This is the presentation of my PhD thesis: Designing for Participation within cultural heritage. Participatory practices and audience engagement in heritage experiences proscess.
The research investigates the emerging role of cultural institutions that, responding to the expectations of contemporary audiences, are shifting from being providers of content, to being facilitators of experiences around it. The overall aim is to envision novel paradigms for audience engagement within cultural institutions, outlining a general framework for the design of effective participatory experiences of heritage.
1. DESIGNING FOR PARTICIPATION WITHIN
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Participatory practices and audience engagement
in heritage experience processes
Ph.D. candidate Sara Radice
Supervisor
Prof. Raffaella Trocchianesi
External Examiner
Prof. Matthew Battles
The Chair of the Doctoral Programme
Prof. Francesco Trabucco
March 2014
Politecnico di Milano, Design Department
Doctoral programme in Design | XXVI cycle
Research Area DeCH-Design for Cultural Heritage
2. public access, public participation, interactivity, participatory design, culture as entertainment, ...
FRAMING THE RESEARCH | Objectives and research questions
¡¡ not new concepts, but not structurally integrated in the contemporary design approaches and
practices within cultural institutions
MUSEUM STUDIES DOMAIN
3. public access, public participation, interactivity, participatory design, culture as entertainment, ...
FRAMING THE RESEARCH | Objectives and research questions
¡¡ not new concepts, but not structurally integrated in the contemporary design approaches and
practices within cultural institutions
objective
to explore how the design
discipline may effectively
support the development
and implementation of
participatory projects
main hypotesis
visitors’ active engagement in cultural programs could better respond to the
expectations of contemporary audiences
MUSEUM STUDIES DOMAIN
4. public access, public participation, interactivity, participatory design, culture as entertainment, ...
FRAMING THE RESEARCH | Objectives and research questions
¡¡ not new concepts, but not structurally integrated in the contemporary design approaches and
practices within cultural institutions
objective
to explore how the design
discipline may effectively
support the development
and implementation of
participatory projects
main hypotesis
visitors’ active engagement in cultural programs could better respond to the
expectations of contemporary audiences
¡¡ which theories of learning best support the development of participatory
cultural programs?
¡¡ do diverse participatory models influence social engagement?
¡¡ are digital technologies effective in enabling participatory experiences of
heritage? and in what contexts?
¡¡ how can cultural institutions maintain their curatorial and educational authority,
if letting visitors participate?
¡¡ are participatory design methods needed if designing for participation?
¡¡ what could be a general framework to support the design of a participatory
experience of heritage?
MUSEUM STUDIES DOMAIN
5. 1. FRAMING THE RESEARCH
2. STUDY OF CASES
3. ENVISIONING
4. FINAL EDITING
Methods
1.2. SPECIFIC LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. GENERAL LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CASES
3.1. DEFINITION OF DESIGN FRAMEWORK
mapping of diverse approaches to
participation within GLAMs
desing-oriented scenario
recursive design process
meta-design tool
2.2. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CASES
3.2. PILOT PROJECT
definition of the theoretical context
hypothesis, questions, and objectives
methods and tools enabling participation
in diverse cultural contexts
operative insights
assesment of the design framework
assesment of results
editing
secondaryresearch
casestudyparticipatoryactivities
qualitativesurveys
FRAMING THE RESEARCH | Phases and methodology
Research phases Outcomes Curricular internships
Santa Cruz Museum
of Art & History
metaLAB at Harvard
6. 1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
participatory culture
¡¡ interaction,sharing,andcommonauthorship
¡¡ Internet ‘2.0’
MEDIA
CONSUMERS
MEDIA
PRODUCERS
CASUAL
FANS
ENTHUSIASTS
REMIXERS
ORIGINAL
CREATORS
rem
ixed
m
ediaremixed media
original media
originalm
edia
usage-centricmetadata
