My PhD Research plan_June 2012 by Sara Radice

POLITECNICO DI MILANO, INDACO DEPARTMENT DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN DESIGN XXVI cycle, Coordinator Prof. Francesco Trabucco

Research plan, June 2012 Candidate Sara Radice Supervisor Prof. Raffaella Trocchianesi Research Unit DeCH, Design for Cultural Heritage

DESIGN FOR PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE Design and participatory processes enhancing the visitor experience of heritage // Abstract // The research has the overall aim to envision new paradigms for audience engagement in cultural heritage, as the emergence of new patterns for culture transmission opened to new possibilities for participatory approaches in the design of heritage experiences, changing the traditional top down and linear way of communicating to the visitors, in favor of a multidirectional flow of information between the cultural institutions and the audience. I am investigating the shift from the role of museums as provider of content and designer of experience, to the role of facilitator of experiences around content, regarding these issues from a design perspective, outlining the design methods and tools for effective participatory experiences, capable of catalyzing visitor voices in supporting and contributing to cultural experiences. The research is exploring both project based on participatory design methods (in which innovation in the process), and projects in which audience participation is the final outcome of the design process – design for participation (in with innovation is in the product). Insights from case studies analysis and literature review drove me to focalizing on the latter as the preferred framework for the experimentation of projects of public curation (understanding and interpretation of heritage) in which the participatory approach is enabled by digital technologies, through of processes of appropriation among peers.

// Key words // museum, design for participation, audience engagement, community, participatory design, open cultural heritage, exhibit design, user generated content

// Literature overview //

The changing of patterns of cultural transmission The research fits into a cultural and economic landscape in which the widely distributed and relatively cheapness of tools needed for producing information, knowledge and culture has led to a shift from a mass-mediated public sphere to a networked public one with greater opportunities for the community to participate to the social and political life. Among the firsts, Castells (1996) describes as a central feature of contemporary society, the shift from social and organizational models composed of groups and hierarchies, to models based on the metaphor of the network and he develops this theory describing a wide range of changes: from transport networks to globalization, including the Internet in this trend as a facilitator of coordination and collaboration (Benkler 2009). The Internet is furthermore a medium that activates the crisis of hierarchical structures and questions the concept of a central intelligence polarized, in favor of a form of collective intelligence, namely a group of individuals acting collectively in certain contexts showing behaviors that seem to respond to a form of intelligence (Lévy 2002; Malone et al. 2009; Quinn & Bederson 2011), supporting the effective metaphor of the starfish opposed to the spider (Brafman & Beckstrom 2006). In the same direction Benkler (2011) focuses his attention on systems that promote and enhance collaboration, without requiring an ideological and utopian approach to human behavior. These concepts see their more practical application in the current development of the participative web, with its key features of interactivity, sharing and common authorship. The label “2.0” was first coined by O’Reilly (2005), with the aim to revitalizing the web companies using the user generated contents (UGC) in ways that appeared attractive

for the advertising market and other models of business (Fiormonte et al. 2010). However, accepted the labile character (and not always positive) of this label, it is possible to ascribed to the “2.0” phenomenon all the tools available for the Internet users, that facilitate collaborative relationships and that have led to greater ease of knowledge sharing and production. The phenomena of crowdsourcing and open source, two terms widely used - and often overlapped improperly as if they were not synonyms, are emblematic of a participatory culture (Jenkins 2009), because though in different ways, the choral actions of a group of people, and not the individual ones, generate value and innovation. The word crowdsourcing first appeared in the 2006 on the magazine Wired, coined by Howe (2006) and Robinson, but the concept dates back to the seventeenth century: for example, the first editions of the Oxford English Dictionary were written in a collaboratively way by volunteers, anticipating by two centuries the Wiki model. Brabham (2008) defines the crowdsourcing as a model of distributed problem solving, in which the products developed by the crowd often become property of the company who requested the collective design. Among the cultural institutions, libraries are probably the ones that can most benefit from the application of crowdsourcing models to perform certain tasks and at the same time achieve the result of increasing the sense of responsibility of the individual against the cultural assets (Holley 2010). Some examples of crowdsourcing for libraries may be the definition of the reliability of the information in the OPAC and the addition of missing data in digital transcription of manuscripts to make their contents searchable, especially for what concerns the description (for example through tags) of objects that are not accessible, such as scanned photos. In the cultural field, there are many examples crowdsourcing projects in which participants are asked to cooperate with small punctual tasks to the creation of a comprehensive project, which can be for example the transcription of ancient classical texts, as in the case of Project Gutenberg, Transcribe Bentham and the City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish or the indexing of microfilm, as in the case of the World Memory Project. The open source philosophy is based instead on transparency and access in the design phase, arguing that the ability to collectively and democratically develop a product, outside of the constraints of intellectual property law, produces a product that is always better. The term open source was born in the computer field, where adopting an open model, or better free, means to write the code giving the opportunity to the community that incorporates the code to find novel uses, interpretations and interactions, editing and translating (Ippolita, 2005). Extending this concept to other fields, the challenge is to adapt and apply the core principles of open source “share the goals, share the work and share the results” (Goetz 2003), to other areas that could benefit from a new way to create awareness “that combines an open and Democratic ethos with an extraordinary ability to produce work of high quality and on a huge scale” (Mulgan, Steinberg and Salem 2005). Bauwens (2009) distinguishes three different phases of open design (Bauwens 2009): 1) the input, in which there is the participation of volunteers, who do not have to ask the permission to participate, and have free access to the sources, which are without restrictive copyrights and can be improved and changed freely; 2) the process, that is based on low thresholds for participation, with modular activities freely available which provide for the validation of the common quality (peer governance); 3) the output, that creates a commons that ensures that the result is available to all, without permission, forming thus a new layer of open and free material that can be used for a subsequent iteration. A process of this type can only occur within an open community peer to peer (P2P) in which the relationships are not defined by power - as happens in the vertical hierarchies, but where the reputation becomes a centripetal force of influence toward the other participants (Menichinelli and Valsecchi 2007). In this same direction is to report the release of the issue 948 of Domus in June 2011 dedicated to Open Source Design, in whose editorial - written collaboratively by leading architects and theorists of the Web - the Open Source Architecture (OSArc) is defined an emerging paradigm describing new procedures for the design, construction and operation of buildings, infrastructure and spaces” (Antonelli et al. 2011). Critiques to the free access to knowledge and culture through the Internet and to the so-called participatory democracy, come from authors (Lovink 2008; Metitieri 2009; Lanier 2010) that in different fields contributed in first person to the construction of the Internet as it is today, starting in the '70s. With the statement “you have to be somebody before you can share yourself”, Lanier (2010, xiii) raises important questions about the quality and the authorship of the content generated by users and the related 2

