Community Engagement, WooHoo!

In our last class we were joined by Monica Montgomery who was a wonderful guest lecturer.  She had a sense of purpose that was empowering and contagious.  I left the class with a feeling of optimism to which I completely contribute to Monica and the passion with which she talked about the importance of community engagement.  She began her lecture by going around and asking each of us who we were, what our favorite museum is, and what we are interested in learning.  She remarked on how different and broad our interests were which also surprised me.  I got the feeling that she would have liked to touch on every area of interest in the room.  I really appreciated this because it showed us on a real level just how interested she is in making people feel welcome and valued.  Some of the buzzwords that she kept circling back to: diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Monica is a Cultural Diversity Consultant for museums and institutions and has worked around the country.  She is also the Strategic Director of Museum Hue which works towards creating space for people to grow and get their needs met with a special focus on people of color.  The reason for focusing on this specific group is that their needs aren’t being met elsewhere.  Among other things, Museum Hue provides professional workshops in an effort to increase the trickle-up of people of color in the museum world.  I loved this idea for a number of different reasons.  First, I always think it is beneficial to attend workshops and conferences where people can learn from other professionals, network, and grow.  Second, it can be difficult in this economy to get a job, even if you have gone through all the schooling and accrued all the debt.  Any type of opportunity to connect with fellow professionals would be welcome to any fellow graduate student I know.  Third, it’s great that the fact that a lot of people don’t have access to or can afford to attend such things as workshops and conferences where the networking, learning, and growing happens.  The fact that Monica has seen this void and has taken action to fill it with informative, inclusive, and productive activities like workshops with professionals is a big deal!  The creation of this type of group takes dedication, foresight, insight, and a lot of talent in dealing with people on a respectful level.  If you couldn’t tell, I was impressed with Monica on pretty much every level.

She talked of her time working with a historical house and certain things she has done to promote community engagement.  One of the things she did was have a cook-out for the neighborhood which sounded inclusive and fun.  I think something like this is a really important thing for GLAM institutions to think about because sometimes “community” can seem like a closed group.  Monica asked us to think about what “community” means to us and how it affects our lives.  We discussed this with partners and I feel like I took a more pessimistic view than most of the class.  I think the reason for this pessimism is the fact that I have been accepted into several different communities with open arms but I was the one that made the effort, not the other way around.  It was mentioned that it is really important for institutions to focus on community-focused engagement year-round as opposed to a designated month, week, or day on which the museum focuses this attention.  If community engagement is how the museum reaches out to the community, then focusing on one specific group for a designated period of time and ignoring them for the rest of the year only acts as a way to fetishize their “other”ness.  As a result, this can turn people off as insulting and demeaning.  I am not saying that attention shouldn’t be called to interacting with and engaging the communities around a certain institution!  I am merely saying that these types of engagement efforts need to be considered in everything the museum does, not just a once-a-year thing.

I appreciated some of the last things Monica left us with after her lecture.  She encouraged us to go outside and get involved and to involve those who are interested.  This interest leads to a real investment and does not go unnoticed.  She also told us to identify our existing strengths.  I’m not sure whether she meant the existing strengths of the institution we end up working in or our own personal strengths.  I have a feeling that if I were to ask her which, she would have told me that it is important to identify and utilize both.  This isn’t something that I think about a lot—the particular strengths of an institution.  Something I feel like they are just inherent and they are there just because they are there.  I rarely think about the behind-the-scenes details of what it takes to create the connection between institution and individual.  I am so excited that I was able to be present for this guest lecture because it has allowed me to think of engagement in a different, very optimistic way that I can now utilize in my future professional life.

Potential Roles of Social Media in the Museum World

Last class we had the pleasure of having Mark Schlemmer, the Associate Registrar for Collections at New-York Historical Society and Museum Advocate, as our guest lecturer.  He talked with us about his Twitter @ITweetMuseums as well as the impact social media can play in the museum world today.  @ITweetMuseums is a non-affiliated, independent initiative designed to encourage and support all museum staff to tweet museum-relevant content from their personal accounts.  Mark explained to us that he started @ITweetMuseums out of necessity and frustration.  There was a lack of pathways for museum professionals to find others in their field who had similar areas of interest or experience.  Through this Twitter handle, museum professionals can engage with one another via scheduled chats, tweet-ups, live tweets, exhibit tweets, and anything else that encourages dialogue.  Tweet-ups are in-person meet-ups that can help hone tweeting skills, to network, to emphasize more creative ways to tell a narrative about your museum’s holdings, and to experiment.  The chats are online and open to the public and can therefore be accessed and engaged with by the general public, museum professionals, and students.  They are designed to probe specific topics and to encourage a growing dialogue that can be used to create resources.

