New Strategies of Exhibition Design for a Natural History Museum

Hui-chuan CHEN＊, Ming-Chyuan HO＊＊

＊Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology123, Section 3,

University Road, Touliu, Yunlin, Taiwan, R.O.C, sparrow@mail.nmns.edu.tw ＊＊Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology123, Section 3,

University Road, Touliu, Yunlin, Taiwan, R.O.C, homc@flame.yuntech.edu.tw

Abstract： It is a discourse on two design strategies, “effective exhibition” (used in the metaphor of modernist

museum) and “interpretative exhibition” (used in the metaphor of post-museum), for developing the exhibition and

their effects on the visitors’ experience in a Natural History Museum. Both of the strategies are concerned about the

communication model (team or visitors), concept hierarchy, visiting route, and methods of exhibition evaluation.

The research of “effective exhibition” was conducted in 1992 for the “Ecology Gallery” (March 1991 up to now, in

Natural History Museum, London, UK) with the methods of tracking and recording visitors’ behavior. The result

indicated the content structure of knowledge is the first priority of this strategy based upon a curator-centered

consideration. This strategy almost ignored the other experience that should provide the visitors in the museum. To

serve the didactic function of exhibition, the design thinking became more meaningful and complicated and formed a

big gap between the visitor and the exhibition. Visitors only could spend the time on the most attractive items within

limited visiting time. The traditional methods of evaluation and design thinking could not offer the solution about

what the visitors had learned and what they wanted for this exhibition.

Another research of “interpretative exhibition” was conducted in 2002 for temporary exhibition of “Flower Story”

(May -Oct. 2002, National Museum of Natural History, Taichung, Taiwan). This is an intended exhibition with

multiple channels of communication. We used the self-evaluation inquisition for the visitors’ learning and satisfactory

experience in the museum. The result indicated that the visitors get more varieties of experiences due to the strategy

of interpretive intention. The visitors were inspired to create the learning experience by themselves. The design

thinking attracted more visitors with varieties of education status, knowledge background, visiting attention, etc.

Therefore, today, the visitor-centered consideration as the exhibition design in museums should be a trend. It is not

only to develop the successful or effective exhibition but also to get more benefits for the inspiration of design

thinking in a Natural History Museum.

Key Words：design strategy, museum exhibition, interpretative

1. Introduction

The biggest challenge facing museums at the present time is the re-negotiation of the relationship between

museums and their visitors, as Hooper-Greenhill [2] said. The mission or function of museum, especially as the

natural history museum, is no doubt discussed in education term. The educational role of the natural history

museum, however, depends on the collections held by the museum and the experience offered to visitors. It

assumed that the teaching (offered by the curators) and the learning (received by the visitors), take place in an

informal institute, the museum. The object and the exhibit are treated as the alternative books, too.

It is a long history in museum as to be an encyclopedic display. It derived from the original function and

mission of museum, to draw together a complete collection, to act as a universal archive and to produce a series of

scholarly research. Based upon this assumption, the pedagogy pattern of museum is to be simplified as the

“effective” communication to generate a fixed meaning of the exhibition. The transmission approach to

communication is concerned with the sending of information from one to another and only based upon a

stimulus-response view of education. The transmission pedagogy demands that visitors are open to receiving facts

and information, the content and the level of which have been decided in advance by experts in the subject and the

content of the exhibition will be built around the structure of the academic or museum discipline and the style of

the delivery of the content will be formal and authoritative [3].

Educational exhibition is the product of effective communication [6]. All concerns with exhibition design,

including team communication, concept hierarchy of content, visiting route and methods of exhibition evaluation,

is influenced by the view of which pedagogy it choose. Today, most of visitors enter museums will ask what’s

experience I can bring more than what’s I can learn. A new strategy of exhibition design should be emerged from a

conventional pattern of education role in museum.

