Fig. 1 Museum Victoria’s online collection search Source: http://collections.museumvictoria.com.au
Fig. 2 The National Gallery of Australia’s online collection search Source: http://nga.gov.au/CollectionSearch/Default.cfm
Digital innovation presents significant opportunity for public museums and galleries to extend access and engagement to collections. This report details the current situation in Australia. As publicly funded and accountable institutions, museums and galleries have a responsibility to provide access to and engagement with collection information. With 95% of collections located in storage and 75% unavailable online, our public collections and the information they hold are being rendered inaccessible (Mansfield et al 2014). The demand for this information in Australia is high and continues to increase (Victorian Auditor-General 2012). This paper seeks to describe this demand and considers the obstacles and benefits to institutions and users in providing access to collection information via the World Wide Web.
Collections and access in Australia
In 2010 the Australian Bureau of Statistics released Arts and Culture in Australia: A Statistical Overview. This document recorded a total of 1,184 museums and art galleries in Australia[1]. In a more detailed report; Innovation Study: Challenges and Opportunities for Australia’s Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (Mansfield et al 2014) it was noted that museums and galleries held over 50 million objects within their collections. When each of these objects is understood to hold any number of ‘material facts’ (Dudley 2012, p.xxvii) or ‘potential data’ (Knell 2003 p.137) it is almost inconceivable to comprehend the quantity of valuable and varied information these museums and galleries hold by way of their collections. This study also described the current public access to these objects; stating that just 5% of these objects are displayed within the onsite museum or gallery at any one time, while only 25% are accessible online (Mansfield et al 2014).
Collections and responsibility
People want and expect online access to information (Hart 2006, Johnson et al 2010, Marty 2007). As repositories of knowledge and information museums and galleries are uniquely positioned to respond to this demand for information (Cunliffe, Kritou and Tudhope 2001). Ross Parry in The Internet and Audience Development as a Series of Challenges in the 21st Century (2010) comments that it is the responsibility of museums and galleries to share and expose public collections to the widest possible use. Indeed the very definition of a museum includes this same notion; a responsibility to ‘communicate… the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environments for purposes of education, study and enjoyment’ (International Council of Museums 2007). Digital technology offers unprecedented opportunity for institutions rich in information to make this available to the public. Australia’s National Cultural Policy; Creative Australia furthers this notion, stating
Australia’s collections need to be available online for all Australian’s. It is a fundamental part of social inclusion and of paramount importance in bridging the digital divide…. In particular, online access to the collections of the National Collecting Institutions will ensure that these assets, which are held on behalf of all Australians, are truly accessible by all Australians. (Australian Government 2014 p.127)
Digital technology offers unprecedented opportunity for institutions rich in information to make this available to the public, while also enabling new ways to engage; ‘technology and the network capabilities of the World Wide Web vastly expand the possibilities for the presentation of museum collections’ (Reilly 2000).
Collections and demand
Australian museum and gallery websites are a popular and important information resource. This is demonstrated through consistent growth in online visitation received by cultural institutions (Victorian Auditor-General 2012). Museum Victoria; Australia’s largest public museum organisation, attracts increasing visitation to collection pages. Studies reveal 226,658 collection searches were undertaken in 2009/10, while 530,521 searches were made in 2010/11 and 697,839 searches were in the 2011/12 financial year (Ibid).
Online visitation also regularly exceeds physical visitation (Greene 2014, Victorian Auditor-General 2012). Of the 62 museums that form The Council of Australasian Museum Directors, 70% of the 51 million visits in 2013/14 financial year were online (Green 2014). Museum Victoria presents similar findings when comparing onsite visits with those online. In the 2011/12 financial year physical visits numbered 1.9 million, while over 4.5 million people visited online (Victorian Auditor-General 2012). These statistics demonstrate the popularity of museum and gallery websites and describe their presence as a valued resource.
Interconnections: The Institute of Museum and Library Services National Study on the Use of Libraries, Museums and the Internet (Griffiths and King 2008) concluded museums are one of the most trusted sources of information[2] and that the public benefits significantly from the presence of museum and library websites in meeting their information needs. The study also revealed that the perceived quality of information invited increased use; onsite and online (Ibid). Noted statistics demonstrate these findings; ‘Internet users visit museums in-person 2.6 times more often… than non-Internet users’ (Ibid p.22). These results are consistent with those found on an institutional level at the National Gallery of Australia, where onsite and online visitation have increased in agreement[3] (Victorian Auditor-General 2012).
