Guided Tours: A Polarizing Interpretation Method

We at Reach Advisors have mixed feelings about guided tours.  We have had awful tour experiences--and amazing ones. 

 

Turns out, respondents to two of our recent surveys feel similarly.  When we asked visitors to outdoor history museums and Connecticut organizations to tell us how they preferred to experience museums and historic sites, they were split on the value of guided tours.  Forty-five percent of respondents to both surveys selected guided tours as an experience preference . . . the rest did not. 

 

A closer look at the results of our Connecticut Cultural Consumers survey (funded by the Connecticut Humanities Council) sheds light on why people do, or do not, enjoy guided tours.  When asked their thoughts, respondents used strong, emotive language, and that language underscored how polarizing guided tours are as an interpretation method. 

 

• Participants felt “trapped,” “controlled,” “pressured,” … or “stimulated.” 
• Other visitors on tours were “annoying,” “distracting,” … or “insightful.” 
• Guides were “monotonous,” “condescending,” “insipid,” “intimidating,” … or “passionate,” “smart,” and “articulate.” 
• Tours are “dumbed down,” “too structured,” “boring,” … or “fun” and “enriching.”

 

Respondents who do enjoy guided tours liked them for a number of reasons.  Primarily, they enjoyed the in-depth information that they received on tours.  Other reasons that appeared repeatedly include:  the personal connection that a tour guide offered; the stories, anecdotes, and little-known facts that they learned; and the efficiency of tours, which they felt packed in information in a short time.

 

On the flip side, respondents who do not enjoy guided tours primarily cited a desire to go at their own pace.  As one respondent asked forthrightly, “If I don't need a guide to watch TV or go to a football game or to an art museum, why do I need a guide to see a historic house museum?” 

 

Additional reasons included:  the uneven quality of the guides; crowds; their children, whose needs didn’t mesh well with the structured format of tours; annoyances of other visitors; and valuing solitary and quiet communal experiences above group interactions. 

 

Who among our respondents demonstrated a preference for guided tours, and who did not?  Stay tuned . . .

 

In the meantime, we would love to hear your thoughts and questions about this post.  To share or ask questions, click on “comments” below.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)

Comments

[Amanda Rosner]

As a curator of historic interiors at Colonial Williamsburg, I deal with this problem and get questions about why visitors must go on guided tours through historic houses. They ask, "why can't I just look at my own pace and enjoy looking without people talking at me?" As much as we would love to have visitors walk through a house alone and experience it their own way, I believe it comes down to object security. Many objects go missing every year despite our best efforts. Even with barriers installed in most rooms of the buildings, objects within reach still go missing. Sometimes we do not want to torture our visitors with guided tours, but making sure our objects and buildings stay safe becomes our priority. I am sure there must be a compromise here somewhere though that puts the visitor first as well as our objects! Right?

[James Chung, Reach Advisors]

Hey Amanda,
Great to hear from you! Since this topic is bound to come up in future research, we really look forward to hearing from you along the way to help sharpen what we examine and share with the field.

[Susie Wilkening]

Hi Amanda -

You are absolutely right. Security is a big issue for historic house museums, and guided tours are often the most cost-effective way of ensuring the objects in the houses are safe. Yet are there interpretation alternatives that can be just as safe that are not as polarizing? We are going to have some suggestions made by Core Visitors to museums in another post, but we would love to hear thoughts from within the field as well!

Susie

[Davi]

I totally agree about the security issue but i think that there are other ways to keep a watch on exhibits for example alarm systems and in the natural history museum of my country, there are people specially employed to keep a watch.
As for the need to provide guided tours, i dnt find it very important especially when it comes to science centres where the visitors need to feel free to spend varying amount of time at different exhibits. let them discover, explore, experience by themselves. And a 'guide' may be present to respond to any queries that they may have....