Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmc20

Download by: [Professor José María Cuenca-López] Date: 20 April 2016, At: 21:28

Museum Management and Curatorship

ISSN: 0964-7775 (Print) 1872-9185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmc20

Communicating heritage in museums: outlook,strategies and challenges through a SWOT analysis

Myriam José Martín-Cáceres & José María Cuenca-López

To cite this article: Myriam José Martín-Cáceres & José María Cuenca-López (2016):Communicating heritage in museums: outlook, strategies and challenges through a SWOTanalysis, Museum Management and Curatorship, DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2016.1173576

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2016.1173576

Published online: 18 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Communicating heritage in museums: outlook, strategies andchallenges through a SWOT analysisMyriam José Martín-Cáceres and José María Cuenca-López

Science Education Department, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain

ABSTRACTIn the frame of education and heritage communication, we presentan analysis of the museum from a communication theorystandpoint. The main purpose of the study is to examine themuseum’s communicative function through the people involvedin it, the exhibitions, activities undertaken and the users’perceptions of communication processes. The study design isbased on a theory of heritage communication and its applicationin the museum sphere. A case study methodology was applied,focusing on the Museum of Huelva (Spain) as a socio-educationalinstitution. This led to the design of several information-gatheringand analysis instruments based on a table of categories, whichprovided multiple perspectives and visions of what the museummeans in all its aspects. The outcomes point to the formulation ofproposals for improvement which address heritage divulgation inthe museum from a multidirectional, inclusive, interdisciplinaryand holistic perspective, providing a SWOT analysis as synthesis.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 4 October 2015Accepted 30 March 2016

KEYWORDSHeritage education;communication theory;museums; social studieseducation; symbolic-identityheritage; critical standpoint

Introduction

We set out from a holistic, symbolic-identity, participatory, interactive, trans-disciplinaryand socio-critical vision of heritage education. From this perspective, the educationalwork of museums is understood as a basic institution for the dissemination of heritagein both formal and informal education areas (Dabbagh and Kitsantas 2012) and as a rel-evant point of reference in the case of formal education. To this end, we offer a reviewof communication theory applied to museums as a framework for the development ofeducation and heritage communication proposals.

The approach is innovative because it examines the museum from a dual perspective,in a case study as a social institution and in a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities andThreats (SWOT) analysis. This led to the design of several instruments for collecting andanalysing information gathered from different angles of the same reality, providing mul-tiple perspectives and visions of what the museum means in all its aspects.

In our research hypothesis, we consider the museum as a centre open to society (Brad-burne 2001), in which education is, by its very definition, one of the principal functions.Nevertheless, although the ‘powers that be’ are aware of its importance, education is

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT José María Cuenca-López jcuenca@uhu.es Science Education Department, University of Huelva, Avda.Tres de Marzo s/n. 21007 Huelva, Spain

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2016.1173576

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

relegated to the background when compared to the functions of conservation andresearch, with traditional exhibition/s as the basic didactic strategy, complemented withspecific related activities (Hooper-Greenhill 2007). Moreover, from this viewpoint, the strat-egies employed are considered unimaginative and poorly interactive, as are the resourcesdeployed, resulting in users perceiving the museum as an institution insufficiently relatedto society in general and both formal and informal educational institutions in particular, alldue to the lack of a real communication process (Macdonald 2011).

We consider that the design of a general, open and dynamic educational project formuseums, which clearly sets out the objectives, contents, strategies and assessment,greatly facilitates the communication process of these cultural institutions. This wouldbe one of the key elements to achieving real socialisation of citizens in terms of heritage(Cuenca-López and Martín-Cáceres 2014).

On the basis of these propositions, we set out a general research objective: to examinethe museum’s communicative function through the people involved in it, the exhibitions,activities undertaken and user perceptions of the communication processes implementedin museums. This broader aim is broken down into several specific objectives:

(1) To determine the role of those involved in running the museum (managers) in edu-cation and heritage communication and the transmission of a certain conception ofheritage.

(2) To identify how educators and the public perceive the communication processimplemented in the museum.

(3) To categorise the social aim of communicating heritage, through the exhibitions andactivities taking place in the museum, and pinpoint their didactic focus.

(4) To detect the obstacles present in the development of communication proposals inthe museum, within education processes aimed at socialising heritage.

State of affairs

Although systematic research work in heritage education has been going on for over threedecades, it is generally accepted that the first decade of this century is when it becameconsolidated, as manifested in the number of doctoral theses in this field, as well as theresearch projects currently being carried out with an important prospective for the field(Estepa 2013).

For a long time, the concept of heritage was linked almost exclusively to the materialevidence, whereas it currently covers everything related to human beings and nature,time and space and various life events. Thus, a new concept of heritage has come intobeing which is broader, more diverse, more richly nuanced and comprehensive, appliedwith an educational focus to make interesting contributions from an interdisciplinarystandpoint (Estepa, Wamba, and Jiménez 2005; Heyd 2005; Teixeira 2006) and based onthe links between heritage and identity (Calaf 2010; Creese et al. 2006; Fontal 2013) andidentity, cultural heritage, landscape and economic development (Horowitz 2008). Somehighly interesting works are currently developing different proposals for implementationof heritage education museums and heritage centres (Falk, Dierking, and Adams 2011;MacLeod 2001), based on what has been designated didactic museology (Santacana

2 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

and Serrat 2005). Similarly, a recent body of works approaches the didactic potential ofusing new technologies in the field of heritage education with a view to improving com-munication processes (Asensio and Asenjo 2011; Ibáñez et al. 2012; Ott and Pozzi 2011).

The present work articulates the vision of heritage education through participatory,interactive, complex and socio-critical approaches, taking as reference the holisticconcept of heritage put forward by Prats (1997), Bertalanffy’s systems theory (1968) andMattozzi’s systemic vision of heritage (2001). Moreover, it takes into account the differentperspectives of heritage: anthropological, temporal and socio-critical (Davis 2007; Low-enthal 1985; Scazzosi 2004); the design of a progression hypothesis applied to heritageby Ávila (2001); research planning and results analysis according to a system of categoriesbased on progression hypothesis developed by Cuenca-López (2002) and finally, the appli-cation of these concepts, processes and techniques to the heritage and museum-focusedcommunication theory carried out by Martín-Cáceres (2012).

This progression hypothesis consisted of a categorisation on the conceptualisation ofheritage and its communication, in terms of a greater or lesser interpretive capacity andsystemic view related with these aspects. Thus, a gradual gradient of in-depth conceptualanalysis is articulated concerning the determination of heritage-related references for theirtreatment in the educational and communicative area. This instrument enables us todesign a proposal for the didactic treatment of heritage, setting out from the simplestand most specific level of conceptual development and reaching the most highly devel-oped level of complexity and abstraction we consider pertinent. This proposal hasalready been put forward in several publications, among them those by Jiménez,Cuenca-López, and Ferreras (2010) or Martín-Cáceres (2012). On the basis of these contri-butions, we define the concept of heritage education, following the works by Cuenca-López (2002), Fontal (2003) and Martín-Cáceres (2012), as the discipline responsible foranalysing and developing investigative, trans-disciplinary and socio-critical didactic propo-sals (in formal, non-formal and informal educational settings) in which the design anddevelopment of aims, contents and methodological strategies (Cuenca-López andMartín-Cáceres 2014) encourage the construction of identity values (Falk 2009), fosteringintercultural respect and social change and leading to the formation of socio-culturallyengaged citizens (Schugurensky 2006).

Having defined our understanding of heritage education, we focus on the communi-cation process and how it is approached from the heritage area, in what has come tobe called heritage communication, and how this concept is interpreted by the museumas an institution in relation to teaching and learning processes (Cristofano and Palazzetti2011; Hooper-Greenhill 2000; Mateos 2008).

In this sense, we set out from the traditional proposal of communication theory devel-oped by Watzlawick, Bavelas, and Jackson (2011), applying it to heritage to analyse thecommunication proposals implemented in museums.

If we consider the uses that Martín-Serrano (2007) ascribes to communication, we findthat the ability to create, maintain and disseminate culture and values is also added to thepreconceived exchange of information. Our study aim will be framed within this additionalarea of use, in the relations between communication and heritage education. This will beone of the contributions made with this work, as we do not conceive of heritage withoutheritage communication, so we try to define what role heritage plays and how it is

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

transmitted on the basis of each of the components of communication theory (García-Jiménez 2014).

We would include communications theory applied to heritage within heterogeneoustheories, which are those involving elements of different kinds. In order for them to func-tion, there must be interaction between them, so they must necessarily form part of asystem (Martín-Serrano 2007).

For many authors, the mere level of content is already heritage, but according to Prats(1997) this heritage must be activated to be effective and this action is what we designateas the relational level, placing the communication process on both levels (Martín-Cáceres2012).

The only factors involved in the level of content are the code, the language in which theartwork or archaeological element is created. It does have its own meaning per se, but ifthe subjects that will be able to interpret it are not addressed, only a hollow entity is con-figured. In this relationship with the subjects we would place the second level, which wehave termed relational, which in turn encompasses the previous one and is developedwhen the subjects, both sender and receiver, take part, involving an interpretation, thatis, the message.

Now, on a third level comprising the previous two, we would situate what we designatethe communication level, where the importance of context in the entirety of its meaning isapplied, at the moment the work emerges in the present context in which it is transmitted,covering space and time (Figure 1).

Our perspective of what heritage communication must be consists of understandingheritage as yet another element of our cultural, natural or historical patrimony, analysedthrough communication theory, and that this theory effectively confirms why heritageactually exists. From our viewpoint, heritage is not possible without the communicationprocess and without communication the educational process cannot be developed.

At this point we should mention symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1986) as a school ofthought that is based on knowledge of society through understanding, conceiving com-munication as a production of meaning within a given symbolic universe, which in our

Figure 1. Levels of heritage communication.

4 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

case would be the museum, showing that communication theory sets out from a basis ofsocial constructivism (Cubero 2005).

By definition, Communication Theory is that which establishes mechanisms for thedelivery of information from one entity to another and delimits what communication isand which actors and elements are involved in order for this to take place. From hereon, we shall build the framework of what we consider heritage communication to beand how this is applied in the specific case of museums.

We divide the elements involved in the communication process into three blocks:sender/receiver, message/code/channel and context. In this sense, the sender (orsenders) means those involved in the museum generating the discourse, usually directorsand technicians. The channel in this case would correspond to the museum spaces per se,both physical and virtual, through different environments related to the internet. Themessage would be represented in this case by three elements of great importance inthe museum, that is, exhibitions, activities and materials. Finally, the recipient elementwould consist of all users of the museum. Within this theory we should also considermuseum-related associations which act as feedback and, of course, context, as it is imposs-ible to understand a museum in the twenty-first century without taking into account thesociety in which such a well-known yet unknown institution as the museum is immersed.

In conclusion, it is necessary to take up a position, indicating that from the viewpointdefended here the educational process cannot take place effectively if there is no goodcommunication strategy beforehand. Heritage education would be another step in thecommunication strategy, which in the case of formal education would require a greatermuseum–school relationship and an overlap of the message that is transmitted fromthe museum with the official curriculum. In the case of non-formal and informal education,mechanisms would need to be established to articulate a message with different levels ofdetail depending on the needs and characteristics of each group.

