Three stickie notes with
thought fragments scratched on them have been flipping across my desk over the
last few weeks. They are the product of professional reading
and preparation for a workshop, Bringing an Organizational Perspective to
Evaluation that I presented at the Visitor Studies Conference in Raleigh. One
stickie says: Conceptual framework: Ecologies of Parent Engagement (Barton,
Drake, Perez, et al. 2004) Another
says: Positive Youth Development (PYD). The third says: conceptual framework OR theoretical
framework?
Conceptual frameworks haven’t been very much on my radar. I find references to a “conceptual framework” in evaluation studies where they are unpacked as context for situating a study’s results. While familiar and useful in the world of research and evaluation, conceptual frameworks have not yet migrated very far into other areas of museum practice.
Recently the three stickie
notes have assembled a Ouiga board kind of message to suggest that conceptual
frameworks might be used in other ways to advance a museum’s visitor, learning
and experience interests. If we can use a conceptual framework to look at a
study’s results, why not use it in planning the experiences that a study might,
or hopefully, will eventually look at critically?
Can museums, I wonder, use conceptual frameworks
as something like a theory of action about how to change, improve, or strengthen themselves,
the audiences they serve, and their community?
What IS a
Conceptual Framework?
While not completely
unfamiliar with conceptual frameworks, I am
not nimble working with them. My fuzzy feel for what conceptual frameworks are isn’t adequate for defining them, so I have checked a few sources. It was easy to find that conceptual frameworks are of interest to research in academia, business, and social sciences. It was also easy to gather that current usage of the term is considered vague and imprecise. And while every source I found cites Miles and Huberman (1984) for a definition of conceptual frameworks, discussions about distinctions among variables, factors, and concepts are lively. Conceptual frameworks are variously described as:
not nimble working with them. My fuzzy feel for what conceptual frameworks are isn’t adequate for defining them, so I have checked a few sources. It was easy to find that conceptual frameworks are of interest to research in academia, business, and social sciences. It was also easy to gather that current usage of the term is considered vague and imprecise. And while every source I found cites Miles and Huberman (1984) for a definition of conceptual frameworks, discussions about distinctions among variables, factors, and concepts are lively. Conceptual frameworks are variously described as:
•
A set of assumptions that can help outline possible courses of action or a
preferred approach to an idea or thought.
•
An organized way of thinking about how and why a set of activities takes place
and how we understand them.
• A less developed form of
a theory that links abstract concepts to empirical data.
The last description best
fits with the ways I think museums could use conceptual frameworks: informed
guidance in planning experiences to advance their mission and accomplish major goals.
The link between theory and research is fundamental. An attractive but abstract
concept like positive youth development becomes useful when backed up by evidence
of, for example, increased positive developmental outcomes like
confidence or caring or a reduction in specific negative behaviors. Viewed as a
less developed form of a theory,
a conceptual framework accommodates the lively, unpredictable, real-world
conditions of museums serving thousands of people with varied expectations, exploring
exhibits, looking at objects, and interacting with one another.
This description also
yokes theory, research, and practice together as valued and complementary ways
to advance understanding in museum work everyday. As a theory with supporting
research, a conceptual framework can focus work, frame choices, and inform the
supporting practices about how to create the conditions–the spaces, activities,
materials, labels, and facilitation–to help produce desired experiences for the
children and adults who visit.
At
its most basic, a conceptual framework is a useful tool if there is:
• a theory with research
backing it up;
• relevance to a museum’s
mission, strategic, and learning interests; and
• meaningful input from
internal and externals stakeholders at appropriate points.
Museums are constantly unrolling
the map of territory they are interested in–a theory. A conceptual framework,
or several selected ones, provides a way of looking at or interpreting that
territory. Museums then ask, what do we know about that territory? and go about finding out–research. In looking at
what they have learned and how to use that new knowledge, museums modify their approaches–practices. In successive steps, they revisit and revise conceptual frameworks tailoring them to their purposes.
Working With a Conceptual
Framework
I have a hunch that many
museums or museum practitioners are already working with conceptual frameworks
in creating visitor experiences without really thinking very much about it. This
is better than having no navigational coordinates. It is not, however, as helpful without the benefits of selecting, or acknowledging, a conceptual framework, and then applying it
deliberately to see what it looks like in a particular museum.
A conceptual framework or
a set of conceptual frameworks provides a museum with a touchstone, a common
and a constant reference point for work by many people over time. When a group of people
working together selects and uses a conceptual framework, they need to be
explicit about what questions to address, how to go about addressing them, and
explaining how effectively they actually are. A shared framework facilitates
prioritizing, identifying which features of an experience to focus on, which factors in particular count, and what to abandon. From one project to the next, a conceptual framework provides a shared interpretive
perspective for looking at and understanding what is happening and how it can
be changed as a museum tries to engage parents, increase conversation, or
extend dwell-time at an exhibit.
Sometimes the assumptions
underlying a conceptual framework or its situational focus may readily align
with a museum. Just as likely, a framework won’t be easily transferable from
one context to another. Perhaps it has been developed for school settings or
libraries and is being considered for a museum. It can still be
applicable, but its limitations should be noted and worked with. These gaps are probably where
a museum will focus its efforts in tailoring the conceptual framework to more
capably assist the museum in accomplishing its aims.
Some Conceptual Frameworks
A couple of conceptual
frameworks for museums have been right before my eyes. There are others that are probably a launch point for a conceptual framework, and still more I haven't met yet.
As the beginning list
below suggests, conceptual frameworks are varied; they come from diverse
contexts, can be tailored to a specific museum, applied to a project or
may define an entire museum’s strategic stance. Some models and strategies
like Habits of Mind or Visual Thinking Strategies
that are familiar in museums have similarities to, but don’t appear to actually
be, conceptual frameworks.
What do you think about the list below and about bringing conceptual frameworks into the larger playing field of museum practice?
•
Family Learning: Ellenbogen, Kirsten, Jessica Luke, and Lynn Dierking. (2004).
“Family Learning Research in Museums: An Emerging Disciplinary Matrix?” Science
Education. July 2004.
• Positive Youth
Development (PYD). There are many sources two of which are:
Lerner, Richard M et al. “Positive Development of Youth, Participation
in Community Youth Development Programs, and Community Contributions of
Fifth-Grade Adolescents: Findings From the First Wave of the 4-H Study of
Positive Youth Development”. Journal of Early Adolescence. Vol. 25 No. 1 Feb.
2005 17-71.
Catalano, Richard. M. Lisa Berglund, Jean A. M. Ryan, Heather Lonczak
and J. David Hawkins. 2004. Positive Youth Development in the US: Research
Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development. ANALS, AAPSS, 591.
January 2004.
•
Ecologies of Parent Engagement in Urban Education. Barton, A. C., Drake,
C., J. G. Perez, K. St. Louis, & M. George. 2004. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3-12.
•
Every Child Ready to Read
by the Public Library Association of the American Library Association
used in Storyland: A Trip Through Childhood Favorites created by Minnesota Children’s Museum.
•
A conceptual framework for the Exploratorium’s Teacher Institute is discussed
in, “The Place and Role of the Exploratorium’s Teacher Institute in Strengthening the Teaching of Science” (2006) by Judy Hirabayashi and Laura
Stokes.
Thanks
very much to Cheryl Kessler at Blue Scarf Consulting
for talking out loud about conceptual frameworks with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment