KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation

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

Practices of partnership and participation
UCL M.A. Museum Studies Dissertation, 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.

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

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

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 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 19. ‘Big Issues Project Enrolement Form’ [sic] page 2.
Figure 20. ‘Big Issues Exhibition Submission Form’.
Figure 21. Summary of findings for research question 1.
*Due to photography restrictions within prisons, there are no photographs of the courses
or workshops discussed in this study.

1 Introduction
The practices of partnership and participation across heritage bodies, increasing in
recent years, have been linked to promotions of the sector as socially inclusive.
These efforts combat accusations and historical evidence of exclusion practices
(Bennett, 1995; Lagerkvist 2006; Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
2001b). These practices are not unchallenged within the sector (Dodd & Sandell
2001), but are developments of modern museums that are public-focused.
Through developing and sustaining partnerships with other institutions, museums
can fulfil mission statements, be more representative of society, and work towards
a goal of interaction and social inclusion with marginalised groups. These
partnerships are concrete efforts towards the co-development of contemporary art
exhibitions. Museums and galleries’ engagement in partnerships with
organisations external to the museum sector have been noted in other scholarly
work (Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016; Department for Culture, Media
and Sport 2001b; King’s College London 2015; National Science Teachers
Association 1997); however, there lacks a depth of examinations into the
partnerships museums and galleries have with prisons.
During the past few decades, the number of partnerships between organisations
has increased significantly within the cultural sector (King’s College London,
2015). Museums and galleries have been urged to increase their partnerships in
efforts to alleviate the effects of recent funding cuts; most recently, this sentiment
was voiced by Director of Art Fund, Stephen Deuchar, in reference to the
possibility of ‘Brexit’1
in 2016, which will end certain arts and cultural funding if
official2
(Adams, 2016).

1 Referring to the United Kingdom’s referendum on 23 June 2016 where the British
people voted to leave the European Union; not official until after the two-year period
ushered in by enacting Article 50.
2 At the time this research began, the referendum had not yet occurred; at the
conclusion of this research, Article 50 has yet to be enacted and the United Kingdom
remains within the European Union, maintaining all EU arts and cultural funding.

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

3 Communities that produce exhibited material in museums and galleries; defined
further in Chapter Two.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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
excluded (Christen, 2007; Clifford, 2004; Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016;
Frisch, 1990; Johnson-Symington & Robertson, 2016; Lavine, 1992; Mullen
Kreamer, 2006; Willis, 2016). Additionally, these partnerships increase community
participation, discussed in the following section.

3 Participation
3.1 Defining ‘participation’ and ‘community’
In defining ‘participation’, this author borrows from McSweeney and Kavanagh
(2016: 19):
a partnership (emphasis mine) between an institution and a group, whether
that be the public, potential audiences, community groups, interest groups
or user groups.
In discussions of museums and communities, establishing ‘community’ is as
needed as reconsidering the function of the ‘museum’ (Buntinx & Karp, 2006). In
this work, ‘community’ refers to a combination of ‘communities of circumstance’
and ‘source communities’. Fraser (2005), borrowing from earlier work done by
Marsh (1999), labels groups united by a common situation as ‘communities of
circumstance’. ‘Source communities’ are groups of individuals that generate
similar material, giving them a shared identity, a key component to a social group
(Young, 1990: 47).
The case studies of this project concern participation for a source community in
the co-production of an exhibition. This author uses the term to describe the
decision-making power held by a community of incarcerated artists, identifiably by
their production of art and incarcerated status, in museum exhibitions of their work.
3.2 Evaluating participation
Arnstein (1969) developed a means of measuring participation known as the
‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (Figure 4). In it, she outlines eight forms of
participation within three degrees of power. The lowest rung constitutes practically
no citizen participation, while the highest rung exemplifies participation resulting in
full citizen power. The more control individuals gain over the policies that concern
them, the higher their level of participation becomes. A brief description of each
‘rung’ on the ladder is found in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’.
‘Rung’
on the
Ladder
Name of
‘Rung’
Type of
Participation
Description
8 Citizen
Control
Citizen Power Control over a programme is held
entirely by the citizens that programme
concerns.
7 Delegated
Power
Citizen Power Negotiations between powerholders
and citizens result in citizens holding

the majority of decision-making power.
6 Partnership Citizen Power Negotiations occur between
powerholders and citizens to share
planning and responsibilities; power is
redistributed.
5 Placation Tokenism Individuals in power choose which
citizens will be placed in positions of
power; those chosen do hold power,
but it reinforces the power structure as
these individuals are not elected by
their peers and the power they hold is
determined by powerholders.
4 Consultation Tokenism Citizens are consulted on issues, but
this is initiated by powerholders with no
guarantee their inputs will be
implemented; often used as a formality
by powerholders with no pressure to
act on the findings.
3 Informing Tokenism Inform citizens of their rights; creates a
system where citizens are given
information, but cannot provide their
feedback or engage in negotiations
over their rights.
2 Therapy Nonparticipation Mental health experts engage in
therapy, which focuses on altering their
perception of their lack of power
instead of changing the power
structure.
1 Manipulation Nonparticipation Community members are placed on
committees by powerholders, but
instead of educating the powerholders,
community members are in turn
educated by the powerholders.
Figure 5. Description of the ‘rungs’ of Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’.

Arnstein (1969) acknowledges that these levels do not accurately represent every
situation of participation as many instances can involve a combination of these
levels or a portion of the description. The ladder therefore serves as a guideline,
not as definitive classifications when examining participation. Arnstein (1969)
openly admits that full citizen control is not likely or probable.
3.3 Barriers to participation
The main barrier to increasing participation is the powerholders. Some within the
cultural sector feel their work is threatened and opened to harsh criticism by
including the efforts of non-professionals (Dodd & Sandell, 2001: 5).
In increasing participation, Ostrom (1997) has identified four barriers not dissimilar
to the barriers of partnership (see 2.3): lack of process, disagreement over powers
and responsibilities, lack of commitment, and lack of motivation.
3.4 Participation in museums and galleries
Museums and galleries have been rightly accused of traditionally engaging in
practices that affect the public, but exclude them from the power to effect change
(Bennett, 1995; Lynch, 2016). The argument that museums exclude communities
in the production of anthropological and historical museums has been expanded to
pertain to all minority communities (Lagerkvist, 2006: 54). Additionally, museums
in the west, particularly those that display art, have been accused of an
‘exhibitionary complex’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimlett, 2006), creating and perpetuating a
hierarchy of individuals who create art according to race and class (Bennett, 2006:
54). Non-museum staff can contribute to the content-making, but are rarely
included in the decision-making processes (Ali & Callaghan, 2016; Davies, 2010:
318). In turn, museums themselves, as the powerholders, act as the greatest
barrier to increasing participation. By increasing the amount of decisions
individuals outside of traditional power holders, a higher level of participation is
achieved.
Part of increasing participation involves implementing policies that are more
‘socially inclusive’ (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999, 2001a; Lynch,
2016). Museums have been creating services specifically for marginalised groups

