating both the options and obstacles of public value and a common good.

Creativity as a lever of strategy development for museums The many studies conducted as part of the DREAM and Our Museum programmes document the validity for museums of attending to processes of joint creativity through research-based approaches that also involve evaluation. What we find is that such approaches offer important tools that strengthen audiences’ creative resources as well as strategy development in museums. Designing for creativity and implementing results of its evaluation ref lect back on museum organisation, raising questions about how staff integrate creativity into their interactions with society and how they can collaborate in new ways within and across disciplines and departments. For example, we found that leading museum audiences’ creative processes challenges established professional identities. Museum guides and other staff members interacting with audiences are traditionally the ones in the know who take charge and set limits. As noted earlier, joint creativity needs careful professional scaffolding to be successful, and this means balancing seeming chaos and order, moments of letting go and times of assuming authority. To master such balancing acts, museum staff needs training – and training needs leadership. In that sense, challenges of creativity are also potential options to reconsider conventional modes of organization and capacity building.

References Centre for the New Economy and Society (2018) The Future of Jobs Report 2018, Geneva: World Economic Forum, accessed on 30/6/2020 at: www.weforum.org/reports/ the-future-of-jobs-report-2018

210

Kirsten Drotner

Cohen, G.D. (2006) The Creativity and Aging Study: The Impact of Professionally Conducted Cultural Programs on Older Adults. Final Report, Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEACreativity-and-Aging-Cohen-study.pdf Creative Museum, The. (no date), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://creative-museum.net Dahlgren, P. (2006) Doing Citizenship: The Cultural Origins of Civic Agency in the Public Sphere, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(3), pp. 267–286 DREAM (no date), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.dream.dk/?q=en Drotner, K., Jensen, H.S. and Schrøder, K.C. (eds) (2008) Informal Learning and Digital Media, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars’ Publishing Drotner, K. and Schrøder, K.C. (eds) (2010) Digital Content Creation: Creativity, Competence, Critique, New York: Peter Lang Gardener, H. (1993) Seven Creators of the Modern Era, in Brockman, J. (ed) Creativity, New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 28–48 Madsen, K.M. (2019) Explorative Museum Experiences: A Collaborative Experience Design Process for Explorative Museum Exhibitions. PhD thesis, Aalborg: Aalborg University, accessed on 30/06/20 at: https://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/udforskende-oplevelseri-museet-en-kollaborativ-oplevelsesdesignNMDC (2004) Museums and Galleries: Creative Engagement, London: National Museum Directors’ Conference, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/ media/documents/publications/creative_engagement.pdf Norris, L. and Tisdale, R. (2014) Creativity in Museum Practice, London: Routledge Our Museum (no date), accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://ourmuseum.dk The Oxford English Dictionary (7th ed.) (2012), Oxford: Oxford University Press P21 (no date) P21 Network, Washington, DC: P21, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www. battelleforkids.org/networks/p21 Runco, M.A. and Richards, R. (1997) Eminent Creativity, Everyday Creativity and Health, Greenwich, CT: Ablex Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books Simonsen, C. (2016) Fra skrappe moster til facilitator: Et studie af skoleelevers kreative læring ved brug af mobile medier på et science center [From Tough Aunt to Facilitator: Studying Students’ Creative Learning at a Science Centre through the Use of Mobile Media]. PhD thesis, Odense: University of Southern Denmark/DREAM Wertsch, J.V. (1998) Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976) The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), pp. 89–100

J A CASE STUDY ON DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY, AI, AND PARTICIPATION AT THE NATIONAL PALACE MUSEUM, TAIPEI Hsiao-Te Hsu

Introduction The advancement of technology is a core focus of the National Palace Museum (NPM), particularly its potential roles in museum education. NPM is committed to integrating the arts and technology, to help audiences gain insight into the rich cultural heritage of the museum through diversified and interdisciplinary perspectives. In recent years, the NPM has further integrated new media art into its curatorial practices and educational programs and organized several multimedia exhibitions and outreach programs in various locations in Taiwan and overseas. These projects have been remarkably successful and garnered numerous international accolades, including the American Alliance of Museum’s (AAM) MUSE Awards; ICOM CECA’s Best Practice; Museum and the Web’s GLAMi Award; and Worldfest Houston International Film Festival’s Remi Awards. The NPM has also gradually expanded its digital collection and implemented a variety of digital application projects, taking its cultural artefacts into the limitless realm of digital technology and enabling the NPM’s digital applications to be seen and recognized internationally. Currently, the NPM’s exploration of digital technology focuses primarily on new media art, using mediums such as immersive theatre, virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, and interactive installations, to make important cultural artefacts, including rare books, paintings, calligraphy, antiquity, and ancient manuscripts more accessible to contemporary audiences. These mediums both unlock the material restrictions of ancient artefacts and render the aesthetics of the NPM’s collection through immersive, multi-sensory and interactive experiences, allowing the NPM to revitalize and reinterpret its collection, as well as open up new possibilities for museum education (Hsu, 2019: 23–24).

212

Hsiao-Te Hsu

Applying digital technology and cross-disciplinary collaboration Museums are cultural spaces for life-long learning. In addition to the traditional functions of collecting, conservation, communication, research and exhibition, 21st-century museums are redefining their roles and adapting to today’s versatile environments, reinstating themselves as participative and communicative cultural hubs and platforms for creativity and knowledge (ICOM, 2019). This also demands that museums become more interactive, f lexible, and more audience and community oriented. In 2019, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) began to promote new diversified methods to attract those outside core audiences. In 2020, ICOM proposed concepts of ‘diversity and inclusion’, stressing the importance of broadening audiences alongside sustaining the core audience base. Museums in Taiwan have also begun to integrate resources and crossdisciplinary expertise to jointly promote a ‘creative digital’ spirit. In addition to developing themed exhibitions based on the cultural context of the artefacts, the NPM also adopts diverse, collaborative models, such as museum-school collaborations or inter-institutional partnerships, to respond to local culture or contemporary issues. By conducting research on local cultures and the ecological environment, collaborating with local cultural workers or contemporary artists, and creating multiple dialogues through digital technology, the collections are presented in novel and diversified ways. With these approaches, the NPM is able to further engage modern audiences and expand the inf luence of 21st-century museum education. However, we should also ref lect on whether the multimedia projects are being created for the museum’s collections or purely for the sake of applying new technologies. In other words, are we choosing the appropriate technology for a specific artefact; or selecting an artefact for a specific technology? After years of experimenting with both, a set of rules has been developed. In principle, the NPM’s new media projects are developed according to audience segmentation and consider the type of content or display that different audience groups need. Audiences are segmented into two major groups: the first being younger audience groups and audiences from remote or rural areas. The new media displays and exhibitions created for this group incorporate highly interactive and immersive features, and use the latest technology to provide digital experiences for audiences of all ages, ultimately creating a digital museum for all. The other type is created for the general audience and focuses on the characteristics and historical background of the artefacts. These multimedia displays are knowledge-oriented and aim to provide entertaining insights into the rich cultural heritage of the museum’s collection. The following introduces various digital educational outreach projects and AI participatory services implemented by the NPM’s Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services.

National Palace Museum, Taipei

213

Structural shifts in response to new trends To engage the younger generation, the NPM established a ‘Children and Youth Affairs Promotion Advisory Council’ (referred to as the Youth Advisory Council) in 2018, consisting of young professionals from academic fields and industries related to the internet, new media art, digital education, and other innovative technologies. The NPM also organized ‘Youth Representative Elections’, in which two youth museum representatives – one of them also a participant in the first NPM Youth Ambassador Project – were chosen. We hope that through structural shifts in the organization and the input of professional, diversified youth council members, the NPM will make substantial progress in devising and implementing youth-friendly policies to bridge the gap between young people and the museum (NPM, 2018a). The NPM’s policies for engaging younger audiences include: 1

2

Digitization, adopting universal design, mobilization (actively entering the community), internationalization, and promoting cultural equality (taking care of the minority and disadvantaged). Flip innovation strategy: •

•

•

Focus on creating digital interactive experiences, learning methods, and spaces that resonate with the younger generations, spurring their interest in learning about the NPM’s collections. Expanding audience participation through open digital platforms: building digital online exhibition platforms; combining digital technologies and the expertise of private enterprises; and opening up the NPM’s online curatorial platforms, allowing both foreign and domestic audiences to become a curator of the NPM’s virtual museum and curate their own exhibitions. Revitalizing the NPM’s educational outreach programs by integrating innovative elements: new features, new media, new technologies and creative elements with the NPM’s educational outreach activities.

Using AI, VR, AR, MR, immersive theatres, and interactive installations to create engaging museum experiences for younger audiences Before inviting young audiences to experience the museum, we first considered how usage habits and everyday demands have changed due to the prevalence of digital technology. In response, the NPM used AI, virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, immersive theatre and interactive multimedia to create museum experiences that draw young people to visit. The following introduces recent projects executed by the NPM.

214

Hsiao-Te Hsu

5G technology and artificial intelligence In 2019, Friends through Culture: A Special Exhibition on Elegant Paintings introduced famous elegant gatherings that took place in history and interesting scenarios from these gatherings. With 5G technology, we could combine augmented reality, image recognition and artificial intelligence to animate scenes of the literati improvising in front of the actual paintings with the ‘Elegant Encounters – AR In-Gallery Guide’, making it easier for the public to engage. Audiences wear smart glasses to appreciate how ancient scholars show affection for one another through poetry and song, just as modern people build networks and bond with one another through information technology (NPM, 2019a).

Immersive audio guide applications In 2017, the NPM launched ‘Treasures Lost in Time – Immersive Audio Guide APP’. Users form teams, travel in time and meet different challenges as teenage detectives or cub scouts. Players listen to the guide, observe the artefacts, and discuss together to solve the puzzles. It takes around 45 minutes to complete ( NPM, 2017).

QR code as helpful tools during museum visits The NPM displays QR codes inside the galleries so visitors can retrieve additional information from their mobile devices, including endearing QR codes to provide auxiliary information on popular artefacts such as the Jadeite Cabbage, Mao Gong Ding (Cauldron of Duke of Mao), and the Meat-shaped Stone.

Augmented reality The Universal World of Ferdinand Verbiest (Kunyu Quantu interactive installation) Around 400 years ago, Ferdinand Verbiest illustrated the Universal Map of the World (Kunyu Quantu) and the Illustrated Explanation of the World to impart geophysical knowledge of the world to Emperor Kangxi. Now in the NPM collections, the museum used augmented reality technology to provide an eyeopening museum experience to modern audiences. This interactive installation projects the map onto a solid 1.5 meters diameter sphere and uses the Google Tango AR computing platform to scan the map in 3D and calibrate the virtual and physical globes via mobile devices. With this installation, audiences can experience the difference between 17th-century and present-day worldviews. Depictions of rare beasts and natural phenomena from the map enable users to

National Palace Museum, Taipei

215

FIGURE J.1 The Universal World of Ferdinand Verbiest (Kunyu Quantu Interactive Installation). In the centre sits a sphere of Ferdinand Verbiest’s Kunyu Quantu, or Universal Map of the World. Next to it are a replica of the original map and a mobile device which visitors can use to scan the globe and view beasts and natural phenomena of the region through augmented reality.

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

gain a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between humans and nature (NPM, 2019b).

Virtual reality A Journey inside Paintings and Calligraphy – VR Art Exhibition The centrepiece of this VR exhibition was inspired by the Qing Court version of the famous scroll painting Up the River During Qingming. In this VR experience, players work together to help a stranded boat pass through the famed Rainbow Bridge. In the Golden Orchid Restaurant game, the restaurant is short of staff and players must help take the order (NPM, 2019b).

The Spirit of Autobiography The Spirit of Autobiography is the world’s first immersive calligraphy virtual reality experience. Players use a virtual brush to practice writing calligraphy and experience the intensity of wild cursive script (NPM, 2019b).

216

Hsiao-Te Hsu

Up the River During Qingming VR – The Rainbow Bridge. A scene from the Up the River During Qingming VR experience shows the painting’s famous arched rainbow bridge as well as the banks of the river. Rows of shops line both sides of the bridge, while boats moor by the bank waiting to pass through, revealing a bustling scene along the river. FIGURE J.2

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

The Spirit of Autobiography VR. This is a scene from the Spirit of Autobiography VR experience. The background shows the calligraphy work Autobiography by the Tang dynasty monk Huaisu, while an ink dragon emerges from the calligraphy and soars into the sky.

FIGURE J.3

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

National Palace Museum, Taipei

217

Immersive interactive theatres The Tibetan Dragon Sutra immersive interactive installation This projection mapping installation triggers an interactive mechanism by sensing the number of people in the designated area and presents a threestage process that unfolds gradually before the viewers. With this installation, visitors of all ages and nationality are able to viscerally experience the splendour of the Tibetan Dragon Sutra, using an augmented reality display where audiences can view details and learn about the painted Buddhas and deities that embellish the protective covers of the Tibetan Dragon Sutra ( NPM, 2019b).

FIGURE J.4 The Tibetan Dragon Sutra Immersive Interactive Installation. The midnight blue leaves and ornate protection covers of the Tibetan Dragon Sutra are projection mapped onto the three-dimensional display, while golden scriptures projected on surrounding curtains f loat around the space, generating a spiritual atmosphere.

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

Marvels in the Sea immersive interactive theatre Marvels in the Sea is based on the Qing Dynasty paintings Sea Miscellany and Sea Oddities. The interactive theatre is projected on a f loating screen and allows audiences to immerse in the mysterious underwater world in a reclining position. Visitors can also hold fishing lights to interact with sea creatures such as horseshoe crabs, sea snails, crabs, shrimps, etc. (NPM, 2019c).

218

Hsiao-Te Hsu

FIGURE J.5 Marvels in the Sea Immersive Interactive Theater. Children and adults sit on cushions and look up towards the blue f loating screen overhead as if immersed in an underwater world. Viewers also interact with the animated aquatic creatures projected on to the screen using fishing lights.

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

New media art exhibitions A Literary Gathering in Qingshui – NPM New Media Art Exhibition This exhibition reinterprets artefacts from the NPM collection using a selection of multimedia installations, 4K high resolution films, and virtual reality technology and recreates the ambience of an ancient literary garden (NPM, 2019d).

ANiMAL Art Science Nature Society ANiMAL – Art Science Nature Society is a storytelling exhibition, organised in collaboration with the City University of Hong Kong, exploring the animal world from the perspectives of art, science, nature and society. It integrates cultural elements related to animals from the NPM and the City University of Hong Kong, and uses projection mapping, 3D animation, augmented reality, virtual reality, interactive multimedia, and other technologies to explore how humans can harmoniously coexist with other animals and help prevent environmental degradation (NPM, 2019e).

The Epitome of Aesthetics – New Media Art Exhibition The Epitome of Aesthetics – New Media Art Exhibition reinterprets the traditional aesthetics of the NPM’s classic artefacts through new media art. The exhibition

National Palace Museum, Taipei

219

ANiMAL – Art Science Nature Society at the City University of Hong Kong. A sculpture of a mythical creature appears to wander silently through the midst of the exhibition.

FIGURE J.6

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

integrates different aesthetic elements and artefact features, such as colour, proportion, texture, structure, construction, composition, mounting, themes, artistic conception, narrative, technique, style, etc., and renders the aesthetic charm and cultural significance of the museum’s collection through digital technology ( NPM, 2019f ).

4K film and 3D modelling Betwixt Reality and Illusion – Dialogue between the Perceived World and the Physical World is shot in 4K resolution and enhanced by 3D modelling and motion graphic design. The film challenges the audience’s perception and applies theories of physics, mathematics, and psychology to reinterpret the illusionary art of ancient jade artefacts. It is a novel attempt to apply scientific theories to ancient Chinese art (NPM, 2019g).

3D animation Galaxy Adventure of the NPM Guardians is the NPM’s first attempt to incorporate social media stickers and commission a rap theme song for its animation films. By integrating popular images and elements, the NPM seeks to deepen its connection with the public and spur young people’s interest in the museum’s collections ( NPM, 2019h).

220

Hsiao-Te Hsu

Reaching into the rural areas and customized youth courses The Magic STEAM Train Project: the maker movement, experiential learning, and STEAM education In response to Taiwan’s 12-year basic education policy, the NPM incorporates technology in its exploratory educational activities with an emphasis on STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) and integrative interdisciplinary education. The program fosters students’ logical thinking, creativity, practical skills, and ability to share.

Applying 3D and GIS technology in educational outreach programs To engage elementary and middle school students, the NPM incorporated board games, GIS, 3D technology, and picture books into its educational programs and developed a series of self-learning online courses and teaching kits. Through the online courses and educational materials, the NPM seeks to provide comprehensive knowledge of its collections and motivate students to learn about the museum’s rich cultural heritage (NPM, 2019i).

FIGURE J.7 The Magic STEAM Train Project. The main instructor of the ‘Magic STEAM Train Project’ stands in front of the project’s minibus showing elementary school students a 3D printing of the Tri-Jade Ring. To the side, he has erected portable display panels.

Source: Courtesy of the Department of Education, Exhibition and Information Services, National Palace Museum 

National Palace Museum, Taipei

221

NPM hackathon Beginning in 2017, the NPM organized the first museum Hackathon in Taiwan, aiming to encourage youths to form teams and participate in cross-disciplinary projects and use their creativity to transform the museum’s open resources into diversified value-added services (NPM, 2018b).

Effectiveness 1

Each year, NPM commissions independent audience satisfaction surveys. The surveys are distributed according to the proportion of different visitor age groups of the current year. Therefore, the proportion of surveyed visitors is close to that of actual visitors. The box that follows illustrates the survey results in terms of the percentage of the museum audience from younger age groups. Attendance at NPM by younger age groups

 

2016

2017

2018

2019

15–19 yrs 20–29 yrs Total

3.6% 28.0% 31.6%

13.2% 27.9% 41.1%

9.4% 29.5% 38.9%

19.5% 34.4% 53.9%

Source: based on NPM Visitor Survey Results (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)

2

3

4

5 6

7

The surveys reveal that visitors between 15 to 34 years old, and amongst those more accustomed to using digital devices, grew from 31.6% to 53.9% in the past three years. In the SWOT analysis of the 2016 survey, we discovered that the NPM’s ‘multimedia content and displays’ were well-received by visitors and even listed amongst the museum’s competitive advantages (NPM Visitor Survey, 2016). In the 2019 survey of the NPM’s Northern Branch, public recognition for the ‘NPM’s use of multiple digital communication resources in promoting the museum’s collection and cultural heritage’ reached 89.7% (NPM Visitor Survey, 2019). The number of visitors at the 2018 Taichung Flora Expo NPM New Media Art Exhibition (107.11.3–108.4.24) totalled more than 894,000. In 2019, the total visitors of three local digital touring exhibitions organized by NPM (Eco-Rethink: NPM x LYM x NTM Joint Exhibition, Marvels in the Sea – NPM x NMMST Special Exhibition, NPM Rare Books and Documents New Media Art Exhibition) exceeded 416,000 people. In 2019, a total of 8596 visitors experienced the NPM’s Up the River During Qingming VR experience.

222

8

Hsiao-Te Hsu

The NPM organized nine multimedia educational touring exhibitions in 2018 and 12 exhibitions in 2019, with 597,489 visitors in 2018 and 1,600,306 in 2019; thus, the total number of visitors increased by 1,002,817 people within a year.

From the statistics, we may surmise that NPM’s development of diversified digital technology applications has attracted more young audiences to visit the museum, or to virtually or physically participate in cultural activities organized by the museum.

Concluding thoughts As a national museum, the NPM has in the past three years responded to the different approaches promoted by the International Council of Museums (ICOM), such as transforming museums into cultural hubs, new methods for a new public, and diversity and inclusion. In response to these ideals, the NPM put forward the core concept of ‘transforming the museum into a space for social action through digital technology’ and expanded cross-disciplinary collaborations to serve a wider audience. The NPM further proposed strategies and concepts such as ‘Old is New’ and ‘Digital NPM’. Based on its abundant collection resources and in the hopes of engaging and motivating young people to visit, the NPM has developed and provided spatial environments, audience services, exhibition displays, and educational activities that meet the physical and cognitive demands of young audiences. With these efforts, we hope to offer young people more vibrant and creative cultural experiences, and ultimately deliver the goal of ‘educating through entertainment’ or ‘edutainment’. After several years of extensive research and development, testing, and implementation, we found that these approaches have indeed been effective in engaging younger audiences. With the Taiwan government’s vision to facilitate young people’s participation in national policy making, the NPM has also established active and innovative aesthetic solutions and participative spaces for the younger generation. In the future, the NPM will continue on its mission to collaborate with tech companies and universities to develop a full range of digital services that meet the expectations of the younger generation and expand the impact of digital technology and AI in the museum sector, hoping to draw more young people to visit museums and appreciate the ingenuity of its collections.

