Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.4 Conceptualizing the Visitors’ Experience
process. On this account, the considered case studies in this research ought to be analyzed and evaluated against the above recognized impactful features.
cultural experience, especially those who are interested in the aesthetic and recognition aspects instead of historic significance of an attraction (Kempiak et al., 2017; Richards and Munsters, 2010). In fact, museums and historic sites are places that improve the visitors’ visual and physical experiences (Packer, 2015), and indirectly promote emotional and personal interpretation of events and objects that is related to a specific culture and time (Hennes, 2010; Sheng andChen, 2012).
However, the visitors’ behavior and experiences are often influenced by social interaction (Brida et al., 2016; Dumbraveanu et al., 2016; Steier et al., 2015). Indeed, visitors are usually watched in groups, couples, friends or relatives for diverse purposes, such as exploring, entertaining, and socializing (Jászberényi et al., 2018;
Trinh and Ryan, 2016). These purposes are seen as motivational drivers for visiting the historic attractions, and then, for creating a memorable visiting experience through different forms of written, oral and visual communication (Campos et al., 2018; Mgxekwa et al., 2019; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016). In fact, people document and share their experiences on social media channels, and consequently others will be encouraged to visit and to live a similar experience (Thomas et al., 2020).
Furthermore, the visitors’ experience is considered “multisensory” as acknowledged in the literature. The visitors’ experience in museums and historic sites is not limited to education and exhibition purposes (Binter, 2014; Lanir et al., 2017; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016), and is often enhanced by the creation of a multisensory environment that uses all senses such as, visual, auditory and tactile (Binter, 2014; Christidou and Pierroux, 2019; Gaskell, 2016; Packer, 2015). In the context of a multisensory setting, visitors can personalize their experience and unconsciously reflect on their past knowledge and experience to bring an additional value to the museum content, that may also contribute to the meaning-making
process (Kempiak et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been claimed that visitors’
multisensory experience supports their identity and personal abilities of intellectual understanding (Campos et al., 2018; Falk, 2016; Packer, 2015). To this end, if the experience has a great impact on a visitor’s identity and understanding, it is crucial to any cultural institution including museums and historic sites to consider the model of visitors’ experience, that includes ten different modes; physical experience, sensory experiences, restorative experiences, transformative experiences, hedonistic experiences, a rational, spiritual and cognitive experiences (Packer andBallantyne, 2016).
2.4.2 The Drivers of the Visitors’ Experiences
A visitor’s experience is bound by sensory and physical, emotional, cognitive, and social domains. In regards to sensory and physical domain, some scholars argued that visitors use museum contents (i.e. displays) to feed their personal agenda of acquiring new knowledge and confirming or rejecting their past knowledge with an attempt to construct relevant meanings of a given subject (Packer and Ballantyne, 2016; Sheng and Chen, 2012). The museum physical space including architecture and spatial layout may endorse a certain movement patterns and promote different communication levels that seek to perceive the museum context as a learning setting. The above affords to recognize that museums architectural design is a primary element that impacts the visitor’s experience.
Referring to the emotional domain, a visitor’s experience is bound in unique time and space (Falk et al., 2012; Sheng and Chen, 2012) that have a different emotional impact compared to everyday experiences (Packer and Ballantyne, 2016).
Deep inside, visitors’ perceptions are controlled by their past experiences, interests, wishes, expectations and motivations (Packer and Ballantyne, 2016; Tabarsa and
Naseri, 2017). Full body experiences are often connected to local and life casting memories (Binter, 2014; Supara et al., 2014; Trinh and Ryan, 2016). In addition, environmental and physical conditions of spaces stimulate visitors feeling at a given location (de Rojas and Camarero, 2008; Kempiak et al., 2017). Therefore, it is believed that visitors’ experiences are driven by their emotions and collective memory.
On the cognitive level, visitors seek a diversified and intellectual experience at museums and cultural platforms (Kempiak et al., 2017; Rémi et al., 2010; Sheng and Chen, 2012). Visitors’ intellectual abilities such as, connecting their personal knowledge, cultural backgrounds and museum content are key drivers to the overall experience (Baniyamin and Rashid, 2016; Coffee, 2013; Rémi et al., 2010; Vieregg, 2015). Conversely, visitors with minor knowledge and connection to a given culture or ethnographic objects, seek a new experience to create and/or improve their own relations between their inner world and the new given world, leading to a better meaning-making process (Trinh and Ryan, 2016). Since the visitors’ experiences are affected by sensory and physical, emotional, cognitive, and social domains, the physical and emotional relationships between the visitors, the space and the interpretive techniques are expressed through new gestures, behaviors, and movements (Steier et al., 2015). Therefore, some museums attracted visitors through the development of unique environments that are suitable for social interaction, physical engagement and emotional involvement (Kempiak et al., 2017).
Moreover, the factors mentioned above should be considered in this research to explore the visitors’ movements, behaviors, and social interactions at the four selected case studies in Bahrain, using a combination of ethnographic constructivism research and case study analysis.
2.4.3 Visitor Interests, Expectations and Concerns
The visitors’ expectations and interests in learning and exploring cultural evidence at historic sites and museums, as well as Historic Site Interpretation Centers lead to an expressive and meaningful experiences (Kempiak et al., 2017). In general, visiting cultural places is often derived by personal motives (Baniyamin and Rashid, 2016), nostalgia (Devine, 2014) and curiosity (Baniyamin and Rashid, 2016). Few of the museum visitors are classified as oriented visitors that are driven by personal growth and research (Yankholmes and McKercher, 2015). In contrast, some scholars claimed that the majority elects to go museums for recreational purposes (Packer and Ballantyne, 2016; Trinh and Ryan, 2016).
Today, the younger generation of guests is interested in an interactive and engaging experience with the museum displays as well as with other visitors (Brida et al., 2016). Some are interested in visiting historic sites for their size, scale and historical significance (Trinh and Ryan, 2016). Other visitors seek an object-based experience articulated in museums including Historic Site Interpretation Centers (Yankholmes and McKercher, 2015). Therefore, exhibits in display are not experience generators, instead they act as stage for the promised experience (Hennes, 2010).
Before visiting any cultural institution including Historic Site Interpretation Centers and historic sites, visitors often have some concerns that may occur at three stages; before, during and after the visit (Kempiak et al., 2017). Visiting these institutions is often connected to people’s expectations with an attempt to learn about the past and have a memorable and exciting experience (Megerle et al., 2015). Such experiences are often achieved through the ease of data accessibility, clear communication strategies and availability of ancillary features such as reasonable
entry fee, food services, toilets, guided tours and other activities (Alexander et al., 2018; Kempiak et al., 2017; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016).
The visitor’s expectations are directly connected to the presentation techniques used in museums, Historic Site Interpretation Centers and historic sites, which includes graphic panels, explanatory text, videos and interactive displays (Stamatopoulou, 2016). However, these presentation techniques create a gap between the visitor and the object, and offer an impression that more time and effort is needed to reading the text or watch and make sense of the video (Samanian et al., 2016). In line with the above, comments in visitor books have revealed that certain methods of presentation are not clear enough to understand hidden narratives of objects (Coffee, 2013). However, some studies have also shown that visitors’ satisfaction, enjoyment of historical site and pleasure are affected significantly by the quality of the guided tour (Alazaizeh et al., 2019; Lanir et al., 2017).
The characteristics of historic sites and cultural institutions are critical in assessing visitors’ frequency and willingness to pay for these experiences (Alexander et al., 2018; Mgxekwa et al., 2019; Thorpe, 2018). Furthermore, accessibility for individuals with disability is another important concern that visitors may consider, some historical sites and museum lacked an accessible parking and accessible routes from the parking to the attraction (Gelpi, 2018; McMann, 2017). Based on the reviewed relevant case studies (Section 2.3.6) as well as, from personal experience of visiting international and local Historic Site Interpretation Centers (i.e. visitor centers) at World Heritage Sites in different regions of the world, it is reasonable to conclude that many of these institutions have implemented secondary services, ancillary features, and accessibility routes for all including people with disability, as well as their core service of preservation and interpretation.
However, most of these have been implemented in different contexts, as visitors’ experience is bound in space, time, social and cultural factors. Since this study is taking place in Bahrain, with very limited specialized studies on Historic Site Interpretation Centers that involve dual modes of interpretation, there might be additional elements that need to be explored including social and cultural aspects to unveil their value, relevance and impact.
2.4.4 Visitor’s Experience at Historic Sites and Museums
Historic sites and museums including Historic Site Interpretation Centers have an impact on the overall visiting experience, and on the way that a visitor may or may not perceive it as a memorable and enjoyable experience (Kirchberg and Martin, 2012; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016). To explore the role of the visitor as an active meaning maker within ‘in situ’ and ‘in context’ interpretation settings, it is necessary to review the visitors experience at historic sites and Historic Site Interpretation Centers.
A visitor’s experience is an immediate, maybe continuous, subjective and personal response to an activity given in specific contextual setting that is unfamiliar to the visitor self-context (Kempiak et al., 2017; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016;
Parsaee et al., 2015; Walls et al., 2011). Likewise, the visitor’s self-context affords to influence the overall experience (Falk et al., 2012; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016). In order to have a successful experience, museology specialists should consider the provision of different kinds of experiences (Packer and Ballantyne, 2016), and develop services that meet different visitors’ needs and demands including learning and leisure at historic sites and museums (Brida et al., 2016; Kempiak et al., 2017).
Since that the Historic Site Interpretation Center relationship to context, architectural design and interpretation strategies played a critical role in the visitors’
experience, it is crucial to identify the main gaps and challenges that affects the activity of historic sites interpretation and meaning-making process.
2.5 Museums and Visitors Studies: Status of Knowledge, Gaps and Challenges