|
About a third of young adults without children also chose family time as a primary reason for visiting museums, and their comments indicate that they enjoy visiting them with various family members, but primarily their spouses or significant others (with some saying museums helped them get to know future spouses better).
Adults over age 60 are the least likely to cite family time; only one in five women, and only one in six men. As Americans age, however, they need social outlets to maintain long-term health and wellness. My data suggests museums are under-performing in this role (for more, see my review of Creative Health on The Curated Bookshelf). A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. In particular, this question is similar to versions fielded by, among other organizations, the Smithsonian's Office of Policy and Analysis, the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture, Visitors Count!, etc.
And with that, I really don't have anything to add! (Though to be honest, I'm more surprised it isn't a bigger motivator for older adults, especially women.) A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. In particular, this question is similar to versions fielded by, among other organizations, the Smithsonian's Office of Policy and Analysis, the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture, Visitors Count!, etc.
Understanding. Empathy. Tolerance. Museums have the capacity to connect us to humanity. To make us consider different viewpoints. Become aware of different life experiences. To not fear "the other" so much. To be compassionate. In my opinion, these are some of the most important impacts museums have in our society. Our ability to open individuals up to caring about others. And after working in this field for 20 years, I know many of you feel likewise. Happily, when I asked regular museum-goers in the 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers to share with me the value of museums in their life, 21% were able to articulate, and convey to me, similar feelings. That museums had made them more open-minded. More accepting. And better able to navigate a complicated world because of their experiences in museums. (Since this was from coding of an open-ended question, 21% is a lot.) But this impact wasn't consistent among museum-goers. While a quarter of the most intrinsically motivated museum-goers spoke of these themes (as well as a quarter of young adults without children), only a tenth of parents of young children (10 and younger) said likewise. But then, as I'll share in a few weeks, that is the most extrinsically motivated segment of museum-goers. So it seems that intrinsically-motivated learners care more about these goals than, I suspect, the more extrinsically-motivated broader population. Which makes what I am about to share make much more sense, as much as I don't like the results. Preparing for two pending projects dealing with institutionalized racism and LGBTQ history, I fielded test questions asking the broader population about the appropriateness of museums sharing these histories.  A third of respondents said yes, unambiguously when it came to the LGBTQ history of a historic site. A history of institutionalized racism in a community was more complicated, with a third saying yes, but some of the respondents equivocating more, saying "carefully." ("Carefully" may have seen as a "safe" response when they didn't really want to say "yes, absolutely." Thus, it could really mean a "no.")
But that means that nearly two-thirds of respondents said, effectively, "no." Two thirds. That museums should not be tackling these issues. It pains me that not only was I not surprised at this finding, but that I expected it. Though I will confess I was surprised that the LGBTQ approval was more definitive than that of institutionalized racism. Given how museum-goers, overall, responded, I suspect they are much more likely to fall in the "yes, absolutely" camp than non-visitors. Museums likely are not running much risk of turning off most of their core audiences (some perhaps, but not most, as I shared in my last research release). Yet if we are working to expand our reach to broader audiences, working on social justice issues may turn off those very same new audiences. It's a bit of a Catch-22, as doing it appears to mean preaching to the choir, while not doing it is morally wrong. But putting numbers and data to the question … it helps. It helps because it means we are not going into these areas of work blindly. We are better prepared for challenges. For friction. We can have more confidence in doing social justice work, while also respond more quickly to criticisms. As I mentally prepare for these projects (pending funding), I'm considering ways that I can probe that 2/3 of the population more closely. What questions do I need to ask to understand the why behind their answers. What life experiences are they coming from that make them say "no?" And what would it take to change their minds (realizing we are realistically only going to change some of them)? And by pushing social justice issues more in our work, will we also open up new audiences as well? I suspect yes … and in ways that may make our work more meaningful to more people. A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation.  This isn't really a surprise, now is it? In my 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, the majority of museum-going parents visit museums so that their children have learning opportunities. Overall, it is an extrinsically motivated reason for visiting.
The interesting part is looking at the parents that are intrinsically motivated as well. One doesn't preclude the other, yet look at how few are intrinsically motivated at children's museums and science centers. Only 12%. (And science centers, when I look just at your regular visitors, it only goes up to 18%.) As I'll lay out in a few weeks, the motivation gap matters. A lot. Though to be honest, what I'm most curious about is broader population response. They are thinking about all types of museums, not a specific type, and in that context, their response makes a lot of sense; it is almost an average of the responses from my sampling of museum-goers. A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. In particular, this question is similar to versions fielded by, among other organizations, the Smithsonian's Office of Policy and Analysis, the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture, Visitors Count!, etc.
It would be easy to think, after reading thousands of responses about the value of museums from museum-goers in the 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, that we are doing an amazing job. After all, the museum-goers are our biggest fans. Of course they are likely to say nice things. Not so fast. There were responses that were more critical. And that may reflect broader opinion more than we would like. That's why it is important to flag a few of the more challenging responses, and acknowledge the truth in them. There were not enough for any real analysis, but they are worth my folding into future lines of inquiry as research continues … and your taking to heart as practitioners in the field. It's race. And colonialism. And white-washing. Our work is being watched, and considered, through many different lenses. In many ways, we fall short …
Of course, some museums are doing great work on decolonization (Abbe Museum) and with social justice (Levine Museum of the New South). The Center for Civil and Human Rights in Atlanta is providing experiences that are deeply powerful (and I'm capturing them among museum-goers in my research, from both whites and people of color). But let's be honest. These museums are the exception, not the rule. It seems so much easier to keep doing what we've been doing. That, however, is white-washing … and, sadly, what some of our visitors want.
This comment disturbs me on so many levels. The writer ostensibly want everyone to enjoy, yet we know many do not feel represented in museums. History and humanity is way too complex to leave race out of our museums. I cannot help but wonder, however … how many others feel this way? Or would prefer museums to remain bastions of white privilege? How many will admit it? And how do we find out individual complex perspectives on social justice in museums? On race? On LGBTQ identity? Who perpetuates racism in their own lives knowingly? Unknowingly? Who pays lip service to wanting equality, but only because they feel they ought to (and in reality, don't care or don't want it)? And how do we, as a field, figure this out? Because I'll be honest too. I'm pretty scared about digging too deeply into these issues in my work. I'm frightened about what ugliness I might turn up. What we will do with what we learn … or turn our back on as "too hard"? And I am downright terrified that, despite good intentions, I'll do or say something offensive (or that I just did in this research release). But I'm taking my own deep breath, and have agreed to join grant proposals that focus on institutionalized racism in the North, LGBTQ history at historic sites, and decolonization. Let's hope these important projects are funded this fall and go forward. Because tackling the hard is important. A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation.  When I ask museum-goers why they visit museums, learning comes up fairly often. But for whom is rather important.
In my 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, the majority of regular visitors to art and history museums are thinking about their own learning opportunities. But less than one in five regular visitors to children's museums or science centers are. The broader public, thinking of museums in general (and if they were to visit one, why), falls in between, at two in five. Of course, there are lots of reasons for visiting museums. Such as learning opportunities for children ... which is a much stronger motivation for those regular visitors to children's museums and science centers. But here's the thing. My "why do you visit" question allowed respondents to pick as many choices as they liked. Parents can choose learning for themselves and for their children; one doesn't preclude the other. (There were several other options as well. I'll get to all of them, promise.) Because that's what driving the difference here. Since the super-majority of regular visitors to children's museums and science centers are parents (primarily of children 10 and younger), we see what I call The Parent Bubble: a large influx of extrinsically-motivated parents who may or may not have any intrinsic motivations for visiting for their own sake. Now, I love that they are seeing museums as a good thing for their kids, but as we'll see in a few weeks, The Parent Bubble presents a lot of challenges for museums. One more thing. This question was designed to capture those easy-to-articular reasons for visiting museums. But using this answer as an example, it doesn't tell us why they picked museums over other learning opportunities. That takes deeper probing. More to come. A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. In particular, this question is similar to versions fielded by, among other organizations, the Smithsonian's Office of Policy and Analysis, the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture, Visitors Count!, etc. Motivations and the Value of Museums: Radical Differences (part II of The Value of Museums)8/7/2017
A museum's ability to affect someone in a meaningful way is closely tied to that individual's willingness to learn … and openness to new ideas and concepts.
That's a complicated statement. Allow me to repeat it. A museum's ability to affect someone in a meaningful way is closely tied to that individual's willingness to learn … and openness to new ideas and concepts. It's about mindset. And it means that the impact of museums disproportionately affects some visitors more than others. Over the past few weeks, I've shared some findings from the 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers about intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations in museum-going. But how does that affect impact? When I asked museum-goers to share with me their assessment of the value of museums in their life, there were clear differences based on their motivations around learning. Intrinsically motivated museum-goers These avid museum-goers were much more likely to share impacts that were about the societal benefits of museums. That is, they spoke often about minds being opened, connections engendered, understanding developed, and how museums contribute significantly to a sense of place. Overall, their comments were richer and more detailed, with more nuance and emotion. They also spoke of personal benefits, and were about twice as likely to say museums made them more curious, enriched them, or were good for their mental health. Additionally, many made general statements about museums. In both cases, these types of answers were more likely to be in addition to the societal benefits. Two randomly selected examples:
Extrinsically motivated museum-goers First, extrinsically-motivated museum-goers were more likely to skip my question entirely. Response rates fell from 72% of intrinsically-motivated museum-goers to only 57% of the most extrinsically motivated. Fewer of them were able to comment in the first place, which is telling. When it came to those who did respond, there were two areas where they particularly stood out. 1 - They were about 60% more likely to focus on museums being beneficial to their children. (Note: I distinguished between those who said museums benefit all children, a societal benefit, from those who said museums benefited their children, a personal benefit.) That means parents responding to the survey are disproportionately extrinsically motivated (something you'll hear a lot more about soon). Randomly selected example of this type of comment:
Extending meaning-making to all audiences Deeply meaningful, powerful, even transformative experiences in museums are more likely to happen to those who are intrinsically motivated. This is clear from the types of experiences they have had in museums, and it is also clear from the impact they have derived from those experiences. It is also clear from their mindset, as they typically approach museums with an openness to change, or transformation:
But therein lies a challenge, as it means that we are disproportionately affecting the faithful: the minority of visitors that are intrinsically motivated. Yet I see this as an opportunity: there is a pretty significant captive audience in our museums, every day, that we can reach. It's not going to be easy. After all, what we want to deliver doesn't match up with the actual, most pressing needs of these visitors. A parent or caregiver visiting for their child's enrichment isn't coming in with the mindset that they may have a transformative experience themselves … therefore, they are less likely to. There is also something else, which you may have ascertained as you read this: life stage matters. It matters a lot. So does socio-economic status, educational attainment, age, and other factors. I have two more research releases on the value of museums, but after that, I'll begin exploring different segments of museum-goers through life stage and demographic lenses. Those lenses will give much more depth and complexity to individual motivations, and the value of museums. They will also give us a better sense of how to measure impact and articulate our value to broader audiences … and attract new audiences along the way by better matching our marketing to their explicit, extrinsic needs. A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation.
Impact. We all hope that museums have impact. We think they do. After all, they did for us. But what about everyone else? How do we measure our impact? How do we do so in ways that make sense? Stand up to scrutiny? Especially since we don't know who has visited what museum, visitation can be sporadic, and so on. As a field, I feel like we have been wringing our hands, and talking in circles, about this forever. So I asked. In the 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, I simply asked respondents to reflect upon the role of museums in their lives, and share if those visits had any impact on them … or not. And they shared. My goodness, did they share. The responses were amazing … and anything but simple.
But before we dig into them, I do have to share a major caveat: these are regular museum-goers. Of course they are going to be more likely to articulate, and share, positive thoughts on impact than a casual museum-goer, or a non-visitor. These findings should not be taken as universal perceptions, but instead initial themes that we should then figure out ways to test more broadly (and strive to make more common). Additionally, as you'll see in my next research release, being a regular museum-goer doesn't mean one actually has a meaningful relationship with museums … or a relationship that couldn't be easily replaced by something else. Indeed, one's motivation to learn, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, seems to matter. A lot. Let's look at the overall results first, however. Responses fell into three broad categories (which add up to more than 100%, since 22% of responses fell into both of the first two categories; 10% of responses fell into none of these categories):
But this is just the superficial analysis (though I shudder to say that, because hand-coding thousands of these comments was hard, painstaking, work taking a great deal of discernment). Turns out, how different segments of museum-goers responded mattered quite a bit. Things get interesting, and complicated, when we look at the data through different lenses. In my next research release, I'll explore differences in responses based on intrinsic or extrinsic motivations around learning. You'll also see me come back to these responses in the coming weeks, when I examine three different segments of museum-goers in more detail (and how their responses differ). A note about fielding research. I hold dear the idea that research for the field, about the field, should be shared with the field. But that only works when museums work together to make it possible. Since individual museums are needed to field this work, the survey also benefits participating museums on an individual level by providing benchmark data on visitation rates, motivations, attitudes and preferences, and demographic questions … all of which can then be tracked over time in the future. Participating museums are also allowed to add 1 - 2 custom questions specific to their needs. Which means if you value this research, want more of it in the coming years, and want to track your own museum's progress over time, please support this work by enrolling your museum in the 2018 Annual Survey of Museum Goers. The fee for 2018 is only $1,000 per museum. The questions for this survey have been inspired by ongoing conversations within the museum field (who does/does not go to museums, why they do/do not visit, and what that means for communities) and ongoing research in the fields of education and psychology around lifelong learning and intrinsic motivation. |