References Hsu, H. (2019) The Post-Digitization Wonderland – The Development of New Media Art at the NPM, paper presented at Neo Virtual x Open Reality of Tomorrow: International Symposium on Art and Technology in Museums of the 21st Century. National Palace Museum, 16 December 2019. Taipei: National Palace Museum

National Palace Museum, Taipei

223

ICOM (2019) Museums as Cultural Hubs: The Future of Tradition, International Council of Museums, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://icom.museum/en/news/imd 2019-museums-as-cultural-hubs-the-future-of-tradition/ NPM (2017) Kids Multimedia Guide, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.npm.gov.tw/Article.aspx?sNo=02007052 NPM (2018a) National Palace Museum Children and Youth Affairs Promotion Consultation Council, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www. npm.gov.tw/Article.aspx?sNo=02009964 NPM (2018b) 2018 NPM Hackathon, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.npm.gov.tw/Article.aspx?sNo=04010375 NPM (2019a) Friends Through Culture: A Special Exhibition of Paintings on Elegant Gatherings, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https:// theme.npm.edu.tw/exh108/ElegantGatherings/en/page-1.html NPM (2019b) A Carnival of Fantasies: A Special Exhibition of 21st Century Museums at the Southern Branch of the NPM, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://carnival-of-fantasies. com.tw/main.html NPM (2019c) Marvels in the Sea – NPM & NMMST Special Exhibition, NMMST Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nmmst.gov.tw/chhtml/newsdetail/221/ 4291/0 NPM (2019d) A Literary Gathering in Qingshui – NPM Painting and Calligraphy New Media Art Exhibition, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://theme.npm.edu.tw/exh106/npmTaichung/en/index.html NPM (2019e) ANiMAL -Art Science Nature Society, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://theme.npm.edu.tw/exh108/Animal/en/ index.html NPM (2019f ) The Epitome of Aesthetics – New Media Art Exhibition, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://theme.npm.edu.tw/ exh108/210/ NPM (2019g) Betwixt Reality and Illusion – Dialogue between the Perceived World and the Physical World, National Palace Museum YouTube Channel, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIokRoQEYKk NPM (2019h) Galaxy Adventure of the NPM Guardians, National Palace Museum iPalace Channel, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: http://ipalace.npm.edu.tw/Video/Show/82? category=# NPM (2019i) NPM Online Courses, National Palace Museum Official Website, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.npm.gov.tw/zh-TW/Article.aspx?sNo=04010595 NPM Visitor Survey (2016) Survey Report on Audience Satisfaction at the Northern and Southern Branches of the National Palace Museum, 2016 NPM Visitor Survey (2017) Survey Report on Audience Satisfaction at the Northern and Southern Branches of the National Palace Museum, 2017 NPM Visitor Survey (2018) Survey Report on Audience Satisfaction at the Northern and Southern Branches of the National Palace Museum, 2018 NPM Visitor Survey (2019) Survey Report and Analysis on Audience Satisfaction and the Economic and Social Impact of the National Palace Museum, 2019

K DESIGNING FOR INTERPERSONAL MUSEUM EXPERIENCES Anders Sundnes Løvlie, Lina Eklund, Annika Waern, Karin Ryding, and Paulina Rajkowska

Introduction What does the age of participation look like from the perspective of a museum visitor? Arguably, the concept of participative experiences is already so deeply ingrained in our culture that we may not even think about it as participation. Museum visitors engage in a number of activities, of which observing the exhibits is only one part. Since most visitors come to the museum together with someone else, they spend time and attention on the people they came with, and often the needs of the group are given priority over individual preferences (McManus, 1989). Thus visitors will be socialising with other visitors in their group, looking after their children, visiting the museum café, shopping in the gift shop, etc. They are also engaged in things that lie outside the museum’s offer, such as googling for information, exchanging messages and updates with their peers, taking selfies and posting them on social media, playing games, and so on. According to Blud, ‘interaction between visitors may be as important as interaction between the visitor and the exhibit’ (Blud, 1990: 43). The museum visit is (always already) a highly participative experience, with or without the museum’s blessing and not necessarily to its benefit. How can museums tap into these activities – and make themselves relevant to visitors? The first thing to notice is that participation, from this perspective, does not necessarily take the form of a ‘dialogue’ between the museum and its visitors. Rather, the dialogue takes place between visitors who are interacting with each other. The museum is merely the context, the pretext or perhaps the backdrop for that interaction. While this may sound like a pessimistic perspective for museum curators, in this chapter we will try to approach this constructively, as a design opportunity. Could it be productive for the museum to consider itself not only as a disseminator of knowledge but also as the facilitator of participative activities between visitors?

Interpersonal museum experiences 225

In what follows, we will outline a range of practical design projects that serve as examples of this approach. These projects were part of the European Union funded Horizon2020 project GIFT, a cross-disciplinary collaboration between researchers, artists, designers, and many international museums and heritage organisations, exploring the concept of interpersonal museum experiences (see https://gifting.digital/). What the projects have in common is that they build on visitors co-creating and sharing their own narratives in the museum context. We suggest that these projects demonstrate a spectrum of possibilities: from experiences that take place almost without any museum involvement, to those that give museums a role in curating these narratives. First, let us have a closer look at how museum visitors interact with each other.

Interpersonal experiences with/in the museum Museums are social spaces. Visitors go there with friends and family for a day out together (McManus, 1989). As a social leisure activity, reaffirming social relationships is an underlying motivator and this has a significant impact on any visit. Visitors often operate under a form of social contract, a responsibility to their companions to maintain the social framing of the visit. In a recent study we followed groups of friends from Generation Z (in this case, predominantly university students), as they visited Gustavianum, a University history museum located in Uppsala, Sweden (Eklund, 2020). We looked at how social meaning-making occurred as visitors oriented themselves towards the exhibits, creating new meaning of relevance to them as friends. For example, two notebooks by former students from the 1600s and the 1800s were remarked upon by many visitor groups. They marvelled at the masses of notes and ref lected on their own note-taking practices on digital devices. Through ref lecting on the academic practices of old, the visitors were able to reaffirm being students together. Museum visits can be an opportunity to strengthen relationships. During a visit people engage in many different types of sub-activities, seamlessly moving back and forth between social interaction, play, exploration, navigation, reading, and so on while affirming their friendships. Through social recontextualization visitors reinterpret and frame museum artefacts to become relevant to them. Visitors will reference shared histories, memories, and identities such as discussing a student party while looking at a Viking drinking bowl or engaging in the sharing of knowledge between each other rather than reading museum texts. Visitors may go as far as to recontextualize through role play; for example, by enacting the famous prow scene from Titanic in an old Viking ship. Exhibited cultural heritage might be defined by the museum (Calcagno and Biscaro, 2012), yet the audience in turn add new meaning, bringing with them their lived experiences. Through the mundane and every-day, the ancient and thus ‘foreign’ objects are untangled and made sense of; they are recontextualized.

226 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

Humour and play are key mechanisms in this process; making jokes and roleplaying with and through objects and locations supports sociability and engagement with the visit. Recognizing what people do in museums is the first step to creating participative museum experiences.

Participants playing Never Let Me Go in the National Gallery of Denmark, Copenhagen.

FIGURE K.1

Source: Johan Peter Jønsson 

Interpersonal museum experiences 227

Designing for the interpersonal: play and gifting It was like the place came alive a bit more to me. I especially remember one of the first things you said was: ‘Imagine if this is looking back at you’. I felt like all the pictures were staring at me. Never let me go participant, cited in Ryding and Fritsch (2020)

Next, we turn to two designs that facilitate interpersonal experiences in the museum – and through that, help visitors see the museum in a new light. Museums often wish to tap into play and games in order to facilitate new modes of visitor engagement. Play is often a social activity – as are museum visits. However, museums also wish for visitors to spend time exploring and learning about exhibits – often idealised as a contemplative and ‘transformative’ experience (Soren, 2009). Can these contrasting ideals be combined? The design experiment Never let me go ( Ryding, 2020; Ryding and Fritsch, 2020) presents an interesting approach to facilitating experiences that are simultaneously social and introspective. Never let me go is a mobile game for two players, for use in art galleries. One player acts as ‘controller’, taking command of the other player who acts as ‘avatar’. The controller can send a range of commands to the other player, who will

FIGURE K.2

Participant using the Gift app by Blast Theory in Brighton Museum.

Source: Charlie Johnson 

228 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

hear them in headphones. The commands range from ‘Basic commands’ such as ‘Explore’, ‘Follow’, and ‘Wait’, to more ambiguous suggestions such as ‘Become part of this’ or ‘Imagine that this is looking back at you’. Some commands are questions: ‘Can you feel the longing in this?’ The application was tested, with permission, in the National Gallery of Denmark. Trial visitors described it as an intimate experience which sets the interpersonal relationship between the two players up as a lens through which they may achieve a highly personal experience of the museum. Through this, the game also offers the visitors a new way to look at art: ‘It felt stimulating. A way of asking new questions’ (Ryding and Fritsch, 2020). Never let me go was created without any involvement from the museum, as an independent, ref lective design. The app interface is also completely agnostic of the specific museum, so the game can in principle be played in any kind of museum – although it has been designed with art museums and galleries in mind. The interpersonal relation between museum visitors is also the primary focus of the British artists group Blast Theory’s app Gift, which greets museum visitors with the words: ‘You are going to make a gift for someone special. They might be next to you right now, they might be on the other side of the world’. The app asks museum visitors to see the museum through the eyes of their ‘someone special’ and select three objects that they think that person would like to put in a ‘gift’. For each object, they may include a photo of the object and record a personal audio message. The recipient may open the gift at home as a purely digital experience or come to the museum and experience the gift as a small, personalised ‘tour’. The artists compared the app to the practice of making mixtapes with music: ‘Ever made someone a mixtape? How about with objects from a museum?’ Similarly to Never let me go, the users of Gift have described the experience as highly personal, offering them a meaningful way to engage with their personal relationship to a special other but also simultaneously as giving them a fresh perspective on the museum and its exhibits, seeing them with ‘new eyes’ (Spence et al., 2019). Consider, for example, the gift that the teenager ‘Kristin’ made for her mother, a picture of the painting ‘Alice in Wonderland’ by George Dunlop Leslie, along with an audio message explaining why she thought her mother might be interested in this painting: So, this picture is called Alice in Wonderland, from 1879, and the sofa reminded me a lot of grandma’s sofa with the dolls. And the poem says that this is a big sister reading to her little sister, and I think you can imagine me and Leni sitting like this and her reading to me my favourite story. Løvlie et al. (2019) While the gift is a personal message from the giver to the recipient and as such their personal relation is at the heart of the exchange, it also offers them a lens through which to see the museum object – and engage with it on their own terms.

Interpersonal museum experiences 229

FIGURE K.3

Alice in Wonderland. Oil painting by George Dunlop Leslie, c1879.

Source: Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove. Photograph: (Creative Commons CC-BY-SA) 

Gift was created in collaboration with Brighton Museum and has later been commissioned by the Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway, and the Museum of Applied Art in Belgrade, Serbia. The app was created as an independent art piece and is, just as Never let me go, mostly museum-agnostic. However, Blast Theory offers to work on commission to tailor it to specific museums, which allows a slightly more museum-centric perspective than Never let me go.

Museum-curated interpersonal experiences How about the more traditional type of interaction that museum visitors have with museum objects – looking at the objects and reading about them – can this interaction be turned into an interpersonal experience? Image recognition technology has greatly expanded the possibilities for creating mobile guide applications for museums. Apps such as Smartify, Vizgu, and Magnus invite visitors to simply point their smartphone camera at an artwork in the museum, and the app will tell them what they are looking at. However, while it is a trivial task for an algorithm to collect metadata about an artwork from the museum’s database, it is far from trivial to turn this data into an engaging experience for the visitor. This challenge is made greater by the (perhaps disappointing) fact that museum

230 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

visitors spend surprisingly short time studying canonical works of art – typically around 15–30 seconds (Smith et al., 2017). The app One Minute Experience addresses this challenge by presenting the visitor interpretive text about an artwork in the form of a short story that can be read in one minute or less. The app comes with a story editor which helps curators write highly condensed narratives around a series of prompts. But not just curators: Why not also let other voices in? There are communities with interesting stories to tell. What perspective could art students at a local university offer? Or how about folks from the LGBT+ community, ethnic minorities, immigrants, war veterans – or children? Working with Brighton Museum, in November 2019 we invited interested individuals from the museum’s networks to contribute their stories to the app. Through three days of workshops we gathered 24 stories, about a variety of objects from queer fashion to archaeological artefacts and art paintings (see example in Figure K.4a – f ). According to Digital Manager Kevin Bacon, the experiment demonstrated the potential of the app to facilitate community co-production: from past experience I have found that when invited to contribute to a museum tour or exhibition, people from outside of the museum often start writing and speaking as if they are a curator. That is a challenge if you are trying to move away from traditionally curatorial approaches to interpretation, or simply wish to capture an alternate tone of voice. One Minute Experience has the potential to address this problem, particularly if the use of the story editor can be built into a collaborative workshop. Arguably, the One Minute Experience is a more museum-centric experience than Never let me go and Gift. It is the museum that opens up for gathering stories and that also retains some editorial control over which stories will be available for other visitors. However, by guiding users away from adapting the traditional curatorial ‘voice’, the app instead frees them up to be direct and personal, offering them an alibi to tell stories of their own liking, in their own voice, addressing other visitors. A final, related example is the exhibition Your Stories, developed by the Serbian design company NextGame for the National Museum in Belgrade in order to explore how hybrid technologies could bring personal stories into the museum. They invited ordinary citizens to bring mundane objects to the museum to have them 3D scanned. The key instruction was to bring objects that were of great personal importance to them. The 3D scans were recreated as virtual objects, placed in close vicinity to physical museum objects that they, one way or another, could be considered related to. At each exhibit, visitors could scan a code to retrieve a 3D image of the object together with its background story. Again it was the museum that collected and curated this exhibition, this time consisting of both objects and stories. However, an important difference was how

Interpersonal museum experiences 231

(a)

FIGURE K.4A–F Text in the One Minute Experience app, about the painting Gabrielle, Niece of the Artist by Glyn Philpot.

Source: Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove

232 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

(b)

FIGURE K.4B

(Continued)

Interpersonal museum experiences 233

(c)

FIGURE K.4C

(Continued)

234 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

(d)

FIGURE K.4D

(Continued)

Interpersonal museum experiences 235

(e)

FIGURE K.4E

(Continued)

236 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

(f)

FIGURE K.4F

(Continued)

Interpersonal museum experiences 237

Advertisement for the Your Stories exhibition by NextGame and the National Museum in Belgrade.

FIGURE K.5

Source: NextGame Belgrade 

238 Anders Sundnes Løvlie et al.

it created a new relation between regular visitors and the museum: that of being a donor. Being able to add your personal possession to the museum collection was very appealing to visitors. The donors would talk fondly about this experience and continued to stay updated and in touch throughout the process of exhibition design. For regular visitors who had not themselves contributed to the exhibition, the juxtaposition of modern objects and stories with the regular exhibits in the museum’s ancient collection helped recontextualize the museum objects, provoking ref lection on the value that those objects may once have held to their owners.

Concluding thoughts The designs presented in this chapter all have in common that they foreground such meaning-making processes that take place between people rather than between visitors and the museum. From the perspective of a museum curator or educator, this may provoke some concern: Do these designs reduce the museum to merely a backdrop for socialising and play – an interactive stage for relationship work? Our answer is, first of all, that – like it or not – in reality most visitors already prioritise their social interactions. These designs offer ways in which interactions can be interpersonal, while also offering interesting encounters with museum exhibits. Second, some of these designs – Never let me go and Gift – are also quite intimate, inviting people to share experiences on a one-to-one scale with someone special. Thereby, they offer an alternative to the public (or semi-public) types of sharing that take place through social media – allowing for more profound and subtle ways of sharing an encounter with museum exhibits. As such, we believe that designing for interpersonal experiences holds the potential to facilitate visitor experiences that are not just engaging but also deep and meaningful.

Acknowledgements The designs presented in this article are the result of extensive collaboration with more contributors than we can list here. We would like to particularly acknowledge the contributions from Matt Adams, Kevin Bacon, Steve Benford, Dimitrios Darzentas, Ju Row Farr, Bogdan Spanjevic, Jocelyn Spence, Linda Stoltze, Nick Tandavanitj, and Tim Wray. The GIFT project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727040.

References Blud, L.M. (1990) Social Interaction and Learning Among Family Groups Visiting a Museum, Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(1), pp. 43–51 Calcagno, M. and Biscaro, C. (2012) Designing the Interactions in the Museum, International Studies of Management & Organization, 42(2), pp. 43–56. https://doi.org/10.2753/ IMO0020-8825420203

Interpersonal museum experiences 239

Eklund, L. ( 2020) A Shoe Is a Shoe Is a Shoe: Interpersonalization and Meaning-making in Museums. Research Findings and Design Implications, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1767982 Løvlie, A.S. et al. (2019) The GIFT Framework: Give Visitors the Tools to Tell Their Own Stories [online], in Museums and the Web 2019. Boston, MA, USA:Museums and the Web, accessed on 04/04/2019 at: https://mw19.mwconf.org/paper/the-giftframework-give-visitors-the-tools-to-tell-their-own-stories/ McManus, P. (1989) What People Say and How They Think in a Science Museum, in Uzzell, D.L. (ed) Heritage Interpretation, Vol 2: The Visitor Experience, London and New York: Bellhaven Press, pp. 156–165 Ryding, K. (2020) The Silent Conversation: Designing for Introspection and Social Play in Art Museums [online], in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’20. Honolulu, HI: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–10, accessed on 13/05/2020 at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376357 Ryding, K. and Fritsch, J. (2020) Play Design as a Relational Strategy to Intensify Affective Encounters in the Art Museum, in DIS ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Designing Interactive Systems. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: ACM Smith, L.F., Smith, J.K. and Tinio, P.P.L. (2017) Time Spent Viewing Art and Reading Labels, Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 11(1), pp. 77–85 Soren, B.J. (2009) Museum Experiences that Change Visitors, Museum Management and Curatorship, 24(3), pp. 233–251 Spence, J. et al. (2019) Seeing with New Eyes: Designing for In-the-Wild Museum Gifting [online], in Proceedings of ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019). CHI 2019. Glasgow, Scotland: Association for Computer Machinery, accessed on https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3300235

L ON DIALOGUE AND THE MUSEUM AS A SOCIAL SPACE Mette Houlberg Rung

Introduction ‘The first time I saw the picture of Justina, I was just blown away by the idea that she was here before me! As a black person myself, I often get the sense that Danes see the presence of black people as something entirely new in Denmark. But then I look at her and think: You’ve been right here in Frederiksberg Garden before me! It just puts a completely different spin on the history of Denmark for me!’ These words fell in the middle of a cosy chat over coffee on 23 February 2019 in Valby, Denmark. The conversation was about a picture painted in 1857 by the Danish artist Wilhelm Marstrand, portraying two little girls and their black West Indian nanny Justina Antoine. One of the striking aspects of the work concerns the way in which Justina Antoine, despite both her skin colour and her role as a nanny, emerges as the main protagonist of the scene. This is what the woman quoted earlier responded to. But the pleasant chat over coffee and cake was not a spontaneous situation. The conversation was one of many initiated by Statens Museum for Kunst – the National Gallery of Denmark (SMK) as part of its planning of a major exhibition, Danish Golden Age – World-class art between disasters. In preparation for the exhibition, two employees from the museum travelled all over Denmark to hold Coffee and Nuggets sessions – a concept where they met with Danes in their own home, looked at art from the Danish Golden Age and discussed what the works meant to them. The lessons learned from Coffee and Nuggets were then incorporated into so-called ‘conversation starters cards’ – which were part of the interpretive material inside the exhibition. These conversation starters served to provide new and contemporary perspectives on the works and inspired exhibition visitors to engage in conversations about the art. In this chapter, I will focus on how the SMK works with the museum space as a site of social interaction, arguing that dialogue between users, but also dialogues between users and the museum, should be central to contemporary museum

Dialogue and the museum as a social space

241

practices. I will use the example of the Coffee and Nuggets sessions and the conversation starters described earlier while also looking brief ly at a similar, albeit smaller, initiative, Questions for Anna Ancher, which explores the visitor’s sense of wonder and puzzlement while stimulating dialogue between museum and users. Parallel to these cases, I will incorporate empirical evidence and theories that underpin our understanding of the museum setting as a social and dialogic space.

Engaging users in conversation The Coffee and Nuggets sessions and the conversation starters was an initiative, which involved SMK employees visiting a range of different people in their private homes and subsequently using the knowledge and insights arising out of these encounters in the exhibition’s interpretive materials. Specifically, a total of 14 of these informal, yet hosted chats were held throughout Denmark, involving people from widely different backgrounds, mainly found through local community groups on Facebook. With approximately ten attendees at each, these gatherings involved staff bringing along copies of some of the works to be featured in the exhibition. Based on this, the participants would discuss thoughts and feelings prompted by the artworks. The decision to reach out to all of Denmark and involve different people was a deliberate choice. SMK’s strategy for 2018–2021 is headlined SMK for everyone and addresses how SMK, being the national gallery of Denmark, can become more relevant to more people and to a more diverse audience (Statens Museum for Kunst, 2018). The backdrop of this focus resides in the knowledge SMK has accumulated about its users. Approximately 400,000 people visit the museum each year. Roughly half of the visitors come from abroad, while the other half come mainly from Copenhagen and its environs. In addition to this, SMK’s users are young compared to those generally found in museums: 39% are between 14 and 30 years old, compared to 22% across Danish museums (Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen, 2018). The large proportion of young visitors rests on several factors. SMK enjoys excellent collaboration with a range of educational institutions, efforts which are supported by ULK Art Labs, where young people between the ages of 16 and 25 have worked on art projects on a weekly basis since 1998 (www.ulk.dk). To this we may add the many students in Copenhagen who visit the museum in connection with their studies but also swing by for the SMK Fridays events and similar specific initiatives. Finally, many young visitors are tourists visiting Copenhagen (Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen, 2018). Thus, the data available on SMK users demonstrates that older people and people outside the capital are underrepresented in the museum’s visitor statistics. The museum wishes to redress this situation – partly to attract more users and comply with the political injunction to increase earnings, a demand imposed on most Danish museums, but also to embrace its role as an art museum for all of Denmark, ensuring everyone who wants access to art experiences will have that access (Statens Museum for Kunst, 2018). The Coffee and Nuggets initiative was launched with the specific purpose of

242 Mette Houlberg Rung

getting to know older Danes outside the capital better, inviting them to engage with SMK. As an older man explained: ‘I’ve known you [SMK] for 40 years, but after these last two hours I feel that I know you much better” (Ladekarl, 2019). In the sessions, the museum engaged directly with individual participants, listening to their thoughts and concerns, but the overall objective went beyond establishing a closer dialogue with the approximately 120 project participants: it also aimed to use what the museum had learned and transfer it to conversation starters, thereby making the exhibition more relevant to a wide audience.