usage-centric
m
etadata
originalmedia
¡¡ architecture of participation (O’Reilly 2004)
7. issues of quality and authorship of UCC,
intellectual property, and authors’ reward
(Lovink 2008; Metitieri 2009; Lanier 2010)
1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
participatory culture
¡¡ interaction,sharing,andcommonauthorship
¡¡ Internet ‘2.0’
MEDIA
CONSUMERS
MEDIA
PRODUCERS
CASUAL
FANS
ENTHUSIASTS
REMIXERS
ORIGINAL
CREATORS
rem
ixed
m
ediaremixed media
original media
originalm
edia
usage-centricmetadata
usage-centric
m
etadata
originalmedia
¡¡ architecture of participation (O’Reilly 2004)
8. ¡¡ Long Tail (Anderson 2004): massclusivity, mass customization
¡¡ introduction of cultural institutions in targeted niches
of communication / attracting dispersed audiences
aggregated by common interests
1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
9. goals crowdsourcing type
quantity classification
circumstantial quality correction and transcription
strategic quality
contextualization / complementing collections
co-curation / crowdfunding
¡¡ crowdsourcing within cultural institutions (Holley 2010; Oomen and Aroyo 2011;
Uribe and Serradell 2012)
open models for
knowledge production and
sharing within GLAMs
¡¡ Long Tail (Anderson 2004): massclusivity, mass customization
¡¡ introduction of cultural institutions in targeted niches
of communication / attracting dispersed audiences
aggregated by common interests
1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
10. 1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
goals crowdsourcing type
quantity classification
circumstantial quality correction and transcription
strategic quality
contextualization / complementing collections
co-curation / crowdfunding
¡¡ crowdsourcing within cultural institutions (Holley 2010; Oomen and Aroyo 2011;
Uribe and Serradell 2012)
TRANSFER
ABSORPTION
TRANSMISSION
INTERPRETATION
SHARING
TRANSMISSION
transfer of web-based
participatory models to
actual cultural spaces
open models for
knowledge production and
sharing within GLAMs
¡¡ Long Tail (Anderson 2004): massclusivity, mass customization
¡¡ introduction of cultural institutions in targeted niches
of communication / attracting dispersed audiences
aggregated by common interests
¡¡ library 2.0 (Casey 2007)
¡¡ museum 2.0 (Simon 2010)
11. ¡¡ identification of motivational profiles or “visitor’s identity-related visit
motivations” (Falk 2009) based on visitors’ motivations and personal identities,
rather than only relying on demographic or sociographic information
¡¡ the desire to establish social relationships and to be actively engaged in
informal learning processes are among the main expectations for which
people decide to visit a museum
¡¡ need of incorporating the perspectives of institutional staff, external stakeholders,
and visitors in audience-responsive programs that link institutional collections to
visitors’ interests and expectations
¡¡ “explorers, facilitators, experience seekers, professionals/
hobbysts, rechargers” (Falk 2009)
¡¡ “knowledge seekers, socializers, skill builders, museum
lovers” (Sachatello-Sawyer et Al. 2002)
1.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Visitors, users, participants
from visitors, to users
to participants
12. ¡¡ user experience during interaction
(Falk and Dierking 1992; Hassenzahl and Tractinsky 2006)
1.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Visitors, users, participants
¡¡ personal context + social context + physical context
*
intrinsic learning experiences
involve visitor’s larger
framework of knowledge
13. 1.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Visitors, users, participants
¡¡ four main museums archetypes (Hein1999)
*
KNOWLEDGE IS CONTRUCTED BY THE
LEARNER, PERSONALLY OR SOCIALLY
KNOWLEGE EXISTS
OUTSIDE THE LEARNER
PASSIVE
PARTICIPATION
ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION
entertainment
esthetic
educational
escapist
discovery learning
DISCOVERY MUSEUM
DISCOVERY
contructivism
CONSTRUCTIVIST MUSEUM
INTERACTION
traditional lecture
SYSTEMATIC MUSEUM
CONTEMPLATION
behaviorist learning
ORDERLY MUSEUM
COMPREHENSION
¡¡ user experience during interaction
(Falk and Dierking 1992; Hassenzahl and Tractinsky 2006)
¡¡ personal context + social context + physical context
intrinsic learning experiences
involve visitor’s larger
