integrating ict in exhibitions museum management and curatorship · of the twentieth century...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Oslo]On: 22 August 2014, At: 04:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Museum Management and CuratorshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmc20
Integrating ICT in exhibitionsLaia Pujol-Tost aa Museology Lab , University of the Aegean, H. Trikoupi & Faonos ,81100, Mytilene, GreecePublished online: 24 Jan 2011.
To cite this article: Laia Pujol-Tost (2011) Integrating ICT in exhibitions, Museum Management andCuratorship, 26:1, 63-79, DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2011.540127
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2011.540127
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
DIGITAL HERITAGE
Integrating ICT in exhibitions
Laia Pujol-Tost*
Museology Lab, University of the Aegean, H. Trikoupi & Faonos, 81100 Mytilene, Greece
(Received 4 May 2010; final version received 5 October 2010)
The goal of this paper is to examine the issues involved in the idea of integratinginformation and communication technology applications into exhibitions, inorder to develop their use as a communication tool for museums. It considers theconclusions obtained from an evaluative study conducted in the United Kingdom(UK), which is part of a medium-term research project about the usefulness ofhigh-tech exhibits. The text presents the contextual, theoretical, empirical andmethodological issues that justify the study. It then describes its development andfindings, which confirm or correct previous conclusions and lead to a debateabout the concept of integration. This enables guidelines for the design of moreeffective solutions to be proposed, which are especially aimed at those museumswhich are traditionally closer to the formal learning environment.
Keywords: museum exhibitions; interactive exhibitions; ICT applications;evaluation studies; visitor experience
Introduction
In the last 15 years, European museums have widely adopted information and
communication technology (ICT) as a communication tool because, beyond political
and social pressures, it theoretically fits in with several aspects of postmodern
museological trends. Given the human and financial effort required by the new
technologies, museums have shown an increasing interest in verifying their
effectiveness as communication tools. Some wider projects have tried subsequently
to integrate previously published, partial studies and undertake a comprehensive
study that aims to combine the goals and tools from other fields (formal learning
environment, human�computer interaction and visitor studies) in order to under-
stand the usefulness of ICT in cultural heritage settings (Carreras 2009).
Current ICT is defined by three features. The first one, computational virtuality,
corresponds to the infinite potential actualisations of an element implemented by the
computer through bidirectional communication and logical�mathematical opera-
tions (Heim 1993; Levy 1995). Reality only exists inside the machine; therefore, our
normal relationship with space and time is altered (Couchot 1989). This has several
consequences for museums (Pujol 2007). At a general museological level, the
limitations of the physical dimension disappear, and it is possible to build any
exhibition, by putting together the images of objects located in different times and
places. At the exhibition scale, it is possible with the same objects to create multiple
synchronous discourses � thus providing different perspectives as well as the related
*Email: [email protected]
Museum Management and Curatorship
Vol. 26, No. 1, February 2011, 63�79
ISSN 0964-7775 print/ISSN 1872-9185 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2011.540127
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
metadata. Finally, it is possible to provide bigger amounts of information in little
space and, most importantly, in different formats (text, image and sound), which, at
the same time adapt to visitors’ communication preferences and reinforces the
content transmission.
The second feature, interactivity, has been defined as the nature of a system’s
capacity to receive and respond to a human input action (Roussou 2004). Althoughhaving a slightly different meaning, this concept also exists in museums where it was
introduced as part of the museological and pedagogical renovation of the second half
of the twentieth century (Hooper-Greenhill 1994a; Pujol 2005). Studies conducted in
both formal and informal environments (see Economou and Pujol 2007, for a critical
review) have proved that the active, self-controlled and collaborative exploration of
digital contents indirectly benefits learning, especially in the case of complex,
abstract or non-visible phenomena. However, interactivity also means being able to
change or add contents. ICT breaks the traditional perception of the museum as an
elitist, authoritative institution, because it allows audiences to participate in a shared
space of consciousness where they build their own meanings and identities (Adams
and Moussouri 2002).
The third feature corresponds to the multiplicity of interfaces. In its current state
of development, ICT can take various forms and serve different communication
purposes. This is directly linked with the museographic level of the exhibition.
Personal computer (PC) stations allow the individual exploration of different kindsof information contained in a reduced space, like opening a window into a parallel
world. Immersive devices provide multi-sensorial experiences involving the whole
body, where visitors feel transported to other times and places, thus situating
museums closer to theme parks than to archives. Finally, augmented reality systems,
based on wearable or mobile devices, are useful for exhibitions in which the object is
still at the centre of the discourse, since they provide an additional layer of
information about them which can be modified to set-up different kinds of visits.
In spite of the previously described theoretical match, integrating them into the
physical visit seems to be complicated. To begin with, ICT applications generate
conflicts with objects and exhibits because they are perceived as mere substitutes or
complementary resources but, due to their location, content or specific interactivity,
they distract from the contemplation of the originals, break the lineal flow of the
discourse, and make the establishment of correspondences between the real and the
virtual dimensions difficult (Alzua-Sorzabal et al. 2005; Hsi 2003). With regard to
visitors, high-tech exhibits have problems supporting collaborative group explora-
tion, because computers were designed for an individual, lineal and machine-centredinteraction that is suitable for a highly structured formal learning context. This does
not match the more flexible informal environment, where interaction is a constant re-
negotiation between exhibits and visitors (Galani 2003; vom Lehn, Heath, and
Hindmarsh 2005).
