ASPECTOS RELATIVOS AL PROCEDIMIENTO DISCIPLINARIO

Ecology is a biological term that means “the totality or pattern of relations be-

tween organisms and their environment.” (Merriam-Webster, 2009). I use this term to describe and to connect factors involving an artefact, its design process and, most importantly, the relations between them. Since no design process or artefact exists in isolation, but rather in close contact with oth- ers and their varied uses and conceptions, during this research I came to un- derstand all these factors as an ecology. Drawing on the perspectives of some researchers that have previously used the term ecology in Interaction Design, Museum Studies or Museum Informatics, I propose the concept of an ecology

of participation. Other related concepts, such as assemblies and participative

platforms, help to frame this concept and to argue for its potential. Previous uses of the term ecology such as information ecologies (Davenport, 1997; Nardi & O’Day, 1999), cultural ecologies (Bell, 2002), museum as ecology (Wakkary & Evernden, 2005), product ecology (Forlizzi, 2008), and ecologies of artefacts (Krippendorff, 2006; Jung, Stolterman, Ryan, Thompson & Siegel, 2008), help define the term’s limits. The concept of ecology of participation permits us to understand elements, groups and connectors in the museum and exhibition context and reveals areas for intervention in the design domain.

For designers theoretical frameworks are tools to interpret and understand certain conditions (Nelson & Stolterman, 2003). I compare these frame- works with the concept I propose, namely the ecology of participation, in or- der to enrich and frame the concept itself. Mine is an explorative design-re- search agenda that aims to open the landscape of possibilities for interaction designers in museums and exhibition venues.

62 Chapter 3. The Concept of Ecology of Participation Chapter 3. The Concept of Ecology of Participation 63

3.1.1 Assemblies and Participative Platforms

In the search for a suitable term for the aforementioned concept, I explored different possibilities, such as assemblies and participative platforms, which have been used in Interaction design, New Media studies or Museum In- formatics. In 2008, I proposed using participatory platforms as a way to in- clude the participative pieces that were in the exhibition in their relation to the collaborative design process in which they were conceived (Salgado, 2008b). The term participatory platform is mainly used in connection with online creation, sharing, and collaboration (Goryunova, 2007). In this case, however, I use it to address online and onsite pieces that pool resources. For example, workshop material (poems, music and drawings) was used to encourage visitors’ participation in the exhibition. Later, I realised that the word ecology was more precise: it emphasises not only identifying and group- ing elements, but also identifying relations among them.

Thereafter I analysed the possibility to use “assembly”. According to the dictionary, an assembly is the fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine (Merriam-Webster dic- tionary, 2009). In the context of museums, the term assemblies of artefacts and assemblies of technologies were introduced by Mike Fraser and his col- leagues (Fraser et al., 2003). The goal of using assemblies is to “support a co- herent experience for visitors” (Fraser et al., 2003), allowing them to make a connection with experiences at different displays and to make sense of com- plex information. Later, Jon Hindmarsh and his colleagues (Hindmarsh, et al., 2005) used the term to refer to digital and concrete artefacts that are part of an interactive installation in an exhibition. Such installations demon- strate the use of many objects such as cameras, monitors and physical props. In their installations, the term assembly helped to connect objects that were spread throughout the gallery space, not just in one corner, and therefore the term assembly conceptually connected them. Hindmarsh and his colleagues (Hindmarsh et al., 2005) also proposed that there could be an assembly of activities or actions parallel to the assembly of objects. The focus was on the activities that take place and the artefacts found during the time of the exhi- bition, since their installations included real-time interactions.

The term assembly is suitable for understanding the connection between different elements of the same kind such as manufactured parts, activities, artefacts or technologies. However, it did not fit my need to understand the relations between elements that are not of the same kind. Moreover, I want- ed to come up with a term that allows the re-thinking of the linkages within the groups, and not only to see the groups as part of a whole.

In the case studies chosen here, I concentrate on the design process and

on the lifespan of artefacts that involve practices happening before, during and after the visit or the exhibition. The concept of ecology is appropriate since it underlies the notion of design-in-action and over time. It stresses the relationships among its elements. In the following sections of this chap- ter, I analyse different uses of the concept of ecology. They are arranged in chronological order of publication (from oldest to newest).

3.1.2 Information Ecologies

The first person to introduce the concept of information ecology was Thomas Davenport (1997). He proposed this concept as a way to think holistically in an organisation. He described information ecology as integrating diverse types of information, recognising changes over time, emphasising observa- tion and description and the behaviour of people and information. (Daven- port, 1997)

Continuing with his line of thinking, Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O’Day (1999) mainly defined information ecology for organisations such as librar- ies and schools, but they also spoke of what they called the MUD, or multi-

ple-user dimension. They framed information ecology as a “system of people,

practices, values and technologies in a particular local environment.” Their information ecologies do not focus on technology but on human activities that are served by technology (Nardi & O’Day, 1999, p. 49). These authors use the concept of information ecology to analyse already-existing and well- established practices.

My definition of ecologies shares the focus on people and technology with the one that Nardi and O’Day employ but frames them differently. I do not use the term to encompass all the activities that happened in one specific site, but only the ones related to the practice of participation. Therefore, in the case of museum ecology, I do not try to understand all the practices that happen at a museum or exhibition venue, but only the ones that might in- fluence the design of participation strategies. My intention is to shift the emphasis from information to the practice of participation itself, in order to focus on the collaboration that participation makes possible. Another ad- vantage of this approach is that it allows the inclusion of participants work- ing outside the museum, such as researchers, artists or designers.

