1

Conversation and Community: An Exploratory Study of The Pop-Up Museum Concept

By Michelle DelCarlo Master’s Candidate, Museology Graduate Program

Nonprofit Management Certificate Candidate, Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington

Thesis Project Master of Arts degree in Museology

University of Washington

2

Abstract The Pop-Up Museum is a concept created by the author in February 2011. The

premise of the concept is that, based on a theme, people share personal objects and stories in order to have conversations with other participants. The mission of The Pop-Up Museum (“PUM”) is therefore to create conversation between people of all ages and walks of life. This research explores the social interaction that happens at pop-ups, within the context of a specific definition of conversation and how museums approach conversation between visitors. Results of this study suggests that participants at pop-ups have conversations with each other that are based on objects, through facilitation, and being in the pop-up space. Results also suggest that participants learn more about one another and meet new people. Furthermore, results suggest that participants feel a sense of community with one another after attending pop-ups. This data indicates that The Pop-Up Museum concept is a model of creating conversation between visitors for those museums that desire to do so.

“What if we could hold an idea before us, exploring its meaning among other people and other minds?” –David Carr, Open Conversations “What we seek is a certain kind and quality of talk: talk that yields knowledge and understanding.” – Rike Burnham & Elliott Kai-Kee, Teaching in the Art Museum “We are more alike, my friends,/Than we are unalike.” -Maya Angelou

3

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 6

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 8

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY 19

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 23

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 31

CHAPTER 6: FUTURE RESEARCH 32

REFERENCES 33

APPENDIX 38

4

Acknowledgements

I have not been alone on my pop-up museum journey. I am indebted to the

University of Washington’s Museology Graduate Program and the Evans School of Public Affairs for their academic and professional advising. I am also grateful to the University of Washington’s Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity for their support in my experimentation.

My interest in conversations stems, in large part, from my work at the University of Washington’s Carlson Leadership and Public Service Center. I am grateful to have been immersed in an environment of commitment to public service and dedication to being in conversation with our communities.

The Australian Museum in Sydney, Australia, deserves my utmost thanks for supporting my idea and allowing me to experiment with them. Thank you Lynda Kelly and everyone at the museum who encouraged me.

Thank you to Kris Morrissey, advisor and committee member, for constantly pushing me to do better. Thank you to Ken Smith, for being my professional sounding board. Your encouragement and patience on my thesis journey set me up for success.

I am grateful to Angie Ong of the Pacific Science Center for listening to my early ideas and for looking over my data collection instruments. Your professional opinion was incredibly valuable in my thesis experience.

Thank you to Nina Simon, whose professional support of my concept has been instrumental in my desire to pursue further implementation. Thank you to everyone at the McPherson Museum of Art and History who was kind and allowed me to experiment.

I am also deeply indebted to my colleague and friend, Siri Linz. Thank you for volunteering your time, effort, and advice to help me succeed. Without your help, this research would not have been possible.

A very heartfelt thank you goes out to my family and friends, who have supported and encouraged me.

And last, but not least, thank you to the numerous organizations who have opened their doors to me in partnership. By allowing me the chance to hold pop-ups, you have furthered my knowledge of conversations and community.

5

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Pop-Up Museum (PUM) is a participatory community event where people

share a personal object, based on a theme, in order to spark conversation with other

participants. My goal for the concept is to create conversation between people of all ages

and walks of life. It is my experiment in community building and the creation of

meaningful experiences. Each time PUM is held it is called a “pop-up,” and each pop-up

lasts between one to two hours. I started exploring the PUM concept in February 2011,

and have been holding pop-ups since April 2011. I have held pop-ups in Australia and the

United States, both independently and in collaboration with communities, organizations,

and individuals.

While the mission of PUM is to create conversation between participants, at

present, there is no evidence that such social interactions are occurring. Therefore, the

goal of this exploratory study is to identify what social interactions occur at pop-ups.

Specifically, this study aims to explore if conversations happen between pop-up

participants, how those conversations are created, and the implications of those

conversations.

Noted museum professionals such as David Carr, and the Institute of Museum and

Library Services are calling for museums to be vibrant hubs of social interaction. The

field will therefore benefit from this study because it will explore the potential of PUM in

creating social interaction through participants by way of conversation. Further,

information about the types of social interactions and the implications of those

interactions in the context of the PUM model may be useful for other institutions looking

to create conversation between its visitors.

6

Chapter 2: Background and Context

The foundation of this project began in February 2011, when I began to think

about how museums could go beyond their four walls and deeply engage people. I began

to experiment with the pop-up museum concept, holding a pilot test in a meeting room of

the University branch of the Seattle Public Library in April 2011.

The pilot test looked very different from the model I use today. It was open for

five hours and there was no community input for the theme. There was one small bowl of

candy bars, no music, and lots of tables with too much empty space. I learned many

lessons from that first pop-up, and I continued to reconfigure my approach as I moved

forward.

In 2011, I had pop-ups at a variety of institutions and spaces. These include a

multi-purpose space at the Australian Museum in Sydney, Australia; meeting rooms at

the Seattle Public Library; a classroom at the Burke Museum at the University of

Washingon; and a multi-purpose space at the University of Washington’s Center for

Experiential Learning and Diversity. These pop-ups were held in collaboration with other

organizations, including the Australian Museum, The Granville Boys High School, The

Southwest Seattle Historical Society, the Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity,

and the University of Washington Museology Graduate Program.

It is through this experimentation and reconfiguring that I created the pop-up

museum model for this study. The main goal of this model is to create conversation

between pop-up museum participants. The following table illustrates this model.

7

The Pop-Up Museum Model Creating the Conversational Space • Tables are arranged in a way that allows people

to display their objects and labels. Tables should be close enough that people have to rub elbows to see objects.

• Groupings of chairs are placed sporadically in the space so people can sit and talk.

• Crayons, pens, and pencils are provided • Soft, upbeat music is played • Good snacks are provided • A facilitator is present to aid conversation if

needed Participant Actions • Participants bring their own object

• Participants write their own labels Choosing the Theme • Themes are chosen in collaboration with the pop-

up partner. • If there is no partner, a theme is chosen that is

most relevant to the community where the pop-up is held

The impetus for this study came from two sources, the first being my desire to

formally continue my experimentation as part of my Museology Master’s project. The

second was a burgeoning interest in the concept, and my related desire to provide

evidence for what social interactions occur at pop-ups.