The National Gallery of Australia’s online visitation has also risen in unison with online access to their collection. In 2010/11 there were 959,114 online visits to collection pages and 24% of the National Gallery of Australia’s collection was publicly available online (Ibid). In 2011/12 collections access was increased to 27% and there were 1,330,174 collection page online visits (Ibid).
This suggests a relationship between the number of collection objects available online and online visits. In this way, collection information can be understood to be a primary reason for online visitation while also describing the increasing demand for information of this nature. It begs the question, if the museum is responsible for providing access to collections, and the audience that museums and galleries seek to serve increasingly want this information online… then why aren’t more of our collections made publicly available through online platforms?
Challenges
The answer is of course complex as cultural institutions are varied. There are however, several points which might go some way to providing an explanation. New and additional services require new and additional resources in the form of finance, time, skills, policies and procedures. In providing online access to collection databases ‘museums now must manage the thousands of digital surrogates they create in addition to the original pieces themselves’ (Reilly 2000, p.2).
Large capital investment is required to establish digitization projects before online access can be provided, (Hart and Hallett 2011) and secure, ongoing finance is needed to maintain and upgrade software and hardware (Prosser, 2006). In The shape of things to come: museums in the technological landscape (2003) Simon Knell adds that it is uncertain whether an income can be generated from enabling greater access to collections online[4]. Many collection objects are also ‘complex and time-consuming to digitize at a quality suitable for research and preservation’ (Mansfield et al 2014 p.5).
The need for skilled staff knowledgeable in these processes has required the recruitment and retraining of staff, out-sourcing and partnering with outside organisations (Hart and Hallett 2011, Mansfield et al 2014). These requirements have placed new demands on museum management (Ibid). Copyright, public accountability and intellectual property compliances present further challenges to institutions facilitating online access to collections. ‘Unlimited, unauthorized copying and distribution … exposes museums to liability for infringing creators’ and publishers’ copyrights and subjects’ publicity rights, as well as for committing other violations of intellectual property’ (Reilly 2000 p.3) Community standards and moral and cultural rights[5] must also be adhered to and recognized within risk management frameworks (Mansfield et al 2014, Reilly 2000). Bernard Reilly in Collections: Museum Collections Online (2000) also notes that ‘certain kinds of museum objects lend themselves to Web dissemination better than others’; for instance objects demonstrating size and mass, or intricate detailing can be underrepresented in a digital image (p.3).
Museum data has also been largely created ‘for collection management and not public access’ (Juin 2005 p.753) with terminology and classificatory systems which may hinder open-ended searching (Cameron 2001, Hart 2006, Trant 2006, Marty 2011, Gunho et al 2012, Sargent 2013). In this way, enabling public access to current data systems can present further obstacles. Placing specialized data associated with varied objects within an environment demanding data consistency also presents challenges (Cameron 2001, Hart 2006, Hart and Hallett 2011).
In contributing information to the Internet, institutions are faced with reduced control over how the information is utilized and accessed. A recent visitor study of the Museum Victoria’s website ‘showed that only 5% of visitors entered through the ‘front page’, 95% either knew where they were going or used a search engine to locate information embedded within the website’ (Hart 2006, p.11). To add to this, Parry (2010) notes a similar divergence in authorship and authority; traditionally held authority becomes diluted within the context of the Internet. Parry comments ‘the Web, in contrast, appeared to replace the clarity of the single, trusted curatorial voice with a wall of sound’ (p.27).
These challenges represent real obstacles for most, if not all institutions in relation to online collection access. The rate of technological development requires continual change and adaptation within our institutions. Online collection access represents a long-term decision to provide and participate.
‘Digitisation is not an end in itself so much as a means to an end. It does not offer quick-wins but rather represents a long-term investment. Museums must continue to digitise their collections and the information that accompanies them, as building blocks. There will be uses of digitised collections that cannot be imagined yet.’ (Glaister and Wilkinson 2005 p.14).
Benefits
Technological innovation offers tremendous potential for the presentation of museum collections (Reilly 2000) and benefits museums and galleries as well as their publics. Creative Australia; Australia’s National Cultural Policy identifies the ‘importance of progressing collections to ensure they are preserved for future generations and accessible to all’ (Australian Government 2014 p.127). This is echoed in Safe and accessible national collections, a report produced by The Australian National Audit Office (2005); ‘Digitisation allows for remote users to access images of the collection and information about items in the collection without leaving home, a good outcome in terms of increasing the collection’s accessibility’ (p.69). Australia has historically struggled with obstacles of distance and size of the local market (Australian Government 2014). Digital technology presents the opportunity to overcome geographical restrictions, reaching new visitor bases whilst also serving existing visitors (Skov and Ingwersen 2008, Schneider 2007, Lundy and Crean 2011).
In addition, online access offers institutions the ability to display objects not exhibited onsite. Whereas the physical structure of the museum building restricts the number of displayed objects, the World Wide Web enables unlimited quantities of information on unlimited objects (Schneider 2007). In this way, access can be increased to an object while also ensuring its preservation; effectively reducing the need to handle the real object through the use of its digital surrogate (Stow 2011, Knell 2003, Schneider 2007, Hughes 2003).
Online presence has also been found to encourage onsite visitation; a conclusion reached by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, amoung others[6] (Griffiths and King 2008, Hart and Hallett 2011, Brunig 2014). This suggests a mutual relationship between the onsite and online experience, whereby each can be understood to further or supplement the other (Galani and Chalmers 2010). The opportunities for a blended online/onsite experience are rapidly evolving and present exciting future possibilities to institutions and users engaging with digital technologies (Parry 2014).
Opportunities for adult and student learning can also be provided through virtual access to museum and gallery collections. Information held within collections can be an educational or research tool available to school students and academics alike. ‘Online collections information essentially provides a scaffolding for learning’ (Schneider 2007). Student-centered constructivist learning environments enabling collaboration, curation and creation can be facilitated and assisted through digital access to collection information (Jones and Christal 2002).
Engaging audiences through the use of digital technologies also enables a two-way dialogue. Communicating with existing or potential audiences is made easy, direct and instant through the use of current technologies. In this way, users can contribute information and insight. ‘Organisations have uncovered family connections to objects, and gained knowledge about their collection via feedback from visitors. Making collections available online has also resulted in donations of like items and corrections of cataloguing records for items with minimal provenance’ (Culture Victoria 2012).
Contributing information within digital environments also allows an institution to participate in future opportunities. Future possibilities for collection information are well documented and extensive. Successful projects indicate the potential for museums and galleries within digital landscapes and suggest proven pathways. Web 2.0 technologies present opportunities for further engagement and communication associated with collection information with audiences. Lena Maculan in New broadcasting models of communication for museums (2006) describes podcasting as one example of this. Within a localised, personalised and constructivist framework ‘digital media moves from being simply a delivery medium for the institution, to being a communications tool for creation and expression by the visitor’ (Parry and Arbach 2007). In this environment passive users can become active producers in contributing content, serving to increase the museums’ resources while also enabling genuine social interaction, learning and engagement. Other Semantic Web tools, including Flikr, tagging, Google Base and Yahoo Pipes can further collaboration and communication between collection information users (Parry Poole and Pratty 2008). Descriptive metadata also offers potential for institutions to provide more easily searched and linked information (Gunho et al 2012).
Digital technologies provide a tremendous opportunity to extend onsite visitor bases and provide additional knowledge and experiences to existing audiences (Skov and Ingwersen 2008). This report has outlined online collections access and demand in Australia. The number of public collecting institutions is noted alongside the total number of objects within these collections. Percentages of collections deemed accessible via online or onsite modes reveal a disheartening statistic; at any one time a maximum of 30% of Australia’s collections are available to the public (Mansfield et al 2014). Our collecting institutions are tasked with the responsibility to provide access and opportunities for engagement to the objects held on the public’s behalf. Making collection information available online is a way to successfully enable access to a higher proportion of these collections, to a larger visitor base. In stating collection webpage visitation figures this report seeks to describe the increasing public demand for information of this nature. It also considers the challenges and benefits to institutions and users alike; and notes future possibilities available to organisations and users participating and engaging with online platforms.
[1] Included in this survey were historic trusts and sites, historic societies with a collection, house museums, social and natural history museums, archives (excluding the national and state archives), art galleries (excluding commercial art galleries), keeping places and cultural centres, outdoor museums, science museums, maritime museums, military museums and transport museums. Of the total, 60% were categorised as social history museums, 33% historic properties and sites, and approximately 6% being other museums (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010).
[2] This study found museums to be surpassed only by libraries in perceived trustworthiness as sources of information (Griffiths and King 2008).
[3] In 2010/11 financial year the National Gallery of Australia achieved 1,523,325 physical visits and 959,114 online visits and in 2011/12 reached 1,548,308 physical visits and 1,330,174 online visits; each increasing in proportion to the other Victorian Auditor-General 2012).
[4] Knell does however describe an instance where revenue has been received; whereby the Scottish Cultural Resources Network provides access to schools and individuals via subscription. It is noted though that this must compete with freely available sources (2003).
[5] In Australia, sensitivities surrounding indigenous collections can restrict and prevent online access (Hart, 2006).
[6] The Institute of Museum and Library Services in the United States concluded that ‘the number of remote online visits is positively correlated with the number of in-person visits to museums and public libraries’, and that online visits ‘appear to stimulate more use of museums and public libraries’ (Griffiths and King 2008 p.14-15).
References
Australian Government (2014) Creative Australia: National Cultural Policy. Canberra: Australian Government.
Cameron, F. (2001) ‘Wired Collections – the Next Generation’, Museum Management and Curatorship 19(3), pp.309-315.
Cunliffe, D. Kritou, E and Tudhope D. (2001) ‘Usability Evaluation for Museum Web Sites’, Museum Management and Curatorship 19(3), pp.229-252.
Dudley, S. (2012) Museum Objects: Experiencing the Properties of Things. Oxon: Routledge.
Galani, A. and Chalmers, M. (2010) ‘Empowering the Remote Visitor: supporting social museum experiences among local and remote visitors’, in Parry, R. Museums in a Digital Age. London: Routledge, pp. 159-169.
Glaister, J. and Wilkinson, H. (2005) Collections for the future. Report of a Museums Association. London: Museums Association.
Gunho, C. et al (2012) ‘Exploring Affective Computing for Enhancing the Museum Experience with Online Collections’, Museums and the Web 2012: the international conference for cultural and heritage on-line. San Diego 11-14 April. San Diego: Museums and the Web.
Hart, T. (2006) ‘Digitisation: An Australian Museums’ Perspective’, Collections Council of Australia, Digital Collections Summit. Adelaide 16-17 August. Adelaide: Collections Council of Australia.
Hughes, L. (2003) ‘Why digitize? The costs and benefits of digitalization’, in Hughes, L. Digitizing Collections: Strategic issues for the information manager. London: Facet publishing, pp. 3-30.
Johnson, L. et al (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Jiun A, (2005),’Enhancing access to digital information resources on heritage’, Journal of Documentation, 61(6) pp. 751-776.
Knell, S. (2003) ‘The shape of things to come: museums in the technological landscape’, Museum and Society 1(3) pp.132-146.
Lundy, K. and Crean, S. (2011) ‘Accessing Australia: the challenges of digitisation’, HASS on the Hill. Canberra 22-23 March. Canberra: Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS).
Mansfield, T. et al (2014) Innovation Study: Challenges and Opportunities for Australia’s Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. Clayton: Australian Centre for Broadband Innovation, CSIRO and Smart Services Co-operative Research Centre.
Marty, P. (2007) ‘The Changing Nature of Information Work in Museums’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(1), pp.97-107.
Marty, P. (2011) ‘My lost museum: User expectations and motivations for creating personal digital collections on museum websites’, Library and Information Science Research 33(1), pp.211-219.
Parry, R and Arbach, N. (2007) ‘Localized, Personalized, and Constructivist: A Space for Online Museum Learning’, in Cameron, F. and Kenderdine S. (eds.) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 281-198.
