In Praise of “Both-And” Rather Than “Either-Or”: A Reply to Harris Shettel ••••• JOHN H. FALK,LYNN D. DIERKING,LÉONIE RENNIE AND CAROL SCOTT In the April 2005 issue of Curator: The Museum Journal (48/2), Harris Shettel authored a commentary focused on two of the four articles that appeared in the March 2004 special Curator issue (47/2) on interactives in museums. These articles are “Interactives and Vis- itor Learning,” by John H. Falk, Carol Scott, Lynn D. Dierking, Léonie Rennie and Mika Cohen Jones; and “Designing with Multiple Interactives: Five Common Pitfalls,” by Sue Allen and Joshua Gutwill. We are delighted that Shettel was sufficiently stimulated by this issue in general—and these two articles in particular—to write a commentary. We are also grateful that the editor of Curator has encouraged such dialogue within the field by publishing Shettel’s commentary; a Forum piece by Daniel Spock, “Is It Interactive Yet?” in Curator (issue 47/4); and this response to Shettel. Healthy debate is a sign of the importance of this topic to the field. In his commentary, Shettel suggests that the two articles “present two very differ- ent ways of looking at the topic,” and indeed this was the case not only for these articles, but for the entire issue. Adams and Gutwill synthesized a number of research and evalu- ation studies in a variety of institutions to discuss the nature of interactivity. In the same issue (47/2), Robert “Mac” West, in “The Economics of Interactivity,” discussed some of the practical economies of using interactives in museums. The Allen and Gutwill paper presented five common pitfalls when using interactives in museums—pitfalls drawn from extensive evaluation studies. The article by Falk, Scott, Dierking, Rennie and Cohen Jones described results from a pilot research study designed to “provide a useful basis on which to begin a discussion about the learning that occurs as a consequence of visitors’ perceptions of interactivity and their use of interactive exhibits.” The four articles had very different objectives and purposes and different sources of data, resulting in different outcomes and uses for the findings. In our minds, this is extremely positive. Divergent views and approaches strengthen a community and field, whereas narrow and prescrip- tive views weaken them. We are not disputing Shettel’s assessment that Allen and Gutwill’s article is good; in fact, we think it is excellent. By intent, it provides concrete and useful information that can be applied to interactive exhibit design. However, we do take exception to his sug- gestion that the Falk, et al. research was flawed because it did not present similar con- crete findings and recommendations. Unfortunately on this point, Shettel completely misunderstood the intent of our study. The article presents the results of a pilot research study which sought to understand 475 COMMENTARY