Promoting Exhibit Access and Safety (PEAS): Listening and Learning Sessions

Introduction

In 2021, the Promoting Exhibit Access and Safety (PEAS) Working Group surveyed attendees at four cultural heritage conferences ¹ to get a broader perspective on the kinds of activities, policies, and programs other institutions employ that impact access and safety for collections and people. Most respondents shared challenges and examples of “detrimental visitor interactions,” any incident where an individual engages with an exhibit and harms themselves, others, or objects. The PEAS Working Group wanted to learn more about how museums mitigate or overcome these challenges.

To answer that question, the PEAS Working Group created two Action Teams in 2022. The Data Gathering Team focused on analyzing the survey results, while the Resources Team focused on assembling more information. After the preliminary results of the survey analysis, it was clear to the Action Teams that there were some common approaches to safety and access used by the survey respondents. A couple common examples include: putting up barriers to protect collection items on exhibit and offering educational materials on collections care activities to increase access and understanding of collections preservation among the public.

However, the effectiveness of these strategies was not clear. To develop a deeper understanding of the survey results, the Resources Team created “Listening and Learning Sessions,” an in-depth series of discussions, based on a format created for a staff program at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

The Listening and Learning (LL) Sessions, which took place in January and February 2023, brought together professionals from collections, conservation, education, exhibits, facilities, security, and visitor services backgrounds. There were three main goals of the LL Sessions: 1. to develop a better understanding of the kinds of activities happening across the access and safety landscape and what made them effective, 2. to provide a platform for challenging conversations and collaborative solutions, and 3. to create a networking and professional development opportunity for the participants. The first addresses the PEAS Working Group’s research interest in exploring innovative access and safety strategies. The second fulfills a major component of the PEAS Working Group’s mission, and the third provides a reciprocal benefit to those who graciously volunteered their time to support this initiative.

Methodology

The Resources Team hosted four 90-minute LL Sessions, each with six to ten participants from various museum backgrounds. This small participant number per session enabled deeper discussions and provided each individual an opportunity to speak to their experiences. Of the four sessions, two focused on Back of House (BOH) operations, and two focused on Front of House (FOH) operations. Our criteria for inclusion in one or the other session was based on whether the participants’ main job responsibilities involved engaging with the public or not. The BOH and FOH groups were further divided into large (L) and small/medium (S/M) sized institutions based on the number of visitors per year, number of staff, and number of volunteers.

The Resources Team drafted two sets of questions, one for the BOH (Appendix 1) and one for the FOH sessions (Appendix 2). The Data Gathering Team reviewed the questions to ensure that they built upon the research conducted with the surveys. The questions were then sent to a Smithsonian Human Subjects Research expert to ensure they were meeting best practices.

LL Session participants were recruited by the PEAS Working Group members, from their various and wide reaching professional networks, and participated on a voluntary basis. After receiving an invitation and confirming their intent to participate, individuals were then given a short survey (see Appendix 3), the results of which determined which session (i.e., FOH-L, FOH-S/M, BOH-L, or BOH-S/M) the individual and their organization most aligned with.

The discussion questions were shared with the participants approximately one month prior to each session, for their review and to formulate their responses. Participants were also encouraged to discuss the questions with colleagues at their organization in preparation. One to two facilitators ran the discussion during the sessions, and a notetaker summarized the responses. The sessions followed a specific script so all participants were presented with the same questions and each participant was given an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the sessions were recorded to support writing this article and the recordings were then deleted. Participants were informed of this in advance of the session, and that their responses would be anonymized.

Finally, for the analysis of these discussions, the facilitators and note takers reviewed the notes and transcripts for the sessions they moderated, and then coded the responses using qualitative analysis techniques, combining deductive and inductive approaches. ² Deductive analysis entails using preset categories and themes. In this case, the preset categories and themes were based on our research question, “What are the current practices being implemented and how effective are they?” This directed what we looked for in the data. Inductive analysis, on the other hand, means starting with the data and allowing the transcript to drive the development of categories or themes. In other words, additional themes naturally arose from the participants’ responses. By using both deductive and inductive analysis techniques in an iterative manner, we aimed to answer our questions while also allowing the respondent’s answers to guide parts of the analysis. The following is the Resource Team’s summary and analysis of the LL discussions.

