From Engagement to Restitution: How Museum Engagement Can Shape Young People’s Views on Contested Cultural Objects

Xinyu Yang; Professor Grant Parker | 2026 | Research Article

1. Introduction

Museums allow the public to engage their own histories as well as those of others. They preserve objects, organize them into narratives, and present those stories through curators and authorities. Yet many museum collections were formed during colonial rule, military violence, unequal trade, extraction, and coercive collecting (Sarr & Savoy, 2018; Hicks, 2020, 2021). The presence of these objects in foreign museums has led to increasing debates about whether cultural objects should be returned to their countries or communities of origin.

Restitution is more than a legal or administrative matter. Public support and pressure affect museums’ attitudes toward return (Campbell, 2024). Labels and exhibition design shape what visitors learn about an object, its significance, and its history. This study asks how museum design can increase engagement in ways that promote restitution, especially among younger generations. It uses ten semi-structured interviews with students in Northern Virginia to examine their engagement, opinions, suggestions, and preferences.

2. Literature Review

Restitution raises questions of physical and cultural ownership, historical recognition, cultural authority, access, and preservation (Campfens, 2026; Curtis, 2006). Merryman (1986) contrasts cultural nationalism with cultural internationalism. Sarr and Savoy (2018) frame the return of African heritage as a way to restructure institutional relationships, while Hicks (2021) argues that museums prolong dispossession when they separate objects from violent acquisition histories. Object biography can reveal changing meanings and relationships (Kopytoff, 1986; Gosden & Marshall, 1999), but incomplete records and selective narratives may obscure coercion and uncertainty (Joy, 2009; Hicks, 2021).

Research on young museum audiences links engagement to prior knowledge, interests, social relationships, belonging, and the physical environment (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005; Mason & McCarthy, 2006). Language, cost, institutional expectations, and the absence of peers can limit participation (Dawson, 2014). Exhibition layout, label length and placement, and social interaction shape attention and learning (Bitgood & Patterson, 1993; Reitstätter et al., 2022). Less attention has been given to how young visitors understand restitution and whether design influences their views.

3. Methodology

This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with ten students aged sixteen to seventeen at a private school in Northern Virginia. Participants are identified as Participants 1–10. Interviews covered museum attendance, impressions, labels and audio guides, cultural connection, restitution, social media, exhibition design, and interactive activities. Transcripts were lightly edited and analyzed through recurring codes grouped into current youth engagement, opinions on restitution, ways to increase engagement through personal experience, and connections between engagement and restitution. Participants consented to recording and possible research use. The small, socially connected sample and lack of a standardized before-and-after intervention limit generalizability and do not establish causation.

4. Findings

4.1 Current Youth Engagement

Nine of ten participants reported visiting museums seldom, often because visits depended on school trips, family travel, relatives, or parents’ interests. Many described museums as boring, but this did not mean they rejected history or art. Prior knowledge and cultural connections could increase interest. All participants scanned some object labels, while most avoided audio guides as tedious or inconvenient. Several preferred shorter, clearer labels; others wanted more detail and larger text. Participants wanted labels to explain an object’s meaning and why it was present, not only basic facts.

4.2 Opinions on Restitution

Six participants generally supported returning objects when acquisition was illegal; others raised concerns about provenance, access, research, and preservation. No participant supported automatic return. Acquisition history, community consent, religious and cultural significance, preservation capacity, and public access shaped views. Several distinguished ownership from physical location and suggested loans, traveling exhibitions, shared management, or collaborative research. Six participants felt stronger pride or engagement when encountering objects connected to their culture or community. Restitution was not usually considered during ordinary visits, and opinions depended on information about acquisition, significance, access, and preservation.

4.3 Ways to Increase Engagement through Personal Experience

Participants remembered embodied experiences that let them move through historical environments, interact with spatial arrangements, and immerse themselves in context. Suggestions included compact displays, greenery, outdoor space, direct object comparisons, less text-dense galleries, period-specific lighting, and live interpreters. Games, scavenger hunts, simulations, AR, VR, touchscreens, and touchable objects could provide reasons to pay attention, though one participant viewed many games as childish. Short, informal social media posts could encourage visits, but participants questioned whether online content would create meaningful attention. Exit surveys were suggested as a way to gather immediate feedback.