Method

To carry out this research, we set out from a methodological perspective designated asethnographic, an approach whereby we learn about the way of life of a particular socialunit of a phenomenological nature (Black and Enos 1981), as the aim is to understandsocial phenomena from the point of view of those who experience them. In this sense,the work is situated in the interpretive paradigm and within it in the current known as sym-bolic interactionism, whose guiding principle is based on the understanding of societythrough communication, and attempts to explain the interaction in the individual andin groups, constructed from a historical evolutionary perspective (Wiersma 2000).

To respond to this perspective, we used the qualitative approach. Although commonpractice consists of not relying on previous relational hypotheses, in this case we find asystem previously established and validated in similar research (Cuenca-López andLópez-Cruz 2014; Estepa, Ávila, and Ferreras 2008; Jiménez, Cuenca-López, and Ferreras2010; Martín-Cáceres and Cuenca-López 2011) which provides us the keys to data gather-ing and analysis and shows us what to look for, but is conceived as an open instrumentthat may be modified as the research progresses in order to gather the issues emergingas they arise throughout the work.

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

We present a microethnographic work focused on a case study, as the social unitstudied, the museum, is a specific unit but viewed from all sides, so as to achieve asocial representation of the reality being studied, through its analytical and interpretiveconstruction (Yoshikawa et al. 2008).

All this is carried out under the process of communication theory, highlighting the fea-tures provided by symbolic interactionism, considering communication as the product ofcreative meanings and shared interrelations in a certain context.

The case studied in this research is the Museum of Huelva (SW of Spain), as it meets aseries of criteria that make it an ideal object of the study:

. participation in a prior research project, in which the analytical instruments werevalidated;

. real interest in the project from the outset;

. a relation of trust between research and institution;

. geographical closeness;

. The institution is a prototype of the former provincial museums (these museums rep-resent the largest number in the Spanish context).

As noted previously, the data systematisation and analysis instrument is a two-categorysystem, with a number of variables that are completed with indicators presented as a pro-gression hypothesis (Table 1). The first category, heritage typology and identity, consists ofthree variables: heritage perspective, patrimonial typology and identity, which are

Table 1. Information analysis category system.Category I:Heritage typology andidentity

Variable 1Heritage perspective

1. Fetishist2. Monumentalist3. Aesthetic4. Historical5. Symbolic-identity

Variable 2Heritage typology

1. Natural–artistic–historical2. Ethnological3. Scientific–technological4. Holistic

Variable 3Identity

1. Ethnological2. Historical–artistic3. Holistic

Category II:Heritage communicationmodel

Variable 4Heritage in education programmes

1. No socio-educational interest2. Anecdotal utilisation3. Didactic resource4. Full integration

Variable 5Sender and receiver role in heritage education anddissemination

1. Unidirectionalcommunication

2. Reciprocal communication3. Multidirectionalcommunication

Variable 6Integration of contents

1. No integration2. Simple integration3. Complex integration

Variable 7Purpose of education and dissemination

1. Propaganda2. Academic3. Practical-conservationist4. Critical

Source: Own development.

6 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

composed of a number of indicators, from three to five, which in turn are structured frommore basic simple and specific levels to those we consider desirable, complex andabstract. The second category, heritage communication model, consists of four variables:heritage in educational programmes, role of senders and receivers in heritage communi-cation, integration of contents and aim of the communication, composed of indicatorswith the progressive structure cited above in the first category.

The category system provided the framework when it came to designing the rest of theinformation-gathering instruments, as it is conceived as an element that facilitates, at thesame time as delimiting, a structured analysis of the ample information obtained, helpingto achieve the objectives set for this investigation, serving as a link with previous research,while opening up other future lines of research.

Carrying out an analysis of the museum in all its facets, while enriching the data analy-sis, also increases its complexity. Several information-gathering instruments weredesigned (diary, systematic observation, three questionnaires, standardised interview,analysis of exhibitions and real spaces, virtual space analysis and activities analysis), towhich must be added up to 10 different interview structures. The data-gathering instru-ments were designed, as noted above, from the perspective of the category system,but in accordance with the different elements that make up communication theory. Forthe information provided by the sender (executive, management and operational staff),in addition to observation we also used semi-structured and standardised interviews, asindicated in each case. Observation was systematic in most cases, although in the caseof the sender there were also moments in which the observer was also a participant.

For the recipients (formal and informal education users), we used the formula of a surveyfor teachers on the formal education side and one for an audience including families,adults and tourists, etc. for the informal education side. In this case, we also used systema-tic observation as an information-gathering instrument, as well as the statements made bythe senders themselves.

For the channel (the museum), we created instruments for analysis of the museumspaces, both physical and virtual. Observation was also used in this case. As we can see,observation is highly important in this process, being used for the subsequent analysisof senders, recipients and the message. It is the most widely used instrument, as it isimplemented throughout the entire fieldwork process (Table 2).

Table 2. Systematic observation instrument.Systematic observation: Diary Date:

Management staff Who is there What they are doing There are visits What the ambience is likeNotesOperational staff Attitude Relation with public Relations among staff How they carry out their workNotesPublic School Group Individual general Families general

DescriptionNotesActivities Designation

Aimed atDescriptionMonitor role Role of participants

Notes

Source: Own development.

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

As for the message (exhibitions and activities), information is gathered using the sys-tematic observation instrument plus two specific instruments, one for exhibitions andanother for activities, (Table 3). The museological proposal they present functions aslanguage, in other words, the code. The message is one of the elements considered themost important, as depending on how it is articulated the heritage communicationprocess will be more or less successful.

