Building a Collaborative Learning Research Agenda for Natural History Museums in the UK
Lead Research Organisation:
King's College London
Department Name: Education,Communication & Society
Abstract
Building a Collaborative Learning Research Agenda for Natural History Museums in the UK is a series of working seminars organised by two internationally significant UK institutions - King's College London (KCL) and the Natural History Museum, London (NHM). The seminar series brings together museum education practitioners, pre-eminent academics and funding bodies to unpick the complexities of learning in natural history environments and to develop a research agenda that will address critical questions around learning in natural history museums* within the UK.
The purpose of the seminars is to develop and disseminate a collaborative learning research agenda to inform how natural history museums can best use their resources to support learning in the 21st century. Learning in such places has been under-researched and under-theorised, hampering the field's ability to address policy and broader concerns around impact. When addressed, the research agenda will help transform what natural history museums do for and with their audiences. We will articulate and prioritise topics and issues that natural history museums most need to address in order to serve diverse audiences. These topics are likely to include:
The current landscape of informal science learning;
Models for facilitation/interaction between the public and museum educators, scientists and curators;
Learning from objects and the role of authenticity in learning programmes;
Audience research to more fully understand audiences and their needs; and,
New technologies for discovery, learning and social engagement.
Museums and academics in the US have begun to address questions surrounding these topics but they remain under-researched in the UK. This seminar series is a timely response to urgent issues surrounding learning from natural history objects in the UK context. We will hold six seminars at the NHM during the course of the grant. Numbers will be limited to 30-35 participants in order to facilitate high quality, in-depth participation. Attendees will include arts, humanities and learning researchers as well as museum and educational professionals. An advisory group will also meet following each seminar to support translation of the discussions into the emergent research agenda, as well as to help develop subsequent seminars.
Developing this research agenda is of strategic benefit both to academics and to museum practitioners, as it explores and extends relevant theoretical perspectives that have the potential to transform our understanding of learning within the museum sector. The series brings together individuals from a wider range of both academic and informal settings than have previous meetings, thus providing fruitful ground for the exploration of theoretical perspectives to underpin the developing research agenda. Perspectives from fields such as sociology and anthropology will inform the development of the research agenda itself and will highlight new methodologies well suited to exploring potential research questions.
The series and subsequent research will benefit museum practitioners and academics with interests in learning in informal settings and museology, as well as in related fields, such as sociology and anthropology. With its multiple theoretical and methodological perspectives, the research ultimately emerging from these seminars will help the field respond to questions about learning in museums with natural history collections and in other museums as well.
*The term 'museum' is used to refer to settings with natural history collections (primarily, but not exclusively natural history museums), but can incorporate zoos, as institutions that hold specimens for natural history education.
The purpose of the seminars is to develop and disseminate a collaborative learning research agenda to inform how natural history museums can best use their resources to support learning in the 21st century. Learning in such places has been under-researched and under-theorised, hampering the field's ability to address policy and broader concerns around impact. When addressed, the research agenda will help transform what natural history museums do for and with their audiences. We will articulate and prioritise topics and issues that natural history museums most need to address in order to serve diverse audiences. These topics are likely to include:
The current landscape of informal science learning;
Models for facilitation/interaction between the public and museum educators, scientists and curators;
Learning from objects and the role of authenticity in learning programmes;
Audience research to more fully understand audiences and their needs; and,
New technologies for discovery, learning and social engagement.
Museums and academics in the US have begun to address questions surrounding these topics but they remain under-researched in the UK. This seminar series is a timely response to urgent issues surrounding learning from natural history objects in the UK context. We will hold six seminars at the NHM during the course of the grant. Numbers will be limited to 30-35 participants in order to facilitate high quality, in-depth participation. Attendees will include arts, humanities and learning researchers as well as museum and educational professionals. An advisory group will also meet following each seminar to support translation of the discussions into the emergent research agenda, as well as to help develop subsequent seminars.
