5. Analysis
RQ1: In the period of the COVID-19 pandemic with the measures that were established, the Greek public museums suspended their operations, were restricted, and could not serve their purposes because there was no possibility of the public coming to them [R1]. This fact was more evident in the large museums of urban centers such as Athens and Thessaloniki [R6 and R11]. Even before the pandemic, efforts were made to adhere to those international terms of the modern museum and its operation, because the character of the museum has changed and is no longer just a place one visits and only sees the exhibits [R8]. Therefore, at the beginning of this period, a status of isolation of the museums from the public was created, especially in the leading museums and the archaeological sites of international scope [R5], with which there was no contact [R4 and 9 and 12].
In particular, R2 specifically mentioned ‘since the museums were closed, there was no possibility of fulfilling their educational and recreational role, nor of promoting the cultural heritage of their region’.
In addition, all kinds of scheduled events such as speeches, conference events, thematic days, lectures, and music events were suspended. More specifically, in the smaller museums of the Greek territory, digital communication was initially limited because the museum workforce was not familiar with its audience [R8]. In contrast, in large museums such as the Acropolis museum, the educational programs were developed on online platforms, in order not to lose contact with the students and the wider public [R7]. However, in addition to educational activities, a significant reduction was also observed in the realization of other events and lifestyle activities, such as the organization of conferences and festivals [R8]. For those that did take place, this happened only during the summer with pre-booked places and a smaller number of participants [R7, R8, and R9]. In leading archaeological sites and in crowded places, such as the Acropolis, Delphi, but also Piraeus, this phenomenon was more intense, indicating in this way the tragic consequences of the pandemic [R14 and R17].
In conclusion, all interviewees agree on the fact that museums and archaeological sites as a whole were decisively affected in terms of limiting the attendance of the public to them. However, on the other hand, their attempt to use digital applications worked especially well in the big museums, adapted to the new conditions, without stopping their work [R6]. R2 and R3, coming from smaller museums in the region, argued that their own museums fulfilled only part of the purpose for which they were established. All the parameters of the ICOM definition were carried out mainly in the summer months when the archaeological sites and museums were open, respectfully observing the restrictive measures.
In particular, R7, coming from a large museum in Athens in terms of the visibility and exposure of museums to the public, aptly uses the terms ‘accessible online’, because even in this way the museum remained an organization ‘open to the public’. Characteristically, R10, representing one of the biggest archaeological brands in Greece, reports that the museum is «Ark of Memory», ‘which guards the possessions of culture, to which one has access for knowledge of humanity, but also a power to transmit global and timeless values of Greek culture to society’.
RQ2: The most common response from all respondents regarding the negative impacts is mainly the reduction of visitation [R1, R3, and R4], especially in the leading and internationally renowned archaeological sites [R5 and R6]. The health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected tourism, which has also decreased due to health restrictions and the need to respect social distancing [R7]. With the continued enforcement of the measures, the effects of lack of visitation remained. Visitor rates were lower due to fear, even when there was the possibility for those who would be interested to see museums and archaeological sites [R10 and R16]. The phrase of R10, a representative of a leading archaeological site, is characteristic, stating that ‘for a long time there was darkness, it is a harmful thing for civilization and for society’.
Two more important negative effects are firstly, the decrease in revenue, something that was reflected in tickets and collections, mainly in the archaeological sites [R 4 and R13 and R17] as there was a big difference in tickets compared to the pre-pandemic era, [R15] resulting in their economic sizes being greatly reduced and having numbers confirming that there has been a substantial decline [R12], and secondly, the impossibility of implementing educational programs in museums during the educational period [R2]. It is worth noting that this fact was observed even in the country’s major museums. Characteristically, R7 pointed out that ‘services and digital applications aimed at visitors during their visits such as (children’s corner, touch screens) were no longer accessible’ due to the sanitary preventive measures established by the State’.
As a conclusion, almost all respondents argue that the main negative effects of the pandemic on culture and especially on museums are related to the lack of visitors due to e-closure, the reduction of income, the cancelation of cultural events and educational programs, and the reduction of workers (main reason including special-vulnerable groups).
RQ3: The positive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on museums played their own important role in turn. One of them was the realization of the need to maintain the dialectical relationship between exhibits, curators, and visitors that shape the experiential experience one can have from contact with cultural heritage [R1]. With the onset of the pandemic, time was spent looking for alternative forms of access to museums, something that was previously unfeasible [R5].
In addition, with reference to the large museums of Athens and Thessaloniki, museum officials were given the opportunity to organize files and indexes, to catalog-document and archive works, to maintain exhibits, and to clean hard-to-reach areas in the exhibition spaces, especially when the museums were not open [R6]. While the museum remained closed, this time was essential to carry out maintenance and upgrading works that would have been quite difficult to complete in the presence of the public [R7].