Participation and enhancing the museum’s relevance The concept of engaging users in dialogue is not new. The last 15 years in particular have seen a growing focus on different forms of participation. Museums have begun to work with outreach, user involvement and co-creation in an effort to be more democratic and socially oriented – and to become more relevant to those who do not already visit the museum (Eriksson et al., 2019; Sørensen, 2015). In 1999, the museologist Stephen Weil voiced how museums were moving away from being about something to being for someone ( Weil, 1999). Today, museums are also about being with someone, a characteristic trait of the culture of participation adopted by many museums in recent years (Rung, 2018: 146). SMK is in the midst of this development, and Coffee and Nuggets and the conversation starter cards were part of it. In addition to targeting older people outside the capital, the project featured content designed to make the exhibition relevant to many. The objective was to collect ‘nuggets’ about Danish Golden Age art as described by participants in Coffee and Nuggets, breaking away from purely art-historical readings while developing contemporary perspectives on the works, thereby helping to make the Danish Golden Age relevant today. As interaction designer Louise Springborg, who initiated the project, states: With the help of users, we can introduce a new layer of ref lection and make the exhibition relevant today, regardless of whether these aspects of relevance concern national sentiments, gender roles, sensuality, social inequality, outlooks on nature, power, international politics and much more. (Ladekarl, 2019) The data on SMK users demonstrates that the museum is currently relevant to very specific groups. In addition to the younger segment, tourists and residents from the Copenhagen region, 49% of all users of SMK hold a master’s degree or similar long-cycle post-secondary degree (Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen, 2018), compared to the general population of Denmark, where only 8.1% have such a degree ( Danmarks statistik, 2015). Thus, highly educated visitors are greatly overrepresented. This is not surprising. As far back as 1969, the correlation between one’s level of education and one’s likelihood of visiting art museums was addressed by

Dialogue and the museum as a social space

243

Bourdieu and Darbel (Bourdieu and Darbel, 1990), and the trend is also evident in the regular Danish surveys on cultural habits undertaken since 1964 (Danmarks statistik, 2020). At the same time, a user satisfaction survey carried out at SMK shows that those most satisfied with their experience know a lot about art already (Epinion, 2018). The Coffee and Nuggets project and the conversation starters subsequently developed for the exhibition are examples of how art is not just being presented within an art historical context that only few can relate to but broadened in scope and put in relation to universal human experiences and contemporary issues that are relevant to many. The Coffee and Nuggets sessions took their point of departure in the participants’ personal responses to the works. On the conversation starter cards these thoughts were presented as quotations that could inspire others to form an opinion about the work. These quotes were linked to a few facts about the work but also to one or more open-ended questions that paved the way for the visitors’ own conversations. A total of 16 conversation starter cards were produced, each linked to specific artworks. The cards addressed topics such as ‘Nationalism’, ‘Welfare’, ‘Immigration’, ‘Open-mindedness’, ‘Toilets’, and ‘Equal pay’. As Springborg says: We try to get visitors to ask themselves questions like: What is the relevance of this period [the Golden Age] for us today? What can we learn from it, and what impact did it have on the life we lead today? (Ladekarl, 2019)

The museum as a social setting Using conversations and questions as the basis for the Coffee and Nuggets sessions and the conversation starter was no coincidence: the dialogues arising around the aesthetic experience are central to museum users today. No less than 90% of people who visit SMK do so in the company of someone else, and the most typical reasons stated for visiting SMK is a wish to learn something new together, to relax and replenish one’s energies. Those who do visit alone are the ones who are used to visiting art museums and who know a lot about art (Slotsog Kulturstyrelsen, 2019). In addition, surveys of non-users show that, while ‘not interested’ is the main reason for not visiting ( Jessen, 2018), the second most important reason for not visiting museums is that you have no-one to visit them with ( Jessen, 2018: 10). Museum visiting is a fundamentally social activity. This contrasts with the traditional contemplative approach to art that has characterised the construction, layout, and interpretation material of the modern art museum with its white walls, silence, and monologic wall texts or one-person audio guides (O’Doherty, 1999; Rung, 2014). We know from user surveys, observations, and studies of museum users’ conversations that the aesthetic experience is, for the majority of people, created jointly. We are inf luenced by how those we are with move around in the museum space, where they stop, and how

244 Mette Houlberg Rung

Conversation starter cards in the exhibition Danish Golden Age – Wordclass art between disasters.

FIGURE L.1

Source: © SMK 2019

they respond to individual works (Rung, 2014; Tröndle et al., 2012; Heath and Hindmarsh, 2002). Our experience of art often unfolds in a conversation that moves between what is immediately sensed and the subjective thoughts and feelings that the sensation initiates – thoughts and feelings that are based on personal memories, experiences, and dreams. In the conversations about art, we experience something that resides outside of ourselves, that is, the work of art, but we do so by sharing histories, memories, and dreams of ourselves. In this way, the art experience brings you closer to yourself and to the person you are with (Rung, 2014). Or as Frank den Oudsten writes: An exhibition is about the relation between things. On top of that, it is about the relation between the visitor and the web of associations that the exhibition brings out. Or: about the relation between the memories and the imagination of the visitor on the one hand, and the narrative immersive potential of the place on the other. (den Oudsten, 2012)

Dialogue and the museum as a social space

245

Museums can facilitate and support such social experiences, which was the objective of the conversation starter cards. They specifically incorporated quotes from the Coffee and Nuggets sessions as well as open-ended questions in order to motivate and expand the social interaction between visitors. The exhibition provided large sofas, where visitors could settle down to talk, and carpets, which ensured pleasant acoustics. The qualitative and quantitative user surveys conducted in the Danish Golden Age – World-class art between disasters exhibition show that many were pleased with the conversation starters – 23% of all visitors used them. Several conducted conversations on the basis of the cards, others simply scanned their contents, while many took them home for later use. ‘I like to hear what other people have been thinking’, one visitor replied, while another added ‘I really enjoyed these provocative kind of quotes’ (Statens Museum for Kunst, 2019).

Dialogue and wonder The SMK spring exhibition of 2020, which was about one of Denmark’s first great Modern painters, Anna Ancher, saw the museum continue its efforts to

Tables in the Anna Ancher exhibition, showing the stacks of sheets used for the visitors’ Questions for Anna Ancher.

FIGURE L.2

Source: © SMK, 2020

246 Mette Houlberg Rung

promote relevance and dialogue. In this exhibition, however, the main focus fell on the conversation between SMK and the visitors. The objective was partly to stimulate the users’ sense of wonder and curiosity about Anna Ancher but also to let the exhibition be a place where new knowledge and new perspectives on her art could be generated. One year prior to the scheduled opening of the exhibition, SMK hosted several workshops, which sought to identify what users were puzzled by when viewing a painting by Anna Ancher. Out of the many questions raised by the participants, several were repetitive and six of those were selected for the exhibition. These questions were answered by SMK staff and printed on sheets placed in stacks on tables located inside the exhibition for visitors to take and read. One question was: ‘How does it feel to be the only woman in an artists’ colony of men?’ Each question was presented on the front of the sheet alongside the answer, and on the back visitors were invited to share a new question. After four weeks, SMK selected six new questions, answered them, and set up new stacks in the exhibition. In this way, part of the interpretive material provided in the exhibition was user-generated, developed according to the users’ inquisitiveness, and continuously adapted as new questions arose. The decision to associate the dialogue with the users’ sense of wonder and curiosity was based on several reasons. First and foremost, taking the users’ own questions as a starting point immediately ensures a sense of relevance for visitors. At the same time, the questions and answers stimulate conversations and social interaction

FIGURE L.3

Close-up of the question and answer sheets in the Anna Ancher

exhibition. Source: © SMK, 2020

Dialogue and the museum as a social space

247

by prompting other visitors to make their own inquiries and discuss them with each other. The questions also openly acknowledge the fact that the exhibition does not contain all answers and all perspectives. Several questions could not be fully answered, making it apparent that scholarship and knowledge are always work in progress and that the museum is not omniscient. In addition, several of the questions had a different character, for example emotional, than the art-historical approach on which the exhibition was built. The exhibition thus became a place where visitors not only could find answers but also ask questions and the museum itself would discover new queries and dimensions to ask in relation to Anna Ancher’s art.

Concluding thoughts Both interpretive initiatives, the Coffee and Nuggets sessions, the conversation starters, and the Questions for Anna Ancher engage directly with users. They are based on dialogue, invite and stimulate social interaction, and explore new approaches to art that may be relevant to a wide audience. Traditionally, dialogue and social interaction have been widespread in museum workshops and other educational activities, but by incorporating these approaches into the actual exhibitions, inviting all visitors to participate, museums get the opportunity to listen, learn, and collaborate with users. However, while these approaches make sense to deploy when looking at it from a visitor study perspective, it is also clear that it demands a great deal of the museums. Inviting people to participate also means listening, changing, and letting go of control. In his study of exhibitions as research, Peter Bjerregaard writes: If we used to think of the role of the exhibition as conveying, in the most accessible and attractive way, what had already been found out, this new approach urges us to see the exhibition as a bridgehead, a means for identifying new questions, new ways of interrogation. (Bjerregaard, 2019: 13) Coffee and Nuggets, the conversation starters, and Questions for Anna Ancher demonstrate how working with conversations, dialogue, and social interaction pushes back our established notions of what a museum is and should be, inspiring a more dynamic relationship with the users based on mutual listening and learning. The museum is becoming more of an interlocutor and partner in the exploration of new issues and through this a far more relevant institution, which is part of the wider society.

References Bjerregaard, P. (2019) Exhibitions as Research: Experimental Methods in Museums, London: Routledge Bourdieu, P. and Darbel, A. (1990) The Love of Art: European Art Museums and Their Public, Cambridge: Polity Press

248 Mette Houlberg Rung

Danmarks Statistik (2015) Befolkningens Uddannelse 2015, in Nyt fra Danmarks statistik, København: Danmarks Statistik Danmarks Statistik (2020) Kulturvaneundersøgelsen, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.dst. dk/da/Statistik/dokumentation/statistikdokumentation/kulturvaneundersoegelsen# Den Oudsten, F. (2012) Space.Time.Narrative – The Exhibition as Post-spectacular Stage, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Epinion (2018) Kvalitativ undersøgelse med afsæt i den nationale brugerundersøgelse, Smk’s egne målgrupper og kvalitative undersøgelser. Internal Report Eriksson, E., Rung, M.H. and Sørensen, A.S. (2019) Kunst, kultur og deltagelse, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag Heath, C. and Hindmarsh, J. (2002) Analysing Interaction. Video, Ethnography and Situated Conduct, in Tim, M. (ed) Qualitative Research in Action, London: Sage, pp. 99–121 Jessen, L.B. (2018) Hvem er museernes ikke-brugere? in Data, museer og ikke-brugere, Slots- og kulturstyrelsen, 2018, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://slks.dk/fileadmin/ user_upload/0_SLKS/Dokumenter/Museer/Fakta_om_museerne/Statistik_om_ museer/Brugerundersoegelse/Museernes_ikke-brugere_Line_Bjerregaard_FINAL. pdf Ladekarl, M.G. (2019) Kaffe og Guldkorn: Danskerne er medskabere af ny kæmpeudstilling om guldalderen, Kulturmonitor, 22 July 2019 O’Doherty, B. (1999) Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, Berkeley: University of California Press Rung, M.H. (2014) Negotiating Experiences – Visiting Statens Museum for Kunst, unpublished PhD thesis, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/28913 Rung, M.H. (2018) Collective Creativity in the Art Museum, in MacLeod, S., Hale, J., Austin, T. and Ho, O. (eds) The Future of Museum and Gallery Design, London: Routledge Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen (2018) Den nationale brugerundersøgelse, accessed on 30/06/ 2020 at: https://slks.dk/services/publikationer/den-nationale-brugerundersoegelseaarsrapport-2018/ Sørensen, A.S. (2015) Deltagelse som kulturpolitisk strategi og institutionel kulturformidling, in Aktuel forskning. Institut for Kulturvidenskaber. Special issue, December, https://tidsskrift.dk/aktualitet/issue/view/3688 Tilgået 20.3.2020 Statens Museum for Kunst (2018) Strategi 2018–21. SMK for alle, accessed on 30/06/ 2020 at: https://smk.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Bilag_2_-_SMK_Strategi_ 2018-2021.pdf Statens Museum for Kunst (2019) Brugerundersøgelse af Guldalder – Verdenskunst mellem to katastrofer. SMK (internal survey) Tröndle, M., Wintzerith, S., Wäspe, R. and Tschacher, W. (2012) A Museum for the Twenty-first Century: The Inf luence of “Sociality” on Art Reception in Museum Space, Museum Management & Curatorship, 27, pp. 461–486 Weil, S.E. (1999) From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum, Daedalus, 128(3), pp. 229–258

M SHOWCASING SCIENCE AND FACILITATING INTERACTION Science slams for museums Philipp Schrögel

The challenge of presenting current research in a museum Museums are not just a ‘window into the past’. While many around the world have been engaging with contemporary social issues, it also remains part of the mission of research museums to create new scientific knowledge or even to establish a dedicated ‘future museum’ as a branch of the German National Museum (Deutsches Museum Nürnberg, 2020). However, it is still a challenge for museums to make current, ongoing research accessible. And even more so in an interactive way to encourage exchange, discussion, and learning. Updating exhibitions or curating new exhibitions on specific research topics would be the obvious approach for a museum, but this takes a lot of time and planning and is a rather ponderous undertaking. The usual alternative would be to consider more f lexible formats such as talks, evening lectures, or a panel discussion with scientists and other experts. But while these formats do have value and purpose in science communication and as part of the event portfolio of a museum, they usually cater only towards a very specific demographic – primarily older, highly educated, socio-economically better off, and often predominantly male – similar to the situation for science communication and museums in general (Dawson, 2014). Furthermore, they only allow for a limited degree of interaction with and amongst the audience, when one thinks about the usual suspects using up the majority of the time in the questions afterwards, with just loosely related costatements only barely disguised as questions. Therefore, new formats for making science accessible are required – one of which could be science slams.

The origins and concept of science slams Science slams are presentation competitions with a set of short scientific talks, judged by the audience. The concept was developed in 2006 by Alex Dreppec

250

Philipp Schrögel

in Darmstadt, Germany. It builds on the established format of poetry slams – Dreppec himself is also a Poetry Slammer – which itself could be seen in the tradition of poetry battles in ancient Greek tragedy or contests amongst minstrels in medieval Europe (Hedayati-Aliabadi, 2018:  10). Subsequently, the House of Science in Braunschweig took up the format, developed it further and helped it to become established within the science communication community (Eisenbarth and Weißkopf, 2012). There are now frequently organized science slams in around 60 cities in Germany. In addition, a multitude of one-off events, organized on the occasion of a conference, a science festival or an academic gala, are taking place. Since 2010, there is also an annual nationwide science slam championship in Germany, whose direction and rules are decided by the consensus of all slam organizers without a formal structure. (Niemann et al., 2020c) While science slams are so far predominantly taking place in Germany, the format has started to spread internationally, for example to Russia, the United States, and Cameroon, and is continuing to do so (Lederman, 2016). A typical science slam is a presentation competition with around six participants, usually young scientists such as PhD-students or post-doctoral researchers. More senior researchers are sometimes included as ‘featured slammers’ outside of the competition. The aim is to present your own research (for example thesis or research project) in an understandable and entertaining way. All aids are allowed for the presentation, from PowerPoint slides, to experiments, performances or props. The only limitation is set through time: each presenter only has ten minutes available. The winner will be determined by the audience, usually by applause voting or by awarding points through small voting groups in the audience. In principle, a science slam is completely open to any scientific topic. However, more and more thematically defined science slam events have been held in recent years, for example a sustainability science slam, a climate science slam or even a beer science slam. Science slams often deliberately take place in premises outside of universities, for example in clubs or youth centres, but also in museums. However, there are also science slams taking place in lecture halls or at research institutes. Besides the primary implementation as on-site event, videos of the individual science slam presentations often gather quite some interest on YouTube (Boy, 2020). Event formats similar to science slams are famelab (Zarkadakis, 2010) and TED/TEDx talks (Sugimoto et al., 2013), which are both more internationally established. While the commonality is that all three formats consist of a series of short and entertaining (science) talks, there are also differences. Famelab presentations are shorter (3 minutes), limited to STEM subjects and do not need to be focused on the presenter’s own research – general science information can also be presented. Perhaps a more important difference (as argued later) is that the audience only plays a minor role in the presentation competition, as a jury interacts with the presenters on stage and votes on the winner. TED or TEDx (for independently organized events) are no competitions at all. Also, they are not focused on science topics, as the acronym indicates: TED – technology, entertainment, design. Furthermore, the videos of the talks are a very important part of the concept and reach a very large and international audience on YouTube.

Showcasing and facilitating interaction

251

Science slam audiences and edutainment character For science slams, the entertainment value and humour are a central component of the format in addition to the scientific content. This edutainment, the combination of entertainment and education, can take many forms in science slam presentations: humorous or creative visualizations on PowerPoint slides, in cartoons (partly self-created), and in references to popular culture . . . humorously visualized metaphors and puns, . . . efforts to make direct connections to audience experience by explaining a topic in terms of everyday situations. (Niemann et al., 2020a: 531–532) An audience survey confirms this assessment from the recipients’ perspective: Entertainment is cited as a key reason for attending science slams, closely followed by an interest in science itself and the desire to learn something . . . Viewers do not perceive entertaining presentations as devoid of scientific content and therefore unscientific – in fact, the opposite tends to be true. (Niemann et al., 2020b: 186) The edutainment orientation as well as the event character of a science slam provide the potential to reach a new audience and engage them in an interaction with science: younger people and other audiences that are not per se interested in science but can be attracted with the shaping of the event and the presentation setting. However, the aforementioned science slam study in Germany found that the majority of participants were male (56.2%). The average age was 31 years. The best represented age group was 21 to 30 years. The spectators were more educated than the average population. The vast majority had a university entrance qualification or higher (81.2% in total, of which 24.7% had a university entrance qualification, 56.5% a university degree, and 8.5% a doctorate). (Niemann et al., 2020b: 181) Overall, the audience may be well-educated but, depending on the event and location, also many non-scientists can be reached. However, while science slams do have the potential to reach new target groups and do have a more diverse audience than typical academic evening lectures, still a lot needs to be done to improve their diversity and actual openness. On the one hand, many specific organizing details are relevant for making science communication more inclusive, for example the local availability (does the event take place in the local community?) and the pricing of the events. On the other hand, there is an important emotional component to exclusion: insecurities and a habitual distance as well as a self-perception of not being part of academic culture can lead to

252

Philipp Schrögel

many members of underrepresented communities ‘feeling left out’(Humm et al., 2020: 169–171). To address this, organizers of science slams need to consider, amongst other aspects, how and where the event is announced, how the moderation can shape an atmosphere where everybody feels welcome and encouraged to participate – independent of their prior academic knowledge and how diverse the line-up of presenters is.

Science slams as participative events At a first glance, science slams don’t appear very participative at all: a typical academic setting, where scientists on a stage are lecturing about their research. But there is more to the format, the competition character being the most important aspect. Surely, the audience voting makes a science slam a fun and engaging activity and creates interest, similar to the success of the myriad music or cooking competition shows on television. But looking beyond that, the competition essentially creates an inverted hierarchy during the event. The scientists are no longer the uncontested experts who share their illustrious knowledge with a passive audience, but the audience gets to have the final say as to who did it best. While the contest itself is not much about real winnings for the presenters (the awarded prizes are usually more symbolic in nature), the format puts the audience in the role of deciders on the outcome and thereby above the scientists who otherwise are seen as superior to the lay public (at least in their scientific domain). Furthermore, depending on the exact mode of voting, the format encourages an intensive exchange amongst the audience members. When there are voting groups in the audience, they have to discuss the individual presentations, their highlights and potential criticism and decide on a vote. These discussions are usually taken very seriously, and the audience members consider not only the presentation style but also ref lect critically on the presented information and the provided explanations. Since all this is taking place in small groups, much more interaction and discussion is possible than through a plenary Q&A session. In addition, many individual science slam presentations include an exchange with the audience as an engaging element: live surveys amongst the audience members, estimation questions, or even on-stage experiments with the help of the audience. Also, the informal setting and the authentic personal presentations and approachable impression by the science slammers encourage more face to face questions and discussions in the break or after the event than would be the case for a more aloof senior scientist.

Museums, science slams, and more With these characteristics and when done right, science slams do provide a large potential for museums to reach new audiences, especially Millennials and Generation Z, and engage them in discussions about science. The event and edutainment

Showcasing and facilitating interaction

253

approach presents the museum in a new way: as an evening fun activity, less formal and not with an upfront serious education barrier, not dissimilar to the concept behind Museum Lates evenings. The format provides the possibility to address current science and topics less present in the museum itself as well as making connections to the offerings and collections of the museum. At the same time, museums can also play to their strengths when hosting science slams: an event taking place within a collection (see Figure M.1). This science slam series is fittingly advertised with the slogan ‘slamming below the dinosaur’ or another interesting museum environment, which is more attractive than a presentation in a traditional lecture hall. While it sometimes might be a challenge to organize events in such surroundings, another benefit is that the audience is already in the middle of the museum and can explore some of the surrounding objects and information which might spark interest for a further full-time visit to the museum. The science slam format also provides the opportunity for variations. As an example, the art museum Kunstpalais in Erlangen, Germany together with the author of this article, organized an ‘Art & Science Slam’ in 2015 as part of an accompanying programme for the exhibition #catcontent ( Kunstpalais, 2015). For this event, scientists as well as artists presented their respective work with and on animals. In this instance, the competition focused primarily on the presentation, as the content of the different talks was hardly comparable.

FIGURE M.1

A science slam in the Museum of Natural History Berlin.

Source: © Gesine Born

254

Philipp Schrögel

Concluding thoughts In the end, science slams can be one relevant innovative science communication format for museums, but for sure not the only one. Many other approaches which combine science and learning with an event and entertainment character in a participative way are conceivable. One other format could be science quizzes, which recently have been gaining interest in the form of science pub quizzes. Or formats that further explore the interaction of science and artistic approaches. Such approaches will help museums to build new relationships with younger audiences and potentially partnerships with universities in their regions.