Mark spoke of challenges that the museum world still faces but with the overall air of optimism that things are constantly improving.  I really appreciated his comment of how Twitter chats allow for students, incoming professionals, and seasoned professionals to connect in a different, more informal way.  This not only makes you, as a person, more visible via social media, it also creates a more even, less intimidating field in which you can converse and learn on the same level.  By this I mean that you won’t be branded as a “just a student” if you were to join in a chat where museum professionals were giving their opinion.  It isn’t like a conference, there is more available to make you visible on social media if you are sharing the best and most relevant things you know.  In this way, @ITweetMuseums draws increasingly more pathways to more information.

I very much enjoyed listening to Mark talk about this initiative and how it has grown and been beneficial to the museum world.  As a student, I hadn’t thought too much about the idea that I need to/should start to establish my social media presence as an incoming professional, regardless of the field.  Once Mark said it and started to elaborate on the point, it made a lot of sense.  Maybe I had been dragging my feet about it since I didn’t want to come in and be “just a student.”  It’s an intimidating notion!  However, it also struck a note when we discussed the matter of relative anonymity on social media.  I may be a student but I also have valid ideas and good points when it comes down to it and my opinions wouldn’t be discarded because of my lack of experience or age on something like @ITweetMuseums.  This may be a different story if I were to approach a discussion of the same magnitude at a conference or panel discussion.  Social media provides a certain amount of freedom to explore with others the social media presence of the museum world and everything that links to it without the stereotypes that often mar face-to-face interactions.  As a result, correct professional use of Twitter can lead to professional development of relevant job skills, peer networking, increased visibility, culture sharing, and the creation of a professionally-focused social media presence which is a valuable asset in this digital-forward world.

I think this last part, the creation of a professionally-focused social media presence, is extremely important for young people to understand.  I know a lot of people know that potential employers check your online presence but I think I had always underestimated the beneficial side to promoting yourself in a forward way via professional social media participation.  I think this is mainly because there is so much junk out there on social media that it seems almost impossible to be able to wade through the weeds of nonsense to get to the golden nugget of usable information that I would enjoy following or participating in.  As many people know, there is a steep learning curve with something like Twitter.  It takes time and a certain level of skill to navigate through and find what/who you are looking for.  It also takes skill to learn how to crop what you want to say down to 140 characters.  As a person who likes punctuation and dislikes the shortening of words, this can be a difficult hump to get over.  I have only ever created a Twitter account for school purposes, where a semester-long participation grade was based upon your tweets and responses to classmate’s tweets.  I found this weird and demanding and frustrating because I would get overwhelmed by the amount of content I was being asked to continually follow!  As the semester’s workload increased, I found that I wasn’t able to devote that time to reading through people’s tweets and opinions and would be frustrated that I was mandated to respond to a certain number of people.  As a result, I think I formed a dislike for Twitter and was surprised to find my feelings had changed by the end of Mark’s lecture on the benefits of Twitter and other social media platforms.  He brought up a lot of things that I never would have considered to be beneficial to myself because I hadn’t considered them in a professional capacity.  His optimism was contagious and I am actually interested in moving forward in an effort to establish my professional social media presence which seems, more apparently than ever before, can only help me as I move from graduate school into the professional world.

Visit to the AMNH!

Last week we traveled to the American Museum of Natural History.  At first I was a little disappointed because several areas of the museum were closed which meant I couldn’t see the whale, about which I had heard so much!  Luckily, there was so much to see, I dealt with this blow.  Another thing that made the visit a little difficult at first was due to their wi-fi being down.  This was apparently a total fluke because, from what everyone told us, it is usually very strong and reliable.  These two factors were my first encounter with the museum which left a bit of a shadow over my experience.  I can say, however, that this perception was totally changed by the end of the visit after having a class discussion with our fill-in guest lecturer (I say “fill-in” because our scheduled lecturer couldn’t make it due to a personal issue).

As we arrived, we were given our MicroRanger coins for our tour and encouraged to explore the app in the museum.  Unfortunately, because of the lack of wi-fi I was unable to download the Explorer or MicroRanger apps so I tagged along with one of my classmates who had downloaded it ahead of time.  Even though I wasn’t interacting with it personally, it was still a lot of fun and very impressive.  The graphics of our digital guide and persona were really cool, talking us through what we had to do.  I thought one of the best parts of the experience was that each “quest” gave us a goal and taught us a lesson.  The challenges were difficult which made us feel a little more invested to win and “save” the animal from whatever ailment they were suffering from.  There are three levels, cadet, basic, and advanced, which allows for growth and progression with continued visitors.  I like this idea—the game pauses wherever you leave it which means that you can pause and pick up where you left off even if you go home in between playing.  While it is geared primarily towards kids above 7, I can absolutely see how most kids, as well adults, could really get into this experience.

After our hour or so of exploring the museum through the MicroRangers app, we were able to have a discussion with our fill-in lecturer and learn more about it.  One of the greatest things I heard was the description of how MicroRangers came to be.  ANMH had two groups of high school students from all over the city who learned about game design to help make the app usable.  They also created the dialogue that the visitors hear when playing MicroRangers, with the goal of making it interesting and informative.  We were told that a lot of the choices that we see on the app were based on what the students wanted.  The project took over two years to bring it to where it is now, having been in use in the museum for just under a year now.  The MicroRangers coins, which are weighty and pleasant to hold, are given out for free when a visitor goes up to the second floor and signs up to receive e-mail from the museum.  If a visitor opts out of giving his or her e-mail, there are post-cards around the first floor that does the same thing as the coin, still allowing access to the game.  One thing that I was confused about for a while as I carried my MicroRangers coin around the museum with me was the uncertainty of whether or not the coin was magnetic.  We finally decided that it wasn’t, and that it stuck to our phones because of the tacky center part but I felt that it would be a good feature if it could in some way attach itself to your phone so that you don’t lose it or drop it…as was the case with me.

The MicroRanger experience only takes place on the first floor because it is the easiest to manage and explore for visitors logistically.  Even though the MicroRangers app only works on the first floor, the Explorer app continues to track your movements throughout the museum, alerting you through your phone vibrating to things that you are near in the museum.  I like that this was thought out this way, it shows a clear understanding of how the museum functions as a whole and how visitors make their way through the bulk of the museum.  The museum seems to keep this at the forefront of what they are trying to accomplish.  That is, trying to give people the fullest experience they can.  I think a good example of this is the discover room that is open and available for kids.  In this room are games and puzzles for kids to explore and everything can be touched and manipulated to achieve this.  As a person who loves this idea of free fun and open learning experiences, I think this is a great compromise to a standard museum visit.  Another way I felt that they were able to grab people’s attention was through the use of sounds that accompanied their exhibits.  The pairing of sounds to the physical space was wonderful to experience as a visitor, as it allowed, at least personally, for a more cohesive visit.

I think that the American Museum of Natural History did a wonderful job of incorporating a new way to experience the museum with the MicroRanger and Explorer apps.  They allow visitors to focus and learn about specific content in an overwhelmingly large content range.  It engaged the outside community and grew out of collaboration with student’s ideas and opinions.  It was mentioned that to create something like this in a museum requires people who are willing to take risks and think outside of the box.  I think the AMNH did a great job in doing this through their MicroRangers and Explorer apps, and will continue to do so as the ideas adapt and grow for the future.  Well done!

Learning Experiences Outside the Museum

Last week’s class began with another activity, this one allowing us to experience different variations on distance learning.  In small groups, we moved around the room working on and off computers to explore and form opinions of these experiences.  I have not had much, if any, experience with this type of formal distance learning so I found this to be an interesting exercise.  Maybe it was because of this that I felt like I was doing a lot of what I usually do if I have a research project.  Or when I end up perusing different sites online, often by chance.  Granted, I wouldn’t know many of these websites, but the activity made me feel like, “I would really enjoy this and find this a useful tool if I came with a specific purpose and knew what I was searching for.”  I felt this specifically with The Met’s historical timeline site.  It provided a wealth of information, branching information out and linking it to other artifacts, essays, and facts.  However, without having a search purpose, I became bored quickly.  The site wasn’t difficult to navigate but was a little clunky if you kept returning to the beginning to start again.  That being said, if I had any type of historical research project, this tool would be invaluable.

I quite enjoyed the videos from MoMA.  I thought they were extremely well thought-out and presented in a way that engaged the viewer and informed them about exhibits in an intimate way.  The videos were always on the short side but were informative, giving the viewer visual and audio connection to the exhibit or work of art.  I thought this was more engaging because it was clear what you were going to be learning about in the videos and you wouldn’t be searching for other information via something else, like you would have to do with The Met’s timeline.  The gaming site was fun but more informative for younger kids.  The games were a little frustrating because they didn’t work as well as I would have liked, and the instructions were a little clunky.  The games were, however, fun.  This is huge because some of the games took a mundane topic like recycling or genetic predisposition and turned it into an activity in which your attention is needed and therefore the potential for learning is there.

One of my biggest problems with this type of distance learning is that they all require you to be interacting with a screen.  This could be a computer screen or a cell phone screen, as we experienced with the Virtual Reality activity with Professor Devine.  Even though the VR activity was the most interactive, as it required the user to move around the room to move through the tour, it still mandates a screen to be used, inches away from a person’s face.  I wonder if there is a different type of engagement for younger people that doesn’t require them to stare at a screen?  One of the exhibits Professor Devine mentioned in class was the about the lost palace in London.  This tour did not require any screen at all, while allowing participants to fully experience the non-present space.  The VR tour is a cool idea but can have some negative aspects to it.  Like the screen being inches from a user’s face, or the dangers of walking around without paying attention to your surroundings and potentially hurting yourself and others.  Another is the sanitary issues of sharing a device that can’t be sanitized.  The one that we were using was cardboard and was greasy around the forehead and cheek areas by the time the whole class had shared it.  What if it were to get wet or dropped in something?  It would have to be thrown away.  The budget of a school may not cover expenses like these, nor should they if they are so prone to sanitary problems.  Is there a better way to do this?  Could someone create a virtual tour that takes students through a space with only audio?  I think this is something that museums should consider, especially as a way to encompass individuals with other needs and abilities.

The one thing that stood out to me while exploring this topic is the difference between distance learning and learning, period.  In the world we live in right now, is it wrong to say that most learning we are doing, if we are looking at these examples of distance learning above, is distance learning?  Listening to podcasts, downloading apps, creating web experiences, things we do every day—this is learning.  If we consider distance learning to be anything that is learned in a non-physical sense, then we are distance learning through most of our day.  I think this is an interesting thing to think about because we are so connected, all the time, that we don’t even think about distance being a thing worth worrying about.  I think the activities we did in class are valuable tools on a world-wide scale.  They allow the experience to make an impression on the user which connects them to the museum.   It expands the museum’s viewership and helps broaden the knowledge of those who take the time to go to their site.  It is a reciprocal relationship, one that allows each to learn from the other.  I think it would be great if this could go beyond that and create a deeper connection, maybe allowing for a hands-on distance experience.  Collaborating with the wider world to continue to create new, innovative, and creative ways to learn, from which everyone can continue to benefit.

How has digital shaped information and access?

Last week’s class met at The Metropolitan Museum of Art (we met at The Met)!  We were given an in-depth tour with Neal Stimler, the Third Party Partnerships Producer at The Met, who took us through the museum and talked about how the Met organizes their collections and tries to reach a broader audience through digital means.  Neal talked a lot about how museums are places that deal with constant change and that a person needs to be flexible and willing to adapt when working in the museum world.  This goes for physical changes, like exhibits and architectural changes, and less tangible changes like digital media storage and social media outreach platforms.  The Met is split between three locations.  Because of this, Neal talked about how the museum has been working to re-prioritize their digital presence to attract visitors.  The reason being that The Met is visited online by a much larger audience than ever step foot into the museum space.  I thought this was an interesting point because they are creating an online presence for people to visit the museum through digital means, not using those digital means to draw people to their physical locations.  The option to visit the museum online feels like a very modern and practical approach to the world we are living in which I thought was very neat.  It also made sense to me because of another point that was mentioned which was that museums are now competing with one another with attention economy.  They are competing for visitor’s time, money, support, and attention.  This weird commodification of museums isn’t a new concept to me, but the idea that there is a competition between museums to attract museum-goers was really interesting.  A little sad, but also interesting.  Not that it isn’t true, because I fully believe that it is an accurate statement.  I just think of the little guy, the local museum that has a fraction of the money, personnel, and expertise to create an online presence or advertise to draw in visitors.  I mean, seriously, how does one compete with a museum like The Met?  I’m not sure if they can in the grand scheme of things.

Another part of the tour that Neal talked about was the comparison he made between “art” and social media.  We can use the term art here as a general one that can encompass any tangible piece of media.  The connection he made was an interesting one that I appreciated.  He said that the use of social media as a platform to showcase our lives mimics the role art has played in history.  The action of sharing art, in museums, homes, national galleries, in churches, on the street, etc, is mirrored by social media as a way to achieve the same thing.  While social media platforms have the opportunity to reach a broader audience than someone showing their art on the street, their end goal is the same.  It was so crazy to me that sharing things on social media was an extension of what has always been done with art throughout history.  Neal talked about how all art tells a narrative.  It tells a narrative through time and history and how things have changed in the world around the artist.  In many ways, that is exactly what social media allows people to do—to share experiences or views on what is happening in the world around them.  I am so hard on social media a lot of the time because I don’t think it is healthy for people to be constantly connected, we learn how to function without that digital world.  I am guilty of this so I am not pointing any fingers, I promise!  I just thought it was such a refreshing and hopeful point of view that I had never considered before.  That’s not to say that everything is worth attention.  Much of what is out there is complete junk.  But if we are continuing along the hopeful lines of this idea, there is a lot of art out in the world that is also complete junk.  It is merely the platform that is changing.  Simply put, most of the art of our time is born digital.  Social media platforms are what our art is born out of or born from.

The idea of “digital” is a constantly evolving thing.  The turnover for technologies in museums is roughly three to six months which means that complacency can never happen.  Museums are living things.  I think that if we consider the digital aspects of museums as a permanent part of the institution, the necessity of remaining relevant will continue to drive museums forward.  I think the world being digitally dependent is a great start.  It puts the need for technology at the forefront of connecting with visitors.  Continuing the earlier optimism of technology as a means to achieve the same ends as history has always sought, who knows where digital can bring us?  The possibilities are endless, and museums are poised to be at the forefront of that connection with the world on an increasingly personal level.

Museums and Social Interactions

I can’t believe how quickly this term has gone!  It’s been a few weeks since I have posted a blog post and this week’s discussion is all about museums and technology encouraging social interaction and participation.  Our class started with two activities, split between the class so that everyone could participate in both.  The first activity I participated in asked our group to build a structure that could hold a notebook using only the tools provided (straws, lollipop sticks, tape).  This was very much an activity that required interaction between group members in order to fulfill the requirements and in the time allotted.  While certain members took more of a leading role, as it often common with these types of activities, everyone was able to take part and help in the completion of our structure.  After this was done, the groups switched and my group then sat, one to a computer, and played “Oregon Trail” online.  Maybe it was because we had the activity that required communication first or maybe we are just a naturally chatty group but we continued our conversations with one another, even though we were all playing different variations of the same game.  This was different to the first group at the computers who hardly talked to one another at all.  They did seem to open up at the table for the structure-building activity.

I think these types of contrasting activities are good yet simple ways to see how different types of games can influence the way a person or a group of people can interact with a space or exhibit or museum as a whole.  This depends on a few things, however.  I personally know many people who go to museums on their own because they can’t stand going with other people.  This may be because they just like to experience the space on their own or make their own interpretations or simply to go at their own pace and take the time to enjoy the experience.  Alternatively, I also know people who wouldn’t dare go to a museum without someone else.  These are typically very social people who like to talk and bounce ideas and thoughts off of others.  If we are talking about someone who enjoys going to museums on their own, I think it is expected that there will always be people who will not wish to take part, regardless of the proposed interaction.  But then I ask myself, what exactly constitutes as “participation”?  Social interaction?  This could get super personal!  What if there are physical barriers that prohibit a person from participating in the normal means but leaves with a feeling of fulfillment?  Could someone listening and watching be considered a participant?  This could lead us down one serious rabbit hole of hypotheticals.  I think the point that I’m trying to wrap my head around is the same one I always seem to have trouble with—the fact that every person, adult or child, is so different and can experience things in a variety of different ways.  I don’t like the idea of placing a person in a box of social interaction or participation because that is defined as one or more persons.  Why can’t one get just as much from being outside the actual interaction while being mentally involved?  I totally understand that this is not able to be measured and that I am probably asking a whole lot for the museum world to try and shift their idea of what is or is not participation.  I am not asking for miracles.  I merely pose this as an idea that should at least be considered, especially since the population served is so diverse.  It would be a disservice not to look at this idea from every angle.

As always, it is important to consider the goals of a particular museum.  Would an individual that likes going to museums on their own choose to go to a museum that offers highly interactive or personal activities in order to get the full experience?  Would it be weird if this type of person is interested but just wants to go and watch others participate?  Is that an acceptable form of participation?  Does it encourage social interaction with the exhibit?  Does it require another person to take part?  Does it promote dialogue with others?  I liked one of the examples that Professor Devine showed us about the museum who was trying to draw in more visitors and so had an evening with cocktails and appetizers.  This was paired with some seating that almost required a dialogue between the two people sitting.  The seats were faced opposite from one another but connected so that they were directly side-by-side putting those two people in close proximity to one another.  I thought this was clever because it does a few things.  This type of event draws in people who are at least mildly interested in what the museum has to offer, understands what the museum is trying to do by putting on such an event, and are looking to socialize.  This would be one of those times when I think most, if not all, visitors would be going with the goal of socializing at least on a minimal level.

We talked in class about humans being naturally social creatures.  This is important to remember.  It is also important to remember that every human perceives the world just a little bit, or a lot bit, differently than you or me.  It is because of these differences that I always take the ideas of participation and social interaction with a grain of salt.  These can be so dramatically different for different people.  Luckily, the museum world is one which often heightens the awareness of these differences, working on a global scale to try and make every visit for every visitor as meaningful an experience as possible.

Technology + Museums = access to all visitors?

As I have talked about in one of my previous blogposts, I have worked closely with individuals with developmental disabilities for the past 8 years.  Many of the individuals I have worked with are non-verbal and non-ambulatory meaning that they do not communicate through conventional means and get around in a wheelchair.  It is because of the connection I have with this community that I feel very strongly about the nature of accessibility to people of all abilities.  It is also the reason that I focus so heavily on the needs of individuals with developmental and physical disabilities.  I have been to doctor’s offices, museums, zoos, parks, movie theatres, beaches, and various homes with my residents which has given me the knowledge and understanding of what it takes to make a place accessible to everyone.  As a healthcare advocate, I find that much of the handicap accessible technology is not easy to navigate when pushing a wheelchair and communicating with the individual I am assisting.  Even something as simple as automatic doors that open when a handicap button is pushed.  They are often to the side of the door, in an inconvenient spot that is hard to reach, whether you’re the person operating the wheelchair or the person assisting by pushing the wheelchair.  Almost inevitably, you have to negotiate the space so that you approach the button, move to the side of the wheelchair to push the button, and then move backwards to get out of the way of the opening door.  Not to mention that there have been many situations where I am trying to accomplish all of this on a sloped sidewalk, making the maneuvering of the wheelchair a safety concern unless you put the brakes on.