problems of recognition or loss of intellectual property of authors. The use of usergenerated content because of their gratuity would in fact trigger in the long term an unsustainable economic model, which often does not allow the authors to shift from hobbism to professionalism. Furthermore, if on the one hand the open-source of cultural content can favor a creative reworking and the rapid spread of ideas, on the other hand, the continued fragmentation of the contents and the progressive separation between these fragments and their source point - the work or the artist - lead them to become in many cases impossible to reconnect to the original idea. Within this communication system, in the field of marketing, in recent years, there has been the birth of a vocabulary in which terms such as dialogue, experience, connections, shifted the focus on the user as an individual increasingly aware and critical in his choices as a consumer. Cultural institutions that have traditionally been based on a linear model of communication and on a one-way model of knowledge transmission from an authoritative source to a passive visitor, are now rethinking this model with the emergence of a concept of a participatory public. The American Association of Museums (2008), for example, in reference to the U.S. socio-economic situation, speaks of a creative renaissance driven by technological tools that led to the prevalence of online distribution of cultural content, to the centrality of user in the narrative processes and to the transformation of educational processes. It is nevertheless worth noting that people who actually create original content only represent a small percentage in the landscape of the users of the Internet, that also include who only benefits from such content, commenting and sharing (Wunsch-Vincent & Vickery 2006). Depending on the level of participation, the Web users can be grouped into six different categories: creators, critics, collectors, subscribers, spectators and inactive (Li 2007), which basically follows the 90-9-1 rule, according to which about 90% of users are lurkers, (they attend the online community and read the messages, but never send their own); the 9% contributes little and the 1% is the active part that produces almost all content (Nielsen 2006). Similarly, Nancy Proctor (2012), Head of Mobile Strategy & Initiatives at the Smithsonian Institute identifies five actions “watching, sharing, commenting, producing, curating” describing the possible behaviors of the visitors of a museums and places them in a pyramidal shape on the basis of the observations made at the Smithsonian.

Image 1. Five possible behaviours of audience within museums, as described by Nancy Proctor (2012).

Transferring the relational models from the participatory web to physical culture spaces, Casey (2007) first used the term library 2.0 suggesting to consider libraries as a context in which many elements of the Web 2.0 find their application, both in services supported by the technology and in those that are not based on it. A case study, which transposes the logic of the web to the real environment, is the system of physical tagging of books designed for a section of the library in Haarlem Oost. In this case, the user becomes co-creator and co-worker and the product on which it acts is both virtual and physical: the users of the library in fact, while returning the books, can generate new information about the books they have read, by placing them on the shelf labeled with the tags that are best suited to describe the kind of text, and these descriptors are then automatically added to the book in the digital database. Another project in which physical and virtual environment are over layered is the BibPhone, developed by the library of Aarhus. This is a prototype that allows children to annotate the books in the library with oral comments, placing the BibPhone over a RFID tag in the book; placing the ear on the book they can also listen to the comments recorded by others. From the outlined context, can be detected that more and more learning and knowledge sharing are taking place within the so-called “affinity spaces” (Gee 2005), that are public and shared environment and spaces in which we can detected 3

processes of appropriation among peers, based on firsthand experiences. This concept differs from that of communities of practice, shifting the focus away from belonging to interactivity, because the sense of community in this case is not associated with a sense of affiliation, but understood in terms of a facilitator of interrelated activities.

Digital technologies enabling novel ways of experience heritage within actual and virtual spaces Cultural institutions are increasingly using digital technologies as a means to engage their communities, both internally and externally to the museum. There therefore a need for a greater understanding of the relationships, differences, and possible synergies between the different emerging technologies to meet rising expectations from visitors to experience the cultural heritage in an active way, thanks to the integrated use of different technological media in a continuum of actual and virtual spaces. The use of social media as a means to become known to a wider audience is a social marketing strategy already widely used by many cultural institutions, although in most cases these tools have proved to be insufficient to trigger a real involvement, beyond superficial and fragmented conversations (Billings 2011). Social media turns out to be effective when they are used as a tool to enable a sustained and constructive dialogue with the public, providing to users different levels of creative control over content. A first level of involvement provides the opportunity to share audience opinions about a particular museum exhibition or collection, as in the case of the blog La Maleta Mexicana edited by the MNAC in Barcelona during their temporary exhibition with the same name, with the objectives to reflect on the themes proposed by the exhibition, allow public participation and promoting the exhibition itself and the image of the museum. A deeper level of engagement provides the opportunity to create online personal collections, that may even become the basis for projects of education at distance, such as in the Turbinegeneration project hosted by the Tate Modern in which students, teachers and artists from over 30 different countries, can upload text, pictures and videos and share them with a community of partner schools that work together to develop educational projects. The sharing of cultural heritage through the Internet and the collaboration of the users in creating content using the participative web, are however only part of the strategies that cultural institutions are taking in the use of digital technologies. Johnson, Adams, and Witchey (2011) identified six areas: mobile Apps, tablets, augmented reality, electronic Publishing, digital preservation and smart objects, as emerging technologies with a great potential for their use in educational programs within museums for the interpretation of heritage. By the 2015, the 80% of Internet access will be through a mobile device (Ericsson 2011) and is therefore essential to consider mobile technology as a major means by which more and more visitors will expect to access resources of the museum and receive services. Most of the mobile applications used in museums are functional for educational programs, marketing and promotion of the museum itself, as well as they provide additional information to the collections on display and serve as a guide through the museum space. The applications for smartphones and mobile devices allow extending in space and timing the visitor experience, giving visitors the chance to personalize the content before, during and after the visit. In addition the gamification of the visitor experience enabled by mobile can promote the cultural learning, becoming a potentially favorable area for development projects of participation within cultural heritage. While many of the Apps does not allow the possibility for users to adding content Scapes is a mobile application developed for the DeCordova Museum and Sculpture Park in Lincoln (MA), that constitute an exception because it rethink the concept of the audio guide in terms of participation by encouraging visitors to verbally describe the objects they encounter during the guided tour, as well as offering descriptions left by other visitors. Mobile technology is also used to implement projects that foresee an experience of cultural assets in augmented reality, that means the enrichment of human sensory perception, with the information (data points of interest or geo 3D elements), which would not be perceived with the five senses. Thanks to dedicated applications, the mobile device can frame in real-time the environment in which they are superimposed levels content).

Image 2. Personal elaboration of the scheme presented for MuseumNext by Wils and Piekart (2012).