References Boy, B. (2020) Audio-visuelle Wissenschaftskommunikation im Internet – ScienceSlams in deutschen Wissenschaftsvideos, in Niemann, P., Bittner, L., Hauser, C. and Schrögel, P. (eds) Science-Slam Multidisziplinäre Perspektiven auf eine populäre Form der Wissenschaftskommunikation, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 225–247 Dawson, E. (2014) ‘Not Designed for Us’: How Science Museums and Science Centers Socially Exclude Low-income, Minority Ethnic Groups, Science Education, 98(6), pp. 981–1008 Deutsches Museum Nürnberg (2020) Project – The First Museum of the Future, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.deutsches-museum.de/en/nuernberg/project/ Eisenbarth, B. and Weißkopf, M. (2012) Science Slam: Wettbewerb für junge Wissenschaftler, in Dernbach, B., Kleinert, C. and Münder, H.(eds) Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 155–163 Hedayati-Aliabadi, M. (2018) Slam Poetry, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Humm, C., Schrögel, P. and Leßmöllmann, A. (2020) Feeling Left Out: Underserved Audiences in Science Communication, Media and Communication, 8(1), pp. 164–176 Kunstpalais (2015) #catcontent, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.kunstpalais.de/en/15/ catcontent.html?eid=32 Lederman, J. (2016) Science Slams Could Be the Future of Communication Research, posted on 29/93/2016 with Popular Science, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.popsci.com/ science-slams-could-be-future-communicating-research Niemann, P., Bittner, L., Hauser, C. and Schrögel, P. (2020a) Forms of Science Presentations in Public Settings, in Science Communication, Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter, pp. 515–544 Niemann, P., Bittner, L., Hauser, C. and Schrögel, P. (2020b) Science Slams as Edutainment: A Reception Study, Media and Communication, 8(1), pp. 177–190 Niemann, P., Bittner, L., Hauser, C. and Schrögel, P. (2020c) Prodesse et delectare: Science-Slams in der Wissenschaftskommunikation, in Niemann, P., Bittner, L., Hauser, C. and Schrögel, P. (eds) Science-Slam Multidisziplinäre Perspektiven auf eine populäre Form der Wissenschaftskommunikation, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 1–7 Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P. and Macaluso, B. (2013) Scientists Popularizing Science: Characteristics and Impact of TED Talk Presenters, PloS One, 8(4), p. e62403 Zarkadakis, G. (2010) FameLab: A Talent Competition for Young Scientists, Science Communication, 32(2), pp. 281–287

SECTION IV

Managing change

Section IV Introduction To face outwards and re-imagine what they do in the modern world, museums must first look inwards and transform themselves – as Kathryn Thomson found: ‘an organisation built on rigid hierarchies and orthodoxies, both unjustified and outdated; a culture steeped in deep and entrenched silos . . . limited transparency’. What does it take to re-model such an organisation so it will not only survive but thrive in the modern world? How about not only a willingness to change mind-set and a clear vision but also institutional commitment, a managerial receptiveness to collaborative working and experimentation, and a capacity to drive change for the long term – a combination of attributes rare in the museum sector. This section explores the issue of organisational change – essential if museums are to be able to re-invent themselves as institutions relevant to both new generations and diverse communities – and then keep adapting themselves as society continues to evolve. Chapter 8 proposes four key conditions if change is to happen and be sustained: a recognition that it is both essential and urgent; a director and management team committed to change and backed fully by the governing body; a clear vision; and a clear, practical route ahead. It is followed by contributions from two directors currently driving the transformation of their organisations. Kathryn Thomson provides a detailed account of the process of initiating and then managing change. Scott Cooper, for the benefit of this book, has taken a more philosophical stance, focusing on culture and approach and the challenges these present. No one said change would be easy.

8 MANAGING CHANGE

The challenge: to achieve the structural and operational, and mind-set, changes required of museums if they are to meet the expectations of contemporary audiences and communities.

Introduction I wrote in the Introduction to this book that responding effectively to the urgent need for museums to change ‘will require visionary leadership, a transformation of the core museum experience, and a related restructuring of the museum as an organisation’. To reach outwards, beyond its physical and virtual walls, in order to engage effectively with new generations and new, diverse communities, the museum must first look inwards and transform itself. However, this transformational change within the museum will only happen if four conditions are met: 1 2 3 4

If all involved recognise that change is essential, inevitable, and urgent If the governing body gives unqualified, active, and sustained support If there is an inspiring vision in place to drive the necessary change forwards If everyone can see a clear route ahead to making change happen.

Inevitable and urgent This book has argued consistently that, if museums are to survive, change is both inevitable and urgent. The world is changing, our audiences and their expectations are changing, our funding regimes are changing. And it is all happening at web speed. But, if you see change not as a threat but, rather, as an opportunity undreamed of by our predecessors to diversify, engage, and involve our users and potential users – and also to learn from them – a new world of possibilities opens up.

258

Managing change

Governing body Transforming an old institution involves travelling a long and rocky road. It relies on the governing body appointing the people to lead that transformation and then giving their backing through it all.

Driven by an inspiring vision Museums need a clear vision of their futures and the will to make it become a reality. The vision defines the purpose of our museums. It is the clarity of this vision that will drive structural change. But it cannot just be imposed from above. For staff it is why they get up in the morning, why they work for long hours and accept low pay grades. For users and potential users, it gives the motivation to visit, or not. For communities it is being valued as equal partners. All must be involved in the development of the vision. And, whatever the eventual focus, the vision’s clarity and ability to inspire are vital – clarity so you do not lose sight of it while bogged down in structural detail; inspiration to keep you going through thick and thin.

A clear route ahead Little will happen if museums do not themselves act. The process of change begins with knowing where you want to get to (the vision) and then spelling out clearly what this means in practical terms – how the new structure will look, and what each individual’s role will be; how the user experience will change; how community partnerships will work; what it means for the collections and the budget; etc. The two hardest tasks are getting started and giving people a clear sense of their own roles in this, and the power to make changes themselves. Confidence will grow with the first successful actions. The case for change has already been made. The role of the governing body I am not qualified to write on. This chapter focuses on the vision and making change happen. Understanding of what this means in practice is then transformed by two papers from museum directors who are currently driving this process in their own institutions.

The vision Visions do not happen on their own, nor do they happen overnight. Here, I would like to build from the work of Lynn Scarff (2019), Director of the National Museum of Ireland. Any vision for the future of your museum must be: GENUINE: VALUE:

The vision must be genuine, not ticking boxes It must NOT be in response to political demand It must be based on a BELIEF in what museums

Managing change

CORE:

INSPIRATIONAL: RELEVANT: COURAGEOUS:

PEOPLE:

COMMUNICATE:

PRACTICAL:

259

– and specifically your organisation – can do It must provide a clear answer to Weil’s question: ‘what difference does it make that your museum is here?’ At the heart of what your organisation does – not marginal, not reliant on marginal budgets or marginal staff It must have the power to move, to stimulate action by others, to bring communities onside It must connect to people’s lives every day Achievable but challenging An appetite for risk Learning from failure It must be based on genuine collaboration, involving all your organisation’s staff and based on partnerships with existing and potential users and communities It must be porous – a vision without walls It must SHARE POWER – it must recognise the value of what users and local communities offer It must counter SILOSCLEROSIS – restructuring your organisation to drive the vision forward You must be able to communicate your vision internally and externally – powerfully, effectively, broadly It must get the basics right

This, in turn, leads me back to the alternative visions outlined in Box 8.1 of the book introduction, and what these visions mean for the nature of the museum, repeated here:

Box 8.1 futures

‘A tale of two visions’: alternative museum

The ‘Old Power’ inward-looking museum

The ‘New Power’ confident, outwardfacing museum

Hierarchical, controlling

Collaborative, democratic, teamdriven, dispersed decision-making, sharing power within and beyond the museum Porous, reaching out, global

Enclosed, inward-looking

(Continued)

260

Managing change

(Continued) The ‘Old Power’ inward-looking museum

The ‘New Power’ confident, outwardfacing museum

‘Neutral’ Limited, largely quantitative visitor research Retain ‘trust’ of public

Activist Comprehensive, continuing research on users and non-users ‘Trust’ is two-way – public trusts museum & museum trusts public Working in partnership with users and communities

Stand-alone – strict boundary between institution and users Professional Static, expensive, exhibitiondominant, slow to change, operationally rigid Prioritising collections, with museum as gatekeeper Elitist – focus on curatorial ‘excellence’ and the single voice of authority

On-site Focused on the visit Traditional museum offer – read, listen, contemplate, didactic Interactive, To/For Content provider Didactic content delivery Museum in control of visit Dull environment

Partnered professional and amateur Agile, fast-moving, cheap, frequent events programming, ‘always something new’ Prioritising use of collections with audience, including open access Inclusive – focus on ensuring relevance to whole of society and incorporating diverse voices, underpinned by continuing expertise On-site, online & mobile Focused on engagement across mediums Expectation of active engagement, involvement of social media, multiple perspectives, etc. Participative, With/By Content provider + platform Focus on learning through social interaction Personalised experience Immersive, welcoming environment

Source: built on Scarff (2019)

Not surprisingly, I favour the outward-facing vision. It is easy to criticise this as ‘multi-everything’: multicultural, multi-generational, multi-platform, multipathway, multi-story, multi-perspectival, multi-events – and to ask both where the resources and energy come from to deliver it and what museums will have to give up to make it possible. Frankly, resources and energy are the easy bits. The new vision requires a fundamental change in the stories told. For example, the issue of diverse voices and the inclusion of multiple perspectives is particularly relevant to history museums. History is the most important way that people can

Managing change

261

develop an understanding of where they, their communities and their nations come from and, thus, who they are today – and what this may mean for their futures. Incorporating diverse voices means re-writing that history and, in the process, questioning the deeply held beliefs of many traditionalists. Every museum is unique – and so will its vision be – but the sector shares the historic roles and qualities discussed in the book introduction. As Thomson makes clear in her chapter, the starting point for re-visioning is to return to these roots and reaffirm core values and purpose. The next stage is to recognise that the future lies in how and for whom you pursue those roles in contemporary society. What is more, the vision of change cannot only be internal. To convert the museum into an organisation that is outward-facing and people-centred will involve building partnerships of equals with local communities and other like-minded bodies. The future direction being defined for the museum cannot involve only its agendas; it must also look outwards and be inspired by those it hopes to serve. But whatever vision you adopt will drive the structural change that will follow. Samis and Michaelson, in researching their book Creating the Visitor-Centred Museum discovered that: a visitor-centered focus leads to organisational transformation. The two are so integral to each other that we found they had to be considered in tandem. . . . We saw new teams, with new members, leaders and duties – and, most importantly, a new outlook . . . we believe that their impact will redefine how museums operate in the years to come. Samis and Michaelson (2017: 4 and 6) Alternatively, in the UK, the Our Museum initiative of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, discussed in Chapter 3, has shown how organisational change processes play a significant role in placing community needs, values, and collaboration at the heart of museum practice.

A clear way ahead Because most museums have been slow to respond to the scale of contemporary societal change, the transformation now required will affect every aspect of their operation and organisational structure – and everyone in the organisation. It is important from the outset to recognise the challenges. Based on their study of museums that had undergone major change, Selwood and her colleagues listed the tasks involved: museums should establish a clear mission; determine the most appropriate organisational form; review and update staff structures and roles; strike the right balance between the needs of commercialisation, collection development and community engagement; make

262

Managing change

personnel changes where necessary; invest in staff, management and board development; and review collections to ensure that they are relevant to the museum’s aims and mission. Selwood et al. (2017: 4), their emphases This list, in turn, should be underpinned by detailed research of target constituencies and a clear understanding of the financial implications, and be based on a realistic time frame – while keeping services going throughout. Over time, the museum can build a track record in managing change and review each stage for lessons learned. But here we also run into the dichotomy of ‘old power’ and ‘new power’ discussed in the book introduction. Most museum services continue to operate under an ‘old power’ hierarchical management structure, which makes organisational change very difficult. Newer elements have been grafted on to that structure – notably education, community engagement, front-of-house, marketing, retail, and new media. Because these all engage directly with the public, the staff involved fully understand the need to work collaboratively across disciplines and for constant evolution. But they continue to exist under a hierarchy which jealously defends its power, continues to control budgets, and has a poor track record of cooperation internally or externally – with a particular split between back-of-house and front-of-house (Selwood et al., 2017: 9). It is this which has enabled many museums to continue to marginalise community engagement. But much management behaviour and attitude to change comes down to a basic problem – most directors are subject specialists who have been promoted upwards. They are not trained for the task of implementing major change. The old hierarchy is unlikely to voluntarily give up its authority or otherwise transform itself. Change is therefore most likely to occur following recognition of the need, and its urgency, by the governing body, leading frequently to the appointment of a new Director, with a remit to re-think the institution. But the changes put forward will meet resistance internally and from parts of the existing audience, and obstacles will be put in the way. Externally, not all existing users will like the resulting changes to exhibitions, programming, etc., required to diversify the audience. Internally, loss of power will combine with fear of the unknown, resulting in what Phillips (2004: 370) calls ‘silosclerosis’, where departments end up fighting each other to protect their territory – curators vs. educators vs. administrators vs. developers – rather than working together. Strategic vacuums make this worse, with individuals pulling down the lids on their individual boxes for personal protection. Other barriers to change may include the constraints of the existing operating model, lack of consensus between the management team and the governing body, lack of awareness of the wider societal context, risk aversion, lack of expertise, lack of adequate investment in the process, physical constraints, reluctance to rationalise collections and a culture of dependency on public sector support (Selwood et al., 2017: 28–29). No wonder it will all take much longer than

Managing change

263

anticipated – there are few, if any, shortcuts. And, because it all takes so long, transformational change requires stability at the top. ‘No organisation can experiment, take risks, or learn from its mistakes without secure, stable and empowering leadership in place’ (Bergeron and Tuttle, 2013: 108). However, museums are not commercial enterprises. Their primary objective is to serve the public. Their personnel do not enter the profession to earn large salaries but from love of the work. They know museums must re-define and then adapt as society evolves. So, change is possible but needs effective leadership, consistency of purpose, and a plan. It requires a leadership group with a shared vision that is transparent in the decisions it takes, that acts as one, communicates clearly, powerfully and continuously at every level, involves everyone in making the changes, and disperses responsibility across the institution – in other words, is the epitome of ‘new power’. If the leadership gets it right, people will follow. Leadership means you are brave enough to ask others to get involved, and then encourage them to achieve their full potential. It recognises the importance of experimentation and learning from what does not work rather than always playing it safe. People will loyally support environments they have co-created, where they feel valued and have a sense of belonging, where they can take risks without fear. Leadership must set the agenda and have a clear picture of the future, but if the staff do not enthusiastically support the changes, making them happen will be an uphill struggle.

Getting started It is essential from the off to establish a small group to oversee the transformation. Their first task is then to develop a sense of urgency. Getting started is key. Once under way, confidence grows with success. I suggest, with thanks to Nina Simon, initially concentrating on the user experience: 1 Focus on the entrance and front-of-house: a b c d

Counter threshold fear – open your doors wide Friendliness and training of FoH staff – only appoint people who like people but also know when not to intrude Disability training and access – improved disability access will actually enhance the experience for all Avoid intrusive security – learn to trust the visitor

2 Ensure you are Family Friendly: a b c

Family leaf let – what to do in the museum today Trails Buy a badge-making kit so children can make their own awards for completing trails, etc.

3 Re-assess opening hours to suit the audiences and community you serve, not the staff

264

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Managing change

Seek partnerships with schools in deprived areas Pick a specific community, or communities, to partner and learn from Add seating – comfortable and in circles. Develop events where audiences and staff can mingle Ask staff to put forward ideas for quick wins – back these with money Build close relationships with popular local and community media Seek a first partner agency

All these aspects relate to departments that already work with the public and all will have real, quantifiable impact, demonstrating that successful change is possible. Here, you empower them to go much further than before – and also show other staff that they too can take the initiative. Maintaining momentum will be a major challenge. Planning quick wins and defining milestone moments, showing how far you have come and celebrating successes, makes a real difference to morale. And as staff backing for the impact of the new vision builds, sustained change will no longer depend solely on new resources or developments. What people prioritise in their day-to-day activities can make a crucial difference. It is also wise to break down large, long-term tasks into manageable chunks. However, what will make it all possible is devolving responsibility and supporting people to achieve – and also trusting our users more. While museums provide a framework for participation, audiences will adapt it to their personal needs, as they have always done.

Concluding thoughts As this book makes clear, museums require radical internal change. But, as design thinkers would emphasise, change must be not only desirable but also feasible and viable/sustainable (e.g. Brown, 2009: 25). Thus, change will necessarily be within defined constraints (such as the continuing primacy of collections or severely reduced public funding – effectively doing more for significantly less cost). However, they also point out that not all constraints are created equal – the one to avoid is that change must fit within the framework of the existing business model. For museums, the existing model is broken. The myth of management change is that it will emerge fully formed from the mind of a visionary leader. This is nonsense. An imposed ‘big bang’ solution will not work – it really is time to move away from old hierarchies. Changing the structure, operation and mind-set of museums must be a people-centred, collaborative process if it is to both succeed and be sustained. Of course, internal change must ref lect external purpose, so a clear vision of the future is essential, but this must be a shared vision, involving everyone from governing bodies to target audiences. And once the vision is established, it requires museum staff to be led through the process of change, not managed or dictated to. Overall, change will almost certainly be most effective if incremental – learning from and

Managing change

265

building on experience – so leaders must be there for the long haul. And change will never end, as society continues to evolve. However, every museum and museum service is different, and will face different challenges. It is time to read the chapters by Scott Cooper and Kathryn Thomson, to gain a sense of the blood, sweat, and tears involved in managing change for real.

References Bergeron, A. and Tuttle, B. (2013) Magnetic: The Art and Science of Engagement, Washington, DC: The AAM Press Brown, T. (2009) Change by Design (revised ed.), New York: Harper Business Phillips, W. (1993, reprinted 2004) Institution-wide Change in Museums, in Anderson, G. (ed) Reinventing the Museum, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 367–374 Samis, P. and Michaelson, M. (2017) Creating the Visitor-Centred Museum, New York: Routledge

Scarff, L. (2019) Thinking Outside in: Being Relevant and Staying OnMission in a 21st Century Museum. Paper Given at the Irish Museums Association Annual Conference, Cork, 1–2 March 2019 Selwood, S., Pirie, V. and Dickson, S. (2017) Research to Understand and Learn from Museums that Have Experienced Significant Change in the Past Five Years, London: Pomegranate for Arts Council England, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.artscouncil. org.uk/sites/default/f iles/download-f ile/Research%20to%20understand%20 and%20learn%20from%20museums%20that%20have%20experienced%20 significant%20change%20in%20the%20past%20five%20years.pdf

N DESIGN (RE)THINKING A LEGACY INSTITUTION Strategic planning at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University Scott Cooper

Culture eats strategy for breakfast – Peter Drucker (attrib.) Philadelphia is a remarkable city. It is where the American experiment began, and it is where the Founders’ working hypotheses continue to be probed and shaped more than two centuries later. Founded in 1682 by the English Quaker William Penn, it quickly became the largest city in the British Empire after London; a fulcrum of the American Enlightenment; a centre of revolutionary foment; a capital of the new republic; a hotbed of philosophical societies; a destination for global migration; a powerhouse of American industry; and a well-spring of technological, educational and medical innovation. And although Philadelphia’s story was rehearsed in poetry amongst its suburban mansions, it played out largely in prose amidst its endless factories and row homes – a blue blooded city of blue collared citizens. Like so many of America’s metropolises it has suffered greatly since the Second World War. It reached its nadir in the early 1990s and remains America’s poorest big city. But for the past couple of decades or so it has staged a marked recovery. Not a dramatic one admittedly, but one that a true Philadelphian might claim to be akin to the city’s Quaker origins – modest, reliable, and discreet. Today the city embodies the best and worst of American urban life – diversity and innovation on the one hand, division and poverty on the other. To outsiders the city is Philadelphia but to natives it is emphatically ‘Philly’ – a moniker that evokes determination, resilience, and more than a little atavism. Philadelphia is deeply proud of its heritage, and the institutions it bore generations ago remain the cornerstones of its modern identity – the Academy of Natural Sciences is amongst its most cherished. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia was founded in 1812 for ‘the encouragement and cultivation of the sciences’. Since then it has sponsored

Design (re)thinking a legacy institution

267

expeditions, conducted seminal systematics research, and established a peerless natural history library and archive. Amongst the 18 million specimens in its world-class collections are shells gathered by Ernest Shackleton, fishes hooked by Ernest Hemingway, birds caught by John James Audubon, and plants picked by Meriweather Lewis. It has offered public education for more than two centuries; been home to America’s greatest naturalists; debuted the world’s first mounted dinosaur; created one of the country’s earliest environmental research units; and transformed global understanding of freshwater ecology. In short, the Academy has been a pioneer of biodiversity, earth, and environmental sciences for almost as long as America has existed. Yet despite its venerable bona fides the Academy has rarely found a robust and sustained financial footing. The reasons are numerous but being located in a city that can boast six science museums for just 1.5 million residents readily suggests a few of them. In any event, by the turn of the 21st century it was clear that, while the Academy could probably survive alone, it could only thrive through partnership. And so, after a period of robust due diligence, the oldest natural history museum in the western hemisphere secured a symbiotic affiliation with one of the most innovative universities in America and, two centuries after its founding, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia became the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University. I sketch a picture of the Academy and its home to make an important point explicitly clear: context is everything. Plans, institutions and places are often inextricably linked and as I assumed the reins of leadership I sensed acutely that the

FIGURE N.1

Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University.

Source: Mike Servedio

268

Scott Cooper

Academy, Drexel, and Philadelphia each had their own expectations of the institution’s future and that culture stood a fair chance of eating strategy for breakfast.