With regard to learning, hyper-realistic virtual reconstructions are difficult for
non-experts to understand without verbal support (Belaen 2003; Pujol and
Economou 2007). On the other hand, the impact of the visual dynamic content is
so strong that it is difficult to judge what visitors have learned beyond superficial
spatial aspects (Pujol and Economou 2008). In the case of multimedia, it is difficult
for users to link the different kinds of representation and, consequently, the desired
reinforcement is not achieved (Ainsworth 1999). The most important problem comes
64 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
from usability � the exhibit’s goal is totally compromised if its purpose and use are
not evident and intuitive. This is the case for most high-tech exhibits for three
reasons: first, many people � especially older visitors � are not familiar with
the computer communication paradigm; second, its aim and possibilities are hidden
within the virtual environment, which is different in each case; and third, people do
not read instructions (Forte, Pescarin, and Pujol 2006; Pujol and Economou 2007).
As a result, the interface operation is learned by trial and error and monopolises thetime spent exploring the exhibit, as well as the exchanges within the group (Forte,
Pescarin, and Pujol 2006; Heath and vom Lehn 2002).
Nevertheless, new high-tech displays have recently appeared in different
European exhibitions that seem to indicate the beginning of a shift in the design
of ICT applications for museums � from purely technological to more ‘hands-on’
interfaces which facilitate better integration within their spatial and social context.
On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that hands-on exhibits, which have been
considered to be the most effective for learning and group exploration, can also
present limitations if they are not properly designed (Pujol and Economou 2008; vom
Lehn, Heath, and Hindmarsh 2005). This means that the aforementioned problems
might not be inherent to technological applications, as assumed until now, but
related to how adequate ICT is in terms of a specific museum communication
purpose. In this sense, the methodological choices of previous evaluations might also
have biased the results. Despite being willing to be integrative, analyses remained
summative and external, and therefore failed to take into account the specific goal oftechnological exhibits.
Consequently, it appeared that the conflicts generated by ICT applications might
depend on other factors, such as advance in technology, the moment of introduction,
the museological tradition of the country or the analytical standpoint. Thus, we
needed to continue researching the usefulness of ICT in cultural heritage settings, but
with a different approach and in a new context. As a matter of fact, such a review
opened the way to a debate about the concept of integration, which had previously
appeared in publications but had never been explicitly defined. It was used in a very
broad, changing sense, ranging from mere incorporation in the physical arrangement
of the exhibition (Jovet 2003), to the combination of the real and the virtual worlds
(Ait Kaci and Mestaoui 2003).
This paper presents the conclusions of an evaluative study conducted in the
United Kingdom (UK) which brought three different contributions to the research
field: it provided new empirical data about the effectiveness of high-tech exhibits; it
tested a newly refined, specific evaluative methodology, and it changed the usualnotion of ‘integration’ of ICT into exhibitions. A theoretical perspective might seem
irrelevant in the design of high-tech exhibits, which are currently led by practical and
technological aspects, but we agree with other authors (Parry 2005) that moving to a
more abstract and general level is the key to understanding the relevant issues and
enabling more effective solutions to be proposed.
Indeed, this wider theoretical approach has allowed us to understand � from our
own experience at different European museums and from the related bibliography �that the way ICT is used in exhibitions seems to be directly influenced by the
perception the institution has about itself which, in general terms, can be classified
into two different large categories: on one hand, museums which aim at cataloguing
heritage objects in order to preserve them, and therefore are object-centred, academic
Museum Management and Curatorship 65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
and static; on the other hand, museums which aim at building narratives in order to
enlighten visitors, and therefore are discourse-centred, entertaining and dynamic/
interactive (Gomez Martınez 2006). While the latter understand ICT as a new kind of
‘hands-on’ exhibit and experiment with different solutions, the former museums usePC stations containing a database as their main high-tech exhibits. This paper is
especially relevant from their point of view, since this combination appears to be
(according to most evaluations) the main obstacle to the integration of ICT in
exhibitions.
Description of the study
The study was conducted during 2008 and was aimed at understanding the specificusefulness of ICT for museums. Nevertheless, in comparison with previous evalua-
tions, it adopted a different perspective which was more qualitative, less external and
less display-oriented, since it aimed to evaluate the suitability of ICT for exhibitions
through the analysis of how different ICT applications are used by designers in
exhibitions. To this end, some museums in the UK were the most suitable because, as
previously noted, they represented a museum concept different than the ones where
we had conducted previous evaluations � which seem to be responsible for the
perception of new technological resources as one more among the diverse range ofmuseographic tools.
A previous publication (Parry and Sawyer 2005) suggested that, just as they have
always used the available communication technologies, museums are adapting ICT to
fit their context through a six-phase process:
(1) Outside (1950s�1960s): ICT remains outside not only the space of the gallery,
but also the museum.
(2) Peripheral (1970s): ICT enters the museum only in relation to collectionsmanagement and research, with an experimental approach and depending on
individual initiatives.
(3) Contained (1980s�1990s): ICT enters the exhibition space, usually in separate
rooms that separate technology from collections.
(4) Discrete (1990s): ICT is present in the galleries, as ‘stand-alone’ interactive
devices. In parallel, there is a quick development of online applications.
(5) Integrated (today): high-tech displays are physically blended with the rest of
the exhibition and allow a dialogue between the on-site and the onlinedimensions.
(6) Innate (emerging): exhibitions are conceived from the beginning as a digital
medium and shaped that way. Visitors are immersed and interact with more
transparent and intuitive devices.
