Every profession has its
own language. With shared understanding of specialized terms, important words,
and key phrases, that language connects people with common interests who hope
to communicate effectively with one another and accomplish larger goals. That
shared language offers confidence that we are understood as we wish to be. Yes, at times this language can be jargony and
annoying. For
communicating across the field and with stakeholders, however, a common language is essential. Terms that are shared and sharpened allow us to make distinctions that are meaningful
and relevant to a broader purpose, to define strategies, and to gauge impact.
Across
museums we use many common words: branding,
learning, impact, strategic, equity, stakeholder, sustainable.
We often use them in varying and inconsistent ways. This is not entirely surprising.
We are dynamic institutions engaging with business, education, media and
technology, design, pop culture, many cultures, and in local contexts. Why
wouldn’t we borrow concepts from business, integrate architectural terms, absorb
marketing language, or use words that resonate locally?
Judging
from terms I come across in museum articles, blogs, journals, grants, and
conversations, the list of terms used inconsistently and interchangeably is
long, and stretches across museums and geographies. Even within one type of museum
and within a single museum. It is tempting to consider this jumble of words as a sign
of richness. In reality, it seems to be an obstacle to understanding, sharing ideas,
and increasing museum’s value. How do we talk, think, and work collectively
if we don't know what we mean?
Fuzzy language slows our
thinking, confuses others, and sometimes is downright exclusive. There are more
than a few examples; so many, in fact, we overlook them. Recently I read an
article that occasionally used “data” to refer to knowledge. At first I didn’t
understand; I gradually realized “data” was facts as distinct from knowledge or
understanding. Learning, the article reserved for making connections. One museum used scientific
thinking; scientific literacy; science processes, science concepts and skills virtually interchangeably throughout
its master plan. Not long ago, Suzy Letorneau and Robin Meisner at Providence
Children’s Museum noted that some of the museums they talked with were
looking at learning impacts but had no definition for learning. In Carol Bossert’s August
5, 2016 interview on The Museum Life, with John Jacobsen about his book, Measuring Museum Impact and Performance:Measuring Success, she notes that one of the biggest challenges the field faces
is lack of definition of important terms.
I encounter confusion of
terms everyday and imagine others do too. One cluster of casually switched words
surrounds museums’ learning interests. These words include: educate, teach, learn, know, think, and understand. They
are used both as verbs and nouns and are sometimes modified by equally fuzzy words,
like experiential. There's also a second tier of terms that fall into the mix: explore, engage, interact, transactive, discover, experience, make meaning, creativity,
and play. No doubt others would add more words.
When it comes to planning
programs, developing exhibition goals, evaluating activities, identifying
outcomes, measuring impacts, and describing the museum’s value to others, the words
we use matters. How
do we know what we each mean if I talk about learning, you talk about education,
and our partner talks about understanding?
We may want to assume that related terms are synonyms, but they aren't. Ideas reflect a point of view and a set of assumptions
they do not necessarily share with related words. We are unlikely to align
ideas robustly if they aren’t clear and their meanings migrate.
Are we trying to educate visitors? Are we interested in their
acquiring knowledge? Learning? Becoming thinkers? Have we thought about the difference? Philosophically we
may consider ourselves constructivists,
work in the education department, teach students in programs, and evaluate
learning goals. What do these
different words suggest, for instance, about how we view the visitor? Do we see
the visitor as an active agent in constructing their own meaning or as a consumer of our knowledge and information? Imagine what a museum might accomplish if
it used a shared definition focused on its visitors becoming thinkers rather
than educating them.
How can we begin to remove
roadblocks to shared understanding and increase alignment and impact that would accompany it? While I'm keen on shared understanding of terms within a museum
and across the field, I am not enthusiastic about standardized terms being
imposed. As a preferred alternative to an established museum field glossary, I’m inclined to follow a
few basic practices.
Think About It
This may seem ridiculously
obvious, but clarity, sound thinking, and effective communication all rely on
the obvious. We might all start by asking ourselves, “what do I mean?” If we
are interested in creating learning experiences, what do we mean by learning? Facts? Personal insights? Learning about others? Do
we want to encourage thinking or learning? How do thinking,
learning, and educating relate to one another? Thinking about the context in which the word is being used, who the
audience is, and other related ideas will sharpen our understanding of what we
mean and why it’s important and convey it to others. It’s Not “Just Semantics.”
Look It Up
Finding the meaning of
words on-line is just a click away; definitions by Merriam Webster, Lev
Vygotsky, or museum thinkers are only a few clicks away. Checking out meanings
of a word from various sources and in various contexts is helpful. We may not
be able to find the precise definition we want, but we will be able to discover
shades of meaning, find sources and resources, and strengthen our
understanding of ideas, not just words. A helpful source is the Definitions Project of the National Association of Interpretation which defines terms from Accessibility to
Wilderness Education
Borrow and Adapt
We can borrow terms and
definitions. And why not? Making meanings explicit is challenging, so why not
get a head start? When Julia Child was working on Mastering the Art of French
Cooking, she ruled that if a recipe for the book were taken from somewhere
else, it had to be improved. Excellent advice, Julia. Someone else’s definition for
their museum, library, zoo, nature center, or youth development program will not automatically work for ours. The solid definition we're hoping to develop can, however, take into account how others
understand words like impact or indicator and how terms are used
locally.
Define and Share Your Terms
In The Art of Relevance Nina Simon takes us through her understanding
of relevance and its evolution. That step on page 22 grounds the book in solid
thinking and makes her examples stronger.
The need to define our ideas and the
words we use and share their meaning with others is not limited to writing a book.
Confidence in the ideas we explore, the relationships among ideas, and the case
for the museum’s value is seriously limited if underlying concepts are fuzzy
and idiosyncratic. How can we inspire others with our vision if the ideas and
purpose behind it are neither clear nor anchored in definitions that can be
shared, explored together, tested, and strengthened?
It’s hard to believe, but people
who work together and use the same words do not necessarily understand those
words in the same way. Much depends on developing and using a shared language. For starters, it will help us know what we mean.