framework of knowledge
experience realms
(Pine and Gilmore 1999)
+
modes of visitors
apprehensions
(Lord 2002)
+
theories of learning
14. 1.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Visitors, users, participants
¡¡ four main museums archetypes (Hein1999)
*
experience realms
(Pine and Gilmore 1999)
+
modes of visitors
apprehensions
(Lord 2002)
+
theories of learning
KNOWLEDGE IS CONTRUCTED BY THE
LEARNER, PERSONALLY OR SOCIALLY
KNOWLEGE EXISTS
OUTSIDE THE LEARNER
PASSIVE
PARTICIPATION
ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION
entertainment
esthetic
educational
escapist
discovery learning
DISCOVERY MUSEUM
DISCOVERY
contructivism
CONSTRUCTIVIST MUSEUM
INTERACTION
traditional lecture
SYSTEMATIC MUSEUM
CONTEMPLATION
behaviorist learning
ORDERLY MUSEUM
COMPREHENSION
¡¡ user experience during interaction
(Falk and Dierking 1992; Hassenzahl and Tractinsky 2006)
¡¡ personal context + social context + physical context
intrinsic learning experiences
involve visitor’s larger
framework of knowledge
15. 1.3. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Museums as places for cultural encounter
If museums wish to
become socially inclusive,
alternative perspectives
need to be recognized,
acknowledged, and made
both visible and audible
(Hooper-Greenhill 2000)
¡¡ from interpretation to conversation around heritage
(McLean 2011; Proctor 2012; Ross and Speed 2012)
¡¡ conversational learning approach
(Baker, Jensen, and Kolb 2002)
¡¡ process-based view of heritage (UNESCO 2003)
¡¡ museums as spaces of inclusion (Bodo and Mascheroni 2012) according to the
model of the dialogic museum (Tchen 1992)
16. 1.3. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Museums as places for cultural encounter
¡¡ from interpretation to conversation around heritage
(McLean 2011; Proctor 2012; Ross and Speed 2012)
¡¡ conversational learning approach
(Baker, Jensen, and Kolb 2002)
¡¡ process-based view of heritage (UNESCO 2003)
¡¡ museums as spaces of inclusion (Bodo and Mascheroni 2012) according to the
model of the dialogic museum (Tchen 1992)
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMES CONTENT
STAGE 5
STAGE 4
STAGE 3
STAGE 2
STAGE 1 ME
WE
INDIVIDUAL INTERACTS WITH CONTENT
INDIVIDUAL INTERACTIONS ARE NETWORKED IN AGGREGATE
INDIVIDUAL INTERACTIONS ARE NETWORKED FOR SOCIAL USE
INDIVIDUALS ENGAGE WITH EACH OTHER SOCIALLY
¡¡ socialinteractionamong visitors in the process of meaning-making
¡¡ “me-to-we design” (Simon 2010)
If museums wish to
become socially inclusive,
alternative perspectives
need to be recognized,
acknowledged, and made
both visible and audible
(Hooper-Greenhill 2000)
17. ¡¡ public curation in opposition to a traditional way of institutional curatorship
(Satwicz and Morrissey 2011)
¡¡ visitors’actions while visiting (Proctor 2012)
watching | sharing | commenting | producing | curating
¡¡ visitors’ modalities of participation (Dalsgaard, Dindler, e Eriksson 2008):
(co-)exploration | (co-)construction | (co)contribution
¡¡ participatory models (Simon 2010):
contributory | collaborative | co-creative
¡¡ levels of creative control on contents (Brown et al. 2011):
curatorial | interpretive | inventive
1.4. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Designing participatory experiences of heritage
INVENTIVE
RECEPTIVE
SPECTATING INTERACTION CONTRIBUTORY
PROJECTS
COLLABORATIVE
PROJECTS
PARTICIPATORY
CURATORIALNO CONTROL
INTERPRETIVE
PARTICIPANT’S LEVEL OF CREATIVE CONTROL
CO-CREATIVE
PROJECTS
A participatory
cultural institution is a
place where visitors can
create, share, and connect
with each other around
content
(Simon 2010)
18. 1.4. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Designing participatory experiences of heritage
¡¡ design for participation
innovating the ‘product’ (i.e. museum’s programs
and exhibitions), through the use of one or more
models of participation
¡¡ participatory design practices
innovating the ‘process’ without necessarily
presupposing participation while experiencing the
final product
19. 1.4. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Designing participatory experiences of heritage
¡¡ design for participation
innovating the ‘product’ (i.e. museum’s programs
and exhibitions), through the use of one or more
models of participation
¡¡ participatory design practices
innovating the ‘process’ without necessarily
