Educational Connections: Museums, Universities, and Schools as Places of Supplementary Learning

Abstract

This study explores current and potential connections between museums, schools, and universities. It is based on 18 expert interviews with representatives from 19 institutions, conducted between 2015 and 2024, to assess feasibility and gather ideas for improving communication and collaboration between these educational institutions. Of the 19 participating institutions, 17 are Hispanic. The study is further enriched by interviews with two experts from Brazil and France, who collaborate within the Spanish university sector. This qualitative research uses interviews to analyze the key opinions of its participants, from both an analytical and propositional perspective. Five analytical categories are defined to extract and organize the final results: museum conceptualization, institutional relationships, collaboration strategies, pedagogical and methodological approaches, and transformation and development. The findings underscore the importance and feasibility of interinstitutional cooperation. The value of creating convergent narratives and developing collaborative and egalitarian projects is highlighted. The study suggests viewing museum as spaces with high educational potential, social function, and research capacity. The key lies in mediating cognitive/esthetic proposals; and educational approaches, fostering new perspectives and interconnections. This seeks to create a network of relationships that strengthens the bond between these three institutions, enhancing their joint educational impact.

1. Introduction

Rapid scientific and technological advances are transforming social contexts at a global scale, generating unprecedented challenges for formal and informal education systems. This evolution demands a redefinition of essential competences for 21st century citizens and an agile and effective adaptation of traditional educational models (Castells, 2006). The current landscape demands professionals with skills that differ significantly from those required just a decade ago, particularly in terms of digital competency, critical thinking, creativity, and the ability for flexible and personalized learning (World Economic Forum, 2023; UNESCO, 2024b). At the same time, the labor market is evolving rapidly, also requiring skills such as critical thinking, creativity, and interpersonal skills, forcing education systems and institutions to adapt their curricula to integrate these 21st century competences (OECD, 2023; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2015). It is also crucial to provide continuous training and updating opportunities for educators, allowing them to keep up with the latest trends and adopt innovative pedagogical approaches (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

In this context of constant change, it is crucial to foster a sense of identity that preserves cultural roots as an essential foundation of new societies, which has become an emerging challenge in the era of globalization (UNESCO, 2024a). In this regard, the connectivist approach, which emphasizes the construction of learning networks and interaction between individuals, can facilitate the preservation and dissemination of cultural identity in an increasingly interconnected world (Siemens, 2004).

2. Interinstitutional Collaboration: A Multidimensional Approach

It is crucial to explore new forms of integration between the school and university education system and its surrounding environment (Huerta & Soto González, 2022), making it essential to create innovative collaborations and links with diverse organizations in order to enrich educational work (OECD, 2024). In this context, museums emerge as fundamental allies, making it necessary to generate spaces for dialog where the voices of educational institutions, universities, and museums are heard (Coca-Jiménez & Marín-Cepeda, 2023). The objective of these spaces would be to establish multidimensional connections with the environment at all levels of the educational system, making it more permeable and capable of interpreting and responding to the cultural, social, political, and economic signs of citizens in an environment of collaboration and consensus (García-Canclini, 2001).

The links between museums, educational institutions, and universities have gained global relevance as strategies to promote pedagogical innovation, interdisciplinary research, and community development. The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London stands out for its inclusive approach. In recent years, it has hired refugees as cultural guides, integrating diverse perspectives into its educational programs (OECD & ICOM, 2019). This model not only fosters local employment, but also enriches the museum experience through intercultural narratives.

On the other hand, the report “Understanding the Value of Arts and Culture” (Farrell, 2016), led by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, highlights the role of museums as catalysts for lifelong learning, especially through collaborations with universities. A concrete example is the alliance between the Tate Modern and University College London (UCL), which are researching techniques for the conservation of contemporary art using artificial intelligence and nanotechnologies (Tate Modern, 2023).

According to the OECD in the ICOM Report (2019), “British museums are not mere repositories of objects, but social laboratories where education, technology, and civic participation converge” (OECD & ICOM, 2019, p. 42).

Although available research emphasizes the internationalization of Canadian universities, such as the University of Alberta, and their links with economic sectors, museums also play a role in knowledge transfer. The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) collaborates with the University of Toronto on archeological and anthropological projects, although these initiatives are not always thoroughly documented in public reports. Professional internship and artist residency programs, such as those at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, serve as bridges between academia and cultural management (Government of Québec, 2022). The integration of museums into university networks allows for democratizing access to heritage and generating new pedagogical methodologies.

According to the American Alliance of Museums (AAM, 2017), U.S. museums generate an annual economic impact of USD 50 billion and employ more than 726,000 people. Institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution have established strategic alliances with elite universities, including Harvard and MIT, to develop projects in digital heritage and STEAM education. A recent example is the “Art and Technology Lab” program at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, carried out in collaboration with Columbia University, which explores intersections between art, artificial intelligence, and digital ethics (MoMA, 2023). “Museums are economic engines, but also critical spaces for rethinking 21st-century education” (AAM, 2017, p. 8).

