Conversation and Community: An Exploratory Study of The Pop-Up Museum Concept By Michelle DelCarlo Masters Candidate, Museology Graduate

Program Nonprofit Management Certificate Candidate, Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington

Thesis Project Master of Arts degree in Museology University of Washington

 Abstract The Pop-Up Museum is a concept created by the author in February 2011. The premise of the concept is that, based on a theme, people share personal objects and stories in order to have conversations with other participants. The mission of The Pop-Up Museum (PUM) is therefore to create conversation between people of all ages and walks of life. This research explores the social interaction that happens at pop-ups, within the context of a specific definition of conversation and how museums approach conversation between visitors. Results of this study suggests that participants at pop-ups have conversations with each other that are based on objects, through facilitation, and being in the pop-up space. Results also suggest that participants learn more about one another and meet new people. Furthermore, results suggest that participants feel a sense of community with one another after attending pop-ups. This data indicates that The PopUp Museum concept is a model of creating conversation between visitors for those museums that desire to do so.

What if we could hold an idea before us, exploring its meaning among other people and other minds? David Carr, Open Conversations What we seek is a certain kind and quality of talk: talk that yields knowledge and understanding. Rike Burnham & Elliott Kai-Kee, Teaching in the Art Museum We are more alike, my friends,/Than we are unalike. -Maya Angelou

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION CHAPTER 6: FUTURE RESEARCH REFERENCES APPENDIX 4 5 6 8 19 23 31 32 33 38

 Acknowledgements I have not been alone on my pop-up museum journey. I am indebted to the University of Washingtons Museology Graduate Program and the Evans School of Public Affairs for their academic and professional advising. I am also grateful to the University of Washingtons Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity for their support in my experimentation. My interest in conversations stems, in large part, from my work at the University of Washingtons Carlson Leadership and Public Service Center. I am grateful to have been immersed in an environment of commitment to public service and dedication to being in conversation with our communities. The Australian Museum in Sydney, Australia, deserves my utmost thanks for supporting my idea and allowing me to experiment with them. Thank you Lynda Kelly and everyone at the museum who encouraged me. Thank you to Kris Morrissey, advisor and committee member, for constantly pushing me to do better. Thank you to Ken Smith, for being my professional sounding board. Your encouragement and patience on my thesis journey set me up for success. I am grateful to Angie Ong of the Pacific Science Center for listening to my early ideas and for looking over my data collection instruments. Your professional opinion was incredibly valuable in my thesis experience. Thank you to Nina Simon, whose professional support of my concept has been instrumental in my desire to pursue further implementation. Thank you to everyone at the McPherson Museum of Art and History who was kind and allowed me to experiment. I am also deeply indebted to my colleague and friend, Siri Linz. Thank you for volunteering your time, effort, and advice to help me succeed. Without your help, this research would not have been possible. A very heartfelt thank you goes out to my family and friends, who have supported and encouraged me. And last, but not least, thank you to the numerous organizations who have opened their doors to me in partnership. By allowing me the chance to hold pop-ups, you have furthered my knowledge of conversations and community.

 Chapter 1: Introduction The Pop-Up Museum (PUM) is a participatory community event where people share a personal object, based on a theme, in order to spark conversation with other participants. My goal for the concept is to create conversation between people of all ages and walks of life. It is my experiment in community building and the creation of meaningful experiences. Each time PUM is held it is called a pop-up, and each pop-up lasts between one to two hours. I started exploring the PUM concept in February 2011, and have been holding pop-ups since April 2011. I have held pop-ups in Australia and the United States, both independently and in collaboration with communities, organizations, and individuals. While the mission of PUM is to create conversation between participants, at present, there is no evidence that such social interactions are occurring. Therefore, the goal of this exploratory study is to identify what social interactions occur at pop-ups. Specifically, this study aims to explore if conversations happen between pop-up participants, how those conversations are created, and the implications of those conversations. Noted museum professionals such as David Carr, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services are calling for museums to be vibrant hubs of social interaction. The field will therefore benefit from this study because it will explore the potential of PUM in creating social interaction through participants by way of conversation. Further, information about the types of social interactions and the implications of those interactions in the context of the PUM model may be useful for other institutions looking to create conversation between its visitors.

 Chapter 2: Background and Context The foundation of this project began in February 2011, when I began to think about how museums could go beyond their four walls and deeply engage people. I began to experiment with the pop-up museum concept, holding a pilot test in a meeting room of the University branch of the Seattle Public Library in April 2011. The pilot test looked very different from the model I use today. It was open for five hours and there was no community input for the theme. There was one small bowl of candy bars, no music, and lots of tables with too much empty space. I learned many lessons from that first pop-up, and I continued to reconfigure my approach as I moved forward. In 2011, I had pop-ups at a variety of institutions and spaces. These include a multi-purpose space at the Australian Museum in Sydney, Australia; meeting rooms at the Seattle Public Library; a classroom at the Burke Museum at the University of Washingon; and a multi-purpose space at the University of Washingtons Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity. These pop-ups were held in collaboration with other organizations, including the Australian Museum, The Granville Boys High School, The Southwest Seattle Historical Society, the Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity, and the University of Washington Museology Graduate Program. It is through this experimentation and reconfiguring that I created the pop-up museum model for this study. The main goal of this model is to create conversation between pop-up museum participants. The following table illustrates this model.

 The Pop-Up Museum Model Creating the Conversational Space Tables are arranged in a way that allows people to display their objects and labels. Tables should be close enough that people have to rub elbows to see objects. Groupings of chairs are placed sporadically in the space so people can sit and talk. Crayons, pens, and pencils are provided Soft, upbeat music is played Good snacks are provided A facilitator is present to aid conversation if needed Participant Actions Participants bring their own object Participants write their own labels Choosing the Theme Themes are chosen in collaboration with the popup partner. If there is no partner, a theme is chosen that is most relevant to the community where the popup is held The impetus for this study came from two sources, the first being my desire to formally continue my experimentation as part of my Museology Masters project. The second was a burgeoning interest in the concept, and my related desire to provide evidence for what social interactions occur at pop-ups.

