Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Development and popularisation of creative technologies have resulted in changes to creative processes in the art and museum sector, and have redefined consumer and producer roles. The design practises that emerge when exhibition designers integrate new technologies to promote visitor engagement and co-creation are investigated in this article. This study delves into a novel design strategy for exhibition co-creation that acknowledges each interaction as a potential data point and involves connections between exhibition space, narrative, technology, interaction, and visitor, as well as a distinction between aware and unaware co-creation.

Keywords

Co-creation co-design unaware co-creation experience design museum

Museums and galleries are evolving into hybrid spaces in which virtual and digital storytelling components are mixed with physical artefacts, and where the visitors are no longer passive observers (Ciolfi et al., 2008; Irace and Ciagà, 2013). Instead, through interacting with their surroundings, individuals increasingly participate in the process of co-creation and co-production of their own experiences (Barnes and McPherson, 2019; Muller and Edmonds, 2006). New design approaches promote a shift from exhibitions understood as collections of tangible objects selected for structured enquiry toward more fluid visitor engagement with their surroundings (Irace and Ciagà, 2013). Fuelled by the presence of ubiquitous computing, the digital layer of the experience aims at enriching and extending exhibition spaces by harnessing immersion, augmentation of reality, and gamification (Wang and Lei, 2016; Olesen et al., 2018). The use of technology in the design and production of exhibitions has changed the way knowledge is transmitted to visitors in museum spaces (Dal Falco and Vassos, 2017). Traditionally, exhibitions relied on an encyclopaedic approach to present material objects and curated authority in order to achieve educational or aesthetic purposes (Muller and Edmonds, 2006; Wang and Lei, 2016). However, current technology-driven design and multi-sensory approaches create new ways of transmitting knowledge and information through experiences (Dal Falco and Vassos, 2017).

In the process of exhibition design, digital integration of immersive technologies and artificial intelligence-supported tools can be a time-consuming and challenging task and is not well-documented (Olesen et al., 2018). Despite growing interest in digitally enhanced museum experiences, not much of the existing research has focused on the co-creative and collaborative processes involved in exhibition design (Olesen et al., 2018), and though the hybridisation of exhibitions implies a change in the design approaches involving visitors, the empirical evidence to sustain this claim is limited. Instead, academics focus on how external parties are involved in the production of exhibitions (Davies, 2010; Knudsen, 2016; Olesen et al., 2018; Popoli and Derda, 2021) and on factors that influence the success of co-designed exhibitions (Ewenstein and Whyte, 2007; Govier, 2009; Lynch, 2011; Mygind et al., 2015; Simon, 2010). Likewise, academics attend to the artefacts that mediate and aid in processes of multidisciplinary collaboration (Mason, 2015; Vavoula and Mason, 2017).

This article explores the emerging design practices that take place when exhibition designers attempt to digitally enhance physical museum experience to promote visitor engagement and utilise visitor co-creation. The research centres two questions: (1) How do popularization of creative technologies affect the creators’ approach to exhibition design? (in the context of enhancing visitor engagement and experience co-creation), (2) What are the consequences of such an approach for the visitor’s role in the exhibition experience? Consequently, the paper, offers an insight into a new design approach, which combines relations between exhibition space, story, technology, interaction, and visitor in the process of exhibition co-creation, and acknowledges a distinction between aware and unaware co-creation, which has been overlooked in the existing literature.

However, as the research investigates novel and not widely accepted approaches, the explored themes and provided models cannot be regarded as typical of the industry. Instead, they should be viewed as representing potential future advancements and underlining the need for further research. In light of this fact, it was not possible to unequivocally define ‘new’ or ‘creative’ technologies in the context of the current sector’s practices; the research (following the findings of the initial inquiry and recommendation of practitioners) considers hybrid museum installations that utilise reality augmentation, artificial intelligence-driven tools, and/or consumer data collection in the exhibition space.

Theoretical framework

Exhibition design and museum as a hybrid space

Exhibition design is a process that uses visual storytelling and environment to convey information. It focuses on the content of the artworks or artefacts to be presented and is concerned with their arrangement so that they may be understood in connection to one another and in conversation with the viewing environment’s conditions. In the modern day, exhibition design often integrates multiple disciplines such as architecture, interior design, graphic design, experience design, multimedia and technology, lighting, and audio and crosses over with creative movements like performance to create a layered narrative around a topic (Dernie, 2006).

