Hands-on Exhibitions

The development of interactive displays has transformed the traditional museum world in
the last decade. Visitors are no longer satisfied by simply gazing at worthy displays in
glass cases—they expect to have hands-on experience of the objects and be actively
involved with the exhibits, learning informally and being entertained. simultaneously.
Hands-on museums and science centres provide the most remarkable example of how
museums are redefining their role in society—improving access to real objects and real
phenomena, so that they can be enjoyed by more people.
In recent years museums have been thrust into intense competition for the public’s
time and money with all branches of the leisure industry, from commercial theme parks
to retail shopping and home entertainment. This has upset the traditional stability of the
museum world and necessitated an evaluation of the economic relationship between
museums and their visitors. A hands-on approach encourages a broader visitor base,
which in turn helps to bring in additional revenue at a time of declining public subsidy.
Tim Caulton investigates how to create and operate effective exhibitions which
achieve their educational objectives through hands-on access. He concludes that the
continuing success of hands-on museums and science centres hinges on attaining the very
best practice in exhibition design and evaluation, and in all aspects of operations,
marketing, financial and human resource management. Hands-on Exhibitions provides a
practical guide to best practice which will be indispensable to all museum professionals
and students of museum studies.
Tim Caulton has been involved in the development and management of museums for
over fifteen years. He was a member of the team which developed Eureka! The Museum
for Children in Halifax. He has subsequently helped develop a number of new museums,
and lectures at the University of Sheffield.
The Heritage: Care-Preservation-Management programme has been designed to serve
the needs of the museum and heritage community worldwide. It publishes books and
information services for professional museum and heritage workers, and for all the
organizations that service the museum community.

Editor-in-chief: Andrew Wheatcroft

The Development of Costume
Naomi Tarrant

Forward Planning: A handbook of business, corporate and development planning for

museums and galleries
Edited by Timothy Ambrose and Sue Runyard

The Handbook for Museums

Gary Edson and David Dean

Heritage Gardens: Care, conservation and management

Sheena Mackellar Goulty

Heritage and Tourism: In ‘the global village’

Priscilla Boniface and Peter J.Fowler

The Industrial Heritage: Managing resources and uses

Judith Alfrey and Tim Putnam

Managing Quality Cultural Tourism

Priscilla Boniface

Museum Basics
Timothy Ambrose and Crispin Paine

Museum Exhibition: Theory and practice

David Dean

Museum, Media, Message

Edited by Eilean Hooper-Greenhill

Museum Security and Protection: A handbook for cultural heritage institutions

ICOM and ICMS

Museums 2000: Politics, people, professionals and profit

Edited by Patrick J.Boylan

Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge

Eilean Hooper-Greenhill
 Museums and their Visitors
Eilean Hooper-Greenhill

Museums without Barriers: A new deal for disabled people

Foundation de France and ICOM

The Past in Contemporary Society: Then/now

Peter J.Fowler

The Representation of the Past: Museums and heritage in the post-modern world
Kevin Walsh

Towards the Museum of the Future: New European perspectives

Edited by Roger Miles and Lauro Zavala

Museums: A Place to Work: Planning museum careers

Jane R.Glaser and Artemis A.Zenetou

Marketing the Museum

Fiona McLean

Managing Museums and Galleries

Michael A.Fopp

Museum Ethics
Edited by Gary Edson

The Politics of Display: Museums, science, culture

Edited by Sharon Macdonald
 Hands-on Exhibitions
Managing interactive museums and science centres

Tim Caulton

London and New York

 First published 1998 by
Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by
Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
© 1998 Tim Caulton

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or
Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks
please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Caulton, Tim, 1953– Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums
and science centres/Tim Caulton. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references
and index. 1. Museum exhibits-Technological innovations. 2. Science museums-
Exhibitions-Technological innovations. 3. Museum exhibits-Educational aspects.
4. Museum exhibits-Management. 5. Interactive multimedia. I. Title.
AM151.C38 1998 069′.5–dc21 97–17886 CIP

ISBN 0-203-01684-X Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-08199-4 (Adobe eReader Format)

ISBN 0-415-16521-0 (hbk)
ISBN 0-415-16522-9 (pbk)
 Contents

List of figures and tables vii

Preface ix
Acknowledgements xi
List of abbreviations xii

1 Hands-on exhibitions 1
2 The educational context 17
3 Exhibit development 37
4 Finance 53
5 Marketing 71
6 Operations management 87
7 Human resource management 101
8 Managing educational programmes and special events 113
9 The future for hands-on exhibitions 125

Notes 131
Selected bibliography 143
Index 146
 Figures and tables

Figures

1.1 Visitors to Techniquest 7

1.2 The growth of hands-on museums and science centres in the UK 10

1.3 Typical product life-cycle of a new hands-on attraction 12

1.4 Visitors to Green’s Mill, Nottingham 13

1.5 Visitors to the Archaeological Resource Centre, York 14

1.6 Visitors to the Exploratory, Bristol 15

4.1 Financial performance of Eureka! The Museum for Children, 1993–5 57

4.2 Financial performance of Techniquest, 1994–6 59

4.3 Financial performance of the Exploratory, 1993–5 60

5.1 Who can afford leisure? 75

5.2 Overlapping catchment areas for major UK hands-on attractions 81

 Tables

4.1 Comparative financial performance of UK interactive centres, 1995–6 55

4.2 Operational performance of Eureka!, 1993–5 63

4.3 Operational performance of Techniquest, 1994 and 1996 63

4.4 Operational performance of the Exploratory, 1993–5 64

5.1 Number of children in the UK under 16, 1961–2001 73

5.2 Age of UK population, 1992 74

5.3 Seasonality of visits to Techniquest, 1989–94 76

5.4 Estimated profile of visitors to Eureka! 80

 Preface

The growth of hands-on museums and science centres has been one of the most
remarkable features of the leisure industry in the last decade, with almost every new
exhibition proposal today incorporating an interactive element for visitors. As education
officer at a working industrial museum throughout the 1980s, I continually wrestled with
the problem of how to turn the highly popular, but labour-intensive, metal-shaping
activities undertaken by thousands of school-children in the museum school-room into an
interactive experience available for all visitors, every day and in a safe environment.
There had to be a way of enabling visitors to participate in, and not just watch, all the
activity in the museum. A trip to Test Bed at the Science Museum in 1984 provided
further motivation, and the activities in the museum classroom became more prominent
as formal talks were virtually abandoned in favour of hands-on learning. At that time I
knew little of exhibit evaluation, and the possibility of turning museum attendants into
explainers seemed as remote as the chance of getting funding for the scheme. In 1988, I
was involved in bringing the Discovery Domes to Sheffield for their national launch, and
in the following year gained funding from the Committee on the Public Understanding of
Science (COPUS) to stage a temporary hands-on exhibition at the museum after the
British Association annual meeting in Sheffield. Despite cutbacks in local government
funding, the museum trustees were supportive, and a permanent hands-on exhibition at
Kelham Island seemed a realistic proposition.
In 1990,1 was fortunate to be appointed Head of Education and Interpretation at
Eureka! The Museum for Children in Halifax, and was thrust for the first time to the
forefront of the hands-on movement. For three years, Eureka! provided a challenging
training ground, during which time I was responsible for developing the content of all the
exhibits, and for the recruitment, training and management of the front of house enabling
staff. By summer 1993, with half a million visitors through the turnstiles, it was time to
move on, and the Eureka! experience opened numerous doors, enabling me to assist in
the development of new hands-on museums throughout the UK and abroad. In short, I
feel very privileged to have been involved with the hands-on movement for a decade, at a
very wide variety of museums in the public and independent sectors, and at local and
national levels.
As a university lecturer, I am now able to study the hands-on movement whilst
continuing to work on selected new museums. This book is a critical analysis of the
development of hands-on museums and science centres in the UK, within the context of
parallel trends in the USA and Europe. It is aimed at a dual market of practitioners at
museums and other visitor attractions contemplating the development of an interactive
exhibition, and also at those studying the management of museum, heritage, leisure and
tourist attractions. The book is not designed to teach basic management theory so much
as to provide case study information on the specific management of hands-on exhibitions.
There is a broad range of hands-on museums and science centres in the UK, but
inevitably the book draws heavily on personal knowledge and experience, on original
research and primary evidence in the public domain, together with material from a range
of secondary sources in the UK and USA.
One of the key findings of this study is that the hands-on movement contains a vast
array of visitor attractions with differing objectives, and that there is no one ‘right’ way to
develop and operate a hands-on museum. Nevertheless, it is clear that all hands-on
museums and science centres face similar challenges. In particular, it may be difficult for
hands-on museums and science centres to maintain their individual identity in the future
as boundaries blur between different types of leisure attraction. If they are to survive
cutbacks in revenue funding from public sources, maintain their visitor levels at a time of
massive increase in the number of leisure attractions and withstand competition from
attractions embracing new technologies, the hands-on museums will have to employ the
very best of management techniques to finance, market, staff and operate the centres
successfully. Furthermore, if the hands-on museums and science centres are to meet the
educational objectives of hands-on learning, they will have to draw upon and contribute
to the growing body of knowledge on how visitors behave and learn in an interactive
environment.
In short, the aim of this book is to address management issues in the development and
operation of hands-on museums as an increasing number of organisations strive to
improve physical and intellectual access to real objects and real phenomena through
hands-on learning.
 Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the many colleagues, friends and family members who have supported
this research either directly or indirectly. Particular thanks are due to Colin Johnson and
Alan Edwards at Techniquest, and to Alison Porter at the Science Museum. I am also
grateful to the Athlone Press for permission to reproduce part of an article co-written with
Gillian Thomas, and which appeared in S.Pearce (ed.), New Research in Museum Studies:
Volume 6 Exploring Science in Museums, London: Athlone Press, 1996.
Tim Caulton
Leisure Management Unit
University of Sheffield
 Abbreviations
ARC Archaeological Resource Centre (York)
ASTC Association of Science and Technology Centers (UK)
BIG British Interactive Group
COPUS Committee on the Public Understanding of Science
DNH Department of National Heritage (UK)
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EC European Community
ECSITE European Collaborative for Science, Industry and
Technology Exhibitions
INSET In-service education for teachers
ISTP Interactive Science and Technology Project
OPCS Office of Population, Census and Surveys
 1
Hands-on exhibitions

This chapter provides an overview of the development of hands-on exhibitions in the UK,
USA and Europe within the context of changing provision in the museum, heritage and
leisure industries.

Introduction

Visitors to museums are no longer satisfied simply gazing at worthy displays of exhibits
in glass cases. They expect to be actively involved with the exhibits, to learn informally
and to be entertained simultaneously. In the face of declining budgets from government
sources, museums have been forced to identify and meet the needs of a discerning public,
and they have been thrust into competition for the public’s time and money with all other
branches of the leisure industry, from commercial theme parks to retail shopping or home
entertainment. In short, museums have become increasingly aware of the need to redefine
their role in society, reaching a broad visitor market, not only to earn additional revenue,
but also to justify any remaining public subsidy.
Museums throughout the world are looking at ways to improve access to their
exhibitions so they can be enjoyed by more people. There are many ways of doing this:
for example, the use of new technologies, visible storage or live interpretation are all
perfectly valid ways of trying to demystify museums and help visitors make more sense
of the collections. However, as the twentieth century draws to a close, many new
exhibitions are designed exclusively with hands-on exhibits, whilst many more
incorporate hands-on exhibits within traditional exhibitions or in galleries utilising a
mixed range of interpretative media. In the UK, the hands-on approach has spread from
the first science centres to museums, and subsequently to heritage and countryside
interpretation centres. The design, management and operation of hands-on exhibitions is
very different from that of traditional galleries, and requires different professional skills.
This book aims to assist those contemplating the development of an interactive
exhibition, drawing on experience in the UK, USA and Europe.

What is a hands-on exhibit?

Traditional forms of museum displays are either passive (glass showcases) or active
(working models and machines), but both methods can be described as ‘hands-off’.
Visitors are encouraged to look, think, hear and sometimes smell, but they are
discouraged from touching. Hands-on and interactive exhibits, on the other hand,
encourage visitors to explore exhibits more directly. The terms ‘hands-on’ and
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 2

‘interactive’ have similar meanings and have become largely interchangeable. ‘Hands-on’
implies that visitors physically interact with an exhibit, whether this is simply pushing
buttons, using a computer keyboard, or engaging in a more complex activity with a
multiplicity of outcomes. However, a hands-on exhibit that simply involves pushing a
button is not truly interactive, rather it is reactive, in that the exhibit simply follows a
predetermined outcome.1
When the term ‘hands-on’ is normally used there is an assumption that hands-on
activities will also involve interaction and provide added educational value, that hands-on
will lead to ‘minds-on’, although the term itself does not suggest this. On the other hand,
an ‘interactive’ exhibit implies that visitors will engage in mental interaction, but this can
clearly happen without any physical interaction taking place.2 Definition is further
complicated in that the term ‘interactive’ is often associated with computer games, where
the only physical activity taking place is via a keyboard, joystick or virtual reality
headset, and where entertainment and education are not necessarily joint objectives.
In short, whilst the terms ‘hands-on’ or ‘interactive’ have become largely
interchangeable in both public and professional use, neither term in itself adequately
defines an exhibit which involves physical interaction, which has clear learning
objectives, and which has a multiplicity of outcomes dependent on the visitor’s individual
explorations. Without an adequate alternative term, this book does interchange the use of
‘hands-on’ and ‘interactive’, but in both cases there is an assumption that the terms do
involve this broader definition:

A hands-on or interactive museum exhibit has clear educational objectives

which encourage individuals or groups of people working together to
understand real objects or real phenomena through physical exploration
which involves choice and initiative.

A good interactive exhibit will work at a multiplicity of levels for visitors of different
ages and abilities. Hands-on exhibits do not have to be high-tech to be interactive, and
whilst they may not directly involve handling museum artefacts, exhibits are designed to
help visitors explore real objects or real phenomena. As such, hands-on exhibits can
involve the direct manipulation of museum objects or replicas, or they can help visitors
understand an original object on display alongside the exhibit, or they can take place in
galleries without any artefacts at all (for example, in a science centre where the emphasis
is on encouraging the public to understand scientific phenomena).

The origins

The origins of modern hands-on museums and science centres lie within two parallel
developments: the first children’s museums in late nineteenth-century USA, and major
traditional science museums in early twentieth-century Europe and North America.
 Hands-on exhibitions 3

Early science museums

The science centre strand is usually attributed to pioneering developments such as the
operation of industrial engines at the Deutsches Museum in Munich from 1925 and the
staging of chemical demonstrations at the Palais de la Découverte in Paris from 1937.3
There were parallel developments in the USA too: Chicago Museum of Science and
Industry had a simulated coal mine into which visitors descended in 1933, whilst the
Franklin Institute in Philadelphia has had a two-storey walk-through beating heart since
1935.4 These early science museums have a long and distinguished history of
interpretation and explanation alongside their exhibitions, and the more recent trend
towards hands-on exhibits is an obvious extension of this tradition. Indeed, the distinction
between the old museums of science and modern science centres may be more related to
their age than to any differences in mission.
The Children’s Gallery at the Science Museum in London, which opened in 1931, also
has a claim to be one of the first science centres. Resembling more of a’technological
amusement arcade’5 than a traditional museum with its buttons to push and handles to
wind, it became a source of inspiration to generations of children who could later
attribute a lifetime interest in science and technology to a childhood visit there. The
Children’s Gallery was originally designed for all visitors as an introduction to the
museum, but with its working models and dioramas it was so popular with younger
people that it became known as the Children’s Gallery.6 It was the forerunner of today’s
hands-on science centres. Indeed, even contemporary criticism in the Museums Journal
sounds familiar: ‘We could not help fearing that all this may be going too far and not
quite in the right direction.’7 Furthermore, exhibit development problems similar to those
found in today’s hands-on galleries were experienced:

Working models…would be found after a short time on exhibition unable

to stand up to the strain of constant operation by visitors…a new class of
exhibit, required to work under special conditions…had to be devised and
effected before a satisfactory form of each model could be arrived at.8

The Children’s Gallery and the Deutsches Museum inspired Frank Oppenheimer, but the
Exploratorium that he founded in San Francisco in 1969 was the first of a completely
new kind of institution with a truly hands-on approach, and this was followed by a wave
of successful science centres throughout North America.9 The Exploratorium provided a
catalyst to other organisations, and by making over 200 ‘recipes’ for interactive exhibits
available through its ‘Cookbooks’, ensured that other science centres were able to start
with reliable and proven exhibits—and also to ensure that clones of Exploratorium
exhibits can be found in science centres throughout the world!10
In the same year that Oppenheimer founded the Exploratorium, the Ontario Science
Centre opened in Toronto after receiving an investment of $23 million from the Province
of Ontario. In summer 1981, the Ontario Science Circus (an extension to the science
centre) visited Birmingham and the Science Museum in London. Supported by the
Science and Engineering Research Council, the eleven-day visit to the Science Museum
was considered extremely successful and encouraging:
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 4

Visitors thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and there is no doubt that the
participatory nature of the majority of the exhibits contributed greatly to
that enjoyment… The results of the evaluation study vigorously support
the development of the Science Centre concept in Britain. The next stage,
building on the Science Circus experience, might be to set up some pilot
exhibits in similar style.11

The Science Museum experimented with its own modest Discovery Rooms in the
summers of 1981 and 1982,12 and in 1984 over 20,000 people visited its Test Bed. It was
described at the time by the head of education at the Science Museum as ‘a quantum leap
forward in the idea of museum participation.’13 Valuable research and development
lessons were learned, and the experiment directly led to the opening of Launch Pad in
1986. Costing over £1 million, Launch Pad was an overwhelming success, with over
20,000 people visiting on its first day alone!14
If Launch Pad was the first hands-on centre within a UK museum (albeit in a gallery
devoid of objects), the first stand-alone science centres were at Techniquest in Cardiff
(1986) and the Exploratory at Bristol (1987). By this time the interactive movement was
firmly taking shape in the UK, supported by the Sainsbury Foundation, the Leverhulme
Trust, the Nuffield Foundation and the Department of Trade and Industry.15 The
movement was moving equally rapidly throughout Europe, with new centres like the
Inventorium at La Villette in Paris, which had been the subject of heavy investment by
the French government when it opened in 1986.16 In the UK, by early 1989 there were
twelve dedicated hands-on centres, including the nomadic Discovery Domes. Steve
Pizzey, the Director of Science Projects (the operators of the Discovery Domes), widely
advocated his dream of a science centre in every city in the UK.17

Children’s museums
In 1987, the Association of Science and Technology Centers in the USA undertook a
survey of its members and published the findings in a number of reports. Although the
science centres were characterised by their diversity, a number of significant trends did
emerge. One of these was that, whereas most new centres founded in the 1960s
concentrated on life and natural science, by the 1970s physical sciences predominated,
and by the 1980s children and youth museums had emerged as the most popular.18
Indeed, children’s museums are one of the fastest-growing sectors of the museums
industry in the world.19 However, the concept is not new, and many children’s museum
have a much longer history than science centres. Brooklyn Children’s Museum dates
back to 1899, and Boston Children’s Museum opened soon after. Initially, these long-
established children’s museums developed traditional museum collections which were
considered to be of interest to children. A hands-on approach was adopted after
experiments at Boston Children’s Museum by the Director, Michael Spock (son of the
well-known paediatrician), proved successful in 1964. Spock threw out the glass cases,
and reorganised the exhibition programme to create environments in which children
could learn. Thus, Boston Children’s Museum pioneered the philosophy that the museum
exists primarily for people rather than things, and this has governed children’s museums
throughout the world ever since.20
 Hands-on exhibitions 5

Brooklyn Children’s Museum followed suit, and whilst it had always followed a
policy of enabling visitors to handle its collections, in 1977 the museum reopened in a
dramatic new building.21 Indianapolis Children’s Museum has a similar history—it is not
only the fourth-oldest and largest children’s museum in the world, but it maintains over
140,000 artefacts in excellent storage conditions. At Indianapolis, it is claimed that a
children’s museum differs from a traditional museum in essentially four ways:
1 Education justifies every object, activity and event. There is a purpose behind each
display, a story to tell with each exhibit, an idea to unfold in each gallery.
2 Bright, vivid colours and dramatic lighting effects are used to capture attention. Labels
are written in easily understood, contemporary language.
3 Exhibits are placed carefully to afford even the youngest a good look, and materials are
presented in identifiable sequence. Whenever possible, exhibits are ‘hands-on’ or
participatory in nature.
4 No matter how sophisticated the exhibit, human contact remains the most important
source of learning.22
Around eight children’s museums existed in the 1970s, but the movement mushroomed
rapidly, such that there were over 400 children’s museums known to the Association of
Youth Museums in the USA by the end of the 1980s, with over 350 in the USA alone.
The phenomenal growth of children’s museums in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s has
been accounted for by the urge to try new forms of education after alternative
experiments within traditional education had failed in the late 1960s. Many of the new
museums were small-scale, naive in their goals and amateurish in their operation.
However, the burgeoning of children’s museums across the world reflects enthusiasm for
an institution that seems to make sense to all cultures.
Whilst some children’s museums (such as Brooklyn, Boston and Indianapolis) are
firmly based on traditional museum collections and successfully integrate interactives and
museum objects, other new children’s museums (such as Denver) defy convention in the
museum world and have no artefacts at all. Although this does lead to criticism and
debate that a children’s museum without a collection is not a museum at all, the
American Association of Museums fully accepts children’s museums, defining them for
the purposes of accreditation as:

An institution committed to serving the needs and interests of children by

providing exhibits and programs that stimulate curiosity and motivate
learning. Children’s museums are organised and permanent non-profit
institutions, essentially educational in purpose, with professional staff,
which utilise objects, and are open to the public on some regular
schedule.23

It is significant that in this definition the needs and interests of children are placed before
those of the collections. The accepted definition of a museum in the UK, on the other
hand, places the emphasis on objects rather than people: ‘An institution which collects,
documents, preserves, exhibits and interprets material evidence and associated
information for the public benefit’. Children’s museums are challenging and redefining
the boundaries of the traditional museum world. They are client-centred, emphasising the
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 6

educational role of museums with contextual interactive exhibit strategies over the more
traditional museum focus on preservation, research and glass-case presentations. Objects
serve primarily as tools to motivate learning and address the developmental needs of
children, and are therefore not necessarily collected for their intrinsic value.

Techniquest: a case study

Techniquest began with ambitious dreams but modest premises in 1986, but within a
decade it had moved to its third site and grown organically to become the largest
interactive science centre in the UK. Under the guidance of John Beetlestone, Professor
of Science Education at the University of Wales in Cardiff, Techniquest was established
as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status in July 1986. With an initial
start-up grant of £83,000 from the Gatsby Foundation (a Sainsbury family trust),
Techniquest opened in November 1986 in rent-free premises in the former British Gas
Wales showrooms in central Cardiff, and received 45,000 visitors in six months.24 These
temporary premises provided a showroom not only to visitors, but also to potential
sponsors and patrons. In 1987, the Gatsby Foundation approved a grant of £600,000 for
Phase II of the development, and the new Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
provided funds for a new basic industrial building on the waterfront at Cardiff Bay for
five years. The first temporary exhibition had closed in August 1987, and the new Phase
II Techniquest opened in September 1988. The total cost was around £1 million,
providing eighty exhibits in 1000 square metres.25
As is shown in Figure 1.1, Phase II of Techniquest attracted around 100,000 visitors in
its first year, compared to only 39,000 people in 1990 at the Welsh Industrial and
Maritime Museum on the adjacent site. These statistics illustrate the public appeal of
hands-on centres compared with even recent traditional object-based exhibitions.26
Techniquest’s success in an isolated and run-down part of Cardiff owes much to the
philosophy of John Beetlestone and his management team. Beetlestone considers himself
to be an impresario—a ‘retailer of science’—who creates experiences that beguile
visitors. His interest is in encouraging a broader consumption of science amongst a wider
audience, following the tradition of the theatrical science presentations of the Royal
Institution’s Christmas lectures (it is interesting to note that the Science Theatre in Phase
III is in fact based on the auditorium of the Royal Institution).27 Techniquest strives to
reach adults through children, encouraging them to behave ‘like they do at the Christmas
party after three whiskies’. This probably helps to explain the appeal of Techniquest—as
Professor Beetlestone has observed, at theme parks all the noise comes from the exhibits
rather than the visitors, whilst in discovery centres (the term he prefers to science centres)
the noise is from the visitors rather than the exhibits.28
Techniquest adopts the Disney philosophy that its exhibition should look as though it
had opened yesterday, and pays particular attention to overall ambience and visitor
comfort. One of the reasons for Techniquest’s success is that its exhibits are well-
designed and sturdy, characterised by bright primary colours. Most of its exhibits are
built in-house, with artists employed to design innovative exhibits, and product designers
to turn these designs into reliable working exhibits. Establishing an effective discovery
centre is capital-intensive, but keeping it looking good and fully operational demands
significant revenue income. Beetlestone recognises that Techniquest is in both the
 Hands-on exhibitions 7

education and the entertainment industries, and whilst it earns more of its income from its
trading activities than most traditional education establishments, if there was any money
to be made from interactive science, Disney or the other commercial leisure operators
would have done it many years ago.29

Figure 1.1 Visitors to Techniquest

Source: Techniquest
Notes: i) Phase III opened May 1995
ii) 1996 figure is estimate based on twelve months at end of September
1996

Phase II of Techniquest attracted over 700,000 visitors in seven years. In November

1991 the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation chose Techniquest as its lead project and
work began on Phase III, which opened in May 1995. Funded by the Development
Corporation, with contributions from the Welsh Office, European Regional Development
Fund, the Welsh Development Agency and Wales Tourist Board, the most recent
development cost £7 million and Techniquest now occupies a new building designed
around the iron framework of a nineteenth-century engineering workshop. This has
enabled Techniquest to double the number of exhibits to 160, and in addition there is a
science theatre, a planetarium, a discovery room and a laboratory. Techniquest has
chosen not to theme its exhibits, preferring visitors to create their own agenda for the
visit, and has ‘carefully thought-out randomness’. Continuing the well-established
Techniquest philosophy, Phase III has a high level of visitor facilities, and its outreach
and educational programmes are highly developed.30 The new Techniquest received
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 8

236,000 visitors in its first year in the new premises, of whom around one-third visited in
school groups.
In short, Techniquest represents an organisation that began with a strong vision which,
combined with sound business planning (and with the backing of a small, but experienced
and committed Council), has enabled it to grow progressively to become the largest
purpose-built science discovery centre in Britain.

Supporting organisations
The development of children’s museums and science centres in the USA, UK and Europe
owes much to the work of many organisations which have worked to campaign for
hands-on learning or which have provided charitable assistance to organisations in their
infancy. In the USA, the Association of Youth Museums has acted as a professional
organisation on behalf of children’s and youth museums, whilst the Association of
Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) was founded in 1973 as a non-profit
organisation of museums dedicated to furthering public understanding of science and
technology. ASTC provided an invaluable source of information and contacts for
European interactive exhibitions, and in 1988 the decision was taken to establish an
equivalent collaborative organisation in Europe. Thus, ECSITE—the European
Collaborative for Science, Industry and Technology Exhibitions—was formed, with
founding members representing seven European countries. The purposes of ECSITE are:

The advancement of public understanding of science, industry and

technology, and in particular…the advancement of the collaborative
effectiveness of not-for-profit organisations…concerning interactive
centres, museums and exhibitions.31

ECSITE has provided a unique network for sharing information and experience on the
production, exchange and maintenance of exhibitions, and as such its role has been
invaluable in helping to promote the growth of hands-on museums and science centres.
Partly funded by the European Community, ECSITE was launched by and based initially
at the Nuffield Foundation, a major British charitable trust with a long tradition of
supporting science education in schools. Looking to support innovative experiments
which could act as a role model to others, the Nuffield Foundation had largely funded the
development of the first phase of the Bristol Exploratory in 1986, supported the travelling
Discovery Domes in 1988 and other similar projects like LightWorks (small-scale
interactives that visit schools) and Techniquest’s kits for schools. Meanwhile, the Fund
for the Development of Interactive Technology Centres was established by a Sainsbury
family trust to initiate centres in the UK and was managed by Steve Pizzey prior to the
development of the Discovery Domes.32
In 1987, the Nuffield Foundation—in collaboration with the UK government’s
Department of Trade and Industry—established the Interactive Science and Technology
Project to encourage the development of science centres and to provide a focus for the
sharing of ideas and expertise. Chaired by Professor Richard Gregory of the Bristol
Exploratory, the Project provided a useful forum for the development of the first science
centres in the UK, until it was wound up in 1990.33 Indeed, its first newsletters were sent
 Hands-on exhibitions 9

to fewer than fifty people, but by December 1989 the circulation had grown to over
400.34
The work of the Nuffield Foundation, the Interactive Science and Technology Project
and ECSITE was complemented by COPUS, which is the joint Committee on the Public
Understanding of Science of the Royal Society, the Royal Institution and the British
Association for the Advancement of Science. Founded in 1986, it provides a focus in the
UK to improve public awareness of science and technology. COPUS supports a wide-
ranging programme, including awarding small grants to science centres, and in
conjunction with the Nuffield Foundation it published an important collection of reports
and articles about the first phase of the development of hands-on education in the UK.35
The influence of these enabling organisations should not be underestimated. Indeed, at
the end of the 1980s as the Interactive Science and Technology Project (ISTP) was being
wound up, its Director (and ECSITE Executive Secretary) Melanie Quin wrote with
remarkable insight:

I share Steve Pizzey’s dream that, just as today most cities have a library,
art gallery, theatre and sports centre, one day—maybe—every city will
have an interactive science-technology centre. I do, however, predict that
‘hands-on’:- will spread beyond science and technology: as a medium of
communication it has vast potential—participation would add a new
dimension to visitors’ appreciation of historic objects, art pieces, etc.—
and that it will confidently span the spectrum from value-added leisure
activities to enriched classroom teaching.36

The current market for hands-on exhibitions

The number of hands-on museums and science centres in the UK has shown a steady
increase since 1986, as can be seen in Figure 1.2, at a rate of 3.5 new centres opening
every year between 1986 and 1995. Some have achieved remarkable success: for
example, Eureka! The Museum for Children received one million visitors in little more
than two years from opening in 1992. The inevitable outcome of the success of the early
dedicated hands-on centres is that traditional museums are increasingly incorporating
interactive techniques into existing displays. Indeed, twenty-five out of eighty-five
museums in Yorkshire and Humberside with collections relating to science, design and
technology claimed to have interactive exhibits in 1994.38
It is no longer a straightforward task to list all the hands-on galleries in the UK, mainly
because there are so many new exhibitions which have opened since 1995 which
incorporate an element of interactivity in a mixed media gallery. The National Lottery in
the UK has served to fuel the number of new developments, particularly with new
interactive exhibitions planned to celebrate the Millennium, It can be stated with
confidence that the rate of new hands-on exhibitions opening has increased dramatically
since 1995, and that the hands-on concept has spread far beyond museums of science and
technology to embrace history, archaeology, sport, art and popular music. Furthermore,
non-museum sites, such as heritage or countryside interpretation centres, are also
introducing hands-on exhibits into their displays.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 10

On the demand side, interactive centres are popular with visitors: a recent report
analysing the market potential for museums in the UK identified the ability

Figure 1.2 The growth of hands-on

museums and science centres in the
UK
Sources: BIG37 and author’s extrapolations

to interact with exhibits and associated activities for children as two of the key factors
encouraging people to visit museums.39 One-third of museum visits are made by children,
and children in family (not school) groups represent the most significant market
segment.40 With the post-war ‘baby-boom’ population now producing a ‘baby-boom
echo’ of its own, family attractions catering for these growing segments of population can
continue to look forward to a growing target audience until the end of the century.41
In recent years, hands-on museums and science centres have enjoyed remarkable
success as major visitor attractions throughout the world. In 1986, 130 museums
responding to the ASTC survey reported attendance exceeding 50 million, and the
overwhelming majority of these operated with a surplus of revenue over expenditure.42
One estimate claims that science centres now attract an annual worldwide audience of
100 million.43
In the UK, visitors to all museums have increased by 24 per cent over the last twenty
years, and by 9 per cent between 1989 and 1995.44 The latest estimate, based on a range
of sources, suggests that around 100 million people visit UK museums each year
(coincidentally, the same number that visit science centres worldwide).45 However, there
are an estimated 2,500 museums in the UK, and the rate of growth in supply has
outstripped the increase in demand.46 Indeed, since the advent of the National Lottery, the
rate of increase in the growth of attractions has accelerated, whilst there is evidence that
the demand has fallen marginally since 1992.47 There are too many museums chasing too
few visitors in the UK, with museums competing in a very overcrowded leisure market
 Hands-on exhibitions 11

alongside commercial attractions such as theme parks, family entertainment centres and
out of town retailing (particularly on Sundays, traditionally a popular day for visiting
museums). In 1997, several UK museums are experiencing financial difficulties, and
there have been some well-publicised museum closures or disappointing results, by both
traditional museums and some newer attractions. Hands-on museums appealing to
families ought to be in a strong position to compete in this overcrowded marketplace, but
how are the hands-on museums performing?
It is very difficult to estimate the overall size of the UK market for hands-on museums
and science centres for many reasons, not least of which is the problem of defining what
is or is not a hands-on exhibition. However, if the thirtyfive interactive centres identified
by the British Interactive Group in 1995 are analysed, it is possible to estimate market
demand.48 Visitor figures for tourist attractions in the UK are published by the English
Tourist Board annually in Sightseeing in the UK.49 This is not quite as useful as it might
at first appear. First, only those organisations with over 30,000 visitors per annum appear
in the data, and second, the visitor figures for interactive centres within larger
organisations (for example, Launch Pad within the Science Museum, or Xperiment
within the Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry) are not detailed
separately. Third, visitor figures at non-paying attractions are, at best, ‘guesstimates’.
Using this data source, thirteen stand-alone interactive discovery centres (on the BIG
list of thirty-five) attracted an annual attendance of approximately 1.65 million in 1995.50
A further five museums containing interactive centres received a combined visitor
attendance of 4.15 million.51 Clearly, not all visitors to these museums use the hands-on
exhibitions, although the Science Museum claims that 500,000 (or 28 per cent of 1.44m)
visit Launch Pad.52 If one estimates the attendance at the other four interactive centres
within larger museums to be a modest 10 per cent of the total, then these centres attract a
further 270,000 visitors. Thus, one can estimate that in 1995 a minimum of 2.42 million
people visited eighteen of the thirty-five interactive centres identified by the British
Interactive Group. As this figure includes all the major hands-on museums and science
centres (eleven of which attracted over 100,000 visitors in 1995), the overall market for
the thirty-five interactive centres is likely to be between 3 million and 4 million per
annum (this figure is 3–4 per cent of the world market for interactive centres, and 3–4 per
cent of the UK museum visiting market—although visitors to many UK science centres
would not be included in the UK museum visiting market, since they are not museums).
Although the figure of 3 million to 4 million visitors per annum to hands-on museums
and science centres is an estimate based on available data, it seems likely that the size of
the market is increasing as new hands-on attractions open and traditional museums adopt
a hands-on approach (unless the success of new hands-on centres is at the expense of the
existing hands-on centres, rather than creating new demand or taking visitors away from
traditional museums). There is some evidence that some recently opened science centres
in the USA have not ‘fulfilled their visitor targets, and figures are plateauing in existing
centres (indeed, a 10 per cent overall decline was reported in 1993/4).53 Thus, there is a
need to investigate the success of individual hands-on museums and science centres over
a period of time, and to plot their product life-cycles.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 12

The product life-cycle of a hands-on exhibition

The concept of the product life-cycle is useful in helping to determine the relative success
of hands-on museums. The concept suggests that all products have a finite life, going
through periods of growth and maturity before reaching peak sales as the market is
saturated, after which sales decline. Clearly, different types of products have different
life-cycles: for example, the life-cycle of skateboard parks was very short, whilst the life-
cycle of a traditional museum with the responsibility of care for collections or buildings
for future generations will have an expectancy of a very long life-cycle. New museums
are operating in a highly competitive leisure market where product lifespans are typically
short.
There are two possible scenarios when a new visitor attraction opens: either it opens in
phases building up to a stable operation (as in the case of Techniquest), or it opens as a
fully fledged attraction. In the latter scenario, convention within the leisure industry
suggests that visitor numbers to large urban visitor attractions tend to reach their peak in
the early years after opening, with visitor numbers stabilising in the fourth year after
peaking in the second or third year. Thereafter, if there is no renewal or reinvestment in
the attraction, numbers can decline sharply.
Using the Sightseeing in the UK series, it is possible to plot the product life-cycle of
those hands-on museums and science centres which have existed for a period of five
years or more. When these are added together, one can produce a typical life-cycle curve
for a hands-on centre over a period of time. In fact, hands-on centres appear to follow the
leisure industry convention, as can be seen in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Typical product life-cycle

of a new hands-on attraction
Source: derived from Sightseeing in the UK series54
Note: this graph is based on a sample of seven hands-on centres55
 Hands-on exhibitions 13

Based on the evidence of this sample of seven hands-on centres which had opened as
fully fledged attractions and which had no major new investment within five years of
opening, one can deduce that the product life-cycle of a new hands-on attraction does
indeed follow the convention of the leisure industry: that is, that the cycle is short, with
peak visitor numbers being achieved in the second or third year after opening (when their
profile is often very high in the media), and with the average over five years being
reached in the fourth year, when the attraction can be considered as having reached
stability. Without substantial reinvestment, visitor numbers may enter a steady decline
thereafter. Thus, many hands-on museums and science centres aim to replace their
exhibits within a three- or five-year cycle, thereby continually reinvesting in a new
product. For example, within four years of opening in 1992, Eureka! The Museum for
Children replaced its Recycling exhibition with a duplicate of the Science Museum’s
exhibition Things.

The product life-cycles of individual hands-on centres

Green’s Mill
As one of the first hands-on science centres in the UK, Green’s Mill and Science Centre
in Nottingham provides an interesting long-term case-study, as shown in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4 Visitors to Green’s Mill,

Nottingham
Source: derived from Sightseeing in the UK series
Notes: i) Visitor numbers are estimates since the site is free
ii) The science centre is attached to a separate heritage attraction, a
windmill
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 14

Green’s Mill reached its peak in its third year after opening, when it was a still a highly
innovative attraction as one of the first science centres in the UK. Like the typical centre
illustrated in Figure 1.3, Green’s Mill stabilised its visitor numbers in its fourth year after
opening, when the number of visitors (54,973) approximately equalled the average
number 53,928 over the nine-year series. In the face of increasing competition from other
museums and family visitor attractions, Green’s Mill and Science Centre is no longer
such an innovative attraction and has entered the decline stage of its product life-cycle
(although it has had minor increases in 1991–2 and 1995, the long-term trend is
downwards). Buxton Micrarium exhibited a similar pattern. With 35,000 visitors per
annum from 1987–9, numbers declined to 32,675 in 1990 and 33,612 in 1991. Thereafter,
data is not published in Sightseeing in the UK, as the Micrarium entered a decline phase
of its life-cycle and visitor figures dropped below 30,000. Significantly, the Micrarium
has closed down in Buxton, and in winter 1995 it was announced that it was considering
integration within Eureka! The Museum for Children.56

The Archaeological Resource Centre, York

In Figure 1.5 the Archaeological Resource Centre (ARC) portrays a classic product life-
cycle curve. If figures for the first year of operation are excluded (the ARC was not open
for a full year in 1990), the ARC has received an average of 58,112 visitors per annum—
as in Figures 1.3 and 1.4, almost the same as the number in the fourth full year of opening
(58,420 in 1994).

Figure 1.5 Visitors to the

Archaeological Resource Centre, York
Source: derived from Sightseeing in the UK series
 Hands-on exhibitions 15

The Exploratory, Bristol

Two centres provide examples of attractions that have developed in phases: the
Exploratory at Bristol and Techniquest in Cardiff (see Figure 1.1). Having opened in
1987, the Exploratory moved premises in 1990, which helped it to double its visitor
figures. Like Techniquest before it, the Exploratory is planning its second move. As the
recipient of a £41 million Millennium Commission award, Bristol 2000 is planning to
relocate the Exploratory within Science World, a new £25 million hands-on science
centre, by 2000.

Figure 1.6 Visitors to the Exploratory,

Bristol
Source: derived from Sightseeing in the UK series

The curve in Figure 1.6 clearly indicates the second phase of development from 1990,
when visitor figures doubled, declining in the third year after moving in 1992. The
average number of visitors in the six years from 1990 is 173,089 (168,000 were received
in the 1994, the fourth year after the move), but it is clear that visitor figures at the
Exploratory have not yet stabilised, and may not do so for many years, as Science World
is one of the Millennium Commission’s Landmark projects.

Conclusions

The growth in the number of hands-on museums and science centres in the UK, USA and
Europe has been quite spectacular in recent years, based on a long tradition of innovative
communication in science and children’s museums, notably in the USA. The demand for
high-quality visitor attractions which combine education and entertainment has been
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 16

manifest throughout the Western world, and Figure 1.2 suggests that in the UK the supply
of hands-on attractions is still in its growth phase.
However, the overall museum visitor market in the UK is saturated, with hands-on
museums and science centres competing for visitors with 2,500 other museums and a
whole range of commercial leisure attractions. The success of the not-for-profit children’s
museum sector in the USA and elsewhere has not been missed by commercial operators,
with children’s adventure play attractions like Discovery Zone and Planet Fun developing
rapidly throughout both the USA and UK.57
Product life-cycle analysis suggests that new hands-on museums and science centres
find it difficult to maintain high visitor levels after the fourth year of opening, particularly
if they do not reinvest in the core product. To date, it is the smaller centres which are
having the most difficulty in maintaining visitor numbers, in comparison to larger centres
such as Techniquest or the Exploratory which are on long-term growth paths. Overall, the
number of visitors lost to those centres which have declining visitor numbers is far
outweighed by the increase in numbers to all the new attractions. A comparison of the
performance of five hands-on centres for which data is available between 1989 and 1995,
suggests that they had a 49 per cent increase in visitors over this period. A comparison of
the performance of nine centres for which data is available between 1992 and 1995,
suggests that they had a 28 per cent increase in visitors over this period.58
Thus, the overall trend for hands-on museums and science centres is favourable, with
the total number of people visiting hands-on museums in the UK increasing as new
attractions open. However, older centres can expect to lose visitors to competitors if they
do not reinvest in new exhibitions. Individual hands-on museums and science centres
need to define their objectives and target audience carefully, adopting high standards of
management practice, to ensure that the centre matures, develops and survives in this
highly competitive market.
 2
The educational context

This chapter investigates the learning theory underpinning interactive exhibitions, and
questions whether it really is possible for visitors to learn and be entertained
simultaneously.

