Abstract
This study explored the decision-making processes, motives, and meaning-making experiences of individuals who enacted a passive donation of objects to the Avenir Museum, a historic fashion and textiles museum on a university campus. The work was informed by theory on the extended self and extended object. We adopted an exploratory, qualitative case study methodology to collect in-depth interviews from 13 donors. The major contribution of this study is a grounded theory model illuminating the Decision-Making Processes and Experiences Donating Objects to a University Historic Fashion and Textiles Museum. Unique to the decision-making model developed for this study are the incorporation of the meaning of the object to the overall decision-making process and the identification of motives specific to the donation of historic fashion objects (e.g., Educational and Relational Motives). The work also highlights the way that participants extended their sense of self and identity through object donations to the Museum.
Many university-based fashion and textile museums in the United States began as teaching collections 1 for textiles courses in the twentieth century and continue to rely on object donations to satisfy university and museum missions (Welters & Ordoñez, 2011). These teaching collections provide access to inimitable learning opportunities pertaining to material culture, global perspectives, design disciplines, and archival skills (Welters & Ordoñez, 2011, p. 6). Historic fashion and textiles collections with exhibition spaces extend these learning experiences to the public as a form of outreach (Marcketti et al., 2011).
Though a growing body of work exists on the curation and exhibition of objects of dress or fashion within university-based collections (e.g., Green & Reddy-Best, 2022; Marcketti & Gordon, 2022; Xepoleas & Hayflick, 2022), little attention has been given to exploring perspectives of donors of such objects to university collections (Marcketti et al., 2011; Szczepanski, 2017; Welters & Ordoñez, 2011). Thus, the purpose of this case study was to explore the behaviors and experiences – including decision-making, motivations, and meaning-making – of object donors to the Avenir Museum, a historic fashion and textiles museum on the Colorado State University (CSU) campus, a public university in the western United States.
Case Context: The Avenir Museum
The Avenir Museum, a premiere university historic fashion and textiles collections in the U.S., houses around 20,000 fashion and textile objects for teaching, research, and exhibition purposes (The Avenir Museum, 2022). During the timeframe under study (2013–2019), the mission of the Museum was “to obtain, document, preserve, interpret, and exhibit artifacts emphasizing the importance of material culture and expanding knowledge of dress, textiles, and interior furnishings. We offer inspiration for significant research and education, nationally, and internationally” (M. Osborne, personal communication, October 28, 2024). 2
This work focuses upon unsolicited donations to the Avenir Museum. During 2013–2019, unsolicited donations were reviewed by museum staff for service to the Museum mission based upon an object questionnaire and an in-person object examination. Although the Museum's mission was presented on the Museum website, donors were not explicitly informed of the mission during the object review process. During in-person evaluations, however, donors may have had conversations with staff about the potential significance of their object to the Museum (M. Osborne, personal communication, November 1, 2024).
Related Literature
Object Donations to Museum Collections
Museum collections are built through varied types of object donations. Often, larger fashion and textiles donations are the product of years of collecting by wealthy donors (Welters & Ordoñez, 2011) or donors’ experience in the fashion industry. Donations initiated by a donor or unsolicited by the museum are called “passive acquisitions.” Passive acquisitions tend to be conventional for smaller or less well-funded institutions, such as local historical societies and (many) university teaching collections/museums (as opposed to more established institutions with significant endowments) (M. Osborne, personal communication, December 11, 2024). Whereas substantial donations are worthy of study, the literature has comparatively little representation of work exploring the activities of donors who shape collections passively and incrementally, as in instances where a donor initiates single item or small quantity donations (Szczepanski, 2017). Strawn et al. (2006) highlight the importance of collecting provenance information about objects from donors, reflecting the unique perspective on the objects that these individuals can share.
Museums’ individual missions influence the decision to accept an object into the permanent collection (American Alliance of Museums, 2012). Missions of North American dress and textile museums and collections often focus on themes such as preserving knowledge, educating audiences, addressing social justice, and making commitments related to object conservation and institutional financial stability (Stanciel et al., 2022). In so doing, they provide opportunities to decolonize longstanding perceptions of museums as “neutral” sources (Stanciel et al., 2022, p. 4). Perceived neutrality is linked to trustworthiness; museums are highly trusted sources of information (American Alliance of Museums 2021; Rosenzweig & Thelen 1998) and stewards of public knowledge (Foster, 2019). Due to this privileged institutional status, when a donor initiates an object donation that is accepted by the institution, that donation is “given to the imagined community as a whole” (van der Grijp, 2014, p. 22). Szczepanski (2017) used the word “reciprocal” (p. 272) to describe the relationship between donors and museums in instances where donors were motivated to donate by an impactful visit to the institution, illustrating the unique stakeholder position donors hold in museums; they help shape collections while simultaneously being part of the community the museum aims to serve. Yet, this reciprocity is not universal. North American museums have historically privileged exclusionary narratives that center the White, Euro American experience. Museum goers who are represented in these narratives are more likely to experience and benefit from the reciprocity described above.