It has been argued that the modern technology developed in the 20th century facilitated a dramatic change in the scope of exhibition design (Wang and Lei, 2016). Lorentz (2006), however, provides a concise historical review ranging from examples of cave paintings, the introduction narrative theatre in ancient Greece, to Baroque architecture that demonstrates how immersive experiences have always been a part of human artistic expression, and have shaped our contemporary understanding of what the exhibition entails. Nevertheless, the ever-evolving technological means of exhibition design is not the predominant reason for the assumed shift in practise; the more important reason is that visitors criticise culture and art spaces for their rigorous behavioural rules of solitary observation, something that makes the visit less pleasant and informative (Dal Falco and Vassos, 2017). Accordingly, consumer demand in contemporary art and culture venues has shifted away from material objects and curatorial authority and toward visitor experience (Barnes and McPherson, 2019; Muller and Edmonds, 2006). This sentiment is echoed in Mygind, Hällman, and Bentsen’s (2015) review of exhibition development, where museum visits are characterised as impersonal, exclusive, and non-inspirational, whereas the need for designing exhibitions that match visitors' wants and needs is highlighted.

Museums have been challenged to reconsider their relationships with visitors for decades: from the late 1980s′ New Museology, which highlighted the social role of museums, to a growing focus on engagement, outreach, and representation, to the popularisation of the concept of participation in the early 2000s (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2010). It has been proven that museum visitors expect comprehensive narratives that combine ‘rigorousness and imagination, seriousness, and entertainment’ (Wang and Lei, 2016, p. 346). Mygind et al. (2015) emphasized that visitors feel supported in their personal meaning-making process when their museum visit requires active involvement. This would also make their visit more relevant, engaging, accessible, and pleasant (Dal Falco and Vassos, 2017; Mygind et al., 2015). Consequently, for museums to enable rich interaction with their audiences, the focus needs to be less on the object on display and more on communicating with visitors to create a meaningful experience (Dal Falco and Vassos, 2017; Lake-Hammond and Waite, 2010).

Consequently, museums are moving away from just presenting their collections to visitor-centred approaches, which acknowledge and utilise the all-encompassing digitisation of culture and the rapidly growing demand for user-centred experiences (Tallon and Bowen 2008). The approach, however, does not imply the irrelevance of artefacts but rather adds emphasis on visitors’ perception of the value and relevance of the exhibition and its content. A lack of relevance may put cultural institutions at risk of losing their resonance with their audiences and their ability to keep up with contemporary life (Giannini and Bowen, 2019). Similarly, Muller and Edmonds (2006) conclude that the change in making and curating art directly affects cultural institutions’ relevancy.

Experience co-creation and new design approaches

Co-creative initiatives are developed in collaboration with participants rather than being purely driven by institutional objectives (Simon, 2010). In the context of museum and art gallery settings, visitor experience co-creation can be understood as service experience co-creation (Panhale et al., 2022). It occurs when an actor’s (in this case, visitor’s) subjective reaction to, interpretation or perception of service components is influenced by interpersonal contact with other actors inside or outside of the service context. When a visitor interacts with a ‘provider’, other visitors, or other actors, it may encompass lived or imagined events from the past, present, or future (Panhale et al., 2022). This kind of acknowledgement of stakeholders allows for recognizing multiple stakeholders and assents – including technology – as actors of experience co-creation (Akaka and Vargo, 2014; Richards, 1996), which is essential for understanding the nature of hybrid experiences.

Wang and Lei’s (2016) distinction between the eyes-on, hands-on, and minds-on exhibition marks the gradual shift of power between institutions, which designed structured discovery paths for their audiences, and visitors, who began taking on a more active role of ‘discovering’ exhibitions. In their study, Wang and Lei (2016) defined the ‘eyes-on’ as the traditional encyclopaedic exhibition with a perceived distance between visitors and artefacts. In contrast, the ‘hands-on’ exhibit was believed to be a more innovative and interactive approach (Wang and Lei, 2016). However, as they further argued, the traditional ‘eyes-on’ and more interactive ‘hands-on’ exhibitions are not essentially that different from each other, since neither allow for self-interpretation and both remain fairly restrictive in what they expect visitors to experience (Wang and Lei, 2016). As a result, the ‘minds-on’ exhibition approach is seen as an answer to the calls from visitors for increased flexibility and freedom to appreciate the artefacts (Wang and Lei, 2016). A ‘minds-on’ exhibition creates an environment where visitors have the authority to discover artefacts through their senses and a plethora of media (Wang and Lei, 2016). This approach aims to create a narrative that balances knowledge transmission and imagination stimulation (Wang and Lei, 2016). Moreover, to interpret and shape this narrative, visitors can use more than one sense, provided that the museum curators have created an environment of synaesthesia (Wang and Lei, 2016). In other words, while the exhibition’s aim remains the same, the means to achieve it have evolved.

