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

• In Event: Informal Science Institutions and Equity: Taking This Moment to Act With Justice

Abstract

Objectives
This research study was designed to support a museums’ interest in understanding visitors and participation systemically from an equity perspective. 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. One central question was the extent to which these participants reflected the diversity of the Northeast city where it was located more broadly; another was how to strengthen our measures to continue to collect this data over time more systematically across programs.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework
Museums in the United States report that diversity, equity, access, and inclusion (DEAI) is an organizational priority. In a recent survey of 508 museums, 90% reported DEAI is an essential or relatively high priority (Garibay & Olson, 2020). However, less than half reported having a clear plan to accomplish DEAI goals and 89% have not established metrics to measure that progress. With a few exceptions, cultural institutions have not made deep inroads in collecting and analyzing data to understand the demographic backgrounds of their audience and how this demographic profile compares to the surrounding community (COVES, 2018; Falk et al., 2018). Yet quantitative data can be especially powerful in terms of identifying mismatches between community and visitors served (Fergus, 2016).

Methods
We first conducted an inventory of all our education program databases, focusing on 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 to examine change over time across a set of background characteristics. When such programmatic data were available, we analytically nested students in their schools and communities to better understand 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 revealed critical gaps in data collection across programs. Among issues identified were: 1) 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) need to adjust 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%). This analysis also illuminated specific demographic measures for use across programs to support cross-programmatic reporting and comparisons.

Significance
In this era of intensified data use, rigorous data collection and analysis can help institutions identify what works (and doesn’t) to reach members of groups historically underrepresented in museums and other cultural institutions. Our study reveals how informal science institutions can gather data consistent with DEAI goals at an organizational level, critical to equitable and enduring change (Jackson, 2014; Fergus, 2016).

Authors

• Karen M. Hammerness, American Museum of Natural History

• Anna MacPherson, American Museum of Natural History

• Douglas Ready, Teachers College, Columbia University