TY - JOUR
AU - Warwick,, Claire
AB - Abstract In recent years, public engagement is increasingly viewed as more than an ‘additional extra’ in academia. In the UK, it is becoming more common for research projects to embrace public engagement with the belief that it informs research, enhances teaching and learning, and increases research impact on society. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to consider ways of incorporating public engagement activities into digital humanities research. This article discusses public engagement and digital humanities in practice, highlighting how museums are utilizing digital technology to engage the public. This article describes the development and presents the results of a case study: The QRator project, an application for digital interpretation in the museum and cultural heritage sector. The QRator project took an innovative, multidisciplinary approach to creating new ways for museum visitors to engage with museum objects and discussions. The objective was to understand how digital technologies, such as interactive labels and smartphones, create new ways for users to engage with museum objects; investigate the value and constraints of digital sources and methods involving cultural content; and demonstrate how crowdsourced digital interpretation may be utilized as a research source. This article will use the QRator project as a case study to explore how mobile devices and interactive digital labels can create new models for public engagement, visitor meaning-making (Silverman, L. H. Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age. Curator, 1995;38(3):161–70), and the construction of multiple interpretations inside museum spaces. This article will also put emphasis on how public engagement can and should be a core consideration of digital humanities projects. 1 Introduction There has been an increasing focus on the role that universities can play in contributing to engaging the public in academic research (NCCPE 2015). This is emphasized by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, UK1, which adopted impact assessment as part of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework2, of which engagement was an integral part. Public engagement in academia is often described as a ‘cluster’ of activities including, but not restricted to, learning, programmes, and research that address specific social, economic, and political needs (Hall, 2010). Since the early 2000s, the term ‘public engagement’ has emerged as a widely used and highly flexible umbrella term to encapsulate the increasingly wide range of public-facing objectives, approaches, and activities that have become prominent in UK scholarly practice, particularly within science communication. Since this time, academic commitment to public engagement has deepened, and public engagement activities have become more institutionalized and professionalized across a range of academic disciplines. Although official definitions of public engagement have evolved over time and are varied, the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) offers a more general definition of public engagement that is applied across academia or higher education: ‘Public engagement describes the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual benefit.’ (NCCPE, 2015). University College London’s (UCL) founding ethos provides a unique motivation to engage with people outside academia; UCL has a radical tradition of being open to all, and of responding to new ideas, challenges, and perspectives. The University continues to see itself as a ‘Beacon for Public Engagement’3. UCL fosters the belief that universities and research institutes have a major responsibility to contribute to society through their public engagement, and that they have much to gain in return. There is a commitment to sharing knowledge, resources, and skills with the public and to listening to and learning from the expertise and insight of the different communities with which the university engages. Interestingly, the majority of public engagement initiatives within universities, to date, focus on face-to-face engagement rather than utilizing digital applications as an outlet, despite the opportunities digital media provides as a tool for public engagement. Likewise, public engagement has not been a core concern for the digital humanities until relatively recently (Prescott, 2012). UCL Centre for Digital Humanities4, alongside the Bartlett Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA)5, and UCL’s Public and Cultural Engagement (PACE)6 have set out to develop the area of digital technology research for public engagement. Digital technologies are being used to integrate digital humanities research within and beyond academia, the involvement of the general public in digital resource creation and design, and the application of digital technologies to cultural heritage. We believe that digital humanities as a discipline can learn a lot from cultural heritage institutions utilizing digital technology for visitor engagement. The QRator project, in particular, demonstrates that such technologies may be used in an academic context to change the way that scholars interact with each other and make their research available to those outside academia. The QRator project aims to stress the necessity of engaging visitors actively in the creation of their own interpretations of museum collections alongside academic researchers. The QRator project explores how mobile devices and interactive digital labels can create new models for public engagement, visitor meaning-making, and the construction of multiple interpretations inside museum spaces. For several years, the Horizon Report (Johnson, 2011, 2015) has indicated that Smart Objects and the Internet of Things are the future of digital museums. The QRator project highlights the ability of Smart Objects and is centrally located within the emergent technical and cultural phenomenon known as ‘The Internet of Things’: the technical and cultural shift that is anticipated as society moves to a ubiquitous form of computing in which every device is ‘on’, and connected in some way to the Internet (Speed and Kanchana Manohar, 2010). The project is based around technology developed at the Bartlett CASA, UCL, and is an extension of the ‘Tales of Things’ project7, which developed a ‘method for cataloguing physical objects online which could make museums and galleries a more interactive experience’ (Giles, 2010) via means of RFID tags (radio frequency identification) and QR codes (quick response code); a two-dimensional matrix that encodes data, in this case a uniform resource locator (URL) reference to an object (Wave, 2003). QRator takes the technology a step further, allowing users to take part in content creation on digital interactive labels – static iPads and their own mobile phones: a sustainable model for two-way public interaction in museum spaces. This project links a QR code8 to a conversation about museum objects where museum curators can give insight into an object background, hence the name ‘QRator’. The QRator project uses iPads installed in the UCL Grant Museum of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy (Grant Museum9) to provide a fully interactive experience where visitors respond to questions posed by the curators, contribute to discussions, and leave comments about individual exhibits. Visitors’ comments are synchronized with the QRator website (http://www.qrator.org) to allow them to contribute to the continuing discussion away from a museum setting. The application provides each exhibit with a unique identifier (in this instance, a QR code, a matrix barcode that embeds information such as text or a URL within a graphic that users can read using mobile devices) that links the physical exhibit with the associated conversations. When scanned, these codes allow users to discover information about an object and join the conversation from their own mobile device. The unpredictable, multiple forms of interpretation produced by the use of mobile devices and interactive labels make us reconsider ways in which museums provide information about objects and collections and should also allow museums to become more engaging for visitors. Museum exhibitions have been transformed by the addition of digital technology to enhance the visitor experience (see Heath and vom Lehn, 2010; Tallon & Walker, 2008 for key examples). Ubiquitous mobile technologies offer museum professionals new ways of personally engaging visitors with content, creating new relationships between museums and their users. Museums and other cultural institutions have made significant investments in developing and disseminating digital content in the physical museum space to reach and engage users, marking a shift in how museums communicate publicly their role as custodians of cultural content and their attitude towards cultural authority (see Kidd, 2014; Pierroux and Ludvigsen, 2013 and Museums and The Web conference proceedings10 for practitioner-led examples). Despite recent technical advances in collections access and interpretation, a number of key issues still remain: specifically, does the rapidly changing technological environment provide a more engaging and participatory visitor experience? The QRator project aims to stress the necessity of engaging visitors actively in the creation of their own interpretations of museum collections. This article presents an investigation into the potential of digital visitor-generated content applications in museum spaces to foster visitor engagement. The focus is on the integration of iPhone, iPad, and Android apps into UCL’s Grant Museum, demonstrating the possibilities for visitor engagement. It will emphasize that in order to develop engaging digital visitor-generated content applications, museums must radically trust their visitors. Although this article will concentrate on digital technology created for a Natural History Museum, issues of meaning-making and co-creation of content between the museum and its visitors through digital technology are applicable to any museum or cultural heritage institution. This article discusses the development and presents the results of the QRator project to date within The Grant Museum at UCL; highlights the design and development of the technical components, infrastructure, and user evaluation of the QRator application; and stresses the opportunities and challenges in utilizing digital technology to enhance visitor meaning-making and narrative construction. Finally, this article seeks to understand what digital humanities as a discipline can learn from museums and cultural heritage about harnessing digital public engagement. 