Donation Behavior
Motives Underpinning Donations to Museums and Nonprofit Organizations
Motivation is defined as the internal “driving force” that stimulates individuals to decide whether to participate, not participate, or cease to participate in a certain behavior such as making a donation to a museum (Simamora, 2021, p. 79). Due to a notable lack of research on the motivations of living donors of objects to museums, the literature analyzing motivations of monetary gifts to nonprofit, 501(c)3 charitable organizations such as museums is considered here alongside the sparse literature on motivations for object donations.
Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) reviewed more than 500 articles to explore why people donate money to nonprofit/charitable organizations (including museums).The authors identified eight key mechanisms that drive charitable giving: awareness of needs of charitable organization; solicitation of donation by charitable organization; assessment of costs and benefits; altruism (donation motivated by well-being of beneficiary); reputation of donor owing to donation; psychological benefits (intangible benefits related to donation); values driving donation; and efficacy (desire to make an impactful and lasting gift). Bekkers and Wiepking concluded that individuals may be motivated by a combination of these mechanisms, with different motives being prioritized for different donors and different gifts.
Konrath & Handy (2017) divide motives for charitable giving into two categories: other-oriented motives, which yield public benefits, and self-oriented motives, which yield private benefits. Altruism (e.g., improving the well-being of others), trust in charitable organizations (e.g., increased impact of donations), and social motives (e.g., pleasing friends or family) are categorized as other-oriented, whereas social (e.g., avoiding disapproval from peers), egoism (e.g., reputation), fiscal incentives (e.g., tax benefits), guilt (e.g., reduce internal negative feelings), and self-esteem (e.g., feelings after donating) motives are categorized as self-oriented. Social motives appearing in both categories illustrate that charitable giving may be motivated by public and private benefits simultaneously.
Only one study was identified that aimed to analyze motives of individuals who initiated object donations to museums. In a case study of donations made to an English World War I regimental museum in the 1970s and 1980s, Foster (2019) analyzed donor motives via archival documentation. Foster (2019) found that both personal motivations, such as the advancing age of the veterans during the period, and social motivations, such as “disrupting cultural homogeneity” (p. 109) of the narrative of the Great War at the time, played a role in the decision to donate. Instances of intergenerational donation to the museum, where a family member donated on behalf of a deceased first-generation veteran relative, revealed that the museum was regarded as a “place of physical security for the object” (p. 102) for some donors who expressed the need to donate because they had no other family to pass the objects on to.
Decision Making and Individual Charity Giving/Donation Behavior
Although no models of decisions to donate objects to museums were identified, Sargeant (1999) streamlined and presented the “Model of Individual Charity Giving Behavior” to address noted drawbacks in earlier work (e.g., Burnett & Wood, 1988; Guy & Patton, 1989). Sargeant's model suggests that external inputs, such as fundraising efforts that charities engage in, prompt various perceptual reactions in potential donors (e.g., the donor's perceived fit of the charity with their self-image and competition from other charities’ appeals). Two processing determinants then shape how the giving decision is processed: the donor's past experiences with a given charity and criteria that the donor may use to evaluate the charity. How the decision-making process unfolds is moderated by both extrinsic characteristics (e.g., demographic characteristics) and intrinsic characteristics (e.g., need for self-esteem, guilt, social justice). The outcome of the decision-making process may take the form of cash, time, or in-kind donations. Also considered in the model are the size of the gift and the donor's loyalty to the organization.
In 2014, Sargeant refined his model to reflect updates in understanding in charitable giving. First, Sargeant suggested that the model should be expanded to comprise a fuller list of intrinsic determinants – or motives for philanthropy – including, emotional utility (e.g., giving for “a sense of having done the right thing”) (p. 296), familial utility (e.g., giving in memory of a loved one), demonstrable utility (e.g., giving where a gift makes the most significant impact), practical utility (e.g., giving to accrue practical benefits such as social recognition), and spiritual utility (e.g., giving as an expression of faith). Second, Sargeant argued that his model should more clearly incorporate the concept of giving as an expression of self. Third, Sargeant proposed the addition of a social component as an influence on giving (p. 297), in the spirit of communities of participation, or the “formal and informal relationships (with) which people are associated” (Schervish & Havens, 1997, p. 240). Fourth, Sargeant suggested that an updated model include obstacles to giving, such as money, time, ego risks, or concerns about the value of a cause. Finally, Sargeant proposed adding a feedback loop connecting outcomes of the decision to cognitive processing that underpins the decision to donate again. Important to note is that Sargeant's model (1999, 2014) for donor behavior is focused on solicited gifts. A key void in the literature is a model of decision-making processes for passively donated objects to museums.
