Del museo social

al museo social

digital

From the Social

Museum to the

Digital Social

Museum

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

Más, J.M. y Monfort, A. (2021)

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum

Revista Internacional de Investigación en Comunicación

aDResearch ESIC. Nº 24 Vol 24

Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021 · Págs. 8 a 25

https://doi.org/10.7263/adresic-024-01

José M. Más, Phd

Marketing Management Department

ESIC Business & Marketing School

josemanuel.mas@esic.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2931-1235

Abel Monfort, Phd

Business Management Department

ESIC Business & Marketing School

abel.monfort@esic.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3713-7102

Main topic / subject: The goal of the article is to organize the conceptual evolution between

the social museum and the digital social museum, a fundamental conceptual change that will

imply a dierent form of management and that considers the latest technologies applied to

the museum experience.

Logical development of the subject: For the development of this conceptual proposal, the

paper starts from a series of fundamental texts that describe the current situation of experience

management in museums; it carries out a critical review of the concepts of the traditional

museum and the social museum and with data and examples the paper proposes the use of

the concept of the digital social museum.

Author’s point of view and contributions: The article contributes to the denition of the

digital social museum. It expands the concept of the social museum and gives a fundamental

value to the impact of new technologies and social networks as an integral part of the museum

experience and management.

Implications and conclusions: Museum institutions should work in a much more inclusive and

participatory manner, thus giving way to an evolution that begins in the early twentieth century

and is called the social museum. New technologies oer great potential for the achievement of

these goals of participation and dialogue, leading to a new concept of the digital social museum.

Through this paper we reect on how new technologies contribute to understand museum

management under the principles of the digital social museum.

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT

Clasicación JEL:

M31

Palabras clave:

Museo social,

museo social digital,

tecnología,

innovación,

museo,

comunicación

institucional

JEL Classication:

M31

Key words:

Social museum,

digital social museum,

technology,

innovation,

museum,

institutional

communication

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

Tema principal: El objetivo del artículo es organizar la evolución conceptual entre el museo

social y el museo social digital como un cambio fundamental que implica diferentes formas de

gestión y considera las últimas tecnologías aplicadas a la experiencia museística.

Desarrollo lógico del tema: Para el desarrollo de la propuesta conceptual, el artículo empieza

con una serie de textos seminales que describen la situación de la gestion experiencial en

museos. Desarrolla una revision crítica de los conceptos vinculados al museo tradicional y el

museo social y, con datos y ejemplos, se propone el uso del concepto museo social digital.

Punto de vista y aportaciones del autor: El artículo contribuye a la denición de museo so-

cial digital. Expande el concepto de museo social y aporta un valor fundamental al impacto de

las nuevas tecnologías y las redes sociales como una parte integral de la experiencia y gestion

museística.

Repercusiones y conclusiones: Los museos son instituciones que deberían trabajar de una

manera más inclusiva y participativa para dar paso a una evolución que comienza a principios

del siglo veinte y es acuñada como museo social. Las nuevas tecnologías ofrecen un gran po-

tencial para lograr estos objetivos vinculados a la participación y el diálogo, dando lugar a lo

que se propone como museo social digital. Este artículo reeja cómo las nuevas tecnologías

contribuyen a entender la gestion museística bajo los principios del museo social digital.

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

1. Introduction

Cultural institutions offer a service that includes

education, accessibility and communication

(Belenioti & Vassiliadis, 2017). To achieve this,

museums have been undergoing a process of

change in management models that has been

progressive, moving from a traditional vision, to

a social museum model and, as this critical review

suggests, to a digital social model.

Museums are institutions that offer their vis-

itors (customers) memorable experiences (Antón

et al., 2018). As users seek novelty and variety in

their leisure activities, so museums are forced to

create engaging experiences (Minkiewicz et al.,

2014) as do other institutions in the cultural

sector. However, cultural institutions face a con-

stant challenge based on budgetary constraints

and rising visitor expectations, which has forced

their directors to pay great attention to user

needs (Komarac et al., 2017) and to understand

that museums have to communicate and contin-

uously provide an enjoyable experience (Sundar

et al., 2015).

During the 20th century there was a change

in the concept of the museum as compared to

the vision of the museum in the previous centu-

ry. Following Viñarás (Viñarás-Abad, 2005, p.

48), this new concept of the museum not only

gathers and presents its collections, but also de-

mands an advance in the exploitation of the mu-

seum institution, and also conceptual, didactic

and technological updating. But there is also a

decisive and inuential factor: tourism. The

countries of Mediterranean Europe created new

typologies of museums according to the rise of

this public, while the northern countries were

guided by more didactic and pedagogical rules.

All these changes mean that cultural institutions

and museums are called upon to adopt new me-

dia technologies to stimulate and maintain en-

gagement with the visitor, whether at the level of

the exhibition space or with the collection itself

(Drotner, 2014). These trends call for a change

in the management model, from the social mu-

seum to the digital social museum.

