(This second post by Marcella Wells for the EID Blog focuses on a planning tool developed by Marcella and her colleagues over the course of 12 years. At EID we like to emphasize Visitor Outcomes in the planning process and the model and tools presented in the book, Interpretive Planning For Museums, fit nicely with EID planning ideas. If you have questions for Marcella her contact information is at the end of this post.)
As with many intellectual endeavors, it started on a cocktail napkin while Barbara Butler and I were attending an annual meeting of the American Association for Botanical Garden and Arboreta (AABGA), now the American Public Gardens Association (APGA). After sessions ended one afternoon we sat at a table and scribbled down an entire word-salad of ideas including concepts such as benefits, visitors, outcomes, outputs, demand, impacts, learning, attitudes, market analysis, change, data, motivations, demographics, psychographics, experiences, etc. Soon thereafter, and for the next decade, this word-salad began to take shape as triangle. Hierarchical in nature, the model rapidly evolved. As we field-tested our ideas and talked with museum and visitor studies specialists, we adjusted the visual until it became the Outcomes Hierarchy as presented in our book entitled Interpretive Planning for Museums (Wells, Butler, Koke, 201: p55).
However, several things were the catalyst for this evolution, not the least of which was Stephen Weil’s piece entitled “Transformed from a Cemetery of Bric-a-Brac” published in the book Perspectives on Outcome Based Evaluation for Libraries and Museums (IMLS, 2000). Notably, at the turn of the 21st century, museums were increasingly transforming themselves from “Closets of Curiosity” into institutions of “Social Enterprise.” Now many museums recognize and embrace the notion that education is central to the purpose of museums, and the visitors, as primary audiences, should be the focus of careful planning, research and best practices.
A Few Modern Trends
Several other trends also helped steer the development and transformation of our Outcomes Hierarchy in its final form including:
· GPRA: The passage of the Government Performance and Results Act which refocused the attention of federal funding agencies (such as National Science Foundation, Institute of Museums and Library Services, National Association for the Arts, and others) toward enhanced accountability and learner/participant outcomes.
· Diversified Learning Landscape: The paradigm of national education continued to change over time. STEM Learning, Teaching for 21st Century Skills, and KnowledgeWorks Institute all began to forecast what the future of education might look like. The learning landscape broadened to include all-age learning, as well as formal, non-formal and informal learning venues, and a spectrum of learning progressions.
· Leisure Choices: Gradual increases in public discretionary time at the end of the 20th century began to change leisure choices in the 21st century. Extra leisure time stimulated public interest in museums alongside other leisure choices such as sporting events, outdoor recreation, and travel.
· Accountability: Shrinking dollars and budgets left some museums vulnerable to spending cuts and political shifts. These shifts forced efficiency measures across institutions and cast bright light on the importance of demonstrated impact of museums. Arbitrary decision making was gradually cast aside in deference to intentional and deliberate planning and management.
Therefore, our book is anchored in this era of reframing, where Museums transitioned from repositories of objects to institutions of public access, engagement, and learning. The Outcomes Hierarchy was developed to aid museums in their transformation toward learner-centric planning and evaluation.
Ways to Use the Outcomes Hierarchy
Over the years, the Outcomes Hierarchy has proven useful in a variety of ways, such as:
· As a Planning Tool for (a) building a shared vocabulary about visitor experiences, (b) demonstrating how visitor perspectives can be conceptualized throughout the planning process, and (c) anticipating how visitor studies might be employed.
For example, a Visitor Experience Master Planning effort (2008-09) with the Royal British Columbia Museum of British Columbia, Canada, aimed at “renewing its relationship with visitors.” We worked with the Museum to complete a thorough current, hindsight, and future analysis of Tier 1 of the Outcomes Hierarchy (Audience Data & Information) so that subsequent planning efforts might strategically align with eventual programming.
· As a Communication Framework it can help integrate ideas from staff, visitors, and others and present desired outcomes to stakeholders and community leaders.
For example, in a project with the Adirondack Museum in Blue Mountain Lake, New York, the staff sought to (a) explore visitor awareness of a new branding and identity program, and (b) better understand visitor use and satisfaction with new orientation and way-showing initiatives. Tier 2 of the Outcomes Hierarchy (Outputs) was useful in defining and differentiating types of visitor engagements and Tier 3 provided discussions around desired outcomes that might be reasonably expected for visitor experiences. A variety of tools were subsequently used throughout the project, and the Outcomes Hierarchy served as a touchstone for keeping the project focused and results deliberately integrated into subsequent visitor experience planning.
· As a Funding Tool for organizing data and information related to investments in a project and desired impacts on the community, the discipline(s), and the institution.
· As a Research Tool for anticipating visitor experiences and guiding evaluation activities.
· As a Data/Information Tool for training staff and others about evaluation strategies and techniques, as well as recording and discussing collective evidence about outcomes and impacts over time.
For example, in developing a 2015-16 Communication and Interpretive Plan for the Rocky Mountain Biological Lab (RMBL) in Gothic, Colorado, the goal was to enhance outreach to multiple audiences by strategically creating diverse learning opportunities for better engagements with the RMBL. The Outcomes Hierarchy became an important tool in the process of (a) using Tier 1 (Audience Data & Information) to better understand and discuss the variety of visitor information collected by RMBL over time, (b) deliberately establishing desirable outcomes for the various types of visitor engagements with RMBL using Tier 3 and 4 (Outcomes & Impacts), and (c) determining what visitor monitoring and feedback strategies might be best moving forward.
Overall, the Outcomes Hierarchy is most useful as a touchstone for intentionally, and proactively, thinking about, discussing, and planning successful and meaningful visitor experiences. Furthermore, institutional attention to outcomes can provide evidence that demonstrates overall impact of museum experiences.
More Important Than Ever – Museums and Community Engagement
More and more free-choice learning institutions are seeking concrete ways to illustrate how they contribute in a meaningful way to community and societal vitality and viability. A Carol Scott (2009: 70) quote from our book suggests, “The most important impacts of museums are the “intangibles”– the personal learning in a visual, hands-on, free-choice environment, the (personal) development perspective and insight, and the important experience of linking with the past. This is the language of impact and value emerging from the ‘heart and purpose’ of museums and the experience(s) they create.”
Considering visitor outcomes as part of integrating visitor perspectives in museum planning goes a long way toward demonstrating the overall value of museums. Borrowing again from Scott’s work (Scott 2009, 201-3), our book includes mention of her multiple Indicators of Museum Value including Use Value, Institutional Value, and Instrumental Value. In light of recent efforts by the Trump administration to defund many of America’s cultural institution (e.g. IMLS, NSF, NEA), concrete measures related to citizen learning, as well as museum’s contribution to local economies and societal sustainability, become even more important tasks for us to focus on.
(Marcella started professional life as a ballet dancer and ended as an evaluator. In between she worked as a travel agent, dance teacher and choreographer, environmental educator, interpretive planner, college professor, librarian, and polymer clay artist. Her 30-year career in visitor studies, interpretive planning, and as a college professor took her to 20+ states and three foreign countries for dozens of projects. Since 2015, Marcella has volunteered at the Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising in Ft. Collins, Colorado working in the collection, guest-curating exhibits, and the Avenir Museum’s library. Her favorite spaces are libraries, thrifts stores, cemeteries, and Ponderosa pine forests. You can contact Marcella at marcellawells@comcast.net and her book is available from Taylor & Francis Group at www.taylorandfrancis.com or call 561-994-0555.)