2 Visitor Experience and Museum Digital Technology Museums have undergone a fundamental shift from being primarily a presenter of objects to being a site for experiences that offer visitors opportunities for individual meaning-making and personalized interpretations (Falk and Dierking, 2000). There is a growing commitment by museums and other cultural heritage institutions to establish new forms of engagement and participation by providing a myriad of resources that facilitate visitor participation, interaction, and learning (Alelis et al., 2013; Kidd, 2014; Simon, 2010; Røtne and Kaptelinin, 2013). Visitors see interactive technology as an important stimulus for learning and engagement (Black, 2005; Falk et al., 2002), empowering users to construct their own interpretation in response to museum exhibits. Engaged within this immersive environment, museum objects become rich sources of innovation and personal growth (Fisher and Twiss-Garrity, 2007). When visitors experience a museum that encourages individual content construction actively, their activity is directed not towards the acquisition or receipt of the information being communicated by the museum, but rather towards the construction of a very personal interpretation of museum objects and collections (Simon, 2010). The unpredictability of multiple interpretative forms created by the use of mobile devices and interactive labels introduces new considerations to the process by which museums convey object and collection interpretation and opens up museums to become a more engaging experience (Naismith and Smith, 2009: 248). Digital technologies have played an important part in enabling the provision of more flexible and tailored forms of information and in providing new forms of interactivity in museum spaces (Alexander et al., 2013; Kid, 2014; Parry, 2010; Tallon and Walker, 2008). Digital technologies are becoming more embedded, ubiquitous, and networked, with heightened capabilities for rich social interactions, context awareness, and connectivity (Naismith et al., 2004). This has led to unprecedented changes in the provision of digital museum resources, which are beginning to transform the experience of visiting museums. Digital technologies and their uses within museum collections have until recently been explored primarily from a technical viewpoint, typically ignoring the impact these technologies can have on visitor learning and engagement (Cameron, 2003). Increasingly, museum professionals are moving beyond a focus on the technology to consider the implications on visitor experience and focusing on new ways of utilizing digital technology for object interpretation and visitor engagement (Tallon and Walker, 2008). Nevertheless, measuring the impact of new digital technologies has been identified as one of the most important challenges for museums and cultural heritage institutions alike within the NMC Museum Horizon Report, but for which solutions remain elusive (Johnson et al., 2015). In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in exploring how digital and communication technologies can be developed to offer visitors a more personalized museum experience (Gay et al., 2002), provide more flexible and tailored information, and facilitate interaction and discussion between visitors. This flexibility in terms of personalizing digital content is a growing trend in museums, exemplified by the European-funded CHESS project (Cultural Heritage Experiences through Socio-personal interactions and Storytelling), which is using an mixed reality and pervasive gaming approach to personalize a user’s visit as an interactive storytelling experience and has been trailed in the Acropolis Museum in Greece and the Cité de l 'Espace in France (Katifori et al., 2014). Many more museums are utilizing mobile technology to aid visitor orientation and wayfinding, as well as to offer specific multimedia tours within the museum. The Tate Modern multimedia tours (Proctor et al., 2003) used location tracking for personalized content delivery; the handheld device includes background information, video and still images that gave additional context for the works on display, and the ability to listen to an expert talk about details of the art work. In 2011, The British Museum launched a multimedia guide that supports wayfinding and orientation without relying on location-aware technology (Filippini-Fantoni et al., 2011), and have been continually evolving their strategy for audio guides (Mannion et al., 2016). The Exploratorium has undertaken numerous projects exploring mobile technology within the museum space (His, 2003). More recently, Cleveland Museum of Art’s Gallery One is transforming how museums can incorporate visitors’ active participation in gallery spaces. Gallery One opened to tremendous acclaim and fanfare (Rodley, 2013). A range of digital interactives throughout the gallery space offer opportunities for visitors to participate, including a Collection Wall, ArtLens participatory iPad app, a Studio Play area designed specifically for children, as well as six interactive lens displays (Alexander et al., 2013). This innovative gallery blends art, technology, and interpretation to inspire visitors to explore the museum’s permanent collection. Gallery One is, to date, the only non-science gallery whose main focus is to use innovative technology to shift the visitor experience to emphasize engagement, curiosity, and creativity. The use of digital technologies in museums has been focused around linear curatorial interpretation, but there has been little incentive for visitors to create their own content. In general, however, despite the growing interest in deploying digital technology as interpretation devices in museums and galleries, and the substantial body of research concerned with visitor behaviour, there is yet to be established a critical discourse, both theoretically and practically, for describing the functional link between the interpretive experience and museum digital technologies. There is preliminary evidence that digital technology can increase engagement with museum collections (Hsi, 2003; Pierroux and Ludvigsen, 2013; Proctor et al., 2003) and with the physical museum surroundings (Naismith et al., 2004), as well as increase visitor confidence, motivation, and involvement (Burkett, 2005). However, to date, no empirical studies of museums utilizing digital technology have been undertaken to look specifically at visitor content construction. 3 Digital Content Creation in the Museum Space The QRator project aims to stress the necessity of engaging visitors actively in the creation of their own interpretations of museum collections, offering opportunities for visitors to consume and create digital content, and empowering members of the public to become the ‘curators’. The Grant Museum is taking a proactive role in developing new audience-driven narratives centred on the museum’s collections. The project develops a custom UCL Museums iPhone and Android application that is available free of charge from the iTunes Store and Android marketplace, respectively. QR codes for museum objects and, in some instances, whole displays have been created and linked to an online database, allowing the public to view ‘curated’ information and, most notably, to send back their own interpretation and views via their own mobile phone. Unique in the UCL technology is the ability to ‘write’ back to the QR codes. This allows members of the public to type in their thoughts and interpretation of the object and click ‘send’ (see Figs 2–4 below). Similar in nature to sending a text message, the system has enabled the Grant Museum to become a true forum for academic–public debate, using low-cost, readily available technology, enabling the public to collaborate and discuss object interpretation with museum curators and academic researchers. Visitors’ narratives subsequently become part of the museum objects’ history and ultimately the display itself, via the interactive label system that will allow the display of comments and information directly next to the artefacts. This shift in focus from content delivery to narrative construction can be suggested to be reflecting a societal shift in digital media (Walker, 2008), and the Internet in general, from static centralized control to user-generated content and personalized learning. Personal narratives, interactive dialogues, and multiple interpretations saturate the Internet, and museums need to adapt to visitor expectations to fully enable rich meaning-making experiences to take place. Fig 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Interactive museum label displayed within QRator application Fig 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Interactive museum label displayed within QRator application Fig 2. Open in new tabDownload slide QR code used to allow users of smartphone app to contribute to discussion Fig 2. Open in new tabDownload slide QR code used to allow users of smartphone app to contribute to discussion Fig 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Visitor contributions to QRator Fig 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Visitor contributions to QRator Fig 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Percentage of visitor contribution by category. The majority of the comments in the corpus fell into comments ‘about the museum’ and comments ‘on topic’ Fig 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Percentage of visitor contribution by category. The majority of the comments in the corpus fell into comments ‘about the museum’ and comments ‘on topic’ The QRator project utilizes user-centred design principles (Lowdermilk, 2013; Nielsen, 1993, 2001; Norman and Draper, 1986), by explicitly and actively including users in the development process from the beginning. When studying the users of digital technologies, it can be argued that use in context is an ideal method, as there is a need to understand the real circumstances in which technology is used so that any problems can be found (Terras et al., 2011). Thus to produce mobile technology that is most useful in a museum context, there is a need to understand the circumstances in which it will function. The project takes concepts of users, narrative, space, object, location, and the appropriate means of mediating the museum experience via a handheld mobile device into account. However, there are issues to take into consideration. If mobile engagement with museum interpretation can occur anywhere, then how can we track and record the learning and narrative creation processes? If the learning and meaning-making is interwoven with other everyday activities, then how can we tell when it occurs? If visitor meaning-making is self-determined and self-organized, then how can we measure engagement outcomes? These are difficult questions with no simple answers, yet it is essential to address them if we are to provide evidence of the effectiveness of mobile media for visitor narrative construction and meaning-making. 