Practices of partnership and participation: A case study exploration into museum partnerships with prisons and artist participation in prisoner art exhibitions Candidate Number: KYVH7 Word Count: 10,425 Dissertation submitted to fulfil the requirements for the Masters of Arts degree in Museum Studies of University College London in 2016. UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Practices of partnership and participation:Acasestudyexplorationintomuseumpartnershipswithprisonsandartistparticipationinprisonerartexhibitions
CandidateNumber:KYVH7
Word Count: 10,425
Dissertation submitted to fulfil the requirements for the
Masters of Arts degree in Museum Studies of
University College London in 2016.
UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 2
Abstract Museums are increasingly engaging in partnerships with other organisations both
internal and external of the sector. Partnerships are becoming a standard within
the museum sector, guided by mission statements, decreases to funding, and
urges from sector leaders. Likewise, participation is also becoming an expectation
within the new museology framework. The practices of partnership and
participation are not unchallenged within the sector (Dodd & Sandell 2001), but are
developments of modern museums that are public-focused. Within the last
decade, policies and programmes have widened to include partnerships with
prisons and prisoner art exhibitions that involve the source community. This study
explores how partnerships between museums and prisons function as well as
takes a critical look into how incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions of their
work by looking at two case studies: Cell Block 7 Museum (USA), and The Big
Issues Project (UK).
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my University College London supervisors for their guidance
and support: Theano Moussouri and George Alexopoulos. I would additionally like
to acknowledge the entire University College London Museum Studies Department
for the role it has played in preparing me for this project and providing the
resources to complete it. Significantly, this work would not have been made
possible without the contributions and participation from the staff of these case
studies.
More personally, I would like to thank those closest to me for supporting me
throughout the process of conducting and compiling this research endeavour.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 3
Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 2 List of Figures 5 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Definition of terms 8 2 Partnerships 9 2.1 Defining ‘partnership’ 9 2.2 Evaluating partnerships 11 2.3 Barriers to partnering 12 2.4 Partnerships within the cultural sector 13 3 Participation 16 3.1 Defining ‘participation’ and ‘community’ 16 3.2 Evaluating participation 16 3.3 Barriers to participation 19 3.4 Participation in museums and galleries 19 4 Prison art programmes 22 4.1 Motivations 22 4.2 Evaluation programmes 22 4.3 Barriers for prison art programmes 24 5 Methodology 25 5.1 Research context 25 5.2 Research questions 25 5.3 Case study methodology 25 5.4 Research design 25 5.5 Methods 26 5.6 Grounded theory data analysis 27 5.7 Ethics 28 6 Findings 29 6.1 Case Study 1: Cell Block 7 Museum 29 6.1.1 Partnership profile 29 6.1.2 Partnership model 30 6.1.3 Artist participation 34 6.2 Case Study 2: The Big Issues Project 36 6.2.1 Partnership profile 36 6.2.2 Partnership model 37 6.2.3 Artist participation 44 7 Conclusion 50 7.1 Summary of findings 51 7.2 Recommendations 54 7.3 Suggestions for further research 55
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 4
References 57 Literature 57 Interviews 66 Appendices 67 Appendix I: Participant Information Sheet 67 Appendix II: Informed Consent Form 68 Appendix III: Case Study 1 Cell Block 7 Interview Guide 69 Appendix IV: Case Study 1 Doing Time with the Masters Interview Guide 70 Appendix V: Case Study 2 Watts Gallery Interview Guide 72 Appendix VI: Participant Job Descriptions 74
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 5
List of Figures Figure 1. King’s College London (2015: 15) ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’.
Figure 2. Garza’s ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships.
Figure 3. Carnwell and Carson’s list of barriers to partnership.
Figure 4. Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’.
Figure 5. Description of the ‘rungs’ of Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’.
Figure 6. Brewster’s attitudinal scales.
Figure 7. Description of case studies and research criteria.
Figure 8. Application of research methods.
Figure 9. Codes created during data analysis.
Figure 10. Case Study 1 partnership model findings.
Figure 11. Cell Block 7 Museum brochure.
