Navegação – Mapa do site

InícioNúmeros17ArtigosA satisfactory visitor experience...

Artigos

A satisfactory visitor experience: dimensions and contextual components of Spanish museums

Uma experiência museal satisfatória: dimensões e componentes contextuais dos museus espanhóis
Macarena Cuenca-Amigo, Eloísa Pérez Santos e María Jesús Monteagudo

Resumos

Nos últimos 20 anos, tem-se registado um interesse crescente na análise das experiências em museus. Diferentes autores têm abordado este tema sob várias perspetivas, mas apenas alguns se têm debruçado sobre a ideia de experiências satisfatórias. Este estudo lança luz sobre este campo de conhecimento, explorando os fatores envolvidos em experiências museais satisfatórias. Esclarece como os fatores subjetivos (dimensões da experiência) e o ambiente do museu (componentes contextuais) estão relacionados e desempenham um papel na formação dessas experiências do visitante. Para este efeito, foi selecionada uma metodologia quantitativa. Em 2019 foi aplicado um questionário a uma amostra de 685 visitantes de 16 museus espanhóis, que confirmou que a sua experiência museológica era o resultado da sua interação com o museu, as suas características e os seus conteúdos. A experiência do visitante era satisfatória quando a sua interação tinha um impacto em algumas dimensões da sua experiência. Isso variava de acordo com o perfil de cada visitante e com o que este mais valorizava. Os resultados mostraram que, apesar da natureza subjetiva da experiência, os museus desempenham um papel essencial como facilitadores de experiências satisfatórias. Podem modular o papel desempenhado pelas diferentes componentes do contexto museológico nas suas visitas, em função dos perfis dos seus visitantes e da sua orientação para um ou outro tipo de experiência.

Topo da página

Notas da redacção

Artigo recebido a 7.02.2023

Aprovado para publicação a 26.06.2023

Texto integral

Introduction

1Although the term “museum experience” has been used by numerous authors (Graburn 1977; Falk and Dierking 1992, 2000, 2016; Prentice, Witt and Hamer 1998; Packer 2008; Hennes 2010; Perry 2012; Roppola 2014), it has not been sufficiently defined to date. It has been widely studied in the fields of leisure and tourism, where it has been regarded as a memorable internal impression (Carbone and Haeckel 1994; Carù and Cova 2003; Amigo and Cuenca-Amigo 2017). From a more psychological perspective, experience is conceived as a subjective response to a given environment, and this perspective has been the most successful in museum audience research so far (Falk and Dierking 1992, 2000, 2016; Silverman 1995; Kirchberg and Tröndle 2012; Yi et al. 2022).

2Museum experience can thus be understood as a process of subjective and personal mutual interaction between a visitor and their environment. Packer and Ballantyne (2016) extensively reviewed the term and defined the museum visitor experience as an individual’s personal, subjective, and immediate response to an activity, setting or event outside their usual environment. This paper draws on this view in order to study the experience. This involves both the subjective aspects of the experience and the interpretation of the environment where they occur, as they all may be involved in the achievement of a more or less satisfactory experience. Experience can therefore be considered to be an individual psychological phenomenon in which certain dimensions play a more important role than others for each person, depending on their personal characteristics and previous experiences. Some experiences may be enhanced to a lesser or greater extent by the visitor's own interpretation of the characteristics of the museum context, such as the activities, the physical environment, the services, other visitors, companions, and any other elements with which they may interact (Chang and Horng 2010).

3Given the great disparity of approaches used and the potentially relevant variables involved in promoting successful museum experiences, analysing experience dimensions has certainly proven to be complex (Kirchberg and Tröndle 2012; Packer and Ballantyne 2016). Over the last twenty years, numerous attempts have been made to classify different types of experiences and dimensions of experience to facilitate their evaluation, without denying their holistic nature (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson 1990; Pekarik, Doering and Karns 1999; Packer and Bond 2010; Perry 2012; Packer, Ballantyne and Bond 2013; Roppola 2014). A particularly interesting understanding of satisfactory museum experiences was that provided by Pekarik, Doering and Karns (1999). They identified four types of experiences that the users found to be satisfying: object-centred experiences; cognitive experiences; introspective experiences; and social experiences. Based on this taxonomy, they found that the type of satisfying experiences varied according to the characteristics of the museums, their contents, and their visitor profiles. Other studies have emphasised that fun, relaxation, wonder (Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson 1995; Packer 2006), and emotions (Immordino-Yang and Damasio 2007; Sander and Scherer 2009; Mazzanti and Sani 2021) are all essential elements of satisfactory museum experiences.

4This study focuses in the Spanish context, building on the previous research carried out by the Permanent Museum Visitor Studies Laboratory where the Positive Museum Experience Scale was developed as a first attempt to quantitatively measure museum experiences in Spain (LPPM 2013).

5In a nutshell, this study aims to identify the factors involved in ensuring that museum visits can yield satisfactory experiences. It was conducted in some of the main Spanish museums in order to clarify the role played by subjective factors and the museum environment, and how the relationship between them shapes the visitor experience.

Method

Instrument

6A self-administered questionnaire was designed to collect information on various aspects related to museum visits. The questionnaire consisted of 15 questions, two of which concerned the dimensions of the visitor experience and the contextual components of the museum environment.

7In relation to the former, visitors were asked about the type of experiences that made their visit satisfactory. Therefore, an ad-hoc scale of nine aspects was developed based on the highlighting characteristics of museum experiences identified by the literature (Pekarik, Doering, and Karns 1999; Falk and Dierking 2016), including: amazement and learning (Mazzanti and Sani 2021), relaxation and fun (McIntyre 2009), as well as aesthetic experience (López-Sintas, García-Álvarez, Pérez-Rubiales 2012).

Table 1 – Question about the dimensions of the museum visitor experience

Please indicate to what extent the following aspects contributed to how satisfied you were with your visit to the museum. Response options range from “Not at all” to “Very much”. A “Don't know/ Not applicable” option is also included.