Introduction

The underpinning philosophy of interactive exhibitions is that visitors find hands-on

exhibits more absorbing and enjoyable than static exhibits in traditional museums, and
this is demonstrated both by the number of people visiting hands-on centres and by their
responses when they are there. If the success of interactive museums and science centres
was measured by the entertainment and enjoyment of their visiting public, then few
would doubt that they are meeting their objectives. However, it is not quite as simple as
that, since museums and science centres also have educational goals. Few would disagree
with Richard Gregory’s view that ‘the recent popularity of science centres shows clearly
that a significant proportion of the British public, of all ages, finds direct exploration of
science entertaining and interesting’. However, Gregory is concerned that ‘although
hands-on experience is effective, indeed essential, for learning to see objects, hands-on
experience can hardly be adequate for aiming at scientific understanding’.1
The popularisation of science in science centres has been welcomed by those
attempting to counter the public’s alienation from science, but the issue of whether
visitors learn only superficial scientific principles and practices, or indeed if the science
centres actually promote scientific misconceptions, has caused debate for many years.2
The question has frequently been posed: ‘Are they really learning or are they merely
playing?’ Gregory and others are concerned that science centres may trivialise science
and give the impression that scientific enquiry leads to instant solutions, when the reality
is that it is often slow, tedious and unspectacular. Supporters of the interactive movement
argue that if visitors are enjoying themselves, it is more likely that they will be learning at
the same time. At the very least, it is argued, visitors will take away an enthusiasm for
scientific enquiry.3 Thus, the question has frequently been reversed: ‘Are they really
playing, or are they merely learning?’
This chapter investigates both the learning theory behind the assumption that people
learn more if they are enjoying themselves, and the evidence from published research of
how much visitors actually learn in practice in hands-on exhibitions. Do visitors leave
having gained any changes in understanding or knowledge (cognitive learning), or is the
role of these exhibitions primarily to change attitudes (affective learning)? Is an
interactive exhibit just as likely to communicate an incorrect message effectively as well
as the intended message? Is there any difference between learning in an interactive
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 18

science centre and an interactive museum? What factors are most likely to encourage a
positive learning experience within the centre—or, to use Richard Gregory’s words, to
turn hands-on into minds-on? To answer these questions, it is helpful to investigate
separately how individuals behave or learn in museums (the personal context), how
groups behave and learn (the social context) and how design affects the learning
environment (the physical context).4

The personal context to museum learning

The theory
Much of the educational philosophy upon which interactive exhibitions are based
originates from the work of Jean Piaget and other developmental psychologists such as
Froebel and Vygotsky. Piaget argued that learning occurs as a result of direct interaction
with the environment, and he traced children’s development into continuous and
consecutive phases from birth to maturity. His research suggested that, in the early years,
children predominantly explore their own motor and sensory skills; from age 2 to 4 they
begin to explore their place in the world around them, and from 4 to 7 they become less
egocentric as they begin to have more contact with others. From 7 children begin to
understand the workings of the world, and by adolescence they are beginning to
understand logical and abstract principles.5
Piaget’s approach has had considerable implications for education. By recognising that
a child thinks differently from an adult and views the world from a different perspective,
it follows that what is appropriate for adult learning is not necessarily applicable to
children. According to Piaget, children learn from actions rather than passive
observations, and so construct knowledge and understanding for themselves. The role of
the teacher is to create environments where learning might take place most effectively,
rather than to impart their own knowledge. The objective is to encourage children to ask
questions rather than to accept information unthinkingly. Children set the pace at which
they learn, and the teacher is the guide in the process of discovery.6
Piaget began his research in the 1920s when scientific psychology was in its infancy,
but it was not until the 1950s and 1960s when his ideas became popularised. In primary
school classrooms, teachers abandoned formal rows of desks and class teaching in favour
of experimentation and learning in small groups, with the teacher taking on the role of
mediator, supporting and consolidating children’s learning. Museums, meanwhile, began
reassessing their educational provision. In both the UK and USA, museums had long
recognised the value of allowing objects from their collections to be handled in their
education or school loans services, and the early children’s museums in the United States
at Boston, Brooklyn and Indianapolis were founded on collections which were considered
suitable for children to explore and handle. However, it was not until Michael Spock was
appointed Director of Boston Children’s Museum in 1964, that the process began of
taking museum objects out of glass cases and providing environments for children to
explore. As Chapter 1 illustrated, Boston’s experiments were taken up at Brooklyn
Children’s Museum and in the first truly interactive science centre, Frank Oppenheimer’s
Exploratorium in San Francisco.
 The educational context 19

The disadvantage of classroom learning is that it is constrained by the rigidity of the

curriculum, by time and by a lack of resources—all of which prevent children from fully
exploring their environment. The interactive exhibition, on the other hand, is rich in
artefacts and exhibits with which to explore and experiment, whilst visitors can follow
their own interests, unconfined by the clock or the bell, for as long as their concentration
lasts. Thus, the informal learning environments provided by the hands-on museums
provide spatial- rather than time-frames. Learning in interactive exhibitions—especially
children’s museums—is often placed within a context which is familiar to visitors,
enabling them to investigate the commonplacc in a new way. Alternatively, exhibitions
often provide dramatic environments designed to stimulate emotions or to challenge
visitors’ existing conceptions and misconceptions.7
By the 1970s Piaget’s ideas were becoming discredited in many circles, mainly
because of methodological problems exposed in his research and because the ages at
which children could perform tasks were shown to be inconsistent with Piaget’s
predictions. In particular, different abilities emerge at different ages in different children,
and the transitions are usually subtle rather than abrupt. Despite these criticisms, Piaget is
important because he recognised that children have different needs at different ages, and
that we learn by continuous problem-solving interaction with the environment. The
essential notion that children develop in stages and as a direct result of interaction with
their environment remains valid.
Piaget’s developmental theory of learning has contributed to the spread of the hands-
on movement, with interactive exhibitions providing a framework that meets the three
areas of learning identified in Bloom’s ‘taxonomy of learning’: that is, they encourage
cognitive learning (knowledge and understanding), affective learning (attitudes, interests
and motivation) and psycho-motor development (physical skills of manipulation and co-
ordination).8
Other learning theory also suggests individuals have different learning styles, such as,
for example, McCarthy’s 4MAT system, which describes four different types of learner.
These are: the imaginative learner, who learns by listening and sharing ideas; the analytic
learner, who learns by thinking through ideas sequentially; the common sense learner,
who learns by testing theories; and the experimental/dynamic learner, who learns by trial
and error.9 Kolb10 and Gregorc11 have produced similar frameworks to describe different
learning styles. The fundamental point is that not all learning styles are catered for in a
formal learning environment. It follows, therefore, that the informal learning environment
of interactive exhibitions may provide the opportunity for individuals with different
learning styles to learn effectively.
One eminent psychologist who recognises the importance of interactive exhibitions is
Howard Gardner. Gardner likens children’s museums to ‘play-grounds for the mind’—
places where children can find things that interest them, explore them on their own and at
their own pace, and create their own understanding.12 Gardner proposes that that the brain
supports at least seven different abilities or intelligences, and that these develop at
different rates and to different extents in different individuals.
Gardner’s seven areas of intelligence are:
1 Linguistic intelligence: the ability to use language to excite, please, convince, stimulate
or convey information.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 20

2 Logical-mathematical intelligence: the ability to explore patterns, categories and

relationships, and to experiment in a controlled, orderly way.
3 Musical intelligence: the ability to enjoy, perform or compose a musical piece.
4 Spatial intelligence: the ability to perceive and mentally manipulate a form or object, to
create composition and balance in a visual or spatial display.
5 Bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence: the ability to use motor skills in sport, the arts or craft.
6 Interpersonal intelligence: the ability to understand, communicate and socialise with
others.
7 Intrapersonal intelligence: the ability to understand one’s own ideas and feelings, to
work independently and show initiative.13
Gardner’s view is that different intelligences dominate in different individuals, and that
these may not develop to their full potential in a formal school environment constrained
by time, resources and the curriculum. Thus, it is argued, interactive museums are
important learning environments because the rich variety of interpretative techniques can
stimulate a multiplicity of intelligences.14
In total, the research of the developmental psychologists has encouraged the growth of
the hands-on movement. Piaget and others demonstrated that we learn by role-play with
our environment, and that children learn differently from adults, and indeed, from
children of different ages. Gardner, McCarthy and others have demonstrated that we learn
in a variety of different styles, and Gardner argues that the formal school environment
may not stimulate all areas of learning to their full potential. Interactive exhibitions can
provide a rich resource and multiplicity of environments for visitors of different ages and
abilities to explore. That is the theory—but what actually happens in practice?

The reality
Several authors have commented that whilst many evaluation studies designed to
improve interpretation within particular interactive exhibitions have been published, there
has been very little systematic research about visitor learning in controlled
environments.15 The former tend to be pragmatic studies primarily concerned with
improving individual museum environments, whilst the latter are concerned with more
general issues of how and why people learn.16 Evaluation studies can be classified as
applied research: they typically identify who visits museums and their reasons for
visiting, investigate the effectiveness of design features (such as the location of exhibits
or the readability of graphics), observe visitor behaviour and interactions, or assess the
factors that influence the outcome of a visit (such as the prior knowledge of the visitor).
This applied research has immediate practical benefits to the commissioning museum, but
basic pure research into human cognition and learning behaviour within science centres
and children’s museums is less common.17
The Science Museum in London provides a good example of an institution that has
carried out extensive evaluative research into the development and operation of its two
stand-alone interactive galleries, Launch Pad and Flight Lab, and more recently its
extensive new education galleries aimed at a range of age groups from pre-school to
adolescent. The Science Museum is also embarking on a programme of pure research into
learning in science museums, building on work previously carried out on visitors to
Launch Pad by Stephenson. Stephenson employed a range of research techniques: he
 The educational context 21

tracked individual members of family groups in Launch Pad and observed their
behaviour, questioned all group members immediately after the visit, sent each member
of the group a written questionnaire several weeks later, and interviewed each member of
the group six months later.18 He concluded that children do not spend their time rushing
around aimlessly, and that 81 per cent of time is spent interacting with other family group
members or with other visitors. After the visit everyone was able to talk freely about the
exhibits, and several months after the visit people were able to recall not only what they
did with the exhibits, but also their feelings about them. However, most of this thinking
was concerned with effects rather than understanding or explanations. Significantly,
visitors with little or no scientific training stated that they did not find Launch Pad
threatening and nor were they embarrassed by their lack of scientific knowledge.
Children in particular were inspired and motivated by the exhibits and viewed the visit as
an enjoyable educational experience, not just a giant fun-fair. In total, Stephenson’s
research shows that people’s memories of interactive exhibits and their feelings towards
them are long-term. However, it tells us little about changes in attitude or understanding
brought about by the visit, although many visitors claimed that they subsequently had
more positive attitudes to science. Stephenson was able to demonstrate, therefore, that
Launch Pad influenced visitors’ learning in the affective domain over a long period, but
cognitive changes were unproven.
Stephenson has argued that only systematic and informed debate will help museums
understand the effects of interactives and the public understanding of science. For
example, are hands-on exhibits more effective if placed next to traditional displays and
artefacts, or are they more effective in isolation within an interactive gallery with trained
interpretative staff? Stephenson was formerly Head of Education at the Science Museum.
His successor, Roland Jackson, argues that research is urgently needed to build upon his
predecessor’s findings: as well as having great fun and remembering the experience, are
people actually learning anything? In particular, what are they learning and how are they
learning it? It is relatively simple to measure visitors’ behaviour, but at present there is
little evidence to link behavioural changes to long-term changes in thinking and
attitudes.19
Other pure research has also raised more questions than it answers. Feher’s research
on interactive museum exhibits as tools for learning in the USA suggested that the
science learning process via the exhibit is an experiential, exploratory and explanatory
process. At first, the process is participatory, then visitors give meaning to the experience
through their own interpretations and explanations, and these are validated or confronted
as visitors use related exhibits. Museum environments have great potential for
challenging visitors’ misconceptions, to produce the breakthrough in understanding that
opens people to new understanding.20 However, Feher’s research identifies many areas of
uncertainty which require further systematic investigation: for example, why do people
hold on to a previously-held misconception, even when the evidence in front of them
contradicts it?21
In total, the evidence suggests that visitors to interactive exhibitions thoroughly enjoy
the experience, that the visit may change their attitudes to science or other subject areas,
and that they can remember the experience for a long period after the visit. However, the
evidence that they have actually learned anything, or indeed have not actually had
previously held misconceptions reinforced, remains unproven. The educational
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 22

arguments in favour of interactive exhibitions may be compelling, but the evidence to

date is patchy and largely anecdotal. Interactive exhibitions remain a largely untapped
laboratory for systematic research to investigate how people learn in an informal
environment.

The social context to museum learning

Although Stephenson’s research looked at individuals within a family visit, much of the
preceding theory and practice relates to the personal context of learning within an
interactive museum environment. The reality, of course, is that most visitors to museums
do not visit alone, and even when they do they will enter into a dialogue with members of
staff either directly, or indirectly through the language of the exhibit labels. Vygotsky
added a social dimension to learning theory with the recognition that much learning is
culturally mediated, by a shared language and by contact with parents, family, friends and
the media.22 Children develop intellectually through direct and mediated experiences, and
Vygotsky demonstrated that the development of more sophisticated thinking depends on
children grasping more and more concepts—the more concepts they understand, the more
likely they are to use their full intelligence.23
Adults play an important role as mediators. The role of enabling and interpretation
staff in the learning process is considered in more detail in Chapter 7, but this section
considers learning in the social context of a family visit. Families looking for experiences
that are both educational and entertaining clearly make up the largest single market
segment within hands-on exhibitions. In the United States, census statistics in 1984 and
1991 suggest that museum visiting was rapidly becoming the single most popular out of
home activity.24 If success is measured in terms of numbers, then interactive discovery
centres are meeting the needs of families. However, numbers alone do not tell the whole
picture of the quality and nature of family visits, of how family members interact with
each other or how they learn. Systematic widespread research using consistent techniques
across a broad range of museums and interactive centres has not been undertaken,
although attempts have been made to build up a holistic picture of family learning and
behaviour in museums from an increasing range of small-scale evaluative studies.25 More
recently, Minda Borun of the Franklin Institute has been researching family behaviour at
four science centres and is developing ways to define family learning at exhibits through
a series of performance indicators.26 This section provides a summary of the evidence
from museums in Europe and North America, most of which have a significant
interactive element.
Wood stresses the importance of the family visit to the long-term future of museums
by emphasising that future leisure choices are more closely linked to leisure experiences
begun as a child in a family visit than in an educational visit. A study in the USA showed
that 60 per cent of regular museum visitors said their interest in museums had been
shaped by childhood family visits, compared to only 3 per cent in school visits.27 Family
visits are different from other types of museum visit, and although each family arrives at
the museum with its own agenda, the evidence from visitor research in Europe and North
America suggests that the family unit functions in a remarkably consistent way in the
museum environment.28 Families arrive with a dual educational and entertainment
 The educational context 23

agenda, but it is also increasingly apparent that one of the main sources of pleasure is to
be found not in the exhibits themselves, but in the opportunity to function as an intimate
social unit in a public place. Competition for leisure time and disposable income has
resulted in family groups valuing the time spent together, and with outings increasingly
serving to strengthen family ties. Family museum visits are rarely planned more than a
day in advance, and are popular because museums provide a safe and non-threatening
environment for family explorations. Several authors have commented on the ritualistic
and cementing nature of museum visits.29

One can see how a parent’s perceptions of a museum as a mediated area

for first-hand experience, offering real objects and repeatable phenomena
from which to gain that experience, could prompt a museum visit for the
whole family. If, in addition, personal interests can be harnessed…then a
museum visit can start to look like a successful outing even before it has
begun.30

Research has focused on family behaviour (for example, group interactions, time
allocation and family agenda issues) and the nature of family learning. It shows that
families behave in consistent ways in different museums, and that they behave differently
from other groups of museum visitors.31 Many of the early studies concentrated on
descriptions of activities at particular exhibits, whilst later studies more systematically
investigated the behaviour of family groups during the entire visit to an exhibition. For
example, Diamond studied the teaching behaviour of families in science centres, and
found that the average visit lasted just over two hours, interacting with sixty-two exhibits.
Families did not read labels before interacting with the exhibits, only reading the
instructions if they were unsuccessful and if their attention was held. Children were more
likely than adults to manipulate exhibits, whilst parents were more likely to read labels
and study graphics than children. Between 80 and 90 per cent of the visit was spent at
exhibits, with the remainder spent at the café, shop, toilets or waiting for other members
of the group.32
A recent study at the small interactive Discovery Centre at Cleethorpes, England
(interpreting the river estuary which it overlooks), found that the average time spent at
each exhibit was just forty-four seconds, and the average time spent in the centre was
twenty-one minutes (ranging from five to fifty minutes). In a gallery of only twenty-nine
interactive exhibits, this raises serious questions about the quality of learning that can
take place with exhibits which have such short holding power, although the visitors’
comments were overwhelmingly positive about the exhibition in terms of its enjoyment
and educational value. The research identified that visitors became more selective as they
progressed through the exhibition, stopping for longer periods at fewer exhibits.33
Clearly, the length of time spent within a museum or science centre will depend
largely on the size of the exhibitions, and one would not expect visitors to spend two
hours in a very small discovery centre. Falk’s studies of family time allocation at two
natural history museums suggests that visits to those museums can be divided into four
phases:
1 An orientation or familiarisation phase, lasting three to ten minutes.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 24

2 An intense viewing phase, lasting twenty-five to thirty minutes, during which visitors
interact with exhibits in a concentrated manner.
3 An exhibit cruising phase, lasting thirty to forty minutes, when visitors scan exhibits.
4 A preparation for departure phase, lasting five to ten minutes, when visitors go to the
shop, cloakrooms and toilets.34
McManus likens the behaviour of a family during a museum visit to that of a ‘co-
ordinated hunter-gatherer team actively foraging in the museum to satisfy their curiosity
about topics and objects that interest them, and to satisfy their curiosity about topics and
objects which museum professionals collect and study’. McManus suggests that whilst
parents are likely to select the exhibition to be explored, subsequent exploration and
information-gathering is shared out between the family members. The family
purposefully moves in a loose formation to explore the selected area, with children
typically leading in this exploratory behaviour. As individual members encounter
interesting items they report back to the family group, with parents commenting on and
interpreting the information introduced by children. Children, on the other hand, are
much less likely to comment on information introduced by their parents. If the family is
relaxed and works harmoniously as a unit, the exploration is most likely to be
successful.35
McManus’s anthropological analysis of family behaviour is based on a broad pattern
of research conducted by herself and others, and most commentators agree there is
remarkable consistency in different types of museum in Europe and North America. One
area where there is inconsistency, however, is in the interpretation of gender-specific
behaviour. Falk and Dierking conclude that there is evidence to suggest mothers are less
likely than other group members to choose the exhibits to view, and that their interactions
with sons are on a higher level than with daughters.36 McManus, however, finds the
evidence inconclusive, pointing out that there is a lack of research where mothers,
fathers, sons and daughters are all present at the same time, and where variations in the
age of children are taken into account.37
In total, one can draw a number of conclusions from the evidence:
1 Family visits to museums are informal, unstructured occasions, rarely planned more
than a day in advance, which provide a pleasant opportunity for members to
strengthen family ties.
2 Families come with their own agendas, but these are likely to include learning in an
informal environment (i.e., combining entertainment and education).
3 Families behave remarkably consistently in different types of museum, in both North
America and Europe.
4 Families behave like window-shoppers, browsing until they see something that attracts
them.
5 Parents are most likely to choose the area to explore, but children are more likely to
select individual exhibits.
6 Most families do not read labels before interacting with hands-on exhibits.
7 Children are more likely to interact than adults, and adults are more likely to read
labels.
8 Family behaviour and learning is influenced by the type of exhibit and by the stage in
the visit at which an exhibit is encountered.38
 The educational context 25

This pattern which has been described above is an assimilation of small-scale evaluative
research conducted in Europe and North America, much of which relates specifically to
science museums, zoos and aquaria in the USA, most of which have a significant
interactive element. The evidence suggests that there is consistency in family behaviour,
but where discrepancies do occur (for example in gender-specific behaviour) this may
reflect cultural differences between countries—or indeed, over time—or simply the need
for systematic, large-scale research across a broad range of institutions. At present, we do
not know with any certainty how families behave in interactive history or art museums,
or in other parts of the world.
One small-scale comparative study of family behaviour at the (non-interactive)
National Palace Museum in Taiwan concluded that Chinese families do behave in similar
ways to those found in the UK and USA studies. However, the research found that
Chinese families do read labels, and that ‘not only do parents take on the role of teachers,
but children also perform the teacher role for their companions’.39 The author of this
study accounted for this difference in behaviour to the high value placed on education
within Chinese culture and to high parental expectations.

The physical context to museum learning

The developers of interactive exhibitions typically set out to provide a welcoming,

attractive, informal, comfortable and easily understood environment conducive to gallery
learning.40 Given that families arrive at a museum with an agenda for both entertainment
and education, the museum environment should enhance the social context of the visit,
with an ambience that is likely to be friendly, engaging, lively, exciting, dynamic, warm,
inspirational, thought-provoking, full of movement and fun. In addition, the success of
the visit is likely to be enhanced if attention is given to fundamental human comforts. The
agenda for providing an appropriate physical context for museum learning is very broad:
• On arrival, are the aims of the museum clearly presented?
• Are daily events and activities clearly displayed?
• Is there an easily understood map available?
• Are cloakrooms and lockers available for bags and coats?
• Is there somewhere to leave a buggy?
• Can backpacks for babies be borrowed or hired?
• Are toilet facilities designed for children?
• Are there separate spaces for baby changing and feeding?
• Is there a water fountain for children?
• Does the café sell food and drink at prices families can afford?
• Is there somewhere to eat packed lunches?
• Are there plenty of seats for resting?
• Can the exhibits be used by children and adults of different ages?
• Are exhibits designed to encourage social interaction between family members?
• Are the exhibits accessible to people in wheelchairs, or with other disabilities?
• Are all the exhibits visible from child height?
• Are labels designed to be read by children?
• Is there additional information for the able child or the interested parent?
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 26

This checklist is by no means exhaustive, but it is indicative of the issues that need to be
addressed to create a favourable physical context for the visit. Every hands-on exhibit
chosen, every artefact, every structure, every label or graphic image communicates a
message to the visitor. An effective exhibition requires an effective communications
strategy, which includes every aspect of museum design, to help visitors make sense of
their surroundings, to encourage them to interact with the exhibits, and to enhance the
effectiveness of that interaction.
Visitor orientation is a vital component of the communication process. This has four
elements: geographical orientation to guide the visitor, psychological orientation to
stimulate the right frame of mind, intellectual orientation to encourage understanding of
content, and conceptual orientation to help develop associated ideas. It follows that if the
visitor is oriented geographically and psychologically, the intellectual and conceptual
learning process will be facilitated.41 Language—whether in its written form as text or in
its spoken form as the verbal interaction of the explainer/enabler—has a clear role to play
alongside objects, graphic images, models, audio-visual material and computer aids.

Integrating adults and children

Typically, half the visitors to interactive museums are adults. Adults play a key role in
the educational success of exhibits, by assisting with the difficult task of interpreting,
explaining and teaching. Thus, the primary role of the adult is one of mediator, and every
effort should be made to ensure their physical comfort (by, for example, providing ample
seating, clean toilets, cafeteria, parent-and-baby facilities).42 If they are uncomfortable,
they will tend to draw children on to other activities. Furthermore, as the key decision-
makers in the family, if they have not enjoyed the visit, they may resist pressure to revisit
at a later date.
Adults in family groups are more likely to have a positive frame of mind if the
exhibition is perceived to be designed for children. Improving the tangibility of the
experience on offer begins with the image portrayed by the exhibition in its promotional
material, extends to visitor orientation, and subsequently to the whole design and layout
of the galleries. The size and structure of the exhibition, the choice of materials and
colour, the quality of the finish, the floor covering and the type of lighting, all identify the
exhibition as being for a specific visitor segment, and determine a specific type of
learning.
The importance of appropriate psychological orientation cannot be overemphasised.
The concept of the hands-on exhibition is still quite unusual for many visitors, who were
indoctrinated with a ‘do not touch’ philosophy, such that some family groups do not
maximise the opportunities of their visit because the adults lack the prior knowledge of
what is expected of them. This is manifest in the way that many adults stand back
watching their children interact with exhibits, without contributing to or sharing in the
learning experience. For example, when Eureka! first opened to the public in 1992, the
concept of a children’s museum was still very new in the UK and adults were often
observed holding children’s coats whilst the children themselves interacted with the
exhibits. Orientation must be designed to encourage adults and children to share the
interactive experience together.
 The educational context 27

Another difficult issue is the provision of facilities for small children. The physical
and learning needs of small children are very different from those of older children, and it
is difficult to design exhibits that work at a multitude of levels and are simultaneously
appropriate for small children. Therefore, the problem arises of whether or not to provide
separate learning spaces for children under 5. Providing a dedicated space for young
children, one which caters for their learning needs and excludes larger children is an
attractive proposition, but this can cause problems for families with children in different
age categories. A more practical solution might be to include activities throughout the
centre which are clearly identified as being appropriate to the needs of very young
children. For example, if these exhibits provide a safe environment for parents to place a
small child, thereby enabling them to continue to explore, this would also provide an
opportunity for parents to interact with an older child at an exhibit in the same gallery.
Parents with children are naturally concerned for the security and safety of their
children. Whilst it can be cost-effective to provide a dedicated member of staff to an
under-5’s discovery area, this will rarely be possible in a mixed gallery. Parents will not
wish to leave their children unsupervised, so exhibits for the under-5s have to be highly
visible to parents and to staff working in the gallery.

The design of interactive exhibits

Drawing on appropriate learning theory discussed earlier in this chapter, it is highly
desirable that exhibits are designed which:
1 Have direct and obvious actions and reactions.
2 Have clear goals, expressed in terms of encouraging visitors to develop physical skills,
to improve their knowledge or understanding, or to refine their feelings and opinions
(i.e., psycho-motor, cognitive and affective outcomes).
3 Are intuitive to use and require minimal label-reading.
4 Work at multiple intellectual levels, for visitors of different ages and abilities.
5 Encourage social interaction between friends and family members.
6 Have open-ended, variable outcomes.
7 Are founded upon research into the existing knowledge and understanding of targeted
visitors, and which do not include confusing information.
8 Are multi-sensory and employ a range of interpretative techniques, appealing to visitors
with a wide range of interests and learning styles.
9 Are challenging but not threatening to visitors, and which help to build confidence.
10 Provide enjoyment for visitors, and leave them feeling they have understood
something more than they did previously.
11 Are well-designed, safe, robust and easily maintained.
Designing hands-on exhibits is a formidable challenge: indeed, it has been suggested by
an experienced designer of hands-on exhibits that it is not success that we should be
aiming for, but to fail less miserably.43 This comment may have been made tongue-in-
cheek, but it is a painful reminder to all those who strive to create the perfect hands-on
exhibit. A successful exhibit will shake the visitor ‘out of the glazed and passive role of
the ambulant couch-potato into that of the agile mental gymnast’.44 On the other hand, an
unsuccessful hands-on exhibit will elicit a response of ‘So what?’ from visitors, and this
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 28

is just as likely—perhaps even more likely—to occur with an expensive, high-tech

exhibit as a simple low-tech interactive. Indeed, the simple ideas are often the best! It is
also a mistake to incorporate interactive exhibits in every exhibition scenario: the hands-
on approach is a seductive medium because of its popularity with visitors, but there are
many areas where it is simply not appropriate for the story being told.
The problems in creating an effective hands-on exhibit are diverse. Eureka! The
Museum for Children enjoyed the benefits of an experienced exhibit developer on
secondment from Denver Children’s Museum. He had two main messages for the
Eureka! team: design your exhibits to nothing less than military standards, and anticipate
the most unimaginable behaviour from visitors! If an action is possible, sooner or later
one visitor will try it. The developers must try and anticipate this, protecting the visitor
and the exhibit from any possible danger. Exhibits must be constructed to the highest
possible safety standards, with guards to protect visitors from moving parts, and no sharp
corners which might injure visitors.
If the first rule of exhibit development is to accept that visitors will sooner or later do
the unimaginable; the second rule is that if an exhibit breaks down, it is the fault of the
museum rather than that of the visitor. Physical safety is one issue, but if failure to
interact with the exhibit leads to frustration, confusion or misunderstanding, the fault lies
not with the visitor but with the exhibit developer. It is highly unlikely that the design
will be perfect at the first attempt, and it is common for exhibits to go through a number
of amendments before reaching the final version (ideally evaluated at the cheaper
prototype stage before going on to the exhibition floor). There are many lessons to be
learned: visitors do not go around exhibitions in a linear fashion, so each exhibit must
stand alone and work independently from other exhibits, even if a group of exhibits are
linked conceptually. Indeed, adjacent exhibits compete with each other for attracting and
holding visitors’ attention—there is every likelihood that visitors will not interact with
exhibits in the shadow of a popular exhibit.
The physical design of the exhibit is vitally important, since visitors come in all shapes
and sizes, some with disabilities, from different cultural backgrounds and with different
levels of interest and understanding. The appearance of the exhibit, its structure, graphics
and colour all affect visitors’ response. Issues such as selecting the right control for the
job, accessibility for people with different disabilities, ergonomics, visibility, noise
interference with adjoining exhibits, all need careful thought and evaluation. Choosing
the right control alone can be a difficult decision. There are choices to be made between
mechanical devices such as pulley wheels, levers and handles; between different types of
electronic switches; and between computer trackballs, mice and touch-screens. There is
no ideal solution for all applications: for example, a pulley wheel with a handle attached
at the perimeter may enable the user to exert more force to operate a difficult exhibit, but
this may be too powerful for another exhibit on which a dimple for a finger may be more
appropriate to prevent abuse (although this would be more difficult for someone with
motor disabilities). Many factors will affect the decision, but ideally the choice of control
should reinforce the exhibit concepts: for example, if the exhibit demonstrates leverage,
then the ideal control will itself be a lever.45
Every exhibit needs to be designed to be as rugged and maintenance-free as possible,
using durable components that are available locally to the museum, and ideally using
components that are standardised throughout the centre. For example, it makes sense to
 The educational context 29

standardise on basic components, such as computers, switches or water-pumps, that are

likely to be utilised in a number of exhibits. If the exhibit can be removed easily to a
workshop for repair, then the visitor will not be confronted by a broken exhibit. If it
cannot be removed, access to internal components needs to be easy so it can be repaired
in situ, which in itself can present a good teaching opportunity with a well-trained and
friendly technician.

Role of text
The best hands-on exhibits are intuitive to use, and do not rely on the visitor reading
complex instructions or large amounts of explanatory text. However, text and associated
graphic images can play a key role in helping visitors use the exhibits. It is quite common
for children to interact with an exhibit without reading any instructions, whilst their adult
helpers stand back and read the labels. If the exhibit is not intuitive, exhibition graphics
must make it clear what physical activity should take place, otherwise the exhibit is
confusing and ‘doesn’t work’. Ideally, the text should clearly outline the educational
value of the activity and how the adult can enhance learning, otherwise the exhibit is fun,
but of limited educational value.46 Thus, text has a complex role in that it must not only
be understandable and appealing to children, but also interesting to adults in its own right,
enabling them to discuss exhibits with their children.
The assertion is often made at interactive exhibitions that visitors do not read text.
Research suggests that this is too simplistic an explanation, and that whilst most families
(especially children) interact with exhibits before reading any labels, they do go on to
read the text—especially if their initial interaction is unsuccessful.47 People are also much
more likely to read text in the early part of the visit, after the initial orientation phase, but
before museum fatigue sets in.48
Families visit exhibitions as a social event, and people select small segments of text
and introduce them into their conversations. This piecemeal selection of text underpins
the need for a clear framework for the presentation of text, and a simple conversational
style of writing so that these interactions are facilitated.49 The interpretation framework is
likely to consist of a main message for the whole exhibition, which is the single most
important idea that we would like the visitor to leave with. Everything else within the
exhibition should be consistent with or reinforce this message, although it may challenge
visitors’ previously held misconceptions (this will be facilitated if a questioning approach
is adopted). Thereafter, the interpretation framework consists of a hierarchy of messages
in decreasing importance: ones that we feel we must communicate, ones that we feel we
should communicate and ones that we would like to communicate (recognising that we
expect a diminishing number of visitors to receive each level of messages).50 In an
interactive learning space it may be decided for clarity that only the first two tiers in the
hierarchy of messages will be communicated.
Effective labels for children should be short, use non-technical language, make a
limited number of points, use a large simple typeface, adhere to a traditional upper-
case/lower-case convention, and be black on white to aid reading by people with
disabilities.51 Four simple stages will help ensure that labels are effective:
1 The target audience should be clearly defined.
2 The proposed text should be analysed for grammatical content and reading level.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 30

3 The proposed text should be evaluated by teachers specialising in language

development of the target age group.
4 Lastly, and most importantly, the text should be evaluated with children (preferably
alongside the prototype exhibit and associated graphic images).52
The interpretation framework must provide text to fulfil several goals. Clear directional
signage and introductory texts at the entrance to each exhibition will assist geographical
orientation and aid psychological orientation. A large clear title for each exhibit will
orientate the visitor conceptually, and clear instructions for manipulating the exhibit
provide an essential prerequisite for intellectual orientation. If the language used in labels
is inappropriate for the visitor or if they cannot quickly work out what the exhibit is
about, then the exhibit is likely to be rated as dull or boring, or even out of order.53
Intellectual orientation can be further assisted by background information, which can be
presented in a hierarchical manner—perhaps in a smaller font to differentiate it from
manipulative information or perhaps at adult eye-level, given that it is most likely to be
read by adults. This strategy might also be used to provide additional complementary
information for teachers or parents, perhaps suggesting activities that children might want
to do within the exhibition, or follow-up activities back at home or school, to reinforce
the learning process. Specific information informing adults what children might be
learning can change a bored parent into an interested observer.

Role of graphics
Graphics images, like text, play an integral part in the communication strategy, assisting
in the interpretation and orientation process. Accessible to non-readers and to speakers of
other languages, they have their own unspoken code which gives a message to all
visitors. Graphics can be used in a variety of ways:
1 To identify areas or themes.
2 To create an environment.
3 To reinforce a message on a specific exhibit.
4 To give instructions, either on exhibits or for services.
The corporate identity can be used to give an overall framework within which a graphics
policy can be developed. This gives both a visual coherence and helps reinforce the main
exhibition message, which is of particular importance in visitor orientation. It does not
mean that graphics have to be of a single style or approach throughout, but rather that an
overall framework for development of graphics is created; and that any change from this
framework should be the result of an informed decision to fulfil a specific purpose, as
opposed to ad hoc development of individual graphic styles, which may confuse the
visitor.
Both in the general geographical orientation and in exhibition interpretation,
illustrations designed specifically for children are perceived positively by parents,
thereby enhancing psychological orientation. Graphics designed to create an environment
for learning can aid conceptual orientation, whilst a pictogram can simplify manipulative
instructions, thereby aiding intellectual orientation. The adage ‘a picture is worth a 1000
words’ is particularly appropriate in this context, but only if the image is clear and
 The educational context 31

simple, relevant, attractive to children and easily understandable. A complex image or

pictogram may confuse the visitor and can add a further barrier to be disentangled.
Graphics can also signal unintended messages, for example, on equal opportunities.
While text can be monitored relatively easily to ensure that no racial or gender group is
either privileged or excluded, graphics present a more difficult problem. This is
particularly the case where characters are involved in the storyline of an exhibition. The
choice of a single character is rendered very difficult and recourse is often made to an
animal or space alien, which may be gender and race free. Even this is not an ideal
situation, as characters may be perceived by the public as having a different connotation
(for example, the asexual Scoot the Robot at Eureka! is frequently assumed to be
masculine). Research on proposed characters at Eureka! showed that relatively small
changes in drawing style can affect substantial changes in understanding.
In short, graphics can play a positive role in reassuring the visitor and in aiding
comprehension. As with text, formative evaluation of images alongside the exhibit
prototype is desirable if the exhibit and its surrounding graphics, objects, models, audio-
visual material and computer aids are to be interpreted as part of a coherent
communication strategy.

Communication strategies at Eureka!: a case study

Eureka! opened in 1992 for children up to 12 and accompanying adults. Using bold
primary colours and a strong corporate logo throughout the exhibitions and associated
educational and promotional material, the development team attempted to integrate
graphics, text and exhibits into a coherent communication strategy. Large ‘child-friendly’
images of children, drawn by children’s book illustrator Satoshi Kitamura, appear outside
the museum and act as an integral part of overall signage. This strategy, derived from
Museum De Los Niños in Caracas, Venezuela, is intended to provide a welcoming
environment for children and adults as an aid to psychological orientation. Geographic
orientation is provided by a comprehensive signage system of hanging panels detailing
main exhibition areas and facilities, also illustrated by a Satoshi cartoon. Some—
particularly for the boys’ and girls’ toilets—are particularly humorous, appealing to
children and adults alike.
Whilst there is an overall strategy for directional signage, each exhibition within
Eureka! required slight adaptation from the model presented above. The largest single
exhibition, ‘Me and My Body’, presents the most coherent communication strategy. The
exhibition is the only one with an orientation area, and exhibits, images and text are given
a uniform treatment throughout, despite the wide variety of exhibit types. A central
character, Scoot the Robot, appears in various two- and three-dimensional guises asking
children questions about themselves: in effect, putting children in the role of experts on
themselves and their bodies. The gallery incorporates a series of short, specific activities
which are clear to children and whose learning possibilities are clear to adults.54
Each exhibit has a large title, usually expressed in the form of a question, followed by
simple graphics and instructions (with the word ‘Do’ clearly signified in orange).
Illustrations incorporating children of both sexes (in equal numbers), of mixed race and
of varying size and physical appearance are provided in an attractive cartoon style. The
gallery is successful because the context for learning is clear, and whilst each exhibit
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 32

works on its own, learning from each individual exhibit has a cumulative effect
throughout the exhibition. The Eureka! team was able to draw heavily on existing
research into children’s understanding of themselves and adopted a conceptual approach
that is successful in health education. The questions that appear on the exhibits are
typically questions that children ask themselves. Supporting information for each exhibit
is available for adults at eye-level, whilst background information is provided at key quiet
locations throughout the exhibition in a file for interested children and adults. A passport
collected at the entrance and with sections to fill in as the visitor walks around the
exhibition, helps to maintain interest.
The overall coherency of approach evident in Me and My Body is less obvious in
Living and Working Together, and Inventing and Creating (subsequently renamed Invent,
Create, Communicate). Living and Working Together presents a number of environments
around a town square (a house, shop, bank, garage, post office, factory and recycling
centre) for children to role-play and investigate simple technology. Each environment—
developed by smaller teams than Me and My Body—has adopted a slightly different
approach to its use of graphics and text, although the broad model is similar. The context
for learning is much more difficult to comprehend, although each space does have a short
orientation panel (with Satoshi cartoon) outlining the possibilities for exploration within.
Text and graphics have three main roles in this exhibition: operational instructions,
supporting information and suggestions for role-play. Typically, role-play is not
facilitated by written text but by the verbal interactions of museum enablers, who are
often preoccupied with explaining the function of exhibits. For example, in the shop the
enabler present is frequently overseeing the operation of the (real) till rather than
stimulating role-play.55
The diversity of content within Living and Working Together is both a strength and a
weakness. The expectation that something special is around the corner, and the small
intimate environments, provide great opportunities for learning. However, the difficulty
of presenting the weird and wacky alongside the commonplace within a familiar
environment, and within a coherent communication strategy, is only partially met
successfully.
Invent, Create, Communicate is a more traditional interactive science gallery which
lacks the intimate learning spaces of Living and Working Together, or the simple and
coherent interpretation strategy of Me and My Body. The exhibition presents a series of
opportunities for children to use communication technology, with a strategy of providing
an appropriate context for the use of that technology (for example, a desert island for
primitive communication or a yacht for distress messages). In addition, simple
communication games are suggested which were devised to illustrate the strengths and
weaknesses of each communication device. A character, Squawk the Parrot, is used to aid
interpretation, but its role is less clear or compelling than that of Scoot the Robot in Me
and My Body.
The exhibition is less successful for a number of reasons, one of which is that the use
of real technology, such as the fax or videophone, often requires quite detailed
operational instructions (even though the equipment has been simplified for museum
use). Another difficulty is that the communication devices often require the interaction of
two people at a distance apart. Although the devices are linked physically by coloured
overhead cables and pipes, it is not always immediately obvious to visitors that two
 The educational context 33

people are required to make the exhibit work. Like in the shop in Living and Working
Together, enablers are typically preoccupied with explaining the technology rather than
stimulating role-play.
In total, Eureka! is successful because it provides an environment for learning that is
clearly aimed at a target of children aged 5–12 and their adult helpers. Its overall strategy
communicates a message to adults and children that this is a special place for children to
learn by discovery. However, within this framework, some elements are more successful
than others. The exhibitions were developed in less than two years, allowing little
opportunity for formal evaluation of more than basic exhibition concepts. Me and My
Body is successful because the Eureka! team were able to build upon existing research
into children’s knowledge of themselves, but Living and Working Together and Invent,
Create, Communicate are more experimental. Early evaluative studies revealed that
although most adults understood the context for learning at the museum, many felt that
they needed more information about their potential role, on the content of individual
exhibits, and more guidance on which exhibits were suitable for children of different
ages. This research suggested that visitor orientation in general, and geographical
orientation in particular, could be significantly improved.56

The mixed use of museum objects and hands-on exhibits

Increasingly, as Chapter 1 has illustrated, traditional museums are incorporating hands-on
exhibits within their galleries. Museum education officers have a wealth of experience in
encouraging visitors to touch and learn from objects, but this is usually in a controlled
environment. In recent years, many more museums have experimented with discovery
galleries, where every object is selected so that it can be handled. One of the first
experimental discovery rooms was opened in 1977 at the Royal Ontario Museum, and
this was considered a great success by both the public and evaluators. In 1983, the
museum reopened this hands-on facility as the Discovery Gallery in a space of 260
square metres. This new gallery was designed to provide direct access to specimens and
exhibits for both adults and children, using a range of techniques from objects on open
shelves and in discovery boxes and drawers, a discovery trail, a touch wall, and utilising
scientific equipment to examine objects more closely. The original gallery was designed
in a linear fashion, with the visitor encouraged to learn on a sequential journey of
discovery. Evaluation revealed that visitors did not interact with the displays in this
fashion, selecting activities and objects more randomly according to their personal skills
and interests, and learning more through shared problem-solving than guided discovery.
Based on the experience of the early evaluation, the gallery was revised in 1986, and
three years later the museum published a reference manual to share its experiences with
other museums planning or operating object-based discovery learning environments for
people of all ages.57
The problem for the traditional museum is to define what is the specific place of both
objects and interactives and to decide how they can both be put to best use. The inclusion
of hands-on exhibits within museum galleries (or in stand-alone galleries within a
museum) is not necessarily incompatible with the other core museum functions. There
are, however, many areas of potential conflict: for example, if the interactive gallery
diverts scarce resources away from conservation or documentation; if the safety of
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 34

original artefacts is threatened by the hands-on approach; or if the presence of

interactives encourages inappropriate behaviour in adjoining galleries.
Hands-on exhibits are not appropriate for all exhibition themes. There is a danger that,
if interpretation is reduced to participatory activities alone, very selective and superficial
storylines may be presented which distort historical or scientific reality. For example,
whereas physics is ideally suited to interpretation with interactive exhibits, other
scientific phenomena that are not reversible or repeatable, or that happen too slowly or
too fast, or on too small or too large a scale, are simply not appropriate to be interpreted
by interactive exhibits.58 There is a danger too that the message ‘science is fun’ may be
misleading, when much of scientific research is slow, tedious and boring. Similarly,
whilst exploring history through hands-on exhibits can be fun, it would be unfortunate to
suggest that ‘history was fun’ for all groups in different periods of history. ‘Experiencing
the ultimate in human degradation by trying on a slave collar surrounded by jolly
designer graphics while the rest of the family calls you Fido is not promising.’59 Thus,
although the hands-on exhibit is an extremely attractive medium, it cannot, alone, tell the
whole story.
The real issue is not so much whether museum objects and interactives can coexist in
harmony, but whether interactive exhibits can be designed which play to the strengths of
the museum by improving understanding of museum objects. Brooklyn Children’s
Museum has an exhibition called The Mystery of Things which is specifically designed
to demystify museum objects. One of the new galleries at the Science Museum (also
called Things) similarly aims to use hands-on techniques to interest primary age children
in museum objects, and forms a new introduction to the museum for visitors of this age.
The All Hands Gallery at the National Maritime Museum integrates objects and
interactives as a key element of its interpretation programme, and has a comprehensive
evaluation programme. It is only through the use of such evaluative research that a
museum can determine the juxtaposition of objects and interactives, and indeed other
media such as live interpreters, that will enhance visitors’ understanding of museum
artefacts and will enable visitors interacting with a limited range of hands-on exhibits to
take away a ‘minds-on’ understanding of the museum gallery as a whole and the objects
it contains.
There is clearly a distinction between a purpose-built museum gallery incorporating a
whole range of interpretation tools and the traditional gallery adding a few hands-on
exhibits as an afterthought. However, the mixed use of artefacts and hands-on exhibits
raises a number of issues for all museums:
1 Why do museums want to introduce hands-on exhibits? Is it for sound educational
reasons as part of a co-ordinated interpretation plan, or is it merely that they want to
jump on the interactive bandwagon in response to declining visitor figures?
2 Will the addition of hands-on exhibits lead to increased visitor figures for the museum,
or has the medium passed the peak of its life-cycle?
3 Can a traditional museum hope to compete with new purpose-built hands-on
attractions?
4 Should museums not play to their existing strengths, and place more emphasis on
artefacts?
5 Do museums that introduce hands-on exhibits consider all the implications: they take
up valuable display space, require regular maintenance, have a life of five years at
 The educational context 35

best, divert scarce resources away from conservation and documentation, and require
specialist interpretation staff ?
6 Should the museum risk the use of museum objects in a hands-on display?
7 Will the addition of hands-on exhibits change the nature of the gallery, perhaps
encouraging inappropriate behaviour elsewhere in the museum?
8 Not all subjects are appropriate for hands-on activities. Is there a danger that the
selection of media may cause a selective and superficial approach to science or history
to be presented?
9 What is the evidence that hands-on leads to ‘minds-on’ understanding of museum
objects? How can we design hands-on exhibits that improve the understanding of
museum objects in a mixed gallery?

Museum learning in the constructivist museum

This chapter has presented a simplified view of the theory and practice behind how
individuals and family groups learn in an interactive museum environment, and it has
been shown that the museum experience depends on the personal, social and physical
context of the visit. Learning in a traditional museum equates to traditional methods of
lecturing, with curators imparting their expert knowledge through storylines usually
presented in an incremental, linear manner. In a hands-on exhibition, there may also be
closely defined messages which the developer wants to communicate, but the exhibits are
designed so that the visitor discovers the educational objectives of the exhibit by
interaction rather than by being told. In a children’s museum, the exhibits may be linked
in an environment which is familiar to children; in a science centre, they may be grouped
together by physical process. Either way, the exhibits are not usually arranged in a linear
fashion, but so that they can be experienced individually and independently of each other.
Of course, as Feher’s research showed, visitors can also go away with misconceptions,
and this is what so troubles many scientists when they observe the interactions within a
hands-on science centre and why so much evaluation concentrates on the messages
visitors receive from interactive exhibits.60 However, the theory is that visitors will learn
by experience, and gradually—by interacting with a range of exhibits which build on
their existing knowledge whilst challenging their preconceived ideas—misconceptions
will be replaced by correct conceptions.
Both traditional leaning and discovery learning assume that there is a correct body of
knowledge, and these are merely different techniques to enable the visitor to arrive at this
expert view of the world, either by being told or by trial and error. There is, however,
another model which concentrates less on the importance of the body of knowledge to be
learned and more on the learning process, and especially the interests and needs of the
visitor. Constructivism suggests that learners do not simply add facts to what is already
known, but that they constantly reorganise information and their view of the world as
they interact with it. In other words, they construct knowledge for themselves as they
interact with the world.
The constructivist museum accepts that visitors construct their own knowledge based
on their personal, social and physical context for the visit. Material is presented so that it
meets the educational needs of the visitor rather than the subject of the storyline, the
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 36

social, political, cultural or historical context, or the properties of the object. In other
words, there is no single way to interpret the material presented. Visitors can enter and
leave the exhibition at any point, as each exhibit stands alone on its own merit. A range
of interpretative devices are introduced to stimulate all Gardner’s multiple intelligences.
Opportunities are provided for visitors to make connections with familiar concepts and
objects, for it is only by making connections with the familiar that we reinforce or
challenge our existing knowledge, to make meaning of our experiences.61
In short, in the constructivist museum, visitors are encouraged to construct knowledge
from the exhibit through personal and social interaction, and they are enabled to draw
their own conclusions about the meaning of the exhibition. Based on the learning theories
of Piaget and others, many children’s museums have successfully adopted constructivist
principles. However, by providing physical experiences which can respond to the varying
needs of different interest groups and all ages of learning, the constructivist museum with
its mixed range of hands-on exhibits, artefacts and other media perhaps offers the best
opportunity of providing a meaningful museum experience for a truly broad museum
public. As the recent report into museum education in the UK noted, ‘Adults as much as
children need a gallery environment that allows open and exploratory learning and
encourages them to question and challenge.’62
 3
Exhibit development

This chapter investigates a range of different approaches to the development of hands-on

exhibits, and identifies the importance of front-end, formative and summative evaluation.

Introduction

Exhibit developers conceptualise exhibitions, write the storylines and exhibit labels,
design and build interactive exhibits, draft instructions, prepare the graphics, select and
arrange any accompanying artefacts, choose the lighting, colours and constructional
materials to be used in the display, and generally attend to the physical context of the
exhibition. As Chapter 2 has illustrated, the experience each visitor has within any
museum—hands-on or traditional—is influenced by their physical surroundings, but it is
also influenced by their prior knowledge and expectations, and by the people attending
with them: in other words, the visitor experience is dependent upon this interplay of the
personal, social and physical contexts of the visit.1 The primary aim of the exhibit
development process is to provide an exhibition environment which will enhance the
visitor experience, by providing a physical context which will help visitors to construct
their own interpretation from the exhibits.
The most critical factor for the successful design and development of hands-on
exhibits is the setting of appropriate goals for targeted visitors. The development process
begins with a broad conceptualisation of the exhibition and potential exhibits within it,
and of the type of activities that will take place. As each exhibit idea is refined and
developed, it is essential that measurable objectives are set for targeted visitors in terms
of physical activities, enjoyment, behaviour, feelings, attitudes and understanding.
Without specified goals, it is impossible to measure the effectiveness of exhibits by
evaluating visitors’ affective, cognitive and psycho-motor responses (that is, visitors’
emotional, learning and physical responses) against expected outcomes.
A focus on the intended activities of the visitor is essential in the exhibition
development process. In traditional museums, exhibition development was typically
product-led: new exhibitions were the responsibility of the museum curator, working
sometimes—but not always—in consultation with a museum designer. Museum
educators were frequently excluded from this process. Exhibition goals—if they were
stated at all—were likely to concern the safety and museological significance of artefacts
rather than the activities or experiences of visitors. This process produced the scholarly,
product-led exhibitions closely associated with traditional museums. A recent survey has
shown that even in 1996, only 33 per cent of museums in the UK had a structured
education input at the planning stage of exhibitions and events.2
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 38

In the modern museum, and especially in interactive discovery centres, the exhibition
is much more likely to be orientated towards the needs of visitors. The exhibit
development process draws upon the skills and knowledge of several key players, but the
main exponent is likely to have educational objectives, conceptualising the broad thrust
of visitor activities and messages to be communicated. Consultation will take place with
academic and other experts, including curators if museum objects are to be included, to
ensure that the facts presented are accurate. The exhibit developer will also consult with
target visitors at the conceptualisation stage, to ensure that visitors both enjoy the exhibits
and understand the underpinning concepts behind them, and thereafter at every
subsequent stage of development, construction and installation. The developer will also
consult with funding partners, sponsors and other stakeholders who may have an interest
in the content and design of the exhibit.
The development process can be likened to communicating messages. The exhibit
developer is the sender of the messages to be communicated. Consultation with experts
helps to ensure that the messages to be communicated are technically accurate and
appropriate to match the needs of all stakeholders. However, there is always the
possibility that interference will confuse the message during transmission, such that
visitors are unable to decode the message as originally intended. The designer’s role in
the development process is to encode the message in such a way that the recipient is able
to decode it with as little interference as possible—to maximise the opportunities for
visitors to construct the meaning (or range of meanings) from the exhibition that the
exhibit developer intended. Since the visitors’ experience of the exhibition will always
depend on the social and personal context of the visit, which are largely beyond the
influence of the development team, this can never be an exact science. However, it is the
role of the designer to provide the environment in which individuals and groups feel
confident to explore further whatever the social and personal context of the visit.
In the early science centres, the majority of hands-on exhibits were produced by
academic scientists, enthusiastic to share their enjoyment of scientific exploration with
others and thereby to promote the public understanding of science. Professor Francis
Evans—a major influence in many UK centres—coined the term ‘wondersmith’ to
describe himself and fellow Professors John Beetlestone (Techniquest) and Richard
Gregory (Exploratory). Influenced enormously by the success of Frank Oppenheimer’s
Exploratorium, and the subsequent distribution of exhibit ideas through the widespread
distribution of its exhibit ‘Cookbooks’, these early science centres were concerned
primarily with the product—the exploration of scientific phenomena. Oppenheimer
disagreed that it is necessary to define target audiences for exhibits, arguing that each
exhibit at the Exploratorium can be appreciated on a variety of levels, and that, with over
400 exhibits in the museum, there would always be sufficient exhibits to absorb visitors
for a two- or three-hour visit.3
At the Exploratorium, exhibits are designed in-house by trial and error, involving ‘a
great deal of play, learning, discussion, experimentation, and tinkering’.4 Approximately
80 per cent of the cost of an exhibit is spent in research and development, and only 20 per
cent in construction. Exhibits are developed collaboratively by a range of people who
make suggestions and contribute ideas, although it is common for one person to conceive
and build the exhibit after this collaborative discussion. Artists are an integral part of the
exhibit development process, ‘not just to make things pretty, although it often does, but
 Exhibit development 39

primarily because artists make different kinds of discoveries about nature than do
physicists or biologists’.5 Thus, exhibits evolve from a concept to a working prototype
often made from junk and evaluated on a table top in the museum. No attempt is made to
standardise size, colour or shape, with the design of each exhibit determined by its
function and the developer’s preferences. After ‘thorough testing and subsequent
modification, the exhibit gradually evolves. Very few exhibits emerge complete straight
from the Exploratorium’s machine shop.
The early science centres like the Exploratorium were able to develop because the
product which evolved proved to be enormously popular with visitors. This process is the
very antithesis of that adopted by many new UK hands-on museums, anxious to acquire
interactive exhibits that work reliably, look good, and which require very little human
input to interpret or maintain them. The early experiments with hands-on exhibits quickly
evolved into a more formal process of studying how visitors learned and behaved in these
new interactive environments, and a new body of knowledge arose in the UK, learning
much from their predecessors in the USA. Thus, over the ten-year period in which hands-
on exhibitions have developed in the UK, a new range of skilled experts—the exhibit
developers, designers, constructors and evaluators—has developed.

Exhibit development in the UK

There are three alternative forms of exhibit development in the UK:

1 All exhibits are conceived, designed and constructed in-house.
2 All exhibits are conceived in-house, but are designed and constructed by contractors.
3 All exhibits are conceived, designed and constructed by contractors.
Some hands-on centres, such as Techniquest in Cardiff, encompass all the design,
development, construction and evaluation skills in-house, and as a result they develop
their own exhibits. The process has some similarities with that of the Exploratorium,
although Techniquest values good product design, and—unlike at the Exploratorium—all
its exhibits have a similar physical appearance to each other. Techniquest’s exhibit
development skills have evolved over a number of years, and the centre now sells their
products to other organisations wishing to gain from their expertise (thereby earning
income which helps to maintain specialist exhibit development skills in-house). Science
Projects has a similar duplicity of roles, operating a number of science centres around the
UK (including the travelling Discovery Domes), and the company is also a major
commercial producer of exhibits for other centres.
Very few UK hands-on museums are able to develop their own comprehensive skilled
teams like Techniquest and Science Projects. It is more common in the UK for museums
to develop small internal exhibition development teams which draw upon external
expertise as and when required. For example, the Science Museum originally produced
all its exhibits in-house, but now contracts development and construction of many of its
exhibits to one or more of the specialist firms of exhibit builders. The Science Museum
stresses the importance of identifying and clarifying objectives and methodologies when
commissioning interactive exhibits, and maintains an open dialogue with contractors, to
ensure effective exhibits are delivered on time and within budget.6
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 40

Finally, many smaller museums and science centres, lacking the expertise and
resources to develop their own exhibition team, but wishing to share in the public
enthusiasm for hands-on learning, buy in their exhibitions from one of the suppliers. For
example, the PowerHouse at Elsecar is the product of three main subcontractors: story-
writers, exhibition designers and exhibit builders. In short, a complex array of skilled
professionals has developed, operating independently or within commercial companies,
or from within science centres, museums and universities.
Since few organisations planning new hands-on centres have the skills, experience or
resources in-house to enable them to set up internal exhibition development teams, staff
are increasingly involved in developing hands-on exhibits without appropriate
experience, with the result that mistakes are often repeated and the wheel is frequently re-
invented. The challenges facing many aspiring hands-on museums are how to minimise
the risks involved and how to ensure that the original concept is turned into an effective
interactive exhibit. There is a difficult choice to be made between exhibition designers
(who will take an overview of the whole exhibition, but who will probably subcontract
exhibit construction), or specialist exhibit builders (who will generate ideas, produce
designs and construct the effective exhibits, but may have less of an overview than
exhibition designers). It is a common complaint from exhibit builders that they have
received an unworkable idea from a designer, and that they have to start from scratch to
turn it into an effective exhibit!
Many museums turn their attention to exhibition design companies, not simply to
design the exhibition, but also to write the storylines, procure the exhibits and manage the
installation. These companies often incorporate a broad range of experienced people
alongside more traditional designers, and they, in turn, recruit any other necessary
expertise as and when required (taking on the role of project managers subcontracting
construction work). In short, these large design groups will convert the design and
interpretation brief into a completed interactive exhibition. For the client, this process has
the advantage of placing all responsibility with the design and development contractors.
In that sense, there is less risk involved to the client, and there are clearly efficiencies to
be gained if the whole creative process is placed in the hands of one company whose role
is to subcontract as and when necessary to procure the finished exhibition.
However, the process is fraught with many potential difficulties. First, whilst it does
not involve the recruitment of additional in-house staff, it is costly since design
companies will add a significant fee to all stages of design and construction, even on to
subcontractors’ charges. Second, the original intended message may well become
distorted, particularly if the original objectives are weak, or if there is little control over
the development process. Third, whilst exhibition designers are skilled professionals,
they are not necessarily educationalists or evaluators. Although many design companies
possess or recruit expertise in these areas, these are specialist skills in their own right
which can get excluded from the development process unless the client is wary. For
example, many designers are inclined to rely on their professional judgement rather than
to see the need for exhibit evaluation. As a result, it can be more effective for the client to
employ these skills in addition to and outside of the design contract, thereby helping to
ensure that the objectivity of the designers is not compromised.
In short, the collective experience of many organisations is that whilst it is simpler and
more straightforward to write a design brief and award a contract after a tendering
 Exhibit development 41

competition to one company to devise the storylines, design the exhibition, procure the
exhibits and manage the installation, this is by no means any guarantee for a successful
exhibition. It is essential to monitor the design process at every stage to ensure that
educational, technical and safety considerations are not compromised. This may
necessitate the recruitment of an independent project manager and other external advisers
to oversee production and development. This method of procuring exhibits may be less
efficient than placing the whole contract in the hands of one company, but it does ensure
that the client maintains control of both the process and the finished product. As such,
this is a sensible strategy which is being employed by many large new developments in
the UK to maintain control over the development process.

Exhibit development at Eureka!: a case study

Eureka! The Museum for Children, which opened in July 1992, employed a number of
strategies to procure its exhibits. The core exhibition development team consisted of the
Director, a Head of Design, and the author as Head of Education and Interpretation. In
the first instance, these three key players spent three months at the end of 1990 evaluating
the exhibition concepts inherited from the previous Director (which had been developed
after visiting science centres and children’s museums around the world) and adding their
own creative ideas and concepts. A detailed exhibit database was produced for every
exhibit, outlining aims and objectives, the intended audience, and what the key activities
would be. This database became a working document identifying how long each exhibit
would occupy visitors, whether they would explore alone or with others, and outlining
technical specifications.
A graphic designer and two education officers were subsequently employed to further
the development process, whilst the Assistant Director of Denver Children’s Museum
was seconded to the project for three months in 1991. Whilst the education team
evaluated its exhibition proposals with children, and consulted teachers and other
academic experts, the design team began an assessment of exhibition designers and
constructors. When the whole exhibition development team felt assured that they had
developed comprehensive working briefs, the process began of appointing designers and,
later, exhibit builders. None of the exhibits installed at Eureka! in July 1992 was actually
constructed on site. Technicians were not employed until shortly before opening, and
their preliminary role was maintenance rather than construction.
It has been noted by observers that there are significant differences between visitor
experiences within Eureka!, and that the educational objectives of some of the exhibitions
are clearer than others.7 As one of the development team has subsequently noted,
internally this was informally attributed to the way the different galleries were
developed.8 The health education gallery, Me and My Body, was developed by one
design company, Imagination. These designers had been given a very clear educational
brief, based on a considerable body of knowledge on children’s attitudes and perceptions
about themselves. Anxious to promote best practice in health education, the Eureka!
education team consulted widely with experts in the field, and very close monitoring of
Imagination’s proposals ensured that the final gallery appears much as the team had
envisaged. The close working relationship between client and contractor paid dividends.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 42

Living and Working Together was developed rather differently. This exhibition
consisted originally of a house, shop, bank, garage, factory, recycling centre and post
office set around a town square. On the client side, responsibility for each space was
divided between members of the Eureka! education team to specify learning goals. On
the contractor side, each space was allocated to a different young designer. It was
intended that this process would give the space richness and diversity, compared with Me
and My Body where Imagination imposed a consistency of design throughout. Indeed,
this objective was achieved. However, whilst each of the spaces was overseen for content
and design by the Eureka! team, inevitably the pressure to complete the exhibitions in a
relatively short space of time resulted—as the commentators have noted—in some spaces
working more successfully than others.
Eureka!’s own small design team took an overview of the whole design process,
ensuring the schemes of the various contracted designers would gel together, and looking
after the public service and orientation spaces. They also designed the Inventing and
Creating exhibition directly, working with an adviser from the Science Museum on
technical content of the communications exhibits. Thus, the Eureka! designers were
direct creators of this exhibition, rather than overseers of contracted designers as in the
other spaces. Of all the different strategies employed at Eureka!, the exhibition
development team arguably worked most effectively primarily as a creative force
producing the design and educational briefs for others to realise and secondarily as client
supervisor of contracted designers and exhibit builders.

Exhibit evaluation

If the role of exhibition designers is to encode the museum message in such a way that
visitors can decode it with as little confusion as possible, then evaluation is the way in
which feedback is received from visitors. Communication is a two-way process, and
without ‘listening’ to visitors through evaluative research, it is impossible to measure the
success of the exhibition. Whilst museum visitor research investigates the broad nature of
the museum experience and its impact on visitors in a wide variety of situations,
evaluative research is more localised, investigating whether a specific exhibition meets its
specified objectives. In an increasingly competitive market for visitors, evaluation studies
help to ensure exhibitions are meeting visitors’ needs and expectations. Furthermore,
with increasing pressure for accountability in museums, evaluation helps to demonstrate
to funding bodies and other stakeholders that a museum is meeting its stated objectives.9
The increase in evaluation studies in recent years in both the USA and UK is a
reflection of the increasing professionalisation of the exhibition world, helping museums
to plan and utilise resources efficiently and to target exhibitions effectively.10 By
concentrating on the visitor experience, evaluation helps to orientate all staff towards the
expectations and needs of visitors and away from internal concerns and a product-led
approach.11 Undertaking audience research because everyone else is doing it, to confirm
what is already known or to justify a decision that has already been made, are poor
reasons to devote resources towards an evaluation programme. The key to success is to
gather quality information that can be depended upon, and then to act upon it—even if
the findings are unexpected and difficult to accept. If the research findings are valid
 Exhibit development 43

(accurate) and reliable (consistent over repeated studies), the information provided can
assist in the planning process. If the data collected is invalid or unreliable, it can lead to a
false sense of security and steer the planning team towards erroneous decision-making.12
In short, the key to successful evaluation is to employ the right research methods at the
right time in the right place, and then to have the confidence to act upon the findings in
the knowledge that the results are a representative reflection of the views or behaviour of
visitors.13

Visitor surveys
A successful evaluation strategy is likely to be an integral part of the exhibition
programme, rather than being based on occasional one-off studies. The first stage in
devising the evaluation plan is to prioritise aims and objectives within the constraints of
human and financial resources, and the time available. The most important study an
existing organisation can undertake is a large-scale survey investigating socio-economic
and demographic characteristics of existing visitors, together with their likes and dislikes.
If a museum can define its actual visiting audience, this will enable it to undertake
smaller-scale evaluation studies subsequently of defined target groups.14 The usual
methodology is to undertake a random-sample quantitative questionnaire survey. In
general, the more detailed information required concerning small subsamples, the greater
the survey population will have to be to ensure the validity of the results. The validity of
random samples is dependent on the finite size of the sample, rather than on any given
percentage of the parent population. However, whilst the accuracy of the sample will
increase as the sample size increases, validity does not increase at the same rate as
increases in sample size.15 Thus, a compromise has to be reached, based on the accuracy
required and the resources available. Eighty-five per cent of museum visitor surveys in
the UK are conducted on sample sizes of less than 350 (average 279),16 although a
random sample size of 500 is advocated if any meaningful cross-tabulations are to be
carried out.17
Conducting research on the characteristics, attitudes and behaviour of existing visitors
is simpler than trying to identify why people choose not to visit an attraction. One
researcher in the USA conducted a large-scale telephone survey of over 500 people to
identify visiting patterns and attitudes of frequent, occasional and non-visitors to a
museum of art. More frequently, research to investigate the views of identified non-
visitors uses qualitative focus group techniques, particularly if a new exhibition aims to
attract those groups.18
Having identified the characteristics of existing visitors or non-visitors, detailed
evaluation of exhibits with target visitor groups can take place. The timing of evaluative
research is critical.19 Clearly, the earlier in the exhibition development process that the
evaluation is carried out, the earlier any potential problems can be identified and
rectified.

Front-end analysis
Front-end analysis is research to identify the attitudes, understanding and misconceptions
of identified groups of target visitors to potential exhibitions. This is usually carried out
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 44

with focus groups (as in the non-visitor surveys identified above), using storyboards and
illustrations to prompt responses, and will provide detailed information gained from a
limited number of respondents. This was the main evaluative technique employed at
Eureka! The Museum for Children. It is also possible to undertake a large-scale
quantitative survey using more traditional market research techniques, provided the
nature of the proposed exhibitions is clear: for example, the author conducted a
quantitative survey of 430 respondents for the National Centre for Popular Music in
Sheffield investigating the likely levels of interest in proposed exhibition themes.

Formative evaluation
Formative evaluation is an investigation of how visitors react to proposed exhibits at a
mock-up stage, which may be within an existing gallery or in isolation behind the scenes.
Carrying out this research at an early stage of development will help to identify whether
visitors understand the aims and objectives of the exhibit, whether the instructions and
labels are clear enough, whether the lighting and ergonomics are appropriate, whether the
controls are suitable for the intended audience and, indeed, whether they actually like the
exhibit. Once again, it is cheaper to rectify mistakes identified at the research and
development stage than it is after the exhibit is built to exhibition standards. Having
identified the target group(s) for the exhibit, a sample of twenty-five to thirty visitors
randomly selected from each group will provide an informative sample for this kind of
investigation. Of course, the formative process may have to be repeated several times
after each modification of the exhibit under trial.

Summative evaluation
Summative evaluation of exhibits is research to investigate how visitors actually use an
exhibition after it has been installed, which should lead to remedial action if problems are
identified. It is the easiest research to conduct, but leads to the most costly alterations.
There are numerous techniques available, including questionnaires, in-depth open-ended
interviews, structured interviews, observation or tracking. Observation and tracking can
be particularly useful to inform the exhibition development team on visitor circulation
and orientation, or on the attracting power and holding power of exhibits.20 Several
professional evaluators advocate the use of multiple methodologies to give greater rigour,
reliability and depth to the research.21 For example, Paulette McManus employs a battery
of research techniques to triangulate the findings from each study. At Birmingham
Museum’s ethnography gallery, she employed no less than nine techniques to provide a
demographic description of visitors, to describe the volume and pattern of visitor use, to
assess the emotional and intellectual impact of the exhibition, and to provide an in-depth
study of interactive video exhibits. These techniques included an exit survey, observation,
tracking, analysis of written comments and research into visitors’ long-term memories of
the exhibition.22 A study of visitor behaviour at the Discovery Centre, Cleethorpes,
similarly employed a battery of techniques, including observation and tracking,
interviews and recording visitors’ spoken comments.23
In short, there are numerous evaluation techniques available to inform exhibit
development. Once the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of existing or
 Exhibit development 45

target visitor groups have been identified, it is possible to undertake evaluative research
on small subsamples representing those groups. In most circumstances, the earlier the
research is carried out in the exhibit development process, the least costly will be the
outcome in terms of changes to proposed exhibits, although evaluation should be
considered an integral part of the exhibit development programme rather than a one-off
activity. Clearly, the validity of the findings will increase as more research is carried out,
and the use of a range of evaluative techniques can be a useful way to triangulate results.

Exhibit evaluation at Eureka!: a case study

The evaluation process at Eureka! The Museum for Children was largely informal, an
inevitable consequence of the piecemeal nature of the development process, the small
development team and the very short period of time between the creation of that team and
opening to the general public (twenty-two months). Eureka! had the great advantage of
the support of a local primary school which seconded a member of staff to the project for
one day a week for the whole duration of the development process. This enabled ideas to
be ‘bounced off’ the teacher as they were formulated, with the immediate opportunity to
evaluate them with local children. The LEA also assisted in this process, by identifying a
range of schools within the Calderdale area with whom access was arranged for
evaluative studies; these included a range of urban and rural schools, from both
prosperous and deprived areas, including some schools with high proportions of ethnic
minorities and some special needs schools.
The evaluation process at Eureka! inevitably owes much to Gillian Thomas’s
experience at the Inventorium in Paris, where a range of techniques were employed over
a four-year period, resulting in the Inventorium becoming one of the most successful
spaces within the City of Science and Industry.24 At Eureka!, like the Inventorium before
it, the evaluation programme was restricted by the available time and budget, with the
inevitable outcome that the results were fragmentary. Developing techniques used at the
Inventorium, Eureka! placed considerable emphasis on front-end evaluation, ascertaining
children’s ideas for all the proposed themes. The first stage of this process was to survey
existing research: for Me and My Body, research into children’s concepts of themselves
and their bodies at different ages was available in the form of Health for Life, the Health
Education Authority’s Primary School Project, directed by Noreen Wetton at
Southampton University.25 For Living and Working Together, an exhibition devoted to
the roles and exchanges within contemporary society, research supported by the
Department of Trade and Industry into children’s ideas on the world of work proved
useful, although less comprehensive and directly relevant than Health for Life.26 Both
these pieces of research informed the development team on children’s conceptions and
misconceptions in areas relating to the proposed exhibitions. For example, the world of
work research investigated children’s understanding of the exchanges that take place
within a shop. When asked at what price a greengrocer buying a piece of fruit should
resell the product, not all children accepted that the fruit should be resold at extra cost to
cover the greengrocer’s overheads and profit: indeed, small children believe it should be
sold for less than it first cost, as it has become second-hand or because it is rotting. The
crucial point to learn is that children do not necessarily think in the same way as adults,
and it is very easy to assume that concepts that appear obvious to adults will appear
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 46

equally clear to children—they do not! By utilising existing research into children’s

interests and understanding, Eureka! was able to employ the limited resources available
for evaluation more effectively in other areas.
The Health for Life research demonstrates similar characteristics about the
development of children’s thinking. One problem in researching children’s concepts is
that research methodologies appropriate for adults are not necessarily applicable to
children, who are likely to have weaker reading and writing skills. Health for Life uses
drawing and writing techniques, in which children are invited to draw their response to a
particular question or situation with which they can relate, and then they are asked to
label the main elements of the drawing. At each stage, children are encouraged to draw
and write about their views by the teacher, who offers help if they have difficulty writing
words, thereby ensuring children who cannot write are not excluded from the research.
Clearly, the teacher plays an important mediation role, helping children to draw and write
their own personalised views, but also knowing when not to ask inappropriate questions.
Health for Life presents a detailed picture of the way children understand themselves
at different ages, and Eureka! was able to build upon this research in its displays. The
questions that children frequently ask about themselves and their bodies, identified in the
research, are questions which can be found at the top of the exhibits in Eureka! As an
example of this research, Health for Life identifies how children understand their
skeleton. Typically, children in their early years of primary education will draw
unconnected ‘doggy’ bones under their skin. Whilst evaluation of children’s concepts is
not necessarily transferable across cultures, research into children’s understanding of
their skeleton undertaken at the Inventorium produced very similar results to Health for
Life, and the development team there utilised the findings of their research in a similar
way to the Eureka! team: designing exhibits to question misconceptions, and utilising the
questions and language children use.27
The Health for Life research did not cover the sensitive area of children’s knowledge
and feelings about growing and changing at puberty. The Eureka! team wanted to cover
this topic, and so Noreen Wetton was employed as an advisor to the project to develop an
appropriate draw-and-write technique to undertake further research. Considerable care
was taken to ensure the research had the full backing of the school. Children were invited
to draw a teenager going out alone for the first time, and then to annotate their drawings
indicating how they are growing up, how they feel about growing up, and what they take
with them on their outing. Children were then invited to draw the teenager coming out of
a bath or shower, and to annotate their drawing showing how the teenager is growing up,
how the teenager feels about growing up, how they (the respondent) feel about growing
up. Thus, peer pressure and any potential embarrassment created by asking the children
directly was avoided by creating the draw-and-write scenario. By carrying out the
research in a range of schools, cultural sensitivities could be ascertained, and the
exhibition content developed accordingly.
In the Living and Working Together area, front-end evaluation involved a range of
research techniques, including draw-and-write, discussions with children, and site visits
behind the scenes at a supermarket and other places. For example, draw-and-write
research asked children to draw what happened in a garage, shop, bank or factory and to
annotate the drawing with labels describing what people were doing and what they would
 Exhibit development 47

like to do in that area. Subsequently, in group discussions children were also asked ‘What
is work?’ and ‘Why do we go to work?’. These 10-year-olds provided typical responses:

Question: What is work?

Asma: Things you do that aren’t fun.
Robert: What your mum and dad do when they are not at home. It’s like when some boys
have a paper round and they don’t want to do it.
James: Things that you have to put effort into. Sometimes you get paid and sometimes
you don’t. It usually makes you tired.
John: Things that you find difficult.
Helen: How you make a living, that means a job. Work can be what you do at home as
well, like cleaning.
Question: Why do we go to work?
Julia: To get money so we can live. To have company. To help other people.
Robert: To get richer. To have someone to talk to.
Helen: To be with other people so that you won’t be bored. To get some money to give to
your children. To be able to pay the mortgage.
John: To do the things that you enjoy and get paid for doing it.

These responses indicate a variety of sophisticated and naive conceptions about the
nature of work. Within each proposed exhibition space, responses were similarly diverse,
although certain patterns emerged. For example, children typically drew adults in roles in
accordance with sexual stereotypes: the garage was invariably a male-orientated space.
This has implications for the design of graphic images in the exhibition itself, where
children’s conceptions are challenged with the portrayal of girls in active roles in
traditionally male environments. The draw-and-write research revealed differences in
interests according to age: whilst young children wanted to go under a car, wash a car or
change a wheel, older children wanted to drive a car or find out how it worked. The
activities within Eureka! are directly related to this research: the car-wash in particular
was developed because so many young children specified this as an interesting and
appealing activity.
Similarly, the bank provided an unexpected source of fascination to children, who
expressed a clear desire to be surrounded by large amounts of money. As this could not
be real money, the Eureka! team had to devise a way of providing money which children
would acccpt as the real money of the Eureka! world. A significant number of children
expressed a desire to obtain money from the ‘hole in the wall’—a cash dispenser is
provided, alongside role-play activities which encourage children to appreciate that it is
necessary to deposit money into a bank before it can be withdrawn. The research tried to
identify children’s perceptions of roles within a bank, and one group of 10-year-olds all
sat back with their feet on the table when asked what the bank manager did! It quickly
became apparent in the research that a large percentage of children also expressed a
desire to rob a bank, which might have created problems with potential sponsors! A bank
vault with appropriate security devices was introduced, with the activity devised so that it
was difficult to reach the treasures in the vault without setting off the alarms. Inevitably,
using children’s ideas can create potential conflict with sponsors, but, on the other hand,
the research can play a useful role in persuading sponsors of the relevance and use of the
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 48

exhibition since it helped identify areas of interest, levels of knowledge and

misconceptions to be challenged. The activities eventually developed within the bank
arose directly out of the front-end evaluation, which is one reason why it is one of the
most successful exhibition spaces at Eureka!
The research also revealed incredible diversity of knowledge. On the supermarket
visit, one young boy quizzed the manager about the ratio of white to Asian staff, and
whether the manager had ever been sued by a member of staff or a customer. Conversely,
some 8-year-olds had no knowledge of what takes place within a factory, whilst many
more associated factories with chocolate, since a local chocolate factory is a major
employer. This range of knowledge amongst children of similar ages, let alone children
of different ages, has implications for the development of exhibitions: exhibitions have to
be introduced simply and clearly (‘What happens in a factory?’) and also include
activities for children with more detailed knowledge.
Similar evaluation also took place for the Inventing and Creating exhibition, for which
it became apparent that children have a particular interest in the communication of
today’s adult world. Yesterday’s technology, or indeed the technology of the future (such
as the videophone), met typically with indifferent responses from the children, but the
chance to get their hands on a fax machine for the first time was very exciting! This
finding matches that of the Living and Working Together research, which indicated a
fascination for role-play in the bank or with the technology of the cash dispenser—
providing access to the familiar, but unavailable adult world is one of the secrets for
success in a children’s museum. Providing access to the unfamiliar—such as the factory
or the videophone—is less appealing and much more problematic conceptually.
Whilst the front-end evaluation can help identify children’s interests and
misconceptions, and provide guidance for the development of exhibits, only evaluation of
the exhibit itself will identify whether or not the developer has successfully met the
exhibit objectives. It is clearly much more cost-effective to address problems during the
development process, and this is the role of formative evaluation. Assistance from BT
enabled some communications equipment to be set up in the classroom, and some simple
activities were devised to evaluate children’s interests. Fax machines are inherently
complex, and formative evaluation helped identify the simplest possible instructions
which would enable children to use two back-to-back machines successfully.
Unfortunately, the nature of the development process at Eureka! before opening, where
every exhibit was provided by external exhibit builders, meant that it was not possible to
test many prototypes with target audiences. Hands-on centres where all exhibits are built
in-house offer the opportunity to try out prototypes with visitors, and indeed Eureka! was
able to test new exhibits at the mock-up stage after it had opened to the public. Thus, new
exhibits to enhance visitor orientation were tested at the formative stage in summer
1993.28
The alternative to responding to formative evaluation is to take remedial action after
the exhibit has been constructed to exhibition standards and after instructional graphics
have been designed and printed. Responding to summative evaluation in this way is
clearly more expensive than responding to evaluation at a developmental stage. The
Eureka! development team had reservations about the final form of five of the exhibits
for Me and My Body that had been produced with some considerable adaptation from the
original brief. Summative evaluation was carried out by an external consultant after these
 Exhibit development 49

exhibits had been installed, but prior to opening to the public. One of these exhibits was
intended to help children gain an understanding of the digestive process, but the research
revealed that many children misconstructed the intended messages. Although the fantasy
design of the exhibit appealed to children, its complexity caused some younger children
to speculate about what was going on and some older children to rationalise on little
evidence. In general, the design appeared to work against the simplicity of the messages
to be conveyed.29 Thus, although the overall exhibit was intended to show digestion in
humans, many children identified the fantasy design with a fish or shark, with a robot or
machine. Each individual component of the biting, chewing and swallowing sequence
caused similar misconceptions: for example, orange inflating and deflating bags designed
to represent lungs were misconstrued by one 9-year-old to be windsocks which fill up
when you breathe out.
After Eureka! opened to the public in July 1992, a formal summative evaluation
programme was identified by the Eureka! development team in conjunction with the
same external consultant to:
1 Discover whether the intended educational objectives of the exhibits were being met.
2 Review unpopular exhibits with the aim of improving them.
3 Identify those factors which help make a successful exhibit.30
The first stage of this evaluation programme was to conduct a demographic survey of
visitors to identify the visitor profile, so that smaller quota samples could be later used in
evaluating individual exhibits, and to gauge visitor opinions to inform marketing and
exhibit development in general. Thus, a questionnaire survey of 600 visitors, designed by
the consultant in association with the Eureka! team, was administered by students in
summer 1993. This identified some surprising findings: for example, it was found that 25
per cent of all visitors were aged under 5, and yet only a very small percentage of the
exhibits were designed specifically for this age group.
The subsequent evaluation programme identified research to evaluate individual
exhibits, the education programme and, in particular, psychological and geographical
visitor orientation. The Eureka! team felt strongly that some children in family groups did
not maximise the opportunities at Eureka! because visitors lacked the prior knowledge of
what was expected of them. Without prior experience of a children’s museum, many
parents did not contribute to the learning process, whilst others allowed their children to
become over-excited, causing annoyance to other visitors and sometimes causing damage
to exhibits. The evaluation programme sought to identify how physical and psychological
orientation might be improved to overcome these problems.
The orientation evaluation study showed that of 118 studied groups, at least 70 per
cent turned left as they entered the museum, into the Inventing and Creating exhibition,
and the area with the least exhibits appropriate for families with young children. A
subsequent small-scale semi-structured interview of groups which had not previously
visited Eureka! found that whilst virtually no one wanted a planned route around the
exhibition, many would have liked better age-ranging and description of the exhibits.
Most visitors understood the context of the gallery spaces through their titles, but had less
idea of their contents. Most had a clear idea of the benefits to their children that a visit
could bring, but were less clear of the benefits to adults. Although the general concept of
Eureka! as being a place of fun/activity/light and colour was clear, the concept of a
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 50

children’s museum was not. Whilst the majority thought that adults and children could
learn together, only half felt that their role was to be active with their children throughout
all stages of the visit.
The outcome of this summative evaluation was to design visitor orientation that would
begin in the museum car park, and introduce and reinforce messages before the visitor
reached the admissions desk, particularly in the queuing areas. The objectives were to
place emphasis on the underpinning concept of a children’s museum, to create a warm
and friendly welcome, to offer visitors more awareness of the content of museum spaces,
to suggest appropriate roles and behaviour for adults and children, and to emphasise the
charitable nature of the organisation (the visitor survey had identified confusion over the
financial objectives of the organisation, with visitors unclear whether it was not-for-
profit, commercial or run by the local authority). One particular problem was to take into
account the need to be non-directive: based on the philosophy of discovery learning, the
museum clearly needed to avoid intentional directing, route planning or too many rules
on behaviour. A number of statements were suggested by the Eureka! team which were
then subjected to a programme of formative evaluation with visitors.31
The evaluative research undertaken by the Eureka! team was a pragmatic response to
developing an exhibition with limited time and human resources. The research would not
meet rigorous academic scrutiny: the findings are indicative rather than comprehensive,
for with more staff and time it would have been possible to produce more reliable results.
However, the front-end evaluation programme provided valuable data which informed
the team on children’s interests and understanding, and upon which exhibits could be
developed with more confidence. The inability to carry out formative evaluation on
exhibits constructed on a tight time schedule and away from Halifax was a major
disadvantage, but the summative evaluation programme begun in 1992, drawing on the
results of a valid visitor survey to provide the overall context for future research, was a
logical and consistent attempt to address some of the problems identified, and to inform
the future development of exhibits.

Exhibit evaluation at the Science Museum: a case study

The Science Museum conducted a similar programme of work on the development of its
basement galleries, which opened in 1995. Within this space, the Things gallery is
designed to encourage children aged 7–11 to look closely at objects and how they are
made, and to function as an introduction to exploring artefacts in the museum as a whole.
The museum conducted front-end evaluation with children to find out those qualities of
objects they found most interesting. This study gave a valuable insight into children’s
thinking about the museum’s role and provided guidance in the choice of objects to form
the focus of activities.32 As the exhibits were developed, small groups of children and
adults were recruited from school groups visiting Launch Pad to test the prototype
exhibits. These children were observed and interviewed, and the results of the research
informed further development of the exhibit.33 Shortly after the gallery opened to the
public, a programme of summative evaluation took place. Between October 1995 and
January 1996, a tracking study of sixty family and school visitors took place in the
gallery. It was found that the median time spent in Things was fifteen minutes, with a
maximum recorded time of fiftynine minutes and a minimum time of one minute.
 Exhibit development 51

Observing when visitors physically interacted with exhibits, and how long they interacted
for, enabled the museum to identify the relative attracting and holding powers of
individual exhibits. It also helped identify ‘dead’ areas of the gallery, for example where
exhibits were hidden from view, in a cul-de-sac, or simply in the ‘shadow’ of more
popular exhibits adjacent to them.34
This observational research was subsequently followed by an exit survey of eighty
adults and children in both school and family groups. This identified visitors’ likes and
dislikes in the Things gallery. Children expressed preferences for mechanical interactives
where they were physically involved, where they felt in control or where they could
perform to their friends and family. Not surprisingly, they disliked exhibits which were
physically difficult, static or required too much or difficult reading.35 This research was
supported by detailed observational studies of fourteen groups which were accompanied
around the gallery to identify their reactions, behaviour, routes taken, the relative appeal
of individual exhibits to different members of the groups, and potential or actual safety
problems.36
Thus, the Science Museum has carried out a range of small-scale research at every
stage of exhibit development to gauge the reactions of the target audience to the Things
gallery. In most cases, the sample studied was small, but utilising a range of research
techniques helps to triangulate the results. As at Eureka!, a battery of evaluation studies
helped to build up a larger picture of visitors’ interests and understanding, and helped to
inform future development of exhibits. Unlike Eureka!, the Science Museum has a team
of research specialists in its Public Understanding of Science Unit, who are employed to
undertake this research. Thus, the Science Museum research was able to be more
thorough and systematic than that employed at Eureka! during its early development, but
the techniques used were similar. Whilst the results of these evaluation studies are
indicative of visitors’ interests, behaviour and understanding, they are simply too small in
scale to constitute academic research with findings that are valid and reliable, or indeed
that are transferable between hands-on centres or between different cultures. However,
these studies do provide a very useful tool to inform the exhibit development process and,
as long as interpretation of the data is rational and objective, they are a significant
improvement on the more traditional method of developing exhibits based on experience
and gut feelings alone.

Exhibit development and evaluation: some conclusions

There is no one process that will guarantee the successful development of an effective
interactive exhibition. For very large museums and science centres, it has been possible
to develop a broad range of design, construction and evaluation skills in-house, and over
a period of time considerable expertise has been accumulated, largely by a process of trial
and error. For most small or new centres, limited resources ensure that it is rarely feasible
to develop a comprehensive in-house team, and even if resources are available, mistakes
made by other centres as part of the learning process will be made again unless
experienced exhibit developers are recruited. The alternative for new centres is to employ
contractors whose expertise has developed elsewhere. The difficulty is to know whether
to turn to exhibition designers or companies specialising in developing interactive
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 52

exhibits. The reality is that both groups have strengths and weaknesses. Either way, the
client needs to have specified a very clear brief identifying the exhibition objectives.
Thereafter, the problem is to maintain control over the development process to ensure
effective exhibits that meet the original objectives are delivered on time and within
budget. To achieve this outcome, many hands-on museums and science centres find it
advantageous to maintain control of project management in-house (or by employing an
independent project manager), even if the design and construction of exhibits is
contracted out.
It is an essential prerequisite of an effective interactive exhibition that all exhibits are
evaluated with target visitor groups. The museum or science centre commissioning
contractors to develop exhibits needs to ensure that evaluation is an integral part of every
stage of the development process, as there is always a temptation for contracted designers
and developers to rely on their previous experience. Exhibit evaluation is such an integral
part of exhibit development that it is desirable for the museum to develop in-house skills
to oversee the process, or at the very least to employ an independent specialist evaluator.
Few museums or science centres are able to develop specialist teams of evaluators like
those at the Science Museum. For most museums, the evaluation programme
implemented will be a pragmatic response to developing an exhibition with limited
resources. Much of the success enjoyed by Eureka! The Museum for Children can be
attributed to the front-end evaluation carried out with children as the exhibit briefs were
being prepared. Since most exhibits were constructed away from Halifax, formative
evaluation at the prototype stage was difficult, and many exhibits were delivered without
effective trialling by their developers. Thereafter, Eureka!’s decision to employ an
independent evaluator to train in-house staff and to develop and oversee a summative
evaluation programme carried out by museum staff and student volunteers was a cost-
effective compromise.
 4
Finance

This chapter considers both capital and revenue funding for interactive centres, and
investigates their financial and operational performance through a range of indicators.

Introduction

The rapid development of hands-on exhibitions in recent years (outlined in Chapter 1),
together with the plethora of awards that centres such as Eureka! The Museum for
Children have won, can lead to the conclusion that hands-on exhibitions are highly
successful. Indeed, they are—if success is measured in terms of popularity by visitors.
However, it is significant that whilst some private sector operators have successfully
developed profitable attractions based on children’s play, the commercial leisure industry
in general has not tried to emulate hands-on museums. Hands-on museums are expensive
to develop and operate, and this chapter investigates their financial viability in detail.

The financial performance of hands-on centres in the USA

The Association of Science and Technology Centers’ (ASTC) survey provides detailed
aggregate information on the financial health of eighty-one US science centres and
museums in 1986. Of those museums, 86 per cent had an excess of income over
expenditure in the three preceding years, and 64 per cent had increased this surplus in this
period. Almost all museums operated near breakeven point, with 47 per cent with a
surplus or deficit within 5 per ccnt of their total gross revenue (and over three-quarters
within 10 per cent).1
Overall, 35 per cent of income was generated by trading activities from visitors and 65
per cent from donations and grants (although the smallest and largest centres generated a
higher proportion from grants than the medium-sized centres).2 Twenty-nine per cent of
earned revenue overall came from admissions, with the larger institutions being less
dependent than the small centres for admissions as a source of income. Food sales were
insignificant at small centres, but income from shops ranged from 9 per cent to 15 per
cent of earned income. On the support side, about half of all support came from
governmental sources, with local government being the most important for all sizes of
centre, but with federal support being second most important for the small organisations,
and state support second most important for the large organisations. Support from
individuals ranges from 6 per cent to 22 per cent (being most important for small
centres), whilst corporate support ranged from 6 per cent to 9 per cent, and foundation
support from 6 per ccnt to 11 per cent.3
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 54

In total, therefore, around one-third of income came from trading activities, onethird
from governmental sources, and one-third from individuals or corporate sources.4
However, among the centres that opened after 1979, about two-thirds of income was
earned, with centres opening after 1986 claiming even higher percentages of earned
income. There is an increasing trend for centres to rely more on trading activities than
government or philanthropic support, with some of the more recent centres trying to
survive on earned income alone, although whether they can be successful is not yet
proven.5
A comparison of the sources of income for four children’s museums in 1990 is
interesting:

Indianapolis Children’s Museum

42 per cent of income was earned from trading activities (17 per cent from admissions;
25 per cent from shop sales or from the leased restaurant), 19 per cent was donated by
individuals or corporations, whilst 40 per cent was earned through museum investments.6

Chicago Children’s Museum

51 per cent of income was earned, 42 per cent was donated (28 per ccnt came from
foundations or corporations; 14 per cent from individuals), 4 per cent came from
government and 2 per cent from other sources.7

Please Touch Museum, Philadelphia

60 per cent of income was earned (48 per cent from admissions, memberships or special
events; 12 per cent from the shop), 37 per cent from grants and contributions and 4 per
cent from interest and other sources.8

Children’s Museum of Manhattan

62 per cent of income was earned (55 per cent from admissions, memberships, special
events and programme fees; 7 per cent from the shop), 16 per cent from government
sources and 17 per cent from individuals, corporations or foundations, with 5 per cent
from other sources.9
It is significant that the largest of these children’s museums, Indianapolis, was less
dependent on earned income than any of the other museums, but received 40 per cent of
its income from investments. The Children’s Museum of Manhattan, on the other hand,
was dependent on trading for almost two-thirds of its income, with the remainder split
between governmental and private support. Please Touch Museum received a similar
proportion of its income from earned sources, but almost all the remainder (37 per cent)
came from grants and contributions. Chicago Children’s Museum received the highest
proportion of its income (42 per cent) from grants, sponsorship or donations. Overall,
these four museums reveal the huge diversity in sources of income between similar types
of museum, although only Children’s Museum of Manhattan received a significant
proportion of its income (16 per cent) from public sector sources.
 Finance 55

The financial performance of hands-on centres in the UK

In the UK, the hands-on centres are largely operated by public sector bodies or by
independent charitable trusts, rather than by private sector operators. Indeed, a private
sector organisation would not meet the UK definition of a museum, and would not be
eligible for public sector funding in the UK. Nevertheless, the receipt of, for example,
National Lottery funding requires the applicant to demonstrate the financial viability of
the project, and several hands-on projects have secured substantial awards from the
Millennium Commission. So how successful are the hands-on centres in financial terms,
and how can one measure performance?
In the public sector it can be difficult to separate the accounts of one site from those of
a broader leisure services department, and this is particularly true if the hands-on centre
provides one element of a much larger institution, such as the Science Museum. Whilst
the capital costs of Launch Pad, Flight Lab and the new basement galleries in the Science
Museum can be accurately quantified, the operating costs of these centres are much more
difficult to measure, particularly as they share many central services with other parts of
the Science Museum. Furthermore, it is also very difficult to identify the proportion of
income that is derived from having hands-on centres within a larger museum, as
admission prices cover the whole site and visitors rarely confine themselves to just the
hands-on centre itself. Even if these public sector organisations produce their own
working budgets for their hands-on centres, these figures are not likely to be available in
the public domain.
However, it is possible to investigate the accounts of those independent hands-on
centres which are private companies backed by charitable status. Such organisations are
obliged to file their annual accounts at Companies House, and these records are available
for scrutiny by the public. The published accounts of Eureka! The Museum for Children,
Techniquest and the Exploratory provide an insight into the financial health of these
hands-on exhibitions.
Table 4.1 presents abbreviated financial accounts for Eureka!, Techniquest and the
Exploratory in 1995.
Table 4.1 Comparative financial performance of
UK interactive centres, 1995–6
Eureka! Techniquest Exploratory
Trading income 1,176,099 624,760 441,697
Grants, donations & sponsorship 1,014,686 747,943 85,330
Interest −7,278 38,297 3,815
Expenditure −1,433,577 −976,913 −541,925
Depreciation −795,114 −442,825 −6,034
Net surplus/deficit −45,184 −8,738 −17,117
Source: derived from statutory accounts; additional information supplied by Techniquest
Notes: i) Eureka!’s financial year ended December 1995
ii) Techniquest’s financial year ended July 1996
iii) Techniquest’s accounts exclude development costs of Phase III
iv) The Exploratory’s accounts for period ended January 1996 were for sixteen months and
have been adjusted pro rata to twelve months for comparative purposes
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 56

Direct comparison between different accounts must always be an inexact science owing
to different individual circumstances and accounting methods. Comparison of these
abbreviated accounts for Eureka!, Techniquest and the Exploratory in 1995–6 shows the
very different financial performance of the centres, although all three showed a modest
overall deficit which was 3 per cent or less of total revenue in each case (Eureka! 2 per
cent, Techniquest less than 1 per cent, the Exploratory 3 per cent). This measure of
performance is therefore very similar to that described above for the US hands-on centres
in the 1986 ASTC survey.
The Exploratory has the smallest turnover of the three centres, and is also the least
dependent on grants, sponsorship and donations. Techniquest, on the other hand, earned
the smallest percentage of its income from its trading activities and received the largest
percentage from grants, sponsorship and donations. Conversely, Eureka! earns a
significantly higher sum from its trading activities than Techniquest, although its overall
net deficit is higher. This is largely because its depreciation of tangible fixed assets of £5
million is significantly higher than Techniquest’s depreciation on £2.4 million and the
Exploratory’s depreciation on £20,000 (Eureka! and Techniquest depreciate exhibition
equipment over a shorter period than the Exploratory: five rather than ten years for non-
computer equipment, and five rather than three for computers).
Table 4.1 provides a snapshot of the financial health of the three hands-on centres in
1995. The following pages analyse the financial position of these centres over a longer
time-period, and introduce some indicators by which performance of the centres might be
measured. These include:
• Average income per visitor from trading activities.
• Trading activities as a percentage of total income.
• Sponsorship and grants as a percentage of total income.
• Operating costs per visitor.
• Average cost per staff.
• Staff as a percentage of total expenditure.
• Publicity spend per visitor.
• Publicity as a percentage of total expenditure.

Eureka! The Museum for Children

Eureka! The Museum for Children opened to the public in July 1992, and its accounts for
that year do not reflect a full year’s operation. However, the published accounts for
1993–5 do provide an insight into the longer term financial health of the organisation, as
can be seen in Figure 4.1.
Between 1993 and 1994, Eureka! gained a 2 per cent increase in visitors, and raised
the average income from visitors from £2.89 to £3.03 (from ticket sales and secondary
spend in the shop and cafeteria). At the same time, overall expenditure was reduced by
8.6 per cent, reducing average costs per visitor from £3.66 to £3.29. Between 1994 and
1995, Eureka!’s visitor figures fell by 16 per cent, although the average income from
visitors increased to £3.28. At the same time, expenditure increased by 5 per cent.
 Finance 57

Year 1993 1994 1995

No. of visitors 407,000 414,000 358,000
Income
Operating income from trading activities (£) 1,178,061 1,255,792 1,176,099
Av. income per visitor (£) 2.89 3.03 3.28
Income from spons./grants (£) 722,189 528,945 1,014,686
Total income (£) 1,908,038 1,790,924 2,199,722
Trading activities as % total income 62 70 53
Spons./grants as % total income 38 30 46
Expenditure
Operating costs (£) 1,488,211 1,360,631 1,433,577
Operating costs per visitor (£) 3.66 3.29 4.00
Expenditure: staff (£) 706,512 634,631 659,678
No. of staff 58 52 70
Av. cost per staff (£) 12,181 12,204 9,424
Staff as % expenditure 48 47 46
Expenditure: publicity (£) 102,719 124,012 158,656
Av. publicity cost per visitor (£) 0.25 0.30 0.44
Publicity as % expenditure 7 9 11
Surplus/deficit
Net surplus/deficit before tax (£) −375,635 −384,110 −45,184

Figure 4.1 Financial performance of

Eureka! The Museum for Children,
1993–5
Source: financial data derived from statutory accounts; visitor figures
derived from statutory accounts (1995) and Sightseeing in the UK10
Notes: i) Financial year ends December
ii) Expenditure excludes depreciation

Eureka!’s accounts do not provide a full breakdown of operating expenditure,

although they do reveal that the museum is spending increasingly large sums on
marketing, increasing the expenditure per head on publicity from £0.25 in 1993 to £0.44
in 1995 (from 7 per cent of expenditure to 11 per cent). Overall, Eureka! is both losing
visitor numbers and spending increasing sums on marketing. This is consistent with an
organisation three years into its life-cycle, approaching the maturity stage and therefore
no longer gaining as much exposure in the media as when it first opened.
Although the average remuneration per employee and the percentage of expenditure
on staffing remained much the same between 1993 and 1994, the reduction in staff
numbers from fifty-eight to fifty-two ensured an overall reduction in staffing expenditure.
By 1995, staff numbers had increased to seventy, although the overall proportion of
expenditure allocated to staffing remained constant (in fact, Eureka! was employing more
staff at an average cost of 23 per cent less than in 1994).
Eureka! is heavily dependent on sponsorship and grants: indeed, 46 per cent of its
income in 1995 was derived from this source (compared to 30 per cent in 1994, and 38
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 58

per cent in 1993). This represents a 92 per cent absolute increase on 1994, which helped
to offset the loss in income from trading activities caused by the reduction in visitors, and
the increase in overall expenditure. Overall, Eureka! substantially reduced its net deficit
before tax between 1994 and 1995, but rising costs alongside reduced visitor numbers
conceal an organisation that is becoming increasingly dependent on grants and
sponsorship rather than earned income.

Techniquest
Figure 4.2 shows an organisation undergoing fundamental change as it expanded and
developed (Phase III of Techniquest opened in May 1995). What is significant is that
Techniquest has effectively doubled its visitors on the new site, and has increased the
relative share of its income gained from trading activities (79 per cent of this earned
income in 1996 is from admissions, compared to 67 per cent in 1995, and 68 per cent in
1994. It is not possible to compare this performance with that of Eureka!, as Eureka!’s
published accounts do not identify the separate income from admissions). Although
Techniquest increased its income from trading activities between 1995 and 1996, it
remains more dependent than Eureka! on grants and sponsorship.
On the expenditure side, expenditure on publicity at 6–7 per cent of total expenditure
reflects an organisation that is at an early stage of its life-cycle. Whilst Eureka! is having
to increase expenditure on publicity in an effort to maintain visitor levels, in 1996
Techniquest was still enjoying the benefits of publicity associated with the launch of
Phase III.
Although the average cost per staff member is less at Techniquest than at Eureka!,
Techniquest has continued to increase the number of its staff, such that by 1996 they
constitute 70 per cent of all expenditure. This is significantly higher than the figure of 46
per cent at Eureka! in 1995, or indeed in the USA where staff costs are typically between
51 and 53 per cent of all expenditure.11
 Finance 59

Year 1994 1995 1996

No. of visitors 107,277 125,414 250,433
Income
Operating income from trading activities (£) 204,278 299,465 624,760
Av. income per visitor (£) 1.90 2.39 2.49
Income from spons./grants (£) 379,540 392,564 747,943
Total income (£) 602,621 693,288 1,411,000
Trading activities as % total income 34 43 44
Spons./grants as % total income 63 57 53
Expenditure
Total costs (£) 529,834 691,342 976,913
Total costs per visitor (£) 4.94 5.51 3.90
Expenditure: staff (£) 304,036 416,271 681,117
No. of staff 48 60 104
Av. cost per staff (£) 6,334 6,938 6,549
Staff as % expenditure 57 60 70
Expenditure: publicity (£) 35,047 48,400 60,977
Av. publicity cost per visitor (£) 0.33 0.39 0.24
Publicity as % of expenditure 7 7 6
Surplus/deficit
Net surplus/deficit before tax (£) 54,731 −14,450 −8,738

Figure 4.2 Financial performance of

Techniquest, 1994–6
Source: derived from statutory accounts and information supplied by
Techniquest
Notes: i) Financial year 1994 ends March; financial years 1995 and
1996 end July
ii) Accounts for period ending July 1995 were for sixteen months and
have been adjusted pro rata to twelve months for comparison
iii) Expenditure excludes depreciation
iv) Development costs of Phase III are excluded

The Exploratory
As can be seen in Figure 4.3, the Exploratory earns a substantial proportion of its income
from its trading activities (83 per cent of total income in 1995). The vast majority of this
income is from admissions (85 per cent of trading income in 1994), although these fell by
8 per cent between 1994 and 1995, with a consequent fall in income from trading by 8
per cent. The Exploratory is less dependent on grants and sponsorship than either
Techniquest or Eureka!, although income from these sources fell by 6 per cent between
1994 and 1995.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 60

Year 1993 1994 1995

No. of visitors 157,408 165,969 153,194
Income
Operating income from trading activities (£) 401,523 477,865 441,697
Av. income per visitor (£) 2.55 2.88 2.88
Income from spons./grants (£) 170,633 90,986 85,330
Total income (£) 572,896 571,275 530,841
Trading activities as % total income 70 84 83
Spons./grants as % total income 30 16 16
Expenditure
Operating costs (£) 510,339 538,593 541,925
Operating costs per visitor (£) 3.24 3.25 3.54
Expenditure: staff (£) 216,773 303,940 310,601
No. of staff 39 43 40
Av. cost per staff (£) 5,558 7,068 7,765
Staff as % expenditure 43 56 57
Expenditure: publicity (£) 32,638 59,690 N/A
Av. publicity cost per visitor (£) 0.21 0.36 N/A
Publicity as % expenditure 6 11 N/A
Surplus/deficit
Net surplus/deficit before tax (£) 256,970 25,054 −17,117

Figure 4.3 Financial performance of

the Exploratory, 1993–5
Source: financial data derived from statutory accounts; visitor figures
derived from Sightseeing in the UK12
Notes: i) Financial years 1993 and 1994 end September; financial year
1995 ends January 1996
ii) Accounts for period ending January 1996 were for sixteen months
and have been adjusted pro rata to twelve months for comparison
iii) Expenditure excludes depreciation

On the expenditure side, there was less than a 1 per cent increase between 1994 and
1995, and operating costs per visitor are very similar to those of Eureka! Overall, the
Exploratory is an organisation that is fairly stable in terms of expenditure, but is suffering
from reduced visitor numbers. Although expenditure on marketing is not available for
1995, it is interesting that the proportion spent on publicity increased from 6 to 11 per
cent between 1993 and 1994. This suggests that the Exploratory may have entered a
decline in its lifecycle, having to spend more on marketing, but nevertheless gaining less
visitors in 1995 and less income from grants and sponsorship. The outcome is that the
Exploratory showed a net deficit in 1995, compared to surpluses in 1993 and 1994.
Although Eureka! exhibits similar characteristics, that organisation has been able to
increase its income from grants and sponsorship in 1995. The Exploratory has responded
to the decline in its life-cycle, since it will be relocating within Science World, a new £25
million hands-on centre, by the year 2000 (see Chapter 1).
 Finance 61

Financial performance indicators

Average income per visitor from trading activities

All three centres demonstrated a consistent improvement in earned income over the three-
year period, from £1.90 to £2.49 per visitor at Techniquest, from £2.89 to £3.28 per
visitor at Eureka!, and from £2.55 to £2.88 at the Exploratory. This includes income from
admissions, retailing and catering activities. The average for all three centres is £2.70.
79 per cent of earned income at Techniquest came from admissions in 1995, compared
to 85 per cent at the Exploratory in 1994 (similar data for Eureka! is not available).

Trading activities as a percentage of total income

There is considerable variation between the centres on this performance indicator,
ranging from 34 to 44 per cent of total income at Techniquest, from 53 to 70 per cent at
Eureka! and from 70 to 84 per cent at the Exploratory. The average for all three centres is
60 per cent.

Sponsorship and grants as a percentage of total income

There is also considerable variation between the centres on this performance indicator,
ranging from 53 to 63 per cent of total income at Techniquest, from 38 to 46 per cent at
Eureka! and from 16 to 30 per cent at the Exploratory. The average for all three centres is
39 per cent.

Operating costs per visitor

The average operating costs per visitor over the three years are similar at both Eureka!
and the Exploratory (varying from £3.24 to £3.54 per visitor at the Exploratory and from
£3.29 to £4.00 at Eureka!).Techniquest’s operating costs per visitor have fallen from
£5.51 in 1995 at the old site, to £3.90 in 1996 at the new site. The average for all three
centres is £3.90 per visitor.

Average cost per staff member

The average cost per staff member ranged from £9,424 to £12,204 at Eureka!, from
£6,334 to £6,938 at Techniquest, and from £5,558 to £7,765 at the Exploratory. This
indicator needs to be treated with caution: for example, the Exploratory’s indicated
staffing of 43 in 1994 is made up of 16 salaried and 27 waged staff, according to the
statutory accounts. This is at variance with information in the 1993/4 and 1996 British
Interactive Group Directory entries, both of which indicate a staffing level of 16 full-time
equivalent, made up of 10 full-time and 25 part-time staff. Whilst the financial accounts
are clearly accurate for the sums spent on staffing, the numbers of staff are not
necessarily for full-time equivalent posts: thus, it may be dangerous to extrapolate an
average salary or wage from this information. However, the average for all three centres
is £8,225 per annum.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 62

Staff as a percentage of total expenditure

This is a more reliable indicator, ranging from 46 to 48 per cent of total expenditure at
Eureka!, from 57 to 70 per cent at Techniquest and from 43 to 57 per cent at the
Exploratory. The figure of 38 per cent at Techniquest in 1995 was distorted by the large
overall expenditure on its redevelopment. The average for all three centres is 54 per cent,
which is only marginally higher than the US science centres in the 1986 ASTC survey.13

Publicity expenditure per visitor

Both the Exploratory and Eureka! increased their expenditure per visitor on publicity in
the period: from £0.25 to £0.44 at Eureka! for 1993–5, and from £0.21 to £0.36 at the
Exploratory for 1993–4. Techniquest spent £0.39 per head in 1995 at the time of its
redevelopment, but only £0.24 in the following year, when it enjoyed media exposure.
Overall, the increases made by Eureka! and the Exploratory reflect an increasingly
competitive leisure market in the UK. The average for all three centres is £0.32 per
annum.

Publicity as a percentage of total expenditure

Eureka! increased its expenditure on publicity from 7 per cent of overall budget in 1993
to 11 per cent in 1995, and the Exploratory from 6 per cent in 1993 to 11 per cent in
1994. Techniquest spent 6 per cent of its expenditure on publicity in 1996 (compared to 7
per cent in 1994–5). These figures are consistent with the general ‘rule of thumb’ that
promotion and public relations expenditure is typically around 10 per cent of total
expenditure in a leisure organisation. The increases made by Eureka! and the Exploratory
reflect the need for older attractions to increase promotional activity in the face of
increased competition. The average for all three centres is 8 per cent.

Operational performance indicators

The performance indicators in the preceding section are based on financial information in
the statutory accounts of the centres, combined with visitor figures derived from the
accounts or from the Sightseeing in the UK series.14 If one adds exhibition space and
numbers of exhibits to the financial and visitor information, it is possible to derive some
additional performance indicators. However, these indicators should be treated with a
certain amount of caution: the Eureka! and Techniquest exhibition space is based on
estimates supplied by the organisations of two-thirds of total floor space being devoted to
exhibitions. The Exploratory exhibition space (52 per cent of total floor area) is based on
information in the British Interactive Group Directories. The number of exhibits at each
centre is based on the British Interactive Group Handbook,15 and information supplied by
the centres in promotional material. Clearly, each organisation may define an interactive
exhibit differently from each other. The operational performance figures can be seen in
Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
 Finance 63

Table 4.2 Operational performance of Eureka!,

1993–5
1993 1994 1995
Visitors 407,000 414,000 358,000
Expenditure (£) 1,488,211 1,360,631 1,433,577
Exhibition space (square metres) 3,000 3,000 3,000
Visitors/square metre 136 138 119
Op. costs/square metre (£) 496 454 478
No. of exhibits 350 350 350
Visitors/exhibit 1,163 1,183 1,023
Op. costs/exhibit (£) 4,252 3,888 4,096
Op. costs/visitor (£) 3.66 3.29 4.00
Source: derived from statutory accounts; Sightseeing in the UK; promotional material; British
Interactive Group, Handbook

Table 4.3 Operational performance of Techniquest,

1994 and 1996
1994 1996
Visitors 107,277 250,433
Expenditure (£) 529,834 976,913
Exhibition space (square metres) 800 2,200
Visitors/square metre 131 114
Op. costs/square metre (£) 662 444
No. of exhibits 80 160
Visitors/exhibit 1,341 1,565
Op. costs/exhibit (£) 6,623 6,105
Op. costs/visitor (£) 4.94 3.90
Source: derived from statutory accounts; data supplied by Techniquest; British Interactive
Group, Handbook
Note: 1995 data is excluded as Techniquest changed sites in this year
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 64

Table 4.4 Operational performance of the

Exploratory, 1993–5
1993 1994 1995
Visitors 157,408 165,969 153,194
Expenditure (£) 510,339 538,593 541,925
Exhibition space (square metres) 1,140 1,140 1,420
Visitors/square metre 138 146 108
Op. costs/square metre (£) 448 472 382
No. of exhibits 150 150 160
Visitors/exhibit 1,049 1,106 957
Op. costs/exhibit (£) 3,402 3,591 3,387
Op. costs/visitor (£) 3.24 3.25 3.54
Source: derived from statutory accounts; Sightseeing in the UK; promotional material; British
Interactive Group Directories16

Visitors per square metre

The number of visitors per square metre is consistent across all three centres, ranging
from 108 per square metre at the Exploratory in 1995 to 146 at the Exploratory in 1994.
Data for both other centres fell within this range for all years. The average for all three
centres is 129 visitors per square metre per annum.
The 1986 ASTC survey found that 44 per cent of US science centres had between four
and ten visitors per square foot, which is the equivalent of between thirtyseven and
ninety-two visitors per square metre, whilst 23 per cent had between 101 and 186.17 Thus,
the three UK centres have a slightly higher number of visitors per square metre than the
USA average, but within the second most frequent category in the US survey.

Operating costs per square metre

Operating costs per square metre range from £382 at the Exploratory in 1995, to £662 at
Techniquest in 1994. The average for all three centres is £480 per square metre per
annum.

Visitors per exhibit

The average number of visitors per exhibit is also consistent between the three centres,
ranging from 957 at the Exploratory in 1995 to 1,565 at Techniquest in 1996. The
average for all three centres is 1,173 per annum.

Operating costs per exhibit

Operating costs per exhibit ranged from £3,387 at the Exploratory in 1995 to £6,623 at
Techniquest in 1994. The average across all three centres is £4,418 per annum.
 Finance 65

Operating costs per visitor

Operating costs per visitor ranged from £3.24 at the Exploratory in 1993 to £4.94 at
Techniquest in 1994. The average across all three centres is £3.73 per annum. The 1986
ASTC survey found the average cost per visitor at US science centres was $7 (which is
£4.40 at 1997 exchange rates).18 Given that these figures do not take into account
inflation or variations in the exchange rate, it is difficult to make any meaningful
comparison between operating costs per visitor in the UK and USA, although the levels
are clearly similar.

Sources of capital funding

Chapter 1 detailed how the early science centres in the UK received considerable
financial support from charitable sources such as the Sainsbury trusts and the Nuffield
Foundation. In the late 1980s, the Nuffield Foundation spent £1.25 million a year on
education, financed from the endowment bequeathed by the late Viscount Nuffield. The
early phases of the Exploratory in Bristol were funded by a Nuffield grant in 1986, and
from 1988 the Discovery Dome travelling science centre received substantial support.
The Foundation also supported other pioneering initiatives in the field, including the
development of mobile science centres that could visit primary schools in a van
(LightWorks), and extension activity kits developed by Techniquest.19
In 1987, the Foundation collaborated with the UK Government’s Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) to establish the Interactive Science and Technology Project, which
encouraged the development of science centres and provided a focus for the exchange of
information and ideas. Nuffield provided £20,000 per annum over three years, with the
DTI providing £10,000 over the period. In 1990, the Foundation provided £33,000 as a
launching grant for ECSITE, the European Collaborative for Science, Industry and
Technology Exhibitions, which exists as an exchange for information and activities for its
members made up of non-profit science centres and museums.20
In the UK, the Royal Institution, the Royal Society and the British Association for the
Advancement of Science co-founded COPUS, the joint Committee on the Public
Understanding of Science. COPUS was formed in 1986 to improve public awareness of
science and technology.21 In 1989, COPUS collaborated with the Nuffield Foundation to
produce a collection of reports and discussion articles on the state of hands-on education
in the UK.22 As part of its activities, small grants are awarded for the public
understanding of science. In 1990, over £48,000 was made available in grants averaging
£2,000 each. Indeed, the author received four such grants between 1989 and 1993 to
enable Sheffield Industrial Museum to stage the Great Sheffield Exploratory in 1989 and
to provide interactive exhibits for Eureka! The Museum for Children and the
PowerHouse at Elsecar. In 1995, COPUS introduced a new level of grants from its
Development Fund of up to £20,000 per annum, to complement grants from its existing
Seed Fund of up to £3,000.23
The Nuffield Foundation, COPUS, ECSITE and the Department of Trade and Industry
have played an integral role in providing funding, support and a focus for the exchange of
ideas for the early development of science centres in the UK. However, there were other
important contributors to the early development of the hands-on movement.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 66

Eureka! The Museum for Children owes its origins to a £50,000 grant from the
Department of Trade and Industry to the Children’s Discovery Centre, which had been
formed as a result of Mrs Rosemary Goldsmith returning from Boston in 1979 with the
aim of establishing a children’s museum in London. The grant helped pay for preliminary
feasibility work, and in the mid-1980s a brochure was produced to try and attract
financial support. This was sent to Mrs Vivien Duffield, who had herself recently
returned from Boston after a visit with her children. Vivien Duffield is daughter of the
late Sir Charles Clore, whose Clore Foundation had provided the capital for the Turner
extension on the Tate Gallery. Initially, the Clore and Vivien Duffield Foundations
provided £5 million for the development of the Children’s Museum project, which
eventually found its home in Halifax in 1987.24 By the time Eureka! opened to the public
in 1992, with the influential Vivien Duffield as Chairman of Trustees, the museum had
been able to attract an additional £2 million of corporate sponsorship and private
patronage, in addition to £7 million from the Clore and Vivien Duffield Foundations.
Indeed, as Figure 4.1 indicates, Eureka! continued to receive significant levels of grants,
donations and sponsorship in 1995.
Whilst Vivien Duffield remains as Chairman of the Eureka! trustees in 1997, the Clore
and Vivien Duffield Foundations have continued to support other hands-on centres. They
provided the main source of funding for the Natural History Museum’s Travelling
Discovery Centre, for Things at the Science Museum, and for the fit-out of All Hands, the
interactive gallery at the National Maritime Museum which opened in 1995 (All Hands is
part of the £2 million Leopold Muller Education Centre, made possible with £1.3 million
from the Leopold Muller Estate).25 Private family foundations have played an important
role in the development of many of the UK hands-on museums and science centres. For
example, the Gatsby Foundation—a private trust of the Sainsbury family—provided the
initial £83,000 launching grant for Phase I of Techniquest, but had provided £680,000 in
total by 1990 for Phase II.26 Seed funding by private foundations can often help a new
museum persuade other organisations to provide financial support. For example, by 1993
over fifty other organisations had made grants or donations to Techniquest, ranging from
£1,000 to £250,000, and totalling over £1 million to Phase II of its development.27
Similarly, the Exploratory received funds from over eighty organisations and companies,
with seven organisations having given £1,000 or more by 1992.28
The early science centres and hands-on museums were generally more dependent on
charitable foundations and commercial sponsors than on grants from local or national
government sources. One exception is the £7 million Snibston Discovery Park, which
received £4.5 million from Leicestershire County Council for developing its exhibitions,
together with grants from other public bodies, and sponsorship and donations from
private sources. Even those hands-on centres within traditional local authority or national
museums were heavily dependent on sponsorship and patronage to enable new
developments to take place. For example, Launch Pad’s initial £1 million development
costs were funded by the Science Museum, a government grant and support from the
Leverhulme Trust.29
Whilst commercial sponsors and charitable foundations remain important for the
future development of hands-on centres, increasingly large-scale developments are
dependent on newer public sources of funding. Elsecar Discovery Centre, which includes
the PowerHouse interactive gallery, has largely been funded by European grants and
 Finance 67

other sources of finance available to former coal-mining areas. Similarly, as the lead
project of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, Techniquest’s £7 million Phase III
development was funded largely by the Welsh Development Agency, Wales Tourist
Board and European grants. The sites of both Elsecar Discovery Centre and Techniquest
in areas of urban regeneration provided these opportunities for substantial financial
support. As one commentator has noted, ‘The future of the science centre appeared to be
in the lap of politicians and property developers, sidelining the visionaries into the role of
a pressure group.’30
The future development of hands-on museums and science centres in the UK is very
much dependent on National Lottery funding. The Millennium Commission, in
particular, is funding several major new developments or redevelopments of existing
centres. In May 1996, the Millennium Commission announced that it would support half
the costs of the £82 million Bristol 2000 scheme, including two new interactive centres,
one of which is Science World—a new home and name for the Exploratory. The
Exploratory part of the project will cost £25m, including a planetarium, virtual theatre
and a high-tech ‘explanatory’ (with interactive computer technology to tailor information
to visitors’ interests and needs). In total, there will be 400 exhibits. Partnership funding of
£41 million for the whole scheme will come from Bristol City Council, English
Partnerships, the Harbourside Sponsor Group (a levy will be provided from adjacent
commercial and residential development), the Smithsonian Institute in Washington and
other private sector funding.31
Meanwhile, the Birmingham Discovery Centre will provide a new home for Light on
Science, with funding of £50 million from the Millennium Commission for the
Millennium Point complex at Digbeth.32 The Discovery Centre will include major new
hands-on galleries integrating low- and high-tech exhibits with the museum collections of
science and industry, natural history and local social history. Partnership funding for the
Discovery Centre will come from the European Regional Development Fund,
Birmingham City Council and the private sector.
Science World and the Birmingham Discovery Centre are just two of a whole range of
interactive projects supported by the Millennium Commission that will fuel competition
for existing centres. At the time of writing, there is uncertainty over which projects will
actually raise the necessary partnership funding, but it is clear that apart from the
Millennium Commission—which supports large innovative new projects—there is no
other obvious source of National Lottery money available to hands-on museums and
(especially) science centres. The Heritage Lottery Fund places its emphasis on the
management of heritage assets, and will not support interactive exhibitions unless they
are part of a much larger scheme which can demonstrate considerable heritage benefits
(an award of £23 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund towards the Science Museum’s
new Wellcome Wing of contemporary science, medicine and technology was the first
award from that body to the sciences).33 Indeed, the British Association and the Royal
Society are campaigning for scientific institutions to be able to access National Lottery
funding more directly.34 Meanwhile, the Arts Lottery Fund is funding the National Centre
for Popular Music in Sheffield, which will contain a major interactive element throughout
its exhibitions, and especially in its Making Music gallery.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 68

Capital costs

The cost of developing a new interactive discovery centre is clearly made up of a

combination of site acquisition and development costs, building costs and exhibit
development costs.

Site
Site costs are entirely dependent on the location chosen. The original proposers of the
Children’s Museum that eventually became Eureka! were initially looking at sites in the
London area. The Halifax site was chosen for a number of reasons: the Prince of Wales—
the patron of Eureka!—is president of Business in the Community, an organisation which
chose Calderdale as a pilot area for a regeneration project. Through its influence a 12.5
acre derelict plot of land (a former railway goods yard) valued at £2.8 million was
obtained for £350,000 on a 125-year lease from the local authority.35 As illustrated in the
previous section, other centres such as Elsecar Discovery Centre and Techniquest have
been able to take advantage of grants available to derelict areas. Thus, the choice of site
frequently depends on a range of factors, such as the availability of development grants,
in addition to market value.

Buildings
Many of the early centres were developed in low-cost conversions of existing premises.
Techniquest began in former gas showrooms in the central shopping area of Cardiff,
before moving to a modern industrial unit, and then to its current high-quality premises
built around the iron framework of a nineteenth-century engineering workshop. The
Exploratory began in temporary accommodation in Bristol’s Victoria Rooms, before
moving to its present premises in the old Temple Meads Railway Station. The
PowerHouse at Elsecar also occupies former railway premises (an old engine repair
workshop), whilst Eureka! was originally planned to be located in the Great Northern
Shed, a vast railway warehouse on the Eureka! site.
In fact, the decision was made to construct purpose-built new premises at Eureka!
adjacent to the Great Northern Shed largely on cost grounds—it was cheaper to build a
new building than to convert the old warehouse for public use (the new building also has
the advantage of being nearer to the station and town centre, and is much cheaper to
operate than a converted Victorian industrial building). Eureka!’s building is deceptively
clever. Although many of its services are designed to very high standards, the building is
essentially an industrial unit cleverly disguised with a glass front. A stone wall dissecting
the glass wall symbolises a ‘knife’ cutting through the building, within which many of
the structures and services have been left exposed and interpreted for visitors. The
building won an architectural award from the Royal Institute of British Architects,36 yet it
cost little more than an standard industrial unit. Such a building costs around £500 per
square metre to build; Eureka!’s building cost around £2.4 million, or around £533 per
square metre in 1992.37
The designers and architects of projects currently being developed are able to be more
ambitious. The National Lottery has not only made large sums of public money available,
 Finance 69

but it also demands that buildings funded by the Lottery should be distinctive and built to
the highest possible standards. The author has worked on a number of Lottery proposals,
which typically are budgeting at around £1,000 or more per square metre for a high-
quality, distinctive new building. The interactive National Centre for Popular Music,
which is currently under construction in Sheffield, is largely funded by an Arts Council
Lottery grant. The National Centre for Popular Music’s ‘radical new landmark building’
will cost £8.4 million or £1,853 per square metre at 1996 prices—almost 350 per cent
higher per square metre than Eureka! in 1992.38

Exhibition costs
Building costs described above usually include basic services and finishes to all floors,
walls and ceilings. Exhibition fit-out costs are additional. In the same way that Eureka!
was able to develop a high-quality building on a modest budget, its -exhibition costs were
also modest, partly because of good internal management and partly reflecting the low-
tech nature of many of the exhibits. Fit-out costs are now typically around £1,500 per
square metre for low-tech exhibits, £2,000 per square metre for a range of low and high-
tech exhibits, and £2,500 per square metre for high-tech exhibits. These exhibition fit-out
costs include the costs of development, construction and installation of exhibits, all
exhibit structures, graphics, lighting, and all design and other specialist fees (which can
typically account for around 15 per cent of the total fit-out costs). Costs per square metre
of non-exhibition spaces, such as a shop, cafeteria, storage, offices or workshops, will be
significantly lower than these figures, with public non-exhibition spaces (such as a café
and shop) typically costing more than the non-public non-exhibition spaces (such as
storage or offices).
Individual exhibits usually range in cost between £5,000 and £20,000, depending on
the degree of complexity of the exhibit: as a general rule, exhibits using new technology
will cost more than low-tech exhibits, particularly if new software has to be written.
Typically, each exhibit will occupy around 10 square metres of exhibition space,
although there will clearly be considerable variation between different types of exhibits.

Conclusions

This chapter has considered in some detail the financial performance of hands-on science
centres and museums in the UK and USA, and has, by detailed analysis of the statutory
accounts of three large independent centres, attempted to develop some measures of
performance (although these indicators may typify only large charitable hands-on centres,
and may not be applicable to centres of different size or type of ownership; indeed, the
ASTC survey in the USA illustrates that science centres in the USA are characterised by
their diversity). It is clear that hands-on centres in both the UK and USA are heavily
dependent on a mixed range of sources of income, but trading activities are increasingly
important as sources of revenue, although grants, sponsorship and patronage remain
important as sources of revenue and—especially—capital funding.
In the USA, those hands-on centres that have developed most recently are more
dependent on trading activities than the older, more established centres, and it is these
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 70

newer organisations with a limited range of income sources that may struggle hardest to
survive. Meanwhile, competition from new attractions may result in reduced visitor
numbers at the older museums and science centres. In the UK, the National Lottery has
fuelled competition between visitor attractions in an already overcrowded leisure market,
and the financial accounts of Eureka! and the Exploratory indicate that both those
organisations have had to increase expenditure on promotional activity, and yet still have
suffered a decline in visitor numbers. There is some evidence that although these
organisations are only a few years old, they are already entering a decline phase in their
product life-cycle, and it is significant that both centres are planning major developments
to renew interest in the core product. With such intense competition between hands-on
centres and other visitor attractions, good marketing management is essential, and it is
this area of functional management that is considered in the next chapter.
 5
Marketing

This chapter investigates the demand for hands-on museums and science centres, and
considers how effective market planning can identify, reach and satisfy the maximum
number of visitors.

Market planning

The Chartered Institute of Marketing defines marketing as ‘the management process

which identifies, anticipates and supplies customer requirements efficiently and
profitably’.1 The market planning process is simple in concept: it begins with the
definition of financial and other objectives for the organisation, and continues with the
process of conducting an audit of service provision in relation to existing and potential
markets, identifying internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and
threats (SWOT analysis). The next stage is to set market objectives for the development
of the service for existing and potential markets, which are consistent with the overall
corporate objectives and the main findings of the SWOT analysis. The final stage is to
devise long- and short-term strategies to meet the marketing objectives, monitoring
performance continuously and readjusting strategies in accordance with changes in
market conditions.2
Hands-on museums and science centres are, by their very nature, market-oriented
organisations. The process of learning through interaction is dependent on identifying and
satisfying the needs of visitors. In a successful hands-on museum, customers are involved
at every stage of product development from front-end, formative and summative
evaluation; indeed, the whole purpose of evaluation is to identify visitor needs and
thereafter to test whether exhibits meet those needs. Staff are recruited, trained and
subsequently deployed to enhance the visitor experience, whilst quality controls ensure
that standards of service delivery are consistent. Additional visitor studies can identify
the demographic characteristics of visitors, and whether the reality of the visitor
experience matches expectations, thereby enabling the centre to measure the
effectiveness of its communications strategies. In short, marketing is at the very core of
the hands-on museum. Successful marketing requires the delivery of a visitor-oriented
service effectively and within the financial resources available to the organisation. Whilst
each organisation is likely to have dedicated marketing personnel and a marketing
budget, a hands-on museum can only successfully meet its educational objectives if a
culture of visitor-orientation permeates throughout the organisation.
This book has been structured to integrate a marketing approach to the management of
hands-on museums: it has been written from a marketing perspective, as there is a such a
strong link between marketing, product development, human resource management,
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 72

operations management, and education and event programming. The role of the hands-on
museum in the wider leisure marketplace is explored in Chapters 1 and 9. Chapter 2 helps
to explain the underpinning educational objectives of the interactive approach, whilst the
development of a visitor-centred product is considered in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 (finance),
6 (operations management), 7 (human resource management) and 8 (education and event
programming) all explore good practice in helping to meet overall objectives within the
context of sound management. In total, marketing is not an additional feature of
management, as the presence of this separate chapter might suggest—it is integrated at
the very core of a successful hands-on museum, and underpins the structure of the book.
The approach commonly known as the marketing mix in marketing textbooks (that is,
the seven Ps of product, place, promotion, price, people, physical evidence and process)
is directly applicable to the successful development and management of a hands-on
museum.3 Managing an effective hands-on museum requires:
1 Developing a product that identifies and meets the learning and other needs of target
visitors (product).
2 Building the centre in a location that is accessible to large numbers of visitors in the
target groups (place).
3 Communicating the benefits of the organisation to potential visitors and sponsors
(promotion and public relations).
4 Setting prices appropriate to the ability of target visitors to pay and in accordance with
the financial objectives of the organisation (price).
5 Maintaining very high standards of human interaction to enhance the visitor experience
(people).
6 Ensuring new and potential visitors understand the concept of the hands-on experience
(physical evidence)
7 Delivering a consistently high-quality product (process).
Whilst good practice in the management of most elements of the marketing mix is
considered throughout this book, two important elements of the marketing mix (price and
promotion/public relations) are investigated in detail in this chapter. However, since
successful marketing requires a targeted approach towards identified visitor segments, the
next section provides a further investigation of the demand for the hands-on approach,
following the market appraisal outlined in Chapter 1.

Demand

Chapter 1 illustrated that hands-on museums and science centres are popular with
visitors: a recent report analysing the market potential for museums in the UK identified
that the ability to interact with exhibits, and activities which are attractive to children are
two of the key factors attracting people to visit museums.4 One-third of museum visits are
made by children, and children in family (not school) groups represent the most
significant market segment.5 The most recent data suggests that, in 1995, 31 per cent of
all museum visits in the UK were made by children, although this includes significant
regional variations (most notably, 53 per cent of museum visits in Northern Ireland were
made by children, compared to 24 per cent in Scotland). Children make up 32 per cent of
 Marketing 73

visitors to all types of tourist attractions in the UK, so museums do not differ significantly
from the industry average.6 Since the figure for museums includes all types of museums,
it would seem reasonable to deduce that museums which specifically set out to attract
families through their interactive displays will achieve a higher percentage of children
amongst their visitors.
Chapter 2 demonstrated the importance of the social context of a museum visit, and
how there is a real need for families to explore together in a safe and educational
environment which is acceptable to all members of the family. Museums, and especially
hands-on museums and science centres, can provide an attractive environment for such
family exploration. The quality of the museum experience on offer appears to be the main
factor affecting attendance levels, but demand is also affected by a whole range of other
social, cultural, economic, political and demographic factors.7

Demographic trends
An investigation into demographic trends can partially assist in the explanation of this
increase in demand, as is shown in Table 5.1.
In 1991, the number of children in the UK was at its lowest for thirty years—there
were 11.7 million children under 16. Numerically, the child population moves in cycles,
and it is currently on an upward trend. The total population under 16 is projected to be 5
per cent higher in 2001 than it was in 1991, although this conceals age variations within
the child population. The number of children aged between 5 and 10 will increase until
2001, but decrease thereafter. The number of children aged between 11 and 15 will
increase after 2001.
The size of the child population in part reflects changes in the number of births in the
past: the current upswing is a result of children born in the baby boom of the 1960s
having children of their own (this is known as a ‘baby boom echo’). The high number of
children under 10 in 1971 is reflected in the age distribution of the population in 1992, as
shown in Table 5.2, with the largest group being those aged between 25 and 34 (in other
words, those born between 1958 and 1967, and the most likely parents of today’s babies
and young children).
Recent demographic trends alone cannot account for the recent growth in the demand
for children’s attractions, since children make up a much smaller
Table 5.1 Number of children in the UK under 16,
1961–2001 (000s)
Age 0–4 Age 5–10 Age 11–15 Total age 0–15
1961 4,274 4,585 4,289 13,148
1971 4,553 5,580 4,124 14,257
1981 3,455 4,553 4,533 12,541
1991 3,885 4,409 3,444 11,739
2001 3,844 4,680 3,873 12,398
Source: Derived from OPCS, Social Focus on Children8
Note: 2001 data based on 1992 projections
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 74

Table 5.2 Age of UK population, 1992

Age No. (000s) %
0–4 3,781 6.7
5–14 7,026 12.5
15–24 7,713 13.7
25–34 8,954 15.9
35–44 7,616 13.5
45–54 6,720 11.9
55–64 5,646 10.0
65+ 8,933 15.8
Total 56,388 100.00
Source: Derived from CACI9

proportion of the population in the UK today than they did in the early part of this
century. In 1911 children accounted for around 30 per cent of the population in England
and Wales, but this had fallen to around 20 per ccnt by 1991.10 The UK population is
ageing owing to improved birth control reducing the birth rate, and better health care
resulting in more people living longer. Whilst the child population is not as important in
relative terms as it was earlier in the century, it is currently undergoing a minor upsurge
as children born in the boom of the 1960s are currently having children of their own. This
upward trend is likely to continue until the early years of the next century, although Table
5.1 shows that the child population itself is ageing as children born in the peak of the
recent boom become older. Thus, if demographic trends are a significant factor,
organisations planning a family attraction in the years leading up to 2000 should logically
be considering teenagers rather than toddlers as a more important target segment of the
population.
The population statistics account in part for the growth in demand for children’s and
family attractions in the early 1990s, and might suggest that there is a growing need for
attractions that cater for young teenagers over the next few years. However, demographic
trends alone can only tell part of the story, as demand is also affected by numerous other
factors, such as the availability of leisure time and income to expend on family leisure.