This type of experience of heritage while providing a high level of audience involvement, however, in most cases not allow a participatory approach in which visitors not only see the virtual content overlayed to the real environment, but can add a personal level of significance. Moreover, the use of augmented reality in the museum does not stimulate a type of social experience, because the contents are enjoyed individually through the interface of the personal smartphone that acts as a filter between the physical environment and virtual reality. With the statement: “Leave your phone at home. This is mobile media” Jason Daponte (2012) stressed the need to think about what could be the future for augmented reality systems, making possible to assign meaning to content in context, in a way that is not so dependent on a physical device, as happens now. The Internet of Things (Greenfield 2006) is seen as a possible evolution of the Internet as smart objects become recognizable and acquire intelligence thanks to their ability to communicate information about themselves and access information aggregated by other users, giving an electronic identity for things and places in the physical environment. “Ubicomp [Ubiquitous Computing] refers to the integration of information technology into everyday objects and processes, to such an extent that the end-users are often unaware of the technology” (Leder et al. 2010). Users who benefit from these spaces and hybrid objects between virtual and physical reality, however, is at the moment a niche, that can be identify in the social group defined by Morace (2008) as “Linker People”, characterized by a strong need to interpret the surrounding environment in a unique and creative way, using technology as an integrated platform for keeping in touch with the outside world. (Morace, 2008, 67). The emphasis on technology, in this case does not lead to an unwillingness to socialize, but rather allows users to constantly go beyond the boundaries between interiority and shared atmosphere. There are several examples of use of this type of technology in museums, in which objects and places, bearing RFID labels or QR codes, can communicate information to the Internet or to mobile devices. An example is the project Tale of Things, which includes many applications as “Qrator” developed for the Grant Museum of Zoology in London, that through the use of QR codes applied to objects, allows visitors to share their interpretation of the collection of the museum, which becomes itself part of the digital object, and thus part of the exhibition. The project QRpedia provides a model of interaction with contents of the same type, as via QR codes related to objects, it offers to users the links to Wikipedia articles about the museum's collection in their own language, often edited by the users themselves.

The digital cultural heritage Opportunities for audience to participate in the curation of cultural assets opened up issues related to mediation, access and control of user-generated content (Gere 1997, 1) both for projects developed in physical spaces based on physical collections and for projects related to digital heritage, native or digitized, because of its nature that allow interpretive processes, by a type of access that is often free. The open source philosophy applied to the cultural heritage sector promotes an approach that Eschenfelder & Caswell (2010) define “cultural remix”, based on the assumption that the digital cultural heritage, both native and digitized must be made available to all without restrictions on access and distribution. Many museums, having undertaken projects of digitization of their collections with the goal of making them accessible to a wider audience, are however unable to allow a use that goes beyond the simple search and viewing online because of restrictions related to copyright. In addition, there are few cases in which the digitization of heritage has led to novel online experience, that not reproduce the same curatorial and exhibition models of the museum itself, often making a virtual replica of the physical museum. The Google Art Project, for example allow users to explore the art museums in the same way that Google Street View allows users to explore the city, seeing in high resolution 30,000 masterpieces from 151 museums in 40 countries around the world, but not allow a further participation that is not the simple personal collection and sharing of 5

masterpieces on social media. However, while maintaining a traditional unidirectional model of interaction with the user, the online sharing of heritage, both through the website of the museum, and by using external platforms (e.g. Flickr Commons) can be the basis for projects of distance education, as well as allow the viewing of high-quality work to those who do not have the opportunity to see them in person. The European Union promoted the construction of the European digital library Europeana, which includes books, films, paintings, newspapers, sound recordings, maps, manuscripts and archives, bringing together all the contributions already digitized by various institutions of the 27 EU member states in 23 European languages. The Strategic Plan 2011-2015 explains the philosophy of the project stating that “Open standards such as Open Access and Linked Data will stimulate the knowledge economy” and that “Sharing information is the norm. Data is reused and re-purposed to create new and enriched services and resources” (Europeana 2011). The objectives are to aggregate content that represent the diversity of European heritage, to facilitate the sharing of knowledge among the people involved in the cultural sector, to make the heritage accessible to users, and to try out new ways to engage the public in European cultural heritage (European Commission Directorate-General and for the Information Society and Media, 2011). Focusing on the ways of engage the audience, there are other some interesting cases that respond to the expectation of the public to actively participate in the fruition of the digital cultural content. The Zeega platform, developed by the MetaLab at Harvard University involves users in a great creative and curatorial effort on content, allowing “anyone to easily explore, visualize and curate collections from public APIs and then use this media to collaboratively create multimedia projects that are accessible online, on mobile devices and in physical spaces” (http://metalab.harvard.edu/projects/). Similarly, the Fundacio Tapies in Barcelona is developing a project of digitization of its archive with the aim of making it enjoyable by the public, providing three different levels of access according to the copyrights of certain documents, and providing the possibility for users to create new and personal relationships and links between the documents, for the digital content s without restrictions of access and use. The online community can therefore support the cultural institution by means of three different types of interactions that aim at the quality or at the quantity of contributions (Uribe and Serradell 2012): 1) quantity, for example through social tagging; 2) quality assessment, through the reporting of incomplete data or errors in the information provided about the collection; 3) strategic quality, through a kind of contribution similar to the one provided within Wikipedia. Despite more and more cultural institutions are investing in digital collections, parallel the process of collection, preservation and display of physical objects goes on. MacArthur (2011) gives a possible answer to what are the characteristics and strengths of the digital format compared to the physical one, recognizing three main functions that the objects of a museum collection can take, without distinguishing between physical and digital ones: “objects as reference collections”; “objects as learning resources”; “objects as collective memory”. He therefore recognizes the role of digital technologies in facilitating connections between users and objects and between objects and objects that lead to an increase in both quantity and quality of the value of the collections and of the museum itself.

4. From visitors, to users, to participants Focusing on users (participants) of the museums, there is the need to understand which kind of audience shape the new public of the museums. Many researches that seek to portray the public of the museums, are based on the analysis of quantitative variables such as demographic categories of age, level of education, gender, ethnicity, as well as they consider and analyze the temporal component of the visit (hours, days and year). Many museums also categorize their target audiences in according to the frequency of visits and the social group of belonging - families, adults, school groups, etc. Rapid demographic changes that affect especially the cities of the Western world are an important aspect to take into account: 214 million migrants worldwide, which could reach 405 million by 2050 (IOM 2010) and young people represent the demographic group most affected by changes in terms of ethnic composition, leading to the construction of complex identities and to the formation of novel and hybrid forms of cultural expression, that override racial and ethnic categories. Although essential, these demographic data do not provide enough information to understand why people decide to visit a museum, key information to know in order to 6

analyze how the museum can responds to the needs and expectations of his public. Within this context, many cultural institutions defined profiles based on motivations, rather than on demographic characteristics. For example, Falk (2009, 64-65) proposes five segments in which to divide the museums’ audience, taking into account the individual needs of visitors and the role they choose to take during the visit: “1) Explorer; 2) Facilitator; 3) Experience seeker; 4) Professional/Hobbyist; and 5) Recharger”. This and other research aimed at identifying motivational profiles (Sachatello-Sawyer 2002, Arts Council England 2008) highlight how learning is rarely the only reason to visit, and how instead the desire to establish social relationships is an essential element for almost all visitors (Black 2005, 28-33).

