A Tour of Online Forums: Is there a Museum Community out there? Roxane Bernier and Jonathan P. Bowen

Overview Virtual communities have become increasingly popular for the general public through the use of newsgroups, electronic mailing lists, web-based forums, and chat rooms. Cultural institutions have not escaped this trend by widening their mandate utilizing an “original landscape” for disseminating content; that is, through online museum forums. However, it appears that curators launching web-based discussion groups have not yet accomplished a museum-like community and thus capitalize the knowledge within efficient online interactions. The lack of research on the subject led the authors to elaborate an exploratory international online survey on several museum-related group discussions. The principal objectives of this paper are to present an inventory of existing webbased discussion groups available for museum professionals and offer a brief description for each site (e.g., date of foundation, country of origin, topics) as well as provide a summarized version on the full results of the collected data from the prototype Museophile discussion forums website such as a description of the typical-user with their sociodemographic profile but also their favorite museum forum, frequency of use and preferred content in order to obtain an insight to improve web-based discussion facilities for the museum staff. Some of their viewpoints are expressed enabling the reader to learn about the relevance of joining web forums. Purpose of Web-based Discussion Groups The concept of web-based forums takes its origin, in the mid-eighties, from Rheingold (1993) – founder of WELL (The Whole Earth Electronic Link) – who foresaw a “cultural aggregation” through online discussions because users can communicate electronically without having the need to meet physically. Smith (1992) chose WELL for his Ph.D. fieldwork, and reported that specific social groups recognize they can obtain valuable information from other individuals on the Internet. He focused on the concept of “collective goods,” developing three fundamental assets that resemble a virtual community: 1) social network (know people virtually), 2) knowledge capital (gain knowledge), and 3) communion (discuss subject matters). Today’s counterparts of WELL are newsgroups, electronic mailing lists and web-based discussion groups. The symbolic virtue of web communities is to produce a pragmatic dimension for real-time knowledge, as one exchanges information via text-based conversations; what Bernier (1998; 2002) calls “virtual sociability.” The Internet has indeed become a strategic resource to expand knowledge. Curators have indeed rapidly acknowledged its potential for management-oriented goals in exchanging content internationally among museum professionals; that is, cultural, historical and scientific institutions are now attempting to manage knowledge collectivity with an IT-based infrastructure, and hence to handle information in a more operational way. The idea emerged in July of 1995 when ICOM adopted resolution no. 5 at the Museums and the Information Superhighway Society of the 21st Century Conference

(Stavanger, Norway); it emphasized the practical implication of web forums in order to reinforce solidarity between the worldwide museum-community. The novelty of online museum forums and electronic mailing lists lies in the ability to create a community that brings together museum professionals with similar backgrounds for sharing ideas, enabling transfer of expertise on various areas, addressing specific concerns, based on their scope of help. According to the WWWebster Dictionary, a community is “a unified body of individuals with common interests.” By that definition, anyone who visits a website is a part of the associated group. The word community nevertheless does not emphasize the meaning of online forums, in particular the importance of the Internet as a means of communication. Anderson and Kanuka (1997) describe them as: “a method that satisfies needs in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, online forums provide (1) freedom from time; (2) time for reflection; (3) opportunities for research, and (4) support for global communication.” General Portrait of Online Museum Forums In this section, we examine some of the content obtainable from online museum forums for those in the profession and we discuss how specific issues are addressed (Bernier and Bowen, 2002). No technical knowledge is necessary for participation in many of these lists; that is, anyone with an Internet connection can join. Most electronic lists are moderated, seem regularly updated, and based on Listserv software. There are around a hundred museum-related web-based forums, falling in four predominant types: 1) bulletin boards that permit people to browse through postings; 2) newsletters and mailing lists to keep users informed about new features and websites; 3) web-based chat rooms that provide instant access to information with individuals sharing similar interests (sometimes monitored); and 4) calendars offering a list of events to discover happenings. Their number of subscribers ranges between 20 to 5,000 members are free of access and relatively easy to register (see Figure 1). The two main known discussion lists are in order of popularity: MUSEUM-L (Chadwick, 1995) and HMUSEUM (Blank, 2001). The most exhaustive website in terms of group discussions is the Archives, Records Management, Museums and Related Subjects listed by country and museum professions as listed on the UNESCO Archives Portal [www.archimac.org/Profession/Lists], a selection of which are included here. The Index of Mailing Lists, Web Boards and Newsgroups about Museums and Conservation is also worth a detour, since it gathers more than a 100 Internet sites [public.srce.hr/muzej_sibenik/muslists.html]. However, the most known list is provided by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) [icom.museum/mus_dist_list.html], ICOM-L was launched in February 1996 [home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html] and has now over 839 subscribers. Finally, the Art Forum Resource Mailing Lists covers over 30 diversified arts-related subjects ranging from Ceramic to Feminist History to Psychology Studies or Visual Anthropology [www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/artresources/mailinglists.html].

