"What three things will be enough for you to go on a trip?" we asked visitors in one of our exhibition sections. The same questions we asked ourselves while starting this amazing journey 2.0.

In our luggage these three things were: dialogic philosophy considered in the previous chapter, hermeneutics and "Culture of Participation" which had not been mentioned in the grant application but appeared to be very useful on the Pathway.

If in the chapter above we attempted to argue the potential of the approach based on a dialogue, man-and socio-proportionality in interpreting and presenting heritage (by history museums), in this chapter we will try to substantiate a still more revolutionary idea – inclusion of a potential visitor in this dialogue transforming him into a co-author of expositions and exhibitions.

The museum concept of "Participatory culture" is relatively new and is in its formative stage. The key works comprise Nina Simon's blog Museum 2.0 [1],(that emerged in 2007), the book «Visitor Voices in Museum Exhibitions» by K. McLean and W. Pollock (the book is a collection of articles written from 1997 to 2007) [2],

Nina Simon's monograph «The Participatory Museum», published in 2010 and the collection of woks «The convivial museum» by K. McLean and W. Pollock which came out in 2011.

In Russia so far there has been just one but a very argumentative publication by D. Agapova "Participatory culture: million dialogues" (2012) [3].

Due to this technique' novelty it seems appropriate to consider notions used in the theoretical discourse and practice.

Let's go down to one of the "MuseumNext" (the name of the author) strategy founders, N.Simon's, words:

"A participatory museum is as a place where visitors can create, share, and connect with each other around content.

Create means that visitors contribute their own ideas, objects, and creative expression to the institution and to each other.

Share means that people discuss, take home, remix, and redistribute both what they see and what they make during their visit.

Connect means that visitors socialize with other people - staff and visitors - who share their particular interests.

Around content means that visitors' conversations and creations focus on the evidence, objects, and ideas most important to the institution in question" [4].

Using the western experience and applying it to the Russian reality D. Agapova forwards the following definitions that we find maximum adequate and instrumental:

• Participatory museum is a museum that operates on the basis of content-centered participation of its visitors, community, and partners.

• Participatory culture is an active, free and knowledgeable engagement of people in cultural and social processes, people's being not only "consumers" or objects of influence but also contributors to decision making and creating cultural events (for instance, exhibitions and cultural programs) and, hence, to construal and actualization of cultural heritage [5].

Besides indicating different forms and levels of participation N. Simon also emphasizes that "a participatory museum is an institution with a genuine respect and interest in visitors' stories, recollections and talents. This institution shifts from being "something", or "for somebody" to the one which is created and governed "together with visitors" [6].

Thus, it is not even a matter of million dialogues but a principal shift in mission, values of a museum that appreciates modern stories, artifacts and opinions more than a museum holdings with the status of cultural heritage ("federal significance" in Russia).

In its extreme it is manifested itself in that people assume the right to decide on the exhibition title. It is a transformation of questions "What is this museum about?" and "What story does it tell?" into public discussions.

So as not to speak without proof we adduce two perfect examples of this strategy:

- an outstanding Dutch technology project «S.H.O.E.S.» (Rotterdam), where local community is engaged in all stages of exhibition – from the title choice to the finished product promotion

- the exhibition with 100 % visitors design «You Like This: A Democratic Approach to the Museum Collection» in The Plains Art Museum (the largest museum in North Dakota, Fargo, the USA).

In general, this position was articulated by Gary Johnson, Chicago History Museum president: "Chicago is our community, and we decided to ask people for "a new assignment"…we live in the world where we can leant what the audience is expecting directly" [7].

In the CIS territory the most massive "new assignment" is «Brest 2019», project, whose curators (Culture Managers Association) initiated a large-scale domestic and international discussion about the Brest fortress' tomorrow.

So, what this approach is seems to be clear. But we still have to elaborate on:

• What are the foundations of this new philosophy and practice?
• Why should we share our copyright with visitors?
• What does the museum need it for and what does it give?

