21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, with support from the National Science Foundation, is pleased to host the 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings Project and Wiki. The purpose of the project is to develop, initiate, and disseminate a collaborative and sustained learning research agenda to inform how natural history museums can best use their resources to support our audiences in the 21st Century. A key component of the project was the 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings Conference, held at the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, February 12 - 15, 2012. During the conference, 100 participants from across the US and three international sites engaged in a dynamic process of initiating the development of a Call to Action and Learning Research Agenda to guide natural history museums into the future. This wiki reflects the conference structure: There are major themes, each representing a focus topic for respective working groups during the conference. Each working group has a space on the Wiki. Working group spaces continue to evolve from transcribed conversations to synthesis of key learning research themes and major innovations for moving the field forward. They continue to be open for public and professional comment.
Conference Highlights The conference schedule integrated whole group discussions, extended working group sessions, networking opportunities, and keynote speakers. • •
Archived Conference Sessions Many important introductions, summaries, and keynote speakers were recorded and archived for continued access. Jargon Tracker Conference participants included scientists, learning researchers, evaluators, educators, exhibits professionals, web and new media professionals, and administrators. During our discussions, we kept track of the jargon that could have hindered our progress.
•
Twitter Feed. Conference participants shared resources and progress through the Twitter hashtag, #21cnhm.
•
Participant Virtual Posters. During the conference, virtual posters were displayed to convey the innovation and key research and organizational questions that participants brought to the conference with them.
21CC Virtual Posters.pptx
• •
Action Plans. Participants started and continue to revise action plans for their organizations based on conference activities, using this template. Template.docx
21CC - Action Plan
Research Agenda The research agenda is based on dialogue initiated before the conference via ASTC Connect and during working sessions at the conference. For this project, the research agenda is considered to be a set of nested questions that, if answered, will help transform what natural history museums do for and with their publics. We will articulate, justify, and prioritize questions and issues that natural history museums most need to address in order to use our unique assets to serve our publics in the 21st Century. The working DRAFT overview of the learning research agenda was drafted by the Learning Research Agenda Working Group. Call to Action The group working on Theme 3, Intersections between Natural History Scientific Value and Educational/Public Value for the 21st Century, began a DRAFT of a Call to Action that articulates the Long Term Vision and Value of Natural History Museums and other, related informal natural history learning settings.
Working Groups Working groups are organized by discussions about intersections between critical scientific and historical features and assets of natural history museums and opportunities afforded by the changing landscape of societal and educational context in the 21st Century.
• • •
Theme 1: Intersections between Natural History Museum assets and 21st Century Audience Engagement Strategies NHM Assets x Audience Engagement Strategies (Group A) NHM Assets x Audience Engagement Strategies (Group B) NHM Assets x Audience Engagement Strategies (Group C)
• •
Theme 2: Intersections between Natural History Museum assets and 21st Century Audience and Societal Contextual Factors NHM Assets x Audience/Societal Contextual Factors (Group D) NHM Assets x Audience/Societal Contextual Factors (Group E)
•
Theme 3: Intersections between Natural History Scientific Value and Educational/Public Value for the 21st Century NHM Assets x Public Value for the 21st Century (Group F)
• •
Synthesis Groups Synthesis groups met after working groups had completed their sessions to begin to extract key themes and opportunities related to the conference goals and in response to the needs and recommendations of the conference participants. Long term Vision and Value Learning Research Agenda
•
Programming Innovation
•
Organizational and Communication Challenges How to use this conference wiki
Discussion Check out The Natural Histories Project - http://histories.naturalhistor...
o o
Listen to conversations on the importance of natural history to society, education, research and management.
o
This is a product of the Natural History Initiative meetings held in 2012 funded by NSF and UW
o
College of the Environment http://naturalhistorynetwork.o... •
Dawn Sanders I am using this website on my biology didaktiks course with my trainee biology teachers here in Gothenburg University Sweden. Its an excellent resource. Thanks :)
•
Rowellk So glad you enjoyed this Dawn! Please give us feed back about how the teachers responded to it. It looks like we will turn this into a traveling exhibit, that incorporates the audiences' voice. Our goal is to bring a broader group into the fold of "natural history". Please stay in touch. rowellkRowellk @uw:disqus.edu
Long term Vision and Value Edit 1 0 5… Continuing the work of the NHM Assets x Public Value Working Group, this subgroup will provide additional comment to a working draft of a position statement and continue to discuss the long term, high level vision about the public value of natural history museums. February 15, 2012 DRAFT Statement on the assets, public value, and potential of Natural History Institutions “The Declaration of Interdependence” The natural history institutions of the world affirm that: Humanity is embedded within nature and we are at a critical moment in the continuity of time. Our collections are the direct scientific evidence for evolution and the ecological interdependence of all living things. The human species is actively altering the Earth’s natural processes and reducing its biodiversity. As the sentient cause of these impacts, we have the urgent responsibility to give voice to the Earth’s immense story and to secure a sustainable future. WHAT WE ARE We are places, people, collections, and facilities that connect the natural world and humanity in the past present and future. We are trusted and we are in the public trust. DISCOVERY-We make discoveries and create knowledge We create new knowledge, collect, study We are a collection of experts Our collections continue to be global resources of knowledge. PRESERVATION-We are the keepers of the record We are the places where our culture houses its treasures We are a bank for information for the future We are the archives of a changing world AUDIENCE-We are learning institutions We disseminate, inspire, and inform We tell the whole story We connect art, science, nature, place and culture We are a resource for people to take action We are a meeting ground for science and culture
We are where children learn about the diversity of the natural world We are places for public deliberation. CREDIBILITY AND PUBLIC TRUST We are owned by our public We are trusted WHAT WE NEED TO BE We recognize these tenets and our assets as the basis for a framework of collaboration and action: We will be places where the complex challenges of the future are met in an open, honest, inclusive, and rational way. We will be welcoming to all people, not just our traditional constituents. We will actively engage our assets, science, and stakeholders with local and global nature. We will be the storytellers of humanity’s origins; the interface between humans and nature. We will reinvent ourselves to become trailheads for lifelong journeys of nature and science exploration. We will be agents of social change and embed people in nature by giving them new eyes with which to see the world and to understand their responsibility. We will work together. We will catalyze a sustainable future for the planet. We will do this before the end of the century.
Stakeholders to Work with When Revising and Vetting the Statement (draft) 1) Colleagues 2) Institution leaders 3) Our "professional neighbors" 4) Our publics and communities 5) Funders and policymakers
Initial notes from small group discussions about the Value Statement (shared Wednesday 2/15 am) Where are the visitors in this statement Doesn’t talk about what we’re doing poorly Where’s the part about us learning from other institutions What are collections for, which are valuable, which are not On whose terms – on the terms of the natural history museums On whose terms does the museum operate – seems to operate on the terms of science – broader expertise beyond curators Should be representing the expertise of educators, curators, learning researchers We will do this by next Friday
What we need to be is dynamic, agile, more resilient, who can adapt to the changing field This s saying that NHMs believe the world is a mess and we can change that and save the world. But it won’t necessarily be the most fundable statement Important to have a public value message – difficulty with the wording – humanity embedded in nature – needs to say instead humanity is part of nature not embedded. We can’t tell the whole story about our impacts so try and tell and unfolding sotry going forward of which we are part. Subtlety versus direct call for action – are we taking a stand – if so are we comfortable with all of these statements as a group and is the rest of the field comfortable with this We keep talking about trust – that’s not entirely true but not for all of the public – how do we get that trust if we go down this field What is the intended audience for this document – subtlety versus direct statements Needs a definition of what natural history museums are The word facilitator is nowhere in this document Science does not tell us what to do – science tells us how the world works Ways that we might respectfully engage our diverse communities and celebrate our unique assets, Line 14, Line 22: We construct evidence based knowledge about preservation – [get other line edits] Line 43, we are trusted for good reasons, we have guided principles – willingness…Line 53 We provide opportunities you explore humanities origins Need this call to action as a broad statement to the field. How are we going to do this – create a new document, hold new conference to discuss this What is our working definition of natural history museums No mention of 21st century audiences Can we arrive at one common sense of purpose? Is there a role for indicators and impact in this document? Do we want to be that concrete? Language makes a difference – do we want to be clear and intentional about focusing on STEM literacy. Should we align ourselves with STEM literacy?
Learning Research Agenda The Learning Research Agenda group will discuss themes and trends for research about learning in and about natural history settings, particularly natural history museums, emerging from conference sessions and working groups.
Trending Topics and Potential Questions in a Natural History Museum Learning Research Agenda Feb 2012 meeting on 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings [http://21centurylearningnmnh.wikispaces.com/]
1. How people learn about critical concepts: Ecology, Evolution, Climate Change, Extinction, Biodiversity How can we measure/understand intuitive or culturally-based concepts (the foundation for understanding) that visitors bring with them into the museum? How can we help visitors supplement intuitive or cultural frameworks with more scientific understandings? What are the cultural components that bind frameworks? Experience? Age? Urbanization? Distance from nature? How do cultural beliefs mesh with more mainstream conceptual frameworks? What everyday social practices can we leverage to improve learning in museums? What conceptual building blocks (locally coherent network of ideas) can we leverage to support learning of critical concepts in museums? 2. Reaching new audiences, broadening our impact Do groups in diverse geographic settings (e.g., urban/rural/inner city) have different perceptions of and connections to nature? What are these connections and what are their implications for engaging these audiences in critical issues such as climate change? What is the transferability of what we know about collections/object-based learning for "traditional" museum visitors to other potential audiences/non-dominant groups? (For example, what are implications of object-based learning for sight-impaired groups?) Does interacting with scientists influence perceptions of and excitement about science/natural history and do these vary by audience? What are the factors/ design characteristics of scientist-facilitated experiences that can effectively engage non-dominant audiences? What questions do underrepresented communities have about sense of place? What are the personally relevant and science learning that naturally happens in non-dominant communities that can inform basic theory and design for natural history settings that can meaningfully attend to the context and practices of these communities?
3. Facilitation and mediation What are the affordances of various types of media (digital and “real”) and how do those affordances affect learning outcomes? How can we effectively support digital media use in a museum visit? How do we think about the balance between universal themes and individualized narratives in terms of engaging the public with natural history? How can we develop, support and maintain cross-institution practices of facilitation among staff with varying degrees of alignment with educational departments? In what ways does interacting with scientists, objects, or processes encourage new interest and engagement with natural history? How can we design mediation/facilitation to encourage learning? How can museums maintain authority and trust in new media? What’s the way to think about blogging, tweeting, on-line discussion, etc. as building a learning relationship between science and the public? How should our scientists, educators, and objects be presented in ways that encourage their re-use and distribute through social media? 4. Exploring the connection between emotion and learning Given that many exhibits have a strong affective component, how can we measure the emotion that people are experiencing in informal learning institutions? What is the role of emotion (i.e. arousal, valence) in short- and long-term learning and what other factors (e.g. motivation) affect these relationships? How do we evoke emotion and how does that make something memorable, relevant, interesting, threatening, boring, etc.? What are the differences in learning outcomes between exhibits that elicit different valences (e.g. pleasure - displeasure)? What are the implications for "critical" exhibits that may evoke unpleasant feelings in visitors? 5. Collections and Learning From Objects Research questions could be generated by connecting strands of informal science learning with facets of our collections. Audience is a cross-cutting issue and each cell in the matrix could include nested questions about learners of different ages, education-level, social grouping, etc. FACETS OF OBJECT-BASED COLLECTIONS Strands of Learning Authenticity Completeness Uniqueness Scientific Accessibility to Importanc sensory perception (NRC’s LSIE Report) e & manipulation 1. excitement, interest, and motivation 2. generate, understand, remember, and use concepts
3. Manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense 4. Reflect on science as a way of knowing 5. Participate in scientific activities and learning practices with others 6. Think about self as science learner; science identity Some examples of questions inside this matrix could be: What would it take to have visitors value NHM primarily for our collections? To what extent do experiences provide opportunities for visitors (and learning outcomes) that support the mission of the museum—that collections are our most important asset. Do publics get our public value? What is the role of the “real:” real scientist, real collection, etc.? What is the advantage/value of having the “real?” What are differences in using new media to either approximate or take it deeper/further than real objects can? How can design invite different forms of bodily engagement with and around objects (e.g. multisensory exploration, whole-body immersion, and multimodal expression such as gesture)? What learning outcomes result from these bodily engagements? 6. Connecting learning and organizational change in museums What kind of organizations are Natural History Museums and how do they learn and organize to support learning? Connections between learning theory and institutional theory would be helpful here. How much homo vs. heterogeneity is there currently in the organization of NHMs? How do we partner with other organizations in ways that increase the coherence and richness of the learning ecology for learners who move between our settings? How do we partner in ways that increase connectivity and motivate us to keep working once the funding is over? Who are our museums organized to serve? What characteristics indicate this kind of organization? What organizational structures are needed to reach a broader audience? What kinds of institutional structures stand in the way of or facilitate the uptake of new practices and concepts?
NHM Assets x Audience Engagement Strategies (Group A) Edit 0 0 26… Intersections between Natural History Museum assets and 21st Century Audience Engagement Opportunities Facilitator: Ellen McCallie Recorder: Rebecca Bray Email Rebecca if you want to edit something on the wiki: Rebecca's email address: brayr@si.edu Context The 21st Century has already brought with it a broad, deep array of audience engagement opportunities that enhance and/or expand previous strategies and/or offer new possibilities that we are just starting to grasp. There is also the potential for exponential growth in opportunities to connect with our audience that we have not yet imagined. This conference theme explores the intersection of historical and current natural history museum assets and these new engagement strategies.
Natural History Museum Assets As a starting place for discussion, we consider the following unique assets of natural history museums: •
Collections, Data, and Evidence. Natural history museums contain vast collections of objects and specimens, as well as terabytes of data derived from those collections and their histories, that tell the story of the Earth and its peoples since their origins. Objects, the data surrounding their collection, and the research conducted with them - including new areas of research enabled by technologies such as genomic sequencing - form a unique foundation for public engagement, learning, and participation among informal science education providers.
•
"Built-in" Research Communities. Many natural history museums have one or more research scientists, collections managers, curators, and other scientific and technical staff that energize education, public, and outreach opportunities with active scientific research.
•
Historical Perspectives on Nature and Culture. The research conducted at natural history museums and with natural history collections, data, and evidence is a specialized type of science that usually incorporates long term perspectives on nature and culture. This historical view - and the educational opportunities it affords provide critical insights for understanding current science and cultural challenges, such as climate change and language loss.
•
Large-scale Exhibits. Many natural history museums provide large-scale exhibits that have provided a basic understanding and inspiration to explore nature and culture for generations. Exhibits and the tradition of exhibiting are important assets to be considered in connecting with audiences in new ways.
•
Partnerships. Natural history museums are a part of a larger, broader landscape of learning about nature and culture. Perhaps more so than any other type of museum, the content of natural history museums is supported through informal interactions at home and outdoors, as well as by a wealth of additional informal learning institutions and organizations, including nature centers, zoos, aquariums, and camps. Existing and potential partnerships are important assets in advancing informal natural history education.
21st Century Audience Engagement Opportunities The preconference discussions on ASTC Connect identified six overlapping audience engagement opportunities that are new or have the potential to transform relationships between natural history museums and their audiences in the 21st Century. •
Programs and Audiences. The 21st Century is bringing with the potential for a broad expansion of audiences beyond those traditionally served by natural history museums. New audiences suggest exciting opportunities for new, collaborative programming opportunities. We need to understand our audiences and their needs to develop new approaches to engaging and involving them in the work of natural history museums.
•
Rapid Response and Current Science.In response to increasing awareness of scientific challenges and increasing expectations for current information, it is important that we identify, develop, and test ways to engage our publics in using natural history collections, content, research, and processes to understand current science events.
•
Participatory Experiences. 21st Century audiences are so far accustomed to active participants in their own entertainment and education. Exploring the intersections of participatory culture, media use and creation, and natural history collections, content, research, and processes to involve our publics more fully in the life and activity of natural history museums.
•
Learning Across Natural History Settings. The historical and new informal education providers provide a context within which to identify the strongest niche for natural history museums in lifelong learning. Identifying and synthesizing the strengths of natural history museums as they are unique from and overlap with those of organizations with similar goals and missions is a vital task. We need to consider how existing models apply to building experiences that enhance lifelong learning across natural history settings.
•
Technology Integration. Scientific and communication technology advances are opening up new avenues for engagement and participation. It is critical that we examine how scientific and communications technologies can enhance learning in natural history museums; the optimal audiences, occasions, and uses for technology; and the limits of technology for learning in and about nature.
•
Priority Content. Understanding how the assets of natural history museums can contribute in unique ways to understanding highly relevant content for 21st Century audiences, including evolution, climate change, and biological and cultural diversity loss is essential to identifying how best to link our audiences and our resources to address 21st Century scientific challenges.
Linking Assets and Opportunities One way to conceptualize the opportunities to advance our practice is by a grid that creates an area of overlap between and among these assets and opportunities. The working group will consider how the different assets and opportunities overlap in multiple ways to identify potential areas of innovation and the research agenda necessary for us to learn together about how best to bring them about.
Audiences Rapid Learning Response/ Across Settings Current Science Collections, Data, Evidence Scientific Community Historical Perspective Exhibits Partnerships
Participatory Technology Priority Experiences Integration Content
Possible area of overlap between and among assets and opportunities
Working Group Recommendations The space below is an active, real-time record of the deliberations, ideas, recommendations, and concerns of the working group. It is intended to start as a note-taking space and take shape as the ideas take shape. Format is flexible: Paragraphs, questions, bulleted lists, and other strategies are welcome.
Summary of the Opportunity The working group should provide their own input or ideas on the core opportunities of linking natural history assets with these emerging engagement opportunities and realities in the 21st century. Why is it important to make these links? What is the potential for growth and innovation? What would audience experiences look like if we were to be successful at making these links? What are the consequences of not pursuing new ways to link resources to new engagement opportunities?
Session 1
Intro from Ellen and questions from group •
Question about the 3 approaches to creating a research agenda.
•
Seems like those 3 require really different first steps to start. How important is it to know which approach we’ll take when we start. How important is this framing to the work we’re doing.
•
There are three groups doing the audience strategies – will each take a different approach.
•
Ellen: We have been asked to focus on problem identification. We’re not expected to come up with a research agenda. We’re meant to have the discussion to come up with a research agenda. To identify major issues. This first meeting is to identify major issues. (Review of the grid on the wiki). Our job is to use this as a start and we’re being asked to use our expertise to deal with that. This morning, we are asked to address summary.
•
How do we move from nice to necessary?
•
If you think about everything yesterday, that question is at core. How do leverage collections so you HAVE to go to a museum to learn about. What does the world lose if we don’t exist? What are the innovation spaces that we should attend to as we move forward? What do research, best practices, and evaluation say to us?
•
Proposal to divide into 3 groups of 5 to address different aspects.
•
Could we stay as a large group until we figure out what we’re doing? We need the facilitator to help everyone know what we’re doing. And maybe natural groups we’ll evolve.
•
As soon as it’s boring, stop.
•
The matrix is a reference and tool. Not needed.
•
Session 1 goals. o
Nice to necessary
o
What would be lost if we didn’t exist
o
Innovation space. Not details but questions they
o
Best practices. Research, evaluation and best practices
•
(Review Session 2, 3 and 4 goals)
Start
Let’s start with collections data and evidence. But also think about the other parts of grid. (Everyone read the definitions of the assets and opportunities)
Collections are most important and most unique to NH museums. Collections, data, and assets are most unique. Historical perspective next important. Also the curators. They don’t have them in science centers. Collections and research are most important.
What difference do collections make to the public? •
Public trust and scientific process. Not just each ideas but give them an idea of how science works. Collections can be used to help people do science and build trust – don’t take my word for it – do it yourself. When you think about all the kinds of scientific evidence, collections are least abstract, most understandable to public.
•
Scale. So many of the interesting parts of science right now are huge or tiny. What’s cool at Natural history museums is the human-scale stuff. Nanoscale science education network really struggle with educating without facilitation
•
Place-based learning. NatureBridge – also, natural places as collections.
•
K-16 education doesn’t have collections.
•
Oh wow factor.
•
Objects are more universally accessible for various ages and abilities.
•
The ‘real objects’. Coelacanth and giant squid in Ocean Hall. Important engagement factor.
•
The same object can be learned for very different learning experiences.
•
Uniqueness in time and space – this creature will never exist again.
•
Also, audio and other types of collections – bird songs, video
•
Not just place based. Don’t limit by place. Digital important for more access.
Nice to necessary – necessary for what and for whom? Why do we need to know science?
Because we need an informed, voting public to make educated decisions. Now, the public has problems understanding what a good reference is. Necessary because relevant to important conversations and decisions. For example, fracking. Rapid Response very important. When doing evolution education, we had consensus. With hydrofracking, we didn’t. Climate change as well.
Communication – you can have the best collections in the world. But the opportunity – doing communication at a huge scale is important. To go from nice to necessary, we need to TELL the public we’re necessary. Public should see scientists on television, at the table everywhere.
Not just collection, not just research, but the fact we interpret it. If we’re going to use research and collections to create participatory experiences.
Do people even know our collections exist and that they’re important? What will it take to leverage collections for public engagement?
Make scientists celebrities to engage in the public space. So people know who scientists are so it’s part of a larger discussion of what’s going on in the world. Another critical aspect – as we’re thinking about voting public – we need to think about who that voting public is. If we’re going to be necessary communicators - What about the people who aren’t even coming in our doors?
Can we insert proactively ourselves in the critical path of learning? Multisensory learning. How do we advocate science? Steve Jobs didn’t ask customers what they wanted – just told them. Can we proactively go out and do it. Place-based. Even if you’re communicating digitally, there is still a place.
What about being more creative technically? Multiple channels – people consume on multiple channels – in the museum, web, AR, mobile, books, etc. Need to be in all spaces. More necessary if we infiltrate across mediums.
Across the public discourse, why aren’t people talking about science more? They would if they hear and see it more it will be necessary. So communication is key. We’ll always have a physical relevance of our things. That’s not going to leave, but to be relevant in a world that is increasingly digital and virtual, we need to communicate.
Natural history museums need to get over their fear of being wrong. Fear is a huge obstacle. The process of doing science is full of debate but often show only final.
We have these unique collections but why do they matter and why is it relevant. If we don’t ask those questions fully, there’s a disconnect with the public.
Do we leverage our collections well? Would people notice if we disappeared? What are some examples of collections being used well?
Kirk said – the idea of using the dioramas as time capsules. Look at what we have to make connections with public now. 10 years ago there wasn’t an issue of incredible misinformation about science – Wikipedia – it’s crucial to get the knowledge out there. This is how we find out – through collections.
Our colleagues should go on to Wikipedia to make sure the information is right because not connected to my institution. But this is crucial – this is where the public gets the information. Forcefully insert our selves into the places where people are getting their knowledge. To be necessary, go to where people are getting information. YouTube, twitter, TV, etc. Brooklyn Museum does this well, and integrate to onsite.
There is a syndrome of ‘if we could just get people in the door.’ We don’t look outward enough.
It’s about conversations. Race exhibit did that well.
Gaining an appreciation about a topic tends to lend to more learning.
What’s the problem?
We are looking at trying to use our collections to be more innovative. (David Attenborough doing a programme called Flying Monsters. Could use at the museum but many issues – access to collections, security, policies, time and money, etc. Opportunity to really reach people. But gets mired in policy.
What question could be asked to start to answer?
Why are we doing it? What is the base benefit to the museum and how does it benefit the whole?
Silos – so the various depts. not working together towards the end.
Also, a tension of preserving the objects can run up against the need to be fast and responsive.
Cornell – citizen science observations of birds across country. One database. This is a kind of collection. Then the idea came up to visualize where people can people can see it and use tools to actually map occurrence and part of report to help government - The State of the Birds. A different way to think about collections – leveraged participation, made relevant, place-based, active, and fun. Synthesized a bunch of things.
We have not failed.
ILI does a good job.
Kirk – people are coming in the door more. We have been defining success based on people coming in the door. So that’s where we are succeeding. Some of those people are learning.
Have research and collections been leveraged to get people in the door?
Blockbusters bring people in the door. Sue. Why? And are they learning more? Why does attendance drop off after the blockbuster?
It can be asset to have small staff. Alaska museum staff can decide and do something. The attendance goes up 20% a year. A lot of collections can be picked up by visitors. Any replica should be available for touching. The realness of the collections is really compelling.
Why don’t we have all glass walls and open storage throughout museums?
The most innovative use of collections or best research.
- Travelling exhibits - The evolution of Maize - Cornell The State of the Bird. Real data and visualization and tools available to everyone - A project on 3d visualization – earthquake and plates - Karaoke – see sound frequencies. Drosophila in Explore Evolution
- Access to CT scanner, DNA and microscopy – see the process on collections - More broadly connecting to the research that’s happening from collections - See scientist doing the work - Denver – participate in the scientist - Open up boxes from the basement - Trusting and respecting the audience -
Foundational Research and Best Practices This section will grow during and after the conference. The tagging exercise at www.informalscience.org has identified r//esearch and evaluation reports relevant to learning in natural history settings// that could be brought to bear as foundational research and best practices. The working group is encouraged to add their own knowledge of applicable research and evaluation, as well as best practices (projects, programs, museums, etc.) at the intersections of natural history assets and opportunities.
Session 2 (Monday afternoon) - Great idea to pair natural history museums and nature centers - We are in the business of purveyors of wonder - We underestimate the fact that most people live in urban areas. And our museums often are. There is urban nature. Nature vs. humans. It's a changed, domesticated nature, particularly in Europe. Manage those conversations. Not just about wild places. Living in the
middle of an urban place, many visitors don't see stars. Can take something small and talk about nature, not something huge or completely wild. - What even is the wilderness? Everywhere you go there are trails and signs. It's hard to find true wilderness. So start small. We have backyards, parks. Try to find the smaller natural places. - There are contemporary places, small state parks near or in most urban areas that are accessible. We need to help people find those local places. Tell people - to see more of this - go to this park... - It is important that we think about the larger community.
- Where we are as a group: We are getting where we need to be. The voices of people outside of natural history museums are important. - Bill tasked the group with dig into 'What if I wonder'. Think about why we'll involved in natural history. Why are we here? The core passion for each of us. The core dream of 'what if'. Build on conversation from this morning. How do we leverage the core assets? What if we really did let all our visitors touch all of our stuff.
(Break into smaller groups) Small group notes from Rebecca:
Core passions: - people learning about science so they understand the world you live in - what does it really mean to understand - what if natural history museums were able to really extend into people's backyards. destination is your own backyard. if we're trying to saving the world (which is coming up a lot!). Awareness needs to be injected into people's daily lives. To inform people about interacting with their own environments. - Core passion - connecting people to the natural world using science. - Notion of transference. We can have them for an hour in the museum but I'm most concerned with what happens when they leave. What can people do in their own lives to connect people, have them transfer to their own world.