Figure 12. Case Study 1 artist participation findings.
Figure 13. Page 2 of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.
Figure 14. Case Study 2 partnership model findings.
Figure 15. Introduction of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.
Figure 16. Page 1 of The Big Issues 2016 exhibition program.
Figure 17. ‘Big Issues Project evaluation’.
Figure 18. Case Study 2 artist participation findings.
Additionally, these partnerships are in efforts to meet the increasing demands for
greater participation and counter the traditional exclusive museum practices
(Bennett, 1995). Though an increase to participation has been challenged by
some museum professionals (Lagerkvist, 2006), it has become an increasing
standard within the sector (Lagerkvist, 2006; Vergo, 1989). It has been asserted
that the demand to increase participation, largely comes from the source
communities3 themselves (Lagerkvist, 2006), but there is not always a platform for
adequate communication.
The diversity of source communities as well as the practices used to include them
has been widened throughout the decades to create exhibitions that are the
product of collaborations between museum professionals and non-professionals
(Christen, 2007; Clifford, 2004). Few studies however explore how museums can
increase the level of participation incarcerated artists have within exhibitions of
their work.
Museum efforts regarding prison art include efforts towards programmes and
exhibitions that display artwork created by prisoners. Though these efforts are not
exclusively linked together, this study relates only to the partnerships where
museums both partner with a prison and exhibit artwork through that partnership.
This project explores the partnerships between art galleries that display art created
by currently incarcerated individuals and prisons as well as the level of
participation these artists have in the exhibitions that display their work. As this
author is concerned with museological aims and practices, the scope of this
exploration is limited strictly to the museums’ and galleries’ participation in these
partnerships and exhibitions; the motivations of the prisons, the incarcerated
artists, nor the museum visitors will not be presented within this study.
This work sets out to answer two key questions. Firstly, how do the partnerships
between museums or galleries that display prisoner art and prisons function?
Secondly, how do incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions of their work? The
first portion of this research looks at partnerships between museums or galleries 3Communitiesthatproduceexhibitedmaterialinmuseumsandgalleries;definedfurtherinChapterTwo.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 8
and prisons that deliver prisoner art programmes and exhibit prisoner artwork. The
second aim of this project is to examine the level of participation incarcerated
artists have in exhibitions displaying their work created in these collaborative art
programmes. This researcher has attempted to answer these questions by
examining two case studies: Cell Block 7 Museum in Michigan (USA), and The Big
Issues Project in Surrey (UK).
The findings of this research (discussed in detail in the findings chapter) are
summarised below:
Partnerships between museums and prisons:
• are forged on the part of museums and galleries for reasons relating to
funding needs and mission statement aims.
• are complicated and can experience power conflicts.
• are highly individualised given differing prison policies, partnership
structure, and participant needs.
Artist participation in prisoner art exhibitions:
• is limited by the incarceration of the artists and curatorial staff.
• is partial or non-existent.
1.1 Definition of terms
This work concerns terminology that lacks standard definitions. Specific terms and
some of their scholarly definitions are included in the subsequent chapters (see
2.1 and 3.1); however, to standardise the vocabulary presented in this discussion
of prisoner art programmes and exhibitions, the definitions of ‘partnership’ and
‘participation’ in this context are included here. ‘Partnership’ refers to collaborative
project or programme between a museum and one or more organisations to
achieve a specified goal; the responsibilities of the organisations are not
necessarily shared equally. ‘Participation’ describes the level of inclusion source
communities have in their exhibition process.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 9
2 Partnerships
2.1 Defining ‘partnership’
‘Partnership’ lacks a universal agreement on definition as partnerships come in a
range of varieties. To define prison and museum partnerships, this author borrows
from the King’s College London’s Cultural Inquiry into partnerships, ‘The Art of
Partnering’ (2015: 7), which defined ‘partnership’ as an agreed upon relationship
between two cooperating institutions that will:
Secure additional funding, unlock further savings and deliver value,
efficiency, cost saving or revenue raising; enrich regional and local
cultural identity; and/or provide ways in which national cultural
organisations can fulfil their national remit, extending reach and
putting expertise at the service of more local organisations.