8

Chapter 3: Literature Review

I. Conversation

Conversation Defined

The goal of The Pop-Up Museum concept is to create conversation between

people of all ages and walks of life. It is therefore important to define “conversation” in

order to explore its implications in the context of social interaction. A variety of terms are

used to describe what happens when people talk to one another in museums:

conversation, dialogue, discussion, debate, visit, remark, or comment. This research is

most interested in the word “conversation,” for it most accurately describes how social

interaction is approached at The Pop-Up Museum.

The word “conversation” has a very distinct meaning and unique etymological

roots that illustrates how it is applicable to the context in which it is used at the Museum.

Contemporary research on learning and meaning-making in conversation is currently

explored in many fields: philosophy, information systems, management, organizational

behavior, psychology, and sociology (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002). “One major line of

this work is focused around the concept of dialogue, while another tradition is focused on

the concept of conversation. While there is much agreement between those two traditions

and many researchers use the terms interchangeably, there are, in fact, important

differences" (p. 9-10). Etymologically, the word "conversation" has its roots in the

communal and emotional, while "dialogue" has its roots in conflict, of opposing voices

searching for truth (p.10-11). “Conversation” is used mainly by those focused on human

understanding and human experience rather than on abstract knowledge about ideas,

whereas "dialogue" is used mainly by those who see social interaction as an intellectual

process of refining knowledge (p. 10-11). Conversation is therefore viewed here as a

process of reaching interpersonal understanding where all participants’ contributions are

equally valued, versus a rhetorical process of defining one’s self through conflict.

Conversation distinguishes itself from other forms of social interaction involving

talk through certain characteristics. Researcher Neil Haigh (2005) describes conversation

as independent from other forms of talk through specific attributes. It is not a pre-planned

event; rather, it is an informal activity that relies on serendipitous interactions and

improvised, unscripted talk. All participants can influence the direction of the talk,

9

moment-to-moment, so the interaction is never one-sided. It is also focused on local,

personal, and immediate matters, and storytelling is a main ingredient in communication.

It is an open and non-threatening activity that encourages permissiveness and risk-taking

(Haigh, 2005). Successful conversation participant characteristics include a cooperative

spirit, mutual respect, modesty, lacking pretension, courtesy, and affability (Burnham &

Kai-Kee, 2011).

Conversation is distinguished from other forms of talk in that it is an inherently

cooperative activity that relies on the collaboration of all participants (Wardhaugh, 2002).

Even though conversations are informal, “they are nonetheless cooperative efforts based

on a tacit acknowledgment that the participants have gathered for a common purpose”

(Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011, p. 83). Conversation is best seen as cooperative participation

in shared talk, rather than an antagonistic social interaction (Bublitz, 1988). Talking in

conversation does not methodically move from point A to point B. Rather, it moves back

and forth, between and around in a circular pattern, creating a web of connections among

those engaged in talk (Burnham & Kai-Kee). In this way, those in conversation are equal

participants and must cooperate to keep the talk going.

Conversation Is a Learning Experience

Conversation is the most ordinary and yet most profound of human activities

(Haigh, 2005). “It is ubiquitous, ever present, and all around us. In its many forms - face

to face, telephone, among written texts, or in cyberspace - conversation is a process of

interpreting and understanding human experience. This conversational sense-making can

be described as a process of experiential learning" (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002, p.1-2).

The roots of conversational learning go back to the works of prominent learning theorists

Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin, Paolo Freire, and William James, who

articulated that learning and experience are inseparable (p.1-2).

Conversation can also be seen as a learning experience wherein the participants

construct meaning. Gaea Leinhardt and Karen Knutson (2004) suggest that “conversation

is the real moment of co-construction of meaning; this is where the short traces of the day

are set in place to be remembered late; and this is where the longer, carefully revisited,

and reshaped memories first come into being” (p.xv). Conversation is not only a learning

experience, but a place where people can actively grapple with and reflect upon the

10

things they have learned: “Individuals engage in and make sense of their experience in

conversations. We call these patterns of learning streams of meaning-making” (Jensen &

Kolb, 2002).

Conversation Is a Social Activity

Sociolinguist Ronald Wardhaugh (1985) describes conversation as an inherently

social activity that requires at least two people. Because conversation involves more than

just one person’s perspective, all participants must be aware of and sensitive to the other

person’s feelings. Wardaugh states “Involvement in conversation therefore requires the

two (or various) parties to be conscious of each other’s needs” (p. 2). Conversation can

therefore be defined as a reciprocal and cooperative social endeavor.

William Turbull (2003), an expert in social interaction and conversation, also

defines conversation as a social situation in which two or more co-present persons talk to

one another. According to Turnbull, conversation can happen between cultures, without

visual interaction, and in varying degrees of formality. His examination of conversation

reveals that it is composed of much more than spoken language as traditionally defined,

and indeed need not be made up of spoken language or speaking. He uses the word “talk”

to refer to both the activities and ways in which people come together to make

conversation happen. The word “talk” will be used in the same context throughout this

paper.

How Museums Approach Conversation

Museums generally acknowledge that conversation happens inside their walls

(Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Leinhardt, Crowley & Knutson, 2002; Leinhardt &

Knutson, 2004; Silverman, 2010; Simon 2010). However, the literature reveals that

museums focus on conversation between pre-formed groups in the context of desired

outcomes of exhibits or public programs. According to David Carr (2011), the museum

has the unrealized potential to benefit society through face-to-face forums and

community conversations dealing with current events and other pertinent topics. He

asserts that museums have the possibility to be places where people come together, think

together, share their stories, and therefore build community. He recognizes that while

museums have the possibility to do so, it is a possibility not yet realized. Carr states that

“our institutions can help to bring communities to their questions, to the knowledge that

11

helps to inform their responses, and to the ideas and values that will shape our policies

and plans…[this] will begin with stories told in places where we live, to others who sit

near us” (p. xxii). Further, Angie Ong (personal communication, September 20, 2011)

states that the field has largely been focused on conversations between museum and

community, not “community talking to community.” Museums therefore have the

potential to create conversation between communities of people inside their walls, yet

have not pursued this with great intensity (Carr 2011; Putnam, 2001).

While the potential for conversation between strangers and community members

exists in museums, the literature suggests that most conversations happen between small,

pre-formed groups (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Leinhardt, Crowley & Knutson, 2002;

Leinhardt & Knutson, 2004; Silverman, 2010). While many museums are concerned with

participatory and interactive design, they are usually concerned with “an individual’s

participation in, and engagement with, the exhibit. Interaction between visitors is less of a

concern, if a concern at all” (Hindmarsh, Heath, vom Lehn & Cleverly, 2002, p. 1; the

author’s italics). Museums have therefore mostly been concerned with allowing

individuals or communities to participate and interact in tandem, rather then communally

(Hindmarsh et al., 2002; Simon, 2010).

Museums provide a unique combination of physical space and objects (Gurian,

2009). This unique combination can lead to social interaction between visitors: “Some

museums intentionally support and promote companion conversation through

accommodating spaces, read-aloud labels, and familiar objects” (Silverman, 2010, p. 71).

While conversation happens because of museums’ physical space and objects, Silverman

illustrates that generating conversation outside of the traditional pre-formed pair group

can be difficult. “Enemies, strangers, or pairs who haven’t known each other long may

find it difficult to converse…Fear, cultural etiquette, or lack of shared history can impede

the very exchange that might spark a new relationship” (p. 71). Silverman suggests that

structure and facilitation is useful for those who are uncomfortable, unwilling, or unsure

of how to have a conversation with strangers.

Museums, Conversation, and Community Building

There are many ways to define community, but for the purposes of this paper, the

social aspects that define and build community are explored. Community is defined as

12

sustained social interaction between individuals (Appleby, 2003). According to

Mattessich & Monsey (1997), community building generally refers to building and

sustaining social networks within a community, and creating opportunities for groups and

individuals to develop problem-solving and leadership skills. For organizations and

associations, community building focuses mostly on the nature, strength, and scope of

relationships among individuals within their community and through them (Kubisch et

al., 1995).

Community building is a process that can occur through a variety of methods

mostly related to social interaction (Mattessich & Monsey, 1997). One effective way to

build community is through active participation in a conversation (Diers, 2004; Lucey,

O’Malley & Anchalee, 2009). The process of community building is most successful

when widespread participation in the community building process is employed. This

participation can be described as representative, meaning the process includes members

of all or most of segments of the community. Participation should also be continuous,

meaning the process recruits new community members to participate in the social

interaction over time (Mattessich & Monsey, 1997).

Museums have been cited as organizations capable of building community

(Appleby, 2003; Putnam, 2001). Museums are able to bring people together: “The riches

of old collections and the generous architecture of earlier periods have given museums

entries into city life as the cites for community gatherings” (Appleby, p. 214, 2003).

Furthermore, community building is part of the Institute of Museum and Library

Sciences’ (IMLS) 2012-2016 Five-Year Strategic Plan. According to IMLS, “Healthy,

thriving, sustainable communities need institutions that strengthen civic life, understand

and respond to community needs, and provide common experiences that knit together

diverse interests…[museums] are safe places for community gathering, centers for

community vitality, a connecting point for community services, and a venue for cultural

expression and lifelong learning” (Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, 2011). As

such, museums are positioned to create programming that encourages community

building, including conversational experiences.

13

II. Foundational Museum Theory

The Pop-Up Museum has its foundation in the existing museological framework,

including community-based and eco- museums. It has emerged from experimental

museum practices including participatory design, placing the individual or community at

the focus of the museum through self-representation, and using museums as social spaces

of conversation. The concept builds on theories of space and place; self-representation as

a healthy, community-building endeavor; and the emic perspective.

Community & Eco-Museums

Community-centered or community-based museums are a specific type of

museum, one whose main goal is to facilitate the well being of their community rather

than the individual visitor experience (Gurian, 2002). Museums such as these focus on

the people living in the neighborhood where they are located. They often provide

services, traditional performances and rituals, and exhibits all in the same space.

Community-based museums are most often controlled by the communities themselves

and the objects that comprise their museums belong to the members of the community

(Gurian, 2002, p.8). A good example of a community-based museum is the Wing Luke

Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience located in Seattle, Washington.

Situated specifically in the International District, the Wing Luke pulls from the

experience of the members of its neighborhood in order to develop exhibitions and

programs. According to the museum, they bring in many community members in this

development process, and incorporate oral histories from these community members into

their multi-media exhibit displays (The Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific

American Experience, n.d.).

Ecomuseums

The ecomuseum model was created in 1971 by George-Henri Riviere and Hugo

de Varine at the 9th International Museum Congress in France. Ecomuseums are designed

and run by the local community in which they reside and, ideally, are maintained for the

benefit of all stakeholders. As such, ecomuseums have the ability to give voice to those

who have traditionally been unable to express themselves (Delgado, 2003). They are a

reflection of the local community’s relationship to their social and physical environment.

They are living laboratories that contribute to research on a region’s past and present

14

social and physical environment. They serve as a center for the protection of natural

resources and further conservation and development of natural heritage and cultural

identity. While all ecomuseums share some part of these characteristics, their application

can vary widely between one institution and another (Donghai, 2008). At their core,

though, all ecomuseums see the museum building itself only as a meeting place and the

community as the museum (Stockrocki, 1996).

Participatory Design

Participatory design is an audience-centered methodology that creates

opportunities for visitors to interact and participate with the museum and each other.

According to Nina Simon (2010), there are some foundational theories, principles, and

strategies that inform participatory design. Theories include the idea that an audience-

centered institution is relevant, useful, and accessible; visitors construct their own

meanings from their own cultural experiences; and visitors’ voices can inform and

invigorate both design and experience. Principles include the idea that the museum serves

as a platform that supports multi-directional content experiences; institutions must trust

visitors to create, “remix,” and redistribute content; and institutions must find

opportunities for visitors to share their own content in meaningful ways. Simon shows

that allowing visitors to share personal content with others in a way that augments the

traditional museum visit is an effective strategy for participatory engagement (Simon,

2010). Overall, participatory design changes museums from closed institutions to

institutions that support the perspectives of all visitors (Söderqvist, 2010).

Individual or Community Self-Representation in Museums

Another emerging trend in museum practice is viewing the visitor or community

as the focus of the museum instead of the museum as the focus. This can be described as

a transition from internal, established museum narratives, to external self-representation

by the community (Stanish, 2008). Stanish uses the example of several communities in

Central and Southern America that have been given control of the direction and content

of their local museums. By placing these communities at the center of the museum’s

mission and goals, Stanish claims that they are empowered to disrupt any oversimplified

narratives created about them. He believes that museums will be able to thrive in the 21st

15

Century only if they continue to pursue methods of audience engagement that encourage

self-representation (Stanish, 2008).

David Carr (2010) argues that museums should embrace the creation of dialogue,

feeling, and personal knowledge instead of “insipid, conventional awe” (p.11). In order to

achieve this, he asserts that museums must permit ideas to come from a diverse array of

outside sources, most importantly from the visitors themselves. He states that the most

successful museum is one that invites visitors into the content and experience creation

process is a self-representational way. John Falk and Beverly Sheppard (2006) also agree

that museums must put visitors at the center of their institutional agenda through self-

representation. They argue that in this Knowledge Age, there is no one more important

that the individual user, or visitor. This is because museums are in the business of

providing meaningful experiences for visitors, and the only way to do this is by finding

out what individuals or communities want. Museum must see their relationship with

visitors as collaborative partnerships that will work only if the visitor is allowed to self-

represent in the feedback process. Museums can put this into practice by continually

soliciting feedback from their visitors and acting strategically on the results to create

experiences (Falk & Sheppard, 2006).

An example of a successful implementation of self-representation is a series of

events and exhibits at the Victoria and Albert Museum (the “V&A) in London, developed

with South Asian, African Caribbean, and Chinese communities. The V&A recognized

that these were underrepresented audiences in the museum, and therefore collaborated

with them in order to garner what was most important to them. The resultant exhibits

included photographs of their diverse places of worship, taken by the community

members themselves. These photos were displayed as a way to show of what faith meant

to them. The V&A also held a museum-wide Black History Month exhibition, wherein

members of the community were invited to show what being “black” meant to them. This

included demonstrations of African head-wrapping, break-dancing, graffiti, fashion

shows, poetry readings, and academic conferences. Nightingale sites this method of self-

representation as the reason for the continued success of the museum (Nightingale, 2006).

Vicki Couzens (2010), a Gunditjmara and Keeray Wurrong artist from Australia,

theorizes that land, language, and identity inform who we all are as people. From this

16

foundation, she argues that personally articulating one’s own culture (defined as

language, stories, songs, dance, artifacts, and cultural knowledge and practices) allow

people to demonstrate their belonging to land, language, and identity. According to

Couzens, this is a vital and necessary human exercise. She therefore posits that self-

representation in museums makes cultures, connections, and individuals stronger and

healthier.

The Emic Perspective

The emic perspective comes from the work of linguist Kenneth Pike. The word

“emic” stems from the linguistic word and concept of “phonemic,” which is the smallest

unit of meaningful sound. Pike introduced the theory that an effective way to describe

human behavior is to understand it from only one dialect, or culture, at a time. “It is an

attempt to discover and describe the pattern of that particular language of culture in

reference to the way in which various elements of that culture are related to each other in

the functioning of that particular pattern, rather than an attempt to describe them in

reference to a generalized classification derived in advance of the study of that particular

culture” (Pike & Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1954, p. 8). In other words, it is the

suggestion that a culture can be best understood from an insider’s perspective rather than

an outsider’s perspective; it is the perspective of the knowledge makers themselves. He

asserts that it is more accurate to analyze and represent a culture from the perspective of

those who are part of the culture being presented (Mieri, 2010). This supports the

Museum’s efforts to allow all participants a change to self-articulate.

Museums as Social Spaces for Conversation

The idea of creating a “space” for conversation is central to the idea of The Pop-

Up Museum. Sociologist Michel de Certeau identifies important differences in regards to

place and space. He states that “place” can be thought of as a construction of dominant

powers to organize and control communities through urban planning and architecture,

while “space” is constructed the practice of living by everyday people. He opines that

“space” is variable, mobile, built by its participants, and therefore a “practiced place” (de

Certeau, 2011, p.117). Additionally, Carmita Eliza Icasiano (2010) theorizes that the

museum, as a space, provides a cultural benefit. This is because museum-like spaces

17

support the continuation of heritage practices and exhibition of cultural objects that

would otherwise be lost if not for such a space (Icasiano, 2010).

A trend in contemporary museological practice is the change from traditional

place-oriented audience engagement toward a space-oriented audience engagement. As

museums are educational institutions, Bautista & Balsamo (2011) argue that they should

pay attention to the current trend in peer-to-peer learning brought about by the digital

age. In light of this, some institutions have created an online presence that goes beyond

simply digitizing the collections; they provide creative digital spaces that serve as

distributed social learning networks. As such, museums can be spaces where

communities of interest can generate conversations that lead to information sharing and

community building (Bautista & Balsamo, 2011).

One of the reasons that people visit museums is to have a social experience (Falk,

Moussouri & Coulson, 1998; Graburn, 1977; Coffee, 2007). Indeed, “there is general

recognition among museum practitioners that museum use is a social experience”

(Coffee, 2007, p. 377). A recent study on reasons for museum visitation was conducted

by IMPACTS, a firm that provides data to museums in order to inform strategic planning.

Results of the survey indicated that the most important reason a visitor chose to visit a

museum was have a shared experience with friends and family (Dilenschneider, February

12, 2012). Museums can therefore been defined as social spaces.

III. Similar Museological Projects

As The Pop-Up Museum has emerged from contemporary museological practice,

there are other examples of similar projects moving in the same direction. Four such

museum projects most closely match The Pop-Up Museums’ methodology and goals:

Object Stories and the Portland Art Museum in Portland, Oregon; The Museum of

Broken Relationships in Zegreb, Croatia; and the Pop-Up Museum of Queer History.

Object Stories at the Portland Art Museum (PAM) in Portland, Oregon, is a

project that invites visitors to tell stories about objects that mean something to them. The

main goal of this project is to “actively engage the broad public and diversify museum

audiences.” Working in collaboration with the Northwest Film Center, Write Around

Portland, and Miracle Theater Group, PAM invites people, by appointment, to bring their

18

chosen object and story to the museum’s story collection booth. Their object and story

are recorded and published both in an in-house and online digital archive, where there are

also recorded personal stories from others about museum objects (Ancelet, Butler & Ong,

2010). An installation of museum objects, selected and told by the public, will

accompany the digital archive. “Object Stories offers new possibilities to shift the

relationship people make with museums, reshaping the institution as an organic, ever-

growing repository made collectively by us of our stories and objects, mundane and

exalted, personal and subjective” (Portland Art Museum, n.d.). Conversation between

participants is not a goal of this project.

The Museum of Broken Relationships, in Zegreb, Croatia, created by Olinka

Vištica and Dražen Grubišić, is the result of a traveling exhibition focusing on the idea of

failed relationships and their physical remnants. The museum rejects traditional “self-

help” methods of recovering from failed relationships, and instead provides an

opportunity for creative healing by allowing people to contribute personal objects that

reflect their own failed relationships to the ever growing and changing collection. The

museum is a response to the feeling that our societies frequently recognize and celebrate

the creation of relationships, but does not provide space to acknowledge and process ones

that have failed. The goal of the museum is to “inspire our personal search for deeper

insights and strengthen our belief in something more meaningful than random suffering”

(Museum of Broken Relationships, n.d.).

Lastly, The Pop-Up Museum of Queer History is a grassroots organization that

transforms spaces into temporary exhibits about the histories of lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgendered people (Pop-Up Museum of Queer History, n.d.). Unlike The Pop-Up

Museum, it curates exhibits, using a variety of artwork that has been accepted through a

formal proposal process. Their main goal is to educate the public on the rich history of

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people in the United States, and to serve as a

platform for marginalized stories.

19

Chapter 4: Methodology

The goal of this study was to identify what social interactions occur at The Pop-

Up Museum. Two methods were used to gather data and information: interviews and

questionnaires during five pop-ups. These pop-ups were organized in order to fall into the

ideal data collection time of March and April 2012.

Data Collected from Pop-Ups

Location Theme Date Number of Subjects

Interviewed

Number of Participant

Questionnaires

Approximate Total

Number of Participants

The Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity at the

University of Washington

Culture

2/6/2012

3

0

10

The Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity at the

University of Washington

Home

2/13/2012

5

3

10

Meeting room of the Seattle Public

Library’s Ballard branch

Adoption

2/25/2012

0

17

20

Seattle YMCA’s Cascade People’s

Center

Culture and

Home

3/10/2012

0

6

15 The Santa Cruz

Museum of Art and History

Something or Someone You

Love

3/24/2012

0

7

15 Total 8 33

Attendees at the pop-ups were interviewed based on a deliberative sampling

technique. Those participants observed having two or more conversations were

interviewed by a fellow Museology student trained in evaluation. A total of eight

interviews were conducted. The main limitation of this methodology was that in order for

conversations to occur, I had to facilitate each pop-up. Thus, I was not able to conduct

interviews at three of the five pop-ups, as the evaluator was only present for the first two

pop-ups.

20

The following are the questions asked during interviews. The interviews were semi-

structured; while the interviewer asked the listed questions, they also probed further with

follow-up questions when needed.

1. How did you hear about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 2. How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 3. What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Did you have a conversation with someone? ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ________________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Did you learn something new about someone? ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Did you talk with someone you didn’t know before? ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ______________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didn’t have the opportunity to do so? _______________________________________________________________________ 8. Do you have anything else to add that we didn’t cover? ________________________________________________________________________

The second methodology used to gather information for this research consisted of

a questionnaire that pop-up attendees filled out. Questionnaires were successfully

implemented at all five of the pop-ups, with a total of 33 questionnaires completed.

Subjects for the questionnaire were selected using a convenience sampling method.

Additionally, those who were interviewed were not asked to complete a questionnaire; all

other pop-up participants were asked to do so.

The questionnaire employed for this research, including those questions asked

participants, is as follows. Potential subjects for the questionnaire were selected based on

21

a convenience sampling method; any available pop-up participant was asked to complete

a questionnaire. There was a very low refusal rate for questionnaires.

On a scale of 1-5, which 1 being strongly disagree, and 5 being strongly agree, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?

1) I had a conversation with someone I had never met before. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 2) I learned something new about someone. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 3) I had a conversation about an object. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 4) I had a conversation about an idea, experience, person, or place. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 5) I feel a sense of community with the people who attended today’s pop-up. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 6) I would attend another pop-up in the future. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 7) Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share?

There were limitations in conducting this research. The first is that I was both

facilitating and collecting data at each of the pop-ups conducted for this research. As

such, I was limited in my ability to intercept participants, as my attention was being

pulled both towards collecting data about social interaction and facilitating that social

22

interaction. Additionally, the first two pop-ups were poorly attended, with less than 10

participants at each. Therefore only interviews were conducted at the first pop-up and a

small amount of interviews and questionnaires were conducted at the second.

23

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion Results of the Questionnaire

A total of 33 participants were surveyed through the questionnaire at five pop-ups

selected for research. The first question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the

statement “I had a conversation with someone I had never met before.” 27 of the 33

respondents said they strongly agreed that they had a conversation with someone they

had never met before, three respondents agreed, three were neutral, and no one disagreed

or strongly disagreed.

The second question asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement “I

learned something new about someone.” 29 respondents strongly agreed that they learned

something new about someone else, 3 respondents agreed, none were neutral, one

respondent disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

0 0 3 3

27

0

10

20

30

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

IhadaconversationwithsomeoneIhadnevermetbefore

0 1 03

29

05101520253035

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

Ilearnedsomethingnewaboutsomeone

24

The third question asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement “I had a

conversation about an object.” 25 strongly agreed, four agreed, two were neutral, none

disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

The fourth question asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement “I

had a conversation about an idea, experience, person, or place.” 26 strongly agreed, three

agreed, two were neutral, and none disagreed, and one strongly disagreed.

0 0 2 4

25

05101520253035

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

Ihadaconversationaboutanobject

1 0 2 3

26

05101520253035

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

Ihadaconversationaboutanidea,experience,person,orplace

25

The fifth question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement “I

feel a sense of community with the people who attended today’s pop-up.” 20 respondents

strongly agreed, eight agreed, five were neutral, none disagreed, and none strongly

disagreed.

The sixth question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement “I

would attend another pop-up in the future.” 29 respondents strongly agreed, four agreed,

none were neutral, none disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

0 05

8

20

05101520253035

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

Ifeelasenseofcommunitywiththepeoplewhoattendedtoday'spop‐up

0 0 04

29

0

10

20

30

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StronglyAgree

Iwouldattendanotherpop‐upinthefuture

26

Lastly, respondents had the opportunity to write in their own comments about their

experience at the pop-up. Their responses are as follows:

From the adoption pop-up:

I sincerely "strongly agree" with all the above. "Adoption" is such a powerful theme. Through the objects on the tables, I found myself sharing stories I wouldn't have felt comfortable sharing with people who I had just met. I absolutely love the concept! I think [the] theme was very personal and it was touching what people felt comfortable sharing. I love the conversations that happened here. Great, informal, comfortable and supportive! Loved the informal, natural way that this even encouraged connection, and greater understanding. Loved it! Thanks! Such a heartwarming pop-up! I believe this pop-up was such an interesting experience! I liked seeing different people's interpretations on the subject, and learning new things about my friends through their objects. I love the location - bothe [sic] the room and city. This even brought out a warm feeling. None relevant. Thank you for providing a unique opportunity to connect with others regarding a subject that is close to my heart. The casual atmosphere and variety of ages added to the experience. I was glad this was about "face to face" communication which lended itself better to this personal topic than using technology. This was a great experience. I was a little worried about talking about a somewhat sensitive topic but the atmosphere and the people were welcoming and comfortable. Thanks! I really loved the pop up! Great theme and turn out! I thought the objects people brought were really interesting and informative. I had a great time. Keep up the good work! I really liked how the topic of adoption was interpreted to mean so many different thing to so many different people. I also really enjoyed talking to everyone and hearing and sharing stories about the objects that were brought in. It was really fun to see what people brought in to share. Great way to start conversation and find out something meaningful about someone else. Makes conversation more authentic than talking about the weather. Pop-up museums are fun! Very friendly, welcoming people! Thanks. Made me smile - I had fun.

27

From the Something or Someone You Love pop-up:

The diversity of objects is great! I would love to see it on a bigger scale. Lovely. Interesting idea - I see many opportunities in it and many applications! This is a great idea! Once I had seen all the objects though, I wasn't sure what to do. Maybe it would help to have some sort of activity to make it easier to talk to other people - like a guessing game to figure out who brought what? Overall I loved it. Nature-themed?

Results of Interviews

A total of eight interviews were conducted. The results of the interviews are as

follows.

1) How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum?

Overall, people described their experience at The Pop-Up Museum in a positive

way. Respondents replied that they learned about other people, they had fun, and were

comfortable. One respondent mentioned that they were unsure about what to do since it

was a new concept to them, but they ended up enjoying themselves in the end.

It was fun, nice to learn something new about people in the office and about new people. I was curious about how it would all work. I felt self-conscious initially about the process. I enjoyed the chance to see what other people have done. I enjoyed talking with people and the personal connection. Comfortable. It was relaxing and interesting to talk to people and share my experiences. It was interesting to see how people interpreted the theme and made it their own. 2) What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? Learning about other people was the number one thing people cited as their

favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum. Also, the ability to sit down and have

conversations was mentioned. Being able to see objects and listen to stories was also

mentioned as a favorite part.

Always learning something new about co-workers or people I don't know. It was cool to delve in a bit behind the story, more than just the placard. Reading people's descriptions of their objects. Getting a chance to hear their voice on a topic that is abstract but relevant to everyday life. 3) Did you have a conversation with someone? All respondents replied that they did have a conversation with someone else.

28

3.a) Tell me more about that conversation. Respondents replied that they learned more personal things about others and were

able to share something about themselves. Objects played a large role in sparking these

conversations. Conversations ranged in topic from personal stories, to thematic related, to

completely unrelated topics.

I learned more about someone's personal history. I had a conversation with Rachel about her tea thing, went all over the place, group conversations, some one-on-one conversations. I talked with people I knew, talked about my project. I met someone new through my object, talked for a while and found that we have a lot in common. 3.b) What provoked that/those conversations? Conversations were provoked by a number of different factors. Just being in the

room where the pop-up was held sparked conversations. Objects also played a role,

including observing, bringing, or asking about an object. Facilitation of conversation by

the coordinator also provoked conversations.

I asked if she brought anything and she said no, we started talking about food instead. Provoked by me having strong feelings about tea; my own personal connection to her object. Michelle introduced us based on an object. 4) Did you learn something new about someone? All respondents replied that they did learn something new about someone. 5) Did you talk with someone you didn't know before?

Three respondents replied that they did not have conversations with people they

didn’t know before, while five respondents replied they did.

5.a) Tell me more about that/those conversations. Of those respondents who replied that they did have a conversation with someone

they didn’t know before, their answers reflect that conversations were created by objects

or a created commonality.

We connected over having an old camera. He (photographer from UW Daily) brought out a Nikon cap. A couple: with folks I didn't know, I discovered commonalities I wouldn't have expected. It was just sort of an introduction and sort of about, because I'm new to the Carlson Center and he had worked here before. Talking in the group with Val. I was interested in what she brought and her talking about moving here. I would have liked to talk more about this.

29

5.b) What provoked that/those conversations? Respondents who replied they did have conversations with someone they didn’t

know before had these conversations provoked by a variety of stimuli. These include

looking at an object and asking who it belonged to.

I asked who put the exhibit of the cap up. Other respondents replied that being in pop-up space encouraged them to have

conversations with people they didn’t know. The fact that people were already talking

about the objects in the room helped them meet new people.

The items themselves and it was an environment where people were already talking. Her (Val) coming in and because she was by herself and we were interested in what she brought. Additionally, one respondent was introduced by another person they knew at the pop-up.

This led to them having a conversation with someone they hadn’t met before.

Getting introduced via coworkers, mutual contacts.

6) Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didn't have the opportunity to do so? Respondents generally replied “no” to this question. One respondent felt that the

openness of the pop-up concept allowed for ample opportunities for conversation.

I don't think so. The openness of it allows for free-flowing conversation. However, two respondents had interesting responses to this question. One felt that after a

certain point, they didn’t want to say any more about their object, and didn’t want to keep

talking. Additionally, another respondent felt that they weren’t able to say enough about

their object, as they didn’t have an opportunity to speak about it unless someone directly

asked them to.

I don't think so. At some point I didn't want to say more, I didn't feel like I should keep talking about my object. Yes, I didn't fully explain all of mine unless someone asked me directly. 9) Do you have anything else to add that we didn't cover? Generally, respondents replied positively to the pop-up concept, saying that it was

a fun experience that people should support. One respondent replied that they thought it

was a good way to get to know people in a genuine way.

30

It was fun, hopefully we can do this again. I just like the way that it opens up avenues of conversation with people that I work with. It brings up things we don't usually talk about and it seems like an authentic way to get to know people.

31

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This study suggests that The Pop-Up Museum model creates social interaction

between pop-up participants in the form of conversation. Participants have conversations

with people they had never met before and with people they know, and they learn new

things about other participants. On subjects that were particularly sensitive, some

participants were initially hesitant to share personal stories. However, the welcoming

atmosphere helped them feel comfortable enough to open up. Conversations are sparked

by objects, by being in the pop-up space itself, and through facilitation. Conversation

topics ranged from directly related to the theme to being completely unrelated. This study

also suggests that pop-up participants feel a sense of community with one another.

Looking to the future, this study suggests that this pop-up museum model may be a good

model to use for those museums that desire to create conversation between visitors.

32

Chapter 6: Future Research

Further study on The Pop-Up Museum model should be conducted. Future studies

should gather data from a wider sample size and a more diverse pool of subjects. Studies

could focus on objects, participation, and related actions outside of the pop-up space

itself. These studies could add to the data already collected and assist in bringing better

conversational experiences to museum communities.

Research Focus Research Question

Objects • If a participant comes without an object, do they still have conversations?

Participation • If a participant doesn’t have any conversations, how is their experience affected?

Actions Outside of the Pop-Up Space

• What conversations occur outside of the pop-up space? • How does reflecting on a theme affect the social interaction at

The Pop-Up Museum itself?

33

References

About Museum of Broken Relationships / Museum of Broken Relationships. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://new.brokenships.com/en/about About The Pop-Up Museum of Queer History. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://www.queermuseum.com/home/about/ Ancelet, J., Butler, S., Ong, A. (2010). Exhibit Review: Object Stories. Museums and Social Issues, 5(2), 275-281. Appleby, J. (2003). Building Community in the Twenty-First Century. In J. Rodin & S. P. Steinberg (Eds.), Public discourse in America: conversation and community in the twenty-first century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning in Conversation. In Baker, A., C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (Eds.), Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation (1-13). Quorum Books. Bautista, S., & Balsamo, A. (2011). Understanding the Distributed Museum: Mapping The Spaces of Museology in Contemporary Culture. Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/understanding_distributed_ museum Bedford, L. (2001). Storytelling: The Real Work of Museums. Curator, 44(1), 27-34. Boylan, P.J. (2006). The Museum Profession. In S. Macdonald (Ed.), A companion to museum studies (pp. 415-430). John Wiley & Sons. Bublitz, W. (1988). Supportive fellow-speakers and cooperative conversations: discourse topics and topical actions, participant roles and “recipient action” in a particular type of everyday conversation. Amsterdam ;Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co. Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2011). Teaching in the Art Museum: Interpretation as Experience (1st ed.). J. Paul Getty Museum. Carr, D. (2010). Respect, Identity, Solace for the Art Museum User. In L. Foreman Wernet & B. Dervin (Eds.), Audiences and the Arts: Communication Perspectives (pp. 9-20). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Carr, D. (2011). Open Conversations: Public Learning in Libraries and Museums (1st ed.). Libraries Unlimited. Coffee, K. (2007). Audience Research and the Museum Experience as Social Practice. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 377-89.

34

Couzens, V. (2010). Telling the Story of Possum Skin Cloaks. In O. Guntarik (Ed.), Narratives of community  : museums and ethnicity (pp. 24-45). Edinburgh: Museumsetc.

Davis, P. (2010). Place, Narrative and Social Space. In O. Guntarik (Ed.), Narratives of community: museums and ethnicity (pp. 70-90). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. De Certeau, M. (2011). The Practice of Everyday Life (3rd ed.). University of California Press. Delgado, C. (2001). The Ecomuseum in Fresnes: against exclusion. Museum International, 53(1), 37-41. doi:10.1111/1468-0033.00298 Diers, J. (2004). Neighbor Power: Building Community the Seattle Way. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Dilenschneider, C. (2012, February 12). According to Visitors, THIS is the Best Part About Going to a Museum (Hint: It’s Not The Exhibits). Know Your Own Bone. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from http://colleendilen.com/2012/02/12/according-to- visitors-this-is-the-best-part-about-going-to-a-museum-hint-its-not-the-exhibits/ Donghai, S. (2008). The Concept of the Ecomuseum and its Practice in China. Museum International, 60(1‐2), 29-39. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0033.2008.00634.x

Falk, J. H., & Sheppard, B. (2006). Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The Effect of Visitors ‘Agendas on Museum Learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41(2), 107-120. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.1998.tb00822.x Forbes, J. (2012, January 26). Pop-Up Pensacola: What’s the City to You? Independent Weekly, 13(4), 40. Graburn, N. (1977). The Museum and the Visitor Experience. Roundtable Reports, 1-5.

Gurian, E. (2002). Choosing among the options: An opinion about museum definitions. Curator, 45(2), 75-88. Gurian, E. H. (2009). Wanting to Be The Third on Your Block. Michigan Museum Association Talk3. Retrieved from http://www.egurian.com/omnium- gatherum/museum-issues/leadership/directors-issues/wanting-to-be-the-third-on- your-block

35

Haigh, N. (2005). Everyday conversation as a context for professional learning and development. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/13601440500099969 Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., & Cleverly, J. (2002). Creating assemblies: aboard the Ghost Ship. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, CSCW ’02 (pp. 156–165). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/587078.587101 Icasiano, C. E. (2010). Advocating Culture Through Crafts. Narratives of community  : museums and ethnicity (pp. 222-241). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. (2011). IMLS Five-Year Strategic Plan 2012- 2016 (Strategic Plan) (p. 36). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Retrieved from http://www.imls.gov/about/strategic_plan.aspx Jensen, P.J., & Kolb, D.A. (2002). Streams of Meaning Making in Conversation. In Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (Eds.), Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation (125-137). Quorum Books. Kelly, L. (2010, June 8). The role of narrative in museum exhibitions. Australian Museum Audience Research Blog post. Retrieved from http://australianmuseum.com/BlogPost/Audience-Research-Blog/The-role-of- narrative-in-museum-exhibitions.

Kelly, L. (2011, September 25). No More Cookbooks: What’s a museum doing on this cooking blog? Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://nomorecookbooks.blogspot.com/2011/09/whats-museum-doing-on-this- cooking-blog.html Kubisch, A. C., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., Hirota, J., Joseph, M., Richman, H., & Roberts, M. (1995). Voices From the Field: Learning from Comprehensive Community Initiatives. The Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. New York, NY, USA: The Aspen Institute. Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.). (2002). Learning Conversations in Museums. Routledge. Leinhardt, G., & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on Museum Conversations. Altamira Press. Lucey, T. A., O’Malley, G.A., & Jansem, A. (2009). Using Online Reflection and Conversation to Build Community. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 199-217.

36

Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1997). Community Building: What Makes It Work: A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. Saint Paul, Minn: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Meyer, K. (2011, November 14). “Pop-Up Museum” pops up for SW Seattle Historical Society. West Seattle Blog. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://westseattleblog.com/2011/11/pop-up-museum-pops-up-for-sw-seattle- historical-society Mieri, M. (2010). Are We There Yet? In O. Guntarik (Ed.), Narratives of community  : museums and ethnicity (pp. 202-221). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. Nightingale, E. (2006). Dancing Around the Collections: Developing Individuals and Audiences. In C. Lang, J. Reeve, & V. Woollard (Eds.), The Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 79-91). Aldershot England ; Burlington VT: Ashgate. Pike, K. L., & Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1954). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior (Prelim. ed.). Glendale, Calif: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Pop-Up Museums. (2011, November 19). North Carolina Connecting to Collections. Retrieved from http://collectionsconversations.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/pop- up museums/ Portland Art Museum | Special Exhibitions. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://objectstories.pam.org/about/index.html Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (1st ed.). Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster. Silverman, L. H. (2010). The Social Work of Museums. Routledge. Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum. Museum 2.0. Simon, N. (2011, November 30). A Radical, Simple Formula for Pop-Up Museums. Museum 2.0. Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2011/11/radical-simple-formula-for-pop- up.html Söderqvist, T. (2010). The Participatory Museum and Distributed Curatorial Expertise. NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 18(1), 69-78. doi:10.1007/s00048-009-0010-9 Stanish, C. (2008). on museums in a postmodern world. Daedalus, 137(3), 147-149.

37

Stokrocki, M. (1996). The Ecomuseum Preserves an Artful Way of Life. Art Education, 49(4), 35. Turnbull, W. (2003). Language in action: psychological models of conversation. Psychology Press. Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How Conversation Works (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Welcome to the Podcamp Halifax Pop-Up Museum Exhibit Catalog.  (n.d.). The Podcamp Halifax Pop-Up Museum. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://popupmuseumhfx.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/welcome/ Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.wingluke.org/process.htm.

38

Appendix

The Pop-Up Museum Interview Form

1. How did you hear about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 2. How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 3. What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Did you have a conversation with someone? ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ________________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Did you learn something new about someone? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Did you talk with someone you didn’t know before? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ________________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didn’t have the opportunity to do so? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Do you have anything else to add that we didn’t cover? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

39

The Pop-Up Museum Questionnaire On a scale of 1-5, which 1 being strongly disagree, and 5 being strongly agree, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? 1) I had a conversation with someone I had never met before. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 2) I learned something new about someone. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 3) I had a conversation about an object. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 4) I had a conversation about an idea, experience, person, or place. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 5) I feel a sense of community with the people who attended today’s pop-up. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 6) I would attend another pop-up in the future. 1……………2……………3……………4……………5 strongly disagree strongly agree 7) Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share?

40

Results of Interviews

A total of eight interviews were conducted. The results of the interviews are as

follows.

How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum?

Like recess without physical activity. It's a nice break from work.

It's my second one, I think it's a brilliant idea that I respect.

It was fun, nice to learn something new about people in the office and about new people. It was fun, I learned neat things about workmates. It was informative. It was good, low-key, good relaxed conversations. I learned stuff about people I didn't know. It was really great to get to see some, like, a more personal side of my coworkers that I don't get to see or talk about in the office. I was curious about how it would all work. I felt self-conscious initially about the process. I enjoyed the chance to see what other people have done. I enjoyed talking with people and the personal connection. Comfortable. It was relaxing and interesting to talk to people and share my experiences. It was interesting to see how people interpreted the theme and made it their own. What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? Learning more about people I already knew. Always learning something new about co-workers or people I don't know. Sitting down and talking with people about things that related to culture, but didn't necessarily have to (relate to culture) The milk carton. Just seeing what different items demonstrate culture, like the Frisbee. The diversity of items. It was cool to delve in a bit behind the story, more than just the placard. Reading people's descriptions of their objects. Getting a chance to hear their voice on a topic that is abstract but relevant to everyday life. I liked how the conversation went to topics in the room and out (maybe from Michelle's guidance). It was nice to sit and listen.

41

What wasn't? I like the sense that it's a communal experience, social objects to connect with others. Did you have a conversation with someone? All respondents replied “Yes.”

Tell me more about that conversation.

I learned more about someone's personal history. A number of people asked about my item, I shared about my picture. We talked about shared culture and food. We talked about the milk carton and some things not related to culture. I talked about David's thematic relating (everyday items with where they're from). Some saw mine and I had the chance to talk about it in general. I had a conversation with Rachel about her tea thing, went all over the place, group conversations, some one-on-one conversations. I talked with people I knew, talked about my project. I met someone new through my object, talked for a while and found that we have a lot in common. What provoked that/those conversations? The exhibit. Standing by my exhibit. I asked if she brought anything and she said no, we started talking about food instead. The milk carton and catching up. Just sort of standing around in the room, looking at objects prompted conversations Provoked by me having strong feelings about tea; my own personal connection to her object. Michelle introduced us based on an object. Did you learn something new about someone? All respondents replied “Yes.” Did you talk with someone you didn't know before? Three respondents replied “No.” Five respondents replied “Yes.”

42

Tell me more about that/those conversations. Of those respondents that replied “Yes” to the question “Did you talk with someone you didn’t know before,” their answers to this question are: We connected over having an old camera. He (photographer from UW Daily) brought out a Nikon cap. A couple: with folks I didn't know, I discovered commonalities I wouldn't have expected. It was just sort of an introduction and sort of about, because I'm new to the Carlson Center and he had worked here before. Talking in the group with Val. I was interested in what she brought and her talking about moving here. I would have liked to talk more about this. What provoked that/those conversations? Of the respondents who replied “Yes” to the question “Did you talk with someone you didn’t know before,” their answers to this question are: I asked who put the exhibit of the cap up. The items themselves and it was an environment where people were already talking. Getting introduced via coworkers, mutual contacts. Her (Val) coming in and because she was by herself and we were interested in what she brought. Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didn't have the opportunity to do so? Four respondents answered “No.” The remaining respondents elaborated in their answers: No. I noticed in the UW Daily article that the goal was to give everyone a voice, and I felt that was true. I don't think so. At some point I didn't want to say more, I didn't feel like I should keep talking about my object. I don't think so. The openness of it allows for free-flowing conversation. Yes, I didn't fully explain all of mine unless someone asked me directly. Do you have anything else to add that we didn't cover? I really appreciate the opportunity.

43

I think the UW should give total support. I always love Pop-Up Museums, I think they're very fun. It was fun, hopefully we can do this again. I just like the way that it opens up avenues of conversation with people that I work with. It brings up things we don't usually talk about and it seems like an authentic way to get to know people. No. I liked the variety of writing utencils provided. If Michelle wants more publicity, like size (more intimate), it could be bigger so you can meet new people.