1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Museums face a particular challenge in enabling blind and partially sighted (BPS) visitors to engage emotionally with the narrative(s) they present. In collaboration with a world-leading tourist attraction (Titanic Belfast) and the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), we have applied several different approaches for improving emotional engagement for BPS visitors. This paper addresses the critical challenge of how to obtain reliable evidence for evaluating the emotional response of BPS visitors to the museum’s audio description (AD) and overall experience. We consider six different methods for measuring emotional engagement, and consider their potential for providing reliable experimental evidence. Based on BPS-user feedback, we present a qualitative comparison of these methods, uniquely all applied to the same museum context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21019.wan
2022-05-23
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. “Audio Description: No Woman, No Cry – In the Gallery | Tate.” n.d.AccessedSeptember 25, 2021. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ofili-no-woman-no-cry-t07502/audio-description-no-woman-no-cry
  2. Bedford, Leslie
    2001 “Storytelling: The Real Work of Museums.” Curator: The Museum Journal44 (1): 27–34. 10.1111/j.2151‑6952.2001.tb00027.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2001.tb00027.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Bedigan, Kirsten M.
    2016 “Developing Emotions: Perceptions of Emotional Responses in Museum Visitors.” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry16 (5): 87–95. 10.5281/zenodo.204969
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.204969 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradley, Margaret M., and Peter J. Lang
    1994 “Measuring Emotion: The Self-Assessment Semantic Differential Manikin and the Semantic Differential.” Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry25 (1): 49–59. 10.1016/0005‑7916(94)90063‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruner, Jerome
    1990Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bynion, Teah-Marie, and Matthew T. Feldner
    2017 “Self-Assessment Manikin.” InEncyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, edited byVirgil Zeigler-Hill and Todd K. Shackelford, 4654–56. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑28099‑8_77‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_77-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Caro, Marina Ramos
    2016 “Testing Audio Narration: The Emotional Impact of Language in Audio Description.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology24 (4): 606–34. 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1120760
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1120760 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chmiel, Agnieszka, and Iwona Mazur
    2012 “AD Reception Research: Some Methodological Considerations.” InEmerging Topics in Translation: Audio Description, 57–80. Trieste: EUT. https://hdl.handle.net/10593/8710
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cock, Matthew, Molly Bretton, Anna Fineman, Richard France, Claire Madge, and Melanie Sharpe
    2018 “State of Museum Access 2018 Does Your Museum Website Welcome and Inform Disabled Visitors?” VocalEyes, Stage TEXT and Autism in Museums. https://vocaleyes.co.uk/state-of-museum-access-2018
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Di Giovanni, Elena
    2018 “Audio Description and Reception-Centred Research.” InReception Studies in Audiovisual Translation, edited byElena Di Giovanni and Yves Gambier, 225–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.141.12gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.141.12gio [Google Scholar]
  11. Di Giovanni, Elena, and Yves Gambier
    eds. 2018Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.141
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.141 [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz-Cintas, Jorge, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2020 “Introduction: Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation–Cognition, Reception, Production.” Journal of Specialised Translation, no.331: 3–16. https://www.jostrans.org/issue33/art_introduction.php
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eardley, Alison F., Louise Fryer, Rachel Hutchinson, Matthew Cock, Peter Ride, and Joselia Neves
    2017 “Enriched Audio Description: Working towards an Inclusive Museum Experience.” InInclusion, Disability and Culture: An Ethnographic Perspective Traversing Abilities and Challenges, edited bySantoshi Halder and Lori Czop Assaf, 195–207. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑55224‑8_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55224-8_13 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ekandem, Joshua I., Timothy A. Davis, Ignacio Alvarez, Melva T. James, and Juan E. Gilbert
    2012 “Evaluating the Ergonomics of BCI Devices for Research and Experimentation.” Ergonomics55 (5): 592–98. 10.1080/00140139.2012.662527
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.662527 [Google Scholar]
  15. Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking
    2016The Museum Experience. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315417899
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315417899 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fryer, Louise, and Jonathan Freeman
    2014 “Can You Feel What I’m Saying? The Impact of Verbal Information on Emotion Elicitation and Presence in People with a Visual Impairment.” InIn Challenging Presence: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Presence, edited byAnna Felnhofer and Oswald D. Kothgassner, 99–107. Wien: facultas.wuv Universitäts.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gillham, Bill
    2008Developing a Questionnaire. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Greco, Gian Maria
    2018 “The Nature of Accessibility Studies.” Journal of Audiovisiual Translation1 (1): 205–32. jatjournal.org/index.php/jat/article/view/51. 10.47476/jat.v1i1.51
    https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v1i1.51 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2019 “Towards a Pedagogy of Accessibility : The Need for Critical Learning Spaces in Media Accessibility Education and Training.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies181: 23–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. “Home | Easy Access for Social Inclusion Training (EASIT).” n.d.AccessedSeptember 25, 2021. https://pagines.uab.cat/easit/en
  21. Hutchinson, Rachel S., and Alison F. Eardley
    2019 “Museum Audio Description: The Problem of Textual Fidelity.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice27 (1): 42–57. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1473451
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1473451 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2020 “The Accessible Museum: Towards an Understanding of International Audio Description Practices in Museums.” Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness114 (6): 475–87. 10.1177/0145482X20971958
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X20971958 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2021 “Inclusive Museum Audio Guides: ‘Guided Looking’ through Audio Description Enhances Memorability of Artworks for Sighted Audiences.” Museum Management and Curatorship36 (4), 427–46. 10.1080/09647775.2021.1891563
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2021.1891563 [Google Scholar]
  24. Iturregui-Gallardo, Gonzalo, and Jorge Luis Méndez-Ulrich
    2020 “Towards the Creation of a Tactile Version of the Self-Assessment Manikin (T-SAM) for the Emotional Assessment of Visually Impaired People.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education67 (6): 657–74. 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1626007
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1626007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Krosnick, Jon A., and Stanley Presser
    2010 “Question and Questionnaire Design.” InThe Handbook of Survey Research, edited byPeter Marsden and James Wright, 263–312. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Krueger, Richard A.
