The document discusses the interpretation of Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery from the perspective of visitors. It argues that the museum relies too heavily on stereotypes like Robin Hood to generate visitors, which can lead to unfulfilled expectations. The museum is not truly a castle, yet visitors expect to see a stereotypical castle based on their prior knowledge. The interpretation emphasizes myths over authentic history. While stereotypes fulfill visitors' idealized expectations, focusing more on authenticity could improve their actual experience.

1. Louise Williams
1
Interpretation 1: Fieldwork
Visitors Perspective: How interpreting our expectation through the use of stereotype reflects
the concept of identity
“Heritage is gradually effacing History, by substituting an image of the past for its reality.”
(Hewison, 1989)
Within the heritage sector there is always an expectation and an actuality within the interpre
tation that is either expected or shown. The meaning of what is communicated to the visitor,
will differ. Hence, the interpretation, is not always consistent, especially when the intended
attraction is based on a built heritage, such as Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery.
Which is far from the stereotypical castle. The misconception of the term 'castle', already
generates an expectation based on previous knowledge of the castle, prior on visiting the
castle. For visitors who already have an aesthetic interest in the castle, the visit would be of
an emotional interest.
This essay will divide into four sections based around Falk and Dierking’s ‘Contextual
Model of Learning’; personal context, ideas of motivations and expectations; physical contex
t of the site and building, in addition to the marketing of Robin Hood as a stereotype.
Through the use of ten photographs, an assessment will be made on whether the latter’s
framework aids understanding of the complexities of learning from museums. These images
will emphasise the over-reliance of stereotypes in order to generate visitor numbers.
In addition, this essay will argue that stereotypes are more significant in fulfilling the
idealistic interpretation, of the visitors’ expectation, than authentic. Looking through the
perspective of the visitor, we are better able to observe the motivations, the reasons behind
their activities; “the totality of the experience” (Falk & Dierking, 2012).
PERSONAL CONTEXT
A museum visitor’s personal context is unique, incorporating a variety of experiences and
knowledge (Falk & Dierking, 2012). As Falk & Storksdieck (2005) states:

2. Louise Williams
2
“…the view of learning embodied in this framework can be conceptualized as a contextually driven
effort to make meaning […] best viewed as a continuous, never-ending dialogue between the individu
al and his or her physical and sociocultural environment.” (p.20)
The Contextual Model of Learning portrays this contextually driven dialogue as the process/
product of the interactions between an individual’s (hypothetical) personal, sociocultural and
physical contexts over time. None of these three contexts are ever stable or constant; all are
changing across the lifetime of the individual (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005) notwithstanding its
familiarity and popularity, ‘authenticity’ is a highly contested and unstable concept (Adu-A
mpng, 2010, p.13).
Nevertheless, symbolically, similar to the photographs, the image of a 'castle', will have a
different meaning, and interpretation to the individual. The influences of prior knowledge
and experience on museum learning have been widely described and documented […], so,
too, the role of prior interest. (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005). One should expect learning to be
highly personal and strongly influenced by an individual’s past knowledge, interests and
belief (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005). As Koskowski (2006) suggests:
"There is already a strong image of castles in our minds, which sums our beliefs, ideas, impressions
and knowledge, associations.” (p. 3).
A castle is defined as a “large building typically of the medieval period fortified against
attack with thick walls, battlements, towers and often a moat (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.).
Hence, this obstacle which Nottingham Castle has in overcoming. Although its fortifications
are ‘medieval’, including the caves, the majority of the castle walls and its content, are not.
This lack of awareness by the visitor, emphasises to the naivety of the individual. McClellan
(1998) states that awareness is considered to be essential component involved in the creation
of attitudes, perceptions and behaviour (p. 284). The perceptions are based on prior
knowledge, whether through literature or education. What one knows about history, is
primarily based on what is read, whether its narrative is indeed a fact or myth. Although his

3. Louise Williams
3
torically, it is rare to find a non-biased source. However, what one interprets to be
authentic, depends on the personal, social, cultural background, in essence what one believe
s is their identity. Anything other than the latter, and it is dismissed. Hewison (1989)
suggests:
“Heritage is a source and vehicle for myth […]a great deal of historically accurate […] transformed in
to a touchstone of national, local, even individual, identity.” (p. 17)
The History is adapted and modernised to suit the current market, which affects the
authenticity. The expectation of a visitor already exists. However, what is being interpreted,
depends on the audience. Adu-Ampong (2010) states that authenticity or inauthenticity is
therefore dependent on individual perspectives and interpretations (pp.15-16).
This reliance on the strategic identities of the city, generates a gap in interpretation between
the visitors’ pre-visit and during of a visitor, which as a consequence, the expectation is
being unfulfilled because of this pre-owned image which already exists. The reason being,
from a visitors’ perspective, there is a build up to the expectation, as the aesthetics outside
validates the expectations. However, the downfall is within entering, and what is seen is not
what was expected (Fig. 5). Clarifying visitors’ expectations of on-site interpretation can
potentially improve visitors’ experiences of the site with the visit (Biran, et al., 2006, p.280).
Figure 1 Side of the castle at night. The photograph has been modified by increasing the exposure and
brightening, in order to expose of the statue.

4. Louise Williams
4
As Figure 1 demonstrates, symbolically an imprint of the past is always visible, including a
shadow of one’s past. The contrasting of the shadows shows, that although the statue is not
physically inside the castle, it shares a commonality that is shares a part in the heritage of
the city, with the castle being the main stronghold. The individual’s perception of the site
relative to his/her own heritage is a key factor in understanding both motivation to visit and
expectations of the interpretation (Biran, et al., 2006, p. 279) provided.
IDEAS OF MOTIVATIONS & EXPECTATIONS
Tourists’ expectations of on-site interpretation can be grouped by three distinguished
factors; ‘recreational experience’, ‘educational experience’, ‘emotional experience.’ (Biran
2015, p.14). The role of interpretation in the context of the management of heritage sites,
emphasized two main motivations: educational and entertainment/social (Poria, et al., 2004,
p.9). Needs and expectations are, for a turn, built on images (Koskowski, 2006, p. 3).
Interpretation is an already established expectation/pre-conceived idea/in the purpose of its
mission. Interpretation is adaptable, based on the audience but not necessarily with the
intended effect. Our pre-conception and expectations is what one makes of it. Interpretation
is what our own personal understanding is. Falk and Dierking (2012) states that there are
Figures 2 & 3 Iron door located outside the castle walls/Kni
ght located inside the gift shop.
Figure 4 & 5 White door located within the walls/Victoria
n mannequin located inside the museum.

5. Louise Williams
5
visible differences in individual interests, attitudes, and motivations for visiting (Falk & Dier
king, 2012). One’s own expectation of a heritage site cannot be fully fulfilled without
satisfying, one’s own expectation of a pre-existing knowledge of a site. Figures 2-5 contrast
with each other, by seeing both sets as the past and the present. The ideology of the
portrayed medieval 'past' seen in Figures 2 and 3 can be seen as the image visitors expect
when visiting Nottingham Castle, medieval period. Both doors and mannequins (see fig.
2-5) represent a different time period which in essence represent the ideology of the visit,
and on the other, the reality of the visit. The lack of consistency may be confusing to the
visitor, whose expectation would be to see the content such as Figure 2 and 3 rather than
Figures 3 and 4
When interpreting the predicted expectation and the reality, we cannot expect an accurate
and unbiased interpretation account of the past. We can only create an assumption based on
the narrative that is given by Nottingham Castle. Koskowski (2006) argues that our image of
a castle can be often idealised, stereotyped, unreal and sometimes even totally surrealistic.
But still it is a ready image of a castle (p. 3) (See. Fig. 4).
In terms of our attitudes to authentic interpretation, Biran, Poria & Reichel (2006) states, that
some would prefer an interpretation that provides many facts and is perceived as more
authentic - while others prefer a more entertaining interpretation (p.283). It is argued that to
urists are motivated for emotional reasons, as Biran et al (2006) adds it may be reflected in
the interpretation provided (p.28). However, one disagrees with the notion that the interpret
ation provided is dependent on an emotional motivated visit alone. Reasons include the
notion that, the interpretation has already planned in line with the historic narrative of the
'castle'. Otherwise any change to the interpretation would dramatically affect the historic
credibility of the narrative, and as a result, the authenticity of the visitors’ experience.
Rumble (1989), argues that a past can only be inadequately represented (p.24). This is a valid
assumption, when considering that not all interpretation can be covered. The photographs
demonstrate, that even though the reality of a 'castle' is not visible, the ideology is. On the
other hand, successful interpretation must do more than present facts (Tilden, 1977).

6. Louise Williams
6
However, both authenticity and interpretation, when it comes to the concept of history is
very difficult to achieve, as history itself is varied and biased.
lf can often be misguided and bias. Deciding whether a particular interpretation of the past
is ‘wrong’ relies on understanding or defining what heritage actually is or should be
(Sherriff 2003). Deciding whether a particular interpretation of the past is incorrect relies on
understanding or defining what Heritage actually is or should be (Sherriff, 2003). On the
other hand, Adu-Ampong (2010) states, that there is however no absolute and objective
criterion with which to measure authenticity. (p. 14). Figures 6 and 7 demonstrates the
comparison of both outlook of the castle, from the visitor expectation, to the reality of the
interpretation. One would determine the above image of the surrounding caves, would
perceive more of an authentic when reflecting the medieval interpretation that surrounds
the castle.
PHYSICAL CONTEXT OF THE SITE & BUILDING
The museum is a physical setting that visitors, usually freely, choose to enter. (Falk &
Dierking, 2012). This emphasises that the motivation to visit is visible, and knowing these
Figure 6 & 7(Top-Bottom) View of the caves; View from the entrance
.

7. Louise Williams
7
motivations is all the more important in order to provide an 'authentic ' experience.
Originally castles dominated the landscape (Koskowski, 2006). Which is vital in our
understanding of ‘physical context’, based on the visitor’s relationship to the architecture,
objects on display, and atmosphere (Francis, 2015).
However, despite the external outlook of the castle, and its magnitude, the grounds and the
physical space inside Nottingham Castle generate an opposite expectation in comparison to
the pre-visit. It is highly un-imaginative, with no relation to the aesthetic outside. Contained
yet again, is the stereotype identity of Robin Hood. The fact that the same historic artifact or
space is perceived differently by different people cannot be ignored (Shackley 2001) for
example, argues that apart from worship, sacred historic sites are visited because they
present great works of art, architectural merit, provide attractive settings and atmosphere, a
nd “simply as part of a great day out.” (p.1).
ROBIN HOOD: MARKET PLOY
“The statue stands proudly outside Nottingham Castles Gatehouse for everyone to see and is probably
the most photographed landmark in the city.” (Nottingham Castle Museum & Art Gallery, n.d.)
Figures 8-10Robin Hood statue outside the castle; Robin
Hood wood statue inside the castle; stone plaque depicting
Robin Hood outside the castle.

8. Louise Williams
8
Interpretation is varied. It can emphasise the authenticity of a built environment by
narrating its history, or a myth such as Robin Hood, who is depicted both outside and inside
the castle, including the gardens. (fig. 5). What this image demonstrates, is the emphasis
that there is too much dependency from Nottingham Castle surrounding the ‘mythical’
individual, such as Robin Hood. However, this is a challenge when coming up with a
realistic interpretation. Without pre-existing knowledge, the visitor has to deal with the
unavoidable fact that what they are visiting, is not what is stated, i.e. a castle. The aftermath,
the visitors’ expectation is left unfulfilled. This common misconception is unavoidable, and
yet a regular occurrence. We all have a pre-conceived idea on what the idea of a 'castle' is.
However, due to the recent economic pressures, the built environments are nothing more
than a marketing tool. Almost any interpretation has to be selective and incomplete
(Rumble, 1989, p.30).
Hewison (1989) argues that museums – and the rest of heritage – in addition to being objects
of consumption are also units of production (p.20). The reasons are valid. The marketing
‘ploy’ of promoting a ‘castle’ when in actuality it is not. In the current climate when
modernisation and development in the heritage sector is a regular and needed required
occurrence the value of the history authenticity decreases. To continue the sustainability,
the heritage itself must be seen as a product. In this current climate, built environment do
get ‘modernised’ or renovated, in order to keep up the demand. However, adding
something that is irrelevant takes away a part of the identity.
In conclusion, only the visitor can make the determination of authenticity or fictional. As
stated in the introduction, the interpretation, is not always consistent, and predominately, it
will never be. Especially when taking into consideration, every individuals varied cultural
and social backgrounds, and attitudes
Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery, is not a stereotypical castle. It does however,
present an ideology to the visitor from in order to fulfil a gap in the visitors’ interpretation.
The ‘Contextual Model of Learning’ framework, does provide understanding of the complex
ities of learning from museums, as it does evaluate the visitor experience and motivations.
Lastly, stereotypes do fulfil the idealistic interpretation of the visitors’ expectation and

