AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES IN NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENTS - Patricia Gillard, 1998

(From https://www.academia.edu/30968492/Audience_development_strategies_in_new_media_environments)

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES IN NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENTS

Patricia Gillard

Paper presented at ‘Convergence’ Conference, Brisbane, 18-20 November, 1998

In the dislocations that new digital communications bring, we need to ‘migrate’ skills and insights into new environments and shape them in the interests of social groups and publics. Over the last three years, I’ve taken the chance to do some ‘migrating’ of my own audience research skills. I’ve been drawn to the complexities for cultural institutions as they redefine their roles and activity, and incorporate digital media as a part of their work. This paper is informed by four different projects, so I will briefly describe them.

Virtual Cultural Centre

The most formative was a project that didn’t go ahead in the form envisaged. It was named ‘Noasphere’, somewhat after Teillard de Chardin, and sought to develop the notion of a Virtual Cultural Centre with community access and links to the National Cultural Network. A group of people were brought together by Judi Cooper, CEO of the fledgling EMERGE, Victoria’s new Co-operative Multimedia Centre, in early 1996¹. We wanted to provide community access in an on-line environment to the resources of public and private cultural institutions in Victoria and to stimulate new forms of on-line exhibition. There were two distinctive aspects of ‘Noasphere’. It hoped to develop new intelligent interface software that created a personalised ‘space’ in which to conduct cultural activity, linked to all of the other resources available in this virtual cultural centre.

Unfortunately, approval for the project did not happen in time to keep the original group together but the ‘Useum’, partly based on the original ‘Noasphere’ has recently been launched by EMERGE.

Museum Victoria

At the end of 1996 I joined the Board of Museum Victoria, and continued until August 1998. This meant close engagement with the cultural policy of the Victorian government, as expressed in Agenda 21, and a responsibility for the goals and operation of four museums². Over the past two years, Museum Victoria has been building three new museums, two of them now open. The new Melbourne Museum, a $250 million project, is due to open late 1999.

Just as significantly, Museum Victoria redefined its role to ‘improve an understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live’. The whole workforce of Museum Victoria was restructured according to six program areas which were to be applied across the four museums. These were Indigenous Cultures, Human Mind and Body, Environmental Conservation, Science and Society, Australian Studies and Technology and Everyday Life.

The shift of focus to programs and public understanding created tensions within the organisation and some political fallout. The position and authority of curators was perceived to be threatened and political affiliations were used to have questions raised in parliament. The politics were very personally directed to the CEO, who chose to take early retirement after some highly selective and prejudiced reporting in The Age newspaper.

Alongside these internal changes and external pressures, Museum Victoria was defining the contribution of digital media in the new relationships with the publics it serves. Did we want to create an online ‘Virtual Museum’ as a separate site, distinct from all the other sites and accessed from inside each of them? Should we use the Internet to communicate the identity and programs of existing museums? Or should there be a site which related most strongly to the particular programs, and helped integrate them across the museum campuses? Was the website simply another form of publication which could be used to target groups who wanted access to new content but could not always visit, such as school groups? These questions are still being worked through.

In the short term, the development of an online museum environment was influenced most by the resource pressures of planning and building three new museums. At the same time that new media forms were being designed and produced, we were also donning hard hats and walking through the mud and pipes of construction sites. When buildings were being constructed to deadlines, resources were more urgently drawn to real rather than virtual sites.

In the longer term, online contents may be one way of providing a greater depth of information and experience and presenting the ‘core knowledges’ which underlie more directly engaging forms of exhibition. This would help to solve some of the tensions being encountered within museums as they integrate more traditional functions of research and collections with their public communication role.

State Library of Victoria

Early this year, with colleagues Anne Cranny-Francis and Richard Upton I conducted an evaluation of the State Library’s website to find out who were the main users. The findings would be applied to redesign the site and expand digital access to the library, in particular the digitised picture collection. A mixed method evaluation was adopted, involving user research (including librarians as well as online users), sociocultural analysis of contents (ways the website represented the library and constructed readers), and usability testing (navigation, links and provision for people with special needs). The combined methods helped articulate the kinds of ambiguities and processes involved in building digital media within a traditional library.

National Library of Australia and Queensland Culture Centre 2000

Currently our Canberra Roy Morgan Research office is conducting research with the National Library of Australia, studying the uses of the Visitor Centre to assist in its public outreach. The Visitor Centre incorporates a range of media, including Internet access. I’m also involved with planning for the Queensland Culture Centre 2000, as they consider options for relocating and integrating some of the services and collections of two different cultural institutions, the State Library and the Museum. The changes would be designed to give access to much broader publics in Queensland, especially those not living in cities. The use of the Internet and digital exhibitions will be crucial to accomplishing their purpose of making the Culture Centre a place for all Queenslanders.

The Work of Cultural Institutions

There are some common patterns and pressures within cultural institutions related to their use of digital media and their agenda of expanding access to users. It is not a simple technology push, or just a populist approach by governments.

Government policy and enterprise

The Creative Nation policies announced by the Keating government in 1994 were the first explicit attempt in Australia to link new digital technologies with arts policy. The anticipated growth of broadband networks throughout the world was seen to present an opportunity for Australians to provide cultural content overseas and to expand the support and export earnings of the arts sector. In retrospect, Creative Nation (DOCA, 1994) was more a technology initiative than a well integrated arts policy. However, the idea of arts and digital technology influenced state governments to consider their positioning within this new policy context.

The Victorian government announced its vision of Victoria 21, now Agenda 21 in 1995: ‘Victorian firms will carve out a major role in the global provision of multimedia products and services, and the Government will use the power of communications technology and multimedia to transform the way it provides services to and communicates with the public’ (Victoria 21, 1995: introduction). The Arts Industry Tourism Council was established in 1995 to plan for the expansion of cultural tourism, identified by Tourism Victoria as one of the seven ‘product strengths of the state’ (Arts Victoria, 1996: introduction). Work on a major refurbishment of cultural institutions, the redevelopment of Federation Square and a new Melbourne Museum were begun. The language of business, and the commercial impetus behind cultural policy is evident in the stated intention that ‘Victoria’s cultural organisations and the travel and tourism industry must forge an effective partnership that can make substantial contributions to the growth of its economy’ (Arts Victoria, 1996:2).

The effect of the government’s approach is a current emphasis on demonstrating the value and uses to the Victorian public of what has now been built. In the initial impetus for ‘going digital’ three years ago there was little time or opportunity to do formative research. Instead, CD ROMs and digitising of collections proceeded at a frantic pace, spurred by the need to produce new content, and to show clear evidence of innovation in the use of new media. Those areas of work which are continuing, especially the websites which give access to digitised collections, now have to describe and measure the ways they are useful to broader publics, as a basis for further support.

Within the Victorian context the refurbishment of cultural institutions and their uses of digital media have been explicitly linked to cultural tourism. Websites are meant to communicate Victoria’s unique history, urban culture and artistic endeavour to overseas and interstate visitors. The Museums Board was very conscious that in such an environment, the attractions with which the museums are compared by tourists are the commercial and entertainment venues. Increasingly, the work of some cultural institutions will involve interpretation through the construction of environments which offer emotional experiences and gratifying sensations, in the form of games and ‘rides’. Cinemedia in Melbourne recently advertised their tender for experiential rides at their new site in Federation Square. For these kinds of exhibitions, the techniques of cinema and the popular genres favoured in TV programming become key influences on the contents chosen for collection and display.

The evening launch of the Immigration Museum in Melbourne, November 12, was a forcible reminder of the symbolic importance of museums in the political and social life of states and nations. This particular museum was meant to be a powerful affirmation of the diversity of peoples who make up Australia, and the benefit we have all gained from embracing ethnic differences. The museum also expresses the influences and injury to our own indigenous peoples. The evening was both glamorous and poignant. It was a dramatic celebration of achievement which gave credit to the government and was a pointed reminder of how the values the museum stands for, need to be defended in the current political climate.

Governments are supporting the work of cultural institutions because they see them as a key part of strategies for the expansion of local industry, especially tourism. In response we need a more complex understanding of the relationship of individuals and groups of users to the information, objects, interpretations and meanings available within cultural institutions. We need to plan for the visitors we are expected to attract, and show how they are making use of cultural resources.

Digital expectations

When we turn to the publics who are visiting cultural institutions, we see a more subtle pressure emerging. Widespread use of the Internet seems to bring a change in expectations in regard to the whole experience of visiting and using places like galleries, museums and libraries. There seems to be some consistent influence from the nature of the Internet, the ways it works to make accessible a range of chosen information, that is impacting back on the very definition of what it is that cultural organisations are there to do, and how they should provide for their publics.