(Royal Academy of Arts). Matarasso (1997) has argued that increased
participation with the arts can have societal effects, while Sandel (2002) noted the
benefits of decreasing social prejudice through museum exhibitions. Museums
may be responding to the many governmental institutions that are aiming towards
social inclusion, encouraged by reports (Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
1999; 2000; 2001a; 2001b; Group for Large Local Authority Museums, 2000;
Social Exclusion Unit, 2001; United Kingdom National Action Plan on Social
Inclusion, 2001).
There are many internal efforts pressuring museums to alter their practices as well
(Dodd & Sandell, 2001). In recent years, the sector has developed a multitude of
methods, ranging from increasing communication with communities (Frisch, 1990;
Johnson-Symington & Robertson, 2016; Lavine, 1992; Mullen Kreamer, 2006;
Willis, 2016), including community voices in interpretations (Ali & Callaghan, 2016;
Hudson Hill, Roberts & Ryan, 2016; Sandell, 2006: 7), to improving visitor
participation (Filippini Fantoni & Leason, 2016; Simon, 2010), to co-creating entire
exhibitions (Dake, 2016; Duggan, 2011; Fienup-Riordan, 1999; Ostrom, 1997;
Phillips, 2003), to re-structuring the entire museological practice (Lagerkvist, 2006;
McSweeney & Kavanagh, 2016; Sandell, McSweeney & Kavanagh, 2016; Smith &
Fouseki, 2016; Vergo, 1989). These methods facilitate an increase in community
participation within museum practice and offer participatory alternatives to the
historical museological practices used to control society (Bennett, 1995).
The new duty of a museum is defined as one not merely to preserve and display
objects (Dodd & Sandell, 2001; Sandell, 2006); they now face the public need of
social services. To an extent, museums have demonstrated that these new
practices can have positive social effects (Silverman, 2010). In becoming more
inclusive, these positive effects enacted by museum practice can be described as
‘social therapy’ (Newman & McLean, 1998; Silverman, 2002).
Communities are understandably varied in composition and needs. Sandell (2006:
7) is right to wonder: “how can museums hope to represent all sections of society
when group identities are increasingly conceived, not as singular and fixed, but
rather as multiple and shifting?” Lagerkvist (2006: 60) has argued that uniform

methods cannot be applied as each community is differing in its needs and
situations. Instead, he urges a dialogic approach where the museums and
galleries are constantly communicating and renegotiating practices as
circumstances and desires change over time.
One practice that involves democratic communication and negotiation between
museums and communities is seen in ‘contingent collaborations’. Christen (2007:
103) uses the term ‘contingent collaborations’ to describe the socially inclusive
process of co-creating. In this practice, labels such as ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’
become insignificant; the two groups work as a unit that equally shares the
decision-making power.

4 Prison art programmes
4.1 Motivations
As the prison and museum or gallery participations we are discussing here overlap
in prison art programmes, it is worth discussing here these programmes and their
importance. Prison art programmes, as with all prison educational programmes,
are part of recent correctional efforts in favour of the rehabilitation of incarcerated
individuals in place of punishment (Johnson, 2008; Toohil, 2015). The use of art
programmes in particular, is a rehabilitation method where the benefits are multi-
faceted: educational, therapeutic, and recreational (Johnson, 2007). Though they
appear in many western countries, they are more commonly found in the United
Kingdom than the United States (Schoonover, 1986).
4.2 Evaluating programmes
There is an overwhelming lack of studies on the success of prison art
programmes, as their participants constitute a vulnerable population4
. Prisons
understandably restrict access to incarcerated individuals, but also prisoners are
generally not accepted as participating of free will during incarceration.
Researchers who wish to conduct studies on prisoners are required to comply with
extra strict ethical regulations similar to studies pertaining to minors, the mentally
handicapped, and medical patients.
Studies do exist however in limited numbers and offer compelling evidence to the
success of prison art programmes within prisons (Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2008).
Brewster (1983; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2014) has conducted multiple studies on prison
art programmes and their effects. His 2014 study measured the ‘attitudinal scales’
of prisoners with arts experience in the seven areas found in Figure 6.

4 Any group with limited legal competency or capabilities (i.e. children, psychiatric
patients, or mentally disabled individuals); conducting research on these populations
requires stricter ethical procedures.

Time management
Social competence
Achievement motivation
Intellectual flexibility
Emotional control
Active initiative
Self-confidence
Figure 6. Brewster’s attitudinal scales.
The findings indicated that each of these variables was improved in prisoners who
participated in arts programmes (Brewster, 2014: 15 - 19). The study also
identified the need for consistent participation in an art programme as inmates
experienced more positive increases to their behaviour and had fewer disciplinary
actions the longer they were involved in the programme (Brewster, 2014: 18).
Additionally, the participants of prison art programmes were more likely to be
involved in other educational opportunities afforded to them during their
incarceration (Brewster, 2014). This change in individuals resulted in more positive
prison environments (Brewster, 2014: 23).
Each of the factors in Figure 6 is weakened during traditional incarceration and
individuals are isolated from society and largely prevented from voluntary
activities. Additionally, these are desirable attributes in rehabilitated individuals
that in turn positively impact their families and society (Brewster, 2014: 23). This
study demonstrated that prison art programmes can contribute to the rehabilitative
aim of incarceration.
The societal impacts are also widened when prisoner artwork is on display in
museum exhibitions (Aylott, 2002; Johnson, 2007; Wisker, 1997). Additionally,
when exhibited pieces are sold to visitors, not only do prisoners receive the
monetary benefits, they can also in turn contribute to that programme’s
maintenance through funding donations (Williams, 2003).

4.3 Barriers to prison art programmes
As detailed in section 3.3, powerholders can act as barriers. For prison art
programmes, prison policies and restrictions limit the availability and frequency of
prison art programmes.
A lack of funding is also a common barrier for prison art programmes. Funding
cuts for prisoner art programmes are seen in conjunction with reductions to
governmental funding; art programmes in prisons are cut entirely when funding is
lost or tightened (Toohil, 2015). These services can be supplemented from
organisations external of prison funding. Both the Shakespeare Behind Bars
programme and the William James Association Prison Arts Project are partially or
entirely funded through donations or sponsorships (Shakespeare Behind Bars,
2012; William James Association Prison Arts Project).

5 Methodology
5.1 Research context
This dissertation serves as a compulsory component of a master’s degree in
Museum Studies at University College London. This researcher independently
designed, conducted, and analysed this study, but was aided during the process
by UCL dissertation advisors and the Chair of Departmental Ethics Committee
(see 5.7 for a further discussion on research ethics).
5.2 Research questions
As presented in the introduction, this project seeks to answer two questions
relating to museum-prison partnerships and participation of incarcerated artists.
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? These questions represent an institutional
approach; this study is designed to look at the museum and gallery practices, not
the artists or the prisons they partner with. The other approaches are only
mentioned briefly where they are relevant.
5.3 Case study methodology
The methodology employed here to answer these questions is a case study
methodology. This methodology is suitable for this research due to the exploratory
nature of the questions (Gerring, 2007). Partnering with prisons is not currently a
common phenomenon; this limited number of museums and galleries do however
have a diverse range of partnerships. This research is therefore a qualitative look
at each case study necessary in answering the open-ended research questions.
5.4 Case studies
The criteria for selecting these case studies were three-fold: the museums and
galleries all partner with at least one prison, they all have been involved in some
manor with a prison art programme, and these museums and galleries currently
display or have displayed prisoner artwork created in these art programmes. How
each of the two case studies aligns with the research criteria is detailed in the
following table:

Case Study Partnership with
prison(s)
Involvement in
prison art
programme
Prison artwork
exhibitions
Case Study 1 One partnership
with one prison
Indirectly; worked
with the prison’s
partnership that
delivers art courses
One-off prisoner
artwork exhibition
Case Study 2 Partners with three
prisons as part of a
Learning
Department
initiative
Directly; provides
art workshops in
prisons
Continue to
annually exhibit
prisoner artwork
Figure 7. Description of case studies and research criteria.
Though there are only two case studies presented here, this study does not seek
to create a contrast and comparison between the two, but instead attempts to
display the different circumstances these partnerships and exhibitions operate
under. The number of potential case studies is limited as these partnerships and
programmes are not yet widely popular. Separately, prisons that offer art
programmes and exhibitions that display prisoner artwork do exist in larger
numbers, but the combination of both projects under a single partnership remains
uncommon. Additionally, the number of participants recruited for this study is
indeed small, but the number of staff at these institutions is relatively limited,
resulting in only a few employees who designated to working with these
partnerships and programmes.
5.5 Methods
Semi-structured interviews (Appendix III, IV & V) and text analysis served as the
primary methods for this study. Conducting interviews with museum or gallery staff
who work within these partnerships or with these programmes provided the
necessary voice of the museum when taking an institutional approach to research.
In addition to interviews, the participants provided forms and written documents
relating to the partnerships and the exhibitions produced. How each of these
methods was applied to the research questions is explained in Figure 8:

Research question Method used Application of method
1) How do the
partnerships between
museums or galleries that
display prisoner art and
prisons function?
Semi-structured interviews With employees of
partnering organisations
Text analysis Of public documents
2) How are incarcerated
artists participating in
exhibitions of their work?
Semi-structured interviews With exhibition staff
Text analysis Of public and internal
documents
Figure 8. Application of research methods.
5.6 Grounded theory data analysis
In analysing the data collected from this qualitative study, this researcher
employed grounded theory by noting repeated themes across the case studies
and coding them to make inferences (Birks & Mills, 2010: 93). Figure 9 details the
codes this researcher identified and used to analyse the data collected concerning
both research questions. These codes refer to the categories detailed previously:
‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1), the ‘Seven Success Factors’ (Figure 2),
‘Barriers to Partnerships’ (Figure 3), and the ‘Ladder of Participation’ (Figure 4).
Codes pertaining to museum/gallery
and prison partnerships
Codes pertaining to artist
participation
Type of relationship Powerholders
Motivations Elements of participation:
Selection
Interpretation
Artist credit
Effect Change
Success factors
Barriers Level of participation
Figure 9. Codes created during data analysis.

5.7 Ethics
As this is a study conducted through University College London, the UCL ethical
procedures were followed. A Human Participant Research Application (HPRA)
Form was completed and approved by the Chair of Departmental Ethics
Committee (reference number 2016.027). All data was stored in accordance with
the UK Data Protection Act (1998).
The first case study is in the United States, requiring a Risk Assessment Form for
field and location work to be filed in order to collect data outside of the United
Kingdom. Additionally, participants from this case study were informed of the
necessary transnational data transfer at the advice of the Chair of Departmental
Ethics Committee.
In contacting staff and relevant players, each potential participant was provided
with an information sheet (Appendix I) to brief him or her on the context of the
study. Before any data was gathered, each participant also signed an informed
consent form acknowledging he or she understood the risks of participating and
their rights as a participant (Appendix II). Each participant who provided a verbal
interview was sent a transcript of his or her interview within one week of the
interview date. If requested, a participant was sent the sections containing his or
her contributions before publication.
As the participants are currently in a formal partnership with prisons through their
employment, participants have been partially anonymised from the point of data
collection onward. This researcher is in possession of all audio recordings and
interview transcriptions. The names of the participants have been replaced by
‘Interviewee’ and a designated letter, but all participants were notified that they are
partially identifiable by their job description in the consent form (Appendix II; see
also participant job descriptions in Appendix VI).

6 Findings and recommendations
This section presents the findings of this author’s research conducted from June to
August 2016. It sets out to answer the two research questions relating to prisoner
art exhibitions that are specified in previous chapters: (1) How do the partnerships
between museums or galleries that display prisoner art and prisons function? (2)
How do incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions of their work? To properly
understand the case study and answer each of these questions, the findings are
divided into three sub-sections: partnership profile, partnership model, and artist
participation. Within each sub-section, there are further divisions specifying the
codes found during analysis of the qualitative data in accordance with grounded
theory (see 5.6).

6.1 Case Study 1: Cell Block 7 Museum
6.1.1 Partnership profile
Cell Block 7 Museum involves not just one partnership, but a network of
partnerships all located in the city of Jackson, Michigan in the United States. The
museum, opened in 2014, is itself the result of a partnership between the nearby
Ella Sharp Museum and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). The
partnership was initiated by the MDOC (Interviewee A, 2016). The resulting
museum operates underneath the Ella Sharp Museum’s mission statement, remit,
and often staff.
The Michigan State Prison also is engaged in a separate partnership with Jackson
College’s5
Prison Education Initiative, which provides, among other subjects, art
courses to interested prisoners during their incarceration. The second partnership
is between Ella Sharp Museum and a Prison Education Initiative Art History
professor to co-curate a prisoner art exhibition at Cell Block 7: Doing Time with the
Masters. The Art History course generated the art pieces that became part of the
prisoner art exhibition. The exhibition opened in 2015 and has since ended, along
with the partnership between the professor and Ella Sharp Museum due to
personal conflicts (Interviewee, A 2016; Interviewee B, 2016).

5 Formerly Jackson Community College

Under normal operations, the two partnerships would have not overlapped, but
converged in the development of Doing Time with the Masters. The two
organisations interestingly initiated and developed the exhibition directly, without
MDOC’s involvement. The art course instructor had posted some of his students’
work to Facebook, resulting in several employees from Ella Sharp Museum
contacting him (Interviewee B, 2016).
6.1.2 Partnership model
In analysing the partnership models of the partnership between Ella Sharp
Museum and the MDOC regarding Cell Block 7 Museum and between Ella Sharp
Museum and the Jackson College Professor concerning Doing Time with the
Masters at Cell Block 7 Museum, the findings were coded (see 5.6) and are
presented in the Figure 10 below:
Code Ella Sharp Museum and
MDOC
Ella Sharp Museum and
Jackson College Professor
Type of
relationship
Operational / resource
building
Project / programme delivery
Motivations Resource based; goal-
oriented
Goal-oriented
Success factors Institutional partners that link
to the goal
Institutional partners that link to
the goal; inclusive decision-
making
Barriers Complexity of relationships;
role boundary conflicts
Inter-professional differences of
perspective
The type of relationship, motivations, and barriers of the partnership between Ella
Sharp Museum and the MDOC will be discussed first. This relationship can be
classified as ‘operational / resource building’ as both organisations provide
resources beneficial to the other. The MDOC provides the space and the
collections for the museum, while Ella Sharp transforms those elements into

