Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

PhD dissertation - presentation - March 26 2014

1,139

Published on

This is the presentation of my PhD thesis: Designing for Participation within cultural heritage. Participatory practices and audience engagement in heritage experiences proscess. …

This is the presentation of my PhD thesis: Designing for Participation within cultural heritage. Participatory practices and audience engagement in heritage experiences proscess.
The research investigates the emerging role of cultural institutions that, responding to the expectations of contemporary audiences, are shifting from being providers of content, to being facilitators of experiences around it. The overall aim is to envision novel paradigms for audience engagement within cultural institutions, outlining a general framework for the design of effective participatory experiences of heritage.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,139
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
73
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

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

×