The Museum-Ed Blog

We ended our Museum-Ed Interpretive Writing Workshop a week ago last Friday, whereupon I lit out for a week of camping in a remote wilderness with no access to any technology beyond some waterproof matches. Now that I’m back, renewed and refreshed, I’m happy to post these guidelines created by the workshop participants. To develop the guidelines we analyzed popular journalism consumed by museum visitors (think Time and Newsweek) and brainstormed a list of techniques that could relate to museum interpretive writing. Then we wrote about several works of art, and used that experience to refine the guidelines.

I’m hoping that folks who participated in the workshop will comment here, adding to what I’ve written. And of course the list is open to comments from everyone, so have at it! What works for you? What doesn’t make sense? What is here that you never thought of?

And yes, we will run the workshop again, so stay tuned for dates and times.

Content
- Engage VTS Stage II viewer, who is most likely to be the one reading
- Narrow focus, as in a single subject for a single label
- Relate to exhibition theme or other organizing principle
- Not too many ideas
- Few nuggets of info
- Provide “human interest”
- Direct viewer to look at object
- Ask viewer to think about things, with discretion
- Use quotes when helpful
- Arrange content around experience
- Reference popular culture
- Relate story to readers’ lives

Style/Voice
- Clear concise sentences
- Use headlines when appropriate
- Grab the viewers’ attention
- Be brief, 100 to 150 word limit
- Use accessible language
- Define jargon that can’t be avoided
- Active voice, conversational tone
- Playful language where appropriate
- First person narrative
- Questions asked for reader, e.g. “What does this mean?”
- Consistent voice across the museum

Design
- Good readable font, type
- Easy to find, to see
- Use color
- Use images
- Use finding aids: sub heads, pull quotes
- Offer multimedia
- Use Web for reader’s contributions

Process
- Keep image at hand for continuous reference
- Occasionally check with original
- Discuss, draft, read, edit, edit, edit

I was talking to my friend Jim Hakala on the phone today, and we were batting around the idea of a Wiki here on Museum-Ed that would let the community participate in writing a definition of museum education. That may yet happen, but Jim told me about a project that runs parallel to the idea: The Definition Project. In 2006, the National Association for Interpretation (NAI) with funding from the US Environmental Protection Agency organized a series of meetings with the purpose of informal education community agreement on the definitions of common terminology used by interpreters, environmental educators, historians, and others in nonformal settings such as parks, aquariums, zoos, nature centers, historic sites, and museums. A couple of folks, including Jim Hakala, attended these meetings as representatives of the American Association of Museums.

The result is the Web site, The Definitions Project, with a searchable list of terms and their definitions. That in itself is a great thing, but even greater is the ability for anyone to request adding a term, or to contribute examples or commentary on the existing terms. We’ve added the project to our list of links on Museum-Ed, and now I think we should all go over to the Definitions Project and start contributing more terms, examples and commentary to make this rich resource even more robust. And thanks to the NAI for coming up with a way to help us all speak the same language!