phd dissertation - presentation - march 26 2014
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
DESIGNING FOR PARTICIPATION WITHIN CULTURAL HERITAGE Participatory practices and audience engagement in heritage experience processes
Ph.D. candidate Sara Radice
SupervisorProf. Raffaella Trocchianesi
External ExaminerProf. Matthew Battles
The Chair of the Doctoral ProgrammeProf. Francesco Trabucco
March 2014
Politecnico di Milano, Design DepartmentDoctoral programme in Design | XXVI cycleResearch Area DeCH-Design for Cultural Heritage
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
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
objectiveto explore how the design discipline may effectively support the development
and implementation of participatory projects
main hypotesisvisitors’ active engagement in cultural programs could better respond to the expectations of contemporary audiences
MUSEUM STUDIES DOMAIN
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
objectiveto explore how the design discipline may effectively support the development
and implementation of participatory projects
main hypotesisvisitors’ 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
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 toparticipation within GLAMs
desing-oriented scenariorecursive design processmeta-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 contextsoperative insights
assesment of the design framework
assesment of resultsediting
secondary research
case studyparticipatory activities
qualitative surveys
FRAMING THE RESEARCH | Phases and methodology
Research phases Outcomes Curricular internships
Santa Cruz Museumof Art & History
metaLAB at Harvard
1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
participatory culture¡¡ interaction, sharing, and common authorship
¡¡ Internet ‘2.0’
MEDIACONSUMERS
MEDIAPRODUCERS
CASUALFANS
ENTHUSIASTS
REMIXERS
ORIGINALCREATORS
remixe
d med
ia
remixed media
original media
original media
usage-centric metadata
usag
e-cen
tric m
etadata
original media
¡¡ architecture of participation (O’Reilly 2004)
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, and common authorship
¡¡ Internet ‘2.0’
MEDIACONSUMERS
MEDIAPRODUCERS
CASUALFANS
ENTHUSIASTS
REMIXERS
ORIGINALCREATORS
remixe
d med
ia
remixed media
original media
original media
usage-centric metadata
usag
e-cen
tric m
etadata
original media
¡¡ architecture of participation (O’Reilly 2004)
¡¡ 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
goals crowdsourcing typequantity classification
circumstantial quality correction and transcription
strategic qualitycontextualization / complementing collections
co-curation / crowdfunding
¡¡ crowdsourcing within cultural institutions (Holley 2010; Oomen and Aroyo 2011; Uribe and Serradell 2012)
open models forknowledge 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
1.1. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | The change of patterns for cultural transmission
goals crowdsourcing typequantity classification
circumstantial quality correction and transcription
strategic qualitycontextualization / 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 forknowledge 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)
¡¡ 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 usersto participants
¡¡ 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
1.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Visitors, users, participants
¡¡ four main museums archetypes (Hein 1999)
*KNOWLEDGE IS CONTRUCTED BY THE LEARNER, PERSONALLY OR SOCIALLY
KNOWLEGE EXISTS OUTSIDE THE LEARNER
PASSIVEPARTICIPATION
ACTIVEPARTICIPATION
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
1.2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Visitors, users, participants
¡¡ four main museums archetypes (Hein 1999)
*
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
PASSIVEPARTICIPATION
ACTIVEPARTICIPATION
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
1.3. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Museums as places for cultural encounter
If museums wish tobecome 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)
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
¡¡ social interaction among visitors in the process of meaning-making
¡¡ “me-to-we design” (Simon 2010)
If museums wish tobecome socially inclusive,
alternative perspectives need to be recognized,
acknowledged, and made both visible and audible
(Hooper-Greenhill 2000)
¡¡ 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 CONTRIBUTORYPROJECTS
COLLABORATIVEPROJECTS
PARTICIPATORY
CURATORIALNO CONTROLINTERPRETIVE
PARTICIPANT’S LEVEL OF CREATIVE CONTROL
CO-CREATIVEPROJECTS
A participatorycultural institution is a
place where visitors can create, share, and connect
with each other around content
(Simon 2010)
1.4. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Designing participatory experiences of heritage
¡¡ design for participationinnovating the ‘product’ (i.e. museum’s programs and exhibitions), through the use of one or more models of participation
¡¡ participatory design practicesinnovating the ‘process’ without necessarily presupposing participation while experiencing the final product
1.4. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW | Designing participatory experiences of heritage
¡¡ design for participationinnovating the ‘product’ (i.e. museum’s programs and exhibitions), through the use of one or more models of participation
¡¡ participatory design practicesinnovating 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
¡¡ participants as co-designers
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
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
¡¡ museumsnatural history and anthropology | ecomuseums and city museums | science and technology | art | history and memorialslibraries 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
mobileapplications
socialmedia
in person mediation
onsite multimedia
onsiteinteractives
geotagging
Virtual Continuum
smart objects
Yorkshire’s Favourite Paintings
MN150
Brangulíwas here
Nubes
Click! A Crowd-Curated
Exhibition
ArtsCombinatòries
21stCentury Abe
Culture Shock!