Looking at another approach, Dal Falco and Vassos (2017) reported how new forms of technology-backed exhibitions transform museums into hybrid places where the digital narrative is entwined with artefacts, and visitors are actively interpreting and co-creating what they see. Notably, designing exhibitions that merge physical with digital aspects has to balance presenting the content with historical accuracy with creating a narrative that constitutes a cognitive map without limiting or alienating visitors (Lake-Hammond and Waite, 2010; Vavoula and Mason, 2017). Similarly, Barnes and McPherson (2019) reinforced the notion of museums as hybrid spaces where visitors co-produce and engage with content in numerous ways, thanks to digital technology. The term ‘hybrid space’ defines the combination of the physical with the online space to create a multidisciplinary one (Barnes and McPherson, 2019). This approach has also been described using the term edutainment. Buckingham and Scanlon (2000) defined edutainment as a hybrid genre that combines visual materials, narratives, and game-like formats under a single, less formal didactic approach. The focus, though, transitions from the object on display to creating an engaging visitor experience (Barnes and McPherson, 2019).

With these new approaches to design, on the one hand, visitors are invited to engage with objects, sounds, images, or multimedia and multisensorial installations that offer a variety of ways for audiences to interact and engage with content in museum spaces (Allain and Harvie, 2014; Barnes and McPherson, 2019; Wang and Lei, 2016). On the other hand, exhibition design has to balance accuracy and offering an engaging experience to non-expert visitors (Vavoula and Mason, 2017). Giannini and Bowen (2019) research how digital intermediaries are used as a means to facilitate the desired engagement and co-creation with visitors without decreasing the importance of artists and their work (Giannini and Bowen, 2019). Moreover, to maintain with the educational role of museums, the new approaches in exhibition design are seeking engaging and appropriate ways to ‘talk’ to visitors, to support the aim of creating a positive learning environment (Wang and Lei, 2016). This means that technological and multisensorial means are not only employed to deepen audiences’ experiences and create an immersive space, but also to amplify learning through entrancing experiences that are effective in transmitting knowledge (Wang and Lei, 2016). Undoubtedly, this crossing of different disciplines challenges the relationship and balance between art, information, technology, and visitors (Bowen and Giannini, 2014), but this should not presuppose that the new practises of exhibition design are of lesser value solely on the premise that user experience has been redefined.

Notably, visitor participation or co-production can make museums more relevant and accessible, enable visitor engagement, and enhance the learning experience while addressing the public’s frustration regarding the exclusive and distant nature of cultural institutions (Antón et al., 2017; Simon, 2010). Visitors can participate in co-creation in one of two ways: by actively participating (mentally or physically) in the exhibition, or by interacting with the surroundings and other visitors and museum staff (Antón et al., 2017). Active participation requires visitors to be able to develop and shape their own experiences physically, emotionally, or mentally, either as planned by the museum or spontaneously (Antón et al., 2017). This elevates the role of visitors from only spectators to active actors and explorers, as ‘co-creation offers alternatives to a single-author vision’ (Cizek and Uricchio, 2019) and entails plenty of media creation techniques, protocols, and feedback mechanisms. Co-created projects originate from a process that evolves within communities and with people, rather than for or about them (Cizek and Uricchio, 2019) Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Types of co-creation (Cizek and Uricchio, 2019).