Plans are worthless, but planning is everything – Dwight D. Eisenhower It may be argued that some museums are 19th-century solutions in search of 21stcentury problems – that yesterday’s temples of learning have become tomorrow’s gilded cages. As this book makes clear, it is a charge that museums ignore at their peril. While the Academy’s affiliation with Drexel in 2011 def lected imminent existential threats, it was clear that very significant change was still required if the full potential of its new identity was to be realized – there could be no resting on laurels. But what did that change look like for a nascent university museum? What potential did it possess beyond the Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Sciences Department that had been so successfully created on the heels of the affiliation? What waves of change – to museums and to higher education – could be seen on the horizon and how powerful were they? Might they envelop us, and if so, when? Despite the undeniable relief that the Academy felt at the affiliation with Drexel it nevertheless had to recognize the ‘wicked problem’ (see definition later) that existed before it. In the spring of 2018, it was clear that to address these issues effectively we would need to achieve three things in order: (1) engage every staff member, trustee and partner in the planning process so that; (2) we could legitimately create a shared understanding of the need for further change; and in so doing (3) co-create solutions that were informed by and could be delivered within our own culture.

FIGURE N.2

Every staff member, trustee, and partner was involved in the process.

Source: © Academy of Natural Sciences

Design (re)thinking a legacy institution

269

In framing the Academy’s approach to imagining its future we began with one very fundamental and rather provocative question: what would a museum be if its typology had yet to be invented? In effect we asked what would a museum look like if it was conceptualized as some sort of disruptive start-up? What problem would it be a solution for? What products and services would it provide and to whom? Who would pay for the museum and what would their ‘return on investment’ be? We recognized that the lexicon of commerce might be uncomfortable for some, but as we began to contemplate a ‘radical innovation’ approach to our planning it was instructive to think of our museum as just that – a business (albeit a non-profit one). We understood from the start that playing with paradigms is fraught with risk but that for our institution, affiliated as it is with an ambitious and innovative university, it was a risk well worth taking. So, for support, we turned to a boutique consultancy more experienced in the realm of business start-ups than legacy institutions, and over the course of eight months we scrutinized the Academy through the other end of the telescope. In developing our strategic plan, we adopted Stanford University’s ‘Design Thinking’ process. Design Thinking is a solution-based approach to solving problems. It is effective in tackling complex challenges that are ill-defined or unknown by understanding human needs, by re-framing the problem in humancentric ways, by creating many ideas in brainstorming sessions, and by adopting a low-cost approach to prototyping and testing (for a brief introduction see Interaction Design Foundation, no date). Of course many of our immediate challenges were obvious from the start, common as they are to so many museums: the need to widen audiences and grow research; become more relevant and demonstrate impact; widen philanthropic support and increase margins; invest in our staff and address diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. These were the known knowns. But what about the known unknowns, and worse, the unknown unknowns? To get a handle on these we transported ourselves into the future. Mindful of William Gibson’s maxim that ‘the future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed’, we imagined a world five years from now by deciphering where it exists already. We discussed advances in innovation with Apple and visitor experience with Universal Studios. With other global thought leaders we rehearsed the future of digital engagement and higher education, changes in the workplace, society, science, philanthropy, and of course museums. This speculative analysis was informed by the hard research of third parties including Colleen Dilenschneider and LaPlaca Cohen, as well as a deep analysis of our own reserves of social media data. By thinking of ourselves as a ‘start-up’ we were able to understand more clearly what parts of the Academy were salient and which were contingent. By focusing our attention on where the world is going – with or without us – we were able to more easily understand where the Academy could add real value. But, by adopting a Design Thinking approach that was substantially internally driven, we were able to co-create and co-own an array of user-centered solutions to our unusually ‘wicked problem’ (a Design Thinking term for problems with

270

Scott Cooper

many independent factors that seem impossible to solve). Some found their way into the final plan; most did not. Some of the questions we posed were answered; other remained unresolved. But in the end none of this mattered because the great benefit of our approach turned out to be the way it inspired original thinking and innovative working rather than getting the ‘right’ answers to our many challenges. Our new strategic plan is of immense value, but the planning that went into it was truly transformative.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong – H. L. Mencken There can be little doubt that our Design Thinking process was effective in aligning our board and staff around a shared understanding of a complex problem. It was equally effective in encouraging co-generative research and collaborative analysis (while side-stepping group think). However, despite our commitment to radical innovation the process did not precipitate an epiphanic realization that the museum should become something else entirely. At no point did we discover that we should ‘sell quarter inch holes and not quarter inch drill bits’. Indeed, the most obvious outcomes of the planning process were very similar to those that emanate from more conventional planning approaches. For example, the Academy’s new ‘identity model’ (see Figure N.3) echoes those of many other progressive institutions in its move towards inclusion, impact and activism, all framed around a shared purpose and a clear vision. So, did this unorthodox and occasionally discombobulating approach procure any distinctive benefits that we can now point to? Did this ‘radical innovation’/ Design Thinking process surface outcomes that a more conventional approach might have left submerged? This is a difficult question to answer categorically but I believe there was certainly one – and an important one. What became clear during our strategic planning process was not that there was one answer to a short list of sharply defined critical issues but rather that there were many possible solutions to a complex ecology of challenges. What also became clear is that these solutions lay within the Academy to solve if we could break down the naturally occurring silos that beset many legacy institutions, tap into our storied history of innovation, and mainstream the entrepreneurialism that percolates through the institution but only occasionally bubbles over. After eight months of immersive thinking and more than a little existential anxiety the Academy board and staff together determined a vital new role for itself as part of the university, the city, and the world beyond. But its guide to paradigmatic change was not a ‘to do’ list – it was a ‘to be’ list. The strategic plan would not provide a roadmap, it would offer a compass. Organizational development is of course a component of all well-resolved strategic plans, but for ours it was a central focus shaped by priorities such as the ‘promotion of prototyping’ and the ‘nurturing of fresh thinking’ with bulleted guidance to achieving both.

Design (re)thinking a legacy institution

FIGURE N.3

271

New ‘Identity Model’ for the Academy of Natural Sciences.

Design Thinking unlocked the Academy’s creativity, aligned it around shared issues, precipitated a compelling purpose supported by a robust ‘identity model’, and defined a way of thinking and working that would enable it to address critical issues now and into the future in ways that advanced the university with which the Academy is affiliated and could be supported by the city that has sustained it for so long. And as for the radical innovation? Ultimately it was to acculturate across the Academy what the commercial sector often practices, and natural history museums always preach – ‘it is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most responsive to change’.

272

Scott Cooper

The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men, gang aft agley – Robert Burns Our strategic planning process concluded over a year ago. Nothing would be more satisfying than to confirm that the Academy’s unorthodox approach had paid off in dividends – that it had been plain sailing ever since. It has not been. Most staff have lived through one (and often several) ‘traditional’ strategic plans. There is a common understanding of how the process moves seamlessly from environmental scan through SWOT analysis, to critical issues and strategic objectives. Scaffolded knowledge and shared ownership are expected, and cascaded goals anticipated. Once complete many (though rarely all) of those involved are aligned in their understanding of what needs to happen next. By contrast, Design Thinking is an avowedly ‘messy’ process in which outcomes remain unclear almost until the last minute. Design Thinking lacks a recognisable harmony; it is filled with imperfect cadences and the results can feel uncomfortably atonal to many. Moreover, when its results are more compass than roadmap there aren’t many hard objectives for colleagues to recognise and rally around – there are few ‘quick wins’ to kick start implementation. We needed to give our strategic plan firmer contours so that everybody could clearly understand what change could look like and what success might feel like. So, as a complement, we drew on the work of the business consultant Cameron Herold (https://cameronherold.com) and drafted a ‘painted picture’ – a detailed exposition of how the reimagined Academy would be experienced by trustees, staff, researchers, and visitors three years hence. With this in hand, everybody could envisage what the plan would mean to them in terms of physical and cultural change, and we could quickly identify the work-streams needed to realise both. Preparing the ‘painted picture’ and agreeing the projects that would activate it took time, and we lost momentum as a result. Just when everybody was expecting to ‘put rubber to the road’, we needed longer in the pit lane. We wondered why we had not beaten a more familiar path. We questioned the benefit of our ‘to be’ list and at times craved the simplicity of a ‘to do’ list. It took a while to define projects that would best activate the strategic plan and deliver the ‘painted picture’. Momentum was slow to re-establish. And then, just as we were getting going, the planet was engulfed by a pandemic and the country was consumed by the deep recession that followed. It could be imagined that this once-in-a-century event might have stopped us completely in our tracks, or at least driven us into a defensive retreat. The opposite was the case. Instead, the Academy could turn to its compass and quickly course correct. It was in this moment of unprecedented and unpredicted upheaval that we appreciated the durability and adaptability of our strategic plan and its enduring value to the Academy, the university, and the city. It was in this moment that we recognised the continued relevance of our

Design (re)thinking a legacy institution

273

‘painted picture’, and that all we needed to do was change the way we deliver it by quickly revising our project list. It was in this moment that we were grateful for a ‘to be’ list and not a ‘to do’ list. And we still are.

Reference Interaction Design Foundation (no date) What Is Design Thinking?, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking

P NATIONAL MUSEUMS NORTHERN IRELAND Managing change, a case study Kathryn Thomson

Introduction I am not what would be traditionally perceived as a museum professional. I trained as a chartered accountant, not as a curator, and never expected that I would become a museum director before I took up the role at National Museums NI in March 2016. Until then my life’s experience and perspective on museums had been shaped by my journey from school to occasional visitor to tourist to tourism professional. Within that context, understanding and driving change was to be an even greater challenge than I might have imagined.

What did I find? National Museums NI is a group of four museums on three sites (Ulster Museum, Ulster Folk Museum, Ulster Transport Museum and Ulster American Folk Park) with hugely diverse collections, visitor experiences and a mix of free and charged entry. Established as three separate entities the group was formed through legislation in 1998. As custodians of the national collection of over 1.4 million objects, externally the organisation was perceived as operating four much loved, exceptional and unique museums. However, behind the scenes was an eye-opener. Internally it was an organisation built on rigid hierarchies and orthodoxies – both unjustified and outdated; a culture steeped in deep and entrenched silos; and an entity that structurally and culturally had never been merged. These challenges were intensified by protracted funding cuts over preceding years – an almost 50% reduction in government grants leading to a 30% reduction in staff – with no meaningful strategic response. There was limited transparency on the breadth of activity happening across the museums, the process/s for decision-making and the overall corporate/

National Museums Northern Ireland 275

strategic direction. As a result, from a sustainability perspective, the organisation was fast approaching a cliff edge.

Diagnosing the problem Shaping a response demanded a new approach and required a critical understanding of the potential of museums, the business model, and audience engagement. Potential of museums – as a non-museum professional what I found most staggering is the incredible breadth and depth of what museums do, and the extent to which this is neither understood nor appreciated outside the sector. Museums are so much more than a visitor attraction or a day out. The work that they do can have a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of people and positively contribute to building and shaping a better society. The business model – while I discovered it was not popular to refer to museums as businesses, if the organisation was to survive and thrive it would need a much more business-like approach to its thinking. Critically it needed to understand the relationship between its economic and social impacts and to reconcile the tension between being a public service and generating commercial income. We summarised our business model as follows:

FIGURE P.1

The business model.

Audience engagement – visitor research demonstrated that audiences were not visiting as much as they used to. We had become increasingly reliant on a narrow and unsustainable audience mix and overly reliant upon repeat visitors. While our experience had not deteriorated, it competed with so many new and

276

Kathryn Thomson

ien

ce

vio

urs

&

Museums

Fun

13 FIGURE P.2

The scale of the challenge.

din

g&

res

our

cin

g

tati

ons

Funding gap

Aud

a beh

ec exp

Relevance gap

different ways for people to fill time. New technologies continue to fundamentally transform how people today act, behave, communicate, purchase, and consume information. Summing up, we had a gap – first between what we knew to be true about museums and what many perceive and think about them (relevance gap) and second with reduced levels of funding limiting investment in programmes we lacked the tools to re-engage audiences (funding gap). Combining them revealed the scale of the challenge (or opportunity, being a better way to look at it), with the danger that our museums get lost in the widening gap. The evidence showed us that the speed of change across political, economic, social, technological and environmental spheres was dramatic. The environment in which National Museums NI operated was continuously evolving and transforming. The future was much less certain than it had ever been before, and we needed to prepare ourselves for it. Critically, we could no longer assume our

Facing challenging times

National Museums Northern Ireland 277

right to exist – we had to fight for it. This called on us to embrace change and do things differently.

How to respond? The key questions we started with were the back to basics ones: ‘what is the role and purpose of our museums in our society today?’ and ‘what does that mean for what we do and how we do it?’ The answer recognised the need to embark on a journey as an organisation, to transform both what people think of us and how they experience our services. Every journey has a destination and we defined ours as relevance and sustainability – we needed to become more relevant to more people and, in doing so, protect the long-term viability of the organisation. This was a change programme that had to begin from the inside, with its people, its leaders, its culture, and its way of doing things. By thinking differently, talking differently, and acting differently as one team across the organisation it would in turn allow us to make a much stronger external connection with audiences. The approach needed to be holistic and all-encompassing – not a series of projects or initiatives.

From the inside out The staging posts on our journey so far have been:

From what to why The independent research told us that most people thought they knew what happened inside our museums. They thought glass cases, old things, history, folksy stuff, dinosaurs, and stories (about people who died long ago). Our museums had become choices for an occasional day out, but not much more. But we knew that a museum isn’t just a building or a place. It’s a way of thinking, a means of communication, a force for change. We needed to define ourselves not by what visitors do in museums but by the impact visiting can have on their lives. We needed to be clear on our core purpose – a statement of our belief on how we, as an organisation, intended to change the world for the better – something that would sit at the heart of everything we do. We defined why we exist as ‘Here For Good’: Here: Grounded. Confident in our place in the world. Right beside you. Proud. Visible. Present. Home. For Good: Taking the long view. Staying the course. Working to make things better. A positive force. For the first time a common sense of purpose brought a sense of unity to National Museums NI. Here For Good represented the sum of all our parts ref lecting the

278

Kathryn Thomson

diversity of our collections, our expertise, our people and our offering. Here For Good became our brand strategy and internal rallying call – but never a marketing slogan or external communications message. For some there was a fear that National Museums NI would replace the individual museum identities that had greatest resonance with the majority of those who worked there. However, this was about unity, not uniformity – each of the museums in the group continues to have its own distinct personality that brings the common purpose to life in different ways – National Museums NI is our family name, our signature, our quality mark. Each of our museums is a sibling with its own unique first name and identity.

A new vision Next we engaged across the organisation and with key stakeholders to define our vision, mission and values that would underpin our strategies and culture. This created a clarity of direction and a framework by which every individual, for the first time, could link the relevance of their work and objectives to the corporate ambition. Our approach to this bottom-up and outside-in methodology was underpinned by the principle that people buy in to what they co-create.

Structured to deliver To deliver this, the organisational structure was not fit for purpose and across all disciplines there was a need to build capacity and capability. There was also a need for greater alignment of functions and teams to support the drive for culture change throughout the organisation from the top down. Savings achieved through restructuring and voluntary exit allowed investment in: • •

•

• •

A new senior leadership team led by functional heads with corporate responsibility; New Audience Development and Education teams – to coordinate an organisation-wide approach to extending the range and nature of relationships and engagement with the public; Reconfiguration of the Experience & Enterprise teams to drive higher standards in the visitor experience and to diversify and strengthen income generation based on our collections and demonstrating our spirit of place; Recruitment of a Volunteering & Participation Manager to guide the strategic development of volunteering within the organisation; and, Rebuilding Curatorial and Collections Care to strengthen the collections expertise and knowledge to inform our audience offer across all the museums.

Strong effective and consistent leadership across the organisation was a key foundation stone for change, achieved by building cohesion across all leadership

National Museums Northern Ireland 279

VISION Celebrate who we are: telling the stories of our past, challenging our present, shaping our future.

PURPOSE Here for Good MISSION Manage collections Provide Leadership Provide access Value people

FIGURE P.3

VALUES Collaboration Authenticity Excellence Courage Respect

Defining the Vision.

tiers. To do this we invested in reshaping our leadership structure and in both promoting and recruiting new leaders into the organisation. We also invested in significant learning and development for all our managers based on examining what it meant to be a leader in National Museums NI. To support this we defined the critical leadership traits all leaders were expected to live by in their day to day roles – build trust, collaborate, communicate, innovate, perform.

280

Kathryn Thomson

Driving through change The final and most critical leg of the stool was addressing organisational culture. To drive transformation demanded a totally new way of working, defining, and embedding new behavioural standards aligned to the values. A programme was developed with several core strands – leadership development; performance management; effective team working and communications and engagement – and rolled out at all levels throughout the organisation. Driving organisational wide holistic change is hard work – and delivering results is about the long haul. It demands a strong and committed senior team and an abundance of passion, resilience and repetition. Diligence and dedication of leaders to role model brand values and behaviours consistently is critical. This is a journey that takes years.

New ways of working So, at this point we were clear on our purpose – our brand strategy – we had a vision, mission, and values underpinning our culture development programme, and we had rebuilt the organisational capacity and capability to deliver. The next step was to achieve an external connection with our purpose which required us to work better together internally on a single, holistic, whole team agenda – objectives of every work area needed to integrate with those of others like they never had before. Working together as one team with shared objectives, audiences, and ways of working. Historically the organisation had been dogged by too much working in the extremities leading to internal exhaustion, external confusion, and potential under-achievement. Success was redefined as working at the intersection, in the ‘sweet spot’, thereby delivering on our common purpose as a team and sharing responsibility for meeting all of our audience needs (see Figure P.4). A shared responsibility demands a shared and integrated approach to planning projects as well as programming activity across all sites. This required a consistent framework for discussion and collaboration that could be deployed in response to proposals and ideas. A way of thinking that, through its consistent application, would help us all to be successful. An approach that is mindful of, and adaptable to, changing audience needs but still remains consistent in its approach to meeting them. As a result all audience activity is now assessed against five key areas, illustrated in Figure P.5. Collections at the Core – collections sit at the heart of what we do. The quality of the collections, and the knowledge we hold about them, is what makes us unique. All programming activity must work in harmony with the essence, objectives of and access to the collection at its core. Brand – Here For Good is at the heart of every decision taken. It should be built into the content created and experiences delivered and communicate role and purpose effectively to audiences.

National Museums Northern Ireland 281

Public engagement

AUDIENCES

SWEETSPOT

COMMERCIAL FOCUS

COLLECTIONS

Income generation

Curatorial and collections care

Corporate services & support FIGURE P.4

A common purpose – focusing on the ‘sweet spot’ where roles intersect.

Content – to maximise reach and relevance calls for a consistent tone of voice and style across all communication touchpoints – including text interpretation, first person interpretation, social media, and website. Each ‘layer’ of content has an important role in allowing for independent exploration across the breadth of audiences’ needs. Storytelling through knowledge-based content is embraced as one of a museum’s greatest assets.

282

Kathryn Thomson

INCOME

BRAND

COLLECTIONS

EXPERIENCES

FIGURE P.5

CONTENT

The five key areas of audience activity.

Experiences – audiences desire experiences that are unique, authentic, and memorable. Across the worlds of entertainment, education, and tourism, people are devising ever more engaging ways to capture people’s attention. To compete, we must design quality experiences that exceed expectations and deliver deep audience connections. Nurturing an agile culture of ideas and innovation, constantly renewing and refreshing existing visitor experience, as well as trialling new ideas through rapid innovation projects. Co-creating with each other, and also with our audiences, is an increasing feature. Income – our operating environment is tough. Seeking to create value and generate increased income through audience engagement activity is critical. While not every aspect of museum work is suitable for income generation, it is a vital consideration nevertheless. It encourages new thinking. It’s not always about making profit, however, the commerciality of any activity undertaken should be understood, and shifting the balance of funding towards other sources such as private sponsorship and philanthropic giving is a priority.

Working in the ‘sweet spot’ – early signs of change At this stage it is worth taking stock, to consider any outcomes that can signal the early signs of change and positive impact on moving towards greater relevance and sustainability.

National Museums Northern Ireland 283

Shifting the internal culture So, did everyone working in the organisation get on board? Well, it’s been a long slow process and remains work in progress, but trends in staff surveys in the last four years evidence a significant shift in attitude, understanding of corporate purpose and strategic direction, and confidence in leadership and management. The critical success factors in building and maintaining a momentum around change have been: •

•

•

•

Consistent and relentless communications and engagement with endless repetition of message. This has included a drive for greater visibility of the senior leadership team in all the museums, quarterly face-to-face briefings and Q&A with the Executive Team on each of the sites, a new bi-annual all staff conference, monthly e-mail from the CEO, daily briefings for the visitor services teams, and quarterly site sponsorship meetings bringing together key HQ and site specific teams to ensure greater co-ordination between strategic objectives and operational delivery; Significant investment in a leadership and management training programme for all people managers across the organisation – focused on managing self, managing teams, and managing others; A new performance evaluation framework to assess individual performance and set agreed objectives – with an emphasis on the quality of the conversation rather than the paperwork; and, Trialling new ways of working through multi-disciplinary teams on major projects, such as hosting Dippy on Tour from the Natural History Museum. While at times painful, successful outcomes have evidenced and justified the means, establishing a new norm for the future.

We can also point to some new projects that demonstrate that by positively embracing the new vision and values, different outcomes can be achieved.

Game of Thrones Tapestry In 2017, National Museums NI had the opportunity to partner Tourism Ireland in its global marketing campaign for the launch of Season 7 of HBO’s Game of Thrones, promoting Northern Ireland as the key filming location. Despite some internal resistance, the campaign saw the creation of a Bayeux-style tapestry depicting scenes from Seasons 1–6, with each episode of Season 7 added on a weekly basis. The tapestry was made from linen thread sourced from one of Northern Ireland’s oldest linen mills, it was woven on a jacquered loom and then hand embroidered by a team of volunteers from the local textile guilds led by the National Museums NI Curator of Textiles. It was displayed alongside a specially commissioned exhibition on the history of linen making.

284

Kathryn Thomson

It proved to be a phenomenal success in diversifying audiences – over 200,000 visited, the younger audience (under 24) doubled and international visitors increased from 35% to 50%. Ref lecting new ways of working, it showed the importance of engaging with a contemporary relevant issue to celebrate our traditional heritage skills and showcase the collections in a new way. National Museums NI benefitted from a campaign that reached 70 million people globally and saw substantial increases in retail and merchandising. Perhaps most importantly, in terms of reputation, by doing something no one expected it fundamentally changed perceptions of the Ulster Museum. And it didn’t end there – the aftermath saw the completion of the tapestry for Season 8 in 2019, a commission by HBO for our basket weaver to create willow replicas of the throne and dragons for display at the European Premiere of Season 8 and an international tour of the tapestry (and objects from the National Museums NI collection) to the Bayeux Tapestry Museum in France for display alongside its inspiration ‘(see Figures P8 and P9 below).