Developing this research agenda is of strategic benefit both to academics and to museum practitioners, as it explores and extends relevant theoretical perspectives that have the potential to transform our understanding of learning within the museum sector. The series brings together individuals from a wider range of both academic and informal settings than have previous meetings, thus providing fruitful ground for the exploration of theoretical perspectives to underpin the developing research agenda. Perspectives from fields such as sociology and anthropology will inform the development of the research agenda itself and will highlight new methodologies well suited to exploring potential research questions.
The series and subsequent research will benefit museum practitioners and academics with interests in learning in informal settings and museology, as well as in related fields, such as sociology and anthropology. With its multiple theoretical and methodological perspectives, the research ultimately emerging from these seminars will help the field respond to questions about learning in museums with natural history collections and in other museums as well.
*The term 'museum' is used to refer to settings with natural history collections (primarily, but not exclusively natural history museums), but can incorporate zoos, as institutions that hold specimens for natural history education.
Planned Impact
National and International Museum Peers: By bringing together museum colleagues from the UK and abroad, the seminars provide a focused platform for networking and cross-fertilisation of ideas. Such networking is invaluable as a flexible source of research partners and critical friends who will simultaneously benefit from the research. The research agenda that emerges will benefit key stakeholders across natural history and other museums, by providing a clear indication of areas that need examination and becoming a focal point around which projects and relationships can coalesce. In addition, sharing evaluation findings is an on-going issue within the museum field, with reports often retained within individual institutions, many of which do not have the capacity, individually, to expand on evaluation work to address wider research questions. Responding to a shared research agenda will not only enable institutions to make the most of their existing resources but will also make sharing findings an easier and more logical step. Doing so will bring an important new synergy to the field as working from a collaborative agenda has a far greater chance of advancing understanding of learning in natural history museums, and other institutions, who will also directly benefit from this new knowledge.
Policymakers and Funding Organisations: Policymakers, government departments and funding organisations have a strong interest in seeing positive returns for their investments in cultural organisations. By forming a network of researchers and practitioners coalesced around a robust and theoretically informed strategic research agenda, the field will be in a very strong position to respond to issues around learning and the impact of such environments. We expect the research emerging from the seminars to be able to respond to key questions of policymakers and funders, in a manner similar to the impact of the U.S. National Research Council volume Learning Science in Informal Environments, thus ensuring that future investments in the field have the maximum impact on learning. In addition, the network resulting from the seminars will be positioned to interact with policymakers in a coherent way, and such communication will contribute to ensuring that the evolving research agenda is responsive to concerns of policymakers and funders.
Professional Organisations: UK-based professional organisations such as the Museums Association and the Visitor Studies Group have a mandate to advocate best practice, participate in debate and impact on policy and strategy across the cultural sector. The seminars will support this mandate by providing a model for collaborative research practice and identifying tangible areas for future examination.
Museum Visitors/Wider Public: The award will have wide-reaching impacts on the ways museums develop and deliver public engagement activities, consequently re-conceptualising the way people learn within natural history related spaces. Research findings, about object-related learning for example, will also be relevant to visitors to other types of museums. The NHM will respond to findings generated as a result of the agenda by changing programmes and exhibitions to enhance the learning experience for the approximately 4 million people who visit the museum each year.
Internal Natural History Museum Stakeholders: The networking opportunities, strategic agenda and research stemming from this grant will support achievement of the NHM's Strategic Plan for 2011-2016. The research agenda will inform development and delivery of Museum's public offer. It will identify key areas for public engagement staff development and research findings will direct training programmes for interpretation, exhibition, new media and face-to-face teams. This influence on implementation of the strategic plan could also serve as a model for other museums.
Policymakers and Funding Organisations: Policymakers, government departments and funding organisations have a strong interest in seeing positive returns for their investments in cultural organisations. By forming a network of researchers and practitioners coalesced around a robust and theoretically informed strategic research agenda, the field will be in a very strong position to respond to issues around learning and the impact of such environments. We expect the research emerging from the seminars to be able to respond to key questions of policymakers and funders, in a manner similar to the impact of the U.S. National Research Council volume Learning Science in Informal Environments, thus ensuring that future investments in the field have the maximum impact on learning. In addition, the network resulting from the seminars will be positioned to interact with policymakers in a coherent way, and such communication will contribute to ensuring that the evolving research agenda is responsive to concerns of policymakers and funders.
Professional Organisations: UK-based professional organisations such as the Museums Association and the Visitor Studies Group have a mandate to advocate best practice, participate in debate and impact on policy and strategy across the cultural sector. The seminars will support this mandate by providing a model for collaborative research practice and identifying tangible areas for future examination.
Museum Visitors/Wider Public: The award will have wide-reaching impacts on the ways museums develop and deliver public engagement activities, consequently re-conceptualising the way people learn within natural history related spaces. Research findings, about object-related learning for example, will also be relevant to visitors to other types of museums. The NHM will respond to findings generated as a result of the agenda by changing programmes and exhibitions to enhance the learning experience for the approximately 4 million people who visit the museum each year.
Internal Natural History Museum Stakeholders: The networking opportunities, strategic agenda and research stemming from this grant will support achievement of the NHM's Strategic Plan for 2011-2016. The research agenda will inform development and delivery of Museum's public offer. It will identify key areas for public engagement staff development and research findings will direct training programmes for interpretation, exhibition, new media and face-to-face teams. This influence on implementation of the strategic plan could also serve as a model for other museums.
| Description | The Natural History Museum, London, King's College London and the University of Bristol, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council facilitated a series of six seminars, over two years, to build a collaborative and theoretically informed learning research agenda for natural history museums. Museum learning practitioners and academics from a number of disciplines across the UK have come together to examine the complexities of learning in rich natural history environments. The process involved: identifying and discussing problems of practice, collecting examples of relevant research and practice; identifying related academic disciplines and theory that could potentially inform practice; collaborating on joint research projects; and, discussing ideas about how an agenda could help to bring together research and practice and guide the field into the 21st century. Crucially, these seminars allowed participants to hear from researchers and practitioners working across the UK and internationally and to consider a range of theoretical lenses through which to view learning in natural history environments. What emerged from this process was the realisation that in order to be effective, a learning research agenda must be flexible and speak to the differing needs of various stakeholder groups, in particular, practitioners (generally based in natural history institutions), researchers (often, but not always, in academic institutions) and administrators. Practitioners seek: • Input into, awareness of, and agency around key learning challenges in natural history settings; • New ideas for programming or exhibition design; • Evidence of the value of learning in natural history environments; • Understanding why certain practices work and under what conditions; • Ways to share their work with professional colleagues and develop their professional skills. Researchers seek: • A theoretically-informed understanding of the sector and learning activity within it; • Complex problems that will help drive their line of research forward and lead to potential break-throughs in methods, theory, and intervention science; • Opportunities for collaboration with practitioners and pathways for their research to directly influence practice; and, • Research studies that will be publishable. Museum administrators need: • Evidence to fundraise around; • Evidence to manage around; • Evidence of the credibility of exhibitions and activities; • A compelling and shared vision for the future of natural history museums that keeps them relevant and vibrant well into the 21st century, and that can catalyse rapid and wide-spread improvement in the sector. The process of conversations, meetings, and exploration by researchers and practitioners of natural history learning has led to a research agenda that is structured around the following major elements: • A conceptual map of learning in natural history institutions; • Problems of practice, (ongoing conversations in the field); and, • Example research questions. The agenda is intended to highlight key challenges for the field. It is not meant to be fixed; it is expected to change over time and to be used in different ways by different stakeholders. The map offers a straightforward way of looking at the complexity of practice, particularly in terms of identifying key research moments to study. It incorporates five interlinked and interactive dimensions in natural history learning experiences, all of which are situated within the broader context of the wicked problems confronting all of our visitors. At the map's core are collections, content and expertise, three dimensions that characterise the uniqueness of natural history institutions as distinct from other contexts for learning. Collections All natural history learning institutions have collections which are a resource that can be drawn upon by scientists, educators or the public to advance learning about the natural world. The collections reflect the fields of study, expertise, and values as well as the history and geography of the institution. Content Objects and collections are explicitly linked to core natural history content. Contemporary content might include biodiversity, evolution, climate change and sustainability as well as processes of science (for example, modeling and hypothesising) and behaviours and values (for