The fact that museums and galleries that experiment with more engaging exhibition design report an increase in their visitors and the diversity of their audience base (Barnes and McPherson, 2019). Similarly, Giannini and Bowen (2019) suggest that the changing exhibition practises will benefit museums and aid them in growing their communities, both locally and globally. This community is reportedly more engaged and culturally distinct due to the fusing of digital, visual, and physical reality (Giannini and Bowen, 2019). In any other case, they are at risk of being isolated from the digital ecosystem and falling behind (Giannini and Bowen, 2019). Ultimately, cultural institutions want visitors to enter the museum or art gallery ready to be challenged, inspired, and pleasantly surprised in a general spirit of excitement and anticipation (Giannini and Bowen, 2016); the new directions in exhibition design help them achieve just that.

Method

This study implements a qualitative method to analyse and interpret a phenomenon occurring in its natural environment, considering social, cultural, and environmental conditions (Yin, 2016). The research entailed the application of two methods: (1) ethnographic observation conducted by one of the researchers participating in the development of three hybrid museum installations that utilised reality augmentation, AI-driven tools, and/or consumer data collection in the exhibition space, followed up by (2) a series of in-depth interviews with industry professionals who were either involved in the above exhibitions or considering the use of the abovementioned tools within the next 2 years. The interviews included mind-mapping and sketching exercises, which supported the exploration of the complexity behind the practised design process and allowed for evaluating dynamic organisational, interactive, and socially created processes in the context of the exhibition’s co-creation.

Following the previous research considering museums and art galleries cultural institutions of similar nature (Robins, 2016), this research was open to include experts representing museums of artefacts, science, natural history, local history, and art museums and galleries that house works of art, either as part of a museum or independently, as long as they developed and executed hybrid exhibitions that utilised reality augmentation, AI-driven tools, and/or consumer data collection within their exhibition space. The sample comprised 21 Europe-based experts from museums, art galleries, and design studios, working in exhibition design for a minimum of 3 years and who were actively involved in exhibition design processes within the last 12 months. In addition, the summary of the research results was provided to three of the interviewees and four industry experts (who were not research participants) for validation.

Results and discussion

All is data

The rapid development and application of technologies and their omnipotent presence in exhibition spaces have transformed many exhibits into screen- and sensor-filled interactive spaces. Visitor engagement with screens and interactive technologies has allowed for closer activity tracking and real-time data collection, making every single interaction with objects or space a data point available for collection. Data from visitors’ interactions and pathways can be generated and thus collected not only through screen interactions but any kind of visitor engagement within the exhibition: exhibited objects and content, facilitators, space in which the objects are presented, and other visitors as well (Figure 2). As one of the interviewees explained: ‘These [interactive technologies] open all-new world for us [exhibitions designers]. We know exactly how much time you spend on each screen within the exhibition, what you click and what is not interesting enough for you to pay attention. Of course, we were always testing the exhibitions before with a trial and focus groups before the openings, but now we have “real” data on real interactions’ (I6).

Figure 2.

Interaction as fuelling the exhibition design.

‘Data can be seen as an extra layer which we place over our current reality. While we interact [with technology], we still have the ability to interact with the normal world as well, and both can result with a data stream’ (I12). The knowledge generated through the analysis and interpretation of the data streams offers the creators an opportunity to advance the flexibility and enhance the personalisation of experiences: ‘You [as a curator] create a space for people who have their own experience rather than fully designing every aspect of it. People have more room now to kind of shape their own experiences as we know about them more, and we search for ways to serve different needs and expectations’ (I6).

More freedom in the way the exhibition can be explored and co-created by visitors, links to a higher potential for (re-applicable) data generation (I4, I7, I8). This can be exemplified in the case of spatial data and path tracking technologies that disclose the personal decisions made while a visitor navigates through an exhibition, which is especially relevant in immersive, non-linear exhibits. Facial recognition systems can serve as another example of technology utilised to recognise the effectiveness of storytelling applied throughout the exhibit (I2). Regardless of the source, interaction data offer the potential to be translated into insights that can be reapplied to the exhibition, thus changing the nature of exhibition development from a linear process (where the exhibition is conceptualised and tested before the opening and does not change its shape until its closure or major rework) to a cyclical one, in which the data allow curators to understand visitors' reactions and make adjustments to the content in real-time.

