Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the adoption of virtual production (VP) technologies in state-owned museums in China through the framework of new institutionalism organizational theory. By analyzing interviews with 19 practitioners from these museums, the study reveals that under China’s government-led cultural governance, the adoption of VP technologies exhibits a distinct characteristic of administrative absorption of technology. Within the institutional context of government-initiated publicization, commercialization, and digitalization, state-owned museums view VP technologies as crucial tools for showcasing technological innovation and securing governmental support and resources due to their high visibility, replicability, and market appeal. Throughout the adoption process, museums, technology companies, and audiences increasingly align their actions with governmental intentions and preferences, reflecting the administrative logic. This administrative absorption has led to a new ‘support-cooperation’ relationship in China’s museum sector in the digital age, and a highly centralized cooperative cultural governance model. This study provides an institutional perspective and non-Western experience on VP technology adoption for cultural governance, highlighting the complex interactions among technology, culture, government, and audiences within the Chinese context.

Keywords

virtual production technology adoption museums China digitalization industrialization

Introduction

Currently, museum fever has become a prominent phenomenon in Chinese culture. Within China’s government-led cultural governance system, museums serve as key entities and tools. They not only protect cultural heritage and provide public education but also support national goals of promoting traditional Chinese culture, fostering cultural confidence and identity, and advancing the cultural and tourism economy (Yang et al., 2025). In recent years, under the Digital China national strategy and policies encouraging digital integration in cultural and tourism sectors (Zhao and Keane, 2025), museums have undergone significant digital transformation (Flew et al., 2019), with virtual production (VP) technologies being widely adopted as important technical facilities for cultural governance in China’s museums.

Virtual production (VP) technology, which integrates virtual reality, augmented reality, real-time rendering, digital image capture, and interactive storytelling, is revolutionizing film, gaming, and visual arts by creating immersive virtual environments (Chanpum, 2023; Priadko and Sirenko, 2021). Research has highlighted the technological impacts of VP technology on China’s museum sector, focusing on its immersive, interactive, and sensory features as well as their effects on cultural relic displays, narrative expression, and visitor engagement (Ch’ng et al., 2019; Liu and Lan, 2021), mirroring the mainstream paradigm of technology adoption research in museums in Western countries (e.g., Cameron and Robinson, 2007; Parry, 2007).

However, China’s museums operate within a social environment and mechanisms distinct from those in the West. First, government leadership is central to cultural governance in China, contrasting with the Western model under liberal democracies that emphasize self-regulation, self-management, and multi-centered governance (Chung et al., 2023; Varutti, 2014). Second, while Western museums are often privately funded or independent from the government, most China’s museums are state-owned museums that rely heavily on government support and funds, adhere to government guidance and supervision in ideology, and fulfill public service functions such as education, aesthetics, and culture as required by the government (Simon, 2010). However, these museums are not purely governmental administrative agencies. The government’s push for publicization, commercialization, and digitalization aims to integrate public cultural services with the digital economy and cultural tourism industry, resulting in a close relationship between these museums, the market, and the audience. Therefore, adopting VP technology in China’s state-owned museums must consider the unique institutional environment and the political, economic, and social relationships among the various entities involved in museum operations and cultural practices.

Therefore, this study examines the adoption paths and characteristics of VP technologies in China’s state-owned museums using new institutionalism theory. This perspective underscores the significant impact of institutions – such as government regulations, industrial policies, and organizational norms – on technology adoption and its outcomes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). We view VP technology adoption as an innovative action by state-owned museums within China’s unique institutional context, characterized by a government-led cultural governance system and the triple transformation of digitalization, industrialization, and publicization in the museum sector. Through thematic analysis of in-depth interviews, we explore the processes and mechanisms of VP technology adoption, focusing on the interactions among state-owned museums, the government, technology companies, and audiences within China’s institutional framework. Ultimately, we describe VP technology adoption in China’s museums as a form of administrative absorption of technology and discuss its implications for understanding the complex relationships among the government, museums, technologies, and audiences, as well as the micro-level operational mechanisms of cultural governance.

Museums, cultural governance and application of VP technologies

The emergence of museums as institutions of cultural governance aligns with the development of modern museums amidst social and cultural changes. Since the late 17th century, museums have transitioned from private collections to public cultural spaces dedicated to observing, interpreting, and preserving artifacts and heritage. They also serve as institutions that provide knowledge, education, and cultural engagement to the public (Cameron, 2004; Mayrand, 2014). At the 26th ICOM General Conference in August 2022, a new definition of museums was approved, describing them as ‘not-for-profit, permanent institutions in the service of society that research, collect, conserve, interpret, and exhibit tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible, and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally, and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection, and knowledge sharing (International Council of Museums, 2022). Thus, as public cultural institutions, museums engage in cultural communication, social interaction, and public cultural services, playing a crucial role in contemporary cultural governance.

Focusing on the concept of governance, which involves political, economic, and social regulatory forms through the joint participation of multiple institutions (Rosenau, 1992; Rhodes, 2007; Bevir, 2012: 4), cultural governance emphasizes interactions among diverse actors in establishing and maintaining cultural order, with significant implications for democracy and openness. In museum practices, cultural governance perceives culture as a network of governance relationships shaped by historically specific institutions, aiming to transform the thoughts and behaviors of the broader population. This transformation is facilitated through a social system of aesthetic and intellectual cultural forms, techniques, and rules (Bennett, 2005). By opening their exhibitions to the public, museums empower the public to engage with and participate in social and historical representations, making them to become participants and practitioners of culture, which reflects a pluralistic and diffuse power structure in museum cultural governance practices (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000; Simon, 2010). Simultaneously, as museums transmit knowledge and culture through the exhibition and interpretation of cultural heritage, they convey national will, cultural power of ruling elites, and social behavioral norms, thereby achieving public discipline and self-governance (Bennett, 1995). Thus, museums are deeply embedded in the complex power relations network formed by the state, the public, and other institutions in their cultural governance practices.

Since the 1990s, the advent of digital technology and the internet has transformed digital cultural heritage into a strategic asset for national construction, economic development, and international influence (Agostino et al., 2020; Burri, 2023; Capurro et al., 2024). Consequently, many countries have experienced a shift towards communitization, commercialization, and digitalization in the public cultural sector. VP technology has been introduced to museums for its visual experience and commercial prospects (De Wild and Povroznik, 2024; Navarrete, 2019). This shift has drawn scholarly attention to changes in the power structure and governance order within the sector. Optimists believe that VP technology, with its accessibility, high immersiveness, engagement, and interactivity, can remove physical, cultural, and cognitive barriers, promote knowledge exchange and collaborative meaning-making between museums and audiences, and facilitate knowledge translation across societal issues and personal experiences through contextualized, immersive experiences and digital storytelling (Hijazi and Baharin, 2022). However, critical studies highlight that the entertainment and consumerism aspects of VP technology may not truly enhance audience engagement quality in cultural governance. Instead, audiences often become passive consumers rather than active ‘constructivist’ participants in culture and knowledge (Krauss, 1990; Marinescu, 2018). These studies also indicate that in digital age, elites and experts still hold power in cultural governance, preventing the public from fully developing their cultural identity and publicness.