2.1. The Transformative Role of Museums

Museums are faced with new demands from the formal education system and must adapt to these emerging demands (Luna & Ibáñez-Etxeberria, 2020). In this new paradigm, the concept of heritage expands, encompassing not only the ancient and inherited, but also contemporary cultural manifestations (Huerta & Rodríguez-López, 2025). As Arrieta Urtizberea (2021) points out, “the notion of cultural heritage has expanded significantly, now including current cultural expressions and assets that reflect the identity and values of contemporary societies” (p. 45). This vision of cultural heritage, understood as a temporal continuum that integrates past and present, represents a paradigmatic shift in the way we understand and value our cultural heritage. Even heritage elements inherited from the past are now received, analyzed, interpreted, and transmitted from contemporary perspectives and contexts, creating a constant dialog between historical and contemporary aspects (Fontal & Ibáñez-Etxeberria, 2017; AECID, 2024; Huerta, 2024).

2.2. Interconnected Educational Fabric

Museums, schools, and universities are not isolated entities; they form an interconnected educational network that encompasses diverse spaces and contexts (Baig et al., 2023). This interrelationship is fundamental for building realistic and relevant art education, adapted to the complexity of contemporary reality. It is crucial to reevaluate the complexities and connections between art and education, as they have historically been considered independent spheres. However, these divisions are currently unsustainable due to the expansion and interconnectedness of educational and cultural institutions. What were previously perceived as separate spheres have evolved into collaborative networks, where education becomes a central axis. Vicente Todolí, in an interview with Manen (2006), points out that interest in education is not only political, but also a strategic aspect for creating future audiences and addressing diversity.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Spanish museums began to integrate education as an essential resource, driven by political and institutional changes. The neoliberal economy required museums to fulfill dual functions: public service and cultural entertainment. This implies that museum education cannot be considered in isolation; it must be contextualized within its social and cultural environment. Collaboration with the urban and social environment is key to the development of effective educational policies (Gil, 2019). According to Szántó (2023), museums must become meeting spaces open for dialog, where education is a continuous and dynamic process.

While museum education has begun to attract children and young adults, university participation has historically been underestimated. However, new pedagogies are changing this perception, promoting mutual learning among visitors of diverse characteristics and abilities. As Murillo et al. (2023) point out, the inclusion of arts education in the university curriculum is essential for developing critical and creative citizens.

2.3. New Interdisciplinary Relationships

Currently, new relationships between museums and universities are emerging, becoming more interdisciplinary (Nava & Pazos-López, 2020). This partnership is attractive, representing a shift toward a more accessible culture. In this regard, it becomes essential to examine the structures and policies of these institutions, as well as the accountability dynamics that govern them (Vadillo Lobo, 2023). Mediation, therefore, becomes a process of institutional change that requires a reevaluation of the organizations and subjectivities involved (Rodrigo-Montero & Collados-Alcaide, 2015).

Calbó and Terradellas (2005) argue that heritage education should be part of general education, as it contributes to human and cultural development. This perspective reinforces the need for innovative collaborative approaches between universities, museums, and educational centers. In this sense, Cuenca López and Estepa Giménez (2013) emphasize that collaboration between cultural and educational institutions is crucial for the development of projects that respond to contemporary needs.

2.4. Collaborative Research and Future Challenges

Research serves as a means to address new cultural and communicative challenges (Delgado-Bardales, 2021). Therefore, universities should foster relevant contracts that unite professionals from different institutions, creating an environment conducive to collaborative research. In this regard, it is essential to design strategies that facilitate connections between schools, museums, and universities, thus addressing networked changes and collaborations. The creation of active research groups is crucial for coordinating projects involving diverse institutions. With this in mind, art education is presented as a driver of interaction, promoting spaces for collaboration and joint learning.

Collaboration between academia and museums plays a fundamental role in enriching contemporary art education. Creating this shared communication between educational institutions and museums requires a collaborative and innovative approach that recognizes student diversity and promotes active participation in the artistic experience. This process entails a constant reevaluation of educational practices and an openness to new forms of interaction between art, educators, and the public (Hernández-Hernández, 2019; Huerta, 2010). In this context, digital strategies have emerged as catalysts for more fluid and efficient communication between institutions, as Huerta and Navarro Espinach (2023) point out in their analysis of disruptive museums and new educational approaches.

2.5. Specialized Training and Cultural Mediation

The specialized training of educational staff is revealed as a key factor in transforming museum visits into truly meaningful experiences. Fontal Merillas (2013) emphasizes the need for universities and schools to forge collaborative networks that integrate pedagogical needs from early childhood education to postgraduate studies (Castro-Calviño & López-Facal, 2019). In this scenario, educators assume a crucial role as cultural mediators, acting as what Lewin (1947) and White (1950) called “gatekeepers”, that is, information filters based on professional criteria and practical experience.