example, stewardship and conservation) associated with these areas. Expertise Natural history institutions have staff with specialised knowledge and skills related to content, collections and/or learning. Expertise is held by individuals who may include scientists, curators/collections managers, educators and experience developers who work to help audiences engage with the natural world. This expertise may be found within institutions or come from external collaborators. Surrounding the core dimensions are facilitation and audience. Facilitation activates collections, content, and expertise for target audiences. Facilitation Facilitation transforms collections, content and expertise into learning experiences that reflect the needs and interests of audiences. Institutions facilitate learning in many ways including face-to-face interaction (for example, talks, tours and workshops), exhibitions, interpretive signage, interactive displays, self-guided activities and social media. Facilitation can occur through both on-site and off-site programming. Audiences Audiences are distinct groups who may engage with content, collections and expertise through facilitated experiences. Audiences vary by institution and include, for example, families, educational groups, adults, specialist groups (for example, natural history societies, citizen science participants and policy-makers) and online visitors. Crucially, audiences include those groups whom the institution is already serving, as well as those it aspires to engage with in the future. The transects can be read as both specific learning experiences and as openings for research. A specific learning experience can be seen as a transect that crosses a number of dimensions. In order to develop a learning experience, the institution draws upon its core resources (collections, content, expertise) with very specific ideas of the target audience. The institution and the audience meet through facilitation. The impetus for engagement may come from the core institutional resources and sometimes it can come from the audience interests or engagement, something that museums increasingly encourage. Done well, over time, both the institution and its audiences become more knowledgeable about, and connected to, each other. The institutional core should evolve to reflect its own commitments as well as those of the audiences it serves. The transects depicted in the model also illustrate where there are openings for research. Designing learning experiences can be challenging and there are many problems of practice that emerge. These problems may start in one dimension of the model but invariably cross others. The problems of practice form the base of the research agenda and highlight the complexities of learning and research in these institutions. The map is intended to scaffold the formulation or articulation of problems of practice, by providing coherency to the interacting conceptual elements of learning in natural history museums.. It provides a grammar for asking potentially fruitful questions and guards against either researchers or practitioners framing things in ways which are too narrow to touch the active ingredients of any learning situation. We anticipate that the map will support the development of a common language and shared goals across the research-practice boundary. |
| Exploitation Route | Practitioners may use the agenda to situate the problems they are facing in a larger context. That is, while a particular issue or problem may seem very specific to their institution, the agenda may help frame it in a way that enables identifying links to other institutions or areas opening up the possibility of transfer across institutions, facilitating the development of a shared language and a stronger basis for learning from each other. This broader framing and consideration of problems also provides a stronger starting point for conversations with researchers. For researchers, the agenda identifies the facets of learning in natural history environments and brings to the fore the problems of practice faced by those working in these contexts. This perspective on the field may, in turn, help them identify potentially fruitful areas of collaboration (i.e. based on challenges faced by practitioners)thus facilitating integration into the field. By articulating the problems of practice that the field is facing the agenda acts as to scaffold the development of useful research questions (those framed around at least three dimensions in the model - audience, facilitation and at least one of the core components). It may also help researchers link their existing interests with concerns faced by practitioners, as well as administrators, in natural history environments. Within individual institutions, answers to the research questions that can be generated using the conceptual map have the potential to contribute to the design of high quality learning experiences. Responding to these questions will also serve to create a more complete map, or more coherent and theorized understanding of learning in natural history institutions. Put differently, the research agenda is intended to serve as a tool to better understand what museums do and how audiences learn in and from natural history settings, as a means of improving practice. The agenda is not intended as a way of helping to 'prove' the value or the impact of natural history museums. Rather, it is intended as a resource to guide the field - practitioners, researchers and policy makers, to a deeper understanding of learning in these settings and to improved practice, though such advances in understanding and practice would certainly form a more robust evidence base for arguments around the value of natural history settings. Reaching such an end and implementing the learning research agenda in individual institutions requires support from senior management and a commitment to a cultural change, ultimately leading to a fully research-engaged museum. Such an institution would not only draw on research findings for decision-making and innovating practice, it would also contribute to the research base helping to grow the field's experience and wisdom systematically. Such growth, supported by a shared language and goals as envisaged by the research agenda, has the potential to be transformative for the field, better positioning natural history museums in the UK and internationally to leverage our resources to address the wicked problems we face. |
| Sectors | Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections |
| URL | http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/visitor-research-evaluation/learning-research-seminars.html |
| Description | The learning research agenda has been used by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, to frame challenges facing practitioners on a daily basis - 'problems of practice' - which are common across all natural history institutions. Structuring the agenda around these problems emphasizes the importance of addressing specific, situated challenges, rather than more generic concerns or outcomes. Doing so also helps bridge research and practice, by providing a more specific focus for collaboration. Problems of practice, identified by the NHM, were grouped according to the five interactive dimensions identified in the conceptual map: content, collections, expertise, facilitation and audiences. An understanding of these problems of practice led to the identification of potentially fruitful research questions. [NB To be useful, research questions need to be developed in collaboration between researchers and practitioners. The questions should normally address content, collections or expertise, facilitation and audience to ensure that they focus on exploring learning in natural history institutions]. The NHM's problems of practice related to the five dimensions, along with example research questions corresponding to each, are described below: Content - problems of practice • The traditional core content of natural history institutions (origins and evolution, sustainability, diversity of life) and the nature of science are already conceptually complex. The urgency around new content related to 21st century wicked problems compounds the complexity of the content with which we need to engage visitors. • Visitors connect to content differently than do museum staff (such as through a cultural lens or a science lens). It can be hard for many visitors to see the relevance of the content and our collections to their lives yet museums have a social responsibility to communicate it and big socio-cultural challenges. • There is a gap between the science that museums do and care about and the object-based experience experienced by visitors. People see the objects before they appreciate the content. Example research questions • What approaches to the teaching of biodiversity through objects are effective for a family audience? • What role can user-generated content have in helping natural history institutions communicate about the urgency of climate change? Collections - problems of practice • We need to know more about how visitors learn science from collections and about the unique learning opportunities that may be afforded by a collection. • We need to understand how people engage emotionally with the collections and how this engagement influences their learning. • Concerns about 'authenticity' and how much it matters are increasingly important in a digital world. The field needs a better understanding of what is considered to be 'real' (in terms of objects and collections, as well as experts and data) and how learning is affected when objects of inquiry are digital and not physical. As systems thinking is a key piece of many 21st century wicked problems, we need to understand how to connect objects with more dynamic technology experiences that make it easier to learn systems thinking. • There are institutional boundaries around objects associated with authority and ownership that define what can be said about collections and which may discourage alternative interpretations of collections. As a result, visitors may be restricted in fully engaging with objects in ways that are meaningful to them. Example research questions • What understandings of 'real' are held by young children, parents and adults visiting a museum for the first time? • How do these different understandings or meanings of 'real' affect different audiences' emotional responses to objects? Expertise - problems of practice • Natural history institutions need a deeper understanding of the most effective ways to enable scientists to engage effectively with the public (including a variety of audience groups). • Natural history institutions have a workforce with diverse professional backgrounds. These individuals bring different understandings of what makes quality experiences for visitors. Institutions need to better facilitate the coming together of expertise and leverage it to develop innovative learning experiences. Example research questions • What models of professional development most effectively capture the varying expertise of gallery staff and leverage it to help them engage with underserved audiences? • How does the inclusion of personal narratives by scientists change the ways audiences engage with lectures or facilitated conversations? Facilitation - problems of practice • Natural history institutions need to update their public engagement activities to reflect the latest knowledge of how people learn and take advantage of new opportunities created by digital technology, participation and co-creation (such as citizen science). • Facilitation design makes assumptions about the knowledge, interests and motivations of different audiences. These assumptions create a barrier