Conference presentation for iSay event: The shape of things, University of Leicester, 31 Jan. - 1 Feb. 2013 (http://isayevents.wordpress.com/shapeofthings/).

1. “Run mummy run”:
communicative tensions in digital museum
installations that elicit visitor contributions
Areti Galani
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies
Rachel Clarke
Digital Interaction Group @ Culture Lab

2. Can interactivity antagonise
participation and
how can accessible technology
lead to inaccessible
participation paradigms?

3. Will a doodle ever become
a ‘contribution’ and when
does a contribution become
part of the ‘narrative’?

4. Great North Run
 Largest half marathon in the world
 One of the longest running half
marathons – started in 1981
 Inclusive – pitched at all abilities
 50,000 runners each year

5. Design Brief
 different forms of participation
 what it means to be part of the Run
 personal reflection and contribution

6. 9 meters of ‘interactive’ table
2 large display screens with keypads
13 single-touch touch screens
9 sets of Anoto pens and pads

7. 1 participatory website

8. 2 types of participatory content
 participatory seed content and moderated VGC

9. 2 contribution routes
 website and table
4 contribution formats
 photographs and typed text (website)
 drawings and hand-written text (table)
4 ways to view own content
 own pad page, touch screens, big screens, website
3 ways to view other people’s content
 touch screens, big screens, website

10.  93 days: July-October 2010
 c.60,000 in-gallery users (including viewers)
 13,000 contributions

11.  55 online contributions – all published
 c.13,000 in-gallery contributions – c.1,100 published

12. Mini exit interviews
20 x 5-10min exit interviews day
before run
▫ Families and runners
▫ Observed interaction
▫ Informal
▫ Background & experience of the
run
▫ Experience of the exhibition and
the installation

13. Interviews
10 in depth interviews with
runners
▫ Run & running
▫ Exhibition
▫ Installation
▫ Website

14. Written contributions analysis
275 written contributions

15. Can interactivity antagonise participation?
 Space-wise the table was grouped with the other
‘interactives’ in the gallery
 At the edge of the ‘kids’ section’
 Concern (among adults) re: failing to operate the
technology in public

16. How can accessible technology lead to
inaccessible participation paradigms?
 Pen+pad a very familiar technology embedded in an
unfamiliar set-up
▫ Curiosity/urgency to interact preceded desire to contribute
▫ Pen-happy visitors
▫ Opportunistic contributions – loads of!
▫ Repeat contributions – people wanted to give it another try
▫ Overload of interactions at busy times that led the system
to crash

17. Will a doodle ever become a ‘contribution’?
 In the eyes of the adults, doodles were the
contributions of the children
 Moderation adjusted according to volume

18. When does a contribution become part of
the ‘narrative’?
 Many interrelated emerging narratives
▫ Insiders and outsiders: taking part in the
run/archive
▫ Public expression of support for friends/family
runners
▫ Returning the favour to the audience
▫ Personal reflection
 Temporary co-existence with museum narratives of
celebration

19. Please insert participatory
installation here
Exhibition space

20. Empathetic
Situated
Embedded

21. Thank you!
areti.galani@ncl.ac.uk
r.clarke@ncl.ac.uk