One of the hallmark characteristics of museums is the authentic experience, whether it be through a real artifact of the world's cultural heritage or the learning environment surrounding these works of art. We know that in these tough economic times people are coming to museums because they feel that they are places of truth--places of stability--amid the constantly changing atmosphere of contemporary society. All of this proves the importance of the fourth principle of sticky ideas: CREDIBLE.
What makes people believe ideas? Surely a large measure of what we currently believe as "truth" has derived from our relationship with and our upbringing by our parents, the experiences we have had in our lives, perhaps our religious faith, and our trust in authorities of various measure. These factors--a lifetime of personal learning and social relationships--undeniably help to form our current belief system, and they prove to be tough barriers to break when we are attempting to persuade an audience to believe new concepts (133).
Authorities, or experts in a given area of concentration, are a well-documented and reliable source of credibility for our own ideas. These are what we would call external sources of credibility. There are two types of credible authorities: the expert and the celebrity. Ultimately, we trust the opinions of those whom we want to be like (134). There are also individuals who are labeled "anti-authorities," people who we wouldn't expect to be effective authorities. As the Heaths state, "the takeway is that it can be the honesty and trustworthiness of our sources, not their status, that allow them to act as authorities. Sometimes anti-authorities are even better than authorities" (137).
Most of the time, however, our ideas must stand on their own. They must have internal credibility. Some general guidelines for establishing internal credibility are explored below:
The first point is that concrete details "lend credibility to the idea itself...By making a claim tangible and concrete, details make it seem more real, more believable" (138). Although details help to increase an idea's credibility, it should also be mentioned that these details should support or symbolize our core idea. Another way to insert credibility into an idea is to use statistics. As the Heaths state, "statistics are rarely meaningful in and of themselves. Statistics will, and should, almost always be used to illustrate a relationship. It's more important for people to remember the relationship than the number" (143). Statistics must also be contextualized in a way that humanizes them and connects them to our experiences. A third way to make our ideas internally credible is to use what is call the Sinatra Test. We all know the chorus in Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York" that says "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere." If one example on its own creates credibility for an idea in extreme circumstances then it passes the test. Literally, if it can make it there it can make it anywhere.
Moving away from internal credibility, the last source of credibility mentioned is the audience. In this scenario, one presents an idea to an audience and they are left to verify its claim--what is called a testable credential. Think Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" commercial from the 80s. Viewers were challenged to see if Wendy's really did have more beef in their sandwiches than their competitors...and they did!
So what can we take from this knowledge of establishing credibility in the ideas we create? One of the major ideas I keep throwing around in my mind is that, unlike many other institutions/companies, museums are already considered to be credible institutions. We are not in the fight to convince our audience that we know what we are talking about; they already believe us. What we are in the business of is not letting our visitors down on our promise of an authentic experience. This being the case, we should be more focused on creating internal credibility for the ideas housed in our museums rather than external credibility outside our walls. This requires us to create messages within our buildings that are vivid in detail yet also allow our visitors to test our claims. They must be bold without giving off the impression that we know it all. Text must create parameters for learning, yet they also must leave room for the visitor to implant their ideas. In the end, I believe credibility goes hand in hand with acceptance. If our visitors feel accepted, wanted and valued, they will be more likely to see the museum as truthful, authentic, and real spaces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like where you are going here with the idea of internal credibility. And, the Sinatra test is a good one to think about for museums too. I suspect that museum staff don't often go through and examine the text in labels to see if it really passes the test with the target audience. I wonder too, if the issue of the external credibility of the museum is potentially a barrier when the knowledge that is put forth is considered to be the only interpretation or assumed to be shared. That may be worth further exploration.
ReplyDelete