To the librarians at the State Library in Victoria, this was shown in the ways year twelve students came to the library to do research on major examination questions. They expected the Internet to provide them with packaged answers to their particular questions which were retrievable in a very short time. Many students were shocked at the suggestion that they spend time locating books or other material, reading them, then choosing information and interpreting and writing it up themselves.

The online world seems to create new expectations for museum and gallery sites, that they make their material accessible to people in ways that are easier to cross reference and to create particular pathways, narratives and searches. The possibilities need to announce themselves, not be defined on a single dimension according to location, subject matter or discipline. The contents and services are expected to be signposted and linked in a hypertext structure. Some familiarity with digital technology seems to produce the expectation that people should be able to locate and link the material contents and collections in built galleries, libraries and museums, as you would select a single music track from a music CD.

In October, a member of a focus group at the National Library of Australia stated:

I want bigger more exciting banners or something in the foyer announcing what’s going on in the library... The touch screen things which were in those corners, I think are quite good because they’re quite important. Also to have more access to the collections... because I really think the library needs to raise awareness of the collections that it does have, because nobody knows that the library has paintings. You’ve got, you know, the maps, pictorials, rare books, everything and people are so surprised that you can get access to that. That needs to be announced somehow in the foyer I think. (Nichole, early 20s)

She was demanding that the design and content of the entry space lead her through to the resources of the building, and express in their configuration the main function and purposes of the library. Before websites existed, the onus was more on visitors to find their own way, using the lists of locations and departments in foyers and asking for help where necessary. Some visitors are now expecting ‘navigation aids’ and a more encompassing experience.

Visitor Evaluation

As their behaviour demonstrates when they visit, many people seem to be changing their notions of what it is to be a visitor or reader. Within cultural institutions there are likewise definite changes in the emphasis given to knowledge about visitors and its use for planning within the organisation.

Within Museums Australia, a professional organisation, there is a special interest group which focuses on visitor evaluation. This group held a conference ‘Visitor Centre Stage: Action for the Future’ in August 2-5 this year, attended by 116 people. The conference taught realistic and practical ways to conceptualise, study and measure a whole range of audience relationships within museums. There were case studies and working examples of the use of visitor information at every level within the organisation. The setting up of internal databases to track visitation was particularly encouraged³. Carol Scott, President of the Evaluation and Visitor Research Special Interest Group, emphasised the importance of working to the senior corporate and policy functions of the organisation, as well as the marketing and public outreach areas, where it is more common.

Those who are leading this development within museums are choosing the language of program evaluation, drawn from education and government rather than approaching from a media and communications field. This is probably a good idea. A media view of audiences which is constructed in terms of a ratings discourse has less chance of changing the practices within cultural institutions and orienting them towards a genuine understanding of the ways people engage with the meanings and experience of their visits.

In another way, the language of evaluation may limit some possibilities. ‘Evaluation’ can be mistaken as inherently judgemental, and kept at arms length from the creative design and exhibition work within museums. I have always had a vision of the ethnographic and descriptive forms of audience research, which in themselves are fascinating and demand much creativity and interpretation on the part of the researcher, working closely with designers and writers to open up a range of possibilities which will also be meaningful to audiences.

When I was Head of Research and Development for ABC Television, 1986 to 1988, I introduced a few different kinds of research including some audience testing in small groups, and a major descriptive study of women as a television audience (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1987). My aim was to work closely with the program areas, articulating the interests of different groups as they expressed themselves in relation to current programming, and suggesting program contents and scheduling times which would provide for audiences in new ways.

Within ABC television at the time, it became impossible to apply audience research for creative purposes, except with children’s television. Co-operation with programming departments at the formative stages went against the dictates of the Managing Director, who sought to restrict audience infomation to ratings and use it to promote the corporate image. Funding for descriptive research which would suggest new programming practices was withdrawn.

I hope that museums may finally use audience research in different and creative ways. The demands of the digital environments may finally push us into committing resources to take a major interest in visitors.

Audience Analysis

Purposeful audiences

Many early definitions of audience for media such as television and cinema have drawn the audience as ‘passive’, even mesmerised. There were early examples of research which challenged this, such as the Payne Fund Studies in the US (Blumer, 1933), but they were not built upon in later research. Through the eighties and nineties, much has been written about the ‘active’ and now ‘interactive’ audience. In academic writing it is understood that audience groups reinterpret programs according to their own contexts and cultural positions. The options are not unlimited but they are not fully determined.