A range of relationships exhibited in partnerships has been extensively
categorised in the ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ in Figure 1 below (King’s College
London, 2015: 15). The table details the motivations and characteristics of the
partnerships reported to King’s College London in their 2015 study.
Type of Relationship Motivation Characteristics
Project / programme
delivery
Goal-oriented Set up by two
organisations to deliver
jointly a one-off project or
programme
Multi-stakeholder project /
programme delivery
Goal-oriented Several organisations join
together to deliver a one-
off project or programme
Operational / resource
building
Resource-based Focused on each
organisation providing the
other(s) with ongoing
resource / capacity
Procurement Resource-based Focused on value for
money and the delivery of
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 10
a particular system or
operational / technical /
back office requirement
that is specified and often
contracted by the partners,
either jointly or individually
Local, regional, or national
hub
Delivery mechanisms are
set in motion but
networking also takes
place
Local / regional / city hubs
bringing together cultural
organisations on a
geographical basis;
membership may be
restricted; often include
high-level executive
representation
Multi-stakeholder
intra-sector
Deliver projects or
programmes and share
capacity
Similar organisations with
shared objectives joining
together to deliver shared
aims and programmes,
often motivated by
regional need to support
skills, opportunities and
training within the sector
Multi-stakeholder
extra-sector
Goal-oriented and
resource-based
Organisations from the
cultural sector joining up
with organisations outside
the cultural sector, for
example in health or
higher education
Networking umbrella Network-based A loose group of
organisations working
together that can also be a
local hub to make
contacts; share
information and discuss
shared aims; usually
geographically organised
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 11
with a flexible and often
large membership
National monuments /
major events
Networks that lead to
project or programme
delivery
Projects galvanised by
events of national
significance such as
commemorations, giving
rise to networking and
funding opportunities
National-organisation led Goal-oriented, with some
networking for national
initiatives and sharing
capacity
An agreement between a
national and a regional /
local organisation(s) in
which the aims of both are
met, often in a way that
supports regional or local
needs, with the
engagement of a national
organisation playing an
enabling role in the sector
Donor/funder Goal-oriented Including a donor or
funder to deliver an
outcome that the donor is
substantially funding
Funding Goal-oriented Consortia getting together
for the purpose of bidding
for funding
Figure 1. King’s College London (2015: 15) ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’.
2.2 Evaluating partnerships
The president of the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships,
Dr. Garza, has identified ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships (Figure 2). The
list describes partnering organisations that are goal-oriented, have filled positions
appropriately, willing to adapt, and are attentive in their interactions.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 12
Garza’s ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships
1. Institutional partners that link to the goal
2. Evolving structure and partners
3. Leadership in key positions
4. Inclusive decision making
5. Appropriate governance structure
6. Mutually beneficial interactions
7. Decision making based on data
Figure 2. Garza’s ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships.
The success of the partnership largely rests with the individuals who work within it.
In order to be effective, partnerships require the staff that manages the partnership
to employ “networking, negotiation, and facilitation skill” in their collaborations
(Davies, 2010: 317). It is the employees of the partnering organisations who are
responsible for ensuring these factors are met through their practices and
relationship.
These factors cannot be demonstrated immediately. Sue Davies (2010) has
acutely identified the amount of time needed to meet the criteria for a successful
partnership, particularly to secure trust, is significant. This is also true for the staff,
adequate time must be given to developing the relationship between the staff and
ample time to re-develop following any staff changes. Therefore, entering into a
partnership requires a commitment to consistently devoting the limited time
museums have towards this partnership.
2.3 Barriers to partnerships
Carnwell and Carson (2008) detailed barriers that exist to successful partnership
(Figure 3). These factors do not negate the motivations or benefits of partnering,
but can have effects on the partnerships that should be remedied through the
successful practices in Figure 2. Carnwell and Carson (2008) argue that as long
as the motivations to partner exist, partnerships will continue to increase in
number regardless of these barriers.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 13
Barriers to partnership
Complexity of relationships
Representativeness of wider public
Tokenism and excessive influence of vocal groups
Desire of individuals not to be involved in making decisions about their care
Threat to confidentiality
Role boundary conflicts
Inter-professional differences of perspective
Threats to professional identity
Figure 3. Carnwell and Carson’s list of barriers to partnership.