Meanings of Object Donations to Museums
Although Sargeant (2014) does not reference Belk's (1988) work on the extended self and the extended object, it seems relevant to his argument that gifts/donations to charitable organizations reflect an expression of self and identity. Belk (1988) asserts that “knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, we regard our possessions as parts of ourselves” (p. 139). This relationship between people and their possessions forms the basis for Belk's concept of the extended self (1988), a theoretical perspective suggesting that people's possessions are an extension of their identity and provide an enlargement of the symbolic self.
The extended self and its emphasis on the relationship between owner and object implies a counterpart conception of the extended object. The extended object conceptualizes the ways people leave their mark on objects and objects extend themselves through associations with people and other objects (Belk, 2018). In terms of donors’ relationships with their objects, possessions also can be used to “create, store, and retrieve memories of the past that contribute significantly to the management of individual identities” (Belk, 1991, p. 114).
When considered from Belk's extended self and extended object perspective, an object donation to a museum may be conceptualized as a further extension of the self, for both the donor and the museum. For instance, although heretofore unexplored, it is possible that, for the donor, the gift of an object to a museum may represent an extension of oneself or a way to keep their mark on the world alive, as a narrative of their unique past. Similarly, for the museum, this donation may represent a tangible portrait of that person's life or identity.
Research Questions
By exploring the decision-making processes, motivations, and meaning-making experiences of passive, small quantity object donations to the Avenir Museum, this case study aimed to contribute insights by answering the following research questions: What is the decision-making process used by donors of smaller quantity and passively donated fashion and/or textile objects to the Museum? What are the motivations experienced by donors of smaller quantity and passively donated fashion and/or textile objects to the Museum? How do the motivations of donors align with the mission of the Museum? When, why, how do donors to the Museum experience meaning and identity when making smaller quantity and passive donations? What is the substance of these meanings?
Method
This work adopted an exploratory, qualitative case study methodology, allowing the researchers to conduct a rich inquiry via semi-structured, in-depth interviews with object donors to the Avenir Museum. Thus, this study aligns with Strawn et al.'s (2006) emphasis on collecting donor accounts to better understand donor perspectives on the objects donated. Boundaries of the study included any donors (a) who were 18 years of age or older; (b) who had made an individual, passive donation of 10 or fewer fashion and/or textiles objects to the Museum between January 2013 and December 2019; and (c) whose donation included at least one object worn, used, or cherished by the self or by family members. The criterion for 10 or fewer objects was selected because (a) typical donations to the Museum consist of 10 or fewer objects (M. Osborne, personal communication, September 19, 2022) and (b) during their interview appointments, objects donated to the Museum by the donor participants were used to guide the conversation (and it was not manageable to discuss more than 10 objects during the interview). The criterion of 2013 as the earliest date for donation was selected to guard against recall bias among participants (Flick, 2009). Periods of time in which the Museum was on a collections hold (December 2019 – present) were excluded from this study.
Upon approval from the institutional review board, potential participants were identified via donor records. The collections manager sent an introductory email to potential participants (n = 26); then, the first author sent an email with instructions for a screening survey. From qualifying survey responses (n = 20), 13 individuals agreed to participate. Participants ranged in age from 42 to 84 years (M = 71.4 years), and all identified as either male (n = 2) or female (n = 11). The entire sample identified as White/Euro-American and had post-secondary education ranging from associate degrees (n = 1) to doctoral degrees (n = 1), with most holding a bachelor's (n = 5) or master's degree (n = 6). Five participants were alumni of CSU, 2 participants were current employes of the University, and 1 participant was retired University faculty. Most participants were retired (n = 10), married (n = 12), and had children (n = 10). Some participants also were participating in or had previously participated in collections-based volunteer or teaching activities at the Museum (n = 5). The authors recognize that the participants’ identities as White/Euro-American with post-secondary education afforded a privileged access to and experience in museums, in which identity and belonging may be affirmed through representation.
Participants were given the option of conducting their interviews face-to-face (at the Avenir Museum) or virtually. Open-ended interview questions were developed based upon the literature review and the authors’ personal experiences with donors. As noted, objects donated by participants were used to facilitate interview discussion, which evoked memories and emotions among participants. Participants who took part in face-to-face interviews were invited to handle the objects, which facilitated the articulation of their meaning-making processes (cf., Owen et al., 2021). Interview questions addressed (a) processes used to make decisions about donating fashion and textiles objects to the Museum (e.g., “Can you please pick one to three of the objects here and tell me the story of your decision to donate it or them?”) (b) motives for donating fashion and textile objects to the Museum (e.g., “What motivated you to donate your objects to the Museum? Can you think of some specific examples or stories of the motives related to the objects here?”), and (c) experiences of meaning and identity when making donations to the Museum (e.g., “What did your donation mean to you at the time you made it? What does it mean to you now?”). Sampling continued until saturation in meanings was achieved. To protect their identities, participants were invited to select a pseudonym for use in this report.
