Participation Does Five Things Best

Other possible titles for this section:

Participation is best tool for: relevance, diversity, dynamism, dialogue and collaboration

Or, Participation is best tool for irrelevance, lack of diversity, static, monologic, isolation (something identifying the features that people might be trying to change, the motivation for entering into participation.SB

    At a basic level, participation is a design technique like any other (Suggest deletion of: "like any other". It is a design technique with many social, financial, political and other ramifications--quite unlike many other design techniques. SB). ( Based on my limited reading of your work so far, you are talking about far more than a design technique. It is more about culture shift. Maybe the first phrase needs to be changed: replace "at a basic level", with "In some ways,..." First sentence could read: "Participation can be seen as a design technique ." SB) It is particularly well-optimized (suited, SB) for situations in which you want to promote five goals: personal relevance, diverse voices, dynamic content, interpersonal dialogue, or collaborative work. (Suggest that you consider matching each of these goals with the converse, e.g., dynamic vs static. This will allow people to understand the meaning of these 5 goals more fully, and to relate to their use as solutions to the respective institutional conditions. SB) (I would add a sixth one:  creativity  CR). Participatory projects "fit" best when you can find a part of your mission or programs that will benefit from these specific benefits. For example, when the Science Museum of Minnesota was developing the Race exhibition, they knew (how?  MK) that visitors would want an opportunity for dialogue around this contentious issue, and they introduced "talking circle" programs in which trained facilitators lead discussions about race with visiting groups. When the Princessehof ceramics museum in the Netherlands wanted to create a relevant connection for diverse audiences to an exhibition on wedding china, they solicited citizens from around the country to bring their own wedding china and celebratory photos and stories to the museum for inclusion in the exhibition. And when the Brooklyn Museum of Art wanted to experiment with crowd-sourced curation, they created a collaborative platform in which visitors could do the "work" of evaluating photographs. (when referencing projects previously discussed in the book, it's good to cite the chapter with the most extensive discussion, in case people want to refresh their memory.  MK) Each of these is a design solution to a specific problem.

    And so the first challenge is to encourage management and other staff members to value relevance, diversity, dynamism, dialogue, and collaboration as engagement goals  (the one-word descriptions of the 5 goals is stronger and should replace the list above, otherwise it is hard to follow and loses significance. SB) alongside quality, educational merit, and other traditional institutional program goals. (Again, you are really speaking to cultural change: encouraging a change of values. This is not so easy. You might want to refer to the current work trying to change the culture of politics today to participatory democracy. You have not given any advice on how to make this cultural change other than to start experimenting and have a look. That might be seen as too risky for some. Citing examples of some who have taken this step is important, thus your book could be of some help. If however, your book is to be of help to those who are promoting participation as well as those who are not proponents, but are considering increased participation, your book may need a different tone. SB)  Fortunately, many directors are already speaking this language, especially when it comes to relevance, diversity, and dynamic content. Business books like The Experience Economy and Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions have argued that personalization and personal relevance are key to creating appealing recreational venues in the 21st century. (counterargument to anticipate: museums are primarily for education, not recreation.  MK) Contemporary anthropological practice, as well as museum books like Visitor Voices in Museum Exhibitions have championed the ability of visitors' voices to bring new and useful content to the museum experience. And several museums are actively working to confront the stereotype that "nothing ever changes at the museum" by adopting content management systems that allow them to more rapidly rotate and distribute new content. (digital, physical or both?  MK)

    Supporting interpersonal dialogue and collaboration with visitors is less common, but many institutions are embracing these goals. At the 2008 Science Center World Congress, delegates from 51 countries signed The Toronto Declaration, in which they endorsed the idea that science centers are "safe places for difficult conversations." The extent to which this is true is debatable, but the sentiment stood out as a statement of support for the idea of science centers as places of dialogue. History museums are also actively pursing dialogic goals, particularly as they relate to exhibitions and programs on provocative historical events. For example, in 2009, thirteen US sites of conscience embarked on a public dialogue program to engage visitors in direct interpersonal conversation about historical and contemporary issues around immigration. (so what? does this lead to better understanding, increased investment in the issue, what?  MK)

    When it comes to collaboration, all types of museums are moving forward, albeit for different reasons. In partnership with efforts to diversify institutional voices, many history and ethnographic museums engage with co-curators and community members to develop exhibits and programs that authentically reflect the experience of those communities. Many art and children's institutions provide opportunities for visitors to create artworks directly with artists, either in real-time programming or by participating in asynchronous projects like the World Beach Project. And science museums, working with citizen science programs and scientists, have been partnering with visitors to collect data and build science- and technology-related skills. These projects are motivated by educational goals like promoting new media literaices in youth, as well as more motivational and relevance goals to connect visitors more emotionally with the work and products of cultural institutions. (Suggest looking at the convergence spectrum by Guenter Waibel of IMLS (Article is "Science of the LAMS". He speaks to collaboration as a very specific technical term. He also notes that moving up the spectrum from coordinating to collaborating increases the risk for the parties. SB) (This paragraph seems to be addressing my "so what?" question--suggest moving it or some pieces of it up to come sooner.  MK)

    Which of these goals is most in-line with your institution's mission? Which is mostly likely to impact the bottom line? (Might replace first two sentences with: One way to approach the rationale for participation is to query the visitors and hear their perceptions of the institution."  Suggest moving the first two sentences to last paragraph where you discuss issues of mission. SB) If your institution is perceived by locals as elitist, you may want to pursue a participatory technique like personalization that will enhance the relevance of the museum experience to potential visitors' lives. If your institution is perceived as static, you should consider techniques like floor-based contribution and collaboration to enhance the feeling of energy and change in the galleries.

    In some cases, the answer to this question comes directly from the mission statement. When Shelley Bernstein talks about her innovative work with social media at the Brooklyn Museum, she always couches it within the institution's fundamental mission as a community museum. Her technological efforts are inspired by director Arnold Lehman's vision of the Brooklyn Museum as a place "based on accessibility, diversity, inclusion, and seeking out new ways to explore art so that everyone feels welcome and smart about what they’re doing." This alignment helps Bernstein get support for even the most experimental projects, as long as they are focused on the core values and goals of the museum. Arnold Lehman may not be attentive to the ins and outs of every tech initiative that comes down the pipe, but he trusts Bernstein's ability to deliver experiences that enhance the value of the institution overall. 

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