factors influencing museum visits

8/13/2019 Factors Influencing Museum Visits

1/20

Museum Management and Curatorship (1990), 9,149-168

Factors Influencing Museum VisitsAn Empirical Evaluation of Audience SelectionDAVID R. PRINCE

It is the currently received view that museums are burgeoning both in terms of thefoundation of discrete institutions and the numbers of visitors that they attract. In theUnited Kingdom they are seen variously as academic institutions whose primary rolesare the preservation, articulation and exhibition of artefacts evolved from both thenatural and cultural heritages,* as symbols of local importance and pride,3 and as placesof education and entertainment.4 Museums have existed in name for millennia5 and, inaccordance with their role as interpreters of the past, are worldwide phenomena. In theUnited Kingdom, their growth since the mid-1970s has been remarkable6 and has beenaccompanied by a divergance into hitherto uncharted collecting areas. In the UnitedKingdom as a whole it has been estimated that over 100 million visits will have been madein 1989 to its 2000 or so museums;8 a visitor figure which represents an uplift of over 30percent during the period since 1986.9Seen as big business by the professionals who administer them, museumsnevertheless receive, and are generally underwritten by (in the United Kindom at least),substantial public funding-to the tune of an estimated 2157.3 million in the fiscal year1988/89. l1 They are variously supported by, amongst others, the local authority system,central government, universities, private groups and charitable trusts.* Directorialappointments to the national institutions attract national media attention, a governmentquango oversees trends,13 and their practitioners have evolved a network oforganizations and self-interest groups to further their stated aims.14 They remain aconsiderable force within the arts and education lobbies and have more recently enteredinto the wider spheres of the expanding heritage and Green debates.

Yet despite this, research concentrating on the perception of museums as socialinstitutions by the public which they claim to serve is remarkably thin on the ground.Only a handful of museums, notably the Natural History Museum in London, havedevised evaluative systems as a basis for structured project development15 (most of theseassociated with exhibitions), and scarcely any empirical work has been done on the waysin which they are perceived and valued as social institutions by their client audiences. Yetwithout such a perspective, it is difficult to imagine how museums can truly claim toserve a public that they make little attempt to understand, nor how they can be proactivein stimulating a wider audience base.

In order to begin to correct this apparent imbalance, a county-wide survey of museumvisitors and non-visitors was undertaken using Lincolnshire as the focus of acommissioned research project, the fundamental aim of which was to interpret visitorand non-visitor perception in ways that would aid the Countys museums service inmore accurately marketing its institutions to a defined and articulated audience.16 Thisstudy is one of only a handful to look simultaneously at both visitors and non-visitors0260-4779/90/01 0149-20 0 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd


2/20

150 Factor s Infl uencing M useum Vi sit sand the ways in which they perceive museums as social institutions, and was the firstever to be undertaken on a county-wide basis in the United Kingdom.18

This article, which is a detailed examination of a number of the more significant aspectsof that study, considers the nature of the audience selection process and the conditionswhich appear to be necessary before any decision to visit a museum is made and actedupon. Based on the returns of the 1988 Lincolnshire study, the findings do have a widerrelevance, and are applicable to all institutions calling themselves museums and seekingto place their facilities as visitor attractions within what is widely accepted as a growingheritage market.

The Museum AudienceIn considering simultaneous visitor and non-visitor surveys (audience appraisals), theoperational definition of the museum audience is justifiably broadened from the actualvisitor (the on-site audience) into both a consideration of the potential audience (that asyet untapped market that the museum could realistically exploit) and the target audience(that used in the practical day-to-day business of exhibition planning, advertising and soon). l9

Most visitor surveys, by definition, concentrate on the analysis of the on-site audience,and while they may be useful in characterizing type and in assessing visit value, likes,dislikes, and so on, they are not sufficently broadly based to assess image, and thereforeto act as a real aid in the development of any future policies aimed at widening theaudience base. For this, the inquiry needs also to consider non-visitors (as a legitimatepart of the potential audience) and to include an appraisal of their perception of museumsas both social institutions and visit destinations. This enables the potential audience to bedefined more precisely and realistically, which in turn guides the definition of the targetaudience on a project-by-project basis.

Whilst any museums potential audience may in theory be the entire population, inpractice it is only a sample of it; the very nature of the institution and of the populationcontributing to the operation of the visit selection process.* Defining the boundaries ofthese audiences through the establishment of realistic market parameters is therefore thereal challenge.

Audience Selection in TheoryIn making a decision to visit, or not to visit, a museum, it is clear that at some point achoice between potential activities is made and acted upon by the individual concerned.This choice is made on the basis both of the information available and on how the person,broadly speaking, feels about the nature of the place as the focus of the proposed visit.Constantly at work in the activation of the choice process are two fundamentalpsychological elements that are individually more significant in their cumulative effect onbehaviour than either the purely physical constraints of mobility and access or thefinancial consideration of discretionary-spend income: a cognitive (knowledge,comprehensional) element of what the place/visit is, and an effective component thatassigns a value to the understanding of the place/visit. These combine to produce anattitude towards the place/visit that may (or may not) motivate action to make a visitdepending upon the specifics of the attitude thus synthesized. The resultingselection-attitude is by definition dynamic since a change in either of the basecomponents will necessarily cause its revision. When a positive (in the sense used here,


3/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 151pro-visit) selection-attitude is strong enough to stimulate action, a visit to the institutionis along the lines of this theory) occasioned.

Information, as a core element in the attitude development process, is itselfvalue-bound, since it is derived and assimilated from a myriad of disparate sources, eachof which is necessarily given a value by those receiving and processing the information. Ifthe source of the information is valued positively by the receiver, the information itself ismore likely to be assigned positive characteristics. Conversely, information fromproviders perceived as having negative characteristics will be more likely to be viewednegatively. In its most simple form it is therefore possible to predict that word-of-mouthrecommendation and promotion through friends, family, and so on, will be moreeffective in crystallizing a positive selection-attitude than cold, media-based advertisingoriginated and released by less-valued third parties. This is often the case, particularlywhere the purchase of intangibles is concerned, and with activities that involve acommitment of time as well as other resources; as is true with a museum visit.

By inference, the most important, most highly valued information-provider is theperson whose attitude is being shaped. Any past experience with the object event, place,institution) or with objects perceived as being conceptually similar as the focus of theattitude) is therefore absolutely crucial to the development of the perceptual stance thatleads to the choice to visit being made. Exploring these experiences and relationships istherefore a key element in audience appraisal.

Given that an understanding of the nature and characteristics of the object is necessaryto the development of an attitude, it is nevertheless possible for the same social object tobe viewed in the same way by people but valued completely differently. A museum maybe perceived as an educational institution by all, but, because it is regarded in this way,valued positively by only a few. Indeed, the very fact that it is perceived as beingeducational may be a strong deterrent to some, depending on how education, and therole that museums are seen to play within and as part of the educational system, is valued.