However, this cooperation between museums, universities, and schools is not without challenges. Catibiela (2017) and Soto-González (2015) identify significant obstacles, such as the scarcity of teaching tools adapted to museum contexts and insufficient initial training in visual culture skills. These challenges require the development of new collaborative action protocols that go beyond traditional institutional dynamics.

2.6. Pedagogical Innovation Strategies

To address these challenges, universities must implement pedagogical innovation strategies (Pastor-Blázquez & Bernal-Bravo, 2024). Xanthoudaki (2016) and Bevan and Xanthoudaki (2008) propose the creation of ongoing training programs for museum educators, the development of interdisciplinary projects that use collections as teaching resources, and applied research on cultural mediation methodologies (Triviño-Cabrera & Chaves-Guerrero, 2024). These initiatives should harness the potential of new technologies to create shared knowledge networks, also considering transmedia narratives and content outreach and dissemination efforts through social media (Orozco Varela et al., 2022; Palencia-Triana, 2024).

Museums, for their part, are evolving toward a more active role as social laboratories for the construction of collective identities (Carvalho, 1996). Luelmo-Jareño (2007) emphasizes that the educational role of museums transcends mere conservation, promoting critical readings of heritage through visual literacy strategies. This perspective requires rethinking models of collaboration between cultural and academic institutions (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007).

2.7. Challenges in Contemporary Art Education

Awareness of the importance of arts education and heritage in museums was not consolidated until the 20th century. Although educational departments have been incorporated into museums in recent decades, they still face significant obstacles to effective educational action (Arriaga, 2011). Despite the intense liaison between institutions, in many museums, educational work is not considered a priority, and educational teams often operate within rigid structures, adopting traditional discourses (Calaf Masachs & Suárez, 2015).

Educational teams from contemporary art museums face particular challenges due to the complexity and, at times, lack of acceptance of the works on display. A lack of training in contemporary culture can lead to disinterest or rejection among school and university audiences (Fontal & Ibáñez-Etxeberria, 2017). To address this issue, it is essential to share personal experiences that help reconstruct both individual and collective memories, facilitating new ways of interpreting and expressing memories based on the works on display.

2.8. Professional Development and Awareness

Faced with the accelerated obsolescence of knowledge, González-Sanz and Feliu-Torruella (2023) advocate for holistic training and continuous professional updating systems (Sack & Thompson, 2024).

Similarly, raising awareness about art and education is essential to fully explore its esthetic, emotional, and social values (Luna & Ibáñez-Etxeberria, 2020). This process requires a historical analysis that connects art with contemporary interests, ensuring its internal and external coherence (Calbó et al., 2011). Raising awareness acts as a key turning point for achieving pedagogical objectives and promoting the symbolic appropriation of content, integrating it into individual’s own context and identity.

2.9. Experiential Learning and Cultural Identity

Learning must be based on previous experiences, given that memory stores what is meaningful and connected to personal reality. In this sense, teaching in schools, museums, and universities must be based on individual and collective experiences. As Calbó et al. (2011) argue, “arts education emphasizes its cognitive consequences: working in art contributes to the development of complex and subtle ways of thinking” (p. 116). From an educational perspective, identity is a central value, given that learning is built from the interaction between individuals and their environment. Museums and heritage offer opportunities for the discovery and development of knowledge in multiple dimensions: conceptual, procedural, and attitudinal (Lucas-Palacios & de Atalaya, 2025). Art becomes a mediator of identity, allowing students to relate to, understand, and identify with their cultural environment.

2.10. From Passive Observation to Active Reflection

The artistic innovations of the 20th century have rendered the passive attitude of mere observation of schoolchildren and university students ineffective. It is crucial to understand art as a reflective activity that can generate new situations or realities, which poses a significant challenge for most people (Eisner, 2004). Museum educators play a fundamental role in revealing ways of approaching works, demystifying the idea that a special gift or exceptional wisdom is required to understand museum content (López & Kivatinetz, 2006). Learning in museums is enriched when students adopt a reflective and active attitude, reinterpreting their prior experiences and knowledge. According to Lois H. Silverman (2009), memory plays a fundamental role in the construction of meaning by placing what is found within the context of personal experience.

Museums should prioritize experience over the work itself, consider sociocultural contexts, and avoid the museum’s authority as the sole source of knowledge (Jara, 2016). This allows students to become the protagonists of their learning, fostering creativity and critical reflection (Lull Sanz & Vallugera Fuster, 2024).

3. Materials and Methods

The research methodology employed in this study is based on qualitative techniques, specifically the use of interviews and the concept of triangulation. Triangulation, according to Miguel S. Valles (1996), involves the application of various methods and systems in the investigation of a single phenomenon.

3.1. Research Question

The research question guiding this study is: what connections currently exist, or could potentially develop, between universities, educational institutions, and museums within the Hispanic context?