In her book preface N. Simon mentions three theories underpinning the participatory museum and her book:

1. The idea of the audience-centered institution that is as relevant, useful, and accessible as a shopping mall or train station.
2. The idea that visitors construct their own meaning from cultural experiences.

3. The idea that users' voices can inform and invigorate both project design and public-facing programs [8].

Obviously, these ideas differ in their fundamentals and origins.

The first two ideas we touched upon in chapter 1, but the third represents something new and is a solid argument in favor of such projects.

Indeed, if participatory culture is the possibility to gain a new quality museum product, it should also positively affect museums attendance and profitability, i.e. those aspects that really can motivate changes.

In this respect participatory culture is aligned with "crowd-sourcing", – one more influential modern phenomenon.

In the preface of the research of 2012 entitled "Crowdsourcing: collective mind as business development tool" Jeff Howe (who coined the term) writes:

Democratization of production in different spheres associated with wide engagement of non-professionals has repeatedly proven itself to be effective in practice and is getting up to speed both abroad and in this country.

Users content attracted by business and the state for their own purposes (be it ideas, or decisions, or the end products) appeared to be breathtakingly productive both in terms of its cost-effectiveness and as itself due to its originality and diversity which one can hardly imagine even in the largest company. "Crowd" potential in collecting and processing information is unique.

Among most striking commonly cited examples are Wikipedia, scientifically valid bird watching exercised by mass bird fanciers, or "Threadless" company which delegated the key element of T-shirt production (print design, selection, promotion) to the loyal community.

One of the most spectacular examples in our country is "Sberbank 21" ("Stock Exchange of ideas") with the participation over 100,000 citizens who offered more than 120, 000 ideas in 2011-2013 resulted in pronounced transformations of Sberbank.

In Russia crowdsourcing is churning in such spheres as urban studies and social problems solution. Such large-scale projects as "What Moscow wishes", "Active citizen", "RosYama", Yandex "Folk Map", "Virtual watch bell", etc., demonstrated people readiness to engage in worthy projects as well as high effectiveness of collective intelligence.

In expert opinion, the latter, in its turn, is linked to the following factors:

• Strong motivation, commitment, and self organization of the participants, who feel enthusiasm over a particular issue or problem. The driving force of this phenomenon, in J. Howe view, is the uncalled gift and creative potential. People want to be heard, to fulfill. This technique is most effective in mobilizing the crowd to come up with the solution and find a motivated and competent person;

• The power of collective intelligence based on diversity [10]. The K. Lakhani study on the international research project «InnoCentive», whose aim is to solve innovative challenges via broad participation came to a surprising conclusion: 75% of the tasks posed have already had resolutions. In other words, the most brain-taxing challenges corporate scholars facing do not require such intellectual efforts; all they need is diversity of ideas. One more Lakhani finding is that "the less the experience of people in the given area is, the likelier their success" [11];
• "Design communicativeness", when vertical ties and within-community discussion of the defined problem are involved.

Owing to this, crowdsourcing is most widely applicable in on-line projects with participation of the broadest categories of users.

The range of tasks is relatively wide (with little difference from the core activities of modern museums):

• Product (content),
• Solution search,
• voting,
• information collection,
• opinion collection,
• testing (for example, mobile applications)
• crowdfunding.

Crowdsourcing seems to have other significant effects one of the most peculiar is known as "rumor mill" when users voluntarily take part in the promotion of a co-designed product. Thus, socio-cultural, economic and marketing utility of "consumers'" engagement is more evident today, and crowdsourcing projects continue to soar in all industries all round the world. What about museums? Why are they still standing aside?

• Don't they have enticing and worthwhile content to offer?
• Are their specialists skeptical of "bushers" potential?
• Do they disbelieve people willingness to assist?

