KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation

Practices of partnership and participation:Acasestudyexplorationintomuseumpartnershipswithprisonsandartistparticipationinprisonerartexhibitions

CandidateNumber:KYVH7

Word Count: 10,425

Dissertation submitted to fulfil the requirements for the

Masters of Arts degree in Museum Studies of

University College London in 2016.

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Practicesofpartnershipandparticipation

UCLM.A.MuseumStudiesDissertation,2016. 2

Abstract Museums are increasingly engaging in partnerships with other organisations both

internal and external of the sector. Partnerships are becoming a standard within

the museum sector, guided by mission statements, decreases to funding, and

urges from sector leaders. Likewise, participation is also becoming an expectation

within the new museology framework. The practices of partnership and

participation are not unchallenged within the sector (Dodd & Sandell 2001), but are

developments of modern museums that are public-focused. Within the last

decade, policies and programmes have widened to include partnerships with

prisons and prisoner art exhibitions that involve the source community. This study

explores how partnerships between museums and prisons function as well as

takes a critical look into how incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions of their

work by looking at two case studies: Cell Block 7 Museum (USA), and The Big

Issues Project (UK).

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my University College London supervisors for their guidance

and support: Theano Moussouri and George Alexopoulos. I would additionally like

to acknowledge the entire University College London Museum Studies Department

for the role it has played in preparing me for this project and providing the

resources to complete it. Significantly, this work would not have been made

possible without the contributions and participation from the staff of these case

studies.

More personally, I would like to thank those closest to me for supporting me

throughout the process of conducting and compiling this research endeavour.



Contents Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 2 List of Figures 5 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Definition of terms 8 2 Partnerships 9 2.1 Defining ‘partnership’ 9 2.2 Evaluating partnerships 11 2.3 Barriers to partnering 12 2.4 Partnerships within the cultural sector 13 3 Participation 16 3.1 Defining ‘participation’ and ‘community’ 16 3.2 Evaluating participation 16 3.3 Barriers to participation 19 3.4 Participation in museums and galleries 19 4 Prison art programmes 22 4.1 Motivations 22 4.2 Evaluation programmes 22 4.3 Barriers for prison art programmes 24 5 Methodology 25 5.1 Research context 25 5.2 Research questions 25 5.3 Case study methodology 25 5.4 Research design 25 5.5 Methods 26 5.6 Grounded theory data analysis 27 5.7 Ethics 28 6 Findings 29 6.1 Case Study 1: Cell Block 7 Museum 29 6.1.1 Partnership profile 29 6.1.2 Partnership model 30 6.1.3 Artist participation 34 6.2 Case Study 2: The Big Issues Project 36 6.2.1 Partnership profile 36 6.2.2 Partnership model 37 6.2.3 Artist participation 44 7 Conclusion 50 7.1 Summary of findings 51 7.2 Recommendations 54 7.3 Suggestions for further research 55



References 57 Literature 57 Interviews 66 Appendices 67 Appendix I: Participant Information Sheet 67 Appendix II: Informed Consent Form 68 Appendix III: Case Study 1 Cell Block 7 Interview Guide 69 Appendix IV: Case Study 1 Doing Time with the Masters Interview Guide 70 Appendix V: Case Study 2 Watts Gallery Interview Guide 72 Appendix VI: Participant Job Descriptions 74



List of Figures Figure 1. King’s College London (2015: 15) ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’.

Figure 2. Garza’s ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships.

Figure 3. Carnwell and Carson’s list of barriers to partnership.

Figure 4. Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’.

Figure 5. Description of the ‘rungs’ of Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’.

Figure 6. Brewster’s attitudinal scales.

Figure 7. Description of case studies and research criteria.

Figure 8. Application of research methods.

Figure 9. Codes created during data analysis.

Figure 10. Case Study 1 partnership model findings.

Figure 11. Cell Block 7 Museum brochure.

Figure 12. Case Study 1 artist participation findings.

Figure 13. Page 2 of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.


Figure 15. Introduction of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.

Figure 16. Page 1 of The Big Issues 2016 exhibition program.

Figure 17. ‘Big Issues Project evaluation’.


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

Figure 20. ‘Big Issues Exhibition Submission Form’.

Figure 21. Summary of findings for research question 1.


*Due to photography restrictions within prisons, there are no photographs of the courses

or workshops discussed in this study.



1 Introduction

The practices of partnership and participation across heritage bodies, increasing in

recent years, have been linked to promotions of the sector as socially inclusive.

These efforts combat accusations and historical evidence of exclusion practices

(Bennett, 1995; Lagerkvist 2006; Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

2001b). These practices are not unchallenged within the sector (Dodd & Sandell

2001), but are developments of modern museums that are public-focused.

Through developing and sustaining partnerships with other institutions, museums

can fulfil mission statements, be more representative of society, and work towards

a goal of interaction and social inclusion with marginalised groups. These

partnerships are concrete efforts towards the co-development of contemporary art

exhibitions. Museums and galleries’ engagement in partnerships with

organisations external to the museum sector have been noted in other scholarly

work (Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016; Department for Culture, Media

and Sport 2001b; King’s College London 2015; National Science Teachers

Association 1997); however, there lacks a depth of examinations into the

partnerships museums and galleries have with prisons.

During the past few decades, the number of partnerships between organisations

has increased significantly within the cultural sector (King’s College London,

2015). Museums and galleries have been urged to increase their partnerships in

efforts to alleviate the effects of recent funding cuts; most recently, this sentiment

was voiced by Director of Art Fund, Stephen Deuchar, in reference to the

possibility of ‘Brexit’1 in 2016, which will end certain arts and cultural funding if

official2 (Adams, 2016).

1ReferringtotheUnitedKingdom’sreferendumon23June2016wheretheBritishpeoplevotedtoleavetheEuropeanUnion;notofficialuntilafterthetwo-yearperiodusheredinbyenactingArticle50.2Atthetimethisresearchbegan,thereferendumhadnotyetoccurred;attheconclusionofthisresearch,Article50hasyettobeenactedandtheUnitedKingdomremainswithintheEuropeanUnion,maintainingallEUartsandculturalfunding.



Additionally, these partnerships are in efforts to meet the increasing demands for

greater participation and counter the traditional exclusive museum practices

(Bennett, 1995). Though an increase to participation has been challenged by

some museum professionals (Lagerkvist, 2006), it has become an increasing

standard within the sector (Lagerkvist, 2006; Vergo, 1989). It has been asserted

that the demand to increase participation, largely comes from the source

communities3 themselves (Lagerkvist, 2006), but there is not always a platform for

adequate communication.

The diversity of source communities as well as the practices used to include them

has been widened throughout the decades to create exhibitions that are the

product of collaborations between museum professionals and non-professionals

(Christen, 2007; Clifford, 2004). Few studies however explore how museums can

increase the level of participation incarcerated artists have within exhibitions of

their work.

Museum efforts regarding prison art include efforts towards programmes and

exhibitions that display artwork created by prisoners. Though these efforts are not

exclusively linked together, this study relates only to the partnerships where

museums both partner with a prison and exhibit artwork through that partnership.

This project explores the partnerships between art galleries that display art created

by currently incarcerated individuals and prisons as well as the level of

participation these artists have in the exhibitions that display their work. As this

author is concerned with museological aims and practices, the scope of this

exploration is limited strictly to the museums’ and galleries’ participation in these

partnerships and exhibitions; the motivations of the prisons, the incarcerated

artists, nor the museum visitors will not be presented within this study.

This work sets out to answer two key questions. Firstly, how do the partnerships

between museums or galleries that display prisoner art and prisons function?

Secondly, how do incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions of their work? The

first portion of this research looks at partnerships between museums or galleries 3Communitiesthatproduceexhibitedmaterialinmuseumsandgalleries;definedfurtherinChapterTwo.



and prisons that deliver prisoner art programmes and exhibit prisoner artwork. The

second aim of this project is to examine the level of participation incarcerated

artists have in exhibitions displaying their work created in these collaborative art

programmes. This researcher has attempted to answer these questions by

examining two case studies: Cell Block 7 Museum in Michigan (USA), and The Big

Issues Project in Surrey (UK).

The findings of this research (discussed in detail in the findings chapter) are

summarised below:

Partnerships between museums and prisons:

• are forged on the part of museums and galleries for reasons relating to

funding needs and mission statement aims.

• are complicated and can experience power conflicts.

• are highly individualised given differing prison policies, partnership

structure, and participant needs.

Artist participation in prisoner art exhibitions:

• is limited by the incarceration of the artists and curatorial staff.

• is partial or non-existent.

1.1 Definition of terms

This work concerns terminology that lacks standard definitions. Specific terms and

some of their scholarly definitions are included in the subsequent chapters (see

2.1 and 3.1); however, to standardise the vocabulary presented in this discussion

of prisoner art programmes and exhibitions, the definitions of ‘partnership’ and

‘participation’ in this context are included here. ‘Partnership’ refers to collaborative

project or programme between a museum and one or more organisations to

achieve a specified goal; the responsibilities of the organisations are not

necessarily shared equally. ‘Participation’ describes the level of inclusion source

communities have in their exhibition process.



2 Partnerships

2.1 Defining ‘partnership’

‘Partnership’ lacks a universal agreement on definition as partnerships come in a

range of varieties. To define prison and museum partnerships, this author borrows

from the King’s College London’s Cultural Inquiry into partnerships, ‘The Art of

Partnering’ (2015: 7), which defined ‘partnership’ as an agreed upon relationship

between two cooperating institutions that will:

Secure additional funding, unlock further savings and deliver value,

efficiency, cost saving or revenue raising; enrich regional and local

cultural identity; and/or provide ways in which national cultural

organisations can fulfil their national remit, extending reach and

putting expertise at the service of more local organisations.

A range of relationships exhibited in partnerships has been extensively

categorised in the ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ in Figure 1 below (King’s College

London, 2015: 15). The table details the motivations and characteristics of the

partnerships reported to King’s College London in their 2015 study.

