Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper presents findings of a qualitative comparative case study of Palazzo Falson (PF) House Museum in the Mediterranean island-state of Malta, and MUSE Science Museum in Trento, northern Italy. It elaborates the contribution of intersectional perspectives to the study of participatory museums, and investigates ways and extents to which the two museums (can) feature intersectionally inclusive agoras, understood as accessible spaces that engage diverse publics with participatory lifelong education. The museums’ community focus, and contrasting profiles featured among reasons for selection, with a view of discerning transferable insights. Findings informed the identification of general learning outcomes (LOs) for professional development initiatives that target capacity-building of museum personnel to mediate the museum to diverse publics as an intersectional lifelong education agora. A critical review of secondary sources and thematic analysis of interviews held with personnel, flagged differing capacities and resources. MUSE emerges as strong on accessibility and EU-linked initiatives, whilst the house setting of PF offers opportunities for critical alternative readings of domestic artefacts. The six proposed LOs include recognition of the lifelong educator dimension of museum personnel roles, and collaboration in a broad and inclusive network for sustainable development. Recommendations include periodical needs-analysis and participatory research and impact assessments, and museums’ uptake of social audit practices.

Keywords

Equality diversity and inclusion (EDI)gender general learning outcomes (LOs)non-formal lifelong museum education sustainable development (SD)

Introduction

This paper presents the findings of a qualitative comparative case study of two European yet diverse museums: Palazzo Falson (PF) house museum in Mediterranean island-state Malta, and MUSE – Science Museum, in Trento, northern Italy. The study is part of Working Group 5’s ‘Intersectionality’ work programme of the COST Action CA20137 – Making Young Researchers’ Voices Heard for Gender Equality (VOICES) (COST Association, 2024a).

The study comprised a qualitative exploration of ways and extent to which the identified museums (can) feature intersectional agoras (Martinelli, 2018) that host educational interactions with diverse publics. ‘Intersectionality’ illuminates how the interplay between diverse aspects of a person’s identity (social, political, etc.) and social constructions and dynamics (e.g. structures, policies, practices) can result in discrimination and exclusion (Bernal, 2002; Crenshaw, 1989; Showunmi, 2021; Showunmi et al., 2016).

A related aim was to synthesise general learning outcomes (LOs) for professional development (PD) that are targeted at developing museum personnel as non-formal lifelong educators, who democratically and dialogically engage diverse publics . ‘Lifelong’ conveys the acquisition of knowledge and skills that support thriving through life, notwithstanding change (de Lima et al., 2023). ‘Non-formal’ implies a community-based ‘out-of-school’ (La Belle, 1982) educational provision that uses flexible curricula and methodologies adapted to the needs and interests of participants (Zaki Dib, 1988) delivered ‘in a planned but highly adaptable manner’ (Eshach, 2007: 173).

The two museums were selected due to the researchers’ prior collaborative ties, the museums’ demonstrated openness and community-engaged agendas and their contrasting characteristics, which increased the likelihood of generating broadly applicable, intersectionally-informed professional development insights for diverse museum contexts. The study comprised a critical review of secondary sources concerning the respective museums’ artefacts, dissemination or communication; and thematic analysis of interviews held with a total of five representatives of personnel with diverse roles within the two museums. Data analysis queried the data as guided by the research questions (RQs):

To what extent (can) the museums under study feature culturally intersectional agoras that (can) educate on and practise sustainable inclusivity and equality – including gender equality?

What general learning outcomes are foundational to professional development that supports museum personnel in European contexts with intersectionally engaging diverse publics?

Context

Museums as drivers of equality, diversity and inclusion

A museum is open to the public, accessible and inclusive. Museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities. . . (International Council of Museums (ICOM), n.d.a).

The vision embedded in the above aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Goals 5-Gender Equality, 8-Decent Work and Economic Growth, and 10-Reducing Inequality) (United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development, n.d.). It also implies major responsibilities for museums. ICOM developed this definition in the wake of 4 cycles of consultation with museum-related national and international committees, regional alliances and affiliated organisations (ICOM, n.d.a). Notably though, cursory research revealed no explicit representation of under-represented or marginalised groups, or their advocacy groups among the consulted stakeholders (ICOM, n.d.b).

Similarly, the Euregio Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino Museum Chart for the Sustainable Development (Europaregion Euregio, Tirol Süd Tirol Trentino Tirolo Alto Adige Trentino, 2021) describes the museum as interconnected to society and references inclusion and participation. It is informed by Agenda 2023 (UNESCO, 2019) on matters such as ‘embracing diversity as a value that underlies and expands the concept of gender equality and equal opportunity’, ‘the full and effective participation of women and . . . equal opportunities. . .at all levels of decision-making. . .’, and the need to ‘invest in training with special attention to the new relational skills of museum staff’ (para. 7, point 4).

In the same vein, the Network of European Museum Organisations NEMO (NEMOs, 2016) developed a guide to support museums with working multiculturally and constructively with minorities, including migrants and refugees. Whilst acknowledging complexities and debates surrounding ‘multiculturalism’ – for instance, as regards its assimilative, deterministic, relativistic or normative underpinnings or collaterals (Levrau and Loobuyck, 2018; Zapata-Barrero, 2017) – in the context of this paper – reference to ‘multicultural’ refers to fostering the expression of diversity within the community of museum stakeholders in the planning and implementation (Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’, 1969).

Museum education programmes can be tailored to address specific age groups, fostering conversations about consent, boundaries and respectful communication. Formats that can offer these opportunities can include open-door laboratories, nights at the museum, gamified activities, science-theatres, cafes and ‘science in the street’/‘citizen science’ events.

These demand interdisciplinary knowledge and networks (Martinelli, 2018); and a critical evaluation of the extent to which ‘desire for the input and involvement of outside participants’, ‘(t)rust in participants’ abilities’ and ‘(r)esponsiveness to participants’ actions and contributions’ (Simon, 2010b) genuinely yield from the exemplified initiatives, as opposed to tokenism.

Additionally, the ‘participatory museum’ (Simon, 2010b) is a seminal yet contested notion. For instance, it has been argued that public participation in art does not imply shifting power and decision-making to visitors, but empowering them to actively develop meanings from artworks that are relevant to their narratives and experiences (Dovydaitytė, 2018; Moolhuijsen, 2015).

Some museums are specifically committed to the emancipation of specific cohorts. Examples include the gender and power mandate of the Museum of Women’s History in Umea (Sweden) to explore the past by giving voice to excluded women, whilst – in line with intersectional perspectives – assuring that male gender norms, transgender issues or non-binary perspectives are not excluded (Kvinnohistoriskt Museum, n.d.). The Vagina Museum’s (London, UK) permanent exhibition ‘From A to V’ is dedicated to the female gynaecological anatomy (Vagina Museum, n.d.). The Museum of Transgender History and Art – MOTHA (Oakland, California) celebrates intersectional experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming people, highlighting how their identities intersect with race, class and other social factors. The virtual and physical exhibit ‘New Science: The Academy Exhibit’ of the California Academy of Sciences of San Francisco (USA) denounces the underrepresentation of the LGBTI+ people in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine), particularly when identities intersect with black, indigenous, and other race or ethnic demographics (California Academy of Sciences, 2024).

The increased interest in queering is also observable in NEMOs’s (2024) LGBTQIA+ inclusion in European museums: an incomplete guide for museums on implementing LGBTQIA+ inclusive policies and practices. This resource is sensitised to intersectionality in terms of ‘how various mechanisms of exclusion, whether it be race, gender, class, disability, and others, can reinforce and strengthen each other’ (p. 5); recommends ‘organising internal training. . .on issues regarding LGBTQIA+ inclusion, based on lived experience, to guide collective learning’ (p. 25); and endorses museums’ ‘continuous learning, critical reflection, and cooperation with and for communities’ (p. 3). Nonetheless, the resource is, as self-declared in the subtitle, ‘an incomplete guideline’: of interest to this paper is that it does not provide LOs that can steer museums’ engagement with pertinent professional development. This further corroborates the relevance and timeliness of this paper.

