Exploring the evidence base for museum value

Abstract

As museums argue their case for sustainable funding in an increasingly challenging economic climate, the requirement to prove their value will be rigorous. But the concept of value is an evolving one and developing an evidence base is a challenging task. This article examines the concept of value as an emerging phenomenon, how we describe the value of museums and what evidence we have to support our claims. It uses recent literature and research in the UK and Australia.

Keywords:

• museums
• museum management
• value
• evidence
• public value
• relevance

Notes

1. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) formed in 1961 comprises 30 countries including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

2. Based in Britain, Demos describes itself as a ‘greenhouse for new ideas’ and ‘an independent think-tank’ http://www.demos.co.uk.

3. AEA Consulting had offices in London and New York where it specialized in strategic planning for the cultural sector.

4. Evidence-based policy uses a range of data to determine the effectiveness of policy interventions, implementation and processes to determine whether they have achieved their aims in terms of improving the social and economic conditions of target stakeholders.

5. The literature is ambivalent about whether the ‘economy’ is a separate beneficiary or whether economic benefits accrue to the community. Though the author has followed the policy framework of separate beneficiary status for the economy in previous publications, she is increasingly persuaded that benefits to the economy accrue to the community.

6. It can be argued that direct, indirect and non-use value are experienced as benefits for both individuals and the community as a whole, hence their inclusion in both beneficiary categories.

7. In 2005 and 2006, the author worked with CAMD to review and refine the survey. The result is a greater focus on outcomes and the inclusion of use, institutional and instrumental value indicators.

8. Personal Meaning Mapping was developed by Dr. John Falk, formerly of the Institute of Learning Innovation in Annapolis, Maryland, USA and now at the Oregon State University.