Activity: Picking the Participatory Model that is Right for You
Before we get into the details and examples, this chart may help you figure out what models you might consider for your next project based on known constraints. In many cases, there are several models that could effectively satisfy your audience engagement goals, and the decision comes down to external institutional and resource factors. While every model has outlier innovative projects that circumvent some of these factors, I've tried to distill the basic differences among the models here. Ask yourself these nine questions and circle the answers that work for you. You'll find your most likely model wherever the most circles lie.
| |
Contributory |
Collaborative |
Co-Creation |
Co-Option |
| How much control do you want over the overall participatory process and product? |
A lot |
Some |
Some |
As little as possible |
| How much staff time do you want to commit to managing the project and working with participants? |
We can manage it lightly, the way we'd maintain an interactive exhibit. But we mostly want to set it up and let it do its thing. |
We will manage the process, but we're not willing to let that process be altered or extended beyond our capacity. |
As much time as it takes to make sure participants are able to accomplish their goals. |
As little as possible - set it up and let it go |
| How do you expect to communicate with participants about their work? |
We will give them clear rules for participation and reward them for participating (perhaps in an automated way), but we won't be having many personal discussions with participants about the project. |
We will communicate our goals and requirements openly with participants and will try to make institutional processes clear and connect them to participant goals. |
We will be community managers, supporting and connecting individuals on a continual basis and getting them the information they need to be successful. |
We will communicate our rules openly with participants and may encourage or reward their actions. |
| Who do you want to participate and what kind of commitment will you seek from participants? |
As many visitors as possible, engaging briefly in the context of a larger museum experience. |
We expect some people will opt in casually, but most will come with the explicit intention to participate. |
We'd like to work with people who are intentionally engaged and are really dedicated to seeing the project all the way through. |
We'd like to empower people who are ready to make the commitment to manage and implement their project on their own. |
| What kinds of skills do you want participants to gain from their activities during the project? |
Creation of art, collection of data, or sharing of personal expression. Use of technological tools to support content creation and sharing. |
Creation of content, curatorial and program development skills like selecting, organizing, refining, and designing content. |
Though not every participant needs to be part of each step, each should have the opportunity to learn and experience every part of the museum program design and delivery process. |
None that the institution will specifically impart, except perhaps around program promotion and audience engagement. |
| How do you see the institution's relationship with participants during the project? |
The institution requests content and the participants supply it, subject to institutional rules. |
The institution sets the project concept and plan, and then staff work with the participants to make it happen. |
The institution gives the participants the tools to lead the project and then supports their activities and helps them move forward successfully. |
The institution gives the participants rules and resources and then lets the participants do their own thing. |
| How much control do you want over the audience experience of the final product? |
A lot |
A lot, but participants can contribute to visions of how the final product should be conveyed. |
Some, but participant goals and audiences are just as important as institutional ones. |
Not much - as long as participants follow our rules, they can produce what they want. |
| What kind of audiences do you hope this project will engage? |
Our regular audience, especially people who are interested in interactive and creative activities and personal stories. |
Our regular audience, especially those who are interested in behind-the-scenes content. |
Our regular audience, as well as audiences reflective of the communities with whom we are co-creating. |
New audiences who might not see the museum as an obvious place for them. |
| What kind of commitment does your institution have to community engagement? |
We're commited to supporting the community of visitors with whom we engage. |
We're commited to deep partnerships with some target communities. |
We're commited to supporting the needs and goals of some target communities, contingent on relevance to overall institutional mission. |
We're interested in being a community place, even if that means promoting activities outside our typical program offerings. |
[I love this model and find it very clarifying of the first intro text.
I'd suggest to alter a bit the order of the questions, so that it goes from general to more concrete and following the before/after correlation. If we number from 1 to 9 this original order (first column), my reordering proposal would be (second column):
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 6 (before we ask ourselves how we will communicate with participants during the process, to me, comes the question of who are we seeking as participants (4)
4 - 4
5 - 7 (I'd put questions about final outputs afterwards.
6 - 5 (the orginial 6 and 3 questions, which are complementary, should go one following the other)
7 - 9 (before asking waht kind of control do we want over audiences, let's say what kind of audiences do we expect)
8 - 8
9 - 1 (this sounds as a general statement & overall view to clarify previously to proceeding to the other questions) ] CR
CR - thanks for the restructure - very interesting and good to play with. Others, weigh in and I will rejigger.
I agree with Conxa's restructuring, better logic for me - LG
Continue to the next section, or return to the outline.
Comments (3)
Jonah Holland said
at 5:53 pm on Nov 4, 2009
This is great -- It's becoming much more clear. I can't wait to get into the examples.
Sarah Barton said
at 6:51 pm on Dec 2, 2009
Great chart. Maybe a good way to start the whole chapter. I agree with restructuring too. SB
claire@claireantrobus.com said
at 12:33 pm on Dec 7, 2009
Love the chart.
I just wasn;t sure about the location of this activity - as you'll see, I found the next section really hard work which might not have helped but ended up feeling a bit disoriented by this introduction. It felt a bit like we were getting into the detail before having finished the introduction.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.