presupposing participation while experiencing the
final product
If you invite people to
really participate in the
making of a museum,
the process must change
the museum
(Spock 2009)
World Cafè
Living Blueprint
Workshop (Dalsgaard
2012)
ZUP format (Satta 2010)
Inspiration Card
Workshop (Halskov and
Dalsgaard 2006)
design probes
Nominal Group
Technique
¡¡ participants as informants
¡¡ participantsasco-designers
20. 2.1. STUDY OF CASES | Preliminary analysis of cases
¡¡ projects must be developed or hosted by a cultural organization
¡¡ projects developed between the beginning of 2000s and today
¡¡ evidence of explicit and original users’ contributions in the collection or
experience of heritage or in the design of the visitor experience
¡¡ contents must be generally recognized as cultural heritage, both tangible and
intangible, physical and digital (ICOM 2007)
¡¡ projects of participatory art
¡¡ crowdsourced projects aimed at the correction,
transcription, and contextualization of information
criteria for selection
excluding
objectives ¡¡ outlining the current tendencies for what concern the main methods and tools
that enable audience participation in diverse contexts
¡¡ understanding if and how a participatory approach to heritage affects the visitor
experience in terms of creative controls on contents and social engagement
¡¡ isolate the most meaningful cases to be further analyzed and discussed
21. 2.1. STUDY OF CASES | Preliminary analysis of cases
criteria for analysis
¡¡ design for participation | participatory design
¡¡ collectors | critics | creators
¡¡ indirect | mediated | direct
¡¡
¡¡ promote shared learning | co-creative work | creative expression
¡¡ museums
natural history and anthropology | ecomuseums and city museums | science and
technology | art | history and memorials
libraries and achieves | informal exhibition spaces | urban environment
¡¡ institutional mediation of UCC | no institutional mediation
design approach
participants’ roles
level of social engagement
tools enabling participation
institutional goals
context and area of influence
modalities of UCC curation
mobile
applications
social
media
in person
mediation
onsite
multimedia
onsite
interactives
geotagging
Virtual Continuum
smart
objects
22. Yorkshire’s Favourite
Paintings
MN150
Brangulí
was here
Nubes
Click! A
Crowd-Curated
Exhibition
Arts
Combinatòries
21st
Century Abe
Culture
Shock!
Art of
Storytelling
Shapeshifting
Google Art
Project
Dulwich
OnView
Flick The
Commons
Clark Remix
uCurate
Silence of
the Lands
Historypin
City of Memory Mapping Main
Street
MappaMi
PhilaPlace
PublicviewRed Bull Street
Art View
Shh!
It’s a Secret!
Center for Creative
Connections
Denver Community
Museum
Franklin
Remix
Cooking: the
Exhibition Chefs
Flickr
Museums
Hack the
Museum Camp
New Dialogue
Initiative
Hyphenated-
Origins
Museomix
7 billion
Others
Public Perspective
Exhibition Series
The Secret Life
of Objects
Object
Stories
Parlamentarium
A Matter
of Faith
Haarlem Oost
library
Queensland
stories
The great fat
debate
Diritti al
cubo
DialogTable
Nationale
Automatiek
From Memory
to Action
Free2Choose
Hydroscope
In the
Long Run
Contemporary
Issues Forum
New York
Divided
The Shannon
Portal
Cool remixed
Click! Photography
changes everything
In your face
Pop-Up
Museum
Coney Island
History
StoryCorps
Choose
the pieceOpen house
Foresta
nascosta
Mare Memoria
Viva
Human library
Storie Plurali
Doha Memories
Prototype
TAM TAM
Digital Natives
Forces of Change
1960-1975
Glasgow
Open Museum
Creative Community
Committee
Turbingeneration
Re-Tracing
the Past
American
Stories
Tales of
Thing
QRpedia
NaturePlus
BibPhone
Designing
democracy
Top 40
CRITICS MEDIATEDCREATORS DIRECTCOLLECTORS INDIRECT
Science Museum
Object Wiki
Inventory of Intangible
Cultural Heritage9/11 Memorial
Museum
Santa Cruz
Collect
Oggetti Obsoleti del
Contemporaneo
San Francisco
Mobile Museum
Passerby
Museum
Sweet & SourChildren Lodz
Ghetto
ArtStackYellow
Arrow
Scapes
Europeana
1914-1918
social
Media
in person
mediators
onsite
multimedia
installation
VirtualContinuum
onsite
interactives
geotagging
mobile
applications
smart
objects
tools enabling
participation
2.2. STUDY OF CASES | Mapping of cases and discussion of data
23. Yorkshire’s Favourite
Paintings
MN150
Brangulí
was here
Nubes
Click! A
Crowd-Curated
Exhibition
Arts
Combinatòries
21st
Century Abe
Culture
Shock!