5. Connecting Engagement to Restitution

The interviews suggest a sequence in which engagement creates attention; interpretation directs attention toward historical and ethical questions; and reflection may lead to judgments about restitution. Each step matters, but none guarantees the next. Museums should offer multiple entry points based on prior knowledge, cultural connections, social interaction, and exhibition design. Layered labels can provide concise information with optional deeper pathways. Interactive experiences may encourage visitors to pause, but enjoyment alone does not reveal an object’s ownership history.

Provenance connects engagement and restitution. Exhibitions can explain who made and used an object, how and under what conditions it left its community, what evidence remains uncertain, who holds legal possession and cultural claims, what source communities request, and which options are available. Object biographies should acknowledge missing or contradictory records rather than present a neutral journey. Museums should work with source communities to determine appropriate representation and interaction, while addressing unequal authority (Boast, 2011). Public access can be distinguished from possession through examples of returned objects that remain displayed, partnerships, and traveling exhibitions; no arrangement suits every object.

6. Discussion

The findings offer no single solution to youth disengagement. Participants valued immersive and interactive experiences, but also meaningful connections with objects, settings, prior knowledge, and action. School curricula, family stories, cultural references, design, interpretation, and optional games can provide varied entry points. Restitution judgments reflected concerns about theft, consent, religion, cultural pride, preservation, and access. Provenance can connect cultural meaning to authority and ownership. Engagement does not always increase support for return; museums should make histories, voices, and possible responses visible rather than steer visitors toward a predetermined answer.

7. Conclusion

The ten interviews identify challenges in attracting young audiences, presenting information engagingly, and encouraging visitors to consider ownership beyond the physical object. Young people may respect museums but rarely visit; they may scan labels or enjoy immersive exhibits without reflecting on provenance. Their views on restitution are nuanced and shaped by acquisition, consent, religious significance, cultural connection, preservation, accessibility, and community requests. Museum design may create attention, but engagement alone does not promote restitution. Museums must connect experiences to provenance and authority, making an object’s history visible while acknowledging that greater awareness does not guarantee support for return.

References

Bitgood, S. C., & Patterson, D. D. (1993). The effects of gallery changes on visitor reading and object viewing time. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 761–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593256006 Boast, R. (2011). Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. Museum Anthropology, 34(1). Campbell, E. (2024). An art restitution zeitgeist? Museum ethics and the law in the early twenty-first century. The Journal of the Western Society for French History, 49. https://doi.org/10.3998/wsfh.5354 Campfens, E. (2026). Beyond ownership: An evolving framework for the restitution of cultural objects. Chinese Journal of Transnational Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/2753412x261428413 Curtis, N. G. W. (2006). Universal museums, museum objects and repatriation: The tangled stories of things. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770600402102 Davis, R. H. (1997). Lives of Indian Images. Princeton University Press. Dawson, E. (2014). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21133 Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20078 Gosden, C., & Marshall, Y. (1999). The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology, 31(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/125055 Hicks, D. (2020). Brutish museums: The Benin bronzes, colonial violence and cultural restitution. Pluto Press. Hicks, D. (2021). Necrography: Death-writing in the colonial museum. British Art Studies, (19). https://doi.org/10.17658/issn.2058-5462/issue-19/conversation Huberman, S. (2025). We don’t need more screens in museums. Public Humanities, 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/pub.2025.10064 Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. Cambridge University Press. Joy, J. (2009). Reinvigorating object biography: Reproducing the drama of object lives. World Archaeology, 41(4), 540–556. Mason, D. D. M., & McCarthy, C. (2006). ‘The feeling of exclusion’: Young peoples’ perceptions of art galleries. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770600402101 Merryman, J. H. (1986). Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property. The American Journal of International Law, 80(4), 831–853. https://doi.org/10.2307/2202065 Pekarik, A. J., Doering, Z. D., & Karns, D. A. (1999). Exploring satisfying experiences in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 42(2), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1999.tb01137.x Reitstätter, L., Galter, K., & Bakondi, F. (2022). Looking to read: How visitors use exhibit labels in the art museum. Visitor Studies, 25(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2021.2018251 Sarr, F., & Savoy, B. (2018). Rapport sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain. France Minister of Culture. Taylor, R. (2026). Attracting and engaging teens: Lessons from research and practice. Journal of Museum Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2026.2614267 Tzibazi, V. (2013). Participatory Action Research with young people in museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2013.776800