audience research mysteries of the mind appendix

Appendix 6: Audience Research 1

Appendix 6

Audience Research

MA Museum Studies ARCLG 191: Exhibition Project 9th May 2016


Table of Contents

1. Executive summary

1.1. Introduction

1.2. The purpose of evaluation

1.3. Context for the evaluation project and its target audience

1.4. Methodology

1.5. Summary of evaluation findings and project outcomes

2. Evaluation table

3. Learning theory, communication messages and learning outcomes

3.1 Executive summary

3.2 Crafting communication messages and learning outcomes

3.3 Implementing the theories, messages, and outcomes

3.4 Tools

4. Baseline Evaluation I

4.1. Executive summary

4.2. Methodology

4.3. Findings

4.4. Tools

5. Baseline Evaluation II


5.2. Methodology

5.3. Findings

5.4. Tools

6. Front-end Evaluation I


6.2. Methodology

6.3. Findings

6.4. Tools

7. Front-end Evaluation II


7.2. Methodology

7.3. Findings

7.4. Tools

8. Front-end Evaluation III



8.2. Methodology

8.3. Findings

8.4. Tools

9. Front-end Evaluation IV


9.2. Methodology

9.3. Findings

9.4. Tools

10. Formative Evaluation I


10.2. Methodology

10.3. Findings

10.4. Tools

11. Front-end V


11.2. Methodology

11.3. Findings

11.4. Tools

12. Formative Evaluation II


12.2. Methodology

12.3. Findings

12.4. Tools

13. Formative Evaluation III


13.2. Methodology

13.3. Findings

13.4. Tools

14. Summative Evaluation I


14.2. Methodology

14.3. Findings

14.4. Tools


1. Executive Summary

1.1. Introduction

Audience Research was continually utilised by the Exhibition Project Team

throughout the entire project for key audience-centred exhibition elements including:

evaluations, communication and learning theories, communication messages and

learning outcomes. The Audience Research Team worked collaboratively with the

other teams to present Collections, Content, Design, Digital and Late Event material

to the exhibition’s target audience for feedback. Evaluation findings and

recommendations were presented in reports and presentations that influenced the

Exhibition Team’s decisions when developing Mysteries of the Mind. Evaluations

were conducted between December 2015 and April 2016 to collect adequate visitor

information to inform the team’s recommendations.

1.2. The Purpose of Evaluation

The Audience Research Team engages with the target audience (see 1.3) and acts

as their representative throughout the development process. The aim of the team is

to continually provide the Exhibition Team with information and feedback to develop

an exhibition and Late Event catered to the needs of the exhibition’s target audience.

The baseline evaluation plan focused on the Leventis Gallery’s current visitor

patterns and the target audience. The front-end evaluations aimed to gather

audience prior knowledge, interest and preferences for the proposed exhibition. The

formative evaluation plan was designed to improve upon the developing exhibition

elements through audience feedback. The summative evaluation sought to assess

visitor satisfaction with the completed elements.

1.3. Context for the Evaluation Project and its Target Audience

The UCL MA Museum Studies Exhibition Project comprised two components: the re-

design of the temporary exhibition area of the Leventis Gallery within the Institute of

Archaeology and the development of a late event activity at one of the Science

Museum Lates. All members of the team participate in the execution of both project

elements.


The temporary exhibition space provided to the students includes two cases for

object and label display, four light boxes for text or image presentation, two iPads

and one totem to include digital interactive elements. As per the original IoA project

brief, the theme of this exhibition project is ‘tools and the human mind’.

The Science Museum Late Event involves the design and conduction of an activity

related to the topic of the Late Event. The Science Museum provides assistance,

materials and space within the event for the activity. The title of this year’s Late Event

was Lost in Thought.

The target audiences for this project are:

● Students/staff from the Institute of Archaeology (IoA) at UCL

● Students/staff from other UCL departments

● Residents of the Bloomsbury area

● Non-specialist adults/young professionals (Late Event)

1.4. Methodology

The Exhibition Project’s use of social constructivism as the learning theory influenced

the decision to utilise a primarily qualitative evaluation method. Social constructivism

places social interaction at the centre of cognitive progress1. Prior knowledge informs

individual ‘sense-making’; however, the language of that prior knowledge is socially

constructed and filters new information when learning.2 By understanding and using

potential visitors’ language regarding the mind and the brain, the exhibition can

scaffold visitor learning to a higher degree.

Qualitative evaluation methods provided the team with a depth of data via open-

ended questions highlighting the participants’ own language use over the language of

this evaluation team or the exhibition.3 Qualitative data were supplemented with

quantitative data in order to provide the Exhibition Project team with the scale of the

findings.

1 Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2 Oldfather, P., J. West, J. White and J. Wilmarth (1999) Learning Through Children’s Eyes:

Social Constructivism and the Desire to Learn. American Psychological Association. 3 Diamond, J. (1999) Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums & Other Informal

Educational Settings. 2nd Ed. Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press. p. 23.


For the baseline evaluations, interviews and observations were utilised to gather

information on the prior knowledge, preferences and visiting patterns of potential

visitors. The front-end evaluation plan involved face-to-face interviews,

questionnaires and a poll; it aimed to inform the Exhibition Project Team’s decisions

by further investigating participants’ prior knowledge, language, preferences and

attitudes on the potential exhibition topic through. The focus of the formative

evaluations was participants’ social interaction, preferences, language and attitudes

to improve upon the proposed exhibition elements; face-to-face interviews, a mock-

up, and a focus group were implemented. Social interaction and visitor enjoyment

were identified as the key elements of the summative evaluation, evaluated through a

questionnaire and visitor observations.4

The data from these evaluations were analysed by identifying trends and patterns

through graphs, highlighting notable outliers, and coding the information based on

criteria unique to each evaluation. The findings were presented to the group in the

form of evaluation reports and presentations and subsequently pertinent teams were

informed the results and recommendations were uploaded to Trello for easy

reference.

2. Evaluation table

Evaluation Team(s) Focus Method Conducted

Baseline I Exhibition

Project Identifying gallery

use, types of visitor

behaviour and

target audience.

Observations;

visitor and non-

visitor

interviews

11-17th

December

2015

Baseline II Exhibition

Project Identifying patterns

of gallery use to

craft an evaluation

plan.

Leventis

Gallery visitor

scan-sampling

25-29th

January 2016

Front-end I Content Exhibition topics:

‘the brain’ and

‘mental illness’

Personal

meaning

mapping

16th

February

2016 and 8

March 2016

4 All tools and generated charts were created in US English, the evaluators’ native or learned

version of English.


Front-end II Content Exhibition title Questionnaire 4th-5th

March 2016

Front-end III Design Colour scheme and

font Interviews 7th-8th

March 2016

Front-end IV Digital QR code use Online poll 6th-8th

March 2016

Formative I Collections

and Design Display of biological

specimen and

colour scheme

Interview 15th March

2016

Front-end V Content

and Late

Event

Exhibition title and

Late Event titles,

interest and prior

knowledge

Questionnaire 16th March

2016

Formative II Design,

Content,

Collections

and Digital

Display layout and

clarity Mock-up 4th April

2016

Formative III Digital Totem content Focus group 14th and

15th April

2016

Summative I Late Event Visitor enjoyment

and engagement Questionnaire

and

observations

27th April

2016

3. Learning Theory, Communication Messages and Learning Outcomes

3.1. Executive Summary

After the first panel meeting, the Audience Research Team took responsibility

of the exhibition’s learning and communication theories. After the third panel

meeting, the team included writing and editing communication messages and

learning outcomes in their responsibilities.

During reading week, the Audience Evaluation Team researched social

constructivism and developed a handout given to the entire team (see 3.4,


Tool 1). It included the basic elements of the theory as well as detailed

suggestions for each area of the Exhibition Project.

The communication and learning theories adhered to in this project are

cultural-dialogic and social constructivism. The cultural-dialogic

communication theory posits that meaning is created through discussion,

between individuals and a scaffold, and is rooted in cultural knowledge.

Learning, within social constructivism, occurs through social interaction, is

filtered through individual prior knowledge, and is facilitated by a More

Knowledgeable Other (MKO).

The Audience Research Team collaborated continually with all other sub-

teams to provide guidance in understanding the communication and learning

theories, developing communication messages and learning outcomes, and

implementing those messages and outcomes into the exhibition development.

3.2. Crafting Communication Messages and Learning Outcomes

The Audience Research Team took over the writing of communication

messages and learning outcomes in order to lighten the Content Team’s

workload and ensure they were written with the target audience in mind.

The communication messages and learning outcomes were continually

updated throughout the development process in order to reflect the

exhibition’s progress and the refinement of the exhibition concept and display.

The messages and outcomes would be presented to the Exhibition Project

Team for feedback, before being subjected to a final edit by the Audience

Research Team and re-distributed to the entire project via Trello.

The Audience Research Team conducted a Learning Outcomes Writing

Workshop on 30th March in which the basic guidelines for crafting learning

outcomes were presented and examples of both effective and ineffective


learning outcomes were provided. Afterwards, the Audience Research Team

representatives structured and facilitated a brainstorming session to rewrite

the Exhibition Project’s learning outcomes. Present at the workshop were

representatives from the Content Team, representatives from Project

Management and the Digital Team (see 3.4, Tool 2).

The Audience Research Team then made the PowerPoint available to the

entire Exhibition Project Team via Trello and liaised individually with the Late

Event Team in order to write their specific communication messages and

learning outcomes (see 3.4, Tool 3).

3.3 Implementing the Theories, Messages and Outcomes

The Audience Research Team collaborated with other teams in order to

ensure the exhibition elements reflected the appropriate theories, messages

and outcomes, especially after evaluations in order to ensure the

implementation of the evaluation findings within the framework of the cultural-

dialogic communication theory and the social constructivist learning theory.

Using the findings of Formative Evaluation II, a representative of the Audience

Research Team aided the Digital Team in writing interview questions for iPad

content.

After Formative Evaluation III, a representative also aided in developing the

optical illusion totem content, provided feedback from the focus group, and

reviewed the final text to help align the content to the learning theory. An

Audience Research Team representative also provided editing and feedback

for the iPad quiz to ensure it followed the social constructivist learning theory.

Throughout the course of the project, the team wrote and edited object

communication messages in collaboration with the Collections Team. After


the mock-up evaluation, a representative from the team edited and revised

Content labels from the point of view of the target audience and

recommendations from Formative Evaluation II in a collaborative workshop

with Content, a representative from Late Event Team and a representative

from Project Management.

Following the fourth panel meeting, the Design Team had requested

additional help understanding and implementing theories, messages and

outcomes in certain design elements of the exhibition. A document was

created detailing suggestions for each component of the exhibition in

accordance with the theories, messages, outcomes, as well as evaluation

results (see 3.4, Tool 4).

Additionally, the Digital Team had a conceptual change regarding iPad 1 and

the panel suggested swapping the content of iPad 1 for iPad 2. To help the

team make this decision, a map of the gallery was created displaying the

distribution of the learning outcomes (see 3.4, Tool 5). According to the

distribution of the neuroscience heavy Enjoyment, Inspiration and Creativity

outcomes and the Knowledge and Understanding outcomes, the gallery would

be more balanced by placing the iPad with the interviews near Case 2 and the

iPad with the quiz near Charlotte's office. The quiz would balance out the

three light boxes, and the interviews would provide a different but

complementary perspective on the display on the other side of the gallery.

It was decided by the Exhibition Project Team that it would be beneficial to

provide audience accessibility guides for the exhibition, and the Audience

Evaluation Team volunteered to format the text. Since the Leventis Gallery

occasionally received visitors older than 50 who are more likely to have visual

impairments, a large print guide was made using Helvetica font in black on a

white background, with a minimum size of 16 pt. Font as per the guidelines

set out by Action for Blind People (see 3.4, Tool 6 and 8).


Since Baseline Evaluation I demonstrated that most of the gallery’s visitors

are UCL affiliated students 18-25 and an individual with dyslexia participated

in Formative II, a second dyslexia friendly guide was made using a specially

designed font5 and the guidelines set out by the British Dyslexia Association

(see 3.4, Tool 7 and 8). Studies show that 2.6 to 4% of Higher Education

students in the UK have dyslexia.6

The Audience Research Team became aware that Lisa Daniel, the Graduate

Programmes Administrator, had recently attended a conference about

academic staff with dyslexia or other neuro-diverse conditions. A consultation

with Lisa revealed that a large number of archaeologists have dyslexia; 5

members of staff and about 30 students within the IoA have dyslexia. Lisa

suggested having two copies of dyslexia friendly guides in the gallery;

however, since she also indicated that many individuals with dyslexia are

accustomed to using large print guides in galleries, we decided that the large

print guide could double as a dyslexia friendly guide if needed.

The interview subtitles and the totem digital elements were included in both

guides; the quiz content was not included as we could not recreate the quiz

content adequately. The Audience Team also could not find any examples of

instances where museums or galleries provided the text content of interactive

screens.

