Different Stories: New Perspectives
Final Report: March 2010 by Project Co-ordinator (Sonia Rasbery)
Introduction
Different Stories: New Perspectives (DSNP) ran from April 2009 to March 2010 and involved
eight museums. The aim of DSNP was to encourage museums in the Surrey, East and West
Sussex (SEWS) sub-region to engage with audiences under-represented in their visitor
profiles. The projects fell into three broad themes: working with young people (three
projects); consultation with disabled visitors (three projects) and uncovering hidden histories
(two projects). Each project was required as part of their involvement in the project to
evaluate their project. The project leads were provided with a case study template to
complete at the end of the project; this was accompanied by guidance on how to integrate
evaluation into their projects. During the course of DSNP specialist evaluation advice was
also available from Brighton and Hove Museums, the local Renaissance South East hub.
The hub made two members of the audience development team available to conduct site
visits to all projects and give advice on evaluation.
To investigate further the success of the project an end-of-project evaluation was undertaken
by the project coordinator. All eight DSNP projects were interviewed as well as two members
of the DSNP steering group. One-to-one interviews were carried out, the following
summarises the findings of the interviews and of the conference evaluation forms.
The Projects
Feedback from the DSNP projects:

How successful did you feel the Different Stories: New Perspectives project was?
All of the project participants felt that DSNP was successful for them, with comments ranging
from the improvement in skills to engaging with a new audience to piloting work that they
would not have otherwise done without the DSNP funding.

What do you think were the lessons that were learnt?
The responses were very different depending on the museum and the person managing the
project, for some taking part in the project it was a steeper learning curve than for others.
The following is a summary of the key learning points:
- Learning from other museums– learning from their experiences of setting up an
oral history project and doing oral history interviews.
- Project management and delivery – learning the issues and challenges involved
in running a project on a small budget to a tight timescale.
- Working in partnership with other teams within our museum – for one museum it
showed that there is a lot of work still to do to enable cross- working with the
FOH team. For another museum it illustrated the next time the project is run
there needs to be more involvement and input from the curatorial and other
teams in the museum (and that they are really interested in providing that input
and support).
- Learning more about the collections and building knowledge – the oral history
project enabled the museum manager to build and develop his knowledge
through conducting the interviews.
- Building new skills and experience – a wide variety of new skills were developed
including oral history interviewing, setting up and running focus groups,
conducting consultation with visually impaired people.

Were they any unexpected outcomes?
Again the responses were different and largely dependent on the person managing the
project as stated in the previous summary.
For some the outcomes of the projects were better than expected, with the results being of a
higher standard and more involvement than was anticipated. For example, the participants in
the Anne of Cleves project wanted to be and expected to have a participatory role and be
there as expert advisors – the project had originally anticipated that they would want a more
creative experience. The project was adapted and as a result more resources were piloted
and produced than planned.
For others they were pleasantly surprised that the participants came back outside the
project, for example, Pallant House Gallery was working with young people in a school
setting and the young people augmented the sessions by visiting the Gallery in the half-term
with their parents.
Some gained more knowledge about their collections, such as, Hastings Fisherman’s
Museums Museum Manager gaining further understanding and knowledge about the fishing
industry through the interviewing.
Feedback from consultations giving answers they did not expect, Godalming Museum
discovered through the focus group and consultations with non-users that they did not
expect high-tech interactives.