4 Description of QRator Application The main component of QRator is a custom bespoke application that is built for Apple’s iOS platform running on ten iPads within the UCL Grant Museum. Each of the ten iPads contained one of ten current questions (Table 1). Table 1. Current question content on Grant Museum QRator iPads between March and November 2011 Headline Question Explanation Better the devil? Is finding a cure for the common cold more important than protecting Tasmanian devils from a contagious cancer which could see them extinct in 20 years? Vast sums are dedicated to curing minor human illnesses, while relatively minute amounts go to conservation. Devil facial tumour disease appeared in 1996 and has since spread across most of Tasmania. Diseased populations can suffer up to 100% mortality after about a year. Tasmanian devils are the largest surviving marsupial carnivore. Is preventing such a loss to global biodiversity worth less than a few human sniffles? Conserve or display? How do we balance the needs of our specimens and the desires of our visitors? Most objects on display are irreversibly damaged by exposure to light, dust, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity. The longer they are on display, the shorter they will last. Instead, specimens in storage will last longer without requiring conservation treatment and care; however, visitors would not be able to readily see the specimens. Without specimens, there wouldn’t be a museum. Bulldogs or brown hares? What makes an animal British? Conservation decisions depend on whether species are native. Fallow deer and brown hares are both protected ‘British’ species, but were introduced about 1,000 years ago. Grey squirrels are well-known ‘foreigners’, introduced in the 1800s. How long does a species have to be in Britain to be ‘native’? Does it matter if a species was transported here by humans or naturally colonized? Humans vs. animals Should human and animal remains be treated any differently in museums like this? The Human Tissue Act controls how human remains are displayed, used, and stored. Museums are working to return historic remains to the nations from which they were taken in the past without consent, and no human material less than 100 years old can be displayed without permission from the individual. No such systems protect non-human animals. Why are humans treated differently? Would a primate display be incomplete without a human? Real or fake? Is it ever acceptable for museums to use replicas? If so when? Many museums use casts, reproductions, and models in place of original objects. When is this appropriate? Should objects which aren’t ‘real’ be highlighted? What’s the point of a museum having a genuine object in store if they replace it with a replica for display or handling? Does spotting a replica make the whole museum less believable? Pets or wildlife? Can keeping pets be justified given their impact on wildlife? People who say that they are animal lovers are often referring to their pets—it’s why people react more strongly to a domestic cat preserved in the museum than to an endangered tiger. Globally, feral pets and pets wandering from home have hunted many species to or near extinction. Do pets have any positive effects on wildlife? Can these effects ever outweigh the damage? What is the difference between wild and natural? Too testing? Every medicinal drug you have ever taken was tested on animals. Is this a necessary evil? In the process of developing new medical drugs, UK legal regulations require them to be tested on mammals before they are tested on human subjects. The argument is that an untested drug’s effect on living organs can only be tested on a living animal, and the risk is too high at this stage to chance on a person. Is this justifiable? Taboo topics? Should science shy away from studying biological differences between races? Studying the differences between people from different parts of the world was common in the past. Now, in more enlightened times, such science has become somewhat taboo, possibly due to the fear that conclusions would be drawn that could be considered racist. Should some topics be off-limits to science, when the potential outcomes are unknown? Is it racist to say that different races are biologically different? Defining animals What do we mean by platypus? Species are defined based on the description of one or a few individuals. Any other individual is called the same species if it is similar enough to those ‘type specimens’. This is a human definition with no real relevance in nature. How similar can the things we call platypuses, or any animal, be to the original? Are the stuffed, pickled, and skeletal platypuses in the museum still real platypuses, or just representations—like a photo or drawing? Captive and conserved? Do animals in zoos have any value for conservation? A major justification for keeping animals in zoos is that they serve to educate the public about environmental issues. 95% of the animals in zoos aren’t endangered and very few are part of European captive breeding programmes. Can the remaining species act as ambassadors for the rare ones? Do zoos teach valuable lessons, and increase appreciation and respect for the natural world? Headline Question Explanation Better the devil? Is finding a cure for the common cold more important than protecting Tasmanian devils from a contagious cancer which could see them extinct in 20 years? Vast sums are dedicated to curing minor human illnesses, while relatively minute amounts go to conservation. Devil facial tumour disease appeared in 1996 and has since spread across most of Tasmania. Diseased populations can suffer up to 100% mortality after about a year. Tasmanian devils are the largest surviving marsupial carnivore. Is preventing such a loss to global biodiversity worth less than a few human sniffles? Conserve or display? How do we balance the needs of our specimens and the desires of our visitors? Most objects on display are irreversibly damaged by exposure to light, dust, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity. The longer they are on display, the shorter they will last. Instead, specimens in storage will last longer without requiring conservation treatment and care; however, visitors would not be able to readily see the specimens. Without specimens, there wouldn’t be a museum. Bulldogs or brown hares? What makes an animal British? Conservation decisions depend on whether species are native. Fallow deer and brown hares are both protected ‘British’ species, but were introduced about 1,000 years ago. Grey squirrels are well-known ‘foreigners’, introduced in the 1800s. How long does a species have to be in Britain to be ‘native’? Does it matter if a species was transported here by humans or naturally colonized? Humans vs. animals Should human and animal remains be treated any differently in museums like this? The Human Tissue Act controls how human remains are displayed, used, and stored. Museums are working to return historic remains to the nations from which they were taken in the past without consent, and no human material less than 100 years old can be displayed without permission from the individual. No such systems protect non-human animals. Why are humans treated differently? Would a primate display be incomplete without a human? Real or fake? Is it ever acceptable for museums to use replicas? If so when? Many museums use casts, reproductions, and models in place of original objects. When is this appropriate? Should objects which aren’t ‘real’ be highlighted? What’s the point of a museum having a genuine object in store if they replace it with a replica for display or handling? Does spotting a replica make the whole museum less believable? Pets or wildlife? Can keeping pets be justified given their impact on wildlife? People who say that they are animal lovers are often referring to their pets—it’s why people react more strongly to a domestic cat preserved in the museum than to an endangered tiger. Globally, feral pets and pets wandering from home have hunted many species to or near extinction. Do pets have any positive effects on wildlife? Can these effects ever outweigh the damage? What is the difference between wild and natural? Too testing? Every medicinal drug you have ever taken was tested on animals. Is this a necessary evil? In the process of developing new medical drugs, UK legal regulations require them to be tested on mammals before they are tested on human subjects. The argument is that an untested drug’s effect on living organs can only be tested on a living animal, and the risk is too high at this stage to chance on a person. Is this justifiable? Taboo topics? Should science shy away from studying biological differences between races? Studying the differences between people from different parts of the world was common in the past. Now, in more enlightened times, such science has become somewhat taboo, possibly due to the fear that conclusions would be drawn that could be considered racist. Should some topics be off-limits to science, when the potential outcomes are unknown? Is it racist to say that different races are biologically different? Defining animals What do we mean by platypus? Species are defined based on the description of one or a few individuals. Any other individual is called the same species if it is similar enough to those ‘type specimens’. This is a human definition with no real relevance in nature. How similar can the things we call platypuses, or any animal, be to the original? Are the stuffed, pickled, and skeletal platypuses in the museum still real platypuses, or just representations—like a photo or drawing? Captive and conserved? Do animals in zoos have any value for conservation? A major justification for keeping animals in zoos is that they serve to educate the public about environmental issues. 