Image 3. The thirteen audience segments identified by a survey on art museums’ visitors in the United Kingdom (Arts Council England 2008)

In the contemporary communication system, which presupposes consumers increasingly aware, Anderson (2006) theorizes the economic model of the long tail, stating that from a mass market we are going back to an archipelago of niches in which consumers’ choices are more and more defined their interests. In the cultural industry, there are more niche products than blockbusters and the cost needed to reach those niches is falling dramatically thanks to the support offered by technology (the same thing that has already happened for books, movies and music thanks to tools such as Amazon, iTunes Store and Netflix). In the long tail economy is the strength of people’s opinions to mediate the demand and the offer and the spontaneous word of mouth is the most efficient channel of communication to inform museums’ visitors; it is therefore interesting for cultural institutions to enter into channels of communication targeted to these niches, relying on existing social media to convey information and content, and identifying novel ways to attract dispersed audience, unified by common interests (Bollo 2008, 152). Within the outlined socio-cultural context, in which the traditional portrait of the public as a passive spectator is anachronistic and inapplicable to the contemporary user (Giovagnoli, 2009, 34), Richardson (2010) highlights the need to consider the audience as participants in museums’ programs in which they can create, share and talk about different topics related to the contents displayed. Considering those cultural institutions that consider themselves as an open place of encounter and dialogue, Satwicz and Morrissey (2011) use the term “public curation” in opposition to a traditional way of institutional curatorship, including in this approach 7

both the projects in which participation occurs during the experience of heritage and the ones based on models of participatory design. Simon (2010) applies to cultural institutions the models defined by Bonney et al. (2009) in reference to public participation in scientific research, and distinguishes between three different modes of public engagement in cultural heritage. 1.

Through contributory projects, cultural institutions make their collections available online both through their institutional websites (e.g. Yorkshire’s Favourite Painting), both through the promotion of groups of fans on social networks and blog, even managed independently by the target communities (e.g. Dulwich OnView). Are also included in this type of projects, the museum’s exhibitions and programs that display contents generated by the visitors (that may be a personal comment or an object) within a process designed and controlled institutionally (e.g. In the Long Run, A Matter of Faith, Contemporary Issues Forum)

In collaborative projects the audience is called to participate in the collection of heritage, such as through the search for assets within the context of a program of cultural interpretation and enhancement coordinated by the institution (e.g. Children of the Lodz Ghetto, September 11: Remembrance and Reflection, MappaMI).

In co-creative projects, the community members are called to work together with the museum’s staff in the definition of the objectives of the project and in the codesign of the cultural program through a process of participatory design, as in the case of Museomix, experimented at the Musée des Arts Decoratifs in Paris, through which a group composed of designers, museum staff and visitors actively participate in a workshop aimed at the creation of prototypes for a novel type experience of the museum's collection, or as in the case of co-creative projects designed and managed entirely through the Internet (e.g. Cooking: the Exhibition).

With reference to public participation in the artistic production, Brown, Novak-Leonard, and Gilbride (2011) identify a scale of public involvement that goes from a zero level of participation, to an active involvement in projects of crowdsourcing, to the co-creation of a work of art, until the situation in which the artist and the public work together in all phases of the creation process. These models correspond to different levels of creative control on contents, ranging from curatorial to interpretive, to inventive, transferable also to participatory models (collaborative, contributors and co-creative) identified by Simon. These models are here considered for what concern their use in the analyzed case studies projects, assessing their impact in the process of heritage interpretation by visitors and in the exhibits’ design.

Image 4. Levels of audience engagement in heritage and levels of creative control on content (Brown, Novak-Leonard, and Gilbride, 2011), including the participatory models proposed by Simon (2010).

5. Cultural institutions as places of cultural encounters Here some assumptions without which a participatory approach to heritage would not be feasible. First, we need to define what it is meant by using the expression cultural heritage: the UNESCO Convention1 of 1972 expresses a traditional and static vision of heritage, conceived as a legacy to preserve and transmit with an emphasis on the “universal value” of the heritage; after thirty years, the UNESCO Convention for the 1

“Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1972”, Paris, November 16th 1972.

Safeguarding of intangible Heritage2 in 2003, recognizes that heritage should not only be preserved and transmitted, but must be “constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment”. This second definition introduces therefore a process-based view of heritage, which by its nature cannot be considered only for its formal or functional dimension, as it acquires meaning in the dialogical and social dimension. It is thus needed a shift in the point of view from the object, to the story around the object, and his interpretation, enhanced by the increasing numbers of the actors involved (Morelli, Scarani, Giardina and Papa 2010, 96), including not only the authoritative voice of scholars and curators, but also that of the public. Cultural institutions are increasingly replacing linear models of communication with transactional ones (Hooper-Greenhill 1995) in which the information is formulated, communicated and interpreted in a circular process, which allows the public to switch from a passive to an active role. Museums that adopt a substantialist vision of the transmission of knowledge from an authoritative source to a passive visitor, are more and more having to call into play their role (Corsane 2005), moving from the idea of the public as uninformed cultural consumers, to that of cultural producer, participant in the process, decision maker and leader in the creation and dissemination of the discussion and of museum practices (Bodo, Gibbs, and Sani, 2009, 4). Assigning an active role to visitors puts into question the traditional model of visitor experience in which the visitor is not required to interact socially with others. Simon (2010, 25-29) defines a process in five steps – the so called “me-to-we design” that enables cultural institutions to move from an individual involvement of the visitor to a social experience of visit. The fifth stage of this process defines the museum as a social and meeting place among different people, who can effectively coordinate the actions and interests of individual visitors to create a collective result.

Image 5. “Me-to-we design” scheme (Simon 2010, 26).

Under the assumption that learning is a social activity (Hein 1991), it is necessary to ask whether and how, the museum can encourage visitors to share socially the experience of visit. The educational aspect in museums is thus intended as a collaborative activity in which to builds (hence the term constructivism) the meaning of new concepts by comparing different perspectives (Cataldo 2011, 34). According to the constructivist theory of learning, in fact, the interpretation of the objects can only be derived from the experiences and prior knowledge of the visitor, and the dialogue between the viewer and the object attributes the meaning to a collection (Hooper-Greenhill 2000, 117), as a result of continuous and sustained interactions (Giaccardi 2011, 21). A “discursive approach” (Affleck and Kvan 2008, 269) to heritage is also a fertile ground for the development of projects that aim at promoting intercultural practices among diverse audiences, in museums that seen themselves as “contact zones” (Clifford 1997), enabling an active and social participation “through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media” (Tilden and Craig 2007, 17). In addition to open discussions about the relationship visitor-visitor and visitor-content, this kind of visitor experience, requires a rethinking of the relationship museumcontained and museum-visitors, which need a continuous re-negotiation of the meaning 2

“Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003”, Paris, October 17th 2003.

of objects displayed, and of the idea of the museum itself as a meeting place (Bodo and Mascheroni, 2012, 11). // Research focus //

Case studies Within the outlined socio-cultural context, it is clear that the participation in the production and in the experience of cultural heritage is among the expectations of the public and many cultural institutions are activating participatory projects in response to this expectancy. Having explored the theoretical framework, the research then identified some specific areas on which to focus for the analysis and the development of projects involving the active participation of the public in the different phases of the cultural experience. In the first phase of the research (even if this activity is still going on), I mapped the projects developed since the 2000, which presented models of participatory approach to heritage, in which there is an explicit user's original contribution, excluding: 1.

