Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: Open Authority in Digital Engagement Projects [NOTES]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: Open Authority in Digital Engagement Projects [NOTES]

on

  • 233 views

Notes for a presentation at the American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting, May 2014 in Seattle, Washington, discussing The Children's Museum of Indianapolis Digital Engagement Project, 100 Toys that ...

Notes for a presentation at the American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting, May 2014 in Seattle, Washington, discussing The Children's Museum of Indianapolis Digital Engagement Project, 100 Toys that Define Our Childhood, as an example of Open Authority and Community Sourcing in museums. Other panelists included Dan Davis from the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, Jeffrey Inscho of the Carnegie Museum of Art, and Petra Pankow of the Monclair Art Museum.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
233
Views on SlideShare
186
Embed Views
47

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 47

https://twitter.com 47

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: Open Authority in Digital Engagement Projects [NOTES] Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: Open Authority in Digital Engagement Projects [NOTES] Document Transcript

    • NOTES:  Crowdsourcing  to  Community  Sourcing:  A  100  Toys  Case  Study   American  Alliance  of  Museums,  Seattle,  May  20,  2014             • I’m  Lori  Phillips,  the  Digital  Marketing  Content  Coordinator  at  The  Children’s   Museum  of  Indianapolis.       • I’m  going  to  share  a  framework  for  us  to  better  discuss  the  nuance  around   crowdsourcing  and  participatory  projects.     • I’ll  then  share  a  community-­‐sourced  project  that  we  carried  out  at  The  Children’s   Museum,  called  “100  Toys  That  Define  Our  Childhood.”               • For  my  masters  research  I  wanted  to  tackle  the  question  of  How  museums  could   best  integrate  visitor  contributions  while  still  maintaining  the  museum’s  authority   and  reputations  as  experts.     • While  we’re  a  bit  more  comfortable  with  user-­‐generated  content  today,  even  just   three  years  ago  the  idea  was  VERY  scary.   • And  because  I  believe  that  we’re  often  afraid  of  things  we  don’t  understand  or   haven’t  defined,  I  decided  to  just  put  a  name  to  it—and  that’s  “Open  Authority.”     • The  “open”  in  Open  Authority  is  inspired  by  the  open  source  software  movement,   which  believes  that  the  more  people  you  have  looking  at  a  problem,  the  more   quickly  you’ll  find  a  solution.     • This  means  that  museums  should  “open”  the  doors  to  community  participation.       • I  define  open  authority  as  the  coming  together  of  museum  expertise  and   community  contributions.     • Openness  is  needed  to  remain  active  players  in  this  collaborative  environment.   • Authority  is  needed  to  bring  expertise  &  context  to  all  that  user-­‐generated  content     • Basically,  that  means  that  participatory  projects  aren’t  all  or  nothing.  It’s  not  that   the  museum  is  necessarily  always  right,  or  that  the  crowd  is  always  right,   • It’s  that  we  can  make  it  even  better,  together.     • The  truly  “open”  museum  sees  the  visitor  as  a  collaborator  and  an  active   contributor  in  the  creation  and  interpretation  of  content,  and  the  curator  as  an   engaged,  expert  facilitator.                     American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting, 2014 A"100"Toys"Case"Study" Crowdsourcing"to" Community"Sourcing" Lori Byrd Phillips | @LoriLeeByrd Defining Open Authority Museum + contributions! expertise! Community!
    •           • Many  museums  now  use  crowdsourcing  as  a  way  to  actively  partner  with  visitors.   But  there’s  much  more  to  open  authority  than  just  crowdsourcing.       • I  think  that  there’s  really  a  spectrum  of  Open  Authority,  with  many  possible   engagement  models,  beginning  with  more  conservative  approaches  (often  what   museums  are  doing  now)  and  leading  to  a  more  progressive  approach.     • I’ve  borrowed  this  spectrum  for  Open  Authority  from  Mia  Ridge,  who  pointed  out   this  existing  model  for  public  participation  in  projects.   o Mia  has  edited  a  volume  coming  out  soon  called  “Crowdsourcing  our   Cultural  Heritage.”  So  keep  an  eye  out  for  that.     • So  more  conservative  projects  are...   • Contributory,  where  the  public  contributes  data  to  a  project  designed  by  the   organization.     • The  spectrum  then  moves  on  to...   • Collaborative,  where  the  public  helps  refine  project  design,  with  the  project  still   led  by  org.     • At  the  far  end  of  the  spectrum  is...   • Co-­‐Creative,  where  the  public  can  take  part  in  all  processes,  and  all  parties  design   the  project  together.     • The  spectrum  is  moving  from  being  less  transactional  to  more  transactional  and   Interactive  with  less  dialogue  to  increasingly  more  dialogue.     • Contributory  projects  are  often  what  we  consider  crowdsourcing.     • To  quote  Mia,  Crowdsourcing  involves  asks  directed  toward  a  shared  goal  that   cannot  be  done  automatically,  and  they  have  inherent  rewards  for  participation.   o Generally  speaking,  crowdsourcing  can  be:  Voting,  Tagging,  Identifying   objects,  Transcribing  documents.     • Community  Sourcing  is  a  more  nuanced  approach  to  crowdsourcing,  and  involves   bigger  asks  made  of  a  more  committed,  loyal  community     o Community  sourcing  can  include  Memory  Sharing,  Community  Blogging,   Idea  Generation  and  Dialogue,  or  Sharing  Media     • And  at  the  end  of  the  spectrum  is  Co-­‐Creation,  which  is  true  participatory   interpretation.   o I  believe  that  the  Reggio  Emilia  educational  approach  is  the  best  model  of   co-­‐creation  in  museums,  but  I  won’t  have  time  to  talk  about  that  today.   Please  come  find  me  later  if  you  want  to  talk  Reggio  Emilia,  I’d  be  happy  to           • So,  now  to  dive  back  into  some  real-­‐life  examples.   I’m  going  to  share  about  a  community-­‐sourcing  project  at  The  Children’s  Museum   of  Indianapolis.     • The  Children’s  Museum  is  the  largest  children’s  museum  in  the  world  and  has  a   collection  of  over  120,000  objects.     o Because  we  only  ever  have  about  10%  of  our  collection  on  display  at  any   one  time,  we’re  always  looking  for  other  ways  to  share  our  objects.       • We  were  inspired  by  the  British  Museum’s  project  “A  History  of  the  World  in  100   Objects,”  and  we  wanted  to  take  that  idea  and  make  it  a  little  more  participatory.     Open Authority !" Contributory Collaborative Co-Creative Tagging Voting Identifying Transcribing Community Sourcing Participatory Interpretation Crowdsourcing Memory Sharing Community Blogging Idea Generation / Dialogue Sharing Media Reggio Emilia A Spectrum of Open Authority
    •         • So  in  the  summer  of  2012,  100  Toys  was  born.     • The  full  title  is  “100  Toys  (and  their  stories)  That  Define  Our  Childhood.”       • 100  Toys  was  a  digital  engagement  project  that  asked  the  museum’s  online   community  to  share  stories  and  vote  for  their  favorite  toys,  ultimately  deciding  the   “Top  20  Toys  That  Define  Childhood.”       • The  original  100  toys  were  chosen  by  our  American  Collection  curator,  to  best   represent  the  last  100  years.     • All  of  the  toys  were  in  our  collection  and  were  photographed  for  the  project.           • The  100  Toys  were  unveiled  in  mid-­‐July  of  2012.   • Then  for  5  weeks  we  highlighted  a  batch  of  20  toys  on  social  media,  encouraging   online  visitors  to  vote  &  to  “make  the  case”  for  their  favorite  by  sharing  their  story   or  memory.     • Votes  were  dynamically  compiled  throughout,  and  stories  were  selected  to  be   featured  on  each  toy’s  page.       • (I  couldn’t  resist  sharing  my  own  story  about  my  lost  cabbage  patch  kid  that  I   found  in  another  state  seven  years  later,  and  that’s  what’s  featured  here.)           • The  Top  20  toys  were  then  unveiled  with  much  fanfare  by  local  media,  including  a   special  spread  in  The  Indianapolis  Star.     • The  community-­‐curated  display  shown  here  was  located  prominently  at  our  entry   gates.     • The  public  was  then  invited  for  2  weeks  to  rank  the  Top  20  to  choose  the  Top  3.     • In  case  you  were  wondering,  The  Top  3  toys  were  G.I.  Joe,  Transformers,  and   LEGOs,  followed  closely  by  Barbie,  the  Viewmaster,  the  bicycle,  Cabbage  Patch   Kids,  and  Hot  Wheels.     • They  were  labeled  with  their  rankings  and  the  display  remained  up  for  several   months,  where  visitors  could  continue  to  submit  stories  via  QR  code.           • 100  Toys  started  out  as  an  experimental  story-­‐collecting  project,  but  it  massively   surpassed  expectations  when  it  gained  prominent  attention  in  national  press  and   on  social  media.       • In  addition  to  support  from  the  Indy  Star  and  other  local  media,  we  received   national  coverage  through  Yahoo,  The  Washington  Post,  CNN,  Fox  News,  and   NPR’s  All  Things  Considered.  The  Yahoo  story  alone  received  1,700  comments.         • In  the  end,  100  Toys  spurred  diverse  and  heartfelt  dialogue  from  local,  regional,   and  international  users  across  many  online  platforms.     • From  July  to  September,  we  had  over  94,000  page  views  on  100  Toys  web  pages   • There  were  over  600  stories  submitted  (exact:  641  stories)   • And  over  24,000  votes  (exact:  24,417)   • We  received  submissions  from  all  ages,  especially  baby  boomers,  and  significant   contributions  from  men,  which  we  were  happy  to  see.   • The  reach  was  not  only  local  and  regional,  but  national  and  international,  with   participation  from  over  a  dozen  states  and  countries  including  Germany,  Canada,   Israel,  and  Australia.   Memories last a lot longer than toys. Check out your Top 20 Toys…! “…Can I high five you?” ! Results ! 94,000 pageviews ! 24,417 votes ! 641 stories ! 18 states ! 4 countries
    •       • At  the  heart  of  100  Toys’  success  was  nostalgia,  passion,  and  really  an  incredible   urge  to  share  that  special  story  about  a  memorable  toy.       • Here  are  our  conclusions  about  what  worked:   • THE  TOPIC  led  to  nostalgic  connections  to  the  objects.  Everyone  loves  toys.   • VOTING  motivated  users  to  participate  and  drove  media  coverage.     • FAMILIES  shared  together,  contributing  to  intergenerational  learning,  which  is  the   Children’s  Museum’s  mission—to  promote  family  learning.   • COLLECTIONS  were  distributed  in  new  ways  through  beautiful  photography,  so  we   were  increasing  access.   • COMMUNITY  was  empowered  to  curate  content  that  resulted  in  on-­‐site  display.             • Because  of  the  success  of  100  Toys,  we  began  to  pursue  future  Digital  Engagement   Projects.     • But  this  required  a  bit  of  internal  education  on  what  a  digital  engagement   project  is.     • So  we  worked  to  create  a  definition  and  list  of  elements  to  help  others   understand  what  makes  these  projects  unique.     • We  define  a  Digital  Engagement  Project  as  an  interactive  project  that  engages   visitors  to  participate  both  online  and  on-­‐site.     • They  always  include  a  Social,  Web,  and  On-­‐Site  component   • and  also  have  the  goal  of  encouraging  attendance  to  the  museum  to  extend  the   experience  even  further.         • The  digital  project  is  always  on  the  museum’s  website,  with  social  media  strongly   supporting  and  promoting  it.     • Sometimes  Digital  Engagement  Projects  are  confused  with  social  media  campaigns.   • We  like  to  say  that  while  social  campaigns  do  exist  around  each  exhibit,  a  Digital   Engagement  Project  is  so  much  more.     • A  Digital  Engagement  Project  always  includes  an  on-­‐site  component,  which  could   be  something  like  the  examples  listed  here,  such  as  a  public  event  or  a  visitor-­‐ curated  display.     • Digital  engagement  projects  also  include  at  least  one  online  element,  like  those   listed  here.  The  online  tools  and  social  platforms  change  depending  on  the  goals  of   the  Digital  Engagement  Project.       • We’re  now  working  on  our  third  Digital  Engagement  Project,  and  have  used  this   definition  to  guide  us.     o Our  Director  of  Collections,  Chris  Carron,  just  presented  on  our  2nd   Digital  Engagement  Project,  the  Superpower  Showdown,  here   yesterday.     o And  our  third  will  take  place  next  year,  focusing  on  inspiring  fashion   and  personal  style.     • It’s  my  hope  that  our  definition  can  be  built  upon  by  others  looking  to  formalize   recurring,  participatory  digital  projects  in  your  own  museums.     o Please  don’t  hesitate  to  come  chat  with  me  later.  I  have  a  handout  and   also  some  pretty  great  100  Toys  buttons  to  share.  Thank  you  so  much.     What worked? !  THE TOPIC !  VOTING !  SHARING !  COLLECTIONS !  COMMUNITY! A Digital Engagement Project is… ! PARTICIPATORY ! Crowdsourced !  Community-sourced ! DIGITAL ! An online game ! Online voting or sharing ! Online contest ! SOCIAL ! Social media campaign !  Social media contest ! ON-SITE ! A display of objects ! A public event ! Voting or sharing on-site ! A pop-up exhibit