Over the past two decades participatory practices have become increasingly common in museum settings. These practices involve persons and groups from outside the museum in the development of its activities who may be representatives from the general public (both visitors and non-visitors), community action groups, or charities (Bunning, 2015 p.1). The persons might be carefully selected by the museum to fulfil a particular objective, or the museum might cast a wider net.

In their permanent Information Age gallery, the Science Museum collaborated with a number of target groups as part of the development process. In many cases the choice of collaborators was clear and targeted, for example “Samaritans volunteers were the most relevant and appropriate group to work with when telling the story of the history of the Samaritans as an organisation.” (Bunning, 2015, p.8)
© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library

While the institution may vary (examples can be found in most types of museums, large or small; science, history, or art) the reasons behind this power-sharing activity remain the same. At its root, participatory practices allow institutions to:

• Share authority
• Foster involvement with external communities
• Draw on outside expertise

In this way, such practices can help to combat ingrained exclusionary practices (for instance, regarding gender, accessibility, or race (e.g. Lynch, 2010)) while also improving the museum experience (e.g. Bunning, 2015), addressing social issues (Graham 2016 pp.18-19; McSweeney, 2017) and engaging communities (McSweeney, 2017; Perla, 2019). These benefits arise both from the outputs (programming, exhibitions), but also as a result of the process of participatory engagement.

A great example of this can be found in the 2013-14 Science Museum collaboration with an independent organisation “Gendered Intelligence” as part of their work on the “Who Am I?” gallery. 17 young trans people were “given full licence to generate ideas, display themes, and avenues for research” (McSweeney, 2017, p.4). By default, the process was beneficial: it engaged a group of new people (and their networks) with the museum and in so doing potentially sowed the seeds of a new community.

At the same time, their feedback led to improvements in the gallery itself. For instance, they commented that the “Boy or Girl?” framing of a thematic question was exclusionary (“overly simplistic, binary, and problematic.” (ibid. p.3)). Their advice led to a shift in language towards a more inclusive framing, thereby making the gallery more welcoming to trans and non-binary persons.

In the Science Museum cases above, participatory practices took on a practical dimension, with limited sharing of authority (Bunning, 2015, p.2). But participatory practices can, and indeed must, sometimes involve a significant shift in the balance of power – away from the traditional “expert curator” paradigm and towards a community-led model.

When dealing with topics such as the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya people in Burma, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights recognised the need to grant the Rohingya people themselves the authority to tell their own story in the exhibition “Time to Act: Rohingya Voices” (Perla, 2019).

“Meaningful participation, as required from the type of activist curatorship used in this exhibition, required that community members be asked how they would like to tell their own story.” (ibid. p.585)

This resulted in an exhibition that reflected personal narratives and stories, and that gained access to a more nuanced storytelling which would have otherwise been impossible. It allowed the community to offer their perspective, beyond the static photographs taken by Western photographers and selected by museum curators.

Participatory practices are often fruitful, and sometimes essential. But we should not think that they are always appropriate, or, even if they are, that regardless of their structure they will always be successful. Participatory practices are not easy – Lynch (2010) describes at length many of their failings during their work on the exhibition ‘Revealing Histories: Myths about Race’. Systemic and institutional problems, a lack of commitment to power sharing, and previously unnoticed systemic biases can all undermine participatory practices.

Moreover, there does not exist a simple rubric or instruction manual for successful participatory practices. It will always come down to context. The nature and goals of the institution, the collaborators being sought, and the type of project will all vary in kind. Nevertheless, there are a few general lessons we can draw from the literature (Lynch, 2010; Bunning, 2015; Rudman, 2018) that can help guide and ground successful participatory actions. Here are five guidelines (though there will of course be many more):

Early Involvement

Ideally, partners should become involved from the start of the project. Practically speaking, it might be tempting to get all your cards in place prior to engaging with collaborators, but this immediately puts them on the back foot, removes power, and may lead to issues later. Even basic questions regarding (say) timetabling and compensation may not be as basic as they appear. For instance, structured scheduling can often conflict with indigenous communities that do not adopt Western work-life or timekeeping practices (Julien, 2017).

Shared Ownership

The museum should work to ensure that participants feel an equal sense of ownership over the project. Ultimately, curators and museum representatives must be willing to divest themselves of power and ensure that decision making is truly shared.