FIGURE P.6

Game of Thrones Tapestry, first panel.

The tapestry is about 60 centimetres high. The central 40 centimetres is embroidered with the story of the series. Around the edges, horses, wild beasts, birds, fish, and strange creatures are depicted. All is done in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry. Source: Kathryn Thomson

National Museums Northern Ireland 285

FIGURE P.7

Game of Thrones Tapestry.

Source: National Museums NI

The Troubles and Beyond For the last ten years, Northern Ireland’s contemporary history has been told through the Troubles Gallery at the Ulster Museum, which had remained unchanged since it opened in 2009. Press reports of the gallery described it as: ‘bland, safe and strenuously non-controversial’ (Meredith, 2009); and, ‘the past defeating the present .  .  . for fear of giving offence [or] causing controversy’ (O’Connor, 2009). Furthermore, its impact was limited by the absence of original artefacts and alternative perspectives. With the support of a National Lottery Heritage Fund award through its Collecting Cultures Programme, investment was made in both strengthening the collection and developing the gallery. Proposals were framed within the ethos of the new corporate position and ambition. The aim was to create a dynamic gallery that would offer opportunities for people to respond and contribute their own stories. This would help realise the significant role of the museum in offering space for ref lection and an opportunity for visitors to examine contested history through critical narrative and interpretation, within which multiple perspectives intersect. However, our ambition was to see the

286

Kathryn Thomson

FIGURE P.8

Bob Johnston, Basket Weaver, in his workshop at the Ulster Folk

Museum. Source: Kathryn Thomson

National Museums Northern Ireland 287

Ulster Museum go beyond that with a much more proactive approach to engaging with difficult history and a view to transformative, rather than ref lective, experiences. In partnership with academia, community representatives, support groups, and others, the core of the new gallery was to encourage dialogue, build understanding, and support efforts to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. Ref lecting this, the new gallery opened in 2018 named the ‘Troubles & Beyond’ – the start of a conversation and a continual work in progress as new stories and perspectives are incorporated through exhibition and programming on an ongoing basis. The outcome saw international visitors in the gallery rise to over 50%, against a museum average of 35%. There was an increase in the diversity of the demographic of the local audience, as well as a keen interest by younger visitors. Supporting partnership programmes and exhibitions such as Voices of ’68 (with Chris Reynolds, see Chapter 4) and Silent Testimony (with Colin Davidson) added to the breadth and depth of the content and experience and provided new curriculum resources. Local partnerships increased relevance and saw the Ulster Museum awarded Queer of the Year 2018 by LGBT+ group Queer Space, while securing designation internationally as an International Site of Conscience. The response has strengthened National Museums NI’s confidence and credibility, including: As work continues on developing The Troubles and Beyond gallery the Ulster Museum has a unique opportunity to create a space in which dialogue and understanding about The Troubles can occur, which is situated in the context of Northern Ireland’s continuing emergence from years of conf lict and violence and in which we are building peace and democracy. Deirdre MacBride, Programme Director, N.I. Community Relations Council New Troubles exhibition is a brave move by Ulster Museum after previous insipid effort. Tackling our violent past and all that it represents is difficult and painful, but a necessary step forward. Fionola Meredith, Belfast Telegraph, 6th April 2018. We have learned a great deal during the course of the gallery’s development, which we continue to carry forward into further phases of work. While we certainly have much still to learn, we also have much to share, and it has become a platform from which to contribute to global debate on contested history.

Towards the future At the time of writing the world is in the grips of a global pandemic that is set to redefine the future – both socially and economically. We believe that our direction of travel is as much if not more relevant than it was when we started out on

288

Kathryn Thomson

FIGURE P.9 Replica of the Game of Thrones throne created by Bob Johnston on display at the Hotel de Doyen in Bayeux.

Source: Kathryn Thomson

National Museums Northern Ireland 289

FIGURE P.10

The Troubles and Beyond Gallery.

Source: © Chris Heaney for National Museums NI

our transformational journey three years ago and are refocusing our priorities in that context. Much of the growth we have experienced over the past number of years has been due to the wider growth of the tourism industry rather than to the people and communities of Northern Ireland, where visitor numbers are in decline. We are not yet as inclusive and diverse as we should be, and too many people still think that our museums are ‘not for them’. While over the last three years we have laid important foundations and made considerable progress we recognise the need to be even more courageous and radical in our pursuit of further transformative change to secure our future. Central to this will be a more strategic activation of ‘Here for Good’ – both internally and externally – around the key ingredients we have defined for long-term success:

A dynamic, accessible national collection The issue of collections access has for many years been clouded by aspirations to create a ‘Collection Resource Centre’; however, collections access in reality requires a distributed solution and a distributed collection, served by stores on all of our sites. For the collection to be accessible and dynamic – a living resource – it needs to be close to where it is needed. That in turn will allow the conservation and curatorial processes behind the public exhibitions to be demystified – and that can become part of a new conversation with visitors.

290

Kathryn Thomson

The co-creation of new collections knowledge Following the re-structuring process, we have a healthy curatorial team that combines those at different stages in their career. We benefit from both the emerging curators’ new ideas enriched by the knowledge and experience of more established curators. A new research policy is in place and new collaborative agreements established with local universities. Education is now located within the curatorial department with a renewed and re-energised schools programme. There is now a major opportunity to activate ‘Here for Good’ and unambiguously establish National Museums NI as the key national resource for curriculum based learning.

Transformational audience development and sustained social impact Over the last two years we have seen the potential for audience growth through temporary touring exhibitions like Dippy (National History Museum) and Tim Peake’s Soyuz Capsule (Science Museum Group), where we applied new thinking and ways of working to powerful effect. In addition, new permanent and temporary exhibitions (like The Troubles and Beyond and CultureLab) have demonstrated our ability to creatively connect to new audiences through our own collections, resources, and local partners. Around the margins, for more than ten years, we have been delivering important participatory programmes that support wellbeing. Recognising the profound impact such programmes have had on people’s lives, these are the initiatives we now want people to judge us by. However to be successfully embedded within our museum ethos we need to break from the imprisonment of thinking about audiences in the marketing orthodoxies of the early 2000s – the market segmentation model targeting those groups with the highest propensity to visit that dominated industry thinking at that time. To realise our full potential, we need to address the harder question – who still isn’t coming to our museums and why? And what do we do about it? Our long-term success is not going to be achieved by fighting for market share in competition with other organisations that are a bit like us. It’s not about fighting for a bigger slice of a cake made up of people that already like culture and heritage. It’s about growing our audience in its entirety by creating converts amongst those who have never visited us before. To do that requires a more radical re-wiring of how we communicate to our audiences, how we welcome them, introduce ourselves, and make people feel both comfortable and at ease, engaged and stimulated. Masterplanning and making significant investment in our places and spaces will provide the essential springboard for the next phase of audience development.

National Museums Northern Ireland 291

Strategic economic development In 2018/19 National Museums NI achieved a record number of visitors across its sites – 905,000. It demonstrates that while our museums cannot be understood simply by the conventional metrics of visitor attractions, they are, nonetheless, visitor attractions. And a major league player at that – so we need to succeed in that world too. Like other visitor attractions, we have an important commercial dimension. We generate additional income through commercial activities – income that we reinvest back into the core business. But as a publicly funded museum service, we are also different. The synchronicity of these activities poses important questions which must be carefully considered. How do we maximise access for the public while implementing financial barriers? What is our ‘ask’ for income support and to whom should it be targeted? To what extent should we, as a publicly funded museum service, be in the marketplace directly competing with the private sector? Or should we be working in partnership with the private sector, identifying commercial opportunities within our business to be exploited by others to our mutual benefit? The answers to these questions are likely to be found in collaboration and partnership.

A unifying philosophy of sustainable development Finally, Henry McGhie’s report, Curating Tomorrow (McGhie, 2019), is timely to say the least. It takes the UN Sustainable Development Goals – 17 of them, unanimously agreed at the United Nations in 2015 – and interprets their meaning to museums. These goals not only embrace environmental rights but also human and cultural rights. He outlines the critical importance of the connections between the environment, society, and the economy in a six step plan – arguing that a museum will be sustainable if these are kept in balance, supported, and developed, with staff working collaboratively and productively. So, as we look ahead to our re-emergence from this crisis, this internationally agreed set of goals can provide us with a clear sense of corporate responsibility and a robust framework for future decision making.

Concluding thoughts We are well down the road on our journey of transformation at National Museums NI. At this stage we have laid strong foundations through defining our core purpose, clarifying our vision, mission, and values, and using this to develop our organisational culture and way of doing things. The green shoots of change are increasingly being evidenced through new collaborations, improved teamwork, and more cohesive leadership. We have much more we can achieve through thoughtful investment and building our international reputation. Above all we will continue our fight for greater relevance and long-term sustainability in the years ahead.

292

Kathryn Thomson

Finally, for my own part I hope that we have redefined the concept of a museum professional at National Museums NI – to a place where everyone who works there is at its core, regardless of background. The challenge in the present and future is creating greater harmony and mutual understanding across an increasingly professionally diverse workforce.

References McGhie, H.A. (2019) Museums and the Sustainable Development Goals: A How-to Guide for Museums, Galleries, the Cultural Sector and Their Partners, UK: Curating Tomorrow, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://curatingtomorrow236646048.files.wordpress. com/2019/12/museums-and-the-sustainable-development-goals-2019.pdf Meredith, F. (2009) Minimal Troubles at Ulster Museum, The Irish Times, October 2009 O’Connor, F. (2009) Troubles Display Highlights Problems of Contested Past, The Irish Times 24 December 2009

Concluding thoughts

9 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS If not now, when?

On 7 July 2020, LaPlaca Cohen published a new report Culture + Community in a Time of Crisis, aiming ‘to shed light on how arts and culture organizations [including museums] can address the hopes, fears, and needs of Americans during and following the COVID-19 pandemic’ (p3) and based on 124,000 respondents between 29 April and 19 May 2020 (LaPlaca Cohen, 2020). Key findings included: •

•

•

•

What people missed most with the closure of cultural sites was ‘spending quality time with family and friends, having fun and . . . feeling less stressed’. Learning or experiencing something new came a respectable fourth (p14). Some 81% did something creative during lockdown, from trying a new recipe (62%) through singing, making something, painting, and photography to creative writing (16%) (p15). Many who visited digital cultural sites had not visited the venues physically in the previous year (p19) – including 57% to a natural history museum, 51% to a science museum, and 40% to an art museum. Most were looking forward to reconnecting with friends and loved ones, but few had made plans to visit cultural venues after lockdown.

But the two that grabbed my immediate attention came at the very beginning and end of the report: •

The survey confirmed ‘the huge racial disparity in cultural audience composition’ and stated bluntly that ‘Our future is, and must be, increasingly inclusive’ (p5).

Concluding thoughts

296

•

Most respondents identified ways that cultural organisations could change for the better, including: •

• •

Community: be more friendly; better engage younger people; place more focus on the local community; include more diverse faces and voices; and work with other non-profits in the community Enjoyment: be more fun, less formal and more child-friendly Ref lection & Innovation: make content ‘relevant to my life’; have more new exhibits (p31).

LaPlaca Cohen conclude the report by saying: ‘We believe that this is the time for arts and cultural organizations not just to restart, but to reimagine. The task is clear: to serve our many communities more equitably, authentically and sustainably. IF NOT NOW, WHEN?’ (p32). I feel the report could have been written with this book in mind – to the extent that I have borrowed that final question as part of the title for this chapter. The museum profession is well aware of the challenges, but there is a huge gap between what the sector knows and what it does in response. It must confront itself with that question. The immediate task, however, relates to one of the other findings in the report – the large numbers of virtual visitors who had not physically visited the venues. There is a once-only opportunity to both maintain relationships with them online and, crucially, to also turn them into physical users. Once this opportunity is either grasped or let pass, museum governing bodies and managements should acknowledge that change is both essential and urgent – and act. Things cannot go on in the current piecemeal fashion. The speed and scale of societal change means the sector as a whole must drive itself into the 21st century. Of course, none of us can predict what the future will be like – and the COVID-19 crisis has shown how swiftly the world can be turned upside down. And, crucially, there will be no single answer. The ways ahead are as diverse as museums themselves and as society at large. However, we can focus on what can be done now to help prepare for what is to come. And that means not just a clear direction in terms of the museum experience but also a recognition of the mindset as well as organisational and operational changes required to make it happen. IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

Finally: the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic I expect this book to have a lifespan of at least ten years after publication. How relevant will the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on museums seem to new readers in 2031 – and how does this relate to the book’s theme – Museums and the Challenge of Change? The answer lies, as is being asked in so many sectors of society today, in the extent to which the pandemic brings the need for change to the fore and provides the continuing impetus to make that change actually happen.

Concluding thoughts 297

Will it create a ‘new normal’ or simply speed up trends that were already under way – or merely be a short-term blip? During March – April 2020 almost all museums worldwide closed their doors to the public, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, threatening the survival of the museums themselves and the careers, particularly, of freelance personnel (ICOM, 2020). According to this ICOM study, rushed out in May 2020, The closures will particularly affect the regions where museums are recent and few, and where structures are still fragile: in African, Asian and the Arab countries 24%, 27% and 39% respectively, fear that museums may close, compared to only 12%, in Latin America and the Caribbean, 10% in North America and 8% in Europe. (ICOM, 2020: 2) Overall, the economic impact will be considerable – making permanent closures (est. 12.8%, ICOM, 2020: 6), staff reductions, and a decline in programmed activity inevitable. Meanwhile, the COVID-enforced lockdown led to a surge in digital activity, from virtual tours to social media, to some extent ref lecting the creativity of the sector but also highlighting a general lack of understanding of how internet users want to engage (see Chapter 2) as well as a lack of digital expertise. The LaPlaca Cohen report ( July 2020) provides clear insights into the experiences of the virtual users. A report on COVID-19 and the UK museum sector by Wafer Hadley ( June 2020), commissioned by the Art Fund charity, and based on surveys, interviews, and focus groups across the sector, found four clear areas of focus: • • • •

The future of collections and exhibition programming. The agile and adaptable digital skills and infrastructure needed to open up collections and reach audiences online now and in future. How to encourage audiences to return once museums reopen, and the practical and financial challenges that accompany social distancing in museums. How to support an expert and passionate workforce through a period of continued uncertainty.

The vast majority of the institutions surveyed (86%) had increased their online presence, but the crisis had exposed the patchy availability of the necessary expertise. Most staff were worried about the future of their jobs – 61% in publicly funded museums, 86% of those in independent museums (without public funding). Most directors (85%) were concerned about their ability to attract visitors back, and what those visitors will need and want, and thus the viability of their institutions. There was also great concern (76%) about the wellbeing of their staff. The report concludes that ‘most organisations are focused on the immediate challenges of getting “back to normal”, but in the longer-term new models and ways of working will have to evolve’ (Wafer Hadley, 2020: 36).

298

Concluding thoughts

From 8–30 June 2020, the American Alliance of Museums carried out a snap survey of the initial reactions of museums in the USA to the pandemic (AAM, 2020). Some 760 museums responded, highlighting extreme financial distress, with 41% anticipating laying off staff and 16% feeling they faced a significant risk of permanent closure. Some 75% expanded their online educational provision, but 64% of directors anticipated making cuts to education, programming, and other public services. All museums surveyed in the UK report were planning for re-opening, seeing this in phases – from lockdown to a very different form of opening based around social distancing, then on to some concept of ‘new normal’ that was also likely to involve much reduced budgets. Richardson, in a commentary posted in May 2020 (no page numbers), highlighted some of the practical changes involved, such as: Ticketed entry: even for free museums, to allocate slots and prevent queues, or crowding in galleries. Plexiglass screens: to protect staff from droplets. Removal of many interactives: touchscreen exhibits will be closed with, eventually, a move towards ones you do not touch and even greater focus on bringing your own devices. Arty face masks: your works of art on the masks, a new shop best seller Special times for vulnerable groups: perhaps the first two hours after opening To these I would add one-way systems for visitors and budgets for survival. And, on 25 June 2020, following the UK government’s announcement that museums and galleries could re-open gradually from 4 July, the UK National Museums Directors’ Council issued best practice guidelines for reopening (NMDC, 2020). This included nine ‘considerations’, from the safety and wellbeing of both staff and the public to the ability of local transport systems to cope. Meanwhile the Irish Museums Association produced an online interactive map allowing the public to find out what museums were re-opening and when (https://irishmu seums.org/text-pages/interactive-map-reopening-of-museums-across-ireland). The scale of the challenge the sector faced in reopening was immense – not least the financial burdens resulting from the pandemic. But practical issues get resolved over time, one way or another. For me, the central impact of the crisis was to highlight more than ever the need to stand back from day-to-day priorities and re-think for the long term. If approached in this way, the COVID-19 crisis could become a catalyst for the essential change this book argues for. There are things I dread – many fewer visitors overall; the threat to social interaction and to close encounters with museum staff, which could lead to a resurgence in the passive, didactic display; a move away from touch, when I feel passionately that object handling should be a core feature of the future museum. Children’s museums, with their ‘please touch’ philosophy, will have major problems – how do you deep clean a sand pit? (Ulaby, 2020, writes that up to 30% of children’s museums in the USA may not reopen). Even pre-booking is not just a practicality – it may change forever how people visit museums, ending the tradition of just turning up. And with a loss of spontaneity will come a

Concluding thoughts 299

narrowing in the range of those who visit, negating years of effort at diversifying audiences. Those in the know, like museum members, will make blocks of advance bookings and then not use them. But perhaps I am wrong here. Maybe museums will turn the admission ticket into an opportunity, following the example of Baden State Museum by converting it to a User ID as a basis for building a loyal audience (see Johannes Bernhardt’s chapter) – but taking care not to turn it into another barrier for non-users. There are other aspects that may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The age of the blockbuster exhibition may be coming to a close, with museums currently scrambling for alternatives (DeBono, 2020). I see this as a real positive if it means the major museums have to look much more to their permanent collections as the basis for temporary displays. It may take years for international tourism to climb back to where it was before the pandemic. I, for one, hope this means that the large institutions which relied on tourists meeting over 50% of their audiences will now have to put much more effort into engaging locals. But it will mean these museums having to develop a new business model. The greatest opportunity, however, is surely to learn from the way museums have reached out during the crisis and continue to focus on building relationships and partnerships. Change will come whether or not the pandemic has a longterm impact. Can museums lead that change, or will most wait to have it forced on them? You, dear readers of 2031, will know the answer.

References AAM (2020) National Survey of Covid-19 Impact on United States Museums, Washington D.C.: American Alliance of Museums, accessed on 31/07/2020 at: www.aam-us.org/ wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020_National-Survey-of-COVID19-Impact-onUS-Museums.pdf DeBono, S. (2020) Prototyping New Travelling Exhibition Models, posted and accessed on 17/008/2020 at: www.museumnext.com/article/prototyping-new-travellingexhibition-models/ ICOM (2020) Museums, Museum Professionals and Covid-19, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report-Museums-and-COVID19.pdf LaPlaca Cohen (2020) Culture + Community in a Time of Crisis, posted and accessed on 07/07/2020 at: https://culturetrack.com/research/reports/ NMDC (2020) Good Practice Guidelines for Re-opening Museums after 4th July 2020, posted on 25/06/2020, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/media/ nmdc_museums_guidelines_v.1.1_25_ june_2020.pdf Richardson, J. (2020) How Might Museums Look Different When They Reopen after Coronavirus? MuseumNext, May 2020, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.museum next.com/article/how-might-museums-look-different-when-they-reopen-aftercoronavirus/ Ulaby, N. (2020) So Much for ‘Please Touch’. After Covid-19 Kids’ Museums Will Be Less Hands’ On, accessed on 01/07/2020 at: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=881626432 Wafer Hadley (2020) Covid-19 Impact: Museum Sector Research Findings Summary Report, London: Wafer Hadley for Art Fund, accessed on 30/06/2020 at: www.artfund.org/ assets/downloads/art-fund-covid19-research-report.pdf

INDEX

Page numbers in italic indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. Page numbers followed by “b” indicate a box. 1stFans events 29 3D; animation 219; printers/printing 107, 183; scans 230; technology 220 4 Cs 146, 156, 204 4K film and 3D modelling 219 5G technology, and AI 214 90–9–1 rule 184 absorption, and immersion 69–70 abusive behaviour online 43 Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University 266–267, 267, 271 accessibility/access 10b, 82b, 128, 129, 133, 186; to art experiences 241; to awareness training 134; to collections 152, 153, 156, 186, 198, 289; to content 45, 48; to creative experiences 178; to cultural heritage 48; to cultural institutions 53; digital 45–46; disability training and 263; to the internet 153; user experience 160 active audience participation 145, 148, 153 active experience 74, 174b activist museum 13, 93–100; cities and urban development 99–100; digital democracy 98–99; food, environment, and climate change 97; health and care 95–96; key areas of social challenge 94–95; migration and integration

97–98; participative exhibits 181; skills and learning 96 Adams, D. 61 Adams, M. 149 advisory panels 128 ageing 5, 33–34 Age of Participation 41, 42 agile approach to displays 166 Alice in Wonderland (painting) 228, 229 Allen, S. 173 All-party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing (2014) 95 Alte Wache exhibition space 71 Amazon 22, 43 American Alliance of Museums (AAM): Diversity, Equity, Accessibility and Inclusion Working Party final report 87; MUSE Awards 211; Museums and Creative Ageing (2020) 207; public opinion on museums 10; public trust 114; survey 298 Amsterdam: diversity in 79; Rijksmuseum in 182; Van Gogh Museum in 47 analogue participative exhibits 175–181; belonging 179–180; contributing 179; creativity 178–179; empowering 180; stimulating action 180–181; taking part 175–178 Ancher, A. 241, 245–246, 245, 246 Ancoats Art Museum 23