The projects including only practices of collection, representation and communication of cultural heritage, if there is not an explicit user’s contribution that becomes part of the project itself;

The participatory art and the open art projects, since they provide the coconstruction of the artistic heritage itself; considering instead those projects in which participants are required to express themselves in the creative/artistic interpretation of an existing art work;

The crowdsourcing projects relating to the digitization of literary works.

The ongoing repository of case studies is online here: http://www.scoop.it/t/discursiveheritage During this first phase I didn't apply other selection filters, in order to obtain a landscape of reference as complete as possible, in which framing the research. Moreover, at a later stage, I will have a repository of cases belonging to a wider area, from which potentially transfer methods and models for the construction of a design scenario. These cases are not analyzed in depth, but for each only four parameters are evaluated, which allow me to identify which cases to select for a further analysis: -

The adopted model of audience participation (Simon 2010);

The participants’ level of creative control on content (Brown, Novak-Leonard, and Gilbride 2011);

The tool enabling the participation (technology or not);

The generated type of social experience.

The results of this preliminary mapping of cases are visualized using the software Fineo3 who is been also used as an analytical tool in order to identify the areas of particular interest for the research. The dynamic visualization of the preliminary results is available at: http://fineo.densitydesign.org/custom/vis/index.php?tablename=set133935203748&sub mit=Visualize After this preliminary step, the research focused more on the analysis of twenty case studies4 (the selection is still going on), using three main criteria for selection: 1.

The possibility for the public to contribute with original content, distinguishing between projects of design for participation in which the user acts “rewriting” critically the cultural assets, and participatory design projects in which the innovation in the process, without necessarily presupposing a participatory experience of the heritage;

The presence of content officially recognized as a cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, physical or digital;

The presence of a cultural institution (gallery, museum, library or archive) as the promoter of the project;

Software developed by the DensityDesign Lab, Indaco Department, available at: http://www.densitydesign.org/research/fineo/

See attachment A at the end of the document.

The criteria used for the analysis include the type and the length of the intervention, the context (museum, archives, library, cultural center, urban environment), both in real and virtual environments, and the area of influence of local or global; the level of public involvement and its level of creative control on content, the type of activated social experience, the profile of users, the type of contents (tangible or intangible, physical or digital), the type access to content for what concern digital heritage; the tool enabling the participatory process. The case studies are divided into two clusters depending on whether the public participation: -

Regards the interpretation of an existing cultural asset, including the design of the visitor experience;

Is in the phase of collection of the heritage itself.

For each case study an analysis form5 has been edited, serving as a tool for comparing the cases.

From audience engagement to effective participation The research is focusing on how the design discipline can effectively contribute to the development of new models of heritage experience including: 1.

The audience participation during the visitor experience acting at the product level, starting from an existing cultural asset, through: a.

Projects of audience engagement enabled by social software;

Participatory curatorship of objects and collections;

The audience participation during the design phase of the visitor experience, acting at the process level, through: c.

Collaborative practices in the construction of cultural assets;

Methods and model of co-design.

Within these assumptions, it is necessary to design - through the skills of strategic planning, as well as communication systems and products - a dynamic fruition of cultural heritage, made possible thanks to technological tools which enable novel relationships if compared to traditional media and which can provide a type of interaction not that is only physical but also mental, triggering a critical reflection on the displayed contents. In all the analyzed case studies, the use of digital technologies is considered as a tool to enable new modes of interaction, novel narrative practices and different levels of interpretation, for a participatory experience of heritage. Many strategies for the audience engagement were in fact applied for many years by museum staff without the technological support, and now there is the need to investigate whether the use of appropriate technology can be a useful tool to strengthen this kind of approach.

A redefinition of cultural spaces toward a discursive interpretation of heritage This contemporary scenario requires a new definition of the cultural spaces, which opposes the terms 'physical', 'fixed' and 'closed', the terms 'virtual', 'mobile' and 'open', as well as a redefinition the role of museums, libraries and cultural centers as facilitators of dialogue among diverse audiences through heritage interpretation. The research investigated how different participatory models (identified through the analysis of case studies) are applied within museums, libraries, archives, urban environment and informal exhibition spaces. The case studies analysis showed that in many cases the level of public participation is limited to the opportunity to make comments or to explore contents in a personalized way, without having the possibility to give an explicit contribution with original contents. This fact depends largely on the type of cultural heritage: an approach that let visitors to participate is in fact an established practice in museums that are interactive thanks to their nature, such as science centers and exploratoria (McLean 1987), and in museums in which the user generated contents can add value to the cultural asset, as it happens in the ethnoanthropological museums, history museums and in local museums. A participatory approach is instead less frequent in traditional galleries, exhibiting artistic artifacts and antiques, for which the authoritativeness of the source is fundamental and in which the museum assume an authoritative role by conveying information on its cultural assets 5

See Attachment B at the end of the document.

(Ciolfi, Bannon, and Fernstrom 2008). Although art galleries continue to recognize importance to the role of the individual author, several participatory art projects have sparkled a reflection about the authorship of the contents displayed, introducing collaborative practices for the co-creation of art (Diamond 2005). 1.

The project Hydroscope at the Kattegat Marine Centre in Denmark highlights what could be an effective approach to involve visitors in an educational project sponsored by a science center. It provides a high level of public participation experimenting new ways of combining the co-exploration of the space and the co-construction of contents (Dindler et al. 2007).

The history and ethno-anthropological museums, are the most suitable for the realization of participatory projects involving the sharing of personal stories linked with the museum's collection, as well as projects involving the crowd source of objects (for example from disperse collections), because their intrinsic social content provide a platform for programs of dialogue between diverse audience. This approach is unlighted in the TAM TAM project which aims to encourage the intercultural debate among a mixed public (by origin and social and cultural background), giving everyone a real opportunity of selfrepresentation through a visitor experience characterized by the comparison between objects of affection of the participants and objects in the museum, bringing out the stories contained in the collections (Fornasini and Rampoldi 2011).

