By Stephen Spencer, Ambience Director, Stephen Spencer + Associates

The news that the future of The National Gallery will be shaped by an assembly of UK citizens, chosen by lottery, is as transformative as it is thought-provoking. As Maxwell Blowfield highlighted in his excellent Maxwell Museums newsletter, this initiative feels truly game-changing and I keep finding myself returning to it, trying to work out what it might mean for the cultural sector at large.

When visitors start to shape not just programming, but institutional priorities, we need to ask ourselves: does this redefine what audience engagement means? I’ve long referenced Henry Ford’s famous quote; “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have asked for faster horses.” But the 21st century is different. Today, technology enables visitors and audiences to expect, if not demand, greater transparency and a stronger voice in the organisations they support. Institutions can’t ignore that shift, and neither can the cultural leaders guiding them.

It’s also clear that cultural institutions cannot do this alone. And I don’t just mean the consultancy and facilitation services that we at SS+A provide. To be truly sustainable, institutions need to refresh their ‘consent to operate’ by rethinking how they engage with audiences. In our Ambience Playbook, launched at the Museums + Heritage Show two years ago, we capture this through what we call the Three R’s:

Recipients - the stakeholders and visitors they serve
Relevance - the degree to which the offer matters to those audiences
Resonance - how deeply it connects and engages

Our partners at Flow Associates always remind us of the critical first question; “Why do we exist?” Only by understanding purpose, and why it matters for the future, can we then tackle questions about audiences and offerings.

The recently convened Birmingham Museums Trust Citizens’ Jury asked; “What does Birmingham need and want from its museums, now and in the future; and what should Birmingham Museums Trust do to make these things happen?” These are exactly the right questions to pose to the public, once, of course, the institution has answered its own “why.”

There’s no doubt we face both challenges and exciting opportunities. But the fundamentals remain the responsibility of the institutions themselves - delivering outstanding visitor experiences, maintaining authenticity, and operating sustainably. If participatory governance is indeed the way forward, a clear new contract must guide how outputs from citizens’ assemblies are implemented, otherwise good intentions risk being diluted.

It’s long been a theme at Stephen Spencer + Associates that the future of many cultural institutions lies in adaptability. Darwin may or may not have said; “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, but the most adaptable to change” but the principle certainly applies here.

Smaller cultural institutions like the Food Museum show the power of bold transformation. Their success went viral recently, reflecting the passion and support that exists for innovative, locally rooted museums. Much like high streets, cultural institutions survive and thrive by reimagining, reinvesting, and reinterpreting their purpose and offer.

So, what do you think? Is participatory governance the future of cultural strategy, or is it just one tool among many?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Head over to our LinkedIn page to share with us.

Is ‘participatory governance’ the future of cultural strategy?

Autumn Fair 2025