11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)

CurrentIssue
Contributors
PastIssues
CallforPapers
EditorialBoard
Submissions
Search

Tweet
Share

Reconstruction9.1(2009)

ObjectKnowledge:ResearchingObjectsintheMuseum
Experience/ElizabethWoodandKierstenF.Latham

Abstract:Thispaperinvestigatesaninterdisciplinaryperspectiveonmuseumresearch,
offeringaneworientationandmethodologyforfieldwork.Itbeginsfromthestanceof
"objectknowledge",whichdescribesthewaysofknowingthatcomefromhumaninteraction
withandstudyofphysicalobjects.Next,isthedocumentationofthepowerofobjectsto
definethelivedexperienceoftime,place,andidentity,presentedwithanappliedand
theoreticalperspectiveontangibleobjectsandtheirrelationshiptolivedexperience.
Throughobjectknowledgewearguethatmuseumscanbetterunderstandtheirimpactand
influenceonvisitorsanddefinethewaysthatobjectsandartifactsserveaskeyaspects
ofhumanlifethatcontributetomultiplewaysofknowing.Tomakeuseofthisperspective,
phenomenology,asafieldmethodologyismostusefulinstudyingvisitorexperiencesand
interactionswithobjects,artifacts,andexhibitions.Asanunderusedstrategyfor
researchinmuseums,phenomenologyoffersawayofinvestigatingtherelationshipbetween
viewerandobjectthatcanhelpscholarsbetterunderstandthemeaningofmuseumsandtheir
relationshiptoourhumanworldsofknowing,beingandexperiencinghistory,thearts,the
sciences.Thisprocessoffersareengagingwiththemuses,sotospeak.Using
multidisciplinarytheorydrawnfromeducation,informationstudies,semiotics,
anthropology,andhistory,researcherscanbetterascertainthemeaningandimpactof
museumsfromadecidedlyhumanstandpoint.Theconvergenceofobjectknowledgeand
phenomenologicalfieldworkoffersexcitingnewavenuestocontinuethestudyofmaterial
cultureandmuseumswhileenhancingourunderstandingofthehumanexperience.

Introduction

<1>Themuseumfieldisawashineffortstobetterconnectvisitorsthroughexperience
drivenexhibitionsandcontent.Thisemphasisoftendrivesfocusawayfromthemuseum's
primaryfunctionasacollectinginstitution.Itmayevenleadonetoquestionwhetherthe
objectisstillamajorpartofamuseumgoingexperience(Latham,WoodandPekarik,2008).
Asresearchersofthehumanexperiencewithobjects,andwithmanyyearsofmuseum
experienceintheareasofeducation,curation,collections,andexhibitdevelopment,we
proposethereisaneedforanewviewonthepurposeandroleofobjectsorartifacts
withinthemuseum.
<2>Visitorexperiencesandaudiencerelationshipsarenotnewavenuesofresearchon
museums.Overtheyearsmanyscholarsandprofessionalsinthefieldrecognizedthe
importanceofvisitor,oraudience,needsandinterestsfromearly20thcenturywritings
byJohnCottonDana(1999)tothemostcurrentstudiesonmuseumsandcommunities(e.g.
Knell,MacLeod,andWatson,2007Watson,2007).Themostrecentworkonmuseumand
communitypointstowardthemuseumasconvenerandshaperofmultipleidentities(Peersand
Brown,2003)andorganizersofmemory(Watson,2007).Ineachinstance,scholarsexamine
therolethemuseumanditsexhibitsandprogramsplayinunlockingthepotentialof
communitiestoreflectandreengageinhistoricalnarratives,collectivememories,and
"intersectinghistories"(Edwards,ascitedinPeersandBrown,2003,p.5).Embedded
withinthisviewofmuseumsassitesofmemory,ofrepresentation,andofidentity,isthe
signalofaparadigmshiftformostmuseumpractice.Theperspectiveofmuseumsinamore
engaged,responsivepositioniswhathelpssetthestagefornewwaysofworking,
researching,andexperiencingmuseums.
<3>Recognizingmuseumsascoconstructorsandfacilitatorsofmemoryandrepresentation
isaconceptthatrequiresmoreinteractionbetweenmuseumandcommunity(howeverconstrued
anddefined)wherecommunityparticipantsareaskedtoactivelyparticipateindeveloping
themeaningofartifacts(PeersandBrown,2003,p.1).Otherscholarshaveidentifiedthe
roleofthemuseumaskeyplayersinmemorymakingbyworkingwithcommunitytodevelop,
shape,andrecordcollectivememories,groupnarrativeseachwiththepowertoenacta
group'sidentity(Watson,2007).Inthisnewposition,asmediatorratherthanauthority,

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

1/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
"museumsredefinetheirstrategiesofrepresentationofthepast"(Misztal,2008,p.390).
Theserepresentationsoftenrelyonobjectstoserveasthetriggerpoint,orreference,
forstoriesandexperiences.
<4>Inthispaperwedrawonthisemergentorientationbylookingveryspecificallyatthe
useofartifactsinthecreationofthevisitor'sexperience.Thispaperoutlinesan
interdisciplinaryframeworkfor"objectknowledge"aswewillcallit,asawaytorebuild
theobjectasaprimarycomponentinthemuseumexperience.Objectknowledgeassuchre
positionstheobjectwithinthevisitordrivenmuseumandemphasizesanewmodefor
developingstrongconnectionsbetweencontentandmedium.Followingtheframeworkwe
outlineamethodologythatdeftlyorientsresearchtowardthisparadigm,specifically
withinthemuseumexperience.Thismethodologyincorporatesthephilosophicaland
methodologicalelementsofphenomenologyandgivesresearchersnewstrategiestointerpret
anddefineobjectknowledgeinthefield.Finally,weoffersomeconsiderationsand
implicationsofthismethodologyformuseumprofessionalsandresearchers.

Whatisittoknowanobject?