Thus any exploration of attitudes towards social objects and the motivators thatstimulate pro-visit selection-attitudes must probe deeper than the level of simple likesand dislikes to how these preferences are both developed and maintained, and how theyare transferred from one social object to another. This is crucial when the outcome of theselection process takes place as the result of relatively free choice in the allocation and useof non-obligated time as is usually the case with a museum visit), since it is clear thatthose who choose not to visit a museum do so because thay have chosen positively tospend their time doing something they value and enjoy more highly. The attraction ofvisitors to museums is not simply a problem of providing new institutional images, it isalso one of, in a very real sense, destabilizing the positive images held about other objectsand activities with which they are seen to compete.

The role of past experience in shaping and directing new perceptions and newbehaviours rooted in these perceptions has been well rehearsed in psychological theory2iand has been explored recently in a museum context.22 One of the main outcomes as faras the current discussion is concerned is that the perceptual process, as driven by pastexperience, will tend towards consistency in behaviour, particularly where the exercise ofchoice exists in the determination of that behaviour. This indicates that leisuredestinations and recreational activities are chosen on the basis that the chooser feelspsychologically comfortable with the choice. Pursuing any activity based on this choiceif it proves ultimately to be satisfactory) subsequently reinforces the choosers directexperience, thereby occasioning a trend towards a future, maintained behaviouralconsistency and a stabilized outcome of the selection process.


4/20

152 Factor s Infl uencing M useum Vi sit sThe trend towards maintaining consistency in the choice and activation of visit

behaviour is reinforced by the notion that the demonstration of such consistency doesnot provoke a dissonant reaction to activities either undertaken or planned, and thereforesits comfortably within the visitors whole range of self-perceptions. Maintainingcognitive consonance is an important psychological motivator in its own right, which inturn helps to fuel the trend towards maintaining perceptual and behavioural consistency.

Important differences in underlying perceptual outcomes can therefore be hypothe-sized to exist, between museum visitors and non-visitors, that can be broadened intoother destinations perceived, by them, as being conceptually similar: historic houses andstately homes may be examples. 23 Thus, heritage (the term being used loosely here)visitors and non-visitors should, from this perspective, exhibit sustained patterns ofbehaviour in their choice of use of non-obligated time that enables their future museumvisiting patterns to be predicted with an acceptable degree of accuracy. It is just thesepatterns that this paper seeks to explore.As a buttress to the psychological well-being associated with undertaking an activityexhibiting positive (to the chooser) characteristics, other factors are brought into playwhilst making the choice to visit and in referencing the activity undertaken on the basisof that choice. The marketing concept of people like us, which in a museum settingwould indicate visitor penetration from certain social and life-orientation groups at therelative expense of others, is important here, as is the concept that leisure time should (forcertain groups) be used constructively as part of a larger socio-political end. For some, avisit to a museum at certain times is such a constructive use. It is also something somepeople like to be seen doing and like others to know that they do. The choice of holidaydestinations, let alone the activities undertaken, indicates that this is the case when(relatively) major decisions are taken as to the allocation of non-obligated time. It shouldbe reiterated that it is the application of choice, and not the availability of free time assuch, that is the key to understanding patterns of museum visiting. This has beendemonstrated on the large scale by using national statistics related to unemployment(enforced free time) and museum visiting, 24 and is, in essence, the unrealized outcomeof most of the visitor surveys undertaken over the last twenty years or so at museums,whether nationa1,25 local authority,26 university* or independent.28

Against this background it is also clear that certain structural (non-psychological)influences mediate in the specifics of the visit choice to some degree. Physical location inplaces reasonably close to suitable museums, and the availability of a car, are obviousexamples. These, however, relate more to a specific outlet rather than to the choice tovisit a museum per se. More importantly, the ways in which museums are perceived bytheir potential audiences are crucial factors that set the background against which thecurrent visit (or non-visit) is referenced. The image of museums is crucial, not only to adeeper understanding of visit/non-visit behaviour, 29 but also as a framework aroundwhich current visit perceptions and behavioural outcomes can be structured andinterpreted.

As social institutions, museums perform a variety of functions that are defined andvalued in different ways depending upon the perspective of the viewer. The professional,whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of the integrity of the collections, viewstheir use differently from the visitor to an exhibition. Moreover, different visitors willview the same exhibition and the institution within which it is held differently dependingupon their background, motivation and specific visit intention.


5/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 153Audience Selection in PracticeThe overwhelming weight of evidence currently available on museum visits suggestsunequivocally that visitors are drawn from an unrepresentative sample of the Britishpopulation with, broadly speaking, the middle class (however defined) being thedominant visiting group. This is not to say that all museum visitors are drawn from thisgroup, or that other groups are not represented, but more that the weight of statisticalevidence from a variety of sources is such as to remove the possibility of chance factorscontributing significantly to the visiting profiles obtained by museum surveys atwhatever type of institution is under consideration. Clearly, class factors alone (asdefined narrowly on the basis of occupational type) are not entirely adequate asexplanatory tools in determining museum visiting patterns, since all social groups arerepresented to some degree. Attitudes and life-values are more useful analytical devicesfor understanding the problem, even though these are themselves mediated by classfactors as reflected in, for example, peer group and culture self-recognition andallegiance. Nevertheless, it is first necessary to consider visits on a grouped basis in orderto make sense of much of the data currently available and to place those obtained by theLincolnshire study into the wider context of museum visiting.The Lincolnshire evaluation produced the immediate conclusion that class factors wereindeed at work in the visit selection process, with clear and unequivocal differences beingrecorded for each social group profile on a visitor/non-visitor basis (Table 1).

Table 1. Museum Visiting and Social GroupGroup Visitor Non-visitor ( e)SMC ( o) 33 10 28ING ( o) 45 46 46woe ( o) 21 43 26

100 100N 1649 498 2147( ) 77 23 100

( o) observed (recorded) percentages.( e) statistically expected percentages produced by chi-square forvisitors/non-visitors by social group (chi-square = 134.539, d.f. = 2, P= 0.0000).Odds ratios = SMC-WOC 6.8 :lSMC-ING 3.4:1ING-WOC 2.0:1

For the purpose of the study, a museum visitor was defined as a respondent who statedthat he or she had visited any museum or art gallery in the twelve-month period prior tointerview. Producing an acceptable and useful definition of class for such a study ismore problematical. In considering the notion of class (as a much-used method ofanalytical group formulation) in ways that allow for the statistical interpretation of itseffect on museum attendance in Lincolnshire and elsewhere, quantitative indices have tobe assigned to the social profile data derived by the field survey. Whilst this lessens thesubtlety of the concept of class as an analytical device, it is nonetheless essential ifacceptable and meaningful interpretations are to be made of the data in ways that allowcomparison with other surveys. It is important also as a basis from which to begin to


6/20

154 actors Influencing Museum Visitsmodel potential visitors and to relate these recognizable and identifiable subgroups toother aspects of visit/non-visit behaviour.