Type of Relationship Motivation Characteristics

Project / programme

delivery

Goal-oriented Set up by two

organisations to deliver

jointly a one-off project or

programme

Multi-stakeholder project /

programme delivery

Goal-oriented Several organisations join

together to deliver a one-

off project or programme

Operational / resource

building

Resource-based Focused on each

organisation providing the

other(s) with ongoing

resource / capacity

Procurement Resource-based Focused on value for

money and the delivery of



a particular system or

operational / technical /

back office requirement

that is specified and often

contracted by the partners,

either jointly or individually

Local, regional, or national

hub

Delivery mechanisms are

set in motion but

networking also takes

place

Local / regional / city hubs

bringing together cultural

organisations on a

geographical basis;

membership may be

restricted; often include

high-level executive

representation

Multi-stakeholder

intra-sector

Deliver projects or

programmes and share

capacity

Similar organisations with

shared objectives joining

together to deliver shared

aims and programmes,

often motivated by

regional need to support

skills, opportunities and

training within the sector

Multi-stakeholder

extra-sector

Goal-oriented and

resource-based

Organisations from the

cultural sector joining up

with organisations outside

the cultural sector, for

example in health or

higher education

Networking umbrella Network-based A loose group of

organisations working

together that can also be a

local hub to make

contacts; share

information and discuss

shared aims; usually

geographically organised



with a flexible and often

large membership

National monuments /

major events

Networks that lead to

project or programme

delivery

Projects galvanised by

events of national

significance such as

commemorations, giving

rise to networking and

funding opportunities

National-organisation led Goal-oriented, with some

networking for national

initiatives and sharing

capacity

An agreement between a

national and a regional /

local organisation(s) in

which the aims of both are

met, often in a way that

supports regional or local

needs, with the

engagement of a national

organisation playing an

enabling role in the sector

Donor/funder Goal-oriented Including a donor or

funder to deliver an

outcome that the donor is

substantially funding

Funding Goal-oriented Consortia getting together

for the purpose of bidding

for funding

Figure 1. King’s College London (2015: 15) ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’.

2.2 Evaluating partnerships

The president of the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships,

Dr. Garza, has identified ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships (Figure 2). The

list describes partnering organisations that are goal-oriented, have filled positions

appropriately, willing to adapt, and are attentive in their interactions.



Garza’s ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships

1. Institutional partners that link to the goal

2. Evolving structure and partners

3. Leadership in key positions

4. Inclusive decision making

5. Appropriate governance structure

6. Mutually beneficial interactions

7. Decision making based on data

Figure 2. Garza’s ‘Seven Success Factors’ for partnerships.

The success of the partnership largely rests with the individuals who work within it.

In order to be effective, partnerships require the staff that manages the partnership

to employ “networking, negotiation, and facilitation skill” in their collaborations

(Davies, 2010: 317). It is the employees of the partnering organisations who are

responsible for ensuring these factors are met through their practices and

relationship.

These factors cannot be demonstrated immediately. Sue Davies (2010) has

acutely identified the amount of time needed to meet the criteria for a successful

partnership, particularly to secure trust, is significant. This is also true for the staff,

adequate time must be given to developing the relationship between the staff and

ample time to re-develop following any staff changes. Therefore, entering into a

partnership requires a commitment to consistently devoting the limited time

museums have towards this partnership.

2.3 Barriers to partnerships

Carnwell and Carson (2008) detailed barriers that exist to successful partnership

(Figure 3). These factors do not negate the motivations or benefits of partnering,

but can have effects on the partnerships that should be remedied through the

successful practices in Figure 2. Carnwell and Carson (2008) argue that as long

as the motivations to partner exist, partnerships will continue to increase in

number regardless of these barriers.



Barriers to partnership

Complexity of relationships

Representativeness of wider public

Tokenism and excessive influence of vocal groups

Desire of individuals not to be involved in making decisions about their care

Threat to confidentiality

Role boundary conflicts

Inter-professional differences of perspective

Threats to professional identity

Figure 3. Carnwell and Carson’s list of barriers to partnership.

2.4 Partnerships within the cultural sector It has been argued (Lewis, 1992: 72) that in the United Kingdom, museums were

formed through a partnership: the 1834 parliamentary committee recommended

that public places be created by partnerships between the government and the

people. Shortly after, the Museum Act of 1845 met that recommendation as

museums and galleries were created using public money (Newman & McLean,

2004:170). The UK government continues to encourage cultural institutions to

partner through policies regarding ‘social inclusion’ (described in the following

chapter) (Newman & McLean, 1998: 146).

The two most common motivations for partnering cited in ‘Taxonomy of

Relationships’ (Figure 1) were ‘goal-oriented’ and ‘resource-based’. Museum goals

are determined by mission statements (American Alliance of Museums, 2012);

goal-oriented partnerships will align with the overall museum or gallery mission.

Partnerships can also be initiated for the purpose of fulfilling a mission statement

(King’s College London, 2015).

Resource-based relationships for museums involve securing funding. Funding is

increasingly becoming an incentive to for museums to engage in partnerships as

in current practice. First, funders are less likely to fund individual organisations,

choosing instead to invest in collaborative efforts (King’s College London, 2015:

9). Second, as funding decreases, museums are utilising innovative efforts to



secure funding and other museums are encouraged to partner in these schemes

(King’s College London, 2015: 17; Adams, 2016).

Sentiments of ‘goal-oriented’ and ‘resource-based’ relationships were also

cemented in the findings of King’s College London’s (2015: 10) cultural inquiry,

which returned four main reasons why cultural organisations engaged in

partnerships:

• To fulfil mission statements.

• To widen audiences

• To produce a project

• To increase monetary value

King’s College London (2015: 20) found that 95% of the partners in their study

jointly agreed on the objectives of the partnership; however, only 70% of

participants in the King’s College London (2015: 20) study reported they agreed

with their partners over the overall structure of the partnership. This can lead to

‘role boundary conflicts’ as well as a lack of understanding over the ‘complexity of

relationships’, two identifiable barriers to partnering (Figure 3).

Museums of all sizes have been engaging in partnerships across the cultural

sector (National Museum Directors’ Council, 2014), but national museums are

engaging in partnerships on a larger scale than smaller museums due to their

connections (King’s College London, 2015: 26). The British Museum, for example,

has an entire department titled the Learning and National Partnerships. The

Community Partnerships Team works within this department on goal-oriented

partnerships, yet also engages external funders to deliver programmes for these

partnerships (Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016: 369). The British Museum

is also using this department to strengthen partnerships within the often-divided

departments of the museum and enhance cohesive actions under one mission

(Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016: 387).



Museums and galleries do have a history of partnering with other cultural

institutions such as libraries, schools, or even other museums or galleries

(Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001b; National Museum Directors’

Council, 2014; National Science Teachers Association, 1997), but increasingly,

museums are engaging in partnerships outside of the cultural sector to fulfil goals

and secure funding (King’s College London, 2015: 8). Another incentive to engage

in partnerships outside of the sector is to gain the benefit of sharing the distinct

skills sets of the different organisations (National Museum Directors’ Council,

2014).

These external partnerships may be with established organisations, such as with

the British Museum’s Supplementary School Programme (Cruickshanks & Hunter

Dodsworth, 2016) or formalised with ‘source communities’ (see 3.1). Partnerships

outside of the sector are born out of a relatively new acknowledgement within

museology that communities have invaluable information that was previously

excluded (Christen, 2007; Clifford, 2004; Cruickshanks & Hunter Dodsworth, 2016;

Frisch, 1990; Johnson-Symington & Robertson, 2016; Lavine, 1992; Mullen

Kreamer, 2006; Willis, 2016). Additionally, these partnerships increase community

participation, discussed in the following section.



3 Participation

3.1 Defining ‘participation’ and ‘community’

In defining ‘participation’, this author borrows from McSweeney and Kavanagh

(2016: 19):

a partnership (emphasis mine) between an institution and a group, whether

that be the public, potential audiences, community groups, interest groups

or user groups.

In discussions of museums and communities, establishing ‘community’ is as

needed as reconsidering the function of the ‘museum’ (Buntinx & Karp, 2006). In

this work, ‘community’ refers to a combination of ‘communities of circumstance’

and ‘source communities’. Fraser (2005), borrowing from earlier work done by

Marsh (1999), labels groups united by a common situation as ‘communities of

circumstance’. ‘Source communities’ are groups of individuals that generate

similar material, giving them a shared identity, a key component to a social group

(Young, 1990: 47).

The case studies of this project concern participation for a source community in

the co-production of an exhibition. This author uses the term to describe the

decision-making power held by a community of incarcerated artists, identifiably by

their production of art and incarcerated status, in museum exhibitions of their work.

3.2 Evaluating participation

Arnstein (1969) developed a means of measuring participation known as the

‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (Figure 4). In it, she outlines eight forms of

participation within three degrees of power. The lowest rung constitutes practically

no citizen participation, while the highest rung exemplifies participation resulting in

full citizen power. The more control individuals gain over the policies that concern

them, the higher their level of participation becomes. A brief description of each

‘rung’ on the ladder is found in Figure 5.



Figure 4. Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’.

‘Rung’

on the

Ladder

Name of

‘Rung’

Type of

Participation

Description

8 Citizen

Control

Citizen Power Control over a programme is held

entirely by the citizens that programme

concerns.

7 Delegated

Power

Citizen Power Negotiations between powerholders

and citizens result in citizens holding



the majority of decision-making power.

6 Partnership Citizen Power Negotiations occur between

powerholders and citizens to share

planning and responsibilities; power is

redistributed.

5 Placation Tokenism Individuals in power choose which

citizens will be placed in positions of

power; those chosen do hold power,

but it reinforces the power structure as

these individuals are not elected by

their peers and the power they hold is

determined by powerholders.

4 Consultation Tokenism Citizens are consulted on issues, but

this is initiated by powerholders with no

guarantee their inputs will be

implemented; often used as a formality

by powerholders with no pressure to

act on the findings.

3 Informing Tokenism Inform citizens of their rights; creates a

system where citizens are given

information, but cannot provide their

feedback or engage in negotiations

over their rights.

2 Therapy Nonparticipation Mental health experts engage in

therapy, which focuses on altering their

perception of their lack of power

instead of changing the power

structure.

1 Manipulation Nonparticipation Community members are placed on

committees by powerholders, but

instead of educating the powerholders,

community members are in turn

educated by the powerholders.

Figure 5. Description of the ‘rungs’ of Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’.



Arnstein (1969) acknowledges that these levels do not accurately represent every

situation of participation as many instances can involve a combination of these

levels or a portion of the description. The ladder therefore serves as a guideline,

not as definitive classifications when examining participation. Arnstein (1969)

openly admits that full citizen control is not likely or probable.

3.3 Barriers to participation

The main barrier to increasing participation is the powerholders. Some within the

cultural sector feel their work is threatened and opened to harsh criticism by

including the efforts of non-professionals (Dodd & Sandell, 2001: 5).

In increasing participation, Ostrom (1997) has identified four barriers not dissimilar

to the barriers of partnership (see 2.3): lack of process, disagreement over powers

and responsibilities, lack of commitment, and lack of motivation.

3.4 Participation in museums and galleries

Museums and galleries have been rightly accused of traditionally engaging in

practices that affect the public, but exclude them from the power to effect change

(Bennett, 1995; Lynch, 2016). The argument that museums exclude communities

in the production of anthropological and historical museums has been expanded to

pertain to all minority communities (Lagerkvist, 2006: 54). Additionally, museums

in the west, particularly those that display art, have been accused of an

‘exhibitionary complex’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimlett, 2006), creating and perpetuating a

hierarchy of individuals who create art according to race and class (Bennett, 2006:

54). Non-museum staff can contribute to the content-making, but are rarely

included in the decision-making processes (Ali & Callaghan, 2016; Davies, 2010:

318). In turn, museums themselves, as the powerholders, act as the greatest

barrier to increasing participation. By increasing the amount of decisions

individuals outside of traditional power holders, a higher level of participation is

achieved.