<5>Fornearlythirtyyearsresearchersandpractitionersinmuseumstudieshavecalled
formorediscussiononobjectbaseddiscourse.Notably,Schlereth(1984)suggested,
"despiteallourcollectionandclassificationofobjects,littleisknownaboutthe
reasonsforhumanattachmenttothemoraboutthevariouspersonalwaysbywhichthey
becomeincorporatedintopeople'sgoals,experiences,andveryidentities"(p.107108).
Schlerethfocusedhisdiscussionsonthistypeofobjectknowledgeasasortofmuseum
literacy,theideathatvisitorstomuseumsneedtoknowhowto'read'theobjectsandthe
artifactshousedthere.Oneoftheimmediatedilemmasinsuchexpectationsisthe
orientationto,andunderstandingof,theobjectorartifactasapieceofknowledgeora
representation.Inthevarietyoffieldsthatcomposemuseumresearchandpractice
anthropology,archaeology,arthistory,historyofallkinds,education,andthesciences
theideaof"object"holdsmultiplemeanings,reflectsdifferentwaysofthinkingand
knowing,andexpectsdivergentavenuesofresearch.Withineachofthesefields,theentire
classificationofanobjectrequiresparticulardisciplinaryknowledge.Thereisagreat
dealofvalueinexaminingtheroleoftheobjectacrossthesedisciplinesasawayof
settingthestageforfieldworkinamuseumsetting.Thoughthisisnotanexhaustivelist,
considerthefollowingconceptsofobjectsacrossthedisciplines,particularlyasthey
applytounderstandingthehumanexperience:semiotics:objectassign(i.e.Pearce,1994
Taborsky,1990,1997)archaeologyandmaterialculture:objectasproductofhuman
activity(i.e.Hoskins,1998Prown,1993Schiffer.1999Tilley,1989)museologyand
museumstudies:objectaspolysemic(i.e.HooperGreenhill,2000Silverman,1993,1995,
1999)psychology:objectasthemediumofthehumanpsyche(i.e.Csikszentmihalyi&
Robinson,1990Csikszentmihalyi&RochbergHalton,1981Paris,2002,2006Winnicot,
1971)philosophy:objectastheorientationofthoughtandbeing(i.e.Dewey,1934
Heidegger,1967Hein,H,2000Jackson,1998Schusterman,2000).
<6>Intheinterdisciplinaryworkofgeneralmuseumpractice,itbecomesnecessarytodraw
fromallofthesedisciplinaryconventionsandadapttheminsuchawaythateach
discipline'sphilosophyandorientationismaintained,whileatthesametimecreatinga
hybridizeddefinition.Thisdefinition,basedonthefeaturesofthedisciplinesmentioned
above,canbedistilledintothreerepresentativeparadigms:Material,Cultural,and
Personal.Asinvestigatorsofobjects,thesethreeparadigmsneednot,andrealistically
cannotexistinisolation.Theparadigmsdoneedtobeconsideredfortheindividualways
inwhichtheycontributetomeaning,andmoreimportantlytogroundtheconceptofobject
knowledgeinsuchawaythatitcanbestudieddifferently.Thefollowingdescriptionsecho
theperspectivesofthemultiplefieldsdescribedabove,usingasanillustrativeexample
AbrahamLincoln'siconichat:
1. MaterialParadigm:recognitionofthephysicalproperties,thefunctionsanduses,the
extrinsicqualitiesthatanobjectorartifactpossesses.Thematerialparadigmlends
itselftomoreimpartialanalysis,butclearlycomeswithitsownsetofinterpretive
devices.
Lincoln'shat,inthe'stovepipe'style,mademidnineteenthcentury,wasmadeoffur
feltwitha2"brimandcrownof81/2inches.
2. CulturalParadigm:demonstrationoftheobjectwithinacontextualfield,meaning
conferredonanobjectbynatureofgrouporsocialuse,meaningendowedbytheviewer
andthemakerfromabroadlysharedorcommunalperspective
Lincoln'shatisconsideredamong"America'sTreasures"aspartoftheSmithsonian
Institution'sNationalMuseumofAmericanHistory.Itwaspresumedtobethehatthat
Lincolnworetothetheatreonthenightofhisassassination.Ithasbecomeanicon
andsymbolnotonlyofPresidentLincoln,butalsoofpresidentsingeneralandthe
CivilWar.
3. PersonalParadigm:markedbypersonalsignificance,evidenceofapersonalexperience
orrelationship,definitionoftheselfthroughbiographicalmeaningsorassociations,

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

2/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
containersofidentityandpersonalnarratives.
IfirstsawLincoln'shatatageninewhenmyfamilytouredtheSmithsonianmuseums.I
hadalwaysbeenafanofWashingtonD.C.,andthatfamilyvacationhaslotsofgood
memoriesforme.EverytimeIseethehat,Ithinkofthattrip.
<7>Thisbroadlevelperspectiveprovidesabasisforunderstandingthewaysinwhich
museumvisitorsmayapproachand"read"themuseum,itsobjects,anditscontexts.These
typesofobjectknowledgearecriticaltothefurtherinvestigationofthevisitor's
overallexperienceandabilitytocomprehendandmakemeaningfromtheirvisit.Thesethree
paradigmsofferanepistemologicalbackgroundthatbecomesausefultoolinestablishinga
methodologyforstudyingobjectknowledge.Ittakesintoaccounteachofthewaysthatan
objectisimportanttomultiplefieldsofstudy,aswellasthevisitor'sexperience.Yet,
thedetailednuancesofhowonegoesaboutstudyingobjectsinthiswayarestill
necessary.Thefollowingsectionoutlinesthreewaysinwhichthisknowledgeisinformed
withinthemuseumsetting.

Howdoweknowtheobjectinamuseum?