2.4 Partnerships within the cultural sector It has been argued (Lewis, 1992: 72) that in the United Kingdom, museums were
formed through a partnership: the 1834 parliamentary committee recommended
that public places be created by partnerships between the government and the
people. Shortly after, the Museum Act of 1845 met that recommendation as
museums and galleries were created using public money (Newman & McLean,
2004:170). The UK government continues to encourage cultural institutions to
partner through policies regarding ‘social inclusion’ (described in the following
chapter) (Newman & McLean, 1998: 146).
The two most common motivations for partnering cited in ‘Taxonomy of
Relationships’ (Figure 1) were ‘goal-oriented’ and ‘resource-based’. Museum goals
are determined by mission statements (American Alliance of Museums, 2012);
goal-oriented partnerships will align with the overall museum or gallery mission.
Partnerships can also be initiated for the purpose of fulfilling a mission statement
(King’s College London, 2015).
Resource-based relationships for museums involve securing funding. Funding is
increasingly becoming an incentive to for museums to engage in partnerships as
in current practice. First, funders are less likely to fund individual organisations,
choosing instead to invest in collaborative efforts (King’s College London, 2015:
9). Second, as funding decreases, museums are utilising innovative efforts to
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 14
secure funding and other museums are encouraged to partner in these schemes
(King’s College London, 2015: 17; Adams, 2016).
Sentiments of ‘goal-oriented’ and ‘resource-based’ relationships were also
cemented in the findings of King’s College London’s (2015: 10) cultural inquiry,
which returned four main reasons why cultural organisations engaged in
partnerships:
• To fulfil mission statements.
• To widen audiences
• To produce a project
• To increase monetary value
King’s College London (2015: 20) found that 95% of the partners in their study
jointly agreed on the objectives of the partnership; however, only 70% of
participants in the King’s College London (2015: 20) study reported they agreed
with their partners over the overall structure of the partnership. This can lead to
‘role boundary conflicts’ as well as a lack of understanding over the ‘complexity of
relationships’, two identifiable barriers to partnering (Figure 3).
Museums of all sizes have been engaging in partnerships across the cultural
sector (National Museum Directors’ Council, 2014), but national museums are
engaging in partnerships on a larger scale than smaller museums due to their
connections (King’s College London, 2015: 26). The British Museum, for example,
has an entire department titled the Learning and National Partnerships. The
Community Partnerships Team works within this department on goal-oriented
partnerships, yet also engages external funders to deliver programmes for these
partnerships (Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016: 369). The British Museum
is also using this department to strengthen partnerships within the often-divided
departments of the museum and enhance cohesive actions under one mission
(Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016: 387).
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 15
Museums and galleries do have a history of partnering with other cultural
institutions such as libraries, schools, or even other museums or galleries
(Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001b; National Museum Directors’
Council, 2014; National Science Teachers Association, 1997), but increasingly,
museums are engaging in partnerships outside of the cultural sector to fulfil goals
and secure funding (King’s College London, 2015: 8). Another incentive to engage
in partnerships outside of the sector is to gain the benefit of sharing the distinct
skills sets of the different organisations (National Museum Directors’ Council,
2014).
These external partnerships may be with established organisations, such as with
the British Museum’s Supplementary School Programme (Cruickshanks & Hunter
Dodsworth, 2016) or formalised with ‘source communities’ (see 3.1). Partnerships
outside of the sector are born out of a relatively new acknowledgement within
museology that communities have invaluable information that was previously
Vergo, P., 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books.
William James Association Prison Arts Project. Prison Arts Project. [online]
Available at: <http://williamjamesassociation.org/prison_arts/> [Accessed 10
September 2016].
Williams, R. M., 2003. Introduction. In: R. M. Williams, ed. 2003. Teaching the arts
behind bars. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. pp. 3-13.