It is a discourse on two design strategies, “effective exhibition” (used in the metaphor of modernist museum)

and “interpretative exhibition” (used in the metaphor of post-museum), for developing the exhibition and their

effects on the visitors’ experience in a Natural History Museum. Both of the strategies are concerned about the

team communication, concept hierarchy, visiting route, communication model and methods of exhibition

evaluation. Facing the twenty-first century, museums need more of alternative strategy to solve the new problems

in the future. Therefore, in this article we used two researches of exhibition to demonstrate a strategy of exhibition

how could affect the process, the result and thinking pattern for the design.

2. Methods

It is two different researching approaches for Ecology Gallery ( March 1991 up to now, in Natural History

Museum, London, UK) and Flower Story Exhibition (May-Oct. 2002, National Museum of Natural History,

Taichung, Taiwan). However, two studies used the same system of random sampling: each subject was selected

when the first visitor crossed the entrance threshold at a predetermined time.

2.1 Ecology Gallery— tracking study

The study was conducted during September-December 1992 and the period was split into two parts: before

and after extra new glass text was installed. 100 subjects were selected, 50 for each period part. Visitors were

tracked unobtrusively to record where they stopped (attracting power), and how many seconds they attended to

each exhibit (holding power). The percentage of visitor stop for one item of exhibits is its attracting power. The

average of time (must be more than 3 seconds) attending to one item of exhibits is its holding power.

16 recording path points were marked in the gallery route map to separate the section (A)-(J) (Fig.1), 1st floor

level : (A) 1-3 entrance section, (B) 3-4 glass wall section, (C) 5 quadroscope video; up ramp: (D) 6 ocean section,

(E) 7 land section; 2nd floor level: (J) 8-9 bridge, (F) 9-10 energy source, (J) 10-11 bridge A, (G)11-12 energy flow,

(J) 12-13 bridge B, (H) 13-14 ecosystems, (J) 14-15 bridge C, (I)15-16 nature & human, by sequencing. The

amount of time visitors spent on each section was calculated. Finally, average time budget for each section was

concluded. The total of 23 items of exhibits was identified in the section (A)-(I).

2.2 Flower Story Exhibition-- self-evaluation inquisition

We learned the visitors’ learning and satisfactory experience in this temporary exhibition by the

self-evaluation inquisition. During May 2002, 100 subjects finished the questionnaires, if the selected visitor

finished the complete route in the exhibition venue unobtrusively, would be asked if they were available to fill in a

Fig. 1 The floor plan of ecology gallery, linear space, one ways route from entrance to exit, included 1st floor level : (A) 1-3 entrance section, (B) 3-4 glass wall section, (C) 5 quadroscope video; up ramp: (D) 6 ocean section, (E) 7 land section and 2nd floor level: (J) 8-9 bridge, (F) 9-10 energy source, (J) 10-11 bridge A, (G)11-12 energy flow, (J) 12-13 bridge B, (H) 13-14 ecosystems, (J) 14-15 bridge C, (I)15-16 nature & human by sequencing. A total of 23 exhibits and 16 recording path points were marked in here.

self-evaluation questionnaire or not. This questionnaire included two sections, one section for cognitive dimension,

i.e. the learning status of content concept; another for affective dimension, i.e. the satisfactory experience of

design elements or exhibit items. The content concept drew from five areas in the exhibition (Fig.2), included

basic concept, easy concept, key concept and confused concept. The satisfactory experience included design

elements, i.e., story line, design style, graphic concinnity, graphic aesthetic and text readability and exhibit items,

i.e., fresh flower, flower quilt, flower model, AV program, flower photo, interactive exhibit, diorama.

Fig.2 The floor plan of flower story exhibition, open space without compelling route, the entrance and the exit shared the same door. Flower quilt is set in the entrance. Fresh flower in the center of space, surrounded by Area 1”What is the flower”, Area 2 “Flower and evolution”, Area 3 “Flower and gene”, Area 4 “Legend of fossil flower”, Area 5 “Flower diversity”. T=Title panel, P=graphic& text Panel, E=Exhibits (AV program, flower model, interactive exhibits, diorama etc), S c=Show case, IP= flower photo series without text (Image Panel), Hp=Highlight product.

