Defining Collaboration:  What is it and 
why should we bother?

While community collaboration is not a particularly new trend - museums have sought partnerships with communities in various forms for decades - it is a concept that has become increasingly relevant to the growth and survival of museums in the 21^st century. What does community collaboration entail? Collaborating with a community is the obvious answer, but in order to understand why collaboration with communities is so important we should first define both in context to museums and cultural institutions.

Communities are defined by the American Association of Museum’s National Interpretation Project as “a collection of constituencies or stakeholders:  (1) audiences, (2) scholars, (3) other public interpreters, e.g., press, interpretative artists, (4) program providers--arts groups, etc., (5) repositories, including libraries, preservation agencies, museums” (p. 12). Communities can also be based on geography, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, age, special interests, etc. It is crucial to understand the community you are endeavoring to collaborate with – their history, needs, and goals – and to work with that community to develop a shared vision of what will be accomplished from your collaborative efforts. Keep in mind that effective collaboration means partnering with the right community or communities, given the need you are trying to fulfill in your institution. Meaningful collaboration with communities requires dedication, trust, power sharing, flexibility, and work. Finding the right partners for a given project will take legwork and research, but the end result (a successful and highly meaningful collaboration) will be worth the effort.

What then, is this collaboration we keep talking about, and what does it entail? Collaborative projects are defined by Nina Simon, author of The Participatory Museum, as projects that are “institutionally driven partnerships in which staff members work with community partners to develop new programs, exhibitions, or offerings” (1). Elaborating on this, Simon notes that “participants may be chosen for specific knowledge or skills, association with cultural groups of interest, age, or representation of the intended audience for the outputs of the project” (1). According to Simon, there are two broad categories of collaboration projects that museums typically pursue: consultative projects and co-development projects (3).  

Consultative projects are defined by Simon as projects “in which institutions engage experts or community representative to provide advice and guidance to staff members as they develop new exhibitions, programs, or publications” (3). Examples of consultative projects are those involving focus groups, formal advisory boards, and other such councils consisting of members of special interest groups. In order for consultative project to be effective, participants’ roles must be clearly defined and there must be particular projects or problems for them to address. As Simon puts it: “clear goals and specific projects help both participants and staff members feel that collaboration is valuable” (4). 

Co-development projects are defined by Simon as projects “in which staff members work together with participants to produce new exhibitions and programs” (3). Unlike consultative projects, participants in co-development projects function more like contractors or employees. These types of projects require a large investment of time (from weeks to months of engagement with participants) and a significant amount of staff time, institutional planning, and coordination between museum and collaborators. Because of the large amount of commitment and investment involved in these projects, they typically involve smaller groups of participants working with dedicated employees. Given the small size of the groups, Simon argues that collaborative projects of this type are most valuable when they ultimately serve broader audiences. Thus, “from the institutional perspective, it’s easier to justify spending time and money on a small group project if participants produce something that can be experienced and enjoyed by many people” (5).

 Finally, it is important to note that the fundamental difference between these two types of collaboration is the degree to which community participants are involved in the implementation of their efforts. As Simon states: “consultative participants help guide projects’ development. Co-developers help create them” (3). Determining the extent to which your collaborators will be involved in project implementation is crucial during the planning phase of your project – ideally this decision should be made before collaborators are engaged so that your institution can adequately define their roles and responsibilities at the outset. Keep in mind, however, that roles can and should be free to evolve during the course of a collaborative project, and being open to change and flexible enough to implement it when necessary are key to having successful ongoing collaboration. 

By now you’re probably scratching your head and saying “wow, this collaboration stuff sounds like it could be complicated…why do we need work with communities anyway? Museums are cultural institutions – beacons of knowledge - that provide the public with valuable educational resources – we’re here to teach them, not the other way around! They should be happy absorbing whatever we chose to offer them.” Well, YOU’RE probably not saying this (you enlightened museum educators, you) but the sentiment certainly exists and is something that champions of collaborative projects have to continually fight against. Our next blog entry should help to answer some of these questions (and give you some ammo for the next time you find yourself fighting to instigate a new collaborative project.)

Works Cited

American Association of Museums – Committee on Education.  2005.  Excellence in Practice:  Museum Education Principles and Standards.  Washington, DC:  AAM:  1-16.

Simon, Nina. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010. *

* References to Nina Simon’s The Participatory Museum contain page numbers meant as estimates. The chapter of the book used for this blog was Chapter 7: Collaborating with Visitors, and since I accessed the book online, I have no way of knowing what real pages correspond with the pages I printed out. Thus, a notation of (1) corresponds with Chapter 7, page one.  The page numbers correspond with pages printed from the online version in single-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font.

~ Posted by CP