Art of
Storytelling
Shapeshifting
Google Art
Project
Dulwich
OnView
Flick The
Commons
Clark Remix
uCurate
Silence of
the Lands
Historypin
City of Memory Mapping Main
Street
MappaMi
PhilaPlace
PublicviewRed Bull Street
Art View
Shh!
It’s a Secret!
Center for Creative
Connections
Denver Community
Museum
Franklin
Remix
Cooking: the
Exhibition Chefs
Flickr
Museums
Hack the
Museum Camp
New Dialogue
Initiative
Hyphenated-
Origins
Museomix
7 billion
Others
Public Perspective
Exhibition Series
The Secret Life
of Objects
Object
Stories
Parlamentarium
A Matter
of Faith
Haarlem Oost
library
Queensland
stories
The great fat
debate
Diritti al
cubo
DialogTable
Nationale
Automatiek
From Memory
to Action
Free2Choose
Hydroscope
In the
Long Run
Contemporary
Issues Forum
New York
Divided
The Shannon
Portal
Cool remixed
Click! Photography
changes everything
In your face
Pop-Up
Museum
Coney Island
History
StoryCorps
Choose
the pieceOpen house
Foresta
nascosta
Mare Memoria
Viva
Human library
Storie Plurali
Doha Memories
Prototype
TAM TAM
Digital Natives
Forces of Change
1960-1975
Glasgow
Open Museum
Creative Community
Committee
Turbingeneration
Re-Tracing
the Past
American
Stories
Tales of
Thing
QRpedia
NaturePlus
BibPhone
Designing
democracy
Top 40
CRITICS MEDIATEDCREATORS DIRECTCOLLECTORS INDIRECT
Science Museum
Object Wiki
Inventory of Intangible
Cultural Heritage9/11 Memorial
Museum
Santa Cruz
Collect
Oggetti Obsoleti del
Contemporaneo
San Francisco
Mobile Museum
Passerby
Museum
Sweet & SourChildren Lodz
Ghetto
ArtStackYellow
Arrow
Scapes
Europeana
1914-1918
voting
commenting
contributing
objects and
stories
co-designing
creatively
express
themselves
social
Media
in person
mediators
onsite
multimedia
installation
VirtualContinuum
onsite
interactives
geotagging
mobile
applications
smart
objects
tools enabling
participation
participatory
activities
2.2. STUDY OF CASES | Mapping of cases and discussion of data
24. contribution of objects and stories
Pop-Up Museum
StoryCorps
City of Memory
MappaMI
Europeana 1914-
1918
American Stories
ArtStack
Flickr The Commons
Google Art Project
BibPhone
Tales of Thing
Hydroscope
Scapes
Dulwich OnView
Creative Community Commitee
commenting and voting
co-designing
2.3. STUDY OF CASES | Selected projects
25. 2.4. STUDY OF CASES | Operative insights from the study of cases
institutional authority vs.
public voices in diverse
contexts
¡¡ art museums
¡¡ projects promoting personal creative expression, in which
individuals act as “artists” in the context of an institutional
interpretive framework of an existing collection
26. 2.4. STUDY OF CASES | Operative insights from the study of cases
institutional authority vs.
public voices in diverse
contexts
¡¡ art museums
¡¡ projects promoting personal creative expression, in which
individuals act as “artists” in the context of an institutional
interpretive framework of an existing collection
¡¡ ecomuseums, city museums, and urban spaces
¡¡ use of community-based maps to enable the representation of
multiple citizens’ voices
27. 2.4. STUDY OF CASES | Operative insights from the study of cases
institutional authority vs.
public voices in diverse
contexts
¡¡ art museums
¡¡ projects promoting personal creative expression, in which
individuals act as “artists” in the context of an institutional
interpretive framework of an existing collection
¡¡ ecomuseums, city museums, and urban spaces
¡¡ use of community-based maps to enable the representation of
multiple citizens’ voices
¡¡ history museums and memorials
¡¡ critical interpretation of objects through storytelling
¡¡ co-collection of objects and personal stories to co-construct
institutional collections
¡¡ co-creative projects aimed at stimulating community dialogue
issues of accuracy and authenticity
28. 2.4. STUDY OF CASES | Operative insights from the study of cases
institutional authority vs.