Theoretical framework

Existing literature emphasises visitor engagement and co-creation in museums (Simon, 2010a), and possibilities for museums to be a vital agora where all can learn, share expertise and experience, and engage various stakeholders (Lynch, 2011a; Svalastog et al., 2014). The work of Martinelli (2018) ties in when pointing out the value of putting each visitor with their peculiarities at the fore. This echoes Waldisa Rússio Camargo Guarnieri’s ‘museal fact’: the intimate relationship that humans can develop with artefacts within museum contexts, when the museum offers an ‘institutionalised stage’. Recognition by and consensus of the community are prerequisites to museums qualifying as an ‘institutionalised stage’. In turn, community acknowledgement is posited as a prerequisite to official or state recognition or endorsement of the museum (Debono, 2021a; Menezes de Carvalho and Escudero, 2020). To date, Rússio influences debates and targets concerning human-centric (virtual) museological models (e.g. Li et al., 2025). Rússio also pioneered professionalisation of museum personnel by organising the first Museology Course at Museu de Arte de São Paulo, and the first postgraduate Museology Course at the School of Sociology and Politics of São Paulo (Pioneiros & Empreendedores, FEA/USP, 2019).

This paper adds to this scholarship through a comparative case study to discern related approaches and practices of MUSE and PF; and from there propose general LOs that steer the development of PD that builds capacity in offering intersectional agoras that foster participatory museum experiences with diverse publics, within a lifelong education and SD framework. As to the time of writing, most existing research and literature concerning LOs in museum contexts address LOs potentially achievable by visitors (e.g. Brown, 2007; Dodd, n.d.). Exceptions include Learning Together: Families in Museums Staff Training Curriculum (Porter and Cohen, 2012): a validated curriculum package to support staff with identifying staff training needs, training suggestions, and roadmaps. Notwithstanding, any references to ‘outcomes’ are tied to ‘standards of engagement’ with visitors, that is, performative and ‘expected behaviours and outcomes’ (pp. 25–30); and not LOs targeted in the course of delivering PD to museum personnel. Additionally, the very few sources that reference LOs targeted by PD initiatives for museum educators (e.g. Cohen, 2016) constitute grey literature.

Consequently, the researchers drew on Bloom et al.’s (1956) work because of its seminal scholarly value, and relevance to inform the development of general LOs that address cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. As well as on more recent literature that discerns the need for PD that equips museum personnel with skills to assess and respond to diverse visitor needs (Brown et al., 2019; Debono, 2021a; Uyen Tran and King, 2007), more so in the ‘phygital’ age (Debono, 2021a). Whilst Bloom et al.’s hierarchical approach ensures LOs progress from basic understanding to higher-order skills – and this promotes reflective practice and adaptability – more recent work focused on developing LOs that are iterative and interdependent (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001).

Furthermore, the study sought to develop metacognitive LOs that reflect self-awareness and self-regulation; and which target collaboration, practical application and adaptability (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). This critically expands Bloom’s framework by valuing informal, situated, and experiential learning typical in museum environments. Moreover, the static nature of Bloom’s framework may require contextual adaptation to align with dynamic museum environments (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). To mitigate this limitation, the authors maximised the study’s potential for contextualisation through qualitative research with personnel of the two museums, being these representatives of the target cohorts of the LOs.

Methodology and methods

The study comprised a qualitative comparative case study of two European yet diverse museums.

Palazzo Falson is a house museum located in Mdina, the old capital city of Malta. It used to be the residence of Captain Olof Frederick Gollcher, who bequeathed it to his Art and Archeology Foundation in 1962, and thereafter it was restored and opened as a museum in 2007 (Palazzo Falson (PF), n.d.e). No part of it serves as a private residence anymore. Today, it is administered and funded by Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti (FPM): an autonomous and apolitical voluntary organisation established in 1992 under the auspices of the Ministry for Culture (Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti (FPM), n.d.a). Malta’s Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is involved in certain cases (PF-2). For instance, when items from the collection are moved for restoration, the Superintendence would approve and oversee the procedure. Palazzo Falson and the collection are considered to be semi-public heritage as defined on the Cultural Heritage Act (Leġislazzjoni Malta, 2002–2024: 37, PF-2). Funding is sourced from associates, benefactors, sponsors and patrons (legal and person entities with published identities) and members (FPM, n.d.b). PF employs 12 persons (total full- and part-time) (PF-2). At the time of the study, women filled the two main leadership roles of curator and museum manager respectively. Six part-time volunteer researchers, two retired persons volunteering as museum hosts supported operations. Periodically, PF hosts one or two internships, often for foreign students (PF-1, PF-2).

MUSE Science Museum, in Trento, northern Italy was architecturally designed by Renzo Piano and inaugurated in July 2013 in the former Michelin industrial area. MUSE combines the traditional approach of natural history museums with advanced technological supports typical of science centres with, for example, interactive exhibits and multimedia installations (MUSE, n.d.g). MUSE is spread over 2600 square metres, and its construction factored in various sustainability, environmental-friendly and energy saving techniques, with a broad and diversified use of renewable sources and high efficiency systems (MUSE, n.d.e: 38, para. 1). MUSE is publicly funded by the Autonomous Province of Trento (46%), and self-supported (54%) (MUSE, 2024). Two hundred eighty-six staff members (average age 43; 60% women) worked at MUSE for at least 3 months. Between July 2013 and July 2023, MUSE welcomed 4.66 million visitors (MUSE, 2023).

The following reasons underpinned sampling these two Museums: (i) the paths of two authors crossed during collaboration in the COST Action VOICES, tasked with increasing the visibility of ‘young’ researchers and Innovators, as informed by intersectional and gender perspectives; (ii) cursory research on the two museums yielded evidence of community engaged-agendas and openness to welcome the researchers (one of the co-authors is based at MUSE) (COST Association, 2024b), (iii) the considerable differences in typology, size, infrastructure, operations, resources, and national/regional regulatory frameworks characterising the museums enhanced the possibility of yielding general LOs that are valid to inform the intersectionally-sensitised PD for personnel based at diverse museums and catering for diverse publics.

The research design comprised: (i) documentary and inferential analysis of published secondary sources concerning the respective museums and their collections (e.g. website, leaflets, social media) and (ii) thematic and inferential analysis of data generated during a one-time semi-structured interview, held with a total of five personnel representatives – two based at PF (PF-1 and PF-2) and three based at MUSE (MUSE-1, MUSE-2 and MUSE 3). Purposive sampling was used to ensure the interviewees included personnel with diverse roles; yet all were somehow involved with facilitating visitors’ engagement, and/or community outreach and engagement. In the context of this paper, ‘outreach’ refers to proactive and responsive efforts of museums to connect with a wide range of social cohorts; whereas ‘engagement’ refers to interactions between museums and publics where all the parties concerned are, at a minimum, communicating (possibly also collaborating) on issues of mutual interest.

The same semi-structured interview schedule (available at Zenodo: Brown et al., 2025) was used to guide data collection in both museums. The researchers obtained institutional approval to carry out research and participant consent. When asked for a preference, interviewees based at MUSE opted to receive the interview schedule via email and return it with their qualitative responses; whilst interviewees based at PF opted for a face-to-face audio-recorded interview held at the museum. Transcription of the PF’s dataset included data in Maltese and English languages, which is understandable when considering that both these languages are official in Malta. The responses of interviewees based at MUSE were in Italian. Thus, some translation to English took place for the purposes of this paper which, due to word count limitations, reports data excerpts in English language only.

Particularly in relation to this study’s first overarching RQ on the extent to which (can) the museums under study feature culturally intersectional agoras etc., the interview questions (Brown et al., 2025) asked participants to give examples of their engagement with (prospective) visitors, make observations on changes over time (e.g. visitors demographics), on the extent to which the museum responded to these changes and on the resulting impacts or outcomes (among other questions).