Part of increasing participation involves implementing policies that are more

‘socially inclusive’ (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999, 2001a; Lynch,

2016). Museums have been creating services specifically for marginalised groups



(Royal Academy of Arts). Matarasso (1997) has argued that increased

participation with the arts can have societal effects, while Sandel (2002) noted the

benefits of decreasing social prejudice through museum exhibitions. Museums

may be responding to the many governmental institutions that are aiming towards

social inclusion, encouraged by reports (Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

1999; 2000; 2001a; 2001b; Group for Large Local Authority Museums, 2000;

Social Exclusion Unit, 2001; United Kingdom National Action Plan on Social

Inclusion, 2001).

There are many internal efforts pressuring museums to alter their practices as well

(Dodd & Sandell, 2001). In recent years, the sector has developed a multitude of

methods, ranging from increasing communication with communities (Frisch, 1990;

Johnson-Symington & Robertson, 2016; Lavine, 1992; Mullen Kreamer, 2006;

Willis, 2016), including community voices in interpretations (Ali & Callaghan, 2016;

Hudson Hill, Roberts & Ryan, 2016; Sandell, 2006: 7), to improving visitor

participation (Filippini Fantoni & Leason, 2016; Simon, 2010), to co-creating entire

exhibitions (Dake, 2016; Duggan, 2011; Fienup-Riordan, 1999; Ostrom, 1997;

Phillips, 2003), to re-structuring the entire museological practice (Lagerkvist, 2006;

McSweeney & Kavanagh, 2016; Sandell, McSweeney & Kavanagh, 2016; Smith &

Fouseki, 2016; Vergo, 1989). These methods facilitate an increase in community

participation within museum practice and offer participatory alternatives to the

historical museological practices used to control society (Bennett, 1995).

The new duty of a museum is defined as one not merely to preserve and display

objects (Dodd & Sandell, 2001; Sandell, 2006); they now face the public need of

social services. To an extent, museums have demonstrated that these new

practices can have positive social effects (Silverman, 2010). In becoming more

inclusive, these positive effects enacted by museum practice can be described as

‘social therapy’ (Newman & McLean, 1998; Silverman, 2002).

Communities are understandably varied in composition and needs. Sandell (2006:

7) is right to wonder: “how can museums hope to represent all sections of society

when group identities are increasingly conceived, not as singular and fixed, but

rather as multiple and shifting?” Lagerkvist (2006: 60) has argued that uniform



methods cannot be applied as each community is differing in its needs and

situations. Instead, he urges a dialogic approach where the museums and

galleries are constantly communicating and renegotiating practices as

circumstances and desires change over time.

One practice that involves democratic communication and negotiation between

museums and communities is seen in ‘contingent collaborations’. Christen (2007:

103) uses the term ‘contingent collaborations’ to describe the socially inclusive

process of co-creating. In this practice, labels such as ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’

become insignificant; the two groups work as a unit that equally shares the

decision-making power.



4 Prison art programmes

4.1 Motivations

As the prison and museum or gallery participations we are discussing here overlap

in prison art programmes, it is worth discussing here these programmes and their

importance. Prison art programmes, as with all prison educational programmes,

are part of recent correctional efforts in favour of the rehabilitation of incarcerated

individuals in place of punishment (Johnson, 2008; Toohil, 2015). The use of art

programmes in particular, is a rehabilitation method where the benefits are multi-

faceted: educational, therapeutic, and recreational (Johnson, 2007). Though they

appear in many western countries, they are more commonly found in the United

Kingdom than the United States (Schoonover, 1986).

4.2 Evaluating programmes

There is an overwhelming lack of studies on the success of prison art

programmes, as their participants constitute a vulnerable population4. Prisons

understandably restrict access to incarcerated individuals, but also prisoners are

generally not accepted as participating of free will during incarceration.

Researchers who wish to conduct studies on prisoners are required to comply with

extra strict ethical regulations similar to studies pertaining to minors, the mentally

handicapped, and medical patients.

Studies do exist however in limited numbers and offer compelling evidence to the

success of prison art programmes within prisons (Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2008).

Brewster (1983; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2014) has conducted multiple studies on prison

art programmes and their effects. His 2014 study measured the ‘attitudinal scales’

of prisoners with arts experience in the seven areas found in Figure 6.

4Anygroupwithlimitedlegalcompetencyorcapabilities(i.e.children,psychiatricpatients,ormentallydisabledindividuals);conductingresearchonthesepopulationsrequiresstricterethicalprocedures.



Time management

Social competence

Achievement motivation

Intellectual flexibility

Emotional control

Active initiative

Self-confidence

Figure 6. Brewster’s attitudinal scales.

The findings indicated that each of these variables was improved in prisoners who

participated in arts programmes (Brewster, 2014: 15 - 19). The study also

identified the need for consistent participation in an art programme as inmates

experienced more positive increases to their behaviour and had fewer disciplinary

actions the longer they were involved in the programme (Brewster, 2014: 18).

Additionally, the participants of prison art programmes were more likely to be

involved in other educational opportunities afforded to them during their

incarceration (Brewster, 2014). This change in individuals resulted in more positive

prison environments (Brewster, 2014: 23).

Each of the factors in Figure 6 is weakened during traditional incarceration and

individuals are isolated from society and largely prevented from voluntary

activities. Additionally, these are desirable attributes in rehabilitated individuals

that in turn positively impact their families and society (Brewster, 2014: 23). This

study demonstrated that prison art programmes can contribute to the rehabilitative

aim of incarceration.

The societal impacts are also widened when prisoner artwork is on display in

museum exhibitions (Aylott, 2002; Johnson, 2007; Wisker, 1997). Additionally,

when exhibited pieces are sold to visitors, not only do prisoners receive the

monetary benefits, they can also in turn contribute to that programme’s

maintenance through funding donations (Williams, 2003).



4.3 Barriers to prison art programmes

As detailed in section 3.3, powerholders can act as barriers. For prison art

programmes, prison policies and restrictions limit the availability and frequency of

prison art programmes.

A lack of funding is also a common barrier for prison art programmes. Funding

cuts for prisoner art programmes are seen in conjunction with reductions to

governmental funding; art programmes in prisons are cut entirely when funding is

lost or tightened (Toohil, 2015). These services can be supplemented from

organisations external of prison funding. Both the Shakespeare Behind Bars

programme and the William James Association Prison Arts Project are partially or

entirely funded through donations or sponsorships (Shakespeare Behind Bars,

2012; William James Association Prison Arts Project).



5 Methodology

5.1 Research context

This dissertation serves as a compulsory component of a master’s degree in

Museum Studies at University College London. This researcher independently

designed, conducted, and analysed this study, but was aided during the process

by UCL dissertation advisors and the Chair of Departmental Ethics Committee

(see 5.7 for a further discussion on research ethics).

5.2 Research questions

As presented in the introduction, this project seeks to answer two questions

relating to museum-prison partnerships and participation of incarcerated artists.

Firstly, how do the partnerships between museums or galleries that display

prisoner art and prisons function? Secondly, how do incarcerated artists

participate in exhibitions of their work? These questions represent an institutional

approach; this study is designed to look at the museum and gallery practices, not

the artists or the prisons they partner with. The other approaches are only

mentioned briefly where they are relevant.

5.3 Case study methodology

The methodology employed here to answer these questions is a case study

methodology. This methodology is suitable for this research due to the exploratory

nature of the questions (Gerring, 2007). Partnering with prisons is not currently a

common phenomenon; this limited number of museums and galleries do however

have a diverse range of partnerships. This research is therefore a qualitative look

at each case study necessary in answering the open-ended research questions.

5.4 Case studies

The criteria for selecting these case studies were three-fold: the museums and

galleries all partner with at least one prison, they all have been involved in some

manor with a prison art programme, and these museums and galleries currently

display or have displayed prisoner artwork created in these art programmes. How

each of the two case studies aligns with the research criteria is detailed in the

following table:



Case Study Partnership with

prison(s)

Involvement in

prison art

programme

Prison artwork

exhibitions

Case Study 1 One partnership

with one prison

Indirectly; worked

with the prison’s

partnership that

delivers art courses

One-off prisoner

artwork exhibition

Case Study 2 Partners with three

prisons as part of a

Learning

Department

initiative

Directly; provides

art workshops in

prisons

Continue to

annually exhibit

prisoner artwork

Figure 7. Description of case studies and research criteria.

Though there are only two case studies presented here, this study does not seek

to create a contrast and comparison between the two, but instead attempts to

display the different circumstances these partnerships and exhibitions operate

under. The number of potential case studies is limited as these partnerships and

programmes are not yet widely popular. Separately, prisons that offer art

programmes and exhibitions that display prisoner artwork do exist in larger

numbers, but the combination of both projects under a single partnership remains

uncommon. Additionally, the number of participants recruited for this study is

indeed small, but the number of staff at these institutions is relatively limited,

resulting in only a few employees who designated to working with these

partnerships and programmes.

5.5 Methods

Semi-structured interviews (Appendix III, IV & V) and text analysis served as the

primary methods for this study. Conducting interviews with museum or gallery staff

who work within these partnerships or with these programmes provided the

necessary voice of the museum when taking an institutional approach to research.

In addition to interviews, the participants provided forms and written documents

relating to the partnerships and the exhibitions produced. How each of these

methods was applied to the research questions is explained in Figure 8:



Research question Method used Application of method

1) How do the

partnerships between

museums or galleries that

display prisoner art and

prisons function?

Semi-structured interviews With employees of

partnering organisations

Text analysis Of public documents

2) How are incarcerated

artists participating in

exhibitions of their work?

Semi-structured interviews With exhibition staff

Text analysis Of public and internal

documents

Figure 8. Application of research methods.

5.6 Grounded theory data analysis

In analysing the data collected from this qualitative study, this researcher

employed grounded theory by noting repeated themes across the case studies

and coding them to make inferences (Birks & Mills, 2010: 93). Figure 9 details the

codes this researcher identified and used to analyse the data collected concerning

both research questions. These codes refer to the categories detailed previously:

‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1), the ‘Seven Success Factors’ (Figure 2),

‘Barriers to Partnerships’ (Figure 3), and the ‘Ladder of Participation’ (Figure 4).

Codes pertaining to museum/gallery

and prison partnerships

Codes pertaining to artist

participation

Type of relationship Powerholders

Motivations Elements of participation:

Selection

Interpretation

Artist credit

Effect Change

Success factors

Barriers Level of participation

Figure 9. Codes created during data analysis.



5.7 Ethics

As this is a study conducted through University College London, the UCL ethical

procedures were followed. A Human Participant Research Application (HPRA)

Form was completed and approved by the Chair of Departmental Ethics

Committee (reference number 2016.027). All data was stored in accordance with

the UK Data Protection Act (1998).

The first case study is in the United States, requiring a Risk Assessment Form for

field and location work to be filed in order to collect data outside of the United

Kingdom. Additionally, participants from this case study were informed of the

necessary transnational data transfer at the advice of the Chair of Departmental

Ethics Committee.

In contacting staff and relevant players, each potential participant was provided

with an information sheet (Appendix I) to brief him or her on the context of the

study. Before any data was gathered, each participant also signed an informed

consent form acknowledging he or she understood the risks of participating and

their rights as a participant (Appendix II). Each participant who provided a verbal

interview was sent a transcript of his or her interview within one week of the

interview date. If requested, a participant was sent the sections containing his or

her contributions before publication.

As the participants are currently in a formal partnership with prisons through their

employment, participants have been partially anonymised from the point of data

collection onward. This researcher is in possession of all audio recordings and

interview transcriptions. The names of the participants have been replaced by

‘Interviewee’ and a designated letter, but all participants were notified that they are

partially identifiable by their job description in the consent form (Appendix II; see

also participant job descriptions in Appendix VI).



6 Findings and recommendations This section presents the findings of this author’s research conducted from June to

August 2016. It sets out to answer the two research questions relating to prisoner

art exhibitions that are specified in previous chapters: (1) How do the partnerships

between museums or galleries that display prisoner art and prisons function? (2)

How do incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions of their work? To properly

understand the case study and answer each of these questions, the findings are

divided into three sub-sections: partnership profile, partnership model, and artist

participation. Within each sub-section, there are further divisions specifying the

codes found during analysis of the qualitative data in accordance with grounded

theory (see 5.6).

6.1 Case Study 1: Cell Block 7 Museum

6.1.1 Partnership profile

Cell Block 7 Museum involves not just one partnership, but a network of

partnerships all located in the city of Jackson, Michigan in the United States. The

museum, opened in 2014, is itself the result of a partnership between the nearby

Ella Sharp Museum and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). The

partnership was initiated by the MDOC (Interviewee A, 2016). The resulting

museum operates underneath the Ella Sharp Museum’s mission statement, remit,

and often staff.

The Michigan State Prison also is engaged in a separate partnership with Jackson

College’s5 Prison Education Initiative, which provides, among other subjects, art

courses to interested prisoners during their incarceration. The second partnership

is between Ella Sharp Museum and a Prison Education Initiative Art History

professor to co-curate a prisoner art exhibition at Cell Block 7: Doing Time with the

Masters. The Art History course generated the art pieces that became part of the

prisoner art exhibition. The exhibition opened in 2015 and has since ended, along

with the partnership between the professor and Ella Sharp Museum due to

personal conflicts (Interviewee, A 2016; Interviewee B, 2016). 5FormerlyJacksonCommunityCollege



Under normal operations, the two partnerships would have not overlapped, but

converged in the development of Doing Time with the Masters. The two

organisations interestingly initiated and developed the exhibition directly, without

MDOC’s involvement. The art course instructor had posted some of his students’

work to Facebook, resulting in several employees from Ella Sharp Museum

contacting him (Interviewee B, 2016).

6.1.2 Partnership model

In analysing the partnership models of the partnership between Ella Sharp

Museum and the MDOC regarding Cell Block 7 Museum and between Ella Sharp

Museum and the Jackson College Professor concerning Doing Time with the

Masters at Cell Block 7 Museum, the findings were coded (see 5.6) and are

presented in the Figure 10 below:

Code Ella Sharp Museum and

MDOC

Ella Sharp Museum and

Jackson College Professor

Type of

relationship

Operational / resource

building

Project / programme delivery

Motivations Resource based; goal-

oriented

Goal-oriented

Success factors Institutional partners that link

to the goal

Institutional partners that link to

the goal; inclusive decision-

making

Barriers Complexity of relationships;

role boundary conflicts

Inter-professional differences of

perspective


The type of relationship, motivations, and barriers of the partnership between Ella

Sharp Museum and the MDOC will be discussed first. This relationship can be

classified as ‘operational / resource building’ as both organisations provide

resources beneficial to the other. The MDOC provides the space and the

collections for the museum, while Ella Sharp transforms those elements into



something accessible to the public by staffing the museum, managing the

collection, and curating exhibitions (Interviewee A, 2016).

The motivations for Ella Sharp to develop the Cell Block 7 Museum are primarily

‘resource based’. When asked about Ella Sharp’s motives, Interviewee A, did not

shy away from the practicalities of the arrangement, “Very frankly, it is financially a

good opportunity for us” (Interviewee A, 2016). She additionally mentioned the

‘goal-oriented’ desire to expand the historical narrative of Jackson to include one

of the town’s biggest employers (Interviewee A, 2016). The current model of the

‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1) does allow for additional motivations for

partnerships, yet this case study had two clearly defined and non-contradictory

motivations.

As the discussion turned to the significance the prison has on the local Jackson

history, it became clear that this partnerships success factor was ‘institutional

partners that link to the goal’. Ella Sharp Museum’s mission of telling Jackson’s

town history (Ella Sharp Museum), one of the partnership motivations, was met by

the partnering prison. Interviewee A’s perspective on MDOC’s reasons for initiating

the partnership mirrored Ella Sharp’s own mission, “I think that was their main

intention: to educate people about the classes and the art programmes that they

have for people” (Interviewee A, 2016).

The ‘complexity of the relationship’ provides a barrier to having an effective

partnership. The relationship has no model off which to mimic, as it is unique in the

museum world. Cell Block 7 Museum is the only prison museum within an

operating prison,6 urging potential visitors to literally “spend some time on the

inside” in their marketing efforts (Figure 11). “It’s quite an unusual partnership, I

don’t know if it’s ever been done anywhere else” (Interviewee A, 2016). The State

of Michigan awarded Ella Sharp Museum and the MDOC with the Governor’s

Award for Innovative Tourism Collaboration to commend their unique collaborative

efforts (Interviewee A, 2016).

6NeitherCellBlock7Museum,northisresearcherhavebeenabletoconfirmthisasfact;SomeonehadmentionedanunnamedmuseuminLouisianatoIntervieweeAwithasimilarstructure,butthisclaimremainsunsubstantiated.



Figure 11. Cell Block 7 Museum brochure.

While the partners do engage in the skill sharing advised by the National Museum

Directors’ Council (2014), these differences are actually impeding and halting

functions as ‘role boundary conflicts’. While Cell Block 7 Museum develops and

designs the exhibitions, the MDOC must approve any exhibit ideas and content

before, during, and after installation. Interviewee A (2016) described an instance

where the MDOC executed their power over Cell Block 7 exhibitions:

One thing that MDOC did not appreciate: one of the drawings that was in

the Jackson College Professor’s exhibit [Doing Time with the Masters] had

nudity in it and they did not like that at all… So that was surprising and kind

of weird just because they saw the exhibit and then a month later they went

and saw it again and asked us to take those down (Interviewee A, 2016).

There is not an official list of approved and unapproved topics for exhibitions, they

are reviewed in a case, by case basis, making working with the MDOC a form of

gambling for the museum staff. There are some policies which the museum has



discovered the MDOC is strict about, however, the staff has experienced times

where the MDOC will ‘flip-flop’ on their own decisions further along in the

development process (Interviewee A, 2016). This complicates the working

environment and impedes on the staffs’ process of developing the exhibitions, one

of their responsibilities within the partnership.

This difficulty did not deter Interviewee A from presenting exhibition ideas as she

describes it: a ‘no’ from MDOC is the worst outcome (Interviewee A, 2016). She

did admit to a suspicion that their MDOC contact could be overly cautious with

approvals, feeling these practices and the approval rating of exhibition

presentations could change with a different exhibition developer from Ella Sharp, a

change in the MDOC contact, or both (Interviewee A, 2016).

The second partnership concerning Cell Block 7 Museum, the relationship

between Ella Sharp Museum and the Jackson College Professor, will now be

described. The type of relationship is a clear ‘project / programme delivery’. The

two joined with the intention of creating only one exhibition (Interviewee B, 2016).

The motivation for developing the exhibition was singular, to showcase the work of

Michigan prisoners (Interviewee B, 2016). The joint commitment to this goal from

both organisations also constituted one of their success factors. The partnership

also demonstrated ‘inclusive decision making’ as individuals from both

organisations were involved in the curatorial process (Interviewee A, 2016;

Interviewee B, 2016).

There were however ‘inter-professional differences of perspective’ between Ella

Sharp Museum staff and the professor, which actually led to the termination of the

partnership following the exhibition. Neither party is interested in re-forming the

partnership (Interviewee B, 2016), though both Interviewee A (2016) and

Interviewee B (2016) indicated they would be interested in pursuing other

professional relationships with different organisations with a similar goal or project.



6.1.3 Artist participation

The findings relating to prison artist participation in exhibitions of their work from

Case Study 1 were similarly coded (see 5.6); the results of the data analysis can

be found in Figure 12 below:

Code Doing Time with the

Masters

Powerholder Exhibition curators; MDOC

Elements of

participation:

Selection Partial participation

Interpretation No participation

Artist credit No participation

Effect change No participation

Level of participation Informing


Before divulging into the artists’ participation, it should be noted who the

powerholders are within this structure. The level of participation for Doing Time

with the Masters is limited by the exhibition curators, in this case both Ella Sharp

Museum staff and the art instructor. In addition, as all Cell Block 7 exhibitions are

approved by the MDOC per the arranged partnership (see 6.1.2), the MDOC acts

as a secondary powerholder.

The pieces for Doing Time with the Masters were selected from the entire

collection of works produced in the course and the instructor’s personal collection

from the Annual Exhibition of Art by Michigan Prisoners.7 The Instructor and the

exhibition team from Ella Sharp Museum were involved in the selecting process

(Interviewee B, 2016); the MDOC was not involved in the original selecting

process, but was consulted for approval in a later developmental stage

(Interviewee A, 2016).

7ThePrisonCreativeArtsProject,operatedbytheLiterature,Science,andtheArtsCollegeattheUniversityofMichigan-AnnArbor,annuallyorganisesoneofthelargestexhibitionsofprisonerartintheUnitedStates.Furtherinformationavailableat:https://lsa.umich.edu/pcap/exhibits/annual-exhibition-of-art-by-michigan-prisoners.html#view=month



The artists did participate in one key area, giving them partial participation:

consent. In order to use their work in the exhibition, the instructor gathered the

verbal consent of all participating artists and without it, would not have used the

pieces in the exhibition (Interviewee B, 2016).

The interpretations for the pieces were created entirely by the Jackson College

professor; the artists did not contribute in any way to the interpretations of their

work (Interviewee B, 2016). The curatorial narrative followed the instructor’s

intentions and descriptions of the various projects assigned to the students and

pieces from his personal collection, not the artists’ journeys in creating their work

(Interviewee A, 2016).