95% of the animals in zoos aren’t endangered and very few are part of European captive breeding programmes. Can the remaining species act as ambassadors for the rare ones? Do zoos teach valuable lessons, and increase appreciation and respect for the natural world? Table 1. Current question content on Grant Museum QRator iPads between March and November 2011 Headline Question Explanation Better the devil? Is finding a cure for the common cold more important than protecting Tasmanian devils from a contagious cancer which could see them extinct in 20 years? Vast sums are dedicated to curing minor human illnesses, while relatively minute amounts go to conservation. Devil facial tumour disease appeared in 1996 and has since spread across most of Tasmania. Diseased populations can suffer up to 100% mortality after about a year. Tasmanian devils are the largest surviving marsupial carnivore. Is preventing such a loss to global biodiversity worth less than a few human sniffles? Conserve or display? How do we balance the needs of our specimens and the desires of our visitors? Most objects on display are irreversibly damaged by exposure to light, dust, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity. The longer they are on display, the shorter they will last. Instead, specimens in storage will last longer without requiring conservation treatment and care; however, visitors would not be able to readily see the specimens. Without specimens, there wouldn’t be a museum. Bulldogs or brown hares? What makes an animal British? Conservation decisions depend on whether species are native. Fallow deer and brown hares are both protected ‘British’ species, but were introduced about 1,000 years ago. Grey squirrels are well-known ‘foreigners’, introduced in the 1800s. How long does a species have to be in Britain to be ‘native’? Does it matter if a species was transported here by humans or naturally colonized? Humans vs. animals Should human and animal remains be treated any differently in museums like this? The Human Tissue Act controls how human remains are displayed, used, and stored. Museums are working to return historic remains to the nations from which they were taken in the past without consent, and no human material less than 100 years old can be displayed without permission from the individual. No such systems protect non-human animals. Why are humans treated differently? Would a primate display be incomplete without a human? Real or fake? Is it ever acceptable for museums to use replicas? If so when? Many museums use casts, reproductions, and models in place of original objects. When is this appropriate? Should objects which aren’t ‘real’ be highlighted? What’s the point of a museum having a genuine object in store if they replace it with a replica for display or handling? Does spotting a replica make the whole museum less believable? Pets or wildlife? Can keeping pets be justified given their impact on wildlife? People who say that they are animal lovers are often referring to their pets—it’s why people react more strongly to a domestic cat preserved in the museum than to an endangered tiger. Globally, feral pets and pets wandering from home have hunted many species to or near extinction. Do pets have any positive effects on wildlife? Can these effects ever outweigh the damage? What is the difference between wild and natural? Too testing? Every medicinal drug you have ever taken was tested on animals. Is this a necessary evil? In the process of developing new medical drugs, UK legal regulations require them to be tested on mammals before they are tested on human subjects. The argument is that an untested drug’s effect on living organs can only be tested on a living animal, and the risk is too high at this stage to chance on a person. Is this justifiable? Taboo topics? Should science shy away from studying biological differences between races? Studying the differences between people from different parts of the world was common in the past. Now, in more enlightened times, such science has become somewhat taboo, possibly due to the fear that conclusions would be drawn that could be considered racist. Should some topics be off-limits to science, when the potential outcomes are unknown? Is it racist to say that different races are biologically different? Defining animals What do we mean by platypus? Species are defined based on the description of one or a few individuals. Any other individual is called the same species if it is similar enough to those ‘type specimens’. This is a human definition with no real relevance in nature. How similar can the things we call platypuses, or any animal, be to the original? Are the stuffed, pickled, and skeletal platypuses in the museum still real platypuses, or just representations—like a photo or drawing? Captive and conserved? Do animals in zoos have any value for conservation? A major justification for keeping animals in zoos is that they serve to educate the public about environmental issues. 95% of the animals in zoos aren’t endangered and very few are part of European captive breeding programmes. Can the remaining species act as ambassadors for the rare ones? Do zoos teach valuable lessons, and increase appreciation and respect for the natural world? Headline Question Explanation Better the devil? Is finding a cure for the common cold more important than protecting Tasmanian devils from a contagious cancer which could see them extinct in 20 years? Vast sums are dedicated to curing minor human illnesses, while relatively minute amounts go to conservation. Devil facial tumour disease appeared in 1996 and has since spread across most of Tasmania. Diseased populations can suffer up to 100% mortality after about a year. Tasmanian devils are the largest surviving marsupial carnivore. Is preventing such a loss to global biodiversity worth less than a few human sniffles? Conserve or display? How do we balance the needs of our specimens and the desires of our visitors? Most objects on display are irreversibly damaged by exposure to light, dust, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity. The longer they are on display, the shorter they will last. Instead, specimens in storage will last longer without requiring conservation treatment and care; however, visitors would not be able to readily see the specimens. Without specimens, there wouldn’t be a museum. Bulldogs or brown hares? What makes an animal British? Conservation decisions depend on whether species are native. Fallow deer and brown hares are both protected ‘British’ species, but were introduced about 1,000 years ago. Grey squirrels are well-known ‘foreigners’, introduced in the 1800s. How long does a species have to be in Britain to be ‘native’? Does it matter if a species was transported here by humans or naturally colonized? Humans vs. animals Should human and animal remains be treated any differently in museums like this? The Human Tissue Act controls how human remains are displayed, used, and stored. Museums are working to return historic remains to the nations from which they were taken in the past without consent, and no human material less than 100 years old can be displayed without permission from the individual. No such systems protect non-human animals. Why are humans treated differently? Would a primate display be incomplete without a human? Real or fake? Is it ever acceptable for museums to use replicas? If so when? Many museums use casts, reproductions, and models in place of original objects. When is this appropriate? Should objects which aren’t ‘real’ be highlighted? What’s the point of a museum having a genuine object in store if they replace it with a replica for display or handling? Does spotting a replica make the whole museum less believable? Pets or wildlife? Can keeping pets be justified given their impact on wildlife? People who say that they are animal lovers are often referring to their pets—it’s why people react more strongly to a domestic cat preserved in the museum than to an endangered tiger. Globally, feral pets and pets wandering from home have hunted many species to or near extinction. Do pets have any positive effects on wildlife? Can these effects ever outweigh the damage? What is the difference between wild and natural? Too testing? Every medicinal drug you have ever taken was tested on animals. Is this a necessary evil? In the process of developing new medical drugs, UK legal regulations require them to be tested on mammals before they are tested on human subjects. The argument is that an untested drug’s effect on living organs can only be tested on a living animal, and the risk is too high at this stage to chance on a person. Is this justifiable? Taboo topics? Should science shy away from studying biological differences between races? Studying the differences between people from different parts of the world was common in the past. Now, in more enlightened times, such science has become somewhat taboo, possibly due to the fear that conclusions would be drawn that could be considered racist. Should some topics be off-limits to science, when the potential outcomes are unknown? Is it racist to say that different races are biologically different? Defining animals What do we mean by platypus? Species are defined based on the description of one or a few individuals. Any other individual is called the same species if it is similar enough to those ‘type specimens’. This is a human definition with no real relevance in nature. How similar can the things we call platypuses, or any animal, be to the original? Are the stuffed, pickled, and skeletal platypuses in the museum still real platypuses, or just representations—like a photo or drawing? Captive and conserved? Do animals in zoos have any value for conservation? A major justification for keeping animals in zoos is that they serve to educate the public about environmental issues. 95% of the animals in zoos aren’t endangered and very few are part of European captive breeding programmes. Can the remaining species act as ambassadors for the rare ones? Do zoos teach valuable lessons, and increase appreciation and respect for the natural world? The application is composed of four separate view states that automatically transition after a one-minute interval, although can be configured to transition after any length of time. The design of the application mirrors the current wooden museum labels that are displayed throughout the UCL Grant Museum. The question is framed in a virtual, interactive museum label (Fig. 1) that displays the question presented by the Grant Museum staff along with a short background of the issue. At various stages throughout the application, users are invited to interact with the device and contribute to the continuing conversation. The core interactive element of the application is a QR code (Fig. 2), which is prominently displayed in all views, which users can scan with a smartphone using the ‘Tales of Things’ application, available on both iOS and Android platforms, to record their response to the question asked by the device. During the course of the project, it was discovered that QR codes were not adequately used by visitors (Kasbohm, 2012), a common issue that has been revealed from further user analysis of QR codes (Pérez-Sanagustín et al., 2016; Schultz, 2013). The application allows users to engage with the curators on the iPad through the device’s virtual keyboard. Visitors can then respond to current questions posed by the museum, contribute to discussions, and leave comments about individual exhibits (Fig. 3). Visitors’ comments are synchronized with the QRator website (http://www.qrator.org) to allow them to contribute to the continuing discussion away from a museum setting. Additionally, each iPad is configured with a particular Twitter hashtag (e.g. #qrator), which allows the application to display a list of tweets that visitors inside museum can view and respond to from their own Twitter account via a smartphone. This social interaction allows users to carry on the discussion of the question at a later date. 5 Methodology Data from the ten QRator iPads were collected by archiving contributions from March to November 2011; each individual visitor contribution is simultaneously uploaded to the master database on the Tales of Things website, followed by the QRator website pulling