Particularly in relation to the study’s RQ2 asking what general LOs would be foundational to PD that supports museum personnel with engaging diverse publics etc., interview questions probed participants’ perceptions on their role and its value, knowledge and skills participants deem needed to provide (prospective) visitors with an equitable and inclusive educational experience and other related questions. Irrespective of the procedure, interviewees’ participation in the study lasted approximately 1 hour.

The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malta approved the research design and implementation (reference: EDUC-2023-00776).

Findings

Vision and policy

Both museums are actively committed to outreach and public engagement. Evidence includes MUSE’s ‘202 scientific outreach activities: events (and) conferences for the general public’ in 2022 (MUSE, n.d.i: para. 3; and ‘10 non-stop hours of workshops, talks, concerts and performances’ in 2023 (Goppion Technology, 2023: para. 1). Primary data corroborate:

Diversity, collaboration, creativity, passion, well-being and dialogue are the values that permeate the actions of MUSE, at every level and to every public (MUSE-1).

Analysis of data obtained from PF flags that a sensory, immersive experience is prioritised to engage a wide variety of ages and types of publics. Successful practices include retaining ‘the feeling of a home. . .in a sensory manner’ (PF-2), and merging the physical and emotional/intimate environment within PF and its immediate surroundings (old bastioned city, Mdina). Interviewees described the Museum’s work programme using words like ‘ambience’, ‘sense of peace’, ‘sanctuary’, ‘living space’, ‘cleanliness’, and a distinct ‘aura’ and ‘ethos’ (PF-2).

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI)

Italian legislation that foregrounds MUSE’s EDI obligations include Law 13/1989 and Law 104/1992 (Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 1992a, 1992b), and Italy’s Constitution concerning equality (Article 3), inclusion (Articles 2, 34) and intersectionality (Article 6) (Senato della Repubblica, n.d.).

As regards PF, up to the time of writing there is no dedicated legislation regulating museum operations in Malta. Museums in Malta, PF included, have no legal status or basic minimum standards (Debono, 2021b). Consequently, and arguably, PF operates as directed by the Cultural Heritage Act (Leġislazzjoni Malta, 2002–2024). The Act’s gender non-inclusive language, ‘for all mankind’ (p. 8) is noteworthy. On the other hand, it mandates, (i) listing semi-public collections (as is the case with PF’s) in the national inventory and to the attention of the Superintendent for inclusion (p. 37); and (ii) inclusive access to cultural heritage, and its preservation for future generations.

MUSE emerged as more explicitly committed to EDI at the levels of policy, practice and research, which is unsurprising when considering the explained absence of Malta’s legal provisions for minimum standards of museum operations. At policy level, MUSE is the first museum in Italy with a Gender Equality Plan (GEP) (MUSE, 2022). At MUSE, the toilet signs have gender-free pictograms. Billboards with the contact details of the anti-violence centres are displayed, there is the ‘red chair occupied seat’, a recognised tribute to victims of femicide. Numerous conferences, exhibitions and initiatives tackled gender matters or celebrated women. The multimedia room serving as the museum’s planetarium is dedicated to Margherita Hack, the didactic classrooms are dedicated to female scientists and researchers: Ipazia, Rosalind Franklin, M. Matilda Ogilvie Gordon, Mary Anning, Hedy Lamarr, Dian Fossey (MUSE, 2022: 8). MUSE has adopted a non-sexist use of the Italian language, in the institutional communication among the personnel and texts. It developed a guide for inclusive and non-sexist writing. MUSE also participates in the COST Action yielding this study, tasked with increasing the visibility of ‘young’ researchers and Innovators, as informed by intersectional and gender perspectives on the barriers and inequalities (COST Association, 2024b).

Notwithstanding, this study yielded evidence of related challenges:

I still have difficulty in practicing gender-inclusive language, not so much in relating to people but rather in using asterisks (*), schwa (ə) . . . nouns in masculine and feminine. . . I . . .try to use neutral substantives. . . it is not always possible and involves some mental effort, which in speaking is difficult. . . (MUSE-2).

Analysis of PF’s dataset revealed a much smaller capacity and range. Captain Gollcher’s personality and white male upper class lifestyle in PF remain the overarching narrative of the Palazzo. However, there are alternative identities, narratives or intersecting stories presented and discussed. Watches, snuff boxes and perfume (PF, n.d.c), have the potential to, directly or indirectly, stir curiosity about class history and gendered possessions.

One PF staff member is tasked with inclusion (PF-1). On Women’s Day, the Museum’s Instagram (8 March 2023) announced a tour about women’s portraiture and fashion in the Museum’s collection, and referred to the life and works (including community service) of Nella, Olof Gollcher’s wife.

Out of the 15 episodes of the in-house docuseries Hidden Details (PF, n.d.d), seven feature women. PF also actively networks with the Girl Guides Association. In August 2023, this yielded a pro-females in STE(A)M collaboration, with girl guides utilising the Museum’s rooftop pollinator haven in the process of qualifying for their organisation’s Biodiversity Badge (PF, n.d.j).

Further analysis revealed both museums practise intersectional engagement with diverse publics, albeit differences emerged. Persons with serious ill health and women featured among the cohorts specifically targeted by PF For example, a campaign for breast cancer awareness, for research in partnership with the University of Malta Research Trust and Europa Donna Malta. PF’s social media regularly feature reflections from student interns from various countries on ‘forming cross-cultural connections’, ‘exchanging knowledge’ with visitors, and giving tours (palazzo.falson, 2022, 2023b). Interns repeatedly express how working at PF improved their English (palazzo.falson, 2023a, 2023c, 2023d).

MUSE’s dataset featured visibility of ‘students and families of diverse ethnicities and cultures’, and persons with disability (MUSE-2):

The variability of ethnicities and cultures is generally noticeable by somatic traits, headdresses, hairstyles, and clothing . . . school groups, (and) an increase in students with special needs has been noted over time. Almost all the visiting classrooms have one or more pupils who are certified and in the care of support teachers (MUSE-2).

This piqued interest in scrutinising the data for evidence of accessibility, discussed in the next subsection.

Access

Since PF is a house museum it virtually has no predefined routes for persons who can be mobile in an independent manner. On the other hand, the home setting is less curtailed by sequential routes typical of museums that are not house museums. Access is designed to foster an immersive, peaceful atmosphere (PF, n.d.f). Nonetheless, the architecturally protected structure makes upper floors inaccessible to persons who cannot utilise staircases (PF, n.d.a). Restrooms are inconveniently located on the rooftop. Placing value on the historically accurate or architecturally protected areas, rather than access, is a common trend in house museums. Budget, urban regulations and preservation of historical integrity limit accessibility to historic house museums (Milonas, 2023: 1). Additionally, to protect the fragile nature of the artefacts, the Palazzo’s policy does not permit visits by children under the age of six (PF, n.d.g).

Conversely, MUSE’s ‘Accessibility and Inclusion’ project involves dedicated and trained full-time staff. Inclusive practices include standing closer to visitors with hearing limitations, including sitting areas in the route and tactile / sensory experiences, and being attentive to ‘physical and mental fatigue’ (MUSE-1). Guides engage with visitors with the awareness that they represent MUSE:

Do not be intrusive in your explanations but complete and clear. . .

. . ..Always introduce (yourself). . .have prompt problem solving skills. . . the first approach is always to try to understand who you are addressing and what they need, demonstrating empathy and listening skills. If possible, also accompany this with a smile that can convey quietness and serenity (MUSE-1).

No doubt, staff training, at every level, is necessary and essential for visitors to have a pleasant museum experience, starting right from browsing the museum’s website or its social channels (MUSE-1).

