Museum object as document. Using Buckland's information concepts to understand museum experiences
| Published date | 13 January 2012 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211200329 |
| Pages | 45-71 |
| Date | 13 January 2012 |
| Author | Kiersten F. Latham |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Museum object as document
Using Buckland’s information concepts to
understand museum experiences
Kiersten F. Latham
School of Library and Information Science, Kent State University,
Kent, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to understand the meaning of museum objects from an
information perspective. Links are made from Buckland’s conceptual information framework as a
semiotic to museum object as “document” and finally to user experience of these museum
“documents”. The aim is to provide a new lens through which museum studies researchers can
understand museum objects and for LIS researchers to accept museum objects as another form of
document to be studied.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual and comparative analysis of Buckland’s
information typology as a semiotic. Outcome of analysis forms a model of understanding the
museum object as a “document” that is accessed by users on a continuum of experience.
Findings – Michael Buckland’s information typology is insightful and useful for a broad
understanding of what all heritage institutions have in common: the physical object. Buckland
helps us see the museum as an information system, the museum object as a document, and the
multidimensional use of the concept information and its semiotic ramifications.
Originality/value – Buckland’s typology is important to an understanding of the museum system
and museum object in both LIS and museum studies. The concept of “document” opens up a broader
perspective, which creates, rather than limits understandings of the human relationship with
information. This expanded concept of “document” as sign/semiotic helps us understand user
experience in ways not previously explored in the convergence of museums and information studies,
from the practical to the theoretical. In this inclusive sense, Buckland’s concept of document is a
unifying theoretical concept for museums, libraries, and archives.
Keywords Michael Buckland,Museum objects, Document, Semiotics,Reader response, Museums,
Document handling
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
“Information” as a theoretical object is in an unenviable position. It must somehow embrace
information as a material object, as an individual cognitive effect, and as a social institution
(Raber and Budd, 2003, p. 521).
Generally speaking, museum objects are in the midst of an identity crisis. Every field
or discipline that speaks about objects supplies a different explanation of their
being/purpose/definition/meaning (Wood and Latham, 2009). For example,
archaeology and history both refer to “material culture studies” as important subject
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
The author would like to thank John Agada for his tremendous support and guidance leading up
to this article. Also, deep gratitude goes to Michael Buckland who has inspired the author on so
many levels.
Museum object
as document
45
Received 22 April 2010
Revised 18 March 2011
Accepted 19 March 2011
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 68 No. 1, 2012
pp. 45-71
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220411211200329
matter of study, yet neither appears to recognize each other’s work. This fractured way
of understanding objects is not helpful to those interested in focusing on the object as a
unit of study. In a sense, the physical “object” shares a similar ambiguity and diversity
of definitions in museum studies as the term “information” does in library and
information science (LIS). Common treatments of the term “information” in different
fields of study often appear to have no association with each other or are so dissimilar
to render comparison useless (Huang, 2006; Capurro and Hjørland, 2002; Machlup and
Mansfield, 1983). This is the case with the physical object as well.
In this article, a bridge is built between a semiotic understanding of Buckland’s
information typology to museums and their objects and finally to the concept of user
transaction with documents in museums. These connections are made as a way of
explaining passive lived experience as a form of information acquisition, particularly
the lived experience with physical things. The first section of the article reviews
Buckland’s information concepts in order to set up the connection to museum objects.
Because his terminology is extensive, the review here is limited to those concepts
valuable in understanding the museum context. Following this, museum object as
“document” using Buckland’s typology is explained as a Peircean semiotic, which
provides a potential link between Buckland’s information typology and museum
visitor experience with objects. Finally, Louise Rosenblatt’s transactive model of
reader response is introduced to make the ultimate connection between Buckland’s
typology, museum object as document, and museum user lived experience. This work
is directed at two audiences:
(1) information researchers who may be familiar with Buckland’s work but are not
familiar with the role of museum objects in information science; and
(2) museum studies researchers as an introduction to a new conceptual lens for
understanding museum objects and museum visitor experiences.
Revisiting “information-as-thing”
Michael Buckland is well known for his somewhat controversial 1991 article entitled
“Information as thing” (Buckland, 1991b), which is actually a chapter from his book of
thesameyear,Information and Information Systems (Buckland, 1991a).
Information-as-thing is regarded as a special interest by Buckland within the
context of information systems, retrieval and storage, since he believes we can only
directly deal with information in this sense. In this section, I will go through the main
concepts surrounding his explanation of information, holistically and specifically.
Table I provides a summary of many terms defined by Buckland in the 1991 article.
Definitions are directly drawn from Buckland’s descriptions.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to point out that Buckland’s concept of
information-as-thing has often been misunderstood over the years since it was
published, with many readers interpreting the “thing” portion too literally or out of
context. Over the years, Buckland’s ideas became clearer with his work on the notion of
“document” which has aided in a better understanding of “information-as-thing.” His
intent was not to claim that all information is “thing” but to point out that much of
what information science deals with (especially in information retrieval and stora ge) is
indeed information-as-thing – or representations of knowledge. Buckland’s concern
was to “develop and present an overall conceptual framework for considering
information systems” (Buckland, 1991a, p. 31). He felt that inclusion of the proper
JDOC
68,1
46
To continue reading
Request your trial