What these notions of audiences generally omit is the purposeful, goal directed quality of some audience activity; the deliberate use of media to construct a meaningful life narrative or a created fantasy which enhances everyday life. This has certainly been present in some audience analysis which looked at the uses of contents. In 1986, I wrote about teenage girls having particular programs I labelled ‘primers’ which they used to study adult life, and which provided content for animated discussion with friends, and material for imitation and testing out (Palmer, 1986). British research about domestic technologies has given examples of how family members deliberately use technology acquisitions to construct a place and identity for themselves (Moores, 1996).

However, the purposeful uses of contents have not been prominent in most accounts of audiences. A recently published book, Wired Up (Howard, 1998), corrected this longstanding neglect by gathering together a number of Australian studies of young people using a range of media for their own purposes.

The ‘Noasphere’ project referred to earlier, explicitly worked from a notion of online users who were ‘searching for something’ and sought ways to design cultural activity for them. There is no doubt that some visitors to libraries, galleries, websites are just browsing or cruising. A large proportion, if asked, say that is exactly what they are doing. There is not much research which investigates what this really means. I would include some of this activity as purposeful even though it is not consciously goal oriented.

The concept of ‘quester’, developed for ‘Noasphere’, is useful to describe some audiences for cultural institutions. The notion builds in the interactive, interpretive, choice-making activity which is essential to those engaging with creative, cultural activity online. Although ‘quester’ is singular it can be used to apply to a group of users who have similar purposes.

Individuals or groups?

One of the conceptual difficulties that audience research presents, is that ‘audience’ is rarely a single person. By definition, a cultural product is rarely seen and interpreted by one person. At the other extreme, some companies know they have thousands of viewers but they think of them as a single audience, represented by a ratings number. Somewhere in the middle is the academic practice, which is to refer to ‘audiences’, by which is meant the main groups in terms of their interpretations and uses of the content. Audiences or audience groups, then, are loosely defined aggregates, put together on the basis of their similar interests in content. In a commercial setting audiences are usually only defined by age and sex which are assumed to stand for a whole set of similar interests.

When we move to talk of the audience(s) for digital media, it becomes more pressing to deal with the single, purposeful user. It is more evident that use of the Internet can create a single pathway through material that may not be repeated by any others. The notion of audience does have to take this into account.

It is becoming clear that even the ‘quester paths’, a measurement of where and how most people ‘travel’ within a website, have dense tracks with a few stragglers. There are companies who give statistics and ‘maps’ of such travel. People do have common patterns of use within websites. We are creatures with some shared habits, even in a new medium. These main ‘tracks’ probably apply to travel between websites and across the Internet, though I am not aware of research which documents travel between websites.

Audiences created in relation to contents

Audiences are created around contents which contribute to understanding, action and creativity in the everyday life of individuals and groups. Audiences are brought into being by institutions and by the places, media and contents they produce.

A great deal of conventional audience and market research gives the impression of measuring what ‘slice’ of a pre-existing audience is coming your way. Audience research is usually expressed as a record of who is attending to what, with the ‘what’ predefined and the ‘who’ a selection from a predictable population. With its rounded and weighted numbers and its ruled columns of information, the research can disguise the audience relationship which is one of selecting, partially attending, interpreting, sharing with others, moving on to something else, making comparisons, remembering fragments and even imitating and trying things out in ones social life. Being an audience member is a dynamic activity which can be described but not fixed. The word ‘audiencing’ has been used to describe the activity and relationship of being an audience member.

Audience information for cultural institutions needs to focus on the activities of audiencing, on who is using what and why, and also on how and why certain contents are bringing certain audiences into being. An exhibition can be described according to its main audiences, and audience groupings can be defined according to their major interests. We need to understand the nature of the relationship, in order to build collections and exhibitions which genuinely fulfil the purposes of audiences and of the organisation.

Audience Development

Audience development is a systematic process of exploring the nature of the ‘audiencing’ relationship, or what is ‘going on’ in the present. It suggests ways that collections, contents, environments and media can be used to deepen and extend relationships with individuals and groups.

While working in different roles with cultural institutions, I have been creating some understandings of how audience development could be done. It is all very well to adopt the abstract, dynamic notions of audience interpretive activity which have been partly articulated in a few academic studies. Applying them in public organisations, in research which has tangible findings and recommendations which can then be taken up by management and literally ‘built’ is something else again. ‘Audiencing’ is not, after all, such a comfortable concept. Attendance statistics and approval ratings are easier stuff to understand.

