Upload
lori-byrd-phillips
View
282
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Notes for a presentation at the American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting, May 2014 in Seattle, Washington, discussing The Children's Museum of Indianapolis Digital Engagement Project, 100 Toys that Define Our Childhood, as an example of Open Authority and Community Sourcing in museums. Other panelists included Dan Davis from the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, Jeffrey Inscho of the Carnegie Museum of Art, and Petra Pankow of the Monclair Art Museum.
Citation preview
NOTES: Crowdsourcing to Community Sourcing: A 100 Toys Case Study American Alliance of Museums, Seattle, May 20, 2014
• I’m Lori Phillips, the Digital Marketing Content Coordinator at The Children’s
Museum of Indianapolis.
• I’m going to share a framework for us to better discuss the nuance around crowdsourcing and participatory projects.
• I’ll then share a community-‐sourced project that we carried out at The Children’s Museum, called “100 Toys That Define Our Childhood.”
• For my masters research I wanted to tackle the question of How museums could
best integrate visitor contributions while still maintaining the museum’s authority and reputations as experts.
• While we’re a bit more comfortable with user-‐generated content today, even just three years ago the idea was VERY scary.
• And because I believe that we’re often afraid of things we don’t understand or haven’t defined, I decided to just put a name to it—and that’s “Open Authority.”
• The “open” in Open Authority is inspired by the open source software movement, which believes that the more people you have looking at a problem, the more quickly you’ll find a solution.
• This means that museums should “open” the doors to community participation.
• I define open authority as the coming together of museum expertise and community contributions.
• Openness is needed to remain active players in this collaborative environment. • Authority is needed to bring expertise & context to all that user-‐generated content
• Basically, that means that participatory projects aren’t all or nothing. It’s not that the museum is necessarily always right, or that the crowd is always right,
• It’s that we can make it even better, together.
• The truly “open” museum sees the visitor as a collaborator and an active contributor in the creation and interpretation of content, and the curator as an engaged, expert facilitator.
American Alliance of Museums Annual Meeting, 2014
A"100"Toys"Case"Study"
Crowdsourcing"to"Community"Sourcing"
Lori Byrd Phillips | @LoriLeeByrd
Defining Open Authority
Museum
+contributions!
expertise!
Community!
• Many museums now use crowdsourcing as a way to actively partner with visitors.
But there’s much more to open authority than just crowdsourcing.
• I think that there’s really a spectrum of Open Authority, with many possible engagement models, beginning with more conservative approaches (often what museums are doing now) and leading to a more progressive approach.
• I’ve borrowed this spectrum for Open Authority from Mia Ridge, who pointed out this existing model for public participation in projects.
o Mia has edited a volume coming out soon called “Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage.” So keep an eye out for that.
• So more conservative projects are... • Contributory, where the public contributes data to a project designed by the
organization.
• The spectrum then moves on to... • Collaborative, where the public helps refine project design, with the project still
led by org.
• At the far end of the spectrum is... • Co-‐Creative, where the public can take part in all processes, and all parties design
the project together.
• The spectrum is moving from being less transactional to more transactional and Interactive with less dialogue to increasingly more dialogue.
• Contributory projects are often what we consider crowdsourcing. • To quote Mia, Crowdsourcing involves asks directed toward a shared goal that
cannot be done automatically, and they have inherent rewards for participation. o Generally speaking, crowdsourcing can be: Voting, Tagging, Identifying
objects, Transcribing documents.
• Community Sourcing is a more nuanced approach to crowdsourcing, and involves bigger asks made of a more committed, loyal community
o Community sourcing can include Memory Sharing, Community Blogging, Idea Generation and Dialogue, or Sharing Media
• And at the end of the spectrum is Co-‐Creation, which is true participatory interpretation.
o I believe that the Reggio Emilia educational approach is the best model of co-‐creation in museums, but I won’t have time to talk about that today. Please come find me later if you want to talk Reggio Emilia, I’d be happy to
• So, now to dive back into some real-‐life examples.
I’m going to share about a community-‐sourcing project at The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis.
• The Children’s Museum is the largest children’s museum in the world and has a collection of over 120,000 objects.
o Because we only ever have about 10% of our collection on display at any one time, we’re always looking for other ways to share our objects.
• We were inspired by the British Museum’s project “A History of the World in 100 Objects,” and we wanted to take that idea and make it a little more participatory.
Open Authority !"
Contributory Collaborative Co-Creative
Tagging Voting Identifying Transcribing
Community Sourcing Participatory Interpretation Crowdsourcing
Memory Sharing Community Blogging Idea Generation / Dialogue Sharing Media
Reggio Emilia
A Spectrum of Open Authority
• So in the summer of 2012, 100 Toys was born. • The full title is “100 Toys (and their stories) That Define Our Childhood.”
• 100 Toys was a digital engagement project that asked the museum’s online community to share stories and vote for their favorite toys, ultimately deciding the “Top 20 Toys That Define Childhood.”
• The original 100 toys were chosen by our American Collection curator, to best represent the last 100 years.
• All of the toys were in our collection and were photographed for the project.
• The 100 Toys were unveiled in mid-‐July of 2012. • Then for 5 weeks we highlighted a batch of 20 toys on social media, encouraging
online visitors to vote & to “make the case” for their favorite by sharing their story or memory.
• Votes were dynamically compiled throughout, and stories were selected to be featured on each toy’s page.
• (I couldn’t resist sharing my own story about my lost cabbage patch kid that I found in another state seven years later, and that’s what’s featured here.)
• The Top 20 toys were then unveiled with much fanfare by local media, including a
special spread in The Indianapolis Star. • The community-‐curated display shown here was located prominently at our entry
gates. • The public was then invited for 2 weeks to rank the Top 20 to choose the Top 3. • In case you were wondering, The Top 3 toys were G.I. Joe, Transformers, and
LEGOs, followed closely by Barbie, the Viewmaster, the bicycle, Cabbage Patch Kids, and Hot Wheels.
• They were labeled with their rankings and the display remained up for several months, where visitors could continue to submit stories via QR code.
• 100 Toys started out as an experimental story-‐collecting project, but it massively
surpassed expectations when it gained prominent attention in national press and on social media.
• In addition to support from the Indy Star and other local media, we received national coverage through Yahoo, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, and NPR’s All Things Considered. The Yahoo story alone received 1,700 comments.
• In the end, 100 Toys spurred diverse and heartfelt dialogue from local, regional,
and international users across many online platforms.
• From July to September, we had over 94,000 page views on 100 Toys web pages • There were over 600 stories submitted (exact: 641 stories) • And over 24,000 votes (exact: 24,417) • We received submissions from all ages, especially baby boomers, and significant
contributions from men, which we were happy to see. • The reach was not only local and regional, but national and international, with
participation from over a dozen states and countries including Germany, Canada, Israel, and Australia.
Memories last a lot longer than toys.
Check out your Top 20 Toys…!
“…Can I high five you?” !
Results
! 94,000 pageviews ! 24,417 votes ! 641 stories ! 18 states ! 4 countries
• At the heart of 100 Toys’ success was nostalgia, passion, and really an incredible
urge to share that special story about a memorable toy.
• Here are our conclusions about what worked: • THE TOPIC led to nostalgic connections to the objects. Everyone loves toys. • VOTING motivated users to participate and drove media coverage. • FAMILIES shared together, contributing to intergenerational learning, which is the
Children’s Museum’s mission—to promote family learning. • COLLECTIONS were distributed in new ways through beautiful photography, so we
were increasing access. • COMMUNITY was empowered to curate content that resulted in on-‐site display.
• Because of the success of 100 Toys, we began to pursue future Digital Engagement
Projects. • But this required a bit of internal education on what a digital engagement
project is. • So we worked to create a definition and list of elements to help others
understand what makes these projects unique.
• We define a Digital Engagement Project as an interactive project that engages visitors to participate both online and on-‐site.
• They always include a Social, Web, and On-‐Site component • and also have the goal of encouraging attendance to the museum to extend the
experience even further.
• The digital project is always on the museum’s website, with social media strongly supporting and promoting it.
• Sometimes Digital Engagement Projects are confused with social media campaigns. • We like to say that while social campaigns do exist around each exhibit, a Digital
Engagement Project is so much more.
• A Digital Engagement Project always includes an on-‐site component, which could be something like the examples listed here, such as a public event or a visitor-‐curated display.
• Digital engagement projects also include at least one online element, like those listed here. The online tools and social platforms change depending on the goals of the Digital Engagement Project.
• We’re now working on our third Digital Engagement Project, and have used this definition to guide us.
o Our Director of Collections, Chris Carron, just presented on our 2nd Digital Engagement Project, the Superpower Showdown, here yesterday.
o And our third will take place next year, focusing on inspiring fashion and personal style.
• It’s my hope that our definition can be built upon by others looking to formalize
recurring, participatory digital projects in your own museums. o Please don’t hesitate to come chat with me later. I have a handout and
also some pretty great 100 Toys buttons to share. Thank you so much.
What worked?
! THE TOPIC ! VOTING ! SHARING ! COLLECTIONS ! COMMUNITY!
A Digital Engagement Project is…
! PARTICIPATORY ! Crowdsourced ! Community-sourced
! DIGITAL ! An online game ! Online voting or sharing ! Online contest
! SOCIAL ! Social media campaign ! Social media contest
! ON-SITE ! A display of objects ! A public event ! Voting or sharing on-site ! A pop-up exhibit