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

Quite a bit

Very much

Don't know/ Not applicable

1. Amazement, fascination

2. Learning

3. Knowledge of the subject

4. Enjoyment, entertainment

5. Aesthetic experience

6. Emotional connection with the museum

7. Relaxation, unwinding, taking a break from routine

8. Fun

9. Stimulus for reflection and awareness

8Concerning the contextual components, visitors were presented a list of eight aspects mainly related to what Falk and Dierking (2016) call the physical context (exhibition content, comfort, services, signage, materials, and complementary activities, among others), but it also included a social-related item about companions (Packer and Ballantyne 2005; López Sintas, García Álvarez and Pérez Rubiales 2014). Respondents were asked to reflect on the importance attached to each of them.

Table 2 – Question about the contextual components

Indicate the importance you attach to the following aspects when you visit a museum. The response options range from “Not important” to “Very important”. A “Don’t know/Not applicable” option is also included.

Not important

Of minor importance

Somewhat important

Important

Very important

Don't know/Not applicable

1. Content of the collections

2. Comfort during your visit (availability of benches, rest areas, toilets, etc.)

3. Cafeteria, parking, store…

4. Wayfinding and signage

5. Appropriate room temperature

6. Company you go with

7. Complementary activities to the visit (workshops, courses, presentations, etc.)

8. Supporting interpretive materials (audio guides, brochures, specialised guides...)

9Both questions were developed ad hoc for this study and rated on a 5-point Likert scale, including an extra option for “Don’t know/Not applicable”.

  • 1 During January and February 2019, prior to the administration of the questionnaire, 75 exploratory (...)

10The questionnaire also collected sociodemographic data, data related to visiting habits, and other information related to the visitors' perception of the museum and the practice of visiting museums.1

Participants and data collection

  • 2 According to their country of origin, 92.1% were from Spain, 5% from Latin America and 2.9% from ot (...)

11The sample (table 3) consisted of 685 visitors to 16 Spanish museums in different locations that belonged to different categories. The visitors surveyed were randomly selected both at the entrance and exit of each museum, and the sampling unit was considered to be the individual. The questionnaires were administered in Spanish to both Spaniards and foreigners2. Additionally, in Bilbao and Barcelona the questionnaire could be answered in the Basque and Catalan languages, respectively, for those who wished to do so.

Table 3 – Distribution of the sample according to the museums participating in the research

Name of the museum

Location

Category

Number of collected questionnaires

%

Sorolla Museum

Madrid

House Museum

98

14.3

National Archaeological Museum (MAN)

Madrid

Archaeology

88

12.8

Bilbao Fine Arts Museum

Bilbao

Fine Arts

82

12.0

National Sculpture Museum

Valladolid

Fine Arts

78

11.4

National Art Museum of Catalonia (MNAC)

Barcelona

Fine Arts

63

9.2

Guggenheim Museum

Bilbao

Contemporary Art

47

6.9

Museum of Romanticism

Madrid

Specialised

47

6.9

Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art (MACBA)

Barcelona

Contemporary Art

33

4.8

National Museum of Underwater Archaeology (ARQVA)

Cartagena

Archaeology

29

4.2

National Museum of Ceramics and Sumptuary Arts "González

Martí"

Valencia

Decorative Arts

26

3.8

Altamira National Museum and Research Centre

Santillana del Mar

Archaeology

22

3.2

National Museum of Anthropology

Madrid

Ethnographic-Anthropological

19

2.8

Lázaro Galdiano Museum

Madrid

Fine Arts

16

2.3

Cerralbo Museum

Madrid

House Museum

16

2.3

Museum of America

Madrid

Ethnographic-Anthropological

11

1.6

National Museum of Decorative Arts

Madrid

Decorative Arts

10

1.5

Total

685

100.0

12The administration of the questionnaire was carried out by the researchers between November and December 2019, on both weekdays and weekends. Each respondent completed an informed consent form related to pooled data analysis.

13Table 4 presents the characteristics of the sample analysed based on the independent variables used in the analysis.

Table 4 – Characteristics of the sample analysed based on the independent variables used

Sociodemographic variables

%

Sex

Women

58.9

Men

40.6

Non-binary

0.4

Age

18-29

22.8

30-45

19.9

46-64

34.8

65 or more

22.5

Education level

No formal education

0.7

Primary Education

1.9

Secondary Education

3.1

Intermediate Vocational Training/Baccalaureate

20.2

University degree or similar

52.1

Master's degree or PhD

21.9

Habit variables

%

When you visit museums, who do you usually go with?

I usually go alone

13.2

I usually go with other people

86.8

Number of museums visited over the past year

Zero. This is the first one I have visited this year

4.4

Between 1-2

22.0

Between 3-5

30.9

More than 5

42.8

Perception variables

%

In general, how would you rate museums as institutions?

0 being the lowest and worst rating and 10 the highest and best rating

Between 1-6

5.9

Between 7-8

41.0

Between 9-10

53.1

Compared to other cultural practices that you engage in, how important is visiting museums to you?

Less important

3.8

Equally important

29.1

More important

67.1

14As can be observed in table 4, the sample selected corresponds to people who place visits to museums at the centre of their interests. According to the survey of cultural habits and practices 2021-2022 (MCD 2022), in Spain, only 20.1% of the population visited a museum in the last year. However, the sample presented here is not intended to be representative of the general population, but rather to analyse in depth satisfactory museum experiences. This explains why the sample is composed of people who are frequent visitors to museums and who tend to be described as “heavy users”.

Data analysis

15SPSS (version 26) was used to analyse the data collected. A factor analysis of the questions selected for this study was performed. The Pearson Chi-square test was then applied to examine whether there was a significant association (p-value < 0.05) between the different factors, and between each of the factors and the selected independent variables (see table 4).

Results and discussion

16One of the preliminary results referred to the grouping of the dimensions of the museum experiences and components of the museum environment relating to the different factors involved.

17The nine items associated with the question on the visitor experience (see table 1) were initially automatically grouped into two factors, accounting for only 49.7% of the variance, with some of the items being poorly explained. This result was not surprising if one considers that the museum experience is holistic in nature, as the different types of factors that influence it are closely interrelated. Therefore, the factor analysis was repeated invoking a forced extraction of three factors. In this way, the percentage of variance explained rose to 61%. These three factors became the three dimensions of experience which, following the proposals of the studies reviewed, were called: (1) the playful-hedonistic dimension; (2) the cognitive dimension; and (3) the emotional-affective dimension.