public voices in diverse
contexts
¡¡ art museums
¡¡ projects promoting personal creative expression, in which
individuals act as “artists” in the context of an institutional
interpretive framework of an existing collection
¡¡ ecomuseums, city museums, and urban spaces
¡¡ use of community-based maps to enable the representation of
multiple citizens’ voices
¡¡ science and technology museums and centers
¡¡ discussion of controversial themes through interactive
installations
¡¡ activities of social learning
¡¡ history museums and memorials
¡¡ critical interpretation of objects through storytelling
¡¡ co-collection of objects and personal stories to co-construct
institutional collections
¡¡ co-creative projects aimed at stimulating community dialogue
issues of accuracy and authenticity
interaction vs. participation
29. ¡¡ social objects as catalyzer of participatory activities
2.4. STUDY OF CASES | Operative insights from the study of cases
social objects allow
people to focus their
attention on a third thing
rather than on each other,
making interpersonal
engagement more comfortable
(Simon 2010)
¡¡ acting as symbols, they activate both conscious and unconscious
visitors’ responses depending on personal background
¡¡ the symbolic value of objects is enhanced by the increasing
number of visitors involved, promoting the social learning
personal objects active objects provocative objects relational objects
30. concept
developm
ent
museum’s mission
collections
learning theories
visitors studies
feasibility
assesment
prelim
inary
design
phase
detailed
designphase
production
planning
production
operational
phase
Main Message
FRONT-END
EVALUATION
FORMATIVE
EVALUATION
exhibitionbrief
finalgallerydesign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVE
EVALUATION
REMEDIAL
EVALUATION
VISITORS
3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
development phase
¡¡ concept development
¡¡ identificationofvisitors’motivational
profiles
preliminary design phase
¡¡ project plan and deliverables
¡¡ institutional goals and Take-Home
Messages (McLean 1993)
¡¡ front-end evaluation
31. 3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
concept
developm
ent
museum’s mission
collections
learning theories
visitors studies
feasibility
assesment
prelim
inary
design
phase
detailed
designphase
production
planning
production
operational
phase
Main Message
FRONT-END
EVALUATION
FORMATIVE
EVALUATION
exhibitionbrief
finalgallerydesign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVE
EVALUATION
REMEDIAL
EVALUATION
VISITORS
development phase
¡¡ concept development
¡¡ identificationofvisitors’motivational
profiles
preliminary design phase
¡¡ project plan and deliverables
¡¡ institutional goals and Take-Home
Messages (McLean 1993)
¡¡ front-end evaluation
detailed design phase
¡¡ selection of objects
¡¡ project’s storyline
¡¡ formative evaluation on prototypes
¡¡ planning of educational programs
32. 3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
concept
developm
ent
museum’s mission
collections
learning theories
visitors studies
feasibility
assesment
prelim
inary
design
phase
detailed
designphase
production
planning
production
operational
phase
Main Message
FRONT-END
EVALUATION
FORMATIVE
EVALUATION
exhibitionbrief
finalgallerydesign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVE
EVALUATION
REMEDIAL
EVALUATION
VISITORS
development phase
¡¡ concept development
¡¡ identificationofvisitors’motivational
profiles
preliminary design phase
¡¡ project plan and deliverables
¡¡ institutional goals and Take-Home
Messages (McLean 1993)
¡¡ front-end evaluation
detailed design phase
¡¡ selection of objects
¡¡ project’s storyline
¡¡ formative evaluation on prototypes
¡¡ planning of educational programs
implementation phase
¡¡ production
¡¡ installation of physical structures
and digital apparatuses
¡¡ remedial evaluation
¡¡ ongoing maintenance
33. 3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
development phase
¡¡ concept development
¡¡ identificationofvisitors’motivational
profiles
preliminary design phase
¡¡ project plan and deliverables
¡¡ institutional goals and Take-Home
Messages (McLean 1993)
¡¡ front-end evaluation
detailed design phase
¡¡ selection of objects
¡¡ project’s storyline
¡¡ formative evaluation on prototypes
¡¡ planning of educational programs
implementation phase
¡¡ production
¡¡ installation of physical structures
and digital apparatuses
¡¡ remedial evaluation
¡¡ ongoing maintenance
assesment phase
¡¡ summative evaluation
concept
developm
ent
museum’s mission
collections
learning theories
visitors studies
feasibility
assesment
prelim
inary
design
phase
detailed
