Testing Audio Storytelling for Museum Interpretation

Two prototype audio guides for a single object. Same letter. Different ways of attending.

Put on headphones. View the object image. Listen to Type 1, then Type 2.

Take a moment between them.

Leave a response when you're ready.

Type 1 — Framed Contemplation
Type 2 — Responsive Witness
View the object image

What this is

These are two research prototypes, not finished audio guides.

Both respond to the same object: an 18th-century letter in the London Museum Docklands collection, written by Thomas Mills, a plantation owner, addressed to an enslaved person named Pembroke. The letter survives. Pembroke's reply does not.

The prototypes test a single question: how much should an audio guide speak?

Type 1 — Framed Contemplation uses silence and structure to hold the object at the centre. The voice sets thresholds, then steps back. What you do with the space is yours.

Type 2 — Responsive Witness uses three voices — Mills, a copyist, and the silence where Pembroke's words would be. It redistributes interpretive authority without resolving the history. Neither prototype tells you what to conclude.

Why

Museum audio guides have changed their technology repeatedly since 1952 — from shortwave receivers to smartphones — but the dominant form has stayed remarkably stable: one authoritative voice, stop-led commentary, information delivery.

This R&D asks a more foundational question: what is an audio guide at its core?

I am looking back at older forms of guided listening that held a different balance for centuries — oral storytelling, liturgical structure, the Greek chorus — and testing whether those principles can be translated into contemporary heritage contexts.

The research is developing a practical framework called Transparency Mapping: a decision-making tool for heritage audio creators addressing when to speak, when to stay silent, and how to hold interpretive authority without imposing singular meaning.