Index

Anderson, D. 151 Android OS 43 ANiMAL – Art Science Nature Society exhibition 218, 219 Animal Crossing: New Horizons (Nintendo) 49, 182 Animating Democracy 191 Antoine, J. 240 Apple 22, 41 apprenticeship 70 Archaeology in Baden exhibition 198–200, 199 Archer, K. 94 Arkwright, R. 106 Arnstein, S. R. 68 Art & Science Slam (2015) 253 Art+Feminism campaign 62 Art after Hours programme, in Sydney 29 Art Carts 179 art exhibitions: new media 218–219; VR 215; see also specific exhibitions Art Fund charity 297 Art Gallery of Ontario 172 artificial intelligence (AI) 49, 50, 182, 202–203, 214 Art Newspaper 47 Art of Artefacts programme 107–109, 108 art(s): and culture, public attitudes to 11; experiences 241, 244; membership schemes 180; participation 68; trollies 179 Arts and Humanities Research Council 110, 126 Arts Council England 7 artworks, recreations of 54–55 “Ask away” event 139 asset-based approach 105 Association of Independent Museums 84 attention, stages of 187–188, 187b Attention Value Model of Museum Visitors 187 attitudinal change 27, 42, 151 Audience-as-Artist 69, 70, 190, 192b audience engagement 275–276; activity 282; community partnership 84–85, 88–90; democratic 207; evaluation of 209; failure to focus on growing/ sustaining 80–84; Millennials 29; nature of 145–146; policies for 213; traditional museum approach 146–148 Audience Involvement Spectrum 68–70, 71b, 190 audience participation 160–161, 166; active 145, 148, 153; expanding through open digital platforms 213;

301

in museum experience 172; see also participative exhibits and activities audiences: attracting 74, 85, 91; authoritative voice of museum 184; behaviours/expectations 3, 28, 276; bringing back 6, 87; changing expectations 257; conf licting agendas 148–150; development 80, 290; diversifying 14, 80, 86, 91, 160, 284; encouraging 297; expectations of new generations 4, 5, 86; experiences 68–69, 160, 213, 282; generational shift 27; groups of 212; growth in community 86; involvement 69; key areas of activity 280–282, 282; leisure 26; of Millennials 29, 68; mixed 10b; museum audiences 6, 13, 25, 32, 94, 143, 148, 175, 209, 221; new generations of core 86–87; potential 6, 24, 148; pre-visit history of 151; recreational 157; retaining 3, 85; of science slam 249–252; segmentation 212; target 80, 83, 163–165; workforce and 90; work with different 174b Audubon, J. J. 267 augmented reality (AR) 182, 199, 211, 214–215 authenticity 10b, 98, 174b authoritarian museum 184 authority 10b baby boomers 5, 21, 27, 68, 157 Bacon, K. 230 Baden State Museum, Karlsruhe Palace 172, 183, 197–203, 197, 299; Archaeology in Baden 198–200, 199; Creative Collections project 200–202; new museum concept 197–198 Ballantyne, R. 148 BAME (black and minority ethnic) 87, 90, 163 Bandelli, A. 191 Banners and Stories project 132 Bayerisch Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe 143 Bayeux Tapestry Museum 284 Baym, N.K. 58 BBC seven social classes 31b Beamish (open-air museum) 84 behaviour: change in 68, 151; choices 126 Beirut 100 belly-painting festival 135, 136 Bel, M. 135 belonging, in participative exhibits 179–180 beneficial responses 93, 148

302

Index

Bergevin, J. 151 Bernhardt, J. 49, 143, 172, 175, 196 Besterman, T. 114 Betwixt Reality and Illusion 219 Bigand, K. 117 ‘big C’ creativity 156, 206 Bitgood, S. 187 Bjerregaard, P. 247 Black, G. 68, 113, 116–117, 164 Black Lives Matter movement 3 Blast Theory, Gift app 227–229 Bloody Sunday Trust (BST) 119 Blud, L. M. 224 Bombardier 106 Borun, M. 186 Boston Art Gallery, Massachusetts 175 Boston Loves Impressionism (2014) 178 Bourdieu, P. 243 boxing matches, in museum lobby (2019) 137 brand 280 Brexit referendum (2016) 35 Brighton Museum: Gift app by Blast Theory in 227–229; My Brighton and Hove website 183 BritainThinks 11, 114, 121 British Library 62 British Museum 26, 183, 202 broadcasting, promotional 19, 53 Brooklyn Art Gallery 178, 183, 188 Brooklyn Museum 29 Brown, A.S. 68, 190 Brown, D. 20, 42, 67, 181–182, 190 Burgess, J. 55 Burness, A. 56 Burns, R. 272–273 business model 275, 275 Butler, T. 7, 96, 103 Call-for-Contributions 72, 73 calligraphy 215 Cameron, D. 95 caption contests 178 Carasso, D. 131, 133 Cardiff Story Museum 97, 162 care/health 95–96, 95b Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh (Oh Snap!, 2013) 182–183 #catcontent exhibition 253 Center for the Future of Museums 114 Chalayan, H. 138, 140 Challenge of Change 1 change: addressing problem 3; barriers to 262; clear route ahead to 258; defined 1; driving through 280; early

signs of 283; getting started 263–264; governing body 258; as inevitable and urgent 257; maintaining momentum around 283; managing 257–265, 274–292; organisational 261, 262; vision and 258–261 Children and Youth Affairs Promotion Advisory Council 213 Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, Tree of Promise 183 children, special case for 168 China, tourism in 26 cities and urban development 95b, 99–100 citizen humanities 202 citizenship: cultural 209; vision of 129 Civic Hall 110, 111 civil engagement, and communities 191 civil society 204 climate change 95b, 97–98 CNC machine routers 107 Coalition of Museums for Climate Justice 97 co-creation 69, 70, 190, 282; collaboration and 135, 156, 189, 206, 208; community activism 192b; contributing content 2b; of new collections knowledge 290; opportunity for 170; partnerships 154; programme 8; slow participation 203; user involvement and 242 Coffee and Nuggets sessions 240–243, 245 Cohen, A. 7 collaboration 136, 140, 146, 156, 279; capacity for 27; co-creation and 135, 156, 189, 206, 208; community building 107; creative 45b, 48; crossdisciplinary 225; digital technology and 212; ‘new power’ vision 14; participation and 112; partnership and 291; public 111; self-management and 42; values and 89, 94 Collection Resource Centre 289 collections 145–146; access 289; digitisation of 152; future of 297; researching and documenting 2b; at the core 280 Colleen Dilenschneider 269 comfortable seating 164, 185 Commons see Wikimedia Commons Commonwealth Association of Museums (CAM) 97 communication 146, 156, 283 community 1, 296; and civil engagement 191; co-production 230; engagement 2–3, 2b, 13, 262; expectations of new

Index

generations and 3; partnerships 84–85, 88–90, 258; resonance 91 Community Relations Council, NI 116, 181 competition, growing 6 complex problem, understanding of 270–271 Computer Gaming 67 concept development, framework for 165b Connecting digital practice with social purpose (report) 98 connection, environmental 69 Conner Prairie Interactive History Park, Indiana 162 Connolly, S. 64 consultations 128 consumers: empowered 28b, 143, 149; new 24–25, 27 content 281; access to 45, 48; contributing 2b, 192b; creation 42, 65, 69 contested histories, in museum 115–121 contract of trust 114 contributions 42; participative exhibits 179; potential 129; smart participation 183 contributory projects 189 contributory spaces 170, 185 conversation spaces 170b conversation starters cards 240–243, 244 Cooper, S. 1, 3, 4, 255, 266 co-production 105, 107 COVID-19 pandemic 3, 49, 53, 112, 295; crisis 203, 296, 298; globalisation impact 26; impact on museums 269; job loss 87, 298; long-term impact 296–299; new technology and media impact 48, 156; online education 155; practical changes 298; report on 297; social media impact 40; urgency for digital museum 203 Create Corners 179 Creating the Visitor-Centred Museum (Samis and Michaelson) 261 creative collaboration 45b, 48 Creative Collections project 200–202 Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence 61 Creative Commons Zero (CC-0) licence 61, 64 creative learning 207–208 Creative Museum, The 206 creativity 156, 204; agents for 178; analogue participative exhibits 178–179; defined 205; emphasis on 27; experimentation and 106; innovation

303

and 110, 146, 153; issue of 143; notions of 44; selfie 55; smart participation 182–183; as strategy development for museums 209; vibrancy and 55; see also joint creativity critical thinking 146, 156 Crooke, E. 12, 113 crowd-sourcing 69, 70, 190, 192b, 202 cultural heritage: access to 48; Baden State Museum 197; city 103; exhibited 225; of museum’s collection 212, 221; and nurturing community 105; public opinion on 10–11 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Australians 87 Culture + Community in a Time of Crisis report (2020) 295, 297 culture/cultural: attendance 123, 125; citizenship 209; cross-pollination 204–205; diversity 86; equality, promoting 213; institutions 129; organisations 5, 296; sector 8, 64, 204; services 21, 125; wars 116 Curating Tomorrow report (2019) 291 curatorial autonomy 137–140 customers: experience map 163; participation 69 D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership and Arts Council England 107 Dale Community Primary School 106 Dallas Museum of Art 29 Dana, J. C. 23 Danish Golden Age – World-class art between disasters exhibition 240–245, 244 Danish National Gallery (SMK) 30, 143, 148, 175, 177–178 Danish Science Centre 208 Darbel, A. 243 Darwin, E. 106 Davies, M. 190 day-to-day experiences 134 democracy, digital 95b, 98–99 democratic museum 84 democratic transformations 205 democratisation 98 Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums (AAM report) 81 Denver Art Museum 175, 179 Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht 63 Derby city 110 Derby College and University 109 Derby Guildhall 109 Derby Industrial Museum 103

304

Index

Derby Silk Mill 103–112, 104; asset-based approach 105; human-centred design 105–106; making the Museum of Making 107; planning the full scheme 107–112 ‘Design a Wig’ interactive 49 Design Thinking approach 201, 269–272 dialogue: between museum and users 240–241; and wonder 245–247 didactic displays 5, 13, 27, 117, 147, 149–150, 173, 298 Dierking, L. 45 Digital Culture Compass 48 ‘Digital First’ approach 46 digital informal learning 151–154; collaborative research 154; as intellectually empowering 153; museum collections 152; new forms of museum learning experience 153; playfulness role 152–153; selfdirected exploration and discovery 152; skills sets, building 153–154; as transformative 154; user learning experience 152 digitality 46, 200, 203 Digital Skills for Heritage Programme 48 Digital Social Innovation (DSI) 2b, 98 digital technologies 211, 212; access 45–46; catalogue, use of 198–199; democracy 95b, 98–99; drawings 179; exclusion 56; exhibits 187; expertise 48; museum 203; practicalities 45; revolution 41–44, 151–152, 196; skills 297; superpublic 58 digitisation: of artefacts 152; of collections 98, 198 Dippy on Tour 283, 290 discomfort, and OF/BY/FOR ALL 140–141 displays: agile approach to 166, 166b, 174; augmented reality 217; contemporary 162; depot 198; didactic 5, 13, 27, 117, 147, 149–150, 173, 298; pace 167; participative environment and exhibits in 2b; passive 5, 147, 173, 298; planning of 165; QR codes 214; virtual 47 diversity 34–35, 79; cultural 86; and inclusion 212; programming for diverse city 133–137; of society, failure to ref lecting 6–7 Diversity Arts Australia (2019) 87 Diversity, Equity, Accessibility and Inclusion Working Party final report (AAM) 87 Dornan, D. 96, 123 drawings, digital 179

DREAM (Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials) 208, 209 Dreppec, A. 249–250 Drexel University, Academy of Natural Sciences of 266–267, 267, 271 Drotner, K. 20, 96, 143, 156, 178, 204 Drucker, P. 266–268 Durham Museum of Oriental Art, “Go Walkeez” project at 175 Dutch Museum Award 131 eBay 43 education/educational 10b, 146; activities 222, 247; experiences 10b, 69; innovation 266; institutions 9, 145, 241; level 148, 184; new demands 204; opportunities 21; outreach programs 213, 220; providing 11; qualifications 23; resources 179; structured use 165 edutainment character 251–252 Eisenhower, D. D. 268–270 Eklund, L. 224 Elegant Encounters – AR In-Gallery Guide 214 elitism 4–5, 31b email 43 emergent maturity 90 emergent service sector 31b emotional experience 190 Empathetic Museum 90 empowered consumers 28b, 143, 149 empowerment 180 engagement: civil 191; communications and 283; customer 69; enhanced 69, 70, 190; hierarchies of 189–190; participative digital 44; user 241–242; visitor 50; see also audience engagement English language Wikipedia 61 entertainment 11, 69, 251 entry points 170 environment: building participative spaces into museum galleries 169–170; inclusive and participative 160–170; introduction 160; journey mapping 162–163; researching user experience 160–161; seven essentials for exhibition planning 164–169; warm/welcoming/ supportive 163–164; welcoming nonparticipant 161–162 Epitome of Aesthetics – New Media Art Exhibition 218–219 Erasmus+ Key Action 2 206 escapism 69 esthetic experience 69

Index

ethical responses 93 ethnic diversity 34–35 Europeana 153 European Union 85, 191; ageing population 33–34; average working time 24; Horizon 2020 206, 225; survey of public opinion on cultural heritage 10–11 exhibition planning, seven essentials for 164–169, 165b; agile approach to displays 166; ensuring “good good-byes” 168–169; learning styles, supporting 167; museum fatigue 167; personalising visitors experience 166; piloting and implemented gradually 166; special case for children 168 Experience Economy 67, 69 experiences 282; active 74, 174b; art 241, 244; audiences 68–69, 160, 213, 282; characterisation of 69; day-today 134; defined 69; emotional 190; esthetic 69; framework 70, 70b, 71b; gaming 72–73; holistic museum 161; intellectual 190; realms 69, 70b; social 96, 181, 190, 245; spectating 69; spiritual 190; types of 69; user 44, 160–161, 263–264; visitor 74, 166, 282; see also informal museum learning experience; interpersonal experiences experiential learning 149, 220 experiential matrix 167b Experimentarium 208 explainers 199–200 Exploratorium, in San Francisco 173 ExpoLab 200 ExpoPhones 199 Expothek 198–200, 199 external spaces 170 FabLabs (digital fabrication labs) 99 Facebook 22, 43, 57, 73, 134, 241 facilitators 156, 206 factual and unbiased information 114, 121 Faden, R. 114 Falk, J. 45 Fall of the Titans (painting) 177–178 famelab 250 Family Friendly Museum award 49 family: friendly exhibits, characteristics of 186–187; groups, observation of 187; patterns and structures, trends in 32b Family Science Learning Research Project 186 Fantoni, S.F. 189

305

featured slammers 250 feedback: informal 134; and rewards 170, 181 ‘feeling left out’ communities 252 financial and existential crisis 133 financial distress 298 financially appropriate responses 93 Fleming, D. 83, 85, 115 f lickr 153 f lip innovation strategy 213 Floyd, G. 3, 85 Forbes 27 formal learning 145; creativity 156; environment 155; museums and 154–156; new technology 155–156 Four Realms of Experience 69–70 Fox, H. 105 Franz Sauer department store 71 free-choice learning 129 French, A. 163 ‘Friday Lates’ event 28 Friends through Culture: A Special Exhibition on Elegant Paintings (2019) 214 front-of-house team 164 funding, substantial cuts in 7–9 Future Audiences Project 50 Galaxy Adventure of the NPM Guardians (3D animation) 219 galleries 169, 187, 207, 285, 287 Game of Thrones Tapestry 283–285, 284–285 Games Developer Conference (1989) 67 gaming and gamification: digital learning 152–153; for museum exhibition 20, 71–73; as participation 67–74; portfolio of museum experiences 72; smart participation 181 Gaming Participation 70, 71b Gardiner, J. 115 General Well-being Index 95 generational shift 27–33 Generation Z 5, 27, 31, 160, 225; audiences of 68; digital revolution 40, 42; expectations of museums 30b; science slams for 252 German National Museum 249 Germany: cultural history museum in 197; science slams in 30, 144, 250; working time 24 Getty Museum 49, 54–55 #GettyMuseumChallenge 53–55, 54, 182 Gibson, W. 269 Gift app by Blast Theory, in Brighton Museum 227–229, 238

306

Index

Gilman, B. 23, 172–173 Gilmore, J.H. 69 GIS technology, in educational outreach programs 220 GLAMi Award 211 GLAMorgan tool 65 GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) 60–65, 208 Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) 96, 123; Arts and Humanities Research Council 126; and Glasgow Museums 127 Glasgow Life 127–128 Glasgow Museums (GM) 83; developing as health promoting organisation 126–128; Open Museum 123, 127–128; universalist approaches of 127 globalisation, impact of 22 ‘Golden Circle’, Simek’s 41 Golden Orchid Restaurant game 215 ‘good good-byes’, ensuring 168–169 Google 22, 43, 153 governing body 258 Go Walkeez project 175 Grand Rapids, MI 178, 188 Great Court, at British Museum 26 Grohe, M. 163 Gustavianum, Sweden 225 Gutwill, J.P. 173 Hackathon: at museum x 202; NPM 221 Hack Days (cultural hackathon) 183 Hammer Museum, Los Angeles 178, 188 Hanlon, P. 126 Happy Museum Project 96 hard work 94, 280 Healing Through Remembering (HTR) 116; see also National Museums NI (NMNI) health and care 95–96, 95b Heath, C. 190 Heimans, J. 14, 42 help desks and staff 169 Hemingway, E. 267 ‘Here for Good’ strategy 277–278, 279, 289 Heritage Industry 26 Heritage Lottery Funding 105 Herold, C. 272 ‘histo.bar’ event 72, 73 Historische Mitte 71 Historypin 153 Hohenstein, J. 150 Holidays with Pay Act (1938) 24 holistic museum experience 161 Hood, M.G. 82

Horizon 2020 (EU) 206, 225 Horsfall, T. C. 23 House of Science, in Braunschweig 250 Hsiao-Te Hsu 20, 50, 144, 182, 211 Hueseum tours 90 human-centred design 105–106 humiliation 129 humour: and entertainment value 251; and play 226 Hunt, G. 64 Hunt, J. 64 Hunt Museum, Limerick 64–65, 178, 182 identity model, for Academy of Natural Sciences 270–271, 271 images: publishing 64–65; recognition technology 229 IMI 112 immersive audio guide applications 214 immersive theatres 182, 211; Marvels in the Sea 217–218, 218; Tibetan Dragon Sutra 217 Incluseum 90 inclusive museum 13, 163, 167 inclusive practice 82–83b income generation, through activities 282, 291 independent museums 84, 297 Indianapolis Museum of Art 179, 188 Industrial Museum in Derby Silk Mill 103 Industry 4.0 49 inequalities, health 124–125, 129 informal feedback 134 informal museum learning experience: audience engagement 145–148; conf licting agendas 148–150; creativity 156; digital learning 151–154; introduction 145; long-term impact 150–151; and new technologies 153–154, 155–156; participative environment 155 Information Age 41 innovation: creativity and 146, 156; ref lection and 296; response, of museums 178–179 Inspired by Matisse (Indianapolis Museum of Art) 179 Instagram 43, 57, 72, 73 #instaschmölz Instawalk 72, 73 integration, migration and 95b, 97–98 intellectual experience 190 interactive exhibits 173 interactive installations 182, 211, 213, 214, 217 internal culture, shifting 283

Index

International Coalition of Sites of Conscience 100 International Committee for Regional Museums (ICR) 97 International Committee for the Collections and Activities of Museums of Cities (CAMOC) 97 International Council of Museums (ICOM): CECA’s Best Practice 211; diversity and inclusion 212; NPM and 222; Special Project of 97; study (2020) 297 International Slow Art Day 175 interpersonal experiences: designing for 224–238; museum-curated 229–238; play and gifting 227–229; with/in museum 225–226 interpretive master planning 165 investment, in leadership and management programme 283 iPad 43 iPhones 43 Irish Museums Association 298 Ironbridge (open-air museum) 84 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston 163 isolation: and humiliation 129; and loneliness 34, 99, 124–125 It’s Time We Met project 181 Jadeite Cabbage 214 Jalving, C. 68 Janes, R. 97, 114, 191 Janssen, P. 133 Jenkins, H. 42 Jenkins, J.G. 84 Johnston, B. 286, 288 joint creativity 156, 179, 205–206; evidence of 206–208; museums and democratic transformations 205; processual nature of 208–209; as strategy development for museums 209 journey mapping 162–163 Karlsruhe Palace, Baden State Museum in 197–203, 197 Kennedy, A. 98–99 Kerr, A. 116 Kidd, J. 19, 53, 181, 182 ‘Kids in Museums’ charity 49 Kids in Museums family Friendly Award from Home 49 Koke, J. 30 ‘Köln am Rhein – Oder: Von Zeit zu Zeit’ exhibition 71, 72

307

‘Köln an der Seine – Der Pavillon der Stadt Köln auf der Pariser Weltaustellung 1937’ exhibition 71 Kölnische Stadtmuseum 67, 71, 72, 181 ‘Köln-Tag’ events and programmes 72 Konijn, E.A. 191 Kunstpalais in Erlangen, Germany 253 Kunyu Quantu interactive installation 214–215, 215 Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein) 68 Laloux, F. 41 LaPlaca Cohen 28, 149, 269, 295–296 Leach (Creative Core) 107 leadership 263, 278; development 280; effective 263, 278–280; and management 283; team 278, 283 learning: creative 207–208; experiential 149, 220; free-choice 129; interpretation and 46–47; new technologies 153–154; non-formal 145; participative 2b; project-based 155; see also digital informal learning; formal learning; informal museum learning experience; skills and 95b, 96; STEAM 106, 106, 220; structured 96; styles, planning to support 167; user experience 152 Lego 152 leisure: and ‘new consumer’ 24–25; as public good 23–24; and tourism destination 12, 25–27 Leslie, G. D. 228, 229 Let’s Play 67 Lewis, M. 267 Lewis, P. 113 Library of Congress 62 Limerick School of Art 64 Limfjordsmuseet exhibition, Northern Jutland, Denmark 209 literary gathering, in Qingshui 218 ‘little c’ creativity 178, 206 Live Gaming via Twitch 67 Livingstone, S. 68 Lock, S. 28 logic modelling, to museum activities 127 loneliness, isolation and 34, 99, 124–125 longevity 10b Longhurst, B. 25 Løvlie, A. S. 4, 44, 144, 146, 150, 153, 181, 224, 228 Lynch, B. 86, 88 Lyons, B. 107 MacBride, D. 181 MacReynolds, C. 175

