Abstract
From interactives to apps, from labels to comment areas, museums spend a great deal of time and money planning a variety of digital and non-digital approaches for visitor engagement onsite. Best practice dictates that we offer a variety of ways for visitors to find relevance and make meaning and that we cater to different learning styles, abilities, and interest levels. However, not all these approaches garner the same amount of interest or use by our visitors. The Brooklyn Museum has a unique data set of use rate metrics from a variety of engagement projects, digital and non-digital, spanning ten years. When examining these use rate metrics, an interesting trend emerges. Certain engagement opportunities share an average use rate of 2%: our audio guide, our ASK app, question and answer kiosks in special exhibitions, a digital guestbook, and even guided tours. However, other projects have garnered much higher or lower use rates: an avatar interactive in Vishnu: The Blue-Skinned Savior (28%), a sticky-note activity outside of Killer Heels: The Art of the High-Heeled Shoe (11%), or a video response opportunity with The Black List Project (0.37%). Is there a reason for the shared use rate among certain opportunities and much different use rates among others? And if so, how might that inform engagement strategies and evaluation needs for the 21st-century museum? By examining the use rates of these engagement approaches in combination with anecdotal evidence, the author will examine lessons learned about digital and non-digital engagement opportunities including what these past projects can tell us about future planning and the limitations of quantitative data such as use rate in understanding visitor behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224
Ansbacher Ted (2013) Making sense of experience: a model for meaning-making. Exhibitionist 32(1):8–15
Bernstein S (2011) The Avatar and the iPad: lessons learned. Brooklyn Museum, USA, 12 Oct 2011. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2011/10/12/the-avatar-and-the-ipad-lessons-learned/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Bernstein S (2014) The Avatar and the iPad: lessons learned. Brooklyn Museum, USA, 17 Sept 2014
Bernstein S (2014) Leveraging technology for connection. Brooklyn Museum, USA, September 17, 2014. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2014/09/17/leveraging-technology-for-connection/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Bernstein S (2015) Sleuthing clues about the future from visitor interaction. Brooklyn Museum, USA, 2 Dec 2015. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2015/12/02/sleuthing-clues-about-the-future-from-visitor-interaction/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Bovill C, Bulley CJ (2011) A model of active student participation in curriculum design: exploring desirability and possibility. In: Rust C (ed) Improving student learning (ISL) 18: global theories and local practices: institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University, UK, pp 176–188
Brooklyn Museum (2016) This place. Brooklyn Museum, USA. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/this_place. Accessed 10 Mar 2018
DiRienzo M (2017) No. It doesn’t distract from the art. In: MW 2017: Museums and the Web, 13 Feb 2017. https://mw17.mwconf.org/paper/no-it-doesnt-distract-from-the-art/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Devine S (2014) Metrics tell (part of) the story. Brooklyn Museum, USA, 5 Nov 2014. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2014/11/05/metrics-tell-part-of-the-story/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Devine S (2017) Fresh eyes provide insight on ASK. Brooklyn Museum, USA, 8 Feb 2017. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2017/02/08/fresh-eyes-provide-insight-on-ask/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Falk JH, Dierking LD (2000) Learning from Museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Alta Mira Press
LaPlaca Cohen (2017) Culture track ’17—the evolution of culture. LaPlaca Cohen. http://2017study.culturetrack.com. Accessed 11 March 2018
Mann S, Moses J, Fisher M (2013) Catching our breath: assessing digital technologies for meaningful visitor engagement. Exhibitionist 31(1):15–19
Mannion S, Sabiescu A, Robinson W (2015) An audio state of mind: understanding behaviour around audio guides and visitor media. Retrieved from https://mw2015.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/an-audio-state-of-mind-understanding-behviour-around-audio-guides-and-visitor-media/. Accessed 9 Jan 2019
Rounds Jay T (1999) Meaning making: a new paradigm shift for museums? Exhibitionist 18(2):5–8
Serrell, Beverly (1997) Paying attention: the duration and allocation of visitors’ time in Museum exhibitions. Curator Mus J 40(2):108–125
Silverman (1995) Visitor meaning-making in Museums for a new age
Simon N (2010) Evaluating participatory projects. The participatory museum, Chapter 10. http://www.participatorymuseum.org/chapter10/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
Tallon L, Walker K (eds) (2008) Digital technologies and the museum experience: handheld guides and other media. Rowman & Littlefield
Weil SE (1999) From being about something to being for somebody: the ongoing transformation of the American Museum. Daedalus 128(3):229–258
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Devine, S. (2019). Engagement at the Brooklyn Museum: A Case Study of Use Rate and Lessons Learned. In: Giannini, T., Bowen, J. (eds) Museums and Digital Culture. Springer Series on Cultural Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97457-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97457-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97456-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97457-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)