- Not everyone can visit our institutions. We have to overcome being one place. Get beyond being a place. How do we transfer the place of learning, the lessons of our collections to transcend a physical place. But do help learners understand a sense of place. - To change people's perspective on what their environment is. Shake up people's perspective. And to extend the relationship beyond the museum. Have an agenda at London to get people involved in nature. - Natural history museums as too much about science. You have to tell the story from the head and heart. But it is about science. Data viz - there are different ways to get people to shift the way they see things. - Personally, like to look at things, see relationships, behavior, .... fascinating. - A very popular thing in London is DNA through looking at malaria, mosquito.... kids love to see the process, seeing people work out how to get from A to B is really great. - What does it look like to expand beyond the museum - partnerships. What are networks and partnerships and why different? - people have less money, less proximity to natural spaces, less interest in natural history. We need to be strategic about a pipeline, linking content across organizations. - need to get people who aren't already converted. BioBlitzes in parks are great but those people are already doing it. - need to get people in urban areas involved. How do we introduce people. - Maybe the recession offers opportunities. Cleveland has the largest urban farm in the country. Urban homesteading. Farm squatting. Renature some cities. We could play a role. What used to be here? - BioCube - applicable to urban spaces as well as wild spaces. Soil studies. Kids contribute. Small scale - small enough to make a contribution but the many parts of it means that as a whole it gives really broad perspective. That's where partnerships are crucial. If you do something similar across many institutions. - Collecting data locally and then sharing it on much bigger scale. - Bring in cultural value. A cultural history. How to get in populations from all over the world in an urban space. Bringing cultural relevance is important. Bring in native understanding. Learn a lot from our audiences. Bring culture into museum. The human perspective. Refugees from local area. Making it real, involve the emotions. In the way that television tells good human-sized stories. - How do we make a conversation, not just one way and didactic.
- Denver does a good job to talk about how people have used land and place. - Bringing in locals to teach. Live people! Native, and other locals. - Different perspectives on nature from various communities. - We can learn a lot from these communities. Real dialogue. Scientists really interacting with the communities on their fieldwork. - We haven't talked about exhibitions as a possible way to really engage.
Small group notes from Anna:
Multiple contexts of research on objects in the collection - science around the collections is dynamic, current, evolving. Transparency/sharing of research currently being done on the collection. · Balanced approach to process of science, and the consensus knowledge that comes from science. Just because we're still asking questions doesn't mean we don't (generally) know what's going on. · What if every collection were put behind glass walls - public perception of what the museum is about · Rather that saying we are for diversity, we actually did it. Becoming more diverse in our thinking and staffing to reflect the communities we serve. Saying we want to diversify but not changing what we're doing. Staff has to reflect the diversity you want to engage. Image of the staff reflecting the groups we want to engage. · Really engaging people beyond our walls. Go to audiences (real or virtual), also bringing scientists, and collections to the public (no collections in educational area). · Technological innovation - museum experience is part of the continuum - keeps the long tail going. Put the museum into the community discussion. · Being the best at what we do - museum is fundamentally part of the learning experiences, but doesn't have to be in every mode of informal learning. Each institution doesn’t have to be everything to everyone and do it on their own. · Alliance of Natural History Museums of Canada - network of NHM. Connecting so we're not competing but we're collaborating. Taking leadership in areas but not competing with each other. Different institutions in different places - working in tandem but "finding your mastodon"
· NH is an object-based science - how do you deal with the fact that not everyone can share everything with their audience? How do we create the opportunities for collaboration without all of these problems getting in the way? · How do you get over the siloing? Leadership training. Working your way up vs. getting right into an administrative track. · Not just opening our doors to audiences, but going to knock on theirs.
Small group notes from Carlin:
What if…
Questions mulling – “what research has changed the way you think about things?”
What if…
1. - all natural history museums acted as facilitators? Learning researchers; facilitator is not in the role of the expert; doesn’t have knowledge in head to unpack for the listener; facilitator brings people together One of the things that is really important is to draw out – one of the things that is missing 0 enough content knowledge to be a good facilitator. Facilitators need to know about the discussion. Draw someone attention Strength of NHM as educators, scientists, etc. can work as pairs with people-guiding to get there – to provoke meaning-making opportunities for meaning making. Avoid “meandering discussion Pedagogical content knowledge
2. What if…
- We frame the experience to a mutual learning experience between researcher and public, with notion that they might think differently about their work based on public response. - McCallie et al 2009 paper: Many Experts, Many Audiences at caise.insci.org/resources - Reframing – we have something to learn from our audiences; they have lived experiences that can inform the work we do – at least the pedagogical knowledge we impart, and how we impart that knowledge.
Aren’t we already facilitators? Yes – that’s what exhibits are, designing programs etc. to get people to think
0 Difference is – public engagement facilitator is engage in a conversation, actively listen to publics; I wonder what would happen if: We put sticky notes by every exhibits - visitors response
3. What would happen if… Visiting David in Florence – admire that; Stanford project scanning that; in that display you don’t see how you merge the virtual and real What if there were a digital way to explore every specimen? How do we integrate the meaning of the real and digital?
Carbon Nanotubes; phantom pen – “feel” a virus; take objects haptic technology force feedback. Interact with these objects in ways we couldn’t otherwise. Whether paintings, objects, etc.
4. What if…. Our goal was to empower folks to have new eyes with which to see the world. May be a way to Message our Mission: to empower people to see the world in a different way?
5. What happens if… - we have galleries that have doors that are heavy and close. confined space; kids can’t get out, multiple age kids, parents sit down, feel they and their kids are safe. - small, private spaces. - Why museums aren’t a network? Appalachian Mountain Club – long tail, all connected experience; different places. Would instill a sense of pride, link ourselves; create network…
6. What would happen if – we shared some of our exhibitions? Your interpretation of an event that is happening at different venue?
Problem with _not created here”; what would happen if we did leverage each other’s resources on current events?
Nano project – exercise in game theory; changed the behavior between institutions - grant that was large enough to include a collaboration to
CoI’s? things are being more collaborated? fighting against a history of subawards; etc.
Big "I wonder" items from smaller groups: - What if all natural history museums acted as facilitators, not just 'expert'. Facilitator brings people together in non-threatening environment. - What if rather than just saying we're for diversity. What if our staff reflected the audience we want to engage. What if we knocked on people's doors. - What if we could get beyond the idea that you are a place. Get outside our doors to everyone's backyard. Transference to people in their own lives.
- What if we could collaborate and not feel like we have to compete. Have something special we do but also work together. - What if we leverage your resources. Pipeline. Scaffolding experience. Make sure to extend experience. - Mi mastodon es si mastodon. - What happens if we have galleries that have heavy and closed. Confined spaces that kids can just wander where parents feel safe. In practice, people really are coming to spaces like this. Makes it a safe social space. - We had talked about all these big ideas, but none of it had involved exhibits. - What would happen if we shared some of our exhibitions. - Are we competing with each other? For funding. But some say - not a feeling of being competitive. More that people do things in isolation. More like people are reinventing the wheel not learning from what others have done. There's a hubris of people not wanting to collaborate - want to do something new. Does Exploratorium feel competitive with CAS? No - feels like they build off each other. Good for others if other recent museums are doing well. Exploratorium numbers higher since CAS re-opened. Other examples of this. - Carnegie - trending down - average 300K. Actively looking to change to trend up. - Funding can result in competition - What if we could have a digital way to explore every specimen? - 3D printing. Could print out dino bones on $1000 makerbot in classrooms all over the country? Then people can touch them. - Accessibility - iDigBio project - putting out in public domain digital images and 3d models. As many images/3d objects of natural history specimens as possible. Director of Ed and Outreach on NSF project - iDigBio. Can compare. Can scan your own object and compare to objects on the site. They will have object/visual recognition and match to objects they have. - LeafSnap - Merlin app will do it with birds - There is a convergence of tools - Museum collections will be accessible in the cloud
What are critical questions for research and evaluation?
- Josh: Some research that changed his perspective. Carol Dweck - studied kids models of intelligence. What do you think it means to be smart? Most had static view - you're smart or you're not. The researcher promoting a dynamic model of intelligence. A muscle you build. The research was amazing. Also devised interventions to get the kids to shift from static to dynamic models. Kids with static models would give up faster. Kids with dynamic model both more persistence and self-efficacy. Why am I here? Empowering people to think for themselves. Give people new eyes to see the world. Often we talk about transfer - we have knowledge to give to people. Not empowering, smacks of static model. Instead - dynamic model we're building all the time, help people build skills.
Critical question. We value process of knowledge in our science staff. What would it take to make process a critical part of our audience experience? Appreciation for process, no absolute answer. How to balance lack of one answer, discussion, arguments while still having authority. How do get our audience to think in terms of dynamic learning? We have to treat them that way, and model that ourselves. Show our own staff building knowledge, changing.
Articulate questions about technology pushing the boundaries. The way that Ailse is pushing people in London... use technology to embed ourselves in what people are doing in their everyday lives. For example, the fact that kids are using media so many hours a day. There’s a suspension of belief when you get into a museum, especially under 10,11. After that, they think the stuff is dead. Trying to bring things to life again. Also, extend beyond the museum, so the way that use tech at home is something we're embedded in. Instead of division between physical and digital.
Digital strategies - blogs. Naturalist talking about what's happening on campus all seasons. Also from living collections. The story of the museum itself. Not just the scientific expertise. People are curious about what you're doing behind the scenes. Building a new exhibit, etc. Staff can give voice, and not just the communication, education staff. These blogs are really popular. Never edit what those staff say. Audience needs to know its authentic. Needed to convince leadership that this trust was crucial. Scares people but it works. What happens if you really trust your staff?
What happens if you actually showed the people, not just scientists. Really changes how this staff thinks about themselves. Other institutions have done this - voices from all over the museum. Building a hoist for a whale - engineering, etc. - really popular.
What other ways based on trust of staff? What if the collection people welcomed people into collections? You can see people doing science. Darwin Centre has fishbowl. Some problems. Some scientists really don't want to go in. But blogs, identification forums are working. The virtual environment where scientists have conversation with community is really working. Video diaries from scientists are very successful - much more than physical fishbowl.
What if - to be a museum employee - you had to work in a public space doing your work? What if part of your work was sharing your work? - London - tried this - tried to change contracts. The scientists said NO. - But some museums have done it. - John Gerche - made bronze casts - made casts in Ithaca in public. People loved it. He hated it at first but liked it at the end. - Exploratorium - exhibit developers are on the floor. They wear headphones to block out noise.
- Steve: Engage, inspire, and empower (Monterey Bay Aquarium). Also can talk about knowledge, understanding. Cognition, Affect, and Sensory-Motor handbooks. Bloom's Taxonomy. We live in false dichotomy between cognition and affect - cannot separate. What is the real relationship between engagement and understanding? How does it link to the golden ring of behavior change? And, we're not doing this TO people - people are choosing. Need a better understanding of who our audiences are.
- Behavior change, concept change - long-term. How do we approach long-term?
- Actually holy grail now is not behavior change but identity change. Draft of recent study 'Framework for ....". Identities - you see yourself as a technician, science literate, or XXX. In what ways do we engage with people such that they are comfortable identifying. Anything that you cannot touch you need to have a virtual version of. What does making everything accessible do?
- But there's something quite different between real and virtual object. A virtual object is mediated. Leaves people cold in a way a real object doesn't. - But not only virtual objects. - What if you had a real object next to perfect replica. Ask people what it means to them? How much value do people place on the replica they can touch? No value in replica? - Much science is actually practiced through computers - science is already mediating experience of itself. We can't get at current science without the virtual.
- Replica vs. real, physical vs. virtual. Depends on the learning context, outcome varies. There's value in touching and manipulating while also value in the real thing while also value in the virtual object.
- Are museums putting away from putting out real things vs. casts? There's much more of a wow factor of seeing the real thing. - Can have both. Have the real object next to cast.
For our next meeting tomorrow: - We'll divide into 3 groups and do the 'What if" and "I wonder" about: - If the goal is to make a difference in evolution literacy, how will we leverage our assets? What is the 'what if' and 'I wonder'? (Why Evolution? Because no one else can do it. We have the greatest potential to educate about evolution.)
- Rapid response and current science. What happens if we leverage our assets to respond to current issues? If the goal is to really make a difference in people understanding science, what do you want to know, what do you dream about? (Why? NSF is interested. Public is interested).
What are you most excited about that came out of today? - What Scott said - We are purveyors of wonder. Proust quote. Those sound bites can help shift the paradigm. - Communicating breadth of what happens at museum - not just science - Reaching broader and more diverse audiences. Shouldn't be talking to the same audiences in 10 years. The diversity of learning of school groups is changing. Need to look at who we are trying to serve. - We are stronger together. we can be a pipeline, can scaffold learning, and work together. - Museums as one stream of information. Try to build parallels to other information industries like newspapers. They struggle to retain relevancy. We're similar but we have things others can't replicate, and can't replicate online. So that all is hopeful - Excited about getting people involved behind the scenes. - Museum is really a transformative place. That's why people go to museums. - There are so many artificial barriers that we can get rid of. - So much energy and passion.
Are there other venues where natural history museums collaborate? Let's talk about this next time. Opportunities for Innovation The working group will expand on its identification of the potential for growth and innovation and what audience experiences "look like" as explored in the Summary of the Opportunity. Here it will be useful to explore two different avenues of opportunity: 1) Ideas for innovation that are or are not "shovel ready.� The less formed and more grandiose ideas are those that are likely to help identify critical questions in the next section; 2) Hypotheses about what the group thinks might be an effective innovation, for whom, under what circumstances, and so on.
Session 3 (Tuesday morning) (Review of what will happen in the afternoon and choice of sessions)
This morning, we will do the following: •
Introductions again
•
Start with 'What if' and 'I wonder about' in regards to Evolution. We've been talking about real objects and collections and how do we leverage them(for evolution ed). What do I want to change? And, Technology as Tools towards evolution literacy. We will have 2 tables of evolution and 1 of climate change.
•
After that we'll talk about research and the strands of research. How do we apply these strands to what we've been discussing.
Why Evolution? Because that's what we can do better than anybody else. •
What if all collections went aw
•
ay? There would be no evidence of life in deep time in the fossil record. Our records help understand time and evolution.
•
What does evolution mean to people on an everyday basis? How is the evidence important? Why is hard communicating that evidence.
•
Mohammed Nor, biology: for those who doubt evolution, I offer them last year's flu vaccine.
•
You can't talk about the future without talking about the past
•
How can communicate the importance of evolution
•
DeepTree and FloTree •
NSF funded conference on understanding evolution and the Tree of Life.
•
40 museums got together over years to imagine this, in particular in exhibits
•
One outcome was a funded 3 year project
•
Year 1 is done. This is prototype
•
sdr.seas.harvard.edu/life-on-earth
•
The data from the Tree of Life visualization from toll.org. 90,000 species. EOL for common names and 200 species that are evolutionarily important and that visitors are familiar with.
•
One challenge is that scientists use the tree as a tool to depict evolutionary relationships. It's a very active area of research. Trying to reach consensus. One outcome is the tree of life web (tolw.org?).
•
Now journalists are using trees more.
•
But there's a gap between the ways that scientists are using trees and the way the public understand trees and the relationships that underly
•
(demo)
•
Can explore relationships and can explore related traits visually. Can compare any two species.
Group discussing Evolution One thing we struggle with in citizen science projects is keeping taxonomy recent Question: when we're talking about getting evolution across to the visitor. Are people selfselecting? People who already believe. Research on Partners in Evolution. One outcome - not such a clear division between believers and non. Most people have seemingly contradictory ideas. Even the most fundamentalist visitors are rarely purely creationist. Vary tremendously in terms of how informed they are. Much more a chimera of ideas. Move people along a continuum towards a better understanding.
Example from London Natural History. Limited disply in museum - no permanent offering. Attenborough theatre - wanted film for 11-15yo. 'Who do you think you really are?' How much DNA do you share with a banana? Twin screen experience. Start with family history and look back. Look at morphology and what other species you have... People can do things on their handhelds. Visitors make choices. Results are shown on the screen. Very effective for learning. AT that age, kids want personalized experience. Asking questions about identity. And the twin screen so you have both narrative and a personalization aspect. This is layered information and its amazing how much information people can take in.
What if we have a virtual display like this in every exhibit? How do we show impacts on visitors for these sorts of things?
NIH is demanding a version of randomized control trials. If we were going to compare these exhibits to something else... what is a legitimate comparison group? Do you need to compare to like programs. Debate in the field -comparing. If you don't have a comparison group, you are able to understand what is unique. Steve can just compare to other onsite experiences. What aspect of the experience are you trying to evaluate? How self-guided? Is it the interactivity? What's the question? Complicated variables. Do we need an interactive table. Text vs. visual. You could present the material in a more traditional approach - noninteractive video, for example. The breakthrough in London was the personalization. You can go online and find your story. The technology and gamification aspects are great wow factors. All of those tie together.
In Alaska museum, soften evolution message. They generally don't say 'evolution' - they say 'change over time'. There are often chaperones who take kids out during evolution part of the workshop. How to push those boundaries. Similar in New Mexico. Sometimes parents will reinterpret for kids and tell them it's not true. Maybe it's about smaller scale and understanding those examples. Population change over seasons based on food supply. From there people can conceptualize short to long term change. Real-world examples. Show how to scale up from years to deep time.
I wonder if we can make evolution relevant not by focusing on evolution as a big concept but by focusing on how it is affecting you daily. If people understand or relate to microevolutionary process does it make them easier to understand or relate to large scale change.
Bruce: if you look at Gallup surveys in the last decades there's been no shift in the US in public perception. John Miller article - 47th in terms of public acceptance of evolution. A little cynical. These things seem incremental. Focus the audience. Kids - their minds are still open. 3 types of people. 1/3 like science, 1/3 could be interested, 1/3 will not happen. Need to focus on a target audience. Not just museums - need to reach people who don't come here. Need TV, internet.
Need to strategically think big about how we'll do it.
Think about it on continuum. In Alaska, little girl said her family believes in the Bible but when she sees the dino bones she doesn't know where it fits. How to talk to this person. Maybe the goal is to think about just exposing people to the idea as a starting point. Dinosaurs are a great start. Dinosaur Train. What if every gallery had something about evolution, especially in the Dino halls. Maybe see how long ago, and connect to current, relevant info. What if every gallery speaks to the fact that things change over time.
Judy - when they first started Explore Evolution galleries, and deeply fundamentalist population, big debate. Decided its not about belief, it's about understanding. Decide to make the term Evolution very visible. Worked with various people to figure out how to talk about. Now fundamentalists visit more. They bring high school kids to the exhibit every year, telling them to understand evolution in order to make up your own mind. As museums, by being proactive and direct and not afraid to teach good science, it turns out that it opens communication in ways not predicted. Expected to be hated. But by being honest, it actually brought people in. Honesty - let others politicize it.
Steve - Life Changes, Evolution, and Health both at NY Hall of Science. Evaluation understanding, attitude, belief. Changing belief takes more than 10 minutes. Provide opportunity to get people engaged. Not a fan of the continuum - very linear. Prefer more about cognitive dissonance - how does that work? Kids looking at dinos and birds. The kids don't have to get it exactly right to have a good outcome. Especially with kids, understanding is more a cloud than a set of facts. If the kid adjusts attitude - sees that there is a different viewpoint that might make sense, that's good.
Chia - How do we evaluate. Media Lab - measuring how people play video games. People have to be interested. Web cam to take your picture to put in the interactive (but no, because kids would just take their own picture). We're terrible at measuring affect.
What if we measured success by Kids starting experiences by doing experiments by trying to reach outcome. Doing it outside of a science class might make a difference.
A lot of museums and schools are starting to have their own local gardens. I imagine there might be a way to use gardens to look at how a bean might change.
A museum in Korea has genetics labs where kids can see up close. Kids really engaged in understanding. Schools and museums doing molecular biology. Dogs. I'm making this myself, I own it. Not only from the big, abstract picture. Birds - the fact that birds are threatened touches people. What if the museums were focal points but need to inject the message into every day life, not just at the museum.
It's hard to jump from micro to macro level. What does the bigger concept get us?
Evolution and Health exhibit - is good at relating to us. Pelvis example - childbirth. Lactose intolerance.
Should focus on the things that produce tangible outcomes. Calibrate those to the kinds of experiences that people are having. Optimize learning.
Imagine you're defending natural history museums to Congress. They'll want more than just attitude change - of people like this, appreciate nature more, etc. - they will want evidence of real learning. Debate on evaluation - cognitive
Big question - Is it more effective to start with the affective interest motivation to end up with cognitive evolution literacy. Or is more effective to understand... It would cool to show that our exhibits increase interest and appreciation AND made a big difference later on - that would be great.
Where is the aha moment? Do you show them or get them to find it themselves? Can't separate affect and cognition.
Sid the Science Kid. Young kids learn hypothesis, experiments. There are ways to get in with kids. Start small. Encouragement along the way.
(back to big group)
The main goal for this project is to have an outcome for a research agenda. Based on Ellen's notes (now included below). Reflect back on - how do you think about developing research agenda? What do the learning researchers and evaluators think about?
Josh: Where do you start? Maybe - am I interested essentially in audience? Or a design perspective? A good research question - How would the audience experience change if every collection object were accompanied by a virtual interactive object. Or, what do people think about change and how does that relate to evolution. How do I get people to engage in the process of inquiry? What does the reasoning look like? Books - good accessible entry: with Sue Allen "Group Inquiry in Science Museums: Asking Juicy Questions" inquiry game that visitors can 'play' and engage in deeper inquiry. "Fostering Active Prolonged Engagement" about creating exhibits. When we think about a learning research agenda, want to be pragmatic about where to start. Audience based? Design based? Conceptual?
Anna: Some of our research agenda is opportunistic. People doing new innovative things and so as we're doing it we layer on research question. Beyond whether this was successful to a research question that is relevant to broader field. What's the good work we want to do and then how do we learn about that?
Josh: Research and evaluation are different from each other. Goal of evaluation is - how do we make this the best it can or did we? Research - generalizing - not just one thing you're studying. This is a class of things I'm studying that can be applied across.
Steve - Research is messier and more complicated. may end up in a different place than
where planned. Often start with audience. Based on this experience, what do you hope visitors will think, feel, and do? Then it's about chipping away. Don't try to do everything. Need to edit.
Judy: Funding agencies not accepting delineation. Want evaluation to speak to larger things. May get rid of summative evaluation. Make evaluation more like research.
One last thing from each person: - Big barrier is our discomfort with not having the right answer right now. Need to be okay with ambiguity. Okay to put stuff in front of visitors without knowing for sure in order to keep up with rate of change. - This has been very helpful to take back to my institution - I would feel more comfortable if there was accountability at the end. Did we actually form the partnerships we talked about? What happens in 6 months? - Will there be a contact list distributed? Everyone should a picture next to their name. - We're all getting similar issues coming up. Small or big organizations have similar questions. Network is important. - Having a group of people focusing on issues specific to Natural History is great. Feeling like there's a community refreshing - What's the point of literacy in evolution? What goal does that get us to? Not clear. Just because we're well suited to teach it doesn't mean we should. - If something is going to change, this is the group to start it. This is a good place to start. There are other people not here who should contribute. - How do we build this? - Put a scientist's picture next to each thing. And the scientist says, 'here's what I wonder about'. Science isn't done. - Let's all try something uncomfortable that pushes us - Let's try something that someone else is doing.
Critical Questions and Directions for Research and Evaluation This section will identify critical questions about audience experiences and learning. This section is the crux of the work of the group because it is intended to identify a broad range of critical practical questions that need to be addressed to move forward with identified potential innovations, as well as critical theoretical questions related to what, how, when, and why people learn in and around natural history museums and assets. The ultimate product should be a set of prioritized, nested questions organized in a way that makes sense to the group. The questions should address the critical challenges identified through preconference and first day activities.
Explicit and Implicit Research Questions Group A: Public Engagement Opportunities Summarized by Ellen McCallie (314-489-6948 for questions) Framework (meta-level) •
Connecting people to nature/the natural world, using science.
•
Learning questions about the role of collections
•
Learning questions that (also) substantiate the value of museum and collection
Collections & Participatory Experiences 1. What would it take to have visitors value NHM primarily for our collections? Nature of Science/Nature of Museums type question? To what extent do experiences provide opportunities for visitors (and learning outcomes) that support the mission of the museum—that collections are our most important asset. Do publics get our public value? 2. What is the role of the “real:” real scientist, real collection, etc. What is the advantage/value of having the “real?” 3. What are the differences in using new media to either approximate or take it deeper or further than real audiences can? What is the role of new media? 4. How does “embodiment” personalize and impact the learning experience with the collection? 5. How do visitors best learn about and/or connect with NHM collections (affective)? 6. Under what conditions are casts, models, etc. not acceptable/undermine the NHM learning experience? 7. Under what conditions and in what ways, do casts, models, etc, enhance/support learning?
8. What happens when visualizations, casts, models etc. are used in conjunction with real objects? 9. How would the visitor experience change (all LSIE strands) if every real object was accompanied by a touchable, manipulatable, or visualizable replica/representation? 10. How would the visitor experience change if EVERY non-real object could be touched/handled in a museum/gallery? How would visitors’ experiences change? How would visitor perception of, experience of, and connection to NHM change? 11. What are the range of ways visitors are invited to examine collections as primary data related to scientific questions, current issues, controversial issues? Which ways are most effective in prompting change in the ways visitors view the world? View evolution? View science? View the value of NHM? 12. In what ways do digital files, such as bird vocalizations, count as collection? Serve as collections? What are their affordances in conjunction with other collections? What are their limitations? 13. What should we consider as we leverage collections for audiences of different ages? What are the developmental milestones we should take into account when designing interactive experiences? 14. How would the perception of NHM change/Would NHM be seen as more vital places or ones with active research…if “mi mastodon, su mastodon”—if we shared in each other’s discoveries? How would that change people’s feelings or connections to NHM? 15. How do audiences change with increased participatory experiences? Which types of participatory experiences (or how different/participatory) does a NHM need to be before other audiences sees NHM as “for me?” 16. What are effective means for communicating “NHM are for you” for visitors? If we’re changing our experience, what are effective ways to communicate who we are, who is welcome, and how we are changing (what to expect)? 17. What are best practices with respect to enlivening, reawakening, or leveraging old dioramas for understanding the natural present and natural future? What are ways to effectively use dioramas as data sources for examining change over time, placebased issues? 18. There is a lot of controversy about the effectiveness of dioramas for learning. In what ways do dioramas support the LSIE six strands of learning? What kind of interpretation, facilitation, etc. increases their impact? 19. What do we really need to learn from the fact that our attendance goes way up with blockbusters and then returns to “normal?” What would it take to change the curve? 20. Glass walls, open storage, and the ability to view staff working are often cited as potential game changers for NHM. What do we know about small and large scale experiments with making NHM collections and work visible? What makes these
efforts successful or end up failing? What impact do they have on visitors? What should factors or best practices should NHM consider when embarking on “making science and collections visible?” 21. What are innovative and best practices with respect to making collections visible and maintaining collections in perpetuity? 22. How do exhibits and the perceptions of NHM writ larg change when how we use tools such as CT scans, DNA sequencing, SEM, etc. are integral parts of our communication, display of collections, and practice? What changes when we talk explicitly about our partnerships with community professionals who use these tools to help us examine specimens and propose new understandings? 23. In what ways can we tie passion into participatory experiences, particularly with collections? How can exhibits, programs, and virtual experiences be designed to integrally draw on, elicit, and develop people’s passions? What about beauty/aesthetics? 24. Does providing various context around an object effectively provide for multiple entry points into discussion about the object for different groups or different ages? 25. What is the effect on learning when objects are put in their current research context of what we know about them and what we want to know? 26. What would happen if NHM shared their best interpretation/exhibits/classes with each other—at no/low cost? How would this effect the perceived value of NHM? What would happen within the museum? 27. How would our experience with audiences change if every exhibit had sticky notes by it? 28.
