In this chapter we will consider co-design of exhibition concept and content.

As we knew full well in the process there are several relatively different ways to make spectators involved:

1. community participation in the concept development, exhibition structure in the form of brainstorms, focus-groups, ideas contests, votes,
2. involvement of visitors in separate items interpretation and evaluation via personal stories inspired by certain artifacts, their selection,
3. meeting and interviews with local community,
4. submission of personal exhibits and stories to the existing exposition,
5. spectators' label copying, explicating and texting,
6. design of audience-driven expositions dedicated to their personal stories or items,
7. interactive, participatory zones and separate display elements' testing,
8. feedback and adding to the exposition in place,
9. 2.0. exhibition catalogue.

We are planning to consider these techniques in the context of "The art of travel" project implementation. We will elaborate on what we did, what we got and what we learnt.

We'll take a more detailed look at participants' motivation and engagement effectiveness.

Before taking you through all 9 variants this will be appropriate to dwell on an issue that allows one to separate these techniques: how and who determines what the exhibition will be about?

In my view there exist two different ways the essence of which I will try to comment on by the example of psychological diagnostics:

1. Closed and open-ended questions with a set of ready-made categories, types and estimates posed by a researcher.

2. In-depth interviews designed to reveal the very questions about the core of the situation or the problem as treated by an interviewee's mental or verbal constructs, his subjective estimates of reality (J. Kelly psychology of personal constructs).

Applied to exhibition design it may look like this – when you address people -your project consultants- you:

- know what you want from them, have got a "test" and questions ready for them and you just collect answers;

- don't know what topics will be more productive, you are open and want to know what issues and stories underlie your interlocutors world outlook and their perception of the problem in question.

In the first scenario an exhibition is designed by you with people illustrating it with their voices and items (a deductive story). In the second – it originates from people stories and items; they set its structure and design (an inductive story).

D. Agapova vividly describes the difference of these approaches comparing fairy-tales exhibitions:

"Museum А designs the first one (many domestic museums are familiar with this conception, so it is no use exemplifying it). Its premise, in brief, is like this: 1) children like fairy tales; 2) many objects typical of fairytale world are "Greek" to present day children; 3) if a child gets acquainted with them, his comprehension will be complete. It results in an interactive exposition where children can try on straw shoes; see how to handle a mill, a mortar, a seine, etc."

Young visitors are eager to be involved in discussing unknown/well-known magic things or in drawing fairy-tale items.

"The second is designed by B museum institution (a good example is the Museum of Childhood Exhibition). The underlying idea is this: 1) children like fairy tales; 2) "inner-bottomed" fairy-tales are connected with collective unconscious. The museum interviews young audience to indicate their interests, i.e. conducts a survey.

And gets the answer: most of all children are thrilled by terrifying and ambivalent fantasy images, the fear of being abandoned as it happens to Tom Thumb, etc. It results in "The Stuff of Nightmares" exposition where museum holdings neighbor modern artists' canvases, and schoolchildren make collaborative installations that process their fears. In this way the folk culture of the past joins the folk culture of the present not only in memory but also in everydayness" [1].