Heidi Kartchner, Tammy Messick Cherry, Christina Talbert, Jennifer McIntosh
9 min
Museums and cultural institutions often rely on volunteers to provide informal, visitor-facing education. These individuals—referred to variously as docents, explainers, or gallery educators—are essential for creating flexible, engaging interactions with diverse visitor groups. Because volunteers provide such a critical service, museum professionals must move beyond simple recruitment and focus on how to train, integrate, and retain these individuals. By understanding what motivates volunteers—ranging from altruism and social connection to career development and personal intellectual growth—museums can create environments that sustain long-term engagement.
To build a robust volunteer corps, the authors propose that institutions focus on five specific areas. First, a shared vision is vital; volunteers should feel like integrated team members rather than outsiders, which can be achieved by including them in strategic planning and valuing their input. Second, fostering communities of practice encourages the informal, free-flowing exchange of knowledge among volunteers and staff, breaking down hierarchy in favor of shared learning.
Third, training should prioritize experiential learning—the idea of "learning by doing." This approach is more effective than traditional classroom instruction and aligns with how volunteers will eventually engage with visitors. Fourth, continuing education ensures volunteers remain intellectually stimulated and up-to-date on content, satisfying their core desire for lifelong learning. Finally, regular evaluation is necessary to refine performance. This should be framed as a supportive, two-way conversation between staff and volunteers, focusing on mutual growth rather than policing.
When museums treat their volunteer programs as sophisticated adult education ventures, the benefits extend to both the institution and the volunteer. Volunteers who feel valued and adequately trained are more committed, more confident in their interactions with the public, and more likely to remain with the institution. Ultimately, a well-supported volunteer corps translates directly into a higher-quality experience for museum visitors.
Informal learning experiences can provide valuable visitor-to-staff interactions that require skilled staff—often volunteers—to adjust to the needs of each visitor group. These experiences are often less regimented to provide increased flexibility for both the museum and the volunteer, allowing for more diversity of volunteer support. This article discusses the literature on education volunteers in a museum setting with a focus on how to effectively train and retain quality gallery-based volunteers. Based on the literature, we highlight five hallmarks of a successful education volunteer program: shared vision, communities of practice, experiential learning, continuing education, and evaluation.
Alex: The motives vary. Studies discussed here include helping others, using existing skills, feeling useful, and building a résumé. In museum-specific research, the opportunity to learn more was a primary motivation.
Sam: Then a volunteer’s reasons for joining could matter as much as the museum’s reasons for recruiting them.
Alex: The cited motivation research supports that connection. Volunteers whose participation serves their motivations report greater satisfaction. The authors therefore argue that staff need to know volunteers and help provide satisfying experiences.
Sam: Let’s make the framework concrete. What does shared vision mean beyond telling volunteers the museum’s mission?
Alex: It means including them in the institution’s thinking. At the Skirball Cultural Center, staff and volunteers worked over several months to identify what high-quality teaching meant together. The authors also suggest inviting program input and including volunteers in strategic planning where feasible.
Sam: That could help when someone needs to depart from a prepared script. They understand what the museum wants the interaction to achieve.
Alex: The article makes that connection explicitly. It also identifies smaller actions: learn volunteers’ names, talk with them, and welcome their input. Administrators should treat relationship-building as necessary staff work, not a distraction.
Sam: How are communities of practice different from simply making volunteers part of a team?
Alex: Communities of practice are people sharing knowledge around a common activity. The review distinguishes that knowledge-sharing from a team’s focus on producing an outcome. Volunteers bring expertise from professional lives and hobbies that can benefit staff and other volunteers.
Sam: So a training session doesn’t always need staff at the front and volunteers listening.
Alex: Staff can learn alongside volunteers. The article suggests inviting a volunteer with relevant experience to share it, or reserving training time for volunteers to exchange ideas. An online message board is another suggested route.
Sam: Sharing ideas still leaves a gap between talking about teaching and actually doing it. How does the review address that?
Alex: Through experiential learning, meaning learning by doing. The cited research argues that classroom training alone does not meet volunteers’ needs. Participants in science communication training valued interactive practice, feedback, and discussion about communicating concepts effectively.
Sam: What does that look like when volunteers have to develop something they will actually deliver?
Alex: At the Shelburne Museum, gallery educators received a basic structure, resources, and information for developing a tour. Staff and educators then worked collaboratively to create their own tours. That makes the training itself a supported exercise in the work.
Sam: But self-directed learning could pull against consistency. Does the review suggest abandoning standardized training?
Alex: No. It also cites the argument that standardized training creates consistency for volunteers and visitors. The proposal is to include practical, self-directed learning, not to remove structure or content preparation.
Sam: Continuing education seems especially relevant if learning attracted people in the first place. What opportunities do the authors describe?
Alex: They include expert talks, museum learning sessions, field trips, library access, and joint training with other volunteer groups. Continuing education can develop subject knowledge and visitor interaction skills. It also responds to volunteers’ interest in lifelong learning.
Sam: And evaluation could either support that learning or make volunteering feel like an examination. Which version do they recommend?
Alex: A two-way conversation, rather than a search for flaws. Volunteers can reflect on their performances, use checklists, or hear visitors’ responses. Coordinators can offer informal feedback or arrange a more formal conversation.
Sam: Two-way means the museum also has to listen to criticism of the program.
Alex: Yes. Volunteers need opportunities to say whether their own needs are being met. Evaluation should improve both volunteer performance and the institution’s support.
Sam: Now the evidence question. What numbers tell us whether this framework actually improves retention or visitor experiences?
Alex: The review does not report a direct test of the combined framework. One cited study involved 500 volunteers across British zoological collections. It examined self-reported impacts on volunteers, not the effect of adopting these recommendations.
Sam: What did that study contribute to the argument?
Alex: Across 19 collections, the strongest reported impacts concerned knowledge, skills, and health. Cooperative relationships came next, followed by financial benefits or costs, then identity and understanding others. That supports the breadth of volunteer outcomes, but it is not a retention comparison.
Sam: And the evidence that inadequate training discourages volunteers?
Alex: The review cites a study of 45 volunteers who identified limited training and orientation as a turnoff. That supports taking training seriously. It does not estimate how much any particular training approach improves retention.
Sam: So the examples and reported preferences make the recommendations plausible, without establishing which component works best.
Alex: That’s my reading. There is no common effect estimate, no direct comparison of the full framework against another program, and no demonstrated retention gain from combining its parts. The authors also acknowledge constraints such as understaffing, unsupportive management, and difficulty attracting volunteers.
Sam: Given those limits, who should read the full article, and where should they start?
Alex: Museum educators, volunteer coordinators, and researchers studying informal learning should read it as a practice-oriented map of the literature. Start with “Hallmarks of successful volunteer programs,” especially “Experiential learning” and “Evaluation.” Those sections make the recommendations concrete.
Sam: And what should everyone else remember without mistaking the framework for a proven intervention?
Alex: This review offers a way to connect volunteer learning, belonging, and visitor interaction—not a measured guarantee of improvement. The line to remember is: treat volunteers as continuing learners and partners, not just people who need instructions.
Sam: Thanks for listening.