<8>Representationsofthematerial,cultural,andpersonalparadigmsinthemuseumare
readilyrecognizable,buthowisitthatwecometoknowtheobjectsinthisway?Attending
tothewaysinwhichmuseumstaffandvisitorsuseandinteractwithobjectsisthenext
essentialelementinunderstandingthestudyofobjectsinthiscontext.Inthemuseumthe
functionoftheobjectisthreefold:sign,document,andexperience.Thesefunctionsnot
onlyrelatethethreeparadigmsdescribedabove,buttheyalsodemonstratetheunityof
thoughtandinterdependentnatureofourknowledgeofobjects.
Objectassign
<9>Returningbrieflytothesemioticperspective,objectsactasasign,a
representationofsomething.Asthesign,thisrepresentationallowsformultiple
definitions,interpretationandmeaning.Themostusefuldescriptionoftheobjectassign
comesfromPeirce's(1991)semioticmodelandTaborsky's(1990)semioticconceptsof
individual,group,andmaterialrealities.Thesemodelsreflecttheoverallnotionofthe
objectasarepresentationofsomeconcept,idea,ormeaning.ThemainelementsofPeirce's
modelillustrateathreepartinteraction:theobject,aninterpretant,andameaning.In
thismodelthereisnotone,butmultiplemeaningsthataredeterminedbytheindividual
viewer.Peirceillustratedthe"semiotictriangle"todefinetheprocessesbywhichan
individualcommunicatesorinteractswithasign.Thesebasicnotionshelpusunderstand
thewholeprocessbywhichunderstandingtheobjectoccurs.Whenapersoncomesinto
contactwithamuseumobjectheorshewillexperiencetheobjectfromthreevantage
points:theinterpretant(thesenseofthemuseumgoer),thevehicle(museumobject),and
thereferent(meaning).Theinterpretantissimpletoexplain:thisisapersonwhocomes
tothesituation,bringingwiththemtheirbackground,experiences,cognition,culture,
education,aptitudes,feelings,andmoods,anditisthesensethattheymakeoutofthe
signinthetransactionwiththevehicleandthereferent.Butthatsenseislinked
uniquelytowhattheybringtothesituation.Taborsky(1990)callsthisthe'individual
reality'anditcanalsobeconsideredinrelationtothepersonalparadigmdescribed
above.Thevehicle,inthiscase,themuseumobject,doesnotinherentlyhaveany
particularmeaning.Itiswhateveritis,sayablockofwoodwithcoloronitanda
characteroneachside.Itisavehicle,acarrier,formeaningcreatedinthetransaction.
Thiscarrierofmeaningclearlyconnectswiththematerialparadigm,andcorrespondsto
Taborsky'smaterialreality.
<10>Thereferentistheresultantmeaningthatemergesinthetransactionbetweenthe
person(interpretant)andtheobject(vehicle).Suchmeaningisclearlyconnectedtothe
broaderculturalparadigmaswellastheconventionsweusetodiscussandcommunicate
aboutthematerialworld.Taborskyroughlyequatesthiswithwhatshecalls"group
reality,"meaningsharedsocialknowledge,orperhapscultureoreven"environment",in
whichweshareunderstandingsaboutsomethingbecauseofourparticipationasmembersofa
society.
<11>Thetransactionbetweenpersonandobjectdescribedhereproducessomeelementof
meaning,andthatmeaningbecomesthesignbywhichwefurtherdescribeandrefertothe
world.Fromthisstandpoint,itshouldbequiteclearthattheinterpretantplaysapivotal
roleintheprocess.But,thewholeofthissignmustbeplacedinacontext.Themeaning
istransformedbycontextparticularlywhenitisinamuseum.Inthatcontext,the
viewerswillbegintodifferentiatemeaningandinterpretationbasedonworldview,personal
experiences,background,andsoon.However,themuseumcontexthastraditionally
communicatedafairlyunidirectionalinterpretationofanobject'smeaningandpurpose,
mostoftenfromthematerialandculturalparadigms,andalmostalwaysfromanexpert
drivenperspective.Thistypeofexpertisedrivencontextualizingposeschallengesforthe
visitor,andcanblockknowledgedevelopmentinthepersonalparadigm.Thisgapinthefull
realizationoftheobject'spurposeormeaningmaybethemissinglinkbetweenvisitorand
museums.

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

3/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
Objectasdocument
<12>Howdoesthemissinglinkoccur?Tobetterillustratethis,thefieldofdocument
studieslendsamodelthatillustratestheeffectofthemuseumcontextandtraditional
modesofdescribingtheobjects.Onceobjectsenteramuseum,theybecome"documents"
(Maroevic,1998vanMensch,1992).Notmerelyatextorartifact,adocumentissonamed
becauseithasalevelofintentionality,whichstemsfromitsplaceasevidenceof
something(Buckland,1991).Inthemuseumcontext,thisevidenceisoftencollectedto
represent,demonstrate,orexplainsomeaspectofthehumanandnaturalworlds.Documents
canbefurtheridentifiedbyfourparameters(Briet,2006Buckland,1998):
Thereismateriality.
Thereisintentionality:itisintendedthattheobjectbetreatedasevidence.
Theobjectshavetobeprocessed:theyhavetobemadeintodocuments.
Thereisaphenomenologicalposition:theobjectisperceivedtobeadocument.
<13>Museumobjectsarephysicalentitiesthatexistinspace,madeofmaterialsthatcan
betouched,seen,andfelt.Museumobjectsenterthemuseumasevidenceofsomepast
behavior,activity,functionorrepresentation.Theobjectsareprocessedintothe
collectionusingregistrationmethods.Theseobjectsareperceivedbybothmuseumworkers
anduserstorepresentsomethingfromthepasttheyareperceivedasrepresentationsof
someactivity,person,orevent.Asdocumentsthen,museumobjectsareinvolvedin
communication,justasanyothersignifier.
<14>Twoqualitiesoftheobjectasdocumentrequirefurtherinvestigationinthe
understandingofobjectknowledge.Thefirstisthesuggestionthattobeadocumentthe
objectmustbeprocessed.Theactofenteringthedocumentintosomeformofsystem
whetherasaregistration,acategorization,ornumberedcollectionoftenplacesit
withinadecontextualizedfield,butatthesametimeaspacewherean"expert"placesit
invariousdisciplinarycontexts.Theexpertsinthiscasearethosewithspecialized
knowledgethatputthedocumentintohighlyspecificconstructswherethelanguage,
hierarchy,andsubstantiveexplanationsresistexternalvariation.Thegoal,havingentered
andprocessedthedocumentintothemuseum'scollection,istopresentthedocumentinsome
kindofdisplayatextorexhibitionsothatthevisitorcanperceivetheobjectwithin
thedisciplinarycontext.Thesecondqualityoftheobjectasdocumentillustratesthe
perceptionoftheobject,i.e.thevisitorseestheobjectinanexhibitionandtakesin
whateverfactualorinterpretivematerialispresented.Formanywithinthemuseumfield,
thisstepistheendoftheprocess,andtheplacewherepotentialgapsexistforthe
museumvisitor.
<15>Thepersistenceofthematerialandculturalparadigmsasthesoledefinitionand
interpretationofanobjectpreventsfullpotentialofthevisitor'sknowledge,experience,
andpersonalcontext.Themissinglink,asitwere,isthemuseumvisitor'sexperienceand
interactionwiththeobject,thepersonalparadigm.Tobridgethegap,themuseumcontext
cansupportfurtherexplorationoftheobjectbythevisitor.Enhancingvisitorexperience
iscurrentlyoneofthemostprevalentthemesandchallengesforcontemporarymuseums(Falk
andDierking,2002PineandGilmore,1999).Unfortunatelysuchorientationstovisitor
experienceandmeaningmakinghaverenderedobjectslessthancentraltoexhibitions,and
insomecases,tothemuseum'spurpose(Hein,H.,2006).However,thethirdfunctionof
objectknowledge,theobjectasexperience,providesabasisinwhichtheobjectisre
envisionedasacriticalcomponenttothevisitor'sabilitytomakemeaning.
Objectasexperience
<16>Inboththesignandthedocumentmodelsdescribedabove,wesuggestthereisa
contextorfieldthatprovidesanecessarybackgroundforthevisitorexperience.The
objectassigncannotexistapartfromatransaction,andtheobjectasdocumentcannot
existwithoutaholisticreferentialground.Assuggestedabove,whenthemuseum
practitioneractsasthesolearbiterofthisexperientialground,thereisfrequentlyno
roomforthevisitor'scontext,experience,orknowledge.Trueobjectknowledge,then,is
theplacebetweentheviewerandtheobject(whetherseenassignordocument).Itisthe
wayinwhichthevisitorinteractswith,experiences,orhasatransactionwiththeobject.
Theresultisanewlyformed,individualizedmeaning,onethatrepresentsmultiple
disciplinaryexpertises,includingthatofthevisitor(Latham,2007b,Wood,inpress).
<17>Thistotaltransaction,betweentheobject,theindividual,andtheenvironment(or
culture)iswhatcreatestheexperience.Meaningisneversimplyembeddedinanobject.The
person,carryinghisorhersetofknowledge,interactswiththatthing,whichelicitsa
reactionthatotherwisemaynothaveemergedwithoutitspresence.Themostimportant
aspecttorememberhereisthatallthreecomponentsarerequiredinordertounderstand
howapersonunderstandsanobject,andthisishowmeaninghappens.
<18>Suchknowledgeispredicatedonthehumanconditiontoorganizeexperiencealonga
broadspectrumofvalues,e.g.social,physical,spiritual.Thelivedaspectofthis
knowledgeissignificantwheninvestigatingtheinterplaybetweenobjectandvisitorinthe
museumsetting.Theroleoftheobjectwithinthevisitor'sexperienceisprimary.Theuse
oftheobjectinthiswayallowsmuseumresearchersandstafftheopportunitytobridge
disciplinaryboundariesandunlockarangeofmeaningandperceptionforbroaderaudiences.
Theinterpretivenatureofmuseumexhibitionsandprogramshelpstofacilitatealevelof

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

4/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
visitorexperienceandtransactionwithobjects.Here,drawingoneducationaland
psychologicalfoundations,theexperiencewithanobjectismorethanjustthematerial
paradigm.Itmustelicitpersonalconnectionsinordertohelpvisitorsmakesenseofthe
overallobjectinmultiplecontexts.Forexample,oneoftheseminalworksinthefieldof
heritageinterpretationcallsonthepersonalexperienceofvisitorstoaidinthe
communicationofcoremessages.Tilden's(1977)principlesofinterpretationinclude:
relatingwhatavisitorseesinfrontofthemwithsomepriorknowledgeorbackground
experiencecombiningmultipleperspectivesthatnotonlyconveyinformation,butdrawout
emotionalresponsesprovokinginterestratherthanservingasdidacticinstruction
presentingthewholeasthesumofitsparts.
<19>Ineachofthefunctionsoftheobjectassign,document,orexperiencethe
interrelatednatureoftheobjectknowledgeparadigmsbecomesveryclear.Wherethe
physicalobjectclearlybecomesasign,itsphysicalitysignalsitasadocument,aswell
asfacilitatestheexperienceofthevisitor.Whereculturalsignificanceoftheobjectis
triggered,theverynatureofitasasignindicatesitasadocumentandthus,
experienced.Wherepersonalexperienceinformsandshapesmeaning,thepersonalapproachto
anobjectclearlycomesfromitsstateasdocumentandrecognitionofitassign.Eachof
thesefunctionscorrelatewiththethreeparadigmsofobjectknowledgeinsuchawaythat
unitesmultipledisciplinesandsetsthestageforstudyingobjectswithinthemuseum
setting.However,ashasbeenimportantthroughoutthispaper,thevisitorandhisorher
personalparadigmarethemostsignificantelementsineachofthesedefinitions.Itisas
thoughthehumanpresencesignalsashiftinthewayinwhichobjectsarestudiedfortheir
fundamentalmeaning.

Howcanwestudyobjecttransactions?

<20>Studyingthehumantransactionwithobjectsisnotnecessarilyasimplemergingof
material,cultural,andpersonalparadigms.Rather,tobetterunderstandthemeaningthat
ismade,thissenseofobjectknowledge,weassertthatphenomenology,asafield
methodology,ismostusefulinstudyingvisitorexperiencesandinteractionswithobjects,
artifacts,andexhibitions.Asanunderusedstrategyforresearchinmuseums,phenomenology
offersawayofinvestigatingtherelationshipbetweenviewerandobjectthatcanhelp
scholarsbetterunderstandthemeaningofmuseumsandtheirrelationshiptoourhuman
worldsofknowing,beingandexperiencinghistory,thearts,thesciences.
BasicConceptsofPhenomenology
<21>Phenomenologyisonemethodologythatallowsresearcherstostudyobjectbasedlived
experienceswithinthisframework.Theepistemologicalbasisforthisrelieson
understandingthe"livedexperience"asitconnectstoanindividual'sinteractionsand
transactionswithobjectsandartifacts.Thephilosophydrawsonthesuppositionthathuman
experiencestemsfromthesensesandperceptionofthephysicalworld(MerleauPonty
1949/1962).Suchexperiencetranslatesintomeaningatvariouslevels,whetheras
recognitionofthematerialandculturalsignificance,ormorereadilyinthepersonal
sense.Theexperienceexpandsintogreatermeaningthroughanindividual'sreflection.
Polkinghorne(2007)suggests:
Experiencedmeaningisnotsimplyasurfacephenomenon,butitpermeatesthrough
thebodyandpsycheofparticipants.But,participantsareabletoarticulate
onlythatportionofmeaningthattheycanaccessthroughreflection....Ifa
participantstayswiththeirreflectivegaze,deeperaspectsoftheexperience
willbegintoseepintoawarenessandbecomeobservable.(p.481)
<22>Inthismanner,theexperienceissoimmediateandvisceralthatitisaccessiblefor
"measurement"onlyafterthefact,andonlywhenfurthertranslatedthroughlanguage.In
themuseumcontextthisoftenmanifestsitselfdays,weeks,orevenmonthslater(Falkand
Dierking,1992).Fromtheselivedexperienceswithobjectsaresearchercanbegintoreveal
themeaningandsignificanceofobjectsaccordingtotheobjectknowledgeframework
describedabove.
<23>Thetransactionwithanobject,thisideaoflivedexperience,isaresultoftwo
coreconceptsinphenomenology:consciousnessandintentionality.Dahlbergetal.(2001)
defineconsciousnessasaprocessofmakingsenseofourperceptions"consciousnessbrings
togetherpastintendingsofobjects...[and]affectsthepresentrelationshipwithit"(p.
58).Hereiswherethematerialparadigmishardatworkthegeneralconceptualfocusof
objectsas"things"informourinitialsensemakingoftheinteraction.MerleauPonty
(1945/1962)arguesthatweliveinandareconsciousoftheworldthroughourbody.While
ultimatelyprovingproblematicforhandsoffexplorationofobjectsinmanymuseum
settings,thestructureofthisbodilyknowledgeincorporatesthesenses,aswellasour
conceptsoftemporal,spatial,andrelationalawareness.
<24>Arelatedtenetofphenomenologyisintentionality,oradirectedawarenesstoward
thephenomenon,thatisanawarenessoftheobjectinitstransactionwiththeindividual
(Dahlberg,et.al,2001).Thisawarenessisbasedonourperceptionsofanobject,its
characteristicsandpatterns.Thegoalinphenomenologicalstudyistofindwaysto

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

5/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
describethenaturalcourseoftransactionswiththeobjects,ratherthanacritical
analysisofitspurpose.Inshort,theuseofphenomenologyservestobringdeepknowledge
ofobjectstotheforeground,thusdemonstratingtheinterrelatednatureofourcontact
withobjectsatthematerial,cultural,andpersonallevels.
<25>Thereisundoubtedlyalinkbetweentheconceptsofphenomenologyandthe
foundationalviewsofPeirce'ssemioticstructurepresentedabove.Aswell,theworkof
JohnDeweysupportsthenotionofobjectknowledgeasexploredthroughexperience.AsDewey
(1916)writes:
To'learnfromexperience'istomakeabackwardandforwardconnectionbetween
whatwedotothingsandwhatweenjoyorsufferfromthingsinconsequence.
Undersuchconditions,doingbecomesatryinganexperimentwiththeworldto
findoutwhatitisliketheundergoingbecomesinstructiondiscoveryofthe
connectionofthings(p.140).
<26>Thisconnectionofthings,ourrelationshiptotheuseandpurposeofobjectsthe
materialparadigm,theculturalmeaningoftheobjects,andthemeaningfulpersonal
experienceswiththeobjectsarethebasisofobjectknowledge.Theactofanexperience
withtheobjectispartoftheprocess,anopportunitytolearnfromtheworld.Theseideas
are,ofcourse,notnewtothemuseumfield.GeorgeHein(2004,2006)andTedAnsbacher
(1998,1999)illustratethevitalconnectionsbetweenDewey'sworkandtheexperienceof
thevisitorinthemuseumenvironment.FurtherexaminationofDewey's(1934)principles
illustratestheaestheticelementsofexperience.Thedirectinteractionbetweenan
individualandthelayersofmeaningembeddedintheobjectispartoftheaesthetic
momentsoflearning.Deweyidentifiedthreetraitsofaestheticexperiencecompleteness,
unifyingemotion,uniqueness(Dewey,1934Jackson,1998)whichfurtherexpressthevalue
ofobjectknowledge.Completenessfocusesonoutwardexperienceandqualitiesofthe
objectunifyingemotioncontainsthepersonalinteractions,meanings,andconnectionsand
uniquenessilluminatesthemeaningmomentsinwhichtheobjectwaspresent.
<27>Phenomenology'sfocusontheconscious,directedawarenesstowardobjects(both
tangibleandconceptual)supportstheresearcherinthefieldinvestigatingtheseinstances
ofobjectknowledge.Embeddedwithintheselivedexperiencesarethevisitor'sownmeaning
makingeventsthroughtheircominglingoftheobjectknowledgeparadigms.Theaesthetic
encountersrendervisitorsopentodevelopmentofmeaningthroughtheirtransactionwith
theobjectandtheultimatetransactionofsomekindofknowledgewhetheritismaterial,
cultural,orpersonal.Thebasicprinciplesofphenomenology,semiotics,andaesthetics
formthebasisforstrategiestobeusedinthefieldtostudyobjectknowledgefromthe
visitor'slivedexperience.Theinvestigationof"transactions"inthemuseumcontext
providesthemostusefulmethodforstudyingvisitorsandobjectknowledge.
StudyingTransactions
<28>Themuseumexperienceitselfshouldprovideanopportunityforvisitorstoengagein
allkindsofpossibletransactionswithobjectsasortof"musing"withobjects.The
fieldworkstrategiesproposedherestudyobjectknowledgeusingphenomenological
methodologytoinvestigatethelivedexperienceoftransactionsbetweenviewerandobject
inthemuseumsetting.Bystudyingtheseexperiences,researcherscanbetterunderstandthe
interplaybetweenthethreeparadigmsofobjectknowledgeandbetterdescribetheoverall
affectsthatcontactwithobjectshasonvisitors.
<29>Suchexperiencesaredeeplypersonalandtrulydifficulttogaugeinthemuseum
context.Whatismostimportantistoevokesomeformoflivedexperiencewhereinthe
visitorcanexplainthepersonalconnectionsmadewithanobject.Thisisaprocessof
connectingtheinformationbetweenthematerial,cultural,andpersonalparadigms,rather
thanlettingthemexistasdisparateandcompartmentalizedknowledge.Themostdirectand
valuablestrategyforcollectingandanalyzingobjectknowledgeinthemuseumarethetried
andtruequalitativemethodsofinterviews,writtenexamplesoflivedexperience,andclose
observationwithmuseumvisitorscompiledintoanarrativesynthesis.Ineducational
research,theuseofnarrativeinlearningsettingsisparticularlyusefulinhelping
individualsmakesenseoftheworldandoftheirexperiences(Egan,1999).Theinteraction
betweentheindividualandhisorherstorydrawsoutthereflectivemeaningofexperience.
Eachprocessultimatelydrawsonthefoundationsofphenomenologytoguideandshapethe
researcher'spointofviewandempiricalprocess.Belowaretwotypesoftransactionsthat
mightbeinvestigated:thepoemanddialogue.
ThePoem
<30>Latham(2007a,2007b)describesvisitorresponseinthemuseumcontextasthecoming
togetherofindividualattitudes,moods,environments,designfeatures,andpersonal
experiences.Thiscomingtogetherisaconvergenceofpersonalexperience,emotion,object
andenvironmentinauniqueexperiencewithinthemuseumsetting,oftenresultingin
aestheticandsometimesspiritualordeeplypersonalreactions.Theresponseofareader
whobringsherbackgroundofknowledgeandexperiences,inadditiontoherpresentstateof
mind,tothescenarioculminatesina"poem".Thisideaofthepoemisdrawnon
Rosenblatt's(1978)readerresponsetheorywhereanaestheticresponseiscreatedthrough
thetransactionbetweenviewerandatext.Rosenblatt'sproposedpoemevolvesfromthe
convergenceofpersonalexperience,context,andmood.Whenthepersonal,cultural,and

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

6/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
materialparadigmsareallinplay,thepersonobjectinvokesthepoemassomeformof
livedexperience.Explaininganddefiningtheseaestheticresponsesmustberevealed
throughtheindividual'spersonaldescriptionsandnarratives.
Dialogue
<31>Anotherobjecttransactiontoinvestigateisthatofdialogue.Theobjectdialogueis
oneinwhichtheobjectitselfpromptsareflectivestatebytheviewerwheretheobject
helpsthevieweranchorherselfontologically,knowingherselfintheworldinrelationto
theobject(Wood,2005).Thedialogictransactionwiththeobjectrequiresthevisitorto
contemplateandreflectonthemeaningoftheobjectinrelationtotheworld.The
recognitionandtransactionwiththeseobjectscanhelpustorealizeourfullpotential
andabilitiesandcanleadtowardpersonalfulfillment,satisfaction,recognition,and,
perhapsmostimportantofall,asenseofconviction.Theactivenatureofanobject
dialogueplacestheindividualintheroleoffacilitatorofhisorherownknowledgeand
becomesanopportunityfortransformationaswellasprojectionandreflection.Whatis
necessaryforthistransformativetask,however,istoengageinadeeperlevelofcritical
reflectiononthemeaningandnatureoftheexperiencesencounteredwiththeobjects.Wood
andCole(2007Wood,2008)suggestprofessionalscanworktobuildobjecttransactionsby
startingatthepersonalparadigmofobjectknowledgethroughusingtheobjectsondisplay
tomediatepersonalandculturalidentity,andprovidepromptsthatallowquestioningand
explorationofcriticalissuesthroughtheobjectsthemselves.
<32>Severalsuggestionshavebeenmaderegardingtheshiftfromobjectcentered
exhibitionstothosewhichprovideobjectdialogue.Gurian(1999)interposedtheideathat
museumswillbeincreasinglyresponsibletosharetheactofstorytellingwithvisitors.In
thismanner,themuseumisnolongerthesingleauthorityofthemeaning,focusingonlyon
thematerialandculturalparadigmsofobjectknowledge.InGurian'sexample,the
definitionofobjectismadeintentionallybroadtoencompassmultipleauthorsofastory.
Latham's(2007b)modelfurtheradvocatesforamixofpersonal,cultural,andmaterial
objectknowledgethatcanaidinthecreationofatranscendentexperienceor"poem"
throughtheobjecttransaction.Inbothinstancestheuseofphenomenologicalmethodology
allowsresearchersagreaterdegreeofflexibilityinexaminingthevariouswaysthat
museumvisitorsmakesenseofobjectsinthemuseumcontext,andcansupportfurther
investigationsintothedeeperconnectionsbetweenhumansandobjects.

Implicationsforreconstructingobjectknowledge

<33>Theideaofobjectknowledgethatwepresentdrawsheavilyontheassumptionthat
thereisapersonalmeaninggeneratedthrougheachandeveryinteractionwithanobject.As
SusanPearcesuggests,themeaningisneitherfullyplacedwithintheobject,norfully
placedwithintheexperience,butsimplythroughtheinterplayofthetwo(inotherwords,
atransaction).Evans,Mull,andPolling(2002)proposethemuseumfieldhasshiftedfrom
anobjectbasedepistemology,tosomethingofanobjectbaseddiscourse.Asproposedabove,
thenotionthatobjectsarenolongerfrontandcenterofthemuseumexperience,butrather
encompassedwithinthetotalmuseumvisitorexperience,indicatesthatobjectbased
dialogueandtransactionscanbecomenormativefunctionsforexhibitionplanningand
design.Inthismanneritisneithertheobjectnorthevisitorwhotakescenterstage
ratheritisabalancedunderstandingthattheconceptofobjectknowledgerequiresboth
objectandvisitortobeeffective.
<34>Thereareseveralthreatstothisschemeinthemuseumfield.Iftruemeaningand
interactionbetweenmuseumvisitorandobjectistooccur,itmeansthattheremustbe
accesstoobjectsandartifacts,andtheremustbevisitorstoseeandtransact.Many
theorists,practitionersandfollowersofthemuseumfieldpointoutthatmuseumsare
movingawayfromusingobjectsasthefocalpointforvisitorexperience.HildeHein(2006)
goessofarastosuggestthatwhenmuseumsare"focusinginsteadontheconditionsof
encodementandmultiplicityofinterpretation,thenewmuseumabandonsitselfandits
gueststospectacleandfantasy"(p.3).Instead,sheidentifiestheneedformuseumsto
endeavorvisitorstothriveintheimaginativeresponsesandproblemposingprovidedby
objecttransactions.Thesereactionsbyvisitorscanbeinvestigatedthroughthepoemand
dialogue,aswellasanobservationoftheobjectknowledgeparadigmsatwork.
<35>Usingphenomenologicalmethodologytostudythetransactionbetweenvisitorand
objectlendsvaluetotheoverallconceptofobjectknowledge.Inordertoexaminethe
effectsofmultipleandoverlappingwaysofknowingobjects,therecanbeaconcerted
effortbyresearcherstodirectattentiontothevisitor'slivedexperiencesanddirected
awarenesstowardtheobject.Thiswillcomefromtheintentionaleffortsbyexhibition
designersanddeveloperstocreatesuchexperiences,aswellastheresearchertodefine
andshapetheirinquiryintothemeaningoftheseencounters.
<36>Latham(2008)forexample,isusingphenomenologicalfieldmethodstoinvestigatean
intenselypersonalandoftenwhollyfeltexperienceencounteredinmuseums,thenuminous
experience.Thisexperiencecanbestbeseenasatransaction,acomingtogetherofmany
thingsperson,object,environmenttoresultinamomentwhichhasbeendescribedasa

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

7/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
unique,almostspiritualsensationinthepresenceofmuseumobjects.Inorderto
understandtheessenceofthisphenomenon,Latham'sdatacollectionmethodsandanalysisis
basedonphenomenologicalprinciples.Theaimofthestudyistoexplorethemeaningmade
bythosewhohavehadanuminousexperiencewithhistoricmuseumobjectstofindouthow
peopledescribetheseexperiencesandexpresswhattheymean,tounderstandtheessential
patternsofthiskindofexperience.Throughparticipantnarrativesandqualitativein
depthinterviews,thedescriptionsoftheselivedthroughexperiencesfromasampleof
historymuseummemberscanhelpresearcherstogaininsightintotheselittleunderstood
events.Startingwiththeobjectallowsajumpingoffpoint,acatalystfordiscussionof
othermuseumelements,iftheyareconsideredtobeimportanttotheparticipant.The
assumptionhereisthatthemuseumobjectactsasameaningfulsymboltoaperson.By
narrowingquestionstothepointofasingleobject,ifothercontextualmattersare
important,suchasthewidermuseumscenario,thesewillbedrawnoutintheinterview
process.

Conclusion

<37>Withsomanyfieldscontributingtotheoverallknowledgeandstudyofobjectsand
objectinteractions,researchersneedfieldbasedmethodologiesthatcansupportand
promoteinvestigationofhumanexperienceswithobjects.Theorientationoffieldssuchas
education,informationstudies,semiotics,anthropology,andhistoryeachaddressdifferent
andvariedunderstandingsofthehumanobjectinteraction.Whatunderliestheinteractions
isthefundamentalmeaningofthematerial,thecultural,andthepersonalcontextforthe
viewer.Theuseofphenomenologyasamethodology,combinedwiththeconceptofobject
knowledge,providesresearchersfromallfieldsbetteropportunitiestodeterminethe
meaningandimportanceoftheseobjectsforvisitors.Thisavenueofmaterialcultural
studyreconstructstheprocessofmuseumbasedworkfromobjectcentered,toobject
informed.
<38>Bystudyingtheobjectandvisitorrelationship,researcherscanreengagewiththe
humanexperienceinthemuseum.Therecognitionoftheobjectassign,document,and
experienceallowsforadeeperinvestigationoftheinterplayofthesethreeconceptsin
thevisitor'sconceptualandphysicalinteractioninthemuseumspace.Furthermore,the
paradigmsofobjectknowledgematerial,cultural,andpersonalofferaneworientationto
describethisinteraction.Objectshavethepowertocreateadeeplevelofreflectiveand
affectivemeaningforvisitors.Theycandefinetime,place,andidentity,ortheycan
createaspiritualandtranscendentaleffectforvisitors.Thistypeofknowledge,
generatedbythevisitor,throughthefocusedworkofmuseumprofessionals,contributesto
thegreaterpurposeandvalueofmuseumsinthehumanexperience.Thisgeneralconnection
withtheideaofreflectivethought,consideration,dialogmusingifyouwillinvites
greaterparticipationbyvisitors,greaterconnectiontothesignificanceofmaterial
objects,andallowsforamorefocusedandintentionaleffortonthepartofmuseums.

References

Ansbacher,T.1998.JohnDeweysExperienceandEducation:LessonsforMuseums.Curator,
41(1):3649.
Ansbacher,T.1999.Experience,Inquiry,andMakingMeaning.Exhibitionist,18(2):2226.
Briet,S.(2006).Whatisdocumentation?:EnglishtranslationoftheclassicFrenchtext.
(R.E.Day,L.Martinet,Trans.).Lanham,Maryland:TheScarecrowPress.
Buckland,M.(1991).InformationasThing.JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformation
Science,42(5):351360.
Buckland,M.(1998a).Whatisa"Document?.InT.B.Hahn&M.Buckland(Eds.),Historical
StudiesinInformationScience(p.220).Medford,NJ:InformationToday.
Buckland,M.(1998b).Documentation,InformationScience,LibraryScienceintheU.S.A.In
T.B.Hahn&M.Buckland(Eds.),HistoricalStudiesinInformationScience(pp.159172).
Medford,NJ:InformationToday.
Csikszentmihalyi,M.&Robinson,R.(1990).Theartofseeing:aninterpretationofthe
aestheticencounter.LosAngeles:J.PaulGettyTrust.
Csikszentmihalyi,M.,&RochbergHalton,E.(1981).Themeaningofthings:Domesticsymbols
andtheself.Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Dana,J.C.(1999).Thenewmuseum:SelectedwritingsofJohnCottonDana(W.A.Peniston,
Ed.).WashingtonDC:TheNewarkMuseumandTheAmericanAssociationofMuseums.(Original
workspublished19051929).

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

8/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
Dewey,J.(1916).Democracyandeducation:Anintroductiontothephilosophyofeducation.
NewYork:FreePress.
Dewey,J.(1934).Artasexperience.NewYork:PerigreeBooks.
Dahlberg,K.,Drew,N.,&Nystrm,M.(2001).Reflectivelifeworldresearch.Lund,Sweden:
Studentlitteratur.
Egan,K.(1999).Children'sminds,talkingrabbits,andclockworkoranges:Essayson
education.NewYork:Teacher'sCollege.
Evans,E.M.,Mull,M.S.,&Polling,D.A.(2002).Theauthenticobject?Achildseye
view.InS.G.Paris(Ed.),Perspectivesonobjectcenteredlearninginmuseums(pp.5578).
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Falk,J.H.&Dierking,L.D.(1992).Themuseumexperience.Washington,D.C.:Whalesback
Books.
Falk,J.H.&Dierking,L.D.(2002).Lessonswithoutlimit:Howfreechoicelearningis
transformingeducation.WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira.
Glassie,H.(1999).Materialculture.Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress.
Gurian,E.H.(2006).Whatistheobjectofthisexercise?Ameanderingofthemany
meaningsofobjectsinmuseums,1999.InCivilizingthemuseum:Thecollectedwritingsof
ElainHeumannGurian(pp.3347).NewYork:Routledge.
Heidegger,M.(1967).Whatisathing?(Barton&Deutsch,Trans.).Chicago:HenryRegnery.
Hein,G.(2004).JohnDeweyandmuseumeducation.Curator,47(4):413427.
Hein,G.(2006).JohnDeweysWhollyOriginalPhilosophyandItsSignificanceforMuseums.
Curator,49(2):181204.
Hein,H.(2000).MuseumsinTransition.Washington,D.C.:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.
Hein,H.(2006).Assumingresponsibility:LessonsfromAesthetics.InH.H.Genoways(Ed.),
Museumphilosophyforthe21stcentury(pp.111).WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira.
HooperGreenhill,E.(2000).Museumsandtheinterpretationofvisualculture.London:
Routledge.
Hoskins,J.(1998).Biographicalobjects:Howthingstellthestoriesofpeople'slives.
NewYork:Routledge.
Jackson,P.W.(1998).JohnDeweyandthelessonsofart.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity
Press.
Latham,K.F.(2007a).Archivesandexperience:musingsonmeaning.Collections,3(2):125
133.
Latham,K.F.(2007b).Thepoetryofthemuseum:Aholisticmodelofnuminousmuseum
experiences.MuseumManagementandCuratorship,22(3):247263.
Latham,K.F.,Wood,E.,&PekarikA.(2008).IstheObjectExperience?AmericanAssociation
ofMuseumsAnnualMeeting,Denver,CO.
Knell,S.,MacLeod,S.&Watson,S.(2007).MuseumRevolutions:HowMuseumsChangeandAre
Changed.London:Routledge.
Maroevic,I.(1998b).TheMuseumMessagebetweentheDocumentandInformation.InE.
HooperGreenhill(Ed.),Museum,Media,Message(pp.2436).NewYork:Routledge.
MerleauPonty,M.(1962).Thephenomenologyofperception(C.Smith,Trans.)London:
Routledge(Originalpublished1949).
Misztal,B.(2007).Memoryexperience:Theformsandfunctionsofmemory.InS.Watson
(Ed.),Museumsandtheircommunities(pp.379396).London:Routledge.
Paris,S.G.(Ed.).(2002)Perspectivesonobjectcenteredlearninginmuseums.Mahwah,NJ:
Erlbaum.
Paris,S.G.(2006).Howcanmuseumsattractvisitorsinthetwentyfirstcentury.InH.H.
Genoways(Ed).Museumphilosophyforthe21stcentury(pp.255266).WalnutCreek,CA:
AltaMira.
Pearce,SusanM.(1994).Introduction.InS.Pearce(Ed.),Interpretingobjectsand
collections(pp.18)London:Routledge.
Peers,L.&Brown,A.K.(2003).Museumsandsourcecommunities.London:Routledge.
Peirce,C.(1991).OntheNatureofSigns.InJ.Hoopes(Ed.),Peirceonsigns(pp.141

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

9/10

11/24/2014

Reconstruction9.1(2009)
143).ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.
Polkinghorne,D.E.(2007).Validityandnarrativeresearch.QualitativeInquiry,13(4),
471486.
Prown,JulesD.(1993).Thetruthofmaterialculture:Truthorfiction?In,S.Lubar&
W.D.Kingery(Eds).,Historyfromthings:Essaysonmaterialculture(pp.119).Washington
D.C.,SmithsonianInstitutionPress.
Prown,JulesD.(1995).Material/Culturecanthefarmerandthecowmanstillbefriends?In
W.D.Kingery(Ed.),Learningfromthings(pp.1927).WashingtonD.C.,Smithsonian
InstitutionPress.
Rosenblatt,L.M.(1978).Thereader,thetext,thepoem:Thetransactionaltheoryofthe
literarywork.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress.
Schiffer,M.(1999).Themateriallifeofhumanbeings:Artifacts,behavior,and
communication.NewYork:Routledge.
Schlereth,T.J.(1992)ObjectKnowledge:EveryMuseumVisitoranInterpreter.InPatterns
inpractice:SelectionsfromtheJournalofMuseumEducation(pp.102111).Washington,
D.C.:MuseumEducationRoundtable.
Schusterman,R.(2000).Pragmatistaesthetics:Livingbeauty,rethinkingart.Lanham,
Maryland:Rowman&Littlefield.
Silverman,L.(1993).Makingmeaningtogether:lessonsfromthefieldofAmericanhistory.
JournalofMuseumEducation,18(3):711.
Silverman,L.(1995).Visitormeaningmakinginmuseumforanewage.Curator,38(3):161
170.
Silverman,L.(1999).Meaningmakingmatters:communication,consequences,andexhibit
design.Exhibitionist,18(2),913.
Taborsky,E.(1990).Thediscursiveobject.InPearce,S.(Ed.),Objectsofknowledge(pp.
5077).
Taborsky,E.(1997).Thetextualsociety.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
Tilden,F.(1977).Interpretingourheritage(3rded.).ChapelHill,NC:Universityof
NorthCarolinaPress.
Tilley,Christopher(1989).InterpretingMaterialCulture.InI.Hodder(Ed.),Themeanings
ofthings:Materialcultureandsymbolicexpression(pp.185194).London:UnwinHyman.
VanMensch,P.(1992).Towardamethodologyofmuseums.(Doctoraldissertation)
http://www.muuseum.ee/et/erialane_areng/museoloogiaalane_ki/ingliskeelne_kirjand/p_van_mensch_towar/
Watson,S.(Ed).(2007).Museumsandtheircommunities.London:Routledge.
Winnicot,D.W.(1971).Playingandreality.London:Routledge.
Wood,E.(2005).Objectsmatter:Themeaningofchildhoodobjects.[Unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation]UniversityofMinnesota.
Wood,E.(inpress).Themeaningandmatterofchildhoodthroughobjects.InL.Plate&A.
Smelik(Eds.),Unsettlingthepast:Technologiesofmemoryinthearts.Basingstoke,
England:Palgrave.
Wood,E.(2008).Criticalapproachestomuseumeducationandcivicengagement.Paper
presentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationAnnualMeeting,NewYork.
Wood,E.andCole,S.(2007).CanYouDoThatinaChildren'sMuseum?Museums&Social
Issues,2(2):193200.

ReturntoTop>>

ISSN:15474348.Allmaterialcontainedwithinthissiteiscopyrightedbytheidentifiedauthor.Ifnoauthoris
identifiedinrelationtocontent,thatcontentisReconstruction,20022012.

http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/091/wood&latham.shtml

10/10