by Andrew J. Pekarik

The ways that museums measure the success of their exhibitions reveal their attitudes and values. Are they striving to control visitors so that people will experience what the museum wants? Or are they working to support visitors, who seek to find their own path? The type of approach known as ‘‘outcome-based evaluation’’ weighs in on the side of control. These outcomes are sometimes codified and limited to some half-dozen or so ‘‘learning objectives’’ or ‘‘impact categories.’’ In essence, those who follow this approach are committed to creating exhibitions that will tell visitors what they must experience. Yet people come to museums to construct something new and personally meaningful (and perhaps unexpected or unpredictable) for themselves. They come for their own reasons, see the world through their own frameworks, and may resist (and even resent) attempts to shape their experience. How can museums design and evaluate exhibitions that seek to support visitors rather than control them? How can museum professionals cultivate ‘‘not knowing’’ as a motivation for improving what they do?

Get the full article.

• Andrew J. Pekarik (pekarika@si.edu) is Program Analyst in the Office of Policy and Analysis, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

by Elaine Heumann Gurian

In this paper, I suggest that museums have not explored their potential opportunities enough when dealing with their communities under stressful conditions. Each reader, however, should decide when what I am talking about is no longer appropriate for museums in general or your museum in particular. While some museums have moved more in the direction of serving their communities, I am struck by how little philosophical change has actually taken place in most museums after a year into this universal economic downturn. I argue that incorporating a broader palette of social services may make institutions more useful, but at some point these institutions might cease to be traditional museums. My question would be: ‘‘Should you care?’’ I do not suggest that all museums become full-service community centers, though somemight explore that option. Perhaps the question might become: How do we expand our services so that we make museums’ important physical assets of safe civic space and objects useful for tangible three-dimensional learning into more relevant programs that reach all levels of community, and are rated by many more as essential to their needs and their aspirations for their children?

Get the full article.

• Elaine Heumann Gurian (egurian@ix.netcom.com) is a senior museum consultant and a member of the Museum Group.

by KEN YELLIS

Our relationships with our audiences have proved parlous. But if history is destined to be contested, where should museums be in that contest and how do we get there?

Fred Wilson’s Mining the Museum has turned out to be a path not taken; Enola Gay was a cautionary tale. But we should have these fights in museums, where the national narrative is blocked out and staged, because of how museums teach us, opening hidden windows on cloaked realities.

Museums can start by becoming clearer about what they think they are doing when they make an exhibition. Exhibitions can have a profound effect on visitors at many levels but it doesn’t happen very often. Is that because visitors seek another kind of experience from what we typically offer?