A little background…
Museum maker spaces—either permanent installations or public programs—are all the rage right now, at least in the U.S. Picking up on the popular Maker Faire phenomenon launched by MAKE Magazine in San Mateo, CA in 2006, museums are moving to create hands-on tinkering and innovation spaces that reflect the Maker Faire spirit:
Part science fair,
part county fair, and part something entirely new, Maker Faire is an all-ages
gathering of tech enthusiasts, crafters, educators, tinkerers, hobbyists,
engineers, science clubs, authors, artists, students, and commercial
exhibitors. All of these "makers" come to Maker Faire to show what
they have made and to share what they have learned. Maker Faire website
I think this movement is great. It seems to be reviving interest and focusing attention in a new way on a genre of spaces and activities that have been in many museums, especially science and children’s museums, for a long time: spaces such as discovery areas, play spaces, tinkering, art, or science labs. All of these areas involve free choice entry, lots of options for various activities, and a multiplicity of materials and resources to keep track of and to make available to visitors. One thing that’s new about Maker Spaces is their incorporation of the latest technology into the hands-on experience. I also think their emphasis on family and multi-generational participation is a welcome change; often discovery and play spaces have been perceived, either because of their design or because it was assumed, as places for kids only, and adults just stood and watched or wondered off to see the rest of the museum.
Can/should these spaces be unstaffed?
Museum exhibit developer and blogger Paul Orselli recently raised a
question on the ASTC (Association of Science Technology Centers) listserv and
on his Exhibitricks blog . Do maker spaces have to be staffed?
Apparently some museums are looking for ways to develop these hands-on spaces
that inspire tinkering and creativity while saving on their most expensive and
complex aspect – staff to manage and interpret them. I have a feeling it is not
educators nor even exhibit designers who are asking this question – rather it
is directors and financial officers – folks who have the daunting task of
managing the budget in a difficult economy. I’m hoping this post might provide some
evidence based on both experience and research that Maker Space designers and
educators can use to make the case for staffing.
 |
| Mindfest at Ft. Worth Museum of Science & History, 2001 |
Making the Case for Staffing
1. Use the wisdom of
the field
During
December 2012 the ASTC-ISEN listserv was full of responses to Paul Orselli’s
question about unstaffed maker spaces.
Here are just a few excerpts, mostly from people creating or currently
running active museum galleries. You can find the whole discussion in the
listserv archives.
What would concern me more is the desire to run
a space (museum?) unstaffed. It costs a
whole lot more to pay for staff than exhibits but nothing, NOTHING, trumps
human interaction. Cutting staff is the road to ruin, IMHO.
An 'unstaffed maker space' is as much an oxymoron as a 'maintenance-free water area.'
It is the teachers and makers that "make" the space.
Certainly, maker type activities can be 'ruggedized' with instructions and limited
materials, but I don't think a bunch of those together would be a maker space….Money spent on some creative staff and some glue guns is far more valuable than 3D printers.
It’s as much about re-humanizing the museum learning experience as it is about design-based activities.
- Cite the many practical reasons
for the need for staff both to manage and be present in these kinds of
spaces:
Constant clean-up: While a bit of messiness adds to the
maker atmosphere, total clutter, broken items, and general chaos create
frustration and can contribute to hyperactive behavior; not the best ambiance
for creativity. And staff don't want to be there only to clean up; they should be trained as facilitators who also keep an eye on all conditions on the exhibit floor.
Regular maintenance and repair: If we are really
encouraging tinkering and experimentation, things will get damaged and broken. If left for long periods, the general
shabbiness of a space will discourage use.
Regular inventory:
For budgeting and maintenance purposes, you need to know what you
started out with and what you have left on at least a weekly, but preferably a daily
basis.
Health and safety:
Tools can be dangerous, especially if broken or if used improperly;
depending on the age of children, there can be choking hazards as well as
cleanliness issues. All items need to be
cleaned, repaired, and/or replenished on a regular basis. Think especially of
this flu season! Cleaning staff can handle some of this, but oversight on the floor is essential to maintain a safe creative environment.
 |
| Though designed so that visitors could build their own whirligigs without staff help, this component in Invention at Play required regular replacement of foam and dowels and thus inventory of parts. Courtesy Smithsonian Institution. |
- Cite the literature on learning
as a social experience.
Exhibitions without lots of moving pieces and
parts can be designed to maximize social interaction among visitors without
staff intervention, as Minda Borun’s research has shown
But with maker spaces, the practical
requirements noted above make gallery staff necessary, and thus increase the
opportunities for social interaction and “scaffolding,” the process whereby more
experienced learners help younger learners to build on and extend their skills and
learning.