Summary

Four themes arose from the sessions. These were generally seen as opportunities or threats to exhibit access and safety, or strengths and weaknesses for our respondents’ organizations:

Some groups had more input on these themes than others, but in general, these were ideas and concepts that continuously arose across all sessions. Below is a summary discussion of the coding notes, and the full coding charts can be found in Appendix 4.

Collective Responsibility

The FOH groups had a recurring theme of collective responsibility—in other words, the role of staff in sharing information with visitors, ensuring accessibility, and positively impacting the visitor experience. Many participants highlighted that visitors are given information about do’s and don’ts, available resources, and how to navigate the space. Several participants also described their customer service training for staff who work in gallery spaces.

One participant discussed how their institution aimed to educate guests on the public’s role in protecting and preserving collections. Another participant described their museum’s “empathetic service philosophy,” in which they strive to start from a place of empathy, assuming that people have good intentions. Staff are trained to approach situations with visitors in the mindset of “can you help me protect our [collections]?”

During the FOH-S/M discussion, five of the six session participants stated that their institutions engage in some form of publicly visible collections work. Three allow collections care staff to perform work during operating hours and in view of the public, so long as the work is not disruptive (e.g., noisy). Two institutions use public programming to explicitly teach collections care work, including demonstrations for elementary school audiences with educational objects. Some also mentioned using social media to highlight collections activities.

One participant described the following when witnessing visitor behavior change after seeing on-site collections work at their historic house museum, “when they see us working very carefully [. . .] handling everything so carefully, I think something clicks in their mind.” This anecdotal evidence characterizes the majority of participants’ comments on a strategy’s effectiveness. Though this one example is positive, none of the participants indicated that their institution had evaluated the effect of teaching collections care on visitor behavior. This topic of teaching the public about collections care provoked additional questions for further consideration by the Resources Group (see Appendix 5).

Interestingly, while many participants in the FOH-L and FOH-S/M groups discussed the importance of positive interactions and shared understanding between staff and visitors, others cited a slightly different approach. One participant noted that their institution’s overall goal was to reduce interactions between visitors and security staff as much as possible based on the assumption that interactions with security staff generally left a negative impression on visitors.

Exhibit Design

All LL groups noted that the use of barriers and stanchions, placing objects behind glass or plexiglass vitrines, and employing sensors and audible alarms were useful for mitigating “detrimental visitor interactions.” However, the FOH-L and BOH-S/M participants generally felt that these were secondary methods, and reliance on these measures alone were insufficient. Participants largely agreed that pairing staff presence with physical boundaries was ideal and provided more complete coverage. This, however, is not always possible.

At one small/medium organization, all barriers between visitors and objects were removed, which increased the need for more intervention and monitoring strategies by the museum staff. Some examples of these strategies included: docents or security guards in the gallery spaces, adding occupancy limits, and requiring visitors to be at least 12 years of age.

Innovations and technology used in displays to keep objects safe was another major topic of conversation among the BOH-L group. While physical safety was often addressed by tailoring mounts and cases to the specific needs of objects, which increases safety and security by reducing physical strain and providing better access control for staff, lighting was brought up as a way to balance preservation and access. It was noted that LEDs and filtration systems in case designs can protect objects while still giving visitors satisfactory visual access. Lighting maps and photographic reviews were highlighted as new ways to track an object’s history of light exposure and any changes that occur during exhibit/access. The individual that suggested these new practices explained that a lighting map is where an exhibit floor plan is documented with actual light readings at the height of each object and at each rotation, and recorded as part of the exhibit plan. Similarly, a photographic review is where photographs are taken of each object, especially those on permanent or long-term display, at quarterly checks, and included as part of the object’s record. Both lighting maps and photographic reviews provide data for making evidence-based decisions for future exhibition of collection material.