designphase
production
planning
production
operational
phase
Main Message
FRONT-END
EVALUATION
FORMATIVE
EVALUATION
exhibitionbrief
finalgallerydesign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVE
EVALUATION
REMEDIAL
EVALUATION
VISITORS
34. ¡¡ to verify if the proposed design framework proved to be effective in supporting
the design process of a participatory exhibit
¡¡ to achieve the specific institutional project’s goals set by the MAH
¡¡ to use the symbolic value of obsolete objects to display in the Museum’s
History Gallery everyday objects commonly used in the past sixty years for
enabling the sharing of personal memories related to the Santa Cruz County
general objectives
preliminary main idea
3.2. PILOT PROJECT | Everyday History
¡¡ critical interpretation through participatory storytelling
¡¡ co-construction of institutional collections
¡¡ call for ideas to develop, design, execute, document, and
evaluate:
“an original project that helps make the MAH a thriving, central
gathering place that brings people together around active
exploration of art and history”
35. 3.2. PILOT PROJECT | Everyday History
¡¡ avoiding the term “obsolete” for its negative connotation, using instead the
expressions once-common things and everyday history
¡¡ focusing on the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as reference periods to best promote
inter-generational social engagement among the visitors
front-end evaluation
formative evaluation on
prototypes
¡¡ changes in the terminology used for the interactives’ instructional graphics
and in the simplification of the prompts
¡¡ selection of objects, among those sugegested by visitors, to be periodically
rotated on display in the final exhibit
36. visitors participate in three ways:
¡¡ by sharing their story related to a particular object
on display
¡¡ by suggesting other objects they want to display
in future
¡¡ by voting their favorite object
3.2. PILOT PROJECT | Everyday History
37. summative evaluation
experimental approach Everyday History become as a sort of ongoing aboratory for the experimentation
of participatory practices to be eventually applied to the makeover of the entire
Museum’s History Gallery
achievement of affective, cognitive, and performance goals
3.2. PILOT PROJECT | Everyday History
¡¡ visitors gained a deeper understanding of some aspects of
community life
¡¡ increasing of community involvement in volunteering activities
¡¡ final exhibition as an unfinished product still subject to
visitors’ evaluation in order to meet the expectations of the
community the museum serves
38. ¡¡ while acting according to contributory or collaborative models, visitors may also
serve as informants in shaping the final design of the program or exhibition
¡¡ a user-centered design methodology is an effective design
strategy when applied to museum’s exhibitions designed for
participation, in which the design process must include key
phases of prototyping and testing with visitors
3.3. CONCLUSIONS | Generalization and limits
participatory design vs.
design for participation
39. ¡¡ while acting according to contributory or collaborative models, visitors may also
serve as informants in shaping the final design of the program or exhibition
¡¡ does the proposed design framework apply to those institutional contexts not
committed to audience participation, like “traditional” (Anderson 2012) art and
history museums or historic house museums?
¡¡ a user-centered design methodology is an effective design
strategy when applied to museum’s exhibitions designed for
participation, in which the design process must include key
phases of prototyping and testing with visitors
¡¡ future works: application of the proposed recursive design
methodology to the development of participatory projects
in those institutional contexts that, due to the nature of their
collections, areapparentlylesssuitableforpromotingprograms
of audience engagement, but that could more benefit from a
participatory approach
3.3. CONCLUSIONS | Generalization and limits
participatory design vs.
design for participation
design framework
applicability in “traditional”
vs.“reinvented” museums
40. DESIGNING FOR PARTICIPATION WITHIN
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Participatory practices and audience engagement
in heritage experience processes
Ph.D. candidate Sara Radice
Supervisor
Prof. Raffaella Trocchianesi
External Examiner
Prof. Matthew Battles
The Chair of the Doctoral Programme
Prof. Francesco Trabucco
March 2014
Politecnico di Milano, Design Department
Doctoral programme in Design | XXVI cycle
Research Area DeCH-Design for Cultural Heritage