can museum allow online users to become participants?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

our audiences; yet the idea of deliberately diluting our intellectual content with substantive input from users—allowing their material to appear in connection with our trusted ―brand‖—makes us extremely uncomfortable. Law professor James Boyle, of Duke University‘s Center for the Study of the Public Domain, has theorized about why intellectual property owners feel threatened at the prospect of user participation. According to Boyle, content owners have historically had a tendency to be blind to ―the opportunities that commons-based production . . . the non-property, less control, open access side of things tends to offer,‖ while overvaluing tight control of ownership rights, rules and even methods of distribution. As a possible explanation he suggests that our instincts, laws and institutions were formed to protect physical property—a role still crucial to most museums. Digital assets, while similar in some ways to physical assets, have their own distinct qualities and should be offered up with a greater awareness of the balance between protection on the one hand and a lessening of control on the other.18 Leading thinkers about museums and Web 2.0 have identified institutional bias of the sort described by Boyle as the greatest obstacle to the adoption of a more user-centered approach. To combat this bias, some have seized on the notion of ―radical trust,‖ which suggests the need for a more intimate, equal relationship between museums and constituents. The term is credited to librarian and blogger Darlene Fichter, who suggests that emergent systems—those built collaboratively by end users, without high levels of top-down structure or governance—can be successful only if established institutions trust their constituents to be not only users and customers but participants and co-creators.19 Fichter emphasizes that inherent to any emergent system is the expectation—and, to a certain extent, tolerance—of some level of abuse, with mechanisms in place to prevent or correct it. Blogger Seb Chan of the Powerhouse Museum, in Sydney, Australia, picked up on this point: ―Most ‗systems‘ of trust in Web 2.0 applications are specifically constructed to encourage and protect, through safeguards and small but not insignificant ‗barriers to participation‘—what is being described as ‗trust‘.‖20 With the exercise of appropriate caution, it is possible to be inclusive without being reckless. Benefits of Participatory Learning Much could be said about the benefits of museums allowing a loyal community of supporters to extend our knowledge and help contextualize our collections. More important in terms of our educational mission is the effect that user participation can have on the audience as learners. As informal learning online is treated elsewhere in this volume, let us briefly consider a few key principles of museum learning that, in each case, can be addressed by the thoughtful application of Web 2.0 methods: Visitors do not typically view museums as classrooms for in-depth learning so much as smorgasbords of content with which to construct their own meaning and associations based on individual interests and background.21 Museums should not discount this mode of learning ―out of fear of being unable to control the results. . . . Such action (or inaction) ignores the human realities of how meaning is constructed and how museums currently are used by the public to support personal growth and development.‖22 4
Museums play a crucial role in this dialogue with visitors by offering arrangements of objects, thoughtful interpretation and a unique setting for learning that work together to help visitors make meaning out of the world and understand their place in it.23 Museums present one version of ―truth,‖ but objects can tell many stories and hold multiple potentially valid meanings. Visitors may be well served when museums facilitate informed discussion incorporating multiple points of view.24 ―Minds-on‖ interactivity is even better than ―hands-on‖ when it comes to learning. Museums should offer opportunities to solve problems, pursue inquiries and other ―activities that require attention, time and engagement.‖25 All museum learners would benefit from methods employed at children‘s museums, where young visitors are given a high degree of autonomy and control over the learning experience, with frequent opportunities to act as facilitators.26 Social interaction with family or group members, and even among unrelated visitors, is a crucial part of museum learning. Group learning is not only effective but economical, as group members distribute information gathering and come together to share results. Museums can serve groups of learners by designing experiences for multiple users, fostering social interaction and placing motivated novices alongside knowledgeable mentors.27 Successful museum learning is about making connections—between the new (and young) and the old, between the familiar and the unfamiliar, between experiences inside museums and life in the wider world.28 The Mechanics of Online Communities While we know quite a bit about visitor behavior inside museums, less is known about the virtual audience. Do users want a more participatory environment on our websites? A survey conducted in 2007 by the National Museum of Natural History, which asked users to rate potential features of a new Web portal on oceans, sheds some light. More than 800 responses broke out roughly into three tiers: 80–85 percent felt that ―fun facts‖ and interaction with experts was important; 43–54 percent felt strongly in favor of the ability to customize or contribute content, or see other users‘ recommendations; only 23 percent felt that discussion boards were important. Web 2.0 skeptics might conclude from these results that indeed users value expert opinion more than they want their own voices to be heard. Proponents might respond that over time, thousands of potential users who do want to play a more substantial role could add tremendous value to an important scientific site. The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in the middle—confirmed by trends seen in general studies of museum patrons—that visitors benefit from access to the interpretation of experts and the ability to participate in a substantial way in the learning experience. Developers of Web 2.0 applications have come to understand that even if relatively few ―power‖ users are making full use of the tools of participation, the benefits can extend to all members of 5
Page 1 and 2: CAN MUSEUM ALLOW ONLINE USERS TO BE
Page 3: Relationships of Trust At the heart
Page 7 and 8: Said one exhibition curator, ―As

can museum allow online users to become participants?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?