Computers in Museums: Necessary, or Expensive Mistake?

One of the most common questions we get is about the use of computers in museum settings.  Are they necessary?  Should museums be putting them in to attract broader audiences?  Do visitors expect them?  Or do visitors come to museums for other reasons?

To find out, we have a few sets of data that we can pull from.  In our pro bono work, we have never explicitly asked about technology in museums, while we do have more explicit questions in some of our client work.

In our pro bono field-wide work, our surveys have been broadly disseminated via the e-mail lists of participating museums.  So keep in mind that respondents represent core visitors to museums, not more casual visitors.  In our study of 40,000+ museum goers, which took place in winter 2010, we asked respondents how they preferred to experience museums.  (Click here for a short write-up of what we found.) 

For that question, there were three tech-based options:  videos, audio guides, and computer kiosks with games, databases, more info, etc. (we generally ask about computer kiosks because it is visible technology that people can picture; supporting technology that isn’t as visible is harder for them to picture and respond to).  None of these came in very high.  Videos and audio guides did better with older adults than younger ones, largely, we believe, for accessibility reasons (and we have seen this pattern before). 

Computer kiosks came in, overall, at only 11% of respondents, and did best with respondents in their 40s (14%).  When we look at the data by genre (the type of museum people responded to), computer kiosks do best with respondents from science centers – 18%.  It was lower for other types. 

So only about 1 in 10 museum-goers prefer computer kiosks overall, and nearly 1 in 5 for science centers.  But that doesn’t tell us how the rest really feel.  We did have a very vocal minority write in comments about how they definitely do not like computers in museums, but it was hard to gauge how big a group they really were.  And that more ambivalent group in the middle could be quite large.

In our client work, we have much more explicit data from both qualitative research and surveys of museum goers.  What we have generally found reflects the findings above, in that somewhere around 15% (give or take a few percentage points) of museum-goers say they enjoy or seek out computer experiences in museums.  About the same number say they hate computers in museums.  Which means there is a big group in the middle who are much more ambivalent, saying they might check it out if they stumble upon them, or that they ignore them but they are fine for others.  But this more ambivalent group, along with the computer naysayers, say that computers only really work if they are up-to-date, work well, there are enough of them so that they don’t have to wait to use them, and are clean (as in not germy).  They also point out that most museums don’t deliver on these concerns. 

In terms of less frequent museum visitors, or those that rarely/never visit museums, we have one rather small sample we can pull from.  Turns out, they were not any more enthusiastic about computers in museums than museum goers.  Further sampling of non-museum goers is necessary to confirm that finding, however.

That brings us to our conclusions to date.  Because there is so much ambivalence, our recommendation is to think of computers as a tool, and nothing more.  What is the story you are trying to tell?  What is the experience you want people to walk away with?  What is the experience people want to have when they visit you?  Then think through the best methodologies for getting that story, that experience, across.  More often than not, a low-tech solution may be the best choice for what you are trying to do, and be cheaper and easier to maintain.  But for the times when a computer is the best way to do what you need to do, then by all means, install one so long as you have the resources to keep it up-to-date, in working order, clean, etc.    

But let’s reiterate one important detail:  our questions specifically asked about computer kiosks with databases, games, more info, and not about high-tech installations where much of the high-tech stuff is largely hidden to visitors.  Most survey respondents don’t know how to conceptualize that, while they can conceptualize computer kiosks.  Additionally, we do not have data yet on the use of smartphones in museums. 

The bottom line is that computers are tools . . . and that's it.  The big thing to avoid is putting computers in solely because of a belief that they are necessary to attract audiences, as that does not seem to be the case.  But absolutely deploy them when they are the best method for sharing what you want to share. 

 

What do you think?  Do you enjoy computers in museum settings?  Or do you think they take resources and energy away from other experiences you are trying to promote?  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

Comments

[Lindzy]

I am technology skeptic and have never been a fan of computer exhibits. That is, until I went to Monticello.

Check out this video of the exhibit.
http://vimeo.com/4865607

I have no idea how much this exhibit cost to produce, but it was incredibly engaging and full of information that couldn't have been presented in a traditional format.

It provides free choice, dynamic displays and multiple users. My sister and I spent over 30 minutes in this one area.

[Linda]

For a much smaller, anecdotal sample, here's a blog post I did about my conversations with 8th grade students in upstate New York about what they wanted in museum exhibits http://bit.ly/eRpmEw. Computers were definitely NOT interesting to them. Too much like school, they thought.

[Paul Orselli]

Thanks for posting this! The one thing I would say about the "computers/technology are only a tool" argument is that it minimizes the (depending on your point of view) insidiousness or attractiveness of many digital technologies.

This in turn causes many museums/designers to get caught up in introducing these exhibit approaches because of the "shiny new toy" syndrome rather than any effective content or narrative reasons.

[Kristy]

Rather than the 'we need to add technology to this exhibition' approach, it may be more effective to focus on engaging a targeted audience in order to help them grasp and remember specific key concepts. Sometimes technology - which is not just boring computer kiosks - is an appropriate tool but at other times it is not.

[Bruce Wyman]

If you're planning an exhibit or museum experience and you're asking yourself whether or not to include technology or a computer, you're doing it wrong. Focus on the experience that you want to achieve and then figure out the best ways to do that. Maybe it's tech, maybe it's a printed piece of paper. The best technology uses are the ones that are well integrated into an experience to the point where visitors focus on the experience and scarcely notice the tech in the first place.

To pull out technology as a specific goal is like asking whether visitors prefer to read museum labels with more verbs or more nouns. Or whether an exhibit is better with more walls or more open areas. It misses the point. Exhibits shouldn't be competing on a feature list of things to include, they should be competing on kinds of experiences offered to visitors.

[Full disclosure: I've developed tech for museums for years, both inside and outside of museums. The focus has always been the content and experience not the tech. I'm a tech skeptic at heart.]