Why are we not sharing |
A blog by Anna Salaman, Head of Formal
Learning, Royal Museums Greenwich
(incorporating the National Maritime Museum, Royal Observatory, Greenwich,
Queen’s House and Cutty Sark)
Evaluation is good… isn’t it?
Before
exploring some of the reasons why we might not be sharing, or joining up our
thinking around evaluation across the sector, it’s useful to think about why we
are doing it, and whether or not it’s a good thing.
In
order to give evaluation value, we must, of course, value audiences. In the
last 20 years the museums sector has come a long way in its relationship with
its audiences. Learning is now at the heart of everything we do; consultation
and participation underpins our interpretation strategies, the object is no
longer ‘king’ but a focus for conversation between the museum and its visitor,
museums are no longer places to passively receive packages of knowledge and
perceived wisdom but rich arenas for skills-building, nurturing understanding
and inspiring creativity. They are welcoming, social spaces where everyone can
happily enjoy a cup of coffee and a chat without the pressure of reading every
label, aren’t they?
Sometimes
they are – and there are many wonderful examples of this, but often they are
not and, it is often coherently argued, neither should they be. As a fully paid
up member of the fraternity[1] my
vote is always audience-centred. But I cannot, hand-on-heart, say with full
confidence that this is the view of all my colleagues across the many
departments here, or across the sector as a whole. And, if we are still
debating the place for learning, the audience and participation, then perhaps
we are a long way from being able to adopt a united approach to evaluation.
Are we still learning how to evaluate?
Let’s
assume we do, as a sector, value evaluation. There is, after all, much evidence
to support this, with strong investment in evaluation strategies and
consultative planning and development from many leading institutions. But it
appears that expertise and confidence in these disciplines is still growing and
has yet to be fully embedded as standard practice across the sector. Many of us
are, all too often, going back to first principles and replicating practice
every time we begin a new piece of work when the answers are often already
there if we know where to look for them. I wonder…
How
many institutions have a permanent evaluation team?
How
many institutions prioritise audience and evaluation research over content and
collections research?
Why
national projects such as the Arts
Council England funded Schools and Museums initiative require partners to
undertake individual evaluation rather than evaluating the project as a whole?
Do
we value practice-based expertise as highly as research-based expertise?
This
is not an exercise in finger-pointing, simply a reflection that perhaps we are
still learning how to evaluate.
Sharing is good…isn’t it?
Why aren’t we sharing..?
So,
if we are still learning how to evaluate as a sector, can we be expected to
know how to share as a sector? Or to have the confidence to share something we
don’t fully understand or embrace? Is it that we won’t share, or that we simply
can’t? Or – most likely – a bit of both?
At
this point, it is important to point out that there is actually some sharing
going on. Strands of recent MA
and GEM conferences, the Visitor Studies Group training and academic
studies from leading centres in evaluation and Museology [such as Leicester and
Warwick Universities], as well as individual organisations have all had a good
go. In my own field of museum learning
I have found colleagues from other institutions only too willing to share both
their practice and their findings – a quick email or phone call has often
yielded fantastic results and, in many cases, built new working relationships.
However, a quick Google search has been less successful. Perhaps all this
points not to a lack of willingness to share but, perhaps, to a lack of
opportunity or structure for doing so in a coherent and sustainable way.
Here
at the Royal Museums Greenwich [RMG is made up of: National Maritime Museum,
The Queen’s House, Royal Observatory, and the Cutty Sark and has a 2
million-strong collection] we have gone on a bit of an evaluation journey [or
‘voyage’ – we are maritime museums after all] over the last few years. In fact,
we are still on it, still learning, and long may the voyage last.
Even
within my own organisation we have struggled to share: Did your evaluation ask
the right questions for my project? Do I need to fully understand the project
before I can fully understand the evaluation? But that’s a digital project and
this is a whole gallery! Have I got time to look into this in depth with
everything else going on?
The
answer is, of course, a Royal Museums, Greenwich-wide evaluation strategy which
all of these findings feed into and out of. To make sense of all our visitor
research and map it in such a way that evaluation for the Maritime Art
Collection and the Queen’s House yields useful information for the Royal
Observatory and Astronomy; that evaluation outcomes for digital interactives in
the National Maritime Museum are useful for Cutty Sark.
And
if that is indeed the answer, then can the wider museum sector effectively
share evaluation without a nationwide strategy?
An
interesting ‘sharing’ analogy came recently during the research and front-end
evaluation [oh yes!!] phase of a forthcoming
Children’s Gallery project here. In a workshop with Jo Graham [Learning Unlimited] we learned
about the characteristics of different types of play and the evolution of
‘sharing’ in children. Very young children don’t share – they play in parallel,
often the very same game with the very same toys, each brumming the same red
car along parallel pieces of carpet. As pre-schoolers they become more social
and friendships begin to form. By Key Stage 1 they are developing a strong
sense of friendship and are often well-versed in the joys and advantages of
cooperation and sharing [well, some of them…]
Perhaps,
as a sector, we are in our infancy when it comes to evaluation. Perhaps as we
grow into confident, well-adjusted, joined-up evaluators we will cease working
in parallel – following the same methods and asking the same questions as each other
– and begin to cooperate and collaborate.
Or
is it all far less interesting than all this – is it simply a question of
resource? Which brings us back to ‘value’ again. Do we value evaluation highly
enough to invest the necessary time, money and people in strategic, effective,
long-term, joined-up evaluation? In this age of austerity for the cultural
sector it is still, sadly, commonplace for learning to bear the brunt of the
cuts. If this is an indication of where our priorities lie then perhaps that
says something significant about how much, as a sector, we value evaluation and
the voice and opinion of our audience.
On
the bright side, however, key funding organisations value evaluation extremely
highly, demanding ‘evidence’ of need for any funding application and ‘a fully
comprehensive evaluative report’ at the end of a project – often withholding
actual cash until they see it in black and white!
And
there other questions about sharing evaluation:
Is
it because evaluation is not always valued as ‘proper research’?
Is
it because we still value the object over the audience, or our own expertise
and knowledge over that of the audience?
Are
we afraid that we will expose our failings and be found woefully lacking?
Should
we be sharing beyond the sector and, if so, how far? How about our recent secondary
evaluation? Should we share it with the Times Education Supplement? Teachers’
and Headteachers’ conferences? Ofsted?
Are
we seen as valuable contributors to the wider [formal] learning debate?
I
feel I could go on and on and on….
So how should we share?
I
have recently been involved in two significant evaluation processes for the
National Maritime Museum with Nicky Boyd. One to support the development of the
Museum’s forthcoming ‘Nelson, Navy Nation’ gallery,
and one to, once again, try to solve the sticky problem of why we don’t get
more visits from secondary schools. Both evaluations yielded fascinating
results, which I am keen to share. But shouldn’t sharing go beyond simply
posting the reports on GEM or sticking them on our website? And are the results
really that fascinating – or just fascinating to us and the particular issues
we face? If evaluation has taught me anything, it’s to ‘ask the audience’ so, answers
on a [digital] postcard please: would you be interested in the findings of
these evaluations and how would you like them disseminated? And have you got
any interesting stuff I could have a look at?!
Drop me a line at:
asalaman@rmg.co.uk
Author | Anna Salaman, Head
of Formal Learning, Royal Museums, Greenwich
[1] This is not an official organisation – simply a way
of expressing that I am professionally dedicated to museums learning