In terms of artist credit, no participation is seen as the decision was made by a

powerholder without consulting the artists. The names of the artists were removed

from the pieces before the display, per MDOC’s policy of keeping the identities of

current inmates anonymous (Interviewee A, 2016), though there was an indication

that some artists would prefer credit (Interviewee B, 2016). Interviewee A

describes the reasoning behind this decision:

With [Doing Time with the Masters], there was kind of a feel, since they are

for sure still currently in prison, there was a feeling of keeping their

information private. Because if they are from Jackson, then maybe they

don’t want their next-door neighbor seeing that, ‘Oh he’s in prison. Great.’

Because there is obviously negative connotations that go with that and

people don’t think, ‘Oh, he’s in prison, but he’s taking a class through

Jackson College and he’s trying to better himself while he’s there,’ which is

really what’s happening (2016).

As this exhibition was a one-off production, the participants were not given an

opportunity to enact changes to the process. Artists were however invited to

participate in an evaluation for their art course through Jackson College8; this did

8ThisresearcherwasnotprovidedaccesstotheevaluationformfortheJacksonCollegeCourse.



not relate specifically to their involvement in Doing Time with the Masters

exhibition (Interviewee B, 2016).

Based on the elements of participation listed above, the level of artist participation

seen throughout the development of Doing Time with the Masters is ‘informing’.

6.2 The Big Issues Project

6.2.1 Partnership profile

The second case study, The Big Issues Project, is not just one partnership

between the Watts Gallery an operating prison; it is a collective group of

partnerships that fluctuates from year to year and is not exclusive to prisons, but

includes other organisations that offer services to individuals largely excluded from

mainstream society (Figure 13). For the prison groups, the Watts Gallery delivers

art workshops within the prison walls to select participants by bringing in art

instructors and materials.

The project culminates each year with an exhibition of participants’ work in the

Watts Contemporary Gallery. Last year, The Big Issues Project included

partnerships with and displayed the work from three prisons: HMP Send, HMP/YOI

Feltham, and HMP & YOI Bronzefield. These are The Big Issues Project partners

and participating groups this author focuses on.



Figure 13. Page 2 of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.

6.2.2 Partnership model

The partnerships between the Watts Gallery and HMP Send, HMP/YOI Feltham,

and HMP & YOI Bronzefield were analysed using the same codes as Case Study

1 (see 6.1.2). The findings from that analysis can be found in Figure 14.

Code The Watts Gallery and The Big Issues

Project groups

Type of relationship Multi-stakeholder extra-sector

Motivations Goal-oriented; resource based

Success Factors Institutional partners that link to the goal;

evolving structure and partners; decision

making based on data

Barriers Complexity of relationships




These partnerships can be seen as a form of ‘multi-stakeholder extra-sector’

because the Watts Gallery is an organisation engaging in multiple partnerships

with similar organisations outside of the cultural sector, in this case correctional

facilities.

The driving motivator for The Big Issues Project is the mission it received from its

founders George and Mary Watts, who in their lifetime were passionate about

social issues (Interviewee C, 2016). This mission applies to all areas of the gallery

and is cited in the first paragraph of the Introduction of the 2016 exhibition program

(Figure 15).

Figure 15. Introduction of the 2016 The Big Issues exhibition program.

The Big Issues Project aims to fulfil that mission by providing programmes and

access to the Watts collection for “groups with the least access to art” (Interviewee

C, 2016). Interviewee C (2016), described The Big Issues Project within the

learning programme:



The Big Issues Project is the community outreach part of our learning

programme. So basically the learning programme incorporates the public

programme, schools, and then sort of the community side, and that is The

Big Issues Project. We refer to our learning programme as ‘art for all’. The

Big Issues Project sits under that umbrella.

Again, the ‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1) has failed to allow for multiple

motivating factors. The partnership between the Watts Gallery and HMP & YOI

Feltham was formed for motivations that are both ‘resource based’ and ‘goal-

oriented’. The Henry Smith Charity funds programmes for young offenders

became a funder for The Big Issues Project (Figure 16), desiring HMP & YOI

Feltham to be involved.

Figure 16. Page 1 of The Big Issues 2016 exhibition program.

Interviewee C (2016) additionally described that partnership as a way to meet

mutual goals, acting as its success factor: “It’s us wanting to do the work and

where the interest of the funder lies that can match. And that’s sort of a perfect

partnership.”



Another success factor within these partnerships is their ‘evolving structure and

partners’. This past year, the project worked with three prisons and three

community groups, but those groups can fluctuate from year to year (Interviewee

C, 2016). This allows the programme to reach different individuals and create

exhibitions from different source communities.

The project also ‘makes decisions based on data’ as each participant is asked to

complete an evaluation form (Figure 17). Interviewee C (2016) assured this

researcher that the results of these evaluations do impact the direction of the

programme for the future. She described an instance at HMP Send that resulted

from participant feedback:

It used to have an artist in residence who worked there for a longer

period of time… we mixed that up a little bit and decided to do blocks

with different artists teaching different techniques in their respective

media… but they expressed the desire to have more of an on-going

relationship, which was interesting. So that was something that

we’ve kind of taken on board and one of the artists that we took in

they particularly developed a really strong rapport with and they

really wanted her to come back (Interviewee C, 2016).



Figure 17. ‘Big Issues Project evaluation’.



Though The Big Issues Project has multiple success factors in their partnerships,

there are major barriers that impede their function. The ‘complexity of

relationships’ is due to managing three partnerships that greatly differ in factors

out of the control of The Big Issues Project. Though all the prisons are located in

Surrey, they have considerably different art programming structure, restrictions,

and participant needs. Watts Gallery employees who work with The Big Issues

Project must be fully aware of the policies and ensure all procedures are met

before each session as to not negatively impact the participants by being forced to

delay or cancel a session.

The structure of the programme largely depends on the frequency of

programming, the amount of repeat participants, and participant ability to continue

work after the sessions. The most exceptional programme is probably HMP Send,

where the frequency of the programming is the highest (once a month), three of

the nine participants have been in the programme for multiple years, and they are

allowed to continue working on their projects in their rooms (Interviewee C, 2016).

This delivers a very different service than is provided to participants at Feltham

and Bronzefield who participate less frequently in the programmes, perhaps only

once, and are not allowed to have materials and work in their rooms9 (Interviewee

C, 2016).

Likewise, there are individualised prison restrictions on the materials used during

the workshops and who can enter the prison to provide these services. In terms of

restricting materials, the best example might be found in the allowance of polyvinyl

acetate (PVA) glue. PVA is not allowed in Feltham, but can be taken into Send

and Bronzefield (Interviewee C, 2016). This material is frequently used in arts

projects and the restriction of it in turn requires the Watts Gallery staff to develop

alternative projects.

As with any operating prison, the individuals allowed to enter the building,

especially repeatedly, are formally vetted. This process is not the same for each

9HMP&YOIBronzefieldparticipantshaveotherartprogrammes,buthaveTheBigIssuesProjectworkshopsforthreeconsecutivedaysandtheydonotworkonthesepiecesoutsideofthesesessions.



prison. In general however, an art instructor can visit the prison for a limited

amount of time before completing the entire security check, which requires a

significant level of commitment from the visiting artists, who deliver sessions in

excess of that number (Interviewee C, 2016).

Even if the entire party is approved for entry, a formal arrangement must be made

to allow for entry into the prison. Interviewee C (2016) said this is generally what

causes the most serious delays to delivering the sessions, which affect their plan,

“it’s not really the ideal sort of way to start an engagement because we like to be

there first, if possible, to set up and be ready to welcome the group in, but

sometimes they’re left waiting for us and it’s just not ideal” (Interviewee C, 2016).

Interviewee C (2016) stressed the importance of negotiating to have a designated

lead contact at the prison with which to communicate. She describes how their

new arrangement with Send limits the delays and cancelations that impact The Big

Issues Project’s delivery of the sessions:

We’ve got a team who we send our materials lists to and our requests for

gate notices – there needs to be a gate notice for every person who is

coming into the prison with certain information about them – as well as one

member of staff who is our lead contact; so if he is not there, then

somebody else in the team knows that they need to put those

arrangements in place basically, so there’s a back-up plan if that lead

contact is away or pulled from another section and then he arranges for

cover for himself if he can’t attend a session (Interviewee C, 2016).

The needs of the groups are additionally distinct from each other. Interviewee C

(2016) recalled once changing the structure of a course to allow participants who

were low in skill level and confidence in their art to feel immediate success in their

work by opting for more printmaking exercises than painting in the following year.

This group stood out in terms of mental health and educational issues (Interviewee

C, 2016). This is not uncommon with The Big Issues Project groups and

determines what The Big Issues Project will do not based on what they see would

best meet the needs of that particular group.



The Watts Gallery staff that manage these partnerships overcome this obstacle by

isolating the groups from one another to deliver highly individualised programmes

to each of the groups. Interviewee C (2016) described her individualised approach

to each of the prison partnerships:

I think it’s all very individual. So I think it really is about getting to know each

of the individuals who are part of that group and sort of tailoring what you’re

doing to them. It’s really about learning about their individual needs and

then responding as best we can. The groups are very different and they’re

very different in terms of their skill level and in terms of how they’re able to

engage (Interviewee C, 2016).

6.2.3 Artist participation

Data pertaining to artist participation in The Big Issues exhibition10 were analysed

using the same codes as Case Study 1 (see 6.1.3). The findings are summarised

in the following table:

Code The Big Issues

exhibition

Powerholder Museum staff; HMP Send;

HMP/YOI Feltham; HMP &

YOI Bronzefield

Elements of

participation:

Selection Partial participation

Interpretation Partial participation

Artist credit No participation

Effect change Partial participation

Level of participation Consulting


10UndertheadviceofIntervieweeC,‘TheBigIssuesexhibition’referstotheannualexhibitiondisplayingtheartworkcreatedbyTheBigIssuesProjectparticipants;itisnotitalicized.



The powerholders controlling The Big Issues exhibition 2016 artists’ level of

participation are the Watts Gallery staff and the prisons are HMP Send, HMP/YOI

Feltham, and HMP & YOI Bronzefield.

As seen in Case Study 1, The Big Issues Project artists experience partial

participation in the selection process. They can limit the pieces available to The

Big Issues exhibition by offering or refusing their consent at the time of

construction. On the ‘Big Issues Project Enrolement Form’ [sic] (Figure 19), given

to participants during the workshop, participants give the Watts Gallery permission

to display their work in the exhibition. By consenting or not consenting to the

display of their work, the artists do have a level of control over the exhibition.

These are recorded by the Watts Gallery and used to determine which pieces are

available for selection within the exhibition (Interviewee C, 2016). Due to the

limited space in the Watts Gallery however, there is a further selection process

done by the Watts Gallery exhibition team (Interviewee C, 2016).

In a separate section of that same document (Figure 19), the artist also indicates

whether or not the Watts Gallery has the right to sell their artwork in the exhibition.