    1997Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group Results. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lang, Peter J., Margaret M. Bradley, and Bruce N. Cuthbert
    2008International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective Ratings of Pictures and Instruction Manual. University of Florida, Gainesville. Tech Rep A-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McMillen, Rebecca, and Frances Alter
    2017 “Social Media, Social Inclusion, and Museum Disability Access.” Museums & Social Issues12 (2): 115–25. 10.1080/15596893.2017.1361689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15596893.2017.1361689 [Google Scholar]
  29. “Mind’s Eye – Audio Description Services for Museums & Galleries by Anne Hornsby.” n.d.AccessedMay 26, 2021. www.mindseyedescription.co.uk/index.html
  30. Morgan, David L.
    1998The Focus Group Guidebook. London: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781483328164
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328164 [Google Scholar]
  31. Neves, Josélia
    2012 “Multi-Sensory Approaches to (Audio) Describing the Visual Arts.” MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, no.4: 277–93. 10.6035/MonTI.2012.4.12
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2012.4.12 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016 “Enriched Descriptive Guides: A Case for Collaborative Meaning-Making in Museums.” Cultus9 (2): 137–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2018 “Cultures of Accessibility: Translation Making Cultural Heritage in Museums Accessible to People of All Abilities.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Culture, edited bySue-Ann Harding and Ovidi Carbonell Cortés, 415–30. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315670898‑23
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670898-23 [Google Scholar]
  34. Orero, Pilar., Stephen Doherty, Jan-Louis Kruger, Jan Pedersen, Elisa Perego, Pablo Romero-Fresco, Sara Rovira-Esteva, Olga Soler-Vilageliu, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2018 “Conducting Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation (AVT): A Position Paper.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, no.30: 105–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Orero, Pilar
    2008 “Three Different Receptions of the Same Film: ‘The Pear Stories Project’ Applied to Audio Description.” European Journal of English Studies12 (2): 179–93. 10.1080/13825570802151454
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570802151454 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pérez-González, Luis
    2014Audiovisual Translation: Theories, Methods and Issues. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315762975
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315762975 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ramos, Marina
    2015 “The Emotional Experience of Films: Does Audio Description Make a Difference?” The Translator21 (1): 68–94. 10.1080/13556509.2014.994853
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.994853 [Google Scholar]
  38. Randaccio, Monica
    2018 “Museum Audio Description: Multimodal and ‘Multisensory’ Translation: A Case Study from the British Museum.” Linguistics and Literature Studies6 (6): 285–97. 10.13189/lls.2018.060604
    https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2018.060604 [Google Scholar]
  39. Remael, Aline, Nina Reviers, and Gert Vercauteren
    2015 “Pictures Painted in Words: ADLAB Audio Description Guidelines” 2015 www.adlabproject.eu/Docs/adlab/book/index.html
  40. “Resources – VocalEyes.” n.d.AccessedMay 26, 2021. https://vocaleyes.co.uk/services/resources/
  41. Sakpere, Wilson, Michael Adeyeye-Oshin, and Nhlanhla B. W. Mlitwa
    2017 “A State-of-the-Art Survey of Indoor Positioning and Navigation Systems and Technologies.” South African Computer Journal29 (3): 145–97. 10.18489/sacj.v29i3.452
    https://doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v29i3.452 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tymoczko, Maria
    2014Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315759494
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759494 [Google Scholar]
  43. United Nations
    United Nations 2014 “General Comment No. 2. Article 9: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).” CRPD/C/ GC/2. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#9. 10.18356/08360327‑en
    https://doi.org/10.18356/08360327-en
  44. Wang, Xi, Danny Crookes, Sue-Ann Harding, and David Johnston
    2020 “Evaluating Audio Description and BPS Visitor Experience in Titanic Belfast.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation3 (1): 246–63. 10.47476/jat.v3i2.2020.124
    https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v3i2.2020.124 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2021 “Stories, Journeys and Smart Maps: An Approach to Universal Access.” Universal Access in the Information Society. 10.1007/s10209‑021‑00832‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00832-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilkinson, Sue
    1998 “Focus Group Methodology: A Review.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology ISSN:1 (3): 181–203. 10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21019.wan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21019.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error