Working with social justice and marginalized groups in museums
How Intercultural museum in Oslo contributes to empower minority youths through its museum practice
Mina Augestad Fossum
MUSKUL4590 – Master’s thesis in Museology and Cultural Heritage (30 sp) Museology and Cultural Heritage Studies
Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages
UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
Spring 2021
II
© Mina Augestad Fossum 2021
Working with social justice and marginalized groups in museums: How Intercultural museum in Oslo contributes to empower minority youths through its museum practice
Mina Augestad Fossum http://www.duo.uio.no
III
Abstract
This small-scale case study explores how Intercultural museum (Interkulturelt museum, IKM) at Grønland in Oslo works to include and give young people a voice in their museum practice, and how this can contribute to impact upon issues of social justice. Considering museum’s increased focus on social justice world-wide, IKM provides a unique case of a museum actively pursuing a social justice agenda by engaging with marginalized groups in its local community.
Empirically based on semi-structured interviews, this study explores how IKM worked with the grassroot initiative called Cooperation for Inclusive Dialogue (Samarbeid for
Inkluderende Dialog, SID) by allowing it to produce its own exhibition at the museum. SID is a voluntary organization consisting of young men with minority background in their mid-20, that works to combat the feeling of alienation among minority youth in central Oslo, by facilitating for inclusive dialogue and highlighting youth voices. It especially targets youth from the culturally diverse neighborhoods of Grønland and Tøyen, that struggle with finding their way in life due to difficult socio-economic conditions. Drawing on museological and critical educational theories, the thesis especially analyses what methods, mechanisms, and approaches IKM used to include SID in its museum practice and how this affected the parties involved and the local community.
Dealing with two marginalized groups at museums, the study contributes to shed light on how museums can engage with issues of social justice by collaborating with new groups in the museum. It offers an example of how a museum can connect to its younger visitor groups and contribute to empower marginalized groups in society through its museum practice. It also shows how museums can play an important role in creating more tolerant, respectful, and inclusive societies where everyone feels welcome and accepted.
IV
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have developed without the interest and effort of some important people. First of all, a huge thank you to Gazi, Annelise and Anders at IKM for including me in your inspiring work and sharing your wise insights and reflections with me. You truly showed me how fun, engaging, and powerful museum work can be. Thank you also to the entire team at IKM for making me feel so welcome for three months.
Omar Syed Gilani, SID’s project manager and “Ahmad”, the SID-member I interviewed, also deserves a special thank you. Without your time, interest and engagement, this thesis would not have been possible. I cannot wait to see what you come up with in the future.
Furthermore, thank you to my supervisor Brita Brenna for your continuous support, constructive feedback, and fruitful discussions. It has been a pleasure learning from you.
Thank you also to all my inspiring classmates for two great years together, and to my dear friend Anna for taking her time to read the thesis and spot any grammar mistakes.
Finally, a huge thank you to my friends and family for always supporting and believing in me, no matter what. I am forever grateful.
Oslo, June 2021
Mina Augestad Fossum
V
Table of Content
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Research question ... 3
1.2 Thesis Outline ... 4
2 Social justice and marginalized groups in museums ... 5
2.1 Does social justice belong in the museum? ... 5
2.2 Museum and contemporary politics ... 8
2.3 Analysing social agency at museums ... 8
2.3.1 Individual level ... 9
2.3.2 Community level ... 10
2.3.3 Societal level ... 10
2.4 Marginalized groups at the museum ... 11
2.5 Minority groups at museums ... 12
2.5.1 Museums as intercultural spaces ... 13
2.6 Young people at museums ... 14
2.6.1 Analysing youth involvement through empowering education ... 16
2.6.2 Values for empowerment ... 17
3 Methodology ... 20
3.1 Research design: A Case Study ... 20
3.2 Data Collection ... 20
3.3 Data Collection Procedures ... 21
3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews ... 22
3.4 Data Analysis ... 23
3.5 Reflexivity ... 23
3.6 Ethical Considerations ... 24
3.7 Limitations ... 25
4 Intercultural museum ... 26
4.1 Three guiding principles ... 28
4.2 Socially engaged exhibitions ... 28
4.3 Three models for exhibition making ... 29
4.4 A post-museum ... 30
5 Cooperation for Inclusive Dialogue ... 32
5.1 “Listen to us, we also have a voice” ... 33
6 Analysis ... 36
VI
6.1 Motivations ... 36
6.1.1 Part of IKM’s societal role ... 36
6.1.2 Mutual interests and methods ... 37
6.1.3 Nuanced addition to Typical them ... 38
6.1.4 In need of a platform ... 38
6.2 Practice ... 38
6.2.1 Situated and SID-centred practice... 39
6.2.2 Process-driven practice ... 40
6.2.3 Facilitation and institutional backing ... 41
6.2.4 IKM as cultural mentors ... 41
6.2.5 Dialogical and participatory practice ... 43
6.2.6 IKM in a neutral and independent position ... 44
6.2.7 Complex and context-specific collaboration ... 45
6.3 Impact ... 46
6.3.1 Individual outcomes: museum introduction ... 46
6.3.2 Community outcomes ... 47
6.3.3 Societal outcomes ... 49
6.3.4 IKM outcomes ... 51
7 Discussion ... 53
7.1 Practice driven empowerment ... 53
7.2 New groups – new methods? ... 54
7.3 A transformative project ... 56
7.4 Learning from educational theories ... 58
7.5 IKM perspective ... 59
8 Conclusion ... 60
9 Bibliography ... 61
1
1 Introduction
With a passion for the Middle East, I have always been interested in different cultures, religions, and traditions and how cultural diversity and migration is engaged with in Norway.
I am especially interested in how young people are finding their place in a global and diverse world, and my previous studies have always sought to include the view of the world from a young perspective. During my museology studies, I also increasingly began exploring the role museums can play in promoting social justice by highlighting marginalized voices and
connecting with the younger generation of museum visitors. Therefore, when I started thinking about this thesis, I knew that I wanted to explore these issues somehow, but it was more a question of finding the ideal case. As I began looking for places to intern during the fall of 2020, however, I found the perfect place in the form of an old fire station turned migrant museum at Grønland in Oslo, one of the city’s most complex and diverse areas. As Norway’s only museum dedicated to recent immigration history, I became interested in exploring how Intercultural museum (Interkulturelt museum, hereon IKM) was engaging with social justice in their museum practice. Social justice refers to “the ways in which museums, galleries and heritage organisations might acknowledge and act upon inequalities within and outside the cultural domain” (Sandell and Nightingale 2012:3).