Many western museums have already overcome these barriers and are successfully implementing projects with the help of crowdsourcing in:

- evaluating and filtering museum collections including artifact selection for exhibitions – the Brooklyn Museum projects «Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibition» (2008) [12] and «Split Second» (2012);

- creating the structure and changing co-produced content on display - «MN150» (2007) in Minnesota History Center (http://museumtwo.blogspot.ru/2008/07/state-fairs-and-visitor-co-creation.html)

- ideas' harvesting to define a museum evolution strategy – by example of The Shepparton Art Museum in Shepparton (Australia) (2014);

- academic problems illustrated by the practice of the New York Public library in using crowdsourcing tools to video capture, correct and analyze historical maps «Building Inspector», 2014) [13].

The Russian museum map is not heavily populated with such projects but there are a few quite noticeable crowdsourcing projects, for instance, "Tolstoy at-large in one click" — the creation a 90-volume e-version of Leo Tolstoy collection of works undertaken by The State L.N. Tolstoy Museum, Leo Tolstoy Estate Museum at Yasnaya Polyana and ABBYY company.

However, one can hardly find a project with the engagement of the Internet community in designing an exhibition in Russia.

In spite of the fact that we have exploited classic online crowdsourcing only for logo design, this experience appeared to be very meaningful for inviting people and cooperating with them while preparing our exhibition, which, in essence, is what any crowdsourcing project is based on. Involvement principles, effectiveness factors posed a number of questions we had to deal with during the project implementation along the "pathway" whose adventures we will describe in the next chapter of the book.

Here we consider how important and to what extent instrumental participatory culture for the given project is. We will dwell on opportunities that direct "inclusion" of a museum visitors gives and multiplicity of dialogues occurred.

We will start with objections.

In the article "Everybody's an Art Curator?" published in Wall Street Journal in October, 2014 different views and stances of museum curators towards participatory culture and crowdsourcing techniques practiced by museums are reviewed. Interestingly, museum projects of this type are basically called "shows" and are seen as an effective instrument to draw in "crowds" in order to boost museum revenues. The author refers to the experience of the Art & History Museum in McPherson centre in Santa-Cruz, California: in the period of 2011-2014 when these projects were actively implemented grants rose from $39,000 to $780,000, annual attendance grew from 17,000 to 44,000, individual donations increased from $32,000 to $150,000 annually.

Leveling these accusations of museum commoditization N. Simon (this museum curator and the target of the article) writes:

"Community is not a commodity. We don't encourage participation in content design to "jack up ticket sales". To create expositions including community stories is neither "quick", nor "cheap". Yes, this business-model requires highly qualified personnel: they know how to help people, to enhance constructive engagement, to react to community problems and interest and to inspire cooperative research. There is nothing cheap about it. It is not easy. But we feel this job must be done in order to have a museum which is indeed a community cultural institution" [14].

It is surprising but accusations brought against museums of being consumption-oriented which were customary for the 1990s museum debates in Russia still dominate the views of museum curators with regard to participatory culture. At least we fixed this attitude at every seminar devoted to this issue held in the Sverdlovsk region (December, 2013; June and October 2014).

N. Simon treats this problem in a broader context. In her view, if a classical museum has been long tied up with such a powerful metaphor as "Temple", a 2.0 museum has not acquired any of the kind. Agora, forum, city square, circus, a living room, network, the Internet room [15] do not convince museum professionals and are inappropriate for the part of audience.

The second objection relates to participatory culture and crowdsourcing being museum profanation. The article quotes the words of Helen Molesworth, the chief curator of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles: "[as a result of voting involving canvases selection] You're left with 10 paintings that may or may not make sense together, or may or may not be interesting together, or may or may not teach anything about the history of art—it's not the stuff of knowledge or scholarship. When museum crowdsourcing is raised privately among curators the subject prompts a reaction of "silent dismay" [16].

A similar question in a slightly different aspect popped up in a project-centered post in Facebook.

This and other discussions show that when the question of exposition or other museum product' co-creation arises contraposition of "man of the street" and museum specialist emerges as well as concerns about profanation, consumption-centered accent of visitors cultural appetites.

On the one hand, these doubts grow from a visitor model a museum staff can believe or not.