On average, interviews lasted between 25 min and 63 min (mean = 41.6 min). All interviews were audio-recorded and were transcribed verbatim. To prepare the data for analysis, data were unitized, or broken into meaningful “chunks” (Guetzkow, 1950). Then, data were analyzed using constant comparison processes associated with the grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). First, key concepts were identified in the data using open coding. Next, concepts were then compared with one another and were organized under more abstract or broader categories. These concepts and categories formed the basis of a coding guide that was applied to the data. Then, higher-order meanings and patterns among the data (e.g., themes, relationships) were explored using axial and selective coding. During these processes, data were reassembled in new ways by identifying connections among categories and themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). These themes and relationships are visually represented in a grounded theory model. The researchers also engaged in “dialectical tacking” (Geertz, 1983), considering how participant perspectives related to existing literature.
Three approaches were used to establish trustworthiness and credibility of the work. First, after each interview, the primary researcher recorded initial interpretive insights in a reflexive journal, searching for key ideas and early emergent themes within the data. Second, the researchers regularly met to discuss emerging ideas and analytic memos developed through the primary researcher's journaling, with the pair jointly searching the data for new meanings. Third, the second author reviewed the first author's coding (3 transcripts, 21% of the data); 10% - 25% of the data is regarded as an acceptable subsample for purposes of calculating interrater reliability (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). Interrater reliability was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements in coding decisions by the total number of coding decisions made and was 87%. According to Saldaña (2011), interrater reliability between coders is considered acceptable if the level of agreement meets or exceeds 80%.
Results
The major contribution of this case study is the Model of the Decision-Making Processes and Experiences Donating Objects to a University Historic Fashion and Textiles Museum (Figure 1). This model depicts the decision-making process – including the components and relationships among these components – of donors who gave small-scale, passive object donations to the Avenir Museum. In this section, we elaborate on each component of the model, describing it and its relationship to the overall decision-making process.
A case study model for decision-making processes and experiences donating objects to a university historic fashion and textiles museum.
Evaluation of Object's Perceived Value and Considering Divestment Options
The decision to donate an object to the Avenir Museum began with a simultaneous consideration of the object's perceived value (i.e., Evaluation of Object's Perceived Value) and options for divesting the self of the object (i.e., Considering Divestment Options). That is, for participants, the Evaluation of the Object's Perceived Value happened almost in tandem with the consideration of where, to whom, and how the object would be passed on and cared for, reflecting a fluid, “back and forth” connection between the evaluation of the object's perceived value and the consideration of the object's divestment. In the model, this fluid, multi-directional relationship is illustrated by a dotted line terminating in arrows and connecting the two components (see Figure 1). Charlotte captures the essence of this fluid relationship: …I think eventually I just came to the conclusion, you know, I probably will never wear [the sequined…designer dress] again…I wanted it to be preserved, and I was worried about being able to take care of it. (Charlotte, female, 54 years)
In evaluating the object's perceived value, participants sometimes noted that the objects in consideration for donation had been infrequently used or displayed recently or had been in storage for a prolonged period, and therefore, could be dispensed with. In other cases, participants such as Charlotte (quoted above) determined that they could not properly care for special or ageing objects, which would be better preserved in a museum context.
In Considering Divestment Options, participants also concluded that a donation to a secondhand store was not a good fit with the object's perceived value. For instance, Vintage Lady (female, 71 years) shared that her objects (a 1960s three-piece suede suit and a camel wool bobby coat) were “too unusual” and “too unique to go to Goodwill.” This conclusion prompted participants to consider a museum donation as a more suitable divestment option for their objects. Further, participants’ perceptions that their objects were “too good” for Goodwill and instead, were worthy of inclusion in a museum collection, also may reflect the affirmation and representation of their privileged identities in museum spaces.
Factors Impacting Consideration of Divestment Options
Three factors impacted the participants’ Consideration of Divestment Options: Awareness of the Museum, Reinforcements to Donation, and Barriers to Donation. In the model, the relationship of the impacting components (components in an oval) on a primary component of the model (components in a rectangle) is illustrated by a thick black line (see Figure 1).
Participants varied with respect to their general Awareness of the Museum prior to their donation. For participants who were students, faculty, or alumni of CSU or who were former or present Museum volunteers, the decision to donate their object was shaped in part by their a priori familiarity with the Museum preceding their donation. However, other participants were initially unaware of the Museum when considering divestment options for their object and came to know about it through social connections. For instance, Lindorfa (female, 77 years) learned about the Museum through a friend who is a Museum donor and volunteer.