9. Louise Williams
9
motivation, due to clarifying and verifying their expectations, their experience overall will
be positive.
Bibliography
Adu-Ampong, E. A., 2010. The Visitor Experience at Sensitive Heritage Sites: A case study of the C
ape Coast Castle, Ghana. [Online]
Available at: https://www.academia.edu/4943331/The_Visitor_Experience_at_Sensitive_Heri
tage_Sites_A_case_study_of_the_Cape_Coast_Castle_Ghana
[Accessed 26 November 2015].
Biran, A., 2015. Segmenting future visitors to heritage sites: Perceptions, motivations and expectatio
ns. [Online]
Available at: http://www.esade.edu/cedit2005/pdfs2005/papers/biran_avital
Biran, A., Poria, Y. & Reichel, A., 2006. Heritage Site Management: The Link between Visitor'
s Pre-Visit Perceptions, Motivations and Expectations. natolia: An International Journal of Tour
ism and Hospitality Research, 17(2), pp. 279-304.
Experience Nottinghamshire, 2015. Nottingham Castle. [Online]
Available at: http://m.experiencenottinghamshire.com/discover/nottingham-castle-p357581?
[Accessed 23 November 2015].
Falk, J. & Dierking, L. D., 2012. The Museum Experience Revisited. United States: Left Coast Pre
ss.
Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M., 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learn
ing from a science center exhibition. [Online]
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20078/epdf
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M., 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learn
ing from a science center exhibition. [Online]
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20078/epdf
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M., 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learn
ing from a science center exhibition. [Online]
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20078/epdf
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M., 2005. Using the Contextual Model of Learning to Understand visitor lea
rning from a science centre exhibition. [Online]
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20078/epdf

10. Louise Williams
10
Francis, D., 2015. Book Review, Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D (2013), The Museum Experience
Revisited. Visitor Studies, pp. 121-123.
Hewison, R., 1989. Heritage: An Interpretation. In: Heritage Interpretation. Volume 1: The Natur
al and Built Environment. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 15-24.
Koskowski, M. R., 2006. Castles as a Particular Tourist Product. [Online]
Available at: http://conferences.ncl.ac.uk/unescolandscapes/files/KOSKOWSKIMichal.pdf
[Accessed 18 November 2015].
Nottingham Castle Museum & Art Gallery, n.d. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nottinghamcastle.org.uk
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
Nottingham City Council, n.d. Nottingham Castle Caves. [Online]
Available at: http;//www.nottmcastle.co.uk/?page_id=567
[Accessed 20 November 2015].
Oxford Dictionary, n.d. Castle. [Online]
Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/castle
[Accessed 24 November 2015].
Poria, Y., Butler, R. & Airey, D., 2004. Links Between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons for Visi
ting. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), pp. 19-28.
Rumble, P., 1989. Interpreting the Built and Historic Environment. In: Heritage Interpretation.
Volume 1: The Natural and Built Environment. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 24-32.
Sherriff, N., 2003. What is exactly ‘wrong’ with interpreting the past in order to make it more accessi
ble and interesting to the visitor? Illustrate with reference to an actual example of a heritage site. Illus
trate with Reference to an Actual Example of Heritage site. [Online]
Available at: http://arasite.org/nshertge.htm
[Accessed 19 November 2015].
Spero, S. B., 2013. The Museum Experience Revisited. Museum Management Curatorship, 28(4)
pp. 430-432.
Tilden, F., 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage. 3rd edition. Chapel Hill: The University of North Ca
rolina Press.
Tilden, F. & Dickenson, R. E., 2009. Interpreting Our Heritage ed. 4th ed. United States: The Un
iversity of North Carolina Press.
Photographs
All images of Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery (Figures 1-10) were taken by the
author from the 10th-25th November, 2015.