Recent research on the adoption of digital technologies in museums and digital cultural heritage has expanded to include the roles of state and the government that act as its executive body, moving beyond the above mainstream technology-centric perspective. Scholars focused on Western countries, particularly EU nations, argue that despite ‘arm’s-length’ principal (Chartrand and McCaughey, 1989),¹ the government still plays a central role in digital cultural governance, urging cultural institutions like museums to contribute to the national creative cultural industry, cultural heritage preservation, cultural diplomacy, and regional digital citizen narratives through policy guidance and financial support. They view the introduction of new digital technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) as crucial for achieving these objectives (Capurro et al., 2024; Hylland and Primorac, 2023). Research on non-Western and authoritarian countries suggests that digital technologies act as an ideological governance tool to further governmental propaganda goals (Lavrenteva, 2025; Zabalueva, 2017). Concepts like ‘Digital Authoritarianism’ (Polyakova and Meserole, 2019; Shahbaz, 2018) and ‘Digital Leninism’ (Heilmann, 2016) underscore the intensification of state control over society facilitated by the adoption of digital technologies.

These studies not only highlight the complex mechanisms of utilization, penetration, control, and competition involved in the adoption of digital technologies in museums between the state/government and social forces, such as museums, communities, and audiences, but also reveal the differing functions of these technologies in cultural governance across diverse historical and institutional contexts. However, the processes and mechanisms through which digital technologies are adopted in these settings remain underexplored.

In the unique institutional environment of China where the government leads the market-oriented reform in the cultural sector, digital technology develops rapidly, and the civil society is immature, examining the process of the adoption of emerging VP technologies in the museum sector and the interactive relationships among the government, market, museums, and audiences can provide us with a unique sample of digital cultural governance and museum technology adoption.

Government-led cultural governance and VP technologies adoption in China’s museum

Over the past two decades, with the advancement of cultural system reform and the progress of national informatization and digitalization, China’s museums have undergone transformations in publicization, industrialization, and digitalization akin to their Western counterparts. Unlike the Western cultural governance that advocates restricting government power, a key feature of China’s cultural system is the leadership of the Party and government. Thus, within China’s government-led cultural governance framework, the government acts as the promoter, controller, and organizer in the transformation and governance practices of museums.

The cultural governance of China, led by the government, has a long-established institutional foundation. From the founding of the People’s Republic of China until the early 21st century, museums, as state-owned cultural institutions, were heavily influenced by the state’s governance concept that culture serves politics. These museums exhibited strong administrative characteristics and were under complete government control. During this period, museums were primarily responsible for scientific research, cultural education, and the collection and preservation of cultural relics and natural specimens (Su, 1998; Xu, 2015; Yang, 1999), but they were not open to the public. Although some state-owned museums experimented with diverse business operations after the reform and opening-up since 1978 (Beijing Museum Association, 1995: 364), these initiatives were isolated, did not become mainstream practices, and lacked formal political endorsement.

The formal onset of publicization and industrial transformation in the museum sector began in the early 21st century. At that time, the Chinese government prioritized enhancing cultural soft power and building a culturally strong nation as key strategies to boost national strength and navigate international competition in the era of globalization.² In 2003, a new round of cultural system reforms was launched to promote these strategies.

First, in contrast to cultural entertainment sectors like performing arts and film, which underwent corporate transformation as part of the cultural system reform (Peng and Keane, 2019), state-owned museums were directed to adopt a public institution model primarily funded by the government, with increased financial support, reformed support mechanisms, and improved financial efficiency (Opinions on Pilot Work for Cultural System Reform, 2003). In 2008, the Chinese government mandated free general admission for state-owned museums through the ‘Notice on the Free Opening of the National Museum and Memorial’. Subsequent policies, including the Regulations on Museums (2015), the Public Cultural Services Protection Law (2016), and the Guiding Opinions on Strengthening Cultural Relic Work (2016), further defined museums as essential components of the public cultural service system, emphasizing their public-service role and encouraging public participation. Consequently, the government has stepped back from comprehensive museum management, shifting towards strategic oversight in policies, planning, and resource allocation. Museums have been delegated daily operational management responsibilities and empowered to provide public cultural services. This shift indicates a transformation in cultural governance, with museums gaining autonomy and no longer merely serving as government tools for cultural control.

Second, alongside the publicization of museums, their industrialization is progressing concurrently. Policies introduced under the cultural system reform, such as the Opinions on Promoting the Development of Cultural and Creative Products by Cultural Institutions (2016) and the Guiding Opinions on Promoting All-for-One Tourism (2018), promoted the integration of cultural and tourism industries. These policies position industrialization as a means for museums to enhance their market awareness, thereby deepening their connection with the public and contributing to local economic development.

Government-initiated publicization and industrialization transformation have underscored the growing importance of openness, participatory and operational efficiency of museums. State-owned museums have gradually transformed from research-oriented preservation institutions into hybrid organizations with both public service functions and industrial features.

In recent years, the construction of Digital China has evolved into a nationwide movement of digitalization and modernization promoted by the government. The newly released ‘National 14th Five-Year Plan’ (2021), ‘14th Five-Year Plan for Cultural Relics Protection and Scientific and Technological Innovation’ (2021), and ‘Opinions on Advancing the Implementation of the National Cultural Digitalization Strategy’ (2022) emphasize the need to enhance digitalization in public cultural services and improve the capacity of cultural institutions to supply digital cultural content. Consequently, digital transformation has become a key focus for cultural institutions, including museums.

Under the government-led triple transformation in the cultural sector – toward public service, industrialization, and digitalization – state-owned museums are tasked by the government with fulfilling cultural functions such as protecting cultural heritage, conducting public education, promoting excellent traditional Chinese culture, fostering national cultural confidence, and advancing the cultural tourism economy. They have become a vital tool for the government to provide effective public services, enhance people’s satisfaction and sense of gain, and maintain the legitimacy of governance. Simultaneously, the emphasis on the publicness, openness, and participation of museums underscores the emerging form of a cultural governance system led by the Chinese government, with multiple stakeholders, including museums and the public, collaborating. In this context, digital technology is viewed as a key factor in innovating cultural governance models, improving the efficiency of cultural governance, and ultimately achieving the modernization of the cultural governance system. Among the most advanced technologies, VP technologies have been widely adopted in state-owned museums, primarily in five key areas: digital reconstruction and presentation of artifacts, virtual scene reconstruction, immersive interactive experiences, remotely accessible virtual exhibitions, and virtual narration (China News, 2022; Wuhan Civilization Network, 2023; Xinhua Net, 2022, 2024a, 2024b).

