The evaluation process model consisting of front-end, formative, and summative studies has received fairly wide acceptance among professionals in various kinds of interpretation work. Evaluation can be used throughout the development of exhibits and programs. This acceptance, however, is not as widespread as might be desirable. While some professionals in interpretive settings accept evaluation and incorporate it into routine work, others do not. Misunderstanding about the role of applied social science research is one source of resistance. Misunderstandings can focus around purposes for evaluation, the real world context of applied research, and methods of study. Other barriers include differences in decision-making philosophy, such as the value put on intuitive judgment versus use of rational data-based decisions. A number of political factors can inhibit use of evaluation, including fear of findings that are critical of interpretive work. Fortunately, there are some ways being developed for coping with resistance to evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BickmanL., & RogD. J. (1998). Handbook for applied social research methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
2.
BitgoodS., & ShettelH. (1994). The classification of exhibit evaluation: A rationale for remedial evaluation.Visitor Behavior, 9 (1), 4–8.
3.
BitgoodS. (1996). Institutional acceptance of evaluation: Review and overview.Visitor Behavior, 11 (2), 4–5.
4.
BitgoodS. (1995). How valid are front-end evaluations?Visitor Behavior, 10 (4), 17.
5.
BitgoodS., & LoomisR. J. (1993). Introduction: Environmental design and evaluation in museums.Environment and Behavior, 25 (6), 683–697.
6.
CampbellD. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments.American Psychologist, 24 (4), 409–429.
7.
DiamondJ. (1999). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums and other informal educational settings.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
8.
DierkingL. D., & PollockW. (1998). Questioning assumptions: An introduction to front-end studies in museums.Washington DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
9.
EisenbergerR., & LoomisR. J. (2002). Visitor experience and media effectiveness. Unpublished report for the National Park Service.
10.
FalkJ. H., & DierkingL. D. (1992). The museum experience.Washington D.C.: Whalesback Books.
11.
FriedmanA. J. (1996). Why museums don't evaluate.Visitor Behavior.11 (9): 6–8.
12.
HeinG. E. (1998). Learning in the museum.New York: Routledge.
13.
KoranJ. J., & EllisJ. (1991). Research in informal settings: Some reflections on designs and methodology.ILVS Review: A Journal of Visitor Behavior, 2 (1), 67–86.
14.
LindblomC. E., & WoodhouseE. J. (1993). The policy-making process. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
LoomisR. J., & FalkJ. H. (2002). Two researchers views: Pros & Cons.Current Trends in Audience Research and Evaluation, 15, Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums Committee on Audience Research and Evaluation, 17–18.
16.
LoomisR. J. (1996). Museum und Besucherforschung. In Museen und ihre BesucherBonn: Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Argon Verlag, 26–37.
17.
LoomisR. J. (1993). Planning for the visitor: The challenge of visitor studies. In BicknellS., & FarmeloG. (Eds.). Museum visitor studies in the 90s, (pp. 13–23), London: Science Museum.
18.
LoomisR. J. (1991). Where do we go from here? In BenefieldA., BitgoodS., & ShettelH. (Eds.). Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, Volume 4, (pp. 271–274). Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.
19.
LoomisR. J. (1988). The countenance of visitor studies in the 1980's. In BitgoodS., RoperJ.T., and BenefieldA., Eds., Visitor Studies 1988: Proceedings of the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference.Center for Social DesignJacksonville, Alabama, 12–24.
20.
LoomisR. J. (1987). Museum visitor evaluation: New tool for management.Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History.
21.
MarchJ. G. (1994). A primer on decision-making: How decisions happen.New York: Free Press.
22.
McLeanK. (1993). Planning for people in museum exhibitions.Washington DC: Association for Science-Technology Centers.
23.
MilesR. (1993). Grasping the greased pig: Evaluation of educational exhibits. In BicknellS., & FarmeloG. (Eds.). Museum visitor studies in the 90s, (pp. 24–33). London: Science Museum.
24.
NoldC. (2002). Observing the observers: A director's view.Visitor Studies Today!5 (3): 1–9.
25.
United Way of America (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach.Alexandria, VA.
26.
RoundJ. (2001). Is there a core literature in museology?Curator, 44 (2), 194–206.
27.
ScrevenC. G. (1999). Visitor studies bibliography and abstracts, (4th ed.). Chicago: Screven and Associates.
28.
ScrevenC. G. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during, and after exhibit design.ILVS Review: A Journal of Visitor Behavior, I (2), 36–66.
29.
ScrevenC. G. (1976). Exhibit evaluation: A goal-referenced approach.Curator, 19 (4), 271–290.
30.
ShettelH. (1996a). Aktueller Stand der Bescherforschung. In Museen und ihre Besucher.Bonn: Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Argon Verlag, 11–25.
31.
ShettelH. (1996b). Some thoughts on the politics of evaluation.Visitor Behavior, 11 (2), 3.
SommerS. (2002). A practitioner's view: What better way to serve our communities.Current Trends in Audience Research and Evaluation, 15, Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums Committee on Audience Research and Evaluation, 14–16.
34.
TaylorB. (2002). Community accountability: Adapting outcome-based evaluation to museums.Current Trends in Audience Research and Evaluation, 15, Washington D.C.: American Association of Museums Committee on Audience Research and Evaluation, 12–13.
35.
TaylorS. (1991). Try it! Improving exhibits through formative evaluation.Washington DC: Association of Science Technology Centers.
36.
WagnerK. F. (1996). Acceptance or excuses? The institutionalization of evaluation.Visitor Behavior.11 (2), 11–13.
WeissC. H. (2000). The experimenting society in a political World. In BickmanL. (Ed.), Validity and Social Experimentation: Donald Campbell's Legacy. Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapter 11.
