We would also like to share with you some of the comments these specimens and labels invoked.
"[The plastinated head section] is kind of interesting, but my first impression of it - it looked [like] a meatloaf inside a turkey, you know…It seems like you [would] have to have an advanced degree in medicine or science to make heads or tails out of [the plastinated head section]."
In regards to the fluid-preserved brain section with the tumor, one man said:
"My father died of brain cancer. You know, that tumor. I mean, there it is. That's what killed my father. That really brings things to reality [for me]."
One focus group responded in this way to the plastinated hand with the gunshot wound after learning about the process of plastination.
"When I looked at [the hand with the gunshot wound], the hand didn't do anything for me, until now [when I learned about plastination]. And for me it's not so much the reason why the preservation [was done], but knowing how the preservation was done helps me believe that this really is a real specimen, not plastic. (And is that important for you?) It is. Otherwise, I would walk through the whole museum not believing that it was real, and I wouldn't be able to get beyond that to actually look at it and study it and be interested in what I'm really looking at."
As part of the focus groups discussion, RK&A asked the participants to directly compare certain specimens and discuss their reactions to these pairs. It should be noted that although we asked the focus groups to make these comparisons they often drew comparison between the different objects and specimens without our prompting. Following are some comments the groups made in reference to certain pairs of objects.
The fluid-preserved normal fetus and the fluid-preserved conjoined twins engendered much discussion. One of the comments about these two specimens was:
"It's just so amazing to me to think about all the different factors that go into having a baby that's born normal. And I think [the two specimens] go together to help highlight that."
Comparing the syphilitic femur and the photograph of a man suffering from syphilis invoked this response from one group:
"[The syphilitic femur] was difficult to put in a relationship [with] anything. You have to say, "Syphilis did all that [damage] to the bone." I really wasn't quite sure what all that [scarring] was. It could have been a piece of driftwood."
Pre- and Post-Visit Interviews. In addition to the two focus groups, RK&A conducted a total of 80 open-ended interviews with museum visitors. Forty of the interviews were conducted with visitors as they entered the museum lobby and before they toured our exhibit floor. In these pre-visit interviews, the focus was placed on the expectations museum visitors had and the reasons for their visit. The remaining 40 interviews were conducted with visitors after they had an opportunity to view the exhibits and as they were leaving the museum. These 40 interviews focused on visitors' overall reaction to the exhibition space as well as inquiring which specimen or object had the greatest impact on them. Visitors were also asked if there was something that could have made their visit more educational or more enjoyable.
Study Results
When interpreting the results of this study it is important to keep in mind a fundamental difference between the focus groups and the visitors' interviews. Museum visitors who participated in the interviews may or may not have been aware that they would be viewing human remains on the exhibit floor. But in the focus group screening process we explicitly indicated that human remains would be presented, including fetal material. This was a fact that was not lost on the focus group participants.
"They [the focus group recruiters] made sure that I wasn't going to be physically ill when I came into this focus group and they [museum staff] unveiled those [specimens]."
Despite our warnings, some of the focus group members still experienced a strong visceral reaction to seeing some of the specimens.
"I'm not easily grossed out, but when we first went over and looked [at the specimens], my flesh was crawling just a little bit. It's almost like [when] you might pick up a medical book and you start looking through it, and there's always one page that just completely makes you want to shut it and just put it to the side. I think, in small doses this is fine…I think after about half an hour or so, some things would just gross me out, or I wouldn't want to schedule it anywhere around lunch."
As stated previously, the museum was interested in exploring the influence of specimen type - whole versus part, skeletal element versus organ, model versus specimen, etc. What we found was that these categories were not important to the study participants either in the non-contextual setting of the focus groups or as part of a museum visitation experience. Further, findings from both the focus groups and the interviews suggest that the entire range of specimens is appropriate for display. Viewing a face, an entire individual, or even a particularly graphic model of a disfiguring disease was considered acceptable, appropriate, and even valuable.