something accessible to the public by staffing the museum, managing the
collection, and curating exhibitions (Interviewee A, 2016).
The motivations for Ella Sharp to develop the Cell Block 7 Museum are primarily
‘resource based’. When asked about Ella Sharp’s motives, Interviewee A, did not
shy away from the practicalities of the arrangement, “Very frankly, it is financially a
good opportunity for us” (Interviewee A, 2016). She additionally mentioned the
‘goal-oriented’ desire to expand the historical narrative of Jackson to include one
of the town’s biggest employers (Interviewee A, 2016). The current model of the
‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1) does allow for additional motivations for
partnerships, yet this case study had two clearly defined and non-contradictory
motivations.
As the discussion turned to the significance the prison has on the local Jackson
history, it became clear that this partnerships success factor was ‘institutional
partners that link to the goal’. Ella Sharp Museum’s mission of telling Jackson’s
town history (Ella Sharp Museum), one of the partnership motivations, was met by
the partnering prison. Interviewee A’s perspective on MDOC’s reasons for initiating
the partnership mirrored Ella Sharp’s own mission, “I think that was their main
intention: to educate people about the classes and the art programmes that they
have for people” (Interviewee A, 2016).
The ‘complexity of the relationship’ provides a barrier to having an effective
partnership. The relationship has no model off which to mimic, as it is unique in the
museum world. Cell Block 7 Museum is the only prison museum within an
operating prison,6
urging potential visitors to literally “spend some time on the
inside” in their marketing efforts (Figure 11). “It’s quite an unusual partnership, I
don’t know if it’s ever been done anywhere else” (Interviewee A, 2016). The State
of Michigan awarded Ella Sharp Museum and the MDOC with the Governor’s
Award for Innovative Tourism Collaboration to commend their unique collaborative
efforts (Interviewee A, 2016).

6 Neither Cell Block 7 Museum, nor this researcher have been able to confirm this as
fact; Someone had mentioned an unnamed museum in Louisiana to Interviewee A
with a similar structure, but this claim remains unsubstantiated.

Figure 11. Cell Block 7 Museum brochure.
While the partners do engage in the skill sharing advised by the National Museum
Directors’ Council (2014), these differences are actually impeding and halting
functions as ‘role boundary conflicts’. While Cell Block 7 Museum develops and
designs the exhibitions, the MDOC must approve any exhibit ideas and content
before, during, and after installation. Interviewee A (2016) described an instance
where the MDOC executed their power over Cell Block 7 exhibitions:
One thing that MDOC did not appreciate: one of the drawings that was in
the Jackson College Professor’s exhibit [Doing Time with the Masters] had
nudity in it and they did not like that at all… So that was surprising and kind
of weird just because they saw the exhibit and then a month later they went
and saw it again and asked us to take those down (Interviewee A, 2016).
There is not an official list of approved and unapproved topics for exhibitions, they
are reviewed in a case, by case basis, making working with the MDOC a form of
gambling for the museum staff. There are some policies which the museum has

discovered the MDOC is strict about, however, the staff has experienced times
where the MDOC will ‘flip-flop’ on their own decisions further along in the
development process (Interviewee A, 2016). This complicates the working
environment and impedes on the staffs’ process of developing the exhibitions, one
of their responsibilities within the partnership.
This difficulty did not deter Interviewee A from presenting exhibition ideas as she
describes it: a ‘no’ from MDOC is the worst outcome (Interviewee A, 2016). She
did admit to a suspicion that their MDOC contact could be overly cautious with
approvals, feeling these practices and the approval rating of exhibition
presentations could change with a different exhibition developer from Ella Sharp, a
change in the MDOC contact, or both (Interviewee A, 2016).
The second partnership concerning Cell Block 7 Museum, the relationship
between Ella Sharp Museum and the Jackson College Professor, will now be
described. The type of relationship is a clear ‘project / programme delivery’. The
two joined with the intention of creating only one exhibition (Interviewee B, 2016).
The motivation for developing the exhibition was singular, to showcase the work of
Michigan prisoners (Interviewee B, 2016). The joint commitment to this goal from
both organisations also constituted one of their success factors. The partnership
also demonstrated ‘inclusive decision making’ as individuals from both
organisations were involved in the curatorial process (Interviewee A, 2016;
Interviewee B, 2016).
There were however ‘inter-professional differences of perspective’ between Ella
Sharp Museum staff and the professor, which actually led to the termination of the
partnership following the exhibition. Neither party is interested in re-forming the
partnership (Interviewee B, 2016), though both Interviewee A (2016) and
Interviewee B (2016) indicated they would be interested in pursuing other
professional relationships with different organisations with a similar goal or project.

6.1.3 Artist participation
The findings relating to prison artist participation in exhibitions of their work from
Case Study 1 were similarly coded (see 5.6); the results of the data analysis can
be found in Figure 12 below:
Code Doing Time with the
Masters
Powerholder Exhibition curators; MDOC
Elements of
participation:
Selection Partial participation
Interpretation No participation
Artist credit No participation
Effect change No participation
Level of participation Informing
Before divulging into the artists’ participation, it should be noted who the
powerholders are within this structure. The level of participation for Doing Time
with the Masters is limited by the exhibition curators, in this case both Ella Sharp
Museum staff and the art instructor. In addition, as all Cell Block 7 exhibitions are
approved by the MDOC per the arranged partnership (see 6.1.2), the MDOC acts
as a secondary powerholder.
The pieces for Doing Time with the Masters were selected from the entire
collection of works produced in the course and the instructor’s personal collection
from the Annual Exhibition of Art by Michigan Prisoners.7
The Instructor and the
exhibition team from Ella Sharp Museum were involved in the selecting process
(Interviewee B, 2016); the MDOC was not involved in the original selecting
process, but was consulted for approval in a later developmental stage
(Interviewee A, 2016).

7 The Prison Creative Arts Project, operated by the Literature, Science, and the Arts
College at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, annually organises one of the largest
exhibitions of prisoner art in the United States. Further information available at:
https://lsa.umich.edu/pcap/exhibits/annual-exhibition-of-art-by-michigan-
prisoners.html#view=month

The artists did participate in one key area, giving them partial participation:
consent. In order to use their work in the exhibition, the instructor gathered the
verbal consent of all participating artists and without it, would not have used the
pieces in the exhibition (Interviewee B, 2016).
The interpretations for the pieces were created entirely by the Jackson College
professor; the artists did not contribute in any way to the interpretations of their
work (Interviewee B, 2016). The curatorial narrative followed the instructor’s
intentions and descriptions of the various projects assigned to the students and
pieces from his personal collection, not the artists’ journeys in creating their work
(Interviewee A, 2016).
In terms of artist credit, no participation is seen as the decision was made by a
powerholder without consulting the artists. The names of the artists were removed
from the pieces before the display, per MDOC’s policy of keeping the identities of
current inmates anonymous (Interviewee A, 2016), though there was an indication
that some artists would prefer credit (Interviewee B, 2016). Interviewee A
describes the reasoning behind this decision:
With [Doing Time with the Masters], there was kind of a feel, since they are
for sure still currently in prison, there was a feeling of keeping their
information private. Because if they are from Jackson, then maybe they
don’t want their next-door neighbor seeing that, ‘Oh he’s in prison. Great.’
Because there is obviously negative connotations that go with that and
people don’t think, ‘Oh, he’s in prison, but he’s taking a class through
Jackson College and he’s trying to better himself while he’s there,’ which is
really what’s happening (2016).
As this exhibition was a one-off production, the participants were not given an
opportunity to enact changes to the process. Artists were however invited to
participate in an evaluation for their art course through Jackson College8
; this did

8 This researcher was not provided access to the evaluation form for the Jackson
College Course.

not relate specifically to their involvement in Doing Time with the Masters
exhibition (Interviewee B, 2016).
Based on the elements of participation listed above, the level of artist participation
seen throughout the development of Doing Time with the Masters is ‘informing’.
6.2 The Big Issues Project
6.2.1 Partnership profile
The second case study, The Big Issues Project, is not just one partnership
between the Watts Gallery an operating prison; it is a collective group of
partnerships that fluctuates from year to year and is not exclusive to prisons, but
includes other organisations that offer services to individuals largely excluded from
mainstream society (Figure 13). For the prison groups, the Watts Gallery delivers
art workshops within the prison walls to select participants by bringing in art
instructors and materials.
The project culminates each year with an exhibition of participants’ work in the
Watts Contemporary Gallery. Last year, The Big Issues Project included
partnerships with and displayed the work from three prisons: HMP Send, HMP/YOI
Feltham, and HMP & YOI Bronzefield. These are The Big Issues Project partners
and participating groups this author focuses on.