3.2. Research Design

The design of this qualitative research used a research interview method with expert professionals in the fields of museums, schools, and universities. Arrangements for the interviews were made through email or phone to schedule the date and location, as visits needed to be planned. Out of the 18 interviews, only 2 took place via videoconference; the rest were held in person, involving visits to the participants’ workplace or various locations due to their involvement in conferences or events.

For the interview, four key questions were defined to delve deeper into the research question: what do schools need from museums in the Hispanic context? What can museums offer schools in the Hispanic context? What do universities need from museums and schools in the Hispanic context? What do museums and schools need from universities in the Hispanic context?

Transcriptions were made in verbatim format to provide the necessary documentation for data analysis and to compile the textual narrative of the discourse. The contributions were cross-referenced to identify shared inputs that informed the narrative text of the data analysis. This process involved making inferences, constructing bottom-up conclusions, and focusing on the main responses based on preference, as specified in processes of agreement or disagreement.

To complement the analysis, five categories were created to synthesize the content of the contributions made in the interviews. The categories are museum conceptualization, institutional relationships, collaboration strategies, pedagogical and methodological approaches, and transformation and development.

The appropriate responses were then identified as those questions that verified the research question and their contribution to the dimensions of analysis through their recurrence and assertiveness in relation to the research topic and its analysis format.

The triangulation included was carried out through an exploration and reflective discussion about schools, museums, and universities. The main contributions of the experts were included as a fundamental source for the reconstruction of knowledge, which reflects the findings of the fieldwork.

This qualitative methodology, based on the triangulation of diverse sources and perspectives, allowed for a deeper and more holistic understanding of the phenomenon studied, increasing the validity and consistency of the findings.

3.3. Data Analysis

The hermeneutic triangulation process was carried out once the information was completely gathered, which involved the gathering and dialectical crossing of all the information relevant to the object of study (Benavides & Gómez-Restrepo, 2005). The practical procedure for triangulating the interviews followed the following steps: (a) compilation of the information obtained during the fieldwork; (b) triangulation of the information for each person or group; and (c) triangulation of the information between all the research questions.

Information was sorted based on criteria of relevance and consistency, considering only information directly related to the research topic and allowing for the identification of emerging issues specific to qualitative research (Hernández-Sampieri, 2014). Four categories of analysis were created to synthesize the content: museum conceptualization, institutional relationships, collaboration strategies, pedagogical and methodological approaches, and transformation and development. The appropriate responses were used to identify those questions that met the objective of relevance, either due to their recurrence or their relevance to the research topic.

Triangulation of information by individual or group allowed us to understand the opinions of the different participants according to their institution of origin (museum, university, or school) (Charres, 2018). This process was carried out through inference, drawing bottom-up conclusions and concentrating the main responses by preferences, specified in processes of coincidence or divergence.

The triangulation included throughout the text with the theoretical framework was carried out through a reflective exploration and discussion of specialized literature on education through art, schools, museums, and universities. This process was not limited to a mere theoretical framework, but was used as a fundamental source for the reconstruction of knowledge, sparking a new discussion between the existing literature and the findings of the fieldwork.

The correct formalization of the interpretation process was achieved thanks to the use of basic theoretical questions, which allowed for organic thinking and a systematic and sequenced arrangement of the synthesis and argumentation (Valles, 1996).

This qualitative methodology, based on the triangulation of diverse sources and perspectives, allowed for a deeper and more holistic understanding of the phenomenon studied, increasing the validity and consistency of the findings.

3.4. Participants/Context

The sample and data collection were based on 18 interviews conducted with national and international experts representing 18 institutions (see

Table 1. Participating institutions and experts.