In the months leading up to the internship I started reading about how Norwegian museums dealt with cultural diversity and social justice and how young people were targeted by museums. What I found was that many museums addressed the increasingly more diverse Norwegian population, but that fewer museums dealt with the complex challenges minority youth experience with growing up in Norway specifically. At IKM, however, I witnessed first-hand a museum that regularly works to impact its local community and connect with the local youth. What I saw was a museum actively engaging in social justice issues by including marginalized groups – and voices – in its museum practice. Since its foundation in 1990, IKM has been engaging with different groups in its local community, with the aim of including diverse voices – and histories – at the museum. Today, IKM is a small, but progressive and socially engaged museum actively promoting cultural diversity and human rights through its exhibition, research, and cultural activities.
There was especially one project that caught my attention at IKM. In 2018, the museum started to collaborate with a grassroot initiative called Cooperation for Inclusive Dialogue (Samarbeid for Inkluderende Dialog, hereon SID) that works to combat social exclusion and
2
the feeling of alienation among minority1 youth in central Oslo, by facilitating for inclusive dialogue (Gilani et.al. 2019). SID is a voluntary organization consisting of young men in their mid-20s that aims to highlight youth voices and include minority youths in the public
conversation. As role models for their younger counterparts in the neighbourhoods of Grønland and Tøyen, SID tries to reach out to, engage with, and support vulnerable youths through workshops, social activities, networking, and personal guidance. Studies show that minority youth at Grønland and Tøyen especially struggle with finding their way in life because of few job opportunities, low education, and difficult socio-economic living conditions. In their project with IKM called “Listen to us, we also have a voice” the SID- members got a chance to develop their own exhibition and tell their story of how many minority youths in central Oslo experience alienation, prejudice, and discrimination. The exhibition’ main installation is a movie called Alienation were youth from Grønland and Tøyen engage in conversations with the SID-members about their challenges concerning social exclusion (Bothner-By 2019:110). As most of the SID-members were unfamiliar with the museum, this project also introduced them to museum work. I had seen SID’s exhibition before and read about them in the newspapers but became eager to explore it further.
Focusing on SID’s own experiences, this project seemed to target an important societal issue and contribute to include a crucial – but marginalized group – into the museum.
In this thesis I therefore explore how IKM, through this project, works to include and give a voice to young people in their museum practice, and what effect this can have on issues of social justice in society. I am especially exploring what methods, mechanisms, and
approaches IKM used when working with SID in this project and the different outcomes it had for both parties involved and for the local community. This collaborative project shows how museums can engage with issues of social justice by working with new groups in the museum. It offers an example of how a museum can connect to its younger visitor groups and contribute to empower marginalized groups in society through its museum practice. It
illuminates the challenges that may arise from working with new groups and contributes to alter museum practices by problematizing heteronormative ways of knowing and doing. It is
1Minority in this context refers to the different ethnic groups existing in Norway as a result of the recent immigration waves beginning in the 1960s, and thus not to social, religious, or cultural minorities, indigenous groups or national minorities. The Sami people is the only recognized indigenous group in Norway, while it is five recognized national minorities: the Kven (Finnish in origin), Forest Finns, Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and Romany (Travellers) (Goodnow 2008:X). Today, immigrants make up 14,8% of Norway’s population and the largest non-European migrant groups are from Syria, Somalia and Iraq (SSB, 2021).
3
my hope that I, by exploring this collaboration, can strengthen the notion that museums have a role to play in contributing to develop more inclusive, equal, and respectful societies. By analysing a museum embracing new museological methods, this study also addresses the changing thinking about what a museum is and what its role in society should be.
1.1 Research question
In the last decades, more focus has been given to the potential museums have to change lives by empowering individuals and communities, promote understanding and respect and
challenge misconceptions, stereotypes, and prejudice (Sullivan and Middleton 2020:91).
Museums worldwide are increasingly engaging with social justice and trying to include new and marginalized groups in the museum through collaboration and civic participation.
Although social demographics are changing, the diversity of museum visitors, however, are not (Gurt and Torres 2007:522) as social structures still contribute to exclude certain groups from the museum (Sullivan and Middleton 2020:92). The SID-members represent two such groups at museums worldwide: young people and minorities. As the only museum in Norway dedicated to recent migration and cultural diversity, it is thus both interesting and timely to explore how the staff at IKM, through its museum practice, managed to connect with the SID- members and contribute to impact upon social justice issues in its local community. The main research question for this thesis is therefore:
- How does IKM work to include and give young people a voice in their museum
practice and in what ways can this contribute to impact upon issues of social justice?
To explore how IKM engages with social justice issues through its collaboration with SID, it is necessary to also understand their motivations for collaborating, how the collaboration progressed and its different outcomes. This thesis therefore explores the following sub- questions:
- What motivations did IKM and SID have for engaging in this collaboration?
- What methods, mechanisms and approaches characterized IKM’s practice?
- What kind of outcomes did the project have for SID, IKM and the local community?
To answer these questions, this thesis includes two layers of analysis. The first layer presents the main themes identified in the coding process by discussing them in close connection to the abovementioned three focal points: motivations, practice, and impact. Impact refers to the different outcomes the project had, both immediate and long-term. Drawing on these
4
analytical findings, the second layer of analysis discusses how IKM’s practice with SID connects to the broader museological debate about social justice work at museums. The analysis is based on interviews conducted with IKM employees and SID-members in February and March 2021.
Drawing on museological and critical educational theories, I aim to understand how IKM worked to include and give a voice to SID through its museum practice. To analyse IKM’s practice when working with SID, I draw on Ira Shor’s (1992) theory of empowering education. Drawing on his values for empowerment, I hope to illustrate how critical education theories can contribute to an understanding of the mechanisms, methods, and approaches at play in complex collaboration processes at museums. Accordingly, this study is an
opportunity to rework museological methodologies and their contributions to cultural
production and meaning making. To explore the outcomes of this collaboration so far, I draw on Richard Sandell’s (2007a) framework for social agency suggesting that museums can influence society on three different levels: the individual, community, and societal level.
Museums’ social agency refers to the ability they have to influence and affect society (Sandell 2007a:95). With my analysis, I hope to discover valuable insights into how a museum
constructively can work with young people and contribute to impact society through its museum practice. This in turn can shed light on the important role museums can play in creating more tolerant, respectful, and inclusive societies where everyone feels welcome and accepted.