Figure 1. Mailing list registration. MUSEUM-L is nevertheless the oldest museum forum since its appearance in January 1994 [home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/museum-l.html]. It is a widely used mailing list targeting museologists with an impressive 3,100 users (see Figure 2). MUSEUM-L has also been accessible as a newsgroup, for example through the Google Groups website, although unfortunately this is no longer interfaced to the mailing list and is thus effectively a separate forum [bit.listserv.museum-l]. Google allows searching across specific newsgroups (e.g., for ‘museum’) [groups.google.com/groups?q=museum] as well

as giving access to numerous themes on fine arts, like alt.artcom about artistic communities.

Figure 2. MUSEUM-L mailing list archive.

There is also H-MUSEUM founded in June 2001, especially intended at museum professionals (see Figure 3). This website is quite important because it is the largest international scholarly museum mailing list [www.h-museum.net], with over 2,100 subscribers from over 79 different countries; although nearly half are from Germany (i.e., 45%) and more than one quarter from the United States (i.e., 29%). A topic of more current interest is the ‘.museum’ top-level domain covered by MUSEDOMA-L [listserv.nic.museum/archives/musedoma-discuss.html] born in November 2000 (see Figure 4). In fact, the same server provides about 20 specialized museum-related lists [listserv.nic.museum/archives].

Figure 3. H-Museum homepage.

Figure 4. MUSEDOMA-DISCUSS archives.

For relevant discussion issues and business purposes on conservation, look for Conservation DistList (best known as CoOL) is the most steadily growing interdisciplinary forum for conservation professionals (e.g., archivists, scientists, administrators) established in 1987 [palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl] including almost 6,000 people from at least 77 countries in museum archives, library materials, and preservation of cultural properties. ICOM-CC [[email protected]] was created in October 1996 and counts 511 members. EPICL is a gateway directed at the preservation of documentary heritage in Europe and was initiated in 1997. It has nearly 300 members and focuses on collection management issues, like digital conservation and substitution of restoration techniques [[email protected]]. On the other hand, the Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI), provided by the National Library of Australia, possesses a good database for those with a particular interest in digital preservation [www.nla.gov.au/padi/format/list.html]. ECOLLECTIONS is a creative discussion list located in the UK and was founded in November 1999. It aims at those involved in arts management for developing electronic collection, assessing/acquiring content or collaborative collecting. [www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/jisc-e-collections.html]. There is also a very specialized group in arts management that only counts 40 subscribers (ARTMGT-L) emerged in July 1999 [listserv.binghamton.edu/archives/artmgt-l.html]. Launched by Rice University in January 1995, CHILDMUS could be very helpful to those concerned with museums intended for children. It is a newsgroup for resource sharing with 437 subscribers [www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=CHILDMUS&H=LISTSERV.RICE.EDU]. There is also MUSEUM-ED which is a collaborative website between museum educators [www.museum-ed.org], set up in January 1999 by museum educators of Southern California. The number of members is huge for a specialized forum (i.e., more than 800 subscribers). TEENMUSE is a discussion list that began in 2001 with nearly 100 participants. It demonstrates that young people (13-21 years of age) can be involved in various capacities in museums and serve their needs such as volunteering, membership, educational outreach, and internship programs. Further information is available from [email protected]. Children themselves may also find museum-related forums attractive; for instance, the International’s Kids Peace Museum [www.ih.k12.oh.us/ps/peace] initiated by students in the second grade at Indian Hill Primary School in Cincinnati, and created in conjunction with their study unit about Martin Luther King. Students are asked to draw a picture and write a few words about what peace means to them in order to initiate a peace exhibit. These could be submitted via electronic or postal mail. For those interested in science museums, WEBHEAD-L, created in June 1998 with 305 members, is a popular forum for professional interactive science exhibits and exhibits issues [www.amasci.com/museum.html#webh]. The list is lightly moderated to ensure that content is relevant. In informatics, the Museum Computer Network (MCN-L) forum [www.mcn.edu/mcnl.htm] was started in October 1995 for discussion of automation in museums, and possesses around 100 subscribers. In addition, MUSWEBL, established in May 1996 with 305 participants, is an informal international association involved in web services linked to technology applications such as network architecture and preparation of multimedia material [www.musweb.org]. There is also the UK-based Museums Computer Group [www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mcg.html] that has more than 400

