Using Data to Explore Outcomes and Advance Equitable Practices in a Museum

• In Event: Informal Science Institutions and Equity: Future-Oriented Historiography of Research and Practice

Abstract

Objectives
This research study was designed to support the museums’ interest in understanding participation from an equity perspective. We aim to develop a set of museum-relevant measures and approaches to data collection that advance the agenda in our natural history museum, for equitable opportunities for youth, teachers and children. Better data prepares us to explore what Fergus calls “root causes” (2014) and design programs that broaden our reach and solidify our work in high needs schools and communities.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework
Scholars focused upon educational equity underscore the key practice of examining quantitative data (Fergus, 2016). While public schools and educational organizations have taken up this call, with a few exceptions, cultural institutions have not yet started this work (COVES, 2018; Falk et al, 2018). Complicating matters, measures that schools use may not be appropriate for museums (Mihalchik & Gallagher, 2014). What quantitative measures best capture the work and outcomes of cultural organizations? Our research drew upon existing museum data to explore the sociodemographic backgrounds of the students, schools, and communities the museum has served over the past five years. The central question was the extent to which these participants reflected the diversity of [City X] more broadly.

Methods
We first conducted an inventory of all our education program databases. We examined how data was collected within and across nineteen different programs for children, youth and educators. We pulled all student-level data from those nineteen programs up to five years (2015-2019) to examine change over time across a host of background characteristics. When such programmatic data were available, we analytically nested students in their schools and communities to better understand their local contexts.

Data Sources
Youth program data (from 14 programs) yielded 11,310 program participation records from 7,465 students. Data included demographic data, such as gender, race/ethnicity, home language, and first-generation status. Adult program data from 3 programs yielded 6,103 participant records. Finally, data on schools, camps, and tour groups that visited the museum in years 2016-2018 included 5,285 entries.

Results
Our analysis important gaps in data collection across programs and helped us identify how data collection can help us examine inequities. Among the issues identified were: 1) the need for measures to reliably gather accurate data regarding students’ income levels and home language use so we can better assess service to lower-income families; and 2) adjusting data collection to account for the increasing number of students in our youth programs who identify as multiracial (the percentage increased yearly since 2014 to nearly 20%). Finally, most of our school visits come from [neighborhood X] and [neighborhood Y]; we are underserving [neighborhoods A and B] where we need to do more outreach.

Significance
In this era of intensified data use, museums need to learn how to use large-scale data to understand their impact (Falk, 2012; McDonald et al., 2014). The effort we are undertaking points to strategies for better data collection and evaluation, but more important, it reveals how we can undertake evaluative efforts that continue to press upon and surface disparities.

Authors

• Karen M. Hammerness, American Museum of Natural History

• Michael Chavez-Reilly, American Museum of Natural History

• Anna MacPherson, American Museum of Natural History

• Douglas Ready, Teachers College, Columbia University