What Were You Thinking? . . . survey results are in.

In 2008-2009 Gyroscope, in partnership with JFK University’s Museum Studies graduate program, launched a survey of Children’s Museums. The survey was designed, in part, to get input from the field on topics we often discuss with our clients. We wondered whether the conversations we were having represented broader concerns that could be found within the field as a whole? Or were they still fairly new and localized?

At the same time, we wanted to benchmark some of the standard practices within children’s museums. This would enable us to see emerging opportunities more clearly, and assess what types of visitor experiences most effectively contribute to a unique identity.

Who Took It?

We sent invitations to all 310 US-based museums in the Association of Children’s Museum membership, and received 42 completed responses. So we heard from 13.5% of the Children’s Museums in the USA.

Participating museums came from 24 different states. We heard from both coasts - Washington state, Northern and Southern California, New England and the Eastern Shore down to Florida – as well as from the Rust Belt, Mid-West, South, Southwest, and Plains states. The Northwest - Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada and Minnesota in particular – is, for some reason, not represented in our sample. The map above shows where participating museums are from.

What Did We Ask?

The survey had 33 questions covering the name and mission of the organization, organizational structure, the visitor experience, research, collaboration, measuring success, and audience demographics.

In the following weeks we will post a series focusing on one of these topics at a time and explore the data. We welcome your questions and comments along the way.

What's Next

Were you one of the museums that responded to our survey, and if so, does the analysis make sense to you? Did you not participate but have a point of view that we should incorporate into our findings? Does your museum operate in a way that is similar to, or different from, the majority of children’s museums that took our survey? Are there other issues your organization is exploring which you would like to hear from the field about?

This just in: "Arts Career Mushrooms in California" ?

Hopeful little article from "Live Career News" (I'd never heard of them either). They're saying that things are looking good in SoCal for museum workers. Statistically speaking, of course:

"The infusion of "new curatorial blood," the report says, reflects a "growing ethnic diversity and as well as fresh perspectives and programmatic growth," as the art world tries to lure back art patrons and enthusiasts."

http://bit.ly/b78PIY

Bring it.

San Francisco Chronicle is Pro Model

Kenneth Baker, San Francisco Chronicle arts critic wrote an article about museum designers and the benefit of using scaled models. 

There are many advantages to the physical model- especially the immediate sharing of them with interested parties, and the physical familiarity. We also use 3D models and fly-throughs– which he doesn't touch upon, but Ron Davis will in future posts.

It's a great little piece for the power of the maquette:

"An exhibition model "also works to get people excited about a show," Roberts said, "particularly the trustees... We also get visitor services to have a look because they point out possible problems with flow or egress ... I also show it to the engineer because of issues with fire code and such.""

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/31/DDF41CND0F.DTL

Museums & Technology conference: guest review

By Lauren Merker, Research Assistant

I thought I would follow-on to Maria’s post on the California Association of Museums’ annual conference with my impressions. It took place in Silicon Valley- a seemingly appropriate location for a conference titled “Museums and Technology”.

I (and presumably like most of the attendees) came for a variety of reasons, but with high expectations for learning about innovative techniques and cutting edge trends in the museum field. This expectation was probably driven by the ubiquitous and often times mysterious word “technology” following the word “museum” in the conference title. I came prepared to be wowed and inspired by cool gadgets, innovative uses of social media and the Internet, and new ways museums have used technology to make what they do more accessible. Unfortunately, my standards may have been a bit too high.

The conference was structured to focus on technology, innovative uses of social media and the Internet, and cool gadgets that could be used in a museum setting. However, it was made clear to me that the attendees, and even many of the presenters, were just not ready to bring the conversations up to a level that inspires. Instead, the conference was kicked off with a metaphor about how a popcorn maker and a shower head exemplified the best kind of technology (no offense Nina) and that thread of “sticking to what works” wove itself throughout the entire rest of the day. The bar of innovation was set low and underneath it was an unwavering din of technological confusion, misunderstandings about media and the Internet, and grasping on for dear life to “what has always worked”.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I may be (barely) part of the “Millennial Generation”- happily riding the wave of instant communication, knowledge, and gratification. But my cuspy birth year roots me firmly in the ideals of Generation X, which gives me my shaky sense of pragmatism and a healthy bit of mistrust. So I get it. I empathize with the museum professionals who haven’t blindly embraced any and all forms of media and technology for use in their institutions. Admittedly, much of these techy gadgets and flashy websites won’t in any way execute a mission more effectively. But, cant we at least open up our minds to the possibility that some of these gadgets may be useful? And that some types of social media can reach new and diverse audiences? And understand that dabbling in big, fun ideas can be a great exercise that creates a mood of risk-taking and achieving the impossible? Sigh…maybe at the 2015 “Museums and Technology” conference.

Making Use of Ubiquity: CAM 2010

The mash-up above represents the feeling I had while attending C.A.M. “Museums and Technology” 2010. From the comments at talks I attended, smaller institution folks are not quite feeling the love. I think in the under-funded, under-staffed mass scramble to make sense, utilize, and wow their public, museum infrastructure and staff have gotten a bit overwhelmed.

There's a big paradigm shift going on. A major take-away for many was the idea that technology is a tool that the public brings to the museum and that the museum can use to engage with their public.

In ye olden days (like, 3 years ago), when I heard “museums and technology” it meant a computer-based interactive in a museum. Now we bring it with us– it’s so ubiquitous that it’s gotten confusing. Instead of pushing content, we’re pulling, sharing, dishing, and mashing it up.

As many of us know however, web 2.0, smartphones, etc. have given all of us the opportunity to:

• Expand their audience in ways they never thought possible, including caring about an audience who may never walk through your door (think of a researcher in the UK who wants to access your collections data in Southern California)
• Enhance the existing experience by designing to leverage the technology visitors have with them, or build new experiences that are more social or more open-ended
• Get your museums’ information, expertise out there in ways that were not possible before (beyond the web site).

Developing or implementing a strategy of how to phase-in or start fresh to engage with this shift takes some thinking and prioritization-- but the payoffs are huge. In coming posts we’ll look at some of the good ideas the conference raised. 

It may be that the most effective thing to do is not to reinvent the wheel, but reinvent... or reinforce your thinking.

Wouldn't that be nice?