4

Fig.7 Average Time Budget (N=37) in Different Sections of Ecology Gallery(Time Budget of the Whole Gallery from1 to 16 of the route recording point is 100%. AverageVisiting Duration is1124 seconds . )

3.9

14.3

9.2

5.2

5.6

13.4

12.9

12.9

8.4

14.1

0 10 20

(A) Entrance section 1-3

(B) Glass Wall section 3-4(Xt=150")

(C) Quadroscope Show 5(Xt=108")

(D) Ocean section 6(Xt=104")

(E) Land section 7(Xt=109")

(F) Energy source section 9-10(Xt=163")

(G) Energy flow section 11-12(Xt=149")

(H) Ecosystems section 13-14(Xt=156")

(I) Nature & Human section15-16(Xt=94")

(J) All of the bridges 8-9,10-11,12-13,14-15

Different Section(Average VisitiingDuration Xt second)

%

Average Time Budget in DifferentSections

Fig.3 Entrance section (A) and glass wall section (B) in Ecology Gallery Fig.4 Energy source section (G) in Ecology Gallery

Fig.6 Bridge (J) in Ecology gallery Fig.5 Energy flow section (G) in Ecology gallery

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 Evaluation of visitor behavior in Ecology Gallery

Ecology Gallery is a linear space, one-way route and the exhibition only in one side along the route. The

content of the exhibition is built around the structure of the academic discipline in scholarly style. Two sections

are linked by the bridge. Therefore, the exhibition was looked as the structure of a book, and the bridge is a small

break. Each section rebuilt one chapter of the ecology textbook and each exhibit demonstrated one theory or

concept of ecology (Fig. 3 –Fig.6).

Comparing the data collected from two parts of study period: before and after extra new glass text was

installed, it is no significant difference of exhibits effectiveness. It indicated that more extra texts for the

exhibition had no extra effectiveness.

Fig.8 Attracting Power and Holding Power of Exhibits in Ecology Gallery

0 50 100

B-a. Galss window

B-b. Glass panel

C. Quadroscope big show

D. Ocean section

E. Land section

F-a Eneragy source

F-b Sunlight trap

F-c Leaf factory

G-a Herbivore & Carnivore

G-b Animal sculpture of leaves

G-c Food chain

G-d Food web

G-e Food pyramid

G-f Moving nutrients

G-g Carbon cycle

H-a Balance

H-b Nature & change

H-c Population

H-d Communities

I-a Human impact video show

I-b Human activity video show

I-c Yin & Yang symbol panel

I-d Pandora's box & human

Different Exhibits in Each Section

% or secondAttracting Power (%)

Holding Power (second)

All the data only comes from 37 subjects (N=37) who completed the entire route in gallery before extra new

glass text was installed. Average visiting duration of visitors is quite even in four exhibition sections: (B)glass

wall (Xt=150 sec), (F) energy source (Xt=163 sec), (G) energy flow (Xt=149 sec) and (H) ecosystem (Xt=156 sec)

and nearly as same as the result of the average time budget: (B)glass wall (14.3%), (F) energy source (13.4%), (G)

energy flow (12.9%) and (H) ecosystem (12.9%) (Fig.7). It indicated that visitors allocated the same duration and

ratio for visiting time which depended on the scale of exhibition when they got into the tunnel space. Only the last

section (I) nature & human is one exception, time budget and visiting duration both are shortest. Visitors can see

the open exit and seemingly offer an immediately opportunity of leaving. Walking through all of bridges (J)

(14.1%), had the same ratio of time budget as well as visiting glass wall section (B) (14.3%). (J) & (B) got the

nearly equal distances.

The exhibit of quadroscope video show (C) on the terminal of glass wall section (B) attracted visitors very

effectively. The attracting power (53.3%) and holding power (62 seconds) both are very effective.

Two peaks of attracting power were found in the exhibits of each section which was linked by the bridge,

one in the beginning and another in the end of each section. In (F) section is F-a “Energy source” 57% and F-c

“Leaf factory” 70%; in (G) section is G-a “Herbivore & Carnivore” 84% and G-f “Moving nutrients” 68%; in (H)

section is H-a “Balance” 76% and H-c “Population” 62%; in (I) section is I-a “Human impact video show” 50%

and I-d “Pandora’s box & human” 78% (Fig.8).

Only one peak of holding power was found in three sections: F-a “energy source” (97.3 seconds) in (F)

section, G-f “Moving nutrients” (47.8 seconds) in (G) section, H-b “Nature & change (76.5seconds), no peak was

found in last section (I) (Fig.8).

Since the visitors allocated almost the same time budget in each section of (F), (G), (H), we learned the

visitors, within the limited visiting time, only chose one (F-a in F section & G-f in G section) or two (H-b & H-c

in H section) exhibits, which are usually near the terminal of each section, to pay attention to.

Only four exhibits: F-a, G-f, H-b and H-c won both of attracting power and holding power in effectiveness.

This result indicated most of the visitors might stop in one exhibit but only stay less than 3 seconds (effective

exhibit’s attracting power).

Fig.9 Area 1 “What is the flower” in Flower story exhibition. Graphic panel with flower model and IP 1 (Image Panel) linked together.

Fig.10 Area 3 “Flower and gene” included title panel, E12 (garden case) and E14 (flower mutant gene floor). Area 4 “Legend of fossil flower” included diorama of Jurassic Garden, Sc2 (show case for fossil specimen) etc.

3.2 Self-evaluation inquisition of visitor in Flower Story Exhibition

Flower Story is a temporary exhibition in an open space without compelling route, the entrance and the exit

shared the same door (Fig.2). Flower quilt is set in the entrance E1a. Fresh flower in the center of space E4,

surrounded by Area 1 “What is the flower”, Area 2 “Flower and evolution”, Area 3 “Flower and gene”, Area 4

“Legend of fossil flower”, Area 5 “Flower diversity” (Fig.9-Fig.12). It developed various exhibits to communicate

with or appeal to diverse visitors. Each topic occupied one area. The basic exhibits in each area included Title

panel (T), graphic & text Panel (P) which combined with flower model in different materials, FRP, clay, plastic

etc., and Exhibit (E) (AV program, flower model, interactive exhibits, diorama of Jurassic Garden etc.), flower

photo series (IP, Image Panel without text). In area 5 ”Flower diversity” developed four sets of Highlight product

(HP1-4) to focus the key concepts which might be buried in the huge and complicated content.

Fig.13 Satisfactory experience index of the visitor

0%

50%

100%

story

line

design

style

fresh

flower

flower

quilt

flower

model

AV progr

am

IP(flo

wer ph

oto)

intera

ctive e

xhibit

of gen

e dioram

a

graph

ic con

cinnit

y

graph

ic aesth

etic

text re

adab

ility

Design elements and exhibit items

perc

enta

ge

excellentfinedisagreeignore

Fig.12 Area 5 “Flower diversity” included Hp1- 4 (highlight product) and IP 3 (Image Panel).

Fig.11 Area 5 ”Flower diversity”, related to flower perfume (HP2) and top ten of flower: the biggest & the smallest flower, the longest inflorescence etc.

Table1. Evaluation of cognitive dimension in flower story exhibition Visitor learning status Area Concept

【1】 【2】 【3】Concept learning items

basic 87% 13% 0% Flower’s basic structure included the calyx, the pistil or stamen, and the petal. easy 48% 40% 12% The flower includes the single flower and the inflorescence, two types.

1

easy 48% 40% 14% The different Inflorescence is due to the different arrangement pattern of small flowers. basic 54% 26% 20% The flower diversity implied the relationship of flower families. confused 8% 45% 45% Five different types of receptacle were included in the Rosaceae family. confused 22% 42% 36% Flower bud is similar as leaf bud, and the flower is evolving from the leaf.