Due to last minute changes, the Audience Research Team problem solved

the addition of another object and contextual image into the guides (see 3.4,

Tool 9).

5 Anon (2016) OpenDyslexic. [Online]. 2016. OpenDyslexic. Available from: http://opendyslexic.org/

[Accessed: 22 April 2016]. 6 Anon (n.d.) Dyslexia in Higher Education. [Online]. Supporting Students with Dyslexia. Available from:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/accessability/staff/supporting-students-with-dyslexia/dyslexia_guidelines/dyslexia_he [Accessed: 22 April 2016].


3.4 Tools

Tool 1: Social constructivist learning theory team hand-out

front


Reverse


Tool 2: Writing communication messages and learning outcomes workshop


Tool 3: Late Event communication messages and learning outcomes

Front


Reverse


Tool 4: Suggestions to the Design Team

Page 1


Page 2


Page 3


Tool 5: Learning outcome exhibition distribution


Tool 6: First page of large print guide


Tool 7: First page of dyslexia friendly guide


Tool 8: Printed accessibility guides

Tool 9: Additions to the accessibility guide


4. Baseline Evaluation I


This evaluation aimed to compile preliminary data on visitor and non-visitor

general knowledge of the Leventis Gallery, interest in the exploratory

exhibition topic, as well as how the space is currently used to inform exhibition

development.

The evaluation had a total of 139 participants (66 observations groups, 33

visitor interviews and 40 non-visitor interviews). 66 groups were observed in

the gallery, 43 of which were alone and 49 were 18-25. 25 of the 33 interview

participants were students, who visit the building for studying, younger than

25 years old.

Findings

● The average visitors to the Leventis Gallery are young students who visit

the space frequently for UCL-related purposes, but not with intentions of

seeing the exhibitions.

● Visitors have largely seen at least one exhibition, but do not engage in-

depth.

● Large crowds gather during the classroom changes nearby G6.

● The space is primarily used as a corridor to IoA facilities.

● The general consensus is that there is poor distinction between the

permanent and temporary exhibitions.

● There is confusion over the content of We Need to Talk.

● The gallery is used primarily during IoA advertised opening hours (9am-

5pm Monday-Friday).

● Signage within and to the space has not been effective in getting visitors in

or engaging them with the exhibition.

● The brightest and most colourful object (the board game) received the

most attention.


Recommendations

Content

● Include the development or progression of tools through a timeline;

including both stone and modern tools.

● Include objects relating to psychology, science or medicine.

● Connect the exhibition with the courses scheduled for lectures in room

G6.

Signage and display

● Signage should be simple and eye-catching to attract the interest of the

‘window shopper’ visitor and turn them into a ‘serious shopper’.

● Signage should be focused in and near the lobby as well as externally

to direct visitors into the exhibition space.

● A clear visual division between the two exhibitions should be

implemented.

● Include signage directing visitors to the iPads, totem and gallery map.

● The introductory text should clearly explain the exhibition.

● There should be less text in the object display cases with a clear visual

hierarchy of information.

Public relations

● Circulate and post material relating to the exhibition around

Bloomsbury, specifically the UCL campus to reach non-IoA students.

● Secure an inclusion in a UCL or University of London student email or

social media platform.

● Cross advertise with the Petrie or other UCL museums.

Use of space

● Account for large numbers of visitors merely walking through the

gallery.

● Account for large numbers of students waiting in front of the exhibition

cases for student-related purposes.

● Use Saturdays as opportunities for special events in the gallery.

● Both content and signage should be designed in a way to easily

engage visitors in the ways they already use the space (as a waiting,

studying and social area).


4.2. Methodology

The evaluation consisted of face-to-face interviews of visitors and non-visitors

as well as focal individual visitor observations. The data were collected

between 11 and 17 December 2015. The visitor interviews were conducted

within the Leventis Gallery; non-visitor interviews were conducted in 7 various

locations surrounding the IoA in Bloomsbury. The visitor observations were

conducted within the Leventis Gallery at different times throughout the week,

according to evaluators’ availabilities.

Date Evaluator Group Time

11/12/15 Group 1 3:25-4:25pm

12/12/15 Group 1 2-3pm

12/12/15 Group 2 12-1pm

14/12/15 Group 1 11:30am-12:30pm

14/12/15 Group 2 1-2pm

14/12/15 Group 2 5-6pm

14/12/15 Group 2 6-7pm

15/12/15 Group 1 10:39-11:39am

16/12/15 Group 2 1-2pm

17/12/15 Group 1 11:45am-12:45pm

Interview questions were predetermined, maintaining consistency across

interviews. The questionnaire utilised a mix of open and closed questions (see

4.4, Tools 5 and 6). Participants were randomly selected as they entered the

Leventis Gallery or around Bloomsbury; individual evaluators determined his

or her own recruitment process. Evaluators observed either every person who


entered the gallery space or every third (depending on visitor numbers at the

time). Observations were recorded on a map of the gallery (see 4.4, Tools 1

and 2).

Both interview and observation evaluators input their data into a spreadsheet

for individual statistical and qualitative analysis; recurring themes and

significant outliers were noted.

This method allows the evaluators to get both quantitative and qualitative data

from the project’s target audience. All three tools were first piloted. The visitor

and non-visitor tools were used unaltered. Observation group 1 altered the

tool in order to simplify the recording of data (see 4.4, Tool 3). Observation

group 2 created a tool in order to define the areas of the gallery space and

created a set of agreed upon tools for coding the data (see 4.4, Tool 4).

Evaluation questions

Observations

● Who uses the foyer space on the ground floor of the Institute?

● How is the space used?

● Are there different patterns of use at different times and dates?

● How long do people stay in the area?

● Are there any distinct modes of engagement in the exhibition space?

Visitor interviews

● Who uses the foyer space on the ground floor of the Institute?

● Why do people use the area?

● Do people realise that there are two different exhibitions in this area?

● What do people think We Need to Talk: Connecting through

Technology exhibition is about?

● What would visitors like to see in a future exhibition on tools and the

human mind?

Non-visitor interviews

● Do people in the local area (including passers-by, people who live

and/or work in the area, UCL students and staff) know of the IoA?


○ If so, do they know where it is located?

○ How did they find out about it?

● Do people in the local area (including passers-by, people who live

and/or work in the area, UCL students and staff) know that the IoA is

part of UCL?

● Have they ever been there?

○ If yes, when/why/what for?

○ If no, why not?

○ What do they think they might find there (activities people carry

out in the building)?

● Specifically, are people in the local area aware of the exhibition space

on the ground floor of IoA?

○ If yes, have they ever been?

○ What did they do/see there?

● Would they like to visit the exhibitions? What type (or theme) of

exhibition would they like to see? And how does it relate to their

interests?

Research

Questions

Observations Visitor Interviews Non-visitor

Interviews

Dwell times ✓

Patterns of use ✓ ✓ ✓

Awareness of the

space/building

✓ ✓

Engagement with

exhibition space

✓ ✓

Interest in visiting

the exhibition

space

✓ ✓


Interest in

upcoming

exhibition theme

✓ ✓

4.3. Findings

Observations

Audience use of space

The gallery is most often used as a corridor: 39 of the 66 visitors walked

through the space, entering through one door and leaving by another. Other

notable actions include sitting—on the benches (6 groups) or at the table (5

groups), meeting with or waiting for Charlotte Frearson (11 groups), whose

office is located off of the gallery and waiting for or access to the G6 lecture

hall (6 groups). People also use the space to eat (4 groups), take phone calls

(3 individuals) and do work (3 individuals).

A vast majority of the visitors entered and exited from the lobby, and the stairs

were a secondary avenue of exit (Figure 1). Since the G6 lecture hall is a

dead end room, anyone entering or exiting from that room was there for a

class or lecture.


Figure 1: Visitor entrances and exits.

Audience dwell time

Average time spent in the space was 5 minutes (Figure 2). However, this data

is skewed since 34 out of 66 observed groups spent less than a minute in the

space, while a few outliers spent significantly longer.

Figure 2: Dwell time.


Additionally, time spent in the space is not a sufficient indicator of level of

visitor engagement with the exhibitions. One individual spent 40 minutes in

the space, but only 30 seconds looking at the exhibition.

Audience engagement with exhibitions

18 visitors interacted with the exhibition in some way. Of those, 8 merely

glanced at the cases, not engaging with the display. 5 interacted with the

digital exhibits, but not for more than one minute. 1 discussed confusion over

the subject of the exhibition, indicating lack of adequate introductory panel. 2

groups discussed the Nokia phone; one individual took a photo of the display.

2 groups looked specifically at the board game.

Visitor interviews

Audience visiting history and clarity of space

All visitors had visited the Leventis Gallery before. More than half (19 people)

of them come to the gallery more than once per week, while nearly 1/3

interviewees (11 people) visit here weekly. Only 3 people are infrequent

visitors.

28 people have seen at least one exhibition in this gallery. More than half of

them (15 people) only glanced it instead of looking in detail. 21 people could

not distinguish the two exhibitions clearly.

Audience preferences for tools and the human mind

The preference for stone tools and modern tools was equal (28). The

evolution of tools and combining tools with other parts of human history are

mentioned frequently. Medical tools received the highest level of interest (a

significant portion of those interviewed were psychology or medical students).

Object Preference Number of Participants

Medical 11


Evolution 7

No specific interest 7

Archaeology 4

Technology 2

Writing 2


Audience knowledge of the IoA, visiting history, and future interest

23 of 40 participants had heard of the IoA before. Of those who knew of the

IoA, 8 had previously visited the space (6 in within the past year); all of these

visits were for UCL-related purposes (lecture, library, work). 22 participants

provided reasons for not previously visiting and “lack of information on the

IoA” represented the most repeated answer (11 participants). 32 participants

indicated they held at least a mild interest in a future visit (including 5

“maybe”).

Audience preference for tools and the human mind

The vast majority of participants expressed interest in both stone and modern

tools (25 and 28 respectively); additionally, 7 participants indicated specific

interest in a timeline of the development or advancement of tools. Only 9

participants reported no interest in stone tools and 8 reported no interest in

modern tools.

In regards to types of objects they would be interested in seeing, participants’

answers covered the following areas:

Subject Number of Participants

Modern 12

Science and Medicine 8


History 7

Archaeology 6

Anthropology 5


4.4. Tools

Tool 1: Observation sheet, group 1


Tool 2: Observation sheet, Group 2


Tool 3: Leventis Gallery map


Tool 4: Observation code definitions


Tool 5: Visitor interviews protocol

Front


Reverse


Tool 6: Non-visitor interview protocol

Front


Reverse


5. Baseline Evaluation II


This evaluation was conducted in order to provide the Audience Research

Team with the visiting pattern of the Leventis Gallery. Conducting evaluations

during the ideal time frame is essential for efficient audience research studies.

In total 112 visitors were observed during the evaluation. The personal

information was not recorded.

Findings

● Tuesday was the busiest day.

● Monday was the least busy day.

● The gallery sees most visitors between the hours of 10:30am and

1:30pm.

Recommendations

● Conduct future evaluations on Tuesday in the gallery.

● Avoid conducting evaluations on Monday and Friday; though Friday is

busy, two-thirds of the Audience Research Team and a significant

number of the Exhibition Project Team members are occupied with

their placements.

● Conduct evaluations lasting one day between 10am and 2pm.

● Avoid conducting lengthy evaluations during longer hours on a single

day; instead, conduct evaluations between 10am and 2pm on multiple

days.

5.2. Methodology

A scan sampling evaluation was conducted between 25 and 29 January 2016.

Evaluators entered the Leventis Gallery and observed the number of visitors


present and a rudimentary description of their actions for a duration of 1 to 5

minutes. To avoid skewed data due to class changes in the G6 Lecture

Theatre, observations were conducted on the half hour. The observations

began at 9:30am and continued every hour, concluding at 4:30pm. Evaluators

input their data into a spreadsheet for individual statistical and qualitative

analysis; recurring themes and significant outliers were noted.

The Audience Research Team needed a comprehensive understanding of the

patterns of use in the Leventis Gallery during IoA open hours: 9am-5pm,

Monday to Friday. Due to having only a limited availability of evaluators and a

large time span, the less time intensive method of scan sampling was chosen

for this evaluation.


● What is/are the busiest day(s) in the Leventis Gallery?

● What are the busiest times of the day in the Leventis Gallery?

● What is/are the least busy day(s) in the Leventis Gallery?

● What are the least busy times of the day in the Leventis Gallery?

5.3. Findings

Monday, 25 January 2016

● The busiest time on Monday was between 10:30am and 12:30pm

(Figure 1).


Figure 1: Monday gallery visits.

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

● The busiest time on Tuesday was between 12:30pm and 13:30pm

(Figure 2).

Figure 2: Tuesday gallery visits.