Both of the BOH groups noted that their organizations have interactive elements, and they use positive signage and language to redirect visitors to aspects of exhibits that are designed for interaction. The BOH-L group also added that creating spaces that keep visitors comfortable helps minimize “detrimental visitor interactions.” For example, giving visitors places to rest makes it less likely that they sit on objects or displays. Keeping educational activities separate from the gallery space can also help prevent “detrimental visitor interactions.” One BOH-S/M participant described how having a separate space for visitors to engage with props/replicas worked well in preparing them to go into the exhibit. It effectively communicated the importance of objects on display and appropriate behavior.

Organizational Structures, Authority, and Staff Capacities

Many participants in the FOH-S/M group indicated that their organizations are owned, operated, or governed by a larger, non-museum entity such as a university, city, state, or federal agency. The level of influence those entities have on the museum operations ranged. One participant discussed how they have limited authority “because we are a unit within the [university].” Another mentioned that some of their needs are often overlooked “due to budgeting” by the city. On the other hand, participants recognized the unique value of certain resources made available by operating under a parent organization, such as access to specialized knowledge or personnel to support areas of need, including accessibility, security, and emergency response.

Despite access to such resources, staffing constraints were mentioned as a significant issue for small/medium organizations seeking to address exhibit access and safety. Individuals often assumed this responsibility in addition to their assigned duties, and it often fell on one staff member. Among the BOH-S/M group, comments included, “I am the only collections person [and] the one largely in charge of promoting exhibit access and safety.” Another participant noted that limited staffing impacted the quality of activities, such as object condition reports, that support access and safety. At their institution, condition reports could only be completed when objects went on display or to conservation rather than at regular intervals to track object stability.

Staffing and budget constraints were also a consideration among BOH-L participants. It was widely recognized that regular rotation of objects on display is an important activity that promotes both preservation of objects and access for visitors. Despite this, cuts or limitations in staff capacity and budgets often negatively affected rotation schedules.

These organizational structures and staffing limitations also impact incident/emergency response, with one FOH-S/M participant describing how their process varies depending on the time of day (i.e., who is present/available to respond), the type of incident (i.e., who/what is impacted), and security parameters (i.e., who has access to the space). Each factor would necessitate input from a different individual or team, and depending on what happened, may require involvement from the parent entity.

Most FOH-L participants cited security staff as their first responders to collections incidents, with one outlier whose museum does not have on-site security. That museum has a tiered response for incidents, but their philosophy was to rely on other solutions to prevent “detrimental visitor interactions” rather than have security in their gallery spaces. Two participants in this group also highlighted post-incident debriefs, which could lead to policy or procedural changes if deemed appropriate.

Communication and Collaboration

Communication and collaboration among museum staff and allied professionals was woven into all four discussion sessions. Especially when there was a limited number of staff, participants discussed how essential it was to prioritize communication between departments and cross-training. One BOH-S/M participant noted that cross-training was a means of facilitating collaboration, but often happened on an ad hoc basis, rather than as regular practice. Another FOH-S/M participant highlighted that cross-training with different departments enabled them to support a broader variety of events than if the responsibility fell solely on one department.

Both the FOH-S/M and BOH-L groups noted partnerships with allied organizations as important resources for decision-making. National groups such as Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI), American Institute of Conservation (AIC), Smithsonian Institution (SI), and National Parks Service (NPS), regional museum groups or museum neighbors, topical alliances like the network of health museums or military museums, and community-based organizations such as the Native Communities Museum Group were highlighted. One participant in the FOH-S/M group also shared that developing relationships with outside vendors increased their capacity to protect collections during special events because they agreed on protocols and policies.

Among the BOH-L group, speaking with colleagues who could share their institutional memory was considered one of the most important ways of learning and sharing information. Conversely, one FOH-S/M group participant mentioned bringing the public into the planning, coordination, and communication efforts for exhibit development. Community-curated exhibits are part of their strategy for maintaining a balance between protecting exhibits and making the museum an engaging space. This institution’s mission and collection dealt with painful histories, and their work was as much about “protecting emotions” as protecting the objects.