These categories seemed to describe the differences perceived in different European
museums, and consequently were taken as a starting point for the study. This was
carried out in five consecutive steps:
(1) Selection of cases: Manchester Art Gallery (MAG, UK), the Museum of
Science and Industry of Manchester (MoSI, UK) and the Imperial War
Museum North in Salford (IWMN, UK).
66 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
(2) Analysis of the role of high-tech exhibits within their main exhibitions.
(3) Semi-structured conversation with one or more staff members in order to
discuss the factors involved in the use of ICT and their efficiency.
(4) Evaluation of the effectiveness of ICT applications with regard to theiroriginal purpose.
(5) Round table with academics, ICT specialists and museum professionals, in
order to discuss lessons learned and future ways to integrate ICT.
The selected museums were chosen for the following reasons: first, they are located in
the same city and therefore are expected to share a similar social, political and
economical context; second, they correspond to different knowledge domains (arts,
science and history); and third, they have been opened or renovated at different
moments, thus exemplifying different concepts of ICT or its introduction at different
stages of the museum/exhibition development. This is relevant, because the main
hypothesis the project wanted to verify was that the way ICT is used in exhibitions
depends on several specific factors that will be discussed below.
Subsequently, three other museums in London were added � the Victoria and
Albert Museum (V&A, London UK), the Science Museum (London, UK) and the
Churchill Museum (London, UK). These institutions had been mentioned (Parry
and Sawyer 2005, 46, 48) as examples of the different phases of integration or of
specific ICT features in museums. In addition, they fulfilled the three aforementioned
justifications and therefore were expected to complement or verify the conclusions
obtained from the previous museums.
Information and communication technology (ICT) applications in UK museums
Why is information and communication technology (ICT) introduced in exhibitions?
According to museum professionals, among the main reasons for the introduction of
ICT to exhibitions is a political and social motivation. Since they aspire to
accomplish a role in society, museums need to use popular forms of communication
in their exhibitions. In the era of the Information Society, where a new paradigm of
knowledge construction and transmission is being built, static, unidirectional, mass-
media containing text and images are widely giving way to interactive and
personalised media containing hypermedia information. From the social point of
view, the use of familiar communication experiences can help to change the external
appearance of the message and attract specific audiences � namely young people,
who sometimes consider museums to be rather boring places. However, this
‘marketing’ process needs to be carefully done, because visitors lacking computer
skills might be excluded.
ICT is also beneficial from an economic perspective since it makes the
management of collections easier and cheaper. During the ‘peripheral’ stage,
technology entered the museum in the form of databases, expert systems and
intranets. Databases, developed at the initial request of museums an image libraries,
facilitate the follow-up of collections and all the information related to these (Purcell
1997). Expert systems were incorporated in the 1990s to provide tutorials or to help
occasionally with the classification, identification or authentication of objects (Cofan
Feijoo 1994). Finally, intranets � which were later spontaneously assimilated to the
Museum Management and Curatorship 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
World Wide Web (WWW) � were established to allow quick communication and
exchange of information � first between the museum staff and later between
institutions (Gordon 1999).
Finally, as described in the introduction, ICT facilitates new forms of mediation.Generally speaking, museum professionals attribute functions similar to traditional
resources to them. Irrespective of the knowledge domain, ICT is perceived as a
means to enhance the interpretation of objects. Museum professionals are of
the opinion that technology should never substitute for real visits, but instead
provide other kinds of interactive experiences. Many museums in the UK and the
USA have long been using interaction as a means of interpretation; this trend had
historically taken the form of hands-on activities (Falk and Dierking 1992) which
now, with the advent of the technological era, incorporate computers’ capacities inorder to create displays enabling a full new range of communicational possibilities
(Figure 1).
Factors involved in the use of information and communication technology (ICT)in exhibitions
According to our analysis, the degree of ICT integration in exhibitions seemed to
depend on three main factors, including the knowledge domain, the exhibit’s specific
communication goal and the age of the design (which is directly linked to the level of
technological development). However, the conversations with the staff memberscorrected or fine-tuned the previous conclusions, providing a list of factors arranged
not by their ‘summative’ importance, but by their more general, theoretical or more
immediate and practical influence on the exhibition design.
One of the primary factors involved in the perception and general use of ICT in
exhibitions is, more than the knowledge domain, the role attributed to objects. As
previously mentioned, museum professionals consider that technology is aimed at
enhancing the understanding of objects: in the case of science museums, by providing
the dynamic aspects; in the case of history museums, by providing the context and inthe case of art museums, by providing an interpretation. The reported conflict
between originals and technology is not exclusive to technology, but applicable to
Figure 1. ICT is rooted in a long tradition of interactive interpretation at Manchester Art
Gallery (MAG).
68 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
any means that are considered pervasive � either because they are too visible or
because they imply too much activity.
The interviews confirmed that the second influential factor is the exhibit’s specific
communication goal. This determines the chosen interface and justifies why we find
similar interfaces with similar uses across all museums. Non-interactive screens are
used for mass-media communication and aimed at delivering synthetic informative
clips. The touch screen has almost completely replaced the PC station. It is
considered the most intuitive, as it allows access to the WWW and can deliver
different kinds of content: database-like multimedia, game-like multimedia and
virtual reconstructions. Finally, cutting-edge ‘mixed or tangible interfaces’ (Figure 2)
and ‘multi-user interfaces’ (Figure 2) seek to improve two aspects. The former use
common objects to be more intuitive or blend completely with the exhibit’s physical
support, and allow different kinds and degrees of interaction. The latter contain
several, or large common screens, and multiple input devices in order to facilitate
exploration by more than one user.
The age of the exhibition had been considered to be the third influencing factor �the older an exhibition, the less integrated the ICT. From the conversations with
museum professionals we understood that, indeed, in existing settings, the pre-
existing design only allowed some independent stations to be added. On the other
hand, in exhibitions created from scratch, and because ICT was thought to be flexible
and alien to exhibitions, it was introduced during the latest stages of creation and
therefore isolated again. At the present time, however, museums have gathered
understanding and experience and, more importantly, they perceive ICT as another
museographic tool. As a result, they take ICT into account from the very beginning
of the exhibition’s conception. Although this seemed evident when comparing
different museums, it was not considered an important factor by our interviewees
because, unlike other European museums, exhibitions undergo a constant process of
evaluation/renovation and, consequently, the introduction of high-tech displays is
not seen as a specific subtle stage brought about by the advent of ICT.
We also hypothesised that the different design teams might be perceived in the use
of ICT. Our interviewees considered that, although it is true that external teams
always have their specific styles and preferences, this should not be evident in the
exhibition layout: in the case of renovations, because they should always bear in
mind the pre-existing design, and in the case of new exhibitions, the main aspects to
Figure 2. Tangible interface at the Imperial War Museum North in Salford (IWMN) and
multi-user interface at the Science Museum.
Museum Management and Curatorship 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
be taken into account are the nature of the gallery, the general project, the content,
the addressees, the results of previous evaluations and the available technology.
Again, this answer is founded on a different underlying organisation of the analysed
UK museums in comparison with other European museums � they have a permanenteducation department which is involved even in commissioned exhibitions.
Museum professionals also mentioned, as the third influential factor, the target
audience. In this regard, ICT has been used in all museums to attract younger
audiences. Nevertheless, if some years ago, they played with the novelty of
technology, now museum professionals use it as a means to motivate and engage
young visitors by using their favourite form of communication. The fourth influential
factor is the awareness of the available technology. Choices are mainly made
according to the content to be conveyed, but sometimes successful applications inother museums � i.e. mobile or immersive displays� can provide ideas for exhibits.
The last and most immediately decisive factor is the budget, which could
be difficult to perceive in the exhibition analysis. It comprises not only the costs of
the immediate acquisition, but also the maintenance and determines which available
solutions will finally be chosen within the general framework established by the
previous factors. From their experience, designers have understood that high-tech
does not necessarily mean more expensive in the long term, if the hardware is
resistant and the software is well-designed. Technology becomes very expensive forthose museums � usually art galleries and small institutions � that do not have the
capacity to create and maintain high-tech exhibits in-house.
Effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) in exhibitions
The evaluation aimed to verify if the criteria that guided the design of the analysed
exhibitions were successful. To that end we assessed those aspects that can be
empirically evaluated: relationship with other exhibits and with objects, effectivenesswith regard to the exhibit’s communication goal, exploration in group, usability,
target audience and engagement.
The weak relationship of ICT applications with other exhibits and with objects �the interpretation of which they were supposed to enhance � appeared in all
museums, regardless of their subject, the kind of exhibit or its goal. In the first case at
IWMN, our survey and previous surveys (Zoe Lewis and Rachel Knight, pers.
comm.) showed that the spatial arrangement and contents of both high- and low-
tech exhibits, which were the majority, interrupted the linear and progressive threadof the visit and, at times, made it difficult for visitors to follow it. At MoSI, very few
visitors interacted with high-tech exhibits in the way expected by the designers,
because the different elements within the exhibition were not clearly articulated in a
coherent spatial and conceptual discourse (A.A.D.D. 2004, 24, 27, 36�7).
In the case of objects, our observations confirmed the results of the evaluations
conducted at MAG (Rees-Leahy 2003, 40; Sterry and Beaumont 2006, 23, 31), which
showed that, contrary to the main purpose of the interactive devices, visitors were
not systematically linking the art works with them. The reasons for this are several:first, there are no identifying labels close to the art works; second, the mediators
occupy a spatial prominent position within the whole exhibit and this situates the art
work in a marginal position and finally, the activity is not always directly or clearly
linked with the work’s meaning and consequently visitors did not understand its
70 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
message (A.A.D.D. 2008; Sterry and Beaumont 2006, 33). Nevertheless, this lack of
relationship was observed in both high- and low-tech exhibits, which indicates that it
is not an exclusive problem of ICT but of the general design of the gallery.In general, high-tech exhibits achieved the goals for which they had been
designed, and always related to the specific capacities of ICT. At MAG, families
appreciated that they were invited to explore art works in an engaging and
entertaining way, thanks to the interactivity and self-control provided by high-tech
interactive devices (Rees-Leahy 2003, 49). At IWMN, although there was no
relationship between the high-tech ‘action station’ and objects, visitors appreciated
its emphatic game-like structure and also the possibility to share their choices. On the
other hand, people were impressed by the audio-visual show, both in an emotional
and sensorial way, to the point that sometimes they did not resume their visit (Zoe
Lewis and Rachel Knight, pers. comm.). At MoSI, high-tech exhibits provided an
immersive and interactive way to understand the historical context and findings of
Manchester scientists.
Whenever ICT failed to serve its purpose, it was not due to the technological
component but to a problem in the overall design of the exhibition. For example, at
IWMN, the visitor surveys revealed there was not a sufficient spatial and conceptual
relationship between objects and the ‘action stations’ (Claire Saville, pers. comm.).
At MoSI (Figure 3), the summative evaluation concluded that either the gallery’s
goal was not evident, or visitors did not retain the specific contents because of the
structure and the communication strategies used by the external company, which
came from modern design rather than from museography (A.A.D.D. 2004, 3, 25�8).