members. It exists since September 1998. In Australia, Electricmuse is intended for web development within cultural organizations [amol.org.au/craft/amf/other_lists.asp #electricmuse]. The Visual Resources Association (VRA-L) was inaugurated by University of Arkansas in December 1996). It is an international organization of image media professionals that has a significant number of members, with 550 subscribers currently [listserv.uark.edu/archives/vra-l.html]. Founded in November 1999, the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA-L) is an online discussion list intended for topics related to the preservation of film, video and other moving picture formats [www.amianet.org/09_Listserv/amiaL.html]. IMAGELIB, with almost a 100 subscribers, is the older listserv specializing in image software. It was started in January 1995 and is located in Arizona [listserv.arizona.edu/archives/imagelib.html]. Museum professionals in the field of musicology or acoustics will appreciate the Association for Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC-L) for those dealing with archiving, copyrights and publications of the history of recorded sound [www.arscaudio.org/arsclist.html]. The Audio Preservation mailing list initiated in December 1999 from the Archive World Music at Harvard University can also be useful [[email protected]]. The International Musical Instrument Committee of ICOM (CIMCIM-L), exists since 1995, and serves as a focus for the collections of musical instrument museums with about 200 subscribers in nearly 40 countries [www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/cimcim/iwl.html]. In addition, the Musical Instrument Conservation and Technology (MICAT-L) was concerned with theory, restoration and scientific examination that can be applied to musical instruments mainly intended to objects conservation. It unfortunately lasted for two years, from 1994 to 1995, but its archive includes around 200 messages [palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailinglists/micat]. More specialized discussion forums are also available, like the Museum Security Network funded in December 1996 and dedicated to all aspects of cultural property protection against malicious intent as well as to stolen items with the help of Interpol [www.museum-security.org]. This website possesses an impressive number of over 2,000 users. Another worthwhile electronic list is the Visitor Services in Museums Listserv (VSMUS) created in September 1997. With its 300 members, it tackles the quality of the individuals’ visits as well as visitors’ experiences [[email protected]]. Even more original, the PCST-L devoted to Public communication of science and technology, established in Poitiers (France) in 1989, is online since 1995 and has more than 800 subscribers [www.gsu.edu/~wwwcom/pcst.htm]. PCST gives an opportunity for debating with public information officers, museum educators, science journalists and communication researchers. The Informal Learning Environments Research, maintained by the University of Missouri since June 1999, is a Special Interest Group (SIG) within the American Educational Research Association [www.umsl.edu/~sigiler]. The purpose of SIG is to increase the bonding within educational research in science and nature centers, museums, etc., with the objective of promoting practices for teaching and learning. The Museum Studies List is also noteworthy, as it is a postgraduate discussion forum from New Zealand [[email protected]]. Mailing lists on disabilities, education and the arts, from our viewpoint, are very promising [www.vsarts.org/resources/mailinglists.html] since they target a diversified public, namely handicapped people, children and some specific libraries. There is also the email discussion list for the Museums & Galleries Disability Association (MAGDA) located in the UK and founded in June 2001 with more than 100 members

[groups.yahoo.com/group/magdamail]. For librarians, four lists seem of particular interest. Firstly, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA-L), available since August 1995, it has more than 1,200 subscribers [infoserv.inist.fr/wwsympa.fcgi/info/ifla-l]. Its main goal is to publicize continuing education of library personnel and to develop guidelines for library services. IFLA-L also includes the Film and Audiovisual Cultural Heritage discussion list (ECAV-L) and the Digital Librarian Consortium (DIGLIB). Secondly, the management and preservation of electronic records (ERECS-L) is a moderated list from the New York State Archives and Records Administration (SARA) that was started in 1997. It is the only listserv dedicated to postings on archival issues and technology, and currently claims 1,165 subscribers worldwide [listserv.albany.edu:8080/archives/erecs-l.html]. Thirdly, the Art Libraries Society (ARLIS-L) runs a forum for the submission of items of general interest to the international library community, with almost 1,500 members [www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=ARLIS-L&H=LSV.UKY.EDU]. In France, ADBSInfo was created in 1994 with nearly 5,000 users in July 2002 [listes.cru.fr/wws/info/adbs-info]; this is l’Association des Professionnelles de l’Information et de la Documentation which emphasizes the trade of ideas among documentation professionals, especially developing electronic access to information (only in French). Fourthly, EXLIBRIS provides an environment that tackles rare books and manuscripts (e.g., special collections). It was established in 1990 at Rutgers University and moved to the University of California at Berkeley in November 1995 [palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/exlibris]. In the area of architecture, three major lists exist. ARTCRIT possesses 315 members and is a forum on contemporary art, architecture and urban design launched by York University in Toronto (Canada) in August 1999. It tries to reflect the diversity of art discourse, from postmodernism to feminism, along with any topic associated with artists, critics and art viewers [[email protected]]. The Consortium of Art & Architectural Historians (CAAH) was initiated at Princeton as early as 1991 [[email protected]]. As for specific country networks, the Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network (SCRAN), a project funded by the UK Millennium Fund, has implemented a group discussion on the UK academic network [www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/scran.html]. In addition, the UK Museums Computer Group (MCG-L) operates a mailing list using the same facility [www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mcg.html] and organizes meetings on the use of computers. JISCmail is an excellent national academic resource in the UK providing free support for suitable electronic lists. Other relevant lists include the Group for Education in Museums (GEM) [www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/gem.html] particularly active, whereas HERITAGE is a newsgroup for academic and industry researchers investigating tourism, museum and cultural management [www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/heritage.html]. The latter is a forum for communicating knowledge and general views on research projects, seminars, articles, book reviews as well as sharing contacts and fieldwork experiences. Further JISCmail lists could be helpful for museum personnel: eLearning, ethnomuseums, IAQMuseum, MUSHM-LINK SSMA, and ResourceNews. The Australian Museums Forum (AMF) is electronic news and discussion groups focusing on museum personnel practices [amol.org.au/craft/amf/amf_index.asp]. For the United States of America, there is AMART-L founded in 1994 and devoted to intellectual debates between historians and scholars of American art. This forum treats artifacts,

architecture and subjects from the colonial period to present [www.smallmuseum.org/network.htm]. The New England mailing list of the College and University Museums & Galleries Association, located at Brown University, possesses a fairly good number of users for a specialized forum; that is, over 260 subscribers [listserv.brown.edu/archives/acumgn-l.html]. In Canada, there are five museum forums: one French-speaking (SMQ-L) and four English-speaking ones (CANMUSE-L, ONMUSE-L, BCMUSE-L and MAIN-L). The most known and used is the Canadian museum community (CANMUSE-L), a bilingual list part of the Canadian Information Network’s Heritage Forum [[email protected]], while la Société des Musées Québécois (SMQ-L), inaugurated in September 1999, mostly targets French-speaking museum professionals [[email protected]]. The Ontario Museum Association has set up ONMUSE-L that concentrates its content on heritage and culture in that province [[email protected]]. BCMUSE-L covers British Columbia’s cultural institutions [[email protected]], whereas MAIN-L based at the University of Alberta is intended to discuss subjects that face museums and art galleries in the Prairies [[email protected]]. NELSON is certainly the most useful website for the study of Canadian history with a link to H-Net Network including around 100 historyrelated electronic discussion lists, namely H-Canada [www.nelson.com/nelson/harcourt/history/news.htm]. For Arabic countries, H-IslamArt (HIA-L) is considered the leading web-based group on the History of Islamic Architecture and Art, formerly the North American Historians of Islamic Art [NAHIA] launched by the Michigan State University. Up to 175 members from 16 countries have joined [www2.h-net.msu.edu/~islamart]. H-AfrArts, associated with H-MUSEUM, is a network that emphasizes the cultures of Africa as well as the African Diaspora [www2.h-net.msu.edu/~artsweb]. We have learned interestingly that there is access to an online chat from the main portal of Russian museums [www.museum.ru]. Lastly, two other specialized lists are worth mentioning here: 1) The US Small Museum Association (SMA) has gathered various specialists through a list of email contacts, and provides a creative network of volunteers through an associated MSN community willing to help with questions on professional dilemmas in a number of areas [www.smallmuseum.org/network.htm]; 2) the Historical Costume list (H-COSTUME) has exited since 1996, and emphasizes periods of clothing, from the Bronze age to the mid-20th Century (e.g., medieval, war reenactment, science fiction, fantasy) with accurate garment reproductions [[email protected]]. Some museums encourage the general public to give their electronic identities as a means of contact. For example, the Freedom Museum [www.freedommuseum.org] aims at creating a virtual community on the arts, like MusExpo for people interested in French art galleries [forums.lemonde.fr/perl/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=tourisme], or share a personal hobby such as provided by LEPS-L from the Yale Peabody Museum, located in Connecticut (USA), for those with a passion for lepidoptera (i.e., butterflies and moths) [www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl/LEPSLfaq.html]. There are of course a significant number of additional online museum forums that have not been covered because our goal was to draw an overview of existing issues and current trends. A fuller description of web forums, newsgroups, mailing lists and weblogs as well as statistics on several newsgroup discussion threads has been presented at the Museums and the Web Conference 2003 (Bowen, Houghton and Bernier, 2003). For webmasters, we suggest getting acquainted with Site Point to obtain detailed information