Other communication possibilities beyond physical contact were also created, for example digital contact, with the process of building online programs, with teleworking [R17] that greatly facilitated the staff who became familiar with them, and which helped to implement many other museum works where possible [R3]. R9 reports ‘It would be much better to have an online presence to be in contact with the public at any time and in any condition’, while according to R11 ‘posts were made on the museum’s website so that everyone could see and read about International Museum Day, about their history and post their opinion’. The provision of services to citizens, which is also conducted remotely, came from the development of ingenuity for the design of digital actions to approach the public. In the large museums, an effort was made, even though there were adversities, to plan even ‘hybrid’ actions that combine live with remote in terms of the public’s visit to the museum [R6].
RQ4: All museums with a focus on the largest and best organized managed to adapt to the new sanitary conditions, invested in quality technology, and made the most of modern digital capabilities given to them [R6]. To a large extent, the contribution of technology and social networks has helped to maintain contact with the public and promote intellectual contact with exhibits and museological perspective [R1]. Technology has made it much easier for museums to communicate with their public by implementing digital tours and activities through Facebook, which in any case have been interesting and attractive to visitors that continue successfully to this day with excellent results [R4 and R5].
According to R2’s view ‘A virtual tour can act as a rudimentary communication link’. The creation of a digital museum using relevant websites for young and old has become the core of communication between museums and their public, providing equal, free, and unrestricted access to their collections and exhibits, information, and knowledge. It captures their operation and actions in a modern way, while at the same time providing multidimensional information and entertainment through the provision of their quality services. R7 points out that ‘tools such as technology and social networks are proving to be helpful in maintaining e-communication with the public’. Technology has contributed a large percentage, but the physical experience is definitely not replaced by the digital experience of the public with the museum. It is a different sensation, because contact with the exhibit through a screen is a cold and apathetic medium. It does not create any emotion [R11]. R16’s opinion was sharp, ‘online access is more plastic’. A lifelong visit to a museum is something that a person can have, either as a learner or as a simple visitor’. Installing digital applications in museums can improve them. Their use should be conducted in parallel with a live visit to them because the interested parties are given the possibility to become visitors when they are presented with an exhibition about a historical event or a find, so that their tour becomes more comprehensible [R12 and R14].‘Life-to-life contact, walking through space is something unique that no online e-contact can ever fully restore ‘it doesn’t give you the emotion that one has when facing a cultural exhibit, but only the ‘tat-a-tat contact with it’ according to R10 and R17.
Furthermore, experts argue that the digital world has not replaced real-life contact within the museum environment. Museums are considered ‘living organisms’, and the physical experience is irreplaceable. Museums are not only a series of exhibits but also their people, the geographical space, and the natural environment in which they are part, which once developed the cultures displayed in them.
RQ5: A first lesson is that the visitors of a museum constitute an irreplaceable dialectical pole that brings aliveness to the space and that their movement transforms the landscape according to their searches in time, something that ‘museums as ‘living organisms’ were deprived of’ [R1].
In addition, an important lesson is considered that a new path has been opened for Greek museums, that of technology and social networks, that due to the coronavirus these practices were first adopted and then established even in the post-COVID-19 era. Digital technology was not so e-active in past, but with the possibilities it gives, it nullifies the distances, facilitates the participation and monitoring of actions and cultural events that, under other conditions, would be impossible or problematic, for the promotion of a cultural ensemble at the ends of the world [R3 and R12]. So, R8 thinks it ‘can help in better preparation in case of difficulty of direct communication with the public’.
Referring to the major museums in urban centers, R6 noted that ’a lesson worth noting is the search for and approach to alternative ways of communication between museums and their public, developing online applications because real-life contact with museums is not a given in case of re-incarceration’. The specialization of the existing staff will lead to the upgrading of the equipment of the museums, until they, in turn, having a well-prepared plan to deal with any difficulty, will provide more electronic services if the data are disturbed [R7]. Digital actions are capable of alleviating this complete absence of cultural cradles from society ’it was a light in the tunnel to see that you could watch programs, exhibitions, concerts, to maintain communication under any condition’ [R10].
As a conclusion, according to the majority of participants, the main lesson of the COVID-19 period is related to the creation of other communication channels for museums to be able to get in touch with their public. Digital practices combined with physical experience provide a comprehensive and adequate way of better knowing museums, with an emphasis on the promotion and protection of cultural heritage. Especially in large museums, digital technology and even more so the design of hybrid activities became the channel of communication with the public, keeping the museums ‘alive’ to a large extent.
6. Answering Research Questions
6.1. Maintaining the Role and New Character of Museums
All the representatives of the Greek public museums in the survey stated that the role of museums during the pandemic was not fulfilled to the fullest. Compared to the smaller museums of the region, this fact was more evident in the large museums of the center and also in the top archaeological sites, for which due to their international scope, the lack of the public was clearly more evident.