Group exploration was undermined in all exhibitions by the small size of screens
and the computational, one-to-one communication paradigm of ICT applications.
This problem is especially relevant in UK museums, where families are the main
visitors (Hooper-Greenhill 1994b). Large, passive screens (at MoSI and IWMN)
accommodated several viewers well, even if they were not visiting together. But touch
screens only allowed one user and one observer. This had two consequences. First, as
reported in previous studies (Pujol and Economou 2007; Rees-Leahy 2003, 41),
Figure 3. The success of the exhibit was compromised because its goal was not clear at the
Museum of Science and Industry of Manchester (MoSI).
Museum Management and Curatorship 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
family groups adopted different exploration strategies (Figure 4), including splitting
up if there was more than one adult, turn-taking of children (at IWMN and MAG)
and male visitors adopting the leading role as mediators. Second, inter-group
communication happened mainly at hands-on exhibits because the observation at
screens requires a physical proximity that can only happen amongst co-visitors
(Rees-Leahy 2003, 40�1).
Since all exhibitions use touch screens, they should show very similar results.
However, the differences revealed by surveys demonstrate that it is not only a matter
of interface, but also of the position inside the spatial structure of the exhibition, the
behaviour expected by the museum inside the gallery, the visitors’ attitudes towards
technology and the composition of the group. Moreover, the comparison of exhibits
at IWMN and at the Science Museum showed that some ‘hands-on’ were designed,
or located in such a way that they could only be explored by one visitor, and groups
adapted their strategy exactly as described for ICT applications. Therefore, the
limitations of high-tech displays were due to the fact that they used the PC-based
interface directly imported from the engineering field, while ‘traditional’ media are
more flexible in their design. This will probably change � but specific evaluations are
needed with the development of new multi-user interfaces. However, they currently
support only parallel, individual interactions or partial between-user interaction in
game-like applications.
The only particular problem that seems to remain is the intuitiveness of the
virtual environment, at least for a certain age group. All museums chose simple and
linear contents because they were considered the most intuitive solution, especially
given the fact that, as seen before (Forte, Pescarin, and Pujol 2006; Pujol and
Economou 2007), visitors do not read instructions. Observations and interviews
(A.A.D.D. 2004, 24, 25, 27, 29; Claire Saville, pers. comm.; Sterry and Beaumont
2006, 23�5, 28, 36) showed that usability problems were not so much linked to the
interface operation, but to other aspects, such as the comfort of design for specific
audience sectors (younger visitors at MAG), and the lack of instructions about the
exhibit’s activation, length, goal or relationship with the rest of the gallery (at MoSI).
Figure 4. The group splits up at consecutive PC stations and the father assists in the
exploration at the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A).
72 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
However, the aforementioned problems also appeared in complex ‘hands-on’ in all
museums, which confirm that even usability issues are not exclusive to technological
applications. Yet, it seems that their virtual dimension complicates their use because
the contents are not immediately visible and visitors cannot figure out these aspects.‘Tangible interfaces’ seem the appropriate solution, but the verification of their
effectiveness needs further research.
With regard to target audiences, non-interactive applications (i.e. IWMN’s audio-
visual show) were more aimed at adult visitors, while interactive applications (at
MAG and IWMN) were aimed at families, and especially at their younger members
who were attracted by the novelty factor and led the exploration. Nevertheless, high-
tech exhibits were not suitable for all ages. In the case of the youngest, parents
assisted in exploring and comprehending the content, as they would do withtraditional exhibits if they were too advanced for them (Sterry and Beaumont 2006,
23, 27�8). On the other hand, one exhibit at MAG was considered to be boring by
teenagers, who left after some time. At MoSI, the degree of specialisation of the
contents and the lack of interactivity and personalisation gave the overall impression
that the gallery was aimed at adults with an advanced scientific knowledge
(A.A.D.D. 2004, 39), instead of taking advantage of ICT possibilities to make it
suitable for their intended audience � families.
Although the novelty factor made them immediately appealing for youngervisitors, high-tech exhibits were not necessarily the most engaging. Through
observing visits and through the questionnaires (A.A.D.D. 2004, 24; Claire Saville,
pers. comm.; Sterry and Beaumont 2006, 29), it was possible to understand that the
main causes belonged to the last two factors. With regard to usability/comfort, it is
important to mention the lack of instructions, the length of the application and the
inadequacy of their design for specific audience sectors. With regard to the target
audience, it was clear again that in their current design, ICT applications fail to
accommodate families’ specific requirements and exploration modes (A.A.D.D.2004, 34, 35, 40, 41; Borun and Korn 1999), while ‘hands-on’ can potentially achieve
this without difficulty.
What does integration mean?
We have seen that the physical and conceptual distance with objects can also exist in
the case of low-tech mediators: text, labels or lights are spatially separated from
objects and can sometimes be considered to be obtrusive. If texts are long andcontain images, they distract from the contemplation of objects. Seemingly, audio
guides or leaflets can produce isolation from the spatial context. In addition, hands-
on interactivity definitely breaks the spatial and conceptual thread of the exhibition’s
discourse, since it engages visitors in a parallel autonomous activity. These problems
appeared when museums, which are continuously rethinking their role in society,
progressively transformed their exhibitions from the simple display of objects into a
more mediated and multi-sensorial event (Parry and Sawyer 2005). The new
mediators were progressively (but not always completely) integrated, thanks to thelessons learned through experience � changing the physical arrangement and design
of objects and showcases so that they could contain or be spatially linked with the
former. As a consequence, instead of being a simple container, the exhibition room
became a showcase itself.
Museum Management and Curatorship 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
Now that ICT is also accused of a lack of integration, the results of our study
seem to reveal that it undergoes the same process. It started with the adoption of the
PC interface, which was unsuitable because it was perceived, and introduced in
exhibitions, as a totally independent information provider. Furthermore, it continues
with the testing of new, more adapted designs that focus on three aspects: allowing
multiple users, being more intuitive and blending with the physical arrangement of
the exhibition. In the case of the analysed UK museums, there is a conscious will tointroduce technology by designing interfaces that take into account museographic
criteria. In the case of other European museums, it is used in a very basic and
homogeneous way � a PC station containing a database. From the observations and
the conversations with museum professionals, we understood that these specific
demands of transformation seem to be determined by the museums’ and the
audiences’ perception of ICT, which is influenced by their specific needs and
demands. At a more general and diachronic level, these shape the shared concept of
the museum and its evolution through time. Therefore, it would be reasonable to
conclude that, indeed, the museological concept plays a role in how ICT is perceived,
used and, consequently, how much it is integrated. To verify this hypothesis, a
comparative study dealing specifically with this issue was carried out in 2009 (Pujol
et al., 2011).
In general, ICT is considered to bring two novel aspects. On one hand, ICT
facilitates interaction � the basis for the ‘edutainment’ approach that museums
increasingly propose and that younger audiences seem to prefer. However, are wesure that all visitors want to play or to participate? On the other hand, ICT allows
adaptability and the possibility for visitors to construct their own visit. Yet, is this
personalisation desirable or is it better to lead visitors somewhere? Since learning
theories and visitors’ preferences support both options, museums are now putting
their hopes in mobile devices because these would solve the budget, security and
comfort problems of technology. It has been noted, however, that this technology is
too individual and absorbing, and tends to isolate visitors from their peers and from
the exhibits (Hsi 2003; vom Lehn and Heath 2003). Why are visitors not looking at
the objects? Moreover, why should they look at them?
As suggested and debated in the round table discussion, museums have inherited
some assumptions regarding the behaviours expected from visitors � mainly
revolving around the more or less silent and passive contemplation of objects�that need to be explicitly considered before adopting ICT and judging its affect. ICT
introduces new ways of communication based on ubiquity, de-materialisation and
constant updating � totally usual for the Information Society � but strange for
museums that are based on a built place, objects and permanency. Thus, in order tofind out what integration means and how to achieve it, museums first need to go
beyond museographic considerations and establish their role in society.
In the light of these findings, it is possible to review the classification (Parry and
Sawyer 2005) that constituted the starting point of this study. Because exhibitions
have different kinds of applications, one museum can correspond to more than one
phase. Therefore, it is each exhibit that should be ascribed to one or another
category. However, this is problematic because some categories put together aspects
that are not necessarily concurrent in the same exhibit, or have features that belong
to different types. For example, at the Churchill Museum, some displays do not allow
online connection but are completely integrated because they use ‘mixed interfaces’.
74 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
Seemingly, at the V&A, applications have a link to the WWW, yet they should be
considered ‘discrete’ because they are physically isolated. With regard to ‘innate’, this
mixes physical features that partially exist in previous phases with the designers’
orientation and perception of ICT. However, as the V&A or MAG demonstrate, thefact that ICT is taken into account from the beginning does not mean that it will
be completely integrated as they contain ‘discrete’ exhibits (although these are
conceptually linked to the exhibits).
In our opinion, the concept of integration should be defined by physical elements
(content, interface design and spatial location) which are determined by the factors
established in the empirical study. We would therefore reclassify today’s ICT
applications in museums as follows:
� Contained: PC standing stations independent of the gallery (in another room)
or the exhibits (spatial location).
� Discrete: PC standing stations (as in historical or old exhibitions) related to
exhibits. They may have a link to the WWW.
� Integrated: use of totally intuitive, transparent interfaces (mixed, more or less
immersive and potentially linked to the WWW); technology absolutely
intertwined with the physical elements and the space.
The accomplishment of this phase also involves adapting the exhibition to the new
high-tech mediators � that is, bringing the museum to the technological terrain. As a
consequence, instead of being a showcase, the exhibition room becomes a medium of
media. In conclusion, the concept of ICT integration has a double meaning. With
regard to the internal context, it means creating a good (transparent) interface and
general exhibition designs that allow all the elements that make up the experience of
the visit to coexist in harmony. With regard to the outside world, ICT integration
means finding an institutional role that fits the new demands of society and engagesaudiences according to their interests and skills.
To adopt and to . . . adapt
The latest evaluative surveys about the effectiveness of ICT in exhibitions seem to
indicate that the problems of integration detected previously might not be
unavoidably caused by their technological essence. The study carried out in the
UK constituted a conscious change of context and approach, aimed at under-standing why technological applications are introduced into exhibitions and if they
are effective with regard to that goal.
The analysis demonstrated that the PC interface was responsible for the lack of
adjustment in the exhibition’s context, because its theoretically shared features had
converged from different communication paradigms: individual vs. group, sequential
vs. synchronic, logic vs. exploratory, and physical vs. virtual. These conflicts may be,
to some extent, overcome with new, more ‘museographic’ interfaces. However, the
lack of integration is not exclusively due to the technological basis of ICT, but to itsrole within the overall exhibition design which determines its shape, location and
content. The differences with low-tech exhibits are thus more quantitative than
qualitative. Another conclusion is that the process of integration also depends on how
the new mediators are understood and used, which is determined by the concept of
Museum Management and Curatorship 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
museum. According to museum professionals, ICT is perceived in their museums as
another specific museographic tool, and is therefore subject to the same demands and
criteria of use as low-tech mediators. This is why new experimental interfaces that can
better provide participatory ‘edutainment’ experiences are being tested.
Hence, the integration of ICT in exhibitions is a four-step process that starts
before technology. First, in order to engage audiences with differing interests and
skills, museums in the twenty-first century must be rethought as institutionscharacterised by the permanent, participatory reconstruction of discourses through
the spatial and/or temporal development of multi-sensorial experiences that include
objects. Second, it involves researching and understanding the potential possibilities
presented to exhibitions by the ubiquitous, non-material and ephemeral ICT. These
features seem to be contradictory to museums but, in fact, are the key to expanding
and strengthening their communication and educational roles in society.
The third step is to create good interface and general exhibition designs that
allow all the elements that make up the experience of the visit to coexist in harmony.
The main problems of current high-tech exhibits are the physical and conceptual
distance between the objects and other exhibits, difficulties in supporting group
exploration and the intuitiveness of use. With regard to the first of these, ICT needs
to be designed bearing in mind the physical context. With current ICT applications,
physical distance can be overcome with ‘mixed interfaces’ or mobile devices.
Regardless of the kind of interface, conceptual distance can be overcome through
the content by adding points of reference between the information and the real
world.
The impediment to a shared construction of meaning is that computational
terminals were conceived for single users connected to their own or to a central
machine. The solution might be the use of ‘tangible interfaces’ and, above all, toadopt a game-like strategy and link the different parts of the exhibit � not to one but
to several networked computers. ‘Tangible interfaces’ also seem to be the best option
for hardware usability issues. With regard to the virtual environment, the intuitive-
ness of use is facilitated by:
� Making the exhibit’s goal and role within the exhibition evident at first sight.
� Minimising the need for instructions by designing applications made of a few
simple screens with universal icons (Figure 5).
Using discovery learning strategies, such as a relevant starting question solved
through successive participatory screens. It is a basic structure suitable for all kindsof audiences, which can be adapted to different ages, levels and expertise, and is
engaging for all of them.
Not achieving personalisation in one ICT application, but putting diverse
mediators in the exhibition (high-tech, hands-on, images and text) so that every
visitor finds the one that suits him or her best.
The last step is to evaluate the effectiveness of the experimental applications with
regard to the needs and goals of exhibitions, so that ICT applications are
progressively refined. We believe that this analytical and creative process will result
in the construction of a new theoretical and empirical framework, at the intersection
of museum studies and the technological field, which will help to develop the role of
museums in the Information Society.
76 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded by the British Academy through a Visiting Fellowship(VF2008/49113) and by the Catalan Government through a Batista and Roca Grant for theSupport of Research Projects in Social Sciences and Humanities (2008PBR0005). The authorwould like to express her gratitude to all the museum curators, staff members, academics andprofessionals who kindly contributed to it, and especially to Dr Helen Rees-Leahy, director ofthe Centre for Museology of the University of Manchester.
Notes on contributor
Laia Pujol-Tost holds a European Ph.D. from the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Herfield of research is the use of ICT in Archaeology. In recent years, she has developed amedium-term project aimed at evaluating the usefulness of ICT in exhibitions involvingseveral European museums and institutions. She was appointed British Academy VisitingFellow at the University of Manchester and twice Marie-Curie Fellow at the University of theAegean, where she is currently working.
References
A.A.D.D. 2004. Summative evaluation. Manchester science: Discoveries that changed the world.Manchester: Morris Hargreaves McIntyre.
A.A.D.D. 2008. Clore interactive gallery. Summary of visitor and staff evaluation findings 2008.Manchester: Manchester Art Gallery.
Adams, M., and T. Moussouri. 2002. The interactive experience: Linking research andpractice. In Interactive learning in museums of art and design: An International Conference.London: Victoria and Albert Museum. http://www.vam.ac.uk/files_upload/5748_files.pdf
Ainsworth, S. 1999. The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education 33:131�52.
Ait Kaci, Y., and N. Mestaoui. 2003. La realite hybride: Installation interactive [v-med 2.0] etarchitecture du centre culturel francais de palerme et de sicile [Hybrid reality: Interactiveinstallation {v-med 2.0} and architecture of the French Cultural Center of Palermo andSicily]. In Ichim03: Cultural institutions and digital technology. Paris: Ecole du Louvre.http://www.archimuse.com/publishing/ichim_03.html
Figure 5. Game-like application in a simple screen at the Imperial War Museum North in
Salford (IWMN).
Museum Management and Curatorship 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
Alzua-Sorzabal, A., M.T. Linaza, M. Abad, L. Arretxea, and A. Susperregui. 2005. Interfaceevaluation for cultural heritage applications: The case of ferrum exhibition. In Vast 2005:6th international symposium on virtual reality, archaeology and intelligent cultural heritage,ed. M. Mudge, N. Ryan, and R. Scopigno, 122�8. Pisa: Eurographics Ass.
Belaen, F. 2003. L’immersion au service des musees de sciences. In Ichim03: Culturalinstitutions and digital technology. Paris: Ecole du Louvre.
Borun, M., and R. Korn. 1999. Introduction to museum evaluation. Washington, DC:American Association of Museums.