Institution	Participants
University of Santiago de Compostela, (USC).	Franco Vázquez, Carmen. (CF) Trigo Martínez, Cristina. (CT) Agra Pardiñas, Mª Jesús. (MJA) Professors in the Department of Didactics of Artistic–Plastic Education.
La Salle University Center (affiliated with the UAM).	Abad Molina, Javier. (JA) Visual artist and professor in the Department of Didactics of Plastic Arts Expression.
Center of Contemporary Art La Panera, Lleida.	Ayuso Moli, Helena. (HA) Cultural management technician. Head of Educational Services.
University of Oviedo, UOV.	Calaf Masachs, Roser. (RC) Professor in the Department of Didactics of Social Sciences.
Valencian Museum of Enlightenment and Modernity, (MUVIM).	De la Calle, Román. (RDC) Honorary Professor. Former Director of the MUVIM and President of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Carlos in Valencia.
Rene Descartes Universite, Paris V, La Sorbonne.	Falcón Vignoli, Marcelo. (MF) Professor of Art, Design, Sociology, and Education and Research.
University of Valencia, (UV).	De la Calle, Román. (RDC) Honorary Professor. President of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Carlos de Valencia. Huerta Ramon, Ricard. Professor in the Department of Plastic Arts Education.
University of Lleida (UDL).	Jové Monclús, Glòria. (GJ) Professor in the Department of Pedagogy and Psychology.
Rovira i Virgili University. Tarragona (URV).	Macaya Ruiz, Albert. (AM) Visual artist and professor in the Department of Artistic Education.
AVALEM, Valencian Association of Educators in Museums. Culturama.	Noguerol Elena, Luis. (LN) Educator and artistic mediator.
Museum of Modern Art of Tarragona (MAMT).	Suárez Barral, Marisa. (MS) Educator.
Galician Center for Contemporary Art (CGAC).	Trigo Martinez, Cristina. (CT) Former coordinator of the educational service of the CGAC.
University of Girona (UDG).	Vallés Villaplana, Joan. (JV) Professor in the Department of Didactics.
Museum of Contemporary Art of Vigo (MARCO).	Viana Tomé, Marta. (MV) Head of Communication and Didactics.
Association of Professors of Expression and Visual Communication (APECV).	Torres de Eca, Teresa. (TT) APECV President. Plastic artist and visual arts teacher in secondary education. Saldanha, Ângela. (AS) APECV Vice President.
Manolo Safont de Onda Tile Museum.	Ribera Giner, Marc. (MR) Technician–educator.
Jaume I University of Castellón (UJI).	Ribera Giner, Marc. (MR) Professor in the teaching area of Plastic Expression.
International Society for Education Through Art (INSEA).	Torres de Eca, Teresa. (TT) Former President (2014–2019) and Vice President (2011–2014) of INSEA
Paulista State University, Brazil, (UNESP) and the Federal University of Goiás Brazil, (UFG).	Amaral, Liliam. (LA) Visual artist, researcher, professor, and curator in the field of relational public art in the Ibero-American context.

). Participants were selected based on their CVs, which guaranteed their expertise in the subject matter.

The table shows that some participants appear twice, as they balance their roles and functions in line with the suggested institutional classification structure.

The selection of participants was justified by their resumes, ensuring they possessed the necessary expertise in the subject of study. The selection criteria addressed museum management responsibilities, involvement in educational departments within museums, and professional expertise related to the research field of the institutional triad (museums, schools, and universities).

The gender representation was 61.11% female (11 subjects) and 38.89% male (7 subjects).

The sample was selected based on criteria of specialization in art and arts education, as well as the participants’ interest in and connection to museum education. This includes both professionals working in museums and their collaborators from universities or schools.

4. Results and Discussion

To present the analysis of the information from the interviewed sample, two mechanisms were created: selecting the main ideas from the individual narratives and generating convergent dialogs and making syntheses based on five categories of analysis. The categories were as follows: conceptualization of the museum, institutional relationships, collaboration strategies, pedagogical and methodological approaches, and transformation and development.

Below, the reflections and proposals of the interviewees are presented in a narrative and summarized manner:

Ricard Huerta (RH) and Glòria Jové (GJ) begin the conversation by emphasizing this shared vocation and advocating for closer collaboration that enhances the usefulness of each institution. Along the same lines, Luis Noguerol (LN) recognizes the interdependence between them, assigning specific roles to each: the museum as a driving force of artistic creation and heritage; the university as a researcher and trainer of professionals; and the school as a testing ground for university and museum proposals. Noguerol (LN) proposes moving toward an institutional “intermingling” that allows for exchange, merging, and the creation of synergies through joint projects.

However, the idyllic vision of harmonious collaboration is challenged by Javier Abad’s (JA) criticism, who points to the lack of convergence in the narratives of these institutions and the persistence of statistical and profitability parameters in museum management. Abad (JA) suggests that museums are not entirely responsive to the needs of schools and universities, and that their staff, although competent, lack experience in the educational field. This criticism points to a disconnect between museums’ stated intentions and actual practices, raising the need for greater empathy and understanding of the realities and challenges of educational institutions.

The most radically critical view is offered by Roser Calaf (RC), who describes the educational institution as “mortally wounded” and the university as “self-absorbed”, failing to perceive the need to connect with museums or schools. Calaf (RC), in contrast, highlights the rising role of museums as important public spaces, although she implicitly questions their ability to fill the void left by traditional educational institutions. This pessimistic perspective on the current state of formal education raises fundamental questions about the role of museums as agents of social and cultural change.

Despite the criticisms, the conversation tends toward finding solutions and strategies to foster more effective collaboration. Marta Viana (MV) and Albert Macaya (AM) propose that museums function as regular spaces for interacting with works of art, enabling the development of long-term projects and serving as practice areas for future teachers. This proposal highlights the museum’s potential as a laboratory for learning and experimentation, for both students and education professionals.

Helena Ayuso (HA), based on her experience at the Center of Contemporary Art La Panera, describes a dynamic approach based on frequent exhibitions and close collaboration with schools and universities. Ayuso (HA) emphasizes the importance of breaking away from unidisciplinarity and fostering transdisciplinarity, promoting open dialog between different fields of knowledge and forms of artistic expression. This transdisciplinary approach aligns with new trends in education, which seek to overcome traditional barriers between disciplines and promote more holistic and integrated learning.