On the other hand, it reflects the reality of cultural product creation and participatory technologies potential (further detailed in the following chapter).

However, despite certain limitations participatory culture - [if applied rightly] is a technique capable of calling into existence a really benchmark projects. There are a lot of projects to testify to this. One of them is the "What did it feel like to be at war?" project organized by Serlachius Museum in Mättä, Finland and recognized one of the best war projects by the Russian and international experts.

It took long and tedious work of interviewing the local community resulted in the collection of true stories and memories of 1939-1940 war veterans – residents of this small town. The exhibition is designed as a typical Finnish house where a spouse of generalized characters, Toyvo and Lyuyuli, live, and a visitor is invited to their home.

Yet, while debating over participatory culture one should bear in mind both parties: the museum party and the visitors' party who all these efforts are taken for. This approach has serious and even unique advantages not available outside its framework. This is when the process is not less important than the result. For the involved in the dialogue, discussion and co-creative work visitor this process is the best opportunity the museum can offer.

Here we make a reference to H.-X. Gadamer who did not see hermeneutics as an ability to reconstruct an authentic (author's text) but as a possibility to continue an actual text history, to build up new meaning, and, in essence, a new message by every new interpreter.

It is necessary to refer to M. Bakhtin, who grounded that "co-participation" based on the the subject's dialogueness' principal differs basically from attitude [dominating in museums] to Another as an object of cognition and entertainment when interaction is purely functional. The dialogue occurred makes it possible to borrow the best from the world heritage but, in addition, it forces man to "speak up", to rethink a "foreign" culture, to become an Author.

In this sense, Dialogue is a breakthrough in another world, the way to be man.

Correspondingly, participatory culture shaping this Dialogue conditions is an entirely new level of cultural heritage assimilation.

It is not less significant that in the context of participatory culture the dialogue is not diachronic but synchronic as well, when individual semiotic worlds create one common actual communication museum space.[17].

And this million of dialogues is palpably aware of by its participants. It is real.

Besides, it is not the only dividend the museum and the society acquire.

Built up on the discussion about topical issues, being a site of various ideas, stories and opinions 2.0 museum impacts attitudes, beliefs, values and behavior to a greater extent than a traditional museum (1.0), working within its scope of knowledge, skills and abilities.

As N. Simons puts it:

"I haven't seen a single project whose designers or story providers haven't managed to get incredible, reshaping their life experience"[18].

It is very important for our project, too, as we wanted to transform the exhibition into a site for self-reflection, to be relevant and discussion-generating, inspiring and guiding.

This was our way to participatory culture.

Having said "yes!" we wondered how we could practically realize it and what participatory culture aspects would suit us best.The choice while implementing projects of this kind entails the depth of visitors' engagement and their impact on museum processes. This is the criterion underlying N. Simon classification of participatory projects:

• contributing,
• collaborating,
• co-creating,
• hosting.

Let's look at them in more details.

Contributing

• Comments and opinions with regard to exhibition thematic,
• Items brought to add to the exhibition,
• Personal stories about the items left in the museum,
• "Memories" or photographs or video in the museum board or on the Web site.

Collaborating

• visitors act as museum consultants,
• visitors design, create the exhibition as staff members.

Co-creating

• museums apply to certain community groups with the idea of organizing an exhibition, or

• museums are responsive to a certain community group needs.

Hosting

• to encourage the public to use expositions for creating something new,
• the museum is a place for diverse perspectives,
• To attract new audiences who may not see the institution as a place for their own interests.

We have completed the first two levels of our story, which was determined by their direct connection with the importance of interpretation.

Here we can draw a line, sit on our suitcases for a while and then move on to put the knowledge in practice. But before we start off, let us set our mind on our pathway and check everything we are going to take along:

• Audience (modern travelers) with the right to decide what is interesting and what is not; whether to exhibit this or not,
• Keen interest in people's stories and experience, the right of these people for museum space,
• Feedback at every stage of exhibition design and structure.