Unaware Co-creation

While exploring the potential of interaction and behavioural data for co-creation, it is essential to zoom in on the fact that human participants (visitors) are not always aware that they are partaking in the process of co-creation. By interacting with multiple touchpoints, the visitors can generate data streams. Few interviewees explained the practical angle of the applicability of the approach:

‘Users interact with a screen or space, [digitally] redesign a specific piece of art, for example. They can put a filter on it, create a meme, or make a selfie and incorporate it into the painting. This allows them to co-create a piece of digital content (…) But users also provide us with data [in this process]. We know how much time on this screen or place they spent, with what they interacted, and what they liked enough to share. We can use this information to offer them relevant follow-up content, see what is popular among different audiences, and build further on the data they [visitors] provide us with (I2)” or “It’s like with cookies-based machine learning in advertising – you liked a green dress in one store, so we will propose you a matching handbag for the next occasion or even design one for you’ (I8).

In such cases, visitors may not be fully cognisant that their data can be collected and utilised to enhance and adjust the experience. Therefore, they become participants in the co-creation process without acknowledging the fact. Unaware visitor co-creation can be then defined as a form of collective creativity, wherein visitors to are able to influence the content or shape of the experience (current or future; own or future visitors’) through a data stream they generate through digital footprint and/or interactions with other visitors, objects, space, or display. Unaware visitor co-creation goes beyond what traditional interaction models have enabled by a potentially seamless integration of digital solutions in the visitor experience.

The existing literature on co-creation oftentimes explores a shift in the role of consumers from passive to active participation in services and value creation (Antón et al., 2017; Minkiewicz et al., 2013; Simon, 2010; Skydsgaard et al., 2016; Thyne and Hede, 2016). The dominant discourse focuses on cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioural engagement as a crucial dimension for a successful co-created design (O’Reilly, 2003) or conscious and unconscious value co-production (Etgar, 2008). However, it is vital to acknowledge the role of unaware co-creation in the experience development process, where the actors are not fully aware of their role as stakeholders in ongoing co-creation as it potentially has implications on the roles in the process and visitors-curators dynamics. However, even though passive integration (as the lowest degree of stakeholder integration) sees the consumers as ‘subjects of interest’ (Edvardsson et al., 2010) and reactive integration considers consumers as informants (Edvardsson et al., 2010), these categories cannot be seen as identical with unaware co-creation and need to be nuanced in the context of the role of visitors in exhibition co-creation. As explored by Jonas et al. (2013), in the innovation process consumers are seen as passive and reactive consumers in the research, prototyping, and testing phases of the innovation process and co-creative in the ideation phase. However, the approach does not acknowledge the potentially cyclical character of the innovation process and utilisation of the constant stream of consumer data, and it neglects the fact that co-creation (or integration as the authors label it) does not have to be seen as a finished process.

Unaware co-creation does not indicate the passive role of the visitors and their lack of engagement, but rather it needs to be seen as a tension between their active (cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioural) engagement and immersion in the experience, and the management style of the co-creative process. By unknowingly providing data, visitors become unaware co-creators and contribute to the future shape of the exhibition or provide insights that can be further utilised to develop future experiences Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Dimensions of visitor co-creation.

Some experts consider unaware co-creation a promising tool for museums for improving levels of visitor engagement. As they point out, the generated data can offer insights into how different visitor groups interact with the exhibition space, the artefacts, and offered narratives. Offers opportunities for museums to gain valuable insights into. This could help inform decisions about suitable exhibit layout and content changes that are tailored toward certain age groups or interests. It could also enable museum professionals to craft personalized experiences suited specifically for different types of visitors – such as differently abled individuals or those who identify with minority communities. In addition, through the application of machine learning solutions, unaware visitor co-creation has the potential to make exhibitions more flexible and adaptive to provide more individualized narratives that cater to visitors’ knowledge levels, preferences, and cognitive abilities.

Ethical implications of unaware co-creation in the museum sector

The utilization of the unaware co-creation model has significant implications for both curators and visitors. Even though the visitor co-creation of the exhibition experience assumes the visitors’ agency (Panhale et al., 2022), unaware co-creation raises questions about civics, privacy, and increased disbalance of power dynamics between curators and visitors.

While it may be beneficial for museums to collect data on visitor behaviour in order to gain insights into their preferences and interests, collecting data from visitors without their knowledge or consent need to be seen as a violation of privacy, which raises ethical concerns about how this data is used and whether it could be shared with third-party organizations or used for commercial purposes.

Another issue associated with collecting data from museum visitors is that of unaware collaboration. Co-creation involves visitors actively (even though unconsciously) contributing content or ideas during their visit, but what happens when these contributions are made without the visitor being aware of it? Is it ethical to utilize these contributions without gaining explicit permission or giving proper attribution? If yes, what measures should be taken to ensure that all contributors are properly credited for their work?

Finally, there are questions surrounding how museums can ensure fairness in decisions made regarding anonymous user input. For example, if algorithms are used to process visitor feedback on exhibits before reaching design decisions – who decides which algorithm will be used and who ensures that it is properly audited? These issues raise questions about accountability and fairness within the museum space when dealing with anonymous users’ contributions.

As there are no common policies across the sector, further research into the ethical implications of collecting visitors’ data is needed in order to ensure a fair balance between visitor privacy rights and museum interests. Further research into the effect such practices have on power dynamics between museums staffs and visitors could also provide valuable insights into improving existing practices while protecting both museum visitors’ right to privacy as well as ensuring fairness in decision-making processes driven by anonymous user input. Existing frameworks considering ethical inquiry of AI and data projects in the context of co-creating with communities (for example DEDA model as introduced by Franzke et al., 2021) may be applicable and should be considered by the museum sector when developing policies across the industry.

Data-powered hybrid exhibition design model

The rapid development and integration of technologies into the visitor co-design processes within exhibition spaces led to the technological enhancement of exhibitions and supported the personalisation of experiences (as confirmed by 18 out of 22 interviewees). Nevertheless, it became evident that the utilisation of new technologies has dominated the popular discourse about new approaches to exhibition development. However, the focus on and ‘fetishisation of technology’ (I19) often lead to overlooking the subordinate role of technologies and data, which are utilised to bring the exhibition’s narrative to life and to improve the overall audience experience by adding inspiring and emotional elements (I1, I8, I14, I18, I21). As one of the interviewees expressed: ‘Technology helps, but the technology should never be the driver. The driver should be what you want to achieve’ (I9). The multisensorial layer, which surrounds and reveals the exhibition’s key idea, aids visitor immersion in the plot (Figure 4). ‘Exhibition design is not tech-driven, but story-driven’, explains Interviewee 9, ‘and digital methods and data serve only to reinforce the storytelling and create an immersive environment with multiple datapoints to enhance visitors’ experience’.

Figure 4.

Data-powered hybrid exhibition design model.

The dominance of storytelling over technology also has its implications for the nature of co-design processes. In the environment where visitors are placed at the heart of the experience and are surrounded by tech-supported, multisensorial storytelling, the visitors are offered more flexibility and a non-linear path through the exhibition. Therefore, they are encouraged to co-create their own experience by choosing their own discovery path and ways of engagement. Each decision and interaction with exhibition space, display, objects, facilitators, or other visitors is a potential data point. ‘I want people to be able to get to space and just explore; get objects and just interact with them (…) and I would collect their feedback and collect more data on how these experiences were experienced by the audience’ (I20). Collected data can then be utilised to build (more) customised scenarios, settings, and narratives in real-time and for future visitors. Therefore, the visitors’ personal choices and reactions contribute to the cyclical co-creative process of adaptable exhibition design.

The proposed model (Figure 4) binds together the relationship between space, story, technology, interaction, object, and visitor in the process of exhibition co-creation and highlights how the accounts of the expert interviewees noted the importance of designing an exhibition that allows for the participation of visitors. Similarly, a plethora of previous studies have acknowledged the shift from curatorial authority and passive object display to audience-centred exhibitions (Barnes and McPherson, 2019; Dal Facco and Vassos, 2017; Lake-Hammond and Waite, 2010; Muller and Edmonds, 2006; Mygind et al., 2015). This resulted from the growing audience demands for more engaging experiences, ultimately impacting the exhibition design (Barnes and McPherson, 2019; Dal Facco and Vassos, 2017; Lake-Hammond and Waite, 2010; Muller and Edmonds, 2006; Wang and Lei, 2016). Hence, museums try to actively engage visitors, challenge their perceptions, and encourage them to critically reflect on the exhibition content without offering a predetermined path of discovery. The change reflected in the new design approaches emerged from putting visitors at the centre of the exhibition. This finding is consistent with previous research (Giannini and Bowen, 2016; Lake-Hammond and Waite, 2010) and demonstrates how creating an appealing user experience informs the exhibition’s storytelling.

To put it another way, the narrative is designed to provide an experience that meets the demands of visitors and puts them at the centre of the exhibition. However, the ethical implications of utilising consumer data and unaware co-creation demand further research on the transparency of the co-creation process, which links to media literacy issues. Across the sector, there is a need for developing a framework for responsible data use, which would help avoid the potential exploitation of visitors (as expressed by 11 interviewees).

Conclusion

Contributing to the empirical studies on utilisation of new creative technologies in consumer co-creative processes, this study explored visitor co-creation in museum spaces. Our work aimed to broaden our understanding of early design approaches, which utilise real-time data collection and technological developments to fuel processes of exhibition design and co-creation. In the paper, we have addressed the three key themes:

• Interaction datapoints as contribution. With the developing possibilities of collecting, analysing, and reapplying interaction data, each and every interaction with the exhibition space can be considered a data point, whether this is an engagement with screens, displays, objects, spaces, facilitators, or other visitors.

• Unaware co-creation. The reduction of visitors' interactions to the data stream can be seen as contributing to exhibition design through data generation and, therefore, considered a form of visitor co-creation. In many cases, it takes the form of unaware co-creation, where visitors unwittingly contribute to the future shape of the exhibition. Even though their contribution to the development process does not consider cognitive, emotional, and behavioural engagement in co-creation, visitors potentially change the nature of the design process as their data can be collected in real-time and reapplied to the exhibition. Visitors’ real-time feedback qualifies them as co-creators since it not only guides the exhibition’s review and optimisation efforts after the opening but it ultimately determines the exhibition’s value in their eyes. Consequently, exhibition design can be seen as a co-creative process between three parties: the museum team, their primary design and production partner, and visitors.

• Implications of unaware co-creation. The unaware co-creation model in museums can have significant implications for both curators and visitors and requires careful consideration and development of practices regarding the ethical utilization of visitors’ engagement and their data.

• Adaptable exhibition design model. The elevated role of visitors, characterising them as co-creators due to their participation in the tech-fuelled exhibitions, can be acknowledged as an integral element of emergent experience design models and practises. However, even though technological support is essential for enabling the flexibility of the experience and real-time data collection, the visitor is at the heart of the experience, surrounded by multisensorial storytelling, which is supported but not dominated by technology. The conceptualisation and operationalisation of an adaptable exhibition are, by their nature, not dependent on technology but assisted by it. Therefore, exhibition design is media independent, and the pluralism of digital technologies offers a wide range of methods to convey a story.

As the research explores new and not broadly adapted approaches, the discussed models cannot be considered representative of the sector. Instead, they should be seen as highlighting the directions for potential future developments and opening the need for future research on particular elements of the models and issues related to the mentioned practices, including but not limited to ethics and design and production processes.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Grant KI.18.044).

ORCID iD

Izabela Derda

References

Akaka

Vargo

(2014) Technology as an operant resource in service (ECO)systems. Information Systems and E-Business Management 12: 367–384.

Allain

Harvie

(2014) The Routledge Companion to Theatre and Performance. Routledge.

Antón

Camarero

Garrido

M-J

(2017) Exploring the experience value of museum visitors as a co-creation process. Current Issues in Tourism 21(12): 1406–1425.

Barnes

McPherson

(2019) Co‐creating, Co‐producing and connecting: Museum Practice Today. Curator: The Museum Journal 62(2): 257–267.

Bowen

Giannini

(2014) Digitalism: The New Realism? Conference Proceedings Electronic Visualization and the Arts.

Buckingham

Scanlon

(2000) That Is Edutainment: Media, Pedagogy and the Market Place. Sydney: Paper presented to the International forum of researchers on young people and the media.

Ciolfi

Bannon

Fernström

(2008) Including visitor contributions in cultural heritage installations: Designing for participation. Museum Management and Curatorship 23(4): 353–365.

Dal Falco

Vassos

(2017) Museum experience design: a modern storytelling methodology. The Design Journal 20(sup1): S3975–S3983.

Davies

(2010) The co-production of temporary museum exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship 25(3): 305–321.

10.

Dernie

(2006) Exhibition Design. Amsterdam: BIS.

11.

Desvallées

Mairesse

(2010) Key Concepts of Museology. Armand Colin.

12.

Edvardsson

Tronvoll

Gruber

(2010) Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A Social Construction Approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39(2): 327–339.

13.

Etgar

(2008) A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 97–108.

14.

Ewenstein

Whyte

(2007) Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations. Organization Studies 28(5): 689–708.

15.

Franzke

Muis

Schäfer

(2021) Data Ethics Decision Aid (DEDA): A dialogical framework for ethical inquiry of AI and Data Projects in the Netherlands. Ethics and Information Technology 23(3): 551–567.

16.

Giannini

Bowen

(2016) Curating Digital Life and Culture: Art and Information. Electronic Workshops In Computing.

17.

Giannini

Bowen

(2019) Museums and Digital Culture New Perspectives and Research. Springer.

18.

Govier

(2009) Leaders in co-creation? Leaders in Co-creation? | Research Centre for Museums and Galleries (RCMG) | University of Leicester. Available from: https://le.ac.uk/rcmg/research-archive/leaders-in-cocreation (accessed 21 March 2022).

19.

Irace

Graziella Leyla

(2013) Design and Cultural Heritage. Electa.

20.

Jonas

Möslein

Roth

(2013) Passive integration or mutual co-creation? Exploring the role of stakeholders in service innovation. In: The 13th International Research Symposium on Service Excellence in Management (QUIS). Karlstad, pp. 1–10.

21.

Knudsen

(2016) Participation at work in the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship 31(2): 193–211.

22.

Lake-Hammond

Waite

(2010) Exhibition design: bridging the knowledge gap. The Design Journal 13(1): 77–98.

23.

Lorentz

(2006) A Study of the Notions of Immersive Experience in Museum Based Exhibitions. dissertation, Sydney: UTS.

24.

Lynch

(2011) Custom-made reflective practice: can museums realise their capabilities in helping others realise theirs? Museum Management and Curatorship 26(5): 441–458.

25.

Mason

(2015) Prototyping practices supporting interdisciplinary collaboration in Digital Media Design for museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 30(5): 394–426.

26.

Minkiewicz

Evans

Bridson

(2013) How do consumers co-create their experiences? an exploration in the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Management 30(1–2): 30–59.

27.

Muller

Edmonds

(2006) Living Laboratories: Making and curating interactive art. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Art gallery on - SIGGRAPH.

28.

Mygind

Hällman

Bentsen

(2015) Bridging gaps between intentions and realities: a review of participatory exhibition development in museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 30(2): 117–137.

29.

Olesen

Holdgaard

Laursen

(2018) Challenges of practicing digital imaginaires in collaborative museum design. CoDesign 16(3): 189–201.

30.

O’Reilly

(2003) The architecture of participation. Available from https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_M7TH-EVBN (accessed 4 May 2023).

31.

Panhale

Bryce

Tsougkou

(2022) Augmented reality and experience co-creation in Heritage Settings. Journal of Marketing Management 1–28.

32.

Popoli

Derda

(2021) Developing experiences: creative process behind the design and production of immersive exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship 36(4): 384–402.

33.

Richards

(1996) Cultural Tourism in Europe. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International.

34.

Robins

(2016) Curious Lessons in the Museum: The Pedagogic Potential of Artists' Interventions. New York, NY: Routledge.

35.

Simon

(2010) The participatory museum. Museum 2.0.

36.

Skydsgaard

Møller Andersen

King

(2016) Designing museum exhibits that facilitate visitor reflection and discussion. Museum Management and Curatorship 31(1): 48–68.

37.

Tallon

Bowen

(2008) Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides and Other Media. AltaMira Press.

38.

Thyne

Hede

A-M

(2016) Approaches to managing co-production for the co-creation of value in a museum setting: When authenticity matters. Journal of Marketing Management 32(15–16): 1478–1493.

39.

Uricchio

Cizek

(2019) Collective wisdom. Available from DOI: 10.21428/ba67f642.f7c1b7e5

40.

Vavoula

Mason

(2017) Digital exhibition design: boundary crossing, intermediary design deliverables and processes of consent. Museum Management and Curatorship 32(3): 251–271.

41.

Wang

Zhang

Liu

, et al. (2016) Renal function after repeat catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: Low CHA2DS2-VASc score and sinus rhythm predict improved renal function. Herz 41(4): 331–341.

42.

Yin

(2016) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. Guilford Press.