308

Index

Magic STEAM Train Project 220, 220 Magnus app 229 Makerspaces 179 makeshift museums 116 Make Works Derbyshire (online gazetteer) 109 Malde, S. 98–99 Mann, L. 163 Manual of Curatorship (Lewis) 113 manual working class, decline in 22–23 Mao Gong Ding 214 market segmentation model 290 Marmot, M. 124, 125 Marstrand, W. 240 Martin, D. 108 Marvels in the Sea immersive interactive theatre 217, 218 MASS Action (Museum as Site for Social Action) 89 mass migration 97 Matarasso, F. 125 Match SMK (board game) 175, 177–178 Matisse Life and Colour exhibition 179 Maturity Model 90 McClure, S.E. 28 McGhie, H. 97, 291 McIntyre, C. 146–147 McLagan, P. 41 McManus, P. 150 Meat-shaped Stone 214 media-driven/enhanced off-site experience 153 meeting spaces 134 Meier, S. 67, 68 membership schemes 180, 200 Mencken, H. L. 270–272 Meredith, F. 117 Merritt, E. 114–115 Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York 181 Michaelson, M. 261 Michener Art Museum, Pennsylvania 178, 188 micro-learning moments 174b MicroPasts, British Museum’s 183, 202 Microsoft 22 middle class 31b Midlands Maker Challenge 112 migration 34, 95b, 97–98 Migration: Cities project 97 Millennials 5, 27–28, 32, 34, 160; audiences of 68; digital revolution 40, 42; engagement 29–30, 144; families in changing society 32–33; science slams for 252

Minneapolis Institute of Art 89 mission 279 Missouri, T. 150 mixed audience 10b mixed reality (MR) 182, 211 mobile game 72 mobile space 152 mobilisation 213 Modest Fashion exhibition (2019) 136, 138, 138 Morris Hargreaves McIntyre (MHM) 190 motivational descriptions, of museum visitors 30 Moussouri, T. 149 multimedia projects, for museum 212 multi-modal exhibits 186 multi-outcome exhibits 186 multi-perspectivity 47 multi-platform museum experience 192, 192b multi-purpose spaces 169 multi-sided exhibits 186 multi-user interaction 186 Munch Museum in Oslo, Norway 229 Munro, J.L. 180–181 MUSE Awards 211 museum: in action 95–100; aims and mission 261–262; audiences 6, 13, 25, 32, 94, 143, 148, 175, 209, 221; constant problem for 3; contested histories 115–121; converting into organisation 261; creativity as strategy development for 209; and democratic transformations 205; digital 203; digital context to visits to cultural venues 44b; and digital revolution 41–44; engaging staff in planning process 268, 268; exhibition 71–73; experiences of users 44; facing up to challenges 4–9; fatigue 167; and formal learning 154–156; future direction for 9–14, 9; gaming experiences 72–73; Generation Z expectations of 30b; heritage tourism on 26–27; historic roles and qualities of 11; implications for experience 44–48; independent 84, 297; as institutions of mass public engagement 79; joint creativity for democratic transformations in 204–209; as leisure/tourism destination 12, 23–27; makeshift 116; Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 164; measuring maturity level 90–91; multi-platform and non-hierarchical 192, 192b; new identity model 270–271, 271; overhaul

Index

of 113; participation 70, 71b, 115–121, 190; participative spaces in galleries 169–170; and participatory culture 60–65; potential of 275; practice 113; practice guidelines for reopening 298; primary objective 263; problem with experience of 82–83; providing symbolic narrative about city nature 129; public 84, 86; publicly funded 7, 85, 291, 297; reasons for not visiting 81; resources, issue of scarce 185; relevance and funding gaps 276, 276; remaining peripheral to people’s lives 6b; research challenges in 249; roles and responsibilities 9–10; science slams for 249–254; selfies 55–58; service 279; single-identity 116; singlevoiced and authoritarian 184; as social setting 243–245; spaces 160; staff 87; supporting structured education 154–155b; switching user studies to impact studies 151; tale of two visions 15b, 259–260b; timeless qualities of 10b; transformational change within 257–258; trust and 114–115; vision for 258–261; visitors 28, 30; see also activist museum; digital informal learning; informal museum learning experience; public health; specific entries Museum Access Zones 87, 87 Museum Activism (2019) 114 Museum and the Web, GLAMi Award 211 Museum at the Market Square, Baden 202 MuseumCamp 201, 201 Museum Detox 90 Museum Discourse 68 Museum Hue 90 ‘Museum Lates’ event 28, 29, 29, 180, 253 Museum of Applied Art in Belgrade, Serbia 229 Museum of Free Derry 116 Museum of Making, at Derby Silk Mill 103–112 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York 47, 168–169 Museum of Natural History Berlin 253 Museum of Orange Heritage 116 Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles 181 Museum-Public Health Partnership, in Glasgow 96 Museums and Climate Change Network (MCCN) 97 Museums and Creative Ageing (2020) 207 Museums Association, UK 11, 100, 113

309

Museums Change Lives campaign 11 Museum Visit 70, 72, 73 museum x 201–202 My Brighton and Hove website 183 My City, My Sounds app 183 National Arts Strategies 111 National Centre for Citizenship and the Law (NCCL) 94 National Drawing Day 179 National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) 94–95, 207 National Gallery: Ireland 179; London 26 National Gallery of Denmark: Never Let Me Go in 226, 227–228, 238; Statens Museum for Kunst (SMK) 240–241 National Health Service (NHS), UK 95 National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) 63 National Justice Museum 94 National Lottery Heritage Fund 7, 48, 107, 117, 285 National Monuments 63 National Museum Directors’ Conference (NMDC) 207 National Museum in Belgrade 230, 237 National Museum of Scotland, in Edinburgh 29 National Museums Liverpool 85 National Museums NI (NMNI) 119, 121, 274–292 National Museums Wales 89 National Palace Museum (NPM), Taipei 211–222; 3D and GIS technology 220; 3D animation 219; 4K film and 3D modelling 219; 5G technology and AI 214; augmented reality 214–215; Children and Youth Affairs Promotion Advisory Council 213; digital technology 212; Hackathon 221–222; immersive audio guide applications 214; immersive interactive theatres 217; Magic STEAM Train Project 220; new media art exhibitions 218–219; QR code 214; Spirit of Autobiography 215–216; structural shifts 213; virtual reality 215; Youth Representative Elections 213 Natural History and Science Museums, in London 50 Natural History gallery at Derby Museum, UK 183 Natural History Museum in London 186 need, identifying 94

310

Index

negative substitution 5 Negroponte, N. 46 Nel, C. 41 Nelson, T. 7 networking 94 network society, rise of 41 Netzwerk Kölnische Geschichte 72 neutrality 93, 113–115, 117, 121 Never Let Me Go, in National Gallery of Denmark 226, 227–228, 238 new aff luent workers 31b New Audience Development and Education teams 278 new consumer, and leisure 24–25, 27 new exhibition framework, seven essentials in defining 164–169, 165b new media art exhibitions: ANiMAL – Art Science Nature Society 218; Epitome of Aesthetics 218–219; literary gathering in Qingshui (NPM) 218 new power, concept of 14, 15b, 42, 259–260b, 262 new technologies: COVID-19 pandemic impact 48, 156; creating global reach for museum collections 152; learning 153–154; as transformative 154 New Walk Museum, Leicester 178 NextGame, Your Stories exhibition by 230, 237 Nielsen, J. 27, 184 Niemann, P. 251 Nintendo, Animal Crossing: New Horizons video game 49, 182 non-formal learning 145 non-hierarchical museum experience 192, 192b non-participants, welcoming 161–162 non-verbal behaviours 162 NORDMETALL Stiftung 8 Northern Ireland: Healing Through Remembering (HTR) project 116; museum practice in 113; museum working with local communities 77; National Museums NI 119, 121, 274–292; political reality of 116; ‘Troubles, the’ 116–117, 285; in virtual civil war 100 Novak-Leonard, L. 68, 190 Obama, M. 79–80 object handling 175 OF/BY/FOR ALL approach: background 131–133; challenges of 131–141; Change Network 131; curatorial

autonomy 137–140; discomfort and 140–141; diverse programming for city 133–137; global initiative 77, 89 Office for National Statistics 56 Oh Snap! (Carnegie Museum of Art) 182–183 old power, concept of 14, 15b, 42, 259–260b, 262 O’Neill, M. 87, 96, 123 O’Neill, R. 19, 46, 60, 182, 185 One Minute Experience app 230, 231–236 one-off visitors 151, 179 online meeting spaces 134 online space 152 open-air museums 84 open-ended participative exhibits 155 Open Museum 123, 127–128 O’Reilly, T. 42 organisational: change 261, 262; culture 280; development 270; structure 278 Oudsten, F. den 244 Our Museum initiative 89, 128, 209, 261 Packer, J. 148 Palo Alto Art Centre, California 179 participation: in arts-based activities 125; aspects related to museums 2b; defined 1, 2–3, 13, 68; digital engagement and sharing 44; and enhancing museum’s relevance 242–243; events, science slams as 252; explorations along spectrum of 68–69; frameworks for measuring 69–70; gaming and gamification as 67–74; and genuine partnership 88; governance 2b, 48; learning 2b; mass 40; Museum Discourse on 68; museums 70, 71b, 115–121, 190; online 43; partnership 83b; as practice 68; proof of 68; public expectations of 43; rights 2b; social media and 53–58; spaces, in museum galleries 169–170; through volunteering 2b Participation Paradigm 68 participative environment 2b, 155; see also environment participative exhibits and activities: analogue 175–181; creating 172–192, 174b; defining 173–174; effectiveness of exhibit 186–189; evaluation of 186–192; experimentation with 188–189; hierarchies of engagement 189–190; longer-term impact 190–191; observation 186–188; professional judgement 188–189; smart

Index

participation 181–183; spaces 170; time, importance of 172–173; typology of 174–183; UGC and UCC 183–185 participative museum 13–14 participatory culture 42, 48; for media learning 68; museums and 60–65; and practice 2b Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) 156, 204 partnerships: with audiences and communities 45; building 94, 261; community 84–86, 88–90, 108, 258; participation and 83; strategic 123, 206 passive displays 5, 147, 173, 298 pathways 128, 164, 170 Paton, J. 23 Paul Hamlyn Foundation 89, 128, 261 Peake’s Soyuz Capsule 290 Penn, W. 266 People’s Choice exhibition 188 performance 70, 283 permanent exhibitions 147–148, 147b personal agency 146 Philadelphia 266 Phillips, W. 262 Philpot, G. 231 physical and virtual learning experience 152 Pickett, K. 129 Pindakaasvloer (Peanut Butter Floor) display 137 Pine II, B.J. 69 PISEC museums 186 planned maturity 90 play: and gifting 227–229; and humour 226 Player Connection 70 Player Participation 70 playfulness 152–153 Pledge Wall, in US National Holocaust Memorial Museum 183 poetry slams 250 point of arrival 164 Poland 35 political activism 93, 115, 117 polyvocality 47 Pompidou Centre, in Paris 26 Poortvliet, R. 138 population diversity 34–35; ageing 33–34; migration 34 post-industrial cities 125 poverty: eradication 124; and inequality 125; reduction 22 practical responses 93 precariat 32b

311

preoccupations 126 Price, K. 164 Price, S. 186 Price Waterhouse Cooper 27, 34 professional judgement 188–189 project-based learning 155 projectitis 127 Pronk, M. 182 public good, leisure as 23–24 public health: Glasgow Museums, developing 126–128; museums and 125–126; paradigm 124–125; questioning the museum paradigm 123–124; shared vision of museums 129–130 publicly funded museums 7, 85, 291, 297 public museums 84, 86 public opinion: UK survey of 11–12b; USA survey of 10b public revenue funding, substantial cuts in 7–9 public trust 114 public value 13 purpose: common 281; Here for Good 277–278 QR codes 214 Queer of the Year 2018 287 Questions for Anna Ancher 241, 245, 246, 247 radical innovation approach 269, 270 Rajae El Mouhandiz 136 Rajkowska, P. 224 readability 186 Rebuilding Curatorial and Collections Care 278 Reconfiguration of the Experience and Enterprise teams 278 Recruitment of Volunteering and Participation Manager 278 Redfern, Alistair (Bishop) 106, 112 reductions in public funding 7–9 ref lection: in action 209; and innovation 296; zones 164, 169, 170b regressive maturity 90–91 relevance 6, 10b, 186, 242–243, 276 Relevant Museum Project 8 Remi Awards 211 representation 83b Representing Communities project 126 responsibility 10b revenue funding, substantial cuts in 7–9 Rheinische Bildarchiv 71 Richardson, J. 299

312

Index

Robson, K. 70 Rogers, V. 97 Rolls-Royce 106, 109 Royal Academy in London 49 Royal Museums Greenwich 26 Ruberg, B. 188 Rung, M. H. 30, 81, 143, 148, 175, 240 Ryding, K. 224 Ryedale Folk Museum 89 Samis, P. 261 Sandell, R. 114 Sarajevo 100 scaffolds 208 Scarff, L. 258 Schippers, W. T. 138 Schmölz, H. 71, 72 Schmölz, K. H. 71, 72 Schön, D. 209 Schoonhoven, J. 137 Schreuder, C. 131 Schrögel, P. 20, 30, 144, 249 science slams: audiences and edutainment character 251–252; in Museum of Natural History Berlin 253; new audiences 252–253; organized in Germany 30, 144, 250; origins and concept 249–250; as participative events 252 Screven, C. 162 Seaman, P. 96, 123 selfies 55–58, 181 #SelfieTime 57 self-motivation 146 Selwood, S. 80, 261 Senft, M. 58 Senft, T. 58 Shackleton, E. 267 Sheffield University 110 Siege Heroes Museum 116 Silent Testimony 287 Silk Mill see Derby Silk Mill silosclerosis 259, 262 Silverman, L. 191 Simek, S. 41 Simon, N. 2, 89, 131, 174, 184, 263; Models for Participation (ME to WE spectrum) 189, 189b; Museum 2.0 blog 188 single-identity museums 116 single-voiced museum 184 skilled manual workforce, decline in 22–23 skills and learning 95b, 96 ‘Slow Art’ 175, 196

Slow Art Sunday, at Ulster Museum 175, 176b, 176 slow participation 172; Archaeology in Baden 198–200, 199; Baden State Museum, case of 197–203; Bayerisch Landesmuseum 143; Creative Collections project 200–202; new museum concept 197–198 small-scale temporary exhibition spaces 170 Smartify app 229 smart participation 47; contribution 183; creativity 182–183; stimulating action 183; taking part 181–182 Smartphones, and social media 40, 43, 44 Smith, K.J. 9 Smith of Derby 109 SMK Fridays events 30, 241 Snapchat 43 social interaction: dialogue and 247; encouraging 160; expanding between visitors 245; informal learning through 146, 150, 190; interpretation and learning 46–47; museum learning 169; in museums 150, 225; museum space as site of 240; opportunities for 164; prioritising 238; stimulating 247; strengths of 174b; threat to 298 social issues: challenge, key areas of 94–95, 95b; classes 31b; elite 4–5; exclusion 85–86; experience 96, 181, 190, 245; groups 5, 28, 82, 84, 150; inclusion 86; isolation 96, 124–125; networking/networks 43, 56; photography 55–58; prescribing 95–96; spaces 13, 225, 240–247; wellbeing 95–96 social media 31, 42–44, 47, 134; component of 42; feeds 55; and online participation 44; and participation 53–58; sharing museum experience through 149; Smartphones and 40, 43, 44; usage 57 Social Return on Investment (SORI) 7 societal change 21–35; generational shift 27–33; leisure 23–27; millennial families in changing society 32–33; population diversity 33–35; white collar society and decline of working class 21–23 Sommer, H. 28 spectating: defined 190; experience 69 spectatorship 67, 70 Spirit of Autobiography, The 215–216, 216 spiritual experience 190

Index

Springborg, L. 242 Stalder, F. 200 Statens Museum for Kunst (SMK) 240 status quo museum 9–12 STEAM learning 106, 106, 220 Stedelijk Museum Schiedam 90, 131–133 Stein, R. 88–89 stimulating action: analogue participative exhibits 180–181; smart participation 183 Stokes, M. 98 Stories of Change 110 strategic economic development 291 strategic partnership, building 123–130 strategic plan: developing 269, 270, 272; framework for 81b structural shifts 213 structured learning 96 Strutt, J. 106 Studio Tilt 107 Sundnes, A. 4 superdiversity 133 Sustainable Development Goals, UN 291 Taichung Flora Expo NPM New Media Art Exhibition (2018) 221 Taipei, NPM at 211–222 Taiwan 212 taking part: analogue participative exhibits 175–178; in Hack Days 183; smart participation 181–182 target audiences 80, 83, 163–165 targeted groups 128 Tate in London 26, 47, 184 Teal organisations 41–42 TED/TEDx talks 250 Thatcherism 85 thematic projects 128 Theuns, D. 131 Thomas, N. 100 Thomson, K. 7, 255, 261, 274 Thorpe, A. 103 threat to museum authority 45 Tibetan Dragon Sutra immersive interactive installation 217, 217 TikTok 43, 57 time, importance of 172–173 Timms, H. 14, 42 tourism: cultural and heritage 26; leisure and 12, 25–27; supporting 11; UK 26 Tower of London 26 Toyota 106 trails: and activity packs 175; spaces 170 Trans Day of Awareness 56

313

transformational change 257–258, 263 Transforming Museums in the twenty-first century (Black) 113 Transition Town Network 97 transparency 10b Travelling Community 65 Treasures Lost in Time (Immersive Audio Guide App) 214 Tree of Promise 183 Trent XWB 109 Tressell, R. 124 Trolling 43 Troubles and Beyond exhibition 119, 120, 287, 289 Troubles Gallery 116–117, 118, 284 trust and museum 114–115 trustworthiness and integrity 10b Twitter 43, 57 Tyne & Wear museums 85 Ugly Renaissance Babies app 183 ULK Art Labs 241 Ulster Folk Museum 286 Ulster Museum 116, 121, 284, 287; 2009 Troubles Exhibition 118; rejuvenation of 117; Slow Art Sunday 175, 176b, 176; “Troubles, the” 181 underpinning philosophy, defined 1 United Kingdom (UK): ageing population 33; arts sector in 13; Association of Independent Museums 84; audience development work in 80; Brighton Museum 183, 227–229; diversity 34; events 28; Glasgow Museums 81; guidelines for reopening museum 298; heritage workers 87, 90; Holidays with Pay Act 24; migration 34–35; Museum Detox 90; museums and communities in 86, 96; Museums Association 11, 100, 113; National Centre for Citizenship and the Law (NCCL) 94; National Health Service (NHS) 95; NESTA 94–95; new experiences for museum visit 149; Office for National Statistics 56; Our Museum initiative 89, 128, 209, 261; public’s view on museums 12b; reductions in public spending 7; Scottish government’s new culture strategy 100; Taking Part Survey for 2018/19 48; Thatcher government of 1980s 26; Thatcherism 85; tourism industry 26 United States (USA): ageing population 33; average working time 24; diversity

314

Index

35; immigration 34; Incluseum 90; MASS Action 89; Museum Hue 90; National Arts Strategies 111; National Holocaust Memorial Museum 183; new experiences for museum visit 149; open-air museums 84; public opinion on museums 10b; reductions in public spending 7; white collar jobs 23 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 27) 2b universalist approaches, of Glasgow Museums 127 Universal World of Ferdinand Verbiest, The (Kunyu Quantu interactive installation) 214–215, 215 UN Sustainable Development Goals 291 Up the River During Qingming (painting) 215, 216 urban development 95b, 99–100 user generated content (UGC) and user created content (UCC) 183–185 user ID, with NFC chip 198, 199 users: engagement in conversation 241–242; expectations and behaviour 46; experience 44, 152, 160–161, 263–264 Vaart, M. van der 8, 90, 131 values 279 Van Gogh Museum, in Amsterdam 47 VARK model 167, 167b vernacular creativity 55 Veverka, J. 165 Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A), in London 23, 28, 49, 163, 175 Viral Take 55 virtual reality (VR) 182, 200, 211, 215 vision 129–130, 258–261, 278, 279 VisitBritain 26 visitor: attractions 291, 297; engagement, future of 50; experience 74, 166, 282; social photography 55, 57, 58; see also audiences Visser, J. 68 Vizgu app 229 Voices of ’68 287

volunteering: participation through 2b; team 163 voting, on art 178, 188 Waern, A. 224 Wafer Hadley 297 Warwick Commission 5 Web 1.0 41 Web 2.0 42, 44 website role in planning museum visits 164 Weilenmann, A. 55 Weil, S. 242 wellbeing 95–96, 95b Wellbeing of Future Generations Act in 2015 95 Wenzel, A. 137 When the Going gets Tough report 149 white-collar society, rise of 21–23 White, M. 125 Wikidata 61 Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) 62–63 Wikimedia Commons 61, 64 Wikimedia Community Ireland (WCI) 62 Wikimedians 19, 46, 60, 65 Wikimedia projects 60, 61 Wikipedia 43, 60–61 Wilde, O. 24 Wilkinson, R. 129 Wood, J. 115 Worcester City Art Gallery 175 working class 22–23 work/life balance, getting wrong 33b World Culture museums and source communities 154 World Economic Forum 204 World exhibition (1937) 71, 72 Worldfest Houston International Film Festival, Remi Awards 211 World Wide Web 41 Wright, J. 106 Yayoi Kusama 137 Your Stories exhibition 230, 237 Youth Advisory Council 213 Youth Representative Elections 213 YouTube 43, 47, 49, 250