Corroborating evidence includes the website’s access facilities (MUSE., n.d.b) and targeted programmes for migrants, the elderly, persons with Alzheimer’s, the homeless and persons with addictions, thanks to cooperation with local entities (MUSE-1). For example, collaboration with the National Association of Families of People with Intellectual and/or Relational Disabilities (ANFFAS) on providing a guided tour co-led by a person with disabilities and a museum educator. Visitors can interact informally with both, and witness an equal exchange between the two guide persons (MUSE-2). MUSE witnessed a noticeable increase in requests and reservations from groups with disabilities, and classes for students with special educational needs (SEN). MUSE-1 linked this with the increase of SEN diagnostics and awareness in classrooms, the increase in the visibility of persons with SEN in broader society, as well as the increase of organisations supporting this cohort. The increase in requests also reflects the Museum’s work to advertise and maintain accessibility through adaptive and inclusive practices, for example, creating detailed but simple reference pictures, easy descriptions for activities, giving examples from everyday life for MUSE visitors who may have difficulty understanding abstract concepts. Using MUSE-1′s words:

we inaugurated a few months ago the Quiet Space. . .dedicated mainly to people with autism spectrum disorder (but which all people can access) who need a break from the sensory stimulation of the visit. . .[since 2013]. . .organized groups of people with disabilities visiting the museum have increased. . .there are more requests and reservations. . .there have been more cases in the classes of male and female students with SEN [Special Educational Needs] “certification ”. . . (of) LD (learning disability) or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) (MUSE-1).

Language and financial access

MUSE’s website is in Italian, but also available in English and German because most visitors and participants are from abroad. The texts of the exhibits are generally in Italian, German and English (MUSE-1). The self-guide is available in seven languages, including Italian. Notwithstanding, non-Italian speakers have a language barrier in enjoying the museum experience at its best. It is necessary for personnel to intervene with comprehensive and targeted translations, or with tools such as the further ‘Easy To Read’ guide translated into various languages (MUSE-1). Translations are deliverables of a project involving students from two Trento high schools: Liceo Linguistico Scholl for the translations, and Istituto Grafico Sacro Cuore for the graphics (MUSE, n.d.c).

PF has audio guides in six languages, including Maltese and English; but the resources online are primarily in English. On the website it is unclear when and in which languages host-guided tours are offered. Out of the 15 episodes of the in-house docuseries Hidden Details (PF, n.d.d) one is in Maltese with English subtitles and 14 are in English with Maltese subtitles. Campus FM Lectures (PF, n.d.b) comprise seven open access recordings in English of specialised lectures held at PF .

Vocabulary used to promote some events and in the resources reviewed includes technical curatorial jargon. These are unlikely to attract persons with low socio-economic status (SES), low educational levels, alphabetical and digital literacy limitations – particularly if these intersect with third country nationality, disability or neurodivergence. Data below exemplify:

Curious Beauty: An Alternative Costume Exhibition. . . Under the artistic direction of . . .historic costume and accessories from the State, Church and important private collections will be displayed in contemporary art installations against the backdrop of the beautifully evocative mediaeval PF (PF email communication, 21 April 2024).

Conversely, vocabulary used to promote children’s workshops was generally more understandable – indicating more democratic outreach with educational objectives, example:

Children will explore the installations displayed around the rooms of the museum and gather inspiration to decorate their own hat during the hands-on activity (PF email communication, 21 April 2024).

PF’s ticket prices range between €12 for a regular visit, and €16-€20 per adult/child participating in themed workshops and events (PF email communication, 21 April 2024). Whilst this can be prohibitive for low SES cohorts, resources are included in the prices.

MUSE’s full ticket price is €11; usually access to temporary exhibitions is included.

Both museums offer free entry for children (with age restrictions), and reduced prices for families and students. Other discounts are available for tourist guides, teachers, journalists, seniors, ICOM and MyMUSE card holders, people with disabilities and their carer in one or both museums, but especially at MUSE (MUSE, n.d.h; PF, n.d.i). MUSE’s ‘Free Sundays’ visitors’ plan attracts the most diverse groups of visitors (MUSE-1, MUSE, n.d.h).

Personnel: Agency and EDI

MUSE developed its GEP as informed by the analysis of the staff disaggregated by gender (MUSE, 2022). It identifies actions to remove structural obstacles that prevent gender-balanced leadership and career development, for example, supports for work-life balance (MUSE, n.d.e). MUSE also qualified for the ‘Family in Trentino Badge’ awarded by the Autonomous Province of Trento (Family Audit standard), which certifies commitment to adopting, on a voluntary basis, measures to facilitate employee work-life balance (MUSE, n.d.d). Data testifying to critical and reflexive engagement with EDI include:

A lack that I think is important and that I hope can be overcome in the years to come is that there have never been museum workers/educators of Arab nationality, African origin, or other nations (except for a couple of cases that were very short, however). The presence of non-white people in a place of culture is important as it creates the basis for the universality of knowledge, in a virtuous process of the museum as a mirror of the society (MUSE-1).

The PF case study yielded evidence of an ‘open office’ policy (PF-2) to ensure the Museum is not only ‘the voice of the Curator’ (PF-2); but that other personnel can contribute and feel ‘ownership’ (PF-2). Documentary analysis of docuseries Hidden Details (PF, n.d.d), corroborates: hosts and research volunteers of varying ages and genders offer a personal and conversational review of the collection when speaking about their favourite artefact.

Evidence of an intergenerational personnel community includes two part-time young student personnel, two retired persons as volunteers and a team of voluntary older adult researchers doing ‘voluntary but priceless’ (PF-1) work: ‘They are a very big part of the recording of the story of this museum. . .’ (PF-1). Staff and volunteers do ‘not just meet and greet’ visitors (PF-2); they engage in planning, research, outreach and public engagement (PF-1, PF-2):

I seek to engage the museum hosts in different projects. . .workshops, inventory, funding. This way they feel engaged in the Management, which is rewarding (PF-2).

Educational initiatives

At MUSE personnel is encouraged to understand visitors’ needs, tailor personal and engaging programming and ‘nurtur(e) empathy’ (MUSE-1). Collaborative learning that draws on visitors’ life experience and expertise is sought to enhance ‘long-term impact’ (MUSE-1). MUSE is the first Italian museum to be recognised as one of the UNICEF Child-and Youth-friendly Museums and Libraries (MUSE, n.d.d). MUSE’s educational activities tailored for the school are numerous (MUSE, n.d.f). Additionally, MUSE partners with other regions of Italy on environmental projects. Since 2006 MUSE runs the Ecological Monitoring Center in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania (MUSE, n.d.j).

MUSE regularly uploads YouTube videos developed by personnel to foster science at home and sustainable living (MUSE Trento, n.d.). The online space Citizen Science features an ‘ask the expert!’ and ‘share your discoveries, doubts and interesting facts’ facilities (MUSE, n.d.i). Launched in 2020, MUSE’s Facebook community involved in Citizen Science has 7500 members as of April 2024, weekly/daily posts, and it features interactions that include questions about plants, insects, and natural phenomena, etc. answered by museum personnel or other non-personnel community members. However, most questions and conversations are in Italian, and demographics (age, gender, etc.) are not accessible.

MUSE’s Office of Accessibility and Inclusion cares for ‘what visitors take home’ (MUSE-1) in terms of learning and ‘well-being according to the Generic Learning And Social Outcomes Checklist launched by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)’ (MUSE-1). Assessment forms are used to gauge Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) and Generic Social Outcomes (GSOs). Respectively, these are used to gauge knowledge and skills gained by visitors or participants of MUSE’s educational initiatives that are directly related to the Science Museum’s knowledge-base, but also outcomes contributing to enhanced health and wellbeing, at the individual and community level. Evaluation is also ongoing, and with plans to be further extended in scope:

Our museum obtains data from questionnaires administered whenever a new activity or service related to accessibility and inclusion is being offered. In the future, we would like to experiment with new ways to assess the impact of cultural activities on the well-being of visitors (MUSE-3).