Reflections

Despite a wide range of approaches to exhibit access and safety for people and objects, it was clear that for many institutions, their strategies stemmed from a central philosophy regarding visitor experience and a certain level of risk acceptance customary to their institution. Sometimes activities become muddled due to the influence of outside authorities, communication issues, or budget/staffing constraints. However, establishing defined institutional priorities on visitor engagement and collections safety generally enabled staff to make gallery-level decisions confidently and effectively. For example, in the FOH-L group, one institution prioritized collections preservation over engagement, and so updates to staff training included guidance on responding appropriately to common visitor complaints or infractions. Conversely, another participant discussed how their institution prioritizes visitor experience over collection security, and generally accepted that certain risks to the collection were unavoidable. As a result, on-site staff focused primarily on visitor engagement, and the institution does not install stanchions or barriers in galleries, nor does it accept loans of items that require barriers.

There was broad agreement on the importance of communication and collaboration, but much variation among institutions as to the best methods of implementing partnerships. Among the FOH-S/M group, some of the respondents mentioned informal networks and partnerships developed through interpersonal relationships, and others discussed relationships that were more formalized and defined by policies, codes of conduct, and employment terms. Formal policies establish clarity, consistency, and legitimacy to procedures and the ability to enforce institutional standards. However, implementation of policies may prove difficult if not properly communicated. In such cases, institutions may consider including critical policy guidance in staff training for more practical applications for any and all relationships.

Additionally, participants discussed the benefits of having a written policy on exhibit protocols that is both general enough for broad application but detailed enough to provide guidance in real-world situations. A participant noted “Collections policies are always something to look back upon and have as a backbone.” A further discussion on this topic alone would be beneficial for teasing apart the pros and cons of formal versus informal policies and partnerships. A better understanding of how these networks function and when it is beneficial to have defined/documented processes versus when it is preferable to rely on interpersonal networks may significantly impact operational practice.

Finally, it should be noted that the diversity of expertise and viewpoints among participants led to a far ranging discussion. Although expected and intended, if future research is conducted, it would be beneficial and interesting for discussion groups to spend a few minutes collectively defining what “promoting exhibit access and safety” means to them. “Access” and “Safety” have many different interpretations among professional disciplines. How those ideas come together and are applied in the context of museums can vary significantly. For the Resource Team’s purposes, this made the goal of identifying effective, tested strategies much more complex.

Conclusion

Of the three goals established for the LL Sessions, one was not fully realized—“to develop a better understanding of the kinds of activities happening across the access and safety landscape and what made them effective.” Although there was deep discussion on the kinds of activities employed in the access and safety landscape, the effectiveness of such strategies was not generally discussed. Some mentioned anecdotal evidence, while others highlighted more iterative approaches involving review and revision of pertinent activities and policies. Moving forward, the PEAS Working Group recommends further research into the effectiveness of these strategies to better evaluate and assess policies and practices, and ensure the proper allocation of resources toward methods with proven success.

Of the questions that arose from these conversations, the PEAS Working Group identified several suitable for continued discussion and/or use as potential research prompts (see Appendix 5). We hope these inquiries not only inspire our colleagues to explore the topics of access and safety within their institutions but serve as a guide towards more collaborative communication across disciplines.

While the discussion sessions helped to benchmark what is broadly happening at museums, perhaps the true success of this exercise was the opportunity it afforded different professionals to meet, discuss, and have a voice in the development of this topic. Bringing together professionals from multiple disciplines, various sized organizations, and diverse backgrounds provided not only fertile ground for sharing ideas and building upon lessons learned, but gave the PEAS Working Group ideas and a direction for future research. Although this exercise is complete, the cross-pollination of ideas can and should continue. To that end the PEAS working group has created a Zotero library to host resources on this topic (Appendix 6) with the goal of providing a foundation for those future discussions.

A big thank you to those who volunteered their time to participate in the LL Sessions and support this initiative. The PEAS Working Group looks forward to partnering with allied colleagues in the future. If you or your organization are interested in collaborating with PEAS, you can connect with us at SI-PEAS@si.edu.