Data 1. How do audiences access NHM data? 2. What data visualization tools are most effective for NHM audiences to understand data and patterns? 3. What data visualization tools allow NHM audiences to explore data and ask questions that they are interested in? 4. What data is available to NHM audiences that relate directly to their local environments, homes, and landscapes? 5. What programs/platforms allow audiences to learn about nature outside the museum with just-in-time technology? What conditions prompt people use the technology?
6. Data access and visualization seem to be the most promising means for achieving connections to content, beauty, and meaning of science/nature data. How can we leverage the LSIE strands to understand the breadth of impact of data visualization? What happens in terms of learning when experiences shift the way people see things? 7. Scientific process 1. What ways are most effective in promoting visitor’s view of NHM as places where knowledge is generated and knowledge is in process? 2. How do NHM effectively communicate the process of science? 3. How do NHM effectively communicate the tentative nature of science without bringing science as an endeavor into question? 4. How do public views of NHM change over the short and long term when NHM shifts its identity from having the answers to being a place of discovery, iteration, etc. (“process” as opposed to a place for “final answers”)? 5. If we value process of knowledge in our science staff, what would it take to make process a critical part of our audience experience? Specifically, appreciation for process, no absolute answer. How do we balance lack of one answer, discussion, arguments while still having authority? How do get our audience to think in terms of dynamic learning? We have to treat them that way, and model that ourselves. Show our own staff building knowledge, changing. 6. People seem intrigued by stories and processes. Can scientific stories and processes create exceptional learning contexts? (Mosquito DNA, malaria…) Technology Integration & Learning Across Settings (Ubiquity) 1. How can we insert proactively ourselves in the critical path of learning? 2. What are effective strategies and practices for inserting NHM content and data into daily lives, activities, and technology use of people? 3. How can we “go to” where people already are digitally? How can we integrate ourselves into the platforms visitors already use? How does/can this make NHM an extension of the visitor or visitor identity? 4. How can we support people’s use of multiple channels simultaneously: phone, video, internet, etc.? (=normal for digital natives). In what instances do we NOT want to support multiple, simultaneous channels?
5. How does the credibility or perception of NHM change if we actively contribute to and edit things like Wikipedia? How does our identity change as we coordinate across NHM to edit/contribute to public knowledge places, like Wikipedia? 6. How are NHM are forcefully inserting our selves into the places where people are getting their knowledge? (To be necessary, go to where people are getting information. Youtube, twitter, tv, etc. Brooklyn Museum does this well, and integrate to onsite.) What changes when this happens? How long does it take to measure a change in attitude about or understanding of what NHM do or our role in society? 7. How can we measure transference? How do people leverage knowledge and experiences from one nature experience to others? How can we work together to support transference within a area/region? 8. What factors support seamless integration and visitor experience across NHM platforms (variety of virtual and physical)? What supports help visitors leverage these factors to integrate NHM platforms into their “normal” lives? 9. Technology as tools: How does telling the story of NHM research through the lens of technology as tools support the LSIE practice/skills strand as well as the reflection/nature of science strand? Do NHM have a unique or strong role here? (It also should help with our relevance.) 10. How do we transcend “place-based?” Not everyone can visit our institutions. How do we transfer the place of learning and the lesions of our collections beyond the physical space? 11. Digital strategies - blogs. Naturalist talking about what's happening on campus all seasons. The story of the museum itself. Not just the scientific expertise. People are curious about what you're doing behind the scenes. Building a new exhibit, etc. Staff can give voice, and not just the communication, education staff. These blogs are really popular. Never edit what those staff say. Audience needs to know its authentic. Needed to convince leadership that this trust was crucial. Scares people but it works. What happens if you really trust your staff? What happens if you actually showed the people, not just scientists? Rapid Response/Current Science 1. Organizational question: what will it take for NHM to actually respond quickly? 2. What supports would effectively allow NHM to leverage, distribute, or display realtime or new interpretations on current events that were developed by other NHM? 3. How do visitors respond to the idea that current event exhibits in the museum they’re visiting were produced by other NHM? 4. In what ways is place-based interpretation reinforced/undermined by including rapid response about current events in other areas? What difference does branding/connection to other place-based museum make? In what situations does
branding/connecting rapid response exhibits to other place-based museums reinforce the place-based notion/identity of a museum? 5. Missed opportunities—we often miss opportunities to relate our knowledge to current/relevant issues in society because we are not structured to respond quickly, we want to have “the right answer,” etc. What would a NHM that could respond look like? How would it function? What would it’s role in society be? How would the identity of NHM employees and volunteers change with these changes? What other changes (communicate we’re a process organization, decrease our fear of being wrong) would need to happen for a NHM to embrace this role? 6. How would our relevance change if we shared our interpretation on current issues— or distributed leadership with respect to our responses? Or if we just put the web up as a response/interpreter of current events in our galleries? Scientists 1. What are effective strategies for making scientists local celebrities? What are the factors/contexts that make this status more likely? That maintain this? Audiences 1. How can we get new audiences through our doors? 2. What counts as “wonder” in NHM, if we are in the business of being “purveyors of wonder?” 3. What does “trusting our audiences” look like? What could it look like? What would be different if we did? 4. What are the various strategies for developing and maintaining repeat/frequent visitation? 5. What are the characteristics of experiences or “what happens” to visitors (emotions, experiences, etc.) in places that they are drawn to for repeat visitation? How do NHM experiences map? What aren’t we doing, including approaches, experiences, or attitude shifts, that are low hanging fruit, crucial for our future with our communities, or something we should at least ponder if we want to move from nice to necessary? 6. What role does conversation play in each strand of learning (LSIE)? In what ways does our “attractiveness” for diverse audiences change when conversations are promoted or scaffolded throughout the NHM experience (on all platforms)? 7. How much change and on what platforms does change need to happen (across all, only on web, etc) for repeat visitation to take root? For people to “talk” about NHM as part of their daily lives? 8. How can co-curating or community curating be sustained in NHM? What organizational committee is needed? What factors affect the success (and initial willingness to engage) in community co/led curating? What does community input or
led content/experience mean for the identity of NHM and our “position” within communities and with respect to science? 9. How important is relevance, particularly cultural relevance and explicitly addressing cultural connections to facilitating learning? 10. What would happen if we “enacted diversity” instead of just talking about it, so we actually reflected our communities? 11. What would happen to our relationships with publics (and the science we do), if we reframed the relationship with audiences such that NHM were to learn something, too? If we thought our science should change based on interactions with audiences (mutual learning)? McCallie et al 2009 paper: Many Experts, Many Audiences at caise.insci.org/resources 12. What would happen if museums saw their role as facilitators—of interactions with collections, of interactions among people (promoting social interaction and sciencerelated interactions)? 13. How would NHM have to change—and what would be the effect of the change—if visitors left NHM thinking they had seen the world through “new eyes?” 14. How does the museum experience change when some of the galleries provide “safe spaces” for parents with kids to relax and explore? (Heavy doors, confined, visually open spaces, where parents can see their kids without having to keep them together, etc.) 15. What if museums treated audiences like “smartness” was a muscle you build? Some research that changed his perspective. Carol Dweck - studied kids models of intelligence. What do you think it means to be smart? Most had static view - you're smart or you're not. The researcher promoting a dynamic model of intelligence. A muscle you build. The research was amazing. Also devised interventions to get the kids to shift from static to dynamic models. Kids with static models would give up faster. Kids with dynamic model both more persistence and self-efficacy. Why am I here? Empowering people to think for themselves. Give people new eyes to see the world. Often we talk about transfer - we have knowledge to give to people. Not empowering, smacks of static model. Instead - dynamic model we're building all the time, help people build skills. How do get our audience to think in terms of dynamic learning? We have to treat them that way, and model that ourselves. Show our own staff building knowledge, changing, etc. 16. The role of school groups in museums is changing; the role of museums in schools is changing. What can be leveraged for better outcomes and experiences for kids? Who are we serving? How can we better serve them? Through teachers? 17. How are museums effectively contributing to the STEM pipeline?
Priority Content: Evolution
1. Why is evolution priority content? 1. Because we have collections and can therefore provide the evidence for evolution better than anyone else. 2. Evolution is the basis of biology. 3. Evolution is the key to non-rejection of science. 4. Evolution is the theme that ties the natural past to the natural present and natural future. 2. Technology is providing insight and access into evolution and phylogenetic trees. How do people’s understanding of evolution or feeling about evolution change with experiences with trees? Sdr.seas.harvard.edu/life-on-earth 3. People with a diversity of perspectives attend museums. Of these groups, who could we be most effective with in terms of showing progress towards deeper knowledge of, acceptance of, or less antipathy for evolution? Who should we be targeting? 4. In what ways is connecting family, medical experiences such as flu shots, and domestic animals to evolution effective as to evolution literacy? What are the characteristics of effective experiences? 5. What about the term evolution? Is it more effective in the long run to use it or not? 6. If people understand or relate to micro-evolutionary processes taking place in their daily lives, does it make it easier to understand or relate to large scale change? 7. What are the most strategic ways to spend resources in terms of evolutionary literacy? What should our strategic goals be? 8. Is cognitive dissonance effective in the short or long term with respect to evolutionary literacy—or at all? 9. What is the most important individual or set of learning goals related to evolution: change in knowledge, attitude, engagement, etc.? 10. Do direct experiences with selection make a difference in accepting evolution? FastPlants, etc. 11. In what ways is health an effective entry point for learning evolution? 12. Where is the aha moment? Do you show them or get them to find it themselves? Can't separate affect and cognition?
Place-based 1. When does placed-based make a meaningful difference in the visitor experience, in the connection to place, and in the visitor’s connection/perception of the museum?
2. In what ways is place-based interpretation reinforced/undermined by including rapid response about current events in other areas? What difference does branding/connection to other place-based museum make? In what situations does branding/connecting rapid response exhibits to other place-based museums reinforce the place-based notion/identity of a museum? 3. What are the potentials and affordances of pairing NHM and nature centers together? What are our respective strengths? What is the value-added? 4. How does the NHM experience change—in what ways does it become stronger or more relevant—when nature is thought to include urban nature and when humans are considered as animals and part of nature? 5. How can local parks, yards, etc. be leveraged as part of NHM or the NHM experience? How can we leverage them as part of Public Participation in Scientific Research (caise.insci.org/resources look for Bonney et al.) as well as NHM research? 6. What is the impact of NHM playing a role in recession rethinking: urban farming, renaturing, squatting? 7. What is urban indigenous knowledge? How does it develop? How does it strengthen a community? How can NHM positively contribute to, understand, or document urban indigenous knowledge? 8. What if NHM really did extend into or serve as an extension of people’s backyards? Organizational 1. How would NHM experiences change if all NHM (had to work) worked in public spaces or behind glass walls? What would happen if NHM staff all acted as public scientists or as part of the visible asset/exhibition of the NHM? What kind of person would work at NHM? How would the experience change? What is the root of the tension between NHM staff and public viewing? Do certain personality types gravitate to certain kinds of NHM work? What does it take so people become comfortable working in public spaces? 2. How would the NHM experience change if we told our stories from the lens of passion and the heart as opposed to starting/focusing solely on the lens of science? Is science better communicated/embraced by telling its story through other lens (passion/affect, beauty, patience, etc.)? How would these approaches transform NHM practices writ large, from parking to galleries to science? 3. How would the perception and role of NHM change if we consistently framed ourselves and enacted the role of facilitator/convener? (The implication is that NHM would consistently promote and imbue opportunities for dialogue throughout the NHM experience: virtual and physical.
4. Multiple contexts of research on objects in the collection - science around the collections is dynamic, current, evolving. Transparency/sharing of research currently being done on the collection. 5. How would NHM be different if staff felt trusted? 6. How would the NHM culture change if staff—not just scientific staff—were encouraged to blog about their museum work? 7. What if - to be a museum employee - you had (mandatory) to work in a public space doing your work? What if part of your work was sharing your work? Would the type of person working at the museum change? Would the museum change? How? Better? Worse? For what/whom? (Fishbowl.) 8. Do catch phrases ground staff through change processes? “Engage, inspire, and empower” (Monterey Bay Aquarium) 9. Why aren’t NHM a network? What would be different if we were? 10. What lessons to NHM have to learn from other “news” and information organizations that have “lost” relevancy in 21st century society, i.e. newspapers/print journalism, network TV? 11. How does our effectiveness change when we link content across organizations? Evidence of Learning 1. What are the holy grails for evidence of learning? 1. Positive affect 2. Identity as science/nature professional/innovator, contributor/technician, or science literate person 2. What counts as evidence of learning for each LSIE strand?
Emotions/Passion 1. Are NHM more effective in providing lasting learning experiences if our communications is led by the heart/emotions/passion that by science? Research suggests that learning—and specifically engagement, starts with the heart, not with “content.” Is this really true/effective? 2. Cognition and affect are a false dichotomy. What is the question? Questions/Tensions 1. What are the parameters under which the following statement is true and is false/misguided? “Don’t ask visitors what they want.”
2. NHM often say, “If we could only get new people through the door,” but we also know we aren’t great, in general, at achieving repeat visitation. What needs to change for us to (1) be honest with ourselves, (2) understand what would promote repeat/frequent visitation, or (3) what happens when people visit? 3. What would it take—bright spots/successes, outright mandate (and by whom)—for NHM to break down silos and barriers in order to work together to implement all these ideas and dreams that got us to work in museums in the first place? What would it take? What would it take to keep that ball rolling? 4. We are mostly an urban world; we need to embrace this. It’s not human vs. nature. Or nature=wild. It is what is the nature around us?
Discussion of Group A: Learning Research Agenda (Reconfiguration/Session 4) Collection is a bucket we keep coming back to: how do we leverage collections (or representations of collections) to achieving learning goals around particular topics and/or with specific audience. We are now ready to do a mash-up, leveraging our assets around particular topics or audiences. Under each bucket we want sets of questions in each bucket that individual projects can draw from, so we’re asking similar questions—or some of us start asking research questions related to our work. This is in part so institutions can draw them to get started. We want to have specific questions so that folks can draw from in their own work, but then we would want to synthesize findings. What is the effect of having collections on the learning experience? The audience, collection, and the approaches you are using? Collections have accrued scientific assets and stories that are associated with them. We need to do literature reviews about our major topics/buckets, so we can draw on them. Our overarching question: how do object based collections facilitate learning in terms of the six strands? And to break that out, we were thinking about those six strands in one column and in a matrix, what are the aspects of objects-based collections affect learning? Authenticity: how real are the objects? Completeness. How complete is the collection, including context of the collection? Uniqueness. How unique are the objects in relation to the visitor? Scientific importance. Did science radically shift because of this object or collection? Accessibility to sensory perception? What are the different ways that the museum has allowed you to engage with the collection, including visualizations, representations, etc.?
Cross-cutting issue: Audience. Breaking out different segments (age, education, social groupings)
Where is the affect of having and using object-based collections? So examples of topics that would fit in these cells are questions/issues like: 1. What would it take to have visitors value NHM primarily for our collections? Nature of Science/Nature of Museums type question? To what extent do experiences provide opportunities for visitors (and learning outcomes) that support the mission of the museum—that collections are our most important asset. Do publics get our public value? 2. What is the role of the “real:” real scientist, real collection, etc. What is the advantage/value of having the “real?” 3. What are the differences in using new media to either approximate or take it deeper or further than real objects can? What is the role of new media? 4. How does “embodiment” personalize and impact the learning experience with the collection?
Research Question: How do different facets of object-based collections engender different kinds of learning (LSIE strands) in Natural History Museums?
LSIE Strands
FACETS OF OBJECT-BASED COLLECTIONS Authenticity Completeness Uniqueness Scientific Accessibility to Importance sensory perception & manipulation
1. excitement, interest, and motivation 2. generate, understand, remember, and use concepts 3. Manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense
4. Reflect on science as a way of knowing 5. Participate in scientific activities and learning practices with others 6. Think about themselves as science learners and develop an identity Strand 1: Experience to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world. Strand 2: Come to, explanations, arguments, models and facts related to science. Strand 3: of the natural and physical world. Strand 4:; on processes, concepts, and institutions of science; and on their own process of learning about phenomena. Strand 5:, using scientific language and tools. Strand 6: as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science.
In what ways and to what extent does the perceived authenticity of objects in a collection (a) enhance visitors' interest and excitement about the topic and (b) contribute to their understanding of the scientific process or practices involved in studying the topic?
Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration This section is intended to capture the challenges and opportunities for collaboration within and between natural history museums relevant to the intersection of these assets and opportunities. This section should identify key challenges, key opportunities, and important research questions about how we work together within and across museums to break down traditional "silos" that could hinder our progress.
NHM Assets x Audience Engagement Strategies (Group B) Edit 0 0 15… Intersections between Natural History Museum assets and 21st Century Audience Engagement Opportunities
Facilitator: Becky Menlove Recorder: Karen Knutson
Context The 21st Century has already brought with it a broad, deep array of audience engagement opportunities that enhance and/or expand previous strategies and/or offer new possibilities that we are just starting to grasp. There is also the potential for exponential growth in opportunities to connect with our audience that we have not yet imagined. This conference theme explores the intersection of historical and current natural history museum assets and these new engagement strategies.
Natural History Museum Assets As a starting place for discussion, we consider the following unique assets of natural history museums: •
Collections, Data, and Evidence. Natural history museums contain vast collections of objects and specimens, as well as terabytes of data derived from those collections and their histories, that tell the story of the Earth and its peoples since their origins. Objects, the data surrounding their collection, and the research conducted with them - including new areas of research enabled by technologies such as genomic sequencing - form a unique foundation for public engagement, learning, and participation among informal science education providers.
•
"Built-in" Research Communities. Many natural history museums have one or more research scientists, collections managers, curators, and other scientific and technical staff that energize education, public, and outreach opportunities with active scientific research.
•
Historical Perspectives on Nature and Culture. The research conducted at natural history museums and with natural history collections, data, and evidence is a specialized type of science that usually incorporates long term perspectives on
nature and culture. This historical view - and the educational opportunities it affords provide critical insights for understanding current science and cultural challenges, such as climate change and language loss. •
Large-scale Exhibits. Many natural history museums provide large-scale exhibits that have provided a basic understanding and inspiration to explore nature and culture for generations. Exhibits and the tradition of exhibiting are important assets to be considered in connecting with audiences in new ways.
•
Partnerships. Natural history museums are a part of a larger, broader landscape of learning about nature and culture. Perhaps moreso than any other type of museum, the content of natural history museums is supported through informal interactions at home and outdoors, as well as by a wealth of additional informal learning institutions and organizations, including nature centers, zoos, aquariums, and camps. Existing and potential partnerships are important assets in advancing informal natural history education.
21st Century Audience Engagement Opportunities The preconference discussions on ASTC Connect identified six overlapping audience engagement opportunities that are new or have the potential to transform relationships between natural history museums and their audiences in the 21st Century. •
Programs and Audiences. The 21st Century is bringing with the potential for a broad expansion of audiences beyond those traditionally served by natural history museums. New audiences suggest exciting opportunities for new, collaborative programming opportunities. We need to understand our audiences and their needs to develop new approaches to engaging and involving them in the work of natural history museums.
•
Rapid Response and Current Science. In response to increasing awareness of scientific challenges and increasing expectations for current information, it is important that we identify, develop, and test ways to engage our publics in using natural history collections, content, research, and processes to understand current science events.
•
Participatory Experiences. 21st Century audiences are so far accustomed to active participants in their own entertainment and education. Exploring the intersections of participatory culture, media use and creation, and natural history collections, content, research, and processes to involve our publics more fully in the life and activity of natural history museums.
•
Learning Across Natural History Settings. The historical and new informal education providers provide a context within which to identify the strongest niche for natural history museums in lifelong learning. Identifying and synthesizing the strengths of natural history museums as they are unique from and overlap with those of organizations with similar goals and missions is a vital task. We need to consider
how existing models apply to building experiences that enhance lifelong learning across natural history settings. •
Technology Integration. Scientific and communication technology advances are opening up new avenues for engagement and participation. It is critical that we examine how scientific and communications technologies can enhance learning in natural history museums; the optimal audiences, occasions, and uses for technology; and the limits of technology for learning in and about nature.
•
Priority Content. Understanding how the assets of natural history museums can contribute in unique ways to understanding highly relevant content for 21st Century audiences, including evolution, climate change, and biological and cultural diversity loss is essential to identifying how best to link our audiences and our resources to address 21st Century scientific challenges.
Linking Assets and Opportunities One way to conceptualize the opportunities to advance our practice is by a grid that creates an area of overlap between and among these assets and opportunities. The working group will consider how the different assets and opportunities overlap in multiple ways to identify potential areas of innovation and the research agenda necessary for us to learn together about how best to bring them about.
Audiences Rapid Learning Response/ Across Current Settings Science Collections, Data, Evidence Scientific Community Historical Perspective Exhibits Programs! Staff and volunteers Partnerships
Participatory Technology Priority Experiences Integration Content
Possible area of overlap between and among assets and opportunities
Notes from our conversation: Need to think about different age groups/needs in our audiences. multigenerational and social make-up of groups. the 8 minute or less attention span. 21st c--how to provide more stuff for those who are ready for it? object--museum provides only label id, vs. someone who wants more! providing for comfort--you can shift attention span by changing environment. self selection of our audience. what about those who don't visit? it's a huge missed audience. why don't they come? how would we bring our content to them? do we go to the mall? relevance is what brings them. i.e. west nile virus. went to collections and made exhibit about life cycle of the virus. reactionary--so it wasn't our best effort, but it spiked attendance. RELEVANCE builds credibility. museums vs. football games. audience and time requirements. can we piece out smaller bits of experience for those who want something different. it's not just about those who come in the door. multi-platform. we need to bring our diverse staff together to collaborate on those different pieces. mid and high school audience and older adults--Albuquerque--low numbers of these groups. they did mall promotion--300.00 spent get free tickets for museum visit. be open minded and think of new ways to reach people. free senior day on wednesday. but they don't know about it. find the audience/ rapid response--two important aspects. why does it draw people? if you have right pr--is that it?! what makes us special and unique--people can just google it. why would they choose us? partnerships--nmnh trying to reach out into communities. cmnh-when you partner--amateur science groups or teens--to do something--they bring their network too. ownership feeling. volunteers are invested in the institution--have to help others to feel that special relationship with the museum. context matters--why science matters. why natural history matters. i.e. west nile, NPS guy why it matters to policy. strong natural history of local environments. e.g. was about haiti. they taught civics--earthquakes. it's a civic duty to understand your environment. local knowledge has been key to survival. i.e. local crops. viruses, etc. biology class--frog dissection i didn't get it but the broader context is why it was important. margaret: west nile-e.g. -did you talk about universals? local connected to global context. i see it missing--can you use it as a great opportunity to connect to bigger picture. it was in the
programming not in the exhibit. another set of assets--programming on key concepts, and collections + local context. if you have those available you are ready to tackle emergency rapid response issues! should we prioritize on current visitors more engaged, or getting new visitors?! we have influentials- if we empower them--they can go out and spread the word. but we also need to think about those who don't come. cmnh: what is the core set of ideas that go across all experiences? we don't have that yet. some museums have a core issue. utah does. ecology evolution and diversity. they also do rapid response- but that is hard. florida: working towards common issues, but partnering--means that you have to shift it a bit. we advocate a flexible framework. partnerships have been pretty productive. communicate across divisions to be agile. we're still figuring it out! museum that doesn't have a lot of research oakland museum--reaches out to community scientists. different set of issues. personality typing--marketing--helps us communicate better with our different audiences. briggs meyers. zoo had a professional do it. manager decision makers esp. to get better dept. communication. it is working. need to develop communication skills in our staff. getting researchers involved with the public. it's not time away from your work! others love their work so much and they are so engaging--spread the enthusiasm to others. ability to engage. Visitors are also an asset!! communication is not just in person! scientific process--on Facebook, etc. 3000 a week, 10 million web visitors a year. not we tell them. we engage on their terms! who has people who does the Facebook thing--it dies off. but lynda her museum has a team that manages social media. need to engage the staff to maintain it. interest in figuring out that structure as many institutions don't have that capacity. we can bring these ideas back home, as we need new ways to think about these issues. another example--creating a Facebook team across the museum as they lost their marketing person. it can work. we try to engage scientists in it too. dino-bites. nuggets that go out. 2 sentences every friday. there is a strength to being small? dallas institution is not siloed --but... we need educated in social media, etc. sending fossils out to be remounted--good for social media. but social media doesn't solve it all. building-sense of place--need to experience the place. the building. specialness of the physical space.
antiquated views of tech in museums. hamster wheel of temporary exhibits. raise money new stuff to get more turnstile. while permanent exhibitions languish. authentic experience. we're better than wikipedia! chicago staff get media training--some do on camera things, some distill things for Facebook. on display workspace--4 hours allotted to get one hour of real work done. florida: broader impacts--need to do something more than your work in the office. you need to engage people. also we work with academics --they need broader impacts too. margaret--science cafe for broader impacts. also amazing outreach programs. libraries are good places in detroit--for broader impacts. toyota program. library program and then to museum. bringing in new populations. demographic shifts. how to engage public schools diverse illiterate audiences who'd never go to the museum. important to reach these groups. collections go to the libraries. undergrads who do it. competition for docent program. scientists develop/ students deliver it. science journalists? need for translators message in a minute--classes for staff. for janitors and all. monterrey bay eg. --messages behind the museum--mission level. boston eg--all science communicators. so all focused on visitor. larger museums --disadvantage as we're siloed. social media in marketing. all gimmicky! nice to think that it could be supported throughout the museum. fans are not the measure of how successful we are. small museums--i'm envious. does Facebook work? yes. or no. --how do you measure it? end of session one conversation. conversation two: where does your wonder come from? •
sheep story: perspective of the sheep. interesting stories coming from different disciplinary perspectives (not always from science).