3.1.3 Cultural Ecologies

Genevieve Bell (2002) presents the concept of cultural ecology removed from the biological environment “to invoke the museum space and, more gener- ally, the whole of the museum experience”. She notes that historically there

64 Chapter 3. The Concept of Ecology of Participation Chapter 3. The Concept of Ecology of Participation 65 have been three types of museums in the United States: art museums, science

museums, and cultural or historical museums. She identifies different types of visitors, interactions and rituals, and discusses the design implications of each of these types. She distinguishes three significant components that define the museum ecology: liminality, sociality and engagement. Liminality describes mobile or transformative experiences that are set apart from the rest of life. Sociality speaks of the museum visit as a social event for groups such as families, classes and friends. Engagement refers to the possibilities to learn from and to relate to the objects in the exhibitions.

Genevieve Bell introduced the concept of ecology in the museum context. The characteristics that she defines are useful for an analysis of the ecology of participation. For example, leaving comments in the exhibition and having them displayed as part of the general content relates to liminality, sociality and engagement. It reinforces liminality by giving visitors the opportunity to reflect. As participants can leave a message that forms part of the exhibi- tion, they take time to think, and this encourages a transformative experi- ence. Sociality comes into play when participants discuss as a group what to leave as a comment or when someone is reading a comment from another person. Though in the case studies discussed here, only one person could leave a comment at a time, many participants discussed the content of their comment in small groups. Participants were motivated by the possibility to engage with the exhibition by leaving comments that reflect their memories, thoughts, opinions and questions. The intellectual and emotional engage- ment that takes place when people can generate the content of the exhibi- tion has a special value, and this positively influences future contributions. I will come back to this issue in Section 3.4, Participation and Involvement.

3.1.4 Museums as Ecology

My aim in reporting on the three case studies above is to offer information about the design of interactive technologies, but also to discuss the practices and values that support those technologies in the museum context. Ron Wakkary and Dale Evernden (2005) examine how suitable certain design responses are to a given ecology and its habitants and, in so doing, propose “museums as ecology.” This was the first time that the concept of ecology was used explicitly with the aim of designing interactive technologies for museums. Wakkary and Evernden also draw on the concept of cultural ecol- ogy presented by Bell (2002) and on the notion of information ecologies presented by Nardi and O’Day (1999). Wakkary and Evernden (2005) con- clude that ecologies provide museum teams with “an in-depth understand- ing of the museum’s visit experience and the organization” (p. 8) that can

guide design decisions. In other words, by enabling an understanding of the museum, the ecology framework informs the design process. Their findings have informed and inspired my research, and in keeping with this, I suggest the concept of ecology of participation.

Since it is so complex to map the whole range of museum concerns and values, I propose the concept of ecology of participation as a way to frame the elements needed for one particular practice. I focus on the practice of participation and try to involve it in the diversity of inhabitants, places, in- teractive pieces and other practices pertinent to a given museum ecology.

3.1.5 Product Ecology

Jodi Forlizzi (2008) proposes product ecology as “a theoretical design frame- work to describe how products evoke social behaviour, to provide a roadmap for choosing appropriate qualitative research methods and to extend design culture within HCI (Human Computer Interaction), by allowing for flexible research planning and opportunity seeking” (p. 19). To understand how peo- ple forge social relationships with products, she proposes including in the product-ecology people, their attitudes, roles and relationships, as well as the environment where the product is used. In parallel Forlizzi considers includ- ing the physical structure, norms, routines and social and cultural contexts of both the people who use and make the product.

The product ecology proposed by Forlizzi is close to my notion of ecology of participation, because it includes people and activities related to a specific product. The attitudes, roles and relationships related to the practice of partic- ipation in the museum community are considered in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, focusing on the practice and not on the product itself is a way to present the design question beyond the object or product focus. The aim is, rather, to allow the design process to develop in relation to certain practices. By concentrating on practice, it is easier to speak of the design process and the design solution in an integrated way. Since the practice of participation can happen before, during and after the exhibition, it is possible to design a variety of interactive points and, through them, influence and frame a given ecology.

3.1.6 Ecologies of Artefacts

Klaus Krippendorff (2006) distinguishes an ecology of artefacts different from biological species because biological species interact on their own terms in contrast with artefacts that interact on human terms (p. 195). He analyses how artefacts interact: “There is speciation but also the merging of several artifacts into one. There is migration of features from one species of artifacts

66 Chapter 3. The Concept of Ecology of Participation Chapter 3. The Concept of Ecology of Participation 67 to another” (p.197). Krippendorff believes that as new design objects enter

into a relation with other artefacts, they must be designed to survive such ecological interactions.

Later, Heekyoung Jung, Erik Stolterman, Will Ryan, Tonya Thompson and Marty Siegel (2008) have proposed the notion of an ecology of artefacts to “help designers and researchers in the field of HCI to create and analyze in- teractive artifacts considering their dynamic interplays in an increasingly ubiquitous technology environment” (Jung et al, 2008, p. 201). They identi- fied experiential, emotional and social values related to the use of certain artefacts and demonstrated how these artefacts influenced users’ behaviour and perception of the artefacts.

Both contributions are interesting to the ecological discussion, because they stress the importance of the relations among the components of the ecology. Krippendorff’s use of the term allows recognition of ways in which artefacts interact, influenced by users. Heekyoung and his colleagues use the term to define different values related to the use of the artefacts and how the artefacts influence users’ behaviour. For the specific purpose of my analysis I rather use a term that embraces artefacts, humans, and practices as they were present constantly during the time in the exhibitions.