1.2 Thesis Outline
Following the introduction, Chapter 2 involves a discussion of my theoretical framework concerning social justice and marginalized groups at museums, and a presentation of the main theoretical concepts applied in the data analysis. Chapter 3 presents the methodology of this study, while Chapter 4 includes a presentation of IKM as a socially engaged post-museum operating in urban Oslo. Chapter 5 presents SID and the collaborative project subject to analysis. Chapter 6 presents the first layer of analysis based on the empirical findings of the study. In Chapter 7, I discuss these findings in relation to the broader museological debate about social justice at museums. Finally, this thesis concludes by engaging in a discussion of the research questions based on the analysis and by outlining possibilities for future research.
5
2 Social justice and marginalized groups in museums
Museums’ increased willingness to engage with social justice represents a significant shift in the thinking about museums’ societal role (Valvatne 2019:8). It is still a radical notion, however, that museums should use its social agency to actively fulfil a social justice agenda (Fleming 2012:72). This is “despite the very real progress that has been made in recent years in terms of the museum profession’s growing acceptance of a number of fundamental
principles relating to our role in society” (Fleming 2012:72). Museums are encouraged to play an active societal role and stay relevant for multiple visitor groups in an increasingly
globalized and diverse world (ICOM 2019). As a result, many museums are displaying “their capacity to promote cross-cultural understanding, to tackle prejudice and intolerance and to foster respect for difference” (Jahnsen 2018:5).
In this chapter, I present my theoretical framework for this thesis by exploring how museums’
increasing interest in engaging with social justice and marginalized groups have been discussed and theorized internationally by museum scholars. I also present my theoretical tools for analysing how IKM, through its collaboration with SID, engages with and impacts upon social justice issues in its local community. There are many ways for a museum to execute its societal role, and thus many ways to explore these practices. As I am exploring IKM’s methods and mechanisms for collaborating with SID and the collaboration outcomes, I mainly draw on Richard Sandell’s (2007a) framework for social agency at museums and Ira Shor’s (1992) theory of empowering education. To discuss how IKM’s practice connects to the broader museological debate about social justice, I rely on Simona Bodo’s (2012) approach to museums as intercultural spaces.
2.1 Does social justice belong in the museum?
Museum professionals worldwide are debating whether museums should participate in social justice work. Many museum workers still believe that they must “protect their neutrality” to not fall prey to bias, trendiness, and special interest groups (Janes and Sandell 2019:8). As Robert Janes and Richard Sandell (2019:8) points out, however, the meaning of neutrality has changed over the past decade as museums increasingly rely on corporate, foundation, and private funding – groups who themselves have special market interests and political values.
Thus, although they may remain “neutral” in the exhibition space, museum researchers are
6
increasingly acknowledging museums’ inherent and inevitably political character. Among museum workers, however, there remains a persistent anxiety to reflect this in their work (Janes and Sandell 2019:8). According to Janes and Sandell (2019:8), this preoccupation with museums’ so-called neutrality “ignores a broader vision for museums and the opportunity for museums to achieve their true potential”. This may also lead to the impression that the museum operates in a vacuum unaware of what is going on in its surroundings, and
undermine the potential museums have as public spaces for democratic debate. Other museum professionals simply regard social justice work as outside the realm of the museum.
According to Sandell “there is still a feeling in some museums that that’s what other people do, whereas we are museums and we preserve heritage and that’s it” (Nightingale 2000).
Thus, some museum professionals remain protective of their traditional roles and reluctant to change their curatorial practices (Watson 2007:16).
Also, writer Josie Appleton (2007:125) criticizes the trend towards social justice and argues that “museums should stick to what they do best – to preserve, display, study and where possible collect the treasures of civilization and nature”. According to her, museums
“are not fit to do anything else” (Appleton 2007:125). Thus, museum professionals understand museums’ societal role differently and it may require a rethinking of the
museum’s perception, for it to be regarded as both capable of and obligated to work towards social justice. According to Sandell, both the museum sectorand the welfare agencies must be won over and persuaded to understand that museums also have a relevant role to play
(Nightingale 2000). As trusted institutions, with enormous defining power, museums are urged to use their social agency to contribute to social justice (Valvatne 2019:7). If not, Sandell (2007a:110) argues, they run the risk of becoming increasingly irrelevant and outdated. This notion is reflected in growing international support and recognition for
museums as agents for social change (Valvatne 2019:8). Museums are encouraged to adopt a political stance on contemporary issues in exhibitions and to accept that they cannot remain impartial in clashes over contested identities (Sandell 2007a:109). According to David Fleming (2012:82), this is a “remarkable statement that advocates a totally new role for museums, one which flies in the face of the prevailing belief that museums should remain neutral in their work”. Also, within the museum community there is considerable support for focusing on the purpose and potential of the museum, rather than the interests of those who work within it (Watson 2007:17).
7
In Norway, this increased focus on social justice was first pointed at in the white paper, The Museum of the Future from 2009, which stated that there is an “overarching aim that museums mirror the society they are part of. They are important forerunners in a modern democratic society and should take an active societal role […] and reflect a diversity of perspectives and realities.”2 (Kultur- og kirkedepartementet 2009:123). This year’s
whitepaper The museums in the future further emphasized the museum’s responsibility to use its knowledge to actively engage with current societal issues and ask critical and relevant questions about society (Kulturdepartementet 2021:57,122). As a result, more Norwegian museums are actively taking part in the public debate by addressing important societal topics in their museum spaces. This is evident from several projects instigated by the Norwegian Art Council in recent years (Holmensland, Slettvåg and Frøyland 2006; Pabst, Johansen and Ipsen 2016). Norwegian museums are also increasingly exploring the realm of social justice,
although most museums are still trying to navigate this new territory (Pabst, Johansen and Ipsen 2016:9).
Ultimately, more and more museums are engaging with social justice. Museum professionals and their supporters are increasingly exploring the impact museums can have on personal lives and on society (Sandell 2007a:96). This is also apparent in the rhetoric from
international museum agencies, professional associations, and governments (Sandell 2007b:2). One important example is the new museum definition that was proposed at the annual International Council of Museums (ICOM) General Conference in Kyoto in September 2019. Although it is not approved yet, this proposed definition clearly highlights the societal aspect of museum work:
Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.
Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing (ICOM 2019, my emphasis).
2 My translation.
8
From this, it seems likely that even more museums will take the risk and engage with social justice in the future. As Fleming (2012:82) points out, however, working towards social justice is a long-term commitment requiring both determination and bloody-mindedness;
it needs to be driven by passion, by a belief that everyone deserves equal access to what we do in museums and not just because the government (or anyone else) tells us that this is what we should do, but because it is the right thing to do” (Fleming 2012:82).
2.2 Museum and contemporary politics
As part of the increased focus on social justice, many museums are increasingly engaging with more controversial and debate provoking topics. By asking critical questions and highlighting important societal issues, the museum can contribute to create a society where the voices of as many people as possible are being heard (Pabst, Johansen and Ipsen 2016:8).
Dealing with contemporary issues, however, brings a lot of responsibility as museums hold the power to construct and legitimise certain narratives at the expense of others and decide whose versions of history that should be recognized as valid (Onciul 2019:716). Thus,
museums are active in shaping the way we perceive, think, and act about the world (Janes and Sandell 2019:8). As Sharon Macdonald (1996:14) puts it, “any museum or exhibition is, in effect, a statement or position. It is a theory: a suggested way of seeing the world”. According to Hilde Holmesland (2013), the museums’ challenge lies in acknowledging this power and changing their focus, from hegemony and exclusion to democracy and inclusion, from similarity, continuity, and conformity to difference, change, and complexity. If they succeed, museums can function as what Dawn Casey (2001:233) calls “a safe place for unsafe ideas”
where visitors and stakeholders can discuss issues against their historical context. By offering reflective spaces, the museum can contribute to making visitors feel empowered and able to discuss more difficult topics. In this regard, “a safe place” is a space for democratic
expression fostering respect for different views and that seriously engages with various opinions by pushing the audiences beyond “the known and comfortable” (Cameron 2003:41- 42). In this thesis, I am interested in how IKM, through its practice, found ways to become a safe place for SID.
2.3 Analysing social agency at museums
Museum scholars have increasingly theorized how museums can use its role as a social actor to promote social justice. One of the scholars who has been engaging most with social justice
9
work at museums is Richard Sandell at the University of Leicester (e.g. Sandell 1998, 2007, Nightingale and Sandell 2012; Janes and Sandell 2019). According to Sandell (2007a:96) all museums have an obligation to develop reflexive and self-conscious approaches to collection and exhibition and become aware of their potential to construct more respectful societies.
Through a thoughtful “representation of difference and diversity” museums, regardless of their collections, resources, or context, can contribute towards greater social equity (Sandell 2007a:96). Museums, alongside other cultural institutions, must consider their impact on society and seek to shape this impact through practice based on contemporary values and a commitment to social equality (Sandell 2007a:110).
Exploring social agency at museums, Sandell (2007a:96) is interested in what ways museums can engage with and impact upon social inequality, disadvantage, and discrimination. As mentioned earlier, social agency refers to the ability museums have to affect society (Sandell 2007a:95). Sandell (2007a:96) argues that museums can contribute to combat “the causes and the amelioration of the symptoms of social inequality and disadvantage” on three different levels: on the individual, community, and societal level. He suggests that museums can
impact positively on the lives of disadvantaged or marginalized individuals, act as a catalyst for social regeneration and as a vehicle for empowerment with specific communities and also contribute towards the creation of more equitable societies (Sandell 2007a:96).
In this thesis, I will use this framework to understand how IKM, through its collaboration with SID, influenced social justice issues in its local community. Although it was developed from a British perspective, it is not confined to this context (Sandell 2007a:96).
2.3.1 Individual level
A museum’s social agency on the individual level concerns the impact museums can have on individual lives (Sandell 2007a:97). According to Sandell (2007a:97) this impact can be wide- ranging from personal, psychological, and emotional to more pragmatic, and may result from different processes. In some cases, the outcomes can be unintended, peripheral, or left out from specific museum goals or programs. This means that a project that intentionally had different motivations can result in positive outcomes for individuals because of its unexpected impact (Sandell 2007a:97). Other times, the museum is purposefully developing programs meant to benefit individuals and enhance their life quality. In these cases, the museum provides access to the museum “not as a goal in itself but as the means of helping to bring personal and practical benefits to individuals” (Sandell 2007a:98). In both cases, however,
10
these processes are characterized by face-to-face interaction between museum staff and group representatives (Sandell 2007a:98). In this study, I am interested in exploring what individual outcomes the project had for the SID-member I interviewed.
2.3.2 Community level
On a community level, a museum’s social agency becomes a question of what role the museum can play in providing benefits to specific communities. Specific outcomes in this regard includes enhanced community self-determination and increased participation in decision-making processes and democratic structures (Sandell 2007a:99). According to Sandell (2007a:99) cultural organisations appear to be in a unique position to act as catalysts for community involvement, although empirical data is limited. Documented project
experiences, however, suggest that museums have the potential to contribute to community empowerment and engage groups that previously have been deprived of decision-making opportunities (Sandell 2007a:99). The SID-members represent one such group. Studies furthermore show that
museums have provided enabling, creative, and perhaps less threatening forum through which community members can gain the skills and confidence required to take control and play an active, self-determining role in their community's future (Sandell 2007a:99).
Thus, as mentioned, the museum can become a safe place for discussion and capacity building for specific communities.
2.3.3 Societal level
Museums’ social agency at a societal level concerns what political role museums might play in promoting equal opportunities and pluralist values in society (Sandell 2007a:101).
According to Sandell (2007a:108) museums have a social responsibility to acknowledge their meaning-making potential and leverage this towards positive social ends. This is not to say that the museum’s sole task should be to combat inequality or that the museum must tackle these issues alone (Sandell 2007a:110). Rather, it means that museums, in coalition with other cultural institutions, should play their part in contributing to solving societal problems and promoting social justice in society. According to Sandell (2007a:107-8) this “requires an acknowledgement not only of the potential to impact on social inequality, but also of the organisations’ obligation to deploy their social agency and cultural authority in a way that is aligned and consistent with the values of contemporary societies”. This does not mean that museums must respond to short-term political objectives. Instead it urges them to respond to
11
more paradigmatic long-term shifts in moral thinking in society. As already discussed, however, many museum professionals remain sceptical to this notion and question the museum’s potential to act as an agent of change, despite its perception as a powerful cultural authority and medium for mass communication. In this thesis, I am concerned with how IKM’s practice with SID contributed to tackle societal issues in its local community.
2.4 Marginalized groups at the museum
As museums turn more and more visitor-centred, scholars and museum professionals are steering their attention to those groups of people who rarely visit museums (Drotner, Knudsen and Mortenesen 2017:456). SID represents two such groups at museums worldwide: young people and minorities. Studies show that although social demographics are changing, the demographics of typical museum visitors are not. Most museums today are still connected mainly to a country’s majority culture and to the educated parts of the population (Høiback 2020:253). Thus, although visitor numbers are increasing, there is no comparable increase in their diversity (Gurt and Torres 2007:522). There is scarce statistics on minority attendance at Norwegian museums, but in the US the trend is clear. Museum statistics from 2014 show that although African Americans make up 13% of the national population, they only account for 3% of all museum attendees. 90% of US museum attendees are white, although they only account for 66% of the US population (Heaton 2014). The US Census Bureau projects that this will be down to 50% of the population by 2045 (Coates 2019).
