Contributory Models for Participation

    Many of the examples shared in the chapter on social objects are contributory models for participation. This model is frequently employed and is a "big tent" for lots of different types of participatory visitor experiences. Visitors are invited to contribute their opinions, suggestions, and personal stories on talkback boards. They share their private objects, professional tools, and photographs in exhibits, both while exhibits are developed and after they are  mounted. They contribute data in polling stations and experimental interactive exhibits. They create art objects, perform science experiments, and do historical research both at home and in the museum to share with other visitors on the floor. They share their text, photo, and video reflections on the Web. In some cases, the public contributes ideas and objects that are used privately to inform internal institutional processes that are typically preliminary to and hidden from public consumption. In other cases, visitors may offer their ideas and creations in forums that allow other visitors to access and benefit from them. While in previous chapters, we've looked at various items visitors can contribute, this section looks specifically at these different types of contributory structures and how to successfully select and design the appropriate model for your needs.

    As is evident from the diversity of these examples, not all contributory projects are identical in the ways that they support visitor-driven content. There's a big difference between an exhibit that allows visitors to indicate their preference in a quick poll and an exhibit which is entirely built from visitors' creations. I struggle somewhat with this categorization, because it means that exhibits sourced entirely from visitors fall into the contributory model, even though they appear to be co-created (or, effectively, visitor-created) to the audience. [CA - not sure I found this last sentence helpful sounds a bit abstract and theoretical].

    When planning contributory projects, staff need to think both about what (and how) they will solicit from visitors, and what they will do with visitors’ creations. Your strategy with regard to the solicitation primarily affects participants, and your strategy with regard to the display affects audience members. Of course, because contributory projects are often made open to any and all visitors, participants and audience are often one and the same--thus making these strategies intertwined.

    What's special about contributory models for participation? These projects are often the simplest for institutions to manage and for visitors to engage in as participants. Unlike more intensive models, which often accommodate only a small number of deeply committed and pre-selected participants, contributory activities can be easily offered to visitors of all types without a lot of setup or vetting.

    The contributory model is powerful when it invites visitors to engage as activities that are easy to understand, require low time commitment, and are accessible to visitors without prior knowledge or skills. Anyone can write on a talkback wall or make a claymation video [CA - sorry i don;t know what this is] in the course of a visit. Contributory projects can function with minimal staff support; many are self-explanatory and self-maintaining. When they are used to support project development, contributory projects can allow staff to narrowly focus the scope of visitors' participation to give staff exactly what they need (and no more). Contributory projects are also, in many cases, the only type of participatory experience in which visitors can seamlessly move from functioning as participants to audience and back again. You can write your comment, post it on the wall, and immediately experience the excitement of seeing how you have contributed to the institution.

    But contribution isn't just for quick and simple activities. Contributory projects can also be ones that offer visitors the most creative agency, to write their own stories, make their own art, and share their own thoughts. In the most radical contributory projects, such as the Denver Community Museum, the institution provides only the infrastructure--the rules of engagement, the solicitation for contributions--and then presents what is offered by visitors. Contributory models are rigid structures that can be designed in thousands of ways, and it is that diversity (not flexibility!) that makes them very useful in participatory design.

(I would start this section with the last paragraph, and use the above text to further illustrate the 3 major factors, ending in the model of World Beach Project. SB)

    There are three major factors that contribute to the success or failure of contributory projects: the sincerity and clarity of the ask, the appeal of the participant action, and the attractiveness of the final display.[CA - is that not true of all participatory projects rather than just contributory ones?] These factors roughly correspond to the needs of institution, participant, and audience. For contributory projects to be valuable to institutions, the institution must sincerely and genuinely desire or require the contributions sought. For these projects to appeal to participants, the contributory action must be clear and compelling. And for other visitors and audience members to enjoy contributory projects, the submissions must be harnessed or designed into a display that is interesting and of high quality. This display often is used to model the act of contribution for subsequent visitors, forming a virtuous cycle in which positive contribution informs and inspires further participation. [CA - Found this a useful summary and reiteration of key points]Let's look at one example of one successful project that exhibits all of these factors superlatively: the World Beach Project. 

Continue to the next section, or return to the outline.