Parry, R. Poole, N and Pratty, J. (2008) ‘Semantic Dissonance: Do We Need (And Do We Understand) The Semantic Web?’, Museums and the Web 2008: the international conference for cultural and heritage on-line. Montreal 9-12 April. Montreal: Museums and the Web.
Parry, R. (2010) ‘The Internet and Audience Development as a Series of Challenges in the 21st Century’, in Parry, R. Audience Development in Museums & Cultural Sites in Difficult Times Dublin: National Gallery of Ireland pp. 25-31.
Parry, R. (2014) ‘Museums and the Web’, in Barnes, A and Knell, S (eds.) Module 1 Locating Museums: Communities and Contexts. Leicester: University of Leicester, pp. 9.3-9.21.
Sargent, R (2013) ‘Building Cybercabinets: Guidelines for Online Access to Digital Natural History Collections’, Museums and the Web 2013: the international conference for cultural and heritage on-line. Portland 12-20 April. Portland: Museums and the Web.
Skov. M. and Ingwersen, P. (2008) ‘Exploring Information Seeking Behaviours in a Digital Museum Context’, IIiX Information Interaction in Context Symposium. London 14-17 October. New York: ACM.
Stow, A. (2011) Digitisation of Museum Collections. A worthwhile effort? Gotebuorg: Goteborgs Universitet.
Trant, J. (2006) ‘Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept’, New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 12(1), pp. 83-105.
Websites
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) Arts and Culture in Australia: A Statistical Overview. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/ 8560.0Main%20Features1200708?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8560.0&issue=2007-08&num=&view= (Accessed 21 Dec 2014)
Brunig, M. (2014) Historic collections could be lost to ‘digital dinosaurs’. Available at: http://theconversation.com/historic-collections-could-be-lost-to-digital-dinosaurs-31524 (Accessed 11 Dec 2014)
Culture Victoria (2012) Victorian Collections Celebration in Ballarat. Available at: http://blogs.cv.vic.gov.au/news/victorian-collections-celebration-in-ballarat/ (Accessed 5 Jan 2015)
Hart, T. and Hallett M. (2011) Australian museums and the technology revolution Available at: http://nma.gov.au/research/understanding-museums/THart_MHallett_ 2011.html (Accessed 21 Dec 2014)
Griffiths, J. and King, D. (2008) InterConnections: The Institute of Museum and Library Services National Study on the Use of Libraries, Museums and the Internet. Available at: www.interconnectionsreport.org/reports/ConclusionsSummaryFinalB.pdf (Accessed 22 Dec 2014)
Greene, J. (2014) Visits to Australia’s museums rise on the back of a digital experience. Available at: http://theconversation.com/visits-to-australias-museums-rise-on-the-back-of-a-digital-experience-32699 (Accessed 19 Dec 2014)
International Council of Museums (2007) Museum definition. Available at: http://icom.museum/the-vision/museum-definition/ (Accessed 9 Oct 2014)
Jones, G. and Christal, M. (2002) The Future of Virtual Museums: On-Line, Immersive, 3D Environments. Available at: http://created-realities.com/publications.html (Accessed 28 Dec 2014)
Maculan, L. (2006) Podcasting and Museums – Shock and awe or new opportunities?. Available at: http://www.culture24.org.uk/sector-info/art37770 (Accessed 2 Dec 2014)
Prosser, C. (2006) ‘Born Digital: challenges to institutions forming digital collections’, Collection Council of Australia Summit on Digital Collections. Adelaide 16-17 August. Available at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/56747/201104180000/www.collections council.com.au/speaker+presentations+and+papers4c7a.pdf?DMXModule=688&EntryId=593&Command=Core_Download (Accessed 19 Dec 2014)
Reilly, B. (2000) Collections: Museum Collections Online Available at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub88/coll-museum.html (Accessed 30 Dec 2014)
Schneider, A. (2007) L.A. Art Online : Learning from the Getty’s Electronic Cataloguing Initiative. Available at: https://www.getty.edu/foundation/grants /la_art_online_report.pdf (Accessed 2 Jan 2015)
The Australian National Audit Office (2005) Safe and accessible national collections. Available at: http://anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Audit%20Reports/2004%2005/ 2004_05_audit_report_59.pdf (Accessed 2 Jan 2015)