According to Rivière (1993, p. 53) there are

two strong factors driving the changes from the

traditional model of the museum during the

20th century: on the one hand, the creation of a

series of international organizations that sup-

port the development of museums, establishing

a supporting infrastructure and developing a

group of professionals around historical herit-

age and museums; on the other hand, the deep

cultural changes (social, political and econom-

ic) taking place worldwide. The 1st Internation-

al Workshop on Ecomuseums and New Muse-

ology, held in Quebec City on October 13,

1984, set the basis for the concept of the social

museum. Against the dogma of conservation, it

proclaims the priority of participation. Thus the

so-called Declaration of Quebec advocated cul-

tural democracy, social dynamism, openness

and interactivity in the face of the authoritarian

institution, closed and not very prone to change.

In this way, it sought an enriching dialogue and

recognized the social body as an active protago-

nist, moving away from the categorization of

the public as a passive subject (Díaz-Balerdi,

2002, p. 504).

The new role of the museum was to focus on

the public that visited them, on their expecta-

tions, preferences and needs (Vergo, 1989). This

new vision of the museum was taken by the mu-

seum institutions as an opportunity to redene

their mission in society. The new concept of the

social role of the museum, where the experience

of the visitor takes prominence, also increases the

importance of the analysis of its visitors, in favor

of a more integrative museum (Cordón, 2013).

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

In fact, the literature on museum management

includes the need for formative evaluation dur-

ing the development of the project, understand-

ing visitor motivations and expectations through

segmentation studies, and even analyzing visitor

feedback to understand their experience and

subsequent programming (Chaney et al., 2018;

vom Lehn & Heath, 2016).

Recent studies have shown that museums

have emerged as laboratories of future culture,

including all sorts of high-tech experiments with

the aim of providing unparalleled entertain-

ment and educational experiences that com-

pete with platforms such as Netix (Recue-

ro-Virto & Blasco-López, 2019). New technolo-

gies (ICTs) have revolutionized the way users

visit and enjoy and share their experiences (Yoo

& Gretzel, 2016). Other studies have shown

that achieving engagement with potential vis-

itors requires a content-based strategy as well as

dialogue between the museum and its audience

(Camarero et al., 2018). In other words, the

museum has to maintain a dialogical approach

both inside and outside the building. In this

context, the use of social networks can favor

two-way communication and the marketing de-

partment should regularly check the feedback

from users on social networks with the aim of

detecting new topics and possible problems

(Waller & Waller, 2019).

Digital media and devices have the opportu-

nity to change socio-cultural practices that are

linked to collective memories and oral tradi-

tions. That is, to our cultural heritage (Giaccardi,

2012). Consequently, the possibilities of social

media are capable of changing this perception

and even go one step beyond what are known as

social museums. These tools facilitate more ac-

tive experiences, which encourage visitors to

continue participating in the relationship with

museums even after the visit, seeking informa-

tion and revisiting the museum through the con-

tents of social networks and pages where opin-

ions are expressed (Antón et al., 2018). In the

process of dialogue and work with visitors, a re-

lationship of co-creation of experiences between

museum and users is produced (Antón et al.,

2018) and it should be managed. In addition,

museums are faced with the challenge of how to

integrate new technologies such as Robots, Arti-

cial Intelligence, Service Automation to pro-

voke memorable experiences (Recuero-Virto &

Blasco-López, 2019).

Therefore, this critical review poses a brief re-

view of the evolution of museum management

to dene what we propose as a digital social mu-

seum. Research on the concept of the digital so-

cial museum has also been the subject of previ-

ous studies. In fact, the concept has been dened

as a way of management that takes advantage of

the opportunities offered by digital technologies,

achieves a truly close, open and social approach

to the visitors, enriching their experience by per-

sonalizing the interaction, favouring accessibility

and expanding the target audience of the exhibi-

tion (Mas, 2018, 2020). However, there has not

been an article that justies the natural progress

between the traditional, social and, at present,

the digital social museum. On the other hand,

the concept of dialogue with stakeholders has

been addressed from multiple perspectives (e.g.

Monfort et al., 2019; Villagra et al., 2015) and

deserves our attention to link it to communica-

tion and marketing management by museum

institutions.

The article is structured as follows. The fol-

lowing section presents the current situation, in

which the transition from the traditional muse-

um to the social museum is highlighted. Then, a

section is dedicated to the new technologies that

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

have been incorporated in the museums in their

relationships with visitors. Finally, a develop-

ment of the concept of the social museum to the

digital social museum is proposed and it con-

cludes with a denition of this critical proposal.

2. From the traditional museum to

the social museum

Since the late 1980s, museums have included

marketing departments in their management

structure with the aim of inuencing their pro-

gramming and exhibition development strategy

(Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002). Along with this

professionalization of the user experience, the

development of international organizations that

support the management of museums and the

cultural changes (social, political and economic)

that have taken place worldwide promoted a

change in the way of understanding and living

the museum experience (Rivière, 1993). In this

context, several studies have proposed the

change between the traditional museum and the

social museum. Llerena (2015) conducts an in-

teresting comparison between the traditional

museum and the new social museum, which is

summarized in the following table:

Table 1. Comparison between the traditional museum and the social museum

Traditional Museum Social Museum

Museums are places for: Experts. They are exclusive

Everyone. A space where visitors contribute to the

institution with ideas and suggestions, and where

dialogue and socialization are encouraged. They are

given the opportunity to create and connect with

people who share the same interests.