The artists’ level over this area was recently drastically restricted. If a participating

artist chooses to sell his or her artwork in the exhibition, there is a new mandatory

25% donation of the proceeds to Victim Support. This introduction resulted in

action taken by the Department of Criminal Justice that disrupted the exhibition’s

proceedings; the press release for the exhibition was blocked because donations

to Victim Support were voluntary instead of compulsory under the then-current

policy (Interviewee C, 2016).



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



The interpretations for the individual art pieces included in The Big Issues

exhibition is entirely provided by the artists themselves. Artist would be considered

holding full participation if they generated the introductory panels as well; however,

currently these are written by Watts Gallery employees. This differs slightly from

the standard practice for all Watts Gallery contemporary art exhibitions that are

either provided entirely by the contemporary artist or developed collaboratively

with the Watts Gallery employees (Interviewee C, 2016). Similarly to the

contemporary shows, artists can choose what to write as well as if they provide

any interpretation for their individual piece at all.

The artists are presented with an exhibition submission form (Figure 20), which

includes space to prove a ‘picture caption’. One of the biggest contributions artists

can have in exhibitions of their work is providing their own interpretations to

accompany their work on display. The ‘voice’ of the label affects the way visitors

experience the exhibition (Serrell, 2015: 135). The artists’ who write their own

labels provide an alternative ‘personal voice’ to the ‘impersonal institutional

authority museum voice’, regarded as the default when writing labels (Serrell,

2015: 135).

The exhibition team takes these captions verbatim when creating the exhibition

labels (Interviewee C, 2016). Interviewee C (2016) describes the value in this

practice of the programme: “I think they’re really helpful for people who are coming

to the exhibition to get a sense of being in their shoes and how it felt to make that

work or the situation. People like that sort of insight into what they were thinking.”

In order to accurately capture those sentiments, the artists are encouraged to

complete this section of the form soon after completing their work (Interviewee C,

2016).



Figure 20. ‘Big Issues Exhibition Submission Form’.



Regarding artist credit, Interviewee C (2016) is not aware of any rules preventing

the use of artists’ names along with their pieces; however, the Watts Gallery

chooses to partially anonymise all Big Issues Project participants by using their

first names only. Participants have not been formally consulted on this issue,

resulting in no participation, but in her discussions with participants, participants

have not challenged this anonymisation (Interviewee C, 2016). In fact, some

participants indicated full disclosure of their identities would not be preferable

(Interviewee C, 2016). When asked why these artists might not want their names

associated with their exhibited artwork, Interviewee C (2016) responded: “If

somebody were to see the artwork by so and so, they would be able to look at

their crime, or their conviction and that – depending on the individual – would not

be something that they would want.”

The artists do have the ability to enact change in the programme through the

formal evaluations they conduct (see 5.2.2). Similar to interpretations, this element

of participation would be considered full participation; however, there is no

structure in place where the artists can ensure that the results of these evaluations

contribute to actual change.

Based on the above elements of participation, artists with work in The Big Issues

exhibition experience a ‘consultation’ level of participation.



7 Conclusions and suggestions for further research

Partnerships between museums/galleries and prisons that produce exhibitions

displaying artwork produced by prisoners are few in number, but constitute a new

endeavour for museums and galleries. They have been aiming towards co-

production and increasing participation for communities that don’t traditionally

contribute to the sector through partnerships. The incarceration of the artists

present challenges to increasing their participation in the exhibitions of their work;

however, programmes can incorporate platforms to increase communication and

participation.

This study has examined the nature of partnerships between prisons and the

museums and galleries that display prisoner artwork as well as areas where artist

participation is evident in exhibitions. The specified research questions were (1)

how do the partnerships between museums or galleries that display prisoner art

and prisons function? And (2) how do incarcerated artists participate in exhibitions

of their work? Several key points can be concluded from the qualitative look into

these case studies (see 7.1) as well as recommendations on how these

partnerships and artist participation can be improved (see 7.2) and suggestions for

further research (see 7.3).

The findings of this study and the efforts of further explorations into the subject

could widely impact the museum sector. Scholarly efforts indicate that

partnerships are going to become an increasing standard for museums to both

fulfil mission statements and secure funding. By confronting the ways their efforts

are hindered and developing platforms for change, museums’ approach to

participation can also be adapted. Given the appropriate commitment of both

museum and prison and an adequate, agreed-upon structure, a partnership can

have the dual function of sharing skills and resources to achieve a specified goal.

Additionally, by providing a platform for incarcerated artists in relation to

exhibitions of their work, museums are practicing co-production by increasing the

level of source community participation.



7.1 Summary of findings

The findings were analysed through grounded theory methodology. The data

analysis relating to museum partnerships with prisons revealed museums engage

in partnerships with prisons to varying degrees, resulting in partnerships that

function in a myriad of ways. The findings are summarised in more detail in Figure

21.

Code Case Study 1 Case Study 2

Type of

relationship

Operational /

resource building

Project /

programme

delivery

Multi-stakeholder

extra-sector

Motivations Resource based Goal-oriented Goal oriented;

resource based

Success factors Institutional

partners that link to

the goal

Institutional


the goal; inclusive

decision making

Institutional


the goal; evolving

structure and

partners; decision

making based on

data

Barriers Complexity of

relationships; role

boundary conflicts

Inter-professional

differences of

perspective

Complexity of

relationships


Museum partnerships with prisons can be intended for long-term or short-term

periods. They do not always involve two partners, but can be seen as more of a

network of specialised partnerships or a multi-stakeholder umbrella of partnerships

underneath one programme. Overall, museums form partnerships to fulfil mission

statement aims; however, these partnerships can also be the result of funding

needs. The partnership may be introduced to a museum by the prison itself or an

external organisation, such as a funder. These nuances within each individual

partnership complicate the categories for partnerships and motivations described

in ‘The Art of Partnering’ and used in part to analyse the data from this study

(King’s College London, 2015). Complexities are individual to each partnership



and require an original approach in each instance with methods in-place for re-

negotiating as described by Lagerkvist (2006: 60).

The partnerships explored here exhibited several different success factors. First,

all of the partnerships in this study demonstrated a commitment to the goal of the

partnership. Secondly, Doing Time with the Masters at Cell Block 7 Museum

provided a platform for inclusive decision making between the Ella Sharp Museum

and Jackson College co-curators. Thirdly, although The Big Issues Project is multi-

year, it adapts its composition, resulting in a structure that can look different year

to year. Additionally, some of these changes are grounded in evaluation findings.

Several barriers to successful partnerships were identified in the examination of

these case studies: the ‘complexity of relationships’, ‘role boundary conflicts’, and

‘inter-professional differences of perspective’. The individual complexities of each

partnership can lead to confusion. The partnerships that develop between a

museum or gallery and a prison involve a division of spheres of influence that

cause role conflicts when they overlap. The partners respect the institutional

authority of the other in most instances, but conflict can arise if museum staff do

not adhere to differing prison policies or a prison does not approve of a museum

practice. Inter-professional differences between individuals working within the

partnership can also occur. Unresolved barriers can compromise successful goal

achievement, jeopardise the continuation of the partnership, and negatively impact

the partners, participating artists, or the exhibition.

The analysis of data collected pertaining to artist participation in prisoner art

exhibitions discovered the incarcerated artists examined in this study experience a

low level of participation in exhibitions of their work. The detailed findings are

additionally summarised in Figure 22.



Code Case Study 1 Case Study 2

Powerholder Exhibition curators;

MDOC

Museum staff:

HMP Send;

HMP/YOI Feltham;

HMP& YOI

Bronzefield

Elements of

participation:

Selection Partial participation Partial Participation

Interpretation No participation Partial Participation

Artist Credit No participation No participation

Effect change No participation Partial participation

Level of participation Informing Consulting


There are two major powerholders regarding exhibitions of prisoner art: the

prisons and the exhibition staff. Increasing participation for prison artists is entirely

dependent on the efforts of the prisons and the museum or gallery in partnership

with them. The incarcerated status of the artists prevents them from physically

visiting exhibitions of their work, while museum exhibition practices limit

participants’ involvement from afar. In this way, these exhibitions tend to support

rather than contradict previous accusations that museums rarely share

exhibitionary power (Ali & Callaghan, 2016; Davies, 2010; Lagerkvist, 2006).

In terms of the participants’ ability to partake in the selection or interpretation

processes, receive credit, or effect change within the programmes, incarcerated

artists experience no or partial participation depending on the structure set-up. The

resulting exhibition therefore cannot be considered a ‘contingent collaboration’

(Christen 2007; see section 3.4). Characteristics of incarceration prevent these

participants from experiencing ‘Citizen Power’ (Figure 4). Both ‘informing’ and

‘consulting’ are classified as types of ‘Tokenism’ (Arnstein, 1969; see Figure 4). If

artists are consulted on matters, they remain constricted as they have no platform

to ensure their voices are heard or their level of participation is increased.



7.2 Recommendations

This section lays out this author’s recommendations relating broadly to museum

partnerships and participatory practices in exhibition development and specifically

to museums engaging in partnerships with prisons to exhibit prisoner art.

Firstly, the sector would benefit from the creation of a categorisation system for

partnerships that allows for more nuances and fluidities in the structure of

relationships and motivations for partnering; this is lacking in the current

‘Taxonomy of Relationships’ (Figure 1).

Secondly, there is no one method to approaching partnerships and museums

should routinely re-evaluate practices, as Lagerkvist (2006: 60) has suggested.

This allows for the creation of individualised structures and specified role

agreements with the differing prisons. The communication required to create these

distinct relationships will lead to less conflicts and facilitate a quick conflict

resolution time as a platform has already been established. These agreements will

seek to achieve the goals tailored specifically to needs of those participants, but

should be flexible to changes in participant needs or feedback.

Thirdly, though the case studies explored here experience limitations and barriers,

the practices of partnership and participation are worthwhile endeavours towards

social inclusion and should not be abandoned. Museums should continue to strive

for increased community participation within exhibition development to combat

accusations of withholding power (Davies, 2010; Lagerkvist, 2006). Though there

are limitations when working with incarcerated individuals, there are areas to

improve upon through diligent efforts from museum staff and regular evaluations

on practices. Even if ‘contingent collaborations’ remain non-existent within prisoner

art exhibition developments, the ideas behind them could exist by employing staff

that adheres to the socially inclusive theoretical approach to exhibition design

(Christen, 2007).



7.3 Suggestions for Further Research

This project has embodied an institutional approach to the subject of partnerships

between institutions that generate prisoner visual art exhibitions and prisons. In

order to gain a more holistic sense of these partnerships and facilitate a more

informed academic discussion within the sector, a look into the perspectives of the

artists, the prisons that house them, and the visitors to prisoner art exhibitions is

needed.

Further studies into the impacts of arts programmes on prisoner rehabilitation

would be worthy contributions used to combat recent cuts to prisoner arts

programmes. A structure could be developed between museums and prisons

where participating incarcerated artists not only receive long-term instruction in

creating art, but also the technical and curatorial expertise require in developing an

exhibition such as interpretation methods and exhibition design skills. These skills

could bolster Brewster’s (2014) claim that developing skills increases prisoner

attitudes and decreases disciplinary actions. These studies could expand to

include the effects of these programmes on the prisoners’ families to gage wider

societal impacts, possibly demonstrating the socially inclusive role museums can

play in society (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999, 2001a; Lynch,

2016).

Limitations of incarceration pose obstacles to conducting studies involving the

artists as participants; incarcerated individuals constitute a ‘vulnerable population’

as many of their rights are limited. Studies could be conducted similar to the

California Department of Corrections (1987) study on inmates after their parole. In

order to overcome the difficulty of locating released participants of a programme

that excludes the use of their names, a section could be added to the consent

forms where artists could indicate their willingness or interest in participating in a

study upon release. It should be noted that the amount of time required to fulfil

participants’ sentences could hinder the relevance of the generated data

significantly and exclude artists who are incarcerated indefinitely.

Additionally, a look at these partnerships from the prisons’ perspective, or a

holistic approach to the entire partnership using Latour’s (2005) Actor Network



Theory could make location a valuable focus to the discussion of partnerships

between prisons and museums or galleries. The criminal justice systems are not

identical between the United States and the United Kingdom and it is difficult to

assess how this affects the emphasis on and practices of these programmes

without researching the prisons themselves further.

Finally, though this author has not spoken with exhibition visitors, it would be

worthwhile to explore how prisoner art exhibitions change public perception on

prisoners and the criminal justice system. This study could test the theories that

museums can be used as ‘differencing machines’ (Bennett, 2006) and visitor

experience is heightened when exhibitions are co-created (McSweeney & Fitton,

2016). Both Interviewee A (2016) and Interviewee C (2016) alluded to the positive

impact these exhibitions have on the public opinion and how visitors commented

positively on the chance to see and hear from incarcerated individuals.



References Literature: Adams, G. K., 2016. Economic fall-out of Brexit will impact museums, warns MA.

Museums Association. Museums Association. [online] Available at:

<https://www.museumsassociation.org/news/24062016-economic-fall-out-

brexit-museums> [Accessed 22 July 2016].

Ali, N. and Callaghan, D., 2016. Community Engagement and Challenging the

Authorised Narrative. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016.

Museum participation: new directions for audience collaboration. Edinburgh

and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 312-343.

American Alliance of Museums, 2012. Developing a Mission Statement. Arlington,

VA: American Alliance of Museums.

Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A Ladder of Participation. In JAIP, 35(4), pp. 216-224.

Aylott, M., 2002. Taking arts forward. Prison Service Journal, 139, pp. 3-5.

Bennett, T., 1995. The Birth of a Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London:

Routledge.

Bennett, T., 2006. Exhibition, Difference, and the Logic of Culture. In: I. Karp, C. A.

Kratz, L. Szwaja and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions:

Public Cultures / Global Transformations. Durham and London: Duke

University Press. pp. 46-69.

Birks, M. and Mills, J., 2011. Grounded theory: a practical guide. Los Angeles:

Sage.

Brewster, L., 1983. An Evaluation of the Arts-in-Corrections Program of the

California Department of Corrections. William James Association Prison

Arts Program.



Brewster, L., 2010. The California Arts-in-Corrections Music Program: a qualitative

study. The International Journal of Music Community.

Brewster, L., 2011. A Qualitative Evaluation of the California Arts-in-Corrections

Program. Paddlefish, Mount Mary College’s National Literary Journal, 5.

Brewster, L.and Merts, P., 2012. Paths of Discovery: Art Practice and Its Impact in

California Prisons. [online] Available at:

<https://www.createspace.com/3916681> [Accessed 13 September 2016].

Brewster, L., 2014. The Impact of Prison Arts Programs on Inmate Attitudes and

Behavior: A Quantitative Evaluation. Justice Policy Journal, 11(2), pp. 1-28.

Buntinx, G., and Karp, I., 2006. Tactical Museums. In: I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L.

Szwaja, and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions: Public

Cultures / Global Transformations. Durham and London: Duke University

Press. pp. 207-218.

California Department of Corrections, 1987. Arts-in-Corrections, Research

Synopsis on Parole Outcomes for Participants Paroled December 1980 to

February 1987. [online] Available at:

<http://williamjamesassociation.org/prison arts/> [Accessed 10 September

2016].

Carnwell, R. and Carson, A., 2008. The concepts of partnership and

collaboration. Effective practice in health, social care and criminal

justice: A partnership approach, pp. 3-21.

Christen, K., 2007. Following the Nyinkka: Relations of Respect and Obligations to

the Act in the Collaborative Work of Aboriginal Cultural Centers. In Museum

Anthropology, 30(2), pp. 101-124.



Clifford, J., 2004. Looking Several Ways: Anthropology and Native Heritage in

Alaska. Current Anthropology, 45(1), pp. 5-30.

Coffman, J., 2005. Evaluating Partnerships: Seven Success Factors. The

Evaluation Exchange. Harvard Family Research Project. [online] Available

at: <http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-

archive/complementary-learning/evaluating-partnerships-seven-success-

factors> [Accessed 22 July 2016].

Cruickshanks, L. and Hunter-Dodsworth, S., 2016. Partnerships and Plurality:

Evolving Practices at the British Museum. In: K. McSweeney and J.

Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum participation: new directions for audience

collaboration. Edinburgh and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 362-391.

Dake, J., 2016. Connecting with Audiences Through Participatory Exhibition

Planning. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum

Participation: New Directions for Audience Collaboration. Edinburg and

Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 148-161.

Dean, D. K., 1997. Ethics and museum exhibitions. In: G. Edson, ed. 1997.

Museum Ethics. London: Routledge.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999. Policy Action Team 10: A Report

to the Social Exclusion, Arts and Sport. London: Department for Culture,

Media and Sport.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2000. Centres for Social Change:

Museums, Galleries and Archives for All. London: Department for Culture,

Media and Sport.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001a. Building on PAT 10. London:

Department for Culture, Media and Sport.



Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001b. Libraries, Museums, Galleries

and Archives for All: Co-operating Across the Sectors to Tackle Social

Exclusion. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Dodd, J. and Sandell, R., 2001. Including Museums: Perspectives on Museums,

Galleries and Social Inclusion. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums

and Galleries.

Davies, S. M., 2010. The co-production of temporary museum exhibitions.

Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(3), pp. 305-321.

Duggan, B. J., 2011. Introducing Partnered Collaboration into a Native American

Gallery Renewal Project at a State Museum. Practicing Anthropology,

33(2), pp. 28-34.

Ella Sharp Museum. Mission & History Ella Sharp Museum. [online] Available at:

<http://ellasharpmuseum.org/?page_id=180> [Accessed 10 September

2016].

Fienup-Riordan, A., 1999. Collaboration on Display: A Yup’ik Eskimo Exhibit at

Three National Museums. American Anthropologist, 101(2), pp. 339-358.

Fraser, H., 2005. Four Different Approaches to Community Participation.

Community Development Journal, 40(3), pp. 286-300.

Frisch, M., 1990. A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral

and Public History. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Gerring, J., 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Group for Large Local Authority Museums, 2000. Museums and Social Inclusion:

The GLLAM Report. Leicester: Leicester University Press.



Hudson Hill, S., Roberts, D. and Ryan, K., 2016. Planning for Participatory

Exhibitions: Bringing Community Voices to the Forefront. In: K. McSweeney

and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum participation: new directions for

audience collaboration. Edinburgh and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 532-561.

Johnson, L. M., 2007. Jail Wall Drawings and Jail Art Programs: Invaluable Tools

for Corrections. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2(2), pp.

66-84.

Johnson, L. M., 2008. A Place for Art in Prison: Art as A Tool for Rehabilitation and

Management. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 5(2), pp. 100-120.

Johnson-Symington, N. R. and Robertson, H. A., 2016. Pioneering Partnerships at

the Riverside Museum. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016.

Museum participation: new directions for audience collaboration. Edinburgh

and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 344-361.

King’s College London, 2015. The Art of Partnering. King’s College London.

Kirshenblatt-Gimlett, B., 2006. Exhibitionary Complexes. In: I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L.

Szwaja and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions: Public


Press. pp. 35-45.

Lagerkvist, C., 2006. Empowerment and Anger: Learning How to Share

Ownership of the Museum. Museum and Society, 4(2), pp. 52-68.

Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-

Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lavine, S. D., 1992. Audience, Ownership and Authority: Designing Relations

Between Museums and Communities. In: I. Karp and C. Mullen Kreamer,

eds. 1992. Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture.

Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.



Lewis, G.,1992. Enabling legislation for museums. In: J. M. A. Thompson, ed.

1992. Manual of Curatorship: A Guide to Museum Practice. London:

Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 70-80.

McSweeney, K. and Fitton, L., 2016. How Does Co-created Exhibition Content

Enhance Visitor Experience? In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds.

2016. Museum participation: new directions for audience collaboration.

Edinburgh and Boston: MuseumsEtc. pp. 492-517.

McSweeney, K. and Kavanagh, J., 2016. Introduction: Museum Participation. In:

K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum participation: new

directions for audience collaboration. Edinburgh and Boston: MuseumsEtc.

pp. 14-25.

Marsh, G., 1999. The community of circumstance –a tale of three cities:

community participation in Lewisham, St Kilda, and Knox. Research in

Community Sociology. Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc, pp. 65-86

Matarasso, F., 1997. Use or Ornament: The Social Impact of Participation of the

Arts. Bournes Green: Comedia.

Mullen Kreamer, C., 2006. Shared Heritage, Contested Terrain: Cultural

Negotiation and Ghana’s Cape Coast Castle Museum Exhibition

“Crossroads of People, Crossroads of Trade”. In: I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L.

Szwaja, and T. Ybarra-Frausto, eds. 2006. Museum Frictions: Public


Press. pp. 435-468.

National Museum Directors’ Council, 2014. Partnerships: sharing skills and

collections across the UK. [online] Available at:

<http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/what-we-do/sharing-skills-and-

collections/> [Accessed 13 September 2016].



National Science Teachers Association, 1997. Museum Partnerships. Science

Scope, 20(6), 58-59.

Newman, A. and McLean, F., 1998. Heritage builds communities: The application

of heritage resources to the problems of social exclusion. International

Journal of Heritage Studies, 4(3/4), pp. 143-153.

Newman, A. and McLean, F., 2004. Presumption, Policy and Practice: The use of

museums and galleries as agents of social inclusion in Great Britain.

International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2), pp. 167-181.