Willis, S., 2016. Developing Participative Models of Working and Community
Engagement. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum
Participation: New Directions for Audience Collaboration. Edinburgh and
Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 162-175.
Wisker, C., 1997. What one museum does for prisoner art. In: D. Gussak and E.
Virshup, eds. 1997. Drawing time: Art therapy in prisons and other
correctional settings. Chicago: Magnolia Street Publishers. pp. 231-239.
Young, I. M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 66
Interviews
Interviewee A. Cell Block 7 Employee. (Personal Communication, 6 June 2016).
Interviewee B. Jackson College Professor. (Personal Communication, 27 June
2016).
Interviewee C. Watts Gallery Employee. (Personal Communication, 30 June
2016).
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 67
Appendices Appendix I Participant Information Sheet Information Sheet for M.A. Museum Studies dissertation research Dissertation title: Creations from the Cell: Prison Art and Participation in Museums and Galleries (working title) Researcher name: Allison Kopplin Contact details: [email protected] Supervisor’s name: Theano Moussouri and Georgios Alexopoulos I would like to invite ______________to participate in this research project Research Details:
• I will examine institutions that display visual art created by incarcerated individuals. How prisoners are represented in these exhibitions and the level of prisoner participation will be explored.
• My research will be carried out through analysis of interviews and questionnaires with participants from research case studies.
• The results of my dissertation could improve the level of participation prisoners hold in their representation in museums and galleries.
• The results will be published as a University College London M.A. dissertation. The role of the participants:
• You are recruited because of your previous work on a prisoner artwork exhibition. • You are asked to partake in a questionnaire regarding the construction of these
exhibitions. • Your identity will be anonymous from the point of data collection, but may be
identified by your professional title. • You hold the right to request the removal of your questionnaire before 27 July 2016.
Please discuss the information above with others if you wish or ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. It is up to you to decide whether to take part or not; choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. If you do decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. All data will be collected and stored in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act 1998.
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 68
Appendix II Informed Consent Form
Informed Consent Form M.A. Museum Studies dissertation research Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet and/or listened to an explanation about the research. Project Title: Creations from the Cell: Prison Art and Participation in Museums and Galleries (working title) Researcher: Allison Kopplin Thank you for your interest in taking part in this research. Before you agree to take part, the person organising the research must explain the project to you. If you have any questions arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to you, please ask the researcher before you to decide whether to join in. You will be given a copy of this Consent Form to keep and refer to at any time. Participant’s Statement I agree that:
• I have read the notes written above and the Information Sheet, and understand what the study involves.
• I understand that if I decide at any time that I no longer wish to take part in this project, I can notify the researchers involved and withdraw immediately.
• I consent to the information I provide being transferred to the United Kingdom to be used anonymously in a University College London dissertation.
• I understand that such information will be treated as strictly confidential and handled in accordance with the provisions of the UK Data Protection Act 1998.
• I understand that the information I provide will be stored anonymously in an encrypted computer file and will be reviewed solely by the above researcher.
• I agree that the research project named above has been explained to me to my satisfaction and I agree to take part in this study.
• I understand that my participation may be audio recorded; if recorded, I understand I will be provided with a transcription and I consent to use of this material as part of the project.
• I understand that the information I have submitted will be internally published as a University College London dissertation and I will be sent a copy. Confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained and it will not be possible to identify me from any publications.
Signature: Date:
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 69
Appendix III Case Study 1 Cell Block 7 Interview Guide General Cell Block 7 Could you briefly explain the Cell Block 7 Museum and your professional relationship to it? What did your role consist of at Cell Block 7? What would you say is the aim of the Cell Block 7 Museum? What is the relationship between the Cell Block 7 Museum and the Jackson State Prison? ______________________________________________________________ General Prison Artwork Could you please explain the Prison Artwork semi-permanent exhibition? What was the inspiration for the Prison Artwork exhibition? When did Cell Block 7 install Prison Artwork? How does Prison Artwork contribute to visitor experience at Cell Block 7? What interpretation accompanies the pieces? Are the artists involved in the interpretation process? Do the pieces rotate? How often? ______________________________________________________________ Designing Prison Artwork Where did Cell Block 7 get these pieces? Do the artists give consent? How are the pieces selected? What themes do the pieces cover? Are there themes Cell Block 7 has chosen to exclude? ______________________________________________________________ Future of Cell Block 7 and Prison Artwork Are there discussions or plans to open up the exhibition to artists who are currently incarcerated in the Jackson prison? Does Ella Sharp contribute to any prison art programmes within the Michigan State Prison? Are there any discussions? Before we conclude this interview, is there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you would like to ask me about this study?