Participants reported experiencing a variety of Reinforcements and Barriers to Donation, which impacted their consideration of divestment options. Most frequently, participants’ consideration to donate their object to the Avenir Museum was supported by the lack of an apparent beneficiary, such as a child or other family member, who might be interested in inheriting the object. When potential beneficiaries were present, participants noted that these individuals seemed disinterested in inheriting objects from their elder family members, saying things to the effect of “[the younger] generation doesn’t want to inherit [objects].” (Vintage Lady, female, 71 years); this circumstance ultimately served as a reinforcement to donation.
Other reinforcements to the decision to donate were observed. For instance, participants perceived that their object lacked purpose in their personal custody, but felt the object could achieve greater utility, purpose, or meaning via donation to the Museum by increasing the “visibility” of the object (Larry, male, 69 years). In other cases, the original owners of the objects (e.g., family members) conveyed their enthusiasm for the donation of the object to the Museum through interpersonal interactions with the participant. Participants also noted that their donation decision was reinforced by their larger charitable giving philosophy; for instance, participants reported engaging in other charitable behaviors such as donating money or time to nonprofit organizations and donating secondhand items for re-use in thrift stores. Finally, Larry (male, 69 years), a retired faculty member, mentioned his firsthand experiences bringing students into the Museum, as well as personal travel, research, and sabbatical experiences in other fashion and textiles collections as factors that reinforced his decision to make his donation.
Participants encountered fewer Barriers to Donation than Reinforcements. For example, participants reported questioning the significance of their object to the museum – a query that served as a potential barrier to their decision to donate. Andy (male, 68 years) recalled wondering, “Why [would the Museum] really want [a football t-shirt]? I mean, this isn’t…high fashion.” Emotional attachment to the object also served as a potential barrier to donation; during her interview, Olga (female, 84 years), was moved to tears upon seeing her objects, pieces of her late-1950s United Airlines “stewardess” uniform, and recounting her decision to donate them.
Participants overcame the Barriers to Donation in different ways. When participants were “timid” (GoGo, female, 77 years) to donate their object, they eventually concluded that being potentially denied by the Museum was worth finding an appropriate home for their objects. Olga (female, 84 years) ultimately decided that “sharing the [“stewardess”] uniform and the wing [pin] would be better than keeping them for [herself].” Initially, Pooker (female, 42 years) was “hesitant” to approach the Museum about donating her object. To assuage this anxiety, Pooker removed a section of her printed gown to keep as a memento prior to donating the object.
Motives for Donation
Participants’ Motives for Donation impacted movement from Considering Divestment Options to Donation, which is illustrated in the model by a black line connecting the components and terminating in an arrow point at one end (see Figure 1). Eight motives were identified and reflected participants’ concerns and care for their objects, the Museum, and others/themselves.
The participants’ concern for the care and wellbeing of the object was manifested as Custodial Motivations, which was the most salient motivation and was experienced by every participant. Participants recalled their decision to donate being motivated by a desire to prevent an unknown fate for their objects (e.g., being thrown away or going to a secondhand store). In some cases, participants wanted to avoid family members deciding the fate of the object: “…I know where things [are and] might have a chance of surviving…as opposed to [family] looking at them when I’m dead going, ‘What is this?’” (Larry, male, 69 years). Other participants were inspired by the care that the Museum could provide for their objects.
Participants experienced Relational Motivations and were moved to donate their objects through connections to the Avenir Museum, Museum personnel, or CSU. Participants also were motivated through their direct connections to family or friends who had enacted a donation to similar institutions. When Nene (female, 69 years) asked her friend, a fashion designer who had donated textile objects to museums, what she should do with her 1920s blue velvet opera coat, her friend advised, “You could try a museum, you know.”
Participants recounted Educational Motivations, impelled to donate by the Museum's capacity to activate their object's story and educate others: “It's really the history and the stories behind the objects that I think are really important. And I think the Avenir Museum [does] a great job of telling that story.” (Charlotte, female, 54 years). This sentiment reflects participants’ perceptions of the importance of their objects as embodying the capacity to convey a meaningful historical narrative, which may reflect their privilege and positionality. Moreover, these participants were motivated by the Museum's accessibility to the public and students.
Participants also were motivated by how their object would impact the collection itself, as in the case of Consequential Motivations. A few participants were faculty or volunteers who had engaged in collections-based work, which gave them a unique familiarity with the collection and so were inclined to donate their object to fill a perceived need in the Museum's collection: “I used to take [my class on] trips [to the Museum]… and I had never seen a bark cloth [skirt in the Collection]” (Larry, male, 69 years). Consequential Motivations also were experienced by participants whose objects had a direct connection to the University and who felt that other museums “wouldn’t appreciate” their objects. Such was the case for Pooker (female, 42 years), who donated an upcycled dress with the University president's face stamped on it.
Pragmatic Motivations were relevant to participants whose donations were motivated by the practical benefits of freeing up space within their home, downsizing a family member's belongings, or recognizing that they had no continued use for their objects: “You get to a stage in your life when you need to…cut down on the… things that you keep. And so [donating to the Museum] is part of …reducing the…things that we own…” (Weezer, female, 81 years).
Participants who experienced Psychological Motivations mentioned acute internal pressure to “do good” by their object. These participants were sometimes not the original owners of their objects but were stewarding objects they had inherited. Nene (female, 69 years) felt a unique sense of pressure to donate her late mother in-law's opera coat, owing to her familial relationship to the object as well as to her professional background as a home economics teacher, which made her feel personally responsible for “saving” the object. Participants who experienced Psychological Motivations also mentioned donating to experience emotional relief upon being released from the responsibility of caring for the object(s).
Participants’ donations were motivated by Familial or Memorial Motivations, such as finding “the right home” for a meaningful object or providing closure for a departed loved one. One participant, Curly Tops (female, 83 years), was explicit in that her donation of clothing, such as her late-husband's Pendleton driving cap, was a way for her “family to be remembered.”
Participants also shared that their object donations were prompted by Altruistic Motives, or an interest in “doing the right thing” and the comfort from knowing their donation might help someone in the future. Altruistic Motives always overlapped with other motives such as Custodial, Educational, Psychological, and/or Familial Motivations. Chase's reflection reveals the interconnected nature of the Altruistic and Educational Motives impacting her decision to donate an embroidered Chinese skirt to the Museum: I think it's worth preserving because of the amount of work in it and whatever history…the Museum can learn about it. I'm not an expert in [Chinese embroidery]…so I’m [donating this skirt] hoping that someone can learn a little more about it and use it for teaching purposes. (Chase, female, 73 years)
Each participant experienced a unique mix of the identified motives while making their donation decision, rather than being driven by any singular motivation. For example, Curly Tops (female, 83 years) experienced a mix of Custodial, Educational, Pragmatic, Familial or Memorial, and Altrustic Motivations for her donation of family clothing objects. Additionally, different motives became relevant for distinct objects within the same donation, such as Larry's (male, 69 years) donation of a bark cloth skirt prompted by Consequential Motivations, whereas the men's knit sweater in Larry's donation was more motivated by Familial or Memorial Motivations. As such, participants experienced a variety of motives for the same gift and encountered different motivations for different gifts.
As discussed, the mission of the Museum emphasizes themes of documenting, preserving and expanding knowledge about dress, textiles, and interior furnishings as well as supporting national and international research and education activities. Although participants’ awareness of the Museum mission was not formally assessed in this study, it is interesting to note the conceptual overlap of the participants’ motives for donation – particularly the custodial, educational, consequential, and altruistic motives – with Museum's mission. Selected participants likely were more aware of the contents of the collection owing to their faculty or volunteer relationships with the Museum; participants with these direct relationships more often identified motives overlapping with the Museum's mission versus participants without a direct relationship to the Museum, who identified more self-serving motives (i.e., Pragmatic or Familial motives). This suggests that the participants’ pre-existing relationship to the Museum and interaction with the collection were important experiences that served to develop congruence between donor motives and the Museum's mission.
Donation and Post Donation Museum Interaction
From Donation, participants experienced a unidirectional move to Post Donation Museum Interaction, illustrated in the model by a black line terminating in an arrow and connecting Donation and Post Donation Museum Interaction (see Figure 1). Participants varied in terms of Post Donation Museum Interaction. Sometimes, participants continued their donation relationships with the Museum by enacting further donations. In other cases, participants had no post-donation interaction with the Museum. Some participants reported developing donation relationships with other institutions, and other participants formed post-donation volunteer relationships with the Museum. The participants-turned-volunteers sometimes influenced peers to consider donating their objects to the Museum, increasing the awareness of the Museum within their social circles; this potential relationship between Post Donation Museum Interaction and Awareness of the Museum is illustrated by a dashed line (see Figure 1).
Meaning and Identity in the Donation Decision Process
For participants, the process of making an object donation to the Museum offered opportunities to experience meaning in diverse ways and at various junctures throughout the donation process. To illustrate how Meaning permeated the entire donation decision process – the “when” of the meaning creation and/or experience process – Meaning is placed around the edges of the model, with dotted lines and arrows pointing inward (see Figure 1). In some cases, the early stages of the decision-making process were influenced by the Meaning the objects held for participants. For instance, during the Considering Divestment Options stage, participants mentioned wanting to prevent an unknown fate for the object alongside hoping to preserve their object's story (i.e., meaning). Other participants found the donation decision process meaningful through the gratification they felt after donation, knowing the object had a safe home. Still other participants perceived that the entire donation process was good preparation for “saying goodbye” (Vintage Lady, female, 71 years) to the object.
Participants varied in “why” and “how” they experienced Meaning through their object donation, as well. Here, participants’ degree of attachment played a role in how they experienced meaning. Participants who had a strong attachment to their objects prior to donating (e.g., wore the object themselves for an extended period, inherited the object from a loved one) experienced deeper Meaning during the donation decision process. For example, Lindorfa (female, 77 years) spoke of the strong connection she felt to her donated object – her mother's wedding gown. In recounting her decision to donate, she shared how she and her mother bonded over their discussions about the potential donation of the object to the Museum, which created new memories and meanings about the object and its donation for Lindorfa. This example also highlights how participants’ motives to donate – in Lindorfa's case, Familial or Memorial Motivations – set a context for the Meanings participants created during the object donation process. Conversely, participants who had a less direct attachment to their object(s) prior to donating (e.g., inherited from a spouse's loved one, objects not worn on the participant's body) seemed to experience less intense Meaning throughout the process.
The substance – or “what” of the meanings experienced through the participants’ donations – is embodied in how donated objects reflected their own past or current identities. Three themes of identity emerged from the data: Familial Identity (i.e.,., identity from participating in a family unit), Vocational Identity (i.e., professional identity), and Institutional Identity (i.e., university or academic identity). For example, Weezer (female, 81 years) enumerated how her donation of handmade maternity wear prompted memories of her days raising her children. GoGo (female, 77 years) shared how her 1970s Dior business suit represented her transition from teaching to working in the male-dominated field of business and her newfound identity as a businesswoman. Pooker (female, 42 years) articulated how the experience of donating a dress printed with the university president's face validated her identities as a first-generation student and alumna of CSU and described her donation decision as “an incredibly unique memory and experience…that can’t be taken away.” These themes of identity are not mutually exclusive and sometimes intersected with each other. For instance, Andy (male, 68 years) experienced aspects of both Institutional Identity and Vocational Identity when describing his donation decision-making process, relating to his connection as an alumnus of CSU and the consideration he put into his donation as a museum professional.
Discussion and Conclusions
This case study explores the decision-making, motivations, and meaning-making processes of donors to the Avenir Museum. Analyses were used to construct a grounded theory model of the decision-making processes and experiences of donors who enacted an individual, passive donation of 10 or fewer objects to a historic fashion and textiles museum on a university campus. To our knowledge, this is the first known model to illustrate such a decision-making process; prior models (e.g., Burnett & Wood, 1988; Guy & Patton, 1989; Sargeant, 1999, 2014) have examined solicited decision-making processes for donations of time or money. The model illustrates how donors of historic fashion/dress objects move between the major components of the decision-making process (i.e., Evaluation of Perceived Object Value, Considering Divestment Options, Motives for Donation, Donation, and Post-Donation Museum Interaction) and considers how Meaning shaped the entire decision-making process. Three impacting factors— Awareness of the Museum, Reinforcements to Donation, and Barriers to Donation—affected the way participants experienced Considering Divestment Options. Analyses revealed eight key motives influencing the decision to donate objects to the Museum—Custodial, Relational, Educational, Consequential, Pragmatic, Psychological, Familial, and Altruistic Motivations—the most salient among them being Custodial motivations. The model also incorporates a “loop” illustrating the potential for a repeating cycle of donation by participants and/or their peers by increasing the Awareness of the Museum.
This research also is the first to incorporate Belk's (1988, 2018) work on the extended self and extended object into a model of the object donation and experience process. Analyses revealed that Meaning imbued in the donated fashion/dress objects began to shape the donation-decision making process long before the process started, via the incorporation of these objects into the extended selves of the participants or their dear others. Possessions integrated into the extended self, such as objects of fashion/dress, can serve as an “objective manifestation of the self” (Belk, 1988, p.159); thus, a donation of such objects to the Museum can be viewed as purposeful extensions of the self for the participant and/or their loved ones. The experiences of Pooker (female, 42 years) exemplified the connection between object, the self, and meaning in the donation process. Her object was so invested with meaning and identity that she decided to cut and frame a piece of it before donating it to the Museum; this act serves as a testament to the Meaning imbued in the object and experienced through the donation decision process.
Belk (1988) mentions the important relationship between objects constituting the extended self and their care; the donation of cherished objects of dress to a university museum can be conceptualized as an ultimate act of care for objects representing “anchors for identity” (p. 159), in that the museum agreed to steward the object and its history in perpetuity. Accepting a donation creates an indelible bond between the museum, donor, and object, which evokes the concept of the extended object (Belk, 2018). Objects of fashion/dress and their respective stories, symbolism, and meaning can be infinitely extended through exhibition and education made possible by the museum.
Another novel aspect of the model is the identification of specific factors that served to reinforce and potentially impede object donations of historic fashion/dress, which impacted how participants navigated Considering Divestment Options for their objects.