While this may seem like I am harping on the small stuff, these are things I have encountered time and time again.  Can you guess what bothers me most about this?  I am most bothered by the fact that, while attempting to make things more accessible, the difficulty to make these things work as a caregiver often highlights the resident’s disability.  The struggle to even make it through a door in a doctor’s office calls more attention to the individual I am assisting than is normal for a large wheelchair to be maneuvered in and around a tight space.  These basic design flaws only add to the discussion that needs to happen when talking about something like universal design.  The primary objective should be to create a space where a person’s other-abled-ness is overlooked simply because it is not highlighted due to the surroundings.  It is amazing what architecture can do to make people look at things differently.  For many people, in order to get anywhere, they rely on a staff or family member to transport them from place A to and through place B.  If they are non-ambulatory, there is a large lift van that becomes their transportation.  They are helped onto the van and off of the van when the destination has been reached.  From the very beginning their disability has become the focal point of their visit, simply based on where they are able to park.  I so wish this wasn’t the case, but some changes may take longer to make than others.

In terms of my museum visits during which I was pushing a wheelchair, there are a few things I found that called more attention to the disabilities of the individuals than necessary.  Most of the time, I find that the descriptive text for exhibits are not nearly low enough for the residents I serve and there could always be more open-air audio for those who are not able to wear earphones.  That being said, in a lot of ways, I think that museums are doing a great job in making strides to be an all-inclusive space.  Part of this is the number of museums and the variety of museums to choose from.  If there is one that does not meet a standard for an individual, there are many others to choose from.  And sometimes this search can be fun.  Thankfully, most museums are purposefully spacious, making them more accessible than many other places right from the beginning.  The wide hallways, the bright lights, and certain technologies all act to become more inclusive of all people.  Taking into account budgeting and missions and ideals, it is understandable that not all museums are treated equally on this plane.  A small local museum is obviously going to have less funding available to make structural changes in order to accommodate visitors with mobility issues than a larger institution that has a much broader visitor base.  I just hope that there is a discussion happening, regardless of the museum, that acts to address the concerns that come with serving a community as a whole, not as bits by disabled bits.

I do have my concerns with a few things.  The first is the question of who exactly is making these decisions that affect museums and museum goers?  Are they differently-abled people or are they white, upper-class men making overarching decisions without consulting anyone who may have valid contributions?  My second question is who makes sure these ordinances are being followed?  And how often are these checks happening?  Are there serious repercussions if an institution is not incorporating the ADA guidelines?  So many concerns!  I know that museums can’t address and fix everything to make it perfect.  That’s not how things work.  I think the important piece that museums need to remember and keep in the forefront of their mission to serve all of their visitors equally is to really empathize and learn about the struggles that differently-abled people face.  These needs must be addressed without calling attention to the “different-ness” that is the reason things need to change in the first place.  Universal design needs to be preceded by a universal understanding.

Engagement and Learning

Last class was geared towards learning the different ways in which a person can engage with a space, whether that is a physical space or a digital one. One of the first things we considered was whether or not a certain project at a specific museum was targeted for local or global engagement.  This seemed like an interesting question to consider because the internet, which is so vastly global, would at first make it appear as though the museum’s intent was global.  Narrowed down, however, to a specific program within that museum, it blurs the lines.  While many of the activities and events are held at the museum, targeting it towards a local audience, the projects are then posted on the museum’s website which once again allows global users to enjoy and peruse the content.   I think the outcome largely depends on the institutional goals for their museum and their projects.  Oftentimes projects are used to promote the museum as an increase in visitors and viewership are the perpetual goal in most museums.  So wouldn’t all projects be geared towards a global audience?  Whether or not this is the outcome, regardless of the intent, I think it is important to always consider that everything that is put on a museum’s website will have the potential of being considered by a global audience.  That is just the nature of the digital world that we live in—everything is available to everyone.  As a result, I would think that this assumption of the global audience is obvious, but that doesn’t make things easy.  If, say, a museum had a project underway that was intended to be local in its entirety, the promotion of this project may alienate potential visitors to the museum and website.  That’s not to say that entirely local projects shouldn’t happen!  Not at all, I am simply reflecting upon the difficulty that museums are faced with when trying to determine how to mold the intent of a project so as not to separate the local from the global.  It is a delicate balance and one that I believe must be considered, regardless of what the intended audience is.  If it is on the internet, museums have to assume that their audience, intended or no, is the world.