2

basic 49% 29% 20% Cone of Gymnosperm is not the flower. 3 easy 54% 36% 10% The appearance and the color of flowers were controlled by the different gene.

key 19% 50% 31% The oldest flower was found out in Jurassic Period. 4

key 7% 62% 31% The flowers in Jurassic Period were Liaoning oldfruit and Chinese oldfruit. basic 74% 14% 12% Flowers are competing with each other for match-maker, e.g. honey bees, butterfly and fly,

but another flower. basic 80% 15% 5% The smell of some flower is similar as corpse to attract the flies. basic 64% 27% 9% The color of flower is different within the eyes between the insect and the human. easy 59% 32% 9% Variety of flower shape can be matched with the insects of different species, body shapes

and habits. key 20% 62% 18% “Corpse flower” is the biggest flower in the world and ‘the flower of water meal” is the

smallest.

5

key 8% 57% 35% The flower of “Titan Arum” is a longest inflorescence but a single flower. Note：The visitor percentage of learning status included【1】knowing this concept before visiting the exhibition, 【2】learning this concept after visiting the exhibition,【3】ignoring this concept till reading the questionnaire .

The result of satisfactory experience index of the visitor (Fig.13) indicated “AV program”, “Diorama of

Jurassic Garden” and “Interactive exhibits of gene” are top three of the most unsatisfactory items, and in contrast,

“Flower photo” and “Flower model” are top two of the most satisfactory items. The result of cognitive dimension

evaluation in flower story exhibition (Table 1) indicated that the visitors effectively learned in the key concepts

related to “newly science information” and “novelty information”, and difficultly learned in the confused concepts

drew from the badly organized content of scholarly research or academic discipline.

4. Conclusions

4.1 communication approach and museum design

A lot of museum researching of the visitors was conducted during past 30 years [1]. To develop the museum

enterprise smoothly, the definition of the visitor has shifted to the customers recently. The knowledge of

collections, the experience of science or aesthetic, the desire recreation or sociability all became the potential

products in museum [4]. However, different products need different marketing strategies. If the product is the

learning experience of the systematic and precise knowledge, then the effective exhibition will be the best choice.

Following up the communication model of Shannon and Weaver, the knowledge should be effectively received by

visitors. All of the design problems should focus on the decrease of noise or the increase of channel (Fig.14).

source transmitter channel receiver destination Fig.14 The Shannon and Weaver communication model〔5〕

Noise

Ecology gallery is the paradigm of effective exhibition. Its space, route, content development, exhibit

structure or arrangement complies with the ecology textbook. Under this thinking pattern and communication

model, the evaluation for the effective exhibition is happened in museum, the successfully effective exhibition

became a feedback to encourage the service of design only for academic narratives.

From the evaluation result conducted from Ecology Gallery, we learned when the visitors entered the

learning channel for ecology, only one desire could be satisfied, i.e., learning and knowledge of ecology. If the

visitors stirred up another desire, i.e., sitting down, during the visiting trip, they have to go through the entire

learning line to change the visiting path. Therefore, within a limited visiting time (time budget), although the

design of exhibition content is well-organized and complete, the visitor might have to ignore some exhibits in the

beginning section/items or the end section/items depended on when the visitor worried the visiting time running

out.

Flower story exhibition is the alternative or new design strategy compared with Ecology gallery. Its space

and it route, its content development, the exhibits structure or arrangement all without the compelling design but

still well-organized. The visitors can design their own experience and route during the visiting trip. The multiple

channels of communication systems can satisfy the visitors’ diverse desires for aesthetic, sensory, psychological or

cultural approaches. The exhibition design based upon communication model for goal-free evaluation. The result

is, as Bicknell [1] said, ‘These evaluations are more open-ended and explore possible consequences rather than the

predetermined expectations of the project.’ (Fig. 15) A new evaluation model can complete a new strategy.

message A message B SENDER MEDIUM RECEIVER

message C FEEDBACK (a) Communication model for goal-oriented evaluation. message message

A-D A-D SENDER MEDIUM RECEIVER

message a-b and p-z FEEDBACK (b) Communication model for goal -oriented evaluation. Fig.15 (a) Communication model for goal-oriented evaluation: a standard form of evaluation which assesses the success of the aims of the project, and one of these aims should be the accurate transmission of the project’s message. (b) Communication model for goal-free evaluation, an alternative approach is that of goal-free evaluation where either the aims of the project are ignored, or there are no aims. These evaluations are more open-ended and explore possible consequences rather than the predetermined expectations of the project. (source: Bicknell S. Here to help: evaluation and effectiveness. In “Museum, Media, Message” in E. Hooper-Greenhill(e d), London Routledge p. 281-293(1995) 4.2 New strategy as a new life for museum pedagogy

Since the museum pedagogy is structured through the narratives produced through the displays and also

through the style in which these narratives are presented. Educational exhibition has been considered as an

important, sometimes as the only pedagogy in most of Nature History museums. New strategy for museum

pedagogy will use the metaphor of post-museum to develop “interpretative exhibition”. The cultural approach to

understanding communication is different from the transmission approach to understanding communication: based

on the scientific paradigm, and the behaviorist view of learning, communication is understood as the functional

linear transmission of a body of external objective knowledge from knowledgeable communicator to

receiver/student. It is based upon the constructivist paradigm: communication is understood as a cultural process

of negotiating meaning (Fig. 16), which produces “reality” through symbolic systems such as texts, object,

artworks, maps, models and museums [2].

Fig.16 The cultural approach to understanding communication: based on the constructivi st paradigm, communication is understood as a cultural process of negotiating meaning, which produces “reality” through symbolic systems such as texts, object, artworks, amps, models and museums. (Source: E Hooper-Greenhill. Education, communication and interpretation: towards a critical pedagogy in museum. in E. Hooper-Greenhill (ed), “ the Education Role of the Museum ”. 2nd ed., London Routledge. p17. (1994).

New strategy for museum pedagogy did not only change the role of communicator and receiver in the

communication process among design team members, actually, it created a new performance stage for interpretive

exhibition. The curator, the designer and the educator in museums can contribute the interpretive opinions in the

design meeting more equally. The design team is completely different from the conventional team in traditional

museum which is the only curator-centered thinking. More creative ideas can be involved now. The visitors can

also contribute the interpretive opinions during the process of evaluation. The new strategy for a nature history

museum is going to create a more active and vivid process for learning and a more diverse activity for culture

consuming.

The role of provider and consumer is no more so rigid. When the strategy has changed, the new design ideas,

coming from the visitor or the museum, can grow up during the whole process of exhibition. The opening of a

new exhibition is not the end of meaning interpretation but the beginning of interpretive stage. The challenge

would be ignited. All of the results will be the new nutrients or the creative ideas for the next exhibition and even

the future culture of museum design. Both of the museum and the visitors can “learn” from this new stage.

SCIETY & CULTURE

interpretive frameworks

interpretive communities

interpretive strategies

SCIETY & CULTURE

Indi- vidual beliefs negociated

interpretive frameworks

interpretive communities

interpretive strategies

References

1. Bicknell, S. “Here to help: evaluation and effectiveness”. In Museum, Media, Message, E.

Hooper-Greenhill(ed), London Routledge pp. 281-293 (1995).

2. Hooper-Greenhill, E. “Education, communication and interpretation: towards a critical pedagogy in museum”,

in E. Hooper-Greenhill(ed), The Educational Role of the Museum, 2nd Ed., London Routledge, pp.3-27 (1994).

3. Hooper-Greenhill, E. Museums and the interpretation of visual culture, London Routledge p.195 (2000).

4. Kotler, N. and P. Kotler. Museum Strategy and Marketing— designing missions, building audiences, generating

revenue and resources. P. 395 (1998).

5. McQuail, D. and Windahl, S. Communication Models, London: Sage Publication (1993).

6. Miles, R. et al. The design of educational exhibits, 2nd Ed., Unwin Hyman Ltd. P. 193 (1982).