Figure 13. Page 2 of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.
6.2.2 Partnership model
The partnerships between the Watts Gallery and HMP Send, HMP/YOI Feltham,
and HMP & YOI Bronzefield were analysed using the same codes as Case Study
1 (see 6.1.2). The findings from that analysis can be found in Figure 14.
Code The Watts Gallery and The Big Issues
Project groups
Type of relationship Multi-stakeholder extra-sector
Motivations Goal-oriented; resource based
Success Factors Institutional partners that link to the goal;
evolving structure and partners; decision
making based on data
Barriers Complexity of relationships

These partnerships can be seen as a form of ‘multi-stakeholder extra-sector’
because the Watts Gallery is an organisation engaging in multiple partnerships
with similar organisations outside of the cultural sector, in this case correctional
facilities.
The driving motivator for The Big Issues Project is the mission it received from its
founders George and Mary Watts, who in their lifetime were passionate about
social issues (Interviewee C, 2016). This mission applies to all areas of the gallery
and is cited in the first paragraph of the Introduction of the 2016 exhibition program
(Figure 15).
Figure 15. Introduction of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.
The Big Issues Project aims to fulfil that mission by providing programmes and
access to the Watts collection for “groups with the least access to art” (Interviewee
C, 2016). Interviewee C (2016), described The Big Issues Project within the
learning programme:

The Big Issues Project is the community outreach part of our learning
programme. So basically the learning programme incorporates the public
programme, schools, and then sort of the community side, and that is The
Big Issues Project. We refer to our learning programme as ‘art for all’. The
Big Issues Project sits under that umbrella.
Again, the ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1) has failed to allow for multiple
motivating factors. The partnership between the Watts Gallery and HMP & YOI
Feltham was formed for motivations that are both ‘resource based’ and ‘goal-
oriented’. The Henry Smith Charity funds programmes for young offenders
became a funder for The Big Issues Project (Figure 16), desiring HMP & YOI
Feltham to be involved.
Figure 16. Page 1 of The Big Issues 2016 exhibition program.
Interviewee C (2016) additionally described that partnership as a way to meet
mutual goals, acting as its success factor: “It’s us wanting to do the work and
where the interest of the funder lies that can match. And that’s sort of a perfect
partnership.”

Another success factor within these partnerships is their ‘evolving structure and
partners’. This past year, the project worked with three prisons and three
community groups, but those groups can fluctuate from year to year (Interviewee
C, 2016). This allows the programme to reach different individuals and create
exhibitions from different source communities.
The project also ‘makes decisions based on data’ as each participant is asked to
complete an evaluation form (Figure 17). Interviewee C (2016) assured this
researcher that the results of these evaluations do impact the direction of the
programme for the future. She described an instance at HMP Send that resulted
from participant feedback:
It used to have an artist in residence who worked there for a longer
period of time… we mixed that up a little bit and decided to do blocks
with different artists teaching different techniques in their respective
media… but they expressed the desire to have more of an on-going
relationship, which was interesting. So that was something that
we’ve kind of taken on board and one of the artists that we took in
they particularly developed a really strong rapport with and they
really wanted her to come back (Interviewee C, 2016).

Figure 17. ‘Big Issues Project evaluation’.

Though The Big Issues Project has multiple success factors in their partnerships,
there are major barriers that impede their function. The ‘complexity of
relationships’ is due to managing three partnerships that greatly differ in factors
out of the control of The Big Issues Project. Though all the prisons are located in
Surrey, they have considerably different art programming structure, restrictions,
and participant needs. Watts Gallery employees who work with The Big Issues
Project must be fully aware of the policies and ensure all procedures are met
before each session as to not negatively impact the participants by being forced to
delay or cancel a session.
The structure of the programme largely depends on the frequency of
programming, the amount of repeat participants, and participant ability to continue
work after the sessions. The most exceptional programme is probably HMP Send,
where the frequency of the programming is the highest (once a month), three of
the nine participants have been in the programme for multiple years, and they are
allowed to continue working on their projects in their rooms (Interviewee C, 2016).
This delivers a very different service than is provided to participants at Feltham
and Bronzefield who participate less frequently in the programmes, perhaps only
once, and are not allowed to have materials and work in their rooms9
(Interviewee
C, 2016).
Likewise, there are individualised prison restrictions on the materials used during
the workshops and who can enter the prison to provide these services. In terms of
restricting materials, the best example might be found in the allowance of polyvinyl
acetate (PVA) glue. PVA is not allowed in Feltham, but can be taken into Send
and Bronzefield (Interviewee C, 2016). This material is frequently used in arts
projects and the restriction of it in turn requires the Watts Gallery staff to develop
alternative projects.
As with any operating prison, the individuals allowed to enter the building,
especially repeatedly, are formally vetted. This process is not the same for each

9 HMP & YOI Bronzefield participants have other art programmes, but have The Big
Issues Project workshops for three consecutive days and they do not work on these
pieces outside of these sessions.

prison. In general however, an art instructor can visit the prison for a limited
amount of time before completing the entire security check, which requires a
significant level of commitment from the visiting artists, who deliver sessions in
excess of that number (Interviewee C, 2016).
Even if the entire party is approved for entry, a formal arrangement must be made
to allow for entry into the prison. Interviewee C (2016) said this is generally what
causes the most serious delays to delivering the sessions, which affect their plan,
“it’s not really the ideal sort of way to start an engagement because we like to be
there first, if possible, to set up and be ready to welcome the group in, but
sometimes they’re left waiting for us and it’s just not ideal” (Interviewee C, 2016).
Interviewee C (2016) stressed the importance of negotiating to have a designated
lead contact at the prison with which to communicate. She describes how their
new arrangement with Send limits the delays and cancelations that impact The Big
Issues Project’s delivery of the sessions:
We’ve got a team who we send our materials lists to and our requests for
gate notices – there needs to be a gate notice for every person who is
coming into the prison with certain information about them – as well as one
member of staff who is our lead contact; so if he is not there, then
somebody else in the team knows that they need to put those
arrangements in place basically, so there’s a back-up plan if that lead
contact is away or pulled from another section and then he arranges for
cover for himself if he can’t attend a session (Interviewee C, 2016).
The needs of the groups are additionally distinct from each other. Interviewee C
(2016) recalled once changing the structure of a course to allow participants who
were low in skill level and confidence in their art to feel immediate success in their
work by opting for more printmaking exercises than painting in the following year.
This group stood out in terms of mental health and educational issues (Interviewee
C, 2016). This is not uncommon with The Big Issues Project groups and
determines what The Big Issues Project will do not based on what they see would
best meet the needs of that particular group.