The SID-members are a case in point. Growing up in an increasingly diverse city, few of them knew about the museum in their own “backyard”. Only some of them had been to a museum before visiting IKM. This could be because they were unaware of the cultural offers in their surroundings or because they never considered museums as relevant for them. Many minority youths in the US for example do not regard museums as appropriate places for them to visit (Høiback 2020:253). According to Kimberly Keith (2012:45), this reluctance stems from the museum’s historical reputation as a colonial institution with great authority in society. For many this is still the mainstream perception of museums (Keith 2012:45). Thus, some people may avoid museums because they feel alienated or intimated by them. Connecting with society’s minorities is therefore important to avoid the museum becoming an arena for social exclusion, instead of community and unity (Høiback 2020:253). Who attend museums, however, may depend as much on social class and economy as cultural background (Opheim 2018:229).
12
In recent years, museums have tried to meet this challenge by attracting a more diverse audience. One example is Open up: Museums for Everyone, initiated in 2017 by the Association of Independent Museums in the U.K. “to help museums understand why some groups of people are under-represented amongst visitors to museums, especially people from less affluent households, disabled people and people from a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) background” (Open Up 2018). Efforts like this contribute to make more people feel at home in museums (Høiback 2020:253). Museums still have a long way to go, however, as many museum professionals continue to use the term “general public” when talking about museum visitors. This reflects the idea of museum visitors as a homogenous entity, which still permeates many museums (Martine 2011:11).
2.5 Minority groups at museums
Another way of including new and marginalized groups to the museum has been to engage in partnerships or collaborative projects with minority groups, especially those who previously got excluded from the “shared, debated and concerted decision-making processes” or those who feel unrepresented or not “allowed to speak in a museum” (Lanz and Montanari 2014:17). In Norway, IKM’s establishment in 1990 contributed to an increased interest among Norwegian museums to work with underrepresented groups. In 2011, this was highlighted in a white paper on the government’s integration strategy, as cultural
organizations were urged to prioritize cultural diversity and integration in the years to come (Kulturdepartementet 2012:59). Thus, cultural diversity should be an integral in every part of the museum organization (Bettum, Maliniemi and Walle 2018:9). The importance of cultural diversity and representation was also highlighted in this year’s white paper
(Kulturdepartementet 2021:224).
In 2002, Norsk Folkemuseum and IKM launched one of the first projects targeting immigrant groups in Norway. As a joint documentation project called Norwegian Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow? Its aim was to develop a knowledge bank about cultural diversity accessible for researchers in the future, and to focus on the changing Norwegian identity (Bøe 2008:113).
The project soon developed into an umbrella project dealing with different perspectives on Norway’s recent immigration (Bøe 2008:117). No similar documentation project had been carried out in Norway before. Through in-dept interviews and the collection of family photographs, the project collected people’s life stories focusing on the first migrant groups arriving in Norway in the 1960s; people of Pakistani and Turkish origin (Bøe 2008:117-18).
13
The project resulted in several exhibitions based on the collected material that all included new Norwegian voices and connected new immigrant cultures with Norwegian history and tradition (Bøe 2008: 118-19,123). This project was especially important because it included one of the biggest and oldest museum institutions in Norway, established in 1894 (Bøe 2008:113). It documented Norwegian society at the beginning of the 21st century and contributed to make minority groups more familiar with Norwegian museums. In 2006, the Arts Council established The Network for Minorities and Cultural Diversity to strengthen the work with minorities and cultural diversity at Norwegian museums (Bettum, Maliniemi and Walle 2018:9). By creating meeting places, exchanging experiences, and conducting relevant projects, the network contributes to promote cultural diversity at Norwegian museums
through publications3, workshops, and seminars (IKM 2021a). Led by IKM, the network consists of museums actively working with issues concerning minorities and cultural diversity (Bettum, Maliniemi and Walle 2018:9).
In 2008, Bente Guro Møller and Hans Philip Einarsen (2008:113) argued that most initiatives in Norway dealing with cultural diversity so far had been temporary and project based. Ten years later, Anders Bettum, Kaisa Maliniemi and Thomas Walle (2018:10) pointed out that most cultural diversity work still is project-based and dependent on specific and especially interested individuals. According to them, this is a result of good intentions meeting practical reality and the continuous demand for increasing income and visitor numbers (Bettum, Maliniemi and Walle 2018:10). In this context, IKM represents a unique museum in the Norwegian museum landscape. As a leading institution on cultural diversity with intercultural principles woven into its organizational fabric, it is interesting and timely to explore what characterizes IKM’s distinct practice.
2.5.1 Museums as intercultural spaces
Building on Roy Oldenberg’s (1989) idea of third places4 Museologist Simona Bodo (2012) explores how museums can function as intercultural spaces for different cultures, traditions, and identities. According to her, the museum can and should become a third space where
“individuals are permitted to cross the boundaries of belonging and are offered genuine
3 In 2018, the network published its first book, Et inkluderende museum – Kulturelt mangfold i praksis, with
several projects dealing with cultural diversity at Norwegian museums.
4 According to Oldenberg (1997:15 in Jones 2018) third places offer “the regular, voluntary, informal, and
happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work”. They are easily accessible social spaces open and inclusive to everyone regardless of social characteristics like race, gender, economic status, religion or social background. Thus, they function as mixing pots crossing cultural and social boundaries.
Examples of such places are cafés, libraries, youth clubs and museums (Jones 2018).
14
opportunities for self-representation” (Bodo 2012:184). This includes an understanding of intercultural work as “a bi-directional, dialogical process which is transformative for all parties” not only for specifically targeted marginalized groups (Bodo 2012:184). Building on the idea of co-production, the goal is to create polyphony and debate and not authoritative answers (Bettum, Maliniemi and Walle 2018:15). The museum should be a space got creating new cultural expressions and knowledge in dialogue.
According to Bodo (2012:184), museums must acknowledge and adapt to our times’
complex and shifting identities and develop strategies, methods, and programs aimed at creating spaces for cultural encounters – both internally and externally. This way, the museum can contribute to promote more nuanced and less stereotyped depictions of different
minorities and social groups, which in turn can contribute to create “shared spaces where meaningful, interactive communication takes place and all participants are recognized as being equal” (Bodo 2012:189). Museums as intercultural spaces, however, do not only help to promote the cultural rights of minority groups. They can also contribute to nurture the
attitudes, behaviours, and skills needed in an increasingly global and diverse world. This includes our cognitive mobility; “the ability to question one’s own points of view and to challenge stereotypes; the awareness of one’s own multiple identities” (Bodo 2012:188).
For Bodo (2012:189) museums’ increasing concern with becoming spaces for
intercultural dialogue represents a significant international trend in museological thinking and practice. The goal, however, must be a rethinking of all the fundamental museum functions through an intercultural perspective so that it becomes built into its “institutional fabric”
(Bodo 2012:189). The museum must ensure that programs and activities aimed at promoting cross-cultural interaction are visible and relevant to the museum’s exhibitions and collections (Bodo 2012:189). As Christina Kreps (2009:4 in Bodo 2012:189) points out, however,
“achieving interculturality is a step by step process that may help, with every project and every action, to not only transform our societies, but also our museums and the nature of public culture”. In this thesis, I will discuss how Bodo’s notion of museums as intercultural spaces connects to IKM’s practice while working with SID.
2.6 Young people at museums
Another challenge for museums today is how to connect with their younger audience. Studies show that there is a significant gap in museum visitors below age 35; from leaving school until they settle down and have children most of them do not visit museums (Black 2005:38).
15
This is also the case in Norway. In a study from 2019 over half of the youth asked, between 15-25, said that they never visit museums. Only 1% visits a museum every month, while 37%
do not attend museums more than once a year. 63% of them5 said that they do not visit
museums because they are not interested and if they do, it is mostly out of a sense of duty, not for the experience (Staude 2019; Mordt 2017). In addition, school visits to museums have decreased almost every year since 2010, resulting in even fewer young people encountering museums (Kulturrådet 2020). Museums are seen as outdated, irrelevant and out of their comfort zones (Shrapnel 2012:7; Mordt 2017).
Over the past decades, museums have tried to reach their younger visitor groups by
developing new strategies aimed at moving their perception away from formal educational institutions and towards updated and causal social spaces (Shrapnel 2012:9,11). In 2019, 79%
of all Norwegian museums had specific programs targeted at children and youth, which represented a small increase from 2018 (Kulturrådet 2020). Most of these programs, however, are aimed at younger children. Of the 30 educational programs offered at three of the largest museum institutions in Oslo6, only 5 of them are specifically dedicated to high school students or young adults.7 Of these five, three of them are offered at IKM. Thus, almost none of the programs offered are suitable for young people, which indicates that Norwegian museums focus more on younger children than youth and young adults when developing their pedagogical programs. This may be because reaching out to young people with resonating ideas is more challenging as museums compete with a range of other leisure activities for their attention (Black 2012:2). If they cannot define young people’s interests, needs, and
expectations and respond to these in a resonating manner, however, they will remain undesirable (Black 2012:39).
Some efforts by Norwegian museums, however, indicates that they are aware of this gap among the younger generation. At the Kunsthall Oslo, for example, they have put together a youth board, consisting of nine creative members, that are going to assist the museum in reaching out to young people. Through activities, workshops, and a self-curated exhibition, they hope to bring more young people to the museum. The board also represents different parts of Oslo’s population, which contributes to diversify its outreach (Kunsthall Oslo 2021).
One museum that has worked with both younger and marginalized groups in Norway, is
5 This included young people from 15-19 years old.
6 This includes the Oslo Museum foundation, the National Museum for Art, Architecture and Design and the
Museum of Cultural History.
7 These data are based on information found on the museums’ different webpages.
16
Randsfjordmuseet. In its exhibition, Me – I want to tell you something8, we meet ten young immigrants that have moved from all over the world to Hadeland in Norway. Through their stories, the visitors gain insight into migration’s consequences for young people
(Randsfjordmuseet 2021).
2.6.1 Analysing youth involvement through empowering education
While Sandell (2007a) is concerned with how a museum can use its social agency to
contribute to impact society, I will draw on American Educator Ira Shor’s (1992) values for empowering education to analyse what characterized IKM’s practice while working with SID.
It is my argument that education theories like these can contribute to make sense of the many collaborative processes that goes on in the museum outside the realm of content production.
Working as an English Professor at the City University of New York, Shor began exploring how schools, which according to him was based on a passive and non-participatory pedagogy, could become empowering for students and how certain educational values could contribute to develop students as critically thinking and democratically acting citizens. Highly
influenced by Brazilian educator Paulo Friere’s9 (1968/70) critical pedagogy, Shor (1992:17) proposes eleven values necessary to develop a critical, democratic, and empowering
education: “participatory, affective, problem-posing, situated, multicultural, dialogic, desocializing, democratic, researching, interdisciplinary and activist”. As both Shor and the IKM employees place the youth at the centre of the process, these values can help me understand what methods, mechanisms, and approaches IKM used to include SID in its museum practice. Critical pedagogy has highly influenced how museums consider their educating role, especially their role in history research (Witcomb 2013:255). As museums increasingly must deal with dark histories or difficult subjects, museum professionals must look for gaps in the historical record and be aware of its complexities, occlusions, and tensions (Witcomb 2013:256).
Shor’s (1992:15) framework of empowering education is “a critical-democratic pedagogy for self and social change” that sees individual growth as “an active, cooperative and social process” where the self and society create each other. His goal is “to relate personal growth to
8 My translation, in Norwegian it is: Meg – Jeg vil fortelle deg noe. The exhibition is shown at Hadeland
Folkemuseum, which is part of Ramsfjordmuseet.
9 Freire’s famous work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed from 1968 is considered one of the foundational texts of critical pedagogy. In it Freire argued that education, by treating the student as a co-creator of knowledge, rather than a passive receiver of knowledge, could contribute to transform and liberate oppressed populations (Abbott and Badley 2020:109). In 1970 it was translated into English.
17
public life, by developing strong skills, academic knowledge, habits of inquiry, and critical curiosity about society, power, inequality and change” (Shor 1992:15). Thus, empowerment is not individualistic, but rather focused on developing skilled, critical citizens and agents of change with high expectations for themselves, their education and future (Shor 1992:16).
According to Shor (1992:167) to think critically in this framework means to “examine the deep meanings, personal implications and social consequence of any subject of any knowledge, theme, technique, text or material”.By making marginal cultures visible and legitimating difference, museums can also become important and productive sites for critical pedagogy (Mayo 2013:144 in Hooper-Greenhill 2000:148).
2.6.2 Values for empowerment
According to Shor (1992:20) the value of participation “challenges the experience of
education as something done to students” as it tries to reverse passive learning experiences by providing students with active experiences resulting in reflective understanding. This way, participation becomes a “door to empowerment” as interaction is essential to gain knowledge and develop intelligence, and the education something “students codevelop for themselves led by a critical and democratic teacher” (Shor 1992:17, 20). Through a strong participatory pedagogy, students are treated as responsible, capable human beings “whose voices are worth listening to, whose minds can carry the weight of serious intellectual work, whose thought and feeling can entertain transforming self and society” (Shor 1992:26). Thus, participation can have an empowering effect on students by allowing them to take control of their personal and academic growth and encouraging them to participate in a process of co-producing knowledge. In the same way, museums, by allowing for different meanings to be exchanged and negotiated, can enable visitors to become subjects in a process of coinvestigation involving the museum educator and the visitor (Mayo 2013:149). This in turn may lead to a renegotiation of roles where the museum shares its authority with other stakeholders hoping to contribute to democratize knowledge and cultural production processes (Flinn and Sexton 2019:626).
In addition to a participatory and affective education, Shor (1992:31) advocates for a problem-posing situated and multicultural learning that urges students to engage in critical and active inquiries about knowledge. A problem-posing education treats all subject matters as historical products that should be questioned and does not regard “existing canons of knowledge” as common culture because they have ignored “multicultural themes, idioms and achievements of nonelite groups, such as women, minorities, homosexuals and working
18
people” (Shor 1992:32). Thus, by posing problems rather than giving answers, knowledge becomes a problem for mutual inquiry in class and a participatory activity from the start (Shor 1992:43). Furthermore, a problem-posing pedagogy is a situated model of learning as it locates itself in the students’ cultures, languages, and perceptions with the goal of connecting
“critical thought to everyday life by examining daily themes, social issues and academic lore”
(Shor 1992:44). When learning becomes situated in student culture it is based on what Shor (1992:3) calls “a generative theme, an issue generated from the problems of their own experience”. The students, however, like every other social group, are “complex, substantial human beings” with different cultures, “languages, interests, feelings, experiences and
perceptions” (Shor 1992:32). By situating the learning in student experiences and perceptions, this pedagogy also becomes multicultural as it develops a classroom discourse from the student’s own cultural diversity (Shor 1992:46). In this case, it was a matter of giving a voice to specific youth experiences that often is ignored by common culture.
Mutual discussion or dialogue is at the heart of Shor’s empowering education. In contrast to what Shor (1992:85) calls “teacher-talk”, dialogue, which is both structured and creative, is directed by the teacher but democratically open to student intervention. The dialogue is neither a loose conversation nor a teacher-dominated process, but codeveloped by the teacher and the students. Balancing the teacher student input, however, becomes the key to making it both critical and democratic (Shor 1992:85). According to Shor (1992:86) dialogue can be thought of as “the threads of communication that bind people together and prepare them for reflective action”. Shor (1992:114) furthermore argues that a critical and democratic dialogue can be seen as desocialization, because it questions traditional classroom relations, teacher-talk, unilateral authority, and official curricula. Desocialization
refers to questioning the social behaviours and experiences in school and daily life that make us into the people we are. It involves critically examining learned behaviour, received values, familiar language, habitual perceptions, existing knowledge and power relations, and traditional discourse in class and out (Shor 1992:114).
According to Shor (1992:126,128), the goal of a desocializing dialogue is for students to develop a critical consciousness so they better can understand how any subject connects to other social dimensions and is conditioned by personal and historical contexts. Critical
consciousness involves an awareness of the relation between power and knowledge in society, an understanding of how society and history are made by contenting forces and interests and that society is continuously transformed through a critical reading of knowledge (Shor
19
1992:129). For a critical consciousness to develop, however, students must be introduced to democratic habits in the classroom so that also they can act on their interests and participate in a cooperative and critical process of self-development (Shor 1992:168-69). In museums, developing a dialogical practice also involve a process of co-production. In most cases it is a matter of making meaning together and “developing understanding on an issue or situation from multiple perspectives” (Morse, Macpherson, and Robinson 2019:701). Dialogue work in museums, however, may also involve risk, uncertainty, and conflict as it challenges the museum’s authority by including new voices in the process and problematizes the museum’s methods (Morse, Macpherson, and Robinson 2019:701).
Finally, Shor’s (1992:185) empowering education is both interdisciplinary and activist in its pedagogy. Interdisciplinary learning crosses academic boundaries and integrates
different methods such as reading, writing, critical dialogue, and cooperative learning (Shor 1992:187). This challenges the dominant educational structure and turns education into an activist learning model. Shor’s (1992:188) critical-democratic pedagogy includes a “cultural action against the educational limits of the status quo” by actively questioning learning, society, and existing knowledge. It invites students to critically examine their experiences and social conditions and become agents of social change by acting upon the knowledge they gain (Shor 1992:188). After this they can embark on a reflective process that will open for new ways of thinking, feeling, and acting – a process essential for individual empowerment (Shor 1992:188). Questioning the status quo also increasingly happens at museums, as they are forced to look with new perspectives on the objects and knowledge they hold and acquire.
Shor’s values for empowering education shows that there are many similarities in how schools and museums work with giving a voice to the underrepresented or less powerful. In this thesis, I will draw on Shor’s educational values to achieve a more in-dept understanding of the different ways IKM worked with SID in this, what approaches, mechanisms, and methods it entailed, and what effects it had. I also discuss how critical educational theories like these can be useful for analysing collaborative processes in the museum.
20
3 Methodology
In this chapter, I present the different research steps included in this study; its research design, the data subject to analysis, the data collection procedures, the data analysis process, its ethical concerns and limitations.
3.1 Research design: A Case Study
As I am focusing specifically on IKM’s museum practice and all data will be derived from this museum, this study is designed as a case study. A case study focuses on “a single instance of some social phenomenon” for example a village, a social group or family (Babbie
2013:338) to offer a more detailed understanding of a larger social phenomena. I am particularly interested in how the staff at IKM work with the members of SID and what impact this collaboration has had so far. IKM and SID’s collaborative project offers a window into how other Norwegian museums can develop more fruitful relations with young people and become a platform for empowerment through their museum practices. Partaking in IKM’s internal organizational life for three months, I realized that also the internal choices,
dilemmas, and thought processes at a museum are worth exploring, as it is through these processes that the results become known. Thus, if I wanted to understand how the staff at IKM and the members of SID worked together, it was their thoughts and reflections and the discussions behind the decisions I had to explore. As Nicholas Thomas (2012:7), points out the museum is also a method – “a kind of activity” – that is worth analysing on its own. To understand how museum professionals work – and how heritage and knowledge is produced within museums today - there is value in exploring and analysing the practices and processes they go through and the many choices they are faced with. Working with other groups also involves many valuable discussions that does not come to light in the exhibition space. Thus, the process may be as important as the result.
3.2 Data Collection
The focus of this study is IKM and SID’s collaborative project, “Listen to us, we also have a voice” from 2018-19 and the data collection consists of five interviews conducted with members of SID and employees at IKM. Thus, all data was derived from interviews. At IKM, I interviewed the museum director Gazi Özcan, curator Annelise Bothner-By, and content editor Anders Bettum. Regarding SID, I interviewed Omar Syed Gilani, SID’s project
manager at the time and one SID-member who preferred to stay anonymous. Gilani, however,
21
who is in his mid-30s, is not an official member of SID but employed by Oslo Municipality, specifically working with central Oslo. It was through my internship at IKM that I gained access to SID’s members. It was also through fruitful discussions with the IKM staff that my focus developed as they eagerly showed me how they work with youth involvement. Thus, my internship at IKM became the framework for my study and crucial for its development. I began my fieldwork in January 2021 and conducted the interviews in February and March 2021. All interviews were conducted in Norwegian by recording them and taking notes simultaneously. Three interviews were conducted over Zoom, while two were conducted face- to-face at different cafés in Oslo.
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
Gilani, the SID-member, and the employees at IKM were interviewed because of their direct relevance to this study. I chose to interview SID’s project manager and one member of SID because they both had been active in this project with the museum. Regarding the IKM employees, I chose to interview those most directly involved in the project. Thus, in both cases I relied on a purpose-based sampling of the interviewees, where they were selected based on my own judgment about whom would be most relevant and useful for the research (Babbie 2013:128). The only criteria I had was that they either worked in SID or were an employee at IKM. Initially, the idea was to interview more SID-members and reach out to some of the youth partaking in the movie. Due to unforeseen events and the current corona situation at the time, however, this proved difficult. As my focus is on IKM’s museum practice, however, I felt interviewing Gilani and the SID-member was sufficient.
The SID member interviewed in this study is in his mid-20s and an active member of the SID organization. He is an invested participant in his local community who wants to be a role model for his younger counterparts in the neighbourhood and contribute to develop a more understanding, respectful, and inclusive city. As a Norwegian with a minority background, growing up experiencing racism and prejudice in Oslo, he also represents a particular part of Oslo’s young population.
The staff at IKM represent a different part of Oslo’s population. Although their background and education differ, they all belong to the same interpretative community (Hooper-Greenhill 2007:76). According to Stanley Fish (1980:171 in Hooper-Greenhill 2007:76) “interpretive communities are made up of those who share interpretive strategies for writing texts, for constituting their properties and assigning their intentions”. This means that
22
individuals within the same interpretive community have the same interpretative strategies because of their shared cultural references and historical position (Hooper-Greenhill 2007:77).
They may, however, not be a community in any other sense (Hooper-Greenhill 2007:78).
Based on the same core interest, philosophical assumptions, and intentions, the staff at IKM have constructed their own idea of what kind of museum IKM should be, how it should work and what its underlining principles are. Most of the staff are also actively engaged and interested in the museum’s local community, either as citizens themselves or as members of local organizations. This does not mean, however, that they are totally united in common purposes and preferences, and do not disagree with each other. Rather it means that they, as members of the same interpretative community, engage in an ongoing, social, and collective process of knowledge production (Hooper-Greenhill 2007:78). This makes it relevant for me to explore several of the employees’ individual reflections on the collaboration with SID.
During my internship at IKM, I also became part of their interpretive community as I learned the ways the staff discussed and negotiated their options, practices, and visions. Thus, I was partly socialized into their ways of thinking about museum work.
3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews
All the interviews in this study was conducted in a semi-structured manner as I wanted to engage in more informal conversations with my interviewees. As semi-structured interviews provide a flexible format with no strict structure (Bryman 2012:212), they enabled me to engage in loose conversations with the interviewees. They could expand on topics of individual interest and I could ask relevant follow-up questions in a pragmatic fashion. This allowed me to gain thorough insight into their personal thoughts and reflections and it seemed like this format, made the interviewees feel more comfortable with sharing their thoughts with me. It also seemed like all the interviewees enjoyed talking to me and that they took the research seriously. All the interviews were conducted in an informal setting, and their average time was about 1 hour. In the interview transcripts, elementary and obvious grammar mistakes were corrected, but no major changes were inserted. All the interviewees were also offered to see the transcripts after the interview.
Although the interviews went more like conversations, I still developed interview guides with the topics I regarded as most relevant to discuss in order to answer my research question and fully understand the nature of SID and IKM’s collaboration. I developed the guides based on the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2. I developed one interview guide aimed at SID and one for the IKM employees. The interview guide for Gilani and the SID-member
23
centred around their involvement in SID, their reflections around collaboration with IKM;
how the project developed, what they learned and got out of it, and why they wanted to collaborate with the museum. In the interview guide for the IKM employees I focused on the museum’s motivations for working with SID, how they practically did it and the impact it had on IKM’s work. We also discussed what the employees saw as their societal role.
3.4 Data Analysis
All data from the interviews were analysed by drawing loosely on Johnny Saldaña’s (2009) coding manual. After a few detailed readings of the transcripts, I developed more specific codes by drawing on a descriptive coding technique. Descriptive coding means that a word or a short phrase, often a noun, is used to summarize the basic topic or idea of a passage of qualitative data (Saldaña 2009:70). At this stage, I coded everything I found interesting, without thinking too much about its direct relevance to the research question, as I did not want to miss anything interesting by having a too narrow focus. Some of the codes emerged
organically, while others were drawn from my abovementioned theoretical tools, focusing on Sandell’s (2007a) three impact levels and Shor’s (1992) empowering educational values.
After this, I conducted a more focused coding, where all the descriptive codes were grouped into broader categories of the most important and interesting codes (Saldaña 2009:155). This process included several steps reducing and thematically condensing the codes into different categories significant to the research question. These topics were organized based on my three abovementioned focal points: motivations, practice, and impact. The last step included
collecting quotes for each theme to get an overview of their main ideas and how they interconnected. In addition, I wrote a coding memo during the analysis process noting the most important codes, categories, and emerging patterns. As I conducted the interviews in Norwegian, I have also translated the used quotes into English. I tried to translate them as accurately as possible, but to keep their original meaning I sometimes had to alter the
sentence structure slightly. Mentioning it here, I will not use the phrase “my translation” when referring to the interviews in the analysis and discussion. All interview references are also from the interviews conducted in February and March 2021 if not stated otherwise.
3.5 Reflexivity
When conducting qualitative research, a researcher must be aware of the implications his/her methods, values, biases, and decisions have for the knowledge being generated and the impact