the data about each case label (current question) from the master database and integrating these comments within QRator online. These comments are then aggregated together based on the current questions originally asked by the museum. A custom module was built for WordPress to collect the data from the public API and display the output as a CSV (comma-separated values) file (Gray et al., 2012), which was then imported into both Excel and NVivo statistical analysis packages for further analysis. This resulted in a corpus of 2,784 visitor contributions, totalling 29,842 words and 4,496 unique tokens, providing a rich data set for the analysis of visitor experience. Visitor contributions were categorized qualitatively using open coded content analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 101–21), where each comment was read and categorized. Contributions were divided into three basic categories: about the current question or topic, about the museum, or noise. Despite the apparently simplistic categorization, it is possible to discover patterns of use and begin to understand how visitors are relating to and interpreting the exhibitions, and making meaning from their experience. For the purpose of this study, various quantitative measures were used, such as analysing the frequency of comments according to date and time, comparing comment rate between the ten iPads, and using suitable text analysis tools to interrogate the corpus. In addition, sentiment analysis was undertaken on the corpus. Sentiment analysis is concerned with the automatic extraction of sentiment-related information from text. Sentiment analysis, or opinion mining, is the drawing out of positive or negative opinions from text (Pang and Lee, 2008). This type of analysis has been predominately used for commercial tasks; however, it is now beginning to be used to detect sentiment for social media texts (Thelwall et al., 2012). The visitor contribution corpus was analysed using a sentiment analysis tool, SentiStrength11, developed by Thelwall et al. (2012) in order to automatically measure emotion in the visitor comments, which provides an indication of a positive or negative museum experience. 6 Findings The largest proportion of the comments in the corpus fell into two main categories (Fig. 4): ‘about the museum’ (42%) and the category of ‘on topic’ (41%), triggered predominately by the QRator interface and questions posed by the museum curators, suggesting that visitors are inspired to share their own experiences, thus co-constructing a public multiple interpretation of museum objects. The amount of ‘on topic’ contributions means that 41% of the visitors who left contributions have read at least one of the associated levels of QRator interpretation and felt compelled enough to leave a response. This is mark of the success of the QRator project, as this was exactly what the museum professionals had hoped might happen: QRator’s main aim, from the museum perspective, was to allow our visitors to get involved in conversations about the way that museums like ours operate and the role of science in society today. We are really interested in what our visitors think about some of the challenges that managing a natural history collection brings up, and other issues in the life sciences. We hoped visitors would engage with, and answer the questions posed by QRator. We hoped that a lot of the questions that were being asked by QRator would be new to them, and that they would be provoked to think about topics they hadn’t necessarily considered before (Ashby, 2013 Personal Communication 25th November). Mark Carnall, the Grant Museum curator12, goes on to say; The biggest positive outcome is that visitors are genuinely engaging with the questions that we have asked. Despite the significant opportunities for misuse offered by a post-moderated free-text anonymous digital text box, a huge number of the responses do offer opinionated answers to the questions (Carnall et al., 2013, p. 64). Interestingly, many of the visitor comments focused on opinions of the museum as a whole (42%). Visitors are using the iPads, without instruction, to make comments about the museum in general, pointing out what they enjoyed about their visit or making other experience-related comments. This type of visitor response raises the question of whether a digital technology used for visitor-generated content promotes an opportunity for visitors to make meaning from their whole experience, rather than engage with the exhibit-specific content and interpret the exhibitions themselves. These types of ‘digital visitor book’ comments are now being used by the museum to ‘inform things we should be thinking about or doing in the future. We are looking at the responses and seeing if we need to tackle specific areas in future events or temporary exhibitions’ (Carnall, 2011, Personal Communication 26th September). For example, the QRator visitor comments have been one source of evidence indicating that visitors to the Grant would like more object labels in the museum space. ‘We are now in the process of putting a 500–1,000 new labels (depending on how many we can fit in the cases) out in the museum. That is direct visitor feedback from QRator contributions that we can put into practice in the museum.’ (Ashby, 2013 Personal Communication 25th November 2013). This example provides clear evidence that as a result of visitors engaging with the QRator questions, the Grant Museum has changed their museum practice. This is a good indicator of impact. The lack of spam and inappropriate commenting is surprising (17%). Many museums have been hesitant to open up communication to greater participation by visitors. The concepts of trusting audiences and providing equal participation between museums and visitors are contrary to the traditional ideas of authority, participation, and communication in museums (Lynch and Alberti, 2010; Ross, 2014). There is an ingrained fear in the museum profession that visitors will leave inappropriate comments when there is no moderation or intervention by the museum (Russo et al., 2008), despite research showing that museum visitors want to engage with complex, controversial topics by making comments or talking to staff and other visitors (Kelly, 2006). The QRator project and the Grant Museum have, however, adopted the concept of ‘radical trust’ in the visitor community: Radical trust is about trusting the community. We know that abuse can happen, but we trust (radically) that the community and participation will work. In the real world, we know that vandalism happens but we still put art and sculpture up in our parks. As an online community we come up with safeguards or mechanisms that help keep open contribution and participation working (Fichter, 2006). This radical trust is based on the concept that shared authority is more effective at creating and guiding culture than institutional control (Lynch and Alberti, 2010). Inherent in the term is the suggestion of a previous lack of trust shown by museums towards visitors, but also the admission that such trust is regarded as new and perhaps dangerous. Radical trust as a concept, however, is not new, it is widely practised online in user-generated content, especially by libraries (Lynch and Alberti, 2010), and has been previously applied successfully to museum blogging (Spadaccini and Chan, 2007). In practising radical trust, the Grant Museum does not control the final interpretation produced. The content is genuinely co-created, representing shared authority of a new interpretative narrative that continuously develops with each new audience contribution. The ‘radical’ is ultimately a belief in the prevalence of a calm community of participants, as opposed to malevolent vandals who will misuse the opportunity. The QRator data suggest that ‘radical trust’ in visitors does indeed work: spamming and inappropriate commenting does not appear to have happened to a significant extent in the Grant Museum. The Grant Museum staff embraced the experimental and innovative nature of the QRator project and decided that they would experiment with post moderation. Carnall et al. (2012) state: Bravely, in order to allow visitors’ comments to appear instantly (avoiding a feeling that their comment had disappeared or was being vetted), and also avoiding constant monitoring by time-poor staff unable to react in real time, excluding the use of an expletives filter, all comments would be moderated by Museum staff only after they went live on the iPads. This very much displays the experimental nature of the whole project. Not only were we unsure about the quantity of comments that would need moderating, Museum staff hadn’t reached a consensus on what kind of thoughts from visitors were acceptable. As a baseline procedure for the first round of questions it was decided that profanity and nonsense (e.g. ‘asdfghjkl’) would be moderated out but the QRator team was not explicit about what would and wouldn’t be moderated otherwise instead the first round of questions were used as a test case to inform how moderation worked in the future (Carnall et al., 2012, p. 7). When comparing the individual QRator questions, it can be seen that certain questions gained more visitor contributions than others (Fig. 5). Better the Devil received almost double that of Captive or Conserve. Both asked provocative questions encouraging visitors to think and contribute, yet one received a significantly higher proportion of visitor contributions. Fig 5. Open in new tabDownload slide Total number of visitor contributions for each QRator question Fig 5. Open in new tabDownload slide Total number of visitor contributions for each QRator question When further focusing on the individual QRator questions, it is possible to see that some QRator question prompts produce higher levels of on-topic comments than others (Fig. 6). The Real or Fake QRator question received the most contributions by visitors, which focused on the topic raised by the museum (170 comments), followed by Pets vs. Wildlife (154 comments) and Humans vs. Animals (146 comments). This is likely to be because the QRator questions posed were more direct, easier to directly associate with visitors’ previous experience and own perspectives, provoking a higher frequency of posts. In comparison with bulldogs and brown hares, which asks ‘What makes an animal British’, a lower number of on-topic posts (87 comments) but a high number of comments ‘about the museum’ (136 comments) were received. The lower number of on-topic responses may be due to the question prompting visitors to consider reasonably difficult questions about how long it takes for a species to become ‘native’ and if it matters if a species was transported here by humans or naturally colonized? These are quite challenging questions to answer without prior knowledge of the issue and may have discouraged some visitors from responding. However, the Grant Museum felt it was important to ask visitors to