The PF website caters mostly for adults, or older youths; though for varying attention spans and interest levels, for example, the website’s ‘Read, Watch, Listen’ includes short videos on artefacts, full length lectures by staff and experts and links to published works, such as Treasures of Malta (PF, n.d.k).

At PF workshops for children are held on photography, curation, art, crafts and gardening. Working closely with local schools (PF-1, PF-2) also involves keeping a database (PF-1), making resources available off as well as onsite (PF-1, PF-2), and reaching out to diverse schools:

PF had sent out an open invitation to all schools: state, independent, Church. . .We have established a good network with a number of schools: sometimes we have 200 students. . . (PF-1).

PF’s rooftop Pollinator Haven hosted engagement with the Girl Guides Association (PF, n.d.j). PF also organised an interactive non-formal educational initiative involving a culturally intersectional group of female lacemakers who worked on lacemaking once a week at PF for over 2 months. ‘Some brought their grandchildren or children’ (PF-2), creating an intergenerational space to actively participate in the preservation of tangible (lace and lacemaking) and intangible heritage (living history in a historic space), whilst also being the protagonists of a real-time, contemporary social and creative hub. PF-2 states that participants ‘still write to us and ask if it will be done again’, which is evidence that it was a meaningful and enjoyable experience. Lacemaking’s connection to Malta and the Palazzo’s historical narrative is especially important given that people with such interests would ‘not be reached [by the house museum] when using traditional ways’ (PF-2).

General LOs

This section presents the outcomes of inferential analysis of the documentary review and primary data, with the objective of synthesising foundational and empirically informed general LOs that can inform the design and delivery of PD programmes for museum personnel. The LOs identify what emerged to be basic yet valuable knowledge and skills required to engage diverse publics democratically and dialogically; and common to the two Museums under study, notwithstanding the explained substantial differences.

Each LO proposal features an action verb, that is, an observable activity showing the learner is accomplishing learning at one of the six cognitive levels identified by Bloom et al. (1956), namely: (i) remembering (e.g. list, define), (ii) understanding (e.g. explain, summarise), (iii) applying (e.g. use, develop), (iv) analysing (e.g. differentiate, compare), (v) evaluating (e.g. assess, critique) and (vi) creating (e.g. design, compose), whilst acknowledging knowledge dimensions (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) by following how Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) distinguished these from the cognitive dimension. Each LO specifies the topic on which the action is performed, and circumstances or context. In line with the spirit of this study and of the literature and academic community bolstering it, each LO is written in the first-person singular, that is, in the voice of the prospective museum personnel participating in the prospective PD initiative. The rationale of each LO is substantiated with evidence from the case studies. The LOs proposed are not intended to be exhaustive, but foundational to motivate, in an empirically substantiated manner, PD of museum personnel that dwells on the potential of personnel as non-formal educators who foster culturally inclusive museum-based agoras.

Remembering: I recognise the lifelong-educator dimension of my role in this museum

Among the findings informing the inclusion of this LO are those concerning both museums’ targeted programmes or initiatives, for example, for girl guides (PF-1, PF-2), migrants, the elderly, persons with Alzheimer’s, the homeless and persons with addictions (MUSE-1), Both museums advocate for women, and conduct outreach to children, students, families (MUSE-1, PF-1, PF-2), and ‘cohorts who would not be reached when using traditional ways’ (PF-2).

Understanding: I recognise lifelong education possibilities for diverse social cohorts of this museum’s community of stakeholders

This LO draws on findings showing that empowered and trained personnel and community engagement yield ‘ownership’ (PF-2) and shared leadership: ‘I got to know. . . staff much more. . .. I can see staff members transform. . .in the level of the workshops, lectures (they coordinate) . . .’ (PF-2); ‘.. . .an increased consciousness . . .and diversified ways of interacting with different types of users. . .’ (MUSE-2), also yielding from the involvement of ‘associations, cooperatives, organisations in the territory that know very well the audiences’ (MUSE-1).

Applying: I locate the lifelong-educator dimension of my role in the broader, global struggle for sustainable development

This LO draws on findings concerning efforts to reach ‘harder to reach groups’ (PF-1), and to develop tours, collaborations or facilities, targeted programmes for migrants, the elderly, persons with Alzheimer’s, the homeless, and persons with addictions, and work on environmental sustainability (e.g. MUSE’s collaboration with other regions on environmental projects, and PF’s pollinator).

Analysing: When (re)presenting this Museum I appraise diversity through inclusive narratives

This LO draws on findings flagging how ‘eclectic,’ dynamic (PF-2) interests and experiences (PF, n.d.h) that are creatively ‘hooked’ (PF-1) to a museum’s collection can be weaved into a ‘narrative that enables you (museum personnel) to touch the feelings’ (PF-2) of the targeted cohorts empathetically, serenely (MUSE-1), and safely (MUSE-1, PF-2). The LO is also informed by the two museums’ commitment to resourcing the respective museums with personnel dedicated to inclusion (PF-1; MUSE-1).

Evaluating: I moderate visitors’ (and broader stakeholders’) participatory and inquiry-based interactions with the Museum

This LO draws on findings that underline the two museum’s inquiry-based didactics rooted in EDI and intersectionality principles, for example, MUSE’s didactic classrooms dedicated to female scientists and researchers (MUSE, n.d.e); PF’s two museum hosts with workshop design responsibilities and workshops designed to include parents/guardians (PF-1).

Creating: I collaborate with this Museum’s publics and stakeholders to co-create sustainable development in my practice

This LO draws on initiatives inspired by local (e.g. lacemaking) and overseas (e.g. pollinator) influences (PF-2), on personnel’s and volunteers’ participation in planning, research, outreach and public engagement (PF-1, PF-2), MUSE’s guided tour co-led with a person with diverse abilities (MUSE-2), collaboration with diverse entities (MUSE-1, PF-1, PF-2), MUSE’s GEP (MUSE, n.d.e) and participation in COST’s VOICES (COST Association, 2024b). These yield culturally intersectional, inclusive, participatory and intergenerational opportunities, which are transforming different stakeholders of the respective Museums into protagonists of a social and creative hub.

Discussion

Intersectional community engagement

Both museums value broad community engagement, emphasising inclusivity across diverse demographics and by using intergenerational and intersectional approaches, albeit in different ways and with limitations. Thus, the study elaborates literature on trends in museum community engagement and engagement with diversity (Sandell, 2007; Simon, 2010a). The differences in outreach and engagement strategies identified in this comparative case study reflect the typology, size, infrastructure, operations, resources and national/regional regulatory frameworks characterising the respective museums. PF’s house museum collection and setting allow for opportunities to demand from the visitor “to work through from the familiar form (e.g. of a household item). . .to its transcription into another set of. . .references” (Jackson and Meecham, 1999: 89). Lacemaking and community participation themed around the rooftop pollinator are among the examples identified through this research that testify to how the PF critically and proactively engages with its otherwise ‘frozen museum’ typology limited to exhibiting the deceased Gollchers’ former home and belongings. MUSE’s larger size, contemporary architecture, high-tech, accessible infrastructure and works-in-progress acquisition of artefacts, allow for ongoing and prospective access and community engagement opportunities that are not reachable by PF. This corroborates the relevance of methodologies for alignment and leveraging of museum resources that are informed by educational goals and community needs (Johnson et al., 2009; Lord, 2009), whilst illuminating architectural and infrastructural limitations on the extent to which this can be done.

Both case studies yielded evidence of commitment to EDI, examples of good practices concerning representation of traditionally marginalised cohorts and evidence of recognition of the lifelong education mission of the museum – albeit to varying extents, as explained earlier (e.g. MUSE emerged as much stronger at the level of EDI policy and accessibility infrastructure). MUSE’s GEP, technological supports that include PF’s augmented reality facilities and MUSE’s accessibility infrastructure underscore the two Museums’ alignment with broader societal and EU research, innovation and policy developments, and the two museums’ engagement with SD, EDI and ESG concerns (e.g. Lynch, 2011a, 2011b; Macdonald, 2013a, 2013b).

Additionally, the authors identified added values yielded by innovative technologies as discerned in Meecham’s (2013) analysis of how the digital technologies are broadening access to museum-based collections and archives in a transformative manner, ‘resulting in community building and the widespread dissemination of hidden and repressed histories’ (p. 43).

The challenges to EDI identified can be pegged to broader dynamics. For instance, notwithstanding the existence and implementation of pertinent policies, MUSE’s challenges with inclusive language reflect difficulties with using non-sexist Italian language because the language itself is inherently sexist. The implementation of non-sexist language, such as the use of asterisks (*) and schwa (ə), represents a significant advancement towards inclusivity; however, it presents a potential paradox in terms of intersectionality and accessibility. While these linguistic solutions aim to promote gender equality, they may inadvertently alienate individuals with cognitive or reading difficulties, who may find such forms challenging to comprehend. Consequently, efforts to foster inclusivity for one group can create barriers for others, highlighting the need for simpler alternatives that avoid gender division without compromising understanding. Achieving true inclusivity necessitates a careful balance that ensures language remains accessible to all, including those with diverse cognitive and linguistic abilities. This ongoing challenge underscores the importance of continuously adapting language practices to accommodate the needs of all community members.

General LOs for the PD of museum personnel

Both case studies were relevant to informing the general LOs proposed in this paper that weave an intersectional appraisal of diversity and networked collaboration in the PD of museum personnel as lifelong educators. The considerable differences in size, infrastructure, operations, resources and national/regional regulatory frameworks build a case for the validity of the general LOs proposed in this paper. Notwithstanding differences between them, both museums emerged as still in the very early phases of recruiting personnel with SD and lifelong teaching competencies. Such as the competence to activate agency for SD of diverse publics, or participatory practices in museums for social change (Downey, 2020). This also infers that the LOs proposed in this paper can scaffold on the readiness to embark on these initiatives identified across the two case studies, and be of guidance as from the early stages.

Limitations

The study focused on the community outreach/educational initiatives of two museums in Europe, as reviewed by a small number of participants and as discerned from the analysis of a limited secondary dataset. This excludes the voices of more stakeholders from the two Museum’s communities; and of other museums in Europe and beyond.

In turn, the scope is limited. For instance, the study did not investigate if there is a link between the female leadership of PF and the Museum’s collaboration with female organisations (Girl Guides), or the interest in women’s issues in the themes of the events organised by PF discussed in this paper.

The study also has limitations in its external validity and generalisability, for example, the proposed LOs can be foundational to a partnership (Arnstein, 1969) that allows broader stakeholder engagement (Lynch, 2011a); yet cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing a broad stakeholder participation (including of publics) in museological decisions, as intended by Arnstein (1969).

It was beyond the scope of the study to yield LOs that prioritise the needs of specific social cohorts. The disparities between the two museums and their contexts (e.g. country / regional legislation) limited the comparative analysis. However, the same differences foregrounded the synthesis of general LOs of transferable value for PD initiatives for diverse museums.

Implications and recommendations

The authors recommend further research within museums and their stakeholders. A holistic research programme would comprise (i) tracer studies of visitor demographics and engagement patterns, with attention to intersectionality; (ii) needs-analysis of museum communities and stakeholders with attention to intersectional dynamics; (ii) evaluative and impact assessments to gauge effectiveness and short-, medium- and long-impacts of reaching and actively involving diverse social cohorts in museum-based lifelong education initiatives; and (v) research to validate the LOs proposed in this paper in European and non-European contexts .

The findings also make a case for designing, implementing and evaluating cultural and education policy that supports investment in the non-formal lifelong educator dimension of museum personnel (e.g. funding for related PD programmes that dwell on the LOs identified in this paper), and in museums’ outreach that targets inclusivity and community engagement using an intersectional approach.

At the practice level, the study found that inclusion is a precursor of intersectionality. Consequently, museum communities (personnel and stakeholders) can benefit from periodical self-assessment or social audit, using existing tools (e.g. Brown and Borg, 2024; Royo et al., 2022; York Region, 2014) to collaboratively, dialogically and democratically reflect on a museum’s responsiveness to the needs of diverse stakeholders; evaluate if and to what extent they are sustaining and strengthening the principles of access, equity and social inclusion in a participatory, authentic, and accountable manner (Brown and Borg, 2024); identify related (potential) barriers, and reinforce good practices in the development and implementation of inclusive policies, services and programmes (York Region, 2014). In turn, data and field experiences lifted from these museum-based social audit exercises would add to the knowledge concerning social audits that are driven by EDI targets and environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to acknowledge the research participants, MUSE and PF, Dr Romana Scandolari (MUSE) and Dr Sandro Debono (University of Malta) for their participation, contributions or valuable reviews concerning this research project.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Meetings and networking that yielded the research and writing concerning this article have been partly funded by the COST Action CA20137 - Making Young Researchers’ Voices Heard for Gender Equality (VOICES).

Ethical approval

The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malta approved the research design of the study (reference: EDUC-2023-00776).

ORCID iDs

Maria Brown

Lucia Martinelli

Sarah Rempel

Kai Kim

Rhona Whytock

Author biographies

Maria Brown lectures in adult and community education at the University of Malta. Her research interests also include intergenerational education, sociology of education, methodology and research methods. She fulfills editorial roles in Convergence: An International Journal of Adult Education, and Journal of Disruptive Technologies, Education, and Communication. Currently, she is Malta’s Ambassador for the European Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE). Her experience also includes work for the European Commission, Eurydice, the Council of Europe, the European Co-operation in Science & Technology (COST), and the Ministry for Education and Employment (Malta).

Lucia Martinelli is a biologist, PhD from the Wageningen Agricultural University and Master in Science Journalism and Communication. Her research has focused on gene transfer, GMO traceability, and risk communication. Her pioneering research on grapevine gene transfer received the Rudolf Hermanns Stiftung First Prize. Her publications are available on Research Gate and Google Scholar. She is a member of the Italian Association of Women Scientists and of the European delegation to the G20 (EUW20), and the President of the European Platform of Women Scientists (EPWS). Her profile is available on Wikipedia.

Sarah Rempel is the Lead Researcher at the Campbell River Museum in British Columbia, Canada, for a collaborative project seeking to trace, record, and preserve Japanese Canadian history on Northern Vancouver Island. She is a graduate of the University of Glasgow with an International Master’s in Education in Museums and Heritage.

Kai Kim is a Museum Teaching Specialist at the Hillwood Estate, Gardens and Museums in Washington, D.C. They are a recent graduate of the University of Glasgow, receiving their International Master’s in Education in Museums and Heritage.

Rhona Whytock holds a MA in History and and IntM in Education in Museums and Heritage both from the University of Glasgow. She is currently an Engagement Volunteer with the National Trust for Scotland, and a Child Development Officer helping shape young lives in a nursery setting.

References

Anderson

Krathwohl

(2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Arnstein

(1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216–224.

Bernal

(2002) Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry 8(1): 105–126.

Bloom

Engelhart

Furst

, et al. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Brown

Borg

(2024) Self-Assessment Tool: A Participatory Tool to Reflexively Assess and Develop Your Organisation’s Vision, Policies, and Practices Concerning Inclusion and Sustainability. Malta: Agency for Community and Therapeutic Services, Foundation for Social Welfare Services.

Brown

Martinelli

Rempel

, et al. (2025) Brown et al_Museums as non-formal educational agoras for intersectionally inclusive engagement_Qualitative case studies in Malta and Italy: Semi-Structured Interview Schedule. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14647259 (accessed 14 January 2025).

Brown

Jeanneret

Andersen

(2019) Are we on the same page? Family and museum staff perceptions of engagement and learning. Visitor Studies 22(2): 213–232.

Brown

(2007) A critique of generic learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design 2(2): 22–30.

