With the intent of better defining “investment” and “accomplishment” as well as exploring inciting motivation, we conducted a brief literature review of 12 sources. We began by looking up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of these terms to understand how they are used in everyday language and provide tangential words or phrases to influence how we approached investment in a space or experience (i.e. “invest” was defined as “to make use of for future benefits or advantages” which prompted us to think about how an invested participant would leave the lab space with something that would apply to their future circumstances, a lasting experience).

We also reviewed relationship advice articles that dealt with one-way investment in a relationship and how to get partners on the same page. These analogous articles highlighted the importance of open and honest communication between two parties to create a shared understanding of the relationship, romantic or otherwise. Additionally, the advice in the articles illustrated how these interactions could go wrong when one party feels insecure, invalidated, or unappreciated by the other. An invested relationship, applicable to working relationships between researcher and participant as well, requires intentional time and effort to ensure each party is comfortable and equally invested in the interaction.

In terms of motivating participation, we examined sources on motivation in the workplace, as well as in creating interactive experiences. Through this section of our review, we determined that people relate their experiences to their lives and identities, meaning that they are more motivated to do something when they understand the benefit or impact on themselves personally beforehand.

Last, we reviewed research relating to the overall museum experience, specifically examining the physical flow, as well as visitor behavior towards the end of a visit. Typically, visitors will move from exhibit to exhibit turning right and they are strongly influenced by exits. The closer a visitor is to an exit, such as the entrance to the atrium, the stronger its attracting value and the less likely they will visit the next exhibit. In traditional museum spaces, visitors begin to experience “museum fatigue” between 1 and 2 hours, at which point they likely discuss finding somewhere to eat and the need for the restroom. They may also find the gift shop if there’s one available. Visitor’s attention shifts from exhibits to the space itself, the other visitors, and details such as cleanliness.

While the CDR discovery lab space is quite unlike many museum/research spaces in existence, we thought it important to compare and familiarize ourselves with similar and analogous spaces to help identify points of contention or inspiration in the exit experience. We first looked at 6 research- or learning-centric museums (Stanford Exploratorium, YOU! The Experience at Museum of Science and Industry, Boston’s Living Laboratory and Museum of Science, the Museum of Science and Life in North Carolina, and Connecticut Science Center).

Using criteria such as Yelp reviews, exhibits and activities available, and target audience we identified potential areas of inspiration and threat that the science centers and museums posed to the CDR’s lab space. As the concept for the CDR space is so unique, most of the competitors were highly centric on the museum experience and targeted all age groups, including kids, which was the main point of contestation. However, this also proved helpful in discerning ways in which the CDR space could potentially improve its reach, including hosting after-hours events to draw people in and utilizing outdoor space to hold studies.

In an effort to better understand “debriefing” and providing some sort of closure to the exit experience, we also conducted a competitive analysis on analogous spaces that have a similar process built in, like hotel checkouts and escape room post-interviews. We compared two escape rooms (Captured LV Escape Room, Exit Santa Cruz) and one virtual hotel checkout experience (Marriott Bonvoy app) on criteria like reviews, their guest exit process including questions asked, and intended takeaways to again identify inspiration that could carry over to the CDR space. Common themes that arose from this analysis included checking in on the safety and satisfaction of guests during the exit experience, asking for direct feedback on how to improve, and the importance of aesthetic and brand identity to the trust of guests.

We distributed two separate surveys to the DePaul Participant Pool and our personal networks, asking them to continue to share the survey links with others. The first survey featured four questions relating to memorable experiences and tokens, receiving 80 unique responses. The highlight of the short survey was a long-form question requesting participants explain what they recalled most about their visit.

The second survey focused on the perception of gift shops and featured ten questions, receiving 45 unique responses. Participants were asked if they had visited the gift shop at the last museum or related experience they visited, why or why not, and details about their purchase (if applicable).

In total, we interviewed six subject matter experts: three CDR research assistants, a senior researcher at the Museum of Science and Industry, a professional Exhibit Designer, and the Director of Marketing for a luxury Chicago hotel.

In preparation for the subject matter expert interviews, two discussion guides were developed to guide the interviewer through key talking points. To recruit subject matter experts, our research team developed a cold email template requesting participation in these interviews. Interview participants were recruited through personal networks, and contacts made through our partnership with The CDR.

Interviews with CDR research assistants, who we consider subject matter experts in this space, were conducted between October 9, 2020 and October, 20, 2020 using the Zoom video conferencing software. Interview length ran between 32 and 54 minutes. All interviews were recorded for internal reference and were attended by 1 to 3 DePaul students currently enrolled in EXP-480 Collaboration Studio. The content of these interviews centered around the research assistants experiences working with live participants in the lab setting. Key discussion topics included:

The procedure of the “exit” stage during the lab study experience; specifically the debriefing procedure.

Challenges and successes in their role as a CDR research assistant.

Research assistants' perception of participants' motivations and emotions.

As for the other interviews, we spoke with the Museum of Science and Industry senior researcher on October 9, 2020 via Zoom. The interview lasted approximately 31 minutes and centered around her personal experience in motivating and debriefing study participants.

We also spoke to the CEO of an Exhibit Design firm on October 15, 2020 via Zoom. The exploratory interview lasted just under an hour and focused on the firm’s design process when considering educational spaces, as well as industry best practices and considerations. The interview was attended by 1 other student in the class.

The hotel Director of Marketing requested that the interview be conducted over email, so we created a collaborative document on Google Drive with a background of our project area and nine questions for his consideration. We completed this interview on October 14, 2020. Questions for this interview focused on the hotels’ guest service and making people like “valued customers.” We also asked about what motivates people to book a room and why they come back for another stay.