To date, research on the adoption of VP technologies in China’s museums has primarily been case-based and descriptive. These studies often exhibit an administrative research orientation, focusing mainly on the effects of VP technologies on exhibition design, visitor experience, and satisfaction (Chen et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024). While these insights are valuable, they frequently neglect the specific institutional context of China’s museums, such as the state-led cultural governance system, public funding mechanisms, and the underdeveloped public cultural sphere, which influence and shape the adoption of these technologies. Consequently, they fail to effectively illuminate the underlying forces and mechanisms driving VP technology adoption. Incorporating an institutional perspective in examining this adoption not only clarifies the unique trajectory of technology integration in China’s museums but also enhances our understanding of the operational mechanisms and structures within China’s cultural governance system in the digital age.

New institutionalism organizational theory: A theoretical perspective for VP technology adoption

The new institutionalism organizational theory conceptualizes organizations as dynamic and open systems that must continuously exchange resources with their environments to survive and develop (Zhou, 2003: 72–75). Institutional environments compel organizations to meet social expectations and comply with rules and regulations, which relates to legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan, 1977: 341; Zhou, 2003: 72–75). Legitimacy is defined as the recognition of an entity or action as ‘desirable, proper, or appropriate’ (Suchman, 1995: 574). Consequently, organizations strive to gain and enhance legitimacy through interactions with stakeholders involved in rules, regulations, and the broader society within a specific institutional environment (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Meyer and Rowan, 1977: 341; Scott, 2000). Thus, new institutionalism highlights the pressures and constraints imposed by the institutional environment on organizations, emphasizing legitimacy mechanisms and resources as central to understanding organizational behavior.

Recent studies in new institutionalism organizational theory have incorporated an agency view, suggesting that organizations are not merely shaped or constrained by their institutional environments. Instead, organizations actively engage in decision-making and strategic actions, such as ‘acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, manipulation’ (Oliver, 1991: 151), to manipulate or control the institutional environments, thereby constructing legitimacy and securing access to essential resources (Oliver 1991; Pfefferand Salancik, 2003; Suchman 1995; Wry et al. 2013).

Correspondingly, we regard the government-led cultural governance and the triple transformation of digitalization, industrialization, and publicization in the museum sector as a unique institutional environment for China’s state-owned museums. We interpret the adoption of VP technologies as an innovative action taken by these museums within this context. In this process, these museums serve as critical practitioners of technological innovation, integral components of the public service system, and contributors to the cultural tourism and local economies. They engage with key stakeholders, including the government, technology companies, and the public, thereby gaining legitimacy and accessing essential resources.

Therefore, by adopting new institutionalism organizational theory from an agency view, we situate China’s state-owned museums within the interactive relationships with the government, technology companies, and the audiences under China’s unique institutional environment, to investigate the path and characteristics of VP technology adoption based on qualitative interviews. This research addresses three main research questions:

RQ1: To what extent and how VP technologies have been adopted in China’s state-owned museums?

RQ2: What are the main characteristics of VP technology adoption in these museums?

RQ3: What kind of interactions between state-owned museums and the government, technology companies, and audiences are reflected in the VP technology adoption?

Methodology

We deployed qualitative research methods for this study. In-depth interviews were conducted between February 2025 and April 2025. The interviews were collected through purposive and snowballing sampling – 19 interviewees of different locations, positions, and different types of museums were recruited, as shown in Table 1. These interviewees include the directors of the museum, the directors of the information department, the exhibition department, and the research department, guides, and general staff. The interviewees came from different types of Museums, such as Comprehensive Museums, History Museums, Culture Museums, Memorial Museums, and Ethnic Museums. These museums are distributed in 12 provinces/municipalities directly under the Central Government, covering both developed and underdeveloped areas.

Table 1.

The list of interviewees.

No.	Sex	Location (province)	Position	Museum type
01	Male	Jiangxi	Exhibition Department Director	Comprehensive Museum
02	Male	Shanghai	Exhibition Department Director	Comprehensive Museum
03	Male	Yunnan	Exhibition Department Director	Comprehensive Museum
04	Female	Shanghai	Exhibition Department Director	Revolutionary History
04	Female	Shanghai	Exhibition Department Director	Museum
05	Female	Fujian	Museum Guide	Ethnic and Regional
05	Female	Fujian	Museum Guide	Culture Museum
06	Male	Hubei	Museum Director	Local History Museum
07	Female	Beijing	Information Department Director	Ethnic Museum
08	Female	Jiangsu	Museum Director	Specialized Museum
09	Male	Jiangsu	Library and Information Center	Comprehensive Museum
09	Male	Jiangsu	Director	Comprehensive Museum
10	Male	Jiangsu	Museum Director	Memorial Museum
11	Female	Beijing	Cultural and Creative	Comprehensive Museum
11	Female	Beijing	Products Department Staff	Comprehensive Museum
12	Male	Shanghai	Information Center Director	Comprehensive Museum
13	Male	Anhui	Exhibition Department Director	Comprehensive Museum
14	Male	Gansu	Conservation and Research	Cultural Heritage
14	Male	Gansu	Department Director	Research Institution
15	Male	Yunnan	Museum Director	Natural History
15	Male	Yunnan	Museum Director	Museum
16	Female	Guangxi	Museum Director	Ethnic Museum
17	Female	Fujian	Museum Director	Industry-Specific
17	Female	Fujian	Museum Director	Museum
18	Female	Beijing	Exhibition Department Director	Archaeological Museum
19	Male	Shandong	Exhibition Department Director	Local History Museum

The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner, and consisted of one to two rounds of interviews per respondent with a duration of 1 to 3 hours. The questions mainly focused on three areas – their understanding of VP technologies, the practices of the adoption of VP technologies in museum exhibitions, and factors that impact museum exhibitions and technologies’ adoption (interview guide is shown in Appendix A).

Then thematic analysis has been applied to understand the data. According to the guidelines of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Naeem et al., 2023), each author has independently reviewed and manually coded data from interview transcripts, and navigated potential themes. The research team discussed the discovered themes altogether. In the process of data collection and analysis, we follow the principle of meaning saturation, which helps to discover and present the complete meaning of the data (Hennink et al., 2017). We stopped collecting and analyzing data only when no new information emerged regarding the meaning of codes or topics and the relationships between them in data analysis.

After carefully incorporating the above theoretical review and considering different stakeholders involved in the adoption of VP technologies in museums, we finally identified three themes – key projects towards the government, pairing collaboration with technology companies, and popular attractions for audiences/visitors (conceptual framework is shown in Appendix B).

Findings

Key projects towards the government

Under the government-led cultural governance system, government leadership is crucial to the institutional environment of China’s state-owned museums. This is particularly evident as the government controls essential resources for museum development, including supportive policies, personnel appointment, and funding. Meanwhile, the government employs two primary methods for resource allocation in the museum sector: ranking evaluations and government projects, which form a significant institutional background for the introduction of VP technologies.

First, museum ranking evaluation serves as the primary performance assessment method for state-owned museums, directly impacting the funding they receive. Interviewees 2 and 10 noted that, under China’s tax-sharing fiscal administration and the ‘territorial management’ system, funding for state-owned museums primarily comes from local governments. A museum’s ranking not only reflects its performance, but also plays a significant role in how local governments are assessed by higher authorities. Consequently, local governments often associate museum rankings with funding allocations. Consequently, museums favor VP technologies to effectively enhance their ranking scores within the current evaluation system.

According to the official public statement (Secretariat of the Chinese Museum Association, 2024), the current museum ranking evaluation system consists of qualitative assessments, quantitative assessments, on-site inspections, and comprehensive evaluations. The evaluation criteria encompass various aspects, including standardized management, scientific research, public services, social evaluation, and the output of distinctive bonus items. Notably, digital communication, a key focus in the public service category, encompasses providing visiting and experiential services in digital formats such as short videos, live broadcasts, cloud exhibitions, virtual exhibition halls, and immersive experiences, evaluated qualitatively. Interviewees 1, 4, 10, and 14 indicated that qualitative assessments are scored by the museum’s administrative body or industry organizations based on subjective interpretations, where the attention and recognition of these interpretations by administrative or official institutions, particularly government departments, directly influence the assessment outcomes. Consequently, in response to national policies mandating digital transformation for museums, state-owned museums emphasize VP technologies significantly. These museums view VP technologies as tools to facilitate government recognition and secure additional funding due to their robust visualization capabilities and ease of displaying innovative performance. A director of the exhibition department at a revolutionary history museum (Interviewee 4) shared the initial motivation for adopting VP technologies:

Our museum has fully seized the digital development opportunities emphasized by the municipal party secretary. We have proactively focused on cutting-edge technologies and proposed targeted immersive exhibition solutions to deeply explore the nuances of red culture. This project not only showcased our significant achievements but also attracted considerable attention and directives from senior leadership, establishing it as one of the exemplary cases of local museums undergoing digital transformation through red culture.

Second, the introduction of VP technologies in state-owned museums mainly relies on the support of government projects. Although the adoption of VP technology can upgrade the museum’s ranking and attract additional funding, the majority of government funds allocated to museums is primarily directed towards routine operations, such as collection maintenance, exhibitions, administrative costs, and staff salaries, leaving only a small portion available for the introduction and application of VP technologies. Consequently, museums propose dedicated VP projects to the government to secure additional funds. Our interviews revealed that nearly all VP projects in these state-owned museums have been financed through government projects.

The acquisition of government project funds for museums appears to be a top-down allocation of resources; however, the application process is highly competitive. The government approves and allocates funds only for projects considered innovative, significant, and capable of yielding tangible political outcomes. In this context, the museum proactively caters to the government’s preferences for technological innovation and political demands, taking the VP project as an important strategy to attract government attention and thereby gain an advantageous position in the competition. Interviews reveal that state-owned museums in developed regions with robust capabilities strive to be early adopters of new VP technologies, aiming to set industry benchmarks and gain government recognition and awards (e.g., Interviewees 1 and 2). Conversely, some museums with weaker capabilities rely on VP projects previously implemented by others, rebranding these initiatives by incorporating unique features or new themes to emphasize the distinctiveness and advancement of their proposals (e.g., Interviewees 3 and 5).

It is noteworthy that when discussing the key points of application proposals for VP projects, interviewees highlighted the necessity of leveraging the advantages of VP technology in terms of immersion, interactivity, and imagination, while they also emphasized that these projects should align with the government’s cultural strategies and governance goals. This alignment not only facilitates the approval of government projects by integrating technological innovations with governmental priorities but also earns additional points in the current museum evaluations for innovative projects that support national strategies, major cultural initiatives, the preservation and promotion of outstanding traditional Chinese culture, and the enhancement of China’s cultural communication capabilities (Interviewees 7, 8, 9, and 14). A director from the conservation and research department (Interviewee 14) stated:

I have always believed that the topics for technological projects should reflect a clear political stance. Cultural exhibitions and promotional activities involve a wide audience, so under the current context of increasingly strict ideological management, when developing these VP projects, the thematic content must strictly align with national policy directions and propaganda principles. The themes must not deviate from the promotion of ‘positive energy’.

Therefore, under the institutional framework where the government promotes museum development through ranking evaluation and project-based funding, the connection between these rankings, funding mechanisms, and resource allocation has made VP technologies essential for museums to develop distinctive projects that garner government attention, recognition, and resources. Motivated by self-interest, museums view the adoption of VP technologies as a fundamental strategy for resource acquisition and competition, actively aligning their actions with government preferences and governance goals.

Pairing collaboration with technology companies

As a significant institutional transformation mandated by policies and supported by the government, the industrialization of museums necessitates the integration of market mechanisms into the operations of state-owned museums to enhance their service efficiency and levels of digitalization. This industrialization primarily manifests through the involvement of various technological, cultural and creative, and tourism companies, along with other commercial entities within the museum sector.³ Our interviews reveal that, compared to collaborating with other types of companies, state-owned museums increasingly prefer partnerships with technology companies for VP projects, given their lower compliance risks, higher government project approval rates, and superior market realization capabilities.

First, the primary form of collaboration in VP projects involves museums purchasing technology from commercial companies or engaging in joint technology innovation projects. While national policies promote industrialization reform that encourages the integration of external market entities into the museum sector to achieve cultural governance goals, state-owned museums often face policy constraints that limit their participation in commercial activities.⁴ In light of the dual pressures to meet the demands of industrial transformation and enhance public service efficiency without violating regulations, the museums we interviewed utilize technology procurement and joint innovation projects as evidence of their market connection and industrial transformation efforts. VP technology has emerged as a key focus for these institutions. One significant factor is that state-owned museums, as cultural entities rather than technology research institutions, have a longstanding tradition of procuring technology and collaborating with technology companies. These museums have traditionally relied on various exhibition technologies, such as lighting and display cases, which are predominantly outsourced. As a cutting-edge technology garnering considerable attention and policy support, VP technology naturally enters museums through conventional means of technology procurement or joint innovation projects. Consequently, for museums, procurement of VP technologies and related projects not only demonstrates their commitment to technological innovation and industrialization but also aligns with industry traditions and regulatory requirements.

Second, we found that museums establish partnerships with technology companies through two primary methods identified in interviews. The first method is self-matching, wherein museums identify suitable technology companies for adopting VP technologies by participating in cultural heritage conferences and exhibitions, as well as through proactive outreach from technology companies. However, self-matching often serves merely as a means for museums and technology companies to understand each other’s industries, and actual collaboration is rarely achieved. The second method involves recommendations from government or peers, which is the predominant way for museums to find cooperation partners. This is because, when applying for the competitive government funding for the VP projects, museums must present their initiatives as more advanced, innovative, and appealing than similar projects in other institutions. Our interviewees indicated that, while museums can quickly identify and propose project themes aligned with government preferences, they often lack expertise in the latest VP technologies and capabilities, necessitating reliance on technology companies to drive innovation in both the form and content of VP projects. To museums, being included on peer or government recommendation lists signifies that these technology companies have substantial experience and a strong track record in securing and executing government projects. A museum director (Interviewee 8) shared several strategies they employed to connect with technology companies:

Our collaborations with technology companies often begin with governmental project applications. As long as the VP technology is robust and the application scenarios align, we are proactive in promoting cooperation. We have previously collaborated with companies such as iFlytek and YunGuanBo, these well-known domestic technology companies, to jointly apply for projects like ‘Internet+ Chinese Civilization’ and worked together on these projects’ implementation. Additionally, the ‘Top Ten Cultural Heritage Technologies’ award organized by the National Cultural Heritage Administration is also an important standard for us in evaluating potential partners.

Third, during project application and implementation, the mutually beneficial relationship has become a key factor in their sustainable cooperation, while an unequal power dynamic between museums and technology companies has also come to the fore in this process. In the joint VP projects, state-owned museums define the ideas, themes, and processes, while technology companies focus primarily on the implementation of technology. This arrangement allows museums to retain professional authority over VP technology adoption, with technology companies playing a supportive role. A museum director (Interviewee 10) highlighted their leadership role in collaborations with technology companies:

Regardless of the partner, we insist on leading with the strategic planning of our museum. The introduction of VP technologies must align with our exhibition concepts and cultural themes, with the technology company taking on a more collaborative and execution-oriented role. We set clear exhibition goals, provide specific requirements to our partners, and decide whether to continue the cooperation based on their responses and capabilities.

Despite being the weaker party in the collaboration, technology companies maintain an active and proactive stance. These companies aim to engage in VP projects to gain implementation experience, enhance their industry reputation, and secure government recognition through partnerships with museums. They leverage these experiences, reputations, and recognitions as capital to convert into economic benefits in other markets. A director of the exhibition department (Interviewee 13) asserted that the collaboration between museums and technology companies is mutually beneficial:

Technology companies also need to leverage our platform for project promotion. By successfully completing a project together, we can create a positive demonstration effect and provide technology companies with a strong endorsement for future connections with other museums or VP projects in different regions.

Thus, driven by industrialization policies, administrative pressure, and interest incentives, a ‘pairing collaboration’ relationship based on reciprocity has emerged between state-owned museums and commercial technology companies in adopting VP technologies and implementing VP projects. This relationship enables both museums and technology companies to leverage each other’s strengths in resource acquisition and interest fulfillment, while also fostering a stable, long-term partnership through ongoing competition for government attention and resources support. Throughout this process, whether in selecting partners or delineating roles during the application and execution of VP projects, there has been a notable alignment with government preferences and cultural governance objectives. Importantly, this collaborative mechanism has successfully integrated technology enterprises previously outside the museum sector into the government-led cultural governance framework.

Popular attractions for audiences/visitors

The concept of publicness in China’s museums emerged primarily due to policy promotion. While publicness encompasses openness to the public and public participation, the engagement of the public in utilizing VP technology remains limited, as the government leads social development and civil society is still in its infancy.

In our interviews, curators of state-owned museums recognized VP technology as a vital tool for enhancing audience engagement. Moreover, their expressions regarding public participation are highly consistent with policy statements and requirements. They frequently noted that VP projects can ‘provide audiences with a better visiting experience, bring antiquities to life through digital means, and enable audiences to gain a deeper understanding of culture’ (Interviewee 1) and ‘cultivate audience appreciation and aesthetic sensibility for cultural arts through immersive experiences and interactive displays’ (Interviewee 8). These insights not only underscore the immersive and participatory nature of VP technologies in engaging audiences but also align closely with the central policy documents and speeches by national leaders concerning museum reforms, such as ‘effectively meet the diverse, multi-level and multi-faceted spiritual and cultural demands of people’ and ‘enhance people’s sense of gain and happiness in culture’ (General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2025).

In interviews, the introduction of VP technologies has been regarded significantly enhancing the evaluation of public service effectiveness in the museum ranking evaluation system. The existing system relies heavily on qualitative and quantitative indicators related to public evaluation, such as ‘audience satisfaction’ and ‘social impact’. The qualitative data for these indicators are mainly sourced from audience feedback, and government and official industry associations’ recognition and rewards. However, interviewees noted that the current levels of political participation awareness and cultural tastes among the Chinese public are insufficient, which limits the relevance of these comments collected through comment books or the museum’s official website. Consequently, museums often highlight government and industry association awards, along with government approvals, as the primary supporting data for these evaluation indicators. A director (Interviewee 13) from the exhibition department exemplifies museums’ understanding of audience satisfaction:

The VP technologies not only enhance the audience experience but also strengthen the interaction between the museum and the audience. Although the implementation of the VP project is not solely for the pursuit of awards, if an award can be obtained, it also indicates the recognition and affirmation of our work by the state and the audience.

Meanwhile, visitor numbers serve as quantitative indicators of ‘audience satisfaction’ and ‘social impact’ in the current evaluation of museum rankings. Accordingly, projects that attract public attention and popularity have become critical to museum development. As museums adopt VP technologies, they align these innovations with significant governmental issues while incorporating various engaging elements to capture audience interest, transforming VP projects into ‘popular attractions’. Furthermore, museums increasingly label exhibitions as ‘photo-friendly’ in promotional materials to cater to audience preferences. A museum director (Interviewee 8) commented during a discussion of their VP projects:

Last year, we launched an immersive digital exhibition. We have a dedicated department that focuses on the content related to the exhibition’s check-in on social media. Once we find new feedback or interesting new content from the audience, we will apply these contents to the exhibition whenever conditions permit.

Moreover, the pursuit of visitor numbers and the eye-catching effects of state-owned museums presents opportunities for the integration of commercial projects. Many state-owned museums have launched special exhibitions that utilize VP technologies, prominently featuring themes of ‘immersion’ and ‘experience’. Although these museums cannot directly generate income from such projects due to the financial management system’s ‘separation between revenue and expenditure’,⁵ these initiatives can enhance the museums’ popularity and influence. As museums increasingly act as catalysts for the cultural and tourism industry and local economic development, the government often tacitly endorses or even supports the inclusion of commercial projects within these institutions. However, several VP projects undertaken by museums in collaboration with technology companies are heavily influenced by the commercial interests of these companies. These companies frequently use VP technologies as marketing tools to generate revenue, viewing museums merely as venues for business while neglecting their public and educational functions (e.g., Interviewees 7 and 12). This shift leads to a deviation from the original intent of serving the public and showcasing culture, resulting in exhibitions that are superficial and unengaging. A director of the exhibition department (Interviewee 12) has reflected on the phenomena of the attention economy and the prioritization of traffic in museum exhibitions:

The integration of the cultural and tourism industries has actually brought a huge impact on the cultural subjectivity (e.g., visitors) of museums. Many museums hold exhibitions, especially the ‘immersive’ exhibitions relying on VP technologies, which are largely to meet the needs of tourism, attract audiences in a short time, gain traffic and earn short-term benefits, but lower the cultural taste.

Thus, serving the public is recognized as a key function of China’s state-owned museums according to current policies, with VP technologies acknowledged as vital tools for public engagement by both the government and museums. However, in China, where civil society is still developing, and the government emphasizes the audience size as a measure of social influence and a driver of local economic development, audience participation is often simplified as a quantifiable number of viewers. Accordingly, audiences are increasingly treated as tourists by these state-owned museums, manipulated to meet government demands or to facilitate commercial monetization through VP technologies.

Discussion

Drawing on a new institutionalism organizational perspective and based on qualitative research and analysis, this study characterizes the VP technology adoption practices in China’s state-owned museums as an administrative absorption of technologies. We define administrative absorption of technology as the process by which state-owned museums, technology companies, and their audiences engage in an administrative logic during the adoption of VP technology. Throughout this process, the government’s will and preferences are reflected in the adoption of VP technology. This research not only provides a novel perspective on how institutional dynamics influence technological innovation pathways in China’s museum sector, but also elucidates the practical mechanisms and unique order of the government-led cultural governance in the digital age.

First, administrative absorption of technology represents a distinct path for the adoption of VP technologies within China’s unique institutional context. The term ‘administrative absorption’ is derived from King’s (1975) concept of ‘administrative absorption of politics’, which describes the process by which the government integrates political forces, often embodied by elite groups, into an administrative decision-making framework. We adapted this concept to characterize the VP technology adoption path in museums. Administrative absorption of technology is inspired by the concept of ‘administrative absorption of politics’, yet it differs significantly. ‘Administrative’ in administrative absorption of technology signifies the administrative logic reflecting government preferences and intentions, which is different from the administrative management system and mechanism referred to by ‘administrative’ in the ‘administrative absorption of politics’. ‘Technology’ encompasses not only the VP technologies themselves, but also the VP technology adoption behaviors of museums, technology companies, and audiences who have been/are being included in the scope of cultural governance subjects. ‘Absorption’ denotes the infusion of governmental intention and administrative rationale in the adoption of VP technology in museums, primarily driven by competitive resource allocation rather than political integration of social and political forces that challenge the governmental authority in ‘administrative absorption of politics’.

We found that in the competitive resource allocation environment established by the Chinese government through the museum ranking and project systems, state-owned museums prioritize their daily operations on ranking evaluations, project applications, and outcome assessments to secure governmental resources. In this setting, state-owned museums adopt VP technology not only for its immersive, visual, and interactive benefits that enhance accessibility, participation, education, and inclusivity, but also for its high visibility, replicability, and market appeal, which help them align with the policies and government’s requirements for political propaganda and local economic development. Consequently, government intentions and preferences become primary considerations for these museums, effectively transforming them into administrative tools that serve the government’s objectives and demonstrating the integration of administrative logic into museum practices.

Moreover, the administrative absorption of technology is reflected in the increasing influence of government leadership and preferences on technology companies and audiences interacting with state-owned museums. Our research indicates that technology companies primarily serve as experts and contractors, while the final approval of joint VP projects remains subject to government discretion. Audiences are relegated to passive visitors, as the government assesses audience satisfaction in state-owned museum rankings using quantitative indicators. In the process of administrative absorption of technology, museums have become a crucial intermediary connecting the government with external technology companies and the public. Museums not only facilitate stable cooperation between technology companies and the government but also attract audiences into the cultural governance space of museums. This indicates that, within China’s unique institutional context, leveraging technology as a key tool for cultural governance not only broadens the reach of the government-led cultural governance system but also enhances the influence of governmental preferences and administrative logic among an increasingly diverse array of cultural governance stakeholders.

Second, administrative absorption of technology presents a new support-cooperation relationship, which differs significantly from the interrelations between political subjects in administrative absorption of politics proposed in other scenarios. King’s concept of administrative absorption of politics in democratic polities actually implies a form of implicit assimilation and control by the government of threatening and opposing political forces (1975). We find that under the government-led cultural governance in China, the technology adoption practices of museums does not imply a completely one-way relationship characterized by control and obedience among the government, museums, technology companies, and audiences, but rather a mutual resonance of the government’s support and the cooperation among museums, technology companies, and audiences.

The ‘support’ is evident in the government’s adoption of VP technology, which includes providing funding, information, endorsement, and resources such as exhibition venues and communication channels for state-owned museums, technology companies, and audiences, to facilitate the implementation of its cultural policies and governance objectives. ‘Cooperation’ is illustrated by museums, companies, and audiences responding to governmental support by fulfilling the government’s requirements and collaborating to achieve policy goals, thereby securing development resources and meet needs. For example, museums and technology companies innovate and integrate VP projects with political themes, while audiences engage with theme exhibitions that utilize VP technology. Although the state primarily adopt digital technology for ‘regime survival’ (Hoffman, 2022), the support–cooperation relationship is rooted in resource dependence and benefit acquisition. In this dynamic, museums and technology companies gain legitimacy and funding for growth, the public accesses new technologies, and the government’s administrative goals are achieved. This resource exchange and mutual benefit have evolved beyond merely addressing external challenges, as discussed in the concept of ‘administrative absorption of politics’ (King, 1975).

The support–cooperation relationship highlights the evolving trend of China’s digital cultural governance framework. In the context of ongoing digitization, marketization, and popularization reforms within museums, museums, technology companies as well as audiences, exhibit greater autonomy and self-interest at the organizational and individual levels under the aforementioned relationship with the government. This newfound autonomy and self-interest, however, compel these entities to re-engage and collaborate with the government-led cultural governance system through strategic actions such as technology adoption, resulting in a new interactive relationship characterized by both tension and a tendency toward integration.

Third, administrative absorption of technology offers a novel theoretical framework for understanding the unique institutional context in China and the cultural governance mechanisms in the digital era. Research on digital cultural governance and museums typically employs analytical frameworks of ‘control-resistance’ and ‘control-dependence’ between the government and social entities such as museums, communities, and audiences, discussing the effects of technology adoption in museums across Western and non-Western countries (e.g., Capurro et al., 2024; Hylland and Primorac, 2023; Lavrenteva, 2025; Zabalueva, 2017). These frameworks presuppose a binary opposition of ‘state-society’, implying that museums, communities, and the audiences are often viewed as adversarial to the government.

However, in the administrative adoption of technology in Chinese museums, there is no substantive challenge to the governmental authority, and instead, museums, technology companies, and even audiences’ actions reflect a proactive adaptation and strategic integration into the government-led cultural governance system. Consequently, the administrative absorption of technology does not arise from a repressive governmental response to potential resistance, nor is it a product of excessive government intervention in the operations of museums and technology companies, or an intentional manipulation of public behavior. Under the government-led cultural governance, the government gradually replaces the traditional administrative command model through competitive resource allocation mechanisms, such as project application, performance evaluation, etc. In this context, museums, technology companies, and audiences actively accept administrative absorption based on their interests and rational calculations, adjusting their behaviors to align with government’s preferences and governance objectives. This demonstrates that administrative absorption of technology, as a governance approach, has transcended the traditional binary opposition of ‘state–society’. It also illustrates how the cultural governance practices of Chinese museums effectively integrate government’s preferences and objectives with the behaviors of various stakeholders through institutional guidance and resource leverage, thereby achieving a cohesive synergy between government intentions and technological innovation.

Last but not the least, it must point out that under administrative absorption of technology, the autonomy and self-interest obtained by museums, technology companies, and even the audiences are not unconditionally present, but highly dependent on their degree of compliance with government requirements and their ability to meet government demands. Due to the Chinese government’s control over key resources in the cultural and museum fields (such as financial allocations, project approvals, and policy access), it occupies a ‘structural advantage’ position in its relationships with other stakeholders, causing other stakeholders to become dependent on its resources. In this situation, the cultural governance function of museums and technology companies in pursuing their own interests may gradually transform into assisting the government in completing various administrative tasks, thereby weakening or even losing the autonomy and public value orientation that they should have possessed. Of particular concern is that the general audiences, due to limited resources, often can only passively accept the technological products and services provided by the government, museums, and technology companies, with their true willingness to participate, cultural demands, and expressions of subjectivity easily being overlooked or marginalized.

Conclusion

This study takes the adoption of VP technology under the three-fold transformation of digitalization, industrialization, and publicization advocated by the government as a micro perspective to observe the characteristics and mechanisms of China’s cultural governance in the digital era. This study proposes the theoretical concept of ‘administrative absorption of technology’ to offer new interpretations of the relationships among government, museums, technology companies, and audiences, emphasizing that the core mechanism is ‘support’ and ‘cooperation’. The resource dependence and mutual benefits among various entities significantly contribute to the establishment of this support-cooperation relationship.

The administrative adoption of technology not only highlights the new features and mechanisms of VP technology adoption in state-owned museums in China and the digital age, but also emphasizes a government-led, non-coercive, and cooperative cultural governance model, going beyond the traditional cultural governance analysis paradigm that presupposes the state/government and society as antagonistic forces. On the one hand, the adoption of VP technology in state-owned museums exemplifies how, in a non-Western country like China, the government employs strategies beyond mandatory administrative orders, such as competitive mechanism and market mechanism, to encourage various entities to align with its administrative logic. On the other hand, museums and technology companies, motivated by self-interest, proactively adjust their behaviors, actively strive for institutional and government resource, and achieve their own development while adhering to government preferences and serving the government’s cultural governance goals. However, this leads to negative consequences, as both VP technology and audience participation are viewed merely as tactical tools utilized by museums and technology companies to compete for government resources. Consequently, the potential for public interest expression that VP technology may facilitate has not been a priority for museums and technology companies. This suggests that in a non-Western country like China, despite expectations that digital technology would infuse cultural governance with characteristics of diversity, openness, and participation, however, it often serves the priority goals of administrative efficiency and governance controllability in practice. This further underscores the distinctiveness of Chinese cultural governance, transforming technology adoption into the administrative logic of the government, technology, and other governance entities, in contrast to the Western model of open dialogue.

This study makes two key theoretical contributions: first, the concept of ‘administrative absorption of technology’ illustrates that in some non-Western countries, entities such as museums and technology companies can leverage institutional self-interest for technology adoption. This reveals a unique pathway where self-interest leads to the institutional absorption of technology rather than institutional change, enriching non-Western examples of organizational behavior and institutional environment interaction in new institutionalism organizational theory. Second, although VP technology inherently promotes openness and participation within the China’s government-led cultural governance context, it remains a tool for reinforcing government’s governance. This challenges the Western assumption that technology fosters diversification and openness (Jenkins et al., 2013; Salampessy et al., 2024), providing significant theoretical insights into cultural and technological governance in the digital age within non-Western contexts.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Qi Yin

Shiyu (Sharon) Zheng

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China: [Grant Number 24ZDA082].

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Appendix

References

Agostino

Arnaboldi

Lampis

(2020) Italian state museums during the COVID-19 crisis: from onsite closure to online openness. Museum Management and Curatorship 35(4): 362–372.

Beijing Museum Association (1995) Beijing Museum Yearbook (1992–1994). Beijing Yanshan Press, 364. (In Chinese).

Bennett

(1995) The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. Routledge.

Bennett

(2005) Civic laboratories: museums, cultural objecthood and the governance of the social. Cultural Studies 19(5): 521–547.

Bevir

(2012) Governance: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Burri

(2023) The European Union as a digital cultural policy actor. In: Hylland

Primorac

(eds) Digital Transformation and Cultural Policies in Europe. Routledge, 161–180.

Cameron

(2004) The museum, a temple or the forum. In: Anderson

(ed) Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift. AltaMira Press, 61–73.

Cameron

Robinson

(2007) Digital knowledgescapes: cultural, theoretical, practical, and usage issues facing museum collection databases in a digital epoch In: Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. MIT Press, 165–191.

10.

Capurro

Plets

Verheul

(2024) Digital heritage infrastructures as cultural policy instruments: Europeana and the enactment of European citizenship. International Journal of Cultural Policy 30(3): 304–324.

11.

Central Propaganda Department Ministry of Culture, State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and General Administration of Press and Publication (2003) Opinions on Pilot Work for Cultural System Reform. Beijing, July 2003. (In Chinese).

12.

Chanpum

(2023) Virtual production: interactive and real-time technology for filmmakers. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies 23(1): 9–17.

13.

Chartrand

McCaughey

(1989) The arm’s length principle and the arts: an international perspective–past, present and future. Who’s to Pay for the Arts 43–80.

14.

Chen

Wang

, et al. (2024) Why people use augmented reality in heritage museums: a socio-technical perspective. Heritage Science 12(1): 108.

15.

China News . (2022, August 3). Shanghai Museum Launches Digital Collectibles Platform. https://m.chinanews.com/wap/detail/zw/cj/2022/08-03/9819163.shtml (In Chinese)

16.

Chung

Manley

Wang

, et al. (2023) Cross-cultural collaboration and cultural production within China’s public museums: examining the challenges and practices guiding administration. International Journal of Cultural Policy 29(3): 328–344.

17.

Ch’ng

Cai

Leow

, et al. (2019) Adoption and use of emerging cultural technologies in China’s museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage 37: 170–180.

18.

de Wild

Povroznik

(2024) Museums on the web. Internet Histories 8(1-2): 1–8.

19.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

20.

Dowling

Pfeffer

(1975) Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review 18(1): 122–136.

21.

Flew

Martin

Suzor

(2019) Internet regulation as media policy: rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10(1): 33–50.

22.

General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China . (2025, January 9). Several Measures for Further Cultivating New Growth Points to Prosper Culture and Tourism Consumption [Notice]. The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.scio.gov.cn/live/2025/35455/wjzc/202501/t20250123_883283_m.html

23.

Heilmann

(2016) Leninism upgraded: Xi Jinping’s authoritarian innovations. China Economic Quarterly 20(4): 15–22.

24.

Hennink

Kaiser

Marconi

(2017) Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research 27(4): 591–608.

25.

Hijazi

Baharin

(2022) The effectiveness of digital technologies used for the visitor’s experience in digital museums. A systematic literature review from the last two decades. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies 16(16): 142–159.

26.

Hoffman

(2022) China’s tech-enhanced authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 33(2): 76–89.

27.

Hooper-Greenhill

(2000) Changing values in the art museum: rethinking communication and learning. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(1): 9–31.

28.

Hylland

Primorac

(2023) Digital Transformation and Cultural Policies in Europe. Taylor & Francis, 233.

29.

International Council of Museums . (2022, August 24). Museum Definition. https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/

30.

Jenkins

Ford

Green

(2013) Spreadable media: creating value and meaning in a networked culture. In: Spreadable Media. New York University Press.

31.

King

AYC

(1975) Administrative absorption of politics in Hong Kong: emphasis on the grass roots level. Asian Survey 15(5): 422–439.

32.

Krauss

(1990) The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum. The MIT Press, Vol. 54, 3–17.

33.

Lavrenteva

(2025) Gatekeeping access: exploring open access challenges for Museum collections held in Russia. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 12(2): eP18274.

34.

Lee

Jung

tom Dieck

, et al. (2020) Experiencing immersive virtual reality in museums. Information & Management 57(5): 103229.

35.

Liu

Lan

(2021) Museum as multisensorial site: story co-making and the affective interrelationship between museum visitors, heritage space, and digital storytelling. Museum Management and Curatorship 36(4): 403–426.

36.

Marinescu

(2018) The museum between education and entertainment: the role of the museum according to the target public. Sociology International Journal 2(3): 185–189.

37.

Mayrand

(2014) The new museology proclaimed. Museum International 66(1–4): 115–118.

38.

Meyer

Rowan

(1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.

39.

Naeem

Ozuem

Howell

, et al. (2023) A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22: 16094069231205789.

40.

Navarrete

(2019) Digital heritage tourism: innovations in museums. World Leisure Journal 61(3): 200–214.

41.

Oliver

(1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1): 145–179.

42.

Parry

(2007) Recoding the Museum: Digital Heritage and the Technologies of Change. Routledge.

43.

Peng

Keane

(2019) China’s soft power conundrum, film coproduction, and visions of shared prosperity. International Journal of Cultural Policy 25(7): 904–916.

44.

Pfeffer

Salancik

(2003) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.

45.

Polyakova

Meserole

(2019) Exporting Digital Authoritarianism: The Russian and Chinese Models. Policy brief, democracy and disorder series, 1–22.

46.

Priadko

Sirenko

(2021) Virtual production: a new approach to filmmaking. Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Bulletin of Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Series in Audiovisual Art and Production 4(1): 52–58.

47.

Rhodes

(2007) Understanding governance: ten years on. Organization Studies 28(8): 1243–1264.

48.

Rosenau

Czempiel

(eds) (1992) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (No. 20). Cambridge University Press.

49.

Salampessy

Nungraha

Sjoraida

, et al. (2024) Citizen participation in public adminitration: a review literature. EScience Humanity Journal 5(1): 176–183.

50.

Scott

(2000) Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. University of Chicago press.

51.

Secretariat of the Chinese Museum Association (2024) Score results and data analysis of the 6th National Museum Operation Evaluation (2019-2021 cycle). Chinese Museums 161(2): 3–15. (In Chinese).

52.

Shahbaz

(2018) The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism: Freedom on the Net 2018. Freedom House.

53.

Simon

(2010) Reform of China’s laws for NPOs - a discussion of issues related to Shiye Danwei reform. Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht 12(2): 25–50.

54.

(1998) Reflections on Museums: Selected Papers of Su Donghai. Cultural Relics Publishing House, 5. (In Chinese).

55.

Suchman

(1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

56.

Tian

Huang

, et al. (2024) An empirical study of virtual museum based on dual-mode mixed visualization: the Sanxingdui bronzes. Heritage Science 12: 146.

57.

Varutti

(2014) Museums in China: The Politics of Representation After Mao. Boydell & Brewer, Vol. 13.

58.

Wang

Sun

Zhang

, et al. (2024) Effect of display methods on intentions to use virtual reality in museum tourism. Journal of Travel Research 63(2): 314–334.

59.

Wry

Cobb

Aldrich

(2013) More than a metaphor: assessing the historical legacy of resource dependence and its contemporary promise as a theory of environmental complexity. The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 441–488.

60.

Wuhan Civilization Network . (2023, April 5). Modern Technology Brings King Zhuang of Chu “To Life” Through Light and Shadow. https://hbwh.wenming.cn/whwy/202304/t20230405_8034929.html (In Chinese)

61.

Xinhua Net . (2022, July 22). National Museum of China Unveils Digital Guide “Ai Wenwen”. https://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/20220722/c40e957716d349d79e8302fde1a3c0f8/c.html (In Chinese)

62.

Xinhua Net . (2024a, July 23). Visit Dunhuang in VR:‘Exploring Dunhuang’ Digital Exhibition Draws Enthusiastic Crowds. https://www.xinhuanet.com/expo/20240723/dca201e74b074831ae4b9474bb02052c/c.html (In Chinese)

63.

Xinhua Net . (2024b, October 9). VR Technology Offers Immersive Experience at SW China’s Sanxingdui Ruins. https://english.news.cn/20241009/ebca2b590f7d45f397115101472c231e/c.html

64.

(2015) Museums and Public Culture in Modern China. Science Press, 157–189. (In Chinese).

65.

Yang

(1999) Museums and the expansion of public consciousness in modern China. Fudan Journal (Social Sciences Edition) 41(3): 54-60. (In Chinese).

66.

Yang

Tengku Wook

TSM

Rosdi

(2025) Advancing cultural heritage: a decadal review of digital transformation in Chinese museums. NPJ Heritage Science 13(1): 189.

67.

Zabalueva

(2017) Cultural policies in Russian museums. Museum International 69(3-4): 38–49.

68.

Zhao

Keane

(2025) Sino-futurism and alternative imaginaries of digital China. Media International Australia 196(1): 215–228.

69.

Zhou

(2003) Ten Lectures on Organizational Sociology. Social Sciences Academic Press. (In Chinese).

Administrative absorption of technology: The adoption of virtual production (VP) technologies in China’s state-owned museums

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Museums, cultural governance and application of VP technologies

Government-led cultural governance and VP technologies adoption in China’s museum

New institutionalism organizational theory: A theoretical perspective for VP technology adoption

Methodology

Findings

Key projects towards the government

Pairing collaboration with technology companies

Popular attractions for audiences/visitors

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Notes

Appendix

References