In the afternoon, we had a 75-minute interview with Xin Ge of the research institute at the Shanghai Science and Technology Museum (SSTM) and one of her colleagues. At the end of it, Xin Ge said what a relief it was to be able to communicate without any language obstacles. I thought this was ironic. Although I was very glad she felt relaxed and able to speak, of course, I’m still waiting to find out exactly what she said! I could follow the gist, but for the details, I’m going to need to rely on Wu Dan’s help. The interview was recorded, and we have permission to use the contents but need to double-check before quoting directly, if I understood correctly (!)
However, there were various things I picked up on already that I find very interesting. For example, they also do not have an objective, statistical method of observing how visitors interact with the exhibits and what they like and do not like. Rather, they tend to rely on what their staff report back and then follow up on it by observing for themselves. They do sometimes also do focus groups and so on.
Another section of the museum does the statistics on visitor numbers and so on. The numbers were high after they opened in 2001 and then tailed off until they opened the second section in 2005, after which they have gradually built up to new highs. They have not done detailed research on why, but they think the incorporation of the idea of “science tourism” has been a major factor, putting them on the map for Shanghai tourists in general and not just for local school groups and so on. They also have an increased emphasis on temporary exhibits. Unlike the main collections, these are free, and they sometimes draw in big crowds. They rely on news coverage to get the word out more than actually doing paid advertising themselves.
We had a discussion about payment issues. Some people locally feel that the museum should be free. But they say that although they do get some money from the government, that alone is not enough to fund the museum. They do have free Wednesday afternoons and various kinds of discount rates that should make it affordable for everyone, they feel.
They work with lots of different universities and other educational institutions. Mostly those institutions bring research projects to them and involve them rather than the other way round. They do not supervise their own PhD students or anything like that, but right now they are applying for permission to host Post-Docs.
There is a big emphasis on interactive exhibits. If they can make the exhibits interactive, then they will be interactive, because that’s what the patrons like. However, they have not taken it to an extreme. Xin Ge cited the Hong Kong museum as one where almost everything is interactive, including the basic information signs. I’ll check this out when I’m in Hong Kong in mid-November. Xing e also told us she has written about interactivity and would provide us with the conference paper, even though it was from a few years back and her thinking has probably changed now. This is clearly an area of considerable mutual interest, because Xin Ge asked me how we were thinking about interactivity and she also pointed out that it has to be thought of in a broader way than just pulling a lever or pressing a screen, because there needs to be an inner interaction too, or perhaps an emotional and intellectual impact.
Outside companies have done market research for the museum.
We asked why there were no touch screens in the museum. Xin Ge said they broke easily and were expensive to replace, but that as they replace old exhibits they will inevitably be using more and more touch screens. So far, in their research, the museum has not thought about screens in isolation but rather as part of the larger issue of interactivity. That’s another reason why cooperating with us interests them.
We had a discussion about why they’ve decided to do away with the AV Paradise. Xin Ge said that people inside the museum had also questioned this, because it is such a popular exhibit. She pointed out that there were various reasons. It is not just because it is the only technological exhibit with no deeper scientific foundation. Also, this area of technology dates very quickly, so if they replaced it, it would still go out of date very quickly. And it does not necessarily meet their education aims. Finally, the Children’s Science Land next door is also very popular and needs extending. We will come back when the work is finished next Spring, see how the Children’s Science Land has changed, what bits of the AV Paradise have been kept and put somewhere else, and what bits have been discarded, and so on.
We were shown a document that included the museum’s mission statement, and Wu Dan copied it down. I’ll get it later.
They feel they have achieved world-class status. They do not display by disciplines in the way that museums used to. They have moved to themes, and they have tried to borrow techniques of exhibiting and engaging visitors from places like Disneyland. This, of course, was controversial at first, with many scientists expressing dissatisfaction. But they have won the scientists round and they have become a national model that other science museums from all over the country are learning from, including the national museum.
Among the 4 cinemas, the IMAX is the most popular, but the 4-D sells out quickly because it’s quite small.
As soon as we can, I’d like to sit down with Rachel and Janet and compare notes and see how we can connect the London SM and the SSTM.
Evening
Met independent curator Samantha Culp, who, it turns out, is currently based in Beijing working on Cao Fei’s RMB City project. This is an ongoing project, and so I should try and find out what it looks like now, because it seems connected to our project in its interest in the urban. Then I went on to join Daisy and Goetz and their dancing club on the streets outside the Sports Stadium station on Line 8.
