I chuckled at Pew Research’s “Three Technology Revolutions” because it is referring to a time span of less than 30 years.  I would agree that Personal Computing and Mobile devices have created a Revolution, I am not sure that it is 3 “revolutions”.  But the importance of the “digital transformations” in culture and thinking cannot be ignored by persons trying to communicate and/or educate a very much changed “Public”.  Pew Research Center’s argument, characteristically well documented, is that these technological changes made ‘information accessible, changing the way we think about information, relate to each other and our conception and allocation of time that has had the impact of blurring traditional boundaries between private and public, home & work, consumer & producer.’ (Pew Research).  Any effort to connect with this new “Public” must consider these new perspectives and methodologies.

Often, we are amazed at the rapid pace of advancement in technological gadgets, not realizing that our ‘sophistication of expertise is expanding in all areas.’  The exploration of several design, marketing, psycho-social analyses of the process of creating “personas” (prototype conglomerate people) is somewhat humanistically intimidating.  These processes create artificial “people” that can be used to test consumer reactions to ideas and products with great accuracy.  (Hall, Te Papa, Schlomo).  However, it is not enough to have all the theories about an audience, there is nothing that impacts or results in creative conversation as talking with the individuals, who are intimately involved with the subject and those whose interest you wish to entice.  Psycho-social expertise, draws its content from real people to created model people, on whom algorithms might be tested, to reach real people.  This is how convoluted the world has become.  It is also true that these machinations produce eerily accurate results.

A final group of articles analyzed the significance of interacting with the audience to address them and help them shape their experience in humanistic inquiry and education through exhibition (Public Humanities).  The significance of this demand for lay “audience” collaboration and shared authority seems at variance with the skilled expertise required to recognize and fix the problem at a hand.  Authority which was the traditional unifying power of the past – “an expert speaks and all fall in line), cannot speak to a present which is changing so fast that process can barely be documented before they are changed.  By creating opportunities and space for dialog, the opportunity to create exhibitions which can last beyond the current election cycle.  The “elephant in the room” can actually learn better what we thought and present an alternative perspective on how to engage audiences through the immediate transition and still speak to the rapidly changing future.

Intentionally considering these cultural shifts – which I am familiar with having lived through them, changes the way I wish to address the project.  Rather than continuing to build on to an older technology, this project itself must revolutionize and connect to the rapidly changing ideas.  Dialogue with the audience draws them into ideas they had not considered; but their response plays an equal role in reshaping the project to create a clearer understanding and stronger connection.  Specifically, I recognized the limitations of the Cleveland Memory Platform.  I also re-discovered its significance through the eyes of some of the users.  Ideas that I would not have considered or would have been reluctant to implement – “limiting text” become clearer as a means of expanding the use and life of my project and the platform, because it will be engaging the audience on its terms.  A “shared authority” makes the content more fluid and acceptable and augmenting it rather than threatening allowing it to become archaic.  I did think that “visitors” accessed Cleveland Memory but now realize that outsiders would not have the patience to navigate its dated structural interfaces.  If this project can incorporate the modalities and suggestions of the users, rather than becoming an “add on”; WAC could prove to be revolutionary.

Notes:

“Three Technology Revolutions.”Pew Research Center.  http://www.pewinternet.org/three-technology-revolutions/ accessed 2-13-2018.

Hall, Erika. “Interviewing Humans.” A List Apart. Published on September 10, 2013. Published in Just Enough Research. A Book Apart, (2013).

WOSP Personas. Te Papa: Digital Language System. July 2015.

Goltz, Schlomo. “A Closer Look At Personas: What They Are And How They Work (Part 1).” Smashing Magazine. August 6, 2014 and “A Closer Look At Personas: What They Are And How They Work (Part 2).” Smashing Magazine. August 13, 2014.

Kuo Wei Tchen, John. “Creating a Dialogic Museum: The Chinatown History Museum Experiment.” In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, edited by Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, 285-326. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

Corbett, Katharine T. and Howard S. (Dick) Miller. “A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry.” The Public Historian 28.1 (2006): 15-38.