The focus of DSNP was ‘engaging with audiences under-represented in museum
visitor profiles’ - Do you think the DSNP project enabled your museum to do this? Will
it be sustainable/ will you build on the work you have carried out?
The project did enable museums to undertake the work, whether it will be sustainable or
build further on varies widely between the different projects. From the responses:
Pallant House Gallery – will revise the young curators’ course in line with the feedback from
the pilot and will run it as part of the schools programme.
Haslemere Museum – it has enabled the Museum to attract a new set of young people to the
HYPE group but can only run this type of exhibition project with additional funding.
Godalming Museum – it has provided the consultation about what the groups want to do and
a costed plan for the Museum.
Anne of Cleves – the museum piloted and tested a number of resources for people with
learning disabilities in consultation with members of the audience. It has provided the
museum with the information about what works and what does not in the building and they
now need to look at how to implement it. It has also provided the museum with resources for
this group and an unexpected outcome is that they are now able to run sessions for this
group.
Fishbourne Roman Palace – tested equipment and audio tours with a focus group of visually
impaired people. The museum now has audio tours for this audience and the skills to
continue to develop this service further. Plus they have also brokered new partnerships with
local VI support groups and organisations.
Guildford Museum – consultation with people with head injuries and visual impairments, as a
result of the project they are now using the museum again and the museum has built links
and partnerships for future projects.
Charleston – the organisation will not know how successful it has been until the audio tours
go live after Easter, however, the project enabled the museum to pilot the use of the
equipment and tours with a user group. If it does work they will use this pilot to extend the
service. It has also enabled the museum to fill a gap in the history of Charleston.
Hastings Fisherman’s Museum – the project has skilled the museum staff in conducting
interviews and interview transcription, built up a link with Charleston and Brighton and Hove
Museums and enabled the museum to find out more about the recent fishing history of
Hastings. The museum will continue to build on the original ten interviews and will be putting
on an exhibition in the summer showcasing the oral history so far recorded.
 Do you feel that the project provided the support you needed?
Participants generally agreed that they felt that the project manager and project coordinator
had provided good support during the course of the project, were available when needed
and were helpful. There was some criticism that communication towards the end of the
project was a little confusing and that more warning could have been given about the spend
of the budgets. However, overall the feedback was very positive.
Feedback from the steering group:
Of the two steering group members interviewed, one had a positive view on the project and
one had issues with the actual impact of the project. Their view was that for the amount of
investment in the project there were unsure how much impact it would make on actually
changing the museum’s approach to engaging with under-represented audiences. They did
not feel that there was sufficient engagement and commitment from the museums to enable
long-term change. They acknowledged that it would have been difficult for the project to
deliver this due to the way it was structured and suggested that it should have been
structured and run differently. There was an acknowledgement that some of the projects
could have long-term impacts for the museums but they were not sure how embedded they
would be.
Conference
The Different Stories: New Perspectives (DSNP) conference took place on the 22 February
2010 at The Lightbox, Woking. The aim of the conference was to showcase the eight DSNP
projects and to disseminate their learning to other museums in the south east region. To
provide context for the south east projects speakers from outside the region were chosen for
their relevance to the three broad themes of DSNP: working with young people; consultation
with disabled visitors; uncovering hidden histories and invited to present an element of their
work. The invited speakers were: Judy Dixey, Director and Roz Chalmers, Artistic Consultant
from VocalEyes, Anna Dolecka, Education & Outreach Officer at the Museum of the
Jewellery Quarter (Birmingham) and Alex Woodall, Interpretation Development Officer,
Manchester City Galleries.
The conference booked quickly and did not have to be advertised outside the South East to
fill spaces. 51 people attended the conference including speakers, workshop leads/ project
participants and members of the steering group. Unfortunately due to unforeseen
circumstances the speaker from Manchester was not able to present.
Feedback from the conference delegates:
33 of the 51 attendees returned the conference evaluation forms. The feedback from the
forms suggests that the conference was very well received with 32 of the 33 returns rating
the conference good to excellent. A majority of the responses rated the conference highly(between 8–10) in meeting its stating aims and in meeting their expectations.
Overall attendees were extremely positive about the structure, content and organisation of
the day. Attendees commented that they felt that the balance of the day was good with the
speakers in the morning and the workshops in the afternoon and that generally the sessions
were about the right length. There were a few comments about the day being very full with
not much time for networking or looking at The Lightbox and its exhibitions. The conference
had an impact on attendees in a wide variety of ways – with skills, knowledge/
understanding, attitudes/ values, enjoyment, inspiration or creativity and changed behaviour
all being ticked with a range of comments reflecting the particular impact it had on the
participant.
The speakers presentations were relevant and of interest to participants. The responses
indicate that it was felt that the content of the presentations were relevant to them and
provided a good basis for the afternoon workshops.
The workshops were seen as particularly successful. With many participants commenting on
the usefulness of being able to speak to the project leads and ask them questions about
what went well/ badly with the projects. The attendees liked being ‘hands-on’ and able to try
out the activities as ‘tasters’, they felt that this approach inspired ideas to take back to their
own museums.
‘The workshops in the afternoon were fab; small pockets of learning with a hands-on
approach got the information across well’ (comment from attendee).
Feedback from the DSNP projects:

In response to the question: Did you feel that the conference represented the
DSNP project? Did you feel it was successful?
Most of the project participants felt that it was a very successful day and was representative
of the DSNP project. Almost all of the responses were positive about the content and the
structure. A few people commented that they would have liked to have been able to go to the
other workshops and see what the other projects had been doing, most understood that this
would not have been possible. The feedback about the speakers was largely positive. There
were a couple of criticisms about the content of the speaker’s presentations in relation to
their relevance to small museums. The project participants liked the concept of presenting as
a group on their related themes, there were a number of comments about learning from each
other as well as learning about other projects.
Feedback from the steering group:
Two members of the steering group were interviewed, feedback from both was positive.
They both felt that the conference delivered a good, participatory experience for participants
and feedback since the conference had also been good.
Publication
Feedback from the DSNP projects:

What do you think of the publication? Do you think it showcased the DSNP
project?
The project participants nearly all responded positively to the publication, feeling that it
represented the DSNP project and their projects clearly with each project given the same
space and weight of content. A number of project participants stated that they have and will
use the publication for advocacy purposes both internally and externally. Some of the
museum participants are giving copies of the publication to their project participants as a
record of their involvement. It was noted by one respondent that there were pleased to see
that the publication was also available in a PDF as an alternative format to access the
information.
The quality of the photographs was noted by a number of the projects, although one project
would have liked them to be available to them sooner. Some of the projects have already
used the photographs for presentations, publicity and as a thank-you to their participants.
Throughout the project the attitude and approach of the photographer was commented on,
most of the museums were pleased with his work; one of the museums included him in their
project.
Feedback from the steering group:
The publication was well received by the members of the steering group their comments
reflecting those of the project participants.
Conclusion
The feedback from the project participants suggests that for the museums who took part in
DSNP it was a largely positive and worthwhile experience. A number of the museums gained
new skills and some worked with and established links and services for audiences that they
had not previously engaged with. The conference and publication were also successful. The
conference attracted museums from across the south east region and was rated very highly
by attendees, with the participatory, hands-on workshops particularly successful.
The structure of DSNP was revised as a result of a failed HLF bid. The original elements of
the project that would have supported museums in meaningful long-term change in engaging
with communities were largely stripped out. Although the project did appoint a project
coordinator this was on a freelance contract, on a fraction of the original hours and with a
reduced remit of support. The training programme and further specialist support that would
have been provided was lost and this is the element that would have given the museums the
skills and knowledge to comprehensively embed audience development into their work.
DSNP illustrated that museums still lack many of the necessary skills and knowledge to
successfully engage with communities. There are still significant skills-gaps in conducting
evaluation and consultation and in audience development and engagement. To enable
museums to embed and have long-term and meaningful relationships with their community
audiences training and development is needed in these key areas.