The exhibition

is based on:

The expertise of curators and

scientists on an exclusive basis

A collaborative process with visitors through studies

of the public.

The focus of the

exhibition is on:

The display of the objects.

The welcome is barely taken

into account

The commitment and experience of the public, which

is fundamental.

The focus of the activity

is on this:

Exhibition and research Visitors.

The perception of

communication is:

Communicative. The objects

transmit information that the

visitor must acquire.

Cultural. There is a constant interaction between

object and subject.

Knowledge is:

Single and closed. The museum

re-elaborates and presents it

without the possibility of inter-

pretation.

Multiple, open and presented in a way that allows for

many interpretations.

Knowledge

is acquired from:

From outside the individual.

The individual, who interacts in an active and

participative way.

The public

is conceived as:

Recipient of a knowledge previ-

ously elaborated by

the museum.

Developer of learning, experiences, knowledge and

experiences.

The teacher

is seen as:

A simple conveyor and repro-

ducer of the knowledge that

the museum possesses.

A facilitator and mediator who participates in

the construction of the knowledge presented

by the museum.

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

Table 1. Comparison between the traditional museum and the social museum (cont.)

Traditional Museum Social Museum

The learning

approach is:

Positivist and behaviorist.

Learning is accumulated and

absorbed through the sum of

information transmitted by an

external agent. The public is

just a passive consumer.

Constructivist. Learning is active, it implies a

restructuring of the mental schemes of those who

learn. The learning is participative and dialogical.

The public is an active part of a space of social

encounter and exchange of knowledge.

The evaluation

is done through:

There is no such space for

reection.

It identies and develops potential audiences,

communicates with communities and learns

how audiences experience the museum and their

perception of it. It focuses on participants’ behavior

and the impact of actions, i.e., what they do and

what happens as a result of that experience.

Communication/

conversation is:

Provide one-way information

for the mere dissemination and

self-promotion of your work.

Two-way: understanding these spaces as places

of interaction.

Communication and

museum interpretation

services:

Restricted to the inside of the

museum space.

It can be found everywhere.

Source: Llerena (2015)

As shown in the table above, this new concept

of the social museum enhances the “new museol-

ogy” as a new way of conceiving museums as

spaces at the service of citizens, whose aim has to

be dialogue, promoting communication and in-

venting new exhibition techniques (Montañes,

2001, p. 2). Thus, the social museum completely

changes the idea of the traditional museum by

focusing on establishing a dialogue of peers with

its public, understanding that it needs to work

not only for its visitors, but also with its visitors

(Gómez-Vilchez, 2012).

This concept of the social museum as an insti-

tution that dialogues with society, that strives to

generate complete, enriching experiences through

the active participation of the visitor is the start-

ing point for this article. In the following pages

we will analyze the relationship between the so-

cial museum and technology to understand how

digital technological advances can help the mu-

seum to deepen its social character.

3. The social museum and new

technologies

3.1. Background and motivations

Following Castilla (2012), new technologies help

museums both to disseminate their activity and to

interact with the user: “new technologies applied

to museology allow to improve and expand the

possibilities of public dissemination of knowl-

edge and artistic and historical resources, while

they can signicantly improve the relationship

between the museum and the user”. Thus, the de-

velopment of the Internet and, specically, that

experienced in the last ten years, has allowed mu-

seums to establish a very benecial relationship

with Information and Communication Technolo-

gies (ICT), which in turn has served them to con-

sider new ways to develop their programs as new

modes of exhibition, sales and communication

with the public (Fontán, 2013, p. 153).

While the renewed museology emerged as a

new way of understanding museums, of break-

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

ing with that tradition of the nineteenth-century

temple that was so far apart from society, and of

bringing it closer to everyone who felt interested

in visiting it (Cordón & González, 2016, p.

149), ICTs offer new opportunities to establish

different environments in which to relate to the

visitor: “ICTs become a true bridge between the

public and the art collections [...] they are a

common cultural element between those collec-

tions and the generations of the present, they are

the vehicle for storing, exhibiting and transmit-

ting contemporary art and, nally, they are a

means used for communication and education”

(Fontán, 2013, p. 5).

Castilla (2012) considers that museums

should not only benet from new technologies

to improve the way they show their exhibitions

to the new user, but if they do not take advan-

tage of them, they run the risk of becoming ob-

solete and not connecting with new audiences.

This connection must be made in a modern,

accessible way that invites interaction and par-

ticipation, attracting both the current audience

and especially the new younger audiences, thus

ensuring the future of museums in a connected

world. In fact, research has concluded that mu-

seums are an exceptional space to be used as

laboratories of future culture, since they allow

experiments with high technology that offer ex-

periences at the level of large entertainment plat-

forms (Recuero-Virto & Blasco-López, 2019).