Tools & Skills

Involved persons should be given the skills training and tools needed to deliver project outcomes. For example, in the “Who Am I?” gallery development process, the Science Museum provided team members from Gendered Intelligence with training in exhibition design skills such as oral history production and object selection (McSweeney, 2017, p.5).

Close Working Relationships

In terms of both language and practice, it might be easy to segregate external participants from internal bodies. Such practices can contribute to alienating participants, discourage participation, or make it difficult to include collaborators in the decision-making process. Lessons can be drawn from researchers working with marginalised communities who emphasise the need to engage with collaborators on their terms (e.g. see Adams, 2014, p.5).

Clearly defined and shared goals

While the goals may never entirely align, the external participant’s goals should be respected, and treated as impactful. In some cases, such as the Hansen’s Disease Museum in Japan (Hosoda, 2010), such alignment is simple due to the museum’s explicitly activist mission. More generally, though, a participatory project should, at base, be conceived of as mutually beneficial. This may mean that institutional goals will have to “take a backseat to community goals” (Simon, 2010, p.264), but this is not always the case.

Ultimately, this is not a case of “tick all these boxes in order to ensure success”. Many of the conditions listed are vague or fall on a spectrum; in some instances, a museum may not be able or willing to divest itself of sufficient power to give a true sense of ownership to collaborators. Does this make the project a failure? Well, in reality, that depends on context. And I feel that this is the most important and final lesson to be drawn from the literature. While participatory approaches should (ideally) continue, as an individual project closes it is essential to garner honest, informative discourse with participants. Following from Lynch above, a modicum of success can always be found. Participatory practices, even when they fail in their stated aims, allow museums to learn and grow.

References

Publications

Adams, M. S., J. Carpenter, J. A. Housty, D. Neasloss, P. C. Paquet, C. Service, J. Walkus, and C. T. Darimont. (2014) ‘Toward increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research’ Ecology and Society, 19(3) http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06569-190305

Bunning, K., Kavanagh, J., McSweeney, K., Sandell, R.  (2015) ‘Embedding plurality: exploring participatory practice in the development of a new permanent gallery’, Science Museum Group Journal, 15, http://dx.doi.org/10.15180/150305/002

Graham, H. (2016), ‘The ‘co’ in co-production: Museums, community participation and Science and Technology Studies’, Science Museum Group Journal, 5, http://dx.doi.org/10.15180/160502

Hosoda, M. (2010) ‘Hansen’s disease recoverers as agents of change: A case study in Japan’ Leprosy Review, 81(1), pp.5-16

Julien, M., Somerville, S. Brant, J. (2017) ‘Indigenous perspectives on work-life enrichment and conflict in Canada’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 36(2) pp. 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2015-0096

Lynch, B.T., Alberti, S.J.M.M. (2010) ‘Legacies of prejudice: racism, co-production and radical trust in the museum’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(1), pp.13-35, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770903529061

McSweeney, K., Stewart, J. (2017)‘Hacking into the Science Museum: young trans people disrupt the power balance of gender ‘norms’ in the museum’s ‘Who Am I?’ gallery’ in The Impact of Co-Production: From Community Engagement to Social Justice Ersoy, A. (ed), http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447330288.001.0001

Perla, A., Ullah, Y. (2019) ‘Time to Act: Rohingya Voices’, Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(6), pp.577-594, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2019.1682807

Rudman, H., Bailey-Ross, C., Kendal, J., Mursic, Z., Lloyd, A., Ross, B., Kendal, R. (2018) ‘Multidisciplinary exhibit design in a Science Centre: a participatory action research approach’, Educational Action Research, 26(4), pp.567-588 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/09650792.2017.1360786

Simon, N. (2010) The Participatory Museum Museum 2.0

Exhibitions

“Information Age” permanent gallery, Science Museum, London: https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/information-age [Accessed 14/01/2022].

“Who Am I?” permanent gallery, Science Museum, London: https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/see-and-do/who-am-i [Accessed 24/01/2022]

“Time to Act: Rohingya Voices“, past exhibition, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, https://humanrights.ca/exhibition/time-to-act-rohingya-voices

“Revealing Histories: Myths About Race“, past exhibition, Manchester Museum: https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/revealing-histories-myths-about-race/ [Accessed 14/01/2022]