Whilst it is common practice in many aspects of social research to produce a classdefinition based solely on occupational type, in a museum context it is more beneficial toinclude educational experience as a qualifying element in the development of operationalclass profiles. Not to so do would, for example, effectively exclude all those not currentlypart of the active labour market from inclusion in the analyses, and wouldcorrespondingly limit the overall usability and acceptability of the data obtained.Similarly, the adoption of the widely used market research grades of A, B, Cl, and so on,are, by their concentration on income and life style as analytical profile determinants, tooconsumer-behaviour orientated to be of real worth to the evaluation of museum audienceprofiles. Whilst it may be true that certain standards of living have to be present beforeany form of cost-involved leisure activity is undertaken, the availability of suchdiscretionary-spend income does not (within reason) determine the choice of the activityitself. A system that categorized individuals into one of three broad social groups basedon the interplay of educational experience and current (or last) employment issatisfactory for current purposes, and was adopted for the Lincolnshire study. Throughthis approach three social groups (defined as the salaried middle class, the intermediategroup and the working class) were produced and characterized as follows.3oThe Sal ari ed M iddl e Class SMC). This group consists of professionals, semi-professionals, managers and other white-collar workers in supervisory or autonomousjobs with relatively high salaries and security. Members have typically attended aselective school (defined as one to which access is/was restricted on the basis of academicqualifications or the payment of fees, or both) that they left after the minimumschool-leaving age then pertaining, and have attended post-school, full-time education ata university or other institute of higher education.The Inter-mediate Group ING). This group consists typically of routine non-manualworkers (secretaries, clerks, and so on), together with foremen and technicians. Theymay exercise a degree of authority over other workers but are themselves subject toauthority at work from line and other managers. Pay scales, and therefore disposableincomes, reflect this relative position. The group is not homogeneous in terms ofeducational background, with a mix of both selective and non-selective schools recordedand higher education attendance being recorded.The Working Class WOC). This group consists of the rank and file manual employeesin, primarily, the production, construction and processing industries. Whilst theirtake-home pay may be relatively high, job security is low and their work is subordinatedto that of the other groups. No distinction has been made between semi- and unskilledjobs. Typically, members of this group have attended non-selective schools, have left atthe minimum school-leaving age and have not attended full-time, post-school education.It should be noted in passing that no political inferences should be drawn from thesegroup categories. They are simply analytical descriptions enabling individuals of likebackgrounds (as defined) to be grouped in ways that afford an interpretive analyticalvehicle for the data.


7/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 155Visitors and Non-visitorsComparing visitors and non-visitors in terms of these social-class descriptors revealshighly significant differences between the social groups along the lines hypothesizedearlier; that is, that the salaried middle class SMC) as a group is over-represented asvisitors to an extent that far outweighs its representation within society as a whole andwithin the locality of each museum surveyed. Indeed, the SMC is the only group to beover-represented as museum visitors. As a corollary to this, the working class WOC) isover-represented within the non-visitor category.

Whilst the data presented in Table 1 as revealed by the chi-square statistic) arestatistically highly significant, a clearer interpretation of their implications is provided bya consideration of the Odds Ratio, which is a measure of relative, as opposed to absolute,representation. This ratio is calculated as a relative measure between, in this case, thevisitor and non-vistor groups and two social classes simultaneously. For example, theodds ratio for the SMC and the WOC is computed as, from Table 1, (33/21)/(10/43) =6.8:1, indicating that a member of the SMC has seven times more chance of beinginterviewed at a museum that is, has seven times more chance of actually being at themuseum) than a member of the WOC: a highly significant statistic. The odds ratios forthe three groups form a continuum in accordance with the direction of the visit/non-visithypothesis being explored. In absolute terms, however, the largest number of visitsnearly half the total) is made by the intermediate group. This is interpreted as a function

of their presence within society as a whole rather than specifically as museum visitors; aconclusion supported by the relevant odds ratios recorded at the foot of Table 1, andconfirmed by the findings presented in Table 3.As an extension of this simple visitor/non-visitor model, all respondents irrespectiveof whether they were interviewed at one of the museums or on the street) were asked tostate whether they considered themselves to be regular, occasional or infrequent museumvisitors; the respondents being free to provide their own definitions of the descriptiveterms used. This line of questioning provides an important extension to the resultsdisplayed in Table 1 by accommodating the respondents self-perception of museumvisiting, bearing in mind the role that such self-perception plays in underpinning theattitudes which motivate subsequent pro-visit/non-visit choice and behaviour. Theresults are shown in Table 2, from which it is clear that the same general pattern of grouprepresentation as shown by the odds ratios and the differences between the observed andexpected percentages within each cell) is again readily apparent; in this case an odds ratioof 5.1 :l between the SMC and the WOC across the regular/infrequent spreads is anexample.Thus, the SMC is significantly over-represented as self-defined regular museumvisitors and significantly under-represented as self-defined infrequent visitors, with thereverse being the case for the WOC. The intermediate group is just that: itsobserved-against-expected representations in each cell being remarkably consistent andshowing marginal statistical differences between the regular and occasional and theoccasional and infrequent visit self-definitions. Thus, not only are members of the SMCactually over-represented as visitors to museums, their self-perception as, primarily,regular museum visitors is likely to reinforce the recorded at-museum patterns. Thepattern noted in Table 1 holds good for all three groups.

Table 3 reinforces these trends by comparing specifically the at-museum and on-streetdata profiles in relation to social group for all seven museums surveyed. The importantinference here is that although there are observable differences between the at-museum


8/20

156 Factor s Inj luencing M useum Vi sit sTable 2. Social Group and Frequency of Museum Visiting

Class Regular OccasionalVisitor Visitor

InfrequentVisitor ( e)

SMC ( o) 41 29 16 28ING ( o) 41 47 48 46woe ( o) 18 25 36 26100 100 100

Counts 532 960 675 2167( ) 25 44 31 100

( o) observed (recorded) percentages( e) statisticaIly expected percentages produced by chi-square for visitor type by social group (chi-square =116.564, d.f. = 4, P = 0.0000).Odds ratios = SMC-WOC 5.1 :l(reg./inf.) SMC-ING 3.0:1

ING-WOC 1.8:1

Table 3. Comparison of At-Museum and On-Street Samples (all cell values are percentages)Museum Location SMC ( )am/as

