Museum Audience Insight

Changing Exhibitions at Museums – Part Three

In our last two posts, we shared a research query we had received about the value of changing exhibitions to a museum, and how we went about plumbing the depths of our databases to see what we could find, and then examined how different audience segments, as well as how those who specifically said “their” museum had “good exhibits,” responded.

In this post, we’ll examine the data from two other perspectives, asking ourselves:  

• How do respondents who wrote in that they specifically wanted more changing or temporary exhibitions compare against the overall samples?
• Are there any differences in responses by museum type? 

 

Bringing in the written-in comments:  those who want more change

Although we didn’t ask specifically about changing exhibitions in any of the surveys we are examining, some people told us their preference anyway by writing in a comment about it.  Since the vast majority of these comments came on the question where we asked how “their” museum was falling short (they marked “other” and wrote in a comment), we coded the written-in comments for this question only, separating out the individuals who specifically asked for more changing exhibitions within “their” museum. 

Overall, 10% of written-in comments to the question about how “their” museum falls short said they specifically wanted more temporary or changing exhibitions, nearly 1,300 respondents, more than enough to examine more closely.

When we looked at who wrote in these types of comments, we did find that they were much more likely to be parents of minor children, and much less likely to be adults without minor children (though they might have minor grandchildren).  Additionally, these respondents generally visited more often, but only one of these surveys included membership data, which indicated that they were also more likely to be a member.  At first this was a surprising profile, but upon further consideration made a lot of sense.  Since parents of younger children tend to be the highest volume of repeat visitors, and thus are more likely to be members, they are in and out of the museum a lot more than other audience segments.  That familiarity with the exhibitions likely translates to a greater demand for change, as they seek out anything that is novel or new.  Indeed, a handful comments reflected this one:

“Need a bigger variety of exhibits.  They don't change much, and can cause a ‘I'm bored, already done this’ feeling for young children.”

Overall, respondents who specifically asked for more changing exhibitions were generally more negative than the overall sample.  Looking across several metrics, such as whether “their” museum had good events, programs, facility, was engaging to children or adults, brought the community together, or that the staff cares, we generally see lower marks, between 1 and 8 percentage points lower.  At times these differences are significant, and others they are within the margin of error, but we can say with confidence that they are generally more negative, but not hugely so, even on the metric of “good exhibits.” 

Except.  There was one metric where their opinion of “their” museum plummeted:  if the museum met their needs.  Overall, when we asked the entire sample how “their” museum was falling short on meeting their needs, 42% of respondents said “no, they meet our needs extremely well.”  Among those who wrote in a desire for more changing exhibitions, only 2% said their needs were met.  Two percent.  In other words, the overall sample was twenty-one times more likely to say their needs were met than those who wanted more changing exhibitions.  This, combined with a slightly greater sense of negativity, indicates that there is an overall sense of dissatisfaction with the perceived stasis of museums.

If the difference across all of the customer service metrics we examined was consistent with that of “needs met,” we might be tempted to view these individuals as just grumps who complain about everything.  The fact that there was a difference indicates a much more complicated picture.  They are not just the people who complain about everything, but instead visitors who value some specific things, but still appear to be overall dissatisfied with “their” museum.  Ultimately, more research is needed in this area.

 

Variations by museum genre

Finally, we wanted to examine if there were differences among visitors to different types of museums.  That is, was there more demand for changing exhibitions at some types of museums than at others? 

The answer is a resounding yes.  The written-in comments from respondents from science centers were 60% more likely to specifically want more changing exhibitions than the overall sample – 16% of written-in comments vs. 10% overall (keep in mind these percentages come from coding of written-in comments, and are high enough to be taken quite seriously).  Children’s museums respondents were also slightly more likely to want more changing exhibitions.  Demand for change was lowest among history-based organizations, 6%, but much of this can be attributed to low demand at outdoor history museums, whose high staffing levels with costumed interpreters lend a sense of change naturally to these sites; only 2% of written-in comments from outdoor history museums asked for more exhibition change, while more traditional history museums were closer to the 10% topline average.  Art museums matched the overall sample at 10%.

 

Final thoughts

This examination of exhibitions, and changing exhibitions, while it does not specifically delve into their value to a museum, does shed some light on how important they are to visitors.  A sense of change does seem to correlate with happier visitors, while those who want more change are less satisfied, overall, with “their” museum.

These findings inform us the most when we examine the data by museum genre, as they do imply that science centers need to be the most proactive in creating a sense of change in their museums, as parents seek out new and novel activities for their active children.  In contrast, changing exhibitions at outdoor history museums do not seem to be of great importance.  But children’s museums, art museums, and more traditional history museums should still take heed of the demand for changing exhibitions, as 10% of written-in comments is still considered a significant number in qualitative research on this scale.  Museums of any type that are specifically seeking to attract family audiences should also bear in mind how important change is to parents.

Changing exhibitions does not necessarily mean huge costs, though costs are certainly a factor.  Of the written-in comments we examined asking for more changing exhibitions, none referred to what we call “blockbuster” exhibitions.  Some suggested small changes to liven things up.  Change might be a “science in the news” area, which changes on a weekly basis but would not necessarily meet design standards for a longer-lasting exhibition.  Change can be delving into the permanent collection and highlighting an artist, or a local history topic, and featuring those items through a new lens (a tactic deployed by many museums during these rough economic times).  Change doesn’t mean an expensive line item, and it doesn’t mean changing over the entire museum every six weeks, though it does mean a commitment of some funds and considerable time. 

The benefits of changing exhibitions do, in this initial research, appear to be worthwhile, but further research on the specific topic is necessary to make direct ties to how much changing exhibitions bring in new visitors, less frequent visitors, or affect overall visitation and membership rates. 

But changing exhibitions do seem to make visitors happier, and happy visitors are more likely to visit more often, join, and tell others.  Don’t we all want happy visitors like that?

 

What do you think?  Do you think changing exhibitions make happier visitors?  Improve visitation?  Provide a good bang for your museum’s budget?  Or are they a drain on time and resources for little return?  We would love your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

Changing Exhibitions at Museums – Part Two

In our last post, we shared a research query we had received about the value of changing exhibitions to a museum, and how we went about plumbing the depths of our databases to see what we could find. 

In this post, we’ll tackle the first two ways we examined the data, asking ourselves:  

• How do different audience segments view the exhibitions quality at the museum they responded to when asked what “their” museum does well? 
• How do those who specifically said “their” museum had “good exhibits” differ from the overall samples?

 

How do different segments view exhibitions at museums?

First off, we were curious about how certain segments viewed exhibitions at “their” museums.  In particular, we wondered if members were more positive than non-members, if more frequent visitors differed than less frequent visitors, if parental status made a difference, if those who said their needs were met were more positive than otherwise, and if those who sought out immersive experiences responded any differently (note that not all of these segments appeared in all of the surveys reviewed).

Generally, we did find that members were more likely to say “good exhibits” than non-members.  Additionally, those who visit more often (2+ times/year) were also more likely to say “good exhibits” than those who visit only once a year or less.  Parents of minor children were the least likely to say “good exhibits,” grandparents the most likely, and those without minor children or grandchildren falling somewhere in between, conforming with previously established patterns of parents being the most critical of audience segments. 

There was a bigger gap between those who said that “their” museum met their needs, and those that did not, on whether “their” museum had “good exhibits,” a gap of 21 percentage points, 73% vs. 52%.  Finally, those visitors that seek out immersive museum experiences were slightly more likely to say “their” museum had “good exhibits.”

Overall, no big surprises here.  Repeat visitors who are members tend to be happier with the exhibitions on display (though, as we’ll see, this doesn’t always hold true).  And happier visitors are also more likely to think well of the exhibitions.  So let’s see what happens when we only look at the respondents who feel “their” museum has “good exhibits.” 

 

Those who say “good exhibits”

While above we looked at how different audience segments responded to the “good exhibits” selection, now we are going to reverse our perspective and look at how the entire segment of those who said “their” museum had “good exhibits” responded to other questions. 

In general, we found that those who said “good exhibits” were:

• Slightly more likely to visit more often
• Gave a wider variety of reasons for visiting
• Slightly more likely to be a member
• Gave more reasons for joining, for both philanthropic (e.g., helping museum improve) and budgetary reasons (e.g., saving money)
• More likely to say their needs are met by “their” museum

Additionally, it seems like these individuals are more active museum goers, visiting a wider variety of museums.  For those who responded to the outdoor history museum study, they were more likely to want to immerse themselves in the past, and seemed to enjoy history more. 

Once again, overall, no big surprises.  People who like the exhibitions are generally happier and more engaged with the museum they are responding to.

 

In our third and final post on this topic, we’ll continue this discussion and examine responses from those who specifically wrote in they wanted more changing exhibitions, and also take a look at how responses varied among different museum genres. 

 

What do you think?  Do you think changing exhibitions make happier visitors?  Improve visitation?  Provide a good bang for your museum’s budget?  Or are they a drain on time and resources for little return?  We would love your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

Changing Exhibitions at Museums – Part One

Exhibitions are crucial to museums.  After all, that is what most people come to museums to see. 

But how important are changing exhibitions to visitors?  Do they drive attendance?  Membership?  Or are people fairly content with permanent exhibitions?

We were recently asked what our existing data sets say about museum visitors and changing exhibitions, and while our data is limited in scope-we’ve never explicitly asked about this topic-we were able to pull out some interesting points that can start to give us an idea of the value of changing exhibitions.

We examined four different research projects to answer this query:

• National study of children’s museums (2007; n>5,000)
• International study of science centers and museums (2008; n>15,000)
• National study of outdoor history museums (2008; n>5,500)
• International study of a wide variety of museums (2010; n>40,000); broken down by:
  • Art museums
  • History-based museums
  • Children’s museums
  • Science centers

For each of these studies we recruited individual museums to send an e-mail blast to their list, asking people to take a survey on behalf of the museum, meaning survey respondents were core museum visitors, not infrequent or more casual visitors.  Additionally, for the analysis for this query, responses were primarily from two questions about how the museum that sent the survey request out falls short in meeting expectations, or what it does well.  Thus, when we say “their” museum, respondents were thinking of the museum that e-mailed them in the first place. 

There were four primary ways we could look at the data, comparing:

• How different audience segments viewed the exhibitions quality at the museum they responded to when asked what “their” museum does well 
• Those who specifically said “their” museum had “good exhibits” against the overall samples
• Respondents who wrote-in that they specifically wanted more changing or temporary exhibitions, comparing them against the overall samples
• How respondents from different genres of museums responded differently (or not) 

Over the next couple of posts we’ll examine the data and share what we learned.

What do you think, and what do you think we’ll find?  Do you think changing exhibitions make happier visitors?  Improve visitation?  Provide a good bang for your museum’s budget?  Or are they a drain on time and resources for little return?  We would love your thoughts.  Simply click on “comments” below to share your thoughts (and if you are reading this from your e-mail subscription, go to our blog to comment).

Giving: It's All About Age

Times are tough, and more than ever, we are thinking about how to motivate people to become members, or to renew their annual gifts.  Turns out, those motivations, even during tough times, tends to be related to life stage.  A lot happens, financially, to adults as they grow older. 

 

Young adults have tend to have high expenses, including high housing costs compared to income, and they typically have the high costs associated with child-rearing.  Family budgets are tight, with little to be spent on unnecessary things.  Sadly, philanthropy is not the highest priority to families with a constant eye on the budget.  There is a place for it, but for younger adults the focus is more on making ends meet and planning for the future.  And when it comes to museums, they are significantly more likely to give to pay for the services they, and their families, receive, or to save money, than to give for purely philanthropic reasons.

 

Things change as adults grow older, however.  In their forties, adults start to become a bit more philanthropic.  The budget-minded reasons to give are still front-and-center, but for more forty-somethings the philanthropic reasons become more prominent.

 

But by the time adults are in their fifties, philanthropy is the primary motivation.  Children are largely moving out of the house, housing costs are usually lower, and incomes are peaking over their lifespan.  There may be more room in their budgets to give, so the budgetary reasons recede.  Thoughts are also beginning to turn to giving back to the community, including supporting museums.  Additionally, there are a higher proportion of Museum Advocates among older visitors than younger visitors, and those Museum Advocates are making deeper connections to the museums that engage their interests.

 

We wanted to track philanthropic giving over the major studies we have completed, and since this question was virtually unchanged from survey to survey, combining responses and tallying them up were relatively simple.  Interestingly, education and income had little effect on how people responded to these questions.  Instead, age was the primary factor . . . and by a mile. 

 

Below, as seen in the graph, it is clear that motivations change between those in their forties and those in their fifties.  The lines for the budgetary reasons, saving money and paying for services received, cross those of the more philanthropic reasons, supporting the community, helping the museum improve, and supporting history/science/cultural organizations.  

 

 

Although the change happens between those in their forties and those in their fifties, the trend does not stop then.  Respondents in their sixties are even more philanthropic-minded, and those over seventy are the most philanthropic-minded. 

 

Interestingly, very few people joined or donated because they “were asked.”  It hardly shows up  - and we think this is a very good thing.  Joining or giving because they “were asked” implies that that the respondent had little self-motivation to support the museum.  Instead, it implies a purely financial transaction without a sense of the value of the museum.  We would love to see this percentage go down to nothing, with members being so engaged with the purpose of the museum that they do not even perceive an ask ever took place.  Instead, it is a highly-engaged, value-laden proposition, whether it is for the benefit of a family, a community, or both.

 

So what does this mean?  Clearly, museums need to create different membership materials to attract members of different ages.  Materials that play up the value of a membership will be much more appealing to younger respondents, particularly young moms making economic choices for their families (and even more so during these economic times).  In contrast, materials that instead focus on the good a museum does for its community and its visitors will be more appealing to older respondents who have a more philanthropic mindset.  For museums actively seeking members of all ages, creating two sets of membership materials is more expensive, and more time-consuming to manage, but the return on that investment will likely more than pay itself back in better response rates.  

What are 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!

 

Moms, Older Men, and Audiences discussion, hosted by ASTC

Over the past couple of months we have been sharing some of our data on moms, who may not be as engaged as we would like them to be, and older men, who are highly committed (and, yes, awesome).  How can we keep core users like these happy and engaged?

To dig deeper into these critical audiences, as well as other audiences, the Association of Science - Technology Centers (ASTC) has asked Susie Wilkening, Curator of Museum Audiences at Reach Advisors, to guest moderate their February ASTC Dimensions Forum.  What does the research tell us about these audience segments?  Where do we need more research?  What are your questions?  What are your observations about these audience segments?  And have you had success engaging them? 

ASTC is inviting Museum Audience Insight blog readers to participate in the discussion, whether you work at an art museum or for history-based museums.  These audiences are important to you as well!

Discussion will run from Monday, Feb. 16 through Friday, Feb. 20, 2009, and takes place via the ASTC Dimensions Forum (which is a super-easy format for discussion). 

To enroll, contact Margaret Glass at mglass (at) astc (dot) org. And feel free to pass on word to any colleagues you feel may be interested.

"I want to try stuff, too!": Adults and Science Museums

Picture a typical science museum on a busy Saturday.  It is probably filled with highly-engaged children and their families.   But what about those parents and caregivers with the children?  And those adults without children?  Are they engaged? 

 

In our recent study of science museum visitors, we delved into the engagement of adults.  We found that only a third of respondents felt the museum made them, as adults, feel better informed about current science issues, while half said sometimes.  The remainder said no, it did not.

 

When we examined these respondents, we found that those who said yes were generally more engaged with the museum.  They were more curious about science, more positive about the museum, joined for more philanthropic reasons, and were much more likely to say the museum met their needs. 

 

In contrast, those who said no were less engaged with the museum, less curious about science, and more negative about the museum.  They were only half as likely to say the museum was very important to their community as those who said yes, and only 9% of them said that the museum met their needs.  (Those who said "somewhat" generally fell in the middle on these questions.)

 

So, like we recently explored with moms, the engagement of adults, as well as children, is very important to science museums.  But how do you do this?  In a follow-up question, we asked. 

 

For some adults, their own engagement was a new idea.  As one respondent noted, “I didn't realize one of the goals of the science center was to enlighten adults.”

 

But most adults were receptive to, or actively desired, adult content.  They want “More adult only programs” and they want time in the museum without children.  We saw several comments that echoed the frustration expressed this one:  “More grownup time. I get tired of kids who think they can cut in front of you just because you're an adult. I want to try stuff, too!”

 

They also want exhibits to be layered with content meant for them.  “Have more exhibits that work on adult interests and have the information more adult stated. There are times that I have felt as though I were being treated to a 'See Jane Run' explanation of theory.”

 

There was a very strong desire for current events in the science museum.  A large number of respondents asked for help understanding the science behind the headlines, such as:  “There aren’t any exhibits about new & emerging technology or new areas of science. I only ever hear about that stuff on TV. I would LOVE to hear about it from the museum.” 

 

Other frequent comments were focused on the actual visitor experience.  Representative comments include “place benches generously,“ “better coffee,” and “free parking!”

           

Additionally, there were a significant number of comments about the noise of the science museum.  As one mother said, “As it is now, we can barely hear ourselves think and the whole experience gives me a headache. I dread when my son wants to go and I put it off as long as I can,” while another noted “I want to come to the Science Center, but I can't abide the noise . . .”  

 

While engaging adults at science museums is clearly important, doing so takes thoughtful layering of content and programming, making the visit more amenable to them (even if that means installing noise-abatement devices!), and, for some, overcoming a perception that science museums are just for kids. 

 

We would love to hear how your museum successfully engages adults, or even how you reduce noise.  To share your stories, simply 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.)

“My son is now a bit too old for the science center.”

When it comes to science museums, and who Core Visitors feel are best served at the science museums, it became clear:  Core Visitors feel that children are the primary audience. 

And in our recent research on science museum visitors, we saw a few too many comments like this one:  “My son is now a bit too old for the science center.”  

 

We believe that science museums are important places for life-long learning and not just for children, but do adult Core Visitors feel the same?  And is there a difference between who they think the museum serves best and what they actually want from the museum?

 

The data shows mixed results for these questions.  So let’s pick through them to see what conclusions we can draw.

 

As mentioned above, for the topline, or overall results, Core Visitors feel that children and their families are the best served audience at the science museum - 81% feel this way.  Additionally, 59% of respondents felt that students visiting with their class were best served.  Only 22% of respondents felt adults were best served, and just 17% said likewise for teens.  (Respondents could choose more than one response to the question of who they thought the science museum served best.)

 

Yet when we analyzed the respondents based on how they answered this question, we did find some important differences.  Primarily, those who indicated adults and/or teens were more engaged themselves with the science museum.  They were significantly more likely to define themselves as being “curious,” were more likely to cite philanthropic reasons, rather than budgetary ones, as a reason for financially supporting the museum, and were much more positive about the museum overall.  60% of these respondents said that they felt the museum met their needs well, significantly higher than the 39% overall who felt this way.  Additionally, they enjoyed visiting a wider variety of museums than other respondents.  In short, these respondents were much more likely to be Museum Advocates than other respondents.

 

Demographically, these respondents were significantly less likely to be parents of minor children, only half versus 2/3 of the overall sample.  Corresponding to that, respondents were less likely to be in their 30s and 40s, the age segments for most of the parents responding, reflecting the influx of Core Visitor parents that visit science museums.   Interestingly, while the majority of respondents are still female, males were a greater proportion of this sample, 32% vs. 27% overall.  Otherwise, there were no major differences. 

 

Clearly, though, lifestage made a difference in how respondents answered the question on who was served best, with parents less likely to think about adults and teens while those who are not parents of minor children were more likely to say adults and teens.

 

Similarly, lifestage made a difference in what people wanted from the science museum.  That is, adults in their 20s wanted more content for adults.  Adults in their 30s wanted more for younger kids.  Adults in their 40s wanted more for older kids.  And adults over 50 wanted more for adults.

 

Or, put another way, what individuals want from the science museums revolves around whether or not they have minor children in their lives, and if so, the age of those minor children. 

 

We will be taking the next couple of weeks off over the holidays, but in January we plan to dip back into the challenges raised in this post, examining the engaged adults, but in particular delving into the responses of 30 and 40-something moms who come to the museum with her children, but who do not think adults are well-served . . . . and don’t expect it either.  There is a story there, and we are looking forward to sharing it!

 

In the meantime, we would love to hear your thoughts and questions about these topics.  To share or ask questions, simply 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.)

 

The Trouble With Trustworthiness, Authenticity? A High Bar

Recently, the concepts of museum trustworthiness and authenticity have been popping up a lot in our work, and on this blog.  Visitor surveys we conducted for 13 outdoor history museums (OHMs) and 50 member museums of the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) have given us some interesting results on the topic, and how they intersect, and our posts on the topics have started some interesting conversations. 

 

Our survey respondents confirmed what the museum field at large has known for a while:  Americans, and American museum visitors, from all walks of life consistently rank museums as extremely trustworthy, often above other sources of information such as friends and relatives, eyewitnesses, nonfiction publications, news media, commercial websites, television, and movies.  Eighty-four percent of respondents to our ASTC survey said science museums are “very trustworthy.”  This result is in line with the results of three nationwide public opinion surveys conducted in the past ten years:

 

• 77% of museum visitors indicated that museums are “equal to or higher in trustworthiness than all other sources.”  Only libraries performed better:  86% of public library visitors said libraries are “equal or higher to” (IMLS, 2008)
• 87% of the general public said museums are “trustworthy overall” (AAM, 2001)
• When members of the general public were asked to rank the trustworthiness of a variety of sources of information about the past, they placed museums above any other choice, giving them an 8.4 on a ten-point scale, with 10 being the highest (Rosenzweig and Thelen, 1998).  [Citations for all three sources below.]

 

Similarly, when we asked OHM survey respondents what authenticity at a historic site meant to them, over 60% of respondents wrote something in, a huge response for an open-ended survey question (and it amounted to over 3,000 definitions for us to sift through).  What all this boils down to is that museums have an inherent advantage over other sources of information:  most visitors walk in the door ready to believe what they see and hear. 

 

Why are museums so trustworthy, so authentic?  Results from all of these surveys suggest the following reasons:  the presentation of topics in ways that incorporate or acknowledge multiple viewpoints, the use of primary sources for research and documentation, the organizations’ management by a nonprofit, non-commercial entity, and, at historic sites and history museums, visitors’ ability to feel as if they are “stepping back in time” while seeing the actual places and stuff of the past.

 

But here’s the thing:  our survey results indicate that when museums fail to meet visitor expectations of trustworthiness and authenticity, the organizations’ fall from grace is long and hard.  Visitors have visceral reactions when they think that museums aren’t telling the truth, or are biased, inauthentic, or too commercial.  One participant in our OHM survey, when defining authenticity in history museums, felt so strongly that he wrote in all caps, “AUTHENTICITY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CREDIBILITY OF ANY OUTDOOR HISTORY MUSEUM.”  And as we explored in a recent post, the respondents to our ASTC survey who felt the museum was only “somewhat” or “not at all” trustworthy used incredibly emotive language when describing a real or potential lack of trust.

 

Luckily, our survey respondents have given us some pointers on how to keep their trust.  Here are a few for you to consider:

 

• Be transparent about the methodology and sources of the information used in your programs and interpretation
• Incorporate multiple viewpoints whenever possible
• Present lots of primary source materials
• Be transparent about what is and what is not “original”
• If a program or exhibit is sponsored by a commercial entity, make it clear that the sponsor was not involved in developing the content
• Avoid interrupting visitors’ experiences of stepping back in time with modern intrusions
• Avoid additional points of sale beyond the admissions counter

 

We would love to hear your thoughts and questions about these topics.  To share or ask questions, simply 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.)

---

National public opinion survey conducted by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the American Association of Museums, 2001, summary available at ; IMLS, National Study on the Use of Libraries, Museums & the Internet, 2008, www.interconnectionsreport.org; Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen, The Presence of the Past:  Popular Uses of History in American Life (Columbia University Press, 1998).

For more on authenticity at history-based museums, please see the article "Authenticity?  It Means Everything," authored by Reach Advisors consultants Susie Wilkening and Erica Donnis, in the Fall 2008 issue of History News, published by AASLH.

Why Trust is Sometimes Lacking at Science Museums

Last week we shared that the overwhelming majority of science museum visitorsfeel that science museums are “very trustworthy.”  But a small, but vocal, minority, comprising 9% of the sample, felt differently.  Those respondents received an open-ended follow-up question asking why they did not feel the museum was completely trustworthy.

 

The first thing we noticed when looking at their reasons was how emotional and passionate many of the responses were.  These respondents used very strong language, and very emotive words, saying things like the museum was “smug” or “arrogant.”  Or that the museum told “lies” or made them “sad.”  A handful of people thought the museum “brainwashed” visitors, and others felt the museum had “no morals.”  Extremely strong language, indicating very strong feelings.

 

But why, specifically, did people not trust the museum?  The primary reason, by a mile, was evolution, with respondents saying things like “It’s been scientifically proven that the earth is only 6,000 years old, yet museums continually disregard this evidence in favor of circular reasoning and fairy tales consisting of billions of years.”   Another person noted “the teaching of evolution as fact-especially since Darwin disproved his own theory before he died.”  (This one made us scratch our heads and piqued our curiosity - turns out it goes back the Lady Hope story from 1915, immediately condemned as false by Darwin's own children.  A digression, yes, but interesting!)

 

Of all the written respondents who did not feel that the museum was completely trustworthy, a full 30% cited evolution.  For a written-in response, that is huge, but let’s step back and put this into context.  Of the entire sample of 15,000 respondents, these respondents comprise only 1.2%.  So while these respondents are very vocal, and very emotional, about this issue, they are also a very small minority of Core Visitors to science museums.  (And as we saw in our last post, the presentation of evolution is also given as a reason for trusting the museum.)

 

There were other reasons given as well.  The ethics of the museum were questioned, particularly around the Bodies exhibit.  As one person noted, “I trust them on their facts, but not necessarily to reflect my values (i.e., the Bodies exhibit).”  Analysis of the comments on the Bodies exhibit focused on where the bodies came from and if the museum had the permission of those individuals to display their bodies that way.  It is also important to note that the respondents felt that it was the museum that needed to get permission, not perceiving that the exhibit was organized by a different organization.  

 

Some respondents cited a general concern about bias and a perceived lack of multiple viewpoints, mentioning things like the “global warming hoax.”  Other respondents were simply pragmatists, noting that science is always changing, with new theories and new research, and that it is hard to keep up.  Or, as one person noted, “Pluto was a planet once!”

 

Finally, a handful of respondents were concerned about what they perceived to be the dumbing down of the museum in order to appeal to children, feeling that by doing so the needs of adult audiences were neglected.  We will come back to those adult needs in a series of posts starting in a few weeks.

 

While it can be discouraging to examine these primary reasons why visitors do not completely trust the science museum, it is important to realize one key thing:  these respondents comprise a small minority of Core Visitors to museums.  A whopping 84% of respondents DO feel the museum is “very trustworthy.”  That is an extraordinarily high percentage of Core Visitors that do have a great deal of confidence in the work of science museums.  Understanding these proportions, and why a minority of Core Visitors do not fully trust museums, is critical for handling criticism, whether public or private, on these issues.

 

We would love to hear your thoughts and questions about these topics.  To share or ask questions, simply 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.)

Trust: Are We Trusted?

A museum can have fantastic exhibits, programs, and events, but if visitors do not trust the museum, what does that mean?  How trusted are museums? 

 

In our recent study of science museum visitors, we asked.  Respondents were asked “do you trust the information presented by your local science museum/science center.”

Overwhelmingly, they said yes.  A whopping 84% found the information to be “very trustworthy.”  Only eight percent said it was “somewhat trustworthy,” and less than one percent said it was “not trustworthy” (the balance said they did not know/had not thought about it).

 

When we examined the level of engagement of visitors based on these responses, we found that the 84% of respondents who said “very trustworthy” visited more often, were more likely to be members, and were the most engaged with the museum.  The eight percent that said “somewhat trustworthy” visited somewhat less often, were somewhat less likely to join, and were less engaged.  And that less than one percent who said “not trustworthy” visited the least often, were the least likely to join, and were the least engaged.  Additionally, not one of the respondents who said it was “not trustworthy” said that the museum presented science well.  

 

Those who said the museum was “very trustworthy” received an open-ended follow-up question, “What gives you confidence in the science museum/science center.”   Their responses could largely be sorted into the following five buckets:

• Reputation.  They said things like “I can’t imagine they would release false information into the community,” and “The reputation of the museum is not something I feel they would jeopardize with erroneous information.”

• Staff.  Respondents put a fair amount of emphasis on the educational background and attitude of staff members, and the majority of comments that cited staff said things like “knowledge of the staff and the commitment.”  But there were a couple of comments that also indicated that staff attitude also impacted trustworthiness, e.g., “the friendly, caring attitudes from all people in the museum.”  While there were only a very few of these types of comments, they once again underscore the importance of caring staff to our visitors.

• Transparent research.  Respondents liked knowing where information came from, and seeing it backed up, saying “Exhibits state facts clearly, logically, with support” and  “I see their science collaborated by outside organizations, yet they are not afraid to be controversial if the message is clear, and “the staff are able to answer our questions and when they cannot they often go and look it up later and get back to me”

• Good interpretation.  The quality of the exhibits were very important to respondents, who often mentioned the thought and planning that go into exhibits to make them engaging for visitors, saying:  “Well thought out displays and exhibits” and “Scientific exhibits are explained succinctly in plain English.  George Orwell would be proud.” 

• Unafraid of controversy.  Respondents appreciated it when the museum took on more controversial topics and held to the principles of the scientific method.  The museum becomes more trustworthy because of “not avoiding controversial topics-- presenting accepted theories of evolution and climate change without compromise.”  They also clearly knew that some topics may be controversial to some audiences, and valued their presence in the museum, saying “I have noticed that they don't hesitate to present subjects that are well established in the scientific community but might be controversial elsewhere”  Or, as one person put it, quite simply, “They present evolution.”  That was enough to give the museum credibility.

 

While the vast majority of respondents had a high degree of trust in museum, not everyone felt the same way.  In the next post on science museum visitors, we will delve into those minority opinions to examine why trust is not always there.

 

We would love to hear your thoughts and questions about these topics.  To share or ask questions, simply 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.)