The Watts Gallery staff that manage these partnerships overcome this obstacle by
isolating the groups from one another to deliver highly individualised programmes
to each of the groups. Interviewee C (2016) described her individualised approach
to each of the prison partnerships:
I think it’s all very individual. So I think it really is about getting to know each
of the individuals who are part of that group and sort of tailoring what you’re
doing to them. It’s really about learning about their individual needs and
then responding as best we can. The groups are very different and they’re
very different in terms of their skill level and in terms of how they’re able to
engage (Interviewee C, 2016).
6.2.3 Artist participation
Data pertaining to artist participation in The Big Issues exhibition10
were analysed
using the same codes as Case Study 1 (see 6.1.3). The findings are summarised
in the following table:
Code The Big Issues
exhibition
Powerholder Museum staff; HMP Send;
HMP/YOI Feltham; HMP &
YOI Bronzefield
Elements of
participation:
Selection Partial participation
Interpretation Partial participation
Artist credit No participation
Effect change Partial participation
Level of participation Consulting

10 Under the advice of Interviewee C, ‘The Big Issues exhibition’ refers to the annual
exhibition displaying the artwork created by The Big Issues Project participants; it is
not italicized.

The powerholders controlling The Big Issues exhibition 2016 artists’ level of
participation are the Watts Gallery staff and the prisons are HMP Send, HMP/YOI
Feltham, and HMP & YOI Bronzefield.
As seen in Case Study 1, The Big Issues Project artists experience partial
participation in the selection process. They can limit the pieces available to The
Big Issues exhibition by offering or refusing their consent at the time of
construction. On the ‘Big Issues Project Enrolement Form’ [sic] (Figure 19), given
to participants during the workshop, participants give the Watts Gallery permission
to display their work in the exhibition. By consenting or not consenting to the
display of their work, the artists do have a level of control over the exhibition.
These are recorded by the Watts Gallery and used to determine which pieces are
available for selection within the exhibition (Interviewee C, 2016). Due to the
limited space in the Watts Gallery however, there is a further selection process
done by the Watts Gallery exhibition team (Interviewee C, 2016).
In a separate section of that same document (Figure 19), the artist also indicates
whether or not the Watts Gallery has the right to sell their artwork in the exhibition.
The artists’ level over this area was recently drastically restricted. If a participating
artist chooses to sell his or her artwork in the exhibition, there is a new mandatory
25% donation of the proceeds to Victim Support. This introduction resulted in
action taken by the Department of Criminal Justice that disrupted the exhibition’s
proceedings; the press release for the exhibition was blocked because donations
to Victim Support were voluntary instead of compulsory under the then-current
policy (Interviewee C, 2016).

Figure 19. ‘Big Issues Project Enrolement Form’ [sic] page 2.

The interpretations for the individual art pieces included in The Big Issues
exhibition is entirely provided by the artists themselves. Artist would be considered
holding full participation if they generated the introductory panels as well; however,
currently these are written by Watts Gallery employees. This differs slightly from
the standard practice for all Watts Gallery contemporary art exhibitions that are
either provided entirely by the contemporary artist or developed collaboratively
with the Watts Gallery employees (Interviewee C, 2016). Similarly to the
contemporary shows, artists can choose what to write as well as if they provide
any interpretation for their individual piece at all.
The artists are presented with an exhibition submission form (Figure 20), which
includes space to prove a ‘picture caption’. One of the biggest contributions artists
can have in exhibitions of their work is providing their own interpretations to
accompany their work on display. The ‘voice’ of the label affects the way visitors
experience the exhibition (Serrell, 2015: 135). The artists’ who write their own
labels provide an alternative ‘personal voice’ to the ‘impersonal institutional
authority museum voice’, regarded as the default when writing labels (Serrell,
2015: 135).
The exhibition team takes these captions verbatim when creating the exhibition
labels (Interviewee C, 2016). Interviewee C (2016) describes the value in this
practice of the programme: “I think they’re really helpful for people who are coming
to the exhibition to get a sense of being in their shoes and how it felt to make that
work or the situation. People like that sort of insight into what they were thinking.”
In order to accurately capture those sentiments, the artists are encouraged to
complete this section of the form soon after completing their work (Interviewee C,
2016).

Figure 20. ‘Big Issues Exhibition Submission Form’.

Regarding artist credit, Interviewee C (2016) is not aware of any rules preventing
the use of artists’ names along with their pieces; however, the Watts Gallery
chooses to partially anonymise all Big Issues Project participants by using their
first names only. Participants have not been formally consulted on this issue,
resulting in no participation, but in her discussions with participants, participants
have not challenged this anonymisation (Interviewee C, 2016). In fact, some
participants indicated full disclosure of their identities would not be preferable
(Interviewee C, 2016). When asked why these artists might not want their names
associated with their exhibited artwork, Interviewee C (2016) responded: “If
somebody were to see the artwork by so and so, they would be able to look at
their crime, or their conviction and that – depending on the individual – would not
be something that they would want.”
The artists do have the ability to enact change in the programme through the
formal evaluations they conduct (see 5.2.2). Similar to interpretations, this element
of participation would be considered full participation; however, there is no
structure in place where the artists can ensure that the results of these evaluations
contribute to actual change.
Based on the above elements of participation, artists with work in The Big Issues
exhibition experience a ‘consultation’ level of participation.

7 Conclusions and suggestions for further research
Partnerships between museums/galleries and prisons that produce exhibitions
displaying artwork produced by prisoners are few in number, but constitute a new
endeavour for museums and galleries. They have been aiming towards co-
production and increasing participation for communities that don’t traditionally
contribute to the sector through partnerships. The incarceration of the artists
present challenges to increasing their participation in the exhibitions of their work;
however, programmes can incorporate platforms to increase communication and
participation.
This study has examined the nature of partnerships between prisons and the
museums and galleries that display prisoner artwork as well as areas where artist
participation is evident in exhibitions. The specified research questions were (1)
how do the partnerships between museums or galleries that display prisoner art
and prisons function? And (2) how do incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions
of their work? Several key points can be concluded from the qualitative look into
these case studies (see 7.1) as well as recommendations on how these
partnerships and artist participation can be improved (see 7.2) and suggestions for
further research (see 7.3).
The findings of this study and the efforts of further explorations into the subject
could widely impact the museum sector. Scholarly efforts indicate that
partnerships are going to become an increasing standard for museums to both
fulfil mission statements and secure funding. By confronting the ways their efforts
are hindered and developing platforms for change, museums’ approach to
participation can also be adapted. Given the appropriate commitment of both
museum and prison and an adequate, agreed-upon structure, a partnership can
have the dual function of sharing skills and resources to achieve a specified goal.
Additionally, by providing a platform for incarcerated artists in relation to
exhibitions of their work, museums are practicing co-production by increasing the
level of source community participation.