"[I think] that some of this stuff is really scary to look at, but I think that that's [a] good thing, because it gives people some sense of immediacy…I hope that if [the museum] overhauls the exhibit, they won't take that stuff out because, there's enough that's sanitized and antiseptic [in the world]."
This view holds true for the pathological and normal fetal material as well - a category of specimens the museum staff was particularly interested in probing for sensitivity issues. One of our 11-year-old female visitors was able to articulate her experience this way:
"The babies were pretty shocking. I don't mean shocking in a bad way, just you don't get to see things like this very often…[The exhibit] shows people that it [developmental abnormalities] can happen and it's not funny. Because maybe when you talk to somebody and you say you saw a baby with one eye, a 'cyclops,' they might start laughing. But then when you actually see it, it sort of makes you crumble inside. It's like, "Oh God, that really can happen."
Only a few interviewees were troubled by seeing the fetal materials, and most indicated that alternative interpretive strategies or display methods could help them be less disturbed.
"It's just a little disturbing that they're actually real little babies that were stuffed in jars for people to look at. Maybe it was just the way that they were set up. You had a lively exhibit [about pregnancy]…and all of a sudden you are confronted by all these [pathological fetuses]…It certainly took the cuddle, the fun out of childbirth."
Although we discovered that the fetal material represents just part of the visitors' total experience, the study did identify a few important facts about visitors' responses to these specimens. The first is that the potential for misinterpreting the origins of the fetal material is much higher than for other specimens. Similarly, there frequently can be misconceptions about why the material is preserved in the manner that it is. The "why" and "how" the fetal material is in jars are important for a number of our visitors.
Our original research objectives identified exploring if the knowledge that a specimen is of natural origin is important in determining the visitor's response. Our findings suggest that knowing and being able to identify a specimen as the "real thing" is a critical component to their experience. Specimens were more intriguing for being real.
"I like the jars. I mean, I like all the real stuff, but I think the jars are the best part."
"I like the fact that there [are] real specimens [in the exhibit]. It's not just plastic models - I mean it's real. And the [diseased] state is always more interesting than the normal state. It's kind of cool to see a tumor. I mean, it's kind of gross, but it gets your attention."
The other factor that influenced how positively the visitors responded to specimens was their ability to interpret the specimen. Visitors need to believe that they could see and identify the pathological component. Although real specimens were the most intriguing, the ability to comprehend and understand the condition depicted was still a critical component.
One of our main overarching concerns was whether the experience of viewing these powerful specimens and objects would induce such a strong negative response that the visitors were not able to learn from the specimens. What we discovered is that the repulsion-attraction dichotomy is a superficial one at best, and does not negatively impact the visitors' experience. All of the museum experience is a process, and the repulsion-attraction mechanism is part of this process. The "oh gross" response compels the visitor to focus on the specimen and the exhibit, and this focus time gives us the opportunity to turn the experience into an educational encounter.
Another concern the museum staff had regarded the age-appropriateness of displays with human materials. Although some interviewees and focus group members did voice concerns about the need to take into consideration the age, maturity level, and interests of the individual child, most agreed that the museum could provide an educational and stimulating experience for our current target audience of children over the age of 10.
"I have a 7 year old. He'd be going bananas over it. He'd be loving this."
Conclusion
The data collected from this study is not a product in and of itself as much as it is a tool. Based upon the RK&A recommendations and our own assessment of the data, we will be making a number of enhancements to our exhibit floor. While our collections are not rich in normal specimens, we will, where we can, couple pathological specimens with normal ones. We will also craft basic descriptive language that will help visitors better understand the origin of these materials, particularly with our plastinated specimens that are sometimes not perceived as "real." We are also making a commitment to more extensive formative evaluation as we write labels for new displays that incorporate body parts. We would also like to further explore the impact of these types of exhibit experiences on younger children.