between facilitation and the visitor experience and interpretation. There may be problems of alignment between institutional expectations and visitors' expectations of facilitation. • People's experiences with natural history institutions are part of a life-long, life-wide and life-deep learning ecology in which they understand, develop interest in and build connections to the natural world. The field needs a richer understanding of where a visit fits into an individual's learning ecosystems. Such an awareness would also help institutions create more effective facilitation for learning about the natural world. Example research questions • To what extent does the use of digital technology based around living collections enhance or take over a learning experience for youth? How is an emotional connection affected by the use of technology? How can technology be leveraged to help focus attention on the subject (living things)? • To what extent do visitors from diverse backgrounds connect their experiences on a visit to their own experiences with related content? What forms of facilitation might be deployed to help particular audiences make these connections? Audiences - problems of practice • The field would benefit from a robust understanding of visitors' and non-visitors' expectations, needs, identities, perceptions, experiences, values or interests at a level of detail that enables institutions to change practice. • People who are already interested in natural history often choose to deepen their engagement with natural history through other channels than natural history institutions. We need a deeper and more nuanced understanding of what these audiences, as well as audiences newer to or less knowledgeable about natural history, seek from us and from the other channels with which they engage. • Some audiences are underserved (for example, people with disabilities may not have ways of accessing collections; people from some local areas do not visit at all). Example research questions • How can we more usefully conceptualise people in terms of their concerns, interests and experiences with respect to the natural world rather than their demographics? How can we use knowledge of these needs, expectations and so forth to improve visitors' experiences? • Urban audiences often have little knowledge of or connection to nature - what do institutions assume they bring? What do they actually bring? What design principles can be used to develop more effective ways to engage urban audiences with conservation? • What kinds of natural history institutions/experiences are best placed to serve visitors with particular sensory impairments? These research questions, and the learning research agenda, can be used by the NHM and the wider natural history museum sector, to identify potential research projects (and the necessary funding required) to address the problems of practice. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2015 |
| Sector | Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections |
| Impact Types | Cultural |
| Description | A learning research agenda for natural history institutions |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | The following presentations were delivered at the conference: 1. The importance of research to practice (Amito Haarhuis, Deputy Director at NEMO Science Centre) 2. A learning research agenda for natural history institutions: a. the process (Dr Jen DeWitt, King's College London) b. and product (Prof Justin Dillon, University of Bristol) 3. A learning research agenda for natural history institutions - implications for practice at the Natural History Museum, London (Emma Pegram, Learning Research and Evaluation Manager, Natural History Museum) 4. Expertise/Content/Collections: Natural history - more relevant now than ever!(Dr Marianne Achiam, University of Copenhagen) 5. Facilitation: Reflecting on facilitation for the future (Dr Heather King, King's College London) 6. Audiences: Dancing with Natural History (Dr Emily Dawson, University College London) 7. Leveraging Research and Practice: An Agenda for Addressing Wicked Problems and the Twenty-First-Century Natural Museum or It's not about what it used to be about and we can't just do it for ourselves anymore (Prof Kevin Crowley, University of Pittsburgh) - See more at: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/visitor-research-evaluation/learning-research-seminars.html#sthash.NDwy1Tqs.dpuf |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/visitor-research-evaluation/learning-research-seminars.html |
| Description | Ecsite conference session: Participatory practices in science centres |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | The roles of science centres are changing. Exhibitions with right or wrong answers are not enough in today's complex world, where beauty is in the detail and knowledge is negotiable. Science centres are in a unique position to build bridges between research and practice, and participate in the establishment of new audiences. The session will address the need to develop collaborative methods to achieve this goal. Through the two EXPAND and PULSE projects, speakers will share their experiences on developing participatory practices and research methods suitable for exhibition development as well as science centre development in general. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://www.ecsite.eu/activities-and-services/ecsite-events/annual-conferences/sessions/participatory... |
| Description | Ecsite conference session: Re-thinking collaboration with scientists |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Conference panel session "Re-thinking collaboration with scientists" looking at ways in which museums, scientists and the public interact. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://www.ecsite.eu/annual-conference/programme/re-thinking-collaboration-scientists |