This study revealed two motives unique to the donation of objects to a historic fashion and textiles museum on the university campus – Educational and Relational Motives. The identification of Educational Motives among participants can be viewed as a reflection of the Museum's mission owing to its affiliation with a university and the participants’ desires to contribute to the fulfillment of that mission in their own unique way. Many participants in the study also had previous connections to the Museum, Museum personnel, or the University, which manifested as Relational Motivations and attest to the strength of a priori connections, (which, in turn, also may have shaped the participants’ commitment to education).
Selected motives identified in this exploration align with findings from prior literature exploring charitable giving and other types of museum donations, perhaps suggesting that there may be some motives for donation that are universal, regardless of the type of donation. In both the present study and Bekkers and Wiepking's (2011) analysis of motives driving monetary charitable giving, Psychological Motives were identified. Further, Altruistic and Consequential Motives – identified within the present sample – were conceptually similar to Altruism (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Konrath & Handy, 2017) and Efficacy (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011) as key motives that drive monetary charitable giving. Importantly, however, among the present sample, Altruism was not a sole motivator, but operated in tandem with Custodial, Educational, Psychological, and/or Familial Motivations. Custodial Motivations identified in the present work also align to some extent with Foster's (2019) analysis of motives where intergenerational donations were driven by the perception of the museum as a “place of physical security for the object” (p.102). And, similar to Sargeant's (2014) work on solicited charitable donations, analyses provide empirical evidence that passive object donations to museums may be motivated by the aim of honoring the memory of a loved one (i.e., Familial or Memorial Motivations); making a significant impact (i.e., Consequential Motivations); or accruing practical benefits (i.e., Pragmatic Motivations). Finally, findings provide additional support for the supposition that donors experience different motives, at different times, for various gifts (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Konrath & Handy, 2017), including experiencing different motives, even for the same gift.
In a variety of ways, findings from the current study also support and extend Sargeant's (2014) work on individual charity giving. For instance, participants in the present sample encountered and overcame assorted Barriers to Donation, as Sargeant proposed may be the case for individuals making solicited charitable donations. Findings also suggest a potential relationship between a donor's Post-Donation Museum Interaction and the Awareness of the Museum. This potential relationship illustrates Sargeant's (2014) suggestion of including a feedback loop by modeling how donors might share their experiences of donating to the Museum with peers in their social circles, thereby increasing the Awareness of the Museum and, thus, potential future donations. Finally, Sargeant's (2014) acknowledgement of the importance of communities of participation (cf., Schervish & Havens, 1997) also was well represented in the current sample. Among participants, these communities most frequently included the social circles of the Museum volunteer pool and the University housing the Museum. In some cases, a priori relationships with these communities impacted Awareness of the Museum or Relational Motives. In other instances, Post-Donation Museum Interactions prompted donors to join these communities or even to solicit the participation of others in these communities.
The present work is limited by its case study design insomuch as it represents the experiences of 13 donors to a specific historic fashion and textiles museum on a university campus (i.e., the Avenir Museum). Thus, results are not generalizable or suggestive of a larger population of museum donors. Additionally, the study is limited by its homogenous sample, which did not reflect much diversity in terms of age, ethnicity, or gender. This lack of diversity in the sample made it difficult to ascertain differences across participants’ experiences that may have reflected their social locations/demographic characteristics (cf., Sargeant, 1999). Further, many participants had a priori connections to the University or the Museum itself, which impacted their Awareness of the Museum and their eventual donation. Finally, participants were not aware of the Museum's budget model or deaccession policy, which could have impacted their donation decisions. Future research can address these limitations of the present study. More than 50 museums of historic fashion and textiles can be found on university campuses across the United States (Queen & Berger, 2006); a broader study might analyze and compare donor experiences from different collections of these types to explore whether there are differences in the decision-making, motivations, and meaning-making process based upon factors such as donor characteristics, donation size, monetary donation, museum characteristics (i.e., deaccession practices, budget model, collection size), and location. Also of interest, especially in a study considering donors of more substantial object donations, is how financial contributions to the museum to ensure stewardship and perpetuity of care for objects might shape donor experiences and motivations.
Findings also have implications for professionals employed within historic fashion and textile museums on a university campus. For example, the model presented in this study could be implemented as a training tool among museum personnel who interface with donors to preempt certain Barriers to Donation, such as the donor's questioning of the significance of their object. Museum personnel also may look to the motives identified in this study as a way to activate interest among prospective donors, such as tailoring communications related to the museum's mission (e.g., Educational or Custodial Motives) in locations such as the museum website and donor-facing information collection or accession forms used in the donation process.
Finally, considering the importance of awareness of the museum to donation decisions, museum personnel could promote the museum to communities of potential donors. In some cases, it may be effective for existing donors or museum volunteers to connect with prospective donors to convey the value of donating objects to a given historic fashion and textiles museum on a university campus.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Megan Osborne, Interim Director, Collections Manager, and Assistant Curator at the Avenir Museum, for her assistance identifying past donors (potential participants) to the Avenir Museum.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