contribute to conversations on these issues in order to open up to wider public debates that are often restricted to specialist disciplines (Carnall et al., 2013, p. 66). Fig 6. Open in new tabDownload slide Category breakdowns from each of the ten QRator iPads Fig 6. Open in new tabDownload slide Category breakdowns from each of the ten QRator iPads In order to gain further insight into the impact of QRator on the visitor experience, it was felt necessary to re-code the visitor contributions by capitalizing on Grounded Theory’s cyclic nature (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), and we were able to progress the analysis of the QRator data. Through the cyclical process of re-reading the data, it was possible to refine the analysis and split one of the basic categories, ‘about the museum’, into further subcategories. This re-coding provided more detailed understanding of how visitors were interacting with the QRator digital technology. The contributions of the ‘about the museum’ category underwent code-splitting; a number of subcategories were produced: opinion, question, related to a specific object, related to a group of objects, overall experience, request, and conversation. The majority of responses (50%) fell into the category of opinion (Fig. 7). The visitor contributions in this category, predominately entailed one-word statements like ‘awesome’, ‘cool’, and ‘amazing’ (Table 2), though there are a range of negative comments, including ‘gross’ and ‘boring’. Although it might be easy to dismiss this style of comment as irreverent and facile, it nevertheless is a significant form of visitor contribution. It is questionable whether one-word answers can provide an insight into the impact of digital technology on visitor experience. Nevertheless, many of the one-word answers contain strong sentiment adjectives (Table 2), making it possible to obtain information of what visitors liked or disliked, and the high percentage of opinion category visitor contributions does suggest that the opportunity provided by QRator for visitors to give their opinion has had a positive impact. Table 2. Table highlighting the most popular words in the category Opinion Frequencies Count Frequencies Count cool 77 good 23 museum 64 great 21 place 64 interesting 20 love 60 things 14 like 44 stuff 13 amazing 40 best 12 animals 40 awsome 11 wow 28 brilliant 11 really 26 weird 10 awesome 24 Fun 8 Frequencies Count Frequencies Count cool 77 good 23 museum 64 great 21 place 64 interesting 20 love 60 things 14 like 44 stuff 13 amazing 40 best 12 animals 40 awsome 11 wow 28 brilliant 11 really 26 weird 10 awesome 24 Fun 8 Words and phrases are spelt and capitalized exactly as they appeared in the QRator system. Table 2. Table highlighting the most popular words in the category Opinion Frequencies Count Frequencies Count cool 77 good 23 museum 64 great 21 place 64 interesting 20 love 60 things 14 like 44 stuff 13 amazing 40 best 12 animals 40 awsome 11 wow 28 brilliant 11 really 26 weird 10 awesome 24 Fun 8 Frequencies Count Frequencies Count cool 77 good 23 museum 64 great 21 place 64 interesting 20 love 60 things 14 like 44 stuff 13 amazing 40 best 12 animals 40 awsome 11 wow 28 brilliant 11 really 26 weird 10 awesome 24 Fun 8 Words and phrases are spelt and capitalized exactly as they appeared in the QRator system. Fig 7. Open in new tabDownload slide Visitor contributions for ‘about the museum’; re-coded into further subcategories Fig 7. Open in new tabDownload slide Visitor contributions for ‘about the museum’; re-coded into further subcategories Specific Object responses (18%) were interesting, as visitors chose to highlight key specimens within the museum. This category refers to specimens that visitors have seen and want to reference. For example, the Jar of Moles specimen was cited the most in visitor responses with a count of 31 mentions. Visitors point each other to objects and specimens without the interference of museum staff. One major thing that we didn’t anticipate is that people are also using them as a kind of digital visitors book. As well as getting involved in the conversations, people are letting us know their thoughts on the Museum in general and what they like or dislike about many of our specimens. The jar of moles gets a lot of mentions. This has become a great way for visitors to point things out to each other without us telling them what we think they should see (Ashby, 2013 Personal Communication 25th November). Visitors are using the QRator application in a very democratic way to state what they have learnt, or remark about a specimen that they think should be highlighted. Visitors highlighting key specimens through the QRator application has ‘become a great way for visitors to point things out to each other without us telling them what we think they should see.’ (Ashby, 2012 Personal Communication 2nd March). This suggests that QRator has opened up new opportunities at the Grant Museum for visitor-centric wayfinding, enabling visitors to suggest new ways to navigate other visitors to the species and exhibits they wish to highlight. Analysing the frequency of comments according to date and time (Table 3), comparing comment rate between the visitor contributions and total number of visitors to the Grant Museum also produces some interesting results. Table 3. Daily frequency of QRator visitor contributions Current question Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Better the devil 80 93 69 60 67 28 Bulldogs or brown hares 43 50 49 50 58 29 Captive or conserve 28 35 43 33 34 10 Conserve or display 38 39 55 34 40 32 Defining animals 43 51 53 59 45 23 Humans vs. animals 43 52 51 48 53 34 Pets vs. wildlife 32 53 62 28 51 38 Real or fake 52 50 56 48 64 31 Taboo topics 51 58 48 47 71 17 Too testing 40 65 51 52 51 23 Total number 450 546 537 459 534 265 Current question Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Better the devil 80 93 69 60 67 28 Bulldogs or brown hares 43 50 49 50 58 29 Captive or conserve 28 35 43 33 34 10 Conserve or display 38 39 55 34 40 32 Defining animals 43 51 53 59 45 23 Humans vs. animals 43 52 51 48 53 34 Pets vs. wildlife 32 53 62 28 51 38 Real or fake 52 50 56 48 64 31 Taboo topics 51 58 48 47 71 17 Too testing 40 65 51 52 51 23 Total number 450 546 537 459 534 265 Table 3. Daily frequency of QRator visitor contributions Current question Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Better the devil 80 93 69 60 67 28 Bulldogs or brown hares 43 50 49 50 58 29 Captive or conserve 28 35 43 33 34 10 Conserve or display 38 39 55 34 40 32 Defining animals 43 51 53 59 45 23 Humans vs. animals 43 52 51 48 53 34 Pets vs. wildlife 32 53 62 28 51 38 Real or fake 52 50 56 48 64 31 Taboo topics 51 58 48 47 71 17 Too testing 40 65 51 52 51 23 Total number 450 546 537 459 534 265 Current question Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Better the devil 80 93 69 60 67 28 Bulldogs or brown hares 43 50 49 50 58 29 Captive or conserve 28 35 43 33 34 10 Conserve or display 38 39 55 34 40 32 Defining animals 43 51 53 59 45 23 Humans vs. animals 43 52 51 48 53 34 Pets vs. wildlife 32 53 62 28 51 38 Real or fake 52 50 56 48 64 31 Taboo topics 51 58 48 47 71 17 Too testing 40 65 51 52 51 23 Total number 450 546 537 459 534 265 Firstly, it is possible to see that Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays are more popular for visitors engaging with the QRator iPads, whereas Saturday is significantly lower. However, this is likely to be due to limited Saturday openings at the Grant Museum13. In terms of actual visitor contribution practice, Figure 8 displays the total visitor contribution levels, which can be compared with the on-topic contribution category (Fig. 9). From this it can be seen that there are a series of spikes in visitor contribution activity. On 19th March 2011, the highest number of contributions with 144 incidences was received. This coincides with the opening week of the Grant Museum and a Saturday celebratory event, so it is not particularly surprising that there were a high number of contributions. This high peak is followed by 12th April, 26th October, and 23rd May with 103, 88, and 80 visitor contributions, respectively. The regular troughs of 0 contributions coincide with weekends and closure days when the Grant Museum is closed to the public. However, there is an unexplained occurrence of 0 contributions between 15th June and 24th June 2011; the museum was not closed during this period, nor were there any noted disturbances with the QRator system. When looking at the incidence of on-topic visitor contributions, there is a high peak on 19th March 2011 with 72 contributions. This high peak indicates that half of the visitor responses left on that date were ‘on topic’ and focused on the QRator question asked by the museum. There are also relatively high spikes on 15th April (35 contributions) and 17th March and 12th April, with 30 ‘on topic’ contributions each. Fig 8. Open in new tabDownload slide Total number of visitor contributions to QRator by date Fig 8. Open in new tabDownload slide Total number of visitor contributions to QRator by date Fig 9. Open in new tabDownload slide Comparative analysis of ‘on topic’ contributions against the total number of contributions Fig 9. Open in new tabDownload slide Comparative analysis of ‘on topic’ contributions against the total number of contributions If a focus is made upon the ‘on topic’ contributions by each iPad QRator question, a range of spikes can be seen (Fig. 10). All the QRator questions display a spike on 19th March, with Real or Fake having the highest spike of 12 contributions. Pets vs. Wildlife displays another 12 contribution spike on 31st May 2011. Fig 10. Open in new tabDownload slide Comparative analysis of ‘on topic’ contributions by QRator question Fig 10. Open in new tabDownload slide Comparative analysis of ‘on topic’ contributions by QRator question When comparing the total number of visitor contributions against total number of visitors to the Grant Museum, it is possible to see that, assuming visitors make no more than one contribution per visit, 29% of the visitors make a contribution to QRator. This assumption may not be accurate, as demonstrated by data from April, where the number of visitor contributions was slightly higher than the number of visitors. After an initial surge in visitor numbers after the museum opening in March, there was a decline in overall visitors in April. Anecdotal evidence does suggest, however, that the visitor figures may not be accurate in April, due to event visitors being quantified separately to standard visitor figures (Ashby, 2012 Personal Communication 16th March 2012). The general trend, however, is of increasing visitor numbers over the peak summer season, with a maximum of 1,436 visitors seen during August (Fig. 11). In comparison, visitor contributions to QRator saw a small rise shortly after opening, so that there were more contributions than visitors in April. Throughout