Art ofStorytelling
Shapeshifting
Google Art Project
Dulwich OnView
Flick The Commons
Clark Remix uCurate
Silence ofthe 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 CommunityMuseum
FranklinRemix
Cooking: theExhibition Chefs
FlickrMuseums
Hack theMuseum Camp
New Dialogue Initiative
Hyphenated-Origins
Museomix
7 billionOthers
Public Perspective Exhibition Series
The Secret Life of Objects
ObjectStories
Parlamentarium
A Matterof Faith
Haarlem Oost library
Queensland stories
The great fat debate
Diritti al cubo
DialogTable
Nationale Automatiek
From Memoryto Action
Free2Choose
Hydroscope
In theLong Run
Contemporary Issues Forum
New York Divided
The ShannonPortal
Cool remixed
Click! Photography changes everything
In your face
Pop-UpMuseum
Coney Island History
StoryCorps
Choose the pieceOpen house
Foresta nascosta
Mare Memoria Viva
Human libraryStorie Plurali
Doha Memories Prototype
TAM TAM
Digital Natives
Forces of Change1960-1975
GlasgowOpen Museum
Creative Community Committee
Turbingeneration
Re-Tracing the Past
American Stories
Tales of Thing
QRpedia
NaturePlus
BibPhone
Designing democracy
Top 40
CRITICSM
EDIA
TED
CREATORSDI
RECT
COLLECTORSIN
DIRE
CT
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
ArtStackYellowArrow
Scapes
Europeana 1914-1918
social Media
in person mediators
onsite multimedia installation
Virtual Continuum
onsiteinteractives
geotagging
mobileapplications
smart objects
tools enabling participation
2.2. STUDY OF CASES | Mapping of cases and discussion of data
Yorkshire’s Favourite Paintings
MN150
Brangulíwas here
Nubes
Click! A Crowd-Curated
Exhibition
ArtsCombinatòries
21stCentury Abe
Culture Shock!
Art ofStorytelling
Shapeshifting
Google Art Project
Dulwich OnView
Flick The Commons
Clark Remix uCurate
Silence ofthe 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 CommunityMuseum
FranklinRemix
Cooking: theExhibition Chefs
FlickrMuseums
Hack theMuseum Camp
New Dialogue Initiative
Hyphenated-Origins
Museomix
7 billionOthers
Public Perspective Exhibition Series
The Secret Life of Objects
ObjectStories
Parlamentarium
A Matterof Faith
Haarlem Oost library
Queensland stories
The great fat debate
Diritti al cubo
DialogTable
Nationale Automatiek
From Memoryto Action
Free2Choose
Hydroscope
In theLong Run
Contemporary Issues Forum
New York Divided
The ShannonPortal
Cool remixed
Click! Photography changes everything
In your face
Pop-UpMuseum
Coney Island History
StoryCorps
Choose the pieceOpen house
Foresta nascosta
Mare Memoria Viva
Human libraryStorie Plurali
Doha Memories Prototype
TAM TAM
Digital Natives
Forces of Change1960-1975
GlasgowOpen Museum
Creative Community Committee
Turbingeneration
Re-Tracing the Past
American Stories
Tales of Thing
QRpedia
NaturePlus
BibPhone
Designing democracy
Top 40
CRITICSM
EDIA
TED
CREATORSDI
RECT
COLLECTORSIN
DIRE
CT
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
ArtStackYellowArrow
Scapes
Europeana 1914-1918
voting
commenting
contributingobjects and
stories
co-designing
creativelyexpress
themselves
social Media
in person mediators
onsite multimedia installation
Virtual Continuum
onsiteinteractives
geotagging
mobileapplications
smart objects
tools enabling participation
participatory activities
2.2. STUDY OF CASES | Mapping of cases and discussion of data
contribution of objects and stories
Pop-Up MuseumStoryCorpsCity of MemoryMappaMIEuropeana 1914-1918American StoriesArtStack
Flickr The CommonsGoogle Art ProjectBibPhoneTales of ThingHydroscopeScapesDulwich OnViewCreative Community Commitee
commenting and voting
co-designing
2.3. STUDY OF CASES | Selected projects
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
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
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
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
¡¡ social objects as catalyzer of participatory activities
2.4. STUDY OF CASES | Operative insights from the study of cases
social objects allowpeople 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
conc
ept
deve
lopmen
t
museum’s missioncollections
learning theoriesvisitors studies
feasibility
assesment
preliminarydesign phasedetailed
design phase
produ
ction
plann
ing
production
operational phase
Main Message
FRONT-ENDEVALUATION
FORMATIVEEVALUATION
exhibition brief
final
gal
lery
des
ign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVEEVALUATION
REMEDIALEVALUATION VISITORS
3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
development phase¡¡ concept development¡¡ identification of visitors’ motivational
profiles
preliminary design phase¡¡ project plan and deliverables¡¡ institutional goals and Take-Home
Messages (McLean 1993)¡¡ front-end evaluation
3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
conc
ept
deve
lopmen
t
museum’s missioncollections
learning theoriesvisitors studies
feasibility
assesment
preliminarydesign phasedetailed
design phase
produ
ction
plann
ing
production
operational phase
Main Message
FRONT-ENDEVALUATION
FORMATIVEEVALUATION
exhibition brief
final
gal
lery
des
ign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVEEVALUATION
REMEDIALEVALUATION VISITORS
development phase¡¡ concept development¡¡ identification of visitors’ 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
3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
conc
ept
deve
lopmen
t
museum’s missioncollections
learning theoriesvisitors studies
feasibility
assesment
preliminarydesign phasedetailed
design phase
produ
ction
plann
ing
production
operational phase
Main Message
FRONT-ENDEVALUATION
FORMATIVEEVALUATION
exhibition brief
final
gal
lery
des
ign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVEEVALUATION
REMEDIALEVALUATION VISITORS
development phase¡¡ concept development¡¡ identification of visitors’ 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
3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | A design framework for the development of participatory experiences of heritage
development phase¡¡ concept development¡¡ identification of visitors’ 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
conc
ept
deve
lopmen
t
museum’s missioncollections
learning theoriesvisitors studies
feasibility
assesment
preliminarydesign phasedetailed
design phase
produ
ction
plann
ing
production
operational phase
Main Message
FRONT-ENDEVALUATION
FORMATIVEEVALUATION
exhibition brief
final
gal
lery
des
ign
installation
opening
closing SUMMATIVEEVALUATION
REMEDIALEVALUATION VISITORS
¡¡ 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”
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
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
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
¡¡ 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
¡¡ 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, are apparently less suitable for promoting programs 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
DESIGNING FOR PARTICIPATION WITHIN CULTURAL HERITAGE Participatory practices and audience engagement in heritage experience processes
Ph.D. candidate Sara Radice
SupervisorProf. Raffaella Trocchianesi
External ExaminerProf. Matthew Battles
The Chair of the Doctoral ProgrammeProf. Francesco Trabucco
March 2014
Politecnico di Milano, Design DepartmentDoctoral programme in Design | XXVI cycleResearch Area DeCH-Design for Cultural Heritage