ING ( )am/as

woe ( )am/as

Stamford 40/28 46/49 14/23Grantham 37/21 41/52 22/27Usher AG Lincoln 36/27 46/48 18/25Gainsborough Old Hall 36/16 45/45 20/39Lines Life, Lincoln 30/27 50/48 20/25City and County, Lincoln 26/27 48/46 26/27Church Farm Skegness 16/07 47/37 37156am = at-museum (N = 1219); OS = on-street (N = 865).

and on-street samples at an absolute level the percentage of SMC visitors, for example,ranges from 40 percent at Stamford to 16 percent at Skegness) their representations areconsistent within each of the locations for example, the SMC is over-represented by afactor of approximately two at both Stamford and Skegness). These findings accord wellwith the patterns noted earlier, thereby confirming visit self-selection-in of the SMC andvisit self-selection-out of the WOC irrespective of their absolute representation at eachof the locations surveyed. This highly important observation could have been realizedonly through undertaking simultaneous visitor and non-visitor surveys at the samelocation, and is fundamental to the interpretation of museum visiting patterns,irrespective of the specifics of the museums concerned.Behavioural ConsistencyIn developing the visitor/non-visitor model, it is important to consider other exhibitedleisure behaviours in order to place the museum visit or non-visit) in a more completecontext and to begin to accommodate factors in audience selection other than those thatcan be demonstrated and sustained through the analysis and interpretation of class


9/20

DAVIDR. PRINCE 157groups, however defined. Since the choice to visit a museum is made in relation to theother visit destinations that could be chosen in preference, a consideration of other,selected institutions visited by museum visitors and non-visitors is an importantqualifying element in the audience selection (and therefore appraisal) process. Anunderstanding of alternative visit destinations also serves to build up a picture of theleisure sites visited by museum visitors and, in this way, besides indicating the museumspotential competitors in market-attractive terms, also provides additional, highly usefulinformation on the visitors and non-visitors themselves, particularly in relation to theall-important marketing concept of behavioural consistency in visitor attraction and theperception and grouping of cultural institutions within wider recreational frameworks.

The theory of behavioural consistency in visitor attraction31 hypothesizes that avisitor, having opted into visiting museums, should maintain this consistency by visitingother similarly perceived (in this case, heritage-related) sites. Simultaneously, it predictsthat if people opt out of visiting museums they should also opt out of visiting similarlyperceived sites, since they will also be maintaining behavioural consistency in this regard.The Lincolnshire study presented the opportunity of exploring the validity of this theoryby assessing the visiting patterns of both museum visitors and non-visitors to a selectionof alternative visit destinations. Museum visitors were defined as those who respondedthat they had visited any museum or art gallery in the twelve-month period prior tointerview. Respondents were asked to state which of any of eight quoted visitdestinations they had visited in that same twelve-month period. Table 4 presents thecross-tabulated findings.

Table 4. Museum Visitors and Non-Visitors: Alternative Visit Destinations(all cell values are percentages)Place

MVNV

Nat Res Hist HsV nv V nv47 53 61 3129 71 39 61

Fort BgV nv72 2734 66

zooV nv25 7515 85

Place Co ParkV nv

Na ParkV nv

LibraryV nv CinemaV nv

MV 49 51 44 57 80 20 48 52NV 28 72 23 78 58 43 40 60N = 2244.V: visitorXl: non-visitorMV: Museum visitorNV: Museum non-visitor

Nat Res: Nature ReserveHist Hs: Historic HouseFort Bg: Fortified BuildingCo Park: Country ParkNa Park: National Park

These results are also interpreted by way of a scatter-plot (Figure 1) which revealsmore readily the direction and strength of audience convergence (similarity) anddivergence (dissimilarity) between both museum visitors and non-visitors simultaneous-ly. The plot is based on the intial assumption that, if no other factors were at work, thechance of a museum visitor or a non-visitor visiting another stated destination would beequal at 0.5; taking the usual statistical representation of certainty (that all museum


10/20

158 Factor s Infl uencing M useum Vi sit s

np = national parknr = nature reservecp = country parkci = cinemafb = castle or fortified buildinghh = historic house or stately homeIi = library

Figure 1. Scatter plot of audience convergence

visitors and non-visitors will be visitors to the other destination) as being 1 andimpossibility that no museum visitors and non-visitors will be visitors to the otherdestination) as being 0. Thus, based on the cross-tabulations given in Table 4, themuseum visitor/historic house visitor index of convergence is calculated as(0.69/0.5 = 1.38) and the museum non-visitor/historic house non-visitor index as(0.61/0.5 = 1.22). It is therefore possible to place the combined index X = 1.38, y = 1.22)on the plot shown. Similar calculations for all eight visit destinations are displayed inFigure 1.

The value of this combined index is four-fold. Firstly, it displays clearly the directionand strength of museum visitors and non-visitors convergence and divergence inrelation to specified alternative destinations. Second, since it takes into account thevisiting patterns of both visitors and non-visitors, it simultaneously extends and qualifiesthe more usual approach of taking such patterns in isolation. Third, the results aretherefore more realistic in their portrayal of the degree of audience convergence, which inturn helps to clarify the audience selection outcomes and the process by which it isrealized. Fourth, since any visit destination could be taken as the independent variable,the method presents a wealth of analytical and interpretive possibilities.

As a guide to the interpretation of Figure 1, if all museum visitors and non-visitorswere also visitors to a stated destination, then the resulting plot would lie at the extremecorner of the bottom right-hand quadrant, indicating total audience convergence as


11/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 159visitors to the stated destination. Similarly, if all museum visitors and museumnon-visitors were also non-visitors to another destination, then the plot would lie at theextreme corner of the top left-hand quadrant, indicating total audience convergence asnon-visitors to the stated destination. Museum visitor/non-visitor divergent zones(visitors as visitors, non-visitors as non-visitors) therefore emerge as being the top right(for the former) and bottom left (for the latter) quadrants.

Based on this index, Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that a high degree of audiencecommonality exists between museum visitors and visitors to castles, fortified buildingsand historic houses; indeed these form the core cluster of museum-related visitdestinations. A second cluster of similar visit destinations (national and country parksand nature reserves) is also clearly revealed. Allowing for the fact that thevisit-availability of these places in terms of their occurrence and spatial distribution hasobviously had a bearing on the results obtained, the overall audience relationshipsbetween museums and other physical buildings and structures housing material artefactsand antiquities cannot be over-emphasized. These results accord with the direction of thetheory being developed in that they reveal a clear opting-in of visits to destinationsperceived as offering similar conceptual benefits to museum visitors and an opting-out bymuseum non-visitors. Behavioural consistency and perceptual consonance in bothgroups is therefore maintained.This relationship is reinforced when the social profiles of the respondents are includedin the model (Figure 2). In every case save that of zoos (which was revealed as an isolateby Figure 1) the visiting profiles form a continuum from the SMC to the WOC, andrange in visit penetration from an SMC rate of 85 percent (libraries) to 25 percent(national parks). The tendency for the salaried middle class not only to be museum

f y;: s;;5 _\01 I I I I I I I IIi fb hh r ci cP P zo

Visit destinationIi = libraryfb = castle or fortified buildinghh = historic house or stately homenr = nature reserveci = cinemacp = country parknp = national parkzo = zoo

Figure 2. Social group by alternative visit destinations


12/20

16 actors Influencing Museum Visitsvisitors but also to be visitors of perceptually related institutions is therefore supportedfully by these results.Thus, visits to museums are heavily influenced by the socio-demographic backgroundof potential visitors, leading to the choice to visit being made by only a sample of allthose potentially available to choose to visit. It is also clear that differences insocio-demographic background are manifested in the frequency of museum visiting andin the other types of leisure/recreational destinations chosen. The theory of behaviouralconsistency has been applied to establish a broad model of visitors and non-visitors tomuseums; the applicability of which has been demonstrated with reference to other visitdestinations and the convergence of audience types. However, since all social groups arerepresented to some degree at museums, socio-demographic considerations alone cannotaccount entirely satisfactorily for differences between visitors and non-visitors. A moreindividualized approach needs to be adopted to qualify the overall visit/non-visitpatterns emerging from the social and behavioural indices thus far considered.

Comparable ImagesSuch an approach can be achieved by examining the expressed images held by visitors andnon-visitors towards museums as elicited by questions covering how they are perceivedand valued as social institutions and how they could be improved to make them moreattractive visit destinations. The central line of argument here is that, given therespondents socio-demographic background, and its associated behavioural ramifi-cations in museum-visting terms, the development of pro-museum attitudes can, anddoes, take place within all social groups that account for the representation of each withinthe museum-visiting population, even though, as we have seen, this representation isbiased in favour of certain groups.As a guide to understanding the overall institutional image assigned to museums, allrespondents were asked to state which one of six given alternative visit destinations(libraries, historic houses/stately homes, zoos, commercial exhibitions, cathedrals/churches, fortified buildings/castles), reminded them most of a museum. All but two (acommercial exhibition and a cathedral or church) have been used earlier as visit-targetsfor comparative audience purposes and all were chosen to represent a conceptual mix ofstyles, periods and symbolic meanings. The results are presented in Figure 3. Whilst it isaccepted that there is a degree of limitation built into the results by requesting therespondents to choose one of six visit destinations as opposed to choosing freely (thosewho did not choose, 18 percent of the total sample, were excluded from the analysis), theresults are unequivocal in their implications.

First, the overwhelming majority (two-thirds) consider the closest image to a museumto be that of an historic house or stately home. This applies irrespective of whether or notthe respondent was a museum visitor. Such institutions have associated constructs oflongevity and solidity coupled with the preservation of objects of perceived value. Thisfinding accords fully with the audience patterns noted in Figure 1 and reinforces theconcept that whilst the image of the museum and associated institutions is common tomost, the value placed upon this image differs, of which more later.Second, castles and fortified structures are primarily associated with museums byabout one in five of the sample. Again, the concepts of longevity and solidity apply here,coupled, perhaps, with a degree of protectionism. Third, one in ten respondentsconsidered the closest match to be a cathedral or church, perhaps evoking imagesassociated with protection (sanctuary), permanence and paternalism. They are also, in the


13/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 161

60 I- \ \\50 \

t \\ -- -- Non visitors\ -Museum visitors\

10 -0 I

hh f cc Ii ce ZVisit destination

hh = historic house or stately homefb = castle or fortified buildingcc = cathedral or churchIi = libraryce = commercial exhibitionzo = zoo

Figure 3. Visitors and non-visitors: comparable images

main, highly decorative, formal structures containing works of fine and decorative art.Fourth, libraries were associated with museums by only 5 percent of the total sample.This finding was alluded to in Figure 1 (where libraries were revealed as being an isolate)and can be interpreted along functional lines, in that the two institutions are clearlydissimilar in operation. Whilst both are depositories of information, museums areconcerned fundamentally with the presentation and interpretation of real objects, directpublic access to which is usually barred. Conversely, libraries are concerned withproviding replicated source material direct to the public and devoid of additionalinterpretation. The public clearly differentiates between these roles and thereforebetween them as institutions and as visit destinations. Fifth, museums (as exhibitionspaces) are not associated by the public in any way with commercial operations. Theirlinking with commercial exhibitions is marginal in the extreme. Sixth, notwithstandingthe fact that a zoo is, according to the International Council of Museums definition,32 amuseum, the public manifestly does not share this view; less than 1 percent of the sampleclassed zoos as the closest institutional match; a finding reiterative of that recorded inFigure 1.Therefore, it appears from this analysis that the concepts of longevity, solidity,protection and permanence associated with historic houses, castles, fortified structuresand, to some extent, religious building have an echo in museums. Museums are animage-focus for all these perceptions in the publics cognition, which enables elements ofthem to be assigned to other institutions which then become legitimate, alternative visitdestinations. Earlier evidence has shown that visitors to museums are also likely to bevisitors to historic houses, stately homes, castles and fortified buildings, as they optedinto (loosely) the heritage-visiting group. It has also demonstrated that non-visitors tomuseums are likely to be non-visitors to these same heritage sites. The current analysishas shown that both groups share a common, underlying perspective towards these


14/20

162 Factor s Infl uencing M useum Vi sit sinstitutions even though their behaviour towards, and engagement with, them clearlydiffers. Consistency is, however, maintained by both groups. This is an importantobservation since it has been widely assumed that museums, in order to attract additionalvisitors, need to make their operations more clearly understood by the public; thisunderstanding would, it was assumed, increase the chance of a visit being made. That thisis not the case has been clearly demonstrated, with the result that new initiatives for thepresentation of institutional images will need to be considered.

The Perception of MuseumsWith these over-arching institutional images in mind, the Lincolnshire survey inquiredspecifically about the values and constructs associated with museums as visitdestinations. This is a key area which hones the broad perceptions already considered,and which goes a long way towards explaining differences in visit and non-visit choice.Questioning in this area was effected through the application of a three-point semanticdifferential scale (agree-unsure-disagree) in which the interviewee was asked torespond to a given series of value-words and value-statements directed at museums,together with a multiple-statement (ten-choice) question in which the respondent wasfree to choose any or all of the suggestions stated to make, in the respondents own view,museums more attractive as visit-destinations. These statements are given in full in theNotes,33 and were designed to cover not only the publicly accessible aspects of museumoperation, but also those dealing with their fundamental aims and objectives asinstitutions.

Although the reponses to a selection of these value-statements are discussed in turnbelow, a more informative initial approach is to construct an idealized, pro-museumstance and then to explore degrees of convergence with, and divergence from, this view.From the survey questions, such a singularly positive range of views is expressed byrespondents considering museums as being educational, entertaining and interesting,doing a valuable job in protecting our heritage and in not being a waste of tax-payersmoney. Similarly, a pro-museum stance would be that they are not boring, only forchildren or only for intellectuals, and that they are not perceived as being static or outof touch with today.By combining the responses to all ten value-statements in this way, 43 percent of allthose interviewed were revealed as holding highly positive (pro-museum) perceptionsabout the nature and operational environment of museums. This is a relatively highfigure which indicates a considerable degree of public support for the maintenance anddevelopment of such institutions, quite apart from the fact that a recent global surveyindicated that public expenditure on the arts was deemed to be a low priority by theBritish public.34 Within this overall view, however, significant differences were found toexist in the general direction of the visit/non-visit hypothesis being explored. First,whereas over half of the SMC group expressed this consolidated view, less than 40percent of the ING and the WOC did so. Second, and not surprisingly, self-definedmuseum non-visitors were only one-third as likely to record such positive images asvisitors. Third, the more committed a museum visitor is (on the basis of self-definedfrequency of museum visitation) the more likely is it that such a consolidated, positiveimage is held. For example, only one-third of infrequent visitors expressed such a view.Fourth, the age of the respondent was found to have a significant relationship to themaintenance of such positive images on the basis that the older the respondent, the morelikely it was that such views would be held. Whereas only one-third of those aged under


15/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 16324 years held such a view, half of those over 35 did so. This last observation reinforces thevisiting patterns recorded at all seven museums on-site and by the respondents statedbehaviour with regard to alternative visit destinations.

Given that these images represent the overall view, a consideration of the responsepatterns noted for a selection of the individual value statements is revealing. For example,only a marginal 5 percent of respondents doubted that museums do a valuable job inprotecting our heritage, this applying irrespective of the respondents age, socio-demographic background or frequency of museum visiting. It is a remarkably consistentattitude, indicating that this image of museum operation is widely held, understood andaccepted. Because of the perceived value of this function, almost none of the respondentsconsidered tax expenditure on museums to be a waste. The view that museums areeducational institutions is supported almost to the point of totality by the survey; allvariables revealing across-the-board similarity at an average of 98 percent. The twocombined, that museums are educational institutions concerned with the preservationand protection of heritage, is sufficiently close to their accepted professional definition tosupport the view that their role and aspirations are understood and supported by bothprofessionals and the public alike, quite apart from that publics desire to visit them.Interestingly, museums were also revealed as being pro-nationalistic institutions,instilling a sense of pride in the nations past. As depositories and interpreters of thephysical remnants of the past, this result may not be surprising, although it does perhapsindicate that museums are associated more with the human past (through history,archaeology, and so on) rather than with a naturalistic past (through, for example, theexhibition of natural history). The earlier findings related to the clusters of visitingpatterns associated with national parks, country parks and nature reserves may go someway towards clarifying this observation.Stemming from their perception as being educational institutions, museums are viewedas being good places to take children and young people, but not exclusively so; only amarginal 2 percent considered them to be places solely for the benefit of this group. Eventhough this educational image is strong and widely held, museums are not seen generallyas being places primarily for the benefit of scholars or intellectuals. However, there aresignificant differences between visitors and non-visitors, between the social class andbetween regular and infrequent visitors in this regard; over twice as many non-visitors14 percent) as visitors (6 percent), the WOC 16 percent) as the SMC (4 percent) andinfrequent (12 percent) as opposed to regular visitors (4 percent) stated that museums arereally the preserve of scholars and other highly educated people. These findings lend

weight to the view that this strong educational image is a negative attribute for some,providing a disincentive to visit.The concepts of institutional stability and permanence raised earlier have an echo inthese results. Nearly one in five respondents agreed with the statement that a museumnever changes; when your have seen it once, youve seen it enough. However, there aresufficiently strong statistically significant differences between visitors (13 percent) andnon-visitors (34 percent) and between regular (7 percent) and infrequent (30 percent)museum visitors, to imply that the less contact a person has with a museum the morelikely it is that they will hold the view that they never change. This is a self-reinforcingselection attitude in behavioural terms, providing an additional degree of justification fornon-visiting.

In terms of enjoyment, very few (a marginal 3 percent) hold the impression thatmuseums are boring, the majority (88 percent) considering them to be entertaining. Asexpected, the less frequently visits are deemed to be made, the less strongly is this view


16/20

164 Factor s Infl uencing M useum Vi sit sheld. Of note is that more respondents found them to be interesting than entertaining,perhaps as a component of the main educational perception described earlier. Morerespondents considered museums to be old-fashioned (14 percent) than the strongerold fusty places out of touch with today (6 percent). However, in both cases, non- andinfrequent visitors are more likely to express these sentiments, statistically significantdifferences being revealed by the cross-tabulations. This result accords well with thenever-changing attribute noted earlier.

Two value statements caused a more even agree/disagree split than any of the others.First, museums were stated to be places you get more out of . . . when you are onholiday by over half (56 percent) of the total sample with statistically significantdifferences in favour of non- and infrequent visitors, the WOC and the older (45 plus)age-groups. This finding has had an influence on the visiting/non-visiting patternsrecorded for the at-museum and on-street in Table 3, particularly for the seaside holidaydestination of Skegness where 60 percent of all non-residents interviewed stated that theywere on holiday at the time of interview. Second, the need for greater participation by thepublic in museums is clearly supported by this study; an average 62 percent agreeing withthe statement that museums would be a lot better if there were more things for people toactually do. This view is held more strongly by younger people (73 percent of the under34s); the other variables revealing only marginal (non-significant) differences. Thestatement that to really appreciate a museum, you have to know something about itbefore you go in was supported by on average one in three of the sample, withstatistically significant differences in a non-visit-making direction being recorded fornon- and infrequent visitors, the WOC and the older (55 plus) age-groups. This supportsthe trend found in the statement museums are for intellectuals only (that is, those with,in the respondents view, such a prior knowledge base) and has an echo in the people likeus concept noted earlier.As well as eliciting expressed attitudes by requesting respondents to comment on aseries of value-words and statements, the survey also took the opportunity of exploringthem through an examination of a series of suggested improvements that could,theoretically, be made to museums in order to make them more attractive visitdestinations. By requesting positive attributes, this line of questioning provides a balanceto some of the more negative sentiments expressed by the value-statements and was alsoused as an analysis check on the internal consistency of the attitudes expressed.The question asked was: Can you suggest any changes or improvements to museumsthat would make it more likely for you to visit them ? Ten options were presented fromwhich each respondent was free to choose any or all of them. They were intended tocover both the public face and the internal presentation and interpretation of museumoperations. The stated options are as shown in Note 33 and the results displayed inTable 5.In terms of the average response from the entire sample, not one of the suggestedimprovements was supported by more than half of the respondents; indeed all but onewere approved of by less that one-third. Within this overall view, however, significantdifferences are discernible on some of the statements between, for example, visitors andnon-visitors and stated frequency of museum visitation. Of those who stated that theirchance of visiting a museum would be improved if it opened for longer hours, especiallyin the evening, self-defined regular museum visitors were represented twice as often asinfrequent visitors. On this basis, the museum audience profiles recorded earlier wouldsimply be repeated if opening hours were lengthened. Widening the attendance profile ofa museum is therefore clearly not to be achieved by increasing its availability.


17/20

DAVID R. PRINCE 165Table 5. Suggestions for Improvements to Increase the Likelihood of a Museum Visit (all cell values arepercentages)

Stated Improvement All V NV Reg Inf occ

Open longer hours 19 21 13 28 19 13Provide more advertising 31 33 24 36 33 25Provide better catering 27 29 21 31 27 23Make shops more attractive 12 12 10 16 12 10Make exhibitions more inviting 21 22 14 23 23 15Show more about the present 16 17 10 19 17 11Have more local exhibitions 26 28 20 31 29 19Provide workshops 46 48 37 54 48 38More special/temp. exhibitions 27 30 17 38 29 17Show more films/videos 22 24 16 27 22 17N = 2229.V: Museum VisitorNV: Non-Visitor

Reg: Regular Museum VisitorInf: Infrequent Museum VisitorOcc: Occasional Museum Visitor

The study does not provide much encouragement for museums to improve or enhancetheir retailing facilities or potential. Only 27 percent of the total sample considered thatby providing better cafes and restaurants, and a mere 12 percent that by making theshops more attractive with a better range of goods to buy would their chances of makinga visit be increased. The museums primary non-retailing image noted earlier is clearlyreinforced here, particularly as the data spreads are consistent within and between thevariables displayed. Whilst this does not imply that improving the quality of suchservices will not enhance the overall image and operational capability of a museum, itdoes suggest that any such provision is likely to be viewed as being subservient to themuseums more central operational images as far as audience selection is concerned.

Presenting things about the present, not just the past is similarly under-favoured,only 16 percent of the total sample considering that this would improve their chances ofmaking a visit. This view accords well with the overall image that museums are preserversand interpreters of the past. A clear distinction is made in the publics mind: the conceptof the displaying of contemporary material is at odds with one of the museums perceivedand accepted primary roles. By providing more advertising about what museumsactually do and whats in them, current visitor profiles are likely to be reinforced. Eventhough only 31 percent considered that this would enhance the likelihood of making avisit in any event, it is favoured more by regular visitors, presumably as an aid to visitplanning. . .The provrslon of special and temporary exhibitions as a stimulus to visit choice has asimilar outcome to that of increasing rates of advertising. An average 27 percent considerthis would enhance their chances of making a visit, with highly significant differences infavour of regular visitors. Clearly, a changing environment appeals more to those whovisit museums in the first instance, and echoes the alternative view held by non-visitorsnoted above) that museums never change. The contemporary view of the increasing use

of video and film in museums as visit stimulators does not gain much support from thissurvey: only an average 22 percent thought that their availability would enhance thechance of making a visit. Once again, the significant differences are in favour ofreinforcing the currently observed visitor mix.


18/20

166 Factor s Infl uencing M useum Vi sit sThe key improvement that would be favoured as a visit-stimulator more than any

other (46 percent of the total sample), would be the provision of workshops where I cansee people making and doing things. Whilst even this would serve only to reinforce theexisting patterns, it is favoured more by current non-visitors than any of the otherpotential improvements suggested. This is probably the most immediately accessible typeof interpretation available to museums under normal operating environments, and wouldappear to have the most potential as far as widening the visitor mix is concerned.

ConclusionsThis article began by seeking to explore aspects of the audience selection process fromtwo main origins: the perceived nature and characteristics of museums as socialinstitutions and visit destinations; and the nature and characteristics of the publicformulating such perceptions. It established a theoretical perspective on the developmentand maintenance of pro-museum selection attitudes within the wider concept ofbehavioural consistency in visitor attraction, and used a broadened definition of themuseum audience by including potential visitors as part of the appraisal of observedvisit/non-visit patterns. Although based on a county-wide survey, the findings have awider relevance to all museums and associated institutions.The survey results are supportive of the widely held view that museum visits are madeby an unrepresentative sample of the available population, and used class groups toidentify the most likely visitor mix in terms of socio-demographic background andprofile. A new method of exploring institutional audience commonality, the index ofaudience convergence, was developed to determine clusters of visit destinations drawingsupport from similar visitor pools. Exploring these visit destinations in terms ofinstitutional matching allowed common constructs to be deduced that reinforced theproximity of these destinations in conceptual terms.

A crucial finding is that both museum visitors and non-visitors share a common,underlying perspective on the nature and characteristics of museums and the roles theyperform on behalf of society which is fundamentally similar to the professional,curatorial viewpoint. Differences do occur, however, in the value placed upon theseperceptions that underpin elements of the audience selection process and that helpmaintain the currently observed visitor/non-visitor balance. This was found to beparticularly important in relation to the value placed upon education and therefore, bytransfer, on formalized institutions seen to be part of the wider educational system.Seeking a more representative audience base is therefore a complex problem that needs tobe addressed by museums, bearing in mind that the continued, successful communicationof their roles and aspirations to the general public is unlikely to be successful in thisregard.AcknowledgementsThanks are due to all those involved in the 1988 Lincolnshire survey, including themembers of the survey team, the staff of the museums service and the members of thepublic who gave up their time to be interviewed. Thanks are also due to BernadetteHiggins-McLaughlin as co-author of the original research report. Even with all this help,any errors of interpretation lie with the author.


19/20

1. See, for example, A New Museum Every Fortnight, The London Eveni ng Standard, 22 April 1987.- The Museums Associations definition of a museum. accented bv its 1984 annual conference is an.

3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.

institution which collects, documents, preserves, exhibik and interprets material evidence andassociated information for the public benefit. The Museums Association (1984). Definition of aMuseum, Museums Bul l et i n, 24 8): 142.G. D. Lewis (1984). Chapters 2-3 in J. M. A. Thompson, D. R. Prince et al. (eds), Manual ofCuratorship: A Guide to Museum Practice. London: Butterworths/The Museums Association.D. A. Bassett (1984). Chapter 50 in J. M. A. Thompson, D. R. Prince et al. (eds), op. cit. Note 3.G. D. Lewis (1984). Chapter 1 in J. M. A. Thompson, D. R. Prince et al. (eds), op. cit. Note 3.D. R. Prince and B. A. Higgins-McLaughlin (1987). Museums UK : The Findi ngs of t he M useumsData-Base Project. London: The Museums Association.Ibid.

16.

17.18.

Commons written reply by the Arts Minister, Richard Lute MP, June 1989, reported in TheGuardian, London and Manchester 27 June 1989.D. R. Prince and B. A. Higgins-McLaughlin (1987). Op. cit. Note 6.See, for example, Ian Robertsons statement as President of The Museums Association, in TheFinancial Times, 6 June 1986.The Museums Association (1988). Financial Support for Museums, in The M useums Yearbook1988/89. London: The Museums Association.D. R. Prince and B. A. McLaughlin (1987), op. cit. Note 6. In the survey returns over 25 differenttypes of adminstrative body were recorded.The Museums and Galleries Commission, established in 1931.For example, The Museums Association, The Association of Independent Museums, The MuseumProfessionals Group and Women, Heritage and Museums.M. B. Ah (1977). Four Years of Visitor Surveys at the British Museum (Natural History) 1976-79,Museums Journal, 80(l): 10-19. R. F. Miles and A. F. Tout (1978). Human Biology and the NewExhibition Scheme in the British Museum (Natural History), Curato r, 21 l): 36-50.D. R. Prince and B. A. Higgins-McLaughlin (1989). Museum Lines: The Findings of the 1988Lincolnshire County Museums Visit or and Non-Visit or Survey. Prince Research ConsultantsLimited, London and Department of Recreational Services, Lincolnshire County Council, Lincoln.The study, undertaken by Prince Research Consultants Limited was commissioned by LincolnshireCounty Council with the financial support of the East Midlands Area Museum Service.D. R. Prince and R. T. Schadla-Hall(l985). The Image of the Museum: a Case-Study of Kingstonupon Hull, Museums Journal , 81 l ): 39-45.D. R. Prince and B. A. Higgins-McLaughlin (1989). Op. cit. Note 16. Interviews took place atseventeen locations in the county. Museums: The City County (Lincoln), The Usher Art Gallery(Lincoln), The Museum of Lincolnshire Life (Lincoln), Gainsborough Old Hall, GranthamMuseum, Stamford Museum, Church Farm Museum (Skegness); On-street: Lincoln Castle/Cathedral, The Stonebow Lincoln, and at central locations in Grantham, Stamford, Gainsborough,Skegness, Boston, Louth, Horncastle and Sleaford.

In all, 2277 successful questionnaire-contacts were made over 315 interview man-days occupyingthe period from January to September 1988. The questionnaire sought to elicit four specific clustersof information in ways that allowed cross-tabulation and the application of statistical techniquesdesigned to assess association and significance:

Notes and ReferencesDAVID R. PRINCE 167

(a) profile questions enabling the identification of the respondent against a range of socio-economicand demographic variables;

(b) behavioural questions aimed at placing the visit to the museum within the respondents generaluse of available leisure time;

(c) cognitive questions related to the respondents current knowledge of the Countys museums;and(d) affective questions related to the respondents current image of the Countys (and other)museums.

Two main versions of the questionnaire were produced to cater for at-museum and on-streetinterviewing, the core information being common to both. In sum, 28 questions explored 86variables for each museum-visiting respondent, the numbers being correspondingly less for theon-street samples as the visit-specific questions were excluded.


20/20

168 Factors I nfl uencing Museum VisitsData were coded and analysed in-house by PRC. Primary tests of association and significance

were undertaken, where appropriate, using cross-tabulations to produce contingency tablesanalysed through a variety of non-parametric statistical procedures. Confidence levels were set at0.050 for all non-parametric, including chi-square, calculations. For the sake of clarity, detailedstatistical observations have been kept to a minimum in this paper.

19. R. S. Miles (1986). Museum Audiences, I nternational Journal of Museum Management andCuratorship, 1(l): 73-80.

20. D. R. Prince (1985). The Museum as Dreamland, I nternational Journal of Museum Managementand Cur atorship, 4 3): 243-250.

21. D. P. Ausubel (1963), The Psychology of M eaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune &Stratton.

22. D. R. Prince (1985). Op. cit. Note 20.23. S. A. Griggs and K. Hays-Jackson (1983). Visitors Perceptions of Cultural Institutions, Museums

Journal, 83(2/3): 121-125.24. D. R. Prince (1985). Museum Visiting and Unemployment, Museums Journal, 85 2): 85-90.25. P. W. Digby (1974). Visitors to Thr ee London Museums. London: HMSO. P. S. Doughty (1968).

The Public of the Ulster Museum: a Statistical Survey, Museums Journal, 68(l): 19-25; and 68(2):47-53.

26. B. McWilliams and J. Hopwood (1973). The Public of Norwich Castle Museum, MuseumsJournal, 72 4): 153-156.

27. T. Mason (1974). The Visitors to Manchester Museum: a Questionnaire Survey, Museums Journal,73 4): 153-157.

28. Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation (1982). S urvey of Visitors to Norton PrioryMuseum. Runcom: Warrington Development Corporation.29. D. R. Prince and R. T. Schadla-Hall(1985). Op. cit. Note 1730. These groups are based on the approach adopted by Heath et al. in their examination of voting

patterns and allegiences. A. Heath, R. J owe11 and J. Curtice (1985). How Britain Votes. Oxford:Pergamon Press.

31. D. R. Prince (1983). Behavioural Consistency and Visitor Attraction, International Journal ofMuseum Management and Curatorship, 2 3): 235-247.

32. The Museums Association (1982). The M useums Yearbook 1982. London: The MuseumsAssociation.33. (a) The value-words and statements used were:Museums are: Boring, Educational, Old-Fashioned, Really only for children, Something I like todo, For intellectuals only, Entertaining, Interesting.A museum never changes, when you have seen it once youve seen it enough.You get more out of a visit to a museum or art gallery when you are on holiday.Museums make people feel proud of their heritage.Museums would be a lot better if there were more things for people to actually do.Museums are good places to take children and young people.Museums are really places for the benefit of scholars and other highly educated people.To really appreciate a museum, you have to know something about it before you go in.Museums do an invaluable job in protecting our heritage.Museums are old, fusty places, out of touch with today.Museums are a waste of rate-payers money.(b) Stated improvements:

34.

Open longer hours, especially in the evening.Provide more advertising about what museums actually do and whats in them.Provide better cafes and restaurants.Make the shops more attractive, with a better range of goods to buy.Make the exhibitions look inviting and friendlier.Show more things about the present, not just the past.Have more exhibitions about local things.Provide workshops where I can see people making and doing things.Have more special and temporary exhibitions.Show more films and videos in the museum.R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon and L. Brook (1989). Bri tish Social Attitudes: Special InternationalReport. London: Gower Publishing.

factors influencing museum visits

Documents