•
young children --seeing things from their perspective.
•
15% objects on the floor--3 exhibits--how can we better use those spaces to tell the story. nature happens in urban places too. challenge for us to do more with that. passion around natural mysteries.
•
we added "and science" to our title, but it's not really happening. where will we be in the next 25 years. will we do more science? we do good paleo. but how do we bring in more science. nuclear science is a good local story. we could branch out there.
high school ap english teacher first took me to a museum. i knew about my career at that moment. we need to start looking in other disciplines. we are redoing our mission now. •
blank spaces on a map always fascinate me! i always went to nhmuseums. i wonder about my institution. how we will impact sense of wonder to our visitors.
•
so what does wonder feel like? in the heart? how do you get at that feeling? Becky.
•
sucked into administrivia! reminder of why i got into the business being at this conference.
•
how to make science relevant to people. that's how we get folks here. local communities--how do we engage those more? and they're very diverse.
•
why would anyone go to a museum. i wonder about that! and how do you build bridges between expectations and goals of visitors and museums. they're not always overlapping goals! lofty science goals etc. that's not the goal of the visitor!!
•
personal wonder draws me in. how can classroom teachers use museums as resources. urban advantage program. that brought me back to a museum and got me excited.
•
curator at a zoo--started in art, i wonder a lot--we're telling people what to do. but if we don't walk the walk if there's no relevance to your institution the message breaks down. we try to share the message across all depts. okla. hunter fisherman based demographics --we're partnering with them to do surveys. all staff are invited to participate--to share that knowledge increase awareness. conservation committee-selection of groups important--thinking about how to get local folks involved. messaging--how do we get it across. live animals makes it easier. trying to get zookeepers more engaged with the public.
•
how do you locate the value of an onsite visit in the context of a person's life. is it a pebble -minor experience or a transitional moment? what kinds of experiences are transformational for what kind of people. also the physicality of objects--what about that.
•
cult of the scientist. authority elsewhere has shifted--everyone is a reporter now. are we doing a disservice by putting the scientist on a pedestal. shift from outdoors to indoor live to dead in her work. paradox of outside and inside. and parent now--so now back into outdoors in a major way.
•
nature --inspiring others to learn in the bigger context. how do i communicate that importance to others. does nature equal science??!! nature and natural history is more than science. i don't want to lose sight of that.
•
who we serve and who we don't. water quality etc--institutions are the there other ways of presenting science information where we impact people who don't get through the door. another role for us. how do we reach them, is it a practical goal.
•
minds--interested in minds--esp. children. how does that develop. bird eg. pictures, taxidermy birds, age groups--taxidermy birds--close up view. drawings are interpretations. older kids interested in how they died. shift in thinking at age level. see the natural world from different age groups--that would be interesting.
•
inadequacies in conveying information in museums--to kids. i.e. tactile biodiversity. nhm generate knowledge about that. nature centers are a step removed from that but they have tactile biodiversity. these kind of institutions complement each other. the tactile biodiversity inspired me! i am frustrated about american children--so destructive! other cultures have different orientations in the zoos.
•
what's next for our museum. we built it. took a lot of new approaches. embarking on evaluation. hard moment for museum--end of a cycle burnout. now how do we look at what we accomplished. i think we've got some good notes hit, how do we give a big experience and excitement. kinesthetic learning but don't wreck the place! litigious aspect.
•
disconnect between nature and science (particular notion of the science is valued). institutional perspective--do all museums have the kind of grand vision that NHM do? nature does not equal science in some circles.
•
igniting the power of art. randi korn's art museum different experiences--materials techniques, one perspective. others taken, tactile, deep knowledge, scientists. figure out how to get people involved the process of science--to get engaged in that. scientist who used a lot of techniques to discover where a species could live. museums have different personalities. how to be place based and talk about the big picture.
making decisions--age/ interests--what do you bring to that moment to move them along a little bit? transformational moments or incremental moments. can you see the visceral experience in people in the museum? passenger pigeon eg. different audiences--donor wow moment gets to see the prized object vs. many wow moments of many children (who can't see it). how to balance where you put your chips. how do we define audience--is it just the children--or insider audiences--professional audience, volunteers docents. special experiences for some. who do we think of impacts for a broader swath of audiences. depth of experience--number of experiences, how do we decide where to place our bets. teen programs with great impacts vs. annual field trip. onion metaphor of kinds of experiences. finding opportunities to personalize the experience for visitors. capture what they're doing and look at it later. vs. scale. how do you prioritize and resource these experiences. can we have museum staff spend an hour on the floor? one weekend day --leadership on the floor. a valued thing, and yet several museums have cancelled this program. should public face workers spend time behind the scenes as well then? innovation:
we've got finished exhibit spaces to a more dynamic presentation--things changing, seeing a staff person and interacting with them. not just a rote tour, but more interactive experience with a person. place where you can make your own collection. we do visitor research--monitoring--shows that family time is a big reason people come. surveyed people about favorites and exhibits to change. some favorites were the old ones. dioramas loved. even if they're out of date. study in oakland dioramas were helpful to start multigenerational conversations esp among multilingual families. flashlight tours of old dioramas. rebirth of taxidermy. steampunk hipsters. love em. beauty of them. also beauty of fossils. new designers push to get rid of the old-but these are the things that are connections for repeat visits. that they want to show their kids. dioramas starting conversations. artistry of nature--another way of looking at audiences who might not come for the science. dioramas are a good example. museums can create multi species exhibits, zoos can't. nhm advantage also you can see things close up. non-moving things. digitizing collections? i digbio. goal to have collections with info available. scientific community can use them but also amateurs birders, etc. how to get people to use them? value of collections--how to show it. not just for collections and science staff but something that others can use. how do you do herbariums vs. other kinds of specimens, what kind of data becomes available. location is something you might not way to show! huge undertaking very expensive. storage issue. are people using it? good cross institution resource. it's a resource but... history of wildlife loss in oakland. artist maya lin project--what's missing--bring in stories of how people's landscapes have changed. value of collections to historians too. would be interesting to explore. WW1 photos. there's an obligation to put it out there, but we haven't yet. accessioning and deaccessioning. is this an issue? they're all growing. florida accepted confiscated butterfly collection--some for teaching collection and some in research. oakland: walt disney butterlfy collection--only half were CA so we took the whole collection, but we typically focus on CA stuff. australia--stamp collection. you can't get rid of it. zero strings attached. on new policies but there's old collections that you can't get rid of. zoo--challenges of accession and deaccession. why take one? is it for a program, research, breeding etc. shouldn't be hoarding and breeding! AZA raises the bar in how we care for the animals, that's helped a lot to prioritize. live animals at science museum--stopped accepting snakes--criteria of acceptable habitat. publics perspective is very different--aza said it was ok, public not ok. fish vs. mice as food. life/ death etc. cutting down trees in public spaces --chicago --can't do it. even if they're invasive.
cats indoor vs. outdoor. difficult perspectives on what's ok. cats kill birds. you can't give in! pick your battles. advocacy comes up at this point! you're taking a stance on animals. we do know what's right. we need to do it. not dictatorial. evolution --state by state issue. zoo can't put it in signage. adaptation can be used though. rattle snake roundups we're addressing that. pushing the issue. oakland--where do we get the animals from we're indicating where we got them. human institution is acknowledged. addressing the who killed it question! kids aren't' exposed to death anymore. pre-1955 still killing animals for the mounts. wrap up--is there an innovation out there that sticks in your mind? digitization. dealing with collections. evolution is one! not high tech. making own choices and element of surprise is enough. the wow factor. high tech things don't age well. dioramas are still favored--old school. we can do interactives at home (and better there too). provide things you can't do at home.
Working Group Recommendations The space below is an active, real-time record of the deliberations, ideas, recommendations, and concerns of the working group. It is intended to start as a note-taking space and take shape as the ideas take shape. Format is flexible: Paragraphs, questions, bulleted lists, and other strategies are welcome.
Summary of the Opportunity The working group should provide their own input or ideas on the core opportunities of linking natural history assets with these emerging engagement opportunities and realities in the 21st century. Why is it important to make these links? What is the potential for growth and innovation? What would audience experiences look like if we were to be successful at making these links? What are the consequences of not pursuing new ways to link resources
to new engagement opportunities? see the scientist in action. how do we do that. 35% of time should be public engagement. but some do school stuff too. we don't have an overall vision of how scientists should work with public.
Foundational Research and Best Practices This section will grow during and after the conference. The tagging exercise at www.informalscience.org has identified research and evaluation reports relevant to learning in natural history settings that could be brought to bear as foundational research and best practices. The working group is encouraged to add their own knowledge of applicable research and evaluation, as well as best practices (projects, programs, museums, etc.) at the intersections of natural history assets and opportunities.
Opportunities for Innovation The working group will expand on its identification of the potential for growth and innovation and what audience experiences "look like" as explored in the Summary of the Opportunity. Here it will be useful to explore two different avenues of opportunity: 1) Ideas for innovation that are or are not "shovel ready". The less formed and more grandiose ideas are those that are likely to help identify critical questions in the next section; 2) Hypotheses about what the group thinks might be an effective innovation, for whom, under what circumstances, and so on. Day three: summary of big ideas: 1audience--public is an asset not just who we serve. 2evolution--content topic is a pressing issue. are there others? 3science communication is a big topic for us. many different angles. how do we train for that? are there silos. what kind of structure will encourage better science communication. 4collections accessibility. to what end. 5partnerships--challenges of working together on common issues--how to maintain your organization's trajectory 6cross pollination and collaboration--on the floor in communities and social media 7building a sense of place. focus on local vs. global problems. 8wow experiences--turning people onto science. how do we keep creating this. provide surprise, new ways of looking. real objects, real science, can we create wow moments with that. 9where does authority lie in the museum--cult of the scientsit
10transformational moments in museum vs. incremental moments of learning 11high tech vs. low tech 12role of museums in advocacy. Discussing what we should talk about in our mini groups--discussing #2. should it be broader? what do we do uniquely as natural history museums. better stewardship? what is the big picture? evolution is one big issue, ecology is one, biodiversity is another. but you have to give up some messages to focus on others. we're focusing on sense of place--you need to love it to save it. we're not doing earth messages in that, to focus on this single message. stewardship--to work on community focus. we want to move every person a little bit on that message. the power of our institutions is that we're all a little bit different. other ones are world cultures and place based learning. so do we talk about evolution alone or do we talk more broadly about content focal areas. Authority-advocacy. how do we select the pressing issues--our convo is focusing on biota. there are bigger issues. •
ie. resource driven issues in world (i.e. water issues in the middle east?)
•
no--too big a topic for the short moments we have people?
•
i would love to have a big focal message for the institution. there is a story we could tap into across experiences. shared thing could help us--we can tie it back to the big issue. stink bugs could be related back to the big pictures that we're talking about at this meeting (i.e. big three issues).
•
we do a lot of this well. how do we become relevant to the public. once they're there we communicate well to them. but how do we become more relevant and necessary for the public. i.e. does name natural history capture what we do, or put people off? rapid response programming isn't enough to keep our doors open. we're not thinking enough about a visitor centered approach when we think about these big issues.
•
balance point for each institution. how much for big pillars of info and how much for rapid response. build credibility that way with your audience. there should be building blocks plus flexibility for rapid response.
•
we pre-plan content for some rapid response issues we know will come up--it's in our pocket.
•
but our conversation about passion and wow. people aren't going to remember sense of wonder from a current science topic. the rapid response program is not the hope diamond.
•
is the question then about mode of delivery? is it real object, or program, or ?
•
we shouldn't always be reactionary. we need to be proactive. planning for the transformative moment.
•
is it about being influential?
•
no it's about teaching them the core stuff. by having them learn.
•
wow is not necessary for learning. we need a wow that's focused towards the thing we want them to learn.
•
so people like the idea of having a big picture framework. we can collaborate and share this big framework. rapid response can be done more easily when the framework is in place and the larger museums can help support others.
So is this our group's innovation? Creating a big picture framework we can agree on. Question is: does your institution work on this framework? do they have it in a way that it can connect to local concerns? it's programming, exhibitions, collections, scientists--looking across these parts of the institution to see how the framework is playing out. Our unique place among museums is the collection--so our work should build upon it. framework could apply to both nature centers, zoos, natural history museums. network of museums could help to fill gaps in our own work? is that useful or possible? •
my institution lacks some of the disciplines. forest fires is a rapid response issue, but we'd need to find someone who is an expert to do something on that issue.
•
paleontology museum--using the ecology evoluation divestiry framework--so not just ferns and t-rex is cool, but we need to relate pigeons to t-rex. and relating other aspects to the t-rex to current day environment. broader connections should be made.
•
need to make sure that wow connects to some aspect of the experience that we care about.
•
balance between wow and flow experience.
•
shouldn't be just big bones. should be connecting to the other content.
•
how do we identify what the portals should be. those moments that are rich enough to build upon.
•
herp example--we're taxonomic--so that works for evolution. others are moving to more bio geo orientation so you can't make that story anymore.
•
we're looking for the counter-intuitive examples that's how we learn. we make reasonable assumptions--the different examples can be very instructive. and we can do those in any institution size.
Let's talk about these experiences in different formats--the offsite or online experience? can we be transformative there?
•
yes we have outreach. zoo--we go to expositions for hunters and fishers etc. natural history museums weren't there doing outreach.
•
outreach that isn't science based. i.e. bay area literature interests hipster topics. pop up magazine. i did a thing on turkey vultures. unusual suspect. nature in the middle of literature program. how can we infuse natural science into other venues/ audiences.
•
outreach is not the only way though--depends on who you're trying to reach. i.e. national audience.
i still feel like we need one big issue. anthropocene? nature? that seems very powerful as a way to orient our work. •
nsf framework --we picked subcategories to focus on. we could look for traces of the orientation in visitors conversations.
•
a singular view --we're part of nature. that could work. it's positive and it could work at all levels of institutions. we could tackle different points of the framework according to our strengths. that seems innovative. has the field all tried different aspects of the same framework.
•
we could develop a way to asses that.
•
we don't know what our visitors know and think about their role and connection to nature, either. we'd need to do that too.
•
then we can look at how we can change it. if we had a common set of questions we'd have a big research project.
we could see our role as understanding/ presenting change. then effective are we at explaining the change. we're part of nature. we're changing. that's a huge shift- as people don't see nature as changing? what about the role of humans in change? nah....not everything, and we're not in charge of changing all things. but we also need to keep that stewardship message. you can be a part of change. ok we're digressing--is there a big framework we could agree on? are our institutions set up in such a way that they can change visitors understanding?
two ways to think of the framework. stewardship point of view or thinking of yourself as part of it biological point of view. --or is it about are people connected or disconnected from nature.
diversity is a good thing across our institutions. we can test different things. repetitiion is a good thing. across museums. same message. back to natural history name--way of knowing and thinking. how do we get public onboard. •
observational sciences-unites nhm, zoo nature centers.
•
squirrel project--observe, compare, can you recognize this other species?
•
natural history as a field is robust and healthy. but we lost the public somewhere. changed the name. now we're talking about also losing the nature from the name! public doesn't understand who we are or why we're here.
Any other research questions people want to mention about the framework idea. technology piece--pressure on work to turn it away from collections. no, it's about how do we use cross platform tools to engage people in the processes and ideas we care about. trail head app--helps you locate the object in utah--and back to museum. tools should be used in service of nature. urban e.g.--that place is no a high rise and not a habitat. so how do you use that app to advocate to preserve?
Critical Questions and Directions for Research and Evaluation This section will identify critical questions about audience experiences and learning. This section is the crux of the work of the group because it is intended to identify a broad range of critical practical questions that need to be addressed to move forward with identified potential innovations, as well as critical theoretical questions related to what, how, when, and why people learn in and around natural history museums and assets. The ultimate product should be a set of prioritized, nested questions organized in a way that makes sense to the group. The questions should address the critical challenges identified through preconference and first day activities.
Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration This section is intended to capture the challenges and opportunities for collaboration within and between natural history museums relevant to the intersection of these assets and
opportunities. This section should identify key challenges, key opportunities, and important research questions about how we work together within and across museums to break down traditional "silos" that could hinder our progress.
NHM Assets x Audience Engagement Strategies (Group C) Intersections between Natural History Museum assets and 21st Century Audience Engagement Opportunities Facilitator: Kevin Crowley Recorder: Grace Kimble
Beck Tench, Director for Innovation and Digital Engagement- Museum of Life and Science Bronwyn Jones, Manager - Alaska Museum of Natural History Christine Chandler, Curator of Natural Science- Putnam Museum of History and Natural Science Colleen Marzec, Nicholas Pyenson, Curator of Fossil Marine Mammals- National Museum of Natural History Judy Diamond, Professor and Curator of Informal Science Education, University of Nebraska State Museum- Life on Earth Project Judy Tasse, Exhibit Developer- National Zoological Park Kathleen Tinworth, Director of Visitor Research and Program Evaluation- Denver Museum of Nature and Science Madlyn Runberg, Director of School Programs; Scott Sampson, Research Curator - Natural History Museum of Utah Maureen Flannery, Collections Manager of Ornithology and Mammalogy- California Academy of Sciences Rafael Rosa, VP of Education- Chicago Academy of Sciences- Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum Reiko Trow, Education and Volunteer Programs Assistant- Harold L. Lyon Arboretum Rhiannon Crain, Learning Researcher- Cornell Lab of Ornithology Ro Kinzler, Director of the National Center for Science, Literacy, Education, and Technology, AMNH Context The 21st Century has already brought with it a broad, deep array of audience engagement opportunities that enhance and/or expand previous strategies and/or offer new possibilities that we are just starting to grasp. There is also the potential for exponential growth in
opportunities to connect with our audience that we have not yet imagined. This conference theme explores the intersection of historical and current natural history museum assets and these new engagement strategies.
Natural History Museum Assets As a starting place for discussion, we consider the following unique assets of natural history museums: •
•
Collections, Data, and Evidence. Natural history museums contain vast collections of objects and specimens, as well as terabytes of data derived from those collections and their histories, that tell the story of the Earth and its peoples since their origins. Objects, the data surrounding their collection, and the research conducted with them - including new areas of research enabled by technologies such as genomic sequencing - form a unique foundation for public engagement, learning, and participation among informal science education providers. "Built-in" Research Communities. Many natural history museums have one or more research scientists, collections managers, curators, and other scientific and technical staff that energize education, public, and outreach opportunities with active scientific research.
•
Historical Perspectives on Nature and Culture. The research conducted at natural history museums and with natural history collections, data, and evidence is a specialized type of science that usually incorporates long term perspectives on nature and culture. This historical view - and the educational opportunities it affords - provide critical insights for understanding current science and cultural challenges, such as climate change and language loss.
•
Large-scale Exhibits. Many natural history museums provide large-scale exhibits that have provided a basic understanding and inspiration to explore nature and culture for generations. Exhibits and the tradition of exhibiting are important assets to be considered in connecting with audiences in new ways.
•
Partnerships. Natural history museums are a part of a larger, broader landscape of learning about nature and culture. Perhaps moreso than any other type of museum, the content of natural history museums is supported through informal interactions at home and outdoors, as well as by a wealth of additional informal learning institutions and organizations, including nature centers, zoos, aquariums, and camps. Existing and potential partnerships are important assets in advancing informal natural history education.
21st Century Audience Engagement Opportunities The preconference discussions on ASTC Connect identified six overlapping audience engagement opportunities that are new or have the potential to transform relationships between natural history museums and their audiences in the 21st Century. •
Programs and Audiences. The 21st Century is bringing with the potential for a broad expansion of audiences beyond those traditionally served by natural history museums. New audiences suggest exciting opportunities for new, collaborative programming opportunities. We need to understand our audiences and their needs to develop new approaches to engaging and involving them in the work of natural history museums.
•
Rapid Response and Current Science. In response to increasing awareness of scientific challenges and increasing expectations for current information, it is important that we identify, develop, and test ways to engage our publics in using natural history collections, content, research, and processes to understand current science events.
•
Participatory Experiences. 21st Century audiences are so far accustomed to active participants in their own entertainment and education. Exploring the intersections of participatory culture, media use and creation, and natural history collections, content, research, and processes to involve our publics more fully in the life and activity of natural history museums.
•
Learning Across Natural History Settings. The historical and new informal education providers provide a context within which to identify the strongest niche for natural history museums in lifelong learning. Identifying and synthesizing the strengths of natural history museums as they are unique from and overlap with those of organizations with similar goals and missions is a vital task. We need to consider how existing models apply to building experiences that enhance lifelong learning across natural history settings.
•
Technology Integration. Scientific and communication technology advances are opening up new avenues for engagement and participation. It is critical that we examine how scientific and communications technologies can enhance learning in natural history museums; the optimal audiences, occasions, and uses for technology; and the limits of technology for learning in and about nature.
•
Priority Content. Understanding how the assets of natural history museums can contribute in unique ways to understanding highly relevant content for 21st Century audiences, including evolution, climate change, and biological and cultural diversity loss is essential to identifying how best to link our audiences and our resources to address 21st Century scientific challenges.
Linking Assets and Opportunities One way to conceptualize the opportunities to advance our practice is by a grid that creates an area of overlap between and among these assets and opportunities. The working group will consider how the different assets and opportunities overlap in multiple ways to identify potential areas of innovation and the research agenda necessary for us to learn together about how best to bring them about.
Audiences Rapid Learning Response/ Across Current Settings Science Collections, Data, Evidence Scientific
Participatory Technology Priority Experiences Integration Content
Possible area of overlap between and among assets and opportunities
Community Historical Perspective Exhibits Partnerships
Working Group Recommendations The space below is an active, real-time record of the deliberations, ideas, recommendations, and concerns of the working group. It is intended to start as a note-taking space and take shape as the ideas take shape. Format is flexible: Paragraphs, questions, bulleted lists, and other strategies are welcome.
Summary of the Opportunity The working group should provide their own input or ideas on the core opportunities of linking natural history assets with these emerging engagement opportunities and realities in the 21st century. Why is it important to make these links? What is the potential for growth and innovation? What would audience experiences look like if we were to be successful at making these links? What are the consequences of not pursuing new ways to link resources to new engagement opportunities? Learning research- questions we ask about learning. By understanding learning better, we will drive practice to a more powerful place. Assets Partnership • • •
• •
museums as dynamic, open insitutions where partnerships and collaboration are assets. Position of museum relative to other natural history communication modesjournalism e.g. evolution example, tv example: Quest,San Francisco Bay area. Core asset- cross bridging collaboartions “In practice, we are collaborating with university departments, entities that are outside walls of NH e.g. UPCLOSE in partnership with Pitt and Carnegie. NH Museums are not closed. That's where the innovation is happening. Re frame what the museum encompasses” role of agencies, grant giving organisations in mediating partnerships 31 years ago at exploratorium- Oppenheimer conference about how media and inf science learning could support each other. For 30 years people have been doing that in creative ways.
• •
look at NH relative to other nature communication organisations: “ in early nineties partnership was not common. Now it is night and day. It has become essential over the last few years”.
• •
AMNH working with scientists for all sorts of programs and funding bids. NGOs share values, but don't have any stuff. IUCN- network of expertise e.g. community programs.
•
• •
“what can we bring to the party?”
KC:Do museums feel open and connected? Examples- Exhibit development- process involves brining in others outside the institution.
•
Project by project basis. Strategic?
•
Not all museums feel connected.
• •
Historical partnerships- museums as community collections in 19th century, then 20th century modernist didactic approach, now doors more open again- citizen science, things are changing “for most of the history it has been a one way street”.
•
• •
•
Is that the same for regional vs local museums?
Collections- Some nh organisations are just buildings e.g. National Geographic. We have the collections, we need to broaden it out using digital means or otherwise to bring it into the 21st century.
Buildings “beautiful buildings- revisioning nh museums, take it back outside the museum”
Brand •
• • • •
Brand recognition. The public knows what to expect. May not be an asset.
Education We need to include educational community of museum as an asset. For example, if there is an NSF funding call then you need people who have good relationships and reputation in community to get bids in and actions happening. Programs need to be there. Science community as an asset, education community needs to be there as an asset. Or- All of that is about learning and education, Education programs tie the assets together.
•
educators who are part of a national conversation about expertise?
•
Staff are the ones who will innovate and make these meaningful.
•
Whether they are exhibit developers or education they are assets.
•
Beck- Science Museum with animals, no scientists.
•
Animal keepers, poop scoopers. Low status. Blog- became educators, raised status.
Audiences • •
Are visitors an asset? Are communities an asset?
•
Local culture Local culture is an asset.
•
History of collection Longitudinal aspect of collection is key, as is the physical place.
• •
Science Scientists: The science component comes from all the trappings- academic, intellectual- part of core strength. You wouldn’t have the scientists if you didnt have the collection.
Evaluation: seeing visitor viewpoint • • •
What are the types of results that you get when you look at the motivations for coming to nh museums? Zoos- visiting for experience, entire environment. When pressed, animals-visiblemoving. But also- outside, leisure elements of visit.
•
Do people say that they come to nh museums for the environment? Does it make a difference, for example if you change the environment, make it more light? We have built a new building to be a welcoming public space.
•
They come to be entertained. If people visit to be entertained, does that mean it is our role? Or should we be trying to educate them about biological conservation? Do we have a mandate to go beyond what they want?
•
•
They want an enjoyable experience, something on their agenda, mix and match and pick things.
•
Example of research. In two surveys two years apart, two separate consultants:. 1st survey was framed in conservation and learning content. Rated highly as an education experience. Two years they asked: do you come to be educated? 20% said yes.
•
Who is asking the question is also important.If people think you are from the museum they will answer differently.
•
Asking children: did you have fun? What was your favourite part? Looking to see- did they learn somthing factual? Did they make any connections about lufe cycles? Did they appreciate the natural environment? Have they got the skills to look after the future environment?
•
Digital project assets- extra time in lives. Doing stuff with an organisation with a mutual sense of purpose. Outlet for their sense of purpose.
•
Quest project in San Francisco- broadcast journalism, tv, nature walks. Unified in a format that the public have different options. San Francisco bay area. You can find out about the natural world using all of the kinds of science media. Interesting way to break down the divisions, seeing it from a visitor perspective- what can these settings offer and how are they inter-related?
•
Sociobiological research question 'what do you think of when you think of natural history museums?'
Goals •
Are your programs driven by key concepts that you want to communicate to your audience?
•
Zoos: Collections change significantly over 5-7 years. Research and conservation agenda in zoos is being refined- difficult for them to formulate and be consistent with because they always have the opportunity to change collection. E.g. zoos are scrambling to get polar bears to link to climate change. e.g. there are 142 spaces for polar bears and only 72 bears! They are the most iconic exhibitis.
•
NH museums- commitment to conserving collection. Different to environment centres, science museums. This hasn’t come up in conversation yet- is it implicit? And if it is implicit to this group, is that something to focus on that as a field, we don’t ‘see’ anymore? (like neuron fatigue)
•
•
'Exhibits focused around education rather than collections' New direction.
Goal- the scientific communities that the museum communities will have to be to do science. Change in audience as a result?
•
Agreeing goals in the Internal/external community. About discovering more about whats out there in the natural world. Located in large urban centres to connect population to nature.
•
Open network. We think the same about conservation, change in communities. We can be different but aiming for similar outcomes. Network would be funded more readily. We need to leverage the open network of what we are doing. We need to move past challenges, we do have an opportunity to work together, if we can agree. Example- Bristol Natural History Consortium in UK? What would it take to mobilise that vision?
•
•
Opportunity around a new building to review strategic objectives.
•
History of life through time, biodiversity in the present, consequences of impacts on human biodiversity. Underlying principles that connect to evolution. One of the things that natural history museums have are resources to teach about evolution- outreach, media, exhibits, education programs. If people could understand how evolution works it would open the door to understanding other huge issues. Role of nh museums is to help teach evolution.
•
Example- strategic planning happened separately for education and science, no meeting place.Good outcome- board has funded education and research.
•
Connecting education and collections- no choice- I am the natural scientist. If I don't do education, it doesnt happen.
•
Place where you can go to direct your desire to do something that's more than a game, that is meangingful. Not just a place, can be home or backyard. Discovery as a key element that should be shared with visitors. Visitors need to discover something new, the driving force behind programs.
• •
• •
• •
Public love speaking with scientists. Museums more friendly spaces to speak to scientists than a professor at a university. Public, collections , people, staff, connecting groups all together- it's academic. Questions What if, for museums to move forward, what they have to do is go outside and connect with discipline based learning? How to get NH museums to move into 21st century- should we forget we are nh settings and move into other places? We are remarkable institutions, but to move to a new place maybe we have to be extreme. How are NH museums different from other institutions that were created around the same time? With a common genesis, are they still relevant today?
• •
How connected and how multiplatform should it be? We need to address the question from nh direction perspectives, where are we going?
•
Is the end goal to preserve nh museum or to convey science learning?
•
Are you trying to move away from the core, the physical stuff?
•
If not, how do you leverage that core?
•
Key question- how to support the scientists that are there?
•
What we have is the physical space, whether they are dying or not is irrelevant- is it?
•
Education needs to take a higher status in applying for grants?
•
Shared vision. Great at strategic planning for organisation, not communities. What kind of community do we want to create outside out walls? That should drive rather than biodiversity learning, science careers, conservation goals that are organisation driven.
•
Question: should we be making such a distinction between outside and inside? We are visitors too...
•
In middle of strategic planning, internally something that is a driver is 'what is that single vision that's going to unite us?' What does everybody rally around?Rather than education will do x, science will do y
•
What are the strong points of assets to build from?
•
Getting that sense of academia across the institution. Education is aware of science research, but is science aware of education research?
•
Zoos and museums- where science meets the general public. Science vs public definition, or spectrum?
•
Are nh museums science museums? They have stuff, plus people who know about that stuff. Reference Kirk- starting to pick scientists who can talk to the public.
• •
Is the idea to make it more academic? Science meets the public and the public meets science, but on their terms. It is voluntary. How can we make audiences want to visit?
•
Virtual isn't a replacement or replication of the real.
•
How are we referencing virtual in the conversation?
•
75% of people with smartphone. Why do they visit if they have all the info in their hands?
•
People used to carry stones around as mobiles, ipads are tools. How can we use tools to interpret the physical space and collections?
Trends • •
Zoos moving away from animals, nh museums moving towards live animals? Some nh collections have got rid of scientists. Bishop Museum?
•
Zoos- shift is towards managers and animal care specialists. Expertise is there but not the same.
•
Not driven by taxonomy and systematics
•
Education being cut?
•
The amount of funding that is available to do education is huge right now. Science is less. Scientists want to right an ISE grant to fund their research. Lets do education to fund them all.
•
UK context- public engagement necessary in grants. NH museum in London supporting scientists on fieldwork.
•
Zoo- funding crisis. Grants appear once they’ve been applied for, we need to be involved in pipeline of grants.
•
Ways of working- open system, scientists, education communities, overlap, institutions, values
•
Academic- what's really important about natural history museums, typically we think about the science but we need to look at the education research. Researchers will come and do science days.
•
Zoos- have to talk about science in unpleasant as well as pleasant situations.
•
Conveying purpose of what science is without scientists for some institutions.
•
Academic doesn't scare small organisations.
•
Problem is getting scientists on board.
•
Huge gap between education and science.
•
We got away from our stuff, it didn’t draw people. We have started to put it back in because we lost out way in terms of science centre whizz bang experiment approach, not our unique assets.
•
Smaller communities take a lot of pride that there is an academic collection with that range within their community.
•
People are using websites differently. They want to publish. Artefacts or learning experience wherever it happens, virtual is not instead of real.
•
It is about the collections , living or dead. Can't lose the physical.
Foundational Research and Best Practices This section will grow during and after the conference. The tagging exercise at www.informalscience.org has identified research and evaluation reports relevant to learning in natural history settings that could be brought to bear as foundational research and best practices. The working group is encouraged to add their own knowledge of applicable research and evaluation, as well as best practices (projects, programs, museums, etc.) at the intersections of natural history assets and opportunities.
Methods and existing research Community consultation •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
Denver- evaluation- audience and visitor evaluation. Went to free community events, cultural events, farmers markets, different neighbourhoods to reach demographics that dont come to institution. 1200 people.Ethnographic- can we talk to people in community and start to learn something?How they speak about science and nature in their lives. Denver: Digital camera study- curatorial based- what our visitors like the best? Dinosaurs and mummies? Where are visitors going and what are they attending to? Option: Tracking study- follow them around for 6 hours and record what they look at? Didn't appeal.Gave visitors cameras and they recorded what they did, particularly if they are transitioning from one space to another. Gaining tracking time, how they see things, Their eyes.Want to pair that with community studies- get people who have never come to museum to document their experience. Qualitative methods example Qualitative methods. Evaluation assistants. Closed starting questions-have they visited? Where else do they visit? Open Tell me about nature in your life, what does that look like? Then tell me about science (but not asking same people) Challenge: (Permissions in public space issue). Randomisation protocol- representative group. As soon as word started spreading, people were lining up to speak.No booth, nothing formal.We made sure we weren't walking around with clipboards, much more conversational.Small notepads.Seemed to work really well.Six hundred, one refusal. More amenable. 40% refusal in museum.Surprising given non visitors. Seasonality in responses 'It depends on where you ask them, what they remember' e.g. Colorado winter vs summer evaluation, the great outdoors. Research across settings Research about school groups in zoos, natural history settings and environmental organisations. Teaching about habitats and adaptations, what do children learn that is different? Teacher audience research Example- better understand teacher audience Attitudes, ideas about preparation They felt very capable of teaching the science in their classroom, 70% very little science teaching in undergraduate, a mismatch.Compare to families? Impact of meeting a scientist for the public Amy Seakins, Kings College London- what is the impact of meeting a scientist on the public? onsite, NHM London/Juston Dillon. Evaluation of online audiences at NHM Mary Ann Steiner- UPCLOSE- dissertation on roboticists who work with community farming. Forthcoming topic: evaluation of impact of meeting the public on scientists. Impact of meeting the public for scientists Science Cafes - A month long experiment with a local scientist. Example: mood experiment. 'Science as a way of knowing instead of a citizen science experiment'. Generated new knowledge and a way she could test a new hypothesis for her work. Forthcoming research topic at NHM
Early childhood research •
parent or a grandparent. Nanny. Both the children and the adults learning together. Explicit that program is for children and adults too. Research of a partnership between a childrens museum and Headstart. Using social media data for research
•
Look at tweets, breaking down a lot of demographic barriers. Collected 9000 tweets using tweet deck.Skewed audience, socioeconomically.More people tweet about negative than positive.People take for granted they are going to see something good, so they only tweet about something negative.We also looked at tweets for other organisations. Twitter's search engine. Natural History as an example, then quantify where they come from and why. You have to have someone you can task with them.Inane.Watching.The animals are doing this.Negative.Neutral.Bibliometric.Culture of science talk in that community.Easy to get this information.Question: what is my sample base? People are about ten times more likely to say something negative. Many sources of information to inform research question .
Opportunities for Innovation The working group will expand on its identification of the potential for growth and innovation and what audience experiences "look like" as explored in the Summary of the Opportunity. Here it will be useful to explore two different avenues of opportunity: 1) Ideas for innovation that are or are not "shovel ready". The less formed and more grandiose ideas are those that are likely to help identify critical questions in the next section; 2) Hypotheses about what the group thinks might be an effective innovation, for whom, under what circumstances, and so on. Issues • •
Inclusion – rural/urban, cultural. Demographic shift. whatever we develop needs to be applicable to that changing audience. Advocacy. E.g. AMNH = not an advocacy organisation. However, do exhibitions about water, climate change, areas that are advocacy focus themes. What is the outcome?
•
Anecdotally we got evaluation evidence that families appreciated the experience.
•
Issue- budget, time and money capacity for research
• •
Aspirations Museum driving trends rather than reacting to them. Exhibitions as messages, programs as messages. Position museum as a place where people go to for events, for identification, regular resource, like a library model
•
Innovation and reaching new audiences. Holding the old audience and reaching the new audience, stewardship and recruitment. Give new messages
•
Better understanding of our communities motivations to come to the museum
• •
•
Synergy+Would be great to have support in terms of where this sort of research fits, how best to go about it and contribute to the field. Statistical significance in joining - everybody asking the same questions of their audience. Every museum has the same set of research questions.That's what epidemiologists do. Quick recording on a form, goes into a common database.
•
Gathering the mood of the natural history network.You could use provocative questions even, as long as everyone agreed in a kiosk in their lobby.
•
In terms of a research agenda, agreeing on questions and asking in different organisations to get regional and local comparisons.
Critical Questions and Directions for Research and Evaluation This section will identify critical questions about audience experiences and learning. This section is the crux of the work of the group because it is intended to identify a broad range of critical practical questions that need to be addressed to move forward with identified potential innovations, as well as critical theoretical questions related to what, how, when, and why people learn in and around natural history museums and assets. The ultimate product should be a set of prioritized, nested questions organized in a way that makes sense to the group. The questions should address the critical challenges identified through preconference and first day activities. Research questions Inclusion • •
What is it that traditionally marginalized audiences get from a visit? How does the concept of nature very in different audiences?
•
Practice-> How can museum support and extend this?
Visitors across settings
• •
Behaviour Do visitors to natural history settings behave the same across settings? Is the same person different in these two places?
•
If it is the same person acting differently, why?
•
Does charging relate to behaviour? Context: Same people coming to museums and zoos. Same person coming to zoo acts very differently in museum. They're animals in zoos! Ten touch screens in reptiles- touch screens were broken over weekend. At a zoo, a different frame of reference to museum. Good manners at museum swapped to zoo? Take the benefits of behaviors at both institutions.Trying to evoke a respect in visitors.People go to a museum different to a zoo,
wanting to learn more.
•
Zoo- more recreational? Indoor vs outdoor behaviour. Schools, being respectful to both entities.Explicit expectations about behaviour? Learning Would linking zoos and natural history museums be beneficial? Research across three settings beneficial.
Cumulative effects •
•
• • •
• •
•
• •
•
•
What happens in they see one museum a year? Cumulative effect, what happens if they see two museums and a zoo?
Expectations Who is coming, what are they getting, what are they expecting to get? Program factors in different contexts (same setting, different place) Why do some programmes work in some contexts and not others? e.g. Science bars in Chicago, Amazonia researchers in action (same organisation, different place) How is an organisation perceived differently using outreach rather than on site? Why certain spaces or ways of facilitating in certain spaces are particularly rich? Developing skills What can natural history museums to help parents become better facilitators of learning? What can natural history museums to help staff become better facilitators of learning?
Online engagement What happens if you play devils advocate online?
Visitor identity What are family feelings about who you are, what you need to know, and what you should know. Suggestion about how you do your work differently? Why do visitors want to associate with nh museum brands? Visitor Motivation Why do 2-4000 people come along to evening events? Make yourself available to be known, to be trusted, to be liked.
Changing demographics What were the audiences like one hundred years ago compared to now?
•
Science/visitor dialogue by sector Do teachers like talking to scientists because it clarifies things? Because it gives a public face?
•
Position as a source of information about the natural world To what extent is a natural history museum cited as a source in conversations that are going on?
Session 2 critical questions • • • • • •
Drivers for research questions: How could that practice change the field? How can we connect this to innovation? Audience consultation: e.g. if a museum has teachers as an audience, how should their programming take teacher views into account? Should natural history museums start to have an agenda that pulls the audience in, or that reaches out? What should be prioritised? There is limited capacity. Should we be advocates? How we could think about our place in the community, holistic, acting on a number of platforms? Outcomes: What do we want for them to learn? We are trying to get them to practice and value science. e.g. mood- breaking down something that is a nebulous concept into scientific components. Rationality, co-operation, sharing.
•
• • •
Outcomes pf programmes defined with researchers, but science as a way of knowing is key. Museums are not set up to offer ephemeral experiences. Should we be designing experiences that are more like ephemeral events? Can we get funding to put into place shorter life cycle events? Science Uncovered- EU grant- researchers night- NHM London- an example of one off annual programming that is like training and a race- improve performance in science communication building up to the event, gets better every year. Science communciation superstars. Scientists who can speak to others. Kirk- all about the science communication e.g. flashmob examples, different models, scientists on the tube.Training for scientists improves year on year, developing subtlety in approach, not patronising, suitably sceptical so as not to increase the gap between science and learning. Short term responsiveness: Why is ephemeral so important? Attention span. The ability to say it is responsive e.g.Thursday night nightlife The importance of authoritative, authentic expertise? Is there a way that, rather than follow the ephemeral trends and be populist, can feed the ephemeral conversations? Control and ownership- Can we allow it to be appropriated by individuals e.g. online? Critical aspect of natural history museums, process of natural science, need to be grounded rather than flying in the wind. Voice that is missing in the viral trends. They don't have time to research before tweeting about these trends.Trust people who have had time to research instead of hysteria.
•
Personalisation of science, personality and character
•
Humanisation- how do we make science more accessible at a personal level?
•
Science communication by scientists: I met this person and you can feel their passion, their interest. Not just what makes a good communicator.
•
Taking some of these models, like the coffee house model, what are the things that denote success or failure? What is it about that programme and why?
•
Reactive or proactive? Museums driving practice e.g. AMNH: New York state- a call for new organisations to do teacher CPD. Problem based approach. If there is a shortage of earth science teachers, what different can a Natural History Museum make? AMNH earth science teaching programme. Approved programme. Innovation, we have had to grow number of PhD level teachers. Pushes questions of faculty. Stretching in the way we define things and what we think, science/learning boundary
•
Is there a certain segment of the audience we are never going to capture no matter what we do? Is it a social issue?
•
Is there a role of the museum in helping parents facilitate learning- teach them you don't have to know all the answers. There is a role in acilitating science communication, learning scientific skills for staff.Historical link- museusm as a place to improve adult literacy. In facilitating sci comm as well as literacy and numeracy.
•
• • •
Science is part of their family, not a family who has science conversation. It's not something we are afraid of. Gardening, food, etc not related to science Are there underlying things that parents need to know that museums can play a part in? science literacy When their child says that's really gross, then having more questions to draw out the conversation, more dialogue, rather than lack of conversation. Help them to know there is something to develop the experience. Facilitation questions- how much are you concerned about down the road impact? Long term impacts?What is impact over time? How much impact can we expect from seeing a person once or twice?How could we start to put some numbers on that? Is there another way to get data, e.g. google searches by reason. Way to paint a picture.
•
How does that compare to other sources?
•
What are other organisations doing differently?
•
Need to share evaluation reports more, communication and publication of resultshow?
Based on the research, what did you, or can you do differently?
Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration
This section is intended to capture the challenges and opportunities for collaboration within and between natural history museums relevant to the intersection of these assets and opportunities. This section should identify key challenges, key opportunities, and important research questions about how we work together within and across museums to break down traditional "silos" that could hinder our progress. Place based learning • • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Can sensory connectedness lead to caring about the world, which leads to caring about issues in the natural world To get people engaged and to make a change, someone has to care about the world around them and we have to make that happen. How can collections based places be working with gardens, sensory place based experience.
Modalities museum is focussing on being a touchable museum, replicas, 70% Internal agreement- science views of ‘touchable museum?’ Smell of environment, sounds such as bird calls
The importance of local place Using IT to link organisations and help visitors to understand what's special about their local environment. Learning theory- revising what you have learnt when you see something in local environment Role of larger organisations- should they still focus on local and community aspects, or in supporting smaller organisations?
Networking within locality Short term nature of visits. Not just seeing a visit as an hour and a half with one place, linking that to what happens in another place. Cumulative effect of contact time.
Networking outside locality Using it to link people with other habitats, to appreciate the uniqueness of own surroundings, habitats, species, ecosystems Kids don't recognise the beauty of their own surroundings. My predator is this, your pollinator is this, general scientific principles but with local aspects.
Researchable question
• • •
• • •
What if we thought of these isolated moments and instead saw them as interconnected moments. What would learning look like? What kinds of facilitation would be needed?
Cumulative impact Look long term from visitor point of view What is the impact of organisations about nature that people go to across x timescale Not just what does my organisation do but what do others do? How are they complementary?
•
Libraries, TV programmes too- how did you know that?
•
Collaboration between organisations- looking at the impact on a group over time.
Caveat: They need to be potentially designable, how is someone who has a personable, touchable philosophy going to relate to a sign based, authoritative approach?
• •
• •
Communicating the process of natural history across settings What works best to communicate the process of science using natural history? How does it scale in different organisations.
Evidence based programming Exhibit developers spend money and make decisions about the media, the visual graphics, the diorama. Decisions are based on budget and hypotheses, but we need more of a research base.
•
Example hypothesis (AMNH): media that is in the voice of a scientist, that uses the tools and the questions and is first person, is more effective.
•
How effective is programming with an emphasis on the process of science, mediated through the voice of a scientist?(define effective)
•
Conversation- scientific researchers feel that the videos that we produce on the floor are a waste of time.They feel that going on fieldwork is the only way to inspire people. Examples: http://www.crossingboundaries.org/conservation-scientists-670.php http://www.dmns.org/science/science-bites/ http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Web-2U/Dr-Sandy-talks-whales http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/community/nature-live/field-work-with-nature-live? view=documents Gather evaluation and compare insights across organisations
• •
Therefore: Design principles- research based. Answerable to the audience. How to implement those strategies in a number of settings.
•
Matching format to audience within a gallery. Spectrum of audiences- need to know which types of format are going to suit which people. “Evidence based design principles, that's what we lack”.
• •
The difference between research and evaluation: Distinction- To prove and to improve? Is it possible to evaluate that exhibit- e.g. hypothesis 'does this exhibit work?'
•
However, we need a research base that asks why it might be there in the first place, and what future directions should be.
•
Anecdotal evidence- Suspicions about why something is working- how to make that into a researchable question
• •
Online programming Transient experiences that are infrequent. Want to keep the relationships going. Dont want to be clicking at the museum. Want to keep those clicks at home.
•
Blogs can be about relationship building.
•
I go to a blog because I want to have some ownership over the experience.
•
E.g. animal keepers blogging, increased status. E.g. If you want a page at a museum, you have to have a relationship. It has to have a time stamp that continues, not just a destination.
•
Implication- all content dynamic?
•
As we increase the social media avenues, do we decrease the authority of the museum?
•
That's the wrong thinking about social media. It's not a new language, it another vehicle, a place to interact and share ideas. Good relationship building. If you are good offline, you can be good online.
• • • •
Do we have a role that we didn't used to? We don't have the facts. We have a public that has a difficulty with discernment. Perhaps we have a role in the public being discerning consumers of information. There's so much information. Child who said that climate change was a hoax. Her mum looked it up online. Process of science, how we know what we know in social media.
Research question: what role can natural history museums play in enhancing people's ability to discern information? • •
In any kind of consumption about scientists at work, how much topic about how we know what we know. What markers are people using to decide what is trusted information?
Credible sources- minds mediated by internet and in person.
Authenticity People •
Example- Kirk as an authentic museum curator.
• •
One truth or plurality of viewpoints? Authentic and authoritative together- where's the truth. Social media and authoritative voice?
• • •
Multiple perspectives, post modernism. Use of social media to gather stories and viewpoints. Cultural diversity. “What we have to recognise is that our audience has misconceptions that we have to confront”.
•
Instead of just sharing the story, we have to share the thought process.
•
Im not going to say anything that makes a child thing that her mum's an idiot.
•
The relationship- we also have misconceptions.
•
Learning cycle.
•
Seem as unapproachable.
•
Interactive, there aren’t these absolutes, not right and wrong .
•
Social media as a way to bring people in, could people write a twitter feed and a hashtag to make a label on an i pad?
•
How much would organisations want to be in charge and control of it?
•
Who would moderate it?
• •
Why us? Why not national geographic? What is our unique role- keep coming back to the stuff. We have the stuff, how do we use that? Our unique asset. If we take away our collections then we are no different to anyone else.
•
Starting with the stuff and using social media.
•
We can see stuff and do stuff with it. If stuff includes the research activities.
Intrinsic interest of the real?
•
In museums the stuff isnt that interesting, but it attracts people who are interested in it.
•
How many drawers of seashells are there here?
•
You dont show them all the stuff.
•
The stuff attracts amazing scientists feed forward reaction, scientists attract stuff
•
Concrete information that has information behind it.
• • •
• •
Virtual vs real; -> virtual complementing real Example- Chilean miners, son transfixed by it. The object drives it. What would make something authentic if you couldn’t be in the room with it? Media- just a format for a narrative.
Narrative What makes that object so fascinating? If it wasn't for that amazing story, that object wouldn't be so interesting.
•
Do they care about the object?
•
Is it their narrative?
•
Is it the objects narrative?
• •
Authenticity- living animals. Live animals are interesting. Enclosures: live animals, live animals that go into a classroom.
•
What is the impact of in an enclosure vs out of an enclosure.
•
If the animal is moving, then they just focus on that.
•
Living as opposed to moving The zoo community has struggles with video.
•
A well produced video of a giraffe, is that a more memorable experience than the sensory experience of being there?
•
The butterfly museum. Videos of monarch butterflies. How can we give the wow moment with just the video, just the blog, without a facilitator.
•
Hollywood example- production techniques to make it memorable.
•
Video not so good in NHM or zoo because you can't spend that much on it.
•
What invokes the authentic experience or emotional response?
•
Authenticity- place Place is interesting, intrinsic or mediated?
All of these features of authentic which might connect the sector. It has to be sensory.
• •
Combining authenticity Other places have scientists, we have objects AND scientists which they don't. Whether the object is a place, objects, animals.
•
Online and labs dont have a place, and they need a public face.
•
Additive experience.
•
Not either or, it works altogether.
•
How do we do that well?
•
We could become experts in the science of what we do in terms of interpreting our objects.
Psychology of attending to informal science messages
• •
Science relationships. Media as a calling card. Blogging.
•
Compelling story.
Researchable question: In terms of the way that blogs and social media work, once that attention has been established, it can be repetitive. Do (can) we see the same effect on site? (Habitual visits, checking in)
• •
Salience Attentional spotlight attracted to salient objects. Large, surprising, same way as babies dishabituate.
•
Or, blogs or pre visit work (Kisiel) can focus attentional spotlight.
•
Additive effects of salience
• •
Emotional connection to nature, science, scientists. Science Heroes. General terms. Actors.
•
Media stage- Brian Cox in the UK.
•
Twenty years ago at the Bronx zoo. Conservation heroes of the world, all white men.
•
Shy away from highlighting scientists unless they are enthusiastic.
•
Issue- white males predominant e.g. tumblr blog, this is what a scientist looks like.
•
If you want to be authentic, and whats happening in science.
•
Those people are white and typically male. Are they still?
•
http://lookslikescience.tumblr.com/
• •
• •
Aim of programming Is there a research that you need to prove that inspiring people to be scientists is the goal? Or have you already agreed on that and you just want to agree the best way to do it?
Definition of science- science is a process. If you want to make a difference, if you want to save the world it is the skills. Do you connect with the process, or do you connect with the person who uses the process.
•
Or do you become the person who does it yourself?
•
Do you have to connect with it?
•
You can watch a great narrative and take a lot away.
• •
“At the end, we want people doing science, right?” Critical thinking, starting to think as a person who values science or evidence, because we can support that way of thinking. Rational vs irrational thinking.
Relationships to place, earth, family. A person being able to make informed decisions about relationships. “And evidence, right?” •
• •
• •
We want individuals to be able to think about that evidence.
Connections Connection to something throughout, families, scientists. Common thread in settings.
Behaviour change Museums spend a lot of money providing people with information, but that doesn't change behaviour. Social media a tool for inciting collective action, like ecological game theory. (If they are doing it, I will also benefit).
•
Influence
•
Wanting to change behaviours as an outcome of education?
•
You can be an insitution that is about providing strong quality information.
•
If you dont provide information, who will. That is only one part of it.
•
How far does your responsibility extend?
•
You can partner with an environmental group.
• • • •
• • •
• •
Marketing and behaviour change We want to change attitudes, we want them to understand and buy into it. We are competing with people with huge budgets. Marketing- if we want to change behaviour, we could sell the collections and buy some billboards. Oklahoma, climate change, global warming term not used any more, easy for people to be cynical. Trying to use information to change people's attitudes.
Situating own views, placing in context, increasing self awareness Real time showing where your opinion is at next to your community. Does public opinion change about climate change when you see where your opinion relates to other peoples. It's about putting people into context by creating cognitive dissonance, there is a mismatch, are you self aware about it?
Collaboration around professional development A lot of us are doing some things really well. Exchange programmes, e.g. swapping evaluators, scientists, empower us to think differently about our work. It doesnt have to be very expensive.
•
How do we provide professional development for our staff?
•
NHM Brad Irwin CPD for science educators.
• • •
Go to meetings, those guys are doing something really good. e.g. What Kathleen's doing works well. Why aren't we saying 'this works, let's do it?' Synergy of approach e.g. DNA workshop. We don't share well, we don't communicate well.
•
Real World Science at NHM.
•
Example- zoos. Breeding populations that are moved around the country.
•
National collection of animals. People can't agree on what the practices are for animal care each place. At each place people do different interpretation.
These are field wide practices that we need.
NHM Assets x Audience-Societal Contextual Factors (Group D) Edit 0 0 34‌ Facilitator: Elizabeth Babcock Recorder: Amy Bolton Context The 21st Century has already brought with it a broad, deep array of audience and societal contextual factors that change the way people see, use, and experience natural history museums. This conference theme explores the intersection of historical and current natural history museum assets and six contextual factors that seem to be here to stay for our audiences after the first decade of the 21st Century.
Natural History Museum Assets As a starting place for discussion, we consider the following unique assets of natural history museums: •
Collections, Data, and Evidence. Natural history museums contain vast collections of objects and specimens, as well as terabytes of data derived from those collections and their histories, that tell the story of the Earth and its peoples since their origins. Objects, the data surrounding their collection, and the research conducted with them - including new areas of research enabled by technologies such as genomic sequencing - form a unique foundation for public engagement, learning, and participation among informal science education providers.
•
"Built-in" Research Communities. Many natural history museums have one or more research scientists, collections managers, curators, and other scientific and technical staff that energize education, public, and outreach opportunities with active scientific research.
•
Historical Perspectives on Nature and Culture. The research conducted at natural history museums and with natural history collections, data, and evidence is a specialized type of science that usually incorporates long term perspectives on nature and culture. This historical view - and the educational opportunities it affords provide critical insights for understanding current science and cultural challenges, such as climate change and language loss.
•
Large-scale Exhibits. Many natural history museums provide large-scale exhibits that have provided a basic understanding and inspiration to explore nature and culture for generations. Exhibits and the tradition of exhibiting are important assets to be considered in connecting with audiences in new ways.
•
Partnerships. Natural history museums are a part of a larger, broader landscape of learning about nature and culture. Perhaps more so than any other type of museum, the content of natural history museums is supported through informal interactions at home and outdoors, as well as by a wealth of additional informal learning institutions and organizations, including nature centers, zoos, aquariums, and camps. Existing and potential partnerships are important assets in advancing informal natural history education.
21st Century Audience and Societal Context Audience research at the National Museum of Natural History has revealed six high-level expectations for museum-based experiences in the 21st Century. Some of these are familiar to us, but many challenge the traditional approaches to outreach, education, and public engagement at natural history museums. The descriptions below provide some conclusions from talking with a sample of visitors at the National Museum of Natural History. They are meant as a starting place for conversation and exploration. •
Relevant. First and foremost, the experiences that stand out in visitors’ minds are those that enable them to relate their experience in the museum to their lives outside the museum. Visitors bring their personal curiosities into the museum, and these relate to their professional, home, or family lives. They are drawn to experiences that promise some connection to those interests. Topics of current popular interest and that are related to high-priority national topics also tap into visitors’ need to connect museum content to their daily lives.
•
Customized. Visitors place value on museum experiences that allow them to tailor experiences to suit their personalities, interests, or moods. Experiences that engage visitors in a dialogue and allow them to ask their own questions can add to the feeling of customizability. The opportunities for individualized attention and experience could
potentially be enhanced by technological innovations and by access to the breadth of resources natural history museums have to offer. •
Immersive. Among the most compelling informal learning experiences that visitors have are those that fully immerse them in the content by seeming to take them out of the museum setting (often metaphorically or virtually) and transporting them to another time or place. Immersion also includes the feeling of authenticity that visitors expect: Access to the "real thing" without many barriers to exploration.
•
Dynamic. 21st Century visitors are likely to bring with them an expectation of action, movement, and change. The world of media and the exploding number of opportunities for education and leisure have enhanced our audiences' expectations for seeing and experiencing processes that change over the course of one visit or exposure, or across many. Visitors expect to see and be a part of the developmental process, and not just see a static finished product.
•
Unique. Media and technologically‐mediated experiences have raised the bar for what constitutes a truly one‐of‐a‐kind experience. Technology is seen as competing with museums in providing informal learning experiences, despite the fact that museums have been actively incorporating technologies in their exhibits and online. Our audiences hope to do or see something extraordinary with us — something decidedly different from what they see and do every day.
•
Surprising. Natural history museums can introduce people to information and ideas they haven’t come across before or to experiences they didn’t expect to have and inspire them to explore new ideas they hadn't considered before. The “ah‐ha” moments that occur when a new idea is encountered can give a satisfying sense of accomplishment, reminding them of their capacity for understanding and synthesizing information across different domains
Linking Assets and Context/Expectations One way to conceptualize the opportunities to advance our practice is by a grid that creates an area of overlap between and among these assets and contextual factors, or expectations. The working group will consider how the different assets and factors overlap in multiple ways to identify potential areas of innovation and the research agenda necessary for us to learn together about how best to bring them about. Relevant Customized Immersive Dynamic Unique Surprising Collections, Data, Evidence Scientific Community Historical Perspective Exhibits and
Possible area of overlap between and among assets and opportunities
Programs Partnerships
Working Group Recommendations The space below is an active, real-time record of the deliberations, ideas, recommendations, and concerns of the working group. It is intended to start as a note-taking space and take shape as the ideas take shape. Format is flexible: Paragraphs, questions, bulleted lists, and other strategies are welcome. Recommendation for next steps of the Learnign Research Agenda 1. Provide us an opportunity for us to provide feedback to the draft agenda. 2. Make sure this research agenda gets tied to experimental practice in our places 3. Prioritize these research questions. 4. sort the research questions by discipline to see what the overlap might be 5. figure out how to get institutions to adopt the agenda 6. figure out how to get all of us to collectively adopt the agenda 7. submit proposal to NSF an IMLS for funding of the research and experimental practice.
Summary of the Opportunity The working group should provide their own input or ideas on the core opportunities of linking natural history assets with these emerging audience and societal contextual factors in the 21st century. Why is it important to make these links? What is the potential for growth and innovation? What would audience experiences look like if we were to be successful at making these links? What are the consequences of not pursuing new ways to link resources to new engagement opportunities? Learning Research Agenda--What do we mean? A long term (20 years?) agenda that is not limited to program evaluation but uses best practices in learning science research and is iterative in nature. The agenda improves our practice by offering an annotated map/pathway or direction to plot a course of action to expand our relevance. Unresolved Questions for the group: who is doing the research? Are we all practitioners of research. How many different audiences for this research are there. Is the agenda implying multiple parts to this or is this a singular agenda?
Keywords for the research agenda: helps us assess progress; takes into account shifting contexts; flexible agenda that has integrity; the NH museums, once we adopt this agenda, should stay the course; outlines critical issues for the field; timely; cross-contextual; idiosyncratic learning. Characteristics of 21c learning in the ideal: motivating, adaptive, suprisingling evocative, disruptive, relevant and unique and idiosyncratic, transformative, renewable inspiring,visitor/responsive/centric, authentically immersive, adaptive, transitive (ideas can start in the Museum and travel outside), empowering the visitors to set their experience agenda, question-inducing, dynamic, challenging, intergenerational, social, removing disciplinary boundaries, hope, one-on-one. Assets--more. the group feels these are additional assets that NH Museums offer. Visitors Staff/volunteers/Board Buildings/Facilities Trust in us/ (our) Reputation Community $$$/donors Clarity of mission Our Network What is the Opportunity? Collections, Data and Evidence Through partnerships, NH museums could use their collections to answer a tangible problem in the world, to communicate more effectively its importance and how the research is relevant and how science works thus making collections relevant to the visitor. Scientific Community NH Museums connect our scientists to the visitors to show that science is dynamic-resulting in motivating and inspiring visitors to see that being a scientist is something that is reachable. Historical Perspective The Historical Perspective allows visitors to see their place in the world so that they have relevant, question-inducing and disruptive experiences. Exhibits/Programs Exhibits and Programs can be a focusing lens or framework that can transform the visitors' perspective. Foundational Research and Best Practices This section will grow during and after the conference. The tagging exercise at www.informalscience.org has identified research and evaluation reports relevant to learning in natural history settings that could be brought to bear as foundational research and best practices. The working group is encouraged to add their own knowledge of applicable research and evaluation, as well as best practices (projects, programs, museums, etc.) at the intersections of natural history assets and audience and societal context.
Opportunities for Innovation The working group will expand on its identification of the potential for growth and innovation and what audience experiences "look like" as explored in the Summary of the Opportunity. Here it will be useful to explore two different avenues of opportunity: 1) Ideas for innovation that are or are not "shovel ready". The less formed and more grandiose ideas are those that are likely to help identify critical questions in the next section; 2) Hypotheses about what the group thinks might be an effective innovation, for whom, under what circumstances, and so on. THEMES and underlying questions. 1. Partnering with artists. What if NH museums partnered regularly with contemporary artists? ----DRAFT research questions: •
Can partnerships between NH museums and artists bring in new audiences, lead us to new communications methodologies and lead to transformative experiences?
2. Timely action and response. What if we were flexible enough to change exhibits every 3 months in response to evaluation? ----DRAFT research questions: •
Do we need different approaches, platforms and mechanisms to respond to timely concerns?
•
In a world of Twitter, what can we add to the communication about timely issues?
•
What is the nature of the experience to the museum and are they coming for information or what?
•
What might these working models and collaborations look like with respect to stustainabliity and replicability?
•
How do you mediate and balance the voices and agendsa of the artis, museum and visitor?
3. Advocacy: this topic is great opportunity for discussion! What if our institutions did take advocacy positions? ----DRAFT research questions: •
Is there a trade-off between advocacy and credibility and how best do you frame those messages so that you maintain a position of credibility?
•
Is a museum a 'meta-scientist' or is it some sort of larger/broader space in which science is one (very important) thing that happens?
•
How comfortable can we be in presenting multiple perspectives and let the visitors make up their mind?
4. Blank slate/new beginnings vs. traditional roles (what would happen if we start from scratch or if we were just to innovate about peoples roles within the museum). what if scientists, educators and exhibits people worked in topical teams instead of disciplines? what if we were comfortable completely starting over? I wonder if the core philosophy of museums will change in the future? I wonder how much does the visitor value the traditional museum experience and what happens if we diverge from it too much? what if our museum could be a public school for pre-k through 12? ----DRAFT research questions: •
Do we compromise public trust in the institution if we don't have collections and or researchers?
•
What is the correlation between trust and the fact that we have research and collections?
•
Does the public even know that we have scientists or collections?
•
Do collections enhance the learning experience? Are they necessary?
•
Are in house researchers necessary to the learning experiences?
•
Do we compromise public trust in the institution if we don't have collections and/or researchers?
5. Re-envisioning human-nature interaction-- What is the role of museums as facilitators of that connection? I wonder if NH museums partner with nature centers how will NH museums enhance the outdoor experience? What if NH museums and natures centers had unifi9ed agenda to address 21cc challenges? O wonder if my staff could eventually accept humans as part of nature? What if NH museums included examples of urban nature without prejudice? ----DRAFT research questions: •
Why?
•
What is the role of museums as facilitators of that connection?
6. Visitor place in conversations and/or narrative (how much power do we give visitors in terms of content creation). what if our visitors voices showed up in our exhibits? ----DRAFT research questions: •
When content is entirely staff-driven, how successful can it be in appealing to our publics?
•
When content is entirely public-driven, how successful can it be in appealing to our publics?
•
What would happen to visitor experience if you left scientists out of the messaging to the visitors?
•
What would happen if you left the visitors out of content creation?
•
If citizen scientists are empowered not only to gather data but to design research and methodologies, what happens to the quality of the science? What happens to the quality of learning and the degree of engagement?
•
How closely do public tastes for exhibit and program content mirror the views of staff? and does it matter?
•
Is controversy marketable?
•
When content is entirely staff driven, how successful can it be in apealing to our publics (i.e. can we all be steve jobs?)
7. New models of multi-sensory engagement (authenticity). I wonder is the overly stated need to incorporate technology into exhibits based on uniformed perception or research? What if we shifted being about the object to being about the interaction between objects and people? what if visitors could walk inside a diorama? ----DRAFT research questions: •
Is it true that kids are being trained as visual learners these days and if it is, what does it mean for me when I design museum exhibits?
•
Is there a way to think about shallow multi-sensory vs. deep multi-sensory and is there a way to measure if one is more impactful?
•
What is the impact of different models of interacting with scientists with respect to multi-sensory engagement?
•
What are the effects of sounds and touch and smell on experience and do they influence retention and inspiration. How do you measure over the long term?
•
What are the design principles that truly do serve the most people and how to incorporate them into practice?
•
What will the effect be of having an unlimited sensory experience given that our understanding is that kids today are growing up in a sensory deprived world. Will we have to retrain them to live in this sensory rich world.
•
Can audio alone enhance imagination?
•
How do we exploit each of our senses to their maximum effect? Is it alone or in combination?
•
Are technologically created experiences as effective as the real thing?
•
What's the best multi-sensory experience: is it virtual alone, virtual and real, etc.
•
When considering these new models, which of the traditional models or experiences are most desirable to them to meet their expectations and which of them should we retain?
•
Are immersive nature-based experiences as transformative and how do you measure that?
•
How can we enhance the museum experience for hearing or sight impaired visitors using multi-sensory immersive experiences?
•
Are there key characteristics of experiences, such as citizen science projects, that provide deep engagement that can be transferred to museum settings?
•
As authentic experiences in nature become more novel, do they become more marketable?
8. Break down walls of NH museums -- not in distinct areas but by team/project based -- modelled on community centers (hub of access) What if a natural history was more like a community center? -- creating networks of local institutions; being part of a local network -- museum without walls--taking the museum out into the community. What if public libraries and natural history museums partnered to serve local communities? What if we developed a regional NH museum without walls? what if there were no such as NH, Art, Science and Children's museums and they were all considered instead 'experience centers'. I wonder what we've learned if we asked our communities about the most pressing issues of importance to them? ----DRAFT research questions: •
If we use a non-building centric model what new ways can we engage audiences and visitors? And what is the effectiveness of these new models? o
what opportunities can come from this.
o
What is the potential effectiveness, reach and scope of these models?
•
How does the environment in which the learning is taking place impact the outcomes?
•
And what would happen to the financial support of the institution?
•
How do we define a successful institutional or community collaboration?
•
what is a successful model (look outside museum field)?
•
How do we capitalize on each partners strengths?
•
What are new models for new organizational structure and how would they impact or influence visitor museum experience (eg. less silo based)
•
How do we reposition ourselves to respond to new technologies and maximize their potential impact?
9. Museum as convener: invite multiple voices or perspectives/ multiple narratives. what if we allowed museum to own the domain of awareness and freed ourselves form the obligation to impart knowledge? What if we had a visitor blog for every diorama? --- DRAFT research questions •
•
How do we effectively position ourselves as the go-to place and take the lead to bring people together in sharing perspectives around timely issues? o
logistical/action plan
o
honoring different perspective,
o
networks and models
o
knowing your place the community
o
relevant issues
How do we balance stakeholders view, ethics, integrity of the science in these models?
10. Opportunities for visitors to interact with scientists and visitors to learn from each other. what if all visitors had at least. what if all visitors had at least one in-depth interaction with a scientist. --- DRAFT research questions •
What kinds of interactions do visitors desire of scientists?
•
Are scientists the only professionals at the museum that visitors want to connect with?
•
What are the impacts/benefits/outcomes that can come from scientist/visitor ointeacitons and how do those very by audience?
•
What is the potential or other museum professionals and visitor interactions?
•
how do we provide opportunities for visitors to learn from each other that is comfortable and reasonable.?
11. Other ideas. I wonder if a positive museum experience in one home city effects museum visitation patterns over a lifetime? Can a nature experience be transformative? Can science programs result in empowerment? How can our programs and exhibits be transitive (translate to other contexts) and authentic? What would a network of NH museums look like and how would we make it realistic? How do we increase our collective impact? What is the difference between a network and a partnership? How can indigenous knowledge and science support each other? How do we put nature back into natural history? but isn't urban space nature too? What are the entry barriers to technology? why are there no dioramas on urban settings? How do we send our scientists out to work with the public? How so we start
teaching about bio-cultural landscapes?
Critical Questions and Directions for Research and Evaluation This section will identify critical questions about audience experiences and learning. This section is the crux of the work of the group because it is intended to identify a broad range of critical practical questions that need to be addressed to move forward with identified potential innovations, as well as critical theoretical questions related to what, how, when, and why people learn in and around natural history museums and assets. The ultimate product should be a set of prioritized, nested questions organized in a way that makes sense to the group. The questions should address the critical challenges identified through preconference and first day activities. Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration This section is intended to capture the challenges and opportunities for collaboration within and between natural history museums relevant to the intersection of these assets and audience and societal contextual factors. This section should identify key challenges, key opportunities, and important research questions about how we work together within and across museums to break down traditional "silos" that could hinder our progress. NHM Assets x Audience-Societal Contextual Factors (Group E) Edit 0 0 21‌ Facilitator: Kathy McLean Recorder: Kaleen Povis Charge: Raise the questions and concerns to be addressed which will help us all move forward with a common research agenda. Kathleen McLean Facilitator, Independent Exhibitions Steve Hinkley Museum of Nature and Science Teresa Randall Oklahoma City Zoon Puja Dasari California Academy of Sciences Kara Fedje Putnam Museum of History and Natural Science Maija Sedzielarz Science Museum of Minnesota Pino Monaco Smithsonian Institution Annie Holdren Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Maritza Macdonald American Museum of Natural History Nan Renner San Diego Museum of Natural History Randy Irmis Natural History Museum of Utah Robert Bixler Clemson University Steve Thompson Lincoln Park Zoo Richard Efthim National Museum of Natural History
Context The 21st Century has already brought with it a broad, deep array of audience and societal contextual factors that change the way people see, use, and experience natural history museums. This conference theme explores the intersection of historical and current natural history museum assets and six contextual factors that seem to be here to stay for our audiences after the first decade of the 21st Century.
Natural History Museum Assets As a starting place for discussion, we consider the following unique assets of natural history museums: •
Collections, Data, and Evidence. Natural history museums contain vast collections of objects and specimens, as well as terabytes of data derived from those collections and their histories, that tell the story of the Earth and its peoples since their origins. Objects, the data surrounding their collection, and the research conducted with them - including new areas of research enabled by technologies such as genomic sequencing - form a unique foundation for public engagement, learning, and participation among informal science education providers.
•
"Built-in" Research Communities. Many natural history museums have one or more research scientists, collections managers, curators, and other scientific and technical staff that energize education, public, and outreach opportunities with active scientific research.
•
Historical Perspectives on Nature and Culture. The research conducted at natural history museums and with natural history collections, data, and evidence is a specialized type of science that usually incorporates long term perspectives on nature and culture. This historical view - and the educational opportunities it affords provide critical insights for understanding current science and cultural challenges, such as climate change and language loss.
•
Large-scale Exhibits. Many natural history museums provide large-scale exhibits that have provided a basic understanding and inspiration to explore nature and culture for generations. Exhibits and the tradition of exhibiting are important assets to be considered in connecting with audiences in new ways.
•
Partnerships. Natural history museums are a part of a larger, broader landscape of learning about nature and culture. Perhaps moreso than any other type of museum, the content of natural history museums is supported through informal interactions at home and outdoors, as well as by a wealth of additional informal learning institutions and organizations, including nature centers, zoos, aquariums, and camps. Existing and potential partnerships are important assets in advancing informal natural history education.
21st Century Audience and Societal Context Audience research at the National Museum of Natural History has revealed six high-level expectations for museum-based experiences in the 21st Century. Some of these are familiar to us, but many challenge the traditional approaches to outreach, education, and public engagement at natural history museums. The descriptions below provide some conclusions from talking with a sample of visitors at the National Museum of Natural History. They are meant as a starting place for conversation and exploration. •
Relevant. First and foremost, the experiences that stand out in visitors’ minds are those that enable them to relate their experience in the museum to their lives outside the museum. Visitors bring their personal curiosities into the museum, and these relate to their professional, home, or family lives. They are drawn to experiences that promise some connection to those interests. Topics of current popular interest and that are related to high-priority national topics also tap into visitors’ need to connect museum content to their daily lives.
•
Customized. Visitors place value on museum experiences that allow them to tailor experiences to suit their personalities, interests, or moods. Experiences that engage visitors in a dialogue and allow them to ask their own questions can add to the feeling of customizability. The opportunities for individualized attention and experience could potentially be enhanced by technological innovations and by access to the breadth of resources natural history museums have to offer.
•
Immersive. Among the most compelling informal learning experiences that visitors have are those that fully immerse them in the content by seeming to take them out of the museum setting (often metaphorically or virtually) and transporting them to another time or place. Immersion also includes the feeling of authenticity that visitors expect: Access to the "real thing" without many barriers to exploration.
•
Dynamic. 21st Century visitors are likely to bring with them an expectation of action, movement, and change. The world of media and the exploding number of opportunities for education and leisure have enhanced our audiences' expectations for seeing and experiencing processes that change over the course of one visit or exposure, or across many. Visitors expect to see and be a part of the developmental process, and not just see a static finished product.
•
Unique. Media and technologically‐mediated experiences have raised the bar for what constitutes a truly one‐of‐a‐kind experience. Technology is seen as competing with museums in providing informal learning experiences, despite the fact that museums have been actively incorporating technologies in their exhibits and online. Our audiences hope to do or see something extraordinary with us — something decidedly different from what they see and do every day.
•
Surprising. Natural history museums can introduce people to information and ideas they haven’t come across before or to experiences they didn’t expect to have and inspire them to explore new ideas they hadn't considered before. The “ah‐ha”
moments that occur when a new idea is encountered can give a satisfying sense of accomplishment, reminding them of their capacity for understanding and synthesizing information across different domains
Day One Overview: Summary of Morning Value •
Good things happen in museums, passionate moments of learning, but how do we go from these moments being serendipitous occurrences to strategically planned offerings in order to increase their frequency.
Emotion •
The human creative capital of a museum is valuable. How might a museum change if the staff sees itself as the "live animals" as part of exhibits?
•
If trust is built on relationships, how can museums foster relationships with visitors/the community in order to build trust and open dialogue?
Learning •
If learning is the audience's need how does a museum position itself as an environment for the six strands of learning?
•
We should recognize that there is not just one learning outcome but multiple outcomes that are of worth. There is value in family learning (parents learning about their children, seeing their excitement, and sharing their interests) as there is in content learning.
Experience •
What experience do we expect people to have in our museums and how do visitors naturally experience it? How can we use that behavior as an access point into the museum and our mission?
•
How do you interact with something you can't touch or feel, something behind glass? Museums must work to add the context, connections, emotions, and relevance in order overcome this barrier
Continuity
•
The museum is not a closed system. We cannot just look inward. We need to think about what our visitors bring the the museum and what local organizations offer and continue to foster partnerships.
•
Museums are missing an opportunity when they do not invite visitors to experience nature outside the walls of the museum. Why don't more museums offer maps of local hikes, connect visitors with interest groups, provide information on other local offerings that could connect people to natural history?
•
How can we tie individual experiences together over time and give people a thread to follow?
Afternoon Summary Communication •
What do we as a museum, as a museum field, as the field of natural history museums want to convey?
•
How can we shift what people are talking about and what do we want them to talk about?
Role •
What is the role of the museum?
•
Shift away from transition model of learning
•
Move to public forum
•
Take the role of a community facilitator
•
Not truth factories but live the scientific process
•
Release of control to visitors and struggling with comfort levels
Advocates •
Are we in the business of advocacy? Where do advocacy and education overlap and differ?
•
Are all natural history museums comfortable with being advocates?
•
Do we as a network agree on a common advocacy agenda?
•
How frequetnly do visitors need to engage in sticky experiences in order to change behavior?
Controversy •
Natural History Museums are in the business of controversy!
•
What topics are too controversial for Natural History Museums to address?
•
Controversy is an opportunity for rich programming.
Relevance •
What do we mean by that and does the museum and do visitors use the word the same way?
•
First convey "Why this is important?" then answer "What does it mean to me?" for visitors.
Linking Assets and Context/Expectations One way to conceptualize the opportunities to advance our practice is by a grid that creates an area of overlap between and among these assets and contextual factors, or expectations. The working group will consider how the different assets and factors overlap in multiple ways to identify potential areas of innovation and the research agenda necessary for us to learn together about how best to bring them about. Remember the human creative capital- where is this reflected in the chart? This is also not a closed system. Careful not to just look inward, but remember visitor prior experience Let's consider our audience an asset Relevant Customized Immersive Dynamic Unique Surprising Social Collections, Data, Possible area of overlap between and among assets and Evidence opportunities Scientific Community Historical Perspective Exhibits Partnerships Programs
Partnerships and Programs as way to address societal needs - method to address problem rather than asset Collections do make museums unique - not to be overlooked What is the problem we are solving for? Learning happens through social interaction, and visitors site social reasons for coming to museums. Museums create a context for social learning. How might the chart be filled in if we do so through a social lens. Contextual model of learning also includes physical and personal. Individual institutions may also have different needs/abilities and would therefore look at this chart differently.... so make sure flexibility is part of research agenda. Trust is based on relationships - Example: People to come to the museum together may agree with one another and not with scientist or label because trust comes from relationship not just the institution. Don't forget the individual who goes to a museum alone to figure out science for self Free-choice Learning = Leisure Learning There is a self-selection process at play - who are museum visitors
Working Group Recommendations The space below is an active, real-time record of the deliberations, ideas, recommendations, and concerns of the working group. It is intended to start as a note-taking space and take shape as the ideas take shape. Format is flexible: Paragraphs, questions, bulleted lists, and other strategies are welcome.
Summary of the Opportunity The working group should provide their own input or ideas on the core opportunities of linking natural history assets with these emerging audience and societal contextual factors in the 21st century. Why is it important to make these links? What is the potential for growth and innovation? What would audience experiences look like if we were to be successful at making these links? What are the consequences of not pursuing new ways to link resources to new engagement opportunities? How do we bring together our assets and our visitors? Create an emotional attachement for the visitors to the museum Ex. Parent loves child's reaction in museum Emotional attachments will bring repeat visitors. Prompt feeling of success Use our tangible assets, but create those intangible opportunities as well Ex. A parent so pleased with a child's sense of wonder sparked at the zoo and shared that information on Facebook. Facebook as feedback loop to staff. - spreads that idea (the importance of family learning) to other Facebook users then as well. Sense of wonder can be unique it doesn't have to be transformational.
Parents learning about their children and valuing their children's learning is powerful and should be recognized as important. - How do we then leverage our assets to foster this/support this type of social learning. Serendipitous vs. Strategic use of assets - how to go from by chance to planned for and supported Are museums fulfilling the learning needs/goals/desires of visitors? Story: Zoo Code Red = dangerous animal loose. Use of social media (Tweets in this case) to share that event. Careful what sources are used and what is said. People at Natural History Museums do not seem to capture their experiences nearly as much on YouTube and other social media outlets as visitors to Zoos. Attraction of live animals is high - butterflies, lizards, snakes, etc. Can staff/scientists be the "live animals" that attract the visitors. Example: Visitors spending a lot of time, more than any other exhibit, looking at fish bowl of scientists Example: Comparing art museum and zoo time spent and impact on student group - key was the interpreter - What mattered was not the content/type of museum but the facilitation (in this case parent led) How do you interact with something you can't touch or can't feel? Indicate access to staff with buttons indicating languages spoken Live interaction of some kind (visitor to visitor, facilitation, animals, etc.) -that is dynamic Pacific Grove Museum of NH example of danger of closing because of lack of visitor access to staff - Rejuvenated by bringing in people. Using technology (video conferences) to link visitors to museum assets (staff and collections) here at Smithsonian. If learning is the audience's need how does a museum position itself as an environment for the six strands of learning? Visitors did not separate fun from education in audience survey "The Experience Economy" book reference. People come to museums for the experience.... perhaps not specifically to learn, but because it is a potential outcome (there is "a risk" of learning) Story of leaving Smithsonian and having nobody there to remind visitors to continue their experience online, or at a local institution, or extend experience in any number of other ways outside the walls of the museum. This facilitation in continued connection is a huge missed opportunity. How to get strangers to talk to each other is important - nod to Nina Simon's "Participatory Museums" Even high school boys articulate there is something unique and different about museums that offers a separate experience than school or home What experience do we expect people to have in our museums and how do visitors naturally experience it?Example: If visitors are using or want to use their phones or cameras in the museums how can we use that behavior as an access point into the museum and our mission Barrier of viewing learning as a single outcome rather than multiple outcomes.
Foundational Research and Best Practices
This section will grow during and after the conference. The tagging exercise at www.informalscience.org has identified research and evaluation reports relevant to learning in natural history settings that could be brought to bear as foundational research and best practices. The working group is encouraged to add their own knowledge of applicable research and evaluation, as well as best practices (projects, programs, museums, etc.) at the intersections of natural history assets and audience and societal context. Reflections After Lunch: Collective remembering - remembering where we are and what we know and thinking about what will move us forward Challenging transmission of knowledge model - has been going on for a while, but now, perhaps, agreeing upon that as a museum-wide veiwpoint Networks of natural history museum, but also bigger context of world/citizen connections. Assets as things we have some ability to control - communication pathways to reach an audience Sticking power comes from experiences being "different" or "atypical" (not part of the everyday) Questions that come of this: 1) How frequently do visitors need to engage in those sticky experiences in order to change their behaviors? 2) How important is is that the museum set the agenda vs. How much do we need to respond to visitor input? Here is where the idea of relevance comes in. Relevance: Depends upon perspective Museum's notion may be very different from visitor(s) ideas on what is relevant Museum may be looking at global issues Visitors- "What does this mean to me?" How can we know and how can we impact or address what is relevant to the visitor? Ask Why First: "Why is this important?" Why this is important can be a common why to help frame everyone's next step regardless of the direction they go next (visualize upside-down triangle with why at top and trickle down) Can we make an individual's relevance match our (museum) relevance? People start with a personal experience and build from that... it is not common to have a star-struck moment of realization of place on earth. We (museums) have a notion of ourselves as already there (using our assets to good end), but do we all agree? What have museums done, what makes you feel/know you have attained that match of assets and goals? How did you attain that? Football Game Analogy: Many people go, but not all are actually watching the game. The fans in each seating level, the band, the tailgaters, the cheerleaders, all there for many different reasons - they are getting many different things out of their experience. Fact Vomiting - former docent system involved delivery of facts to visitors. Visitors may be
"dragged-alongs" or deeply interested along a spectrum. Docent's new goal is not just to tell, but to move visitors along that spectrum. Visitors may not know enough in order to know what to ask. Informal settings, unlike formal school have ability to meet visitors where they are and move them along. How can we shift what people are talking about? 350.org to raise awareness of carbon parts per million - idea to bring such resources together with museum to reach more people. Local food network- can NH museums connect with those organizations and support those movements? Museums can practice and model the connections. Example from Burke Natural History Museum and food exhibit linking expertise of museum with the knowledge of local people... to address relevant issue of diabetes. It was the communication with the Elders that directed what to do with the items the museum had. The display could have gone any number of ways, but in this case the audience (an asset) helped direct the use of the items. I wonder what would happen if we connected with networks (social units) that are already out there rather than just individuals? Citizen Science at Cornell bird lab - successful because harnessed energy of those already interested and engaged. Work with what already exists in the world. Find synergy and come out of isolation. Want to know entomology in order to be a better photographer - idea that people have different reasons to learn and goals. These can be seen as another way into NH museums and their mission. Community Effort Project: Coral Reef Project 4000 hand made (knit) pieces of coral made my 700 people (community collaborative effort) Collaborative effort utilizing interests (Ex. fiber art) that are already in place. Another example would be to get in touch with retired teachers when trying to start a docent program or work with ecologists who are cleaning up the river. Such partnerships also tie to the idea of place-based learning and this collaboration strengthens all of them. Museum gives you threads you can follow to other organizations and outdoor places.
Opportunities for Innovation The working group will expand on its identification of the potential for growth and innovation and what audience experiences "look like" as explored in the Summary of the Opportunity. Here it will be useful to explore two different avenues of opportunity: 1) Ideas for innovation
that are or are not "shovel ready". The less formed and more grandiose ideas are those that are likely to help identify critical questions in the next section; 2) Hypotheses about what the group thinks might be an effective innovation, for whom, under what circumstances, and so on. Encouraging visitors to put post-it notes on exhibits and comment on the exhibit. As far as letting visitors add their own interpretation. What does that mean to the museum? What if the views that are posted are in direct opposition to what your museum believes/wants to convey? Example: A post-it note written by a visitor that says evolution is not true This post-it will give you instant feedback on the type of people coming through your doors. Helps inform you as to who is coming and what might need to be addressed through programs etc. Other museum visitors will likely see those notes as a Public Forum and will not confuse the "museum voice" with "visitor opinions" Inquiry approach vs. advocacy approach allowed an individual to through articulation of belief to begin to question own viewpoints and ask questions. Greater receptivity and change in way of seeing a natural history museum. [Personal Example of Scientific viewpoint vs. fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on creation] Provide more options for people to discuss. Feedback Response Boards: I went to the MOMA and..... "I saw two garbage cans, many knees, and no dinosaurs. Do you call yourself a museum?" Nature-Based Pre-School at Zoo. A lot of funding and attention in that area. Filling a community need, safe place, affordable place, learning taking place. Community has been built based on this handful of kids - staff has become more receptive and accommodating for these students and refer to them as "our students." Stuffed animal, Mr. Peacock, goes home with the students and ties families to outdoors by documenting what activities Mr. Peacock does when at their home. Class-wide journal is kept. Why did they choose the zoo for preschool? What is it that they value (the zoo, the safety, the cost, etc.) that led that decision? What is the role of the institution? Authority or facilitator of community, perhaps. Sectors where visitors have more and less input. In some realms the museum leads/tells, but in others allows visitors to choose/provide own feedback. Museum can set out facts and then let visitors work with those. Example: Building an energy hall- this being in Texas, it is funded by oil company - but line between facts and propaganda. Let visitors take in information and synthesize/decide for self. Helps visitors see limits to wind, solar, other powers and choose for self a solution. While this exhibit shows need to use mixed energy methods it also ties to another exhibit on how to improve turbines for better wind energy that could lead to reduced dependency on natural gases. Mediation Object: Mr. Peacock and Energy Interactive both examples of ways to scaffold an
open-ended experience What are the range of possibilities when we let visitors use a mediation object? Are there typical uses or parameters of these object mediated experiences? Are there guiding design elements that can be drawn from such work? Does allowing visitors to do that (make decisions based on facts within exhibits) make it more relevant to them? Exhibits with an educational expectation of decision making How to get visitors to think like you/the museum? I wonder who did not use the exhibit? Why were they not interested, who did not engage and why? What happens when visitors realize that their agenda does not align with the museum's agenda? How do we handle those that do not agree or even want to engage? How do we expand our audiences? To those that have a broad range of learning abilities. What can a person with average intelligence actually understand about a particular, perhaps complex topic such as climate change? In thinking about our huge diverse audience (ages, abilities, backgrounds), this is an opportunity for ISE organizations to be at the helm. We have answers! There are many ways to engage and learn - group problem solving, Think beyond the individual. Give people the challenge and tools to think about complex issues. Believe that our visitors are smart enough to deal with complexity. Where is our comfort level in allowing visitor feedback/viewpoints on the floor? Natural History Museums are institutions dedicated to controversial issues! What methods of communication can we employ that will be thought provoking rather than end the conversation with "the answer"? Dealing with controversy in museums- we often self sensor out of fear without even giving our visitors the opportunity to disagree. We temper our statements and exhibits and in effect may become much more conservative than our stakeholders (visitors, funders, board, policy makers, etc.). If we don't do it who is going to? That is what we need to think about when going forward with political or potentially controversial issues. Example: Making of a Darwin exhibit. Note that people used the exhibit in many, many ways like a teen relating to being set away on a ship for 5 years, or a couple thinking about the differing religious views of Darwin and his
wife. Controversy is an opportunity for rich public programming. Are we just speaking to the converted? What topics are too controversial for NH Museums to cover? Test it with human population growth. There have been some on homosexuality. Turning museum into forum and can design of the exhibit help shift visitors from seeing museum as an advocate of any one view as a forum for rich discussion. Term: Community Facilitator What would the museum as a community facilitator look like? How can we think about achieving out goals through indirect means/creative ways? How might we become flexible and innovative enough Zoozeum:Tell history of the state through the museum with stories and pictures and objects. Ex. Telling the story of how a building used to be a bathhouse and is now part of the zoo. Talking about our past and building sense of community (which also builds donor base). Define Community: Anybody who can benefit from the resources (collections or staff) of our institution. Preschool - audience need addressed by museum and mutually benefits each. 21st Century - let's think forward Online outreach community. Look at what you do well and then expand with those strengths in mind. Challenge of translating what works for a small group into something that might work for a large group or a distance learning situation - building a program out and online I wonder what would happen in the museum community if we really saw the human body as a resource and thought more fully about what hands-on and immersive means. We/Museums share communities of visitors. How can we best utilize that fact? If visitors visit multiple museums would it be helpful to have a unified front or can it be an asset to have discrepancies among institutions. Misconception about science that they find "truth," when it should instead be stated as testing hypothesis. Yet, it seems, visitors come to museums to find "truth." Look at scientific process.
Critical Questions and Directions for Research and Evaluation
This section will identify critical questions about audience experiences and learning. This section is the crux of the work of the group because it is intended to identify a broad range of critical practical questions that need to be addressed to move forward with identified potential innovations, as well as critical theoretical questions related to what, how, when, and why people learn in and around natural history museums and assets. The ultimate product should be a set of prioritized, nested questions organized in a way that makes sense to the group. The questions should address the critical challenges identified through preconference and first day activities. Going Forward: What 21st Century Challenge do you feel your museum already addresses? (share with neighbor) What 21st Century Challenge do you feel your museum should address? How could a research agenda inform your practice and help you reach the goal of addressing a 21st Century Challenge? Collections: •
Collections are a unique asset of museums, let us not forget to really use them.
•
What innovative ways are there to use collections that will connect with and engage our audiences?
•
Note the distinction and opportunity in a research collection (verse an education collection).
Making Connections: •
Is story-telling and narration dumbing down?
•
The stories are the interesting part of the science that we do and do a better job of educating than naming/labeling/taxonomy facts.
•
Stories are one way to make links between collections and visitors. What other links/methods can be used?
Sometimes the audience is the 10th grade class that needs to pass the science exam. There is the audience that is turned on by discovery and will come out to hear about the museum's new work. Therefore we need to have various portals into the museum and ways to access the museum's assets. What about those visitors that are not already engaged or comfortable in museums: are we only addressing the 'low-haning fruit.' Big Blockbuster exhibits (science of Harley motorcycles, etc.) are one way new audiences have been addressed. How do we help people know how to 'use museums' not just get them here? How do we pull them in, not just hook them once?
How do we provide opportunities for long lasting connections not just surface level interests? Loss of names, kids today know 1000 logos but not the names of trees/animals. What needs to happen with people over their lifespan to connect people to nature? What role does a museum play? How can the museum tie people to/offer/lead visitors to long-term life experiences? Scientist Eyes: Learning how to see with the aid/scaffolding of an expert. Rather than feeling compelled to tell visitors things how about helping them develop skills that they can then use and transfer to other domains of their life. Invites people into a community of practice/science of process skills. Visitors may wonder, "How do they know that is a fossil bone and not just a rock?" and we can help them learn how to see/discover/observe/synthesize as a scientist. This learning to see is happening/working with volunteers and docents. Can we harness what we have learned in teaching volunteers/docents and apply that training or concepts to a wider visitor audience? What have we learned about perceptual skills that we can build upon to benefit our visitors? Audience: Have we picked all of the low-hanging fruit? Are we reaching them all? When we do reach out to new audiences how to we keep them past the pull-in-exhibit? A model for sustaining an audience does not seem to exist. Access to the real (objects, science, scientists) is what is unique and fosters appreciation by allowing options so that visitors can choose their own pathways. What would happen if we started to think of ourselves as the visitor in the museum? Are museums wiling to open themselves up in order to rotate what objects are on display, to work as a network to give visitors across the nation access to the objects and scientists that may be in another part of the country? Doing this not an a polished exhibit but more as a raw and ready model. Library Partnerships: science on the floor to connect museums to people and community It's a free venue and could be a public service. Some museums and libraries already work in partnership. How do we connect in better ways to solve problems and share ideas? Access to case studies would be really useful. How then, do we share information among the museum community, know what is going on, and not re-invent the wheel? CAISE, InformalScience.org, Research2Practice, ExhibitFiles, conferences, journals, newsletters, blogs are all access points. Still not enough sharing. Personal commitment to engage in the sharing community. Increase culture of contribution not just consumption.
Is repeat visitation a shared goal of all museums... or should it be? Could be a difference between museums and nature centers. Think about usage patterns of our visitors. Ecosystem Model for Mapping Resources and Future Learning Research: Visitor viewpoint - individual learning Visitors as social network - who they came with Museum change as a single instituation Network of museums with shared goals Museums within the broader social context - schools, and other institutions Enthusiasm of staff and their own learning is important and will encourage visitors to do the same. Technology: Moving into the 21st Century in the digital realm. How to we create open-source museums? Would a digital platform be the best way to open access. What other tools do we have for engagement? Underserved communities have not been the topic of our conversation enough. How can we have a broader reach to more diverse audiences? Can we look to a business model or marketing for clues on how to address more audiences? We cannot ignore the "Why is this meaningful to me (emotional connection)" question. That is a starting point. Youth telling stories - inviting teens into museum to tell an on-site story (Example: girl who made video about CalAcad's living roof and what it might mean if everyone had a living roof) Facebook model that people care about content, but also care about people and therefore will click on links either because they have a content interest or a social interest/curiosity (Example: I want to know what that is vs. I want to know what my friend likes). Is relationship building the key and how can museums capitalize on that? How does online engagement foster science skills? Do we understand the affordances of digital media vs. solid stuff? What are the learning outcomes of each form of media? What are the characteristics of a threshold experience that sparks interest or passion? People come back (to The Brain exhibit) to keep teaching themselves/develop a competency/ practice. It was the personal, human endeavor that was relevant. It posed a challenge was captivating. Curator's goal: "I want to know if they know themselves better." Imagination/Curiosity/Creativity may be an under-tapped resource. How might we be inadvertently stifling or undervaluing imagination. Why is it that 90% of the scientific staff at this conference are in Paleo? Is that a comment on
who is used to engaging with the public? Technology is important, but let us remember what is unique to NH Museums. It is the real stuff (collections/materials/scientists) that make us unique. Cannot disconnect the people from the stuff because the point is to connect more and more people to "the stuff." Ask yourself: What connected me to this exhibit? Was it a video you saw, was it an emotional reaction? Example being the squid exhibit in the host institution Cabinets of Curiosity ties to the morbid/natural interests of humans Project at Smithsonian in the new education center- trying to develop the tool (ipad perhaps or app) for allowing visitors to document their visit at the center and later access and share their experience. How does this type of opportunity change the museum experience? What does the cost/benefit analysis look like? Example: Couple looking at picture on phone rather than real object in front of them. Example: Visitor's using their phones to look up more information Example: Complementary use of technology to provide more or different information rather than taking the place of the real object. How do we best engage audiences with the depth of "real stuff" beyond the less than 1% that is on display? Many visitors are not even familiar with the fact that there is more to see and that there are scientists behind the scenes as well.
Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration This section is intended to capture the challenges and opportunities for collaboration within and between natural history museums relevant to the intersection of these assets and audience and societal contextual factors. This section should identify key challenges, key opportunities, and important research questions about how we work together within and across museums to break down traditional "silos" that could hinder our progress.
NHM Assets x Public Value for the 21st Century (Group F) Edit 0 0 22… Facilitator: Kirsten Ellenbogen Recorder: Nancy Staus Context Natural history museums have immense public value and, arguably, even greater potential for public value in the 21st Century. Museums across the globe have been engaging in a reexamination of their public value for the communities and societies they serve. The Institute of Museum and Library Services has noted that, among other measures, public value includes the significant roles that museums play in their "conservation and preservation efforts, research practices, contributions to youth and adult education, community participation, and economic impacts from the neighborhood to the nation" (Exhibiting Public Value: Government Funding for Museums in the United States, IMLS, 2008). The matter of public value is increasingly important for natural history museums, in particular, as the scientific research our collections and other assets support are ever more linked to understanding and addressing the scientific challenges of a global society.
TUESDAY NOTES What about museums with radical agendas? Action Items: 1. Decalaration 2. Barriers 3. American Naturalist article 4. New type of programs 5. An association of NHMs 6. Survey of Natural History 7. Convening to continue the conversation We need to rise up and take our rightful place--we have an inferioirity complex. What is unique about NHM? Our issue is Sustainability--we can claim this as our domain (science centers have STEM, zoos have conservation). Nature literacy. Where do nature centers fit? Interface of humans and the planet (Anthropocene). Science literacy and sustainability are overused terms that are hard to define. Is there another term we can use? Working Group Notes Are public museums the only ones who have to worry about public value Value in nature centers in a community in the service of its mission, to the users, and to the community at large (IMLS funding) – Bob Petty Museums at risk – almost closed in 2007 – Doing a survey with visitors – what is the one
thing you would not change in the museum? – Lori Mannel We have to do something better than what we’re doing – Kirk Most of us think of our institutions as being permanent – we are the logical people to help society think long term about ourselves - this is a unique asset we have – very few institutions have such a sense of permanence – Scott Wing How do you make institutional change in places so steeped in tradition What I’m looking for is where can we make an impact – who better to define the relationship between human and non human but natural history museums – Scott A long time perspective – Emlyn Not inject emotion, but simply don’t suppress it – Nancy Implied social contract Move from interest to insight, interest to action, Have the tools to make things happen How does the museum field lead from successful change agendas in society Learning research agenda – sounds last century – change to What is the organizational change agenda? False way of assuming we know how people choose things, decide on things Theory of planned behavior What is the role of natural history museums in creating a sustainable planet or re-elevating science as a reliable way to come to knowledge in our culture How do we halt the environmental change – we are not going to halt it don’t tell people what they should do – tell them where they are and where they’re headed – pulling them in to being part of the conscious earth – Natural History Museums have never had a professional association. Scientists in museums always go to their disciplinary conferences Changing behavior – look at the seafood watch program We make this overly complicated – we just need to tap into what people care about Our take away message gets lost. We’re not engaging peoples hearts. We have knowledge that the public doesn’t have – and we need to share that in a way that makes it relevant and engaging. Integrate many different disciplines and ecosystems and time, so NHM are unique from zoos, nature centers, and aquaria. How do we defend ourselves as learning institutions? How do we prove to funders, etc. that museums are places of learning rather than simply tourism/entertainment? There is Federal pressure on finding a measure of learning that can be used among a variety of informal learning institution contexts. Learning is stereotypically defined as just cognitive change, but museums also change attitudes, behavior, practices (see full list from Learning Science in Informal Environments report). What is our role in the community? Should we frame our mission as an institution that encourages civic responsibility to differentiate ourselves from more formal learning environments? Museums have been poor at being part of a community--they need to change how a community thinks about them? More than just an educational institution. Implied social contract--education is one facet. We need to communicate our identity more effectively.
We are making this overly complicated--look at how society changes as a whole and learn from that. NHM should educate public about how our earth is changing so issues are personally meaningful to visitors--then behavior will change. Focus on the bright spot, not the problem. Find who is doing this well and do what they are doing. (Heath brothers books). How does the museum field learn from past successful change agendas in society? Learning and education are two different things--learning happens at the level of the individual whereas education is a larger topic. Are societal impacts the same as learning outcomes? Need to define our terms better. Organizational change vs. learning research? Organization change is the essence of the problem--how do you make that happen? Organizational change agenda rather than learning research agenda. How do we change visitor behavior? What motivates behavior change? Knowledge alone does not lead to behavior change. What is the role of emotion in learning/behavior change? Changes may happen over the long-time (Holocaust Museum example) that we don't see and can't measure in the short term. What is the role of advocacy? Museums call attention to environmental issues but do not advocate --or tell people what they should do. Give them the tools to make their own decisions. There is a tension between not telling people what to do but providing the information that visitors need to address relevant environmental issues. We need to empower people to change their behavior. (e.g. Seafood watch program). Must give them avenues for behavior change, knowledge is not enough (see behavior change literature). NHM need a national declaration of intent. Museums need to tap into what people care about. What is the takeaway message we want people to have after visiting? How do we engage peoples' emotions? How do we share our knowledge in a way that helps people care about the world. Give a voice to big ideas--everyone gets a clear message from all the NMH they visit. Must be culturally specific. Unpack big questions--defining learning, advocacy. Make a new value for the public. Where is the public in this discussion? What can we do to facilitate change? Who is the public we are trying to influence? Empower the public. Give them tools for behavior change as well as knowledge and caring. List of resources about research on learning and behavior change. What tools are out there from other disciplines? We need to work together--multidisciplinary issues. Need strategic partnerships with teachers, UN, etc. Need leadership to push ideas forward. Need an infrastructure for NHM to facilitate above.
Need something big, something transformative that changes how NHM impact the future. We have an obligation to provide the public with a refuge from the consumerism of daily life. Need to worry about integrity of NHM and how advocacy will affect it.
MONDAY MORNING SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SO FAR Calls to action - What is the equivalent of the seafood watch card for saving the earth? - We have to do something better than what we’re doing - Where can we genuinely make an impact? - Should we create a framework for organizational change instead of a learning research framework? New Assets and Opportunities that Came Up •
Sense of permanence - we are the logical people to help society think long term about our world
•
Serving our mission, our visitors, and our larger community
•
Taking a long time perspective
•
Re-elevating science as a reliable way to come to knowledge in our culture
•
Engage people’s hearts
•
How do we empower, inspire, the public to change their behavior?
Last one is also our place of most disagreement – we don’t quite want to tell people what to do – need to respect the visitor voice and needs in all of this – left us going back and forth on questions like is this about saving the world? Changing people’s behaviors? Engaging the public in what we know and the consequences of our behaviors? Public value versus making a new value for the public? Empowering the public? Inspiring the public to give a damn about the planet? How this will be used – to better support collaboration, create a metanarrative of all natural history collections Where We’re Headed Statement or declaration on how natural history museums can [empower the public – not quite in agreement about this.] We also want …..List of resources that help us know what we need to know about how to change public behavior - what tools are out there – what research findings. And a professional association for natural history museums – make sure it provides also for our visitors such as reciprocal admission. Notes for the Statement on the Public Value of Natural History Museums
We need to ask the right question in order to solve it. NHM declaration should state what we need to be, not what we are. We are not fulfilling our purpose--need to make a statement of what our purpose is and how to get there. How will we use this declaration? We need a SWOT analysis to help inform our direction. We need to create coherence--the declaration will help with that. Statement could catalyze the coalition of NHMs. Canada created a national alliance for their museums--we should do something similar. Public value: the planet and all its inhabitants, sustainability value Most staff in our museums can’t define natural history Unique value propositions – “need to be the best at what we do because it is of value to a specific need.” Collins: Your passions, what you are best in the world at, resource allotment Public value is value for the planet too. Go big or go home. We are articulating the ends, the other groups are articulating the means. A cascading series of questions. Agree on a few short statements as well as a longer declaration. Must embed visitors in nature. We need to be the best at what we do because it is of value for a specific need. The Earth Charter may be a good place to start. Has been adopted by Universities and other institutions worldwide (earthcharterinaction.org). Need perspective between past, present, and future within declaration. Articulate commonly held beliefs: interdependence of all living things, continuity of time, evolution, etc. We are a part of nature, not apart from nature. Draft, growing discussion of common values of NHMs. Include museums of nature and science and other types of institutions who have similar purposes. Will there be action points for each institution? - no We want pithy not rambling – what are the few short statements that everyone can agree on. What are the big ideas Other declarations – focused on the state of perfection but did not recognize where the field is at. Articulate what we are and what we need to be. Also how are we going to use this. Look at the Canadian Natural History Museums People will all life and act accordingly. – Burke museum Use of the words faith, belief Who will use this – bring this later to zoo, arboretum, nature centers – can we get all these on the same page? How will it be used – - this is not a universal statement with full institutional support – position the document – the is a draft declaration - catalyze a coalition/professional association, For preamble – pull from the proposal introduction – catalyze a national discussion Define public value – it’s value for the planet too, What are the big ideas we agree on – our core values – we hold these to be true – we not apart from nature, we’re a part of nature. – Evolution statement – We synthesize many different fields
Articulate what we are – our changing name(s) (unpack natural history), Articulate what we need to be MONDAY'S DRAFT TEXT FOR THE STATEMENT Preamble We, the natural history museums of the world, affirm: We are at a critical moment in the continuity of time. Our collections are the evidence of evolution and the ecological interdependence of all living things. The human species has profoundly altered the Earth’s natural processes and resources. As the sentient cause of these impacts, we have the essential responsibility to secure a sustainable future and give voice to the story of Earth and our place in it. Our community of institutions is uniquely positioned to engage humanity in this pressing journey. •
We need to work collaboratively to raise these discussions to a higher level of purpose and visibility in our communities.
•
We recognize our commonly held tenets/principles from which a framework of collaboration can exist
Public Value What is our value to the public? To what extent can these sites make a difference in people's lives? •
Place for public discourse or deliberation to support understanding, especially related to issues that intersect science and society.
•
Catalyst for public engagement with science
•
Catalyst for engagement with nature; public positioned within nature (separate)
•
Supports a process of sense-making related to science and nature
•
Support understanding of how science works (the development of scientific knowledge)
•
Inspire action
How does the public value us? We, the natural history museums of the world, affirm: We are at a critical moment in the continuity of time. Our collections are the evidence of organic evolution of the ecological interdependence of all living things. Since the industrial revolution, the human species has profoundly altered the Earth’s natural processes and resources. As the sentient cause of these impacts, we have the essential responsibility to secure a
sustainable future. Our community of institutions is uniquely positioned to engage the public in this pressing journey. What We Are We are the interface between the natural world and humanity in the past present and future. We are places, Centers, Nodes DISCOVER-Create Knowledge Create new knowledge, collect, study We are a collection of experts PRESERVE-Preserve Knowledge We are the places where our culture houses its treasures We a bank for information for the future Archives of a changing world PRESENT-Share Knowledge Disseminate, inspire, inform Interface between academia and the world We tell the whole story We connect art science and culture We are a resource for people to take action We are a meeting ground for the sciences and culture We are where children learn of the world Resources for local landscapes We are inspirational to generations We are owned by our public We create community and we are places where families enjoy each other and the natural world What We Need to Become •
We will have confidence in the power of our assets. People will make meaning from our assets
•
We will be the storytellers of humanity’s origins; the interface between humans and nature.