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

● The busiest time on Wednesday was between 10:30am and 11:30pm

(Figure 3).


Figure 3: Wednesday gallery visits.

Thursday, 28 January 2016

● The busiest time on Thursday was between 11:30 and 1:30 (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Thursday gallery visits.

Friday, 29 January 2016

● The busiest time on Friday was at 1:30pm (Figure 5).


Figure 5: Friday gallery visits.

The week of 25-29 January

● Monday was the least busy day (Figure 6).

● Tuesday was the busiest day (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Week of 25-29 gallery visits.

The findings of the evaluation are as follows:

● Visitor numbers are sporadic and fluctuate significantly throughout the

day and week.


● Tuesday is the busiest day in the gallery, followed by Friday.

● Monday is the least busy day in the gallery.

● The gallery is busiest between the hours of 10:30 and 13:30.

5.4. Tools

A Google Drive Sheet was used to record data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LapGZyQOz8EQM_Z9TOH8E7lYs

Y1z9JWKKhAVR-ouFiA/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LapGZyQOz8EQM_Z9TOH8E7lYsY1z9JWKKhAVR-ouFiA/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LapGZyQOz8EQM_Z9TOH8E7lYsY1z9JWKKhAVR-ouFiA/edit?usp=sharing


6. Front-end Evaluation I


This study was designed to aid the Exhibition Project Team in developing and

finalising their exhibition concept by establishing the prior knowledge of the

target audience. The concept began focusing broadly on ‘the brain’, but

subsequently the Content Team refined to the topic to ‘mental illness’; the

evaluation was adapted to reflect this conceptual change.

In total, 20 participants were sampled, 10 for the keyword ‘the brain’ and 10

for the keyword ‘mental illness.’ The sample reflects the profile of the typical

Leventis Gallery visitor: 15 were students and 4 of the non-students had UCL

affiliated academic positions and 16 respondents were 18-29.

Findings

‘The brain’

● 9 participants expressed rudimentary knowledge of the complexity of

brain functioning, including the role of different parts of the brain in

different functions.

● 5 participants also displayed the opinion that the brain is the site of the

mind.

● 4 participants listed well-known mental illnesses.

‘Mental illness’

● A majority of the ‘Mental illness’ meaning maps contained either the

negative perceptions of mental illness or the negative emotions

surrounding the subject.

● 7 participants listed well-known mental illnesses.

● 7 participants talked about how ‘mental illness’ is a taboo subject that

isolates people.

● 6 participants mentioned that ‘mental illness’ is an issue common to

everyone.


● When people think of ‘mental illness’, the most immediate emotions

and thoughts are negative.

Recommendations

● Ensure the developing exhibition provides an emotional scaffold that

supports the visitor and promotes inclusive and emotionally positive

conversations.

● Use the meaning maps as a guide to visitors’ prior knowledge,

specifically on technical and scientific themes.

6.2. Methodology

The evaluation was conducted in two rounds, the first one on 16 February

while the Exhibition Team was still developing the concept and the second

round on 8 March, when the concept had been narrowed down to ‘mental

illness.’

Participants were chosen randomly and approached as per the protocols in

Tool 1 (see 6.4). Once they agreed to participate, they were asked to write

down as many words, ideas, images, phrases or thoughts that come to mind

related to the prompt phrases ‘The brain’ or ‘mental illness’ (see 6.4, Tools 2

and 3) on a piece of paper with the prompt written in the centre and a small

table for demographic data on the top, which they all filled out unprompted.

The meaning maps were then organised in a table and analysed for recurring

themes and notable comments, which were presented to the Exhibition

Project Team.

Participants were recruited from various high traffic locations around UCL

Bloomsbury Campus:

● UCL Cloisters

● University Cafes

● The Leventis Gallery


This methodology allowed the Exhibition Project Team to create a basic

understanding of the target audience’s prior knowledge. Since the exhibition is

utilising Social Constructivist Learning Theory, it is important to incorporate

and engage the visitors’ prior experiences and knowledge.

Significantly, 2 individuals who declined to participate in ‘the brain’ evaluation

stated it was because they felt they did not know enough about the topic to be

able to comment.


● What associations do people make with ‘the brain’?

● What associations do people make with ‘mental illness’?

6.3. Findings

‘The brain’

Audience thoughts on ‘the brain’

Participants’ unprompted responses revealed Personal Meaning Maps with a

range of 14 shared concepts:

1. Physical structure of the brain

2. Parts of the brain

3. Complexity of the brain

4. Brain as control centre

5. Hormonal control

6. Cognitive function

7. Memory

8. Perception

9. Thought

10. Mind/Soul

11. Mental health

12. Physical health

13. Ways of looking at the brain


14. Ways of treating the brain

A majority of the participants expressed rudimentary knowledge of the

complexity of brain functioning, including the role of different parts of the brain

in different functions. Half of the respondents also displayed the opinion that

the brain is the site of the mind. The 2 refusals due to a lack of confidence in

their knowledge of the brain reflects the general attitude of many respondents

that they were unqualified to discuss the more scientific aspect of the subject.

Four of the respondents discussed mental illnesses, one sorting them under

“things that can go wrong.”

Other notable comments

● [There are] “misconceptions about how the brain works”

● “The most complex part of living organism”

● “Free will - consciousness (is our brain deterministic or do we have free

choice? This makes humans different from animals, so it’s an important

question)”

● “Perception and consciousness are linked, but neither require the

other. How does the brain integrate these?”

● It is the location of memory

● A distinction between “things that can go wrong” within the brain, and

things that can negatively affect the brain.

‘Mental illness’

Participants’ unprompted responses revealed Personal Meaning Maps with a

range of 10 shared concepts:

1. Awareness of well-known mental illnesses

2. Negative/misunderstood perceptions of mental illness

3. Mental illness as a taboo and isolating topic (7/10)

4. Negative emotions surrounding the subject

5. Mental illness as a universal issue (6/10)

6. Need for more research


7. Need for more support

8. Family as a support system

9. Awareness of different treatment options

10. Need for the government specifically to provide more research/support

A majority of the meaning maps discussed either the negative perceptions of

mental illness or the negative emotions surrounding the subject. There were

two clear and contradicting themes: 7 of 10 respondents talked about how

‘mental illness’ is a taboo subject that isolates people, yet 6 respondents

mentioned that it is an issue common to everyone.

Audience thoughts on ‘mental illness’

● “Could affect anyone”

● Is a “very real” and “widespread” “big issue”

● Is a “hidden disease”

● Is a “taboo subject”

● Is “misunderstood within society”

● Is seen as “shameful” or “weak”

● Is seen as a “selfish illness”

● Makes a person “different”

Audience emotional responses to ‘mental illness’

● Loneliness

● Anger

● Misunderstanding

● Blame

● Fear

Other notable comments

● “When many people hear mental illness they think of ‘One Flew Over

the Cuckoo’s Nest’ or other ‘commercial’ examples that make mental

illness seem ‘other’ and extreme when really it’s more common and

less ‘entertaining’”


● We need “more understanding about the mind and how it works” and

“need more research on the issue”

● “Not enough is done”

General prior knowledge the audience brings to the gallery

It is clear that much of the prior knowledge and preconceptions represented in

the personal meaning mapping align with the four themes that have been

designed for the exhibition:

Topic 1 in Case 1 in the exhibition will explore the link between the mind and

the consciousness and is labelled Where is the Mind?; the target audience

displays the following applicable prior knowledge:

● Concept that the mind/soul is in the brain

Topic 2 in Case 1 is labelled: How does the Mind Work? the target audience

displays an:

● Awareness that there are different parts of the brain

● Awareness that the brain control different physical function

● Awareness that the brain controls different cognitive functions

○ I.e. Perception and thought

● Awareness that the brain causes different mental/physical illnesses

Topic 1, in Case 2 is labelled How do we access the mind? Exploring physical

and psychological interventions of the brain. The target audience displays an:

● Awareness of different machines used to study the mind

● Awareness of different methods of treating the brain

Topic 2, in Case 2 of the exhibition, will detail current research and will be

labelled Will we ever understand the Mind? The target audience displays an:

● Awareness that there is a lot we don’t know about the brain

● Awareness that there is a current need for more research


6.4. Tools

Tool 1: Instructions and protocol


Tool 2: ‘The Brain’ personal meaning map


Tool 3: ‘Mental Illness’ personal meaning map


Tool 4: Example personal meaning map


7. Front-end Evaluation II


This evaluation intended to provide the team with audience feedback on their

proposed exhibition titles for an exhibition. Unprompted negative reactions to

the exhibition’s concept of ‘mental illness’, however, necessitated a

redevelopment of the evaluation tool and led the Audience Research Team to

encourage the Exhibition Project Team to amend their approach to the

concept and utilise less charged language.

50 participants in total (30 participants or tool 1, 20 participants for tool 2),

including 33 females and 17 males from UCL’s campus, were involved into

the evaluation. 40 participants were between 18-28 years old.

Findings

● Frame of Mind was the most appealing title (30/50).

● Under Control or Under Control? was identified as the most

representative title for the exhibition (27/50).

● A relatively high number of participants had unprompted, strongly

negative comments around ‘control’ in ‘mental illness’ (8/50).

Recommendations

● Frame of Mind: Managing Mental Illness should be the exhibition title

for the topic of ‘mental illness’.

● The Exhibition Project Team should develop content in accordance

with audience sensitivity to the topic.

7.2. Methodology

This evaluation, conducted on 4 and 5 March 2016, assessed the popularity

of the potential titles using a questionnaire that the participants completed in

the presence of an evaluator; any unprompted verbal comments provided by


the participant were written down by the evaluator.

Three questions were included, two closed and one open-ended. Question 1

was concerned with participants’ initial title choice asking them to rank the

titles in order of preference, Question 2 with their impressions of their

preferred title and Question 3 asked participants to compare all titles to the

exhibition description provided. The questionnaire was divided into two parts:

Part 1 included Questions 1 and 2 on the front, while Part 2 was comprised of

Question 3 on the reverse.

Before completing Part 1, the participant was only informed that the

developing exhibition would be on the topic of ‘mental illness’. While

completing Part 2, the participant was presented with the exhibition

description. The two parts were separated to prevent participants from being

influenced by the exhibition description provided in Part 2.

Tool 1

The team created an A evaluation and a B evaluation form of Tool 1. Forms A

and B (see 7.4, Tool 1) presented the titles in different orders, so as to not

create a bias in the order of the titles. The exhibition description included in

Part 2 is as follows:

UCL’s Institute of Archaeology is developing an exhibition which

will explore the UK’s attempts to manage mental illness in the

last 200 years through the concept of control. Ultimately, we

hope to open a dialogue on the ethics surrounding mental

illness.

Tool 2

After 30 responses, the evaluator found that people have very strong

reactions to the word ‘control’, which appears in every title and is central the

exhibition's narrative. Additionally, a clear trend emerged that Restrained:

Controlling Mental Illness and Mind Controls: Managing Mental Illness were


the least attractive to the participants.

The evaluation was thus adapted into Tool 2 (see 7.4, Tool 2) in collaboration

with a member of the Content Team: Restrained and Mind Controls were

eliminated from the evaluation and the main and subtitles were evaluated

separately allowing more freedom for the participants in their choices.

Additionally, to reduce the overall aggression of the word ‘control,’ three

changes were made:

● A question mark was added after Under Control

● Control in Mental Illness was included in the proposed subtitles.

● The words “and self-control” were included in the exhibition description

in Part 2, leaving the exhibition description to read as:

UCL’s Institute of Archaeology is developing an exhibition which

will explore the UK’s attempts to manage mental illness in the

last 200 years through the concepts of control and self-control.

Ultimately, we hope to open a dialogue on the ethics

surrounding mental illness.

Question 1 asked participants to rank the proposed 3 titles in order of

preference; Question 2 required the same for subtitles. As in Tool 1, Part 2

was included on the reverse and asked participants which title best

represented the updated exhibition description. Question 2 from Tool 1 was

removed from Tool 2 due to the evaluator’s findings. Evaluators input their

data into a spreadsheet for individual statistical and qualitative analysis;

recurring themes and significant outliers were noted.

The methodology for both evaluations was to invite every individual in various

locations around UCL’s campus (University of London Union, the Leventis

Gallery, and outside the Print Room Cafe and Science Library). Groups were

not invited to participate in this evaluation for two reasons:

● Group members may influence the preferences of other group


members.

● It is essential that participants complete Questions 1 and 2 before

hearing or reading the exhibition description in Question 3.

Either of these situations compromises the collected data.

This method allows the Audience Research Team to compile both qualitative

and quantitative data.


● Which title sparks the most interest?

● What concepts are implied by the participant’s initial choice?

● After reading the exhibition description, which title best represents the

exhibition?

7.3. Findings

Tool 1

Audience’s initial favourite and least favourite titles

● 18 of the 30 participants identified Frame of Mind: Controlling Mental

Illness as their first or second choice based on initial impressions

(Figure 1).

● Restrained: Managing Mental Illness was identified by 17 participants

as their least favourite title for the exhibition (Figure 2).


Figure 1: Form A and B combined favourite and second favourite titles.

Figure 2: Form A and B combined least favourite title.

Audience descriptions of preferred title

When participants were asked what they thought an exhibition with their

preferred title would be about in Question 2, almost all responded with an

answer somewhat consistent to the concept we are developing regardless of

their preferred title. Notable comments include:

● “The various ways to deal when living with a mental illness.” - Under


Control

● “Perspectives on mental illness treatment and management.” - Frame

of Mind

● “Social responses to mental illness; how society views it.” - Restrained

● “Mind-set and behaviour.” - Mentalities

Audience opinion on the best representative title

● 13 participants indicated Under Control: Managing Mental Illness best

represented the exhibition upon reading the exhibition description,

followed by Frame of Mind: Controlling Mental Illness (6/30) (Figure 3).

● Mentalities: Controlling Mental Illness was only identified by 2

participants as the exhibition’s best representation (Figure 3).

Audience sensitivity to the word ‘control’

8 of the 30 participants, unprompted by the evaluation, expressed a strong

discomfort with the word ‘control’ including:

● “I don’t like the idea of controlling mental illness; it implies there

is a ‘correct’ mental state. It assumes a lack of freedom in the

mind; ‘managing’ is better and Frame of Mind is just

picturesque.”

● “Something about Under Control and the other ones makes

people feel uncomfortable.”

● “I don’t like the idea of ‘control’.”

Tool 2

Audience initial favourite and least favourite main titles

● Frame of Mind was chosen by 14 of the 20 participants as their initial

preferred title (Figure 4).

● 13 indicated Mentalities was their least preferred title (Figure 4).

Audience responses to the main title Under Control?

Under Control received a more favourable response in this evaluation (6/20

compared to 6/30 previously) when followed by a question mark (Under


Control?):

● “The question mark makes it technically more accurate and less

intimidating.”

● “Under Control with a question mark makes it more positive.”

Figure 3: Favourite and least favourite main title.

Audience favourite and least favourite subtitles

● Managing Mental Illness was chosen by 12 people as their preferred

subtitle (Figure 4).

● Controlling Mental Illness and Control in Mental Illness were the least

favourite subtitle for 10 and 8 participants respectively (Figure 4).


Figure 4: Favourite and least favourite subtitle.


● Both Under Control? and Frame of Mind were each chosen by 14

participants as the title that best fits the updated exhibition description

(Figure 5).

● 12 participants identified Managing Mental Illness as the subtitle that

best represents the exhibition (Figure 6).

Figure 5: Best representative main title.


Figure 6: Best representative subtitle.

Audience sensitivity to the word ‘control’

Managing Mental Illness, the only subtitle which does not contain the word

‘control’, was chosen by the audience as both their initial favourite and the

best representation of the exhibition (Figures 4 and 6). Participants’

comments regarding their discomfort with the word ‘control’ persisted:

● [Under Control] “is fitting to description, but I don’t like the word

‘control’. Aggressive.”


7.4. Tools

Tool 1: Form A

Front

Reverse


Tool 1: Form B

Front

Reverse


Tool 2

Front

Reverse


8. Front-end Evaluation III


This study was designed to gather audience feedback on the Design Team’s

five proposed colour schemes and font styles for the developing exhibition.

Participants were asked about their impressions, preferences and comments

on the colour schemes and the readability of the font styles.

50 participants were recruited within the Leventis Gallery; 32 females and 18

males, 42 of which were between the ages of 18 and 28.

Findings

● Colour Schemes 2, 4 and 5 were participants’ top choices for the

developing exhibition on mental health.

● Colour Scheme 1 was found to be the least appropriate for the topic.

● Helvetica (Font 2) was the most readable to participants.

● Georgia (Font 5) was the least readable to participants.

Recommendations

● Conduct a formative evaluation to further test Colour Schemes 2, 4 and

5.

● Use Helvetica (Font 2) for all exhibition texts.

8.2. Methodology

The evaluation was conducted on 7 and 8 March 2016 using face-to-face

interviews with two tools. Every individual who sat at the benches or seats or

had a dwell time of 30 seconds walking in the gallery were invited to

participate in this evaluation. These individuals are familiar with the gallery

and the current exhibition, potentially they are frequent users. Additionally,

visitors who spend time in the gallery are aware of its particular characteristics

that affect the exhibition design including lighting and surroundings.


To easily differentiate the colour schemes and fonts from one another, they

were each coded 1-5. The evaluator provided the participants first with Tool 1

(see 8.4): a stapled book with one colour scheme on each page, allowing the

participants to focus on each colour scheme individually and to reduce the

influence other colour schemes would have considering their responses.

Participants were asked which colour scheme was most appropriate for an

exhibition on mental illness and which colour scheme seemed least

appropriate for the topic.

Tool 2 (see 8.4) was then handed to the participant: one page with the five

proposed font styles, allowing the participants to properly compare the

readability of all five. The participants were then asked which fonts had the

highest and lowest readability for exhibition labels and text panels. The

evaluator circled the number corresponding to the colour or font chosen for

each of the four questions. Evaluators input their data into a spreadsheet for

individual statistical and qualitative analysis; recurring themes and significant

outliers were noted.

This method allows the evaluators to get first-hand information from the target

audience and generate quantitative data that could be analysed quickly,

allowing the Audience Research Team to get their recommendations to the

Design Team quickly.

Redesign of Tool 2

The original document with the five font styles was compromised when the

Word document was transferred from the developer’s Mac to a UCL Windows

computer to print; fonts 1 and 3 were converted to two different fonts. Font 3

was converted to Helvetica, which was also font 2 in the evaluation.

This was not noticed until 29 evaluations had been conducted. To correct this

oversight, the original document was converted into a PDF before reprinted

for a subsequent 21 more evaluations.



● Which colour scheme do visitors find the most and least appropriate for

an exhibition on mental health?

● Which font style do visitors find the most and least readable for

exhibition labels and text panels?

8.3. Findings

Colour schemes

Audience opinion on the most and least appropriate colour schemes

● Colour Schemes 2, 4 and 5 received the highest number of positive

responses (12, 12 & 17 respectively) (Figure 1).

● Participants found Colour Scheme 1 to be the least appropriate (19/50)

(Figure).

Figure 1: Most and least appropriate colour schemes.

Audience comments on colour scheme aesthetics

The evaluation did not include a question specifically asking participants

which colour scheme was the most aesthetically appealing; however, the

evaluators did write participants’ comments on their personal preferences.


Colour Scheme 2 was repeatedly indicated as the most aesthetically pleasing

to the participants according to comments:

● “I like the beige” x2

● “Number two is my second favourite, but it is not appropriate for this

exhibition” x2

● “Brown/beige is nice.”

● “Especially the neutral colours.”

● “Beautiful.”

Audience opinions on font readability

The audience’s font preferences did not differ between the two versions of

Tool 2:

● Helvetica (Font 2) was identified as the font with the highest readability

(Figure 2).

● Georgia (Font 5) was identified as the font with the lowest readability

(Figure 2).

Figure 2: Most and least readable fonts.


8.4. Tools

Tool 1: Colour schemes


Tool 2: Font styles


9. Front-end Evaluation IV


This evaluation was conducted to gather audience interest in using QR codes

in an exhibition in order to inform the Digital Team’s decision in creating a QR

code for the developing exhibition.

110 of the possible 3589 group members participated in this evaluation.

Participant demographics are not able to be documented using this platform.

Findings

● Only 10 participants indicated they would use a QR code in an

exhibition.

● 54 of 110 participants stated they would not use a QR code.

● Notable comments indicate that audience’s reluctance to using QR

codes is due to:

○ The compatibility of their devices

○ The trouble of downloading scan APP

○ The effectiveness of the QR code

Recommendations

● The Digital Team should not spend resources on developing a QR

code for the exhibition.

9.2. Methodology

The evaluation was conducted using the polling function on Facebook. The

poll remained open for 48 hours, from 10pm on 6 March to 10pm on 8 March.

Considering people may have different behaviours when visiting different

exhibitions, the Audience Research Team began the poll with a very brief


introduction and mentioned the topic of ‘mental illness’ (see 9.4). There was

only one closed question with three possible rationales including:

● YES: it’s quite useful to learn more about the object.

● NO: It will be difficult / incapable / time-wasted / useless for me.

● MAYBE: If the WIFI is ultra fast or I’m particularly interested.

Considering the social media users are active online and are more familiar

with and more possible to use a QR code, the Audience Research Team

invited members of UCL Facebook social groups, especially the groups

related to museums, whose members have more experience of visiting

museums.

The investigation was posted in the following 8 groups:

● UCL Institute of Archaeology, Graduate Admissions 2015/16 (225

members)

● UCL Institute of Archaeology, Graduate Admissions 2016/17 (113

members)

● UCL Postgraduate Students 2015 Entry (458 members)

● UCLU Museum Society (933 members)

● UCL SAMS (Society of Archaeological Masters Students) 2015-2016

(113 members)

● UCL Institute of Archaeology Alumni (837 members)

● SAMS UCL (Society for Archaeological Masters Students) (320

members)

● UCL Museum Studies (591 members)

The numbers in brackets after each groups indicate the number of members

in each group, meaning 3589 Facebook users in total had the possibility of

participating in the evaluation.


This method allows the Audience Research Team to generate information

regarding the Digital elements in the gallery (iPad 1, iPad 2, and the totem)

from our target audience.


● Will visitors use QR codes to access web-based information on their

phones in an exhibition?

9.3. Findings

● 54 of 110 participants explicitly said ‘No’ to using QR codes (Figure 1).

● 46 participants think there is a possibility they would use it (Figure 1).

● Only 10 participants found a QR code in an exhibition useful for them

(Figure 1).

Participant reasons for disinterest in using a QR code in an exhibition included

concerns about the compatible devices, the trouble of downloading an APP

and the practical function of QR code. Notable comments include:

● “It will probably not work on my Windows phone.”

● “Some of us have very stupid phones.”

● “What’s the reasoning for using QR codes? Why not use short URL’s,

augmented reality or NFC?”

● “I think we have to download a special app, no?”

● “QR codes are problematic for real-world use. You need good Wi-Fi, a

reason why they will enhance the user’s experience, appropriate URL

encoded in the information and willing users. Usually this doesn’t

happen.”

● “It will happen anyway sooner or later. But digitisation in that case

undermines the physical (real) interaction with objects.”

● “I don’t really get QR codes – personally I find it’s easier/less effort to

just access a link provided via my phone browser directly.”


Figure 1: Audience responses to: “Would you use a QR code in an

exhibition?”.


9.4. Tools

Tool 1: Facebook poll


10. Formative Evaluation I


This evaluation was conducted following a concept change from ‘mental

illness’ to ‘the human mind’ in order to re-asses the colour schemes and

investigate the potential audience’s sensitivity to biological specimens on

display in the Leventis Gallery.

In total, 72 participants were interviewed, 33 visitors and 39 non-visitors, 50 of

them were our target audience, UCL Students. The participants were almost

evenly split in gender: 33 males; 39 females.

Findings

● Colour schemes 2, 4 and 5 were the potential audience preferences,

with a slightly higher number preferring colour scheme 5.

● A small portion of visitors would not like to see a human brain because

they find them too “gruesome,” but they were not concerned with

displaying human skulls or biological specimens.

● The human brain specimen or animal testing should only be displayed

or discussed if it is absolutely essential to the exhibition’s narrative.

● Animal testing is a sensitive subject for the audience for ethical

reasons.

Recommendations

● Include the human brain, skulls and human biological specimens if they

are essential to the Exhibition Project Team’s narrative.

● If used, the human brain should not be a key object in any case.

Design would need to mitigate the visual impact of the brain for visitors

who find it too gruesome.

● The exhibition designers must meet all university requirements

regarding the display of human remains: posting the Human Tissue

License and a warning at the entrance to the gallery.


● The topic of animal testing should only be displayed, referenced or

discussed if it is absolutely essential to the Exhibition Project Team’s

narrative as the gallery is an unavoidable space for many UCL student

and staff visitors.

10.2. Methodology

The evaluation consisted of face-to-face interviews of both visitors and non-

visitors. The data was collected on 15 March. The visitor interviews were

conducted within the Leventis Gallery; non-visitor interviews were conducted

in various locations surrounding the IoA around the Bloomsbury campus.

Interview questions were predetermined, maintaining consistency across

interviews (see 10.4, Tools 6 and 7). Answers were recorded on a single table

held by the evaluator, rather than individual sheets per participant. The

questions were quantitative, although evaluators were instructed to encourage

participants to expand on their opinions. When asked about their comfort level

with brain specimens, participants were shown an image of the brain

specimen that will potentially be in the exhibition (see 10.4, Tool 5). In the

gallery, participants were also shown four potential colour schemes (see 10.4,

Tools 1, 2, 3, and 4). These were taped onto the plain space on the top of an

exhibition case and respondents were asked to indicate their “Most Favourite”

and “Least Favourite” considering the exhibition concept ‘the human mind.’

Visitor participants were recruited as they entered the Leventis Gallery,

approaching every visitor until the gallery became too crowded to conduct an

interview. Non-visitor participants were recruited around Bloomsbury;

individual evaluators determined her own recruitment process. Evaluators

input their data into a Google document for individual statistical and qualitative

analysis; recurring themes and significant outliers were noted.

This method allows evaluators to get first-hand information from the target

audience and generate quantitative and qualitative data.



Visitor interviews

● Are visitors uncomfortable seeing a human brain, skull or other

biological specimens on display in this space?

● Are visitors uncomfortable seeing objects relating to animal testing on

display in this space?

● Which colour scheme is most fitting for an exhibition on ‘the human

brain and the mind’?


● Are individuals uncomfortable with UCL exhibition displaying a human

brain, skull or other biological specimens on campus?

● Are individuals uncomfortable with a UCL exhibition displaying objects

related to animal testing on campus?

10.3. Findings

Colour schemes

The Audience Evaluation Team evaluated the four most preferred colour

schemes from the previous evaluation. Visitor participants were given the

exhibition concept and then asked for their choice. There is a clear preference

for Colour Scheme 5: 14/33 respondents chose that scheme as their most

favourite, while only 2 chose it as their least favourite.


Figure 1: Favourite and least favourite colour schemes.

Notable comments

● “Pink is an obvious choice.”

● “Bold colours are best.”

● [speaking about Colour Scheme 2] “The beige and white in 2 is more

‘brainy’ [when realised black and red are also in that colour scheme]

still that one.”

● [Black and red in # 2] ‘too demony’”

● “I don’t think the green goes.”

Note on nomenclature of colour schemes: for the purposes of interviewing the

visitors, the colour schemes were given consecutive numbers; however, in

this report the numbers were changed in order to allow direct comparison to

the previous evaluation (Front-end Evaluation III).

Objects and themes

Audience sensitivity to brain specimens, skulls and biological specimens

1 visitor expressed discomfort with the image of the brain; 3 were undecided

(Figure 2). While 1 respondent expressed an ethical concern regarding the

source of the brain specimen, the comments from respondents indicates that

largely any concern regarding the display of the brain specimen would be


aesthetic in nature. No respondents expressed concern with the human skulls

or biological specimens.

Figure 2: Participants uncomfortable with brain specimens, skulls or biological

specimens.

Brain/Skull/Biological specimen notable uncomfortable comments

● Just the brain would make them uncomfortable, not the other two.

● [uncomfortable with the brain specimen, but the skull is] “okay for some

reason, I don’t know why.”

● “As long as we are explicit about where the bodies came from [(i.e.

gifted to science]”

● “I won’t look at the brain closely, the other two are fine.”

● “Not for me”

● “It’s okay, but not nice.”

● “It’s slightly weird.”

Brain/Skull/Biological specimen notable comfortable comments

● “If you go to an exhibition about that topic, that’s what you expect.”

● “Doesn’t bother me, everyone has one.”

● “It’s to learn.”


● “It makes it interesting; exciting!”

● “It’s a conversation starter.”

● “I love it.”

● “I love brains.”

● “It makes me think it doesn’t make me uncomfortable as long as it is

ethically obtained.”

● “Not at all” x2

Audience sensitivity to animal testing

More participants expressed discomfort with displaying or discussing animal

testing in the exhibition: 16/72 said they would be uncomfortable, 6 visitors

and 10 non-visitors; 2 were undecided (Figure 3). Their justifications were

primarily regarding ethical issues.

Figure 3: Participants uncomfortable with objects related to animal testing.

Animal testing notable uncomfortable comments

● Concerns the display would be gruesome.

● “A little uncomfortable, it isn’t morally acceptable.”

● “The ethical concerns.”

● “It’s the worst.”


● “Don’t do that.”

● “Don’t like it, it will be crude.”

● “No animal testing!”

● “I don’t want to see a rat with flappy [sic] ears.”

● “It makes me uncomfortable unless the purpose is to prohibit it.”

● “Depends if it is for scientific purposes; not objects retrieved in cruelty,

which I don’t know how you’d do.”

● “More uncomfortable, I probably wouldn’t walk there.”

Animal testing notable comfortable comments

● “If it’s something small, not too graphic.”

● “Why not if we’re [UCL] doing the experiments no (no point in not

discussing it)”

● “Shit, no?”

● “As long as it is contextualised.”

● “rather find out about it.”

● “would rather know about it.”

● “but it’s okay if it’s just rats.”

● “It won’t be uncomfortable, but a little sad. You need to explain why you

display them here.”

● “As little as possible.”

● “It’s okay if it’s for research.”

● “I’m fine, but maybe others.”

● “It’s not great, but that’s what happens, everybody knows that.”

● “I want to see animals transform.”

● “If it was describing a scientific purpose.”

● “Probably makes sense. People decide to go there. A sign would be

good to warn people.”

● “As long as there is a warning.”


10.4. Tools

Tool 1: Colour Scheme 1



Tool 5: Image of the human brain from UCL Pathology Collection


Tool 6: Visitor interview protocol


Tool 7: Non-visitor interview protocol


11. Front-end Evaluation V


This evaluation was a developed in collaboration with the Content and Late

Event Teams. It was designed to gather audience feedback on the proposed

exhibition titles for the new exhibition concept and Science Museum Late.

Additionally, the Late Event Team sought to understand audience prior

knowledge on neuroscience and interest in the proposed activity.

A total of 31 participants took part into this evaluation including 16 females, 12

males and 3 participants declined to indicate their gender. 27 participants

were between the ages of 18 and 28, 2 between the ages of 29 and 39, 1

participant was over the age of 40 and 1 participant declined to indicate their

age.

Findings

Exhibition Project Team

● 21 participants initially preferred Mysteries of the Mind for an exhibition

on ‘the human mind’; 20 chose this title as the best representation after

reading the exhibition description.

Late Event Team

● 18 participants identified The Secret World of the Brain as their

preferred title for the proposed Late Event activity.

● Participants largely are interested in engaging with the proposed

activity in some way.

● The overwhelming majority of respondents have prior knowledge on

the subject of ‘neuroscience.’

● Respondents’ goals in attending a neuroscience late event fall into

three categories:

○ Intellectual Knowledge

○ Knowledge and Amusement

○ Personal


Recommendations


● Mysteries of the Mind should be the exhibition title.

Late Event Team

● The Secret World of the Brain should be the Late Event activity title.

● Provide opportunities for visitors to participate in or observe the

activities.

● Develop activities that combine learning with amusement.

● Develop activities that are flexible to accommodate for visitor personal

desires.

11.2. Methodology

This evaluation, conducted on 16 March, mimicked Front-end Evaluation II in

the way it tested exhibition titles, but was extended in length to include front-

end questions on the Late Event. Two tools were utilised in this evaluation.

Tool 1

Tool 1 (see 11.4) was a one-page questionnaire the evaluators handed to

participants to complete. The questionnaire included both closed and open-

ended questions. In order to provide participants more information on the

developing exhibition and the Late Event, a second tool was handed to

participants when completing Questions 3:

● “Based on the description provided, which title best represents this

exhibition?” and Question 6:

● “Based on the description provided, would you like to: (tick all that

apply)”

Tool 2

Tool 2 (see 11.4) was not handed to the participant until he or she was

completing Question 3 so as to not influence answers to Questions 1 and 2:


● Rank the following titles from 1 (most appealing) to 3 (least appealing)

for an exhibition on the human mind.

● What do you think an exhibition with this title would be about?

Reading the description of the Late Event before identifying preferred titles

was not a concern for the Evaluation Team because a full description of the

activity will appear underneath the activity title in the Science Museum Late

Event printed material.

Both evaluators were to invite every second individual who was seated at

various locations around campus to participate including:

● University of London Union

● University Cafes

● The Leventis Gallery

● The Bloomsbury Cafe

● UCL cloisters

Evaluators input their data into a Google document for individual statistical

and qualitative analysis; recurring themes and significant outliers were noted.

This method allows evaluators to get first-hand information from the target

audience and generate quantitative and qualitative data.



● Which title is initially the most and least appealing?

● What does the audience think an exhibition with their preferred title

would be about?

● Based on the exhibition description, which title best represents the

exhibition?

Late Event Team

● Has the audience been to a museum late event?

● Which title is initially the most and least appealing?


● What would visitors like to do at a museum late event related to

neuroscience?

● What does the audience think neuroscience is?

● What would visitors like to gain from attending a museum late event

related to neuroscience?

11.3. Findings

Display

Audience favourite and least favourite exhibition titles

● 21 of the 31 participants indicated Mysteries of the Mind as their

preferred title for an exhibition on ‘the human mind’ (Figure 1).

● 15 participants identified Mind the Brain as their least favourite title for

an exhibition on ‘the human mind’ (Figure 1). One participant explicitly

stating:

○ “Hate this! DUMB.”

● 1 participant further explained his preference for either Mysteries of the

Mind or Frame of Mind due the confusion caused by Mind the Brain:

○ “[Mysteries of the Mind and Frame of Mind] “= about the mind.

[Mind the Brain] = about the brain. Which is it going to be?

‘brain=mind’ may put off some people (notably ‘human sciences’

ones) so if the exhibit is about the mind in the brain: I’ll go with

the first two titles and NOT point at the ‘brain’ in the title (since

he exhibition is about the mind right?)”


Figure 1: Initial title preference.

Audience description of preferred title

Participants’ descriptions of both exhibitions titled: Mysteries of the Mind or

Frame of Mind aligned with the current exhibition concept:

● “What is the human mind? What do we know about it?” - Mysteries of

the Mind

● “Things about the mind that science still doesn’t understand.” -

Mysteries of the Mind

● “Things about the mind that I wouldn’t know about before.” - Frame of

Mind

● “How the brain works, things we didn’t realise the brain does.” - Frame

of Mind

Topic 1 in Case 1 in the exhibition will explore the link between the mind and

the consciousness; Frame of Mind led a participant to describe an exhibition

about:

● “Where consciousness comes from.”

The last topic, in Case 2 of the exhibition, will detail current research. A

participant who preferred Mysteries of the Mind described an exhibition

including:


● “Cutting edge neurology.”

Topic 2 in Case 1 is labelled: How does the Mind Work? Both Mysteries of the

Mind and Frame of Mind provoked this description verbatim:

● “About how the mind works and what is currently known and unknown

about these processes.” - Mysteries of the Mind

● “How the mind works” - Frame of Mind


After reading the exhibition description provided in Tool 2, a slightly smaller,

but still significant, portion of participants (20/31) identified Mysteries of the

Mind as the best representation of the exhibition (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Best representative title.


Late Event

Audience previous Late Event experience

21 participants indicated they had never been to a late event before (Figure

3). Of the 10 participants who responded they had previously been a late

event, 8 had done so in London including:

● The Natural History Museum

● The National Portrait Gallery

● The Museum of London

● The Jewish Museum

Figure 3: Previous Late Event experience.

Audience favourite and least favourite Late Event activity titles

● 18 of the 31 participants identified choice B: The Secret World of the

Brain as their preferred title for the proposed Late Event Activity (Figure

4).

● 7 participants preferred choice A: Journey to the Centre of the Brain

(Figure 4).

● Passport to the Brain and Get Your Head in the Brain were identified

as the least preferred title for the activity by 10 and 9 participants

respectively (Figure 4).


Figure 4: Favourite and least favourite titles.

Audience interest in the proposed activity

A significant portion of the evaluation sample indicated an interest in engaging

with the mini experiment in some way:

● 21 as participants (Figure 5).

● 19 as observers (Figure 5).

● 16 in interacting with the scientist involved (Figure 5).

Fewer respondents showed an interest in either giving feedback or using

social media:

● 20 participants were not interested in providing feedback on the mini-

experiment (Figure 5).

● 22 participants were not interested in engaging remotely via social

media (Figure 5).


Figure 5: Interest in the proposed activity.

Audience prior knowledge of ‘Neuroscience’

Overwhelmingly (28/31) when asked in Question 7: “What do you think

‘neuroscience’ is?” participants associated ‘neuroscience’ with the brain:

● “Science/study of the brain.” X10

● “The study of how the brain works/what it does.” x6

3 participants compared ‘neurology’ to ‘psychology’, 1 noted:

● [Neuroscience is] “like psychology but more scientific.”

Only 1 participant responded that he did not know what ‘neuroscience’ means

and 3 participants declined to respond to this question.

Audience preferred visitor outcomes

Participant responses to Question 8: “What would you like to gain from

attending a museum late event activity on the neuroscience of how your brain

makes sense of the world?” fall into three main categories:

● Intellectual knowledge (17/31)

○ “I know very little about the brain - any information on how it

works or how it helps me to do everyday tasks.”


○ “Knowledge on facts I’ve previously not known. Basically learn

something new.”

○ “An idea about research done on a topic.”

○ “An understanding of how the brain works, some sort of

personalised/individual feedback on my own brain, something

personalised to take away from it (whether info or object).”

● Knowledge and amusement (7/31)

○ “Have a fun time with drinks and music and have fun activities

related to ‘neuroscience’.”

○ “Perhaps fun knowledge gained from interactive activities.”

○ “Some new, interesting facts on the brain and a fun craft

experience.”

○ “Knowledge and fun.”

● Personal goals (4/31)

○ “Knowledge of myself.”

○ “A new perspective or influence.”

○ “Improved self-awareness.”

○ “A unique and insightful experience.”


11.4. Tools

Tool 1: Questionnaire

Front


Reverse

Tool 2: Exhibition and Late Event activity descriptions


12. Formative Evaluation II


This evaluation was conducted in order to test the elements of the exhibition

that are completed and/or in development in order to provide visitor feedback

on the design scheme, identify problem areas in the display objects and

content, and develop digital content.

There were 6 participants in total, 3 males and 3 females. The participants

were in our target audience age group and occupation bracket: 4 were in their

20s, 2 in their 30s, and all were enrolled in UCL – 4 listing “student,” 1 PhD

candidate and 1 “archaeologist/student”.

Findings

Design Team

● The design communicates the exhibition’s focus on the brain

processes and the contemporary science focus.

● Participants enjoyed the simplicity of the design and recognised the

design is inspired by neurons in the brain.

● Participants showed no clear aesthetic preference between the two text

panel colour schemes, but the white background was more readable.

Collections Team

There were no negative reactions to any objects presented in the

evaluation.

Content Team

● Participants appreciated the short and concise text.

● While the unknown is appreciated, participants wanted a bit more

structure in the form of what we do know.

● Participants appreciated when the text provides a reflexive critique.

● Participants frequently asked “why” and wanted more explanations.

● Participants wanted the introductory text to have a more mysterious

feel as well as more context and structure for the rest of the exhibition.


● Comments indicate that participants are interested in the aspects of the

themes which provide a non-scientific approach.

● Participants like the role of the light box in providing further info about

the brain itself.

● In the text, phrenology appears as an accepted science, which is not

the correct communication message. The final sentence of the

Gateway Object text is particularly problematic.

● In section 4, the participants appreciated the acknowledgement of the

unknown; however, they wanted more structure and guidance from the

gateway object, and they were confused as to what role this object and

text provided in the case.

● Participants requested more acknowledgement of their prior knowledge

of the ECT machine in section 4.

● The Exhibition Team should follow the line edits provided by the

participants.

Digital Team

● Participants want a 5 question quiz.

● Participants want to know more about what the experts do, what they

think and more about the gateway objects.

Recommendations

Design Team

● The Exhibition Team should acknowledge that the design most directly

communicates that the mind is located within the brain.

● Design should use the light box panel to make a direct connection

between the design pattern and the neurons that inspired it.

Collections Team

The communication messages for the phrenology bust and the human

brain specimen need to be clarified.

Content Team

● All of the text needs to be clear about what has been debunked.

● Incorporate non-scientific and mysterious elements into the text.


● Provide more explanations.

● The phrenology bust text needs to be re-written.

● The brain specimen gateway text needs to be rewritten with a clearer

communication message in mind.

● The Exhibition Project Team should debate whether to include

potentially controversial references to visitor prior knowledge.

Digital Team

● The iPad quiz should have 5 questions.

● The interview should provide further context for the objects.

● Digital should be a platform to make the science seem less daunting.

12.2. Methodology

An evaluation of a mock-up of the exhibition was held on 4 April 2016.

Participants were recruited as they walked through the Leventis Gallery, and

an advertisement was posted on the UCL Facebook pages in order to

encourage people to stop by. Since it was Easter break, the space was

guaranteed to be quiet, although this meant it was difficult to recruit a larger

number of participants.

The evaluator talked the participants through the exhibition using a script (see

7.1) describing the exhibition while showing them a binder with visual

representations of the exhibition: sketches, pictures of objects, text, designed

text panels/labels and mock-ups of the digital elements (see 7.3).

Two different design options were tested for each text panel. Sections 1 and 2

were represented by a collage of object images, the title and a brief

description based on the communication messages in the case. Sections 3

and 4 provided each level of the text hierarchy; with a focus on the gateway

objects could be potentially controversial. A mock-up of the home screen for

the iPad with interviews was also provided, showing images of each of the

experts along with the title of the section of the exhibition they represent.


Visitor’s responses were recorded on a questionnaire sheet (see 7.2) that was

structured with qualitative open-ended questions written with supporting

prompt questions to encourage thoughtful visitor responses. The evaluator

input the data into an Excel sheet to analyse for patterns and trends in

participants’ comments.

This method allowed the Audience Research team to get first-hand

information from the target audience and generate qualitative data.


Design Team

● Does the design convey the theme/concept of the exhibition?

● Which colour scheme should the text panels be, based on aesthetic

preference and readability?

Collections Team

Should any of these objects be taken off the object list?

Content Team

● What does the visitor think of the tone and content of each level of the

text hierarchy?

● Does the introductory text provide a satisfactory introduction to the

exhibition?

● Do the section panels provide a satisfactory introduction to each

section?

● Is the text interesting while providing the right level of information?

● What information would the visitor want from the first two sections?

● While these sections were mostly provided in order to create a more

complete image of the exhibition for the visitor, the Audience Team

wanted to find out what information the visitor would want from the first

two sections.

● Of particular concern are the gateway objects for sections 3 and 4.

Phrenology is a potentially sensitive subject and some people in

Formative Evaluation I expressed discomfort with seeing a brain

specimen in the display, the Audience Team felt a need to test the

visitor’s responses to these objects and their contextualising text.


Without being prompted, do the visitor responses the text or images of

the objects raise any issues or problems?

Digital Team

● How long of a quiz would visitors be willing to take on an iPad in the

gallery?

● What further information would visitors want from each of the experts to

be interviewed for the other iPad?

12.3. Findings

Design

Comments

The design communicated the exhibition’s focus on the brain processes and

the contemporary science focus. While the simple approach was appreciated,

the participants did not describe any sense of mystery from the overall design.

Figure 1: Gallery sketch.


Figure 2: Case sketch.

Overall

design

● “It’s minimalist and modern with a sense of science.”

● “It’s simple and minimalist is better – clean concepts.”

● “Clean and legible.”

● Participant liked the floor logo and the definition of sections.

● Participant liked the design – it’s simple and minimalist is better. “It has

clean concepts.”

Logo ● Participant liked the logo, “it’s creative and imaginative.”

● The brain symbol “is like a network.”

Pattern ● “Highlights the connectivity and brain processes.”

● “If the design is meant to represent neurons, the lines should be more

wiggly and the dots blurry [indicates picture of neurons used as

background for the digital main menu] like that!”

● “The section panels are more design that text – is that a waste of

space?”

● Participant liked the design on the bottom of the section panels – it

would look good and consistent if it was on the bottom of the gateway

panels as well.

Text panel colour scheme

Participants did not have a clear preference for either the white or grey

background when asked which was more preferable (see Fig. 1). However, 4

of the 6 found the white background more readable and 2 commented that the

blue and green design “got lost” or was hard to see in the grey background.


Figure 3: Text panel colour schemes.

Figure 4: Colour scheme preferences.

Colour

scheme

● “The design pops on the white but gets lost in the grey - as a dyslexic,

the grey is hard to read.”

● Participant was “not sold on the grey” but overall the colour scheme

was "better than pink" and participant liked that the colour scheme isn't

"male/female" and “non-binary.”

● Liked the way the green and blue goes with the grey - maybe some

purple on the white

● Participant felt the grey would look good lit up with the light box and

liked the design on the bottom of the section panel. Suggested we “do

that with the gateway object label [because] it would be consistent.”


Collections

None of the objects presented to the participants prompted negative

reactions.

Content

Overall themes:

● Participants want more explanation of “why” a certain paradigm of the

mind was believed.

● Participants appreciated that the exhibition acknowledges what is

unknown and what is controversial.

● Participants appreciate the short and concise text.

● While the unknown is appreciated, participants wanted a bit more

structure in the form of what we do know.

Introductory panel text

Overall, the participants liked the introductory text; however, they pushed it for

more of a mysterious feel while providing more context and structure for the

rest of the exhibition.

Figure 5: Introductory text.

Positive

comments

● “Short and sweet.”

● Participant liked the chronology and said that it “sets up for an

interesting concept – We don’t know things!”


● Participant liked that it comments on change throughout time and

different locations.

Push for

more and

suggested

changes

● Two participants would like the themes to be stated explicitly.

● “Could be a bit more mysterious/enticing.”

● Participant wanted more about what mysteries are being picked apart.

● Participant would like to know more from first and second paragraph.

● Participant wanted more of an archaeology component.

● Participant wanted more of a religion/supernatural component.

● “This kind of unsolved discussion shouldn't be in the main intro panel.”

Line edits ● “The ‘changed places’ sentence is a bit vague and confusing.”

● “The last sentence ‘the organ inside my head’ counters the idea that the

mind might not be in the brain.”

● Participant liked the first and second paragraph but felt the third part

seems misleading and contradicts the previous paragraphs.

● Participant liked the first and last paragraphs and the beginning of the

second paragraph; but felt the second part is too much. Also had “a

strange use of words“ [grammar and syntax].

Case 1: Section 1 and 2

Overall, the participants wanted less didactic information in these sections,

namely why people thought different paradigms rather than the fact that they

did. The comments also hint that participants are interested in the non-

scientific aspects of the themes, such as the Ancient Egyptian beliefs and the

alternative drugs.


Figure 6: Section 1 image collage.

Figure 7: Section 2 image collage.


Section 1:

Where is

the Mind?

● Two participants wanted to know more about WHY they thought the

mind was in the heart, or why they were trying to figure it out.

● ”How has this idea of the heart/mind helped science/adapted over

time?”

● “Some people still believe in the four humours. Like in astrology circles.”

● “It’s perfect – not overcrowded.”

Section 2:

How do we

access the

mind?

● “More about why we want to unlock the mind.”

● Wants a little more direction – a historical perspective like a chronology

to guide the visitor

● Liked that it acknowledges controversies

● Lewis Carroll component created confusion at first for one person – then

realised it was “an examination of access that’s not actual access.”

● “I like the LSD Trip from Alice in Wonderland”

● “There are too many drugs – what about different alternative drugs?

What about not taking anything? Sleep? Food? Meditation? These

things are represented in prehistoric art.”

Light box

The participants did not have many significant comments on the light box.

Only one person said they would like further information from the panel;

however, another commented that they would expect further information from

the planned fun fact book.

Pattern

/Design

● “Could this panel make a direct connection between neurons and the

pattern in the design?”

Existing info ● “There are the sort of things I talked about when I worked at a science

centre.”

More info ● “It’s not very explanatory. Maybe explain how the brain works? The

purpose is not as clear as the other sections - but it’s good to know

about physical substance [of the brain].”

● On the other hand, another participant said “Won’t the flip book have

further info?”

Line edits ● “First paragraph is missing a period at the end.”


Section 3: How do we access the mind?

Most importantly, the discussion of phrenology in the section panel and

phenology bust text makes it seem like a currently accepted science and do

not acknowledge that it has been discredited. Participants also appreciate

when the text provides a reflexive critique, such as the acknowledgement of

controversy in the text for the inkblot.

Section

panel

● Participant liked the title because “it addresses the main question” -

“talking about different fields creates good context” and it’s “good to

acknowledge we don't know things.”

● “Should make it clear that you approach of the mind through the brain

[looked at the main intro again] never mind”

Critiques ● “Yeah - strange wording - ‘the search for answers has often led

people’ - maybe ‘has led’ instead?”

● “Phrenology? Is it actually scientific? It's fine if it's unknown.”

● “More like the last sentence of the first paragraph – [expand on the]

paranormal and supernatural”


Figure 8: Section panel 3.

Gateway

object:

phrenology

bust

● Participant liked the title [Criminal minds] but pointed out that the text

never actually uses the word “mind”.

● Two participants asked to expand on why people made death masks

[one saying “as an archaeologist”] and how they were used; however,

another participant said that the text provided a good understanding

of why it was used.

● Participant liked the text: “who he was and why look at him - it's a

talking point.”

Critiques ● “The second sentence is unclear - seems like he decapitated his wife

and kid.”

● Participant pointed out that the text is missing that phrenology is


thrown out as a science [“is a joke science”].

Figure 9: Gateway object Section 3: phrenology bust.

Figure 1: Text for phrenology bust.

Inkblot test ● Participant said, "Sweet" and that they liked the critique within the text

itself.

● Participant mentioned wanting to know how it’s been culturally


adopted - such as the Watchmen comics.

● “Good but ends on a random break. Expand on the last sentence.”

Critiques ● Three people said they’d want more info on how they work, maybe

with examples, i.e. If you see this, it means that.

● Participants weren’t enthused about the title, but one pointed out that

the date shouldn’t be in the title, and in that in the text, the date range

should be shown - the participant wanted to know how long the tool

was used in general not when that specific one was made.

Figure 11: Inkblot tests.


Figure 12: Text for inkblot tests.

Section 4: Will we ever understand the mind?

The participants appreciated the acknowledgement of the unknown in the final

section of the exhibition; however, they wanted more structure for the gateway

object. They felt that the text for the brain specimen did not provide any

information different than the section panel, and they were confused as to

what role this object and text provided in the case.

Section

panel

● “Good - sets up a lot of possible questions and possible answers in

the case.”

● Participant liked it and felt it was a good end to the exhibition. “But

still this kind of unsolved discussion shouldn't be in the main intro

panel.”

Critiques ● 2/6 people want more information from this panel

● “I don't wonder about dreams - these first mysteries are minor -

Wants more on how it might be possible to replicate human

intelligence - that is bigger than the other points - like Google trying to

make a computer respond like a human.”

● "For most the mind … physical brain" - is this explored in the future?

It brings up more questions.”


Figure 13: Section panel 4.

Gateway

object: the

brain

Critiques

● Participant felt the title needs to be more self-explanatory - wants to

know "what I am getting into” and “Will you be able to see it’s grey? Is

it grey?”

● Participants were unclear what the “intention” and purpose of this text

was:

o “Explain what grey matter is - say we learnt more but what

have we learnt about the brain? It’s vague.”

o “Gross. Cool but a little basic. It could be more about what

grey matter is - definition like lobes and stuff.”

o “Include something we have learnt about the mind - why

grey."

o “What does it [the text] lead into?”

● Two participants critiqued the first sentence:

o [Laughs] "’Visually’ is subjective, someone might like it.”

Participant also liked the yellow fluid, as it’s “more vintage.”


o "’Visually not attractive’ sentence - horrible - not grey in the

object image - I think of the brain more like ‘terracotta-y’ - the

last bit is good.”

● “Whose brain? I want to know more about it - is it male or female? If

it’s not known, it’s not the end of the world.”

● Participant asked if the spelling was learned/learnt? “The text is

vague - not really any information the intro panel doesn't have.”

Figure 14: Gateway object Section 4: the brain.

Figure 15: Text for the brain specimen.

ECT Machine ● 2 people brought up representations in pop culture:

o “How it has been represented inaccurately in the media.”

o “Brings to mind the movie one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.”

● “Was it always used for depression or just recently?”

● “Good that it nods to the controversy of the issue.”


Critiques ● 4/6 people didn’t like the title: 2 said “shocking” should be in the title,

another said it was “too complicated” and the fourth said while it’s

self-explanatory, it doesn’t help because they don’t know what the

object is.

● Participant asked for more statistics. It “says 50% - what about

statistics about how much it’s still used.”

● “‘1930s and etc.’ sentence - grammar reads as off - content is fine,

maybe make that sentence two smaller ones.”

● “Second sentence grammar is off - wrong commas.”

Figure 16: ECT Machine.


Figure 17: Text for ECT Machine.

Digital

Quiz length

5 of 6 preferred an iPad quiz with five questions, saying:

● 5 is better because you get more use out of it

● 3 or you’d get tired [participant didn’t have English as a first

language]

● “Too science-y” for a short one, 3 isn’t long enough to feel like you

learnt something

Interview questions/further information

Overall, three these arose:

● Like with the content earlier, participants want more explanation “Why”

a certain paradigm of the mind was believed.

● Participants seemed overwhelmed by Katherine Clark and Kate

Jeffery’s expertise. This possibly indicates that science can seem

scary, confusing or at least a little bit daunting.

● The two “history” experts, on the other hand, inspired very specific

questions. This indicates that people (or at least people in the IoA) are

more comfortable with a historical approach. One participant even

indicated a desire for a more chronological or at least linear approach.


Figure 18. Mock-up screen for iPad 2

Expert Questions to ask them

Dr. Alice Stevenson ● Two participants asked why Ancient Egyptians thought the

mind was in the heart:

o “Why did the ancient Egyptians think the mind was in the

heart? And how did that affect their burial practices?”

o “Why did they think so [that the mind was in the heart]? ”

● “Who is she and what she does. This credibility allows us to

think of all of her information afterwards as accurate.”

● “Ask about religion, along those lines, supernatural things.”

● Participant read at some point a lot of neural stuff that we

thought happens in the brain actually happens in the heart.

“Does she know about that or comment on that?”

● One participant had no comment.

Katherine Clark ● Two participants seemed overwhelmed by her expertise:

○ “I’m out of my depth with this one [psychology] Maybe

ask how people with mental illness have been treated

in the distant past vs. how are they [illnesses]

treated/recognised in the present.“

○ “Quite a lot of stuff” – Participants asked to know

more about the mental health side. “How someone

with mental illness’ cognitive process is different.”

● “How is the field of understanding mental illness evolving?”

● Participant wanted to know modern ways of treating and

dealing with issues and new ways to manage and not treat.

“Past vs. future sort of thing.”

● “Generally what therapies are considered most successful for

the widest varieties of people? And what does she think of

Adolphus Huxley?”

● One participant declined to ask or comment.


Nick Booth ● “More about the history of phrenology and why people

thought it was legitimate.”

● “Just explain the objects better, elaborate because the points

that the objects are supposed to illustrate might not be

immediately understood. It would be nice to see them in the

case, see them in the interview, and then go back.”

● Participant wanted to know more about the development of

those objects, their history. “Why were these things

developed in that way?”

● “What was the first object used to learn more about the

mind? What about chemistry? Like brain chemistry, like what

do chemical signatures say about the brain?” [Wanted to

know if Nick knew anything about how brain chemistry has

been studied and what chemicals possibly mean.]

● “How does he think UCL has impacted concepts of the

mind?”

Professor Kate Jeffrey ● “For her to talk about what she is currently during and about how

we understand human consciousness both past and future.”

● “Just more about what she does.”

● “What does she find most interesting about the brain?”

● Participant wanted to know more about the abstract mind and

human evolution and more about how the mind came to be the

way it is today: “evolution of mind”.

● “Too many questions, interested in it all! But I guess how does

the mind expand into different states [states of being].”

● “What is the brain?”


12.4. Tools

Tool 1: Mock-up script

Page 1


Page 2


Tool 2: Mock-up questionnaire

Page 1


Page 2


Page 3


Page 4


Tool 3: Mock-Up Binder

Permanent link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzAoEOh25tdXTkRXTUpzX3RKT2M/view?us

p=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzAoEOh25tdXTkRXTUpzX3RKT2M/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzAoEOh25tdXTkRXTUpzX3RKT2M/view?usp=sharing


13. Formative Evaluation III


This evaluation was developed in collaboration with the Digital Team to inform

their decisions when developing content for the exhibition’s digital totem

screens. It was designed to gather audience interest in the activity and

observe the social interactions the activity generates in order to determine

which of the three proposed optical illusions would draw in the most visitors

and incite the most conversation among visiting groups in accordance with the

exhibition’s learning theory and outcomes.

Two groups of friends participated in this study; Group 1 consisted of 3

females, while Group 2 consisted of 2 females.

Findings

● Participants demonstrated optical illusions and their text explanations

can incite conversations and enjoyment among groups.

● Participants displayed an interest in seeing and learning about optical

illusions in an exhibition about mysteries surrounding the mind.

● Participants liked the quality of the information, but do not want as

much text in the explanations or technical terms.

● Participants indicated they are not likely to engage longer than 3-5

minutes.

● Participants have a desire to see personal reasons and stories for why

they see what they see in an illusion.

● Participants would like to be able to explicitly see the two images.

● The Duck/Rabbit illusion is the least known.

● Focus Group 1 preferred the aesthetic appeal of the Rubin optical

illusion, while Focus Group 2 preferred the Duck/Rabbit for its

unfamiliarity.

● The text explanation for the Duck/Rabbit illusion incited laughter in both

groups.


Recommendations

● Use Duck/Rabbit optical illusion in the interactive totem.

● Provide no more than 2-3 text explanation slides to accompany the

optical illusion.

● Display the page number on the display (ex. 1 of 3).

● Edit down the explanation already given into a cohesive narrative

without technical jargon (remove “ambiguous image” and keep the

‘Easter Sunday explanation’ in the Duck/Rabbit optical illusion, if used).

● Integrate the more detailed information into a shorter explanation.

● Provide personal reasons for why visitors might see one image over

the other.

● Provide the definitions of optical illusions on a separate screen: screen

3.

13.2. Methodology

This evaluation was conducted through two separate focus groups. The first

half was conducted 14 April 2016; the second half was conducted 15 April

2016.

The focus group method was chosen due to the Digital Team’s desire to test

the totem content’s ability to promote social interaction in accordance with the

social constructivist learning theory. This method allows evaluators to

simultaneously observe participant interaction and gather insights through

face-to-face discussions.

In order to conduct an ethical study, an agenda and consent form were given

to each participant before beginning the evaluation (see 13.4, Tools 3 and 5).

All participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the guarantee to

anonymity and their right to withdraw from the study at any point. Each

consent form had been previously signed by the evaluators present to

demonstrate the commitment to the agreement.


All evaluators had previously read through the outline (see 13.3, Tool 4) to

understand the ethical procedures, evaluation plan and their role within the

evaluation. For each focus group, three evaluators were present with the

following roles:

● Audience Advocate: group facilitator

● Member of the Digital Team: optical illusion facilitator

● Member of the Audience Research Team: observer

The data for the evaluation consisted of facilitator and observer notes. These

were analysed by comparing the data from each focus group separately as

well as coding them to highlight three key areas: social interaction, responses

to the optical illusions and responses to the text explanations.

Focus Groups 1 and 2

Both focus groups were shown a PowerPoint presentation which included text

from the exhibition’s introductory panel (Figure 1), contextualising images of

the gallery space (Figure 2) and particularly its digital components (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Mysteries of the Mind introductory text.


Figure 2: Diagram of the Leventis Gallery. Figure 2: Digital image of totem.

Participants of both groups were shown three optical illusions and text

explanations in a PowerPoint. In order to determine what information should

be included in the explanation and how long participants would like the activity

to last, the groups were shown text explanations of different lengths and

content. The text shown to Focus Group 1 was shorter and included

information designed to give only a basic understanding of how the illusion

works (see 13.4, Tool 1). Focus Group 2 was shown slightly longer text that

additionally included historical facts related to the creation of the illusion or

information from recent neuroscientific research relating to the illusion.

Observer and facilitator notes were used to analyse the evaluation data.

Participants were invited through the following methods:

● UCL social media groups

● Personal contacts



● Which of the optical illusions is most socially engaging?

● Which text version do participants prefer?

● Is the optical illusion clearly explained?

13.3. Findings

Social interaction

Focus Group 1 did not discuss any of the images of the optical illusions,

saying only that they had seen each of them before; though this group felt

they would be more likely to discuss the Rubin optical illusion (Figure 2) with

friends as it was the most abstract and reminded them of an “art piece”.

More social interaction occurred during the second focus group. This is likely

attributed to the participants themselves and not to the change in-text

explanations as their only unprompted responses occurred viewing the

images before being shown the text explanations. Participants in this group

were unfamiliar with the Duck/Rabbit optical illusion (Figure 6); this

unfamiliarity led to greater discussion among participants as one participant

could not see both images and her co-participant had to show her.

Overall, both groups demonstrated enjoyment in their interaction as smiles

and laughter were observed. Laughter occurred during both focus groups

when participants were shown the ‘Easter Sunday’ text for the Duck/Rabbit

illusion (Figure 4). Additionally, participants in Focus Group 2 laughed at each

other when one participant could not identify the second image in an optical

illusion.


Figure 4: Duck/Rabbit optical illusion text panel 2.

Optical illusions

Focus Group 1 preferred the aesthetics of the Rubin optical illusion (Figure 5).

They had all seen this illusion before; however, they had difficulty expressing

what they had seen in English, using the words “tree”, “triangle” and “trophy”,

instead of “vase,” the language used in the totem.

Figure 5: Potential totem home screen displaying the Rubin optical illusion.


All participants had seen the three optical illusions previously except one

participant was unfamiliar with the Duck/Rabbit optical illusion (Figure 6). This

is also the optical illusion this focus group felt would draw in the most interest

if seen in a gallery; however, one participant in Focus Group 1 felt this image

was “weird”.

Figure 6: Potential totem home screen displaying the Duck/Rabbit optical illusion.

In both groups, the Ponzo optical illusion (Figure 7) was the least preferred.

A participant in Focus Group 1 highlighted it has a ‘correct’ answer, while

participants of Focus Group 2 stated they knew this was designed to “trick”

the brain and their awareness of it lessened the illusion’s impact.


Figure 7: Potential totem home screen displaying the Ponzo optical illusion.

Text explanations

All participants stated they liked the quality of the information for both

versions; however, both groups highlighted the need to be edited for length

and technical jargon. Focus Group 1 in particular, all of whom speak English

as a second language, identified multiple technical words including ‘fusiform’,

‘stimuli’ and the definitions of optical illusions slide (Figure 5), which impeded

their understanding and enjoyment of the activity. Participants indicated they

are not likely to engage with digital content longer than 3-5 minutes. In each

group, one participant suggested no more than 2 or 3 pages of text.

Additionally, Focus Group 1 expressed a desire to see more personal

information, the theories as to why that individual might see one image and

not another.


Figure 5: Definitions of optical illusions.

13.4. Tools

Tool 1: Link to Google slide presentation to participants document for Focus

Group 1

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B246FgbnuKTEUi1sWkhtcnFwS3c/view?usp=

sharing

Tool 2: Link to Google slide presentation to participants document for Focus

Group 2

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B246FgbnuKTEVThDUW8yLWFJRUk/view?u

sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B246FgbnuKTEUi1sWkhtcnFwS3c/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B246FgbnuKTEUi1sWkhtcnFwS3c/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B246FgbnuKTEVThDUW8yLWFJRUk/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B246FgbnuKTEVThDUW8yLWFJRUk/view?usp=sharing


Tool 3: Focus group agenda


Tool 4: Focus group outline

Front


Reverse


Tool 5: Participant consent form


14. Summative Evaluation I


This evaluation assessed visitor satisfaction and social interaction at the

Everyday Brain Enigmas event at the Science Museum Late Event. The

activity included three experiments: Age My Face, Oculus Rift Rollercoaster

and Navigate the World. The evaluation was developed in collaboration with

the Late Event Team and Pippa Hough, a representative from the Science

Museum.

16 rounds of observations in total were conducted at the three experiments.

Visitors were observed interacting with other visitors 249 times and interacting

with scientists 185 times. Additionally, 81 visitors who participated in at least

one experiment were invited to complete a questionnaire.

Findings

● An estimated 818 individuals visited Everyday Brain Enigmas.

● 562 visitors participated in the experiments.

● Visitors demonstrated enjoyment, both in observing and participating in

the experiments.

● A majority of the questionnaire participants found the Everyday Brain

Enigmas experiments interesting.

● About half of the participants felt positive or very positive about the

message that scientists do not know everything about how the mind or

brain works.

● Everyday Brain Enigmas was successful in changing the way half of

the participants understood the way the brain navigates and makes

sense of the world.

Recommendations for next year’s Late Event

● If enjoyment is the primary outcome, visitors demonstrated

enjoyment actively engaging with experiments.

● Including digital screens draw visitors in.


● Queues naturally form. To discourage these, find a way to make

it clear that participants are chosen by the volunteers.

14.2. Methodology

This evaluation utilised two different methods: observations and a

questionnaire. Tools were developed to aid in observations (see 13.4, Tools

1, 2, and 3) and the questionnaire (see 13.4, Tool 4). It was conducted during

the Science Museum Lost in Thought Late Event, between 6:45-10pm on 27

April 2016.

The observations recorded all visitor and participation numbers as well as

participants’ interactions. Only visitors who participated in an experiment were

invited to complete a questionnaire. Seven evaluators contributed to this

evaluation including:

● 2 social interaction observers

● 3 visitor/participant number observers

● 1 questionnaire facilitator

Observations

Visitor numbers

Every 30 minutes during the event, visitors in the space were counted for 5

minutes. Visitors who only observed the experiments were counted as well as

those who actually took part in them. The estimated total number was

calculated at the end of the night.

Participant numbers

The volunteers who worked at each experiment recorded the number of

participants. Their records were gathered and combined.


Participant interaction

Two observers took notes about participants’ interactions with scientists and

their interactions with each other. Each experiment had one main scientist

running the experiment and a second scientist with a name tag answering

questions and providing explanations among the non-participants.

● Before the evaluation was conducted, the observers preliminarily

decided on codes for types of interactions.

● At the beginning of observation, a 5-minute pilot observation was

conducted to test the observation tool.

● Halfway through the evaluations, the observers took 20 minutes to

compare and standardise their observation codes.

Questionnaire

Audience feedback was collected through a questionnaire with three closed

questions (see 13.4, Tool 5). Participants were asked to choose the icons that

correspond to their opinions and feelings.

Before handing participants the questionnaire, evaluators explained to them

that it was specific to the three Everyday Brain Enigmas experiments and they

only need to rate the activity/activities he/she took part in. For those who gave

specific negative feedbacks, evaluators encouraged them expand on their

reasons briefly.

The Audience Research team tried to keep the disturbance to visitors at a

minimum level while gaining useful information.

● The participants were randomly chosen by evaluators from the target

audience: those who had finished an experiment.

● The questionnaire was handed to participants with a clipboard and

pencil.

● The icons with captions helped participants understand the options

directly and quickly.


After the event, all observation and questionnaire tools were combined in a

Google sheet for analysis (see 13.4 tool 5).


Observation

● How many visitors did Everyday Brain Enigmas have?

● How many participants did the three experiments have?

● Did visitors interact with the scientists as well as other visitors?

Questionnaire

● Were participants interested in the activity?

● What are participants’ attitudes about scientists not currently having all

the answers?

● Did participants’ understanding of how the brain navigates and makes

sense of the world change?

14.3. Findings

Visitor numbers

The usual Science Museum method for visitor number approximations is to

multiply half hour observations by 6; however, this method assumes a much

shorter dwell time than observed. In consultation with the Late Event Team,

the Audience Research Team decided to instead multiply the recorded visitor

numbers by 2, assuming a 15-minute dwell time. As per this method,

Everyday Brain Enigmas had an approximated total visitor number of 818.


Figure 1: The counted audience number and estimated number.

Participant numbers

562 visitors participated in the three experiments. Age My Face received the

most participants (308) due to its ability to have multiple participants for each

session (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The number of participants at each experiment.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

19:00-19:05 19:35-19:40 20:00-20:05 20:35-20:40 21:00-21:05 21:35-21:40

Visitor Numbers

Visitor Number Approximated Number


Visitor interactions

The observations were recorded on an Excel sheet and coded for recurring

themes and patterns of activity, as outlined in the following table:

Observation

Categories

Interaction among Audiences

Interaction with Scientist

Explaining 5 24

Taking a video/photo 10 1

Sharing feelings/ experience

23 12

Commenting on conversation

1 8

Laughing/smiling 20 5

Drinking 3 1

Expressing interest 19 11

‘Aha’ moment/moment of understanding

4 2

Conversations lasting longer than 5 minutes

0 6


Notable examples of each interaction are outlined below:

Observation

Categories

Interaction among Audiences

Interaction with Scientist

Explaining Explaining the phenomena being experimented in

another language to friend

"What do I need to do" during experiment setup

Taking a video/photo Filming each other

doing the experiment

Conversation about recording the experiment

Sharing feelings/ experience

2 unrelated participants

discussed their reactions to the

experiment; 1 liked it, another didn't; the 1 who liked it smiled a lot, the 1 who didn't

was woozy

Expression of surprise

Commenting on conversation

Mostly converse among selves, not to

scientist

Progressively asked longer questions and

received longer answers in response

Laughing/smiling Smiles Post-experiment smiling

Drinking "Hold my beer"

Discussing difficulty of writing while drinking

Expressing interest Looking over participant's shoulders

"Can we have a go?"

“Aha” moment/moment of understanding

Many experiencing the ‘aha moment

when they figure out what they are

Aha moment


watching

Conversations lasting longer than 5 minutes

None Fluid conversations >5 min with 2nd scientist

The observations indicate that Everyday Brain Enigmas was successful in

raising visitor enjoyment and interest in neuroscience.

Indication of enjoyment

Wait time

● Visitors were willing to wait in excess of 15 minutes to

participate.

● Friend groups took turns until all took part in the experiment.

Encouraging friends and strangers to participate

● One person told a stranger: "My friend did it, it’s fun”.

● One man observed at 7:10pm brought someone back to participate

in the experiment at 7:55pm.

Social interaction

At all three stations, visitors were observed demonstrating that they were

engaged with and enjoyed their experience:

● Lots of smiles and laughter

● Joint laughter

● Discussing drinking

● Photographing the screen and each other

● Many non-participants take photos of their friends during the

experiment


Indication of interest

Demonstrating curiosity

● "How'd it go?"

● "What's going on here?"

● "What is this? Can I do it?"

● Participants looked over the shoulders of other participants for

better viewing.

Actively engaging in the experiment

Participants at the Age My Face experiment were concentrated and

serious, paying close attention to the screen.

Demonstrating pride when their answers or accomplishment after

participating in the experiment.

Inspiring discussion of related topics

● 1 participant expressed his own desire to buy VR headset.

● "How much do those [VR goggles] cost?"

● Strangers discussed experiment results among themselves.

● Visitors discussed similar experiments they were aware of.

● Visitors talked about the results to the scientist.

● Older man asked for clarification about how the results of the

experiment would be used.

● 1 participant discussed with a scientist for over two minutes the

results and concept of the experiment, leading to personal

questions.

● 1 participant actively directed a conversation with the scientist

saying: "Have you heard of this experiment ...?"

Social Interaction

The experiments were successful in encouraging social interaction among

visitors and with scientists:


● Frequently the friend of the participant would be drawn into

conversation with the scientist through the participant.

● Those not participating talk more to the second scientist.

● Non-participants explain the experiment to each other.

● Mostly converse among selves, not to scientist.

● Participants encourage non-participants to join.

● One person told a stranger "My friend did it, it’s fun".

● Taking to non-friend groups while their friend participated in the

experiment.

● Mostly participants interacted with scientist during experiment setting

up as questions and answer interactions.

Comparing social interactions

The data suggests the visitors received more enjoyment from their social

interactions with each other than with the scientists; the former evoked 20

instances of laughing or smiling, while only 5 were observed from the latter.

Participants were most often observed interacting with scientists in order to

listen to their explanations of the experiments. The observation of non-

participants drinking and taking video/photographs of each other also

demonstrated that the visitors were relaxed with each other. However, there

were no observations that indicated outright discomfort with the scientists.

Differences in the duration of the conversation were observed. There were 6

visitor groups having deep communication with scientists, such as:

● Fluid conversations >5 min with 2nd scientist x3

● 3 participants from one friend group in a long (>5) conversation with

second scientist while jointly observing current participants

No conversations among audiences longer than 5 minutes were observed.

Part of the reason that can explain the phenomenon is that the core topic of

communication between participants and scientists is explanation of the

experiment, while the audiences themselves were mainly sharing feelings and

experiences with each other (Figure 3).


Figure 3: The comparison of core topic between two kinds of interactions.

Level of interest

When being asked “Did you find the Everyday Brain Enigmas experiments

interesting?”, 71 of the 81 participants chose “very much” or “very”. Only 1

participant felt the ‘Age My Face’ is not that interesting (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Participant answers to Question 1.


Recognition and acceptance of science not having definite answers

The Everyday Brain Enigmas tried to formulate personal opinions about

current neuroscientific research. Participants were asked to rate their attitude

regarding “scientists not having definite answers”.

48 of 81 participants found it is “Positive” or “Very Positive” that scientists do

not have definite answers and are continuing to conduct research; 27 of 81

were neutral on the subject. Only 4 felt upset about the fact and 2 declined to

provide their personal opinion about the issue (Figure 5).


Change of understanding of brain

When asked if their understanding of how the brain navigates and makes

sense of the world changed, 40 of 81 visitors who took part into the

experiments said “Yes”, 23 said “No,” while 18 responded “I don’t know”

(Figure 6).



A few of the participants that responded “no” explained why they did not

change their understanding after taking part into experiments.

● “Three experiments are not enough”

● “It is only one experiment”

● “I did not have chance to communicate with scientist”

● “I already knew this. It is just good experience”

● “This is just the thing you do. Not any context”

● “The environment is too loud”

● “I need more experiments, but I want to know more now”


13.4. Tools

Tool 1: Visitor Numbers Form

Tool 2: Observation Form A


Tool 3: Observation Form B


Tool 4: Questionnaire

Tool 5: Google document

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oSw6rYOmCOysqHTT1VHqT47er6

vWsiWzE7-6U8OWSiw/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oSw6rYOmCOysqHTT1VHqT47er6vWsiWzE7-6U8OWSiw/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oSw6rYOmCOysqHTT1VHqT47er6vWsiWzE7-6U8OWSiw/edit#gid=0

audience research mysteries of the mind appendix

Documents