This document discusses QRator, an interactive tool developed by the Grant Museum of Zoology to engage visitors. QRator uses iPads to ask visitors questions linked to museum objects, gathering opinions and ideas to facilitate discussion. It aims to make the museum experience more meaningful and social. While challenges include moderating content and balancing partner needs, initial successes show visitors enjoy QRator and it is advancing the field of social interpretation in museums. Lessons learned emphasize adapting to visitor feedback and prioritizing their experience over partner goals.

1. QRator and the Grant Museum of Zoology
Jack Ashby
Manager,
Grant Museum of Zoology,
University College London

2. The “old” Grant Museum

3. The Grant Museum today

4. The Grant Museum today

5. We must support
UCL
• Provide museum
expertise
• Enable public
access
• Provide venues
• Offer lower barriers
to access
• Raise profile

6. Delivering public engagement and impact
• Acting as a broker between external communities
and the university.
• Providing established
audiences for events
• Co-curation – swapping
skills and knowledge
• Research venue

7. The challenge:
• Bring the Museum into 21st century in museology
and technology
• Maintain our “traditional” atmosphere
• Collaborate with CASA and DH
• Create something visitors
want
• Innovate and experiment
The Solution: QRator

8. Qrator is
• Questions on iPads
• For us – public engagement
• For partners – research,
including a PhD
• For visitors – fun and thoughts

9. QRator does
Asks questions linked to
object-based displays on:
•How museums operate
•Science in society
In order to
•Gather opinion
•Raise new ideas
•Invite thought

10. Potential pitfalls of community
engagement
• Takes place behind closed doors
• Short-term
• Peripheral to key strategy
• Are exclusive
• Don’t necessarily
represent “the community”

11. QRator: Social interpretation
• Meaningful for three groups
– Active contributors
– Passive readers
– The Museum
• 100% of visitors are invited
• Entirely visible

12. QRator risks
• Post-moderation / Trust
• Raising tricky questions
• Getting answers we don’t
want to hear
• Being misused
• Detracting from objects

13. Big challenge – different agendas
When different partners
have different needs we had
to ensure it was the visitor
experience that stayed
forefront:
The visitors don’t know that
they are in an experiment.

14. Major successes
• Visitors like it
• 4-5 years ahead of “adoption
horizon
• Social interpretation at IWM
• Museums and Heritage Award
• Museum of Brands

15. Some Visitor Studies issues
• People don’t know they’ve
been empowered
– Do they know who is
asking?
– Don’t connect FoH and
“museum proper”?
– Lack of experience in
social interactives?
• People don’t converse

16. Lesson learnt
• Adapt!
– Don’t be cross if your visitors
want something you didn’t intend:
it can still be of use
• With partners, remember that
the visitors shouldn’t suffer
due to partner’s hopes

17. Jack Ashby
j.ashby@ucl.ac.uk
www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/zoology
Acknowledgements
• Claire Ross
• UCL Digital Humanities
• UCL CASA
• UCL Public Engagement Unit