Also in urban environments, the “Light City” (Altarelli 2006) is increasingly a platform not only to expose, but also to enact cultural evidences, which require a participatory experience of the tangible and intangible heritage through projects that allow the community members to represent their presence in the places of their memory. The comparison between some of the numerous projects of urban storytelling highlights the tension between the objective to include the public voices and the need to design a meaningful experience for visitors. The project City of Memory is conceived as a means to balance the two approaches “tell your own story” and “preserve the finest stories” (Zeitlin 2011, 38) through the creation of an online repository that safeguard the identity and the memory of the intangible heritage represented through storytelling. The public voices are therefore partially filtered and organized, and partially presented without any interpretive key, with the risk that they tend to become a sum of short stories, difficult to interpret. In the project StoryCorps the dichotomy between “raw” or “cooked” (Frisch 2011, 135-136) user generated content is even more evident: more than 40,000 interviews - not accessible by the public - are archived at the Library of Congress without any curatorial intervention, while an extract of these stories, revised and edited are transmitted on the radio. In all these cases the audience contribution is in the first step of the process, (during the collaborative construction of heritage) and it is not present during the phase of experience of this heritage. In other projects all the individual contributions make an “urban database documentary” (Shapins 2011), which aims to represent the city through a narrative that includes different perspectives and that can be overwritten by the user/participant, as for example, in the case of Yellow Arrow, Mapping Main Street e Historypin.

The art museums are instead more suitable for the development of projects - in many cases led by artists who works in the field of social participation - in which participants are asked to contribute creatively in response to the proposed art work. An example is the exhibition In Your Face, hosted by the Art Gallery of Ontario with the aim of celebrating the multicultural reality of Toronto, showing portraits (self-portraits or others portraits) created by the public in a museum space next to the gallery that displays portraits by famous artists (McIntyre 2009).

9. From interpretation to conversation “If you invite people to really participate in the making of a museum, the process must change the museum.” (Spock 2009, 6) The literature overview and the analysis of case studies conducted so far highlight the need to rethink the museum as a space of inclusion, open to be interpreted and to be touched by the experience that it hosts (Bodo and Mascheroni, 2012, 48). The dialogic museum (Tchen 1992) is thus a place that led to the shift from the interpretation to the conversation around to the cultural assets (McLean 2011; Proctor 2012; Ross and 12

Speed 2012). To give visitors the role of active players does not imply a renounce of curatorial, educational and design responsibility of museum professionals, but rather it requires different and new skills with a great level of experience and knowledge. // Methodology // The research is divided into three main phases: First phase: 1.

A literature overview, referring also to other researches that are going on within the research unit DeCH-Design for Cultural Heritage. In particular I identified lines of continuity with the European project “MeLa*, Museum in an Age of Migration” (http://www.mela-project.eu/) in which fits my contribution: “Audience participation in cultural heritage: exploring the changing relationship between museums, contents and visitors enabled by digital technology”, closely related to my PhD research. I also identified many points of contact with the Davide Spallazzo’s PhD thesis “Sociality and Meaning Making in Cultural Heritage Field. Designing the Mobile Experience” (2012), also conducted within the research unit DeCH.

The mapping of different approaches taken by cultural institutions in the use of participatory processes within heritage through the selection and analysis of case studies, with the aim of identifying the main field of interest;

The development of a specific glossary of reference.

To support the analysis of case studies were used: a) Literature search; b) Personal interviews with curators and designers; c) Firsthand experiences of the analyzed project. Second phase: 1. Interpretation of the collected materials, in order to finalize the design scenarios for the development of a model of participatory experience of heritage transferable in real contexts; 2. Validation of the previous theoretical assumptions through the declination of the models in situations of design experimentation. Third phase: Analysis of results and their positioning within the up to date theoretical and scientific context and their final editing. // Ongoing actions // Since the end of June to the end of September I am working at the Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center (http://www.santacruzmah.org/) as intern in the exhibition team. I am contributing to the upcoming exhibition “Santa Cruz collects” that explores in a participatory way, the reasons why we collect things both as individuals and as institutions. The museum vision: “We envision engaged members and visitors who are increasingly passionate and knowledgeable about contemporary art and local history that celebrate our diverse community” (The Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center), reflects in the exhibit philosophy that see the engagement of Santa Cruz community as the main goal to be reached through the design of visitor experience and educational programs. I am designing now a special project that alongside the main exhibition will open in the middle of August; this exhibit puts on display some of the everyday objects commonly used in 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, focusing on their potential in enabling personal memories and conveying shared meanings, beyond their absolute value. The museum’s public will be the subject (by contributing to the exhibition with objects and stories), the curator (by voting their favorite object) and the audience, enjoying the History Gallery of the museum in a more engaging way. // References // Affleck, Janice, and Thomas Kvan. 2008. “A Virtual Community as the Context for Discursive Interpretation: A Role in Cultural Heritage Engagement.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (May): 268–280. doi:10.1080/13527250801953751. Altarelli, Lucio. 2006. Light city: la città in allestimento. Meltemi Editore srl. 13

American Association of Museums. 2008. Museums & Society 2034: Trends and Potential Futures. http://futureofmuseums.org/reading/publications/upload/MuseumsSociety203 4.pdf. Anderson, Chris. 2006. The Long Tail. Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. 1st ed. New York: Hyperion. Antonelli, Paola, Adam Bly, Lucas Dietrich, Joseph Grima, Dan Hill, John Habraken, Alex Haw, et al. 2011. “Open Source Architecture.” Domus, June. Arts Council England. 2008. Arts audiences: insight. London: Artis Council England. http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication_archive/arts-audiences-insight/. Bauwens, Michel. 2009. “The Emergence of Open Design and Open Manufacturing.” We_magazine. http://www.we-magazine.net/we-volume-02/the-emergence-ofopen-design-and-open-manufacturing/. Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press. ———. 2011. The Penguin and the Leviathan: The Triumph of Cooperation over Selfinterest. 1st ed. New York: Crown Business. Billings, Scott. 2011. “Social Media Dialogue.” MuseumNext. http://www.museumnext.org/2010/blog/social-media-dialogue. Black, Graham. 2005. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. Routledge. Bodo, Simona, Kirsten Gibbs, and Margherita Sani. 2009. Museums as places for intercultural dialogue: selected practices from Europe. MAP for ID Group. Bodo, Simona, and Silvia Mascheroni. 2012. Educare Al Patrimonio in Chiave Interculturale. Guida Per Educatori e Mediatori Museali. Strumenti. Settore Educazione. MIlano: Fondazione Ismu. Bollo, Alessandro. 2008. “Nuovi scenari e vecchie liturgie del consumo culturale. Che cosa accade e perché è così difficile prevedere il presente.” In L’arte dello spettatore: il pubblico della cultura tra bisogni, consumi e tendenze, by Francesco De Biase, 143–155. Milano: F. Angeli. Bonney, Rick, Heidi Ballard, Rebecca Jordan, Ellen McCallie, Tina Phillips, Jennifer Shirk, and Candie C. Wilderman. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. Washington, D.C: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Brabham, D. C. 2008. “Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14 (February 1): 75–90. doi:10.1177/1354856507084420. Brafman, Ori, and Rod A. Beckstrom. 2006. The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. Penguin. Brown, Alan, Jennifer Novak-Leonard, and Shelly Gilbride. 2011. Getting In On the Act. How Arts Groups Are Creating Opportunities for Active Participation. Irvine Foundation. http://irvine.org/images/stories/pdf/grantmaking/Getting-in-onthe-act-2011OCT19.pdf. Casey, Michael E., and Laura C. Savastinuk. 2007. Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service. Information Today, Inc. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers. Cataldo, Lucia. 2011. Dal museum theatre al digital storytelling. Nuove forme della comunicazione museale fra teatro, multimedialità e narrazione. FrancoAngeli. Ciolfi, Luigina, Liam J. Bannon, and Mikael Fernström. 2008. “Visitors’ Contributions as Cultural Heritage: Designing for Participation.” Tafter Journal 2 (47). http://www.tafterjournal.it/2008/01/17/i-contributi-dei-visitatori-comepatrimonio-culturale-il-design-per-la-partecipazione/. Clifford, James. 1997. “Museums as Contact Zones.” In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, by James Clifford. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Corsane, Gerard. 2005. “Issues in Heritage, Museums and Galleries.” In Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, by Gerhard Corsane, 1–14. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. daPonte, Jason. 2012. “Connected Environment” presented at the MuseumNext, Barcelona. Diamond, Sara. 2005. “Participation, Flow, and the Redistribution of Authorship: The Challenges of Collaborative Exchange and New Media Curatorial Practice.” In Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings, ed. Jennifer Trant and David 14

