Visitor coding

An example of the aforementioned coding process for visitor responses to individual questions can be seen in relation to the following question ‘What motivated you to visit the museum today?’. Responses to this question were coded using one of the following seven categories across the museums:

1. Visitor had a specific interest in the topic or exhibition 2. It was relevant to visitors personal or professional life

3. Tourism (for example, it’s something to do, I’m visiting with a partner) 4. For a school or business trip

5. Visitor was a regular visitor or supporter of the museum 6. Visitor made a comment about learning/education

7. Visitor was interested in another exhibition or topic being shown at the museum

Visitors also fit into one of six codes in relation to their overarching levels of engagement with the emotions raised by the exhibitions (that is, when looking at an entire interview). The registers used were relative to the interview population (that is, for each museum). These categories encompassed a number of emotional responses and the codes, and the criteria that each contained in order to categorise participants into each code, are discussed below. This study is generally referring to visitors that fit into codesfive or six when discussing those who were positively engaged with their

1. Neutral or Information-Based 2. Distressed

3. Frustrated

4. Basic Emotional Statements

5. Engaged Positive Mild to Strong Emotion. 6. Confronted but Empathetic

Neutral or Information-Based:

Participants in this code showed little emotion throughout their interviews, including when asked how they felt. Ideas and feelings were expressed almost entirely within an information-based context (for example, ‘The exhibition was interesting’).

Distressed

These visitors explicitly stated that the material was too confronting. Open efforts were subsequently made by most of these visitors to disengage from the themes about mental health issues (for example, leaving the exhibition or moving to another section).

Frustrated

These visitors stated they were frustrated by the design of the exhibition or by another particular element. They stated this impacted negatively on their overall experience of the exhibition. Often these visitors were so frustrated that this hampered their ability to engage with the exhibition messages or material. Basic Emotional Statements

Participants in this code made a number of emotional statements that did not extend past simplistic expressions of sadness, regret or acknowledgement (for example, ‘it was upsetting’, ‘it was sad’). Little effort was made to unpack these expressions and, as such, these expressions did little to elucidate what the visitor felt and why.

Engaged Positive Mild to Strong Emotion

These visitors acknowledged the confronting nature of the material. Efforts were made to actively explain where these emotions came from or what they were in response to. They also often noted that these emotions were a positive or natural part of the exhibition.

Confronted but Empathetic

This code included people who were reflecting on peoples’ experiences with mental health from an emotional and personal point of view. They did so often by relating the material to their life and spent reasonable portions of the

interview grappling with the emotional dimensions of the exhibition. Visitors in this code tried to make sense of how living with a mental illness might be for other people in terms of how it would feel. The emotionally difficult

components of the exhibition were also explicitly acknowledged. Several of these visitors expressed notions of outrage at the historical treatment of people with mental illnesses or the ongoing treatment of mental illness in

contemporary society.

As mentioned above, entire interviews with visitors were also coded based on the overarching level of engagement with the exhibition themes, content and messages that visitors exhibited. Visitors fit into one of five codes. These are listed below. This study is referring to visitors that were placed in codes two, three or four when talking about visitors that were engaged with the mental health themes when looking at the entirety of an interview. Likewise, unless otherwise stated, this study is referring to visitors who fell into code one when discussing visitors that were generally disengaged. It also refers to a further code of visitors who appeared uninterested in the mental health elements of the exhibition that is discussed later in this chapter.

1. Basic, Clichéd or Unelaborated

2. Assessing Social Consequences and or Reflecting on History 3. Deep Personal

4. Heritage Pilgrim/s Basic, Clichéd or Unelaborated

Participants in this code offered a basic degree of engagement with the topic of mental health. Some reflected on historic or contemporary attitudes towards treatment or methods of treatment. This typically did not go beyond relatively shallow statements (for example, ‘it was interesting’, ‘it provided a better understanding’). These responses about mental health issues were often left unelaborated, even when prompted by the author (for example, ‘mental health is a big issue in society today, Why?, It’s just important, I guess’). Several participants in this code made attempts to disengage or prevent deeper thought on the issue of mental health through the use of platitudes (for example, ‘I am already aware of mental health issues and therefore do not need to think deeply about them’). These visitors were usually not defined as being emotionally engaged, nor did many of these visitors clearly articulate what they would take away from their visits when asked.

Assessing Social Consequences and or Reflecting on History7

These are interviews where participants spent several parts of the interview reflecting on the historic and contemporary legacy of mental health treatment. Others reflected on peoples’ experiences with mental health issues, changes in societal attitudes towards mental health or the importance of raising awareness around the difficulties of living with mental illnesses. Statements made by these visitors about mental health, unlike visitors in the previous code, were 7 _{This code is often referred to in this study as simply Assessing Social Consequences}

elaborated upon (examples of this are shown in Chapter Eight). These visitors used platitudes far less frequently and appeared less indifferent than visitors in the previous two categories. These visitors tended to be more emotionally engaged in their interviews than visitors in the previous two codes and often talked in detail about what they would take away from their visits when asked. Deep Personal