As a result of this situation, most educational, research, social, and participatory actions were negatively affected. On the contrary, the use of digital applications and innovative technologies has been more widespread in large museums due to the existence of the appropriate specialized managerial potential but also the need created to maintain contact with their public as well as their extroversion.
This outcome also supported from the evidence of the MuSA European program [
74] where regarding museology and cultural heritage specializations, hard skills such as digital skills tend not to be sufficiently valued, especially in Italy and Portugal and less in Greece. According to Fiorenzo Galli ’We need to invest in everything, but above all in human resources, educating people not only in digital skills, but in education as a capital value’ MuSA project [
74]. To this line, the E.U. sets up the CHARTER (Cultural Heritage Actions to Refine Training, Education and Roles) project in order to create a lasting, comprehensive sectoral skills strategy to guarantee that Europe has the necessary cultural heritage skills to support sustainable societies and economies, including transversal competences such as digital/technological and green/blue economy skills [
75].
6.2. Negative and Positive Effects
Regarding the negative effects, no differences can be discerned between the largest museums and archaeological sites and the smaller museums at the regional level. The reduction in the number of tickets and, by extension, the receipts had a very negative effect on all the museums in the survey.
In particular, these effects of an economic nature, as well as the cancelation of events, were more pronounced in the major museums and the leading archaeological destinations (Delphi, Epidaurus, and Mycenae), as the existence of almost empty spaces was evident due to the limited number of visitors or and closed spaces during the lockdown.
In the overall positive effects, museum representatives emphasized the importance of digital technology and its multiple applications in the museum environment. In this case, again, the big museums in the urban centers benefited more than the smaller ones in the region, as they had the specialized staff and respective departments that took on the task of designing digital platforms, connections, and even hybrid actions.
At the same time, they had the time due to the lockdown, especially in the large museums due to the volume of exhibits, to carry out archiving and conservation actions, something that also took place in the smaller museums but not to such an intense degree.
6.3. Digital Technology vs. Real Life Contact and Experience
As a whole, representatives of museums and archaeological sites emphasize the importance of digital technology in the effort to connect and maintain contact with their audience. It was pointed out, however, the difference in the dynamics of this contact related to the potential size and scope of the large museums and internationally recognized archaeological sites in relation to the museums of the region. Large museums due to their nature, the spatial scale in which they are located, but also the requirements for greater extroversion due to their international recognition as cultural brands have the expertise, the executives, and the necessary budget from the state to design digital applications of each kind, so as to maintain both their communication and their image to the international general public, something that smaller museums lag behind.
The common recommendation of all the representatives is that digital technology is a necessary and very important tool, but in no case can it replace the real-life contact and the unique experience that the visitor can have in the museum environment and is a coma more of his lifetime tour of an archaeological site.
6.4. Lessons from COVID-19
The main lesson that emerges from the findings of the research and which is a common position of all the representatives of the museums-archaeological sites is that museums are characterized as ‘living organisms’, that live and interact with their public.
Consequently, they should serve their multidimensional role in the best possible way. The use of digital technology is an effective tool to achieve this goal. According to the general confession of the respondents, COVID-19 will leave this emergence of a new digital age as a legacy for the future of museums and culture in general. A new and multidimensional path is opening for museum and cultural development, through the mobilization of alternative ways of communication and promotion of museums, as well as the search for new strategies to stimulate their extroversion, especially regional museums, as an alternative source of information, Knowledge, and information in times of danger. For Greek public museums, digital technology is here to stay, enabling all forms of culture, but especially museums, to maintain their social, educational, and entertainment role, as defined by their nature.
As a conclusion, the training of museum executives in this direction is deemed necessary and necessary in the smaller regional museums, where the specialized executive potential is insufficient.
It is noteworthy that the results from the interviews support the findings of previous research. From the above conclusions based on the interviews and previous studies, it follows that there are no differences in opinion regarding the situation caused by COVID-19, but also the creation of new development policies such as the use of digital technology.
More specifically, the research of Agostino et al. [
56], by Rivero et al. [
58], and Choi and Kim. [
62] particularly emphasize the positive use of digital social media in terms of communication and contact with the public, as confirmed by the present research. At the same time, the research of Mas et al. [
59] focuses on the concept of the ‘social role’ of museums, while regarding the positive effects. The views of the findings of this research converge on the fact that an online service provision results in strengthening the sustainable development and competitiveness of museums resulting in the creation of new strategies, which will help to maintain their role in terms of the cultural heritage they include, but also in its future transmission to new generations, as in previous research [
62].
In conclusion, museums as ‘living organisms’ are internationally recognized as ‘memory boxes’ or ‘memory institutions’ according to Samaroudi et al. [
60].