At this April's American Association of Museums (AAM) conference, the president of the association, Ford Bell, announced that "museum value" would be a key focus in the coming year.
Museums Australia, the professional body representing museums and galleries down under, has also adopted museum value as the theme for its publication programme in 2008.
We are going to hear a lot more about value in the next few years as museums argue their case for sustainable funding in a challenging economic climate. So what is our evidence base for the value of museums?
If we apply the four dimensions of value that have had some coverage recently (use/non-use; institutional; instrumental; and intrinsic value), then we can use them to assess the available evidence, identify where gaps exist and think about how to fill them.
"Use/non-use" value can be measured, as can institutional value. At this year's AAM conference, José-Marie Griffiths reported recent research that showed that information provided by museums and libraries is trusted more by the public than that of any other single source.
But demonstrating instrumental value, in particular social impact, is more difficult, and this is where we begin to see some of the gaps in our evidence base.
Which leaves intrinsic value. Unlike some of the tangible outcomes and measures found in other values, many of the benefits associated with intrinsic value are intangible experiences. We know that this a significant outcome of the museum experience, but how do we capture it?
In 2005, the department for culture began a consultation process with English museums to gauge responses to its discussion paper, Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st-Century Life.
Not surprisingly, there were calls for a coordinated national strategy and a promise in the subsequent publication, Understanding the Future: Priorities for England's Museums, that a consistent evidence base of the contribution of all kinds of museums to the full range of public service agendas would be developed.
It is time to activate this national strategy by bringing together the outcomes of research accumulated by a range of stakeholders to assess our evidence base for value, identify the gaps and use the information to advocate for our sector from a position of strength and authority.
After all, the government has put culture at the heart of its Olympic bid. If what we offer is valued enough to contribute to winning a major project such as this, then we should be able to leverage this with other evidence to argue for a sustainable future.
Carol Scott was the manager of evaluation and audience research at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney and the president of Museums Australia. She is now based in London
Museums Australia, the professional body representing museums and galleries down under, has also adopted museum value as the theme for its publication programme in 2008.
We are going to hear a lot more about value in the next few years as museums argue their case for sustainable funding in a challenging economic climate. So what is our evidence base for the value of museums?
If we apply the four dimensions of value that have had some coverage recently (use/non-use; institutional; instrumental; and intrinsic value), then we can use them to assess the available evidence, identify where gaps exist and think about how to fill them.
"Use/non-use" value can be measured, as can institutional value. At this year's AAM conference, José-Marie Griffiths reported recent research that showed that information provided by museums and libraries is trusted more by the public than that of any other single source.
But demonstrating instrumental value, in particular social impact, is more difficult, and this is where we begin to see some of the gaps in our evidence base.
Which leaves intrinsic value. Unlike some of the tangible outcomes and measures found in other values, many of the benefits associated with intrinsic value are intangible experiences. We know that this a significant outcome of the museum experience, but how do we capture it?
In 2005, the department for culture began a consultation process with English museums to gauge responses to its discussion paper, Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st-Century Life.
Not surprisingly, there were calls for a coordinated national strategy and a promise in the subsequent publication, Understanding the Future: Priorities for England's Museums, that a consistent evidence base of the contribution of all kinds of museums to the full range of public service agendas would be developed.
It is time to activate this national strategy by bringing together the outcomes of research accumulated by a range of stakeholders to assess our evidence base for value, identify the gaps and use the information to advocate for our sector from a position of strength and authority.
After all, the government has put culture at the heart of its Olympic bid. If what we offer is valued enough to contribute to winning a major project such as this, then we should be able to leverage this with other evidence to argue for a sustainable future.
Carol Scott was the manager of evaluation and audience research at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney and the president of Museums Australia. She is now based in London