Finally, we come to context, a highly important element in heritage communicationtheory, represented by the entire research process, so its final analysis will be based ona comparison of results, which are brought together in an instrument including all the per-spectives followed in the analysis (Table 4).

In this case, the context is understood as the set of all the elements and their inter-relations, although in a broader sense this is conceived as the whole of society in whichthe process takes place, although the characteristics of this investigation per se, in sucha specific area as the museum, mean that this society is reflected through the recipients,that is, the public.

The basic aim of this research is to reveal how heritage communication, the message, istransmitted in the museum. To this end, we are asked five questions corresponding to theanalysis guide. We set out from ‘whom?’ with reference to the person or people respon-sible for launching the message, which in this case would be the management and oper-ational staff, the Pedagogical Department and the Association of Friends of the Museum ofHuelva.

In the second place, we would need to ask about ‘where?’, which in this case is theHuelva Museum and specifically the spaces it possesses, both real and virtual. Wewould then continue with the ‘what?’ and the ‘how?’, which would be answeredthrough the analysis of exhibitions and activities. Responding to these three questions,we would also be carrying out the description of the channel, context and code, followingthe framework in which we are carrying out this work.

Finally, we would ask ‘for whom?’ addressing the receivers of this message, that is, thoseusers classified in this work in terms of their educational context, which would be formaland informal education.

Results analysis and discussion

The analytical process combines the dual perspective of observed knowledge and mani-fested knowledge, along with the perceived knowledge, that is, that which reaches the

Table 3. Activities analysis sheet.Designation Date Duration

DescriptionActivity type Heritage perspectiveHeritage typology Fostering identityIntegration in education/diffusion programmes Communication typeIntegration of contents AimPerson/company responsibleDidactic programmingPublic type

Source: Own development.

8 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

users. As noted above, a plethora of data-gathering instruments come into play in thisanalysis.

It is important to emphasise that the order in which the analysis was carried out is notrandom, as in consequence with the theory of heritage communication we defended inthe theoretical framework, we set out from people and conclude with people, since inorder to know what the museum tells us, we must listen to the message transmitted bythe sender and how this is received by the receiver.

Following this pattern, on the basis of the questions raised (who, where, what, how andfor whom?), we present a synthesis of the outcomes with a SWOT matrix, according to theanalytical categories.

. Sender (Table 5):

Regarding the senders, it is evident that there is no common position among the par-ticipants, as the group was rather heterogeneous, comprising such different individuals asthe managers themselves, outside technical staff influencing the museum, such as thehead of the education department, the team of security guards and ticketing staff andthe Association of Friends of the Museum of Huelva.

First impressions notwithstanding, the outcomes were not very varied, so allowed asynthesis that explicitly includes the results of the research in relation to the group ofsenders in this paper.

Table 4. Results comparison instrument.Element analysed Information source Category 1 Category 2

Observed knowledgeManifested knowledgePerceived knowledgeExternal perspectiveResults comparison

Source: Own development.

Table 5. SWOT analysis results for senders.Weaknesses Threats

. Didactic and communicative training non-existent or unsuitable

. Academic view of heritage communication

. Communication proposals of unidirectional nature

. Exceptionalist vision of heritage

. Abundant work in lines other thancommunication

. Administrative changes in Museum hierarchy

. Few staff dedicated to communication

. Heterogeneity of participants in thecommunication process

Strengths Opportunities

. View of heritage as a resource within the communicationprocess

. Consideration that heritage communication is a fundamentaltask in the museum

. Participation in heritage communication-linked research

. Willingness to improve the heritagecommunication process

. Open to training in heritage communication andeducation

Source: Own development.

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

Overall, communication predominantly centred on historical and artistic heritage,although in some cases there are references more holistic, identity-related or symbolic innature. The communication process is usually one-way, although sometimes a reciprocalvision is perceived, working towards an academic and conservationist end. Heritage isseen as a resource for development of the communication process, rather than thesubject and content of heritage education.

We appreciate a greater awareness of heritage and its identity, although in manycases the language used to transmit the message is not appropriate. Epistemologicaltraining exerts a notable influence, as they manifest the importance of the communi-cation process and it is among their main objectives, but there are methodologicalobstacles in the mechanism when it comes to transmitting it through the exhibitions,although this is present to a lesser extent in the activities (Martín-Cáceres andCuenca-López 2011):

. Channel (Table 6):

The exhibition space is insufficient for the archaeological and art collection ownedby the museum. As a result, much of the heritage safeguarded, and even patrimonyfrom the historical and artistic periods that should be communicated due to its culturalsignificance remains in warehouses. Similarly, the visitor reception area and space forworkshops and public activities, an aspect increasingly important in heritage com-munication centres to encourage public–museum–heritage interaction, is clearlyinsufficient.

The resources and means to support the communication process are traditional, unat-tractive and poorly interactive. The use of outdated display cabinets (from the 1970s) ispredominant, although well maintained and adapted with panels and signs.

In addition, in terms of virtual space the museum only has a flat website with no possi-bility of interaction, functioning more as a means to convey information than as a catalystfor communication, thus wasting this powerful educational resource. Likewise, social

Table 6. SWOT analysis results for channel.Weaknesses Threats

. Insufficient space for exhibition of the collectionpreserved

. Space for workshops and activities inadequate andinsufficient

. Exhibition resources outdated, not very motivatingand poorly interactive

. Little presence in the media

. Little likelihood of structural reforms to expand spaces

. Scant budget for provision of new communicationinfrastructures

Strengths Opportunities

. Using spaces (but insufficient) for workshops andactivities

. Use (albeit insufficient) of web and social networks forheritage communication

. Drafting of proposals for improvement in the use of socialnetworks and virtual spaces

. Acquisition of materials for workshops

Source: Own development.