Table 5 – Factor analysis of the question about the dimensions of the visitor experience

Rotated components

Factor analysis

1

2

3

Fun

.826

Playful-hedonistic dimension

Relaxation, unwinding, taking a break from routine

.771

.300

Enjoyment, entertainment

.751

Learning

.849

Cognitive dimension

Knowledge of the subject

.621

.397

Amazement, fascination

.382

.594

Stimulus for reflection and awareness

.452

.451

Emotional connection with the museum

.783

Emotional-affective dimension

Aesthetic experience

.739

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation.

Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: .743

Bartlett's test for sphericity. Sig. .000

Variance explained: 61%

18The eight items from the question related to the contextual components were automatically grouped into three factors, explaining 62% of the variance. These three factors became the three components of the environment, and were labelled as: (1) welcoming and comfort (restorative) components; (2) communication and social components; and (3) content components.

Table 6 – Factor analysis of the question about the components of the museum environment

Rotated components

Factor analysis

1

2

3

Comfortable visit (availability of benches, rest areas, toilets, etc.)

. 794

Welcoming and comfort (restorative) components

Appropriate room temperature

. 716

Cafeteria, parking, store…

. 714

Signs to indicate the different areas and routes

. 674

Complementary activities to the visit (workshops, courses, presentations, etc.)

. 788

Communication and social components

Supporting interpretative materials (audio guides, brochures, specialised guides...)

. 702

Whether you visit the museum on your own or with other people

. 680

Content of the collections

. 926

Content components

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation.

Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: .720

Bartlett's test for sphericity. Sig. .000

Variance explained 62%

The dimensions of a satisfactory museum experience

19Next, the three dimensions identified in a satisfactory museum visitor experience were analysed: (1) playful-hedonistic dimension; (2) cognitive dimension; and (3) emotional-affective dimension. Each of them reflects different types of visitor experience.

Playful-hedonistic dimension

20This dimension grouped the items of “Fun”, “Relaxation, unwinding, taking a break from routine” and “Enjoyment, entertainment”. Experiences related to enjoyment, fun and entertainment are frequent motivations for visitors, since being carried away by curiosity, fascination and growing interest leads to intense concentration, which focuses attention. Visitor involvement in leisure activities is self-rewarding, as skills increase as changes in the environment increase (Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson 1995), which favours concentration and, therefore, learning (Packer 2006; Ballantyne, Packer and Falk 2011).

21The analysis of this playful-hedonistic dimension together with the independent variables revealed that there was a significant association between this dimension and age, and with the importance given by the respondents to visiting museums compared to other cultural practices.

22The younger the visitor, the more important the playful-hedonistic dimension was (chi-square 0.000). Thus, for 66.7% of respondents aged between 18 to 29 years old, this dimension considerably contributed to their satisfaction with their museum visit experience, while for those aged 65 years and over, this percentage was only 42.7%.

23As for the importance given to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices, the greater the importance, the more the recreational dimension contributed to a satisfactory museum visit experience (chi-square 0.002). Some 38.5% of those for whom visiting museums was less important than other cultural practices considered the leisure dimension to be important or very important, while this percentage rose to 61.3% among those for whom visiting museums was fairly or much more important than other cultural practices.

Table 7 – Significant relationship between the playful-hedonistic dimension of the visitor experience and the independent variables “age” and “importance of the practice of visiting museums”

Playful-hedonistic dimension

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Age

* chi-square 0.000

18-29

8.5%

24.8%

66.7%

100.0%

30-45

3.7%

31.3%

64.9%

100.0%

46-64

14.6%

24.5%

60.9%

100.0%

65 or more

17.5%

39.9%

42.7%

100.0%

Importance given by respondents to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices

* chi-square 0.002

Less important

0.0%

61.5%

38.5%

100.0%

Equally important

11.5%

32.3%

56.3%

100.0%

More important

12.3%

26.4%

61.3%

100.0%

Cognitive dimension

24The second dimension identified was the cognitive dimension, which grouped the items “Learning”, “Knowledge of the subject”, “Stimulus for reflection and awareness”, and “Amazement, fascination”. Museums are generally considered as places associated with a learning experience (Pagel, Maaß and Kendall 2015; Mastandrea and Maricchiolo 2016). These components of experience are perhaps the best described in current research. Comprehension, knowledge acquisition, memory, increased curiosity and intellectual reflection from facts, objects or works of art have traditionally been included as processes involved in meaningful learning in museums (Perry 1992; Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson 1995). However, given the informal nature of the learning that happens in this context, motivation, and attention are key factors in understanding the cognitive components of the experience; but so are absorption, immersion, fun and enjoyment (LLPM 2013; Pérez Santos 2019). The experiences of awe and fascination found as part of this dimension may reflect this view.

25The analysis of the results of the cognitive dimension showed a significant association with education level, to what extent the museum is highly valued as an institution and, again, the importance given to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices. Thus, when analysing the relative frequencies, it was found that the higher the education level, the more important the cognitive dimension in the experience of the visit was (chi-square 0.001). If the two ends of the scale were compared, 60% of visitors with no formal education recognised that the cognitive dimension contributed quite a lot or a lot to how satisfied they were with their visit to the museum, while for those with postgraduate studies this percentage rose to 92.6%.

  • 3 Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 10 expressed the highest value.

26The cognitive dimension was more important the more highly the museum was valued as an institution (chi-square 0.001). In this sense, 82.5% of respondents rating the museum between 1 and 63 stated that the cognitive dimension was for them important or very important, in contrast to 93.0% who rated the museum between 9 and 10.

27Finally, the cognitive dimension was also more important the greater importance respondents attached to visiting museums compared to other cultural practices (chi-square 0.002). Some 69.2% of those for whom visiting museums was less important than other cultural practices considered the cognitive dimension to be important or very important, while this percentage rose to 89.2% among those for whom visiting museums was fairly or much more important than other cultural practices.