Frisch, Michael. “From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen, and Back.” Letting Go? Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World, edited by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 126-137. Philadelphia: The Pew Center for Arts and Heritage, 2001.

According to John Kuo Wei Tchen, “Acts of self-discovery shape and reshape individual and collective identities.  I am preparing to create a web page for a Women’s Archive while I recognized that there are mainly two types of groups that use this web page “visitors” that are perusing for general information and researchers.  I was blinded by my own conception of what was “common knowledge”.

Kuo Wei Tchen calls for a “dialogue process” to understand the needs pubic history can serve.  He was specifically dealing with the creation of a museum to interpret cross cultural differences between the Chinese living in New York’s Chinatown and the New Yorkers and visitors to Chinatown.  We are not surprised to find differences between cultures, but we also need to recognize that cultural differences apply to people who appear to be very similar.  Kuo Wei Tchen’s message and my experience is reinforced by Michael Frish who in his analysis of authority in oral history interviews demonstrates that although the historian might be well prepared with all the relevant facts of the period, the ‘railroad workers’ who experienced their history know their own stories and their interpretation and perspective of their own past is no less valid than the historians interpretation, regardless of the facts.

I experienced this challenge in uncovering the facts that deflate a beloved myth for a local organization.  The historian in me is fascinated about how a distortion of fact and memory could create an alternative reality and I am eager to analyze the situation and discover additional relationships and forces that caused this “error”.   Corbett & Miller reminded me of David Lowenthal’s words, “When the academic historian is unpersuasive,’’ writes, “it is because the public finds his visions of the past not simply aloof, but deeply antithetical to traditional modes of utilizing the past.’’  The exhibitor or historian must interpret not only the facts uncovered by the past, but weave a useful meaning that serves both the truth of the facts but also the needs of the public to whom this past is being recounted.  The goals of the historical trade, are not the same or necessarily interesting to the audience.  Because of the collector’s, educators, historian’s familiarity of the subject awareness of where the divides lie and how they can be transcended requires dialogue and engagement with the people we wish to invite into our knowledge.

The significance of this discovery requires reinterpretation of the project.  Why I just assumed everyone who was likely to be engaged in visiting Cleveland or learning about any aspect of the city would have “crossed paths” with Cleveland Memory.  For a portion of the population this is true ‘historical research about Cleveland simply cannot be done without it’.  I revisited the site with their eyes and while as an experienced researcher, I can navigate the “text” with ease to get into nooks and crannies that I know are there, I can see how the site navigation would be too ‘time consuming’ or fruitless for a visitor who just wants to ‘check a few things out’. Words can be obstacles and depth beyond the desire of the visitor will lead to ‘shut down’ not engagement.  While this dialogue with potential users and the realization that many will simply ‘not be interested’, is painful, it is also extremely helpful in forcing the visualization of the project into new directions.  Particularly accessibility, and organization around categories and frames of interest, I may not have considered.  For example, “lists” which I usually consider boring, but can provide touch points as areas of interest.  I will include and be more aware of the power of photographs as tools.  In a visual culture, we must attract before we can educate.  The powerful marketing focus of the Western Reserve Historical Society site – did propel excitement and that expertise also worked to connect the general audience for longer than an explanation would have.

As happens with many historical projects, the initial project is scaled back due to circumstances of resources, time, money and popular interest.  My intent and basic plan has not changed, because a portion of the audience desires the project goal and will surmount the obstacles to gain access to the collection because of its uniqueness and value to them.  But attracting that “general” audience will require more effort and on-going dialogue both to engage their participation, but also to engage their awareness.

Notes

Kuo Wei Tchen, John. “Creating a Dialogic Museum: The Chinatown History Museum Experiment.” In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, edited by Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, 285-326. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

Frisch, Michael. “From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen, and Back.” Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World, edited by Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, 126-137. Philadelphia: The Pew Center for Arts and Heritage, 2001.

Corbett, Katharine T. and Howard S. (Dick) Miller. “A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry.” The Public Historian 28.1 (2006): 15-38.