on virtual forums such as programming, interface design, promotion hosting, and online business [www.sitepointforums.com]. However, that building a virtual community does not just consist of setting up electronic newsletters or web-based forums and wait for people to participate. The issue of emerging virtual communities must be considered within a larger perspective since it does not inform us about “computer-supported cooperative work” within a fictitious place, as expounded by Preece and Maloney-Krichmar (2003). There is indeed a balance to preserve between sociability and usability when developing group discussions; by keeping in mind a “participatory community” while exchanging knowledge. In other words, webmasters need to identify users and investigate their main purpose for logging in. Few studies have explored online forums for professional developments, and even less so for museum-related topics. That is what we intend to do here. Summarized Results of a Survey on Web Museum Forums The premise of this research is to address the ‘nature of knowledge’ involved within web-based group discussion forums by grasping the user’s opinion in order to identify the problems that hinder the practices of such forums, and see if they are really profitable for providing professional museum expertise. Mason (2002) pinpointed that Knowledge Management (KM), as a strategic development for cultural institutions, needs some guidance to understand its requirement by thoroughly examining their scope of activities and what constitute their pool of expertise in terms of trade of information, once a favorable environment professional pattern is established. The author argues that: “KM reflects a social direction […] open up to dialogue between people and who assent a vision of opportunities to innovate,” rather than simply being oriented on technological superiority. The results presented here originate from a recent bilingual survey (French/English) on museum forums launched on the Museophile website [www.museophile.sbu.ac.uk/pub/jpb/mw2003/bowen.app1.html] available online from August to December 2002; a four-month data collection. People were reached through several museum-related mailing lists, elected newsgroups and websites, as for instance: CHILDMUS, H-MUSEUM, ICOM-L, MCN-L, MUSEUM-L, MCG-L, MUSWEB-L, VSMUS, WEBHEAD-L, CANMUSE-L, ResourceNews, VLmp, bit.listserv.museum-l, uk.culture.museums and groups.google.com. We will hence provide an overall portrait of the users’ profile since we investigated numerous variables: gender, age group, country of origin, field of work, web forum preferred, frequency of use and main purpose as well as topics favored. As for information, the American Association of Museums (2002) has initiated an excellent website providing information on qualitative and quantitative approaches for visitor studies [www.museumstudies.si.edu/ICOM-ICTOP/comp.htm]. The final results, including statistical information, as introduced at Museums and the Web Conference 2003 (Bernier and Bowen, 2003). We noted that the average of messages posted monthly is about 90 messages; these results are akin to number of answers from our questionnaire; that is, we obtained 146 replies. We have included statistics from several forums, selected for the survey, during the month of September 2002; they seem to keep a certain consistency, if you judge from amount the messages received in April 2003, seven months later (see Table 1).

Table 1 Monthly Posted Emails (September 2002 and April 2003) _____________________________________________________________________ MUSEUM-L = 478 – 752 messages CONS DISLIST = 63 – 179 messages CHILDMUS = 146 – 138 messages H-MUSEUM = 90 – 144 messages MCN-L = 49 – 61 messages WEBHEAD-L = 40 – 28 messages MUSEDOMA = 26 – 58 messages MCG = 20 – 30 messages ICOM-L = 8 – 58 messages _____________________________________________________________________ The typical profile of our museum professionals is a young adult who is a firsttime user in arts management and affiliated to an American institution working in a wide range of areas. It was indeed a first experience of online forums for more than half of the participants; that is, first-time users were English-speaking females aged between 25 and 45 years old, mainly in education-related areas (e.g., education museum departments, visitors services, schools) and were most likely to use email discussion lists looking for information (see Table 2). Females over 60 years old, also in the educational field, were more proactive since they normally ask questions. The average male were in the 45-59 years age bracket, either in information technologies or management, and wished to obtain information or share knowledge. In addition, men were more inclined to gather content from various sources, such as email newsletters and email discussion lists, whereas women mainly consulted web-based discussion lists. We learn as well that more than a third of the museum professionals used them monthly, regardless of gender; daily users tended to be females. As an indication, nearly all professionals used Microsoft Internet Explorer, almost half of them made use of the version 6.0; while Windows NT, as an operating system platform, was widely spread among the museum staff. Their favorite topics with preferred subject, regardless of gender, were by order of priority: Collections (exhibit design), unexpectedly Professions (job opportunities), Education (partnerships with schools), Publications (books), and finally, Information technologies (web museums design). This does not mean, incidentally, that other content is of little interest! It was stressed that they also look at museum organizations, and upcoming events such as conferences. In the Other section: Fundraising, regional museums, traveling exhibitions, audience research, mentoring for graduate students, rights and reproduction, and living history were cited as important concerns. Hence, we noticed that all areas suggested in the questionnaire appealed to several participants.

Table 2 Users’ Profile and Preferred Subjects _____________________________________________________________________ Number of participants: Gender: Age groups:

146 Mainly female 25-34 years old (female) 45-59 years old (male) Spoken language: Vast majority of English-speaking Countries of origin: United States as well as Europe, Asia and Oceania (Germany, Poland, Israel, Thailand, New Zealand) Affiliated intitutions: Mainly national and small American museums Areas: Much diversified (Jewish history, science hands-on experiences, military, ceramic arts, botanical) Fields of work: Mostly from Collection management (curators, art managers, exhibit designers) but several from Research/Education Preferred subjects: Exhibit Design/Job opportunities/Partnerships with schools _____________________________________________________________________ An impressive number of users stated that they were definitely pleased with the information found on electronic mailing lists, and nearly half the respondents said they were pleased, which is very encouraging for new developments of web-based forums. A distant quarter was mainly satisfied by the postings; we collected comments such as “it needs some experience to select the useful message” and “better if web-based with discovery tools for archives.” Several participants nevertheless responded that they were disappointed with the content provided and used terms like: “too wide-ranging,” “occasionally nasty and unprofessional,” while the ones who totally disliked mailing lists reported: “not specific enough,” “burdened with too many questions,” and “discontinued subscription because of volume and recurring problems with new users.” It appeared that subscribers become overloaded with irrelevant information, and that novices’ queries are repetitive and not very useful for regular members. Our understanding of the previous comments is there should be a pre-selection of the messages; however, that brings the ethical problem of what is considered useful and interesting. Furthermore, many criticized the fact that most mailing lists are moderated. Although we believe that specialized forums should be directed towards an external authority (i.e., an expert in the field); they are likely bring a higher educational value. According to our participants, an efficient list is one where you will have access to specific forums on particular topic areas (e.g., job opportunities, collections management, web content for schools); that is, to avoid scanning a mass of postings before finding the desired subject. As expressed with utter dismay: “They [webmasters] should strip the entire chain of original and secondary messages or how to write a clear subject line.” We also learn that web-based discussion groups mostly served professional matters; unsurprising, given that most respondents came via museum mailing lists. According to the users’ views, they generally find email discussion lists most useful followed by email news, and utilize them monthly; it is mentioned that usage is related to the topics covered rather than the number of subscribers. Nevertheless, one significant

question remains unresolved: “which museum forum is favored by professionals and what reason?” From the nine mailing lists suggested in the survey, our participants mentioned that four of them are really appreciated in terms of content; MUSEUM-L emerged at the top because it satisfies a large number of individuals by providing museum expertise in a variety of fields and offers a wide-ranging overview of museology, an eloquent remark testified that viewpoint: “it is the most active forum (…) Postings are very helpful;” although, it was stated to be oriented towards the United States, moderated “stuffily structured!” and only available in English. Please note that it is possible to use online translation facilities directly downloadable from the Google toolbar for Internet Explorer and automatically convert archived messages [toolbar.google.com]. Secondly, H-MUSEUM was stressed to be attractive for discussing professional issues and seems to be a complement to MUSEUM-L in the sense that it tackles topics of worldwide interest, as one user underlined: “because of its digest format and international focus.” Others, however, criticized the fact that it is a moderated list and centered on Europe. Both mailing lists were appraised somewhat negatively because they limit the responses to English-speaking individuals. In other words, there should be an effort for alternative language support or, at least, a translation of the most important postings, since they are regarded as worldwide forums. For specialized mailing lists, and thirdly, CHILDMUS was noted useful for particular issues to help museum educators “it deals specially with the type of museum I am working, for currently,” but lacked content in the area of interactive exhibitions; its contribution seems to be geared towards smaller star-up children’s museums rather than older and bigger ones. Fourthly, we gathered opposite statements about MUSEUM-ED, namely that the postings correspond reasonably with their museographic interests but not as active as it used to be “not enough on Museum-Ed. I think this is because most people think they will get a larger number of postings on Museum-L,” while we got one statement on MUSEDOMA expressing frustration about not being able to locate the appropriate postings and some remarks about MUSWEB, in particular that it is too broad. However, please note that for the last three, we obtained a very low rate of response. Less popular mailing lists received positive comments, namely the Conservation DistList, known as CoOL, is the most steadily growing interdisciplinary forum. However, it is clear that their choice is linked to forums they already know rather than being a real preference. The results discussed above are summarized below (see Table 3).

Table 3 Favorite Online Museum Forum and General Uses _____________________________________________________________________ Available web-based museum forums: Over a hundred Satisfaction of online forums: Definitely pleased Preferred mailing lists: MUSEUM-L and H-MUSEUM Provenance of answers: Museum mailing lists Most useful forum: Email discussion lists Frequency of use: Monthly Main purpose: Getting information Favored platform: Microsoft Internet Explorer _____________________________________________________________________

In line with the opinion of professionals, the leading aims of web-based discussion groups are, among others, to: “communicate with colleagues,” “exchange ideas,” “get professional assistance,” “increase knowledge,” “learn about trends,” and “create a network.” Therefore, another relevant question to ask ourselves is: “do professionals request information or wish to share their knowledge on web-based discussion groups?” From the users’ sayings, the principal motivation for consulting mailing lists, for instance, was to obtain content on a variety of museum-related topics; more precisely, two goals were recurrent in their statements and formed nearly half of the replies: 1) keep current in the field as well as 2) find material for research. We can nevertheless surmise that professionals have a desire to both be updated on museum issues and seeking assistance in their area of expertise. We provide some of the user’s remarks on the actual benefits of accessing information through online forums (see Table 4). They agreed however on the fact that these forums were of no use for a general audience. Our findings clearly shown that more than three-quarters of the respondents use them for getting information whereas less than a quarter had specific queries in mind. We seem to be cornered in a “catch-22 situation” because the main idea for consulting discussion forums is to obtain information. The level of participation should therefore be closely examined, since it determines the content available in the long run; one cannot only want information or ask a question without getting any answers! Furthermore, it may be always the same people sharing knowledge with others.

Table 4 Museum Professionals’ Comments ___________________________________________________________________________________

a) Keeping abreast on new trends; b) Accessing a worldwide museum community; c) Discussing with people of different backgrounds; d) Providing a multiple understanding of museographic problems; e) Remaining in touch with the profession; f) Staying informed on museum-related topics; g) Information gathering. _____________________________________________________________________ As for overall presentation of web-based museum forums, it was mentioned for their interface that the browsing was not as user-friendly as one might expect for an audience not familiar with the web; there was no Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section available. They disapproved of the fact that some elementary training was required. Moreover, their design did not appeal much, because it was seen too conventional, and did not help to entice themselves within the site. Some of the content was also said not to address the topics of interest to users and was presented instead randomly without considering the order of appearance of the postings with respect to real museographic concerns. Part of the feedback unfortunately demonstrated that web-based museum forums are still under-utilized, and have not reached their full potential, although several participants applauded the “scope of knowledge” found within those forums; they were reported to be internationally-oriented, even interdisciplinary. The users mentioned as well that queries on specific themes can be resolved almost immediately when using the

Internet. Indeed, they perceived museum discussion groups as a worldwide network community giving access to different views, in addition to being a means of centralizing informational resources for cultural institutions; they were indeed described as “gateways” and “portals.” Finally, such forums were reported to bring about a “grapevine effect” through informal replies and helped lighten the paper stack. The secret depends on a well-designed museum forum, considering its originality and usefulness to augment participation. Inspired by the comments from users, we have identified five key elements that characterize an exemplary electronic mailing list; they are listed by order of priority (see Table 5). For further outputs have a look at “13 hints for appealing web-based museum forums” (Bernier and Bowen, 2003)

Table 5 Flawless Design of Web-based Discussion Groups ___________________________________________________________________________________

1 – Useful topics 2 – Internationally-oriented professionals 3 – Diversified content 4 – Frequent postings 5 – Multilingual website _____________________________________________________________________ Museophile Discussion Forums and Underlying Technology Museophile was developed from a spinout by South Bank University that started in September 2001 [www.museophile.com]. As part of this project, Museophile discussion forums were founded on August 4th of 2002; on the same day we decided to launch the web survey. This facility allows a personalized set of mailing lists and news feeds to be included on the main homepage. The inspiration for this facility grew up of the Virtual Library museum pages (VLmp) that gather a great number of links to general museum-related websites (Bowen, 2002). The underlying technology uses the Resource Description Framework (RDF), a standard endorsed by the World Wide Web Consortium [www.w3.org/RDF] and the associated RDF Site Summary (RSS) format, based on the generic Extensible Markup Language (XML). This simple but powerful technology facilitates the discovery of timely information on the web, in contrast to search engines where access to content is always delayed typically by weeks due to the time taken for the web to scan new data. Google, the leading search engine, provides a web interface with around 4,500 news sources [news.google.com] continuously updated using RDF technology. Any reader who has never subscribed to an online forum is encouraged to participate in a museum discussion website [forums.museophile.net] (see Figure 5). By June 2003, there were already nearly 300 registered users.

Figure 5. Museophile discussion forums homepage. Concerning the results, we collected mixed opinions about Museophile as the users indicated that they were either pleased with its format of presentation “very democratic and conducive to thoughtful comments,” whereas others complained this website was overloaded with subjects “the page is busy, it looks like ads.” Two-third of our respondents agreed upon the idea of aggregating existing mailing lists and newsgroups, as proposed on Museophile, providing cross-references with the original archive sites such as H-MUSEUM; although too many links can be confusing and overwhelming. Three-quarters disliked the fact that it is necessary to create an account

beforehand since this is seen by some a tedious process. In addition, many found the neatness of its layout boring or, at the opposite extreme, complimented on its clean interface. Several were uncertain about the utility of Museophile because of lack of content, while many respondents were discouraged by not finding any current information in their field of expertise “I didn’t find anything for children’s museum, yet an article on the homepage is called: ‘Online column: children’s museum resources’.” Finally, a few criticized that it is only available in English “en anglais seulement.” The last comment was also reported for most popular Listservs. It is somewhat difficult to give one’s opinion since Museophile was created a few months beforehand; it has to establish itself over a longer period. Some of the likes and dislikes about that discussion forum, in order of priority, are listed below (see Table 6). Overall, Museophile was said to “ensure offerings related to museums,” to include “the possibility for a number of conversation topics,” and to extract knowledge on “specific questions;” that is, with the idea of a providing features different from the ones “readily available on the ICOM website.” Suggestions included, for example, lits of contacts for national museum associations that are difficult to obtain from other sources (e.g., “historic house museums”).

Table 6 Comments about Museophile Like Clean look and well designed Ease of navigation and interactive Centralization of resources Organized topic listings Thoughtful essays and publications

Dislike Obligatory registration Uncertainty of its vocation Lack of content and absence of colors Unclear search features Language barrier

Conclusion We have shown that even though a good selection of online forums and electronic mailing lists can be found on the Internet, with prime-quality content, for sharing information on diversified topics (e.g., education-related, art collections, visitor services, information technologies), there is still a great scope for enlivening interactions between museum professionals. Some aspects could be improved by including a user-friendly navigation, an appealing interface, and by organizing topics of the postings, in addition to a Frequent Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Nevertheless, several professionals were definitely pleased with online museum forums, while most of them stated that they have obtained useful content. We believe that web-based discussion groups could have as yet largely untapped benefit for museum staff, because they may be the only readily available source for debating museographic trends in specialized fields. There is no doubt that web museum forums (e.g., newsgroups, electronic mailing lists, e-newsletters) bring novelty in curatorship for creating a genuine international network with a variety of resources (e.g., practical experience, research capabilities, bibliographic tools, fashionable tendencies), therefore accessing to core references and highly qualified staff with a similar background for the advancement of methods. In the near future, we hope that such forums will help in further binding together the worldwide community as well as empowering the individual’s knowledge.

Special Acknowledgement: Mike Houghton provided most technical services in implementing the online questionnaire and automated analysis of the results. This research has received financial support from the Business Award & Support Scheme (BASS) Museophile project at South Bank University (London) UK, and the Department of Sociology of the Université de Montréal (Québec) Canada. Note: This paper is a revised and enlarged version of the communication ‘On-line Museum Forums: Whence and Whither?’ given at the Museum Computer Network Annual Conference 2002, Issue: Reaching your Audience on the Web, Toronto (Ontario, Canada), September 4–7 [www.mcn.edu/mcn2002].

References Anderson, T. and H. Kanuka (1997), ‘On-line Forums: New Platforms for Professional Development and Group Collaboration’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3), December [www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/anderson.html]. Bernier, R. (1998). “La sociabilité fictive sur l’Internet : portrait d’une collectivité virtuelle” in Penser le multimédia, P. Lardellier (coord.), Degrés, International Journal of Semiology, nos. 92–93, Winter 1997/Spring 1998, Brussells: K section, 20 pages. Bernier, R. (2002). ‘The Uses of Virtual Museums: The French Viewpoints’, Museums and the Web, Session Evaluation Frameworks, Boston (USA), April 17–20 [www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/bernier/bernier.html]. Bernier, R. and J. P. Bowen (2002), ‘Online: Museum forums’. New Heritage, 04.02, pp. 62–63 [www.museophile.sbu.ac.uk/pub/jpb/ic/04.02.html]. Bernier, R. and J. P. Bowen (2003), ‘Web-based Discussion Groups at Stake: The Profile of Museum Professionals Online’, Museums and the Web Conference, Session Professional forums, Charlotte, North Carolina (USA), March 19–22 [www.museophile.sbu.ac.uk/pub/jpb/mw2003b.pdf]. Blank, R. (2001). The H-Net Network for Museum Professionals [www.h-museum.net]. Bowen, J. P. (2002), ‘Weaving the Museum Web: The Virtual Library museums pages’, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 36(4), pp. 236–252 [www.museophile.sbu.ac.uk/pub/jpb/program2002.pdf]. Bowen, J. P., M. Houghton, and R. Bernier (2003), ‘Online Museum Discussion Forums; What do we have? What do we need?’ Museums and the Web Conference, Session Professional forums, Charlotte, North Carolina (USA), March 19–22 [www.museophile.sbu.ac.uk/pub/jpb/mw2003.pdf] & [www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/bowen/bowen.html]. Chadwick, J. C. (1995). ‘The Origins of Museum-L’, Museum News, 74(2), pp. 30–31 [home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/museum-l.html]. Mason, I. (2002). ‘What Does Knowledge Management Mean to the Cultural Sector? How can we manage knowledge?’ Museum Documentation Association Conference, Birmingham Botanical Gardens (England), September 4–6 [www.mda.org.uk/conference2002/paper07.htm].

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [hkusub.hku.hk/cgi-bin/mweb]. Preece, J. and D. Maloney-Krichmar (2003). ‘Online Communities: Focusing on sociability and usability’ in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwak: NJ, pp. 596–620 [www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/7%20Handbook%20v1.7Final.pdf]. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Harper Collins; New York. Book [www.rheingold.com/vc/book]. Smith, M. (1992). ‘Voices from the WELL. The Logic of the Virtual Commons’, Department of Sociology, UCLA, California (USA) [www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/csoc/papers/voices/Voices.htm]. Roxane Bernier Researcher Département de Sociologie Université de Montréal C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-ville Montréal (Québec) H3C 3J7 Canada Email: [email protected] Jonathan Bowen Professor FEST/SCISM South Bank University Borough Road London SE1 0AA United Kingdom Email: [email protected] URL: www.jpbowen.com