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 70
Appendix IV Case Study 1 Doing Time with the Masters Interview Guide Questions pertaining to your position How did you come to be an art instructor at the Jackson State Prison? What was the aim of the art class? Does Jackson College have a formal partnership with the prison? Questions about the exhibition in general What was the title of the exhibition you curated at the Cell Block 7 Museum that displayed prisoner artwork? What was the inspiration for that exhibition? What was the aim of the exhibition? Did you approach Cell Block 7 Museum with this idea? How did you choose the pieces? What themes did they cover? Were any themes excluded? Were prison tattoos discussed, created or shown? How did you arrange the pieces? What interpretations accompanied the pieces on display? Questions relating to participation Did the artists contribute to any interpretations provided? Did you want to include the names of the artists? Why were the names removed? Do you know if the artists wished their names were included? Did the artists give formal consent for the use of their pieces? Did the artists know which pieces were on display? Did the families of the artists know of the exhibition?
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 71
Questions about future exhibitions Are you planning on curating more exhibitions similar to this at Cell Block 7 Museum or elsewhere? If you were to curate another prisoner art exhibition, are there things you would do differently? What do you see as the biggest obstacle stopping prisoner art exhibitions from being more prevalent?
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 72
Appendix V Case Study 2 Watts Gallery Interview Guide General Big Issues Project Could you briefly explain The Big Issues Project? What does your professional role consist of? What is the Watts Gallery’s relationship to The Big Issues Project? How does The Big Issues Project align with the Watts Gallery’s mission statement? Do the visitor demographics differ between The Big Issues Project and the Watts Gallery? What was the inspiration of The Big Issues Project? *What would you say is the aim of The Big Issues Project? Designing The Big Issues Project Where do the pieces come from for The Big Issues Project? What sorts of groups does The Big Issues Project work with? Are the artists given creative license or do they have assignments to work from? How are these groups chosen?
- Do groups ever approach The Big Issues Project? How are the pieces selected for exhibition?
- Who selects those pieces? Is there any interpretation that accompanies the pieces? - If so, who writes those interpretations? - If not, have the artists ever written the interpretations for their pieces? What sorts of themes do the pieces cover?
- Are there any themes The Big Issues Project chooses to exclude in their selection process? How are the pieces arranged in the exhibition?
- Do artist’s have a say in which pieces are included or how they are arranged? Are the artists’ names on the pieces? What sorts of consent forms are utilized to display and sell the art? Are the pieces created by inmates marked as such or clustered together?
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 73
The Future of the Big Issues Project Are there any discussions or plans to increase the number of prisoner groups The Big Issues Project works with? With regards to prisoner groups, what is the biggest obstacle stopping The Big Issues Project from being expanded? Final Closing Before we conclude this interview, is there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you would like to ask me about this study?
Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation
UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 74
Appendix VI Participant Job Descriptions
Pseudonym
Case Study
Job Description in relation to this study
Interviewee A
Cell Block 7 Museum Doing Time with the
Masters
Daily operations; exhibit research; liaison between
Cell Block 7/Ella Sharp and the MDOC; catalogued Michigan Department of Correction’s collections.
Interviewee B
Cell Block 7 Museum Doing Time with the
Masters
Instructor for a Jackson College course taught at the
one of the six correctional facilities within the Jackson
State Prison
Interviewee C
Watts Gallery
The Big Issues Project
Works with the artists who lead the workshops and attends most workshops, primarily with HMP Send