Lilian Amaral (LA) offers a broader vision of collaboration, transcending the museum–school–university triad and placing the focus of contemporary art on the community, everyday life, and diverse spaces. Amaral (LA) highlights the significant transformation that educators, museums, and the art and culture system have undergone over the past 30 years, emphasizing the need for experiences mediated by educational proposals that promote dialog with art. Amaral (LA) proposes being “cognitive termites”, crossing spaces and fields to reduce prejudices about the role of these institutions, and advocates for more horizontal and polyphonic projects that increase the desire for knowledge.

Amaral (LA) criticizes the idea that museums offer only “pills” of knowledge, highlighting the crucial role of teachers as links between curricular and museum content. She emphasizes the need for teachers to conduct research and continually train, and sees institutions as interdependent, forming part of the same educational equation. In a bold proposal, Amaral (LA) suggests that schools become active observatories or cultural eco-museums, understanding their political and social role in the formation of knowledge.

Drawing on his experience, Román de la Calle (RDC) emphasizes the importance of preparing schoolchildren before their museum visit and continuing that experience in the classroom. He observes that museums focus on their own sphere, forgetting the need to connect with schools, which led him to promote collaboration and exchange through workshops and educational materials. De la Calle’s (RDC) proposal underscores the need for careful planning and curricular integration of museum visits so that they do not become isolated experiences disconnected from the learning process.

The need for a paradigm shift is raised by Glòria Jové (GJ), who suggests a horizontal organization, a “rhizome”, that would allow for a more flexible and open relationship between the three institutions. The goal is to overcome attitudinal problems and harness the museum’s potential as a learning environment. Marisa Suárez (MS) agrees with the need for dialog, emphasizing that the museum can provide artistic and educational knowledge to teachers, while the school offers pedagogical and academic feedback. Museums, in this context, facilitate the dialog between the art object and the viewer’s perspective.

Mª Jesús Agra (MJA) emphasizes that schools, universities, and museums are different institutions, and that the key to finding common ground lies in the “negotiation” of principles, aims, expectations, and objectives. She recognizes that the expectations of each institution may differ, making collaboration difficult. Cristina Trigo (CT), for her part, emphasizes the importance of maintaining the distinctive characteristics of each institution while seeking common ground. She points out that a way to permanently integrate collaboration between these institutions into their work dynamics has not yet been found. Both agree on the need to seek alternatives that ensure the continuity of joint initiatives, recognizing that institutions often hinder these initiatives. However, Trigo (CT) suggests that experience allows us to identify shortcomings and needs, and that the contradictions inherent in these institutions can generate enriching modes of knowledge production.

Carmen Franco (CF) emphasizes that collaboration is, above all, a relationship between people, rather than between institutions. She advocates consolidating these personal relationships and transforming them into an institutionalized practice, where affinity and belief in the value of art and teacher training are the pillars of collaboration. Constant work focused on participation from a diverse perspective is essential to achieving horizontal relationships and shared knowledge across the fields of artistic production, curating, and education.

Mª Jesús Agra (MJA) suggests a gradual change through “micro-utopias”, small, local transformations that, when combined, generate greater change. Carmen Franco (CF) complements this idea with the notion of a “virus”, understanding its potential for positive spread and “contamination.” Both agree that there is already knowledge on how to establish channels of collaboration between the three institutions, but Agra (MJA) emphasizes the need for professionals in contemporary creation, art education, and social action to carry out cultural mediation through visible research groups, within or outside universities, whose proposals can be materialized. Agra (MJA) emphasizes the importance of reaching out to institutions and making themselves visible to faculties, museums, and curators.

Cristina Trigo (CT) advocates for a change in attitude and perspective, a change that must come “from above”, from the very concept of how a museum is directed and managed. At the same time, Luis Noguerol (LN) emphasizes that the three institutions need each other. The museum energizes artistic creation and makes it available to society; the university trains professionals and conducts research in the artistic and educational fields; and the school serves as the testing ground for the proposals of the university and museums. We need to move toward an “intermingling” approach that allows for lines of work that exchange, merge, and create synergies.

Marcelo Falcón (MF) introduces a comprehensive sociological perspective, speaking of the interinstitutional experience as an opportunity to “die together and be born into a new reality.” He invites us to reflect on how to generate a collective environment that allows for existence in another dimension of reality, applicable to all three institutions. Falcón (MF) emphasizes the importance of valuing heterogeneity and not seeking uniformity. Reality is complex and diverse, and the key is experience as an invitation to heterogeneity, allowing one to be “born” in another realm of reality. Each institution is a “hive” with multiple realities, and the important thing is to respect that diversity, immersing oneself in small “temperatures” to recreate reality. Artistic education, grounded in sensitivity, facilitates this communication and allows heterogeneity to participate in a common reality.