7.1 Summary of findings
The findings were analysed through grounded theory methodology. The data
analysis relating to museum partnerships with prisons revealed museums engage
in partnerships with prisons to varying degrees, resulting in partnerships that
function in a myriad of ways. The findings are summarised in more detail in Figure
21.
Code Case Study 1 Case Study 2
Type of
relationship
Operational /
resource building
Project /
programme
delivery
Multi-stakeholder
extra-sector
Motivations Resource based Goal-oriented Goal oriented;
resource based
Success factors Institutional
partners that link to
the goal
Institutional
the goal; inclusive
decision making
Institutional
the goal; evolving
structure and
partners; decision
making based on
data
Barriers Complexity of
relationships; role
boundary conflicts
Inter-professional
differences of
perspective
Complexity of
relationships
Museum partnerships with prisons can be intended for long-term or short-term
periods. They do not always involve two partners, but can be seen as more of a
network of specialised partnerships or a multi-stakeholder umbrella of partnerships
underneath one programme. Overall, museums form partnerships to fulfil mission
statement aims; however, these partnerships can also be the result of funding
needs. The partnership may be introduced to a museum by the prison itself or an
external organisation, such as a funder. These nuances within each individual
partnership complicate the categories for partnerships and motivations described
in ‘The Art of Partnering’ and used in part to analyse the data from this study
(King’s College London, 2015). Complexities are individual to each partnership

and require an original approach in each instance with methods in-place for re-
negotiating as described by Lagerkvist (2006: 60).
The partnerships explored here exhibited several different success factors. First,
all of the partnerships in this study demonstrated a commitment to the goal of the
partnership. Secondly, Doing Time with the Masters at Cell Block 7 Museum
provided a platform for inclusive decision making between the Ella Sharp Museum
and Jackson College co-curators. Thirdly, although The Big Issues Project is multi-
year, it adapts its composition, resulting in a structure that can look different year
to year. Additionally, some of these changes are grounded in evaluation findings.
Several barriers to successful partnerships were identified in the examination of
these case studies: the ‘complexity of relationships’, ‘role boundary conflicts’, and
‘inter-professional differences of perspective’. The individual complexities of each
partnership can lead to confusion. The partnerships that develop between a
museum or gallery and a prison involve a division of spheres of influence that
cause role conflicts when they overlap. The partners respect the institutional
authority of the other in most instances, but conflict can arise if museum staff do
not adhere to differing prison policies or a prison does not approve of a museum
practice. Inter-professional differences between individuals working within the
partnership can also occur. Unresolved barriers can compromise successful goal
achievement, jeopardise the continuation of the partnership, and negatively impact
the partners, participating artists, or the exhibition.
The analysis of data collected pertaining to artist participation in prisoner art
exhibitions discovered the incarcerated artists examined in this study experience a
low level of participation in exhibitions of their work. The detailed findings are
additionally summarised in Figure 22.

Code Case Study 1 Case Study 2
Powerholder Exhibition curators;
MDOC
Museum staff:
HMP Send;
HMP/YOI Feltham;
HMP& YOI
Bronzefield
Elements of
participation:
Selection Partial participation Partial Participation
Interpretation No participation Partial Participation
Artist Credit No participation No participation
Effect change No participation Partial participation
Level of participation Informing Consulting
There are two major powerholders regarding exhibitions of prisoner art: the
prisons and the exhibition staff. Increasing participation for prison artists is entirely
dependent on the efforts of the prisons and the museum or gallery in partnership
with them. The incarcerated status of the artists prevents them from physically
visiting exhibitions of their work, while museum exhibition practices limit
participants’ involvement from afar. In this way, these exhibitions tend to support
rather than contradict previous accusations that museums rarely share
exhibitionary power (Ali & Callaghan, 2016; Davies, 2010; Lagerkvist, 2006).
In terms of the participants’ ability to partake in the selection or interpretation
processes, receive credit, or effect change within the programmes, incarcerated
artists experience no or partial participation depending on the structure set-up. The
resulting exhibition therefore cannot be considered a ‘contingent collaboration’
(Christen 2007; see section 3.4). Characteristics of incarceration prevent these
participants from experiencing ‘Citizen Power’ (Figure 4). Both ‘informing’ and
‘consulting’ are classified as types of ‘Tokenism’ (Arnstein, 1969; see Figure 4). If
artists are consulted on matters, they remain constricted as they have no platform
to ensure their voices are heard or their level of participation is increased.

7.2 Recommendations
This section lays out this author’s recommendations relating broadly to museum
partnerships and participatory practices in exhibition development and specifically
to museums engaging in partnerships with prisons to exhibit prisoner art.
Firstly, the sector would benefit from the creation of a categorisation system for
partnerships that allows for more nuances and fluidities in the structure of
relationships and motivations for partnering; this is lacking in the current
‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1).
Secondly, there is no one method to approaching partnerships and museums
should routinely re-evaluate practices, as Lagerkvist (2006: 60) has suggested.
This allows for the creation of individualised structures and specified role
agreements with the differing prisons. The communication required to create these
distinct relationships will lead to less conflicts and facilitate a quick conflict
resolution time as a platform has already been established. These agreements will
seek to achieve the goals tailored specifically to needs of those participants, but
should be flexible to changes in participant needs or feedback.
Thirdly, though the case studies explored here experience limitations and barriers,
the practices of partnership and participation are worthwhile endeavours towards
social inclusion and should not be abandoned. Museums should continue to strive
for increased community participation within exhibition development to combat
accusations of withholding power (Davies, 2010; Lagerkvist, 2006). Though there
are limitations when working with incarcerated individuals, there are areas to
improve upon through diligent efforts from museum staff and regular evaluations
on practices. Even if ‘contingent collaborations’ remain non-existent within prisoner
art exhibition developments, the ideas behind them could exist by employing staff
that adheres to the socially inclusive theoretical approach to exhibition design
(Christen, 2007).

7.3 Suggestions for Further Research
This project has embodied an institutional approach to the subject of partnerships
between institutions that generate prisoner visual art exhibitions and prisons. In
order to gain a more holistic sense of these partnerships and facilitate a more
informed academic discussion within the sector, a look into the perspectives of the
artists, the prisons that house them, and the visitors to prisoner art exhibitions is
needed.
Further studies into the impacts of arts programmes on prisoner rehabilitation
would be worthy contributions used to combat recent cuts to prisoner arts
programmes. A structure could be developed between museums and prisons
where participating incarcerated artists not only receive long-term instruction in
creating art, but also the technical and curatorial expertise require in developing an
exhibition such as interpretation methods and exhibition design skills. These skills
could bolster Brewster’s (2014) claim that developing skills increases prisoner
attitudes and decreases disciplinary actions. These studies could expand to
include the effects of these programmes on the prisoners’ families to gage wider
societal impacts, possibly demonstrating the socially inclusive role museums can
play in society (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999, 2001a; Lynch,
2016).
Limitations of incarceration pose obstacles to conducting studies involving the
artists as participants; incarcerated individuals constitute a ‘vulnerable population’
as many of their rights are limited. Studies could be conducted similar to the
California Department of Corrections (1987) study on inmates after their parole. In
order to overcome the difficulty of locating released participants of a programme
that excludes the use of their names, a section could be added to the consent
forms where artists could indicate their willingness or interest in participating in a
study upon release. It should be noted that the amount of time required to fulfil
participants’ sentences could hinder the relevance of the generated data
significantly and exclude artists who are incarcerated indefinitely.
Additionally, a look at these partnerships from the prisons’ perspective, or a
holistic approach to the entire partnership using Latour’s (2005) Actor Network

Theory could make location a valuable focus to the discussion of partnerships
between prisons and museums or galleries. The criminal justice systems are not
identical between the United States and the United Kingdom and it is difficult to
assess how this affects the emphasis on and practices of these programmes
without researching the prisons themselves further.
Finally, though this author has not spoken with exhibition visitors, it would be
worthwhile to explore how prisoner art exhibitions change public perception on
prisoners and the criminal justice system. This study could test the theories that
museums can be used as ‘differencing machines’ (Bennett, 2006) and visitor
experience is heightened when exhibitions are co-created (McSweeney & Fitton,
2016). Both Interviewee A (2016) and Interviewee C (2016) alluded to the positive
impact these exhibitions have on the public opinion and how visitors commented
positively on the chance to see and hear from incarcerated individuals.

References
Literature:
Adams, G. K., 2016. Economic fall-out of Brexit will impact museums, warns MA.
Museums Association. Museums Association. [online] Available at:
<https://www.museumsassociation.org/news/24062016-economic-fall-out-
brexit-museums> [Accessed 22 July 2016].
Ali, N. and Callaghan, D., 2016. Community Engagement and Challenging the
Authorised Narrative. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016.
Museum participation: new directions for audience collaboration. Edinburgh
and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 312-343.
American Alliance of Museums, 2012. Developing a Mission Statement. Arlington,
VA: American Alliance of Museums.
Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A Ladder of Participation. In JAIP, 35(4), pp. 216-224.
Aylott, M., 2002. Taking arts forward. Prison Service Journal, 139, pp. 3-5.
Bennett, T., 1995. The Birth of a Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London:
Routledge.
Bennett, T., 2006. Exhibition, Difference, and the Logic of Culture. In: I. Karp, C. A.
Kratz, L. Szwaja and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions:
Public Cultures / Global Transformations. Durham and London: Duke
University Press. pp. 46-69.
Birks, M. and Mills, J., 2011. Grounded theory: a practical guide. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Brewster, L., 1983. An Evaluation of the Arts-in-Corrections Program of the
California Department of Corrections. William James Association Prison
Arts Program.

Brewster, L., 2010. The California Arts-in-Corrections Music Program: a qualitative
study. The International Journal of Music Community.
Brewster, L., 2011. A Qualitative Evaluation of the California Arts-in-Corrections
Program. Paddlefish, Mount Mary College’s National Literary Journal, 5.
Brewster, L.and Merts, P., 2012. Paths of Discovery: Art Practice and Its Impact in
California Prisons. [online] Available at:
<https://www.createspace.com/3916681> [Accessed 13 September 2016].
Brewster, L., 2014. The Impact of Prison Arts Programs on Inmate Attitudes and
Behavior: A Quantitative Evaluation. Justice Policy Journal, 11(2), pp. 1-28.
Buntinx, G., and Karp, I., 2006. Tactical Museums. In: I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L.
Szwaja, and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions: Public
Cultures / Global Transformations. Durham and London: Duke University
Press. pp. 207-218.
California Department of Corrections, 1987. Arts-in-Corrections, Research
Synopsis on Parole Outcomes for Participants Paroled December 1980 to
February 1987. [online] Available at:
<http://williamjamesassociation.org/prison arts/> [Accessed 10 September
2016].
Carnwell, R. and Carson, A., 2008. The concepts of partnership and
collaboration. Effective practice in health, social care and criminal
justice: A partnership approach, pp. 3-21.
Christen, K., 2007. Following the Nyinkka: Relations of Respect and Obligations to
the Act in the Collaborative Work of Aboriginal Cultural Centers. In Museum
Anthropology, 30(2), pp. 101-124.

Clifford, J., 2004. Looking Several Ways: Anthropology and Native Heritage in
Alaska. Current Anthropology, 45(1), pp. 5-30.
Coffman, J., 2005. Evaluating Partnerships: Seven Success Factors. The
Evaluation Exchange. Harvard Family Research Project. [online] Available
at: <http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-
archive/complementary-learning/evaluating-partnerships-seven-success-
factors> [Accessed 22 July 2016].
Cruickshanks, L. and Hunter-Dodsworth, S., 2016. Partnerships and Plurality:
Evolving Practices at the British Museum. In: K. McSweeney and J.
Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum participation: new directions for audience
collaboration. Edinburgh and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 362-391.
Dake, J., 2016. Connecting with Audiences Through Participatory Exhibition
Planning. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum
Participation: New Directions for Audience Collaboration. Edinburg and
Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 148-161.
Dean, D. K., 1997. Ethics and museum exhibitions. In: G. Edson, ed. 1997.
Museum Ethics. London: Routledge.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999. Policy Action Team 10: A Report
to the Social Exclusion, Arts and Sport. London: Department for Culture,
Media and Sport.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2000. Centres for Social Change:
Museums, Galleries and Archives for All. London: Department for Culture,
Media and Sport.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001a. Building on PAT 10. London:
Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001b. Libraries, Museums, Galleries
and Archives for All: Co-operating Across the Sectors to Tackle Social
Exclusion. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Dodd, J. and Sandell, R., 2001. Including Museums: Perspectives on Museums,
Galleries and Social Inclusion. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums
and Galleries.
Davies, S. M., 2010. The co-production of temporary museum exhibitions.
Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(3), pp. 305-321.
Duggan, B. J., 2011. Introducing Partnered Collaboration into a Native American
Gallery Renewal Project at a State Museum. Practicing Anthropology,
33(2), pp. 28-34.
Ella Sharp Museum. Mission & History Ella Sharp Museum. [online] Available at:
<http://ellasharpmuseum.org/?page_id=180> [Accessed 10 September
2016].
Fienup-Riordan, A., 1999. Collaboration on Display: A Yup’ik Eskimo Exhibit at
Three National Museums. American Anthropologist, 101(2), pp. 339-358.
Fraser, H., 2005. Four Different Approaches to Community Participation.
Community Development Journal, 40(3), pp. 286-300.
Frisch, M., 1990. A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral
and Public History. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gerring, J., 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Group for Large Local Authority Museums, 2000. Museums and Social Inclusion:
The GLLAM Report. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Hudson Hill, S., Roberts, D. and Ryan, K., 2016. Planning for Participatory
Exhibitions: Bringing Community Voices to the Forefront. In: K. McSweeney
and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum participation: new directions for
audience collaboration. Edinburgh and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 532-561.
Johnson, L. M., 2007. Jail Wall Drawings and Jail Art Programs: Invaluable Tools
for Corrections. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2(2), pp.
66-84.
Johnson, L. M., 2008. A Place for Art in Prison: Art as A Tool for Rehabilitation and
Management. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 5(2), pp. 100-120.
Johnson-Symington, N. R. and Robertson, H. A., 2016. Pioneering Partnerships at
the Riverside Museum. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016.
Museum participation: new directions for audience collaboration. Edinburgh
and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 344-361.
King’s College London, 2015. The Art of Partnering. King’s College London.
Kirshenblatt-Gimlett, B., 2006. Exhibitionary Complexes. In: I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L.
Szwaja and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions: Public
Cultures / Global Transformations. Durham and London: Duke University
Press. pp. 35-45.
Lagerkvist, C., 2006. Empowerment and Anger: Learning How to Share
Ownership of the Museum. Museum and Society, 4(2), pp. 52-68.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lavine, S. D., 1992. Audience, Ownership and Authority: Designing Relations
Between Museums and Communities. In: I. Karp and C. Mullen Kreamer,
eds. 1992. Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture.
Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation

KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (16)

Destaque

Destaque (12)

Semelhante a KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation

Semelhante a KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation (20)

Mais de Allison Kopplin

Mais de Allison Kopplin (8)

KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation