A descriptive visitor study was completed that systematically evaluated visitor response to a traveling exhibition at four settings across Canada. To allow direct comparisons, the same methods and procedures were used at all venues: Unobtrusive observations and an interviewer-administered questionnaire. In total, 668 visitors were interviewed as they exited the exhibition. Results build on and reaffirm previous studies of exhibit effectiveness conducted in a single setting. This comparative study in four venues provides further information on environmental design and exhibit effectiveness, as well as an audience profile for the exhibition. Guidelines for the development of traveling exhibitions are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alt, M. B. (1988). Designing and carrying out the evaluation study. In R. S. Mileset al. (Eds.), The design of educational exhibits (2nd ed., pp. 144-170). London: Allen & Unwin.
2.
Alt, M. B. , & Shaw, K. M. (1984). Characteristics of ideal museum exhibits. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 25-36.
3.
Art Gallery of Ontario , Royal Ontario Museum, Ontario Science Centre, Metropolitan Toronto Zoo, & Woods Gordon Consultants. (1989). The Audience Research Consortium of Toronto. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 2). Proceedings of the 1989 Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 107-117). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
4.
Bitgood, S. (1990). Introduction: Visitor studies in 1990. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 3). Proceedings of the 1990 Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 7-15). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
5.
Bitgood, S. , Hines, J., Hamberger, W., & Ford, W. (1991). Visitor circulation through a changing exhibits gallery. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & H. Shettel (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 4). Proceedings of the 1991 Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 103-114). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
6.
Bitgood, S. , Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Empirical design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 474-479.
7.
Borun, M. (1989). Assessing the impact. Museum News, 68(3), 36-40.
8.
Council for Business and the Arts in Canada . (1990). Annual CBAC survey of selected public museums and art galleries. Toronto, Canada: CBAC.
9.
Hood, M. G. (1986). Getting started in audience research. Museum News, 64(3), 24-31.
10.
The J. Paul Getty Trust . (1991). Insights: Museums, visitors, attitudes, expectations: A focus group experimentLos Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts and The J. Paul Getty Museum.
11.
Loomis, R. J. (1987). Museum visitor evaluation: New tool for management. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History.
12.
Melton, A. W. (1972). Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in environmental design. Human Factors, 14(5), 393-403.
13.
Miles, R. , & Tout, A. (1992). Exhibitions and the public understanding of science. In J. Durant (Ed.), Museums and the public understanding of science (pp. 27-33). London: Science Museum.
14.
National Library of Canada . (1988). Glenn Gould Exhibition catalogue (bilingual). Ottawa: Author.
15.
National Library of Canada . (1991). Annual report of the National Library 1991. Ottawa: Author.
16.
Patterson, D. , & Bitgood, S. (1988). Some evolving principles of visitor behavior. In S. Bitgood, J. Roper, & A. Benefield (Eds.), Visitor studies (1988): Theory, research, and practice. Proceedings of the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 40-50). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
17.
Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitude change and behavior. Curator, 27(3), 220-237.
18.
Perry, D. (1991). The museum impact and evaluation study: A study of relationships. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & H. Shettel (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 4). Proceedings of the 1991 Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 240-245). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
19.
Rubenstein, R. (1988). The use of focus groups in audience research. In S. Bitgood, J. Roper, & A. Benefield (Eds.), Visitor studies (1988): Theory, research, and practice. Proceedings of the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 180-188). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
20.
Rubenstein, R. (1990a). Focus groups and front-end evaluation. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 3). Proceedings of the 1990 Visitor Studies Conference (pp. 87-93). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
21.
Rubenstein, R. (1990b, July/August). Focus on focus groups. ASTC Newsletter, pp. 7-8.
22.
Rubenstein, R., & Associates . (1992). You hear so many stories about him: National Library of Canada, Visitor Studies Project, Glenn Gould Exhibition (rev. ed.). Unpublished report for National Library of Canada, Ottawa.
23.
Screven, C. G. (1976). Exhibit evaluation: A goal-referenced approach. Curator, 19(4), 271-290.
24.
Screven, C. G. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during, and after exhibit design. ILVS Review, 1(2), 36-66.
25.
Serrell, B. (1990, March/April). Learning styles and museum visitors. ASTC Newsletter, pp. 7-8.
26.
Williams, R. , & Rubenstein, R. (1993). Canada: No going back. Museum International (No. 178, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 1-6). Paris: UNESCO.