Table 8 – Relationship between the cognitive dimension of the visitor experience and the independent variables “level of education”, “appreciation of the museum as an institution” and “importance of the practice of visiting museums”

Cognitive dimension

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Education level

* chi-square 0.001

No formal education

20.0%

20.0%

60.0%

100.0%

Primary Education

7.1%

0.0%

92.9%

100.0%

Secondary Education

0.0%

14.3%

85.7%

100.0%

Intermediate Vocational Training/Baccalaureate

0.7%

14.5%

84.8%

100.0%

University degree or similar

0.9%

11.7%

87.4%

100.0%

Master's degree or PhD

0.7%

6.8%

92.6%

100.0%

Rating of the museum as an institution (scale from 0 to 10)

* chi-square 0.001

Rates between 1 and 6

2.5%

15.0%

82.5%

100.0%

Rates between 7 and 8

1.5%

15.7%

82.8%

100.0%

Rates between 9 and 10

0.3%

6.7%

93.0%

100.0%

Importance given by respondents to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices

* chi-square 0.002

Less important

7.7%

23.1%

69.2%

100.0%

Equally important

0.5%

11.3%

88.1%

100.0%

More important

0.9%

9.9%

89.2%

100.0%

Emotional-affective dimension

28The third dimension resulting from the factor analysis was the emotional-affective dimension, which grouped the items “Emotional connection with the museum” and “Aesthetic experience”.

29Emotional or affective aspects have also been generally considered to be part of the museum visitor experience. Emotions such as surprise, joy, delight, inspiration, etc. are frequent ways of describing sensations among museum audiences. As Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990) stated, emotions are often based on personal associations and past experiences, although the strength of the emotional response may differ from moment to moment. In museums, it is logical to think that affective responses are mediated by cognitive evaluations of stimuli, as established by cognitive appraisal theory (Sander and Scherer 2009). But, at the same time, recent advances in neuroscience have found a connection between cognitive and emotional functions that influences the understanding of learning in formal and informal contexts, such as museums (Immordino-Yang and Damasio 2007). In general, although the term “emotion” has been widely used in this context, it is more appropriate to use the term “affect” to encompass emotions, moods, and attitudes (Bagozzi, Gopinath and Nyer 1999; Hosany and Gilbert 2010; Sander and Scherer 2009) which are less intense and not triggered by a specific stimulus or event (Hosany and Gilbert 2010).

30The emotional-affective dimension was significantly associated with the importance given by the respondents to visiting museums compared to other cultural practices and the fact of going to the museum alone or in company.

31The greater the importance given to visiting museums, the more the emotional dimension contributed to a satisfactory museum visit experience (chi-square 0.003). In this sense, some 38.5% of those for whom visiting museums was less important than other cultural practices considered the emotional-affective dimension to be important or very important, while this percentage rose to 63.0% among those for whom visiting museums was fairly or much more important than other cultural practices.

32The emotional dimension had greater influence when people reported having visited the museum alone (chi-square 0.007). Some 73.3% of those who visited museums alone declared that the emotional dimension had a considerable or great influence on their satisfaction with their visit to the museum, while this percentage was reduced to 56% in the case of those who went accompanied.

Table 9 – Relationship between the emotional-affective dimension of the visitor experience and the independent variables “importance of the practice of visiting museums” and “whether I visit museums alone or with other people”

Emotional-affective dimension

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Importance given by respondents to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices

* chi-square 0.003

Less important

23.1%

38.5%

38.5%

100.0%

Equally important

13.0%

37.3%

49.7%

100.0%

More important

9.4%

27.6%

63.0%

100.0%

When you visit museums, who do you usually go with?

* chi-square 0.007

I usually go alone

4.7%

22.1%

73.3%

100.0%

I usually go with other people

11.9%

32.1%

56.0%

100.0%

Components of the museum environment that influence the experience

33The dimensions described above can be enhanced to a greater or lesser extent by environmental factors generally present in museums. These dimensions were related to the three contextual components resulting from the factor analysis of the question on the importance attributed by visitors to museum characteristics. Before analysing the relationship between dimensions and components, the three contextual components and their relationship to the independent variables are described below.

Content components

34The objects, works, and pieces that make up museum collections offer the visitor an experience either of the object as a whole, or as a compendium of special characteristics, such as beauty, form, colour, tactile qualities, or evidence of the artist's process (Kirchberg and Tröndle 2012). Interacting with the formal and symbolic characteristics of objects enables satisfying experiences, as shown in this study. Feeling fascinated by beauty, appreciating the value of unique things, admiring real objects, thinking about what it would be like to own these things, are some of the rewarding experiences referred to by museum visitors (Pérez Santos 2019).

35The content components are significantly associated with three of the independent variables analysed. First, the more visits the respondents had made during the previous year, the more importance was given to the content of the collections, (chi-square 0.005). Even though the difference might not be as large as in other cases, it can be observed that for 91.3% of those who visited one or two museums over the past year, the content components are important or very important, whereas this percentage rises to 98.6% when it comes to respondents who visited more than 5 museums over the past year.

36Second, the content components were considered as more important the more respondents valued museums as institutions (chi-square 0.000). 85.0% of respondents rating the museum between 1 and 6 stated that the content components were for them important or very important, in contrast to 98.0% who rated the museum between 9 and 10

37Third, the content components were valued more the more respondents valued the practice of visiting museums compared to other cultural practices (chi-square 0.002). In this sense, some 88.0% of those for whom visiting museums was less important than other cultural practices considered the content components to be important or very important, while this percentage rose to 98.2% among those for whom visiting museums was fairly or much more important than other cultural practices.

Table 10 – Significant relationship between the content components and the independent variables “visits in the last year”, “appreciation of the museum as an institution” and “importance of the practice of visiting museums”

Content components

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very Important

Number of museums visited over the past year

* chi-square 0.005

Zero. This is the first one I have visited this year

0.0%

3.6%

96.4%

100.0%

Between 1-2

1.3%

7.3%

91.3%

100.0%

Between 3-5

0.0%

2.9%

97.1%

100.0%

More than 5

0.0%

1.4%

98.6%

100.0%

Rating of the museum as an institution (scale from 0 to 10)

* chi-square 0.000

Rates between 1 and 6

0.0%

15.0%

85.0%

100.0%

Rates between 7 and 8

0.4%

3.6%

96.0%

100.0%

Rates between 9 y 10

0.3%

1.7%

98.0%

100.0%

Importance given by respondents to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices

* chi-square 0.002

Less important

0.0%

12.0%

88.0%

100.0%

Equally important

1.0%

5.6%

93.4%

100.0%

More important

0.0%

1.8%

98.2%

100.0%

Communication and social components

38The communication and social components included “Complementary activities to the visit (workshops, courses, presentations, etc.)”, “Supporting interpretive materials (audio guides, brochures, specialised guides)” and “Company you go with”. This component therefore grouped together certain characteristics of the museum environment that met the needs of understanding, obtaining explanations to the questions posed, satisfying curiosity in a not too demanding environment, and being able to choose and make decisions with control (Perry 1992). As Dufresné-Tassé (1999) stated, having a good time, getting answers, and feeling reinforced by having succeeded in making sense of the objects by activating one's own knowledge and skills with the help of the information in the exhibition, is fundamental to a satisfactory experience.

39Additionally, visiting museums is an eminently social activity; interaction with companions is one of the main sources of satisfaction of the museum experience and a reason for visiting (Packer and Ballantyne 2002). Social interaction in museums provides visitors with the opportunity to develop an inclusive intergenerational form of leisure that is conducive to human development (Pérez Santos 2019). The verbal exchange with companions and the observation of other people in the exhibition rooms enrich the experience (McCarthy and Ciolfi 2008).

40The analysis of the communication and social components together with the independent variables yielded two significant relationships. First, regarding the level of education, respondents with lower levels attached greater importance to this component than those with higher levels (chi-square 0.042). As it can be observed in table 11, 66.7% of respondents with a primary education level considered the communication and social components to be important or very important in contrast to only 48.3% of those with master’s degree or PhD level.

41Second, participants who tended to visit the museum alone gave less importance to the communication and social components than those who usually go with other people (chi-square 0.000). Some 59.9% of those usually going with other people considered the content components to be important or very important, while this percentage declined to 33.7% among those usually going alone.

Table 11 – Significant relationship between the communication and social components and the independent variables “education level” and “whether I visit the museum alone or with other people”

Communication and social components

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Education level

* chi-square 0.042

No formal education

40.0%

40.0%

20.0%

100.0%

Primary Education

8.3%

25.0%

66.7%

100.0%

Secondary Education

4.8%

9.5%

85.7%

100.0%

Intermediate Vocational Training/Baccalaureate

9.6%

33.1%

57.4%

100.0%

University degree or similar

8.4%

33.2%

58.4%

100.0%

Master's degree or PhD

11.7%

40.0%

48.3%

100.0%

When you visit museums, who do you usually go with?

* chi-square 0.000

I usually go alone

16.9%

49.4%

33.7%

100.0%

I usually go with other people

8.5%

31.6%

59.9%

100.0%

Welcoming and comfort components (restorative)

42These components included aspects such as the “comfortable visit” (benches, rest areas, and toilets available, among other components), “appropriate room temperature”, “cafeteria, parking, store…” and “wayfinding and signage”. Comfort and guidance are two of the factors that most influence the quality of the museum experience. Feeling comfortable in a place and knowing that one can find the right itinerary has a very important effect on being satisfied with the visit and psychological well-being (Kaplan, Bardwell and Slakter 1993; Packer 2008; Packer and Bond 2010). These types of needs meet certain demands or basic needs of the visitor (physiological, safety, or belonging) that are essential for any meaningful interaction between the visitor and the museum to take place. They are the basis and support point for other more complex needs (Black 2005).

43The welcoming and comfort components were significantly associated with the independent variables of perception. These components were more highly valued by those visitors who valued museums as institutions (chi-square 0.046) and those who valued the practice of visiting museums more than other cultural practices (chi-square 0.038), although in both cases the differences might not be as large as in previous components due to the higher values of both chi-squares.

44First, 52.5% of respondents rating the museum between 1 and 6 stated that the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components were for them important or very important, in contrast to 58.7% who rated the museum between 9 and 10.

45Second, some 50.0% of those for whom visiting museums was less important than other cultural practices considered the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components to be important or very important, while this percentage rose to 56.3% among those for whom visiting museums was fairly or much more important than other cultural practices.

46Table 12 – Significant relationship between the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components and the independent variables “appreciation of the museum as an institution” and “importance of the practice of visiting museums”

Welcoming and comfort (restorative) components

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat Important

Important or very important

Rating of the museum as an institution (scale from 0 to 10)

* chi-square 0.046

Rates between 1 and 6

20.0%

27.5%

52.5%

100.0%

Rates between 7 and 8

8.4%

36.9%

54.7%

100.0%

Rates between 9 and 10

6.5%

34.8%

58.7%

100.0%

Importance given by respondents to visiting museums in comparison with other cultural practices

* chi-square 0.038

Less important

19.2%

30.8%

50.0%

100.0%

Equally important

10.2%

30.6%

59.2%

100.0%

More important

6.0%

37.6%

56.3%

100.0%

Relationships between dimensions and components of the museum visitor experience

47The study of the visitor experience requires taking into account the interaction between the subjective aspects of the experience and the characteristics of the museum context in which it occurs. It is to be assumed, therefore, that certain subjective experiences may be related to different components of the context.

48The analysis revealed that the greater the value placed on the playful-hedonistic dimension in terms of having a satisfactory museum visitor experience, the greater the importance attributed to the communication and social components (chi-squared 0.000) and to the restorative components of welcome and comfort (chi-squared 0.002). As it can be observed in table 13, 41.9% of those respondents for whom the communication and social components were not important at all or hardly important, considered the playful-hedonistic dimension to be important or very important. That number rose to 68.9% in the case of respondents for whom the communication and social components were important or very important. The same happens with the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components. Also, 55.8% of those respondents for whom the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components were not important at all or hardly important, considered the playful-hedonistic dimension to be important or very important in contrast to 65.6% for whom the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components were important or very important.

49Presumably, this dimension, which is especially important for younger visitors and for those less familiar with museum visits, entails greater support for those components that facilitate understanding and well-being.