California Academy of Sciences (2024) New science: The academy exhibit. Available at: https://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/new-science-exhibit (accessed 20 May 2024).

10.

Cohen

(2016) Learning about Learning: The Story Behind the Story. In Hand to Hand: Association of Children’s Museums. Available at: https://archive.informalscience.org/learning-about-learning-story-behind-story (accessed 14 January 2025).

11.

COST Association (2024a) CA20137 - Making young researchers’ voices heard for gender equality (VOICES): Description. Available at: https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA20137/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

12.

COST Association (2024b) CA20137 - Making young researchers’ voices heard for gender equality (VOICES): Management Committee. Available at: https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA20137/#tabs+Name:Management%20Committee (accessed 14 May 2024).

13.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1): 139–168.

14.

Debono

(2021a) Thinking Phygital: A museological framework of predictive futures. Museum International 73(3-4): 156–167.

15.

Debono

(2021b) Through the looking glass: Thoughts and reflections around the Maltese museum ecosystem. In: Avellino

Cassar

(eds) The Creative Economy and Sustainable Tourism Development: With a Special Focus on Malta. Malta: Kite Group, pp.71–86.

16.

de Lima

Adnađević

Barstad

, et al. (2023) Developing non-formal learning activities focused on increasing evolutionary knowledge and scientific literacy. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7706431 (accessed 2 January 2025).

17.

Dodd

(n.d) The Generic Learning Outcomes: Measuring Learning Impact for Museums. Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, University of Leicester. Available at: https://le.ac.uk/-/media/uol/docs/research-centres/rcmg/publications/glos-measuring-learning-impact-in-museums.pdf (accessed 13 January 2025).

18.

Dovydaitytė

(2018) The problem of public participation in art museums. Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 27: 265–280.

19.

Downey

(2020) Reaching out, reaching in: Museum educators and radical transformation. Journal of Museum Education 45(4): 375–388.

20.

Eshach

(2007) Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 16(2): 171–190.

21.

Europaregion Euregio, Tirol Süd Tirol Trentino, Tirolo Alto Adige Trentino (2021) Deliberazione della Giunta del GECT “Euregio Tirolo-Alto Adige-Trentino”: Seduta del N. 26/2021. Available at: https://www.europaregion.info/fileadmin/downloads/Transparente_Verwaltung/7._Massnahmen_der_politischen_Organe/Beschluesse_Vorstand/Jahr_2021/20211014_Beschluss-delibera-Vorstand-Giunta_26_Euregio-Museumscharta.pdf (accessed 20 May 2024).

22.

Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti (FPM) (n.d.a) FPM: About. Available at: https://www.patrimonju.org/fpm-about (accessed 13 January 2025).

23.

Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti (FPM) (n.d.b) FPM: Join & Support. Available at: https://www.patrimonju.org/fpm-join-support (accessed 13 January 2025).

24.

Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana (1992a) LEGGE 5 febbraio 1992, n. 104 Legge-quadro per l’assistenza, l’integrazione sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate. Available at: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1992/02/17/092G0108/s (accessed 13 January 2025).

25.

Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana (1992b) Testo aggiornato della legge 9 gennaio 1989, n. 13, recante: “Disposizioni per favorire il superamento e l’eliminazione delle barriere architettoniche negli edifici privati.” Available at: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1989/06/23/089G2547/sg (accessed 13 January 2025).

26.

Goppion Technology (2023) 10 Years of MUSE. Available at: https://www.goppion.com/journal/10-years-of-muse (accessed 10 November 2023).

27.

International Council of Museums (n.d.a) Museum definition. Available at: https://icom.museum/en/news/icom-approves-a-new-museum-definition/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

28.

International Council of Museums (n.d.b) Committees directory. Available at: https://icom.museum/en/network/committees-directory (accessed 14 May 2024).

29.

Jackson

Meecham

(1999) The culture of the art museum. Journal of Art & Design Education 18(1): 89–98.

30.

Johnson

Huber

Cutler

, et al. (eds) (2009) The Museum Educator’s Manual: Educators Share Successful Techniques. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

31.

Kvinnohistoriskt Museum (n.d.) Museum of women’s history: About us. Available at: https://www.kvinnohistoriskt.se/4.4abd289214afe982c99b133.html (accessed 2 May 2024).

32.

La Belle

(1982) Formal, nonformal and informal education: A holistic perspective on lifelong learning. International Review of Education 28(2): 159–175.

33.

Leġislazzjoni Malta (2002-2024) Cultural Heritage Act (Chapter 445). Available at: https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/445/eng/pdf (accessed 13 January 2025).

34.

Levrau

Loobuyck

(2018) Introduction: mapping the multiculturalism-interculturalism debate. Comparative Migration Studies 6(1): 13.

35.

Yang

Zou

, et al. (2025) Human-centric virtual museum: Redefining the museum experience through immersive and interactive environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 41: 8426–8437.

36.

Lord

(2009) The Manual of Museum Management. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

37.

Lynch

(2011a) Collaboration, contestation, and creative conflict: On the efficacy of museum/community partnerships. In: Marstine

(ed.) The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics Redefining Ethics for the Twenty-First Century Museum. London: Routledge, pp.146–163.

38.

Lynch

(2011b) Custom-made reflective practice: Can museums realise their capabilities in helping others realise theirs? Museum Management and Curatorship 26(5): 441–458.

39.

Macdonald

(ed.)(2013a) A Companion to Museum Studies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

40.

Macdonald

(2013b) Exhibitions and the Development of Modern Cultures: Themes for Inquiry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

41.

Martinelli

(2018) The Science museums as agora for public engagements in research using biobanking. In: Beltrame L, Martinelli L, and Ampollini I. Beyond the formal mechanisms of public engagement. Communicating biobanking research with other means. Tecnoscienza The Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies 9(2): 159–180.

42.

Meecham

(2013) Social work: Museums, technology, and material culture. In: Drotner

Schrøder

(eds) Museum Communication and Social Media. New York: Routledge, pp.43–63.

43.

Menezes de Carvalho

Escudero

(2020) Waldisa Rússio Camargo Guarnieri. Latin American Museological Theory: Fundamental Papers, 3, 51–131. Available at: https://icofom.mini.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2022/04/WALDISA-RUSSIO-sarec.pdf (accessed 15 January 2025).

44.

Milonas

(2023) Physical accessibility and historic preservation in historic house museums of the Southeast. All Theses, 4098.

45.

Moolhuijsen

(2015) Questioning participation and display practices in fine arts museums. ICOFOM Study Series, 191–202.

46.

MUSE (2022) Piano per l’Uguaglianza di Genere - Gender Equality Plan (GEP) 2022–2024. Available at: https://www.muse.it/home/partecipa/chi-siamo/piano-per-luguaglianza-di-genere-gender-equality-plan/ (accessed 2 May 2024).

47.

MUSE (2023) Bilancio di Missione 2022. Available at: https://www.muse.it/contrib/uploads/2023/08/02-Volume-Completo-Bilancio-MUSE-2022.pdf (accessed 20 May 2024).

48.

MUSE (2024) Bilancio di Missione 2023. Available at: https://www.muse.it/contrib/uploads/2024/09/15ShortBilancioMUSE2023xweb.pdf (accessed 22 December 2024).

49.

MUSE (n.d.b) Accessibility. Available at: https://www.muse.it/en/accessibility/ (accessed 7 May 2024).

50.

MUSE (n.d.c) Facile da Leggere | Easy to Read MUSE. Available at: https://www.muse.it/muse-facile-da-leggere/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

51.

MUSE (n.d.d) Families. Available at: https://www.muse.it/en/home/plan-your-visit/facilities/families/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

52.

MUSE (n.d.e) Gender equality plan. Available at: https://www.muse.it/home/partecipa/chi-siamo/piano-per-luguaglianza-di-genere-gender-equality-plan/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

53.

MUSE (n.d.f) MUSE for school. Available at: https://ilmuseperlascuola.muse.it/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

54.

MUSE (n.d.g) The museum: Six floors of wonder. Available at: https://www.muse.it/en/home/explore-the-museum/six-floors-of-wonder/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

55.

MUSE (n.d.h) Plan your visit: Ticket prices. Available at: https://www.muse.it/en/home/plan-your-visit/ticket-prices/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

56.

MUSE (n.d.i) Research at MUSE. Available at: https://www.muse.it/en/home/research-and-collections/scientific-research/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

57.

MUSE (n.d.j) Satellite museums. Available at: https://www.muse.it/en/home/explore-the-museum/satellite-museums/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

58.

MUSE Trento (n.d.) MUSE - Museo delle Scienze. Youtube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQYQRV-0UqemIfrmPCRCaHg (accessed 20 May 2024).

59.

Network of European Museum Organisations (NEMO) (2016) Museums, Migration and Cultural Diversity: Recommendations for Museum Work. Berlin: NEMO. Available at: https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMO_documents/Nemo_Museums_Migration.pdf (accessed 20 May 2024).

60.

Network of European Museum Organisations (NEMO) (2024) LGBTQIA+ inclusion in European museums An incomplete guideline. Berlin: NEMO. Available at: https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMO_documents/Nemo_Museums_Migration.pdf (accessed 15 January 2024).

61.

palazzo.falson (2022) Time has come to say goodbye to our Greek intern Sotiris [Instagram] 23 August. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/Chmn1yGjSVw/?hl=en-gb (accessed 7 May 2024).

62.

palazzo.falson (2023a) It is time to bid farewell to our French intern Élina [Instagram], 31 August. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CwnKOlNsMHI/?hl=en-gb (accessed 7 May 2024).

63.

palazzo.falson (2023b) Time has come to say goodbye to Sara, our intern from Austria [Instagram] 30 June. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CuHYRqBMxXa/?hl=en-gb (accessed 7 May 2024).

64.

palazzo.falson (2023c) We would like to welcome Melissa, our new intern [Instagram] 1 February. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CoHZPT5sn0Y/?hl=en-gb (accessed 7 May 2024).

65.

palazzo.falson (2023d) Time has come to say goodbye to our French intern Axelle [Instagram] 6 January. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CnE-B7mskwv/?hl=en-gb (accessed 7 May 2024).

66.

Palazzo falson (n.d.a) Accessibility. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-plan-your-visit#accessibility (accessed 5 April 2024).

67.

Palazzo falson (n.d.b) Campus FM lectures. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-learn-listen-campus-fm-lectures (accessed 3 April 2024).

68.

Palazzo falson (n.d.c) Exhibitions. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-pollinator-haven (accessed 3 April 2024).

69.

Palazzo falson (n.d.d) Hidden details. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-watch-hidden-details (accessed 10 November 2023).

70.

Palazzo falson (n.d.e) History and information. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-history-and-information (accessed 3 April 2024).

71.

Palazzo falson (n.d.f) Mission statement. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/ (accessed 10 November 2023).

72.

Palazzo falson (n.d.g) Museum policies. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-museum-policies (accessed 10 November 2023).

73.

Palazzo falson (n.d.h) Olof Gollcher. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-olof-gollcher (accessed 3 April 2024).

74.

Palazzo falson (n.d.i) Plan your visit. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-plan-your-visit (accessed 7 May 2024).

75.

Palazzo falson (n.d.j) Pollinator Haven. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-pollinator-haven (accessed 3 April 2024).

76.

Palazzo falson (n.d.k) Read, watch & listen. Available at: https://www.palazzofalson.com/palazzo-falson-learn-read-watch-listen (accessed 10 November 2023).

77.

Pioneiros & Empreendedores, FEA/USP (2019) Waldisa Russio Camargo Guarnieri. Available at: https://pioneiros.fea.usp.br/waldisa-russio/ (accessed 14 January 2024).

78.

Porter

Cohen

(2012) Families in museums staff training curriculum. Boston, MA and Chicago, IL: Boston Children’s Museum and Chicago’s Children’s Museum. Available at: https://bostonchildrensmuseum.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Learning-Together.pdf (accessed 14 January 2025).

79.

Royo

Trevino

Hörr

; on behalf of the SMILE consortium (eds) (2022) The SMILE Diversity Audit Model – Preliminary Self-Assessment Tool. Barcelona: eucen. Available at: https://smile.eucen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SMILE_Self-AssessmentTool_Sep23_FINAL.pdf (accessed 8 May 2024).

80.

Sandell

(ed.) (2007) Museums, Society, Inequality. London: Routledge.

81.

Senato della Repubblica (n.d.) La Costituzione. Available at: https://www.senato.it/istituzione/la-costituzione# (accessed 13 January 2025).

82.

Showunmi

(2021) Three intersectional biographical portraits of principal investigators from the United Kingdom in the context of higher education in Pakistan. In: Wiksten

(ed.) Centering Global Citizenship Education in the Public Sphere: International Enactments of GCED for Social Justice and Common Good, pp. 85–98. London: Routledge.

83.

Showunmi

Atewologun

Bebbington

(2016) Ethnic, gender and class intersections in British women’s leadership experiences. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6): 917–935.

84.

Simon

(2010a) The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.

85.

Simon

(2010b) The Participatory Museum: Chapter 5: Defining Participation at Your Institution. Available at: https://participatorymuseum.org/chapter5/ (accessed 18 November 2024).

86.

Svalastog

Allgaier

Martinelli

, et al. (2014) Distortion, confusion, and impasses: Could a public dialogue within knowledge landscapes contribute to better communication and understanding of innovative knowledge? Croatian Medical Journal 55(1): 54–60.

87.

UNESCO (2019) Culture 2030 indicators. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/culture2030indicators/ (accessed 20 May 2024).

88.

United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development (n.d.) The 17 goals. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed 2 May 2024).

89.

Uyen Tran

King

(2007) The professionalization of museum educators: The case in science museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 22(2): 131–149.

90.

Vagina Museum (n.d.) Permanent exhibition “From A to V”. Available at: https://www.vaginamuseum.co.uk/exhibitions/permanentexhibition (accessed 20 May 2024).

91.

York Region (2014) Strengthening your organizational diversity and inclusivity: A self-assessment tool. Available at: http://p2pcanada.ca/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/07/York-region-Strengthening-Your-Organizational-Diversity-and-Inclusivity-A-Self-Assessment-Tool.pdf (accessed 20 May 2024).

92.

Zaki Dib

(1988) Formal, non-formal and informal education: concepts/applicability. In: Cooperative Networks in Physics Education - Conference Proceedings 173, pp.300–315. New York: American Institute of Physics. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/11564226/FORMAL_NON_FORMAL_AND_INFORMAL_EDUCATION_CONCEPTS_APPLICABILITY (accessed 2 January 2025).

93.

Zapata-Barrero

(2017) Interculturalism in the post-multicultural debate: A defence. Comparative Migration Studies 5(1): 14.

Learning outcomes for museum personnel: Qualitative case studies on intersectional community engagement in Malta and Italy

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Context

Museums as drivers of equality, diversity and inclusion

Theoretical framework

Methodology and methods

Findings

Vision and policy

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI)

Access

Language and financial access

Personnel: Agency and EDI

Educational initiatives

General LOs

Remembering: I recognise the lifelong-educator dimension of my role in this museum

Understanding: I recognise lifelong education possibilities for diverse social cohorts of this museum’s community of stakeholders

Applying: I locate the lifelong-educator dimension of my role in the broader, global struggle for sustainable development

Analysing: When (re)presenting this Museum I appraise diversity through inclusive narratives

Evaluating: I moderate visitors’ (and broader stakeholders’) participatory and inquiry-based interactions with the Museum

Creating: I collaborate with this Museum’s publics and stakeholders to co-create sustainable development in my practice

Discussion

Intersectional community engagement

General LOs for the PD of museum personnel

Limitations

Implications and recommendations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical approval

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References