![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Museum professionals suppose that interacting with authentic objects promotes curiosity and engagement, but this has not been tested. In this research, children and adults visiting the Oxford University Museum of Natural History were shown a taxidermied rabbit or rabbit skeleton. They were asked “Is it real?”, “Why?” and were given the opportunity to ask a question about it to measure their curiosity and engagement. As predicted, visitors who perceived the rabbits as authentic were more likely to ask a question than those who judged them as inauthentic. Perceived authenticity also promoted more why questions. In general, these findings became more robust with increasing age. However, approximately 25% of visitors did not perceive the rabbits as authentic. This study thus supports the assumption that authentic objects are associated with increased curiosity and engagement but museum professionals need to ensure that visitors know when they are interacting with the real thing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
About the author
Louise Bunce is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at The University of Winchester. She has conducted research in the field of developmental and educational psychology for over 10 years. This research has mainly explored children’s understanding of what is “real” and the impact of engaging in fantasy on development. She would be delighted to hear from museum professionals regarding their experiences that relate to this research, as well as any attempts to improve visitor understanding of authenticity.
Notes
1. Roberts, From Knowledge to Narrative; Evans, Mull, and Poling, “The Authentic Object?,” 64.
2. Eberbach and Crowley, “From Living to Virtual,” 318.
3. Watson and Werb, “One Hundred Strong,” 255–65.
4. Hampp and Schwan, “Perception and Evaluation of Authentic Objects,” 349–51; Leinhardt and Crowley, “Objects of Learning, Objects of Talk,” 301–24.
5. Kirchberg and Tröndle, “Experiencing Exhibitions,” 435–50; Roberts, From Knowledge to Narrative.
6. Hickling and Wellman, “The Emergence of Children’s,” 679–81.
7. Greif et al., “What Do Children Want to Know about Animals and Artifacts?,” 155–9.
8. Frazier, Gelman, and Wellman, “Preschoolers’ Search for Explanatory,” 1592–10; Callanan and Oakes, “Preschoolers’ Questions and Parents’ Explanations,” 213–33.
9. This was also the method used in Hampp and Schwan “The Role of Authentic Objects in a Museum,” 5–8.
10. Bunce and Harris, “He Hasn’t Got the Real Toolkit!,” 1501–3.
11. Bunce, “Dead Ringer?”; Bunce, “Still Life?”.
12. Example reasons why participants said that the rabbit was authentic are: “It’s got real fur and real actual ears” (5-year-old); “It doesn’t feel like plastic, it feels real” (6-year-old); “It is real bones” (6-year-old); “The fur feels like a real one and it looks real” (8-year-old); “You won’t be able to make bones like that” (8-year-old); “It looks real rather than man made … it just looks authentic” (Adult).
13. A chi square test revealed that the association between judgments of authenticity and asking a question was significant, p < .001.
14. For example, there is one of these at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
15. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the current museum director wants to replace Dippy, a fake, with an authentic skeleton of a blue whale http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31025229 (accessed 12 May 2016).
16. Hampp and Schwan, “The Role of Authentic Objects in Museums,” 170–80.
17. Evans, Mull, and Poling, “The Authentic Object?,” 57–60.