Table 13 – Relationship between the playful-hedonistic dimension of the visitor experience and the communication and social components and the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components

Playful-hedonistic dimension

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Communication and social components

* chi-square 0.000

Not important at all or hardly important

30.6%

27.4%

41.9%

100.0%

Somewhat important

10.7%

41.5%

47.8%

100.0%

Important or very important

8.8%

22.3%

68.9%

100.0%

Welcoming and comfort (restorative) components

* chi-square 0.002

Not important at all or hardly important

13.5%

30.8%

55.8%

100.0%

Somewhat important

14.9%

35.7%

49.4%

100.0%

Important or very important

8.9%

25.5%

65.6%

100.0%

50However, when the cognitive dimension prevailed in terms of considering a visitor experience satisfactory, the museum characteristics that most influenced this experience were equally the content of the collections (chi-square 0.000) and the communication and social components, such as complementary activities, supporting interpretive materials and companions (chi-square 0.000). Therefore, for those visitors for whom learning, understanding, or reflecting on exhibition content was essential to enjoy a satisfactory museum experience, but the communication and social components were also essential.

51As it can be observed in table 14,50.0 % of those respondents for whom the content components were not important at all or hardly important, considered the cognitive dimension to be important or very important. That number rose to 89.4% in the case of respondents for whom the content components were important or very important. The same happens with the communication and social components. 77.8% of those respondents for whom the communication and social components were not important at all or hardly important, considered the cognitive dimension to be important or very important in contrast to 89.4% for whom the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components were important or very important.

52Table 14 – Relationship between the cognitive dimension of the experience and the content components and the communication and social components

Cognitive dimension

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Content components

* chi-square 0.000

Not important at all or hardly important

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

Somewhat important

0.0%

40.9%

59.1%

100.0%

Important or very important

0.8%

9.8%

89.4%

100.0%

Communication and social components

* chi-square 0.000

Not important at all or hardly important

6.3%

15.9%

77.8%

100.0%

Somewhat important

0.9%

10.6%

88.5%

100.0%

Important or very important

0.3%

10.3%

89.4%

100.0%

53Finally, when the satisfactory experience was more closely linked to the emotional-affective dimension, both the content of the collections (chi-square 0.028) and the restorative components of welcome and comfort (comfort in the rooms, services and signs) (chi-square 0.013) were the components most valued by visitors.

54As it can be observed in table 15, 40.9% of those respondents for whom the content components were somewhat important, considered the emotional-affective dimension to be important or very important. That number rose to 58.8% in the case of respondents for whom the content components were important or very important. The same happens with the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components. 49.1% of those respondents for whom the emotional-affective dimension was not important at all or hardly important, considered the cognitive dimension to be important or very important in contrast to 63.4% for whom the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components were important or very important.

55This emotional-affective dimension was found to be more related to the exhibition content itself and the restorative component than to communication or social aspects. This was more important for those who visited museums alone and for visitors who attached great importance to visiting museums.

Table 15 – Relationship between the emotional-affective dimension of the visitor experience and the content components and the welcoming and comfort (restorative) components

Emotional-affective dimension

Total

Not important at all or hardly important

Somewhat important

Important or very important

Content components

* chi-square 0.028

Not important at all or hardly important

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Somewhat important

0.0%

59.1%

40.9%

100.0%

Important or very important

11.1%

30.0%

58.8%

100.0%

Welcoming and comfort (restorative) components

* chi-square 0.013

Not important at all or hardly important

15.1%

35.8%

49.1%

100.0%

Somewhat important

14.7%

33.2%

52.1%

100.0%

Important or very important

7.9%

28.7%

63.4%

100.0%

Conclusion

56This study has focused on identifying the factors which, in the opinion of a sample of visitors to Spanish museums, most influence whether a visit can be considered to be satisfactory. The results confirmed that the museum experience is the result of the interaction of the person with the stimuli of the environment (the museum), its characteristics and contents, and the interpretation made of them. The dimensions of the experience feed into each other, influencing each other incrementally and are therefore subtly interrelated for all visitors. However, at the same time, the results showed that a satisfactory experience occurs when this interaction has a more significant impact on some dimensions rather than on others, and how they were reorganised according to the personal characteristics and the visitors' evaluations of the exhibition context.

Fig. 1 – Dimensions and contextual components of a satisfactory museum experience

57The cognitive dimension was the one that most contributed to a satisfactory visit for participants with higher education levels, who valued museums more and attached more importance to museum visits than to other cultural practices. This dimension refers to the acquisition of knowledge as one of the returns on which satisfaction is based for these profiles, reaffirming the importance that some studies (Perry 1992; Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson 1995) placed on understanding as an essential condition for a satisfactory museum visit. The fact that those who gave prominence to this dimension had high education levels explains the central role of understanding as a gateway to knowledge and a source of satisfaction in museum experiences. These were also people who attached great value to museums as institutions. This fact, together with the importance they assigned to the museum visit in comparison with other cultural practices, suggested that they had a certain attachment to and involvement with museums. It is particularly interesting that the greater the contribution of this cognitive dimension to a satisfactory visit, the greater the importance given to the contents of the collections, enriched by complementary activities and supporting interpretative materials, and to companions. It can be stated, therefore, that the cognitive dimension was closely related to the content, communication and social components of the environment.

58The central position of the museum’s content was shared by those who considered the emotional-affective dimension to be key to satisfactory museum visits. For these people, visiting alone encouraged them to experience their emotions and, therefore, led to a satisfactory experience. It could be said that the fascination, amazement, and concentration that promoted the flow experiences mentioned by Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) are more viable alone than in the company of other people. Those participants who made this central to the emotional dimension in their museum experiences also attached great importance to the services on offer, signs and comfort, in other words, to the restorative components. These issues are undoubtedly essential for visitors to connect emotionally with the museum and its contents.

59Reflection on the playful-hedonistic dimension shows the importance of this aspect for younger groups. The results indicated that the younger museum visitors were, the more important this dimension was to ensure a satisfactory experience. In the light of this data, museums should continue to seek innovative programs to guarantee the enjoyment of children and young people, making museums attractive spaces not only for their relationship with knowledge and significant learning, but also for their ability to promote fun and satisfying experiences, in which the acquisition of knowledge takes place almost by default, as a direct consequence of visitor enjoyment.

60The results of this study have shown that, despite the profoundly subjective nature of the museum experience, museums have much to say as facilitators of satisfactory experiences. They can modulate the role played by the various components of the museum context in their visits, depending on the profiles of their visitors and their orientation toward one type of experience or another. A challenge that undoubtedly involves obtaining further knowledge of their audiences. Something that is becoming increasingly difficult, given the dynamic and changing nature of the preferences, interests, and expectations of museum visitors. Therefore, this article may be of special interest to researchers, professionals and experts in the management and strategy of museum audiences.

61Future research should explore, among other issues, museum satisfaction and its sources in groups of people with no or infrequent visits to museums (“not heavy users”), as well as the role of satisfactory museum experiences in the long-term adherence or loyalty of cultural audiences to museums.

Topo da página

Bibliografia

Amigo Fernández de Arroyabe, María Luisa, and Macarena Cuenca-Amigo. 2017. “The Experience of Aesthetic Leisure Revisited.” In Leisure Experiences, Opportunities and Contributions to Human Development, edited by Maria Jesús Monteagudo Sánchez, 63-89. Bilbao: University of Deusto.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Mahesh Gopinath, and Prashanth U. Nyer 1999. “The Role of Emotions in Marketing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Journal 27 (2): 184–206.

Ballantyne, Roy, Jam Packer, and John H. Falk. 2011. “Visitors’ Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Testing Short and Long-Term Impacts of Wildlife Tourism Experiences Using Structural Equation Modelling.” Tourism Management 32 (6): 1243-1252.

Black, Graham. 2005. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. London: Routledge.

Carbone, Lewis P., and Stephan H. Haeckel. 1994. “Engineering Customer Experiences.” Marketing Management 3 (3): 8-19.

Carù, Antonella, and Bernard Cova. 2003. “Revisiting Consumption Experience: A More Humble but Complete View of the Concept.” Marketing Theory 3 (2): 267-286.

Chang, Ting-Yueh, and Shun-Ching Horng. 2010. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Experience Quality: The Customer’s Perspective.” The Service Industries Journal 30 (14): 2401-2419.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Kim Hermanson. 1995. Intrinsic Motivation in Museums: Why Does One Want to Learn? In Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda, edited by John Howard Falk and Lynn Diane Dierking, 67-75. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Rick Emery Robinson, 1990. The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Dufresné-Tassé, Colette. 1999. “Preálables à la Réalisation par les Musées d’Études Interculturelles de Type Analytique en Éducation des Adultes.” In Le Musé au Service de la Personne, edited by M. Allard and B. Lefebvre, 227-253. Montréal: Groupe de Recherche sur l’Éducation et les Musées.

Falk, John H., and Lyn. D. Dierking. 2016. The Museum Experience Revisited. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking. 1992. The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.

Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Graburn, Nelson 1977. “The Museum and the Visitor Experience.” Roundtable Reports, 1-5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40479310

Hennes, Tom 2010. “Rethinking the Visitor Experience: Transforming Obstacle into Purpose.” Curator: The Museum Journal 45 (2): 109-121.

Hosany, Sameer, and David Gilbert. 2010. “Measuring Tourists’ Emotional Experiences toward Hedonic Holiday Destinations. Journal of Travel Research 49 (4): 513-526.

Immordino-Yang, Mary Helen, and Antonio Damasio. 2007. “We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education.” Mind, Brain, and Education 1 (1): 3-10.

Kaplan, Stephen, Lisa V. Bardwell, and Deborah B. Slakter. 1993. “The Museum as a Restorative Environment.” Environment and Behavior 25 (6): 725-742.

Kirchberg, Volker, and Martin Tröndle. 2012. “Experiencing Exhibitions: A Review of Studies on Visitor Experiences in Museums.” Curator: The Museum Journal 55 (4): 435-452.

López Sintas, Jordi, Ercilia García Álvarez, and Elena Pérez Rubiales. 2014. “Art Museum Visitors: Interaction Strategies for Sharing Experiences.” Museum Management and Curatorship 29 (3): 241-259.

López-Sintas, Jordi, Ercilia García-Álvarez, and Elena Pérez-Rubiales. 2012. “The Unforgettable Aesthetic Experience: The Relationship between the Originality of Artworks and Local Culture.” Poetics 40 (4): 337-358.

LPPM. 2013. La Experiencia de la Visita al Museo: Conociendo a Nuestros Visitantes. LPPM (Laboratorio Permanente de Público de Museos). Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte - Secretaría General Técnica. Subdirección General de Documentación y Publicaciones. http://www.ibermuseos.org/recursos/documentos/la-experiencia-de-la-visita-al-museo/

Mastandrea, Stefano, and Fridanna Maricchiolo, ed. 2016. The Role of the Museum in the Education of Young Adults: Motivation, Emotion and Learning. Rome: Roma TrPress. https://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Role-of-the-Museum-in-the-Education-of-Young-Adults.-Motivation-Emotion-and-Learning.pdf

Mazzanti, Paolo, and Margherita Sani, eds. 2021. Emotions and Learning in Museums. Berlin: NEMO – The Network of European Museum. https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/Publications/NEMO_Emotions_and_Learning_in_Museums_WG-LEM_02.2021.pdf

McCarthy, John, and Luigina Ciolfi. 2008. “Place as Dialogue: Understanding and Supporting the Museum Experience.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (3): 247-267.

MCD. (2022). Estadística 21 22: Encuesta de Hábitos y Prácticas Culturales en España 2021-2022. MCD (Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte). https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/dam/jcr:0c54d7c3-abe2-43ae-9f9d-0fe17dd225d2/encuesta-de-habitos-y-practicas-culturales-2021-2022.pdf

McIntyre, Charles. 2009. “Museum and Art Gallery Experience Space Characteristics: An Entertaining Show or a Contemplative Bathe?” International Journal of Tourism Research 11 (2): 155-170.

Packer, Jam, and Nigel Bond. 2010. “Museums as Restorative Environments.” Curator: The Museum Journal, 53 (4): 421-436.

Packer, Jam, and Roy Ballantyne. 2005. “Solitary vs. Shared: Exploring the Social Dimension of Museum Learning.” Curator: The Museum Journal 48 (2): 177-192.

Packer, Jam, Roy Ballantyne, and Nigel Bond. 2013. Capturing the Visitor Experience (Unpublished Manuscript, University of Queensland).

Packer, Jan, and Roy Ballantyne. 2002. “Motivational Factors and the Visitor Experience: A Comparison of Three Sites.” Curator: The Museum Journal, 45 (3): 183-198.

Packer, Jan, and Roy Ballantyne. 2016 “Conceptualizing the Visitor Experience: A Review of Literature and Development of a Multifaceted Model.” Visitor Studies 19 (2): 128-143.

Packer, Jan. 2006. “Learning for Fun: The Unique Contribution of educational Leisure Experiences.” Curator: The Museum Journal 49 (3): 329-344.

Packer, Jan. 2008. “Beyond Learning: Exploring Visitors’ Perceptions of the Value and Benefits of Museum Experiences.” Curator: The Museum Journal 51 (1): 33-54.

Pagel, Julia, Mareen Maaß, and Geraldine Kendall, eds. 2015. Revisiting the Educational Value of Museums: Connecting to Audiences: NEMO 23rd Annual Conference 5-7 November 2015 in Pilsen, Czech Republic. Berlin: NEMO The Network of European Museum Organisations. https://www.museums.ch/en/publications/english/educational-values/

Pekarik, Andrew J., Zavaha D. Doering, and David A. Karns. 1999. “Exploring Satisfying Experiences in Museums.” Curator: The Museum Journal 42 (2): 152-173.

Pérez Santos, Eloísa. 2019. “Museums as Spaces of Change, Enjoyment and Well-Being: Psychological Models to Understand the Experience of the Visit.” Conference presented at Museum for All People: Art, Accessibility and Social Inclusion, International Conference, Madrid, 25-5 April, 2019. http://museumforall.musacces.es/es_ES/

Perry, Deborah L. 2012. What Makes Learning Fun? Principles for the Design of Intrinsically Motivating Museum Exhibits. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Perry, Dewayne L. 1992. “What Research Says: Designing Exhibits that Motivate.” ASTC Newsletter 20 (1): 9-10, 12.

Prentice, Richard C., Stephen F. Witt, and Claire Hamer. 1998. Tourism as Experience: The Case of Heritage Parks. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (1): 1-24.

Roppola, Tiina. 2014. Designing for the Museum Visitor Experience. London: Routledge.

Sander, David, and Klaus R. Scherer. 2009. The Oxford Companion to Emotion and the Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, Lois 1995. “Visitor Meaning-Making in Museums for a New Age.” Curator: The Museum Journal 38 (3): 161-170.

Yi, Tahea, Hao-yun Lee, Joosun Yum, and Ji-Hyun Lee. 2022. “The Influence of Visitor-Based Social Contextual Information on Visitors’ Museum Experience.” PLoS ONE 17 (5): e0266856.

Topo da página

Notas

1 During January and February 2019, prior to the administration of the questionnaire, 75 exploratory interviews were conducted at the Fine Arts Museum and the Guggenheim Museum (Bilbao), and at the National Museum of Decorative Arts (Madrid). The main goal was to refine some of the questions and response options that were generating more debate among the research team members. In total, 10 open questions formed the interview protocol and the interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed in their entirety. The interviewees were selected at the exit of the aforementioned museums and were adults over 18 years of age. Of the 75 people interviewed, 42 were women and 33 were men.

2 According to their country of origin, 92.1% were from Spain, 5% from Latin America and 2.9% from other European countries.

3 Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 10 expressed the highest value.

Topo da página

Índice das ilustrações

Legenda Fig. 1 – Dimensions and contextual components of a satisfactory museum experience
URL http://journals.openedition.org/midas/docannexe/image/4744/img-1.png
Ficheiro image/png, 38k
Topo da página

Para citar este artigo

Referência eletrónica

Macarena Cuenca-Amigo, Eloísa Pérez Santos e María Jesús Monteagudo, «A satisfactory visitor experience: dimensions and contextual components of Spanish museums»MIDAS [Online], 17 | 2023, posto online no dia 15 novembro 2023, consultado o 12 abril 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/midas/4744; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/midas.4744

Topo da página

Autores

Macarena Cuenca-Amigo

PhD in Leisure and Human Development. She is associate professor at Deusto Business School and researcher at the Institute of Leisure Studies of the University of Deusto (Bilbao, Spain). Her main line of research is cultural audience development, the topic on which she prepared her doctoral thesis. She teaches at postgraduate level at various universities and has led and taken part in several competitive European and national research projects on audience development.

Universidad de Deusto, 24, Universidades Ave. 48007, Bilbao, España, macarena.cuenca@deusto.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8629-7364

Eloísa Pérez Santos

PhD in Psychology and Full Professor at the Complutense University of Madrid. Promoter and scientific coordinator of the Spanish Permanent Laboratory of Museums Audiences, where she directed more than 20 investigations on audiences and social and educational programs in Spanish State Museums. Researcher in different recent projects: “CONNECT: Connecting Audiences European Alliance for Education and Training in Audience Development”, “CIPAMU City: “Heritage and Museums in Spain and Latin America” and R + D + i “PUBLICUM: Audiences in transformation”.

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Avda. de Séneca, 2, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, eperezsa@ucm.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3852-3328

María Jesús Monteagudo

PhD in Leisure and Human Development. Professor at the University of Deusto. Member of the research team “Leisure, Culture and Tourism for Social Transformation” (IT 14 57-22) at the same university. Her research topic is leisure as a factor for human development. In the last years, she has worked on audience development approach, as researcher in national and international projects as “PUBLICUM: Audiences in transformation”, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, and in European projects, such as “CONNECT” and ADESTE +, both focused on audience development.

Universidad de Deusto, 24, Universidades Ave. 48007, Bilbao, España, mjmonte@deusto.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-5265

Topo da página

Direitos de autor

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Apenas o texto pode ser utilizado sob licença CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Outros elementos (ilustrações, anexos importados) são "Todos os direitos reservados", à exceção de indicação em contrário.

Topo da página
Pesquisar OpenEdition Search

Você sera redirecionado para OpenEdition Search