 Chapter 3: Literature Review I. Conversation Conversation Defined The goal of The Pop-Up Museum concept is to create conversation between people of all ages and walks of life. It is therefore important to define conversation in order to explore its implications in the context of social interaction. A variety of terms are used to describe what happens when people talk to one another in museums: conversation, dialogue, discussion, debate, visit, remark, or comment. This research is most interested in the word conversation, for it most accurately describes how social interaction is approached at The Pop-Up Museum. The word conversation has a very distinct meaning and unique etymological roots that illustrates how it is applicable to the context in which it is used at the Museum. Contemporary research on learning and meaning-making in conversation is currently explored in many fields: philosophy, information systems, management, organizational behavior, psychology, and sociology (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002). One major line of this work is focused around the concept of dialogue, while another tradition is focused on the concept of conversation. While there is much agreement between those two traditions and many researchers use the terms interchangeably, there are, in fact, important differences" (p. 9-10). Etymologically, the word "conversation" has its roots in the communal and emotional, while "dialogue" has its roots in conflict, of opposing voices searching for truth (p.10-11). Conversation is used mainly by those focused on human understanding and human experience rather than on abstract knowledge about ideas, whereas "dialogue" is used mainly by those who see social interaction as an intellectual process of refining knowledge (p. 10-11). Conversation is therefore viewed here as a process of reaching interpersonal understanding where all participants contributions are equally valued, versus a rhetorical process of defining ones self through conflict. Conversation distinguishes itself from other forms of social interaction involving talk through certain characteristics. Researcher Neil Haigh (2005) describes conversation as independent from other forms of talk through specific attributes. It is not a pre-planned event; rather, it is an informal activity that relies on serendipitous interactions and improvised, unscripted talk. All participants can influence the direction of the talk,

 moment-to-moment, so the interaction is never one-sided. It is also focused on local, personal, and immediate matters, and storytelling is a main ingredient in communication. It is an open and non-threatening activity that encourages permissiveness and risk-taking (Haigh, 2005). Successful conversation participant characteristics include a cooperative spirit, mutual respect, modesty, lacking pretension, courtesy, and affability (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011). Conversation is distinguished from other forms of talk in that it is an inherently cooperative activity that relies on the collaboration of all participants (Wardhaugh, 2002). Even though conversations are informal, they are nonetheless cooperative efforts based on a tacit acknowledgment that the participants have gathered for a common purpose (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011, p. 83). Conversation is best seen as cooperative participation in shared talk, rather than an antagonistic social interaction (Bublitz, 1988). Talking in conversation does not methodically move from point A to point B. Rather, it moves back and forth, between and around in a circular pattern, creating a web of connections among those engaged in talk (Burnham & Kai-Kee). In this way, those in conversation are equal participants and must cooperate to keep the talk going. Conversation Is a Learning Experience Conversation is the most ordinary and yet most profound of human activities (Haigh, 2005). It is ubiquitous, ever present, and all around us. In its many forms - face to face, telephone, among written texts, or in cyberspace - conversation is a process of interpreting and understanding human experience. This conversational sense-making can be described as a process of experiential learning" (Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002, p.1-2). The roots of conversational learning go back to the works of prominent learning theorists Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin, Paolo Freire, and William James, who articulated that learning and experience are inseparable (p.1-2). Conversation can also be seen as a learning experience wherein the participants construct meaning. Gaea Leinhardt and Karen Knutson (2004) suggest that conversation is the real moment of co-construction of meaning; this is where the short traces of the day are set in place to be remembered late; and this is where the longer, carefully revisited, and reshaped memories first come into being (p.xv). Conversation is not only a learning experience, but a place where people can actively grapple with and reflect upon the

 things they have learned: Individuals engage in and make sense of their experience in conversations. We call these patterns of learning streams of meaning-making (Jensen & Kolb, 2002). Conversation Is a Social Activity Sociolinguist Ronald Wardhaugh (1985) describes conversation as an inherently social activity that requires at least two people. Because conversation involves more than just one persons perspective, all participants must be aware of and sensitive to the other persons feelings. Wardaugh states Involvement in conversation therefore requires the two (or various) parties to be conscious of each others needs (p. 2). Conversation can therefore be defined as a reciprocal and cooperative social endeavor. William Turbull (2003), an expert in social interaction and conversation, also defines conversation as a social situation in which two or more co-present persons talk to one another. According to Turnbull, conversation can happen between cultures, without visual interaction, and in varying degrees of formality. His examination of conversation reveals that it is composed of much more than spoken language as traditionally defined, and indeed need not be made up of spoken language or speaking. He uses the word talk to refer to both the activities and ways in which people come together to make conversation happen. The word talk will be used in the same context throughout this paper. How Museums Approach Conversation Museums generally acknowledge that conversation happens inside their walls (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Leinhardt, Crowley & Knutson, 2002; Leinhardt & Knutson, 2004; Silverman, 2010; Simon 2010). However, the literature reveals that museums focus on conversation between pre-formed groups in the context of desired outcomes of exhibits or public programs. According to David Carr (2011), the museum has the unrealized potential to benefit society through face-to-face forums and community conversations dealing with current events and other pertinent topics. He asserts that museums have the possibility to be places where people come together, think together, share their stories, and therefore build community. He recognizes that while museums have the possibility to do so, it is a possibility not yet realized. Carr states that our institutions can help to bring communities to their questions, to the knowledge that

10

 helps to inform their responses, and to the ideas and values that will shape our policies and plans[this] will begin with stories told in places where we live, to others who sit near us (p. xxii). Further, Angie Ong (personal communication, September 20, 2011) states that the field has largely been focused on conversations between museum and community, not community talking to community. Museums therefore have the potential to create conversation between communities of people inside their walls, yet have not pursued this with great intensity (Carr 2011; Putnam, 2001). While the potential for conversation between strangers and community members exists in museums, the literature suggests that most conversations happen between small, pre-formed groups (Burnham & Kai-Kee, 2011; Leinhardt, Crowley & Knutson, 2002; Leinhardt & Knutson, 2004; Silverman, 2010). While many museums are concerned with participatory and interactive design, they are usually concerned with an individuals participation in, and engagement with, the exhibit. Interaction between visitors is less of a concern, if a concern at all (Hindmarsh, Heath, vom Lehn & Cleverly, 2002, p. 1; the authors italics). Museums have therefore mostly been concerned with allowing individuals or communities to participate and interact in tandem, rather then communally (Hindmarsh et al., 2002; Simon, 2010). Museums provide a unique combination of physical space and objects (Gurian, 2009). This unique combination can lead to social interaction between visitors: Some museums intentionally support and promote companion conversation through accommodating spaces, read-aloud labels, and familiar objects (Silverman, 2010, p. 71). While conversation happens because of museums physical space and objects, Silverman illustrates that generating conversation outside of the traditional pre-formed pair group can be difficult. Enemies, strangers, or pairs who havent known each other long may find it difficult to converseFear, cultural etiquette, or lack of shared history can impede the very exchange that might spark a new relationship (p. 71). Silverman suggests that structure and facilitation is useful for those who are uncomfortable, unwilling, or unsure of how to have a conversation with strangers. Museums, Conversation, and Community Building There are many ways to define community, but for the purposes of this paper, the social aspects that define and build community are explored. Community is defined as