Ostrom, E., 1997. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and

development. Wold Development, 24(6), pp. 1073-1087

Phillips, R. B., 2003. Introduction: Community Collaborations in Exhibitions,

Toward a Dialogic Paradigm. In: L. Peers and A. K. Brown, eds. 2003

Museums and Source Communities. New York: Routledge. pp. 155-170.

Royal Academy of Arts. Access at the RA. [online] Available at:

<https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/access-at-the-ra> [Accessed 22 July

2016].

Shakespeare Behind Bars, 2012. Prison Arts Programs – Adult Population.

[online]. Available at:

<http://www.shakespearebehindbars.org/links/papadult/> [Accessed 10

September 2016].

Shoonover, B., 1986. The captive audience. Art Education, 39(3), pp. 33-35.

Rebolj, J. and Damjanovic, N., 2016. Involving Audiences Through Co-Creation

and Participation. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum

participation: new directions for audience collaboration. Edinburgh and




Sandell, R., 2006. Museums, Prejudice and the Reframing of Difference.

LOCATION: Taylor & Francis.

Sandell, R., McSweeney, K. and Kavanagh, J., 2016. A Reflection on

Participation. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum



Serrell, B., 2015. Exhibition Labels: An Interpretive Approach. 2nd ed. Lanham,

MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Silverman, L. H., 2010. The Social Work of Museums. London: Routledge.

Silverman, L. H., 2002. The therapeutic potential of museums as pathways to

inclusion. In: R. Sandell, ed. 2002. Museums, Society, Inequality. London:

Routledge. pp. 69-83.

Simon, N., 2010. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010.

Smith, T. A. and Fouseki, K., 2016. Participatory Practices in Museums: A Seismic

Shift. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum



Social Exclusion Unit, 2001. Preventing Social Exclusion: Report by the Social

Exclusion Unit. London: Social Exclusion Unit.

Swan, D. C. and Jordan, M. P., 2015. Contingent Collaborations: Patterns of

Reciprocity in Museum-Community Partnerships. Journal of Folklore

Research, 52(1), pp. 39-84.

Toohil, K,, 2015. Why Arts Programs in Prisons Are So Important. Justice Center

The Council of State Governments Collaborative Approaches to Public

Safety. [online] Available at: <http://csgjusticecenter.org/corrections/media-



clips/why-arts-programs-in-prisons-are-so-important/> [Accessed 22 July

2016].

UK Data Protection Act, 1998. [online] Available at:

<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/UKPGA/1998/29/contents> [Accessed 19

July 2016].

United Kingdom National Action Plan on Social Inclusion, 2001. [online] Available

at:<http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2001/jun/napsincl2

001_en.html> [Accessed 19 July 2016].

Vergo, P., 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books.

William James Association Prison Arts Project. Prison Arts Project. [online]

Available at: <http://williamjamesassociation.org/prison_arts/> [Accessed 10

September 2016].

Williams, R. M., 2003. Introduction. In: R. M. Williams, ed. 2003. Teaching the arts

behind bars. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. pp. 3-13.

Willis, S., 2016. Developing Participative Models of Working and Community

Engagement. In: K. McSweeney and J. Kavanagh, eds. 2016. Museum

Participation: New Directions for Audience Collaboration. Edinburgh and


Wisker, C., 1997. What one museum does for prisoner art. In: D. Gussak and E.

Virshup, eds. 1997. Drawing time: Art therapy in prisons and other

correctional settings. Chicago: Magnolia Street Publishers. pp. 231-239.

Young, I. M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.



Interviews

Interviewee A. Cell Block 7 Employee. (Personal Communication, 6 June 2016).

Interviewee B. Jackson College Professor. (Personal Communication, 27 June

2016).

Interviewee C. Watts Gallery Employee. (Personal Communication, 30 June

2016).



Appendices Appendix I Participant Information Sheet Information Sheet for M.A. Museum Studies dissertation research Dissertation title: Creations from the Cell: Prison Art and Participation in Museums and Galleries (working title) Researcher name: Allison Kopplin Contact details: [email protected] Supervisor’s name: Theano Moussouri and Georgios Alexopoulos I would like to invite ______________to participate in this research project Research Details:

• I will examine institutions that display visual art created by incarcerated individuals. How prisoners are represented in these exhibitions and the level of prisoner participation will be explored.

• My research will be carried out through analysis of interviews and questionnaires with participants from research case studies.

• The results of my dissertation could improve the level of participation prisoners hold in their representation in museums and galleries.

• The results will be published as a University College London M.A. dissertation. The role of the participants:

• You are recruited because of your previous work on a prisoner artwork exhibition. • You are asked to partake in a questionnaire regarding the construction of these

exhibitions. • Your identity will be anonymous from the point of data collection, but may be

identified by your professional title. • You hold the right to request the removal of your questionnaire before 27 July 2016.

Please discuss the information above with others if you wish or ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. It is up to you to decide whether to take part or not; choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. If you do decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. All data will be collected and stored in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act 1998.



Appendix II Informed Consent Form

Informed Consent Form M.A. Museum Studies dissertation research Please complete this form after you have read the Information Sheet and/or listened to an explanation about the research. Project Title: Creations from the Cell: Prison Art and Participation in Museums and Galleries (working title) Researcher: Allison Kopplin Thank you for your interest in taking part in this research. Before you agree to take part, the person organising the research must explain the project to you. If you have any questions arising from the Information Sheet or explanation already given to you, please ask the researcher before you to decide whether to join in. You will be given a copy of this Consent Form to keep and refer to at any time. Participant’s Statement I agree that:

• I have read the notes written above and the Information Sheet, and understand what the study involves.

• I understand that if I decide at any time that I no longer wish to take part in this project, I can notify the researchers involved and withdraw immediately.

• I consent to the information I provide being transferred to the United Kingdom to be used anonymously in a University College London dissertation.

• I understand that such information will be treated as strictly confidential and handled in accordance with the provisions of the UK Data Protection Act 1998.

• I understand that the information I provide will be stored anonymously in an encrypted computer file and will be reviewed solely by the above researcher.

• I agree that the research project named above has been explained to me to my satisfaction and I agree to take part in this study.

• I understand that my participation may be audio recorded; if recorded, I understand I will be provided with a transcription and I consent to use of this material as part of the project.

• I understand that the information I have submitted will be internally published as a University College London dissertation and I will be sent a copy. Confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained and it will not be possible to identify me from any publications.

Signature: Date:



Appendix III Case Study 1 Cell Block 7 Interview Guide General Cell Block 7 Could you briefly explain the Cell Block 7 Museum and your professional relationship to it? What did your role consist of at Cell Block 7? What would you say is the aim of the Cell Block 7 Museum? What is the relationship between the Cell Block 7 Museum and the Jackson State Prison? ______________________________________________________________ General Prison Artwork Could you please explain the Prison Artwork semi-permanent exhibition? What was the inspiration for the Prison Artwork exhibition? When did Cell Block 7 install Prison Artwork? How does Prison Artwork contribute to visitor experience at Cell Block 7? What interpretation accompanies the pieces? Are the artists involved in the interpretation process? Do the pieces rotate? How often? ______________________________________________________________ Designing Prison Artwork Where did Cell Block 7 get these pieces? Do the artists give consent? How are the pieces selected? What themes do the pieces cover? Are there themes Cell Block 7 has chosen to exclude? ______________________________________________________________ Future of Cell Block 7 and Prison Artwork Are there discussions or plans to open up the exhibition to artists who are currently incarcerated in the Jackson prison? Does Ella Sharp contribute to any prison art programmes within the Michigan State Prison? Are there any discussions? Before we conclude this interview, is there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you would like to ask me about this study?



Appendix IV Case Study 1 Doing Time with the Masters Interview Guide Questions pertaining to your position How did you come to be an art instructor at the Jackson State Prison? What was the aim of the art class? Does Jackson College have a formal partnership with the prison? Questions about the exhibition in general What was the title of the exhibition you curated at the Cell Block 7 Museum that displayed prisoner artwork? What was the inspiration for that exhibition? What was the aim of the exhibition? Did you approach Cell Block 7 Museum with this idea? How did you choose the pieces? What themes did they cover? Were any themes excluded? Were prison tattoos discussed, created or shown? How did you arrange the pieces? What interpretations accompanied the pieces on display? Questions relating to participation Did the artists contribute to any interpretations provided? Did you want to include the names of the artists? Why were the names removed? Do you know if the artists wished their names were included? Did the artists give formal consent for the use of their pieces? Did the artists know which pieces were on display? Did the families of the artists know of the exhibition?



Questions about future exhibitions Are you planning on curating more exhibitions similar to this at Cell Block 7 Museum or elsewhere? If you were to curate another prisoner art exhibition, are there things you would do differently? What do you see as the biggest obstacle stopping prisoner art exhibitions from being more prevalent?



Appendix V Case Study 2 Watts Gallery Interview Guide General Big Issues Project Could you briefly explain The Big Issues Project? What does your professional role consist of? What is the Watts Gallery’s relationship to The Big Issues Project? How does The Big Issues Project align with the Watts Gallery’s mission statement? Do the visitor demographics differ between The Big Issues Project and the Watts Gallery? What was the inspiration of The Big Issues Project? *What would you say is the aim of The Big Issues Project? Designing The Big Issues Project Where do the pieces come from for The Big Issues Project? What sorts of groups does The Big Issues Project work with? Are the artists given creative license or do they have assignments to work from? How are these groups chosen?

- Do groups ever approach The Big Issues Project? How are the pieces selected for exhibition?

- Who selects those pieces? Is there any interpretation that accompanies the pieces? - If so, who writes those interpretations? - If not, have the artists ever written the interpretations for their pieces? What sorts of themes do the pieces cover?

- Are there any themes The Big Issues Project chooses to exclude in their selection process? How are the pieces arranged in the exhibition?

- Do artist’s have a say in which pieces are included or how they are arranged? Are the artists’ names on the pieces? What sorts of consent forms are utilized to display and sell the art? Are the pieces created by inmates marked as such or clustered together?



The Future of the Big Issues Project Are there any discussions or plans to increase the number of prisoner groups The Big Issues Project works with? With regards to prisoner groups, what is the biggest obstacle stopping The Big Issues Project from being expanded? Final Closing Before we conclude this interview, is there anything you would like to add? Is there anything you would like to ask me about this study?



Appendix VI Participant Job Descriptions

Pseudonym

Case Study

Job Description in relation to this study

Interviewee A

Cell Block 7 Museum Doing Time with the

Masters

Daily operations; exhibit research; liaison between

Cell Block 7/Ella Sharp and the MDOC; catalogued Michigan Department of Correction’s collections.

Interviewee B

Cell Block 7 Museum Doing Time with the

Masters

Instructor for a Jackson College course taught at the

one of the six correctional facilities within the Jackson

State Prison

Interviewee C

Watts Gallery

The Big Issues Project

Works with the artists who lead the workshops and attends most workshops, primarily with HMP Send

and HMP & YOI Bronzefield

Documents

KYVH7 MA Museum Studies Dissertation