Another discussion we had in class dealt with the ways people learn.  I like to think about learning theories partially because I find them interesting and partially because I find them infuriating.  This anger results from my intense dislike of being placed in a box where I am told what kind of “whatever” I am.  One of the learning systems I thought made more sense than others was the 4Mat learning system which considers four types of learners.  The innovative learners as “why,” the analytic learners ask “what,” the common sense learners ask “how,” and the dynamic learners as “what if.”  I like that this system considers that we all feel, reflect, think, and act but we do so by stopping and learning at different places along the way.  I don’t like that there isn’t any cross-over between the types, unless you personally group them all together in a clump.  I personally believe that I fit into each of these groupings, depending on the situation I am confronted with.  If I am in a new place or in a new job, I am all of these, asking and seeking answers to all of these questions.  If I am in a museum, I might be an innovative learner while in a totally different museum I could be a common sense learner.  My interpretation of how I learn in a specific space depends on that space.  Perhaps I would fit in more comfortably with the experience-based learning system which notes that the mind loos for regularities and relationships among experiences and general ideas which can tie together a group of experiences.  This just feels better to me, the fact that we learn as we grow and build on our experiences so that we can continue to learn in a functional and productive way.

I think I like thinking about the way people learn most when I am watching children interacting with one another.  Especially today, as everything is so digital, there is a distinct possibility that social skills and learning can suffer.  When kids are asked to interact with other kids on that organic level of play, the real interpersonal learning skills take place.  Here is where I would put the most influence on the intrinsic motivations for learning.  Each situation a person is placed in is a learning situation and almost every moment of childhood is a learning situation.  I think there should (again) be more cross-over between the learning situation with one person and a learning situation with multiple people because I think many of them apply to either.  I think curiosity should be placed in both as there are many things that interest me as an individual as well as in a group.  And that is not to say that, just because one is in a group that there cannot be individual curiosity happening simultaneously.  The same is true for challenge, what if there is a group of people that are hiking their first mountain together in support of one another?  Everyone is learning through their challenging experience but they are learning as an individual.  There shouldn’t be this black and white type of distinction—the world is a gray and messy place where people are people.  We should learn from behavior without having to shove them into definitive group.  In my opinion, there should be a constant flowing movement in all things.

Data Collection

This world terrifies me.  The depth we are able to achieve in almost everything through digital means is overwhelming.  When we talked in class about data brokers buying and selling our collective data, the commodification of our lives struck me.  Is there any way to remove oneself and have a genuine “Walden-esque” experience?  While this may still be an idealistic view of things, I think it is important as a consumer and user in the digital age to CYA (cover your ass).  I think this comes into play with all things.  Some might be more obvious, like sharing your credit card information or social security number.  Others, like being monitored in a museum setting, are a little less obvious.  The fact that our movements as museum patrons are being monitored in order to better suit the museum’s informative data bothers me.  I understand the need for it and I understand that they are playing the same game that the rest of the world is playing—monitoring our movements.  I know that this isn’t going to change but the idea of being evaluated in a place where peace is found and trust is assumed irks me.  I think that it bothers me first and foremost because I know about it.  I am aware that I am participating in data-gathering activities to be used for any variety of things.  Would my ignorance make it easier to play along?  Possibly.  Regardless, I think that the museums are doing something to better their customer service and support their community.  I honestly think that my issues stem from finding the data between transparent and ignored.  By this I mean that while I know that the data collection is taking place, I am not sure why or where that data is going.  On the other hand, there is a lot of data collection that I know nothing about and, in that ignorance, I am relatively happy.  It is this no-man’s land where I find myself feeling the most discontent with data collection within museums.

We talked in class about the different ways in which museums go about collecting data.  There is simple observation, tracking and timing, surveys, conducting interviews, putting on focus groups, and Google Analytics to see how much traffic a museum’s website receives.  Yet another thing that boggles my mind in terms of this data collection is the representation of those who are not at the museum because of an interest in said museum but because they were made to go or are bringing someone else along.  According to Falk, there are five types of motivation roles that affect who goes to a museum and the reasons why.  These are the explorer, the facilitator, the experience seeker, the professional or hobbyist, and the recharger.  As a child, I was unhappily dragged to museum after museum along with my 4 siblings who were all equally unhappy with the forced experiences.  I think that Falk’s motivation roles lack this type of category for children and school groups through which museum visits are mandated and often graded.  As such, these types of visitors do not comply with any of these motivation roles which places them outside of Falk’s scope.  How inclusive, therefore, are the museum’s findings through their data collection.  It would not be an accurate representation of their visitors.  I think this type of group would be most enlightening as they could provide some insight into why they didn’t want to come and why they probably would not come back.  In this way, the museum could work to try and gauge this and work towards making the museum more accessible to people of all ages.

On the flip side of this coin is the outcome we hope to achieve through the data gathering. This information can act as a catalyst to serving the community in a more productive way; serving those who come to visit collections and looking into why others don’t come to those same collections.  But would we be able to do this without collecting data in this way?  Is there some way to make the data collection completely transparent and visitor-focused so that everyone may have the opportunity to partake?  Is there a way to make it completely invisible as our cell phone companies do so that we no longer think about it as an invasion of our privacy?  If so, would that be prudent and faithful to our patrons?  I can’t answer these questions but I think that these could definitely be options for the future of data collection in museums.  As trusted institutions, I think it is the duty of museums to make sure that they are maintaining a stable, clear, and consistent way of collecting data of their patrons.  I think overall the accepted position tends to be “well, everyone else is doing it, we don’t want to be left behind.”  While this has sense, I believe it is the museum’s mission to conduct their data gathering in an open and transparent manner so that they always remain above-board.  In this way can they remain honest and trustworthy as institutions that serve their community.

First Blog Post

First blog posts ever! Exciting and a little odd for me personally but let’s give it a try.  As we are asked to reflect on our thoughts pertaining to weekly assignments and class discussions, I believe I will start there. I enjoyed learning the history of museums in class as I honestly had never thought of the logical progression of the museums we know today.  I think it’s so interesting that our museums mimic the European museums in a lot of ways, as they are the ones who brought over the influential format and ideas.  The path that museums have taken leading up to those we know today gives me hope for the future of museums to continue progressing and growing as the world changes. I think there are many museums already that are taking this progressive approach to attract new and exciting exhibits to draw in a different crowd. One of the museums I am choosing for the individual site visits fulfills these expectations.  The Strong National Museum of Play in Rochester offers interactive and engaging exhibits and experiences for individuals of all ages. You can walk down Sesame Street or go shopping at a miniaturized Wegmans or relax in their Butterfly Garden.  I think this is such a great idea as it offers the chance to experience culture and living things in a tactile way whereas other museums can only be explored in a more stagnant sense.  While I don’t believe all museums should adopt the format of the Strong Museum, I do think it is important for people to have the opportunity to engage with museums in a variety of ways.

I thought the post-it exercise we participated in last week during class was very telling of my understanding of GLAM and digital technology.  I find that my opinions change about museums based on the museum I am in at the time.  It also depends on whether or not the visit is compulsory or voluntary and what the museum contains.  By this I mean, is it a visit or tour organized through school or is it a visit that I have made on my own because something at the museum was of interest to me.  I have done both and find that I don’t enjoy tours because I like to move at my own pace and study the things that I take a particular interest in.  I think it would be ideal for me to have a personal tour guide that I could ask for information but only when I want information on something specific—like an informative museum shadow. One can dream!

I think my indecision about what a museum should be like is why my choice of words for the class activity ended up being a little erratic. I couldn’t make up my mind!  I believe museums and technology embody all feelings when I think about them.  Museums can be tedious and stuffy and dreary but they can also be fun and beautiful and stimulating.  How does one find the balance?  I’m excited to explore this idea further as the semester goes on.

I have a bit of a push-and-pull relationship with technology as well.  While I believe that technology opens up a new world full of endless possibilities, I also worry about the detrimental effects it can have on how we communicate, how we perceive the world, how we record events, how our memories function, and how we learn.  I grew up before everyone had cell phones and did not get one until I was 17, and even then it was allotted only for emergency purposes.  I had pen pals and set specific times with friends on what time we would talk to each other on the phone on a predetermined day.

In terms of the digital technology today, I think Amber Case’s TedTalk spoke to a lot of my concerns and beliefs on this topic.  The idea that technology is changing us as human beings resonates with me and my fears.  I find it terrifying that we as humans may lose the physical connection with others that comes from disconnecting for a time from technology.  But at the same time, I know people whose lives have been absolutely enhanced through technology.  I work with a young woman who, due to physical impairments, was bedridden for over a year.  In that time, she was able to connect with friends and family through a Facebook account she created with the staff who worked with her.  Though non-ambulatory and non-verbal, this woman would light up at the messages that people would send her and the posts left on pictures she had posted with assistance from staff.  It is this type of new access that lifts my hopes for what technology has in store for us.

Amber Case talked about the idea of the extension of our mental selves which results in our second self, i.e. our digital self that exists online.  This makes so much sense to me but we are overloaded by this digital culture and are always split between these two selves—the digital and “analog” self, as Case calls it.  Overall, I am interested to see what technological advances will be made in the future but I am also excited to see how museums could adopt this technology to merge the two worlds in order to reach a broader audience.  I think that this needs to be a main focus of where GLAM are going in order to create a partnership that keeps the fundamental values of museums while adapting to the changing times and realizing that not adopting such advances may render certain places obsolete.