Participants in this code spent much of the interview reflecting on the topic of mental health, and a significant amount of this reflection was from a personal perspective. That is, they often actively attempted to relate the topic of mental health to their life in order to work through the difficult emotional and

intellectual issues that the exhibition raised. In this sense, the deep relevance often helped visitors to think critically about historical and contemporary issues about mental illnesses. They also tended to identify the exhibition content, and mental health in general, as being directly relevant to their life due to personal or vicarious experiences with mental health issues. They also had a tendency to be experienced museum visitors (that is, they visited twice a year or more). Participants regularly, though not always, showed constructive empathy in their response. Some people in this code came specifically with the intention of reflecting on the exhibition materials significance to their own lives. Others did not intend to draw strong parallels between the exhibition material and their own lives and some could even be shocked, when they made these links.

Heritage Pilgrim/s

Like Deep Personal visitors, participants in this code were highly engaged with the issue of mental health. Responses to interview questions were

elaborated upon at length and in depth. They also exhibited a tendency to visit museums regularly (that is, two times a year or more). Heritage Pilgrims tended to commonly visit with the express intention of drawing deep

connections between their own lives and the material. Often, for example, they highlighted both the materials relevance to their life, and their reason for visiting, as being directly related to their personal experiences with mental health issues when asked questions about identity and motivation for visiting. As a result, their visits tended to be highly emotional. These emotions were often strong but positive. When asked what parts of the exhibition they enjoyed or what they would take away, often they highlighted they enjoyed or would take away a sense of shared identity based on severe experiences of mental illnesses.

Most of the 358 visitors fit into these overarching codes for engagement with the themes when looking at their entire interviews. The specific mental health focus of several of the case study sites (discussed under section 4.4) meant that many visitors had come specifically to see the exhibitions, and were thus likely to fit into the broad categories for engagement. However, several visitors did not mention mental health as an interesting element of the exhibitions. A further code titled Uninterested, Unaware, Unrelated was made to accommodate these visitors:

Uninterested, Unaware, Unrelated

These visitors did not mention mental health as an important or interesting part of the exhibition. Others in this code made limited references to mental health issues (that is, one or two brief statements). Individuals who briefly mentioned mental health made clear that they felt it had little to do with them, as they had no experience either personally or vicariously with mental health issues. 4.4 Case study sites

The aim of this research is to understand processes of community and visitor

engagement at specific types of exhibitions and museums – those that present material related to mental health issues and that attempt to combat stigma. This meant that it was necessary to adopt a case study approach. Four different museums located in Australia and the UK were chosen to test the research questions, the Remembering Goodna

exhibition at Museum of Brisbane (The Goodna), The Mind: Enter the Labyrinth

exhibition displayed in Melbourne Museum (The Mind), Bethlem Museum of the Mind

located in South Croydon, London (The Bethlem), and an exhibition titled Bedlam: The Asylum and Beyond, located at Wellcome Collection in central London (The Wellcome).

Visitor interviews were not carried out at The Goodna as it closed before this study commenced. This meant that no visitor data could be used from this site during the comparison of visitor responses at the other three museums (Chapters Six, Seven and Eight). However, interviews with the curators and community groups involved in its development were undertaken and used during analysis of the varying approaches to curatorial-community collaboration (Chapter Five). It was important to include The Goodna as a case study site for several reasons. A major factor related to necessity. A limited number of exhibitions were looking at mental health and illness, had a specific focus on combatting prejudice around mental health issues, involved some form of community collaboration and were amenable to having in-depth interviews undertaken with staff, community participants and visitors during the data collection phase of this research.

It was, therefore, important to ensure that as many available case study sites were included during the initial sampling stage. It is for this reason why only one Australian museum with visitor results is included in the sample, while two from the UK are included. The framework for community engagement adopted by Museum of Brisbane

demonstrate a number of philosophical and practical issues that face curators and community members that decide to work on a project involving issues of mental health and illness.

Each museum displayed confronting material and stories relating to experiences of mental illnesses. This was vital to determine how visitors would react to emotionally confronting mental health material and messages. They also displayed similar material despite the differences in setting and contextual background. For example, The Bethlem

was an entire museum dedicated to discussing mental health, while The Wellcome was housed in the Wellcome Collection building. This museum has a reputation for

addressing a range of confronting issues (both mental health and otherwise).

Conversely, Melbourne Museum, where The Mind is exhibited, operates under a general science framework and exhibits a wide range of child-friendly and adult-oriented

exhibitions relating to science and cultural history. Restraint mechanisms, artworks by people with experiences of severe mental health issues, audio recordings of individuals discussing their experiences of mental health facilitates and treatments and historic artefacts and documents relating to psychiatric treatment were displayed at all sites. The similarities and contextual differences of each site were important as this research draws comparisons between the visitor samples at each site, while also determining if and how visitors to contextually different museums that exhibited similar material engage or disengage differently. Each of the sites also involved varying degrees of collaboration with community stakeholders in the process of developing their exhibitions. The presence of community collaboration efforts was necessary as this study sought to understand the types of community engagement efforts that were occurring at these museums with community mental health advocates.