Carreras, C., ed. 2009. Evaluacion tic en el patrimonio cultural: Metodologıas y estudio de casos.Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
Cofan Feijoo, F. 1994. La revolucion informatica. Como los avances tecnologicos estancambiando los museos. Revista de Museologıa 3: 32�6.
Couchot, E. 1989. La synthese du temps. In Les chemins du virtuel. Simulation informatique etcreation industrielle, ed. J. Weissberg, 117�22. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou.
Economou, M., and L. Pujol. 2007. Educational tool or expensive toy? Evaluating vrevaluation and its relevance for virtual heritage. In New heritage. New media and culturalheritage, ed. Y. Kalay, T. Kvan, and J. Affleck, 242�60. Chap. 19. London: Routledge.
Falk, J.H., and L.D. Dierking. 1992. The museum experience. Washington, DC: WhalesbackBooks.
Forte, M., S. Pescarin, and L. Pujol. 2006. Vr applications, new devices and museums: Visitors’feedback and learning. A preliminary report. In The e-volution of information technology incultural heritage. Where hi-tech touches the past: Risks and challenges for the 21st century.Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on virtual reality, archaeology and culturalheritage, vast2006. Full papers volume, ed. M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci, andK. Mania, 64�9. Nicosia, Cyprus: Eurographics.
Galani, A. 2003. Mixed reality museum visits: Using new technologies to support co-visitingfor local and remote visitors. In Museological review, 1�17. Leicester: Department ofMuseum Studies.
Gomez Martınez, J. 2006. Dos museologıas. Las tradiciones anglosajona y mediterranea:Diferencias y contactos. Gijon: Ediciones Trea.
Gordon, S. 1999. The virtual museum-who needs it? In Archaeology in the age of internet.Computer applications in archaeology. 25th anniversary conference, ed. L. Dingwall. Oxford:Archaeopress, CD-ROM.
Heath, C., and D. Vom Lehn. 2002. Misconstruing interactivity. In Interactive learning inmuseums of art and design. London: Victoria and Albert Museum. http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/research/conferences/learning/index.html
Heim, M. 1993. The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press.Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1994a. Museum education: Past, present and future. In Towards the
museum of the futures. New European perspectives, ed. R. Miles and L. Zavala, 133�49.London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1994b. Museums and their visitors. London: Routledge.Hsi, H. 2003. A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19: 308�79.Jovet, V. 2003. Le multimedia dans l’exposition: La double problematique de l’appropriation
et de l’integration d’un media marginal. In Ichim03: Cultural institutions and digitaltechnology. Paris: Ecole du Louvre. http:// www.archimuse.com/publishing/ichim_03.html
Levy, P. 1995. Qu’est ce que le virtuel? Paris: La Decouverte.Parry, R. 2005. Digital heritage and the rise of theory in museum computing. Museum
Management and Curatorship 20, no. 4: 333�48.Parry, R., and A. Sawyer. 2005. Space and the machine. Adaptive museums, pervasive
technology and the new gallery environment. In Reshaping museum space. Architecture,design, exhibitions, ed. S. Macleod, 39�52. London: Routledge.
Pujol, L. 2005. Interactivity in virtual and multimedia environments: A meeting point foreducation and ICT in archaeological museums. In Virtual reality at work in the 21st century.Impact on society, ed. H. Thwaites, 37�52. Gant, Belgica: International Society on VirtualSystems and Multimedia.
78 L. Pujol-Tost
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014
Pujol, L. 2007. Pour une theorie de la realite virtuelle dans les musees d’archeologie. Musees26: 8�21.
Pujol, L., A. Busanya, P. Gonzalez, and L. Campins. 2011. The use of ist applications incatalan museums: A comparative evaluation carried out at the museum�monastery of santcugat del valles. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies 3, no. 1.
Pujol, L., and M. Economou. 2007. Exploring the suitability of virtual reality interactivity forexhibitions through an integrated evaluation: The case of the ename museum. Museology,International Scientific Electronic Journal 4. http://museology.ct.aegean.gr/teuxi_en.php?t_id8
Pujol, L., and M. Economou. 2008. Worth a thousand words? The usefulness of immersivevirtual reality for learning in cultural heritage settings. International Journal of ArchitecturalComputing 7, no. 1: 157�76.
Purcell, P. 1997. Museum 2000: A multimedia perspective. In Imaging the past. Electronicimaging and computer graphics in museums and archaeology, ed. T. Higgins, P. Main, andJ. Lang, 119�26. London: The British Museum.
Rees-Leahy, H. 2003. Researching learning at Manchester Art Gallery. Manchester: ManchesterArt Gallery.
Roussou, M. 2004. Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration ofinteractivity in virtual environments for children. ACM Computers in Entertainment 2:Article 1.
Sterry, P., and E. Beaumont. 2006. A study of family group visitors to museums and art galleriesin the UK. Final report (phase two). Manchester: Manchester Art Gallery, Centre forAudience and Visitor Research, The University of Salford Manchester.
Vom Lehn, D., and C. Heath. 2003. Displacing the object: Mobile technologies andinterpretive resources. In Ichim03: Cultural institutions and digital technology. Paris: Ecoledu Louvre. http:// www.archimuse.com/publishing/ichim_03.html
Vom Lehn, D., C. Heath, and J. Hindmarsh. 2005. Rethinking interactivity: Design forparticipation in museums and galleries. In Re-thinking technolgy in museums: Towards a newunderstanding of people’s experience in museums, ed. L. Ciolfi, M. Cooke, L. Bannon, andT. Hall. Limerick: University of Limerick.
Museum Management and Curatorship 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f O
slo]
at 0
4:44
22
Aug
ust 2
014