Where does participation fit into your institution?

    There's no one way (Suggest speaking to the positive: "There are many ways..." SB) to make your institution more participatory. (Your title for this section implies that participation might fit in different places in an institution. The opening sentence implies that 'making' the institution more participatory is the intent. This assumes participation as the endgame. Is that intended? SB) Whether by inviting visitors to personalize their experience, to connect with each other around objects, or to engage in a participatory design process, participatory platforms support many types of content sharing and redistribution. (redistributing content? as in ownership? as in publication? something else?  MK) Some participatory activities are more risky or time-consuming than others, and as in all new endeavors, the best way to start is with small experiments, which allow staff to build comfort, start to understand the value, and gain confidence to try more ambitious things. (Is this actually true in your experience? If the institution decides to step into the game of participation, a big splash could be the way to go to rebrand the public perception, increase attendance and membership, etc. It would still be iterative and dynamic, but it would not need to be small. I am currently working on a science interactive exhibit in an institution with former art and history focus. The leap to merge with an existing science institution was giant in terms of press, public perception and institutional identities. It is sending a clear message to young people and families about the expansion of mission and interactive approach. Memberships and attendance are already up, even though the exhibition does not open until May 2010 in Anchorage. The interactivity of the science programming is affecting approach of education in art and history as well. SB)

    Unfortunately (unfortunately?SB), many museums function in big leaps, not small steps. Because the industry is tied to a grant-funding model that requires long leads between conceptualizing and implementing projects, staff often try to plan ambitious projects that are disruptive to institutional standards rather than iterating through progressive experimental attempts. (In libraries, staff positions can actually be tied to grant-funded projects, so progressive approaches aren't feasible--is it that way in museums? More broadly, if project models are tied to funding mechanisms, is it necessary to propose a different funding mechanism for participatory projects? Is this the time to emphasize the low-cost etc. aspects?  MK) Evaluation is used as a fixed-time activity at major milestones rather than woven throughout projects. Furthermore, because museums often rely on consultants and contractors to design their capital projects, internal staff are often being "sold" on new techniques rather than developing them on their own terms. (This paragraph seems to be more about the vagaries of grant-funding and rigid vs dynamic evaluation than big leaps or small steps. The leap into participation can be big, and the most effective evaluation is iterative and dynamic. Note that grant funding can be a great opportunity to convince an institution to experiment outside the norm. SB)

    I encourage you to be the one who makes participation happen with the people (staff and visitors) with whom you work every day. (Yes, key to changing culture.SB) Instead of selling them on the whole package, the key is to find ways to match your institution's mission and bottom line to a useful participatory model. (I am not sure how much you have spoken previously to the cultural shift demanded by moving to a more participative model. It relates to the visitor and institution relationships in Part 1 of this chapter. Changing the culture of an institution is a big piece of work, eventually mandated for the success of increased participation. How much of your book/thinking addresses this cultural shift and its prerequisites? SB) Use it as a design technique that can solve unique problems.

    For example, recall the story of MN150 at the Minnesota Historical Society. That contributory exhibition project didn't grow out of a "wouldn't it be cool if?" scenario. It grew out a situation where the exhibition department could not find a satisfactory way to tell the story they wanted to tell with their traditional design techniques. Going to the public for their ideas of what makes Minnesota Minnesota wasn't a gimmick; it was a potential solution to their problem, albeit, from staff perspective, a risky potential solution. 

    The MN150 exhibit development team took several steps to mitigate the perceived risk of public participation. They limited public contribution to exhibit topics, constraining both the type and time period for visitor participation. They made no upfront promises about when they would contact people about their submissions, or if and how they would be used. They even pursued a parallel "shadow" development process in case the public process fell apart. They developed a process that incorporated participation in a way that worked for them, and now, bolstered by that successful experience, they have moved on to more substantial experiments in participatory exhibit design practices. (Note that this is interesting example, but it also seems to fall in the 'big leap' category, rather than small step. Perhaps increasing participation happens in big and small steps? It is a matter of perceiving and taking the opportunity--a big step. And then continuing to observe, evaluate, modify --many small steps. Both are required. SB)

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