Falcón (MF) points out that education and the professional world are heirs to a modernity that separated and divided knowledge into disciplines. The new sensitive era invites us to connect the unconnected and generate interdisciplinary journeys. The big problem is that we are not trained for this. Falcón (MF) describes a process of change in three stages: secret, discreet, and established. Currently, we are in a discreet stage, making another way of being together visible. Falcón (MF) compares society, education, and institutions to a “golem”, implying that they are difficult to improve. Instead of changing the institution, he proposes “magnetizing” the people within it, seeking small interstices.

A new contribution by Joan Vallés (JV) concludes that schools, universities, and museums are complementary paradigms that deserve to work together. It is not about differentiating, but rather complementing each other with different perspectives. Vallés (JV) recognizes that, socially, we are not accustomed to working together, as disciplines are separated. Overcoming disciplinary barriers requires collaboration, participation, and a joint effort, setting aside individual truths in favor of a shared truth.

Along these lines, Ângela Saldanha (AS) states that schools require constant collaborative work to exchange historical information, research, and day-to-day information related to museums, while Teresa Torres de Eça (TT) adds the need for horizontal dialog. Marc Ribera (MR) emphasizes museums as community resources, whose contents and educational action can contribute to the development of classroom programs. Ribera (MR) argues that communication and mutual understanding of needs between schools and museums enables the design of joint and interdisciplinary projects, introducing local culture into the classroom and making the museum the hub of programs for school communities.

Saldanha (AS) suggests that museums can offer schools multidisciplinary educational tools, while Torres de Eça sees museums as a meeting place for schoolchildren. Ribera (MR) emphasizes that museums can become a classroom–workshop and space for experimentation, providing resources that schools lack.

Saldanha (AS) and Torres de Eça (TT) point out that museums and schools offer universities meaningful learning spaces about communities and their experiences, echoing Amaral’s (LA) vision of the university as creating connections with society and schools. Ribera (MR), for his part, mentions that universities need the collaboration of museums for research, experimentation, training, and as a hosting space for academic events.

Saldanha (AS) adds that universities provide schools and museums with a different perspective, connecting knowledge and questioning intermediate spaces. Torres de Eça (TT) offers the reflection that museums, schools, and universities should jointly consider how museums can be spaces of belonging, coexistence, empathy, and the construction of shared projects.

Finally, Ribera (MR) adds that universities set trends and that museums need to be constantly reviewed to stay up to date, with collaboration between the university and museum contributing to these necessary reviews and to the self-assessment of museums.

The key ideas, considered most significant after analyzing the 18 interviews, are presented as a selection below. For the classification, the following categories were created to help organize the information from the most significant interview results: museum conceptualization, institutional relationships, collaboration strategies, pedagogical and methodological approaches, and transformation and development (see

Table 2. Categories of analysis of the key ideas from the interviews conducted with professionals.

Museum Conceptualization	Laboratory and research space (AM), (MV), (LN), (LA), (RDC), (MR), (GJ). New literacy context (RDC), (MJA), (RC), (JA), (HA), (LA), (CF). Cultural action social service (RC), (LA), (MR), (MF), (RDC). Environment of unique and exceptional experiences (RDC), (AM), (MV), (LA), (RDC), (GJ) Enabler of contemporary learning (HA), (CT), (MJA), (LA), (GJ). Space for personal transformation (MS), (MV), (AM), (LA), (RDC), (MR), (GJ), (CF).
Institutional Relationships	Construction of convergent stories (JA), (CT), (RH), (GJ), (LN), (JA), (HA), (LA), (MR), (AS), (CF), (JV), (RDC). Common hybrid and horizontal projects (GJ), (LN), (MR), (AS). Exchanges between museums and context (LA), (LN), (MR). Sensitivity towards schools and universities (RC), (LN), (JA), (HA), (MR), (CF). Cultural mediation through research groups (MR), (MJA), (LN), (HA). Search for spaces of intersection and common interest (RDC), (MJA), (GJ), (RH), (LN), (RC), (JA), (MR), (CF).
Collaboration Strategies	Breaking up institutional legacies (JA), (HA), (LA), (RC), (MF). Creating porosities and dialogs (RH), (GJ), (CF), (LN), (RC), (JA), (MR), (AS), (CF), (MF), (JV). Simplification of protocols (MJA), (CT), (JA). Strengthening sustained collaborations (RH), (GJ), (CT), (MR), (JV), (RDC). Internships for future teachers(RDC), (LN), (AM), (MV), (MR), (AS). Educational professionals in the museum (AM), (MV), (AM), (CF), (LN), (RDC), (MR), (MS), MJA), (RH).
Pedagogical and Methodological Approaches	Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (AS), (HA), (RDC), (MR), (AS), (JV). Dialogic experiences (RDC), (MS), (LN), (MR), (AS), (TT), (GJ), (JV). Visitor self-management (RH), (MV), (AM), (MS). Greater involvement in creative processes (MS), (MR). Education in values (MS), (MR), (TT), (MF), (RH). Flexibility and openness (HA), (GJ), (LN), (RC), (JA), (MR), (CF), (JV).
Transformation and Development	Horizontal and rhizomatic organization (GJ), (CF), (CT), (LN), (LA), (MR), (TT). New perspectives, connections and intersections (MR), (CT), (JA), (RC), (HA), (LA), (MR), (MF), (JV). Constant and incessant work (MR), (MS), (CF), (LA), (CF), (MF), (RDC). Weaving relationships (RDC), (LN), (RC), (JA), (LA), (RDC), (MR), (TT), (AS), (RH). Use of synergies and crossbreeding (RH), (GJ), (LN), (LA), (MR), (TT), (AS), (CF), (JV). Creating micro-utopias (MJA), (LA), (MR), (TT), (CF).

).

5. Conclusions

Teaching and learning activities in museums and schools, especially in the field of art education, require more structured and ongoing collaboration between museums and universities (Pastor-Blázquez & Bernal-Bravo, 2024). It is crucial to open the doors of museums to preschool and primary school educators so they can use these spaces, as well as to develop forms of collaboration between museum educators and teachers, coordinating the development of itineraries and teaching proposals that connect with the school curriculum and students’ motivations (Huerta & Soto González, 2022). This requires continuity in the educational and life-experience use that museums can offer (Jara, 2016). At the university level, relationships between museums and universities also need to improve, requiring more structured and consistent collaboration. The role of university faculties in museum–student relationships has evolved significantly in the context of the 21st century, demanding greater involvement and an innovative pedagogical approach that fosters meaningful learning and connection with the contemporary world.

The relationship between museums, schools, and universities has become a topic of growing interest in the educational and cultural spheres. This interinstitutional collaboration between museums, schools, and universities should seek to create spaces for reflection and action where these actors can interact, generating mutual benefits (Fontal & Ibáñez-Etxeberria, 2017).

It is necessary to seek initiatives and conceive museums as learning spaces, strengthening their role as social services for cultural action and facilitating contemporary learning.

Museums are evolving toward new concepts that place the visitor at the center of their practices, opening up opportunities for dialog and collaboration with schools and universities. This allows for the design of educational programs that better adapt to the characteristics and needs of students, fostering interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (Hetland et al., 2020).

To strengthen these ties, it is necessary to build convergent narratives, break down certain institutional legacies (González-Sanz & Feliu-Torruella, 2023), and create porosities and dialogs between institutions. It is necessary to develop hybrid and horizontal shared projects, where the museum acts as a laboratory and a place for research and personal transformation (Bonacchi & Willcocks, 2016).

Collaboration between these institutions requires flexibility, openness, and the search for spaces of intersection and common interest. Negotiating and smoothing out contradictions is essential, working constantly to create a fabric and weave relationship ties (Lull Sanz & Vallugera Fuster, 2024). Continuity in projects and cultural mediation through research groups are key to the success of these initiatives.

Multidisciplinary and hybrid work should be encouraged, combining team efforts and leveraging synergies and the fusion of knowledge (Nava & Pazos-López, 2020). It is important to strengthen the public and civic engagement of the three institutions, legitimizing and developing museums’ professional profiles.

To improve this relationship, it is necessary to simplify institutional protocols, enhance sustained collaborations, and develop joint projects. Providing internships for future teachers in museums and incorporating educational professionals into these cultural institutions are strategies that can strengthen these ties (Sack & Thompson, 2024).

The debate on collaboration between universities, schools, and museums reveals a complexity of perspectives and challenges. While there is widespread consensus on the need to strengthen ties between these institutions, the proposed strategies vary considerably, ranging from fostering personal relationships (Lucas-Palacios & de Atalaya, 2025) and creating joint projects to transforming organizational structures and adopting transdisciplinary approaches. Overcoming cultural barriers, divergent goals, and resistance to change are presented as significant obstacles, but the shared vision of a future in which universities, schools, and museums work harmoniously to enrich society’s educational and cultural experience remains a powerful driver of innovation and collaboration. The limitations of this study are primarily related to the fact that most of the participating experts come from the fields of arts and arts education. As a result, their contributions may not be fully representative of all areas of knowledge.

In conclusion, this study recommends that Hispanic museums cultivate relationships with schools and universities that are grounded in the creation of micro-utopias—innovative and aspirational spaces that promote new possibilities for collaboration. This approach calls for not only embracing diversity, but also actively fostering it and appreciating the richness that heterogeneity brings to educational experiences. By positioning themselves as educational allies, museums can become dynamic learning environments that extend beyond their traditional roles, establishing meaningful connections with classrooms and the wider community. Ultimately, such partnerships have the potential to enrich educational practices, support lifelong learning, and contribute to the development of more inclusive and engaged societies.