•
People come to us to understand their place in the world and their responsibility.
•
We will be agents of social change and embed people in nature by giving them new eyes with which to see the world.
•
We will reinvent ourselves to become trailheads for lifelong journeys of nature exploration.
Foundational Research and Best Practices Related to the Public Value of Natural History Museums This section will grow during and after the conference. The tagging exercise at www.informalscience.org has identified research and evaluation reports relevant to learning in natural history settings that could be brought to bear as foundational research and best practices. The working group is encouraged to add their own knowledge of applicable research and evaluation, as well as best practices (projects, programs, museums, etc.) at the intersections of natural history assets and opportunities.
Ideas on vetting, gaining buy in, and dissemination Publish a reflection on this in the American Naturalist. Could pair this with a more straightforward sketch in Natural History. Connect to the various ally professional associations Make sure we infuse ugency into this Barriers - Collections (is history enough) - fear of controversy - lack of leadership positioned to do this - what's the business model Creating a Professional Association Look at Partners in Flight - operates around an MOU but is not a distinct non profit Is this about convening regular meetings or about having a professional association Can we connect into an existing professional association - the American Association of Museums has a new structure and the professional networks within AAM Imagine a world in which there were no natural history museums. A world without dinosaurs.... We need to go beyond museums in doing this. What are the mechanisms for engaging the nation(s) in larger dialogues. The problem is that the issues are being drow out - we can play a role in positioning these conversations in the public. Look to NSF to fund a series of convenings around this? Seed the professional association. Go to businesses instead to fund this? Look at Benefit Corp. Look at IBM "jams" Talk to the Craiglist Foundation. Opportunities for Innovation
The Natural History Network naturalhistorynetwork.org The mission of the Natural History Network is to promote the value of natural history by discussing and disseminating ideas and techniques on its successful practice to educators, scientists, artists, writers, the media, and the public at large. OUR PRIMARY GOALS ARE TO: •
Articulate and promote the value of natural history
•
Promote the individual and collective practice of natural history
TOWARD THESE ENDS WE: •
Encourage integration among the sciences, arts, humanities, and education
•
Advocate for support of natural history in all its forms, including discovery science, literary and visual arts, and field education
•
Building and supporting an inclusive, collaborative community of naturalists
•
Promote formal and informal natural history learning opportunities for people of all ages, backgrounds, and settings
•
The Natural Histories Project: Listen to Conversations on the Rebirth of Natural History histories.naturalhistorynetwork.org/ Convenings We should be playing more of a role in convenings around controversial, important topics. Enter (and lead) these conversations before they become safe!
February 15, 2012 DRAFT Statement on the assets, public value, and potential of Natural History Institutions “The Declaration of Interdependence” The natural history institutions of the world affirm that: Humanity is embedded within nature and we are at a critical moment in the continuity of time. Our collections are the direct scientific evidence for evolution and the ecological interdependence of all living things. The human species is actively altering the Earth’s natural processes and reducing its biodiversity.
As the sentient cause of these impacts, we have the urgent responsibility to give voice to the Earth’s immense story and to secure a sustainable future. WHAT WE ARE We are places, people, collections, and facilities that connect the natural world and humanity in the past present and future. We are trusted and we are in the public trust. DISCOVERY-We make discoveries and create knowledge We create new knowledge, collect, study We are a collection of experts Our collections continue to be global resources of knowledge. PRESERVATION-We are the keepers of the record We are the places where our culture houses its treasures We are a bank for information for the future We are the archives of a changing world AUDIENCE-We are learning institutions We disseminate, inspire, and inform We tell the whole story We connect art, science, nature, place and culture We are a resource for people to take action We are a meeting ground for science and culture We are where children learn about the diversity of the natural world We are places for public deliberation. CREDIBILITY AND PUBLIC TRUST We are owned by our public We are trusted WHAT WE NEED TO BE We recognize these tenets and our assets as the basis for a framework of collaboration and action: We will be places where the complex challenges of the future are met in an open, honest, inclusive, and rational way. We will be welcoming to all people, not just our traditional constituents. We will actively engage our assets, science, and stakeholders with local and global nature. We will be the storytellers of humanity’s origins; the interface between humans and nature. We will reinvent ourselves to become trailheads for lifelong journeys of nature and science exploration. We will be agents of social change and embed people in nature by giving them new eyes with which to see the world and to understand their responsibility. We will work together. We will catalyze a sustainable future for the planet. We will do this before the end of the century.
Small Group Discussion - Comments & Edits to the Value Statement (Wednesday am, 2/15) Where are the visitors in this statement Doesn’t talk about what we’re doing poorly Where’s the part about us learning from other institutions What are collections for, which are valuable, which are not On whose terms – on the terms of the natural history museums On whose terms does the museum operate – seems to operate on the terms of science – broader expertise beyond curators Should be representing the expertise of educators, curators, learning researchers We will do this by next Friday What we need to be is dynamic, agile, more resilient, who can adapt to the changing field This s saying that NHMs believe the world is a mess and we can change that and save the world. But it won’t necessarily be the most fundable statement Important to have a public value message – difficulty with the wording – humanity embedded in nature – needs to say instead humanity is part of nature not embedded. We can’t tell the whole story about our impacts so try and tell and unfolding sotry going forward of which we are part. Subtlety versus direct call for action – are we taking a stand – if so are we comfortable with all of these statements as a group and is the rest of the field comfortable with this We keep talking about trust – that’s not entirely true but not for all of the public – how do we get that trust if we go down this field What is the intended audience for this document – subtlety versus direct statements Needs a definition of what natural history museums are The word facilitator is nowhere in this document Science does not tell us what to do – science tells us how the world works Ways that we might respectfully engage our diverse communities and celebrate our unique assets, Line 14, Line 22: We construct evidence based knowledge about preservation – [get other line edits] Line 43, we are trusted for good reasons, we have guided principles – willingness…Line 53 We provide opportunities you explore humanities origins Need this call to action as a broad statement to the field. How are we going to do this – create a new document, hold new conference to discuss this What is our working definition of natural history museums No mention of 21st century audiences Can we arrive at one common sense of purpose? Is there a role for indicators and impact in this document? Do we want to be that concrete? Language makes a difference – do we want to be clear and intentional about focusing on STEM literacy. Should we align ourselves with STEM literacy?
Organizational and Communication Challenges Edit 0 0 3… This working group will identify the questions and challenges that have arisen during the conference about the infrastructure of national history museums and the natural history learning field that we need to address in order to be successful at learning research and innovation. Rationales for reconsidering organizational structure Content Integration •
Noyce- strategic initiative about content integration across the whole museum, whether its the output from the web, exhibits, publishing, films etc.
•
How we decide what are priorities are, and how we work on focusing on them.
•
Trying to get ahead and not being disparate.
Working across the friction in those territories. How things are understood now and in the past- senior leadership positions because of attrition brings opportunity to think about institutional agenda. How do we work together to try new stuff and think about our research in different ways. Opportunity: new structures as opposed to silos •
Example: education, science, exhibits combined. Opportunities created. Two years ago..already fewer boundaries.Curator of Archaeology, keen to engage with public programming, example of chance created by organizational structure.
•
Role of Exhibits departments in bridging the gaps between silos. benefit of collaboration- what models are there? Where and why do they work? How can I take this back?
•
Context/concept development example- cross departmental team to work on each exhibit; marketing, membership, one scientific voice. Good process to be part of. Previously scientists would check the content or correct it. Timescale- 2/3 years. Agreement model works with this timescale, around 20 people on team
•
Opened up planning and meetings to all employees. Newsletters, town hall meetings.
•
Makes people feel valued, particularly if they have been there for a long time under changing leadership.
•
Awareness of the role people play in the institution
•
Lots of new people- learn what e.g. development does, what estates do, bring new people into the tradition of the museum by making introductions
•
Academy 101 example, every 3 months. All new hires spend the 1st week of meeting research, HR, in depth view of marketing and development
•
NHM example- update day every 6 months- sports and social organisations
Issue: high turnover Opportunity created through new director. How can I learn how best to make the most of this chance, through listening to others? Opportunity: New building •
chance to move from being a small state museum to a larger collection. How best to make the transition?
•
Buy in? Consensus?Methods or best practice.
•
Restructuring around new building
•
Rebranding around new building
•
Integrating new technology in new building
•
Increasing commitment to public with same workforce
Digital technology •
deliverables
•
community participation and support
Degree of formality of organisation •
Tradition and entrenchment
•
Interaction between formal and informal dynamics
•
Role of leaders in facilitating change
•
Opportunity to learn from others- and take examples from respected institutions back to organization?
Issue: declining workforce •
Decreasing in size, dynamics changing
•
Science attrition cf exhibits intentional?
•
Collections still large
•
% greater damage to exhibits
•
50% cut in curators, 18 to 9, 65 FTE
•
More work for less people
Varying Science identity throughout organization •
Science and not science. Self defined.
•
How can that be promoted across institution
•
Strategic plan- teams working together, notion of silos disappeared as no physical separation in working space
•
Merging programmes and working groups
Internal advocacy •
How to use insights from many organisations to change own institution
•
How best to learn from this opportunity
Bottom up organisational change model •
Australia Museum, Sydney
Working across many sites Changing culture towards education •
education not an objective per se, it is a tool to achieve a conservation outcomes
How to achieve organisational change •
"stubbornness of keeping things the same whilst wanting to achieve great change"
•
the ologies as opposed to 'curator of climate change/biodiversity/world cultures' for example
Clear leadership statement •
Alignment of process despite different contents, makes change easier given common understanding of how change happens
•
Kirk example- clear statement: 'the role of the curatorial staff is to engage the public in science'
•
Mandate supports behaviours
•
Consequences of not following mandate? Relationship with university, external organisations influencing internal dynamics
Structure changes what you do and how you do it Key themes 1. Attrition 2. Structure changes 3. Preparing for future context, gathering evidence in advance Trend: 50% have new building Unique issue: Duty for research collection preservation in natural history settings •
How can that be maintained in organizational restructure? Example palaeobotany -> climate change?
•
Re framing science research topics, themes across departments
Motivation for organisational change? •
Empire building?
•
Institutional issues
•
Practical- staff loss particularly for exhibits
•
Necessity - how do we function given the same amount of work with half as many people
AAM membership Efficiency and synergy •
How can we get exhibits, programs together to function better for education?
Project based collaboration •
short term
Ambition
•
People wanting to advance careers, drawing staff under in order to achieve that
Network system •
cross divisional working as a matter of course, because short term collaboration wasnt working
•
Divisions within divisions causing tensions, now thinking of people as a network system.
•
Key question: How does it affect our visitors?
•
Museums starting to think in a more network way, opportunity for action at different nodes of network
•
Benefit: can speak to staff in different departments without having to go up and down hierarchy
Perceived competition/'better' models •
Senior leadership influenced by what others are doing
Leadership •
rapid turnover- pace of change too fast with no chance to embed or reflect
•
Needs to be someone who gathers support and isn't autocratic
•
Communication (across organization)
Buy in •
critical for restructure
•
Right timing
Levels of change •
change can happen from within organization
Risk taking •
Not being afraid to fail
•
Being comfortable with ambiguity
•
Someone who can shake things up
•
Trying things out
•
Learning together
Documenting learning •
sharing
•
reflecting on progress
•
reflecting on position within change
Change in activity •
Despite reduced workforce, change can make processes more efficient, but only with reflection
Financial driver for change •
Funding streams as names for departments
•
Accountability in terms of science, but also learning science
•
financial context, taxpayers money being allocated to non arts and culture organisations
•
Going private as a solution
Infrastructure change •
Management advisory council- needs or concerns of the staff are listened to
•
Open door policy
•
Professional support for employee audit
•
Example: evaluation parameters
•
Two aspects: teamwork and customer service, both external and internal
Pace of change •
Speed of change can outpace inciters of change!
Some people will never be happy! Psychology of change •
How people prefer to be communicated with
•
Use preferred styles, more trust
•
Trusted working atmosphere, sets foundation for better public engagement
•
Staff attitude
•
Stereotypes- scientists in ivory towers, educators don't know as much
•
Break stereotypes by holding events across departments, go for drinks with people
•
Have a public space, eat lunch together
•
Personality typing e.g. Myers Briggs; change in approach to tensions based on recognition of preferred style
Constraints Issue: board composition and effectiveness •
Context- state run- governor appointed board
•
Example: 4 professors on board. Director appointed by board
•
Unionized
•
Mission statement being redefined
Issue: taking on new projects whilst keeping hold of existing work streams •
20% different not 20%more
•
Personality of people who will take on more
•
Quality of programmes declines
Providing Continuing Professional Development to support change •
new skills required
Skills based approach •
7 strands of work across departments
•
public value impact a factor in prioritising workstreams
•
Funnel analogy- focus
Strategic plan •
What are we going to stop doing?
•
How do you get buy in?
Individual -> organizational change •
Personal responsibility for mode of operation
What are you most passionate about? •
Play to strengths, what is your area of expertise
Recognize that every landscape will be challenging, have to work out how best to navigate that
"what would be really good for this organization? -but it would never happen here" •
A lot of institutional change can come from tangential activities within organization
•
How could it happen on a small scale
•
Under the radar example. Little, experimental things changed their managers' ways of thinking
•
Positive outcomes, not negative
•
Self censorship
•
Fear of senior leadership reaction
•
What small activities could you do that will help you to move closer to your objectives
Research question around self censorship, hierarchy; natural history museums are in a state of flux, less concrete structure that brings opportunity. Internal Advocacy •
Prioritized lists by staff, so that you can advocate to senior management on their behalf
•
Communicating openly about competing priorities and realistic timescales
•
Develops skills in planning and project management by delegating
•
Trusting junior members of staff
Distant sites •
isolation from different sites
•
logistically it takes too long
•
Frame problems as scientific experiments- share with people
•
Individual problem solving?
Synergy •
visitors expect immersive, dynamic, personalized, customized (Irvine report) experiences
•
letting go control, allowing visitors to customize
•
Partnership (requires compromise in strategic approach) as a way of promoting synergy across organizations
We need to eat and drink together more! BBQ example, Don't email on a Friday Mechanism facilitate meaningful communication. Finding time to speak to someone when you don't want something, allows chance for lateral ideas, connections, not just vertical focus and being blinkered. Opening communication barriers. Strengthening relationships with colleagues across organizational structure
Programming Innovation Edit 0 0 11… The Programming Innovation subgroup will discuss and explore opportunities for innovative programming, including new ideas emerging from the conference, partnerships with each other, and taking best practice to scale. Definition of Innovation Innovation is . . . •
Bringing together existing things, models, technologies in new ways
•
A new way of looking
•
New ways to engage new audiences
•
Something new that's beneficial
•
Programs that transcend bricks and mortar because they are new benficial and unique
•
An experience that is new exciting and engaging that you can be enriched physically, emotionally and mentally
•
Virtual + real experiences = love
•
Doing something that is unexpected and going beyond where you would normally go
•
Surprising and unexpected that get a positive visceral response
•
Work that challenges prior assumptions
•
Juxtaposition of seemingly diparate ideas
•
Breaking down boundaries between traditional disciplines to go beyond where your individual experitse would normally lead
•
A novel way of instilling wonder
•
Have the audience interact with the collection as an active participant not as a passive witness.
•
Perturbing
•
Participatory
•
'Its a pilot'
•
Interest-driven learning
Sources of Innovation (other than museums)
•
Nature
•
TED talks
•
Radio Lab
•
Kids
•
Story Collider
•
Pop Culture
•
Pretentious art design catelogues
•
the Apple store
•
Dance
•
3M
•
Food
•
Indigenous cultures
•
Old books
•
the Internet
•
Local cultures
•
Visiting other museums
•
The problem itself
•
Apps
•
Business sector
•
Science research
•
Pop science books
•
Friends
•
History
•
The Daily Show
•
Taking a class
•
New projects
•
Languages
•
Ancient cultures
•
Travel
•
Home depot
•
Model rockets
•
Sci-fi fantasy
•
TV
•
Grand parents
•
Professional development
•
Cocktails
•
Circus
•
Family
•
Museum trade journal
•
Work
•
Formal education
•
Videos
•
conference
•
Not work
•
Formal teachers
•
Play/fun
•
Sports
•
Music
•
Scientists
Innovative Projects/Programs/Places 1. Florida State Museum. Project: Redesign the collections as part of a new addition. Inspired by the shopping mall design and industry. They are trying to redesign the wayfinding and organization through this new area. It is innovative because it is challenging assumption Enablers: research into shopping malls and airports Barriers: accessing the space, staffing Suggestion: Paco Underhill's book, The Science of Shopping (research on retail). 2. Unexpected experiences: 1) rat with maggots with no labels, 2) the fish x-rays at NMNH
3) Museum of Jurassic Technology. It is innovative because it is unexpected. visceral, juxtaposition. Enablers: lack of money, simplicity, bringing together people from different backgrounds Barriers: lack of vision or creativity 3. Science Gallery, Trinity College, Dublin (IRE). Topic was infection. Programming included simulating an outbreak, use theater, staff shows up in hazmat suit. Innovation included writing an RFP with just an idea statement that was sent out to artists and scientists with the thought that the exhibit would created through the ideas brought in to finish the concept. It is innovative because it included 'live' research in the gallery, active, inclusive. Enablers: working fast and cheap; small set of decision makers, Barriers: closed system 4. "Navigating Change". Audience of 4-5 graders in Hawaii. Students are taken out into nature to see how elements in nature are connected. Students would colect and analyse data, pull invasives, take samples, and bring them back to the classroom to examine. They were positioned as the stewards of the places were studying. This is innovative because it included partnerships, engaging, transcends the classroom, active learners. Enablers: coalition provides resources; funding for buses Barriers: lack of funding to bring students to locations; bureacracy 5. Earthquake exhibit at the California Academy of Science. This exhibit will include a mobile app game being created by students in an after school program. Students do content research and go through the design process which is integrated to the exhibit. It is innovative because the students are driving the learning, creating something for the exhibit. Enablers: organizational culture that supports risk-taking Barriers: never been done and the unknown outcome makes staff nervous; managing expectations
Jargon Tracker As part of the conference process, we are keeping track of terms that come up for which we don't have agreement on a definition or that are unknown to some members of the group. Feel free to add perspectives on these terms in the Comments.
Sunday, February 12, 2012 Stories Cognition Access "Dumbing Down" (a vote to remove this term from our usage) Epistemology Provenance Accession Deaccession Disposition Beta Audience Learning Cognition PPSR (Public Participation in Science Research) PD (Professional Development) Interactive Learning Stickiness Relevant content base erosion 21st Century Audiences (some people seem to use that to mean web audiences)
How to Use this Conference WIki General Instructions This is a public wiki, editable only by conference attendees. You do not need to sign in to view the content or to make comments. The time to sign-in is when you want to makes edits to your group's page. Do not make edits to any other group's page. Leaving a Comment To leave a comment, scroll to the bottom of each page and type your comment in the Disqus box. Make sure to leave your name so that other conference participants The Disqus box looks like this:
Tweeting Use the hashtag #21cnhm Editing Your Group Page First make sure you are signed into the wiki. Then, navigate to your group's page Look for a bar in the top right corner that looks like this:
To edit a page, first make sure you click the "Edit" button and work on the page as you would any text file.
Once finished, hit "Save." NB: When editing your group page, do not touch the semi-opaque square at the bottom of the page. That is the widget for commenting on your group's page.
Reviewing Changes to Your Group Page Wikispaces records every set of saved changes as a separate version. To access an earlier version, click the clock in the bar at the top of the page. Select the most recent version and the one you would like to use for comparison. What you will see next is the page with insertions in green and deletions in red.
Additional comments or questions? Contact Sarah Banks at NMNHSocial@si.edu.
Articles Recommended by Participants Edit 0 0 6‌ For more references, see: www.iseevidencewiki.org The Informal Science Education Evidence Wiki exists to support a public discussion of the case for informal science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education. The goal is to provide easy to read summaries of evidence that characterize the benefits and outcomes of ISE experiences. www.informalscience.org Users can create member profiles that are automatically linked to their publications, projects and evaluation reports in the database; access and contribute informal learning research references; share project impact and evaluation findings with the community; and create or update project pages to showcase the work and people behind the projects. The site also features quarterly interviews with leaders in the field, project spotlights and RSS feeds for newly published research, evaluations, calendar events and NSF project funding. This is the site where we have the project page for this conference. A quick search on the phrase natural history turned up 205 reseach studies, 14 evaluations, and 39 projects.
Citation •
Science 18 May 2007:
Vol. 316 no. 5827 pp. 996-997 DOI: 10.1126/science.1133398
Title and Author(s) Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science 1. Paul Bloom and 2. Deena Skolnick Weisberg
Learning in Museums - Summaries of research Hein, Learning in Museums - includes historic examples of learning research in museums. Behavioral change research Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207-224. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986-87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Conference Schedule Edit 0 0 5… Sunday, February 12, 2012 Shuttle service will be provided on Sunday 2/12 for participants who arrived on 2/11 Lobby, Henley Park Hotel 1:00 - 2:00 pm Registration Executive Conference Room (ECR), 4th floor 2:00 - 2:15 pm Opening Remarks ECR Shari Werb, Director of Education and Outreach Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Dennis Schatz, Acting Lifelong Learning Cluster Coordinator National Science Foundation Division of Research in Learning in Formal and Informal Settings 2:15 - 3:00 pm Introductions: Speed "Geeking" ECR 3:00 - 3:30 pm Conference Goals, Process, and Charge ECR Bill Watson, Chief of Learning Experiences and Evaluation Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History 3:30 - 4:15 pm Shared Values, Shared Work, Shared Future: Part I, Activity ECR 4:15 - 4:45 pm Break and Reflections ECR 4:45 - 5:30 pm Shared Values, Shared Work, Shared Future: Part II, Discussion ECR 5:30 - 5:45 pm Transition to Cocktail Hour/Reception Atrium Café, ground floor 5:45 - 6:30 pm Cocktail Hour/Reception Atrium Café 6:30 - 8:00 pm Working Dinner and Keynote Presentation Atrium Café Kirk Johnson, Vice President & Chief Curator Research and Collections Denver Museum of Nature & Science 8:00 pm Shuttle departs for hotel Constitution Avenue Exit Shuttle service from the hotel to the museum will be provided in the evening after dinner. Participants will receive the shuttle schedule when they arrive at the hotel.
Monday, February 13, 2012 7:30, 7:50 am Shuttle service will be provided for all participants Lobby, Henley Park Hotel 8:00 – 8:45 am Working Breakfast: Digital Posters Available and Networking Atrium Café, ground floor 8:45 - 9:00 am Transition to ECR 9:00 - 9:15 am Opening Remarks and Reflections ECR, 4th floor 9:15 - 10:15am Introduction to Research Agenda Development Process ECR 10:15 - 10:30am Transition to Working Sessions 10:30am – Noon Working Session #1: Summary of Opportunity and Hypotheses from Best Practice, Research, and Evaluation Room CE107, Room CE108, Room CE340, Kerby Room, Rose Room, ECR Group A: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement I Group B: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement II Group C: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context I Group D: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context II Group E: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value I Group F: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value II 12:00 – 12:15pm Transition to ECR for Lunch 12:15 – 1:15pm Working Lunch and Keynote Speaker ECR Scott Sampson, Paleontologist and Science Communicator 1:15 – 2:00pm Debrief Morning Working Sessions ECR 2:00 – 2:15pm Transition to Working Sessions 2:15 – 3:45pm Working Session #2: Key Opportunities and Critical Questions (Part I) Room CE107, Room CE108, Room CE340, Kerby Room, Rose Room, ECR Group A: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement I Group B: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement II Group C: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context I Group D: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context II Group E: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value I Group F: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value II 3:45 – 4:00pm Transition to Baird Auditorium
4:00 – 4:30pm Debrief/Questions Baird Auditorium, ground floor 4:30 – 5:30pm Team Reflection and Regrouping ECR and/or Museum Exhibits and Spaces 5:30 and 6:00 pm Shuttle departs for hotel Constitution Avenue Exit
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:30, 7:50 am Shuttle service will be provided for all participants Lobby, Henley Park Hotel 8:00 – 9:00am Working Breakfast: Team Reflections and Action Plan Template Review Atrium Café, ground floor 9:00 - 9:15 am Opening Remarks and Reflections Baird Auditorium, ground floor 9:15 – 9:30am Overview of the Day Baird Auditorium 9:30 – 10:30am Behind the Scenes and Exhibition Tours Participants will be asked to sign up for tour at the registration on 2/11 10:30 – 10:45am Transition to Working Sessions 10:45am – 12:15pm Working Session #3: Key Opportunities and Critical Questions (Part II) Room CE107, Room CE108, Room CE340, Kerby Room, Rose Room, ECR Group A: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement I Group B: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement II Group C: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context I Group D: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context II Group E: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value I Group F: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value II 12:15 – 12:30pm Transition to ECR for Lunch 12:30 – 1:30pm Working Lunch and Keynote Speaker ECR Claudine Brown Assistant Secretary for Education & Access Smithsonian Institution 1:30 – 2:15pm Large Group Check-in/Discussion ECR 2:15 – 2:30pm Transition to Working Sessions
2:30 – 4:00pm Working Session #4: Integrating and Prioritizing Ideas CE107-108, Rose Room, ECR Groups A and B: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Engagement Groups C and D: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Societal Context Groups E and F: Intersection of Institutional Assets x Public Value 4:00 – 4:15pm Transition to ECR 4:15 – 5:15pm Action Planning ECR 5:15 – 5:30pm Debrief ECR 5:30 and 6:00 pm Shuttle departs for hotel Constitution Avenue Exit
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:30, 7:50 am Shuttle service will be provided for all participants Lobby, Henley Park Hotel 8:00 – 9:00am Working Breakfast: Finalize Action Plans Atrium Café, ground floor 9:00 - 9:15 am Opening Remarks and Reflections ECR, 4th floor 9:15 – 9:30am Overview of the Day ECR 9:30 – 10:45am Large Group Presentation/Discussion of Progress and Products ECR 10:45 – 11:00am Break 11:00am – 12:00pm Next Steps: Large Group Discussion ECR 12:00 – 1:00pm Networking Lunch and Official Closing Remarks ECR