Visits to dark heritage attractions are shaped less by exhibits, explanation panels and audio guides, and more by interactions with other visitors, according to recent research led by Dr Rachael Ironside at Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University and funded by the British Academy.
The research project, entitled Talking about prisons: making sense of difficult heritage at Peterhead Prison Museum explored how people make sense of difficult histories by studying the way visitors experience exhibits at Peterhead Prison Museum, part of the Cove Group, in Scotland, UK.
The meaning of difficult exhibits is not fixed, according to the research, but is instead created moment by moment through conversations, empathy, curiosity, humour and shared reactions.
The findings challenge the idea that some heritage sites are inherently darker than others, arguing that the perceived darkness of an attraction is constantly shifting according to the dynamics of a particular visit, who is experiencing it and their relationship to the other visitors, as well as their cultural understanding of the subject matter.
The findings pose interesting questions about how much the visitor experience can be engineered via design, layout and interpretation, and suggests that operators should consider how their attraction mediates and supports visitor interaction.
“Visitors constantly look to one another to make sense of what they see,” says professor Dirk vom Lehn, professor of organisation and practice at King’s Business School. “These everyday interactions shape how dark an exhibit feels and what people take away. Exhibitions should be designed with social interaction in mind, not just individual reflection.”
One of the most surprising findings was how deeply social dark tourism is
“Dark heritage is not something people simply consume. It’s something they actively perform, negotiate and co-create with others,” says Dr Rachael Ironside, corresponding author and associate professor at Robert Gordon University. “Understanding this social dimension is essential for anyone seeking to present difficult histories responsibly.”
Here Dr Ironside talks us through the report’s main findings
What prompted this report?
This research was prompted by a gap in understanding in how people make sense of difficult heritage in real time. While prison museums and similar sites often aim to educate the public about justice, punishment and human rights, very little was known about how visitors interpret difficult histories as they move through dark sites, and the role of interaction in this.
Studying these interactions matters because dark heritage sites play a growing role in shaping public narratives about difficult pasts. Understanding how meaning is made helps site operators to understand how their exhibits are being engaged with and whether the intended interpretation is achieved in practice.
What were the headline findings?
Our main findings illustrate that visitors co-produce their experience at difficult heritage sites together. Meaning emerges through conversation, joint interaction with artefacts, shared emotional responses and even jokes.
We also observed that the ‘darkness’ of a site isn’t fixed or necessarily determined by the exhibit’s design; rather what feels meaningful or potentially disturbing is negotiated through interaction and shared cultural understanding. It is often the subtle emotional and embodied responses which matter – as people lean in, step back, mimic how a form of punishment was used, gasp, laugh – that shapes how people interpret difficult exhibits.
Did any of the findings surprise you?
One of the most surprising findings was how deeply social dark tourism is. We might assume that visitors process difficult heritage materials and artefacts individually, through personal reflection. Instead, people rely heavily on companions – and even strangers – to interpret what they’re seeing.
Another unexpected insight was the role of humour. Humour is complex in dark tourism, we know entertainment is a key motivator for visitors exploring dark sites, but it presents challenges when presenting difficult pasts. Our findings revealed that humour is often used by visitors, and while sometimes this did appear to dismiss the severity of an exhibit, on other occasions it instigated some deeply human moments, helping people to connect and negotiate difficult topics.
How can museum and attractions operators use these findings to improve their offerings?
Our findings point to the need for dark attractions to design exhibits that foster interaction between visitors. We found in our case study site that the use of headsets for the whole experience, while of excellent quality, often hampered conversation and interaction between visitors. We also noticed that the presence and behaviour of strangers can be just as influential on visitor engagement as companions, especially in the way they approach and exit an exhibit space. Our findings may help museum professionals to design attractions that account for how people respond to each other, and support both personal contemplation and group interaction.
How can operators support visitors in making sense of the content and dealing with their emotional reactions to it?
Visitors often turn to each other to manage and share their own emotional response to an exhibit whether that is shock, sadness, discomfort or empathy. We also noticed that attractions staff can play an important role in helping visitors to understand and make sense of what they have seen, often resulting in quite difficult topics of conversation (such as talking about family members who were impacted by the issues on display).
Operators can support this by offering reflective prompts to help groups process and make sense of what they have seen together, design exhibits that make space for interaction, offer cues (if needed) that signal when a space contains distressing material and train staff to deal with difficult conversations that may emerge in these spaces.
Do you have any suggestions about how they might respond to the fact that meaning is co-created at dark sites?
These findings highlight an opportunity, rather than a challenge, for dark heritage sites. They suggest that rather than being in complete control of interpretation, operators are facilitators of this process. Visitors bring their own histories, experiences, questions and emotions to dark sites and turn to each other to make sense of what they see. Operators may benefit from reviewing their current offering and observing visitor interactions to consider whether their exhibits account for this. Do they encourage conversation? Prompt reflection? Does the space at and between exhibits encourage this or hinder it?
Can you think of any museums that engage with the social dimension of meaning-making in an interesting way?
I recently visited the National Prison Museum (Gevangenisemuseum) in Veenhuizen, Netherlands with my research colleague, Alona Roitershtein. We really enjoyed the exhibits that brought modern issues of crime and punishment forward with interactive exhibitions.
The prompt to interact wasn’t obvious, but the varied storytelling components, opportunity to pass judgement on the cases, and layout of the exhibition meant that we had some really interesting discussions, and we continued those conversations after our visit – we still speak about it now. I think the important lesson here is that prompts for interaction don’t need to be obvious; they can emerge through creative, novel layouts and designs that evoke curiosity.
What’s next for the research?
We’re very keen to continue our research into other dark tourism attractions and beyond. We are currently working on a proposal to extend this initial case study into a UK-wide study of penal heritage attractions, however, we would also welcome collaboration or conversations with those working in attractions and would like to explore visitor interaction further.