11

 sustained social interaction between individuals (Appleby, 2003). According to Mattessich & Monsey (1997), community building generally refers to building and sustaining social networks within a community, and creating opportunities for groups and individuals to develop problem-solving and leadership skills. For organizations and associations, community building focuses mostly on the nature, strength, and scope of relationships among individuals within their community and through them (Kubisch et al., 1995). Community building is a process that can occur through a variety of methods mostly related to social interaction (Mattessich & Monsey, 1997). One effective way to build community is through active participation in a conversation (Diers, 2004; Lucey, OMalley & Anchalee, 2009). The process of community building is most successful when widespread participation in the community building process is employed. This participation can be described as representative, meaning the process includes members of all or most of segments of the community. Participation should also be continuous, meaning the process recruits new community members to participate in the social interaction over time (Mattessich & Monsey, 1997). Museums have been cited as organizations capable of building community (Appleby, 2003; Putnam, 2001). Museums are able to bring people together: The riches of old collections and the generous architecture of earlier periods have given museums entries into city life as the cites for community gatherings (Appleby, p. 214, 2003). Furthermore, community building is part of the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences (IMLS) 2012-2016 Five-Year Strategic Plan. According to IMLS, Healthy, thriving, sustainable communities need institutions that strengthen civic life, understand and respond to community needs, and provide common experiences that knit together diverse interests[museums] are safe places for community gathering, centers for community vitality, a connecting point for community services, and a venue for cultural expression and lifelong learning (Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, 2011). As such, museums are positioned to create programming that encourages community building, including conversational experiences.

12

 II. Foundational Museum Theory The Pop-Up Museum has its foundation in the existing museological framework, including community-based and eco- museums. It has emerged from experimental museum practices including participatory design, placing the individual or community at the focus of the museum through self-representation, and using museums as social spaces of conversation. The concept builds on theories of space and place; self-representation as a healthy, community-building endeavor; and the emic perspective. Community & Eco-Museums Community-centered or community-based museums are a specific type of museum, one whose main goal is to facilitate the well being of their community rather than the individual visitor experience (Gurian, 2002). Museums such as these focus on the people living in the neighborhood where they are located. They often provide services, traditional performances and rituals, and exhibits all in the same space. Community-based museums are most often controlled by the communities themselves and the objects that comprise their museums belong to the members of the community (Gurian, 2002, p.8). A good example of a community-based museum is the Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience located in Seattle, Washington. Situated specifically in the International District, the Wing Luke pulls from the experience of the members of its neighborhood in order to develop exhibitions and programs. According to the museum, they bring in many community members in this development process, and incorporate oral histories from these community members into their multi-media exhibit displays (The Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience, n.d.). Ecomuseums The ecomuseum model was created in 1971 by George-Henri Riviere and Hugo de Varine at the 9th International Museum Congress in France. Ecomuseums are designed and run by the local community in which they reside and, ideally, are maintained for the benefit of all stakeholders. As such, ecomuseums have the ability to give voice to those who have traditionally been unable to express themselves (Delgado, 2003). They are a reflection of the local communitys relationship to their social and physical environment. They are living laboratories that contribute to research on a regions past and present

13

 social and physical environment. They serve as a center for the protection of natural resources and further conservation and development of natural heritage and cultural identity. While all ecomuseums share some part of these characteristics, their application can vary widely between one institution and another (Donghai, 2008). At their core, though, all ecomuseums see the museum building itself only as a meeting place and the community as the museum (Stockrocki, 1996). Participatory Design Participatory design is an audience-centered methodology that creates opportunities for visitors to interact and participate with the museum and each other. According to Nina Simon (2010), there are some foundational theories, principles, and strategies that inform participatory design. Theories include the idea that an audiencecentered institution is relevant, useful, and accessible; visitors construct their own meanings from their own cultural experiences; and visitors voices can inform and invigorate both design and experience. Principles include the idea that the museum serves as a platform that supports multi-directional content experiences; institutions must trust visitors to create, remix, and redistribute content; and institutions must find opportunities for visitors to share their own content in meaningful ways. Simon shows that allowing visitors to share personal content with others in a way that augments the traditional museum visit is an effective strategy for participatory engagement (Simon, 2010). Overall, participatory design changes museums from closed institutions to institutions that support the perspectives of all visitors (Sderqvist, 2010). Individual or Community Self-Representation in Museums Another emerging trend in museum practice is viewing the visitor or community as the focus of the museum instead of the museum as the focus. This can be described as a transition from internal, established museum narratives, to external self-representation by the community (Stanish, 2008). Stanish uses the example of several communities in Central and Southern America that have been given control of the direction and content of their local museums. By placing these communities at the center of the museums mission and goals, Stanish claims that they are empowered to disrupt any oversimplified narratives created about them. He believes that museums will be able to thrive in the 21st

14

 Century only if they continue to pursue methods of audience engagement that encourage self-representation (Stanish, 2008). David Carr (2010) argues that museums should embrace the creation of dialogue, feeling, and personal knowledge instead of insipid, conventional awe (p.11). In order to achieve this, he asserts that museums must permit ideas to come from a diverse array of outside sources, most importantly from the visitors themselves. He states that the most successful museum is one that invites visitors into the content and experience creation process is a self-representational way. John Falk and Beverly Sheppard (2006) also agree that museums must put visitors at the center of their institutional agenda through selfrepresentation. They argue that in this Knowledge Age, there is no one more important that the individual user, or visitor. This is because museums are in the business of providing meaningful experiences for visitors, and the only way to do this is by finding out what individuals or communities want. Museum must see their relationship with visitors as collaborative partnerships that will work only if the visitor is allowed to selfrepresent in the feedback process. Museums can put this into practice by continually soliciting feedback from their visitors and acting strategically on the results to create experiences (Falk & Sheppard, 2006). An example of a successful implementation of self-representation is a series of events and exhibits at the Victoria and Albert Museum (the V&A) in London, developed with South Asian, African Caribbean, and Chinese communities. The V&A recognized that these were underrepresented audiences in the museum, and therefore collaborated with them in order to garner what was most important to them. The resultant exhibits included photographs of their diverse places of worship, taken by the community members themselves. These photos were displayed as a way to show of what faith meant to them. The V&A also held a museum-wide Black History Month exhibition, wherein members of the community were invited to show what being black meant to them. This included demonstrations of African head-wrapping, break-dancing, graffiti, fashion shows, poetry readings, and academic conferences. Nightingale sites this method of selfrepresentation as the reason for the continued success of the museum (Nightingale, 2006). Vicki Couzens (2010), a Gunditjmara and Keeray Wurrong artist from Australia, theorizes that land, language, and identity inform who we all are as people. From this

15

 foundation, she argues that personally articulating ones own culture (defined as language, stories, songs, dance, artifacts, and cultural knowledge and practices) allow people to demonstrate their belonging to land, language, and identity. According to Couzens, this is a vital and necessary human exercise. She therefore posits that selfrepresentation in museums makes cultures, connections, and individuals stronger and healthier. The Emic Perspective The emic perspective comes from the work of linguist Kenneth Pike. The word emic stems from the linguistic word and concept of phonemic, which is the smallest unit of meaningful sound. Pike introduced the theory that an effective way to describe human behavior is to understand it from only one dialect, or culture, at a time. It is an attempt to discover and describe the pattern of that particular language of culture in reference to the way in which various elements of that culture are related to each other in the functioning of that particular pattern, rather than an attempt to describe them in reference to a generalized classification derived in advance of the study of that particular culture (Pike & Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1954, p. 8). In other words, it is the suggestion that a culture can be best understood from an insiders perspective rather than an outsiders perspective; it is the perspective of the knowledge makers themselves. He asserts that it is more accurate to analyze and represent a culture from the perspective of those who are part of the culture being presented (Mieri, 2010). This supports the Museums efforts to allow all participants a change to self-articulate. Museums as Social Spaces for Conversation The idea of creating a space for conversation is central to the idea of The PopUp Museum. Sociologist Michel de Certeau identifies important differences in regards to place and space. He states that place can be thought of as a construction of dominant powers to organize and control communities through urban planning and architecture, while space is constructed the practice of living by everyday people. He opines that space is variable, mobile, built by its participants, and therefore a practiced place (de Certeau, 2011, p.117). Additionally, Carmita Eliza Icasiano (2010) theorizes that the museum, as a space, provides a cultural benefit. This is because museum-like spaces

16

 support the continuation of heritage practices and exhibition of cultural objects that would otherwise be lost if not for such a space (Icasiano, 2010). A trend in contemporary museological practice is the change from traditional place-oriented audience engagement toward a space-oriented audience engagement. As museums are educational institutions, Bautista & Balsamo (2011) argue that they should pay attention to the current trend in peer-to-peer learning brought about by the digital age. In light of this, some institutions have created an online presence that goes beyond simply digitizing the collections; they provide creative digital spaces that serve as distributed social learning networks. As such, museums can be spaces where communities of interest can generate conversations that lead to information sharing and community building (Bautista & Balsamo, 2011). One of the reasons that people visit museums is to have a social experience (Falk, Moussouri & Coulson, 1998; Graburn, 1977; Coffee, 2007). Indeed, there is general recognition among museum practitioners that museum use is a social experience (Coffee, 2007, p. 377). A recent study on reasons for museum visitation was conducted by IMPACTS, a firm that provides data to museums in order to inform strategic planning. Results of the survey indicated that the most important reason a visitor chose to visit a museum was have a shared experience with friends and family (Dilenschneider, February 12, 2012). Museums can therefore been defined as social spaces. III. Similar Museological Projects As The Pop-Up Museum has emerged from contemporary museological practice, there are other examples of similar projects moving in the same direction. Four such museum projects most closely match The Pop-Up Museums methodology and goals: Object Stories and the Portland Art Museum in Portland, Oregon; The Museum of Broken Relationships in Zegreb, Croatia; and the Pop-Up Museum of Queer History. Object Stories at the Portland Art Museum (PAM) in Portland, Oregon, is a project that invites visitors to tell stories about objects that mean something to them. The main goal of this project is to actively engage the broad public and diversify museum audiences. Working in collaboration with the Northwest Film Center, Write Around Portland, and Miracle Theater Group, PAM invites people, by appointment, to bring their

17

 chosen object and story to the museums story collection booth. Their object and story are recorded and published both in an in-house and online digital archive, where there are also recorded personal stories from others about museum objects (Ancelet, Butler & Ong, 2010). An installation of museum objects, selected and told by the public, will accompany the digital archive. Object Stories offers new possibilities to shift the relationship people make with museums, reshaping the institution as an organic, evergrowing repository made collectively by us of our stories and objects, mundane and exalted, personal and subjective (Portland Art Museum, n.d.). Conversation between participants is not a goal of this project. The Museum of Broken Relationships, in Zegreb, Croatia, created by Olinka Vitica and Draen Grubii, is the result of a traveling exhibition focusing on the idea of failed relationships and their physical remnants. The museum rejects traditional selfhelp methods of recovering from failed relationships, and instead provides an opportunity for creative healing by allowing people to contribute personal objects that reflect their own failed relationships to the ever growing and changing collection. The museum is a response to the feeling that our societies frequently recognize and celebrate the creation of relationships, but does not provide space to acknowledge and process ones that have failed. The goal of the museum is to inspire our personal search for deeper insights and strengthen our belief in something more meaningful than random suffering (Museum of Broken Relationships, n.d.). Lastly, The Pop-Up Museum of Queer History is a grassroots organization that transforms spaces into temporary exhibits about the histories of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people (Pop-Up Museum of Queer History, n.d.). Unlike The Pop-Up Museum, it curates exhibits, using a variety of artwork that has been accepted through a formal proposal process. Their main goal is to educate the public on the rich history of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people in the United States, and to serve as a platform for marginalized stories.

18

 Chapter 4: Methodology The goal of this study was to identify what social interactions occur at The PopUp Museum. Two methods were used to gather data and information: interviews and questionnaires during five pop-ups. These pop-ups were organized in order to fall into the ideal data collection time of March and April 2012. Data Collected from Pop-Ups Location Theme Date Number of Subjects Interviewed Number of Participant Questionnaires Approximate Total Number of Participants 10

The Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity at the University of Washington The Center for Experiential Learning and Diversity at the University of Washington Meeting room of the Seattle Public Librarys Ballard branch Seattle YMCAs Cascade Peoples Center The Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History Total

Culture

2/6/2012

Home

2/13/2012

10

Adoption Culture and Home Something or Someone You Love

2/25/2012 3/10/2012

17

20

0 3/24/2012 0 8

6 7 33

15 15

Attendees at the pop-ups were interviewed based on a deliberative sampling technique. Those participants observed having two or more conversations were interviewed by a fellow Museology student trained in evaluation. A total of eight interviews were conducted. The main limitation of this methodology was that in order for conversations to occur, I had to facilitate each pop-up. Thus, I was not able to conduct interviews at three of the five pop-ups, as the evaluator was only present for the first two pop-ups.
19

The following are the questions asked during interviews. The interviews were semistructured; while the interviewer asked the listed questions, they also probed further with follow-up questions when needed. 1. How did you hear about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 2. How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 3. What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Did you have a conversation with someone? ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ________________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Did you learn something new about someone? ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Did you talk with someone you didnt know before? ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ______________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didnt have the opportunity to do so? _______________________________________________________________________ 8. Do you have anything else to add that we didnt cover? ________________________________________________________________________ The second methodology used to gather information for this research consisted of a questionnaire that pop-up attendees filled out. Questionnaires were successfully implemented at all five of the pop-ups, with a total of 33 questionnaires completed. Subjects for the questionnaire were selected using a convenience sampling method. Additionally, those who were interviewed were not asked to complete a questionnaire; all other pop-up participants were asked to do so. The questionnaire employed for this research, including those questions asked participants, is as follows. Potential subjects for the questionnaire were selected based on

20

 a convenience sampling method; any available pop-up participant was asked to complete a questionnaire. There was a very low refusal rate for questionnaires.

On a scale of 1-5, which 1 being strongly disagree, and 5 being strongly agree, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? 1) I had a conversation with someone I had never met before. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 2) I learned something new about someone. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 3) I had a conversation about an object. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 4) I had a conversation about an idea, experience, person, or place. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 5) I feel a sense of community with the people who attended todays pop-up. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 6) I would attend another pop-up in the future. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 7) Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share? There were limitations in conducting this research. The first is that I was both facilitating and collecting data at each of the pop-ups conducted for this research. As such, I was limited in my ability to intercept participants, as my attention was being pulled both towards collecting data about social interaction and facilitating that social

21

 interaction. Additionally, the first two pop-ups were poorly attended, with less than 10 participants at each. Therefore only interviews were conducted at the first pop-up and a small amount of interviews and questionnaires were conducted at the second.

22

 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion Results of the Questionnaire A total of 33 participants were surveyed through the questionnaire at five pop-ups selected for research. The first question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement I had a conversation with someone I had never met before. 27 of the 33 respondents said they strongly agreed that they had a conversation with someone they had never met before, three respondents agreed, three were neutral, and no one disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Ihadaconversationwith someoneIhadnevermetbefore
30 20 10 0 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Disagree 3 Neutral 3 Agree StronglyAgree 27

The second question asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement I learned something new about someone. 29 respondents strongly agreed that they learned something new about someone else, 3 respondents agreed, none were neutral, one respondent disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

Ilearnedsomethingnewaboutsomeone
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 29

0 Strongly Disagree

1 Disagree

0 Neutral

3 Agree Strongly Agree

23

 The third question asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement I had a conversation about an object. 25 strongly agreed, four agreed, two were neutral, none disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

Ihadaconversationaboutanobject
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 25

0 Strongly Disagree

0 Disagree

2 Neutral

4 Agree StronglyAgree

The fourth question asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement I had a conversation about an idea, experience, person, or place. 26 strongly agreed, three agreed, two were neutral, and none disagreed, and one strongly disagreed.

Ihadaconversationaboutanidea, experience,person,orplace
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Strongly Disagree 1 0 Disagree 2 Neutral 3 Agree StronglyAgree 26

24

 The fifth question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement I feel a sense of community with the people who attended todays pop-up. 20 respondents strongly agreed, eight agreed, five were neutral, none disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

Ifeelasenseofcommunitywiththe peoplewhoattendedtoday'spopup
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20 8

5 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Disagree Neutral

Agree

StronglyAgree

The sixth question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement I would attend another pop-up in the future. 29 respondents strongly agreed, four agreed, none were neutral, none disagreed, and none strongly disagreed.

Iwouldattendanotherpopupin thefuture
30 20 10 0 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Disagree 0 Neutral 4 Agree StronglyAgree 29

25

 Lastly, respondents had the opportunity to write in their own comments about their experience at the pop-up. Their responses are as follows: From the adoption pop-up: I sincerely "strongly agree" with all the above. "Adoption" is such a powerful theme. Through the objects on the tables, I found myself sharing stories I wouldn't have felt comfortable sharing with people who I had just met. I absolutely love the concept! I think [the] theme was very personal and it was touching what people felt comfortable sharing. I love the conversations that happened here. Great, informal, comfortable and supportive! Loved the informal, natural way that this even encouraged connection, and greater understanding. Loved it! Thanks! Such a heartwarming pop-up! I believe this pop-up was such an interesting experience! I liked seeing different people's interpretations on the subject, and learning new things about my friends through their objects. I love the location - bothe [sic] the room and city. This even brought out a warm feeling. None relevant. Thank you for providing a unique opportunity to connect with others regarding a subject that is close to my heart. The casual atmosphere and variety of ages added to the experience. I was glad this was about "face to face" communication which lended itself better to this personal topic than using technology. This was a great experience. I was a little worried about talking about a somewhat sensitive topic but the atmosphere and the people were welcoming and comfortable. Thanks! I really loved the pop up! Great theme and turn out! I thought the objects people brought were really interesting and informative. I had a great time. Keep up the good work! I really liked how the topic of adoption was interpreted to mean so many different thing to so many different people. I also really enjoyed talking to everyone and hearing and sharing stories about the objects that were brought in. It was really fun to see what people brought in to share. Great way to start conversation and find out something meaningful about someone else. Makes conversation more authentic than talking about the weather. Pop-up museums are fun! Very friendly, welcoming people! Thanks. Made me smile - I had fun.

26

 From the Something or Someone You Love pop-up: The diversity of objects is great! I would love to see it on a bigger scale. Lovely. Interesting idea - I see many opportunities in it and many applications! This is a great idea! Once I had seen all the objects though, I wasn't sure what to do. Maybe it would help to have some sort of activity to make it easier to talk to other people - like a guessing game to figure out who brought what? Overall I loved it. Nature-themed? Results of Interviews A total of eight interviews were conducted. The results of the interviews are as follows. 1) How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum? Overall, people described their experience at The Pop-Up Museum in a positive way. Respondents replied that they learned about other people, they had fun, and were comfortable. One respondent mentioned that they were unsure about what to do since it was a new concept to them, but they ended up enjoying themselves in the end. It was fun, nice to learn something new about people in the office and about new people. I was curious about how it would all work. I felt self-conscious initially about the process. I enjoyed the chance to see what other people have done. I enjoyed talking with people and the personal connection. Comfortable. It was relaxing and interesting to talk to people and share my experiences. It was interesting to see how people interpreted the theme and made it their own. 2) What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? Learning about other people was the number one thing people cited as their favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum. Also, the ability to sit down and have conversations was mentioned. Being able to see objects and listen to stories was also mentioned as a favorite part. Always learning something new about co-workers or people I don't know. It was cool to delve in a bit behind the story, more than just the placard. Reading people's descriptions of their objects. Getting a chance to hear their voice on a topic that is abstract but relevant to everyday life. 3) Did you have a conversation with someone? All respondents replied that they did have a conversation with someone else.

27

 3.a) Tell me more about that conversation. Respondents replied that they learned more personal things about others and were able to share something about themselves. Objects played a large role in sparking these conversations. Conversations ranged in topic from personal stories, to thematic related, to completely unrelated topics. I learned more about someone's personal history. I had a conversation with Rachel about her tea thing, went all over the place, group conversations, some one-on-one conversations. I talked with people I knew, talked about my project. I met someone new through my object, talked for a while and found that we have a lot in common. 3.b) What provoked that/those conversations? Conversations were provoked by a number of different factors. Just being in the room where the pop-up was held sparked conversations. Objects also played a role, including observing, bringing, or asking about an object. Facilitation of conversation by the coordinator also provoked conversations. I asked if she brought anything and she said no, we started talking about food instead. Provoked by me having strong feelings about tea; my own personal connection to her object. Michelle introduced us based on an object. 4) Did you learn something new about someone? All respondents replied that they did learn something new about someone. 5) Did you talk with someone you didn't know before? Three respondents replied that they did not have conversations with people they didnt know before, while five respondents replied they did. 5.a) Tell me more about that/those conversations. Of those respondents who replied that they did have a conversation with someone they didnt know before, their answers reflect that conversations were created by objects or a created commonality. We connected over having an old camera. He (photographer from UW Daily) brought out a Nikon cap. A couple: with folks I didn't know, I discovered commonalities I wouldn't have expected. It was just sort of an introduction and sort of about, because I'm new to the Carlson Center and he had worked here before. Talking in the group with Val. I was interested in what she brought and her talking about moving here. I would have liked to talk more about this.

28

 5.b) What provoked that/those conversations? Respondents who replied they did have conversations with someone they didnt know before had these conversations provoked by a variety of stimuli. These include looking at an object and asking who it belonged to. I asked who put the exhibit of the cap up. Other respondents replied that being in pop-up space encouraged them to have conversations with people they didnt know. The fact that people were already talking about the objects in the room helped them meet new people. The items themselves and it was an environment where people were already talking. Her (Val) coming in and because she was by herself and we were interested in what she brought. Additionally, one respondent was introduced by another person they knew at the pop-up. This led to them having a conversation with someone they hadnt met before. Getting introduced via coworkers, mutual contacts. 6) Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didn't have the opportunity to do so? Respondents generally replied no to this question. One respondent felt that the openness of the pop-up concept allowed for ample opportunities for conversation. I don't think so. The openness of it allows for free-flowing conversation. However, two respondents had interesting responses to this question. One felt that after a certain point, they didnt want to say any more about their object, and didnt want to keep talking. Additionally, another respondent felt that they werent able to say enough about their object, as they didnt have an opportunity to speak about it unless someone directly asked them to. I don't think so. At some point I didn't want to say more, I didn't feel like I should keep talking about my object. Yes, I didn't fully explain all of mine unless someone asked me directly. 9) Do you have anything else to add that we didn't cover? Generally, respondents replied positively to the pop-up concept, saying that it was a fun experience that people should support. One respondent replied that they thought it was a good way to get to know people in a genuine way.

29

 It was fun, hopefully we can do this again. I just like the way that it opens up avenues of conversation with people that I work with. It brings up things we don't usually talk about and it seems like an authentic way to get to know people.

30

 Chapter 5: Conclusion This study suggests that The Pop-Up Museum model creates social interaction between pop-up participants in the form of conversation. Participants have conversations with people they had never met before and with people they know, and they learn new things about other participants. On subjects that were particularly sensitive, some participants were initially hesitant to share personal stories. However, the welcoming atmosphere helped them feel comfortable enough to open up. Conversations are sparked by objects, by being in the pop-up space itself, and through facilitation. Conversation topics ranged from directly related to the theme to being completely unrelated. This study also suggests that pop-up participants feel a sense of community with one another. Looking to the future, this study suggests that this pop-up museum model may be a good model to use for those museums that desire to create conversation between visitors.

31

 Chapter 6: Future Research

Further study on The Pop-Up Museum model should be conducted. Future studies

should gather data from a wider sample size and a more diverse pool of subjects. Studies could focus on objects, participation, and related actions outside of the pop-up space itself. These studies could add to the data already collected and assist in bringing better conversational experiences to museum communities. Research Focus Objects Participation Actions Outside of the Pop-Up Space Research Question If a participant comes without an object, do they still have conversations? If a participant doesnt have any conversations, how is their experience affected? What conversations occur outside of the pop-up space? How does reflecting on a theme affect the social interaction at The Pop-Up Museum itself?

32

 References About Museum of Broken Relationships / Museum of Broken Relationships. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://new.brokenships.com/en/about About The Pop-Up Museum of Queer History. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://www.queermuseum.com/home/about/ Ancelet, J., Butler, S., Ong, A. (2010). Exhibit Review: Object Stories. Museums and Social Issues, 5(2), 275-281. Appleby, J. (2003). Building Community in the Twenty-First Century. In J. Rodin & S. P. Steinberg (Eds.), Public discourse in America: conversation and community in the twenty-first century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning in Conversation. In Baker, A., C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (Eds.), Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation (1-13). Quorum Books. Bautista, S., & Balsamo, A. (2011). Understanding the Distributed Museum: Mapping The Spaces of Museology in Contemporary Culture. Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/understanding_distributed_ museum Bedford, L. (2001). Storytelling: The Real Work of Museums. Curator, 44(1), 27-34. Boylan, P.J. (2006). The Museum Profession. In S. Macdonald (Ed.), A companion to museum studies (pp. 415-430). John Wiley & Sons. Bublitz, W. (1988). Supportive fellow-speakers and cooperative conversations: discourse topics and topical actions, participant roles and recipient action in a particular type of everyday conversation. Amsterdam;Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co. Burnham, R., & Kai-Kee, E. (2011). Teaching in the Art Museum: Interpretation as Experience (1st ed.). J. Paul Getty Museum. Carr, D. (2010). Respect, Identity, Solace for the Art Museum User. In L. Foreman Wernet & B. Dervin (Eds.), Audiences and the Arts: Communication Perspectives (pp. 9-20). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Carr, D. (2011). Open Conversations: Public Learning in Libraries and Museums (1st ed.). Libraries Unlimited. Coffee, K. (2007). Audience Research and the Museum Experience as Social Practice. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 377-89.

33

 Couzens, V. (2010). Telling the Story of Possum Skin Cloaks. In O. Guntarik (Ed.), Narratives of community : museums and ethnicity (pp. 24-45). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. Davis, P. (2010). Place, Narrative and Social Space. In O. Guntarik (Ed.), Narratives of community: museums and ethnicity (pp. 70-90). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. De Certeau, M. (2011). The Practice of Everyday Life (3rd ed.). University of California Press. Delgado, C. (2001). The Ecomuseum in Fresnes: against exclusion. Museum International, 53(1), 37-41. doi:10.1111/1468-0033.00298 Diers, J. (2004). Neighbor Power: Building Community the Seattle Way. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Dilenschneider, C. (2012, February 12). According to Visitors, THIS is the Best Part About Going to a Museum (Hint: Its Not The Exhibits). Know Your Own Bone. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from http://colleendilen.com/2012/02/12/according-tovisitors-this-is-the-best-part-about-going-to-a-museum-hint-its-not-the-exhibits/ Donghai, S. (2008). The Concept of the Ecomuseum and its Practice in China. Museum International, 60(12), 29-39. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0033.2008.00634.x Falk, J. H., & Sheppard, B. (2006). Thriving in the Knowledge Age: New Business Models for Museums and Other Cultural Institutions. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The Effect of Visitors Agendas on Museum Learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 41(2), 107-120. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.1998.tb00822.x Forbes, J. (2012, January 26). Pop-Up Pensacola: Whats the City to You? Independent Weekly, 13(4), 40. Graburn, N. (1977). The Museum and the Visitor Experience. Roundtable Reports, 1-5. Gurian, E. (2002). Choosing among the options: An opinion about museum definitions. Curator, 45(2), 75-88. Gurian, E. H. (2009). Wanting to Be The Third on Your Block. Michigan Museum Association Talk3. Retrieved from http://www.egurian.com/omniumgatherum/museum-issues/leadership/directors-issues/wanting-to-be-the-third-onyour-block

34

 Haigh, N. (2005). Everyday conversation as a context for professional learning and development. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/13601440500099969 Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., & Cleverly, J. (2002). Creating assemblies: aboard the Ghost Ship. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, CSCW 02 (pp. 156165). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/587078.587101 Icasiano, C. E. (2010). Advocating Culture Through Crafts. Narratives of community : museums and ethnicity (pp. 222-241). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. (2011). IMLS Five-Year Strategic Plan 20122016 (Strategic Plan) (p. 36). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Retrieved from http://www.imls.gov/about/strategic_plan.aspx Jensen, P.J., & Kolb, D.A. (2002). Streams of Meaning Making in Conversation. In Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (Eds.), Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation (125-137). Quorum Books. Kelly, L. (2010, June 8). The role of narrative in museum exhibitions. Australian Museum Audience Research Blog post. Retrieved from http://australianmuseum.com/BlogPost/Audience-Research-Blog/The-role-ofnarrative-in-museum-exhibitions. Kelly, L. (2011, September 25). No More Cookbooks: Whats a museum doing on this cooking blog? Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://nomorecookbooks.blogspot.com/2011/09/whats-museum-doing-on-thiscooking-blog.html Kubisch, A. C., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., Hirota, J., Joseph, M., Richman, H., & Roberts, M. (1995). Voices From the Field: Learning from Comprehensive Community Initiatives. The Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. New York, NY, USA: The Aspen Institute. Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.). (2002). Learning Conversations in Museums. Routledge. Leinhardt, G., & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on Museum Conversations. Altamira Press. Lucey, T. A., OMalley, G.A., & Jansem, A. (2009). Using Online Reflection and Conversation to Build Community. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 199-217.

35

 Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1997). Community Building: What Makes It Work: A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. Saint Paul, Minn: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Meyer, K. (2011, November 14). Pop-Up Museum pops up for SW Seattle Historical Society. West Seattle Blog. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://westseattleblog.com/2011/11/pop-up-museum-pops-up-for-sw-seattlehistorical-society Mieri, M. (2010). Are We There Yet? In O. Guntarik (Ed.), Narratives of community : museums and ethnicity (pp. 202-221). Edinburgh: Museumsetc. Nightingale, E. (2006). Dancing Around the Collections: Developing Individuals and Audiences. In C. Lang, J. Reeve, & V. Woollard (Eds.), The Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 79-91). Aldershot England; Burlington VT: Ashgate. Pike, K. L., & Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1954). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior (Prelim. ed.). Glendale, Calif: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Pop-Up Museums. (2011, November 19). North Carolina Connecting to Collections. Retrieved from http://collectionsconversations.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/popup museums/ Portland Art Museum | Special Exhibitions. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://objectstories.pam.org/about/index.html Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (1st ed.). Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster. Silverman, L. H. (2010). The Social Work of Museums. Routledge. Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum. Museum 2.0. Simon, N. (2011, November 30). A Radical, Simple Formula for Pop-Up Museums. Museum 2.0. Retrieved January 29, 2012, from http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2011/11/radical-simple-formula-for-popup.html Sderqvist, T. (2010). The Participatory Museum and Distributed Curatorial Expertise. NTM Zeitschrift fr Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 18(1), 69-78. doi:10.1007/s00048-009-0010-9 Stanish, C. (2008). on museums in a postmodern world. Daedalus, 137(3), 147-149.

36

 Stokrocki, M. (1996). The Ecomuseum Preserves an Artful Way of Life. Art Education, 49(4), 35. Turnbull, W. (2003). Language in action: psychological models of conversation. Psychology Press. Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How Conversation Works (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Welcome to the Podcamp Halifax Pop-Up Museum Exhibit Catalog. (n.d.). The Podcamp Halifax Pop-Up Museum. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://popupmuseumhfx.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/welcome/ Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.wingluke.org/process.htm.

37

 Appendix The Pop-Up Museum Interview Form 1. How did you hear about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 2. How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 3. What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Did you have a conversation with someone? ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ________________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Did you learn something new about someone? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Did you talk with someone you didnt know before? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Follow up question: Tell me more about that/those conversation(s). ________________________________________________________________________ Second follow up question: What provoked that/those conversation(s)? ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didnt have the opportunity to do so? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Do you have anything else to add that we didnt cover? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

38

 The Pop-Up Museum Questionnaire On a scale of 1-5, which 1 being strongly disagree, and 5 being strongly agree, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? 1) I had a conversation with someone I had never met before. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 2) I learned something new about someone. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 3) I had a conversation about an object. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 4) I had a conversation about an idea, experience, person, or place. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 5) I feel a sense of community with the people who attended todays pop-up. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 6) I would attend another pop-up in the future. 12345 strongly disagree strongly agree 7) Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share?

39

 Results of Interviews A total of eight interviews were conducted. The results of the interviews are as follows. How would you describe your experience at The Pop-Up Museum? Like recess without physical activity. It's a nice break from work. It's my second one, I think it's a brilliant idea that I respect. It was fun, nice to learn something new about people in the office and about new people. It was fun, I learned neat things about workmates. It was informative. It was good, low-key, good relaxed conversations. I learned stuff about people I didn't know. It was really great to get to see some, like, a more personal side of my coworkers that I don't get to see or talk about in the office. I was curious about how it would all work. I felt self-conscious initially about the process. I enjoyed the chance to see what other people have done. I enjoyed talking with people and the personal connection. Comfortable. It was relaxing and interesting to talk to people and share my experiences. It was interesting to see how people interpreted the theme and made it their own. What was your favorite part about The Pop-Up Museum? Learning more about people I already knew. Always learning something new about co-workers or people I don't know. Sitting down and talking with people about things that related to culture, but didn't necessarily have to (relate to culture) The milk carton. Just seeing what different items demonstrate culture, like the Frisbee. The diversity of items. It was cool to delve in a bit behind the story, more than just the placard. Reading people's descriptions of their objects. Getting a chance to hear their voice on a topic that is abstract but relevant to everyday life. I liked how the conversation went to topics in the room and out (maybe from Michelle's guidance). It was nice to sit and listen.

40

 What wasn't? I like the sense that it's a communal experience, social objects to connect with others. Did you have a conversation with someone? All respondents replied Yes. Tell me more about that conversation. I learned more about someone's personal history. A number of people asked about my item, I shared about my picture. We talked about shared culture and food. We talked about the milk carton and some things not related to culture. I talked about David's thematic relating (everyday items with where they're from). Some saw mine and I had the chance to talk about it in general. I had a conversation with Rachel about her tea thing, went all over the place, group conversations, some one-on-one conversations. I talked with people I knew, talked about my project. I met someone new through my object, talked for a while and found that we have a lot in common. What provoked that/those conversations? The exhibit. Standing by my exhibit. I asked if she brought anything and she said no, we started talking about food instead. The milk carton and catching up. Just sort of standing around in the room, looking at objects prompted conversations Provoked by me having strong feelings about tea; my own personal connection to her object. Michelle introduced us based on an object. Did you learn something new about someone? All respondents replied Yes. Did you talk with someone you didn't know before? Three respondents replied No. Five respondents replied Yes.

41

 Tell me more about that/those conversations. Of those respondents that replied Yes to the question Did you talk with someone you didnt know before, their answers to this question are: We connected over having an old camera. He (photographer from UW Daily) brought out a Nikon cap. A couple: with folks I didn't know, I discovered commonalities I wouldn't have expected. It was just sort of an introduction and sort of about, because I'm new to the Carlson Center and he had worked here before. Talking in the group with Val. I was interested in what she brought and her talking about moving here. I would have liked to talk more about this. What provoked that/those conversations? Of the respondents who replied Yes to the question Did you talk with someone you didnt know before, their answers to this question are: I asked who put the exhibit of the cap up. The items themselves and it was an environment where people were already talking. Getting introduced via coworkers, mutual contacts. Her (Val) coming in and because she was by herself and we were interested in what she brought. Did you feel at any point that you wanted to say more but didn't have the opportunity to do so? Four respondents answered No. The remaining respondents elaborated in their answers: No. I noticed in the UW Daily article that the goal was to give everyone a voice, and I felt that was true. I don't think so. At some point I didn't want to say more, I didn't feel like I should keep talking about my object. I don't think so. The openness of it allows for free-flowing conversation. Yes, I didn't fully explain all of mine unless someone asked me directly. Do you have anything else to add that we didn't cover? I really appreciate the opportunity.

42

I think the UW should give total support. I always love Pop-Up Museums, I think they're very fun. It was fun, hopefully we can do this again. I just like the way that it opens up avenues of conversation with people that I work with. It brings up things we don't usually talk about and it seems like an authentic way to get to know people. No. I liked the variety of writing utencils provided. If Michelle wants more publicity, like size (more intimate), it could be bigger so you can meet new people.

43