Abstract
Millions of people with vision impairments worldwide still experience many barriers when visiting museum exhibitions, given the tenacious ocular centricity of these institutions and the lack of assistive technologies that promote multisensory exhibit design. It is urgent to give priority to issues related to the accessibility of those patrons in museums, as well as their social inclusion, considering that visual impairment is a diverse spectrum. This chapter aims to research blind and visually impaired visitors' experiences in these institutions and presents a proposal of an integrative framework, co-created based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 29 individuals from Portugal. It concluded that sensory, intellectual and physical access must be integrated into the pre-visit, on-site visit and post-visit phases of interaction with cultural institutions, in order to promote a sense of autonomy to visually impaired individuals.
TopIntroduction
According to the World Health Organization (2017), it is estimated that 253 million people worldwide live with visual impairments, of whom about 36 million are blind, and about 217 million have moderate to severe vision impairment (Bourne et al., 2017). This number increases to 442 million when considered the degree of mild visual impairment, which, despite being less severe than blindness, has a substantial effect on the quality of life of nearly 188.5 million people (Bourne et al., 2017; Dandona & Dandona, 2006).
In Portugal – where the present research took place – data from the Census of 2011 allowed estimate that among the 17.8% of the population that declared to have any kind of difficulty, 23% (900 thousand) specified the vision as a cause, of which 3.1% (28 thousand) reported blindness (INE, 2012).
About the participation of blind and visually impaired patrons in museums, Dash and Grohall (2016) concluded that only 5.5% visit museums in Europe, which represents a significant potential market for these institutions (Mesquita & Carneiro, 2016). Devile and Kastenholz (2018) corroborate this idea when stressing that the emergence of accessible tourism as a field of academic research, although still being incipient, can be crucial to improve tourism suppliers’ capacity of surpassing this people’s needs by better understanding their engagement in tourist activities. Consequently, more inclusive approaches to tourism can be provided, alongside promoting individual and social well-being and empowerment.
These facts clearly evidence the need for research in this field, especially when considered the definition of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) for these institutions, which establish the museum’s social functions as the very core of their existence, simultaneously with their commitment to safeguard and communicate their collections to the public (Desvallées & Mairesse, 2010). In that sense, it becomes critical to give priority to issues related to social inclusion and accessibility, not only because there are millions of people living with disabilities worldwide, but also because everyone can suffer from temporary impairments during their lifetime, or more permanent ones, like age-related sensory and physical changes.
Among the aspects related to inclusive museums, assistive technologies are highlighted by Freeman et al. (2016, p. 26) as having the “potential to increase access and enable opportunities for disabled persons” since they can promote beneficial impacts on helping museums serve different publics while diminishing the barriers to accessibility (Pillow, Banks, & Reeves, 2015). Besides that, Andrade et al. (2015) expect positive economic effects with the implementation of inclusive technologies in museum exhibitions.
Although the growing concern about increasing accessibility for visitors with visual impairments (Cachia, 2013; Candlin, 2003; European Commission, 2013; IPM, 2004), several authors call attention to the fact that there is a tendency to treat them as a homogeneous group, despite each one of those persons, as individuals, have different reasons to go to museums and galleries (Argyropoulos & Kanari, 2015; Candlin, 2003; Ginley, 2013; Levent & Reich, 2012), and experience varied outcomes from their visits (Argyropoulos & Kanari, 2015; Hayhoe, 2017; Morgan, 2012; Reich et al., 2011; Xicola-Tugas, 2012).
Key Terms in this Chapter
Design for All: Refers to approaches, methods, techniques, and tools that can be used to help address the diversity of requirements and needs, to promote equivalent experiences for people with disabilities.
Inclusive Museum: A museum that contributes to social democratization by offering social opportunities to all kinds of visitors, which are perceived as part of the museum sustainability.
Accessibility: The user’s ability to use products or services, despite their age, disabilities, or special needs, among other human conditions.
Accessibility Standards: Accessibility requirements that can be followed to create high-quality solutions (like websites, interfaces, accessible spaces, and so forth), that allow people to effectively using them.
User Experience: The perceptions and responses of the user that result from the use of a product, service or system.
Special Needs: The requirements people have according to their actual condition, like age, body function, learning difficulties, emotional problems, among others.
Disability: A permanent condition that limits a person’s senses, movements, or activities.