Museum Audience Insight

Community Engagement and Objects - Mutually Exclusive?

Last week, James Chung, the President of Reach Advisors, was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor as saying "It's not about the collections anymore. It's about community."  Well, as you might imagine, this comment raised a few eyebrows (including my own, since I knew it was out of context!) in the blogosphere.  Chris Norris, of the Prerogative of Harlots blog, wrote eloquently of his visceral reaction to the comment, and we cannot help but respond.  The following is what we posted to Chris’s blog:

 

Hi Chris – Thanks for the provocative post. 

As you likely realize, when one talks to journalists one says a ton of things, and often only one snippet, one phrase ends up included in the article.  Yes, we at Reach Advisors do believe that community engagement is hugely important to museums, indeed, imperative to museums if they want to grow and prosper in the future. 

But we do not, by any means, believe that objects are unimportant.  Indeed, our research is indicating that real, authentic objects are more important than ever.  As we move into an increasingly digital age, the real object, whether a painting, a fossil, or a teaspoon, becomes more and more special to visitors, especially younger ones.  I like to spend time visitor-watching at various museums, and it is amazing how often I hear a child ask “is this the real one?” and a parent respond “yes, this is the real one.”  And both are looking at some object intently.

Additionally, in recent research we asked twenty-somethings specifically how they felt about real objects versus virtual representations, and they enthusiastically said that seeing stuff online only made them want to see the real objects in person even more.  Furthermore, their comments revolved around how important authenticity was to them because real authenticity is increasingly hard to find in our crazy world.  Yet they felt that museums were inherently authentic, largely because they have authentic objects that are unique and wonderful. 

So what do we feel at Reach Advisors about community engagement and objects?  They are both incredibly, incredibly important.  Without collections, many museums lose their core purpose – of using art, history, and science to educate and inspire our visitors.  You simply cannot replicate the experience of standing in front of a Vermeer (my favorite artist) any other way.  It is not the same, and museum visitors recognize that.  It is heartbreaking to see collections in dire need of conservation, cleaning, and simple care, and the Heritage Health Index report made me, for one, swallow hard.  I personally hate seeing curators and collections managers getting laid off during these difficult economic times.

Objects are also important tools that can be used to bring community together.  I have personally witnessed this when I was the Executive Director of the Saratoga County Historical Society in Ballston Spa, NY, where we used objects to tell the stories of our community, instigating conversation, and knitting that community closer together. 

Community engagement at the museum may not always rely on objects, but more often than not, objects are imperative to attracting audiences, engaging them deeply, inspiring them, and facilitating the connections we want museums to create not only between visitors and their communities, but also among each other. 

- Susie

What Does $150 Billion Buy You?

Recently, my son insisted on stopping at the JFK Library and Museum's exhibit celebrating the 40th anniversary of landing on the moon (some of you will remember that he has asked to visit this museum before).  The exhibit answered a question I had been pondering ever since he got interested in space:  Can this country ever accomplish something so bold again, or is the cost simply not feasible?

The answer found in the exhibit was that it cost around $150 billion (in today's dollars) for the entire Apollo program.  As I tried to put that in perspective, it struck me that the government has spent $173 billion (and counting) to bail out AIG.  Wow.  Can you imagine what productive purpose could’ve been fueled with that kind of money (which is actually less than 5% of the government’s total spending on the bailout so far)?   

As a result of the space program, most of us benefit from the acceleration of technological advancements such as personal computers, GPS, smoke detectors, cordless tools, etc.  Then there were more intangible but critical advancements such as an unmatched level of civic pride in a troubled era, and the spark for a generation of Americans who drove our country’s ascent to technological domination over the past few decades.  

While museums are unlikely to lead the charge in a similar, inspirational endeavor, some museums may be in unique situations to accomplish bold goals.  Perhaps it’s fostering an unmatched level of civic pride within their community.  Or perhaps it’s providing the spark for a generation of citizens who will grow our country’s depth of knowledge in topics as wide-ranging as technological wizardry, or advancement in the understanding of the natural world around us, or cultural knowledge in an ever-increasingly global world.   Or perhaps it’s having more direct impact on economic recovery through job re-training programs, or through the fostering of economic value created by an increasingly underemployed but educated and creative generation now entering the workforce, or through sparking smart urban (or even suburban or rural) redevelopment in ways that most real estate developers will never be able to do.  

These are all issues we continually ponder, and we welcome any comments or further exploration on what all this might mean for how museums firmly establish their value amidst an economy run amuck.  All done for less than $173 billion dollars.  

- James

Curiosity and Learning Motivations

A few weeks ago, I wrote about curiosity, wondering if we were putting the cart before the horse in our quest to spark creativity without nurturing curiosity first.  Jay Rounds, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis, guided me to his 2004 article in Curator on curiosity, and it, of course, got me thinking.  (Now Jay, I am paraphrasing you some here, so if I goof, don’t hesitate to set me straight!)  This is one of my more mind-bending posts, so bear with me.

 

Jay states that a “curiosity-driven visitor” is not a personality type, but a behavior based on the goal of the museum visit.  We would argue that the “curiosity-driven visitor” is more of a personality type than not (though there is undoubtedly a sliding scale).  That is, those individuals who define themselves as “curious” in our studies exhibit very different behaviors than those that do not.  They visit a wider variety of museums more often, have higher satisfaction levels at the museum, are more philanthropic, and have more omnivorous leisure-time habits.  In short, they are much more likely to be what we call “Museum Advocates.”  So I definitely read his article through that lens.

 

But where I really became intrigued is when he differentiates between extrinsically motivated museum visitation, which he says can be “thought of as a process of acquiring knowledge for which we have a known use” and intrinsically motivated museum visitation, which produces “knowledge for which we have no known use.”  Extrinsic knowledge tends to be “narrow but deep,” while intrinsic knowledge tends to be “wide but shallow.”  We all possess some mix of the two.

 

When we overlay what we know about Museum Advocates and Core Visitors (explored in more detail in our recent book) then we can better see how curiosity can be a personality type.  Because those visitors who meet Jay’s description of “curiosity-driven” visitors who are intrinsically motivated generally fall into our Museum Advocate category, while those who are more extrinsically motivated generally fall into our Core Visitor category. 

 

Why does extrinsic motivation correlate with Core Visitor behaviors?  Because it focuses on “knowledge we need,” according to Jay, and Core Visitors are often moms who bring their children to museums to learn knowledge she thinks they need, or are individuals who are specifically interested in an exhibit or program a museum is offering (such as a guy who is really interested in trains, and goes to every train museum out there, but skips other types of museums). 

 

Both forms of learning are important.  In our professional lives, extrinsic learning is hugely important (we want our doctors to have the deep knowledge they need to help keep us well).  Yet intrinsic knowledge is curiosity-driven, and itself drives creativity.  It sparks cross-pollination that allows us to make leaps between two seemingly disparate subjects and find important connections.  Museums, with their wide variety of collections, are in a position to tap into curiosity-driven, intrinsically-motivated, free-choice learning in ways that schools and other more formal learning environments cannot.  No wonder they are beloved by curious Museum Advocates!

 

But we come back to our data yet again here.  Most of our regular visitors are not intrinsically motivated Museum Advocates.  Some of our visitors are extrinsically motivated in the subject matter of our museum, and that is great.  And moms bringing their children to museums because they think it is good for them to gain knowledge is hardly a bad thing either.  What I wonder about is how excited those moms are themselves – especially when those moms do not identify themselves as curious.  We’ve discussed this dilemma in previous posts, and hope to learn much more on the subject in future research. 

 

Interestingly, Jay posits that curiosity-driven visitors are seeking novel and interesting experiences he calls “wide-but-shallow.”  Yet our research indicates that visitors want deeper experiences.  On the surface, this appears to be contradictory, but I don’t think it is.  Instead, I think curiosity-drive visitors are looking for a wide variety of interesting experiences, but when something does pique their interest, they want to be able to dig deep.  Having that option to investigate further is important, as is the option to skip over things that simply don’t capture their interest.  This behavior would not be contradictory to Jay’s model or the behaviors we see in our research.  And indeed, as Jay explains further, this behavior would be, indeed, typical of curiosity-driven visitors.

 

We’ll be digging further into this issue of curiosity, and what it means for young visitors, moms, and both Museum Advocates and Core Visitors.  As we plan our research, we would love to hear your thoughts.  Click on “comments” below to share.  (If you are reading this from your e-mail subscription to the blog, please go to our blog's website to add a comment.)  Please include the name of your museum as well!

 

Want to read Jay’s excellent article?  It can be found in the October 2004 issue of Curator, volume 47, number 4.

- Susie