Assembing meaningful data about museums in the UK and turning it into evidence good enough to convince hardened economists and accountants in the Treasury has, in recent years, become more and more important, and we are not alone in tackling this challenge.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in the US has published the Museum Data Collection Report and Analysis, compiled by the consultant McManis & Monsalve Associates (www.mcmanis -monsalve.com).
With the reauthorisation of the Museum and Library Services Act in 2003, the IMLS was charged with increasing analysis of museum trends and needs.
The last IMLS report on museum data, Facts About Museums, was completed in 1998. The new report largely repeats its conclusions and recommendations, noting that little had happened in the intervening seven years.
Little, that is, other than there is now much more data swashing around; some good, some useless and some difficult to evaluate, especially on the internet. The report assesses eight topic areas and shows that the greatest growth area has been in economic impact studies.
It does not confine itself to traditional sources, but draws attention to other places that may now contain useful quantitative and qualitative data and information, including annual reports and graduate student dissertations.
It does not go so far as to say that there is an art to moulding all these disparate sources into a credible story, but that is clearly the way it is going, a conclusion that I certainly endorse.
Most of the report is a scoping study: who is doing what for whom, using which tools and delivering what results. Three-quarters of it is a
bibliography and a guide to websites.
I do not think we have anything quite like it in one place, although a trawling of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) website would yield similar results from a number of MLA scoping studies and 'groundclearing' exercises.
Like us, they know that 'complete, reliable data… is essential for the development of good policies. These policies will inform federal support for museums, help institute good museum planning and practice, and inform the public about the place and value of museums in their lives and in their communities.'
However, the lack of standardised definitions, inadequate methods of data collection, the absence of a data-collecting culture and the lack of comparable information are blocking these objectives. All depressingly familiar.
The authors' solution is to recommend setting up a Collaborative Working Group to 'serve as both a guiding body and a mechanism for convening task groups to address different research issues'.
In other words, the IMLS should get on and do its job properly, establishing definitions, organising collaborations between data generators and turning data and information, through research, into policy evidence.
It will be interesting to see if it works, or whether it will simply have to evolve more effective ways of analysing data from sources that will always be variable in form and quality.
Stuart Davies is a museums consultant and visiting professor at Bournemouth University
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in the US has published the Museum Data Collection Report and Analysis, compiled by the consultant McManis & Monsalve Associates (www.mcmanis -monsalve.com).
With the reauthorisation of the Museum and Library Services Act in 2003, the IMLS was charged with increasing analysis of museum trends and needs.
The last IMLS report on museum data, Facts About Museums, was completed in 1998. The new report largely repeats its conclusions and recommendations, noting that little had happened in the intervening seven years.
Little, that is, other than there is now much more data swashing around; some good, some useless and some difficult to evaluate, especially on the internet. The report assesses eight topic areas and shows that the greatest growth area has been in economic impact studies.
It does not confine itself to traditional sources, but draws attention to other places that may now contain useful quantitative and qualitative data and information, including annual reports and graduate student dissertations.
It does not go so far as to say that there is an art to moulding all these disparate sources into a credible story, but that is clearly the way it is going, a conclusion that I certainly endorse.
Most of the report is a scoping study: who is doing what for whom, using which tools and delivering what results. Three-quarters of it is a
bibliography and a guide to websites.
I do not think we have anything quite like it in one place, although a trawling of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) website would yield similar results from a number of MLA scoping studies and 'groundclearing' exercises.
Like us, they know that 'complete, reliable data… is essential for the development of good policies. These policies will inform federal support for museums, help institute good museum planning and practice, and inform the public about the place and value of museums in their lives and in their communities.'
However, the lack of standardised definitions, inadequate methods of data collection, the absence of a data-collecting culture and the lack of comparable information are blocking these objectives. All depressingly familiar.
The authors' solution is to recommend setting up a Collaborative Working Group to 'serve as both a guiding body and a mechanism for convening task groups to address different research issues'.
In other words, the IMLS should get on and do its job properly, establishing definitions, organising collaborations between data generators and turning data and information, through research, into policy evidence.
It will be interesting to see if it works, or whether it will simply have to evolve more effective ways of analysing data from sources that will always be variable in form and quality.
Stuart Davies is a museums consultant and visiting professor at Bournemouth University
