Since New Labour came to power in 1997, if not before, there have been a number of calls for better museums data. Better data would provide a more accurate picture of what's going on in the sector, and it would inform evidence-based policy by highlighting where investment is most effective and where subsidies are most needed.
Since Renaissance in the Regions began receiving government funding, more data has been collected from more museums than ever before. So, we might reasonably expect the evidence to be fully accessible and we might assume that it would be relatively easy to tell whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) access policies have been working.
The main driver behind data collection is government accountability. The DCMS's direct funding of the nationals and of Renaissance (via the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, or MLA) involves recipients signing up to specific targets - primarily indicators of increased access.
Since the hubs were first funded, two sets of data have been collected from the museums involved. One is an ongoing record of the number of children's contacts with museums (including visits and participation in outreach projects), adults' participation, and overall visit numbers as well as loan venues, website visits and time open. (This means that the data from regional museums and that from DCMS-sponsored museums can be aggregated to construct a nationwide picture).
The other is an annual exit survey of about 17,000 visitors to some 45 hub museums, intended to provide a statistically robust social profile of visitors which can be tracked over time.
Various other surveys focus on people's museum visiting habits. The MLA recently purchased several years' worth of back data from the Target Group Index (TGI) - a continuous annual survey of about 25,000 people. It also (somewhat erratically) commissions MORI to carry out household surveys, the latest of which was held in early 2004 and involved interviews with 4,000 respondents.
Of course, not all current data-gathering exercises are responses to central government requirements. Several special-interest groups also have their own benchmarking exercises: the Association of Independent Museums (AIM), the Group for Large Local Authority Museums (GLLAM), the Group of Small Local Authority Museums (GoSLAM), the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (Alva).
All this goes to suggest that there is ample evidence to show whether or not more people are visiting museums. If only it was that simple.
The DCMS wants to encourage more robust data. But it is also
looking for positive evidence of how effectively its sponsored bodies and various initiatives are delivering on government policy. In short, there is considerable pressure on the sector to produce good stories.
One of the best stories these days is free admission. DCMS reports annually on its success and has taken to publishing its sponsored museums' monthly visit figures. Perhaps it is not surprising that this level of detail is available. Three years after scrapping charges, visits were up by 75 per cent.
But what's happening at the nationals isn't necessarily indicative of what's going on across the country as a whole. The national (not to say, the regional) picture is rather less precise.
Relatively few details are available about attendance at regional museums. Some evidence is available in summarised form - MORI's top line report on the 2004 Renaissance exit survey (available on the MLA website), for example. Other details remain confidential on account of their commercial sensitivity, including the continuous monitoring of Renaissance.
The last full set of GLLAM data to be published referred to 1999/00. Its recent report, Enriching Lives (2004), only contains select data. Both AIM and GoSLAM's data is restricted to their membership.
For copyright reasons, TGI data is largely unpublishable, although several years' worth are cited in MLA's Overview of Data in the Museums, Archives and Libraries sector. Indeed, this illustrates the sheer difficulties of constructing a national overview.
Nowadays there is less consistent data, which is comparable year on year over the long-term, than there used to be. The demise of Sightseeing in the UK meant the loss of a 25-year-old time-series. It is too early for the Renaissance data to show trends - although much of the effort in the first year of monitoring has been dedicated to ensuring that the data collected from the hubs is sufficiently consistent to be aggregated and compared meaningfully.
Even MORI's Visitors to Museums and Galleries 2004 contains relatively few comparisons with its 1999 report.
But, whatever the frustrations of current museums data, it has to be said that our understanding of what's happening in the regions, and across the country as a whole, is improving all the time. It's just taking an enormous amount of time and effort on the part of the museums involved.
Just how far we've come is easily exemplified. Remember DOMUS? By the end of the 1990s, the quality of the evidence generated by the Museums and Galleries Commission's database had become a real issue.
The respondents didn't understand all the questions being put to them; there was no regional verification of the data provided; the amount of time that lapsed between the collection and dissemination of the data meant it was always over a year out of date; response rates varied considerably between regions, over time and in response to different questions; the lack of IT coordination between MGC and the area museums councils meant that the results couldn't necessarily be accessed.
Even worse, museums saw no benefit to completing the questionnaire: there was nothing to suggest that DOMUS was ever put to strategic use. All this has changed with Renaissance. There's no question that the data is a vital part of the evidence produced for the Spending Review.
It could be said that the final hurdle on museums data is how the evidence is used to refine policy development. The TGI data (analysed for MLA) shows that, over the long term, the percentage of British (excluding Northern Ireland) residents who say they go to museums is declining.
This implies that fewer people are now visiting museums more often. MORI observed that by 2004, museum visiting was more concentrated amongst ABC1s than it was in 1999. The DCMS's own data (published by MLA) shows how slowly the percentage of C2DEs within its museums' visitor profile is growing.
In the end data collected by museums is only ever going to be as good as the use it is put to in developing policy.
Sara Selwood is the editor of Cultural Trends
Links: www.mla.gov.uk/documents/mori_hub_exit_survey.doc
www.culture.gov.uk/museums_and_galleries/monthly_museum_ visitor_figures/v_w_museums_g.htm
Overview of Data in the Museums, Libraries and Archives Sector:
www.mla.gov.uk/documents/ev_stats_overview.doc
Since Renaissance in the Regions began receiving government funding, more data has been collected from more museums than ever before. So, we might reasonably expect the evidence to be fully accessible and we might assume that it would be relatively easy to tell whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) access policies have been working.
The main driver behind data collection is government accountability. The DCMS's direct funding of the nationals and of Renaissance (via the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, or MLA) involves recipients signing up to specific targets - primarily indicators of increased access.
Since the hubs were first funded, two sets of data have been collected from the museums involved. One is an ongoing record of the number of children's contacts with museums (including visits and participation in outreach projects), adults' participation, and overall visit numbers as well as loan venues, website visits and time open. (This means that the data from regional museums and that from DCMS-sponsored museums can be aggregated to construct a nationwide picture).
The other is an annual exit survey of about 17,000 visitors to some 45 hub museums, intended to provide a statistically robust social profile of visitors which can be tracked over time.
Various other surveys focus on people's museum visiting habits. The MLA recently purchased several years' worth of back data from the Target Group Index (TGI) - a continuous annual survey of about 25,000 people. It also (somewhat erratically) commissions MORI to carry out household surveys, the latest of which was held in early 2004 and involved interviews with 4,000 respondents.
Of course, not all current data-gathering exercises are responses to central government requirements. Several special-interest groups also have their own benchmarking exercises: the Association of Independent Museums (AIM), the Group for Large Local Authority Museums (GLLAM), the Group of Small Local Authority Museums (GoSLAM), the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (Alva).
All this goes to suggest that there is ample evidence to show whether or not more people are visiting museums. If only it was that simple.
The DCMS wants to encourage more robust data. But it is also
looking for positive evidence of how effectively its sponsored bodies and various initiatives are delivering on government policy. In short, there is considerable pressure on the sector to produce good stories.
One of the best stories these days is free admission. DCMS reports annually on its success and has taken to publishing its sponsored museums' monthly visit figures. Perhaps it is not surprising that this level of detail is available. Three years after scrapping charges, visits were up by 75 per cent.
But what's happening at the nationals isn't necessarily indicative of what's going on across the country as a whole. The national (not to say, the regional) picture is rather less precise.
Relatively few details are available about attendance at regional museums. Some evidence is available in summarised form - MORI's top line report on the 2004 Renaissance exit survey (available on the MLA website), for example. Other details remain confidential on account of their commercial sensitivity, including the continuous monitoring of Renaissance.
The last full set of GLLAM data to be published referred to 1999/00. Its recent report, Enriching Lives (2004), only contains select data. Both AIM and GoSLAM's data is restricted to their membership.
For copyright reasons, TGI data is largely unpublishable, although several years' worth are cited in MLA's Overview of Data in the Museums, Archives and Libraries sector. Indeed, this illustrates the sheer difficulties of constructing a national overview.
Nowadays there is less consistent data, which is comparable year on year over the long-term, than there used to be. The demise of Sightseeing in the UK meant the loss of a 25-year-old time-series. It is too early for the Renaissance data to show trends - although much of the effort in the first year of monitoring has been dedicated to ensuring that the data collected from the hubs is sufficiently consistent to be aggregated and compared meaningfully.
Even MORI's Visitors to Museums and Galleries 2004 contains relatively few comparisons with its 1999 report.
But, whatever the frustrations of current museums data, it has to be said that our understanding of what's happening in the regions, and across the country as a whole, is improving all the time. It's just taking an enormous amount of time and effort on the part of the museums involved.
Just how far we've come is easily exemplified. Remember DOMUS? By the end of the 1990s, the quality of the evidence generated by the Museums and Galleries Commission's database had become a real issue.
The respondents didn't understand all the questions being put to them; there was no regional verification of the data provided; the amount of time that lapsed between the collection and dissemination of the data meant it was always over a year out of date; response rates varied considerably between regions, over time and in response to different questions; the lack of IT coordination between MGC and the area museums councils meant that the results couldn't necessarily be accessed.
Even worse, museums saw no benefit to completing the questionnaire: there was nothing to suggest that DOMUS was ever put to strategic use. All this has changed with Renaissance. There's no question that the data is a vital part of the evidence produced for the Spending Review.
It could be said that the final hurdle on museums data is how the evidence is used to refine policy development. The TGI data (analysed for MLA) shows that, over the long term, the percentage of British (excluding Northern Ireland) residents who say they go to museums is declining.
This implies that fewer people are now visiting museums more often. MORI observed that by 2004, museum visiting was more concentrated amongst ABC1s than it was in 1999. The DCMS's own data (published by MLA) shows how slowly the percentage of C2DEs within its museums' visitor profile is growing.
In the end data collected by museums is only ever going to be as good as the use it is put to in developing policy.
Sara Selwood is the editor of Cultural Trends
Links: www.mla.gov.uk/documents/mori_hub_exit_survey.doc
www.culture.gov.uk/museums_and_galleries/monthly_museum_ visitor_figures/v_w_museums_g.htm
Overview of Data in the Museums, Libraries and Archives Sector:
www.mla.gov.uk/documents/ev_stats_overview.doc
