Museum object as document

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this article is to understand the meaning of museum objects from an information perspective. Links are made from Buckland's conceptual information framework as a semiotic to museum object as "document" and finally to user experience of these museum "documents". The aim is to provide a new lens through which museum studies researchers can understand museum objects and for LIS researchers to accept museum objects as another form of document to be studied. Design/methodology/approach -A conceptual and comparative analysis of Buckland's information typology as a semiotic. Outcome of analysis forms a model of understanding the museum object as a "document" that is accessed by users on a continuum of experience. Findings -Michael Buckland's information typology is insightful and useful for a broad understanding of what all heritage institutions have in common: the physical object. Buckland helps us see the museum as an information system, the museum object as a document, and the multidimensional use of the concept information and its semiotic ramifications. Originality/value -Buckland's typology is important to an understanding of the museum system and museum object in both LIS and museum studies. The concept of "document" opens up a broader perspective, which creates, rather than limits understandings of the human relationship with information. This expanded concept of "document" as sign/semiotic helps us understand user experience in ways not previously explored in the convergence of museums and information studies, from the practical to the theoretical. In this inclusive sense, Buckland's concept of document is a unifying theoretical concept for museums, libraries, and archives.

Making an Exhibition of Ourselves? Academic Libraries and Exhibitions Today

“…Latham (2012) links Michael Buckland's information typology with the semiotics of museum objects and the experience of museum users, to demonstrate that both libraries and museums are "functioning cultural institutions charged with the storage, care and accessibility to information users seek out and experience" (p. 67). Mitchell (2013) however contrasts libraries' and museums' perspectives on users and information experiences, whereby library users have specific information needs and use library collections accordingly, and museum visitors may have any number of information experiences within a museum exhibit's defined boundary (p. 345).…”

“…Wythe argues for "drawing from both domains [in order to] move closer to a common goal of helping people to explore the world" (2007, p. 55). Latham (2012) demonstrates that the museum object is a document and "therefore should be considered a subject matter for information science" (p. 64). She goes on to establish that visitors to a museum have transactional relationships with displayed objects, as library users do with texts (p. 66).…”

Third-party classification

“…Literature review This work connects to a selection of LIS literature dealing with classification (Mai, 2011) and document theory (Briet, 2006;Frohmann, 2009;Grenersen, 2012;Latham, 2012;Lund, 2010;Olsen et al, 2012) that foreground the tension between reductionist and emergent tendencies with LIS as a field. One example of this tension can be found in Jens-Erik Mai's (2011) critique of the "modernity of classification."…”

Untitled

“…Document studies is in need of a coherent body of literature that examines "the individual's mental relationship with documents" (Buckland, 2015, preprint p. 8). Latham (2012Latham ( , 2014 also notes the missing individual in document studies and presented a route to bridge the gap through phenomenology. (Gorichanaz & Latham, 2016, p. 1115, emphasis mine) To address the mental dimension, they present a model based in phenomenology, but it's unclear how such an approach can be "holistic" as they imply.…”

“…(Gorichanaz & Latham, 2016, p. 1115, emphasis mine) To address the mental dimension, they present a model based in phenomenology, but it's unclear how such an approach can be "holistic" as they imply. KFL: Our initial foray into using phenomenology as a point of departure came after several claims from the document community that there is a lack of "deep consideration of the active role of the human involved" (Gorichanaz & Latham, 2016, p. 1115, especially from Buckland (2014Buckland ( , 2015 and myself (Latham 2012(Latham , 2014. Phenomenology seeks understanding through the lifeworld, and the lifeworld is holistic-in other words, it involves all aspects of the world as lived.…”