Organizational Change and the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Museum Learning

463 Pages·2014·1.62 MB·English

Taking Action Toward Inclusion:
Organizational Change and the Inclusion
of People with Disabilities in Museum
Learning
Author: Christine Ann Reich
Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3678
This work is posted on eScholarship@BC,
Boston College University Libraries.
Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2014
Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
BOSTON COLLEGE
Lynch School of Education

Department of
Curriculum and Instruction

TAKING ACTION TOWARD INCLUSION: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND
THE INCLUSION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN MUSEUM LEARNING

Dissertation
By

CHRISTINE A. REICH

submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

May 2014
© Copyright by Christine A. Reich
2014
Abstract
Taking Action Toward Inclusion:
Organizational Change and the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Museum Learning
Christine A. Reich, Author
Richard Jackson, Ed.D, Dissertation Chair
This study examined organizational change in science museums toward practices
that are inclusive of people with disabilities. Guided by two overarching frameworks,
organizational learning and the social model of disability, this study sought to answer the
following: What are the contexts and processes that facilitate, sustain, or impede a
science museum’s change toward practices that are inclusive of people with disabilities?
The research orientation was a qualitative, multiple case study. The cases featured three
science museums that varied in size and location, but shared a documented history of
efforts to include people with disabilities. Data were collected through observations and
interviews with people with disabilities, interviews with staff members, observations of
museum work, and documentation. Data analysis focused on generating descriptions and
interpretation of the individual cases and the collection of cases.
Findings demonstrate that change toward inclusion in these three museums is an
on-going process that is embedded within the work of a broad range of organizational
areas. Findings also suggest actions science museums can take to facilitate change toward
inclusion, including involving people with disabilities in organizational work, engaging
in experimentation and reflection, promoting the idea that practices that benefit people
with disabilities also improve the museum for others, and embedding information about
inclusive practices into internal communication, professional development, and large
projects. These actions appear to promote organizational learning and sustainment of
inclusive practices by concretizing the purpose of inclusion, developing staff who serve
as internal resources, providing mechanisms for on-going feedback, and raising staff
awareness of the importance of inclusion.
Preface
As this study was conducted within a qualitative research paradigm, I feel it is
important that the reader understand who I am as a researcher and the multiple lenses
through which I view the data and findings of this study. I come to this study not just as a
doctoral candidate, but also as a researcher who holds a position within a science
museum, an advocate for the inclusion of people with disabilities, and a leader who wants
to learn more about ways to successfully facilitate organizational change toward more
inclusive practices. For me, therefore, this study is not simply an academic pursuit. My
desire is that the findings from this study will inform science museum professionals as we
think about ways to make their own museums more inclusive of people with disabilities.
Sixteen years ago, at the age of 24, I was given a great gift: Betty Davidson, Ph.D.
became my mentor. Betty Davidson is a remarkable woman whose work has shaped the
inclusion of people with disabilities in science museums across the country. A passionate
informal science education professional, Betty deeply believes that science museums play
a meaningful role in society as places where everyone can learn about science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. As a lifelong wheelchair/cane user, Betty is
also intimately familiar with the sting of exclusion.
In the late 1980’s, Betty changed how the Museum of Science, Boston (where I
currently work) developed its exhibitions so that the inclusion of people with disabilities
and universal design became core organizational values. I interned with Betty Davidson
in the 1990’s. When Betty decided to retire in the early 2000’s, I inherited her informal
designation as an advocate for the inclusion of people with disabilities at the Museum.
i
Since Betty’s retirement, my career has taken many twists and turns. I no longer
work for the Exhibits Department, but instead lead the Museum’s Research and
Evaluation Department. Despite this shift, a focus on the inclusion of people with
disabilities and my commitment to upholding Betty’s legacy remain with me. Each year,
the Research and Evaluation Department conducts multiple studies that examine ways to
create museum environments that are more inclusive of people with disabilities. I have
also shifted from being less of a mentee to more of a mentor, helping others (whether at
the Museum of Science or at other museums across the United States) to engage in
practices that are more inclusive of people with disabilities. Another change is that I am
no longer the informally designated advocate, but instead have become the formal co-
leader of the Accessibility Committee at the Museum of Science.
As an advocate, the decision to focus on change in practice rather than
innovations in practice is a strategic one. While many designs and technological
innovations have been developed over the years to create museum environments that are
more inclusive of people with disabilities, few have been consistently adopted or applied.
I believe, therefore, that creating museum environments that are more inclusive of people
with disabilities requires not just new knowledge or designs, but changes in how we as
science museum professionals fundamentally conceive of our work.
My positionality as a researcher can best be described as an external/insider for
this study. During the course of my career, I have worked closely with many science
museums across the country, including the three that are the focus of this study. Hence, I
was never truly an outsider when I was gathering, analyzing, or interpreting the study’s
ii
data. I am also an external/insider when it comes to my disability status. I was not raised
in a culture of disability, and do not self-identify as a person with a disability. Over the
years, however, I have developed many close relationships with mentors and fellow
advocates who have lived with disability and I have come to accept the disability rights
causes as my own. I have also come to understand that we all exist along a spectrum of
able-to-disable (especially as a 5’1” female who wears glasses), and that ableness is
temporary (like many others, I too have experienced injuries that required the use of
walkers and other assistive devices for brief periods of time).
These are the lenses through which I view the findings of this study: as an
external/insider to both disability and the participating science museums; an internal
researcher who is focused on studies that inform the work of one specific science
museum; and as an advocate and leader for change toward inclusion of people with
disabilities who is looking to strengthen her own practice. I hope this explanation of who
I am informs and guides your reading and interpretation of this study.
Acknowledgements
Given the varied life experiences that brought me to pursue this topic of
investigation, it is perhaps not surprising that I am indebted to many individuals for the
inspiration and support they provided to enable the completion of this study. As a
doctoral student, I have been greatly inspired by the commitment to social justice that
permeates all aspects of the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. Every course I
took instilled in me the importance of ensuring that all students are provided access to
learning. As a long-time advocate for greater commitment to social justice within science
iii
museums, the supportive atmosphere of the Lynch School of Education gave me the
strength to be a stronger advocate within my professional life. I will greatly miss that
source of support as I move forward in my career.
Each member of my doctoral committee has shaped my thinking as a scholar. Dr.
Andrew Hargreaves first introduced me to the concept of studying educational change,
and Dr. Patrick McQuillan instilled in me a sense of what it means to conduct rigorous
qualitative research. Dr. George Hein was one of the first individuals to teach me about
museum education research many years ago, and he was also the person who most
encouraged me to make the inclusion of people with disabilities the focal point of my
research (“If you don’t focus on this, who will?” he asked me over 10 years ago). Dr.
Richard Jackson has provided a strong sense of support throughout my career as a
doctoral student. His pragmatic orientation and commitment to ensuring that students
with disabilities are provided access to learning has been and will continue to be a source
of inspiration for me as a researcher.
As a practitioner and science museum professional, there are also many people to
thank at the Museum of Science, Boston. Many colleagues provided me with the time and
space to work on this study as a part of my Museum work, including (but not limited to)
Larry Bell, Elizabeth Kunz Kollmann, Ryan Auster, Clara Cahill, and Andrea Durham.
Anna Lindgren-Streicher and Juli Goss also served an additional role as thinking
partners. The time they spent discussing this project with me certainly helped to clarify
my thinking. Numerous Research Assistants and Assistant Researchers at the Museum of
Science also supported this research by organizing data, transcribing interviews, copy-
iv
editing quotes and drafts, and contacting participants for member checks. They include
Leigh Ann Mesiti, Marta Beyer, Stephanie Iacovelli, Catherine Lussenhop, Sune
Chunhasuwan, Amanda Colligan, and Sarah May.
Beyond professionals working at the Museum of Science, other museum
professionals from across the nation also contributed to this study. Many fellow
advocates served as advisors and peer reviewers, including Beth Ziebarth, Valerie
Fletcher, Beverly Sheppard, Nina Levent, Joan Pursley, Rebecca McGinnis, Hannah
Goodwin, David Ellis, Ph.D., George Hein, Ph.D. (dual role as advisor and committee
member), and Terrie Nolinski, Ph.D. Numerous professionals and visitors at the three
participating museums volunteered their time to participate in this study, although due to
ethical considerations, they must remain unnamed. Despite their anonymity, their
thoughts and insights were invaluable. Additionally, certain individuals at each museum
served as key informants and coordinators, taking the time to arrange for the various
observations and interviews that generated data for this study. Although I cannot list their
names here, I would like them to know that I greatly appreciate their time and
commitment to this study. Their demonstrated altruism— engaging in this work
anonymously for the purpose of advancing greater inclusion of people with disabilities
within science museums—is laudable. Amongst all of the science museum professionals
who supported this work, however, there is one to whom I am most indebted: my good
friend and mentor, Betty Davidson, Ph.D. Not only did she serve as an advisor for this
project, but she continues to guide me down this path of advocacy from which I will
never veer.
v