Fig. 1

One of the significant common access challenges in larger institutions is the access consistency.

To address this, I developed the Strategic Access Model born from a research question: ‘How can the organization ensure consistent, inclusive accessibility standards across all exhibitions to provide equitable access for all visitors?’

In Strategic Access Model, I suggest conceptualizing access work in institution is intertwined modes:

1. building foundational consistency;
2. innovation and disability justice.

To guide this work, I developed a strategic access model, which outlines six key steps:

1. Physical building access — A foundational step, already well-covered by ADA.
2. Access assets — establishing sustainable and repeatable workflows for producing elements like verbal descriptions, captions, and sensory accommodations.
3. Consistency — Standardizing accessibility features across exhibitions.
4. Communication, training, and outreach — Communicating the offerings and standards to staff, audiences, collaborators, with targeted outreach to disability communities and thought leaders.
5. Broadening access practices — Exploring innovative and inclusive approaches to accessibility.
6. Sector-wide change through isomorphism [1] — Leveraging the tendency of art institutions to adopt successful practices from their peers.

Addressing the concern of ‘Checklist approach to access’

During the research process, initial feedback suggested using the Smithsonian Guidelines [2] as a model to ensure consistency. To better understand this approach, I reached out to the Smithsonian to learn more about their process, the challenges they faced, and the outcomes of implementing their guidelines. I also explored how other institutions have utilized a similar checklist-based approach.

The findings revealed significant limitations of the checklist approach. While it can standardize practices, it does not address the root issue—a lack of collaboration and shared understanding across departments. Furthermore, relying on checklists can introduce additional challenges, such as:

— Reducing critical thinking by encouraging a box-checking mentality;

— Narrowing focus to specific tasks rather than fostering a holistic view of the broader impact;

— Prioritizing short-term “easy solves” over long-term, systemic change.

These insights emphasize that a checklist alone is insufficient for achieving meaningful, sustainable improvements and highlight the importance of fostering collaboration and aligning institutional goals.

To address the underlying problem, two interconnected solutions have emerged:

Strategic Planning

This involves setting actionable priorities for the coming years and distributing responsibilities across departments. To ensure progress, the plan should include accountability measures, such as regular check-ins or progress reviews, to keep everyone aligned and committed. What specifically stands out is how often such goals are far from the best practices of goal setting. Despite the fact the access work is not easily translatable into quantitative measures, I recommend relying on the SMART framework (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) of goal setting.

Staff Training

A frequently reported solution is staff training designed to ensure everyone is on the same page regarding accessibility. One organization shared a particularly effective approach: a one-hour training session starting with a 15-minute presentation of bite-sized information, followed by 45 minutes of discussion and Q&A to foster engagement and deeper understanding.

In addition to all-staff training, onboarding sessions focused on accessibility and department-specific training are essential. For example, training for curatorial staff would address their unique responsibilities differently than training for visitor engagement teams.

These two actionable solutions—strategic planning and targeted staff training—are key to fostering a shared understanding of accessibility and building a more collaborative and effective approach across the institution.

References:

1. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

2. Smithsonian Guidelines for Accessible Exhibition Design — Smithsonian Accessibility Program, 1996.