Conclusion: Imagining the Participatory Museum

[ as a title, I would also consider other options than Conclusion, such as "Epilogue" or "Wrapping-up" or  maybe better "To be continued" letting open the following of the discussion on the web or on a 2nd edition of your book] CR 

     I started this book arguing that participatory practices are a design technique like any other, with specific value that can be applied in cultural institutions to powerful effect. I argued that traditional institutions should not feel threatened by these new techniques because they represent an addition to the design toolkit, not a replacement for familiar ways. I believe in these arguments. But I also believe in taking participatory visitor experiences further into uncharted and challenging territory, to transform cultural institutions into community co-created organizations.

     I believe there is the potential for participatory design methodologies to give rise to a new kind of institution, just as interactive design techniques led to the ascendance of the interactive science centers and children's museums in the late 1900s. Some of the contemporary leading interactive institutions, like the Boston Children's Museum, are radically transformed versions of traditional institutions, but others, like the Exploratorium and countless other science and children's centers, were newborn in the 1960s and 1970s. By now, cultural institutions of all types often involve some interactive elements, but this design technique and its implications for audience experiences are most dramatically displayed in the institutions that are wholly interactive.

     And so I dream of a comparable kind of institution, one which is wholly participatory. Glimmers of it exist in institutions like the Wing Luke Asian Museum, in exhibitions like The Tech Virtual and In Your Face, in programs like the Living Library and the SF0 game. There are hints of it in research platforms like Children of the Lodz Ghetto and learning platforms like ScratchR and dialogic platforms like Signtific. Each of these projects is a single participatory blip, and I see the potential to develop institutions that are landscapes for diverse community co-creation techniques as the basis for new kinds of user engagement.

     Imagine a place that every person enters through a personalized profile experience that connects her to experiences and other visitors of interest. A place where her actions are networked with those of others into cumulative and shifting content platforms for display, sharing, and remix. A place where objects become opportunities to connect with other individual's stories and personal experiences, locuses of conversation about value and meaning. A place where visitors are invited on an ongoing basis to share, to contribute, to collaborate, to co-create, and to co-opt the experiences and content in a designed, intentional environment.

     The final result, this imagined place, may not resemble a modern-day museum. It may look more like a coffeeshop or a community arts center. It may function like a co-working space or a sewing lounge. It might feature content based on democratic processes rather than top-down designations. It might prioritize dynamic object display over traditional conservation and accession practices, multi-vocal content over authoritative catalogs. It might be owned cooperatively or funded by members. It might allocate more dollars to dialogue facilitation than exhibit construction.

     Could your institution become such a place? While this imagined participatory institution may appear fundamentally different from traditional museums, so does the modern Boston Children's Museum look different from the display of children's objects that preceded it. That institution shifted from being "about" children to being "for" them. What would it look like if it evolved to being "with" them?

     This is a question that many institutions are already pondering, and for good reason. The cultural and technological shifts that have accompanied the rise of the participatory Web have changed people's expectations of what makes experiences worthwhile or appealing. People assume the right to co-opt and redistribute institutional content, not just to look at it. They seek opportunities for creative expression, both self-directed and in response to the media they consume continually. They make purchase and experience decisions based on distributed community recommendations rather than mass marketing. They want to be respected and responded to based on their unique interests, and they crave the chance to be recognized by and connected to sympatico communities around the world. I believe that these shifts will change the way that cultural institutions of all types, from museums to libraries to for-profit "experience vendors," do business.

     But these changes need not be construed as threats. All of these expectations can also bring cultural institutions closer to their overall goals. Unlike other cultural experiences, object-centered interactions are uniquely equipped to be the basis for creative and respectful community dialogue. Interpersonal interactions around content can generate new social capital among diverse audiences. Participatory activities can provide valuable civic and content learning experiences. And most importantly, the idealistic mission statements of many museums--to engage visitors with heritage, to connect them to new ideas, [to awake critical thinking, to encourage creativity and self-expressions CR] and to inspire them to take positive action--can be attained through participatory practice.

     In other words, this is a time of tremendous opportunity to reinvigorate cultural institutions as essential civic community spaces. (I am not sure how much you have addressed the dilemma of cultural institutions today in the earlier text, but it is a compelling reason for any staff or board member to consider changing how institutions are run now. Hope that this point also sits at the front of the book to draw people in. In that light, I reiterate a caution on tone/language. In one way, you are being conversational and provocative to speak to the choir of those who are already looking to increase participation in their institutions. On the other hand, you are also somewhat sensationalist in characterizing traditional institutions and their ways of doing things. If your intent is to support those already in the game, as well as lure more to the party, you might want to look again at your descriptions of: threats, rigidity, those who see audience as 'ninnies', other negativities, etc. SB)  While many museums and performing arts centers are trembling under declining endowments and aging audiences, there is the potential to connect with millions of creative, community-minded people for whom cultural institutions have not previously been relevant. I am enamored of all the quirky, scrappy community projects out there that are working to connect nontraditional audiences to the arts, science, and cultural heritage. But I believe that if established cultural institutions join in the action, we can move as a field towards greater relevance and value to society as a whole. The cumulative effect of thousands of institutions providing safe spaces for sharing ideas and objects, stories and evidence, could change the world. Rather than being "nice to have," museums can become must-haves for people seeking physical platforms for participation.

     How will you integrate participation into your professional work? How do you see it benefiting your institution, your visitors, and your broader audience of community members and stakeholders?

     These questions are not rhetorical. I hope that you will join the conversation about this book and these topics online, at www.participatorymuseum.org. There, you can find the entire text of this book, along with active forum discussions about the content, links to all online references, and space to share your participatory experiments and questions. 

     This book is just a start, a rock tossed in the water. I hope that it will help you in your design thinking and that you will share your new ideas and innovations with all of us so that we can move forward together into this new, participatory world.