Bearman. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/diamond/diamond.html. Dindler, Christian, Peter G. Krogh, Sofie Beck, Liselott Stenfelt, Kaspar Rosengreen Nielsen, and Kaj Grønbæk. 2007. “Peephole Experiences: Field Experiments with Mixed Reality Hydroscopes in a Marine Center.” In , 2. ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1389908.1389934. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1389908.1389934. Ericsson. 2011. Traffic and Market Data Report. http://www.ericsson.com/news/120222_interim_traffic_and_market_data_repo rt_covers_growth_in_subscriptions_voice_traffic_and_mobile_data_244159020 _c. Eschenfelder, Kristin R., and Michelle Caswell. 2010. “Digital Cultural Collections in an Age of Reuse and Remixes.” First Monday 15 (11) (November 1). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3 060/2640. European Commission, and Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media. 2011. The New Renaissance. Report of the “Comité Des Sages” on Bringing Europe’s Cultural Heritage Online. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/refgroup /final_report_cds.pdf Europeana. 2011. “Strategic Plan 2011-2015.” http://pro.europeana.eu/web/guest/search?p_p_auth=PUpJEh5U&p_p_id=20& p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=exclusive&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column2&p_p_col_count=1&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fget_file&_2 0_groupId=10602&_20_folderId=370691&_20_name=13464. Falk, John Howard. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Left Coast Press. Fiormonte, Domenico, Teresa Numerico, and Francesca Tomasi. 2010. L’umanista digitale. Bologna: Il mulino. Fornasini, Lara, and Paola Rampoldi. 2011. “TAM TAM - Tutti Al Museo.” Patrimonio e Intercultura. http://fondazione.ismu.org/patrimonioeintercultura/index.php?page=esperienz e-show.php&id=80. Frisch, Michael. 2011. “From a Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen and Back.” In Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 126 – 137. Philadelphia, PA, Walnut Creek: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage; Distributed by Left Coast Press. Gee, James Paul. 2005. “Semiotic Social Spaces and Affinity Spaces.” In Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context, ed. David Barton and Karin Tusting, 243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gere, Charles. 1997. “Museums, Contact Zones and the Internet.” In Museum Interactive Multimedia 1997: Cultural Heritage Systems Design and Interfaces. Selected Papers from Ichim97. Le Louvre, Paris, France: Archives & Museum Informatics. http://www.archimuse.com/publishing/ichim97/gere.pdf. Giaccardi, Elisa. 2011. “Things We Value.” Interactions 18 (January 1): 17. doi:10.1145/1897239.1897245. Giovagnoli, Max. 2009. Cross-media. Le nuove narrazioni. Apogeo. Goetz, Thomas. 2003. “Open Source Everywhere.” Wired, November. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html. Greenfield, Adam. 2006. Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. New Riders. Hein, George. 1991. “Constructivist Learning Theory.” In The Museum and the Needs of People. Jerusalem, Israel. http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html. Holley, Rose. 2010. “Crowdsourcing: How and Why Should Libraries Do It?” D-Lib Magazine 16 (March). doi:10.1045/march2010-holley. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/holley/03holley.html. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 1995. Museum, Media, Message. Routledge. ———. 2000. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. Routledge. Howe, Jeff. 2006. “Crowdsourcing: A Definition.” http://www.crowdsourcing.com/cs/2006/06/crowdsourcing_a.html. IOM. 2010. World Migration Report. Geneva: International Organization for Migration. publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/WMR_2010_ENGLISH.pdf. Ippolita. 2005. Open non è free. Comunità digitali tra etica hacker e mercato globale. Milano: Elèuthera. http://www.ippolita.net/files/open_non_e_free_ippolita.pdf. 15

Jenkins, Henry. 2009. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MIT Press. Johnson, L., S. Adams, and H. Witchey. 2011. The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 Museum Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/publications/horizon-report-2011-museum-edition. Lanier, Jaron. 2010. You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto. Penguin Adult. Leder, Kerstin, Angelina Karpovich, Maria Burke, Chris Speed, Andrew Hudson-Smith, Simone O’Callaghan, Morna Simpson, et al. 2010. “Tagging Is Connecting: Shared Object Memories as Channels for Sociocultural Cohesion.” M/C Journal of Media and Culture 13 (1). Lévy, Pierre. 2002. L’intelligenza collettiva. Per un’antropologia del cyberspazio. Trans. Maria Colò and Donata Feroldi. Milano: Feltrinelli Editore. Li, Charlene. 2007. Social Technographics, Mapping Participation in Activities Forms The Foundation Of A Social Strategy. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Research. http://www.icsd.aegean.gr/website_files/proptyxiako/277846938.pdf. Lovink, Geert. 2008. Zero Comments  : Teoria Critica Di Internet. Milano: B. Mondadori. MacArthur, Matthew. 2011. “Get Real! The Role of Objects in the Digital Age.” In Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 56 – 67. Philadelphia, PA  :;Walnut Creek  :: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage; Distributed by Left Coast Press. Malone, Thomas W., Robert Laubacher, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2009. Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence. Working Paper No. 2009-001. Center for Collective Intelligence Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://cci.mit.edu/publications/CCIwp2009-01.pdf. McIntyre, Gillian. 2009. “In Your Face: The Peoples Portrait Project.” Exhibitionist (http://name-aam.org/uploads/downloadables/EXH.fall_09/10-EXH_fall09_InYour-Face-The-Peoples-Portrait-Project_McIntyre.pdf). http://nameaam.org/uploads/downloadables/EXH.fall_09/10-EXH_fall09_In-Your-FaceThe-Peoples-Portrait-Project_McIntyre.pdf. McLean, Kathleen. 1987. “A Case for Evaluation: The Brooklyn Children’s Museum.” Children’s Environments Quarterly 4 (1): 24 – 29. ———. 2011. “Whose Questions, Whose Conversation?” In Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 70 – 79. Philadelphia, PA, Walnut Creek: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage; Distributed by Left Coast Press. Menichinelli, Massimo, and Francesca Valsecchi. 2007. “Le comunità del Free Software come organizzazioni complesse. Il ruolo del design verso una cultura Open Knowledge.” In Cosenza. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2007/04/paper_menichinelli_valsecchi_23_04_07.pdf. Metitieri, Fabio. 2009. Il Grande Inganno Del Web 2.0. 1. ed. Roma [etc.]: GLF editori Laterza. Morace, Francesco. 2008. Consum-Autori. Le generazioni come imprese creative. Libri Scheiwiller. Morelli, Alberto, Stefano Scarani, and Elisa Giardina Papa. 2010. Sound design: progettare il suono. Bologna: Pitagora. Mulgan, Geoff, Tom Steinberg, and Omar Salem. 2005. “Wide Open. Open Source Methods and Their Future Potential”. Demos. http://www.clickadvisor.com/downloads/Mulgan_Demos_Report_Open_Sourc e_Methods_and_Potential.pdf. Nielsen, Jakob. 2006. “‘90-9-1’ Rule for Participation Inequality: Lurkers Vs. Contributors in Internet Communities.” Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html. O’Reilly, Tim. 2005. “What Is Web 2.0.” O’Reilly Media. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. Proctor, Nancy. 2012. “Opening Keynote” presented at the MuseumNext, Barcelona. Quinn, Alexander J., and Benjamin B. Bederson. 2011. “Human Computation: a Survey and Taxonomy of a Growing Field.” In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1403–1412. CHI ’11. New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979148. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979148. Richardson, Jim. 2010. “Incomplete Manifesto for the MuseumNext.” MuseumNext. http://www.museumnext.org/2010/blog/incomplete-manifesto. Ross, Claire, and Chris Speed. 2012. “Smart Smart Objects for Direct and Transient Public Engagement in Museum Spaces and Social Networks” presented at the MuseumNext, Barcelona. 16

Sachatello-Sawyer, Bonnie. 2002. Adult Museum Programs: Designing Meaningful Experiences. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira. Satwicz, Tom, and Kris Morrissey. 2011. “Public Curation: From Trend to ResearchBased Practice.” In Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a Usergenerated World, by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 196 – 204. Philadelphia, PA, Walnut Creek: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage; Distributed by Left Coast Press. Shapins, Jesse. 2011. “Mapping the Urban Database Documentary.” In Urban Geographers: Independent Filmmakers and the City, ed. Mark Street. Berghahn Books,. http://jesseshapins.net/downloads/Shapins_MappingUrbanDatabaseDocumen tary.pdf. Sierra, Albert. 2012. “Apps De Patrimoni: Fora De Les Parets Del Museu” presented at the L’era digital: què estem fent els museus catalans? En el marc de MuseumNext, Barcelona. http://www.slideshare.net/asierra.re. Simon, Nina. 2010. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0. http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/. Spock, Daniel. 2009. “Museum Authority Up for Grabs: The Latest Thing or Following a Long Thread Line?” Exhibitionist (Fall 2009: Visitor-Generated Content and Design). http://name-aam.org/uploads/downloadables/EXH.fall_09/4EXH_fall09_Museum-Authority-Up-for-Grabs--The-Latest-thing-or-Followinga-Long-Thread-Line_Spock.pdf. Tchen, John Kuo Wei. 1992. “Creating a Dialogic Museum: The Chinatown History Museum Experiment.” In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, by Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven Lavine. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. The Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center. “About.” http://www.santacruzmah.org/about/. Tilden, Freeman, and R. Bruce Craig. 2007. Interpreting Our Heritage. University of North Carolina Press. Turci, Mario, and Jessica Anelli. 2009. “‘Storie Plurali’. Il Museo Guatelli, Oggetti e Storie Di Vita.” Patrimonio e Intercultura. http://fondazione.ismu.org/patrimonioeintercultura/index.php?page=esperienz e-show.php&id=48. Uribe, Francesc, and Cristina Serradell. 2012. “El Nucli De Les Col·leccions Del Museu: Informació Millorada Per La Comunitat” presented at the L’era digital: què estem fent els museus catalans? En el marc de MuseumNext, Barcelona. Wils, Hein, and Ferry Piekart. 2012. “We Used Augmented Reality, Now What?” presented at the MuseumNext, Barcelona. Wunsch-Vincent, Sacha, and Graham Vickery. 2006. Participative Web: User-created Content. OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf. Zeitlin, Steve. 2011. “Where Are the Best Stories? Where Is My Story? Participation and Curation in a New Media Age.” In Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-generated World, by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 34 – 43. Philadelphia, PA, Walnut Creek: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage; Distributed by Left Coast Press.

// Attachment A //

SELECTED CASE STUDIES (ANALYSED IN DEPHT) Audience participation in the interpretation of existing heritage BibPhone Diritti al cubo Dulwich OnView Hydroscope MappaMi Museomix Parlamentarium QRator Scapes TAM TAM

Audience participation in the collection and in the creation of heritage 9/11 Memorial exhibition archive BrangulĂ was here. What about you? City of memory Doha memories Give me your children: voices of the Lodz Ghetto Intangible cultural heritage inventory in Portugal Nationale automatiek StoryCorps Telling our story Your family history of World War One

// Attachment B //

CASE STUDIES ANALYSIS TEMPLATE Name of the project: Year: Institution that hosts/promote the project: Developers: Description

Why the case is of interest for the research

Objectives (point of view of cultural institution)

Outcomes for the audience

Length of intervention TEMPORARY

PERMANENT

Context MUSEUM LOCAL

HISTORY

LIBRARY

ART

URBAN ENVIRONMENT

SCIENCE

Environment PHISYCAL

VIRTUAL

Area of influence LOCAL

GLOBAL

Participatory model (Simon 2010) CONTRIBUTORY

COLLABORATIVE

CO-CREATIVE

Participants’ level of creative control on contents (Brown, Novak-Leonard, and Gilbride 2011) CURATORIAL

INTERPRETIVE

INVENTIVE

Type of social experience PERSONAL

SOCIAL

Participants’ target (Falk 2009) … Contents’ type TANGIBLE

INTANGIBLE

PHISYCAL

DIGITAL (BOTH NATIVE AND DIGITISED)

Type of access to digital contents (only in case of digital contents) LIMITED

OPEN

CURATOR CURATED

PUBLIC CURATED

Curation of UGC Tools enabling the participatory practices DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

OTHER

…

Operative insights

References