10 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

networks (mainly Facebook) are barely exploited and are used simply as a means to dis-seminate activities and exhibitions, without having any significant impact in this regard.

The channel conditions the message communicated at the museum, as it is shown tobe demonstrably insufficient, due to its inadequate size for presentation of the contents.The lack of space presented by the museum is not offset by the virtual space (Ch’ng 2009;Ott and Pozzi 2011), as this merely functions as a noticeboard, with few possibilities ofpublic interaction with the same.

. Message (Table 7):

The message presents an uneven code for exhibitions and activities, the former predo-minantly of a conceptual nature with one-way communication, whereas the latter presentbetter integration of contents while giving rise to more multidirectional communication.The majority of exhibitions are defined by a traditional museological discourse with alanguage that is difficult for the public to understand. It is in these cases that we statethat the coding of the message hampers effective communication. Nevertheless, it is inter-esting to note that when exhibition and activity coincide, the message becomes more fluidand comprehensible, encouraging a degree of feedback on the museum from the users(Ahmad et al. 2014). It is important to emphasise that when there is a real citizen partici-pation plan, the message is not only understood, but also takes hold in society, convertingsome of the receivers into habitual visitors to the museum, which thereby achieves its aimof socialising heritage through communication processes (Martín-Cáceres 2012; Soren2009).

Whereas in the case of senders there was a high level of specificity in all variables, whenwe applied the same criteria to the activities and exhibitions, in other words the message,we found it to be in a much less desirable situation, tending towards communicationfocused on anecdotic, exceptionalist and overly academic components, distanced fromholistic, identity-related and symbolic perspectives and poorly contextualised.

Table 7. SWOT analysis results for message.Weaknesses Threats

. Inadequate processing of information in theexhibitions

. Information communicated is disciplinary, focusedon historical and artistic content

. Academic purpose of the message

. Communication of concepts is predominant

. Poorly contextualised

. Scant infrastructure for development of the message inexhibitions and activities

. Outsourcing of museum heritage communication servicesand loss of control of the messages to be conveyed to society

Strengths Opportunities

. Activities associated with exhibitions of a dynamic,interactive and even multidirectional nature

. Approach to social and symbolic aspects linked tothe locality

. Enhancement of educational workshops

. Possibility of linking the message with social andenvironmental issues in the area

Source: Own development.

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

This fact reveals the high degree of qualification and conceptualisation the manage-ment staff have regarding heritage, but highlights the difficulty of putting it into practicethrough the exhibitions and activities carried out, basically due to the scant didactic train-ing of this staff. Moreover, those with higher educational qualifications lack the appropri-ate competencies to carry out these changes, or remain on superficial levels when they dohave the opportunity to do so.

The message depends on the type of exhibition and activity analysed (Semedo 2015).The content is mostly historic–artistic in nature (archaeological, contemporary art, localartists… ), without proposing interdisciplinary perspectives connecting the theme withother sociocultural, natural or scientific areas.

. Receiver (Table 8):

At this point, we must distinguish between formal and informal education, in this casethe school and non-school public (Dabbagh and Kitsantas 2012). The former are usuallythe receivers of the message in its two facets (exhibition and activity) and this way, accord-ing to the teachers, they are able to understand the message and assimilate contents,albeit in a highly volatile manner, as there is no contextualisation. In the best of cases,the museum is used as a resource without any real integration with educational curricula.Non-school users are usually mainly receivers of exhibitions, so the uninitiated visitor willmiss out on part of the message, although there are also loyal groups of followers whousually engage in the activities proposed for the general public.

Communication is basically unidirectional, and reciprocal communication is only seenwhen activities are carried out, both with schools and the public at large, although themajority of activities are organised for schools. There is no real integration in the edu-cational programmes, nor do the teachers call for activities from the museum. The non-school public perceives an anecdotal heritage communication, without any clear structureto the contents transmitted.

. Context (Table 9):

Table 8. SWOT analysis results for receivers.Weaknesses Threats

. Lack of educational programming and structuredcommunication

. Anecdotic treatment of heritage communication in non-school public

. Little preparation for visits from school parties

. Scant public interest in contents the subject ofcommunication

. Existence of other, more widely accepted culturalspaces

Strengths Opportunities

. Presence of loyal public

. Use of the museum as a didactic resource by school public

. Museum perceived as leisure and cultural centre by non-school public

. Valuation of heritage as cultural resource by thepopulation

. Exhibition and activity themes relevant to publicinterests

Source: Own development.

12 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

In general, this point has been described to a certain degree through the previous ones.The potential of the staff is notable, not for size but for ideas, revealing great interest in themuseum as a social entity that transmits and communicates the heritage it presents tosociety (Baradaran 2014). However, the channel constitutes an important obstacle,partly due to the means at its disposal and partly to the little advantage being taken oftheir potential. In the message, actions are starting to be taken which are effective in com-munication terms yet remain incipient, a fact that is assumed by the receivers.

The importance of the museum context and the heritage it preserves cannot be over-looked. The town of Huelva has an important archaeological heritage, albeit not a monu-mental one, which is the central theme of communication in this museum, accompaniedby current artistic output in addition to nineteenth- and twentieth-century works.

We must bear in mind that, although there are various exhibition spaces, it is the onlymuseum in town, a fact that grants it additional value. On the other hand, although themuseum has a very loyal and engaged following, in general, the population is littleinvolved with heritage-related issues.