Audience development is a planned process of enhancing the uses of contents, products and services by visitors and audiences in order to accomplish the goals of the organisation. In some contexts the individuals and groups will be referred to as markets, readers, respondents, publics, consumers.

What follows are the main aspects of audience development which organisations need to consider. This is very much a ‘work in progress’, not a recipe or a model. The methods which different organisations use will vary, and they may emphasise one part of the process, not all.

Scoping the organisation’s intelligence about users

There is usually a great deal of tacit knowledge, even myth surrounding the nature of users, as defined by organisations. Some audiences acquire a bad ‘reputation’ or are even unwanted. Certainly, some users are more visible than others.

Definitions of users in concept and in practice are both needed. The language adopted about users in Annual Reports, policy documents and pamphlets can be revealing.

Intelligence about users may be gained from those who deal direct with the public as well as from previous research and statistics about use which are routinely collected. In most organisations, ‘visitors’ are defined as outsiders. However, observation of who actually makes use of services sometimes reveals that staff play a double role. They can be workers in their own areas and ‘visitors’ to others.

For new media, organisational knowledge may be shaped by more general statements and assumptions made in the media and by hearsay. For example, at the State Library of Victoria, it was assumed that web users would be younger to middle aged, reflecting the Internet user base. The online survey established a very broad spread of users, especially in the over forty age group. This was a reflection of the widespread use of the web for genealogy and family history.

Audience Activity

Audience development strategies must rest on a knowledge of ‘what people do’. The only way to find this out is to use some form of systematic, empirical fieldwork to observe or question people about their visits. It should include what they do, how, why and even what use they make of their visit when they leave. Audience activity provides evidence for the interpretive relationship between audiences and the institution’s work.

Once audience activity has been identified, it is usually possible to describe major user groups in relation to contents. The process is best informed by an analysis of the contents and communications of the organisation, for example a sociocultural analysis as described in the next section. Descriptions of how audience groups use and interpret the institution’s work come closest to defining in a practical way the ‘audiencing’ relationship.

The description of main user groups may be for a whole institution, or it may be done in relation to particular exhibitions, services or media. It is particularly instructive to find out how audience groupings shift in their interests, composition and attendance over time.

For new media, one of the most important issues is the relationship between online use and visits in person. The role of websites, CD ROMs, large screen cinema, special merchandise and other media could be to invite a visit, extend the experience afterwards or even create a small community of people with similar interests. Those who only visit online may have particular interests which could define an entirely new audience for the organisation.

Sociocultural analysis

Sociocultural analysis focuses on the ways the organisation represents itself and how it positions its publics by its contents, services, products, communications. Such an analysis applies the methods of textual analysis and cultural theory to examine the relationships an organisation constructs with its publics.

There has been little analysis of this kind applied to websites, and some to architectural spaces and exhibitions. Anne Cranny-Francis contributed such an analysis to the evaluation for the State Library of Victoria. We were nervous about it. While major organisations and governments are familiar with empirical research, and even tolerate descriptive findings these days, cultural analysis seems largely confined to academic work.

Her analysis of the website revealed (amongst other things) a privileging of print-based forms of communication over more graphic styles. It showed an organisation wrestling with their traditional role, and trying to translate this in a new medium and to new users. At a presentation to library staff, it was the sociocultural analysis which opened discussion of some of the issues which had been hindering librarians’ participation in further development of the website. Some were also gratified at the description of their grey and white logo as a kind of electronic equivalent to damask. ⁴

Audience Development Strategy

The process of building a strategy involves a couple of different kinds of comparative analysis, within a framework provided by the goals and aspirations of the institution.

Comparison of the empirical research about user activity with the original ‘intelligence’ reveals those groups which are not well known to the organisation, or whose actual interests and patterns of use have been little understood or ignored. A comparison of the language and priorities of organisational knowledge with the findings of actual fieldwork can sometimes reveal those groups which have been privileged in terms of services and those who have been marginalised. There may be groups of people who are completely ‘missing’ as audiences.

Another form of comparative analysis begins with the contents, services and collections, then works back to see their connections with audience activity. This will sometimes point out opportunities to give information about contents to existing audiences, or suggest contents that are overused and need to be supplemented. Again, when particular audiences seem neglected in terms of content and services, new enterprises might be suggested.

A clear picture of audience activity as well as the institution’s contents and communications makes it possible to see ‘gaps’ from both the audience side and in contents or services. It reveals the strengths of an organisation as well. What it is reputed and loved for, the things people most expect and attend to. In cultural institutions, favourite objects or spaces can take on an almost mythical importance. It is necessary to identify the interpretations around these objects and experiences so that they can be used in a number of ways, especially when adapted to new media forms. It is also good to discover little known or emerging areas of importance for particular audiences.

An audience development strategy uses the information about existing audience relationships to build new expectations and to increase attendance over time in ways that support corporate objectives. This will not usually be a series of blockbuster events, designed to appeal across audience groups, but a carefully crafted series of offerings which maintain relationships with regular patrons but also seek contact with new groups, using experiences and media which are meaningful for the audience groups concerned. There should be continuing monitoring of a plan once it has been formed, to see whether the organisation is successful in building on existing patterns of use and providing new and appropriate contents and experiences.

There are simple ways to conduct continuing fieldwork which will keep an audience development strategy on track. Oftentimes, researchers can work alongside people within the organisation to find methods that will assist planning and exhibition development, making the organisation originators and intelligent users of their own research. The Special Interest Group of Museums Australia described previously, supports the development of evaluation skills within cultural institutions.

The Internet, and new forms of publication such as CD ROMs carry the promise of opening up access by a much wider group. Their particular content interests and forms of interaction will need to be understood and provided for over time.

New media environments create new forms of ‘audiencing’. They force us to apply understandings about audience activity which have been part of academic writing but neglected in the practices of broadcasters. I welcome websites, interactive and virtual reality exhibitions, experiential ‘rides’, chatrooms and other modes to come. They provide another opportunity to focus on how and why humans create meaning in their social groups and societies. This time, some of the time, we might be able to develop the work of cultural institutions to respond to a search for deeper understanding in our communities.

References

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1987) A Female Audience Development Study. Prosumer Services, Sydney: ABC

Arts Victoria (1996) Cultural Tourism Development in Victoria, Melbourne

Blumer, Herbert (1933) Movies and Conduct. New York: Macmillan

Cranny-Francis, Anne (forthcoming 1999) ‘Connexions’ in Donna Gibbs and Kerri-Lee Krause (eds) The Language of Cyberspace, Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishers

Department of Communication and the Arts (1994), Creative Nation, Commonwealth Cultural Policy, Canberra

Department of Premier and Cabinet (1995), Victoria 21. Directions for the Global Information Age. Melbourne

Gillard, Patricia (1998) ‘Not a woman within coo’ee: an encounter with cultural policy on the Superhighway’ in Alison Beale and Annette Van Den Bosch (eds) Ghosts in the Machine. Women and Cultural Policy in Canada and Australia. Toronto: Garamond Press

_____ (1996) ‘Privacy and control, Crusers , Questers and social policy’ University of Canberra Seminar, 31 May

Howard, Sue (ed) (1998) Wired Up. Young People and the Electronic Media. London: UCL Press

Moores, Shaun (1996) Satellite Television and Everyday Life. Articulating Technology, Luton: John Libby Media

Museum of Victoria (1996) Museum 2000, 3

Museum of Victoria (1997) 1996-1997 Annual Report. Melbourne

Nightingale, Virginia (1996) Studying Audiences. The Shock of the Real. New York: Routledge

Palmer, Patricia (1986), now Gillard, Girls and Television. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Education

1 The individuals involved in ‘Noasphere’ were Liddy Nevile, Don Schauder, Rosa Colisimo, Helen Page, John Smithies, Rob Gronow, Nicky Capponi and myself. Three of the cultural institutions in Melbourne were represented in the group and others were informed of our work. Kay Daniels and Rupert Hewison from the National Cultural Network took an active interest in the project as well.

2 The four museums are Melbourne Museum, Scienceworks Museum, Immigration Museum and Hellenic Antiquities Museum. Professor David Penington is Chair of the Board and Dr. Ian Galloway Acting CEO of Museum Victoria.

3 The website is amol.phm.gov.au/AMOL/evrsig/evrsig.html

4 Anne Cranny-Francis has reflected on the sociocultural analysis applied to the website in a forthcoming chapter, ‘Connexions’ for Donna Gibbs and Kerri-Lee Krause (eds) The Language of Cyberspace, Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishers