Summary of the Contribution and Limitation of this Thesis

An answer to the research question “How can we design for museum-com- munity involvement in exhibitions” was superficially proposed in article number five (Article 5). In that article we explain the need to think holisti- cally while designing for participation in the museum context. As the notion of “thinking holistically” did not enable me to truly understand fine distinc- tions in the design process, I developed the concept of ecology of participation while analysing the case studies presented here. Later I reformulate my re- search question as how to create interactive design that encourages museum community participation in exhibitions. The groups within the ecology and their possible relations helped to analyse each case study and the oppor- tunities for intervention they presented. By implementing this concept, it is possible to understand the opportunities that appear with each specific design process and artefact. The concept of ecology of participation maps the groups involved in a museum context and thus makes it possible to bet- ter understand participation in a given project. The groups in this ecology are the interactive piece, the community, and the places and practices that are part of the museum. My argument is that it is vital to understand and contemplate all these groups and their components when designing for par- ticipation. Participation needs to be grounded on existing resources, people and practices at the museum. Another important issue is collaboration and integration of these groups, both during the design process and the exhibi- tion. The ecology of participation aims to provide resources to support and motivate the implementation of digital tools not only for visitors but also for all the other actors in the community. The interactive pieces deployed during this research provide an arena for exploration with different mul- timedia resources and creative means to connect with the material in the exhibition.

The set of hypotheses articulates the rest of the research endeavour. In Chapter 4 I present them and explore them through the examples provided in the case studies. The hypotheses are that community-created content: • Serves to make content accessible to new audiences

• Extends people’s engagement with the exhibition material over a period of time

• Supports the learning that takes place in the exhibition by engaging people actively

• Validates multiple perspectives

120 Chapter 5. Conclusions Chapter 5. Conclusions 121 • Helps to identify and integrate new members of the community and un-

derstand their expectations of museum exhibitions

• Brings complementary documentation and interpretative material to bear on the artefacts in the exhibition.

I compiled a list of the positive results of encouraging the community to engage with the exhibition through the use of digital media tools such as the ones used in my cases. By highlighting the possible benefits while creating, compiling and displaying this content, I purposefully avoid all the discus- sion about the organisational changes needed to forge a more open culture of participation. The fears and contradictions that museums face in opening up new channels for participation are presented briefly in Section 5.2.3, “Lis- ten and Trust the Community”.

This thesis argues for a cross-disciplinary, cross-institutional and partici- patory approach to interaction design that aims to involve as many members of the community as possible.

5.1.1 Sustainability Issues

Although the three case studies are presented in the first chapter as a con- tinuous endeavour or narrative, they were not perceived as such at the mu- seums with which I collaborated. Nonetheless, the whole project of sewing the three case studies together serves to demonstrate that sometimes “an interactive co-exploring of the design space” (Mattelmäki, 2008, p. 65) can happen in a succession of cases. In this way, the sustainability of the endeav- our happens across projects and is not the burden of each one. However, the issue of sustainability is complex and must be further reviewed.

I distinguish two key concerns in this work: how museums bring about community involvement through this practice of creating and sharing con- tent related to the exhibitions, and how museum community-created con- tent is gathered, selected, preserved and exhibited.

Regarding the first, there is a need for museum community-created con- tent to become an integrated part of the exhibition before, during and after it takes place in the form of material exhibited at the exhibition. Research work in this field, including mine, tries to help in the dissemination and ac- ceptance of open culture in museums and exhibition venues.

(…) Commons-based peer production, and social production more generally, are not only sustainable but actually efficient ways of organizing information production (Benkler, 2006, p. 107).

Following Yochai Blenker, a researcher of the networked information econ- omy, I claim that museums and exhibition venues will in the future value community-created content and adopt peer production as a means to enrich and complete the documentation on their collections as well as to enhance the visit experience.

In relation to the second concern of how museum community-created content is gathered, selected, preserved and exhibited, I make two points. First, the question of how to gather content relates to the work of designers, mainly, in these cases, interaction designers. Second, questions of conserva- tion and exhibition are connected to museums’ views of the relevance of the collected material. Significantly, questions about the preservation of this dig- ital material were not discussed in these cases. It was taken for granted that there are resources to update and maintain the servers and, hence, that the material would be preserved. According to the experience during these case studies, it is crucial to design for participation not only before and during the exhibition, but also after it, in order to ensure that the community-created content can be retrieved, re-used and made available to future researchers. Saving, preserving and collecting the material gathered is one way to show interest in listening to the community, and it is essential throughout the whole process.

5.1.2 Limitations

The combination of these three elements – the designer, the resources, and the situation – is always unique, which makes every design process an ultimate par-

ticular (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2007, p. 9).

The conclusions presented here are drawn from an analysis of the case stud- ies and the conditions in which they were implemented. These conditions were influenced by the Finnish cultural, social, and technological context in which the studies took place. Though Finland is active in technological re- search, development and innovation (Tekes, 2008) the situation in Finnish museums does not reflect this. At the risk of overgeneralising it is possible to state that museums in Finland are not active participants in the discussion about open culture and do not contribute actively to the development of new technologies for their use. There are many reasons for this, and it is not the aim of this thesis to delve into them, but rather to describe the conditions in which this project was realised. Though goals have been set to improve accessibility by developing online services and digitalising collections (OPM Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 19), the reality is that museums in Finland do not have the necessary support to invest in the development of new media

122 Chapter 5. Conclusions Chapter 5. Conclusions 123 technology that would meet their current needs. The museums with which

I have collaborated are not exceptions in terms of these issues; information technology services in Finnish museums are mainly outsourced or one-per- son efforts. Similarly, in Finland little has been done regarding the inclusion of museum community-created content.

According to Peter Samis (2008a) “Part of our task is to encourage visitors to slow down (…) to take their own time” (p. 10). Not only visitors need to slow down, but also the people involved in making projects for museums, including designers. Unfortunately, at the moment in the museum field few resources are devoted to reflecting on design issues.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that this work was done in Finland. The Media Lab at the University of Art and Design in Helsinki pro- vided me with the necessary institutional and financial support.

Another important issue to take into account is that computer literacy in Finland is high (Statistics Finland, 2008), and therefore the level of partici- pation in new technologies in Finnish museums might be higher than in other countries.

Certain factors, such as the way the collaboration was framed in each of these cases, render this study atypical. Though there had been some prior collaboration between the University of Art and Design Helsinki and some of the museums involved, each of these endeavours was unique. Limited gen- eralisation is warranted because of the different groups that were involved in the ecology of participation and its reliance on the human factor.

This thesis encourages an open culture in the museum by giving voice to visitors, museum staff members previously unheard, and external collabora- tors both in the gallery and online. As part of the design practice I recognised the need to provide interactive pieces and their related ecologies to support the collaboration of many of the actors in this community. In this way, I advocate changing curatorial practices to allow for participation.