Practical Categories for Exhibit Evaluations

According to Morris Hargreaves Macintyre Consultancy and Research, “MLA‟s…GLOs offer some hope that things are changing [in museum evaluations]…although the practice of measuring these outcomes is still in development.”(2005, p. 6) In attempting to design museum exhibit evaluations which utilize the categorization of exhibit impact on visitors, museums have focused on developing practical ways of assessing visitor motivation and meaning making.

2.5.1 Motivation

Visitor motivation is an aspect of museum learning that is already encompassed by the “Enjoyment, Inspiration, Creativity” GLO of the ILFA framework, and the “Engagement or Interest” impact category of the ISE framework. To develop a practical method for measuring this museum exhibit impact, evaluators are trying to develop ways of indexing levels of engagement. One such way of quantifying engagement is presented in Table 2 (Morris

Hargreaves Macintyre, 2005, p. 9). In this model Social, Intellectual, Emotional, and Spiritual aspects of engagement are ranked in a hierarchy. The hierarchy considers a Spiritual motivation, a drive which elicits contemplation and stimulates creativity in the visitor, as something which drives the deepest level of engagement. Social motivations, such as the comfort and security elicited by the museum environment and the seeking of entertainment, provide only the minimum amount of driving force for a visitor to engage with an exhibit (Morris Hargreaves Macintyre, 2005, p. 9).

14

Table 2: Hierarchy of Visitor Motivation

Morris Hargreaves McIntyre’s Hierarchy of Visitor Engagement

Spiritual • Escapism • Contemplation

• Stimulation of creativity

Emotional • Aesthetic pleasure • Awe and wonder

• Moving • Personal relevance

• Experience the past • Nostalgia

• Insight • Sense of cultural identity Intellectual • Acad/prof interest • Hobby interest

• Self-improvement • Stimulate children Social • Social interaction • Entertainment

• To see, to do • Inclusion, welcome

• Access • Comfort, security, warmth While the details of how an evaluator ranks an exhibit can vary, the ranking process is helpful, since it can yield much more quantifiable results. A simpler and more practical way of measuring engagement is to measure the time that a visitor spends at an exhibit along with any other observable behaviors such as discussion about the exhibit, and use this information to rank the visitor‟s experience on a predefined level range of engagement (The British Museum, 2009).

2.5.2 Meaning Making

Another area of focus for museum exhibits evaluation is the assessment of an exhibit‟s ability to change the way that visitors make their own meanings from what is on display. This idea can be related to the “Activity, Behavior, Progression,” GLO in the ILFA framework and the “Behavior” impact category in the ISE framework. While it is difficult to measure long term changes in the way visitors learn, observations of visitor behavior during an exhibit can

determine the meaning making approach of visitors, which can later be compared to that of visitors in other galleries. By categorizing common types of behavioral approaches to learning, museums can determine which kinds of exhibits draw the biggest numbers of a certain type of learner.

One method of categorizing meaning making approaches is presented by Morris, Hargreaves, and Macintyre‟s meaning making hierarchy in Figure 9 (2005, p. 11). Here four

15 different categories of visitors are presented, and numbered in ascending order of meaning

making. Additionally, each type of visitor is positioned in terms of how much direction they require to find the exhibit objects, and how much explanation they need for each object that they focus on.

Thus, according to this model, Browsers, who do not seek direction in finding specific objects, and who only glance at any objects they do find, make the fewest meaningful

connections between objects which results in the lowest amount of meaning making. Because of their lack of knowledge about an exhibit, Browsers require a high degree of explanation from museum interpreters. This is also the case for the Follower, but this type of visitor is at least willing to utilize museum resources for locating the type of objects he or she may be interested in, which gives them a higher chance of developing connections between objects . A Searcher, unlike either Browsers or Followers, has a good amount of previous knowledge about a

particular exhibit and so does not require as much explanation, but rather seeks more information about their topic of interest. Finally, the Researcher, with a well developed level of background knowledge likes to make his or her own selection on which specific objects he or she would like to study and stands to make the most meaning from an exhibit of any of the four types of visitors. Figure 9 shows a breakdown of these viewing strategies.

16 Evaluators can use tracking observation patterns and questionnaire responses to

determine what category best describes each gallery visitor, which can then give them a wealth of data to determine which types of exhibits draw which types of meaning makers. The goal of the museum is to encourage visitors to “advance” as meaning makers, so that Browsers become Followers and Followers become Searchers. After a particular exhibit is demonstrated to be visited mostly be Browsers, for example, improvements in the way it directs visitors to objects of interest, and the quality of explanations from interpreters may convert the Browser audiences to Followers and perhaps Searchers (Morris Hargreaves Macintyre, 2005, p. 11).