The Field Museum of Natural History has (or had) several exhibits with
feedback areas.  They were used extensively in their evolution exhibit,
Life Over Time, partly as a means of allowing visitors to ask questions,
and to give creationists an opportunity to be heard.  There was also a talk-
back section in the ecology exhibit; one in the Tibet exhibit relating to
the current political situation; and one erected temporarily next to a
1930s mini-diorama in the American Indian hall, which a visitor claimed was
racist, sexist, and gratuitously violent.

In each instance, the museum had taken an exhibit dealing with an
emotionally-charged issue, and provided visitors with a way to respond.

The format was quite simple: just a corkboard, 3x5 index cards, golf
pencils and thumbtacks; furniture with slots to hold these supplies; and --
very important -- a sign of some sort that poses the question or focuses
the issue.

The way it worked was, visitors would read the sign, write a response on a
blank card, and either stick it up on the corkboard or drop it in a slotted
comment box.

For me, the truly wonderful thing about this was the way you would get
threads going.  (This was mostly pre-internet.)  A visitor would put up
their comment, someone else would respond, someone else would respond to
that, etc.

Cost and maintenance were very light.  In the years I was there, we were
averaging 1.3 million visitors a year in a major urban setting.  And it
really wasn't any trouble at all.  I had a volunteer responsible for
maintaining 6 or 7 of these, and he spent an hour a week, maybe two.  He
would remove the meaningless or redundant posts, reposition a few cogent or
articulate ones, and restock the supplies.  The pencils would evaporate,
but very slowly, and of course the blank cards needed replenishing, but
these were minor expenses.  As for maintenance, sure, you'd get a few
obscenities, and there were always a few "Joey Loves Shari" messages, but
it never got out of hand. Vandalism was limited to a few pencil marks on
the station itself.

(Eric Gyllenhall, who sometimes reads this list, developed the station in
Life Over Time.  Perhaps he could be persuaded to offer his view of how
they worked.)

There was also a comment book in the Pacific exhibit.  It asked
specifically for memories of people who had served in the Armed Forces in
WW II.  It had xeroxed pages with a number of specific, though open-ended,
questions.  There was a pen on a chain for writing.  This one didn't seem
to do as well -- perhaps because of location (dark corner), but probably
because only a small subset of visitors could provide answers, as opposed
to the other stations where anyone could participate.

(As I recall, our biggest problem with the talkback stations was in
training the maintenance staff.  They saw the cards as grafitti and would
take them down; or selectively take down the ones that criticized or
disagreed with the Museum.  We had to work with their supervisors to let
everyone know that we wanted visitors to respond, and even disagree.)

My current institution, the Science Museum of Minnesota, has a couple of
feedback stations in the Human Body Gallery.  One component is a collage of
photos of different bodies -- ideas of health, beauty, fashion, etc. from
various times and cultures.  Interspersed with the photos are a series of
leading questions about body image, our relationship with our body, etc.
Facing the collage (which covers a fair-sized wall) is a kiosk with golf
pencils and post-it notes.  Visitors are encouraged to write comments and
stick them on the photos.  This does not seem particularly successful.  I
don't think the set-up does enough to encourage participation. Plus, the
notes are removed from the collage every night.  (At the Field, we found we
could encourage participation by "seeding" the corkboard -- taking two or
three good comments out of the comment box and sticking them up.  Not only
would these encourage more thought from our visitors, but it also signalled
that it was OK to leave your own message.)

In another part of the Human Body Gallery, we have a monitor playing
interview clips with several people stating their opinions on stem cell
research.  Visitors may write their comments on slips of paper (I believe
they are pre-printed with questions) and put them in a slotted box.  The
museum then reads them over and places a select few in a ringed binder,
like a photo album, which is available for browsing in the exhibit space.
I personally have a lot of problems with this (not the least of which is
that all the interviewees espouse near-identical views of this
controversial topic!)  I feel we are asserting too much control, and not
letting the conversation take place freely.  In fact, in the binder, a
museum staffer occasionally adds a comment, responding to a visitor,
answering a question or even disagreeing with a visitor, telling them they
are wrong!  That really bugs me.

Otherwise, I know the Chicago Historical Society has experimented with
exhibit-specific and issue-specific comment books, but I don't know how
succesful they have been.

So, index cards on corkboards work well, without a lot of fuss or expense.
But they need to be focused on issues people want to talk about; they need
to look like the museum wants the visitor to use them; and they work best
when the visitor controls the conversation.

-- Eugene Dillenburg
Exhibit Developer
Science Museum of Minnesota

[log in to unmask]
(651) 221-4706

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).