Resources on the visitor experience, such as The Museum Experience Revisited, John Falk and Lynn Dierking’s new edition of their classic book The Museum Experience, and the Fall 1999 issue of Exhibitionist on Meaning Making underscore the importance of the social context in human learning.
- Weigh the pros and cons of staffing in light of your goals for your space.
There is no question that staffing
adds a heavy layer of expense and complexity to any exhibition. But as with
anything valuable, one must always weigh the options:
If your goals for the
visitor experience in your space include choice, variety, multiplicity of tools
and materials, opportunities for tinkering and experimentation, an atmosphere
of open-ended investigation and creation, and multigenerational interaction,
then you must be willing to pay for and support a staffed space.
If you believe you
cannot afford staffing then you must design and engineer a high degree of choice, variety,
multiplicity, experimentation, and open-endedness out of your exhibit space.
In my view staffing is as essential to activity spaces as plexi is
to exhibit cases. If you were told
there was no money for plexi for your cases, wouldn’t you find a way to trim a
bit here, move funds around there, and come up with money for something that
you believe is essential? That’s how we
should look at staffing for maker spaces – they cannot really exist without
staffing, so we move heaven and earth to find the funding—or we don’t open them
at all.
(With apologies to all readers for Blogger formatting above, which seems out of control...)
(With apologies to all readers for Blogger formatting above, which seems out of control...)
If this post is being sent to you by email and you would like to subscribe or add a comment please click on http://museumcommons.blogspot.com/ Thanks!
Gretchen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for a terrific post that gathers solid arguments for facilitation. I like it that you use the term STAFF as that implies appropriate training for those supporting maker activities. I am out here on the west coast and recently have spent some time with the Tinkering Studio at the Exploratorium. Watching their facilitators have just the right deft touch with visitors in these spaces has been a true joy. I do think that volunteers can help with these spaces, but serious training on how to scaffold without squelching is crucial for success. When done well these spaces can provide some of the best teaching moments possible in museums.
I have been following the comments on the ASTC listserv and now here. I am glad that the issue is getting such attention - Maker spaces have the potential to create the kind of learning opportunities we strive for in the museum experience - innovative, creative, intergenerational, hands-on,accessible, but setting these spaces up without staffing is setting everyone up to fail, both the visitors and the museums. When done well, these spaces can have both broad and deep impact for visitors and create learning hubs for staff as well, becoming a place to observe learning, prototype new ideas, materials and design.
ReplyDeleteThank you for addressing this question head-on and offering practical help to those caught up in the ongoing struggle. It's hard to believe that a field that grew out of a progressive, human-centered view of teaching and learning - that continues to amass evidence that learning is a human process - has so often sacrificed its very soul to the myth and distorted priorities of "growth." As museum boards built bigger and fancier buildings, financed with debt, and committed themselves to ever-higher operating costs, wasn't it inevitable that once more it was people who would be sacrificed? Over the years, I watched - and, alas, contributed to - the self-congratulation of the science museum field as buildings expanded and grew more numerous. In fact, one "attendance model" promulgated by ASTC for a time suggested that if you "build it" (and build it bigger, with more floor space) "they will come" - with no mention of carrying capacity or possible unintended consequences. Contrary voices were rare. Like Pietro Cerreta, who wrote a piece for the ASTC Newsletter called "Why I Decided Not to Build a Science Center." He had looked at typical operating costs and made the radical decision to keep the focus on people, stage periodic events, and avoid the burden of a building altogether. Maybe, like Slow Food, museums could take inspiration from what some are calling the "de-growth" movement.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Susan, Lynn, and Wendy, you certainly represent "the wisdom of the field" in this area with your collective experience. How to get those who control the funding to grasp how worthwhile is the money spent on well trained staff and on activities that engage and absorb rather than just have a "wow" factor is still the problem.
DeleteThese blog comments and replies are very timely for us as well, as we re-investigate the role of floor staff and how to provide facilitation PD for paid and unpaid staff. Thanks, Gretchen and commenters. We will need to pay closer attention to staff PD at the Exploratorium, as well as other best practices. Any leads on best practice research are welcome.
ReplyDeletethanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on event staffingIf possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.
ReplyDeleteAs art gallery forums designed larger and more inticate structures, funded with debts, and dedicated themselves to ever-higher working expenses, wasn't it unavoidable that once more it was people who would be sacrificed? Over the years,Maker areas have the prospective to make the type of studying possibilities we endeavor for in the art gallery experience
ReplyDelete