the remainder of the nine-month study period, visitor contributions remained steady, if fluctuating slightly. This suggests that 1 in 3.35 visitors to the museum choose to leave a contribution on one of the QRator iPads (Fig. 12). It would be expected that during the rise in visitor numbers during the peak season of June to September that the number of visitor contributions would also increase. This is not the case. This suggests that few people contribute proportionately in busy periods, and the reasons for this could be due to the museum environment not being conducive to contributing in busy spells, in comparison when there is more time and space to contribute during quieter periods. This could explain the reasoning why there were more visitor contributions in April, as there were few visitors in the museum. Fig 11. Open in new tabDownload slide Comparisons between total number of visitors to the Grant Museum, and total number of visitor contributions on QRator Fig 11. Open in new tabDownload slide Comparisons between total number of visitors to the Grant Museum, and total number of visitor contributions on QRator Fig 12. Open in new tabDownload slide Number of visitors contributing to not contributing Fig 12. Open in new tabDownload slide Number of visitors contributing to not contributing Text analysis tools were also used to interrogate the corpus of visitor contributions. The analysis of visitor comments is similar to that of other kinds of texts and qualitative research data and is therefore, in principle, open to many of the analytical techniques that are used for textual analysis in other contexts (Macdonald, 2005). It was assumed that frequent terms from QRator would reflect the topics and themes being discussed in the physical museum space. The QRator data were run through a commonly used text analysis tool, Voyant14, to highlight the commonly used words in the visitor contribution, and to enable a sentiment analysis using SentiStrength15 to take place. The most frequent words in the corpus seem to highlight positive visitor contributions as well as the key topics discussed, the natural history specimens, the museum, and the action QRator is encouraging visitors to undertake: animals (288), like (218), museum (186), think (159), love (148). The length of comment may also be used as an indicator of engagement, if we assume that those who are interested in an issue or topic may wish to write at greater length. Indeed the average length of comment increased significantly between categories. The noise category had an average of 4.1 words, comments on the museum had 7.4 words, and visitor contributions on topic had an average of 15.4 words. This is pleasing, as it suggests that visitors were inspired by the questions to engage with topics in a relatively complex fashion. Additionally, when compared with the SentiStrength results, which classifies for positive and negative sentiments on a scale of 1 (no sentiment) to 5 (very strong positive/negative sentiment), this highlights that the comments on the museum were, on average, more positive in sentiment (2.04 positive), whereas the comments on topic had an equal positive to negative response (1.52 positive; 1.55 negative). This, in turn, suggests more engaged texts often contain a mix of positive and negative sentiments, in contrast to less engagement, which is more likely to produce a single sentiment result. 7 Conclusion Digital technologies are becoming more embedded, ubiquitous, and networked, with enhanced capabilities for rich social interactions, context awareness, and connectivity. This has led to unprecedented changes in the provision of digital museum resources, which are beginning to transform the experience of visiting museums. The QRator project represents a shift in how cultural organizations act as trusted and authoritarian institutions, communicate knowledge to the community, and integrate their role as keepers of cultural content with their responsibility to facilitate access to content. It also suggests that users are willing to take part in a dialogue, and express their views about their visit and individual object via digital technologies. It further suggests that in most cases, they can be trusted to do so in a thoughtful, serious fashion. The challenges that digital technology and participatory media bring to museums demonstrate a change from a one-to-many transmission to a many-to-many interaction, in which museums use their own voice and authority to encourage participatory communication and content creation with visitors. The growing emphasis on the interactional and informal nature of learning in museums provides the perfect opportunity to showcase digital interactive technologies as important resources for engaging visitors in exhibits and more generally in museums as a whole (Heath and vom Lehn, 2010; Marty and Burton Jones, 2007; Thomas and Mintz, 1998). Given the importance of public engagement within the UK, developing an evidence base for best practice in digital technology, cultural heritage, and public engagement is imperative. Digital technologies are opening up new opportunities for scholarly engagement with non-academic audiences, and we believe that digital humanities as a discipline can learn from museums and cultural heritage about the importance of incorporating public engagement activities into research. Digital engagement projects embracing collaboration between academics, cultural heritage institutions, and the public have the potential to significantly move forward the process of embedding engagement in academia. Not only could they challenge digital humanities academics to consider engaging the public more fully, but they could also provide the incentive to increase the quantity and quality of public engagement research and embed it into core academic practice. Acknowledgements The authors of this article would like to acknowledge the other members of the QRator team: Jack Ashby and Mark Carnall (UCL UCL Grant Museum of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy), Sally MacDonald (UCL Museums and Public Engagement), Sussanah Chan (UCL), and Emma-Louise Nicholls (UCL UCL Grant Museum of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy). QRator was funded through Beacons for Public Engagement Innovation Seed funding, and the authors would like to thank Hilary Jackson (UCL Public Engagement) for her support and advice throughout the project. Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the creators of ‘Tales of Things’ platform, Martin de Jode and Ralph Barthell from UCL CASA, for their continuing support of the project, groundwork leading up to the project, and help with the public and private API that QRator relies heavily on. Footnotes 1 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ 2 http://www.ref.ac.uk/ 3 http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about/beacons/ucl 4 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dh/ 5 http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa 6 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pace 7 http://www.talesofthings.com 8 It was found during the project that the scanning of a QR code was not integral to project, but successfully acts as a resource locater for visitor comments. If similar projects were to be implemented in other institutions, a range of RFID technologies could be used instead of QR codes. 9 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/zoology 10 http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/bibliography 11 http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk) 12 Mark Carnall was the Grant Museum curator at the time the QRator project was implemented. He was curator at the Grant Museum from 2006 to 2015; he became the Collections Manager (Life Collections) at Oxford University Museum of Natural History in September 2015. 13 The Grant Museum is open to the public Monday to Saturday from 1to 5 pm. The museum is also open for group and research visits on weekday mornings from 10 am to 1 pm. Saturday opening started on 6 October 2012. At the time of data collection (March–November 2011), the Grant Museum was only open to the public Monday–Friday, and only opening on Saturdays for special events. 14 Voyant Tools is a Web-based reading and analysis environment for digital texts. http://voyeurtools.org 15 http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk References Alelis G. , Bobrowicz A. , Ang C. S. ( 2013 ). Exhibiting Emotion: Capturing Visitors’ Emotional Responses to Museum Artefacts. In International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability . Springer Berlin Heidelberg , pp. 429 – 38 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Alexander J. , Barton J. , Goeser C. ( 2013 ). Transforming the Art Museum Experience: Gallery One. In Proctor N. , Cherry R. (eds), Museums and the Web 2013 . Silver: Museums and the Web . http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/transforming-the-art-museum-experience-gallery-one-2/. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Black G. ( 2005 ). The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement . New York : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Burkett E. ( 2005 ). Using Handheld Computers to Stimulate Critical Studies in A-Level Art . Becta . http://www.evaluation.icttestbed.org.uk/learning/research/secondary/interest/collaboration (accessed 20 January 2011). Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cameron F. ( 2003 ). Digital futures I: museum collections, digital technologies, and the cultural construction of knowledge . Curator , 46 ( 3 ): 325 – 40 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Carnall M. , Ashby J. , Ross C. ( 2012 ). Natural History Museums as Provocateurs for Dialogue and Debate . Unpublished manuscript. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Carnall M. , Ashby J. , Ross C. (2013). Natural History Museums as Provocateurs for Dialogue and Debate. Museum Management and Curatorship, 28(1), pp.37–41. Falk J. H. , Cohen Jones M. , Dierking L. D. , Heimlich J. , Scott C. , Rennie L. ( 2002 ). A multi-institutional study of exhibition interactives in science centers and museums. Unpublished Evaluation Report. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation. Falk J.H. , Dierking L. ( 2000 ). Learning from Museums. Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning . Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York and Oxford : Alta Mira Press. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fichter D. ( 2006 ). Web 2.0, library 2.0 and radical trust : A first take. http://library2.usask.ca/∼fichter/blog_on_the_side/2006/04/web-2.html (accessed 27 October 2011). Filippini-Fantoni S. , McDaid S. , Cock M. ( 2011 ). Mobile Devices for Orientation and Way Finding: The Case of the British Museum Multimedia Guide. In Trant J. , Bearman D. (eds), Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings . Toronto : Archives & Museum Informatics . http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/papers/mobile_devices_for_wayfinding (accessed 31 March 2011). Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fisher M. , Twiss-Garrity B.A. ( 2007 ). Remixing Exhibits: Constructing Participatory Narratives With On-Line Tools To Augment Museum Experiences. In Trant J. , Bearman D. (eds), Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings . Toronto : Archives & Museum Informatics . http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/fisher/fisher.html (accessed 19 October 2010). Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gay, G., Spinazze, A., and Stefanone, M. (2002). Handscape: exploring potential use scenarios for mobile computing devices . Cultivate Interactive , 8:15 . WorldCat Giles J. ( 2010 ). Barcodes help objects tell their stories . New Scientist , p. 20. WorldCat Gray, S., Ross, C., Hudson-Smith, A., and Warwick, C. (2012). Enhancing Museum Narratives with the QRator Project: a Tasmanian devil, a Platypus and a Dead Man in a Box. In Proctor, N and Cherry, R. (eds), Museums and the Web 2012. Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Hall P. ( 2010 ). Community engagement in South African higher education , Kogisano , 6 : 3 – 53 . South African Council on Higher Education. WorldCat Heath C. , vom Lehn D. ( 2010 ). Interactivity and Collaboration: New Forms of Participation in Museums, Galleries and Science Centres. In Parry R. (ed.), Museums in a Digital Age . Abingdon : Routledge , pp. 266 – 80 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hsi S. ( 2003 ). The Electronic Guidebook: A Study of User Experiences Mediated by Nomadic Web Content in a Museum Setting . Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning , 19 ( 3 ): 308 – 319 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Johnson L. , Adams S. , Witchey H. ( 2011 ). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 Museum Edition . Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Museum Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. COPAC Kasbohm, R. (2012). QR Codes: Fad or Future? An Exploration of the Sustainability and Application of QR Codes in Museums. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. London: UCL. COPAC Katifori A. , Karvounis M. , Kourtis V. , et al. ( 2014 ). CHESS: Personalized Storytelling Experiences in Museums. In Mitchell A. (ed.), The Seventh International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (ICIDS 2014), LNCS 8832 . Switzerland : Springer International Publishing Switzerland , pp. 232 – 235 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kelly L. ( 2006 ). Museums as sources of information and learning: the decision-making process . Open Museum Journal , 8 . http://archive.amol.org.au/omj/volume8/volume8_index.asp. WorldCat Kidd J. ( 2014 ). Museums in the New Mediascape: Transmedia, Participation, Ethics . Surrey, Burlington : Ashgate. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lowdermilk T. ( 2013 ). User-Centered Design: A Developer's Guide to Building User-Friendly Applications . O'Reilly Media, Inc, Sebastopol, California . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lynch B. T. , Alberti S. ( 2010 ). Legacies of prejudice: racism, co-production and radical trust in the museum . Museum Management and Curatorship , 25 ( 1 ): 13 – 35 http://www.artsmanagement.net/downloads/Lynch-Alberti.pdf. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Macdonald, S. (2005). Accessing Audiences: Visiting Visitor Books. Museum Society, 3(3), pp.119–136. COPAC Mannion S. , Sabiescu A. , Robinson W. ( 2016 ). Innovate or Stagnate: Disrupting the Conventional Audio Guide. In MW2016: Museums and the Web 2016 . http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/innovate-or-stagnate-disrupting-the-conventional-audio-guide/ (accessed 2 April 2016). Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Marty P. , Burton Jones K. ( 2007 ). Museum Informatics: People, Information, and Technology in Museums . New York : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Naismith L. , Smith M. P. ( 2009 ). Using Mobile Technologies for Multimedia Tours in a Traditional Museum Setting. In Ally M. (ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training . Edmonton, AB: Au Press , pp. 247 – 64 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Naismith L. , Lonsdale P. , Vavoula G. , Sharples M. ( 2004 ). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning (Futurelab Series Report 11). Bristol: Futurelab. Naismith L. , Sharples M. , Ting J. ( 2005 ). Evaluation of CAERUS: a Context Aware Mobile Guide. In van der Merwe H. , Brown T. (eds), Proceedings of mLearn 2005 – Mobile Technology: The Future of Learning in Your Hands , Cape Town, South Africa , pp. 112 – 15 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC NCCPE ( 2015 ). What is Public Engagement. NCCPE (National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement). www.publicengagement.ac.uk/explore-it/what-public-engagement. Nielsen J. ( 1993 ). Usability Engineering . San Francisco : Morgan Kaufmann . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Nielsen J. ( 2001 ). Ten Usability Heuristics . www.useit.com/papers/heuristic. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Norman D. A , Draper S. W. ( 1986 ). User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on HumanComputer Interaction . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Pang B. , Lee L. ( 2008 ). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis D. D. Schmorrow and L. M. Reeves, (eds), Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval , 2 ( 2 ): 1 – 135 . http://www.nowpublishers.com/product.aspx?product=INR&doi=1500000001. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Parry R. ( 2010 ). Museums in a Digital . In Parry A. R. (ed.). Oxford : Routledge . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Pérez-Sanagustín M. , Parra D. , Verdugo R. , García-Galleguillos G. , Nussbaum M. ( 2016 ). Using QR codes to increase user engagement in museum-like spaces . Computers in Human Behavior , 60 : 73 – 85 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Pierroux P. , Ludvigsen S. ( 2013 ). Communication interrupted: Textual practices and digital interactives in art museums. In Schrøder K. , Drotner K. (eds), The Connected Museum: Social Media and Museum Communication . London : Routledge , pp. 153 – 76 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Prescott A. ( 2012 ) . Consumers, creators or commentators? Problems of audience and mission in the digital humanities . Arts and Humanities in Higher Education , 11 ( 1–2 ), 61 – 75 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Proctor N. , Burton J. , Tellis C. ( 2003 ). The State of the Art in Museums Handhelds in 2003. In Proceedings of Museums and the Web 2003 , Toronto , Archives & Museums Informatics ,. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/proctor/proctor.html (accessed 20 January 2011). Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Rodley E. ( 2013 ). What Can Museums Learn about Immersive Theater? In Thinking About Museums. http://exhibitdev.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/what-can-museums-learn-about-immersive-theater/. Ross C. ( 2014 ). Radical Trust Works: An Investigation of Digital Visitor Generated Content and Visitor Engagement in Museum Spaces. Doctoral thesis, University College London. Røtne O. , Kaptelinin V. ( 2013 ). Design Choices and Museum Experience: A Design-Based Study of a Mobile Museum App. In Human Computer Interaction. Proceedings of the 6th Latin American Conference, CLIHC 2013, Carrillo, Costa Rica . Springer International Publishing , pp. 9 – 13 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Russo A. , Watkins J. , Kelly L. , Chan S. ( 2008 ). Participatory communication with social media . Curator , 51 ( 1 ): 21 – 31 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Schultz M. K. ( 2013 ). A case study on the appropriateness of using quick response (QR) codes in libraries and museums . Library & Information Science Research , 35 ( 3 ): 207 – 15 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Silverman L. H. ( 1995 ). Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age . Curator , 38 ( 3 ): 161 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Simon N. ( 2010 ). Chapter 6: Contributing to Museums. In The Participatory Museum . Santa Cruz : Museum 2.0 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Spadaccini J. , Chan S. . ( 2007 ). Radical Trust: The State of the Museum Blogosphere. In Trant J. , Bearman D. (ed.), Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings . Toronto : Archives and Museum Informatics . www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/spadaccini. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Speed C. , Kanchana Manohar A. ( 2010 ). Storytelling within an Internet of Things. In Aylett R. et al. (eds), Interactive Storytelling Lecture Notes in Computer Science , Vol. 6432 . Heidelberg : Springer , pp. 295 – 6 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Strauss A. , Corbin J. ( 1998 ). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Tallon L. , Walker K. ( 2008 ). Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media , 1st edn. Lanham, MD : Altamira Press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Terras M. , Warwick C. , Ross C. ( 2011 ). Building Useful Virtual Research Environments: The Need for Used-led Design. In Dale P. , Bears J. , Holland M. (eds), University Libraries and Digital Learning Environments . Surrey, Burlington : Ashgate , pp. 151 – 67 Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Thelwall M. , Buckley K. , Paltoglou G. ( 2012 ). Sentiment strength detection for the social web . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 63 ( 1 ): 163 – 73 . http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/∼cm1993/papers/sentistrength2_preprint.doc. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Thomas S. , A Mintz . (eds). ( 1998 ). The Virtual and the Real: Media in the Museum . Washington, DC , American Association of Museums . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Walker K. ( 2008 ). Structuring Visitor Participation. In Tallon L. , Walker K. (eds), Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media . Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Wave, D. (2003). What is a QR Code? QR code.com. available at: QR code.com. COPAC © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EADH. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
TI - Engaging the museum space: Mobilizing visitor engagement with digital content creation
JF - Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
DO - 10.1093/llc/fqw041
DA - 2017-12-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/engaging-the-museum-space-mobilizing-visitor-engagement-with-digital-XdSP0XvBcX
SP - 689
VL - 32
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -