This document summarizes a study on engagement with museums, galleries and heritage sites via Facebook in the North East of England. The study used mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, including focus groups and an online survey of 526 respondents from 15 institutions. Key findings include that Facebook is primarily used independently from visiting in everyday life, especially at home on smartphones. Engagement helps connect people to institutions and cultural resources but interaction between fans is limited. Differences exist between art galleries, museums and heritage sites, with heritage sites having more interaction and subject-focused fans. Insights for practice and future research are discussed.

1. Engaging with museums, galleries and
heritage via Facebook
in the North East
Chiara Bonacchi & Areti Galani
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies

2. • Increased use of social media for engagement
› financial constraints
• Lack of evidence base
› fragmented research and data
› desire for a people-centred approach
Motivations for the project

3. • Methodology
• Make-up of the study
• Findings
• Conclusions for practice and research
Structure of the presentation

4. Methodology
• Mixed methods
› Qualitative and quantitative
• Focus groups
› Shipley Art Gallery, Great North Museum, Arbeia
Roman Fort
› Discussion-based and role-play
• Facebook survey
› 15 institutions in the NE
› Art galleries, museums, heritage sites, science centre
› Closed and open questions

5. Our survey respondents
The largest survey of this kind in the North East
526 respondents
Responses per institution
Shipley Art Gallery
Laing Art Gallery
Segedunum Roman Fort
Arbeia Roman Fort
Stephenson Railway Museum
South Shields Museum & Art Gallery
Hatton Gallery
Great North Museum
Discovery Museum
Woodhorn Museum
BALTIC
Centre for Life
Bede's World
Beamish
Mima
TWAM

6. Differences between
types of institutions
Value
Lenses of interpretation
Situations

7. SITUATIONS
Who are the fans?
When and where do they engage
with MGH via Facebook?
With what motivations?

8. Who are the fans?
17 %
22%
24.5%
36 %
None
3 to 5
More than 5
1 or 2
Number of times fans have visited the
institutions they 'liked' in the past 12 months
The communities of fans of MGH
Facebook pages coincide to a large
extent with the communities of
visitors to those institutions
In the past 12 months …
• 84% of respondents have visited the
venue of which they are fans at least once
• Half of them visited at least 3 times
• No difference between fans of institutions
with lower/higher numbers of local visitors

9. When and where are Facebook pages
used to engage with MGH?
In relation to in person visitation
Facebook is used to engage with MGH
primarily independently from visiting
15%
27%
81%
Independently from visiting
Right before visiting
Right after visiting
Everyday life situations
Primarily at home
(c. 3 in 5 respondents)
Less at work & on the go
(c. 1 in 5 respondents
respectively)

10. 4 %
20%
35 %
56 %
62%
iPod
Tablet
Desktop computer
Smartphone
Laptop
Devices used to engage online with MGH
Through what devices?
A large proportion of online
engagement with MGH is mobile
• 80% uses handheld device
• Higher levels of mobile
access for art galleries

11. What are the motivations for ‘liking’
MGH Facebook pages?
8%
9%
10%
18%
45%
47%
78%
79%
Wanted to connect with other people who 'like' the institution
Some friends had also liked the page
Like their online friends to know they are cultured
Feel that institution reflects their views and tastes
Impressed by a visit to institution and wanted to let friends know about it
Driven by interest in collections
Thought could obtain more info about what goes on at institution
To support and promote the institution

12. VALUE
How can social capital helps us
understand value in relation to
Facebook engagement with MGH?

13. Understanding value through social capital
Social capital
“the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are
linked to possession of a durable network” (Bourdieu 1986)
• What relationships are built and sustained through Facebook
engagement with MGH?
• What cultural resources do these relationships mobilise?
• How does Facebook engagement with MGH relate to other types of
engagement?

14. Relationships built and sustained through
Facebook engagement with MGH
Connection with the institution
• 79% ‘liked’ the page to support and
promote the institution
• 35% have increased the frequency
of visitation as a result of their
engagement with MGH via
Facebook
90%
61%
27% 23%
2%
How fans interact with
the Facebook pages of
MGH
View Like Share
Comment Message

15. Relationships built and sustained through
Facebook engagement with MGH
Connection with staff and fans
• built connections useful for their
profession (12%)
• engaged with staff (8%)
• met with people who share similar
interests in the institution/relevant
subjects (4%)
• interaction with other fans online
marginal (from focus group
research)
90%
61%
27% 23%
2%
How fans interact with
the Facebook pages of
MGH
View Like Share
Comment Message

16. • Facebook primarily as source of information about what
happens at the institution (e.g. exhibitions, events, etc.)
• Facebook helped to expand knowledge about subjects
relevant to the institution (44%)
› more so for people with lower education levels
• Facebook as cultural index prompting visitation to the
websites and Facebook pages of institutions similar to those
‘liked’ (47%)
What resources are mobilised
through these relationships?

17. Visited in person
Attended events
Visited websitesDownloaded podcasts
Downloaded apps
What fans did to engage with MGH in the past 12 months
93%
58%
89%8%
18%
How does Facebook engagement relate to other
forms of engagement with MGH?

18. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS
Is Facebook used differently by fans
of museums, galleries and heritage
sites?
To what extent do these differences
exist offline?

19. Differences between types of institutions
ART GALLERIES
Shipley, Laing, Hatton, BALTIC
HERITAGE SITES
Arbeia, Segedunum, Bede’s World,
Beamish
MUSEUMS
Stephenson Railway
Museum, GNM: Hancock,
South Shields Museum & Art Gallery,
Woodhorn Museum
• Facebook pages of art
galleries and museums are
used more as platforms for
receiving info through feeds
• Facebook pages of heritage
sites are identified more with
the actual sites
› Have greater interaction
between fans and staff
› Have higher levels of after
visitation interaction
› Have fans with greater interest
in the job of staff
Differences between types of institutions

20. Differences between types of institutions
Fans of heritage sites have a more subject-focussed
type of engagement
› Differences between fans of the Shipley Art Gallery and
GNM: Hancock vs. fans of Arbeia Roman Fort
› My PhD showed that: based on a sample of 1,500
respondents internationally, people who engage with
archaeology by visiting archaeological sites have
significantly higher levels of interest in the subject than
those who engage via museum visitation only
To what extent do these differences exist offline?

21. CONCLUSIONS

22. Differences between types of institutions
• Greater use of the Facebook pages of heritage sites in the
NE for knowledge sharing
• Art galleries in the NE can take greater advantage of
higher levels of access via handheld devices in the
design of their Facebook offering
• The study suggested that there is value in Facebook as a
tool to maintain awareness but other aspects of value
should be investigated further
• A question remains open on the value of Facebook in
relation to other social media and modalities of
engagement online
Insights into practice

23. Differences between types of institutions
What fans would like to see more of ...
• More photos of the institution’s collections (70%)
• More information about events taking place at the
institution (64%)
• Topicality of comments and updates
But ...
• Games and quizzes (12%)
• Posts to invite Facebook fans to meet up in person (10%)
Insights into practice

24. Differences between types of institutions
• Research on the situation of engagement, leading to
more informed design practice around MGH social media
• Research on the processes through which cultural capital
is mobilised via digital engagement with MGH
› in relation to non digital forms of engagement with MGH
› to other cultural practices
› considering differences between institutions and subjects
• Research on value of digital cultural engagment drawing
on the construct of ‘social capital’
Research prospects

25. • Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums
• Arts and Humanities Research Council
• Research participants
• All our survey hosts
We would like to thank ...

26. THANK YOU!
Questions?
chiara.bonacchi@gmail.com
areti.galani@newcastle.ac.uk
http://digitalculturalengagement.wordpress.com/