With the results obtained, after analysing all the elements using the instrument shownin Table 4, we applied a general SWOT matrix to take into account the strengths, weak-nesses, opportunities and threats presented by the museum as a social and educationalinstitution (Young 1999). Large amounts of data were obtained in the four categories,especially in strength and weaknesses. Although the SWOT system has habitually beenused for business analysis, it has not been applied to cultural and social institutionssuch as the museum. Nevertheless, it turns out to be a tool with great potential for theanalysis of all these processes, especially for detecting obstacles and designing proposalsfor improvement (Table 10).

Clearly, the lack of an adequate budget directly affects the development of heritagecommunication activities and projects. Nevertheless, economic shortcomings do notprevent different proposals being drawn up to connect the museum with the public.Although the facilities are deficient from many standpoints, it is possible to structurethe exhibition from other perspectives linking the museum collection with the interestsand expectations of the potential visitors.

To this end, a fundamental rethinking of the museum’s educational objectives in termsof heritage communication is required, in such a way that the message is modified and

Table 9. SWOT analysis results for context.Weaknesses Threats

. Few remnants of visible and monumental heritage

. Scarce means for developing communication. Limited social involvement of population with heritage

conservation. Scant budgets for cultural issues

Strengths Opportunities

. Locally relevant archaeological and heritageremains

. Museum staff highly involved in thecommunication process

. Few cultural centres in the city (the only museum)

. Public very interested in cultural and participatory initiatives inthe museum

Source: Own development.

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

becomes meaningful to the citizens. Thus, when organising exhibitions it is crucial tochoose relevant patrimonial elements to achieve these objectives, of a more social, iden-tity-related and symbolic nature, rather than those purely academic and scientific, whichdo not connect with visitors or provide any relevant values within the communicationprocess.

The interest shown by museum management with regard to the approach to edu-cational and communicative issues prompted the institution to take part in differentresearch initiatives in this area (Calaf and Suárez 2015; Estepa 2013; Martín-Cáceres2012). This provided valuable information on attitudes, expectations and interests of visi-tors as well as the museum staff, establishing a systematic assessment procedure for heri-tage communication processes within this cultural institution. This is revealed in many ofthe activities and workshops carried out at the museum, suitably complementing totallytraditional exhibitions, which on occasion themselves became obstacles to an effectivecommunication process.

Conclusions

The conclusions of this work correspond to different elements of the process. First of all,we address the research objectives and to what extent they were achieved; another aspectconsidered in a final reflection concerns the theoretical and methodological frameworkused in the research, in terms of its feasibility and an extrapolation to similar works. Wealso highlight those elements, obstacles and strengths, etc., that emerged in the analysis,in order to finally open up future working perspectives.

We set out from a general aim divided into four objectives, addressing each of the partsinvolved in the same. In this sense, we confirm that all the objectives were worked uponthroughout the process, as the data-gathering and analysis instruments were shown to beextremely useful to provide a response to the objectives initially put forward.

Table 10. Outcomes highlighted by SWOT system.Weaknesses Threats

. Insufficient budget for educational activities

. Little staff involvement

. Insufficient management training

. Facilities not up to scratch

. Antiquated and decontextualised teaching resources andmaterials

. Academic purpose

. Exceptional patrimony given precedence over social andidentity heritage

. Personalisation of interest in educationalprogrammes

. Administrative changes in Museum hierarchy

. Budget cuts in current scenario

. Non-inclusion of school curricula may end upreducing them to mere anecdote

Strengths Opportunities

. General consideration of need to address formal and non-formal education

. Staff interest and involvement, because the educationalframework is on the front line of museum needs

. Fostering visitor participation in workshops

. Imagination in collaboration to come up with interesting andmotivating activities with scant budget

. Population and visitors need and call foreducational and cultural activities

. Important heritage kept, although not exhibited,which could become a user attraction

. Locality with quantitatively and qualitativelyrelevant heritage

Source: Own development.

14 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

The first objective enabled us to detect that most of the staff at the Museum ofHuelva are committed to the heritage communication processes. The museum manage-ment highlighted the need to connect with society through the activities and exhibi-tions held, considering the treatment of heritage from a symbolic, identity-focusedand interdisciplinary perspective. However, work on the third objective revealed thecontradiction in this regard, as the expository discourses proposed in the museumare highly academic, far removed from the interests and expectations of the majorityof the public at large and fail to connect with the social and cultural reality of thesurroundings.

The fourth objective provides an explanation to this contradiction, on one hand it canbe traced to the scant economic resources available to the Huelva Museum for its oper-ations. On the other hand, although several managers of this institution hold a socialand identity-focused view of heritage and its communication, there are also others witha much more academic outlook. Taking into account the weight of museum traditionand the political context of cultural management in this setting, it is understood that amore traditional view predominates in the exhibition criteria. Only in occasional activitiesand diverse workshops do we find much more dynamic communication proposals, with amore open concept that meets the visitors’ expectations and interests. In these cases,greater attention is paid to social, symbolic-identity heritage criteria, which connect themuseum with the public through participation and interaction.

Thus, in the second objective, the way it is perceived depends on the type of activityproposed or carried out. Scheduled and pre-arranged activities involving workshopsfoster social, symbolic and identity-focused views of heritage. In other cases, where theactivity consists exclusively of visits to exhibitions, the perception is less socio-culturallyrich and less connected with visitors’ interests, while the communication process is lesseffective.

The importance given to the methodological design in this work responded to a mani-fest concern, due to the absence of research in this sense, not in terms of the subjectmatter, but of the methodology applied. In this sense, we may conclude by indicatingthat the instruments responded perfectly to the needs of the research, highlighting thehigh degree of coherence between the data-gathering instruments and the categorysystem at this point. In this latter case, we must emphasise how this instrument hasbeen used to greatly effect for over a decade, adapting to the features of the researchand being updated afterwards. However, it had always been used for research of a quan-titative nature, so constituted a new challenge in the present work, which was satisfactorilyovercome, as although it was not so relevant in terms of the progression hypothesis, it washighly pertinent as a theoretical frame of reference when preparing all the other instru-ments. On the other hand, the SWOT matrix helped synthesise the results systematically.In view of all of the above, we consider that both the methodological structure per se andthe information-gathering instruments can be extrapolated to other institution-focusedcase studies, not only for the Museum, but also for other naturalist investigations, thuscontributing to the research in this field of study.

Thus, this research has established the theoretical and methodological foundation forother subsequent investigations in the field of heritage communication and qualitativeassessment in museums (Calaf and Suárez 2015) currently under development, whilealso contributing key ideas for research along these lines within the National Education

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

and Heritage Plan (Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport) the Spanish HeritageEducation Observatory.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Spain, [grant numberBSO2003-07573]; and the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain, [grant number EDU2008-01968], [grant number EDU2011-27835] and [grant number EDU2015-67953P].

Notes on contributors

Myriam José Martín-Cáceres, Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education in University of Huelva(Spain), member of the research group DESYM and Heritage Education and Interpretation Workshop.She has an experience of over 10 years of studies on heritage education, 8 research projects and 25publications on this topic. She has participated as speakers in various international conferences. Youcan view information about the work of this author in: https://uhu.academia.edu/MyriamMartin andhttp://scholar.google.es/citations?user=XZKztH0AAAAJ&hl=es

José María Cuenca-López, Professor of Social Studies Education in University of Huelva (Spain),member of the research group DESYM and Heritage Education and Interpretation Workshop. Hehas an experience of over 15 years of studies on heritage education, 18 research projects andmore of 70 publications on this topic. He has participated as speakers in 30 international conferences.You can view information about the work of this author in: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0190-5739,http://scholar.google.es/citations?user = oemsHesAAAAJ&hl = es, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose_Lopez55 and https://uhu.academia.edu/jcuenca

ORCID

Myriam José Martín-Cáceres http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1199-3899José María Cuenca-López http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0190-5739

References

Ahmad, S., M. Y. Abbas, M. Z. M. Taib, and M. Masri. 2014. “Museum Exhibition Design:Communication of Meaning and the Shaping of Knowledge.” Procedia - Social and BehavioralSciences 153: 254–265. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.059.

Asensio, M., and E. Asenjo, eds. 2011. Lazos de luz azul. Museos y tecnologías 1, 2 y 3.0. Barcelona: UOC.Ávila, R. M. 2001. Historia del Arte, enseñanza y profesores. Sevilla: Díada.Baradaran, F. 2014. “A model for sociocultural interactions in museums.” Museum Management and

Curatorship 29 (2): 174–187. doi:10.1080/09647775.2014.888821.Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York:

George Braziller.Black, C., and R. Enos. 1981. “Using Phenomenology in Clinical Social Work: A Poetic Pilgrimage.”

Clinical Social Work Journal 9 (1): 34–43. doi:10.1007/BF00757092.Blumer, H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Los Angeles: University of California

Press.

16 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

Bradburne, J. M. 2001. “A New Strategic Approach to the Museum and Its Relationship to Society.”Museum Management and Curatorship 19 (1): 75–84. doi:10.1080/09647770100701901.

Calaf, R. 2010. “Un modelo de investigación en didáctica del patrimonio.” Enseñanza de las CienciasSociales 9: 17–27.

Calaf, R., and M. Suárez. 2015. Acción educativa en museos: calidad desde la evaluación cualitativa.Gijón: Trea.

Ch’ng, E. 2009. “Experiential Archaeology: Is Virtual Time Travel Possible?” Journal of Cultural Heritage10 (4): 458–470. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2009.02.001.

Creese, A., A. Bhatt, N. Bhojani, and P. Martin. 2006. “Multicultural, Heritage and Learner Identities inComplementary Schools.” Language and Education 20 (1): 23–43. doi:10.1080/09500780608668708.

Cristofano, M. G., and C. Palazzetti. 2011. Il museo verso una nuova identità. Vol. 2. Musei e comunità.Strategie comunicative e pratiche educative. Roma: Gangemi editore.

Cubero, R. 2005. Perspectivas constructivistas. La intersección entre el significado, la interacción y el dis-curso. Barcelona: Graó.

Cuenca-López, J. M. 2002. “El patrimonio en la didáctica de las ciencias sociales. Análisis de concep-ciones, dificultades y obstáculos para su integración en la enseñanza obligatoria.” PhD diss.,Universidad de Huelva.

Cuenca-López, J. M., and I. López-Cruz. 2014. “Teaching Heritage in Social Science, Geography andHistory Textbooks in Compulsory Secondary Education.” Cultura y Educación: Culture andEducation 26 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/11356405.2014.908663.

Cuenca-López, J. M., and M. J. Martín-Cáceres. 2014.Manual para el desarrollo de proyectos educativosde museos. Gijón: Trea.

Dabbagh, N., and A. Kitsantas. 2012. “Personal Learning Environments, Social Media, and Self-regu-lated Learning: A Natural Formula for Connecting Formal and Informal Learning.” The Internet andHigher Education 15 (1): 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002.

Davis, P. 2007. “Place Exploration: Museums, Identity, Community.” In Museums and theirCommunities, edited by S. Watson, 53–75. Abingdon: Routledge.

Estepa, J. ed. 2013. La educación patrimonial en la escuela y el museo: investigación y experiencias.Huelva: Universidad de Huelva.

Estepa, J., R. M. Ávila, and M. Ferreras. 2008. “Primary and Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions AboutHeritage and Heritage Education: A Comparative Analysis.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24(8): 2095–2107. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.017.

Estepa, J., A. M. Wamba, and R. Jiménez. 2005. “Fundamentos para una enseñanza y difusión delpatrimonio desde una perspectiva integradora de las ciencias sociales y experimentales.”Investigación en la Escuela 56: 19–26.

Falk, J. H. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Falk, J. H., L. D. Dierking, and M. Adams. 2011. “Living in a Learning Society: Museums and Free-choice

Learning.” In A Companion to Museum Studies, edited by S. Macdonald, 323–339. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Fontal, O. 2003. La educación patrimonial. Teoría y práctica en el aula, el museo e Internet. Gijón: Trea.Fontal, O. 2013. La educación patrimonial: del patrimonio a las personas. Gijón: Trea.García-Jiménez, L. 2014. “The Pragmatic Metamodel of Communication: A Cultural Approach to

Interaction.” Studies in Communication Sciences 14 (1): 86–93. doi:10.1016/j.scoms.2014.03.006.Heyd, T. 2005. “Nature, Culture, and Natural Heritage: Toward a Culture of Nature.” Environmental

Ethics 27 (4): 339–354. doi:10.5840/enviroethics20052742.Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2000. “Changing Values in the Art Museum: Rethinking Communication and

Learning.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 6 (1): 9–31. doi:10.1080/135272500363715.Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2007. Museum and Education. Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance. New York:

Routledge.Horowitz, L. S. 2008. “It’s up to the Clan to Protect: Cultural Heritage and the Micropolitical Ecology of

Conservation in New Caledonia.” Social Science Journal 45 (2): 258–278. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.03.005.

MUSEUM MANAGEMENT AND CURATORSHIP 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16

Ibáñez, A., M. Asensio, N. Vincent, and J. M. Cuenca-López. 2012. “Mobile Devices: A Tool for Tourismand Learning at Archaeological Sites.” International Journal of Web Based Communities 8 (1): 57–72.doi:10.1504/IJWBC.2012.044682.

Jiménez, R., J. M. Cuenca-López, and M. Ferreras. 2010. “Heritage Education: Exploring theConceptions of Teachers and Administrators from the Perspective of Experimental and SocialScience Teaching.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (6): 1319–1331. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.01.005.

Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Macdonald, S. 2011. A Companion to Museum Studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.MacLeod, S. 2001. “Making Museum Studies: Training, Education, Research and Practice.” Museum

Management and Curatorship 19 (1): 51–61. doi:10.1080/09647770100501901.Martín-Cáceres, M. J. 2012. “La educación y la comunicación patrimonial: una mirada desde el Museo

de Huelva.” PhD diss., Universidad de Huelva.Martín-Cáceres, M. J., and J. M. Cuenca-López. 2011. “Heritage Education and Learning in Museums:

the Managers’ perspective.” Journal of Psychodidactics 16 (1): 99–122. doi:10.1387/RevPsicodidact.1114.

Martín-Serrano, M. 2007. Teoría de la comunicación. La comunicación, la vida y la sociedad. Madrid: McGraw Hill.

Mateos, S. M. 2008. La comunicación global del patrimonio cultural. Gijón: Trea.Mattozzi, I. 2001. “La didáctica de los bienes culturales. A la búsqueda de una definición.” In Museo y

patrimonio en la didáctica de las ciencias sociales, edited by J. Estepa, C. Domínguez, & J. M. Cuenca-López, 57–96. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva.

Ott, M., and F. Pozzi. 2011. “Towards a new era for Cultural Heritage Education: Discussing the role ofICT.” Computers in Human Behavior 27 (4): 1365–1371. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.031.

Prats, L. 1997. Antropología y patrimonio. Barcelona: Ariel.Santacana, J., and N. Serrat, eds. 2005. Museografía didáctica. Barcelona: Ariel.Scazzosi, L. 2004. “Reading and Assessing the Landscape as Cultural and Historical Heritage.”

Landscape Research 29 (4): 335–355. doi:10.1080/0142639042000288993.Schugurensky, D. 2006. “This is our School of Citizenship: Informal Learning in Local Democracy.”

Counterpoints 249: 163–182.Semedo, A. 2015. “Representações e identidade em exposições de museus.” Clío. History and History

Teaching 41: 1–26.Soren, B. J. 2009. “Museum Experiences that Change Visitors.” Museum Management and Curatorship

24 (3): 233–251. doi:10.1080/09647770903073060.Teixeira, S. 2006. “Educación patrimonial: alfabetización cultural para la ciudadanía.” Estudios

Pedagógicos 32 (2): 133–145. doi:10.4067/S0718-07052006000200008.Watzlawick, P., J. B. Bavelas, and D. D. Jackson. 2011. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of

Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: WW Norton & Company.Wiersma, W. 2000. Research Methods in Education. An Introduction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Yoshikawa, H., T. S. Weisner, A. Kalil, and N. Way. 2008. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Research

in Development Science: Uses and Methodological Choices.” Developmental Psychology 44 (2):344–354. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.344.

Young, L. 1999. “Globalisation, Culture and Museums: A Review of Theory.” International Journal ofHeritage Studies 5 (1): 6–15. doi:10.1080/13527259908722242.

18 M. J. MARTÍN-CÁCERES AND J. M. CUENCA-LÓPEZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prof

esso

r Jo

sé M

aría

Cue

nca-

Lóp

ez]

at 2

1:28

20

Apr

il 20

16