Saldaña and Celaya (2012) carried out a sur-

vey in which 136 museums from all over Europe

participated. The study, entitled “Museums in the

Digital Age”, was published in Museum Next the

same year and sought to deepen the main moti-

vations and objectives of museums when incor-

porating technology. Some of the conclusions

reached were: a) 65.6 % of museums seek to at-

tract new audiences and to enrich the experience

of the visit, b) 62.5 % are interested in improving

their online communication and positioning

strategy, c) 56.3 % use digital technologies to

make it easier for people with different types of

disabilities to access the entity, d) 40.6 % seek to

improve the processes of conservation of works

of art, collection management as well as its dis-

semination and digitization, and e) 34.4 % seek

to personalize the attention to the public in the

physical space and to promote its interactivity.

Along with these conclusions, other studies

have shown that digital media and devices are

called upon to change the way we understand

our cultural heritage (Giaccardi, 2012). They are

also likely to provide experiences that encourage

visitors to continue participating in the relation-

ship with museums even after the visit (Antón et

al., 2018), favoring co-creation (Antón et al.,

2018) and integrating the latest technologies

(e.g. Robots or Articial Intelligence) to provoke

impactful experiences (Recuero-Virto & Blas-

co-López, 2019). New technologies (ICTs) have

also transformed the way users visit, enjoy and

share their experiences (Yoo & Gretzel, 2016).

To achieve these results, studies have shown

that engaging with potential visitors requires a

content-based strategy as well as dialogue be-

tween the museum and its audience (Camarero

et al., 2018). The use of social networks can fa-

vor this two-way communication and the mar-

keting and communication department should

regularly check user feedback on these platforms

in order to detect new issues and possible prob-

lems (Waller & Waller, 2019).

3.2. Advantages of using technology in the

museum

In addition to these data, there are many authors

who agree in highlighting the advantages and

benets that new technologies offer to museums.

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

The International Council of Museums (ICOM)

(1999), for example, in its VII Latin American

Conference on Cultural Heritage “Museums and

Cultural Diversity. Old cultures, new worlds”,

reected on the main benets that ICTs bring to

museums and pointed out, among other things,

the possibility of: i) communicating with differ-

ent segments of the public in a differentiated

way, ii) presenting updated information on ac-

tivities, databases of their library, online catalogs,

announcing new books on the central theme of

the museum or temporary exhibitions, iii) gen-

erating didactic materials that can be used both

by schools and users, before and after the visits,

differentiating levels, iv) presenting in advance

what is going to be exhibited in the museum

through the publication of images and news to

inform about what is going to happen, v) pre-

senting evaluation tools, intended for visitors to

the site or visitors to the museum, vi) presenting

updated reading material related to the muse-

um’s theme, differentiating between material for

experts and material for non-experts, vii) gener-

ating conversation in forums or chats, viii) pro-

viding materials that can be accessed by profes-

sionals or researchers interested in the central

theme of the museum, even if they are located in

different parts of the world, ix) demonstrating

that the museum is alive and active.

Castillo (2011) shows that the integration of

technology in the museum allows the visitor to

move to the time and space in which a work

was created in order to understand it and value

it as such. Otherwise, the only thing that is

achieved is “to strengthen their cognitive barri-

ers and exclude them from cultural knowledge”.

Saldaña and Celaya (2012) provide an addition-

al advantage: the possibility of improving access

to the museum for audiences with some kind of

visual or auditory deciency. Thus, all these

technologies should work not as ends in them-

selves, but as additional tools when it comes to

improving the visitor’s experience and support-

ing and reinforcing the museum and education-

al approach of each center in a customized way.

It is therefore necessary to design their integra-

tion with criteria and common sense and after a

deep reection adapted to what should be

shown, with what purpose and how, along with

a selection of appropriate content and quality.

Otherwise, the use of technology would involve

risks (Castilla, 2012).

Thus, the literature insists on the need for

formative evaluation during project development,

understanding visitor motivations and expecta-

tions through segmentation studies, and even ana-

lyzing visitor feedback to understand their experi-

ence and subsequent programming (Chaney et al.,

2018; vom Lehn & Heath, 2016); all this without

forgetting a series of barriers for these institutions:

the lack of budget, and the lack of qualied per-

sonnel (Saldaña & Celaya, 2012).

3.3. Current possibilities oered by the

latest technologies to the social museum

In this context, we now offer a list of different

technologies that can help museums in their in-

novation process, trying to explain the experi-

ences by type of technology; we also show illus-

trative examples that help to understand this

potential. This organization does not pretend to

be taxonomic but merely illustrative. In other

words, the objective is not to describe each and

every technological option in the museum eld

but to show those that can help museums to

fulll their functions in a clearer way. To select

the ve technologies we have followed the pro-

posal developed by Castilla (2012) in their

work ‘Entornos museísticos, nuevas tecnologías

expositivas’:

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

3.3.1. Mobile devices and smartphones

The potential offered by mobile devices to mu-

seums has been studied since the early 2000s

(Proctor & Tellis, 2003). Today, it remains a

major pillar in technological innovation ap-

plied to museums, which increases the possi-

bilities of enjoyment of the heritage exhibited

in the museum: “One of the clearest options

that mobile technology has offered since the

beginning has been the possibility of expand-

ing the museum spaces, and in that idea, linked

to the broad concept of heritage, to use the en-

tire context where the museum building and

collections are integrated, as a more complete

cultural whole, included under the idea of

spaces for presenting heritage” (Ibañez-Etxe-

barria, 2011, p. 71).

Indeed, one of the great potentials for muse-

ums is to take advantage of the mobile devices

that each visitor brings during the visit. This

trend greatly reduces the investment in hardware

that the museum must make, as it is carried out

by each visitor who brings a technologically ad-

vanced device, his or her smartphone: “Mobile

systems favor the ubiquity and accessibility of

collections, the production of high quality inter-

active content, interaction with and between vis-

itors and the optimization of the institution’s own

resources” (Solano, 2012).

In addition, the proposal to use each visitor’s

mobile phone favors acceptance and user experi-

ence, since the personal mobile is a friendly de-

vice that everyone knows and is familiar with. In

the following example, we can see an interesting

proposal of an x-ray simulator that, once down-

loaded as an application, allows a simulation of

the interior of the artworks to be seen through

the camera:

Source: museumexhibits.com

Figure 1. Example of using a smartphone interactivity through an X-ray simulator

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

Another interesting option that exploits the

potential of mobile phones is to offer the visitor

the possibility of further information about the

artwork or even create their own gallery on their

mobile phone, by including a QR code (Figure 2).

The visitor can scan this code, access en-

riched information about the artwork and

download it to generate their own online gallery

to share with their acquaintances.

3.3.2. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality

We dene Virtual Reality (VR) as the generation

of a virtual environment, closed and 100 % dig-

ital, which the user can experience as if he/she

were in a real and natural setting. We found a re-

markable example of the use of virtual reality in

museums in the experience carried out in 2017

by the National Archaeological Museum in Ma-

drid. This museum generated ve stories that al-

low the user to travel in time to recreate how their

ancestors lived. The ve scenarios that were rec-

reated were Prehistory, Prohistory, Roman His-

pania, the Middle Ages and the Modern Age.

Thus, the organization seeks to reinvent the con-

cept of museum visits and exploit this technology

to bring the visitor closer to the history of Spain.

Augmented Reality (AR) refers to the ability

to project virtual objects onto real images, gener-

ating a mixed experience, enriched with virtual

and ctional images, overlapping in a real phys-

ical environment. As with Virtual Reality, Aug-

mented Reality has also proven to have a pedago-

gical application for museums and interpretation

centers, where it is one of the most advanced

Figure 2. Example of interaction through a QR code

Source: National Museum of Fine Arts of Argentina (MNBA)

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

resources because it promotes interaction be-

tween visitors and the cultural object in an attrac-

tive and educational way (Ruiz-Torres, 2011).

In his work “Augmented Reality, education

and museums”, Ruiz-Torres has already detailed,

in 2011, more than ten examples of the use of

this technology by institutions such as the Virtu-

al Museum of Computer Science, University of

Castilla La Mancha, the Interpretation Center of

the Order of Calatrava of the Castle of Alcaudete

de Jaén, the Museum of the Autonomy of Anda-

lusia in Seville, the Center for the Interpretation

of Technology Zamudio, the Museum of the Ju-

rassic in Asturias, etc. (Ruiz-Torres, 2011). Ac-

cording to Castilla (2012), the use of Virtual Re-

ality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) can be

used in museums to perform reconstructions

and to create multimedia smart guides.

In the rst case, the use of these technologies

allows the observation of a painting to be en-

Figure 3. Example of the use of Virtual Reality in the National Archaeological Museum

Source: Antena 3 Televisión (Spain)

hanced through the superimposition of virtual

images that the user can appreciate through the

camera of his/her own mobile phone. The virtual

images could have the aim of explaining the

work, contextualizing it in a ctitious environ-

ment, presenting relevant information, etc. It is

relevant to comment on the experience devel-

oped by the company Smartify, which has gener-

ated a mobile application that can be download-

ed to any device and that recognizes the artwork

displayed and shows relevant information about

it. This real-time image processing system can be

used to view paintings, sculptures or other ob-

jects. The most remarkable thing is that this initi-

ative is not linked to any specic museum, but

rather that a private company has developed this

application. It can be used in any museum in the

world. Whether the works can be recognized will

depend on the speed with which museums man-

age to digitize the works they exhibit:

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

Figure 4. Example of the use of a large touch screen

Source: The Cleveland Museum of Art

In addition to carrying out reconstructions,

museums can also use virtual and augmented re-

ality to update traditional audio guides, favour-

ing new and personalized experiences such as

having the virtual presence of the artist describ-

ing his work process or having representations of

period characters explaining the use or manufac-

ture of the elements on display (Castilla, 2012).

3.3.3. Touch tools

Museums now allow touch. Traditionally, art-

works had to remain behind a display case or a

string marking a distance from which to ob-

serve. The proliferation of touch screens allows

visitors to interact with the exhibits in a simple,

intuitive and innovative way, making it possible

to navigate maps and images with the hands,

see multimedia content, zoom in, rotate, etc.

The Espacio Visual Europa (EVE) (2017)

states that touch screens allow the development

of parallel discourses according to the type of

public and their information needs, helping to

understand the exhibition message and making

the tour in the museum much more versatile, so

that the public can be addressed according to

their interest and/or level of curiosity. One of the

best examples of the use of touch screens is found

in The Cleveland Museum of Art, which invites

viewers of all ages to actively participate through

exploration (Saldaña & Celaya, 2012) (Figure 4).

3.3.4. Audiovisual scenographic elements

Another of the possibilities offered by new tech-

nologies is to create scenographic spaces to gen-

erate a highly immersive digital environment.

Immersive techniques seek to make the visitor

feel part of the recreation or viewing. This sen-

sation can be achieved, for example, through a

panoramic visual sensation or through spatial

and surround sound. It can be improved with

realistic environmental effects or those that ap-

peal to the rest of the senses (synchronized am-

bient lighting, wind, mechanical vibrations of

the oor or seats, replication of scents).

Unlike virtual or augmented reality, these

spaces work with the panoramic sensation of

immersion, making it ideal for recreating histor-

ical, archaeological or natural reconstructions

with maximum spectacular effects. Once the

sensation of reality is achieved, the system can

be provided with forms of interaction with the

environment as natural and intuitive as possible

to avoid breaking the feeling of immersion (Cas-

tilla, 2012).

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

This technique has great potential to bring

complex problems closer to a general public, as is

the case, for example, with the issue of biological

diversity (Marandino, 2011). We found another

remarkable example of the use of these immer-

sive digital techniques in the Foresta Luminia

project, in the Parc Decouverte Natura, in Quebec.

At nightfall, visitors explore the trails and areas of

the park at their own pace, experiencing a set

with lighting effects and videomapping accompa-

nied by an original soundtrack created for this

project. Along the two kilometers of the path,

which has been called “the garden of wishes”, vis-

itors, children and adults interact with the space

by taking a “magic stone”, making a wish and

then throwing it into the water of the “enchanted

lake”, activating audiovisual effects of great im-

pact. The tour also allows visitors to meet fasci-

nating virtual beings that accompany them on

their extraordinary adventure.

Figure 5. Example of the use of immersive techniques

with audiovisual scenographic elements

Source: forestalumina.com

Figure 6. Example of the use of interactive holograms

SSource: ilholocaustmuseum.org

3.3.5. 3D screens, fog screens and spherical

projection

The 3D technology that offers the greatest poten-

tial for museums is specular holography. This

technique consists of obtaining 3D objects or an-

imations “in the air” by controlling specular imag-

es generated by screens or 2D projection surfaces,

commonly called holograms (Castilla, 2012).

Holographic techniques can be mixed with other

systems that enhance the interactivity of the holo-

gram, allowing users to interact with these

three-dimensional digital images in real time.

The Illinois Museum and Holocaust Educa-

tion Center makes signicant use of this tech-

nology by allowing its users to interact with the

holographic image of various survivors. The ex-

hibition uses speech recognition and automatic

learning technology to make it easier for visitors

to ask questions of World War II survivors and

also to hear their answers. To this end, the mu-

seum recorded thirteen of these survivors who,

for nearly a week, answered thousands of ques-

tions in high-denition video. Most of them live

in the United States, although others reside in

Canada, Israel and the United Kingdom. The

idea is to preserve their testimonies after they

die.

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

4. Conclusion and implications

It is clear how new technologies offer an oppor-

tunity in the construction of a truly social muse-

um, more inclusive and participatory, giving way

to what we can call a digital social museum. The

examples cited, as well as the theoretical frame-

work, show how there are numerous initiatives,

somewhat dispersed and atomized, to take advan-

tage of the potential offered by these new tech-

nologies to bring the works on display closer and

to generate a dialogue with the visitor that will

improve his or her experience.

Considering the previous contributions, which

dene the digital social museum as a way of

management that takes advantage of the oppor-

tunities offered by digital technologies, achieves a

truly close, open and social approach to the vis-

itors, enriching the visitor’s experience by per-

sonalizing the interaction, favoring accessibility

and expanding the target audience of the exhibi-

tion (Mas, 2018, 2020), we can argue that the

concept of the social museum has been overcome

by a more current vision that we call the digital

social museum.

The digital social museum favors the image of

the museum as a connecting platform of audi-

ences, contents and experiences through digital

technologies. In the following table, we complete

Llerena’s proposal (2015) with a new column re-

lated to the uniqueness of the digital social muse-

um if we compare it with its more “analogical”

version.

Table 2. Comparison between the social museum and the digital social museum

Social Museum Digital Social Museum

Museums are places for:

Everyone. A space where

visitors contribute to the insti-

tution with ideas and sugges-

tions, and where dialogue and

socialization are encouraged.

They are given the opportunity

to create and connect with

people who share the same

interests.

Digital technologies enhance the interaction

of the visitor with the museum, between the

visitors, and the interaction in an autonomous

way with their own mobile devices. These

devices allow to customize the experience and

thus improve the visit, adapting it to each one.

Digital devices therefore encourage connectiv-

ity, creativity and visitor participation.

The exhibition is

based on:

A collaborative process with

visitors through studies of the

public.

Digital technology allows for a mapping of

the visitor’s experience, providing, even in real

time, data on preferences, interactions and

questions, which can improve the exhibition in

real time. The participation of the visitor in the

generation of the exhibition becomes a reality.

The focus of the exhibition

is on:

The commitment and experi-

ence of the public, which is

fundamental.

The interaction of the visitor with the exhibited

artwork, in an adapted and personalized way.

It evolves the concept of the visitor as a global

concept, to the interaction that each individual

makes in each visit.

The focus of the activity

is on:

Visitors.

Each visitor as a unique individual (customiza-

tion and adaptation).

The perception of

communication is:

Cultural: there is a constant

interaction between object and

subject.

Community: Interaction of individuals around

a cultural theme. The museum provides the

content on which the interrelationship of

individuals is based. The community manager

as curator.

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

Table 2. Comparison between the social museum and the digital social museum (cont.)

Social Museum Digital Social Museum

Knowledge is:

Multiple, open and presented

in a way that allows for many

interpretations.

Knowledge is adapted to the experience

that each individual wants to have.

Knowledge is acquired from:

The individual, who interacts in

an active and participative way.

The community in general and the individual

in particula.r

The public is conceived as:

Developer of learning,

experiences, knowledge

and experiences.

Consumer of customized experiences,

protagonist of his own visit.

The teacher is seen as:

A facilitator and mediator who

participates in the construction

of the knowledge presented by

the museum.

Community enabler that brings the

experience closer to the newcomer.

The learning approach is:

Constructivist. Learning is

active, it implies a restructur-

ing of the mental schemes of

those who learn. The learning

is participative and dialogical.

The public is an active part of a

space of social encounter and

exchange of knowledge.

Customized through the unique experience

that each visitor has, based on multiple

stimuli, generated by both the museum

and the rest of the community.

The evaluation is done through:

It identies and develops poten-

tial audiences, communicates

with communities and learns

how audiences experience the

museum and their perception

of it. It focuses on participants’

behavior and the impact of

actions, i.e., what they do and

what happens as a result of

that experience.

Customized and in real time.

Communication/conversation is:

Two-way: understanding these

spaces as places of interaction.

Multidirectional: Museum and Community.

Communication and museum

interpretation services:

It can be found everywhere.

No spatial-temporal location. Can be accessed

from anywhere at any time.

Source: Own elaboration based on the proposal of Llerena (2015)

Therefore, future research will have to re-

think the contributions given to the manage-

ment of social museums and face an approach

fully integrated into a digital framework, which

requires marketing and communication profes-

sionals to implement new technologies and so-

cial networks in the management of communi-

cation and positioning of museums – all this

under the framework of the evolution between

the merely social and the digital social.

From the Social Museum to the Digital Social Museum · págs. 8 a 25

Bibliography

Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Garrido, M.-J. (2018). Explor-

ing the experience value of museum visitors as a co-creation

process. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(12), 1406–1425.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1373753

Belenioti, Z.-C., & Vassiliadis, C. A. (2017). Branding in the

New Museum Era (pp. 115–121). https://doi.org/10.1007/

978-3-319-33865-1_14

Camarero, C., Garrido, M.-J., & San Jose, R. (2018). What

Works in Facebook Content Versus Relational Communica-

tion: A Study of their Effectiveness in the Context of Muse-

ums. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,

34(12), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.20

17.1418475

Castilla, P. (2012). Entornos museísticos: nuevas tecnologías

expositivas. Telos: Cuadernos de Comunicación e Innovación,

90, 87–96.

Castillo, M. G. (2011). Tendencias en la Gestión del Cono-

cimiento Cultural: Museos Virtuales. Universidad de Sala-

manca.

Chaney, D., Pulh, M., & Mencarelli, R. (2018). When the

arts inspire businesses: Museums as a heritage redenition

tool of brands. Journal of Business Research, 85, 452–458.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.023

Cordón, D. (2013). Museos y Gabinetes de Comunicación: sin-

ergias ecaces para el futuro. https://www.uchceu.es/activi-

dades_culturales/2013/congresos/documentos/David_Cor-

don_Benito.pdf

Cordón, D., & González, D. (2016). Museos y comuni-

cación: los nuevos medios como herramienta de diálogo y

sociabilidad de la institución. El uso de Twitter por el museo

del Prado, museo Thyssen-Bornemisza y museo Reina

Sofía. Fonseca, Journal of Communication, 12(12), 149.

https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc201612149165

Díaz-Balerdi, I. (2002). ¿Qué fue de la Nueva Museología? El

caso de Québec. Artigrama, 17, 493–516.

Drotner, K. (2014). Museum Communication and Social

Media. In Museum Communication and Social Media: The

Connected Museum. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/

9780203500965

Espacio Visual Europa (EVE). (2017). Museos y pantallas

táctiles. EVE Museos e Innovación. https://evemuseograa.

com/2015/11/24/museos-pantallas-tactiles/

Fontán, O. (2013). Aprender en internet: comprensión y valo-

ración del patrimonio del siglo XX. Trea.

Giaccardi, E. (2012). Heritage and Social Media. In E. Giac-

cardi (Ed.), Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Herit-

age in a Participatory Culture. Routledge. https://doi.

org/10.4324/9780203112984

Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum

management. Journal of Management Development, 21(10),

745–760. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210448020

Gómez-Vilchez, S. (2012). Museos españoles y redes social-

es. Telos: Cuadernos de Comunicación e Innovación, 90, 79–86.

Ibañez-Etxebarria, A. (2011). Museos, Redes Sociales y Tec-

nología 2.0. Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko Argitalpen Zer-

bitzua.

International Council of Museums (ICOM). (1999). Muse-

os y Diversidad Cultural. VII Seminario Latinoamericano So-

bre Patrimonio Cultural.

Komarac, T., Ozretic-Dosen, D., & Skare, V. (2017). Under-

standing competition and service offer in museum market-

ing. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración,

30(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-07-2015-

0159

Llerena, S. (2015). La Comunicación de los museos españoles

en Twitter: análisis de la situación y establecimiento de buenas

prácticas. Carlos III University.

Marandino, M. (2011). La biodiversidad en exposiciones

inmersivas de museos de ciencias: implicaciones para edu-

cación en museos. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 29(2), 221–

236.

Mas, J. M. (2018). Spanish museums on Facebook: Analysis

of their communication as social museums. Revista de Comu-

nicacion, 17(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.26441/RC17.2-

2018-A8

Mas, J. M. (2020). Museos españoles en Facebook: análisis de

su comunicación en el marco del museo social digital. ESIC.

Minkiewicz, J., Evans, J., & Bridson, K. (2014). How do

consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in

the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(1–

2), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.800899

Monfort, A., Villagra, N., & López-Vázquez, B. (2019). Ex-

ploring stakeholders’ dialogue and corporate social respon-

sibility (CSR) on twitter. Profesional de La Informacion, 28(5).

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.sep.13

aDResearch ESIC

Nº 24 Vol 24 · Primer semestre, enero-junio 2021  págs. 8 a 25

Montañes, C. (2001). El museo: un espacio didáctico y social.

Mira Editores.

Proctor, N., & Tellis, C. (2003). The State Of The Art In

Museum Handhelds In 2003. Museums and the Web 2003.

https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2003/papers/

proctor/proctor.html

Recuero-Virto, N., & Blasco-López, M. F. (2019). Robots,

Articial Intelligence, and Service Automation to the Core:

Remastering Experiences at Museums. In Robots, Articial

Intelligence, and Service Automation in Travel, Tourism and

Hospitality (pp. 239–253). Emerald Publishing Limited.

https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-687-320191018

Rivière, G. (1993). La Museología: Curso de museología textos

y testimonios. Akal.

Ruiz-Torres, D. (2011). Realidad Aumentada, educación y

museos. Revista ICONO14. Revista Cientíca de Comuni-

cación y Tecnologías Emergentes, 9(2), 212. https://doi.

org/10.7195/ri14.v9i2.24

Saldaña, I., & Celaya, J. (2012). Los Museos en la era digital.

Dosdoce. http://www.igartubeitibaserria.eus/es/les/los-mu-

seos-en-la-era-digital

Solano, J. (2012). Hacia la universalización de la cultura:

Los museos en la palma de la mano. Telos: Cuadernos de

Comunicación e Innovación, 90, 97–99.

Sundar, S. S., Go, E., Kim, H.-S., & Zhang, B. (2015). Com-

municating Art, Virtually! Psychological Effects of Techno-

logical Affordances in a Virtual Museum. International Jour-

nal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(6), 385–401. https://

doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1033912

Vergo, P. (1989). The new museology. Reaktion Books.

Villagra, N., López, B., & Monfort, A. (2015). The manage-

ment of intangibles and corporate branding: Has anything

changed in the relationship between business and society?

Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 70, 793–812. https://

doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2015-1072

Viñarás-Abad, M. (2005). Una aproximación a la gestión de

la comunicación en los museos: cambios y tendencias en el

cambio de siglo. Vivat Academia, 38–64.

vom Lehn, D., & Heath, C. (2016). Action at the exhibit face:

video and the analysis of social interaction in museums and

galleries. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(15–16), 1441–

1457. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.11 88846

Waller, D. S., & Waller, H. J. (2019). An analysis of negative

reviews in top art museums’ Facebook sites. Museum Man-

agement and Curatorship, 34(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10

.1080/09647775.2018.1550622

Yoo, K.-H., & Gretzel, U. (2016). The Role of Information

and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Marketing

Tourism Experiences. In The Handbook of Managing and

Marketing Tourism Experiences (pp. 409–428). Emerald

Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-

78635-290-320161017