Leisure time
Mintel surveyed the leisure time of 1,678 adults in the UK in 1994, indicating a wide
variation in the availability of leisure time between individuals and households. On
average, adults have forty-two hours of leisure time per week, but this conceals
divergence between the sexes. Women have less time available than men, with an
average of twenty-seven hours per week for those with dependent children, compared to
forty-eight hours for those without children. The group with the smallest amount of
leisure time is working females, aged between thirty-five and forty-four, with dependent
children under fifteen (in other words, parents of the very group for whom most
interactive centres are designed).11 A survey in the USA in 1991 indicated that the
average American family had nineteen hours of free time available per week, with only
twelve hours for women employed outside the home (21 per cent of the sample stated
 Marketing 75

that they had no leisure time at all).12 Whilst the methodologies employed in the two
surveys do not make them directly comparable, there is a clear trend in both the UK and
USA that family leisure time is an increasingly scarce resource, compounded both by the
increasing number of single-parent families and the increasing number of women in
employment.
Leisure-time rich Leisure-time poor
Money rich Affluent early retired; Full-time professional workers;
Working males not in professions; Working mothers.
Working females not in professions/not
parents.
Money Part-time workers; Working mothers in poor
poor families;
Unemployed; Single parents.
Retired people on state benefit.

Figure 5.1 Who can afford leisure?

Source: derived from Leisure Forecasts, 1996–200013

Figure 5.1 plots the availability of time and money on a simple matrix, illustrating that
the demand for family attractions is affected not only by a lack of leisure time for family
groups, but additionally by a lack of money for low-income families. Single-parent
families are likely to be adversely affected by both a lack of leisure time and disposable
income. It is a common perception that visitors to museums in general are representative
only of a socio-economic and occupational elite. In fact, whilst people in socio-economic
groups A/B and C1 are overrepresented amongst visitors to UK museums, people from
all socioeconomic groups do visit museums in a distribution that is not that dissimilar to
the overall population structure.14 There is some evidence to suggest that a more potent
factor influencing demand is educational attainment—the longer someone has stayed in
formal education, the more likely they are to become a museum visitor.15
The most comprehensive survey of all visitor research suggests that 40 per cent of the
population visit a museum or art gallery at least once a year, 40 per cent occasionally,
with the remaining 20 per cent rarely visiting.16 The Department of National Heritage
suggests 32 per cent of the population visit museums every year, whilst 21 per cent visit
art galleries (there is clearly some overlap between the two sectors).17 There is a very
broad demand across all socio-economic groups to visit museums, although the ability to
pay admissions charges and the lack of available free time are constraining factors. In
short, whilst the demand for hands-on museums and science centres can in part be
explained by an increasing number of children, the reality is that demographic changes
are relatively insignificant compared to broader changes in society affecting income and
leisure time.
The lack of leisure time for family visits results in most visitors to museums in the UK
travelling for less than an hour on the day of the visit. A survey conducted in 1991/2
showed that 48 per cent of all museum visitors travelled less than thirty miles on the day
of their visit, 13 per cent travelled between thirty and fifty miles, whilst 39 per cent
travelled over fifty miles.18
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 76

Families from all socio-economic groups are likely to have very limited leisure time,
yet they nevertheless constitute the main visitor segment to museums. The need to
explore as a family group in a safe and interesting environment, as described in Chapter
2, clearly pervades all socio-economic strata of society. Families are active in this way
until their children reach their teenage years, but this target segment has the great
advantage in that it is constantly renewing itself as new families replace those with older
children. Thus, it makes a great deal of sense for hands-on museums to target children
under 13, both in family and school groups.
Table 5.3 confirms the importance of both the family and schools markets amongst
visitors to Techniquest between 1989 and 1994. The museum sector as a whole has a
visitor pattern which peaks in the summer months, with 50 per cent of visitors in the four
months between May and August. Visitors to Techniquest are spread out more evenly
throughout the year, with only 39 per cent between May and August. Although
Techniquest is less reliant on the summer months than the museum sector as a whole, its
peak visiting months in the survey period all included holiday times: August (summer),
April (Easter) and October (autumn half-term holiday). The next most busy months were
July (which is mostly in term-time) and February (which includes the spring half-term
holiday). Techniquest clearly demonstrates that families utilise school holidays
throughout the year for shared family experiences, and although July is popular for
school visits, the centre receives more visitors during holiday periods than in term-time.
Table 5.3 Seasonality of visits to Techniquest,
1989–94
Average no. of visitors to Average % of visitors to Average % of
Techniquest Techniquest visitors to UK
museums
January 4,543 4.3 3
February 10,014 9.6 7
March 9,112 8.7 7
April 11,427 10.9 10
May 8,898 8.5 13
June 7,323 7.0 15
July 10,501 10.0 11
August 14,424 13.8 10
September 5,614 5.4 7
October 10,903 10.4 6
November 7,377 7.0 7
December 4,583 4.4 4
Total 100.0 100
Source: Derived from data supplied by Techniquest; Museum data from Leisure Day Visits in
Great Britain, 1988/919

Successful marketing requires an organisation to identify and meet the needs of actual
and potential target groups. Marketing theory suggests that market penetration is always
likely to be the most effective strategy, and so families and school groups quite rightly
provide the focus of attention for hands-on .museums. However, two other target groups
 Marketing 77

require consideration: over-50s and teenagers are the age groups most underrepresented
in the overall museum visiting market,20 yet they offer some market potential to the
hands-on museum. The early retired comprise one group which is rich in both money and
leisure time—those very people who are likely to be both mobile and with grandchildren.
Persuading these groups to visit either alone, or with their grandchildren, could provide
an important source of demand. Young teenagers also provide an interesting target
market: rich in leisure time but low in income, there are few leisure opportunities directly
aimed at this market segment. With careful programming, interactive centres could
potentially fulfil this demand, although a lack of mobility in combination with a lack of
money would ensure that this could never be more than a local market. Nevertheless, in
the UK the Science Museum has recently developed interactive exhibits aimed directly at
the teenage market, and there are numerous examples of good practice in the USA (these
are considered in Chapter 8).

Visitors to Eureka!: a case study

In summer 1993, Eureka! The Museum for Children conducted a visitor survey over a
six-week period on a random sample of 594 adult visitors.21 The typical visitor group was
found to be a white European family, with four or five members. There were more than
twice as many adult females as males, although the sex distribution of children within the
groups was similar. Seventy-two per cent of child visitors were between the targeted ages
of 5 and 12, although 25 per cent were under the age of 5 (this was unexpected, with only
one area catering for the needs of this specific age group). Within the targeted age group,
only 11 per cent of child visitors were aged 11 or 12, suggesting that Eureka! was
perceived to be for a younger age range.22 Indeed, only 3 per cent of visitors were aged
between 13 and 15, suggesting that Eureka!’s policy of discouraging teenagers was
effective. Amongst the adults, 49 per cent were aged between 35 and 44, whilst 27 per
cent were aged between 25 and 34 (at 76 per cent, this combined figure was much higher
than the national average of 44 per cent in these groups23). Visitors over 65 comprised
only 5 per cent of those interviewed.
Over half the sample had occupations placing them within socio-economic groups A/B
or C1, which is higher than the national average. Less than 2 per cent of the sample were
non-white, whilst 6 per cent of the sample came in groups which contained a person with
a disability. Eighty-six per cent of the sample travelled from home on the day of the visit,
with 7 per cent staying in holiday accommodation and 6 per cent with friends and family.
Over half lived within West Yorkshire or the neighbouring counties of Lancashire and
Greater Manchester. Four per cent came from outside the UK. On the day of the visit, 80
per cent travelled by car, compared to 12 per cent by train and 6 per cent by coach or bus.
Over half the sample had heard about Eureka! through friends and family, with 23 per
cent having received a personal recommendation. Women made the decision to visit in 62
per cent of the sample, with children making the decision in 22 per cent. Forty-five per
cent of the sample had decided to visit in the previous week, with 33 per cent planning
more than a week before. Seventy-five per cent of the sample were making their first
visit, and 25 per cent were making repeat visits (two people stated that it was their tenth
visit—the museum had been open less than one year at the time of the survey). The
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 78

average length of stay was three hours and forty minutes, although this varied from a
minimum of fifty minutes to a maximum of seven hours.

Key market segments

The key market segments for interactive centres are likely—in descending order of
importance—to be:
1 Day visitors within a sixty-minute drive.
2 Education and other group visits.
3 Day visitors within a sixty- to one-hundred-and-twenty-minute drive.
4 Domestic and overseas tourists staying overnight.
The following section will investigate each segment in more detail, and will estimate the
likely profile of the visitor market for Eureka! The Museum for Children, based on its
1993 visitor survey and published market information.

The primary market

The primary market for a hands-on museum or science centre will undoubtedly be
visitors within a sixty-minute drive, particularly family groups with children under 13,
but there is potential to attract other segments. These include the leisure-rich, mobile and
money-rich early retired, or the leisure-rich, but immobile and money-poor teenagers.
Using standard route-planning computer software, the sixty-minute drive to Eureka!
The Museum for Children can be used to identify its primary catchment area. This is oval
in shape, with its main axis east-west along the M62 from Liverpool on the west coast of
England, to the outskirts of Hull to the east. The north-south axis stretches from
Harrogate to the north and Sheffield to the south. Thus, the conurbations of Leeds,
Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield are all within the sixty-minute drive. The
choice of Halifax as the location for Eureka! was treated with some disbelief by many
sceptics in its planning days, but its success demonstrates that it is possible to create a
major visitor attraction in a town without an existing major tourist market, if the location
is central to a large population.
A comparison between the boundaries of the sixty-minute drive area and 1991 census
data reveals that Eureka!’s primary catchment area includes a population of 7.9 million.
The primary market penetration rate for major interactive discovery centres is usually
considered to be in the region of 2–3 per cent of the population. Clearly, an innovative
attraction with a high level of promotion will attract a higher penetration rate than a
smaller, less original centre. Eureka! has achieved an average of 400,000 visitors per
annum between 1993 and 1995. The 1993 Eureka! visitor survey cited above, in
conjunction with the Day Visits in Great Britain survey,24 suggest that around 60 per cent
of its visitors are likely to live within the primary catchment area, travelling less than fifty
miles on the day of the visit. The Eureka! survey excluded school and other groups (c.
100,000 visitors). Of the remaining 300,000 visitors, the survey identified that 13 per cent
(39,000) stayed overnight in the region. Thus, one can reasonably estimate that
approximately 156,600 (60 per cent of 261,000) non-group visitors come from within this
 Marketing 79

primary market. This would give a penetration rate of 2 per cent of the population of 7.9
million, which is consistent with industry trends.

The educational market

The second-largest segment of the visiting population is likely to come from educational
and other groups, mostly—although not exclusively—from the primary catchment area.
The relative importance of this segment will depend on a number of factors, including the
relevance of exhibitions to the national curriculum, the degree of competition, and cost
(set against perceived educational benefit). For example, the Greater Manchester
Museum of Science and Industry attracts educational groups from the primary, secondary
and tertiary sectors, accounting for around 40 per cent of its visitors. As a whole-day
visit, and with relevance across the national curriculum in several subject areas and at
various key stages, its popularity with formal educational groups is clear. Eureka! The
Museum for Children, on the other hand, is aimed entirely at the primary market, and
actively discourages visits from older pupils. Whilst the educational benefit of a visit to
Eureka! is clear, the target population of primary school age is clearly smaller than the
broader age range targeted by the Manchester museum, and this may account for why
only around 25 per cent of its visitors come from formal groups.
The census indicates that the school age population within the primary catchment area
of Eureka! is 1.15 million. Eureka! targets children aged between 5 and 12, amounting to
848,000 children living within the catchment area. As Eureka! receives approximately
100,000 school-age visitors in school or other organised groups (such as cubs or
brownies), if all its educational group visitors came from the primary catchment area, its
penetration rate in this area would be around 12 per cent of children between 5 and 12. In
reality, this figure would have to be adjusted downwards because an unknown number of
groups do travel from beyond the primary catchment area.

The secondary market

The third-largest segment is likely to be family groups living between one and two hours
from the attraction. The secondary market penetration rate will be significantly lower
than the primary market penetration rate, depending on the innovative nature of the
attraction, the degree of competition and the level of promotion. Eureka! has 11.4 million
people living within a one- to two-hour drive. The 1993 Eureka! visitor survey cited
above, in conjunction with the Day Visits in Great Britain survey,25 suggest that around
40 per cent of its visitors are likely to live outside the primary catchment area. Excluding
group visitors and those staying overnight in the region, one can reasonably estimate that
104,000 visitors (40 per cent of 261,000) travelled from within the secondary catchment
area on the day of the visit. This would give a penetration rate of 0.9 per cent of the
population of 11.4 million, which is consistent with industry trends.

The tourist market

About 550 million day trips are made by British visitors each year, mostly by journeys of
less than one hour. Tourists are defined as visitors who have stayed overnight in a region
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 80

other than their home. In 1992, there were 77 million tourist trips made by British visitors
in Britain, and a further 16 million made by overseas visitors.26 Clearly, the number of
overnight visitors attracted to visit a hands-on museum will depend primarily on the size
of the local tourist market itself, the unique nature of the product on offer and how well it
is promoted to the tourist market. In general, tourists are more likely to visit heritage sites
than museums or theme parks (for example, in 1995 overseas visitors comprised 34 per
cent of all visitors to historic properties in the UK, compared to 21 per cent of museum
visitors).27
In Yorkshire and Humberside, overseas visitors comprise 8 per cent of museum
visitors, although the 1993 Eureka! survey showed this figure was only 4 per cent for that
site. The survey also showed that UK tourists staying overnight comprised 9 per cent of
the sample: in total, this gives a penetration rate of 0.3 per cent of the 9.2 million UK
people who stayed overnight in West Yorkshire in 1995, and 0.4 per cent of the
population of 3.4 million overseas visitors who
Table 5.4 Estimated profile of visitors to Eureka!
Population No. of visitors % Market
(estimate) penetration rate
(% estimate)
Primary market (0–60 minute drive 7,900,000 156,600 39 2
time)
Group market (children aged 5–12 in 850,000 100,000 25 12*
primary market)
Secondary market (60–120 minute 11,400,000 104,400 26 0.9
drive time)
UK tourists (staying overnight in 9,200,000 27,000 7 0.3
West Yorks)
Overseas tourists (staying overnight 3,400,000 12,000 3 0.4
in West Yorks)
Total 400,000 100
Source: author’s extrapolations derived from drive time analysis; census data; Eureka! visitor
survey; Yorkshire Tourist Board data; Sightseeing in the UK; Day Visits in Great Britain29
Note: *this figure is based on the assumption that all group visitors come from within the
primary market: in reality, this is not the case, and the actual market penetration rate for
groups within the primary catchment area would be lower

stayed overnight in West Yorkshire in 1995.28 This is consistent with industry trends.
This data is summarised in Table 5.4.

Overlapping markets
There is considerable overlap between the major science centre attractions and their
primary and secondary catchment areas. Figure 5.2 demonstrates where there is overlap
between those science centres and hands-on museums which receive over 100,000
visitors per annum.
Figure 5.2 clearly shows that the major interactive discovery centres in the UK are
already competing with each other for visitors, particularly from within the secondary
 Marketing 81

catchment area. Given that this table excludes hands-on centres with visitor figures of
less than 100,000, not to mention other competing visitor attractions, there is evidence of
clear competition within the market. Techniquest at Cardiff and the Exploratory at Bristol
are within each other’s primary catchment areas, yet analysis of the postcodes of 10,620
visitors to Techniquest from July to October 1996 shows that whilst half had Cardiff
postcodes, only 2 per cent had Bristol codes.30 People in the Bristol area may not
comprise a significant proportion of the visitors to the rival science centre across the
River Severn in Wales, but the close proximity of the two centres does mean that the
ability to penetrate the primary market will be much reduced. This problem will be
compounded by developments facilitated by the National Lottery, with several of the
existing interactive centres planning to expand or redevelop, whilst major new centres are
proposed at other locations which will compete within primary catchment areas.

Figure 5.2 Overlapping catchment

areas for major UK hands-on
attractions
Key: P=overlapping primary
catchment area
S=overlapping secondary catchment
area
Such intense competition between hands-on centres in the UK, and between hands-on
centres and other visitor attractions, necessitates careful market-planning. The next two
sections consider how the manipulation of two tools within the marketing mix (price and
promotion) can be used to gain strategic advantage.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 82

Price

Prices are set at UK visitor attractions in accordance with a whole range of factors, not all
of which are consistent with economic theory. Previous price history, the pricing of
competitors, and an assessment of what the market will bear, are typically used to inform
pricing decisions. The interplay of attractions with differing commercial and social
objectives within the private, public and independent sectors ensures that pricing
decisions are complex. In the UK, 60 per cent of all visitor attractions charge an
admission price, compared to 51 per cent of museums. Even amongst the charging
museums, many subsidise charges: very few publicly owned museums are self-financing
through admissions.31 Maximising revenue from admissions depends on determining the
appropriate ticket categories, on setting discounts or indeed on adding surcharges for
special events or exhibitions. Pricing decisions are typically marketing decisions, as they
can communicate strong messages to potential customers about those audiences the
attraction is trying to attract.
The average adult admission charge for all UK attractions is £2.42, compared to £1.82
for museums. Thus, those museums which do charge typically set a lower price than
other visitor attractions. The average child admissions charge is £1.40 for all attractions,
compared to £1.02 for museums (which is the equivalent of 58 per cent and 56 per cent of
the adult charge respectively).32 It is significant that at Eureka! The Museum for
Children, children are charged 80 per cent of the adult admission price of £4.95 in 1997,
and adult charges begin for children over 12. These prices communicate strong messages
to potential visitors: first, this is an expensive visit for adults and children, so
expectations of quality are raised (7 per cent of museums in the UK charged over £4 for
adult entrance in 1995).33 Second, adult prices begin at 13, which is a deliberate policy to
discourage visits by children older than the target age group (5 to 12). Third, the child:
adult price ratio is significantly higher than the average for other museums and visitor
attractions.
The relationship between adult and child prices at children’s attractions is interesting.
Whilst some parents might consider a high child price to be exploitation, there is logic in
charging a high price for those visitors for whom the facility is designed. In fact, Eureka!
did consider following the policy of children’s museums in the USA where it is common
for the adult price to be lower than that for children (for example, Denver Children’s
Museum charges adults less than children, whilst Cleveland Children’s Museum charges
the same rate).34 Children’s museums usually cite the objective of encouraging adults and
children to learn together, so price discounts to encourage more adults to attend do make
sense (and more adults usually means less damage to exhibits). Many private play
attractions in the USA offer free admission to adults.35 Like most other UK visitor
attractions, Eureka! does offer free places and adult discounts to school and other group
visits in order to increase the proportion of adults in group visits (which is usually much
lower in school groups than in family visits). However, pricing tradition in the UK has
discouraged the museum from going quite as far as Denver in offering discounts to adults
in family visits. Significantly, Techniquest follows the UK national trend of charging
children 56 per cent of the adult price of £4.50.
Eureka! has used its dominant position in the children’s museum market to maintain
and increase its prices since 1992. Its visitor survey in 1993 showed that 80 per cent of
 Marketing 83

visitors were happy with the admission price—comments related to the fact that people
thought that it was expensive before the visit, but they considered that they had received
value for money on leaving.36 Between 1992 and 1997, its prices for adults have
increased by 41 per cent, for children by 58 per cent, for schools and groups by 50 per
cent, and for families by 58 per cent (and the family ticket admits four compared to five
in 1992). Demand for admission to Eureka! is inelastic—it has not dropped in proportion
to price increases. The smaller price increase for schools and groups reflects the fact that
this market is more price-sensitive than the family market. Overall, whilst these price
increases reflect strong demand across all segments, Eureka! does offer substantial
discounts to encourage visitors at non-peak times, particularly a half-price discount for
visitors after 3.00 p.m. during term-time (when typically there would be very few casual
visitors). In the USA, many children’s museums offer free or low-cost admission in
evenings or at other non-peak times: for example, Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia
encourages voluntary donations on Sundays.37
Overall, price is an important marketing tool, which can be used not only to maximise
revenue from visitors, but also to discourage visitors at peak times and to encourage them
at quiet times. It can be also be used to help meet social objectives (by offering
discounts), to encourage adults and children to participate as a family (by offering family
tickets and adult discounts) and indirectly to limit damage to the exhibits (by encouraging
more adults with free or discounted tickets).

Promotion

This chapter has attempted to dispel the myth that successful marketing means little more
than effective sales promotion: a visitor-oriented approach integrated within every
management function is essential if the hands-on museum is going to achieve broader
educational objectives. Nevertheless, promotion is an important marketing tool, and when
a museum identifies its marketing budget it is invariably referring to that part of the
revenue budget allocated to advertising, promotion and public relations.
Marketing budgets vary throughout the leisure industry, and especially between the
public and private sectors. One survey suggested that half of local authority leisure
service departments spent less than £5,000 per annum on marketing activities in 1992,
with over half having no strategy or plan, and over half also having no one responsible
for marketing.38 On the other hand, in 1995 three public sector museums (Natural History
Museum, Science Museum and Beamish Open Air Museum) spent over £100,000 on
promotion, whilst two commercial leisure parks spent over £1 million.39 Amongst the
hands-on museums, Chapter 4 revealed that Eureka! spent £159,000 in 1995, suggesting
that it recognises the need to spend significant sums on promotion in order to compete
with leading museums and other visitor attractions.
Expenditure will vary with the individual needs of the organisation, and at different
periods of the product life-cycle, but a generally accepted figure is that 10 per cent of
expenditure should be devoted to promotional activities. Indeed, Chapter 4 revealed that
whilst the average spend on promotional activity between Eureka!, Techniquest and the
Exploratory was 8 per cent, both Eureka! and the Exploratory had increased their
expenditure on promotion to 11 per cent of total expenditure in recent years, and yet
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 84

despite this both had suffered falling visitor figures. These increases in expenditure
reflect the increasingly competitive leisure market in the UK, and equate to an increase
from £0.25 to £0.44 per head spend at Eureka! from 1993 to 1995, and from £0.21 to
£0.36 at the Exploratory from 1993 to 1994.
Promotional strategies will inevitably be determined in part by the product lifecycle.40
A new organisation needs to raise awareness of its existence to its target visitor groups,
and is likely to place more emphasis on public relations, whilst a mature organisation will
need to spend increasing sums on advertising and other forms of promotion to remind
visitors of its existence. The key to success is to ensure that messages being
communicated through the various promotional channels are clear, consistent and
realistic. It is important to remember that the Eureka! visitor survey showed that half its
visitors had learned about the museum from friends and family, and almost a quarter had
received a personal recommendation from someone who had visited previously. Word of
mouth is always the best means of promotion, so the messages communicated should
never promise a service that cannot be delivered, as a poor reputation will spread rapidly.
Public relations means developing a relationship with local, regional and national
media to gain maximum exposure in the press, on radio and television. Valuable print
space and broadcast time may result if the public relations campaign is successful, but
this should never be considered free, since it requires considerable time and money to
develop a professional image with the media, via press releases, press packs and
launches. Museum public relations is still very much in its infancy, and very often it is
amateurish, unplanned and unsuccessful.41 However, for the museum that understands the
way in which the media works, public relations can be an excellent and cost-effective
way of communicating positive messages to potential visitors, sponsors and stakeholders.
At a local and regional level, the media are often very supportive of museums, and
children’s museums or hands-on centres can provide the human-interest or unusual news
items that journalists are seeking. It is more difficult—but not impossible—to gain
coverage in the national media. Eureka! placed a very high emphasis on public relations
in the months leading up to its launch, and was successful in gaining media coverage in
all the major national newspapers, on local radio stations all over the UK and on
numerous children’s television stations. For example, prior to opening Eureka! promoted
some of the more unusual aspects of its front-end evaluation to the media (notably
children’s ideas on the world of work), which were seized upon by radio and press,
thereby gaining national coverage at very little cost. The television exposure was of
enormous importance: very few UK museums can afford to advertise on television (only
three spent over £40,000 on TV advertising in 199542), yet Eureka! has frequently been
featured on both children’s television and educational programmes. In short,
understanding the way the media works and taking a professional approach are the keys
to successful public relations.
For the hands-on museum reaching maturity, it is clearly more difficult attracting the
interest of the media via public relations, although new exhibits or events are often seen
as attractive news items. Good timing is essential if events are to be promoted before they
happen, rather than reported afterwards. Increasingly, however, the mature museum will
have to devote time and resources to more traditional methods of promotion, such as
advertising, posters and leaflet distribution. The key to success in these areas is to
understand the market segments the museum is trying to reach and to target them
 Marketing 85

effectively through the promotional campaign. Clearly, this means effective leaflet
distribution to the primary catchment area through other museums, tourist information
centres and hotels. Penetrating the market by reaching people in groups with a propensity
to visit museums is always more effective than trying to encourage non-users to visit
(although this will be important if the museum has community outreach objectives).
Monitoring where the visitor learned about the museum is essential so that future
campaigns can be targeted more successfully.
The nature of the print material too is important. Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has
a number of low-tech hands-on exhibits in its history galleries, but its promotional
material did not emphasise these. In 1996, the museum placed a photograph of children
engaged in rubbing seventh century replica stonework on the front of its new leaflet, and
this led to an unprecedented 46 per cent increase in admissions revenue.43 The message
here is that the hands-on museum needs to devote attention to the sixth ‘P’ in the
marketing mix, physical evidence: in other words, it must ensure that the service on offer
is tangible to potential visitors. Children active in photographs within the museum leaflet
can do much to persuade visitors that the hands-on museum is different from more
traditional museums.
The education market requires special attention. It is possible to purchase
computerised mailing lists of all schools within the catchment area and lists which
distinguish between different types of school (for example, between special, primary and
secondary schools). However, most education authorities have an internal mail system
and many will distribute educational material for non-profit organisations in this way.
Some authorities will charge for this service, but even so it is likely to be more cost-
effective than direct mail. However, the material distributed must both be distinctive and
stress the educational benefits of the service offered if it is to stand out from the pile of
mail arriving in the weekly internal mail delivery. If it is not mailed appropriately, it is
certain to find an early route to the waste-paper bin. Regular notification of evcnts and
new exhibitions, perhaps within a school newsletter, is essential if the museum is to
encourage repeat educational visits.
Developing direct mailing lists of all museum visitors is never likely to be cost-
effective because of the large numbers involved. However, direct mailing to schools and
other groups that have visited before is clearly feasible and offers the opportunity to
target individual named teachers derived from computerised booking systems. Friends
and membership schemes, or people who have purchased birthday parties, provide
similar opportunities to target potential repeat visitors by direct mail.
In total, the channels available to the marketing manager to promote the hands-on
museum are vast. Many hands-on museums now use the Internet as a promotional tool,
and this is likely to become increasingly important. The development of interactive
Internet pages is essential if the hands-on museum is to stand out from all other museums
existing in the virtual world. Whatever the medium, effective promotion requires time
and resources devoted to it, and it also demands skilled management. Placing an
advertisement in a newspaper or on radio is easy, but it is also very expensive and not
necessarily cost-effective. Innovative marketing management can help ensure that the
hands-on museum stands out within the increasingly competitive leisure market. The
keys to success are to have clear communication objectives, to target groups that are
sufficiently large and have a propensity to visit, to understand the workings and timing of
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 86

the media, and to monitor every method of promotion and public relations through valid
and reliable market research.

Conclusions

Marketing is at the very core of the hands-on museum, where there is a strong link
between marketing, product development, human resource management, operations
management, and education and event programming. Thus, marketing decisions are an
integral part of all management decision-making, and effective marketing can help the
organisation meet its educational objectives. Successful marketing requires the
identification of the needs of target visitors and the subsequent delivery of a visitor-
oriented service effectively and within the financial resources available to the
organisation. Manipulating the tools of the marketing mix, such as price and promotion,
can communicate important messages to potential visitors about the nature of the hands-
on museum and science centre. However, most people who visit will do so on the basis of
a word-of-mouth recommendation from friends and family. It is for this reason that
effective market planning necessitates a culture of visitor-orientation to permeate
throughout an organisation, to ensure that the visitor experience matches their
expectations. Thus, long-term success of any visitor attraction in the overcrowded leisure
marketplace will ultimately depend on the delivery of a quality service to visitors on
every occasion, and that requires effective operations and human resource management.
 6
Operations management

This chapter details the key ingredients for the successful operation of a visitor-oriented
interactive discovery centre.

Introduction

Chapter 2 demonstrated that the quality of the museum experience for any individual is
determined by an interplay of personal, social and physical factors. Whilst not all of these
are within the control of the museum, it is essential that wherever possible the same level
of service is delivered consistently to a high standard in order to maximise the likelihood
that every visitor’s experience will match their expectations. This is of particular
importance given that word-of-mouth recommendation to friends and family is such a
significant factor contributing to the decision to make a visit. Unfortunately, visitors do
not arrive in equal numbers throughout the day, throughout the week or throughout the
year. This means it is more difficult to programme resources and activities to standardise
service delivery: too many staff, and the centre is inefficient and wasting resources; too
few staff, and it is more difficult to meet educational objectives, and there is increased
risk of damage to exhibits. In short, operational decisions are inextricably linked to
financial, marketing, staffing and educational programming decisions.

Managing capacity

The intense level of competition within the leisure industry has frequently been referred
to in this book, and Chapters 1 and 4 have illustrated that some hands-on museums and
science centres have suffered declining visitors in recent years, even though the overall
trend is towards an increase in demand. Attracting more visitors through effective
marketing is a prime concern of most centres, particularly to encourage more visitors at
non-peak times. Most managers would prefer a consistent stream of visitors throughout
the day, every day of the year. In reality, of course, visitors cluster at peak times of the
day and on peak days of the year. In fact, the hands-on movement in the UK is so
successful that many centres frequently reach capacity, with at least three hands-on
museums or science centres reaching capacity on twenty or more days in 1995.1 In total,
5 per cent of all visitor attractions in the UK reached full capacity on at least twenty days
in 1995, and 23 per cent reached full capacity on at least one day. For the majority of
centres, which never reach maximum capacity, this may seem like a desirable problem to
have, but numbers have to be managed for several reasons:
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 88

1 To satisfy fire and other safety requirements.

2 To provide adequate levels of visitor comfort.
3 To ensure the quality of the museum experience for both families and educational
groups.
4 To avoid disappointing visitors who arrive to find the centre full and with a long queue
outside.
The operators of events of fixed duration and fixed capacity (such as a theatre) are able to
regulate demand by putting up prices for events at popular times or lowering them at
unpopular times. The flexibility to use price to manage capacity in this way is not a
viable option for visitor attractions, most of which do not normally have a differential
charging system throughout the year, preferring for simplicity to advertise prices that are
fixed for a long period. Even those visitor attractions which reach capacity on one or
more days of the year will have a great many more days when the facility is
underutilised; simply raising prices for the whole year to reduce capacity at peak times
may have an overall adverse effect on demand.

Setting capacity limits

The physical capacity of any exhibition space is determined ultimately by the local fire
officer, who will impose a safety limit on a building to ensure it can always be evacuated
quickly in an emergency. Other restrictions also come into play, such as floor loading
capabilities. Furthermore, the level of comfort for visitors—including the ability to access
exhibits without queuing—also limits the capacity of the exhibition, and this capacity is
often reached well before the safety limit. It is difficult to generalise. Each exhibition
space will vary considerably, based on factors such as emergency exits, construction
materials and the number and type of exhibits. Based on the author’s experience at a
range of hands-on attractions, a typical capacity limit at any one time is one person to
every two square metres of exhibition space.
The fire limit for Eureka! The Museum for Children was 1,750 in 1992–3, but
experience showed that the capacity for visitor comfort was substantially lower. Eureka!
averaged 1,118 visitors per day in 1993, but this average conceals variations between
days of the week and at different times of the year (for example, visits are skewed
towards weekends at all visitor attractions2). On a typical weekend day with around 1,500
visitors spread throughout the day, the galleries did not become too crowded, there was a
lively atmosphere of excitement and discovery, and there were no long queues to get in
the museum, to access the exhibits or to be served in the café. Eureka! was able to admit
4,000 visitors a day without exceeding the safety limit, but on these days when the
museum was operating at full capacity, the number of operational problems increased and
consequently the quality of the visitor experience inevitably deteriorated.
The overriding consideration is that the museum must have the capability of knowing
precisely how many people are in the building at any one time—to do this accurately
means not only counting admissions, but also counting people as they leave the building.
If there are several exits, this can be quite complex (and expensive if several turnstiles are
installed). Nevertheless, an accurate (that is, non-human) counting mechanism with the
capability of informing the operations manager of the number of people in the exhibition
at any one time is highly desirable.
 Operations management 89

Imposing time limits

When the hands-on centre reaches its maximum capacity, two factors come into play:
1 Managing visitors inside the exhibition.
2 Managing queues outside.
The operations manager has to ensure that the paying visitors inside the exhibition
receive the highest possible standard of service whilst at the same time encouraging a
flow of visitors through the exhibitions so that the queue outside also flows regularly.
When the exhibition has reached its capacity, it follows that new visitors can only be
admitted as existing visitors leave. The only way that visitor flow can be determined
accurately is at an attraction where every visitor has a dedicated seat: thus, in a themed
ride, such as at the Jorvik Viking Centre, visitor flow is determined largely by the
capacity and progress of the cars, whilst at a cinema, visitor flow is determined by the
number of seats and the length of the film. The hands-on centre cannot control visitor
flows in such a way, and so some have introduced time limitations at peak periods.
Experience at a range of attractions suggests that typically around 20–25 per cent of daily
visitors arrive at the peak hour. Launch Pad in the Science Museum introduced a system
whereby, on busy days, visitors collected a numbered ticket (free once you have paid to
enter the museum) and they were not admitted to the exhibit until later in the day at a
time corresponding to their ticket number. In effect, this institutes an organised first-
come-first-served queue within the museum, spreading the effect of peak hour visiting
throughout the day (visitors do have the remainder of the museum to explore whilst
waiting). This method enabled the Science Museum to control admissions to Launch Pad,
but the length of the visit was not controlled. At the former Inventorium at La Villette in
Paris, visitors were admitted for fixed two-hour sessions every day, with a gap in-
between for staff to tidy up the galleries. Here, as at the Science Museum, numbered
tickets were obtained in advance (although there was a separate admission price for the
Inventorium).
At Eureka!, on busy days visitors are given a time limit of a minimum of three hours
to visit the exhibitions. In 1992–3, all visitors had their hands stamped with the image of
an animal as they arrived, and every thirty minutes the image was changed for new
visitors. After three hours an announcement was made over the public address system
requesting all visitors with—for example—rabbits or dinosaurs stamped on their hands to
make their way to the café, shop or exits. This system equates to the method of giving
coloured armbands to swimming pool visitors.
The three-hour limit was determined for a number of reasons: the educational
objectives of the museum, together with a need to provide value for money for the visitor,
were clearly important. However, these had to be set against an awareness of the
throughput required to reach target visitor figures for financial viability. An awareness
that children become intellectually exhausted in such an intensive learning environment,
coupled with the knowledge gained from experience that damage to exhibits is more
likely to occur by tired visitors, was also an important factor. Nevertheless, fixed time
limits are not the norm for UK attractions, and many of Eureka’s visitors have an
expectation that they will be able to spend a full day in the museum. It is essential that the
fixed time limit is explained to visitors on busy days if the museum is not to lose an
enormous amount of goodwill. Thus, Eureka! is careful to warn visitors on promotional
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 90

material and before they enter the exhibitions, that on busy days the visit may be
restricted to three hours.

Managing queues
Since almost everyone dislikes queuing, the duty of the operations manager is to manage
queues as effectively as possible, so as to maximise the visitor experience in the most
cost-effective manner. A great deal has been written about the mathematical theory and
psychology of waiting lines—for example, the effects of adding extra servers or of
altering queue discipline by prioritising the order in which people are served.3 There is
always going to be a trade-off between cost and queue length. At the new Techniquest,
extra tills are brought into play when a queue builds up outside, and visitors do not
normally have to wait more than thirty minutes to be admitted, even on very busy days.4
Adding extra servers reduces the queue length, but increases cost. However, when the
building has reached capacity, there is no advantage in speeding up the admission
process: indeed, it is a positive disadvantage.
Eureka! frequently has the situation of the museum being filled to capacity and an
ever-lengthening queue waiting outside. The safety issue is of paramount importance, as
the safety capacity of the building cannot be exceeded. On peak days, visitors arrive at a
rate of around 800–1,000 per hour (20–25 per cent of 4,000 visitors), and the museum
reaches its capacity level within two hours of opening. Most visitors stay for at least three
hours (the 1993 visitor survey suggested the average length of time on site—including
visits to the café and shop—was three hours and forty minutes5), so there is a period of at
least one hour when the building has reached capacity, and when very few visitors are
leaving. At this point, the queue hardly moves. However, whilst it is important not to
disappoint visitors who have travelled a long way to get there, the first responsibility is to
the visitors who have paid. Equally, it is important not to lose custom to another
attraction—but this will happen if the queue is badly managed (especially if the weather
is poor).
Most queues operate with a first-come-first-served rule—but others enable priority to
be given to certain types of visitor. At Eureka!, families with disabled persons were
allowed to come to the front of the queue, but complaints were sometimes received from
other families about this practice. Another way of reducing the uncertainty of queuing is
to introduce a booking system, which effectively substitutes queuing at the point of
delivery with a long advance wait and a greater certainty that it will be delivered (and a
greater source of complaint if it is not delivered effectively). However, booking systems
are not really feasible for small groups, and on busy days, any pre-booked groups arriving
and gaining admittance in front of the queue can cause immense annoyance to waiting
families. For these reasons, at Eureka! group bookings were not accepted on expected
peak days in 1992–3, and they were limited on other holidays and weekends.
Ultimately, the critical issue in queue management is not so much the mathematics of
the waiting time, but the customer’s perception of it. For example, influencing the
perception of queues has been perfected by theme parks which focus attention on the rate
of progress of the queue rather than the length of the line by disguising queues around
corners or over dips and hollows.
 Operations management 91

There are two main issues surrounding all service encounters which affect the
perceptions of queues and how they are experienced and managed. First, a satisfied
customer is one who expects a certain level of service, but who perceives the service
actually received to be higher. A disappointed and dissatisfied customer will be one who
perceives the level of service received to be lower than that expected. The point is that
what is perceived and what is received are psychological phenomena, and queues can be
influenced if the perception and expectation of waiting lines can be managed. Second, it
is hard to catch up from a bad early experience. It is generally accepted that the success
of a museum visit can be determined by the very first service encounter: for example, if
visitors are welcomed positively when they arrive they will have a much more positive
outlook than if faced with an aggressive and surly uniformed attendant. This is basic
customer care, but it reinforces the view that money, time and attention should be spent
on improving the very first stage of the service encounter, and that may mean managing
queues.
It follows that the operations manager must gain an understanding of the psychology
of queuing, and this involves a number of issues.6 Since unoccupied time feels longer
than occupied time, it is important to distract the waiting visitor by entertaining them, by
giving them something to do or by providing refreshments. At Eureka!, children were
taken out of the queues on busy days and encouraged to take part in ball games, juggling
activities and parachute games. Entertainment such as buskers and clowns was provided,
whilst servers walked up and down the queue offering refreshments for sale. It is
important too to provide comfortable, safe and dry waiting conditions, with access to
toilets. At Eureka!, in 1992–3, a covered temporary canopy was hired during winter
months to keep queuing visitors dry. Chapters 2 and 3 stressed the importance of visitor
orientation, and the queuing period provides a good opportunity to begin the process, by
explaining the objectives of the centre or the role that adults can play in the learning
process, for example. This will help to reduce potential disappointment later if visitors’
expectations can be pitched at the right level before the point of payment.
Anxiety and uncertainty make waits seem longer than known finite waits, and as a
result many visitor attractions display signs showing the predicted waiting time. At
Eureka! the duty manager used to walk down the queue explaining the situation and
reassuring visitors. Waiting in ignorance creates a feeling of powerlessness which
frequently results in visible irritation. At Eureka!, visitors frequently failed to understand
why—when the building was full—a till was closed down. The reality was that when a
building is full there is no advantage in maintaining a speedy processing of tickets, but if
this is unexplained it can look remarkably inefficient to the waiting visitor.
In short, by learning to research and understand the psychological context of their own
waiting lines, operations managers can have a significant impact on their customers’
satisfaction. The sensible solution is to devise a range of strategies to make the time spent
queuing pass as pleasantly and efficiently as possible.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 92

Managing group bookings

Although booking systems are not feasible for small groups of people, an effective
booking system is an essential operations management tool for larger groups. The aim is
to be able to maintain and guarantee a high service performance level whilst reducing
queues on site: in effect, queues on site are substituted by a long wait from the time of
booking to the date of booking. This can itself lead to increased capacity by persuading
people to arrive at unpopular times. The booking system is, therefore, both an operations
management tool and a marketing tool (since discounts can be offered to encourage
groups to arrive at unpopular times).
In practice, booking systems can cause operational difficulties:
1 Pre-booking raises expectations which must be met.
2 If groups fail to arrive, the facility is idle and income is lost.
3 If bookings are too close, congestion can occur throughout the day.
In short, a successful booking system will try to provide an effective balance between the
needs to maximise capacity, guarantee admission, prevent overcrowding and
accommodate some flexibility for unforeseen circumstances. The most basic requirement
for a booking system is that it permits control over arrival times and thereby over total
visitor flow through the facility. For schools and other groups, the booking system
provides the assurance to organisers that they will be able to get in to the centre at a
predetermined time. The task of the operations manager is to maximise admission whilst
guaranteeing a visit of educational value, thereby encouraging schools and other groups
to want to repeat their visit. All hands-on centres have an optimum capacity beyond
which the learning environment is severely diminished. This is likely to be well under the
fire-limit capacity for the building, for the learning environment within a hands-on centre
depends in part on the ratio of adults to children, and with cost restraints on school visits,
inevitably there will be less adults in a group visit than in a family visit. Thus, the
booking system has to predict and prevent capacity overload, and provide alternative
dates and times quickly and efficiently to prospective group organisers.
Schools pose a particular problem, since teachers invariably want to determine their
own arrival and departure times, and the effective length of the school visiting day is
between 10.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. Typically, a primary school group (usually two classes
to fill a coach) will leave school at 9.00 a.m., arrive at 10.00 a.m., spend two hours on a
general visit to the centre, have a leisurely packed lunch (preferably indoors) and allow
the children some free play time outside before an intensive directed visit in the
afternoon, followed by a short visit to the shop before leaving to arrive back at the school
for the bell at 3.30 p.m. Any variant from this norm limits the school’s choice and
requires the teacher to make additional plans at either end of the day, which in itself can
have a cost implication (a useful marketing ploy for the hands-on centre that cannot cope
with full-day visits of this nature is to suggest free locations nearby which complement
the trip).
There is a clear need to programme arrivals, and there may also be a need to
programme departures to prevent overload later in the day. In addition, there will
 Operations management 93

certainly be a need to programme the use of indoor eating facilities. There are three basic
ways to handle groups:
First, staggered arrival times permit a flow of visitors throughout the facility. This may
or may not be accompanied by a suggested departure time. This method has the
advantage of preventing queues at the entrance, but may well be unpopular if a school
wants to arrive at 10.00 a.m. and is given an arrival time later in the morning. If there is
no fixed departure time, this system may cause congestion later in the day, severely
diminishing the educational experience.
Second, groups can be offered a fixed time-period for their visit. In 1992–3, Eureka!
divided the school day into three two-hour periods (10.00 a.m. until midday; midday until
2.00 p.m.; and 2.00 p.m. until 4.00 p.m.). In addition, schools had to book one area for
their own priority use for the first hour of their visit, and were permitted a more general
look around the museum in their second hour. Time for eating and shopping was
permitted outside these hours, but schools were not allowed back into the exhibitions
after the two-hour period. This system did permit Eureka! to control the overall number
of school visitors within the museum and it also allowed unpopular periods to be sold at a
discounted rate (Eureka! experimented with the sale of afternoon visits at half price out of
the summer season). However, this booking system was not popular with teachers when
they first confronted it: for one thing, it was very different from most systems operated
within facilities in the UK, and therefore it took some understanding. Second, it was
inflexible. Typically, the 10.00 a.m. until midday time-slot was the most popular with
teachers, and certain bookable areas (the Me and My Body exhibition, particularly) were
booked up much further ahead than some of the others. Thus, many schools were not able
to visit when and where they wished or for as long as they wished. The system was
introduced to permit the largest number of children to use the facility at a reasonable cost
whilst still maintaining a stimulating learning environment. After the initial surprise at
the controls imposed by Eureka!’s booking system, feedback suggested that most
teachers accepted the overall benefits of the system.
Third, groups can be given priority or exclusive use of the museum for a fixed time-
period. The educational benefits of this method are obvious, but few centres (other than
the very smallest) are in an economic position to be able to offer their facilities to just one
group at a time, even for the shortest time-period. This would have the undoubted
advantage of preventing clashes of ages and interests, but is simply not financially viable
for most organisations. Centres offering exclusivity must also take care if their facilities
are also open to the public: although most centres will receive few family or general
visitors on school days, the offer of exclusive use of a facility implies that no other
visitors will be using it simultaneously. The Children’s Museum of Manhattan has
reached an interesting compromise: the morning session is reserved for educational
groups, and the afternoon session for families.
All booking systems require certain policies to be adopted and operational decisions to
be made in the event of groups arriving early, arriving late or failing to arrive at all. In the
first instance, the author’s experience is that a group given a late-morning arrival time
against their wishes will frequently ignore the arrival time stated and still arrive at 10.00
a.m., and it takes a lot of courage to keep a large group waiting outside in the rain! In the
second instance, it is a difficult decision to decide who gets priority between the group
that arrived on time or the group that arrived late through no fault of its own. If the
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 94

system is inflexible, a decision to accommodate a group arriving late can cause severe
operational problems for other groups within the museum. Although the centre must have
operational procedures, the operations manager may have to negotiate with group leaders
on each occasion to arrive at a satisfactory compromise.
Groups that fail to turn up at all represent lost capacity that could have been sold to
other visitors. One solution is to give the booking provisional status until a deposit is paid
or payment is made in full. Failure to pay the deposit would render the booking void and
permit the space to be reallocated. Such a system has its operational advantages, but
again will not be popular with teachers who often have great difficulty getting payment
from parents for visits until the last minute.
A further problem is that of groups which have paid in advance but arrive with less
visitors than they predicted (for example, owing to illness) and demand a refund. An
appropriate policy needs to be developed for such cases. A policy of no cash refunds
might well result in a teacher personally refunding parents, with an inevitable loss of
goodwill to the centre. Similarly, a policy of offering free tickets for subsequent use
might be of little value if the group has travelled a long distance.
The discussion above primarily concerns school bookings during term-time.
Additional complications are provided by requests for bookings at weekends, and by the
varying term-times within different local authorities. If the catchment area for the centre
is regional rather than local, the centre will inevitably attract schools from authorities
with varying holidays. Thus, on what is a normal school day within one local authority, a
centre may be full of families from other areas (with subsequent operational problems of
delivering a quality service to both categories of user). This was a considerable problem
in the early days at Eureka! The solution was to research all the holidays of every
authority within ninety minutes’ travelling time and to programme every day into one of
three categories twelve months in advance, as follows:
1 A school day (a school day in every authority).
2 A peak holiday (a holiday in every authority).
3 A weekend day or non-peak holiday (a holiday in some authorities).
Staff resources, school and family programmes, and the ability to pre-book a group visit
were allocated accordingly. It was decided that no group bookings at all would be
permitted on peak holidays, as on those days long queues would develop and any
preferential treatment to pre-arranged groups would cause considerable resentment. This
was unpopular with leaders of non-school groups such as brownies and cubs, who were
encouraged to book at weekends or non-peak holidays when some limited group booking
was possible (but without any priority use of space).

Booking systems
Having defined the nature of the booking system to be introduced, a decision needs to be
made whether or not to computerise, and—if so—whether or not to purchase existing
software or to specify a bespoke program. A manual system is clearly cheaper to set up
and operate, but is prone to suffer from human error and permits only one booking point.
Any facility of a large size is likely to want to introduce a computerised booking facility,
 Operations management 95

with all the consequent benefits of multiple booking points and market intelligence such
as report-writing facilities.
It is essential that the specification for a computerised booking system enables the
museum to:
1 Provide instant visual reference of unused capacity at a given time and date of main
centre, together with the availability of any additional facilities (such as picnic space,
classroom, educational workshop).
2 Minimise the booking entry time as most bookings will be by telephone by teachers
using breaks and lunch periods (and several teachers may be trying to book
simultaneously; this has a consequent effect on number of booking points, and the
working hours and breaks of booking staff).
3 Be user-friendly so that users can operate the system with a minimum of training.
4 Calculate prices as necessary and automatically generate an invoice together with a
confirmation letter with booking details laid out clearly.
5 Be flexible for future needs and expansion, and price changes.
6 Provide a booking reference number so that future enquiries can be quickly dealt with.
7 Generate reports that will inform market intelligence and future operational decisions.
The computerised booking system’s great advantage over a manual system is that it can
provide instantly generated reports of group visitor figures or projected visitor figures
(for example, the number of group visitors by selected time-period, or by local authority).
Whilst there is a need to minimise the booking entry time, there is also an opportunity to
collect substantial additional information which will inform the education marketing
process, such as the age of children to be brought, the main curriculum area to be studied
or the method of transport to be used. Thus, the education manager and the marketing
manager must agree on essential information that must be collected, and prioritise
desirable information that should be collected.

Managing lunchtimes

The management of school groups over the lunch period is one of the most neglected
areas of museum and science centre planning. With certain exceptions (such as the
Natural History Museum Education Centre) this is almost invariably overlooked by the
designers of hands-on museums and science centres used by schools, but is an essential
requirement if the visit is to last more than two hours. Even in mid-summer, teachers
cannot rely on the use of outdoor facilities, and coach drivers dislike schools eating on
board their vehicles. Packed lunch provision for all the school children expected during a
day (for both morning and afternoon visitors, as well as those staying for the whole day,
will want eating space) can cause enormous logistical problems for hands-on museums
and science centres at a time when staff also require breaks. With three separate sessions
of two hours, each with ten classes of thirty children, Eureka! could have requests for 900
spaces for packed lunches on any one day! Teaching spaces are rarely available for use as
eating spaces for the whole lunch period (which can be well over two hours in a busy
centre if cleaning time is included), whilst café operators understandably are reluctant to
permit school groups to take up valuable eating spaces which could be otherwise sold to
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 96

paying diners. Eureka!, Techniquest and the Magician’s Road at the National Railway
Museum all provide railway coaches for the use of schools over the lunch period. One
option (which schools are unlikely to take up with any enthusiasm) is to offer schools the
chance to purchase a packed lunch from the café; another is to provide additional
facilities, staffed and cleaned separately, for which a charge could be made.
The reality is that picnic facilities do not satisfactorily combine with space that can be
used for other purposes—either teaching or restaurant—and schools are unable or
unwilling to pay an economic price to operate such a space or to purchase packed
lunches.

Managing breakdowns

There is no greater single cause of complaint at hands-on centres than that of broken
exhibits. It is a well-known truism that if 5 per cent of the exhibits are not working, then
visitors will complain that ‘half the exhibits are broken’, and if 10 per cent of the exhibits
are not working, then they will complain that ‘nothing works!’. At Eureka!, in 1992–3
every exhibit was visually checked daily in a pre-opening schedule by the enablers, who
also ensured there were plenty of stocks of consumable items where appropriate.
Throughout the day, breakdowns reported to or by enablers were logged at the front desk,
and appropriate action was instigated. On a weekly basis, every exhibit was checked in a
thorough audit for its mechanical condition, and for the standard of its graphics and
general decoration. The weekly audit informed the operations manager of the percentage
of exhibits broken at one moment in time each week, helped to ensure that action was
taken to improve the physical state of the exhibits, and helped identify those exhibits
which broke down on a regular basis (which therefore required major redevelopment or
scrapping). Thus, the museum was able to respond to any complaints with a quantified
analysis of the number of exhibits out of action, and, in terms of exhibit development, to
learn from experience which potential new exhibits are likely to cause problems.
Techniquest operates a similar policy, and goes one stage further with a board in the
reception area which details the proportion of exhibits broken at any one time, as well as
giving the names of key staff on duty. This simple panel communicates a message to the
visitor that Techniquest is an organisation that monitors its performance on a continual
basis.
One problem facing the operations manager of a hands-on centre is identifying just
what constitutes an exhibit that does not work. This might seem a simple problem to
solve, and it is if the breakdown is mechanical or electrical. Far more difficult is the
exhibit that does work from a technical perspective, but is so complex to interpret that it
does not work from an intellectual perspective. In other words, if the exhibit does not
work for its intended audience, for whatever reason, then it is the visitor’s perception that
the exhibit is broken. Furthermore, physical abuse of an exhibit is far more likely to occur
if the visitor cannot immediately understand what they are supposed to do. As Chapter 2
reinforced, if an exhibit does not work for any reason at all, the centre must accept
responsibility—it is invariably the fault of the developer for having designed an exhibit
that is too complex or is unreliable. Ensuring a good working relationship between the
exhibit designer, interpretation staff and exhibit builder is of paramount importance.
 Operations management 97

Formative evaluation of prototypes can eradicate many problems in terms of both

physical design and graphical interpretation at an early stage, and is therefore an essential
part of the exhibit development process.
If a visitor does complain that an exhibit is broken, it is unacceptable to show the
visitor that the exhibit really does work, but they have not followed the instructions
properly. This is a particular problem in the use of new technology: visitors failing to
achieve the desired objectives in a computer exhibit may well feel that they have failed,
when in reality the exhibit has failed them. This has a potential demoralising effect on a
visitor inexperienced in the use of new technology, and may act as a deterrent in the
future. Thus, an exhibit that is designed to promote access to new technology might do
precisely the opposite. In short, designing appropriate interpretation for a broad cross-
section of the visiting public is a complex task, but is a major factor in determining
whether or not an exhibit is perceived to work. There is no substitute for effective
evaluation.
Whilst every hands-on centre aims to develop exhibits that never break, and to repair
any exhibits that do break within minutes, the reality is often quite different. Typically, at
most centres on less busy days technical staff can stay on top of maintenance and
breakdowns, and few complaints are received. However, on busy days, breakdowns and
subsequently complaints typically increase in relation to the increase in the number of
visitors. A family that has queued for two hours will justifiably be disappointed if several
of the exhibits that they visit first fail to work for them. The problem is exacerbated if
high-profile, centrepiece exhibits fail to work, for it is these key exhibits that are often the
most popular, and certainly those which will shape visitors’ perceptions of the museum if
they fail to work adequately. The operations manager of every hands-on centre will know
the visitor threshold at which breakdowns start to occur, and consequently when
complaints arise. Similarly, they will know the key exhibits that have a skewed
importance in determining visitors’ perceptions.
When an exhibit is reported as broken it must be immediately recorded and checked.
A central location for an operations desk—possibly linked to the information desk—to
record all breakdowns and complaints is desirable. If the fault has been reported by a
visitor, it is helpful if that visitor is asked to show the precise fault to a member of staff.
Thus, if the fault is one of interpretation rather than breakdown, then the
misunderstanding can be rectified. A good enabler will later explain the problem to a
member of the interpretation team. If the exhibit has broken mechanically, then there are
a number of possible courses of action:
1 Is the exhibit safe? If not, can access be prevented by barriers or by closing off the
gallery? Can power to the exhibit be shut down?
2 If the exhibit is safe, but not working, it should be labelled accordingly. It is
disappointing for a visitor to find a broken exhibit labelled as such, but it is far more
frustrating to find a broken exhibit that is not identified. The visitor may feel that they
have failed, when in fact the exhibit has failed them.
3 The operations manager will then have a decision to make regarding the priority with
which the exhibit is repaired, and this will depend on whether the exhibit is a key
attraction, whether it is essential for a workshop session and whether appropriate
technical staff are currently available.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 98

4 Can the exhibit be repaired in situ? Many exhibits are fixed to the floors and walls of
the gallery, and removal is difficult. However, it is sometimes possible to repair an
exhibit when the gallery is open: a broken exhibit with a helpful technician working
on it can actually enhance its educational potential (albeit at the cost of holding up the
repair). The author has many times refilled or repaired the cash dispenser at Eureka! in
front of wide-eyed children astounded to see so much money! The secret life of
machines and how they work fascinates the inquisitive child in most of us! For safety
reasons, of course, access to the exhibit must be prevented by temporary barriers and
the technician must learn never to leave tools or ladders if they are called away from
the repair.
5 If the exhibit must be removed for repair, is there a duplicate or alternative exhibit that
can be introduced as a temporary replacement? In an ideal world, every hands-on
gallery would have the luxury of a duplicate exhibit. In the real world, this is
impossible—but it is possible to hold stocks of parts that frequently need repair. As
Chapter 2 demonstrated, wherever possible, the hands-on centre should standardise
common parts (such as pumps, bearings and motors) and only utilise parts that are
widely available locally. It is unhelpful if an exhibit cannot be repaired because a part
has to be shipped from abroad. Specifying the use of standardised parts and the
provision of good access for repair are integral parts of the design brief for hands-on
exhibits.

Managing complaints

Even popular and effective hands-on centres will sometimes receive complaints. If the
centre values its visitors’ opinions and wishes to receive repeat visits, it will make it easy
for customers to deliver suggestions and to make complaints, and these will be acted
upon quickly and efficiently. Nevertheless, it would be misleading to assume that a
complaint and suggestion system alone can give a full picture of visitors’ satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. Studies of consumer behaviour in the USA suggest that 25 per cent of
customers are dissatisfied with their purchases, yet only 5 per cent complain.7 It is not
suggested that this data from research on product purchases in the USA is directly
applicable to a visitor attraction in the UK, but the fact remains that most people feel their
complaints are trivial, that they will be made to feel foolish or that no remedy will be
offered. In short, complaint levels alone are not a measure of visitor satisfaction, and
monitoring complaints is no substitute for visitor survey data.
Most visitors with complaints will simply make a decision never to return, or to return
less often. Again, consumer research in the USA suggests that whereas a satisfied
customer will tell three other people about a good product experience, a dissatisfied
customer will tell eleven people. If these tell others, good and bad word of mouth grow
exponentially. Furthermore, the customers who are most upset are often those who had
previously been the best customers, whilst those who have their complaints resolved
successfully, often become loyal customers thereafter.8
An effective complaints process makes it simple and clear for visitors to complain, for
example, by providing a central and clearly signposted point inviting suggestions (usually
the visitor information desk) and by designing standardised complaint forms, detailing
 Operations management 99

channels of communication and action taken by different staff. Staff should be trained to
resolve problems speedily and successfully. Studies show that the faster a company
responds to complaints and the higher the compensation offered, the greater the ensuing
satisfaction.9
A clear policy also needs to be drawn up regarding suitable compensation: for
example, will the centre offer a refund of admission or complementary tickets for a repeat
visit (thereby gaining possible future café and shop sales)? At what level of authority will
money be refunded? If an acknowledgement of error is made, a policy needs to be drawn
up to respond to requests for compensation for transport and other costs, which can be
substantial and greatly exceed admission prices if the complaint concerns a school or
group visit.
The final stage in managing complaints is to discover and correct the system failures
that are the root cause of the problem. In addition to making it easy for visitors to
complain, as Chapter 3 has stressed, regular visitor surveys need to be conducted to
ascertain the level of visitor satisfaction and to invite suggestions for improvements.
Asking if the visitor would consider revisiting the centre or would recommend friends to
visit provides a good indication of visitor satisfaction. Another method is to recruit
‘mystery shoppers’: that is, individual assessors are asked to visit the centre unknown to
staff and fill in a standard questionnaire reporting on visitor service.
In addition, a good manager will regularly walk around the centre trying exhibits and
talking both to staff and visitors. It was no accident that the offices at Eureka! were built
so that staff had to travel through the exhibition spaces to reach their desk. A manager
who is seen to be active on the exhibition floor will not only be more aware of system
failures that lead to visitor complaints, but is much more likely to command the respect
and confidence of staff and thereby be in a position to correct any potential human
resource problems.

Conclusion

The role of effective operations management of a hands-on centre is to provide a

consistent and high-quality service that meets educational objectives, but which can be
delivered within the financial and other resources of the organisation. Since word of
mouth is such an important promotional tool for visitor attractions, consistency in service
delivery is vital for the effective management of a hands-on museum or science centre.
This requires that the visitor experience is the same for every visitor, whether they arrive
at the peak time on a busy Bank Holiday, or whether they arrive an hour before closing
time on a Friday afternoon in December. Indeed, these two extremes are likely to be
when most difficulties arise. In the former, resources are stretched to the limit: it is the
time when a building is at full capacity that hands-on exhibits are most likely to break
down and when most complaints will be received. Conversely, at less busy times, there is
a great temptation to cut back on staff and other resources, and in these situations it is
difficult to deliver a comprehensive visitor service. Staff are a vital component in the
delivery of any service. Given the importance of the human element in hands-on learning
and the ability of a well-trained staff to offset any operational problems, high standards of
human resource management are essential for the effective management of a hands-on
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 100

museum or science centre, and it is towards this area of management that attention is
turned in the next chapter.
 7
Human resource management

This chapter investigates good practice in managing the human resource at interactive
centres, particularly in the management of front of house staff and volunteers.

Introduction

The human skills required to manage a hands-on museum or science centre are similar to
those required to manage any other visitor attraction: staff fulfil all the main managerial
roles of administration, operations management, human resource management, marketing
and commercial development, educational programming and events management.
However, the importance of human interaction towards the success of the interactive
museum experience requires that the very best practices in recruitment and selection,
equal opportunities, and training and development are implemented. These are essential if
the problems typically associated with hands-on museums, such as fatigue or ‘burn-out’,
are to be avoided. Volunteers, too, are an essential component of many hands-on
museums, requiring careful and well-planned management if this important human
resource is to be utilised effectively. Many museums—particularly in the USA—have
altruistic aims towards both paid and unpaid staff, and devise innovative programmes to
recruit and train people to offset broader societal trends of injustice or educational
deficiency. This chapter outlines how many hands-on museums in the UK and USA have
implemented good practice in human resource management.

The nature of human interaction at hands-on museums

At all visitor attractions, staff are integral to the delivery of the service: this builds in an
element of unreliability as it is difficult to maintain consistent standards of exchange
between staff and visitors. It follows that managing human resources to achieve this
consistently high standard of delivery is always important at any visitor attraction.
However, the nature of hands-on museums involves additional factors:
1 The intangibility of the service. Visitors do not always know what to expect at a hands-
on centre, so staff can play an important role reassuring both adults and children, for
example, by indicating acceptable standards of behaviour for children.
2 The nature of the audience. Given that the majority of visitors are young children and
that the nature of the exhibits can make them very excitable, visitor behaviour is often
unpredictable—staff have to be prepared to deal with any situation.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 102

3 The nature of the experience. Most interactive centres have educational goals, and
mediation by staff can enhance the learning process by guiding parents to help their
children learn more from their interactions with the exhibits.
4 The nature of the exhibits. Interactive exhibits have to be built to very high standards to
withstand continual use and abuse. However, even the best-designed exhibits
sometimes break down, and interactive centres need versatile technicians able to
juggle several maintenance tasks simultaneously safely and in good humour, often in a
public arena. They are a precious resource.
Evaluative research at the Science Museum’s new gallery, Things, has identified that the
quality of the visitor experience is greatly increased by adult interaction, whether that
adult be a parent, teacher or explainer. Throughout the study, it was observed that
children spent longer on exhibits and were more focused when there was adult
interaction. For school groups, informative and lively explainer-led briefings helped to
focus the attention of the children, and the research led to a recommendation for an
expansion of explainer-led activities on the exhibition floor (such as simple
demonstrations or discovery boxes for visitors to explore).1 Falk and Dierking reinforce
the importance of the human resource in enhancing the museum experience, suggesting
that: ‘Ultimately, the human link between the exhibit and the visitor is likely to be the
most important determinant of public understanding and learning.’2 Indeed, they suggest
that there is evidence that personal interaction increases the likelihood that a museum
experience will be memorable, in some cases years after the event:

Giving each person a little attention, making her or him feel special and
important, almost guarantees that the museum experience will be both
positive and memorable… People, especially well-trained and committed
people, are still the key to high quality education.3

There are also good marketing reasons to improve human interactions with visitors, for,
as Gillian Thomas has noted, the presence of a smiling adult is remembered more than
the exhibit that did not work.4

Organisational structure

The Association of Science and Technology Centers in the USA periodically surveys
traditional science museums, children’s museums and hands-on science centres across the
world, and has found that there is no typical size or organisational structure. The 1987
survey received responses from 131 institutions, including eighteen located outside the
USA. Of those centres providing information on staffing levels, the survey found that, on
average, they employed 28.5 full-time equivalent staff.5 As one would expect, the size of
the work-force is related to the size of the centre: the very small centres (<1,858 square
metres) had the equivalent of 17.5 full-time members of staff, the small centres (1,858–
6,968 square metres) had 46, the medium centres (6,968–18,580 square metres) had 118,
and the large centres (>18,580 square metres) had 242.6
 Human resource management 103

There are many variations in organisational structure, as might be expected in such a

diverse group of institutions, but typically staff are organised into three hierarchical
chains: operations and finance, marketing and development (fundraising) and programme
(often including separate exhibits and education functions).7 The survey concluded that
there is no one preferred organisational structure, since much depends on the size and
nature of each institution. For example, curators and conservators will only be employed
if the hands-on centre combines its functions with those of a museum. In hands-on
centres, the education and interpretation manager(s) are integral to the exhibit
development programme and are likely to be employed at a senior level—a role they do
not always have in more traditional museums.
The ASTC survey found that staff costs represent between 50 per cent and 70 per cent
of the budget in the centres surveyed.8 This figure is verified by the available financial
data for UK centres (see Chapter 4), in which staff typically cost around 50 per cent of
the revenue budget. Given the importance of the human resource to the visitor experience
and its significance as the main element within the revenue budget, it clearly makes sense
to recruit, train and manage the human resource wisely. Furthermore, the investment of
resources in recruitment and training is high, so a high turnover of staff is very costly.

The role of front-of-house interpretation staff

The largest group of staff within hands-on museums and science centres are those
employed front of house to assist in the interpretation process. They are known, or have
been known, variously as pilots (Bristol Exploratory), enablers (Eureka!, Light on
Science at Birmingham), helpers (Techniquest, the Inventorium), explainers (Science
Museum, Exploratorium), interpreters (Boston Children’s Museum), auxiliaries (Natural
History Museum), hosts (Ontario Science Centre), demonstrators (Technology Testbed at
Liverpool) and gallery assistants (Launch Pad).9 Although there is no consensus between
centres on the appropriate name for front of house interpretation staff, and although each
centre has its anomalies, there is in fact remarkable similarity between the roles of staff
who work with hands-on exhibits.10 This similarity in roles is due in part to the fact that
European centres are largely modelled on those in the USA—particularly the early
pioneers of the Exploratorium in San Francisco and the Boston Children’s Museum.

Explainers at the Exploratorium, San Francisco: a case study

At the Exploratorium in 1988, ninety full-time and 118 part-time staff (including forty-
five part-time explainers) were assisted by twenty-five weekly and seventy-five special-
event volunteers.11 Between 1969 and 1986, 900 teenagers ‘chosen only for their
enthusiasm and diversity’ were employed as part-time paid explainers—the primary front
of house staff on the museum floor.12 Frank Oppenheimer’s philosophy was to employ
explainers with a reciprocal role: the students served the museum and its visitors, and in
return were not only paid but gained valuable work skills.
Explainers were recruited three times a year for an average session of four months,
with the short time-period chosen to enable more students to follow the programme, and
to minimise the effects of burn-out. Although their primary role was to explain science to
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 104

the visiting public, students were selected less for their science background than for their
curiosity, friendliness, enthusiasm and diversity.13 Over half the explainers recruited
came from a non-white background. The basic requirement for being an explainer was
the ability to establish immediate rapport with children and adults.14 Once selected, they
attended intensive training sessions for fifty hours over three weekends, and thereafter
received regular training from museum staff.

The social milieu is as important to the success of the programme as are

the exhibits. The explainers depend very strongly on each other’s help,
and this fosters feelings of interdependency and co-operation among
students with quite different backgrounds. Furthermore…mentor
relationships between staff and students readily form.15

Staff morale remained high partly because of the frequent introduction of new exhibits
and prototypes.16 Research into the long-term effect of the explainer programme found
that it had had a positive effect on students’ interest in learning, and in learning science in
particular. Students gained increased self-confidence, developed new learning skills and
became more positive towards working in a multi-racial environment. They also held
more positive attitudes to work than teenagers in other jobs.17

Interpreters at Boston Children’s Museum: a case study

One of the stated aims of the Boston Children’s Museum is to ‘attract and support a
diverse staff who share a commitment to children and bring creativity and expertise to the
work of the museum’.18 In the early 1960s, the children’s museum was primarily a white
institution in terms of its visitors, its board and its staff. From the late 1960s onwards, a
more diverse staff was recruited to take forward the museum’s ambitious multi-cultural
programmes, such that by 1991, when the museum employed the equivalent of 105 full-
time staff, people of many racial and ethnic backgrounds held positions at every level.19
The museum makes particular efforts to make community contacts to ensure that there is
a diverse pool of candidates before making a selection, a process which is always slower
than simply placing an advertisement in a newspaper. However, although the museum
actively seeks to recruit from a diverse range of applicants, they also reinforce the
importance of selecting the best candidate.20
The Museum Education Interpretership Program at Boston Children’s Museum
attracts applicants from around the world, in order to provide experience to individuals
interested in exploring careers in museums or in informal teaching environments. The
main role is to interact with visitors, with a secondary role of security, cleaning and
stocking exhibits with consumable materials. There are no formal prerequisites for the
post, in order to encourage the broadest possible range of people to participate.
Applicants are recruited three times a year, either for five months or for a twelve-week
summer season. Successful applicants follow a ten-day induction programme by senior
members of staff, which includes four days of intense orientation on the philosophy,
exhibitions and operation of the museum, followed by two days shadowing existing
interpreters, and four days of mixed training and interpreting. Every exhibit has its own
training manual detailing its philosophy and objectives, and every member of staff has a
 Human resource management 105

detailed training programme, with a daily one-hour training session. The training
programme closely parallels the philosophy of the museum, with an emphasis on
customer care and interactive learning.21
The Exploratorium and the Boston Children’s Museum provided role-models for the
European science centres and children’s museums, but there was plenty of evidence of
good practice elsewhere in the areas of equal opportunities, volunteer recruitment,
employment of student apprentices, and staff training and development.

The Science Teacher Career Ladder at the

New York Hall of Science: a case study
At the New York Hall of Science, an initiative entitled the Science Teacher Career
Ladder is designed to attract women and black groups into science professions. In 1991,
sixty black undergraduates taking science and education courses at eight participating
colleges were employed as part-time explainers for fifteen hours a week, on a ten-week
programme (repeated three times a year). Their role was to welcome and assist visitors,
and to perform demonstrations. The broader aim was to help the trainees develop
confidence and scientific knowledge, and to improve their communication skills. Each
explainer had a written job description, received two days induction training, participated
in a thirty-minute daily training meeting, and was appraised halfway through the
programme and at its end. In addition, they received credit towards their courses, and
were paid for both training and work. Some explainers continued the programme after
150 hours, and evaluation has shown that many have gone on to become maths or science
teachers. In addition, high-school-level ‘junior explainers’ were employed as apprentices
to the student explainers to assist weekend, evening and summer activities. Some of these
children were paid, others received credits towards their school courses.22 Student
internees were also employed as demonstrators at Boston Museum of Science, where the
student intern programme was funded by local companies.23

Volunteers at US hands-on museums

The ASTC survey found that the 125 institutions responding had an average of ninety-
eight part-time volunteers each (the full-time equivalent of eleven posts), 28 per cent of
whom worked in education or programming. Half the centres employed a paid volunteer
co-ordinator, whilst a further 7 per cent recruited a voluntary volunteer co-ordinator (in
the others, co-ordination of volunteers was thought to be decentralised). Sixty per cent of
volunteers were aged between 18 and 59, with 15 per cent 17 or younger and 25 per cent
over 60.24
Boston Museum of Science has an extensive volunteer programme, with 450
volunteers giving 60,000 hours in 1991—the equivalent of twenty-five full-time staff
(each volunteer was expected to work twelve hours a month). Volunteers were recruited
three times a year, undertook a two-day induction programme and had a further thirty-
minute training session every day. Like the New York Hall of Science and Boston
Children’s Museum, every exhibit had its own training manual. All volunteers had a job
description, and most had a written contract.25
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 106

The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis also has an enormous volunteer programme:

in 1990, 152 full-time and eighty part-time employees were supported by 555 adult
volunteers giving 23,297 hours and 737 youth volunteers giving 53,429 hours.26 Youth
and adult volunteers are so important at Indianapolis—the world’s largest children’s
museum—that they have their own centre there. Similarly, at Please Touch Museum in
Philadelphia, 100 volunteers supported thirty full-time and twenty part-time staff. They
had a formal interview and job description, and received regular training. They assisted in
all aspects of museum work, both front of house and behind the scenes, and there was
some overlap between the roles of paid and unpaid staff.27 There was a similar overlap
between roles at the Children’s Museum of Manhattan, but at that museum volunteers did
not have a job description. Brooklyn Children’s Museum, on the other hand, employed no
volunteers at all in 1991, as local government cutbacks had resulted in the loss of the
volunteer co-ordinator, and remaining staff felt their jobs were threatened by volunteers.

European hands-on museums

The US science centres and children’s museums influenced the recruitment, selection,
and training of front of house staff at embryo European hands-on museums. At the
Inventorium at La Villette, helpers were employed to reassure the adults in family
groups, to reduce anxiety amongst school groups and to make sense of the exhibit
content. They had to check equipment, conduct minor maintenance, control access, ask
questions to encourage children, answer questions and demonstrate or run educational
programmes. Their roles had to be clear, both to the helpers themselves to enable them to
carry out this multiplicity of tasks effectively and to a general public perhaps more
accustomed to tour guides or surly uniformed attendants. Volunteers were also employed
at the Inventorium, but had a different role from paid staff to avoid any conflict.28 At
Eureka! The Museum for Children, the role of enabler was designed primarily to enable
visitors to enjoy and learn more from the exhibits. Enablers also welcome and oversee
school and other groups, run activities for families at weekends and holidays, entertain
queues and have an important security and safety role. In 1992–3, the enablers at Eureka!
were a key part of the education and interpretation team. There were eleven full-time
enablers on open-ended contracts (after a succession of short-term contracts) and a large
number of casual staff. Both casual and contract staff were paid at the same rate and were
responsible to four team leaders (who each had one main area of responsibility: schools
liaison, events, house-keeping and volunteer co-ordinator). The team leaders and enablers
were managed in turn by the visitor services manager, who operated alongside two
education officers and a curriculum support teacher responsible to the Head of Education
and Interpretation.29
On a daily basis, enablers followed an hourly rota between locations, except on school
days, when they welcomed groups and stayed with them. Eleven enablers were employed
to run essential services on school days, fifteen at weekends and nineteen on peak days.
At weekends and on peak days, additional enablers were employed to run special events
or entertain the queues. This approximates to one enabler for every 273 square metres of
exhibition space on school days, and one to every 158 square metres on peak days. This
makes an interesting comparison with the Inventorium, where one enabler had been
 Human resource management 107

employed for every 300 square metres of free-access exhibits, but one to every five
children for Discovery Room exhibits.30
In some exhibition areas, no enabler was needed other than to encourage and reassure
visitors, and to ensure their safety. Other exhibits, such as the factory exhibit’s
production-line, could not operate at all without an enabler present, and this was clearly
unsatisfactory as the exhibit was inevitably unused for a significant proportion of opening
hours. Some exhibits, particularly those involving role-play, were much enhanced when
an enabler was present. An evaluative study in 1992 suggested that in the bank exhibit at
Eureka!—where an enabler was always present—role-play was well-structured and
effective in educating children in the role of money and exchange. However, in the shop
exhibit the enabler was often preoccupied helping children operate the till; in that area
little role-play was observed and the activities were more chaotic.31
Initial recruitment for enablers at Eureka! took place two months before the museum
opened to the public. Advertising in the local and regional press encouraged 400
applicants, and twenty-four enablers were eventually recruited from seventy-five
interviewees on a mixture of full- and part-time short-term contracts. It would have been
possible to recruit only graduates, trained teachers or nursery nurses, but it was Eureka!’s
policy at that time to offer opportunities to people with a wide range of skills and
experience. They all had three things in common: experience of working with children,
likeable personalities and youth. Eureka! justified its policy to recruit only young people
by arguing that enabling is physically very demanding work, although with hindsight this
policy was discriminatory. On the other hand, Eureka! successfully attracted applicants
from a range of different cultures, which gave great diversity to the enabling team,
although the museum had more difficulty recruiting men from any background.32
The first batch of enablers had intensive training over a one-week period by the
education team, senior managers and by various fire and other safety officers. Thereafter,
every day began with a thirty-minute team meeting to discuss the day’s programme and
to offer an important daily channel to communicate information between enablers and
their managers. In addition, in term-time Monday afternoons were devoted to a long-term
training programme designed after a comprehensive audit of training needs, and this was
delivered either by one of the education team or by outside specialists. Thus, in the first
year this included a range of activities, from training by Theatre in Education
professionals, to learning how to use sign language.33
After the initial period on short-term contracts, many of the original enablers were
able to negotiate successfully for open-ended contracts. Based on experience in the USA,
the Director had argued that short-term contracts would prevent enabler fatigue and
‘burn-out’, but the enablers at that time wanted security, and after an expensive
investment in recruitment and training, it seemed sensible to encourage loyalty in an
enthusiastic core work-force. The result was that it was not necessary to undertake any
further major recruitment within the first year of operation. However, large numbers of
casual staff were recruited for weekend and holiday work, and for these recruits a short
induction programme of training was developed, which was also delivered to volunteers,
youth trainees and students on placement. This consisted of half a day with the education
team on the underpinning philosophy of Eureka! and its exhibitions, half a day with
enabler team leaders on evacuation training and core exhibit training, and a full day
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 108

shadowing an experienced enabler acting as mentor; on the third day the new enabler
worked on their own.
At the Science Museum, in 1986 Launch Pad had been staffed by six gallery assistants
in laboratory coats. By 1994, the museum employed thirty explainers—who, like those at
Eureka!, were highly motivated outgoing young people. Their role is not only to explain
scientific principles behind the exhibits, but also to encourage visitors to ask questions
and to learn from each other. Rather than providing ready-made answers, explainers are
trained to encourage visitors through a self-directed process of discovery. Again like
those at Eureka!, their role is to demonstrate activities, brief school children, monitor the
condition of exhibits, ensure the gallery is used safely and control crowds. The Science
Museum looks for a combination of skills and personal qualities: a good understanding of
science is important, but being an excellent and enthusiastic communicator is more
important. Also like Eureka!, the museum invests heavily in training on issues such as the
science behind the exhibits, learning styles, the national curriculum, presentational skills
and assertiveness.34

Enabler ‘burn-out’
One consistent problem at all interactive centres which employ enabling staff on long-
term contracts is that of enabler fatigue or burn-out. Many US museums avoid this
problem by only recruiting staff on short-term contracts, whilst the changing exhibits at
the Exploratorium help to maintain staff morale. At both the Science Museum and
Eureka! the ongoing programme of training was designed not only to improve the skills
of the enablers but also to offset the effects of burn-out. This is important as it is not
always possible to ensure variety in the work or to reward responsibility. It is common
for enthusiastic enablers to want more responsibility as education officers or exhibit
designers. At Eureka!, some enablers were able to achieve promotion, to move into
responsible administrative positions at Eureka! or to transfer their skills elsewhere.
Clearly, the human element at interactive centres is an expensive resource, and it should
be nurtured and utilised as effectively as possible. At Eureka! enablers were encouraged
to make suggestions to improve exhibits, whilst teams across all sections and layers of
the organisation were introduced to develop programmes of activities and events.
Similarly, at the Science Museum, explainers are encouraged to develop new ideas for
exhibitions.35 In 1993, the Science Museum, Eureka! and Light on Science at
Birmingham were all investigating the possibility of explainer/enabler exchange.
Both Eureka! and the Science Museum have a policy of employing only young people
as enablers/explainers, in an attempt to reduce fatigue. This policy was heavily criticised
as ageist by human resource managers at other hands-on museums at a British Interactive
Group seminar on the Human Element to Hands-On Learning in April 1993. In
comparison, the Exploratory in Bristol employs people of all ages as pilots,36 whilst
Techniquest employs helpers of all ages amongst its fifty-five—mostly casual—front-of-
house staff. Techniquest avoids the problem of fatigue amongst older helpers by reducing
the length and frequency of shifts.37 Techniquest also implements many other elements of
good human resource management: it has clearly defined training objectives for its
helpers together with clearly defined criteria for appraising front of house staff.
 Human resource management 109

Other organisations are responding rather differently to the need for explainers and
enablers. Some UK museums which are introducing hands-on exhibits into their existing
museums are transforming existing museum attendants—whose role is primarily that of
security—into museum assistants with an active educational role. For example, former
attendants at Colchester Museums are now encouraged to welcome groups and lead
museum tours.38 Indeed, Hampshire County Council Museum Service and South Eastern
Museums Service have produced a training manual for interpreters and demonstrators in
hands-on centres and museums covering key skills such as listening, questioning and
presentation.39

Volunteers at the Archaeological Resource Centre

The response of the Archaeological Resource Centre (ARC) in York to the effects of
fatigue and burn-out is to employ only volunteers front of house. It is the view of Andrew
Jones, the ARC’s manager, that as there is never a satisfactory number of paid staff at
hands-on centres for visitors to receive the optimum attention, the obvious solution is to
employ volunteer staff. The ARC invests heavily in its volunteers, particularly in
recruitment and training. All prospective volunteers (including students on placement)
must make an introductory visit, after which they must make a formal application. If
accepted, they are given two hours’ training in safety and emergency procedures, and a
training manual and checklist of training modules. Responsibility for training is shared
amongst staff, and new members are encouraged to identify their own training needs. A
regular programme of reviews and informal seminars is conducted, not to mention
monthly parties for staff. The ARC has realised that if a volunteer is unhappy, they will
quickly leave the organisation. Thus, it is important that the ARC offers something in
return to reward loyalty, and it could be argued that the most important reason for
working with volunteers is that it makes management more responsive to staff needs.40
People volunteer at the ARC for many reasons: as a first step on the career ladder, to
meet people or simply to get back into work after a period of unemployment. Thus,
students, the unemployed (including those returning to work after a family) and the
retired are key volunteers. In total, the ARC has around fifty volunteers and offers work
placements for around 200 students per annum (mostly archaeologists or students of
heritage management). There is a long tradition in archaeology of volunteer and paid
employees working alongside each other, and this reduces any potential friction. In return
for its heavy investment in recruitment and training of volunteers, the ARC achieves its
aim of educating the public in archaeology, helps keep the centre lively and interesting,
and its staff rarely suffer from burn-out. As Jones observes, ‘Volunteers and students are
not a cheap solution to staffing interactive centres, but they are a good way of avoiding
many of the least satisfactory aspects of hands on centres.’41

Best practice in human resource management at hands-on centres

Essentially, good practice in human resource management is applicable to any

organisation: it begins with job analysis, to specify the work that needs to be done to
meet the organisational goals, and the relationship between post-holders within the
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 110

organisational structure. The ASTC survey has shown that there is no one organisational
structure which is appropriate for all hands-on museums and science centres—it depends
very much on the size and individual nature of institutions. One particular issue is where
to place front-of-house staff—the main element in the staffing budget—within the
organisational structure. Should they be the responsibility of the operations manager or,
because of the educational nature of hands-on museums, should they be the responsibility
of the education manager? There are arguments for both chains of command: if the front-
of-house staff are responsible to the education manager, much of that person’s time will
be diverted from educational programming to the minutiae of daily operations
management. On the other hand, if they are responsible to the operations manager, there
is a risk that their educational role is diminished and they become more like the
traditional museum attendant. Many museum services, like the Colchester example cited
above, are trying to retrain their attendants to play a more active role in the visitor
experience. Since the human element to interactive learning is so important, education
staff should at the very least be responsible for the training and development of front-of-
house staff.
As in most other organisations, every job (whether paid or voluntary) should have a
job description specifying the tasks and duties to be completed, working conditions, lines
of authority and expected results. An unambiguous job description clarifies to whom an
employee reports and how performance will be measured, whilst the lack of a job
description can lead to misunderstanding. Every job should have not only a job
description detailing the tasks to be completed, but also a person specification listing the
criteria against which candidates are measured for selection. If each of the criteria has a
measurable performance indicator, there is less likelihood that decision-making will be
based on subjective values.
The process of recruitment and selection requires targeted advertising to reach a broad
spectrum of potential candidates, followed by objective selection of the best candidate.
There are many suitable methods of selection, but the typical method is to short-list those
candidates matching the requirements of the person specification on the application form,
followed by an interview to measure those criteria not covered by the application form.
Applying a standardised interview format to all interviewees, together with measurable
assessment criteria for each category on the person specification, helps to ensure
objective decision-making and non-discriminatory selection. A police check on anyone
appointed to either a paid or a voluntary post dealing with the public is essential to ensure
that they do not have a criminal record of indecent assault on children.
In reality, the selection of front-of-house staff can be highly subjective, since many
organisations cite a pleasant character or an ability to interact with visitors in a short
space of time as being an important characteristic of post-holders. This underpins the
need for a person specification detailing measurable characteristics required of post-
holders: clearly, it is possible to measure qualifications and prior experience of working
with children, but even large science centres such as the Exploratorium and the Science
Museum in London claim personal characteristics are more important. The logic is
simple: front-of-house staff have around one minute to create a positive interaction with
visitors, so the old adage ‘you only get one chance to make a good first impression’ is
extremely important. The challenge, therefore, is to reduce subjective decision-making:
 Human resource management 111

one solution is to devise a test which is a realistic approximation of an interaction with

visitors on the museum floor, and to subject all interviewees to this test.
Equal opportunities is an important issue for all employers: in the museum world,
many institutions wish to broaden the visitor base (perhaps to justify public subsidy),
whilst there are others—such as the New York Hall of Science —which have training
objectives to address inequalities in society. In the UK, equal opportunities are
encapsulated by UK and European Community (EC) legislation: discrimination by sex,
marital status, race and disability are all illegal. Boston Children’s Museum, which has a
long history of addressing equal opportunities issues, is a model of best practice. That
museum advocates taking time to ensure that jobs are advertised and promoted through
community contacts to a broad range of communities, but stresses that is essential that
only the best candidates are appointed. Thus, the key to good practice is to devise
appropriate strategies to cast the net as widely as possible, but then to appoint the
candidate who best meets the criteria set out in the person specification.
In the UK, discrimination by age or sexuality is not illegal, but is considered
unacceptable by most equal opportunities employers. Ageism is a problem in interactive
museums, as many employers are concerned that the environment is too tiring for older
people. However, there are many examples of museums in the UK and USA which have
successfully harnessed the skills and abilities of older people: one way is to offer the
opportunity to work shorter shifts, as at Techniquest in Wales.
Good human resource management continues after recruitment and selection with staff
induction, job-specific training, appraisal, and continuing training and development.
There are many examples of good practice in induction training, although the
Interpretership Program at Boston Children’s Museum provides a model for others to
emulate. A training policy, alongside training needs analysis, will help identify the
training needs of individuals in accordance with organisational goals. Ongoing staff
appraisal should ensure that staff know what is expected of them and understand how
their performance relates to organisational goals, and will enable them to receive
recognition for their achievements. The process can help prevent demotivation by
ensuring that staff feel part of a team and, as performance appraisal is a two-way process,
it can also help managers receive feedback from staff.
There are a number of alternative ways to avoid the potential problems of fatigue and
burn-out amongst front-of-house staff. The response of many hands-on museums is
simply to employ staff only on short-term contracts: this does ensure a continuaily
changing work-force, but requires a heavy investment in induction training. If the
organisation has broader training aims for its employees, as does the Exploratorium or the
New York Hall of Science, then this policy can help achieve these objectives by making
more places available. However, many other hands-on museums employ staff on longer-
term contracts and implement a well-planned staff training and development programme
to help offset the problems of fatigue and burn-out.
Front-of-house staff are the largest item on the revenue budget for hands-on museums,
typically accounting for 50 per cent or more of annual expenditure. One response to the
need for more staff on the exhibition floor is to recruit volunteers, and many centres—
such as the ARC in York, Boston Museum of Science or Indianapolis Children’s
Museum—have successfully employed volunteers either as the main work-force, or
working alongside paid members of staff. In some institutions, volunteers and paid staff
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 112

are interchangeable, but a more common practice is to employ volunteers to do additional

tasks (with a job description) in support of the paid work-force. This strategy avoids the
problem faced by Brooklyn Children’s Museum in 1991, when staff cuts resulted in staff
feeling threatened by the possible recruitment of volunteers. However volunteers are
integrated, they should never be seen as a free resource, as they require co-ordination and
management like any other employee group. Indeed, if the museum does not respond to
the special needs of its voluntary work-force, it may well find that a high turnover of
volunteers is in fact a very expensive resource in terms of training.
In conclusion, best practices in recruitment and selection, equal opportunities, and
training and development are largely interchangeable between many organisations. The
importance of human interaction to the museum experience in hands-on museums and
science centres requires that organisations implement the highest standards to manage
both their paid and volunteer staff. If they are unsuccessful, the quality of the interaction
with visitors will be diminished, and there is every likelihood that front-of-house staff
will fall victim to fatigue or burn-out, which will result in a high staff turnover and
expensive recruitment and training for the museum.
 8
Managing educational programmes and
special events

This chapter outlines the ways in which UK and US hands-on museums and science
centres manage their educational programmes, special events and outreach.

Introduction

Education is at the heart of all activity within the hands-on museum or science centre.
Every exhibit is developed and selected for educational reasons, staff are trained to help
visitors use the exhibits more effectively, and every exhibit or activity is evaluated
against specified learning objectives. As part of the informal education sector, the hands-
on museum defines its audience in broad terms, but most of its educational strategies will
be concerned with encouraging existing users to make greater and more effective use of
the centre, or with developing new users of the service by innovative programmes or
outreach activities.
Existing visitors, or groups of people who share the same characteristics of those
visitors, are the groups which are the easiest to reach, and strategies to reach these people
are likely to be more cost-effective than trying to reach those who have not previously
visited the centre. Chapter 5 has shown that the main groups of existing visitors are likely
to be families and schools. Encouraging more visits to the service by these groups
involves market penetration strategies, such as more effective promotion or changing the
pricing structure. It can also be achieved by service development, such as developing
curriculum materials for schools, school and family workshop activities, children’s clubs
or special events such as sleepovers. A traditional museum placing hands-on exhibits
within its existing galleries is also an example of service development, aiming both to
attract more visitors and to improve interpretation in the gallery.
Encouraging existing visitors to use the service more often or more effectively is very
much easier to achieve than developing new audiences through outreach. The personal
characteristics, opinions and behaviour of people who have shown a propensity to visit
can be measured relatively easily by market research and evaluation studies, and
educational and marketing strategies can be developed to meet their identified needs.
These groups comprise the core market—and therefore the main source of earned
revenue—for all museums, and their interests should be nurtured so that they continue to
use the services provided. Non-visitors are much more problematic: not only do the
characteristics of these groups have to be identified, but market research to discover their
interests and opinions (non-user surveys) is complex. Furthermore, changing their current
non-visiting behaviour pattern in favour of visiting a hands-on museum or science centre
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 114

will always be difficult. This may be achieved by market extension strategies (such as
raising awareness through improved promotion or concessionary admission prices
targeted at specific groups of non-users) or by diversification strategies designed to
develop new services for these groups. These might include developing exhibits and
programmes for the under-5s, for teenagers or for the early-retired and senior citizens.
These programmes are likely to be expensive to develop, and the outcomes are more
unpredictable. As such, only hands-on museums with a sound financial base are likely to
commit scarce resources to outreach activities. However, many hands-on museums and
science centres will have specific corporate objectives identifying a commitment to
developing programmes for a broad audience, so programmes will need to be developed
to reach these groups effectively. Given the difficulty and unpredictability of outreach
activities, it is vital that the hands-on museum clearly identifies in its mission statement
and educational policy those visitor groups for which it intends to provide.
It is a fundamental principle of hands-on museums and science centres that whilst they
are likely to assist more formal educational institutions such as schools to meet their
curriculum needs, such museums and science centres are valid educational institutions in
their own right. Chapter 2 has demonstrated that there are sound educational reasons why
many people learn more effectively in an informal environment, and as such the hands-on
museum is not simply an extension to school. Chapter 5 has shown that families within a
sixty-minute drive are likely to be the main visiting groups to hands-on museums, with
schools the next-largest segment. Whilst 33 per cent of visitors to UK museums are
children, families rather than schools provide the main market segment. One
commentator has suggested that school groups comprise 10–20 per cent of visitors to
some independent museums, although there is clear variation between different types of
museum depending on their objectives, programme, educational resources and
marketing.1 Indeed, annual throughput of school children in educational groups to UK
museums can vary from less than 5 per cent to more than half of total admissions.
Although less important than family groups to most museums, schools do provide an
important market for museums in the UK, not only because they visit on school days
when the museum would otherwise be empty (thereby helping to offset fixed costs of
opening), but also because children visiting with school often bring back their parents on
a family visit. Indeed, it has been claimed that two children in every seven visiting one
traditional UK museum with a school group returned within two months with their
parents.2

Museum education in the USA

Chapter 1 has identified that the current boom in hands-on museums and science centres
in the UK and Europe stems from the successful development of hands-on museums as
effective institutions of informal education in the USA. In 1987, the ASTC survey
received responses on education from 123 science museums, children’s museums and
hands-on science centres, 97 of which are located in the USA (approximately one-third of
the sample were traditional science and natural history museums). An independent review
of the findings commented that the main feature of the research was the diversity of
activities taking place within museums and science centres. As museums and science
 Managing educational programmes and special events 115

centres, they concentrated on providing the casual visitor with a range of educational
experiences centred around exhibits. However, it was noted that they were increasingly
involved in outreach activities, attracting new audiences to existing services but also
diversifying to become multifaceted cultural resources of local communities, serving a
broader base than simply their visitors.3
For general audiences, over half the respondents to the research claimed to be offering
eight different types of programme: demonstrations and lectures (94 per cent), classes
and workshops (94 per cent), special events (88 per cent), guided tours (67 per cent), field
trips (66 per cent), films or space shows (64 per cent), student interns (64 per cent) and
planetarium shows (52 per cent). Other activities for general audiences included
performing arts (46 per cent), sleepovers (44 per cent), travel programmes (43 per cent),
science clubs (34 per cent), speakers’ bureaux (36 per cent) and radio/television
programmes (32 per cent).
For schools, over half the respondents were offering five different types of educational
programmes: classes and demonstrations at museums (94 per cent), in-service education
for teachers (81 per cent), classes and demonstrations at schools (67 per cent), curriculum
materials (66 per cent) and loan kits (53 per cent). School programmes also included
science fairs (44 per cent) and career workshops (30 per cent). The survey did not include
explainer programmes or publications, both of which are important educational tools
helping a museum reach into its community.4
In total, 88 per cent of respondents to this survey reported that they were offering three
or more educational programmes. These included a very broad range of educational
activities for general audiences, which were distributed across all types of museums in
the survey, although there was some variation in size and type. The smallest museums
reported fewer sleepovers and travel programmes than larger museums, whilst the largest
museums were more likely to offer films and guided tours. The hands-on science centres,
63 per cent of which have either a library or resource centre, were more likely to offer
planetarium programmes and science clubs than the museums.
For schools, 64 per cent of respondents were offering three or more educational
programmes, with over 50 per cent serving more than 25,000 school students per year.
An average of 24 per cent of the annual attendance at the museums and science centres
visited in school groups, with the smaller institutions generally gaining a higher
proportion of school groups than large institutions. The report speculated that the large
institutions have physical constraints on the number of classes they can accommodate,
and that many of these are major tourist facilities attracting visitors over long distances.
The museums in the USA were more likely than the non-US museums to hold classes or
demonstrations at schools, or indeed to loan kits or artefacts to schools. In addition, new
museums were less dependent on school visitors than older museums, and offered fewer
classes, teacher training workshops or curriculum materials. Only 44 per cent of new
museums had classroom facilities, compared to 74 per cent of the whole sample. Thus,
the report speculated that for new museums in their initial stages, schools are less of a
priority than exhibit-based, public-oriented programming.5
Public and school programmes often fall within the remit of separate departments
within the larger US science centres. For the 94 US science centres reporting in the
ASTC survey, an average of 10 per cent of public space and 14 per cent of operating
budget were devoted to educational programmes, with a similar additional amount for
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 116

public programmes such as theatres and planetaria. For the US centres, the total
expenditure on education and public programmes was 27 per cent of all operating
expenses, whilst income from special events, programme fees and publications brought in
19 per cent of total revenue. Education programme staff comprised 19 per cent of all
staff, receiving 14 per cent of wages (suggesting that education staff received less than
the ‘average rate of museum pay). Wages for all other public programme staff cost an
additional 14 per cent of the wage budget. Thus, education and public programming are
major staff employers in US science centres. In addition, approximately 53 per cent of all
volunteers in US science centres were assigned to education departments, with a median
number of 23 per museum (the median is considered a better indicator than the mean,
since some museums employ high numbers of volunteers: for example, the California
Museum of Science and Industry reported 620 in the education department alone).6

US case studies
The ASTC survey asked respondents how they evaluated the success of their educational
programmes, suggesting that there had been less research in this area than on exhibits.
Since most visitors to US museums pay an additional fee for education programmes,
there is a temptation to neglect educational objectives in favour of programmes which are
primarily popular and enjoyable. Respondents suggested that a successful education
programme is likely to offer hands-on activities in a non-threatening environment, high-
quality staff and programme content, access to ‘real’ artefacts and scientific phenomena,
and a flexible structure offering day-care, after-school, holiday and weekend programmes
appropriate for busy parents trying to juggle home and work schedules.7
Many of the best programmes witnessed by the author in the USA are attempts to
expand the visitor audience beyond schools and white family groups. For example, the
Children’s Museum in Boston has a long history of multicultural and community
programmes, employing strategies that have gone a long way to opening the museum to
new audiences.8 At Brooklyn Children’s Museum, located in a multicultural and run-
down district, the Kid’s Crew involves over 1,200 local children annually aged between 7
and 15, about forty-five of whom arrive after school every day on their own and engage
in museum activities free of charge. In 1991, Brooklyn Children’s Museum was the only
cultural organisation in New York to allow children to visit without an adult. From the
age of 10 some members of Kid’s Crew train as Junior Curators, who undertake
voluntary assignments in almost all areas of the museums, acting as interpreters, assisting
with programmes or simply working in the cloakroom. By the age of 14, Teen Interns are
paid a wage and given even more responsibility, alongside receiving basic training in job-
hunting and work-related skills. Brooklyn’s unique approach, called the Museum Team,
combining training experiences with close supervision from supportive staff, makes the
museum a role-model for many other youth-serving cultural institutions in the USA. On
Friday nights in the summer, the museum holds rooftop parties for families, and the
summer annual event in the surrounding park has attracted 15,000. A safe haven from
street life, substance abuse and crime, Brooklyn Children’s Museum is a museum
reaching out into its local community.
In a much more prosperous part of New York, the Children’s Museum of Manhattan
also serves its local community. It keeps its school and public programmes quite separate,
 Managing educational programmes and special events 117

with schools visiting in the morning and public programmes throughout the afternoon,
along with after-school facilities for children whose parents are at work. The author
visited an early-childhood class, the purpose of which was as much to offer a supporting
role to parents as to provide play opportunities for children. Please Touch Museum in
Philadelphia has a similar role, with graphics throughout the museum designed to support
parents simply in the role of parenting. Whilst around 155,000 people a year visit Please
Touch, a further 50,000 are reached by various community outreach programmes. For
example, Travelling Trunks are twenty-four kits of exhibits and activities which are
available to community sites and events. There is a disadvantaged children’s fund,
provided by local sponsors and patrons, and on Sunday mornings visitors can pay as
much as they wish. In 1991, this averaged $1.60 compared to a normal admission of $5,
but the voluntary admission price ensured that the museum was well-utilised.
New York Hall of Science has a clear mission to overturn the poor performance by
black children in the subjects of maths and science. In the same way that the Children’s
Museum in Boston tackles multicultural issues through its exhibits and programmes on
offer, New York Hall of Science meets its educational objectives through a variety of
strategies. Its Science Career Ladder is described in Chapter 7, but at the bottom rung of
this ladder, high school children come in to the museum and link with college explainers,
working as laboratory assistants, on special events or running birthday parties and
sleepovers. At New York Hall of Science, the special events and public programmes are
most impressive, including massive sleepovers, family workshops, Science Halloween,
discovery activities and a big summer event. Significantly, these events are totally self-
supporting.
Each children’s museum and science centre has its own individual character,
determined by local community needs. Perhaps the most impressive range of programmes
are those aiming to reach adolescents—traditionally one of the least likely to visit
museums out of school. For example, Brooklyn Children’s Museum has its Museum
Team, whilst Boston Children’s Museum has an Early Adolescent Programme, together
with a Youth Advisory Council in which staff and teenagers work together to design and
provide appropriate programmes. However, without doubt the most impressive youth
programme is provided by Indianapolis Children’s Museum: the museum has its own
gallery designed specifically with and for teenagers, its own Youth Advisory Council, its
own news bureau (with a weekly page in the local newspaper) and—most impressive of
all—the Museum Apprentice Programme. In this programme, teenagers are encouraged
to become volunteer interpreters in one of the four main galleries. Around 100 children
work in each of the galleries, coming in two days a week in term-time and four days a
week in holidays. Of the 450 participants in the apprentice scheme in 1990, 20 per cent
were non-white, and 60 per cent were female. Children are recruited every six months: at
first there is an open evening with parents, then children select one gallery and they
receive a full day’s training. Thereafter new apprentices are trained by more experienced
apprentices. Long service is rewarded by badges or T-shirts, and there is a waiting list to
participate in the programme. The apprentice programme encourages young people to
gain a deep knowledge of one subject area, but more importantly it helps them develop
social interaction skills with a diverse range of people outside their daily environment.
The museum believes the social benefits of this programme far outweigh the loss of any
accuracy in interpretation of the exhibits. The main disadvantage is the high cost of
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 118

administration—there is one supervisor for the apprentices in each gallery, but the
museum does not know until the day before which children are coming in, and schedules
have to be drawn up for the children to change activities every half hour.9

UK case studies
Science centres and hands-on museums in the UK have tended to base their education
and public programmes on those witnessed in the USA, adding new initiatives to reflect
the local character of the community to be served. As in the USA, a new centre is likely
to concentrate on establishing a core market of families and schools in the early stage of
its life-cycle, before trying to extend its audience through outreach activities as it reaches
maturity. Eureka! The Museum for Children’s strategy for family groups in its early years
was to organise a series of themed events at weekends and in holidays which would
provide not only added value for visitors but also an incentive to make a repeat visit. For
schools, the strategy was to raise awareness of the facilities on offer, promoting the
museum as widely as possible throughout the region through the distribution of free
curriculum materials (sponsored by a range of organisations in the private, public and
charitable sectors), the organisation of structured in-service education for teachers
(INSET) days, the provision of numerous free open evenings for teachers and
opportunities for teachers to make free preview visits. All school visits to Eureka! had to
focus on one of eight bookable spaces, and the education team developed a series of
school workshop activities providing—at additional cost—added value to the visit. In
short, Eureka!’s initial objective was to establish a core visiting market in the areas of
school and family groups, based on strategies of raising awareness and providing added
value to the visit.
The Exploratory at Bristol adopted a similar strategy for its school visits. With funding
from the Gatsby Foundation, in 1993 the Exploratory developed curriculum materials for
primary-age school groups, encouraging all schools visiting the centre to focus on themes
(called ‘Pathways’) linked to the science national curriculum. The idea was based on a
scheme developed by the Exploratorium in San Francisco, in which pupils are
encouraged to focus on two or three related exhibits before going on to investigate freely
the rest of the centre. At the Exploratory, all schools following the Pathway programme
spent forty-five minutes in groups of half a class with two trained members of staff, and a
further forty-five minutes elsewhere in the centre. Curriculum materials for teachers
suggested related activities that could be carried out in the classroom before and after the
visit, and provided insight into children’s preconceptions and misconceptions. The
programme was entirely dependent on charitable funding, and the Exploratory had
previously had to shelve a number of similar schemes through lack of funding.10
Developing curriculum materials and delivering a staff-intensive educational
programme is an expensive strategy, but essential if the hands-on museum or science
centre is to survive in the highly competitive UK educational visit marketplace. Funding
from COPUS or one of the educational charities supporting public understanding of
science initiatives is one way to help develop educational programmes. Only the very
large institutions with substantial public or charitable backing are able to develop
extensive educational programmes, but many smaller centres are able to take part in
initiatives like Science Week, which is a national celebration exploring science,
 Managing educational programmes and special events 119

engineering and technology, co-ordinated by the British Association for the

Advancement of Science. However, some successful programmes can be self-financing.
The Science Museum has extensive education and public programmes, and, like Eureka!
and the Exploratory, it has borrowed ideas extensively from the United States. For
example, in 1993 it was the first museum in Europe to hold a sleepover or campin, and its
monthly Science Nights now regularly attract 400 children and are self-financing.11 With
organised activities, experiments, story-telling and torchlit tours—not to mention the
opportunity to sleep under a lunar module—there is little wonder the programme is so
successful. Indeed, other UK science centres have copied the idea, whilst the Science
Museum has also had a Women’s Science Night.
Now in its third phase of development, Techniquest is perhaps the most mature
science centre in the UK, and its education programmes closely resemble those of a US
science centre. On site, around 80,000 school pupils visit Techniquest each year, making
up around one-third of all visitors. The centre structures its school visits around weeks of
activities linked to the science national curriculum, for both primary and secondary
pupils. Pupils attend a presentation of around forty minutes in either the Science Theatre
or the Planetarium, and afterwards are guided around the centre by focus cards linking
exhibits to the themes being investigated. In addition, the centre has a Discovery Room
containing a collection of Discovery Boxes for children to explore (which are very
reminiscent of the discovery rooms at Boston Museum of Science). Beyond the centre
itself, around 25,000 pupils each year are reached by Techniquest Kits, which consist of
five hands-on exhibits on one of five different scientific themes. The kits are hired out to
schools for half a term, with the rental price of £100 including delivery and collection.
Techniquest also hires out a portable planetarium, operates Pan-Tecnicon (an outreach
programme bridging the gap between arts and science) which distributes £300,000 on
behalf of the Millennium Commission in thirty grants of £10,000 to organisations
promoting science in Wales through activity and performance, and runs a joint M.Sc.
programme in Communicating Science with the University of Glamorgan. In total, these
programmes represent the activities of an organisation not only penetrating its existing
school and family markets with new exhibits and events, but also meeting broader public
understanding of science objectives by developing activities to reach out to new
audiences.12
The hands-on museums and science centres in the UK are rapidly developing
educational and public programmes that match the US science centres at their best. There
are, however, some clear differences. The UK centres do not tackle race issues as directly
as the US counterparts, and whilst the Science Museum has developed interactive
exhibitions appropriate for young teenagers, the author is not aware of any youth
apprentice programmes on the scale of those at Indianapolis Children’s Museum,
Brooklyn Children’s Museum or New York Hall of Science.

Hands-on exhibits in the classroom

Museums in the UK have for many years operated school loans services and other
outreach programmes, such as mobile museums, enabling teachers to use museum
artefacts within the classroom. Now the hands-on centres are following suit, and several
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 120

mobile travelling exhibitions that can visit schools are in operation (including
Techniquest’s Kits and Science Projects’ SchoolWorks).13 This section investigates an
innovative scheme in Nottinghamshire, where four science and technology trailers are
available for hire by local primary schools, and considers whether the classroom or
science centre is a more favourable learning environment.
The great strength of the permanent hands-on centre is that it enables parents and
children to explore, discover and discuss together, with trained staff whose role is to
assist adults and children in the learning process. The system works well for families,
who typically comprise three-quarters of all visitors. A school visit to a children’s
museum or science centre can undoubtedly be both fun and inspirational, but in order to
capitalise on the opportunity teachers need to structure the visit and follow-up work back
at school very carefully. With fewer adults to assist in the discovery process, and without
reinforcement back at school, there is a potential danger that the visit could just add to the
mystification of science—the very opposite to the intended objective. The philosophy of
the travelling science centre is that the exhibits encourage children to ask questions in a
controlled environment, and they look to the teacher for support or confirmation of the
ideas. Thus, the activities are the starting-point for further research and investigation
within the classroom itself. The concept under discussion here is whether a hands-on
exhibition within a school, backed up by comprehensive curriculum support materials,
places the teacher more in control of the learning environment than a visit to a science
centre or children’s museum. As such, is the travelling science centre more attractive to
teachers than the permanent centre?
The Primary Science and Technology Trailers are an imaginative joint initiative
between Nottinghamshire Education Committee and the Greater Nottinghamshire
Training and Enterprise Council, who jointly funded the capital and development costs,
although subsequently the operation is self-financed by hire charges to schools. The
objectives are:
1 To provide stimulating activities which enable children to experience and control
scientific phenomena.
2 To extend the range of scientific equipment normally available to schools.
3 To support the development of curriculum activities within schools.
There are four trailers which are used to transport the exhibits, which the organisers
prefer to call activities. Each has a theme with between twelve and thirteen activities, and
comes with teachers’ guidance and curriculum support materials prepared by the local
science advisory team and local teachers. The trailers are hired to schools on a weekly
basis, being towed by the vehicle operating the local museum artefact loan service—the
operator helps unload and load the activities, but does not interact with the pupils. Once
left, the activities become the school’s responsibility. The trailers are promoted with
many suggestions as to how they might be used in schools, for example:
1 As a stimulus at the beginning of a topic or as reinforcement at the end.
2 As the centrepiece for a whole-school science week.
3 As a focus for open evenings for parents and governors, with children taking a lead
role.
4 To provide links with secondary schools, or for older pupils to work with younger
children.
 Managing educational programmes and special events 121

The programme was launched and trialled in November 1993. The author undertook
small-scale qualitative and quantitative research into how the first twenty-five schools
used these trailers from January to June 1994, after the initial trial period, aiming to
investigate the operation of the scheme from the teachers’ perspective.
The activities were visited by all primary-age year groups, and by older children in
special schools. Over three-quarters of the schools reported that the trailers became the
focus for a whole-school experience, whilst almost half held a special science week.
Almost every school grouped the activities together in one place (typically the hall or a
spare classroom), although several schools reported that some individual activities were
taken back to the classroom for further investigation. The time each group spent with the
activities varied enormously from less than fifteen minutes to over two hours, but the
mean was around one hour, which is the equivalent of five minutes per activity (and
much longer than one would expect in a hands-on museum or science centre). Over three-
quarters of the schools reported that children had an opportunity to revisit the activities—
either in a timetabled lesson, during breaks or after school with parents—and it is in
offering this opportunity to revisit that travelling science centres score heavily over
permanent centres.
Teachers questioned in the survey were remarkably uncritical about operational details
of the scheme. There were, for example, very few complaints about breakdowns or
maintenance (which is surprising considering the activities are left entirely in the
supervision of the school). Most operational problems concerned the fact that the
activities—whilst portable—were bulky in a busy classroom. As one might expect,
several teachers commented that effective curriculum support materials are essential as
teachers simply do not have time to prepare for major new initiatives.
The subject of cost-effectiveness brought a very interesting range of responses. The
weekly rental of £150 (in 1994) was at that time the threshold beyond which schools
would not be prepared to pay for a week’s travelling exhibition. Most teachers
commented that the trailers represented excellent value against a one-off visit, enabling
more children to take advantage of the resource than would be able to take part in a visit.
Several teachers noted that whilst the trailers represent excellent value for money, they
are not as glamorous or as exciting for the children as a visit. Many commented that an
out-of-school visit could awaken an interest in science, whereas the trailers might be seen
as being just part of another school day. Furthermore, many emphasised the additional
social benefits of a day out with their class, commenting that for inner city children the
social experience of the trip is more important than the work undertaken during the visit.
It is significant that teachers reported in the survey that they felt out of control in an
environment which encourages children to explore, when they cannot be everywhere at
once and where they cannot rely on the quality of the interactions of their parent helpers
or of the museum enablers. Teachers certainly appreciate being in control of the learning
environment with the hands-on activities in their classroom. In this case they are able to
prepare more effectively than is possible for a visit, to enable the children to go back and
revisit the activities, and to contain the excitement and external influences. One noted:
‘Being in school is more conducive to learning than being on a trip, where the main
objective is to off-load spending money.’
It is not surprising, therefore, that teachers in Nottinghamshire value the Primary
Science and Technology Trailers, and the completed questionnaires were littered with
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 122

comments such as ‘It’s a great scheme’, ‘Keep them coming’, and ‘Can they be extended
to more curriculum areas?’ Children’s museums and science centres play a distinctly
different role in children’s learning, providing enrichment outside the school curriculum
for those with economic and geographic access to them. Harsh economic realities,
combined with the fact that the teacher is more in control of the learning environment
within the classroom mean that innovative schemes like the Nottinghamshire trailers can
make a significant local contribution to the public understanding of science.

Museum education in the UK

The UK has a fine tradition in the field of museum education, and indeed, many of the
concepts for the hands-on movement—such as the benefits to be gained from direct first-
hand experience of artefacts and phenomena—derive from this tradition. A recent report
into museum education in the UK, A Common Wealth by David Anderson, found that
there is irrefutable evidence, exemplified by case studies of museums of all sizes and
types, that museums can make a unique and vital contribution to education, particularly
in the field of informal learning.14 However, despite citing many examples of excellent
practice, the report found that provision for education in traditional museums is patchy.
The report involved the most comprehensive survey ever made on museum education in
the UK, with 566 responses to a first questionnaire in 1996, and 88 to a second
questionnaire to the 210 organisations which showed that they provided three or more
types of educational service or activity (from a range of twenty-three categories). This
research found that only 37 per cent of museums responding to the survey provided three
or more types of activity, and in total only 51 per cent of all museums made any
provision whatsoever for education. Only 23 per cent had an education policy, whilst
only 24 per cent of registered museums have an education specialist on their staff.
Furthermore, only 36 per cent of museums had any kind of teaching space, and less than
half carried out any sort of evaluation of their educational service.
There are 755 specialised education posts in 375 museums services in the UK,
representing only 22 per cent of all registered museums. Education specialists comprise
just 3 per cent of all paid and voluntary museum staff. Only 25 per cent thought a degree
was desirable for their education staff, and only 15 per cent an education qualification. In
more than 40 per cent of museums, education staff receive a lower salary than equivalent
curatorial posts, and the majority of these have inferior conditions of service. Only 33 per
cent of museums had a structured input by education staff into planning exhibitions or
events.
It is significant that whilst 64 per cent of respondents said their governing body
believed education to be an essential part of service delivery, most museum managers put
education lower in their list of priorities than collections management and display.
Indeed, 28 per cent regarded museum education as advantageous rather than essential,
and 2 per cent viewed it as of little or no value. Since many of these museums are likely
to have gained charitable status for their educational provision, many are almost certainly
infringing legislation relating to charities.
Where an education service exists, the most common forms of provision are
information for schools, services for primary-age children and lectures and publications
 Managing educational programmes and special events 123

for adults. Students and pre-school children are in the next category, with minority
communities, people with disabilities and the unemployed the lowest priority. Only 15
per cent of museums have a disability policy, and 7 per cent a multicultural policy. Even
when a service is available, it is frequently available only to a very small percentage of
users in that group.
In total, whilst there are many examples of excellent practice, the report highlights the
dire straits facing the issue of education in many types of museum. There is no
consistency between type or size of museum. Provision, where it exists, lacks any
rationale, with two museums with similar types of collections often offering very
different types of service. This is largely attributable to the fact that museum provision in
the UK is not statutory. Whilst many museums were begun in the nineteenth century as
major instruments of public educational policy, over a period of time the concept of
public learning in museums has diminished. Increasingly, museum education has been
seen as a specialist service to formal education, usually limited to schools, and which has
very little connection to traditional museum work of collection, conservation and
documentation.15

Museum education in the UK and USA: a comparison

The ASTC research cited earlier in this chapter is not directly comparable with the UK
survey: it was conducted nine years earlier, with a smaller sample skewed towards hands-
on centres in the USA, but also including some traditional museums and some museums
outside the USA. Nevertheless, the evidence is fairly conclusive that educational
programmes are more dynamic and widespread in science centres and hands-on museums
in the USA and elsewhere than in traditional museums in the UK. In the science centre or
hands-on museum, educational objectives are paramount in every decision made. In the
UK traditional museum, education is rarely a priority compared to collection care, and is
often seen as a mere adjunct to formal education provision rather than as a valued
educational service in its own right. This is reflected in the number of staff dedicated to
educational provision in the two surveys. In the USA, there are far more educators on the
museum staff than in the UK: 19 per cent of paid staff and 53 per cent of volunteers in
the USA, compared to just 3 per cent of both paid and unpaid staff together in the UK. In
the UK, typically less than 5 per cent of museum expenditure is dedicated to education,
compared to 27 per cent in the USA on education and public programmes.16
There are some similarities in provision between the two surveys. The UK research
shows that most educational programmes are targeted at primary-school-age children,
and that people from multicultural backgrounds or with disabilities are of lower priority.
Significantly, the USA research also found that the audience most frequently served was
children in elementary schools, followed by junior high and high school students, whilst
the least number of programmes reported were targeted specifically for disabled
audiences, followed by minority groups and females.17 As far as the school market is
concerned, the percentage of school children visiting US science museums in school
groups (24 per cent) is slightly less than that achieved by UK science centres (which
typically achieve 25–40 per cent of visitors in school groups), but significantly greater
than the level for UK museums as a whole. The figures for the latter are not cited in A
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 124

Common Wealth and are difficult to quantify with any degree of accuracy, but are
estimated to be less than 15 per cent of visitors on average, varying between 5 and 50 per
cent at different museums.18
US science museums would seem to be leading the way in their provision for both
school and general audiences. The trend in the late 1980s was towards increasing
outreach programmes for both the public and schools, towards reaching out to minority
groups, very young children and senior citizens, towards more partnerships with other
educational and non-educational organisations in the community, and towards playing an
active role as sources of information on current scientific and technological issues,
thereby helping to foster lifelong learning.19

A vision for museum education in the UK

Whilst the research within A Common Wealth presents a depressing picture of the state of
museum education in the UK, the report also provides a vision for museums and museum
education in the future which bears a remarkable similarity to the philosophy of hands-on
museums and science centres. David Anderson looks towards those museums which have
made education the foundation-stone for their existence, where education is intrinsic to
their very nature, driving every activity. In these new museums, education staff are
involved in exhibit development, and research and evaluation form an integral part of
museum practice. As resource-rich learning environments, the value of learning by first-
hand experiences of real things is paramount, but these new museums accept that a range
of simple and new technologies can be utilised to encourage open access and exploratory
learning for adults as well as children. This has offered them a renewed purpose, enabling
them to attract diverse audiences and play a more dynamic role in cultural development
and economic regeneration, which in turn attracts greater support from local
communities, sponsors and the media. These museums, it is argued, are part of a broader
cultural movement supporting informal education and self-directed learning by
individuals, families and social groups within the community. They are educational
establishments in their own right: museum education is their raison d’être, and not
simply an additional service provided to support schools or other formal education
providers.20
In short, what David Anderson is describing is a traditional museum which—like the
hands-on museums of today—places the needs of its visitors at the forefront of all
decision-making. Of course, a traditional museum has responsibilities towards its
collections, but the museum of the future is likely to incorporate a range of devices—
artefacts, hands-on exhibits, new technologies, live interpreters and special events—to
help visitors make sense of their surroundings. Chapter 9 explores this concept further
and questions the likely future for hands-on museums and science centres.
 9
The future for hands-on exhibitions

This chapter considers the future for hands-on exhibitions in the face of increasing
competition, declining public subsidies and new technology. Whilst the great strength of
the interactive movement is its diversity, it is argued that the very best management
practices must be implemented if hands-on museums and science centres are to
differentiate themselves from the commercial leisure sector and achieve broader social
and educational objectives.
Both traditional and hands-on museums are part of an increasingly complex leisure
market, and must compete for the visitors’ time and money with a whole range of other
leisure attractions in the public, private and voluntary sectors, many of which have very
different objectives. Even amongst heritage attractions, the evidence is clear that, whilst
the number of visitors to museums has increased in the UK in recent years, the number of
places to visit has grown even more rapidly. Research shows that attractions that appeal
to families, and which combine both education and entertainment, are the most likely to
be successful in attracting visitors. This factor helps explain the dramatic growth in the
provision of hands-on museums and science centres since the 1960s in the USA and,
since 1985, in the UK and Europe.
Meanwhile, traditional museums have been encouraged to redesign exhibitions to
emulate the success of the hands-on museums and science centres, with the dual
objectives of helping those museums to maintain or increase their share of the visitor
market and to improve the educational effectiveness of exhibitions. There is evidence
that, as a result of the intense competition for visitors, many museum attractions
(including some of the hands-on museums) are facing static or declining visitor numbers
alongside declining revenue budgets from public sources. These museums are therefore
suffering reduced income both from public subsidy and from their trading activities. This
situation is heightened in the UK, with new or redeveloped schemes funded by the
National Lottery adding to the already overcrowded market of visitor attractions. In
addition, there is uncertainty as the third generation of attractions—incorporating the very
latest in new technology—impact upon both museums and the leisure industry as a
whole. Significantly, the 1996 Association of Science and Technology Centers’
Conference in the USA focused on changing technology and the economic climate as the
key challenges facing science centres and museums.1
Thus, the uncertainty in the leisure market places considerable pressure on the hands-
on museums and science centres:
1 As increasing numbers of traditional museums emulate the hands-on approach.
2 As increasing numbers of commercial leisure attractions compete for visitors’ time and
money.
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 126

3 As changing technology offers new interpretation opportunities to both museums and

commercial leisure operators.
4 As declining public subsidies necessitate increased market awareness and
commercialism from not-for-profit organisations.
At one time, traditional museums held a monopoly on the visitor market. There was no
need for the curator to take too much interest in the needs of visitors, as the care and
safety of the artefacts was of paramount importance, and revenue was assured from the
public purse. These first-generation museums were object-centred and publicly funded,
and they focused on formal education. Target visitors were rarely defined, usually
expressed in vague terms such as ‘everyone in the local community’. Success, if it was
measured at all, was determined by critical acclaim and by the number of visitors (but as
these institutions were usually free, their numbers were totally unreliable). At the other
end of the spectrum, and catering at first for a very different target market, the first theme
parks arrived providing entertainment on a commercial basis. The experience was still
largely passive, but visitor satisfaction was the key to commercial success. In both the
traditional museum and the theme park, education and entertainment seemed to have
been at the opposite ends of the same spectrum. Indeed, the ninth of Mickey’s Ten
Commandments for the Disney enterprise was ‘ounce of treatment—ton of treat’: in other
words, every educational message must be diluted, as if it was distasteful medicine.2
The second generation of museums, the hands-on centres, have challenged both
traditional museums and the commercial leisure providers in many areas. Most
importantly, they have shown that education and entertainment do not have to be
mutually exclusive. The hands-on museums and science centres can provide exciting,
innovative and fun exhibits that are historically authentic and scientifically accurate. The
growth in visitors has shown that the public appreciate safe places where families can
learn together informally, whilst evaluation studies show that people really can learn and
have fun at the same time. The success of these attractions has provided a significant
threat to traditional museums, many of which have adopted a hands-on philosophy of
their own, thus creating further competition for visitors in the heritage visitor market.
Whilst both first- and second-generation museums are in competition for the same
visitors, their basic objectives are not dissimilar: the main difference is one of strategy
rather than of objective. Clearly, it is a core function of traditional museums to collect
and conserve artefacts, although this is not always the case for children’s museums, and
is rarely so for science centres. However, whether or not they collect artefacts, both first-
and second-generation museums exist to promote public understanding of real objects or
real phenomena. Whilst the methods of interpretation might change over time, the
essential function of museums and science centres as informal educational institutions
based upon real objects or real phenomena has not changed. Whilst hands-on exhibits
may well have replaced some glass showcase displays, and whilst constructivist
exhibitions may be replacing didactic displays, the basic objective of the museum to
present and interpret the world around us is essentially the same. The underpinning
message, not the medium by which is transmitted, is of paramount importance.
Since most museums are in the public or voluntary sectors, their objectives are largely
educational rather than commercial, and the differences between first-and second-
generation museums are not as great as between commercial leisure providers and the
museum world in general. Nevertheless, many museums have been forced to adopt a
 The future for hands-on exhibitions 127

more commercial approach in order to offset declining revenue from other sources, and
this has made the distinction less obvious to the visitor. For example, at least two
proposed UK hands-on museums plan to incorporate motion-simulation cinemas in order
to bring in revenue to offset expenditure elsewhere. Some US museums and science
centres incorporate IMAX cinemas, and, as one critic has noted, they are just as likely to
show a rock music film as a science film if helps bring in revenue.3 Increasingly,
museums and science centres must earn more of their income from trading activities. In
the USA, with declining revenue budgets from public sources, earned income as a
percentage of revenue now exceeds 80 per cent at many science centres. The need to
generate income in a competitive environment can place a strain on an organisation with
educational and social objectives, and may cause some centres to lose sight of their
original mission: indeed, the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia has been described as
resembling a cross between a theme park and a day-care centre.4
In many ways, the hands-on museum experience offers little threat to the commercial
leisure industry as a medium since it is labour-intensive and high in operating costs,
whereas the theme park industry is interested primarily in vast throughputs of visitors in a
controlled environment, the very antithesis of learning in an informal centre. If hands-on
learning could be financially viable, it seems certain that the theme park operators would
have grasped the nettle many years ago. With teachers in the UK increasingly under
pressure to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum, schools can no longer
justify end-of-term treat visits. The theme parks cannot afford to ignore the educational
market, because school visitors can fill the parks at periods when there would otherwise
be high overhead costs and few visitors. However, their response has been to concentrate
on promotion to schools, often producing curriculum materials in an attempt to raise the
educational profile, rather than changing the core product by introducing hands-on
learning.
Whilst the theme parks may not have yet gone down the road of providing interactive
learning spaces, the commercial leisure industry has emulated the museum sector in other
areas, for example in the growth of commercial aquaria and family entertainment centres.
On both sides of the Atlantic, one response to the rapid growth of the family and
children’s market has been the development of organisations such as Fun Factory,
Discovery Zone, Planet Kids, Planet Fun or Action Stations, which have seen the
commercial potential of learning through play.5 These have taken the interactive play
element, together with a commitment to security and safety, and placed it in a
commercial environment with an emphasis on a high turnover of children staying for a
short period of time, usually limited to one hour. Unlike in the hands-on museums, adults
play very little part in the process, often being relegated to a café or, as in Action
Stations, to a child-centred computer area (adults often have free admission too). There is
a heavy emphasis on providing birthday parties and on membership schemes, both of
which encourage repeat visits. Whilst these centres do recognise the educational value of
play, education is not their prime objective; commercial success is the fundamental goal,
and there is no doubt that if children’s play ceased to be profitable, other attractions
would replace them.
The cross-fertilisation of operations between the commercial leisure industry and the
museum world must be confusing to potential visitors, and clearly has mixed advantages
and disadvantages to both types of organisations. There is serious concern amongst
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 128

members of ASTC in the USA as to whether not-for-profit informal education

establishments such as hands-on museums can survive if they become indistinguishable
from commercial operators. One commentator has argued that hands-on museums must
differentiate themselves from commercial theme parks, stressing that their fundamental
differences must be articulated if the hands-on centres are not to lose their own special
identity and hence fail to meet their own objectives.6 Whereas the hands-on attraction
increasingly needs to earn its income from trading activities, its main measure of success
will be whether it is satisfying the needs of visitors in terms of education and enjoyment.
In the commercial operation, whilst some family entertainment centres and aquaria might
claim educational objectives, typically entertainment and educational objectives are
considered to be in conflict, and the only real measure of performance is financial profit
for the owners or shareholders. Visitor enjoyment is important to commercial leisure
operators as this will determine whether they repeat the visit or recommend it to friends.
However, social and educational objectives are unlikely to be a main concern. The theme
parks may have developed curriculum materials for their sites, but this would appear to
be more of a marketing response to declining educational visits rather than representing
any fundamental change in their mission.
The great strength of the hands-on museum and science centres is that they provide
authentic experiences. Whether the centre is based on a collection of artefacts, a historic
site or the presentation of scientific phenomena, these are all ‘real’ experiences which can
provide competitive advantage over the fantasy world of the theme park. Furthermore, in
the hands-on museum, the visitor is in control and manipulates the chosen activities,
usually at their own pace. As a result, every visitor’s experience is a unique result of their
interaction with the exhibits. In the theme park, the activity is controlled—it may be
thrilling, scaring or exciting for the visitor, but every person receives a very similar
experience.
In short, whilst the boundaries between hands-on museums and the commercial leisure
sector are undoubtedly blurring, it is essential that hands-on museums do not lose sight of
their original objectives in the need to remain financially viable. Indeed, the differences
can provide competitive advantage. Not only do hands-on museums need to focus on
their mission, but they also need to communicate effectively to visitors that whilst
museums, commercial theme parks and family entertainment centres are all competitors
for visitors’ time and money, in reality they are all offering perfectly valid, but quite
different types of experiences.
There has been much discussion in the museum world about the impending third
generation of museums incorporating cutting-edge technologies. One commentator in the
USA predicts that within twenty-five years museums will no longer be recognisable as
we know them today: they will cease to be institutions whose prime role is to collect and
interpret collections, but rather they will become vast repositories storing our collective
human and earthly past in the form of artefacts, but also incorporating multimedia to
store photographs and video, music, dance and stories. Thus, the distinction between
museums, libraries, archives, schools, shopping centres, parks, zoos, art galleries and
performing arts spaces, and even social service centres will blur: indeed, we may not
even need to leave the privacy and comfort of our own homes to visit these new
institutions. This process of hybridisation, it is argued, has already begun, with many
museums incorporating features not normally attributed to museums, and its further
 The future for hands-on exhibitions 129

progress is inevitable.7 Similarly, in the UK David Anderson’s vision for the future is one
which embraces an expanded concept of museums, with them playing a more active role
in community development as part of a broader cultural movement supporting informal
education and self-directed learning.8 Thus, new technology may provide new income-
generating opportunities for these hybridised, expanded forms of museums, but it will
also require them more than ever to maintain a focus on their objectives if they are to
deliver effective services.
How museums will incorporate new technology cannot be predicted with any degree
of certainty. Existing technology already enables museums to exist in virtual form on the
Internet or on CD-ROM, whilst virtual reality enables buildings to be reconstructed over
archaeological remains, without damage to the site itself. Vast databases will enable
visitors to gain access to collections in store, again without any danger of theft or damage
to the objects themselves, and possibly without even leaving their homes. Visitors will
also be able to receive museum guides personalised to their own interests, with a
commentary automatically switching on as the visitor approaches selected exhibits.9
These innovations are likely to be commonplace in museums within a few years, and the
future horizons are limited only by the creativity and imagination of designers.
First- and second-generation museums are content-driven, based on interpreting
authentic sites, objects or phenomena. There is a danger that, with new technology, the
emphasis will move away from authenticity to virtual reality.10 However, in the same
way that second-generation museums are integrating hands-on exhibits to help visitors
understand artefacts or processes, there is no reason why new technology should not
assist in the interpretation process alongside a diversity of media. Technology, whether it
be the hands-on exhibit or the touch-screen computer, is simply the tool with which the
museum interpreter communicates with the visitor—it is not an end-product in itself. The
commercial leisure industry will incorporate new technology in its leisure products, using
the novelty value of the technology to produce high returns over a short product life-
cycle. The museum world, with its commitment to real objects and phenomena cannot
afford to be seduced by the technology in this way if it is to differentiate itself from the
commercial operator and fulfil educational and social objectives.
The museum of the future is likely to incorporate a whole range of interpretative
devices—including artefacts, hands-on exhibits, live interpreters and new technologies—
to help visitors make sense of their surroundings. Each interpretative tool has its own
advantages and weaknesses, and should be used selectively to help visitors access and
gain understanding of the objects, sites or phenomena in question. Not only is there a
danger that the museum seduced by new technology could quickly become dated, but
there is a very real possibility that today’s children may react against a diet of virtual
reality and that there will be a return to the fashion of museum artefacts being shown in
glass cases. There is very little evidence yet to support this view, although one
commentator has suggested that children are no longer stimulated by special effects
exhibits, and renewed interest in more traditional displays is already happening.11
One lesson to be learned from this study of hands-on museums and science centres is
that there is no one way to create or manage an effective exhibition, and it is the diversity
of visitor attractions in the heritage and leisure industries that ensures that public demand
is high and that there is no shortage of innovative new ideas for exhibitions. In the UK,
charitable funding, the National Lottery, EC sources and commercial sponsorship have
 Hands-on exhibitions: managing interactive museums and science centres 130

all contributed capital for new projects in recent years. Raising capital to develop a new
hands-on attraction is less problematic than ensuring the long-term economic viability of
the project in the future, and it is for these reasons that the Millennium Commission and
the Heritage Lottery Fund demand a very high standard of forward planning.
In an era in which public revenue subsidy has declined significantly, the key to
economic viability depends on sound business planning, beginning with the development
of a well-defined core product evaluated at every stage with a defined target market.
Thereafter, the implementation of the very best practices in all aspects of marketing,
financial, operations and human resource management will help to maximise attendance
and visitor satisfaction, thereby helping the hands-on museum achieve the broader social
and educational objectives that differentiate it from commercial leisure operations. The
hands-on museum of the future will need to focus clearly on these objectives,
communicate them effectively to visitors and other funding bodies, and implement sound
management practices if it is to survive in an already overcrowded marketplace. Only
then will the hands-on museum be able to implement programmes to ensure that its
exhibitions are accessible and engaging to as many people as possible, and that more
people are empowered to interact with and make sense of real objects and scientific
phenomena.
 Notes

1
Hands-on exhibitions
1 F.Swift, ‘Time to go interactive’, Museum Practice, 4, 1997, p. 23.
2 J.Kennedy, User Friendly: hands-on exhibits that work, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1994, p. 2.
3 G.Thomas and T.Caulton, ‘Objects and interactivity: a conflict or a collaboration’,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1, 3, 1995, pp. 143–55; M.Quin, ‘What is hands-
on science, and where can I find it?’, Physics Education, 25, 1990, pp. 243–6; M.Quin, The
Exploratory pilot, a peer tutor?—the interpreter’s role in an interactive science and
technology centre’, in S.Goodlad and B.Hirst (eds), Explorations in Peer Tutoring, Oxford:
Blackwell, 1990, pp. 194–202; M.Quin, ‘The Interactive Science and Technology Project:
the Nuffield Foundation’s launchpad for a European collaborative’, International Journal of
Science Education, 13, 5, 1991, pp. 569–73; M.Quin, ‘Aims, strengths and weaknesses of
the European science centre movement’, in R.Miles and L.Zavala (eds), Towards the
Museum of the Future, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 39–55.
4 A.W.Lewin, ‘Children’s Museums: a structure for family learning’, Marriage and Family
Review, 13, 3–4, 1989, pp. 51–73.
5 S.Tait, Palaces of Discovery, London: Quiller Press, 1989, p. 95.
6 G.Thomas, ‘The age of interaction’, Museums Journal, May 1994, pp. 33–4.
7 Museums Journal, 31, April 1931, quoted in D.Follett, The Rise of the Science Museum under
Henry Lyons, London: Science Museum (not dated), p. 113.
8 Ibid., p. 109.
9 V.J.Danilov, Science and Technology Centers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.
10 The Exploratorium Cookbooks are still available. Details can be found on the
Exploratorium’s World Wide Web server, ExploraNet.
11 P.A.Gillies and A.W.Wilson, ‘Participatory exhibits: is fun educational?’, unpublished report
by Science Museum Education Service.
12 J.Stephenson, ‘Discovery Rooms at the Science Museum’, unpublished report by Science
Museum Education Service.
13 A.W.Wilson, Science Museum Review, 1987, quoted in S.Tait, op. cit., p. 95.
14 Ibid.
15 N.Tomlin, ‘Interactive science centres and the National Curriculum’, Journal of Education in
Museums, 11, 1990, pp. 12–15.
16 G.Thomas, ‘The Inventorium’, in S.Pizzey (ed.), Interactive Science and Technology
Centres, London: Science Projects Publishing, 1987, pp. 77–89.
17 S.Pizzey, ibid.
18 S.McCormick (ed.), The ASTC Science Center Survey: administration and finance report,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989, pp. 2–3.
19 E.Silberberg and G.D.Lord, ‘Increasing self-generated revenue: children’s museums at the
forefront of entrepreneurship into the next century’, Hand to Hand, 7, 2, 1993, pp. 1–5.
20 J.Cleaver, Doing Children’s Museums, Charlotte, VT: Williamson, 1992, pp. 5–11.
21 A.W.Lewin, loc. cit.
22 Quoted from an information sheet ‘Concept of a children’s museum’, provided by the
Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, 1991.
 Notes 132

23 Association of Youth Museums, discussion document on ‘Professional practices for

children’s museums’, 1992.
24 S.Tait, op. cit., pp. 98–9; M.Quin, 1994, loc. cit., pp. 48–9.
25 Ibid.; J.Brown, ‘Attraction review: Exploratory and Techniquest’, Leisure Management, May
1992, pp. 36–8.
26 Ibid.
27 M.Quin, Physics Education, 1990, loc. cit., p. 245.
28 J.Beetlestone, ‘Exploratoria UK’, lecture at the World Heritage and Museums Show, 4.5.95.
29 Ibid.
30 J.Cramer, ‘Dragon Quest’, Leisure Opportunities, June 1995, pp. 30–1; interview with Colin
Johnson, Deputy Director, Techniquest, 30.10.96.
31 ECSITE Newsletter, 1, Feb./Mar. 1990, pp. 6–7.
32 S.Pizzey, op. cit., p. 1.
33 M.Quin, 1991, loc. cit., pp. 569–73.
34 Nuffield Foundation, Interactive Science and Technology Project, Occasional Newsletter,
15, Dec. 1989, p. 3.
35 Nuffield Foundation, Sharing Science: issues in the development of the interactive science
and technology centres, London: British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.
36 Nuffield Foundation, Occasional Newsletter, 1989, loc. cit., p. 2.
37 British Interactive Group, Handbook 1, 1995.
38 Derived from Yorkshire and Humberside Museums Council, Keys to the Future, Leeds:
YHMC, 1994.
39 S.Davies, By Popular Demand: a strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and
galleries in the UK, London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994, pp. 76–80.
40 Ibid., p. 55.
41 Leisure Consultants, Leisure Forecasts 1994–8: Vol. 2, leisure away from home, Sudbury:
Leisure Consultants, 1994, p. 43; Leisure Consultants, What’s the attraction?: success in the
market for places to visit. Vol. 2 market research and forecasts, Sudbury: Leisure
Consultants, 1990, pp. 77, 126–7.
42 S.Grinell, A New Place for Learning Science: starting and running a science center,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1992, p. 7.
43 Promotional material for the First Science Centre World Congress held at Heureka, Finland
in 1996, quoted in Museums Journal, Feb. 1995, p. 21.
44 M.Hanna, Sightseeing in the UK 1995, London: BTA/ETB Research Services, 1996, p. 37.
45 Museums Association, ‘Facts about museums’, Museums Briefing, 15, Mar. 1997.
46 S.Davies, op. cit., p. 61.
47 M.Hanna, op. cit., p. 37.
48 British Interactive Group, op. cit.
49 M.Hanna, Sightseeing in the UK, London: BTA/ETB Research Services, annual series.
50 These are: the ARC, Armagh Planetarium, Catalyst, Eureka!, Bristol Exploratory, Explore It
(Northern Ireland), Green’s Mill and Science Centre, Satrosphere, Jodrell Bank Science
Centre, Newcastle Discovery, Sellafield Visitor Centre, Snibston Discovery Park and
Techniquest.
51 These are: the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the National Maritime
Museum, Birmingham Museum of Science and Industry, North West Museum of Science
and Industry.
52 G.Thomas and T.Caulton, ‘Objects and interactivity: a conflict or a collaboration’, loc. cit.,
p. 151.
53 G.Delacôte, ‘Science centres: an industry on the decline’, unpublished paper presented at
Education for Scientific Literacy conference at Science Museum, 8.11.94.
54 M.Hanna, op. cit.
 Notes 133

55 These are: the ARC, Armagh Planetarium, Green’s Mill and Science Centre, Jodrell Bank
Science Centre, Satrosphere, Sellafield Visitor Centre, Techniquest.
56 British Interactive Group, Newsletter, winter 1995, p. 2.
57 Discovery Zone had 100 sites scheduled to open in the USA by the end of 1993. E.
Silberberg and G.D.Lord, loc. cit., p. 1.
58 Evidence of Armagh Planetarium, the Exploratory, Green’s Mill and Science Centre, Jodrell
Bank Science Centre and Techniquest for 1989–95, and in addition of Eureka!, Catalyst,
Satrosphere and Snibston Discovery Park for 1992–5. Source, M.Hanna, op. cit.

2
The educational context
1 R.Gregory, ‘Turning minds on to science by hands-on exploration: the nature and potential of
the hands-on medium’, in Nuffield Foundation, Sharing Science: issues in the development
of the interactive science and technology centres, London: British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1989.
2 See, for example, M.Shortland, ‘No business like show business’, Nature, 328, 16.7.87, pp.
213–14; R.Herman, ‘Beyond a show of hands’, New Scientist, 11.11.89, p. 69.
3 J.Wellington, ‘Attitudes before understanding: the contribution of interactive science centres
to science education’, in Sharing Science, op. cit., pp. 30–3.
4 This structure is used by other authors, notably J.H.Falk and L.D.Dierking, The Museum
Experience, Washington, DC: Whalesback Books, 1994.
5 N.Williams, Child Development, London: Heinemann, pp. 81–8.
6 P.Smith and H.Cowie, Understanding Children’s Development, Oxford: Blackwell, 1988, pp.
300–2.
7 A.W.Lewin, ‘Children’s museums: a structure for family learning’, Marriage and Family
Review, 13, 3–4, 1989, pp. 51–73.
8 B.S.Bloom (ed.), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: David McKay, 1956,
quoted in J.Wellington, loc. cit.
9 J.H.Falk and L.D.Dierking, op. cit., pp. 102–3; E.Hooper-Greenhill, ‘Learning theories in
museums’, unpublished paper presented to British Council conference Learning in Galleries
and Museums, March 1996.
10 D.A.Kolb, Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984, quoted in J. H.Falk and L.D.Dierking, op. cit., pp. 102–3.
11 A.F.Gregorc, An Adult’s Guide to Style, Gabriel Systems Inc., 1986, quoted in K.A. Butler,
‘Unravelling the age old mystery’, Learning, Nov./Dec. 1988, pp. 29–34.
12 ‘Opening minds with Howard Gardner’, AYM News, 1, 4, July/Aug. 1993, Memphis:
Association of Youth Museums.
13 H.Gardner, The Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligence, New York: Basic
Books, 1983.
14 H.Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: how children think and how schools should teach, New
York: Basic Books, 1991, in J.H.Falk and L.D.Dierking, op. cit., p. 102.
15 B.Serrell, What Research Says about Learning in Science Museums, Washington, DC:
ASTC, 1990, pp. ii–iv; R.Jackson and K.Hann, ‘Learning through the Science Museum’,
Journal of Education in Museums, 15, 1994, pp. 11–13.
16 P.McManus, ‘Museum visitor research: a critical overview’, Journal of Education in
Museums, 12, 1991, pp. 4–8.
17 E.Feher, ‘Science centers as research laboratories’, in B.Serrell, op. cit., pp. 26–8.
 Notes 134

18 J.Stephenson, ‘The long-term impact of interactive exhibits’, International Journal of

Science Education, 13, 5, 1991, pp. 521–31; J. Stephenson, ‘Getting to grips’, Museums
Journal, May 1994, pp. 30–2.
19 R.Jackson and K.Hann, loc. cit.
20 M.Borun, ‘Naive notions and the design of science museum exhibits’, in B.Serrell, op. cit.,
pp. 1–3.
21 E.Feher, ‘Interactive museum exhibits as tools for learning: explorations with light’,
International Journal of Science Education, 12, 1, pp. 35–49.
22 L.S.Vygotsky, Thought and Language, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1962, quoted in
T.Russell, ‘The enquiring visitor: usable learning theory for museum contexts’, Journal of
Education in Museums, 15, 1994, pp. 19–21.
23 A.Lewin, loc. cit., p. 63.
24 L.D.Dierking and J.H.Falk, ‘Family behavior and learning in informal science settings: a
review of the research’, Science Education, 78, 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 57–72.
25 Ibid., pp. 57–72; P.McManus, ‘Families in museums’, in R.Miles and L.Zavala (eds),
Towards the Museum of the Future, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 81–97; R.Wood,
‘Museum learning: a family focus’, Journal of Education in Museums, 11, 1990, pp. 20–3.
26 M.Borun’s research ‘The family science learning project’ is published in Curator, June 1996,
and quoted in A.Porter, ‘Touching minds, changing futures’, British Interactive Group,
Newsletter, winter 1996, p. 5.
27 J.R.Kelly, ‘Leisure socialisation: replication and extension’, Journal of Leisure Research, 9,
2, 1977; I.Wolins, ‘Educating family audiences’, Roundtable Reports, 7, 1, 1982, p. 2.
quoted in R.Wood, loc. cit., p. 20.
28 P.McManus, ‘Families in museums’, loc. cit., p. 81.
29 R.Wood, loc. cit., p. 21.
30 P.McManus, ‘Families in museums’, loc. cit., p. 83.
31 Ibid., p. 87.
32 J.Diamond, ‘The behavior of family groups in science museums’, Curator, 29, 2, 1986, pp.
139–54, quoted in P.McManus, ‘Families in museums’, loc. cit., pp. 89–90; L.D. Dierking
and J.H.Falk, ‘Family behavior…’, loc. cit., p. 60.
33 R.Hooker, ‘A summative evaluation of visitor behaviour at the Discovery Centre,
Cleethorpes’, unpublished MA dissertation, University of Sheffield, 1996.
34 Ibid., p. 61.
35 P.McManus, ‘Families in museums’, loc. cit., pp. 91–2.
36 L.D.Dierking and J.H.Falk, ‘Family behavior …’, loc. cit., p. 68.
37 P.McManus, ‘Families in museums’, loc. cit., pp. 94–5.
38 L.D.Dierking and J.H.Falk, ‘Family behavior …’, loc. cit.; P.McManus, ‘Families in
museums’, loc. cit.; R.Wood, loc. cit.
39 K-L.Hsu, ‘A visitor survey for the National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C’,
unpublished MA dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sept. 1995, p. 86.
40 The author gratefully acknowledges the permission granted by the Athlone Press to use
material which previously appeared in a similar form in Thomas, G. and Caulton, T.,
‘Communication strategies in interactive spaces’, in Pearce, S. (ed.), New Research in
Museum Studies: Vol. 6 Exploring Science in Museums, London: Athlone Press, 1996, pp.
107–22.
41 M.Belcher, Exhibitions in Museums, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991.
42 G.Thomas, ‘How Eureka! The Museum for Children responds to visitors’ needs’, in J.Durant
(ed.), Museums and the Public Understanding of Science, London: Science Museum, 1992,
pp. 88–93.
43 J.Kennedy, User Friendly: hands-on exhibits that work, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1994, p.1.
44 N.Winterbotham, ‘Happy hands-on’, Museums Journal, 93, 2, 1993, pp. 30–1.
 Notes 135

45 J.Kennedy, op. cit. This book is a model of good practice on designing effective hands-on
exhibits.
46 C.Mulberg and M.Hinton, ‘The Alchemy of Play: Eureka! The Museum for Children’, in
S.Pearce (ed.), Museums and the Appropriation of Culture, London: Athlone Press, 1993,
pp. 238–43.
47 L.D.Dierking and J.H.Falk, ‘Family behavior …’, loc. cit., pp. 59–60.
48 L.D.Dierking, ‘The family museum experience: implications from research’, Journal of
Museum Education, 14, 2, 1989, pp. 9–11.
49 P.McManus, ‘Watch your language! People do read labels’, in B.Serrell (ed.), op. cit., pp. 4–
6; P.McManus, ‘Towards understanding the needs of museum visitors’, in B.Lord and G.
D.Lord (eds), Manual of Museum Planning, London: HMSO, 1991, pp. 35–51.
50 J.Rand, ‘Building on your ideas’, in S.Bicknell and G.Farmelo (eds), Museum Visitor Studies
in the 90s, London: Science Museum, 1993, pp. 145–9.
51 M.Belcher, op. cit., 1991; B.Serrel, ‘Using behavior to define the effectiveness of
exhibitions’, in S.Bicknell and G.Farmelo (eds), op. cit, pp. 140–4; Brooklyn Children’s
Museum, Doing It Right: a guide to improving exhibit labels, Washington, DC: AAM, 1989.
52 S.Taylor, Try It! Improving exhibits through formative evaluation, Washington, DC: ASTC,
1992.
53 P.McManus, ‘Towards understanding…’, loc. cit.
54 C.Mulberg and M.Hinton, loc. cit.
55 K.M.Reeves, ‘A study of the educational value and effectiveness of child-centred interactive
exhibits for children in family groups’, unpublished dissertation, University of Birmingham:
Ironbridge Institute, 1993.
56 A.Hesketh, ‘Eureka! The Museum for Children: visitor orientation and behaviour’,
unpublished dissertation, University of Birmingham: Ironbridge Institute, 1993.
57 R.Freeman, The Discovery Gallery. discovery learning in the museum, Toronto: Royal
Ontario Museum, 1989.
58 M.Quin, ‘Aims, strengths and weakness of the European science centre movement’, in
R.Miles and L.Zavala, op. cit., p. 55.
59 G.Bowles, ‘Non-science interactives’, British Interactive Group Newsletter, spring 1995, p.
11.
60 E.Feher, loc. cit.
61 G.E.Hein, ‘The constructivist museum’, Journal of Education in Museums, 16, 1995, pp. 21–
3; T.Russell, loc. cit., pp. 19–21.
62 D.Anderson, A Common Wealth: museums and learning in the United Kingdom, London:
Department of National Heritage, 1997, p.23.

3
Exhibit development
1 J.H.Falk and L.D.Dierking, The Museum Experience, Washington, DC: Whalesback Books,
1992, pp. 3–7.
2 D.Anderson, A Common Wealth: museums and learning in the United Kingdom, London:
Department of National Heritage, 1997, p. 14
3 F.Oppenheimer, ‘Exhibit concept and design’, in Working Prototypes, San Francisco: The
Exploratorium, 1986, pp. 5–15; also available on ExploraNet, the Exploratorium’s World
Wide Web server.
4 Ibid., p. 28.
5 Ibid., p. 9.
6 F.Swift, ‘Time to go interactive’, Museum Practice, 4, 1997, pp. 23–31.
 Notes 136

7 C.Mulberg and M.Hinton, ‘The Alchemy of Play: Eureka! The Museum for Children’, in
S.Pearce (ed.), Museums and the Appropriation of Culture, London: Athlone Press, 1993,
pp. 238–43.
8 V.Cave, ‘The conceptualisation, development and evaluation of interactive exhibits’, GEM
News, 57, 1995, p. 10.
9 G.Hein, ‘Evaluation of programmes and exhibitions’, in E.Hooper-Greenhill (ed.), The
Educational Role of the Museum, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 306–12.
10 S.Bicknell, ‘Here to help: evaluation and effectiveness’, in E.Hooper-Greenhill (ed.),
Museum, Media, Message, London: Routledge, 1995, pp. 281–93.
11 M.Hood, ‘Staying away: why people choose not to visit museums’, Museum News, 61, 4,
1983, pp. 50–7.
12 M.Hood, ‘Getting started in audience research’, Museum News, 64, 3, 1986, pp. 24–31.
13 P.McManus, ‘Towards understanding the needs of visitors’, in B.Lord and G.D.Lord (eds),
Manual of Museum Planning, London: HMSO, 1991, pp. 35–51.
14 Ibid.
15 A.J.Veal, Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: a practical guide, Harlow: Longman/
ILAM, pp. 153–7.
16 S.Davies, By Popular Demand: a strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and
galleries in the UK, London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994, p. 8.
17 P.McManus, loc. cit., p. 42.
18 M.Hood, ‘Staying away…’, loc. cit.; V. Trevelyan (ed.), ‘Dingy places with different kinds
of bits: an attitudes survey of London museums amongst non visitors’, London: London
Museums Service, 1991; S.Fisher, ‘Bringing history and the arts to a new audience:
qualitative research for the London Borough of Croydon’, unpublished research by the Susie
Fisher Group, 1990.
19 C.G.Screven, ‘Uses of evaluation before, during and after exhibit design’, ILVS Review, 1, 2,
1990, pp. 36–66; M.Borun, ‘Assessing the impact’, Museum News, 68, 3, 1989, pp. 36–40.
20 S.Bicknell and P.Mann, ‘A picture of visitors for exhibition developers’, in E.Hooper-
Greenhill (ed.), The Educational Role of the Museum, op. cit., pp. 195–203.
21 S.Bicknell, ‘Here to help’, loc. cit., p. 284.
22 J.Peirson Jones (ed.), Gallery 33: a visitor study, Birmingham: Birmingham Museums and
Art Gallery, 1993.
23 R.Hooker, ‘A summative evaluation of visitor behaviour at the Discovery Centre,
Cleethorpes’, unpublished MA dissertation, University of Sheffield, 1996.
24 G.Thomas, “‘Why are you playing at washing up again?” Some reasons and methods for
developing exhibitions for children’, in R. Miles and L.Zavala (eds), Towards the Museum of
the Future, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 117–31.
25 Health Education Authority Primary Schools Project, Health for Life: a teacher’s planning
guide to healthy education in the primary school, Nelson, 1989.
26 A.Ross et al., The Primary Enterprise Pack, Primary Schools and Industry Centre, 1990.
27 J.Guichard, ‘Designing tools to develop the conception of learners’, International Journal of
Science Education, 17, 2, 1995, pp. 243–53.
28 A.Hesketh, ‘Eureka! The Museum for Children: visitor orientation and behaviour’,
unpublished dissertation, University of Birmingham: Ironbridge Institute, 1993.
29 P.McManus, ‘Evaluation of newly installed exhibits at Eureka! The Museum for Children’,
unpublished study in K.M.Reeves, ‘A study of the educational value and effectiveness of
child centred interactive exhibits for family groups’, unpublished dissertation, University of
Birmingham: Ironbridge Institute, 1993, Appendix 12.
30 P.McManus, ‘Eureka! The Museum for Children Evaluation Plan’, in A.Hesketh, op. cit.,
Appendix A.
31 A.Hesketh, op. cit.
 Notes 137

32 B.Gammon, ‘What sort of museum objects interest children?’, unpublished report by Science
Museum Public Understanding of Science Research Unit, 1994, in G.Thomas and T.Caulton,
‘Objects and interactivity: a conflict or a collaboration’, International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 1, 3, 1995, pp. 143–55.
33 B.Gammon and C.Seymour, ‘Formative evaluation of Project 95 prototype exhibits’,
unpublished report by Science Museum Public Understanding of Science Research Unit,
1995.
34 B.Gammon, N.Smith and T.Moussouri, ‘An evaluation of the Things gallery’, unpublished
report by Science Museum Public Understanding of Science Research Unit, 1996.
35 B.Gammon, N.Smith and S.Spicer, ‘Things: an evaluation of the Things gallery’,
unpublished report by Science Museum Public Understanding of Science Research Unit,
1996.
36 B.Gammon, C.Halcrow, N.Smith and T.Moussouri, ‘A day in the basement: a summary of
findings from accompanied visits to the basement galleries’, unpublished report by Science
Museum Public Understanding of Science Research Unit, 1996.

4
Finance
1 M.St. John and S.Grinell, Highlights of the 1987 ASTC Survey: an independent review of
findings, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989, p. 9.
2 S.McCormick, The ASTC Science Centre Survey: administration and finance report,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989, p. 11.
3 Ibid., pp. 12–14.
4 S.Grinell, A New Place for Learning Science: starting and running a science center,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1992, p. 108.
5 Ibid.
6 The Children’s Museum, 1990 Annual Report, Indianapolis, IN: The Children’s Museum,
1991, p. 11.
7 Chicago Children’s Museum, 1990 Annual Report, Chicago: Chicago Children’s Museum,
1991.
8 Please Touch Museum, 1990 Annual Report, Philadelphia: Please Touch Museum, 1991, p. 7.
9 Children’s Museum of Manhattan, 1989/90 ‘Annual Report, New York: CMOM, 1991, p. 1.
10 M.Hanna, Sightseeing in the UK, London: BTA/ETB Research Services, annual series.
11 S.McCormick, op. cit., pp. 14–15.
12 M.Hanna, op. cit.
13 S.McCormick, op. cit.
14 Ibid.
15 British Interactive Group, Handbook, 1, 1995.
16 British Interactive Group, Directory, 1993/4 and 1996.
17 M.St. John and S.Grinell, op. cit., p. 11.
18 Ibid., p. 10.
19 M.Quin, ‘The interactive science and technology project: the Nuffield Foundation’s
launchpad for a European collaborative’, International Journal of Science Education, 13, 5,
1991, pp. 569–73.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Nuffield Foundation, Sharing Science: issues in the development of the interactive science
and technology centres, London: British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.
23 British Interactive Group, Newsletter, summer 1995, pp. 5, 8.
 Notes 138

24 S.Tait, Palaces of Discovery, London: Quiller Press, 1989, pp. 96–7.

25 Leisure Opportunities, March 1995, p. 2.
26 M.Quin, ‘Aims, strengths and weaknesses of the European science centre movement’, in
R.Miles and L.Zavala (eds), Towards the Museum of the Future, London: Routledge, 1994,
pp. 48–50,
27 Derived from Techniquest’s statutory accounts.
28 J.Brown, ‘Attraction review: Exploratory and Techniquest’, Leisure Management, May
1992, pp. 36–8.
29 S.Tait, op. cit., p. 96.
30 M.Quin, 1994, loc. cit., p. 48.
31 British Interactive Group, Newsletter, Summer 1996, pp. 1–2.
32 Ibid., winter 1996, p. 8.
33 Ibid., autumn 1996, p. 1.
34 Ibid., p. 9.
35 Halifax Evening Courier, 8.7.92, p. 3.
36 Museums Journal, Jan. 1994, p. 39.
37 Halifax Evening Courier, loc. cit., p. 4.
38 National Centre for Popular Music, promotional material, Sept. 1996.

5
Marketing
1 A.Palmer, Principles of Service Marketing, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill, 1994, p. 23.
2 M.McDonald, Marketing Plans: how to prepare them, how to use them, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 3rd edition, 1995.
3 F.McLean, Marketing the Museum, London: Routledge, 1997; E.Hill, C.O’Sullivan and T.
O’Sullivan, Creative Arts Marketing, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1995; A.Palmer, op.
cit.; S.Runyard, The Museum Marketing Handbook, London: HMSO, 1994; P.Kotler,
Marketing Management, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 8th edition, 1994.
4 S.Davies, By Popular Demand: a strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and
galleries in the UK, London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994, pp. 76–80.
5 Ibid., p. 55.
6 M.Hanna, Sightseeing in the UK 1995, London: BTA/ETB Research Services, 1996, p. 39.
7 For a full investigation of the museum visitor market in the UK, the reader is advised to
consult S.Davies, op. cit.
8 Office of Population, Census and Surveys, Social Focus on Children, London: HMSO, 1994,
p. 7.
9 CACI Ltd, The Geodemographic Pocket Book 1994, Henley: NTC Publications, p. 8.
10 OPCS, op. cit.
11 Mintel, Leisure Time 1995, quoted in C. Gratton, ‘Time out’, Leisure Management, Oct.
1995, pp. 24–5.
12 Hilton Hotels and Resorts, Time Values Study, 1991, quoted in T.Silberberg and G.D.Lord,
‘Increased self-generated revenue: children’s museums at the forefront of entrepreneurship
into the next century’, Hand to Hand, 7, 2, 1993, pp. 1–5.
13 Leisure Consultants, Leisure Forecasts, 1996–2000: Vol. 2, leisure away from home,
Sudbury: Leisure Consultants, 1996, p. 46.
14 S.Davies, op. cit., p. 56; Department of National Heritage, People Taking Part, London:
DNH, 1996, p. 7.
15 S.Davies, op. cit., p. 58.
16 Ibid., p . 38.
 Notes 139

17 DNH, op. cit., p. 7.

18 Office of Population, Census and Surveys, Day Visits in Great Britain 1991/2, London:
HMSO, 1992.
19 Office of Population, Census and Surveys, Leisure Day Visits in Great Britain 1988/9,
London: HMSO, 1991, in ‘Attendances at museums and galleries’, Policy Studies Institute,
Cultural Trends, 12, 1991, p. 73.
20 S.Davies, op. cit., p. 55.
21 V.Cave, ‘Preliminary findings of the Eureka! visitor survey’, in A.Hesketh, ‘Eureka! The
Museum for Children: visitor orientation and behaviour’, unpublished dissertation,
University of Birmingham: Ironbridge Institute, 1993, Appendix C.
22 K.M.Reeves, ‘A study of the educational value and effectiveness of child-centred interactive
exhibits for children in family groups’, unpublished dissertation, University of Birmingham:
Ironbridge Institute, 1993, p. 16.
23 S.Davies, op. cit., p. 54.
24 OPCS, 1992, op. cit.
25 Ibid.
26 English Tourist Board, 1993 Annual Report, London: English Tourist Board, 1994.
27 M.Hanna, op. cit., p. 39.
28 Overnight visitor figures supplied by Yorkshire Tourist Board, Feb. 1997.
29 V.Cave, loc. cit.; M.Hanna, op. cit.; OPCS, 1992, op. cit.
30 Derived from postcode data supplied by Techniquest. The postcodes of 20 per cent of
visitors were recorded from July to October 1996.
31 M.Hanna, op. cit., p. 43.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 T.Silberberg and G.D.Lord, loc. cit.
35 Ibid., p. 2.
36 V.Cave, loc. cit.
37 Interview with Nancy Kolb, Director, Please Touch Museum, 5.11.91.
38 J.Saker and G.Smith, ‘Marketing’, a series of four articles in Leisure Opportunities, 115–19,
Sept.-Dec. 1993.
39 M.Hanna, op. cit., p. 45.
40 P.Kotler, op. cit., p. 373.
41 S.Freeman, ‘Causing a promotion’, Museums Journal, March 1997, pp. 28–9.
42 M.Hanna, op. cit., p. 45.
43 N.Winterbotham, ‘Digital cognition—(thinking with our fingers)’, unpublished paper in
‘Hands-on…and pulling them in?’ session at 1996 Museums Association Conference in
Harrogate.

6
Operations management
1 M.Hanna, Sightseeing in the UK, London: BTA/ETB Research Services, 1996, pp. 25, 42. A
similar number of hands-on attractions reached maximum capacity in 1992. M. Hanna,
Sightseeing in the UK, London: BTA/ ETB Research Services, 1993, pp. 24, 41–2.
2 Office of Population, Census and Surveys, Day Visits in Great Britain 1991/2, London:
HMSO, 1992.
3 D.Maister, ‘The psychology of waiting lines’, in C.H.Lovelock, Managing Services,
Marketing Operations and Human Resources, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988, pp. 176–84.
4 Interview with Colin Johnson, Deputy Director, Techniquest, 30.10.96.
 Notes 140

5 V.Cave, ‘Preliminary findings of the Eureka! visitor survey’, in A.Hesketh, ‘Eureka! The
Museum for Children: visitor orientation and behaviour’, unpublished dissertation,
University of Birmingham: Ironbridge Institute, 1993, Appendix C.
6 D.Maister, loc. cit.
7 P.Kotler, Marketing Management, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994, 8th edition, p. 479.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.

7
Human resource management
1 B.Gammon, N.Smith and T.Moussouri, ‘An evaluation of the Things gallery’, unpublished
report by Science Museum Public Understanding of Science Research Unit, 1996.
2 J.Falk and L.Dierking, The Museum Experience, Washington: Whalesback Books, 1992, p.
146.
3 Ibid., pp. 157–8.
4 G.Thomas, ‘The Inventorium’, in S.Pizzey (ed.), Interactive Science and Technology Centres,
London: Science Projects, 1987, p. 84.
5 S.McCormick (ed.), The ASTC Science Center Survey: administration and finance report,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989, p. 7.
6 Ibid.
7 S.Grinell, A New Place for Learning Science: starting and running a science centre,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1992, p. 107. Organisational structures of typical science centres of
different sizes are given on pp. 138–44.
8 S.McCormick, op. cit.
9 M.Quin, ‘The Exploratory pilot, a peer tutor?—the interpreter’s role in an interactive science
and technology centre’, in S.Goodlad and B. Hirst (eds), Explorations in Peer Tutoring,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1990, pp. 194–202.
10 A.de Caries, ‘The human element to hands-on learning’, British Interactive Group,
Newsletter, summer 1993.
11 The Exploratorium, ‘Facts and figures’, San Francisco: The Exploratory, 1988.
12 J.Diamond, M.St. John, B.Cleary and D.Librero, ‘The Exploratorium’s Explainer Program:
the long-term impacts on teenagers of teaching science to the public’, Science Education, 71,
5, 1987, pp. 643–56.
13 Ibid., p. 645.
14 S.Neill, ‘Exploring the Exploratorium’, American Education, 14, 10, 1978, pp. 6–12.
15 J.Diamond et al., loc. cit., p. 655.
16 S.Neill, loc. cit., p. 13.
17 J.Diamond et al., loc. cit., pp. 654–5.
18 The Children’s Museum, ‘Facts and figures’, Boston: The Children’s Museum, 1991.
19 P.Steuert, Opening the Museum: history and strategies towards a more inclusive institution,
Boston: The Children’s Museum, 1993, p. 30.
20 Ibid., pp. 30–8.
21 Interview with Eleanor Chin, Director, Special Projects at Boston Children’s Museum,
27.10.91; The Children’s Museum, ‘Interpreter program’ leaflet, Boston: The Children’s
Museum, 1990; S.Curry, ‘Interpreting at Boston’, GEM News, 57, 1995, p. 3.
22 Interview with Peggy Cole, Director, Special Projects, at New York Hall of Science, 1.11.91;
‘The science teacher career ladder’ leaflet, New York: New York Hall of Science, 1991.
23 Interview with Paul Fontaine, Manager of Public Programs, Museum of Science, Boston,
28.10.91.
 Notes 141

24 S.McCormick, op. cit., pp. 7–10.

25 Interview with Paul Fontaine, op. cit.
26 Interview with Paul Richards, Vice-President, Exhibitions at The Children’s Museum of
Indianapolis, 3.11.91; The Children’s Museum, 1990 Annual Report, Indianapolis: The
Children’s Museum, 1991, p. 11.
27 Interview with Nancy Kolb, Director, Please Touch Museum, 5.11.91; Please Touch
Museum, 1990 Annual Report, Philadelphia: Please Touch Museum, 1991.
28 G.Thomas, loc. cit., pp. 76–89.
29 T.Caulton, unpublished paper given at British Interactive Group Meeting, The Human
Element to Hands-On Learning, 20.4.93.
30 M.Quin, loc. cit., pp. 200–1.
31 K.Reeves, ‘A study of the educational value and effectiveness of child-centred interactive
exhibits for children in family groups’, unpublished dissertation, University of Birmingham:
Ironbridge Institute, 1993, p. 75.
32 T.Caulton, op. cit.
33 Ibid.
34 A.Porter, ‘The art of explaining science’, Museums Journal, May 1994, p. 34.
35 Ibid.
36 M.Quin, loc. cit., pp. 198–9.
37 Interview with Colin Johnson, Deputy Director, Techniquest, 30.10.96.
38 D.Erskine, ‘Going interactive’, British Interactive Group, Newsletter, summer 1996, p. 11.
39 SEARCH, Going Interactive, Hampshire County Museums Service/South Eastern Museums
Service, 1996.
40 A.Jones, ‘The role of unpaid staff in hands-on centres’, British Interactive Group, Newsletter,
autumn 1993, pp. 4–5.
41 Ibid., p. 5.

8
Managing education programmes and special events
1 V.Middleton, New Visions for Independent Museums in the UK, Chichester: Association of
Independent Museums, 1990, p. 34.
2 P.Lewis. ‘Marketing to the local community’, unpublished conference paper quoted in
S.Davies, By Popular Demand, London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994, p. 60.
3 S.McCormick (ed.), The ASTC Science Center Survey: education report, Washington, DC:
ASTC, 1988; M. St. John and S. Grinell, Highlights of the 1987 ASTC Science Center
Survey: an independent review of findings, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989.
4 Ibid., pp. 1–14.
5 Ibid.; S. McCormick, op. cit., p. 11.
6 Ibid., pp. 12–13.
7 Ibid., p. 13.
8 P.Steuert, Opening the Museum: history and strategies towards a more inclusive institution,
Boston: The Children’s Museum, 1993.
9 Much of the information in this section has been derived from field research by the author,
and from annual reports and promotional material published by the museums cited.
Additional information on youth programmes has been obtained from ‘Leadership in youth
museum programs for adolescents’, Hand to Hand, 6, 4, 1992, pp. 1–7.
10 N.Marriott, ‘Walk this way’, Times Educational Supplement, 2.7.93.
11 J.Davison, ‘A night of science’, Journal of Education in Museums, 14, 1993, pp. 15–16.
12 Interview with Colin Johnson, Deputy Director, Techniquest, 30.10.96.
 Notes 142

13 C.O’Grady, ‘Giving them the works’, Times Educational Supplement, 2.7.93.

14 D.Anderson, A Common Wealth: museums and learning in the United Kingdom, London:
Department of National Heritage, 1997, p. v.
15 Ibid., pp. 1–19.
16 Ibid., p. 14; S. McCormick, op. cit., pp. 12–13.
17 Ibid., p. 1.
18 S.Davies, By Popular Demand: a strategic analysis of the potential for museums and
galleries in the UK, London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994, p. 60.
19 M.St. John and S.Grinell, op. cit., pp. 18–19.
20 D.Anderson, op. cit., pp. 1–10.

9
The future for hands-on exhibitions
1 A.Porter, ‘Touching minds, changing futures’, British Interactive Group, Newsletter, winter
1996, p. 5.
2 A.Friedman, ‘Differentiating science-technology centers from other leisure-time enterprises’,
unpublished paper presented at ECSITE Conference, 10.10.95.
3 Ibid.
4 J.Gardner, the National Review art critic, 1995, quoted in ibid.
5 J.Gilling, ‘Inside looking out’, Leisure Management, Aug. 1995, pp. 23–4; E.Schwartzman,
‘The family way’, Leisure Management, Feb. 1995, pp. 71–4; T. Silberberg and G.D.Lord,
‘Increasing self-generated revenue: children’s museums at the forefront of entrepreneurship
into the next century’, Hand to Hand, 7, 2, 1993, pp. 1–5.
6 A.Friedman, op. cit.
7 E.Gurian, ‘The blurring of the boundaries’, unpublished paper presented at Education for
Literacy Conference, Science Museum, 9.11.94.
8 D.Anderson, A Common Wealth: museums and learning in the United Kingdom, London:
Department of National Heritage, 1997, pp. 1–10.
9 Infotech, Sunday Times, 9.3.97.
10 I.Simmons, ‘Talking ’bout third generation’, British Interactive Group, Newsletter, winter
1996, p. 10.
11 R.Powys-Smith, ‘Roaring into action’, The Leisure Manager, Feb./Mar. 1995, pp. 20–2.
 Selected bibliography

Anderson, D., A Common Wealth: museums and learning in the United Kingdom, London:
Department of National Heritage, 1997.
Belcher, M., Exhibitions in Museums, Leicester University Press: Leicester, 1991.
Bicknell, S., ‘Here to help: evaluation and effectiveness’, in Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.), Museum,
Media, Message, London: Routledge, 1995, pp. 281–93.
Bicknell, S. and Farmelo, G. (eds), Museum Visitor Studies in the 90s, London: Science Museum,
1993.
Bicknell, S. and Mann, P., ‘A picture of visitors for exhibition developers’, in Hooper-Greenhill, E.
(ed.), The Educational Role of the Museum, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 195–203.
British Interactive Group, Handbook 1, 1995.
Brooklyn Children’s Museum, Doing It Right: a guide to improving exhibit labels, Washington,
DC: AAM, 1989.
Cleaver, J., Doing Children’s Museums, Charlotte, VT: Williamson, 1992.
Danilov, V.J., Science and Technology Centers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.
Davies, S., By Popular Demand: a strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and
galleries in the UK, London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994.
Diamond, J., St. John, M., Cleary, B. and Librero, D., ‘The Exploratorium’s Explainer Program: the
long-term impacts on teenagers of teaching science to the public’, Science Education, 71, 5,
1987, pp. 643–56.
Dierking, L.D., ‘The family museum experience: implications from research’, Journal of Museum
Education, 14, 2, 1989, pp. 9–11.
Dierking, L.D. and Falk, J.H., ‘Family behavior and learning in informal science settings: a review
of the research’, Science Education, 78, 1, Jan. 1994, pp. 57–72.
Durant, J. (ed.), Museums and the Public Understanding of Science, London: Science Museum,
1992.
Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D., The Museum Experience, Washington, DC: Whalesback Books,
1994.
Fisher, S., ‘Bringing history and the arts to a new audience: qualitative research for the London
Borough of Croydon’, unpublished research by the Susie Fisher Group, 1990.
Freeman, R., The Discovery Gallery: discovery learning in the museum, Toronto: Royal Ontario
Museum, 1989.
Gardner, H., The Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligence, New York: Basic Books,
1983.
Gardner, H., The Unschooled Mind: how children think and how schools should teach, New York:
Basic Books, 1991.
Grinell, S., A New Place for Learning Science: starting and running a science center, Washington,
DC: ASTC, 1992.
Guichard, J., ‘Designing tools to develop the conception of learners’, International Journal of
Science Education, 17, 2, 1995, pp. 243–53.
Hanna, M., Sightseeing in the UK, London: BTA/ETB Research Services, annual series.
Hein, G.E., ‘The constructivist museum’, Journal of Education in Museums, 16, 1995, pp. 21–3.
Hein, G.E., ‘Evaluation of programmes and exhibitions’, in Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.), The
Educational Role of the Museum, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 306–12.
 Selected bibliography 144

Hill, E., O’Sullivan, C. and O’Sullivan, T., Creative Arts Marketing, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 1995.
Hood, M., ‘Getting started in audience research’, Museum News, 64, 3, 1986, pp. 24–31.
Hood, M. ‘Staying away: why people choose not to visit museums’, Museum News, 61, 4, 1983, pp.
50–7.
Jackson, R. and Hann, K., ‘Learning through the Science Museum’, Journal of Education in
Museums, 15, 1994, pp. 11–13.
Jones, A., ‘The role of unpaid staff in hands-on centres’, British Interactive Group, Newsletter,
autumn 1993, pp. 4–5.
Kennedy, J., User Friendly: hands-on exhibits that work, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1994.
Lewin, A.W., ‘Children’s museums: a structure for family learning’, Marriage and Family Review,
13, 3–4, 1989, pp. 51–73.
McCormick, S. (ed.), The ASTC Science Center Survey: administration and finance report,
Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989.
McCormick, S. (ed.), The ASTC Science Center Survey: education report, Washington, DC: ASTC,
1988.
McLean, F., Marketing the Museum, London: Routledge, 1997.
McManus, P., ‘Families in museums’, in Miles, R. and Zavala, L. (eds), Towards the Museum of
the Future, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 81–97.
McManus, P., ‘Towards understanding the needs of museum visitors’, in Lord, B. and Lord, G.D.
(eds), Manual of Museum Planning, London: HMSO, 1991, pp. 35–51.
McManus, P., ‘Watch your language! People do read labels’, in Serrell, B. (ed.), What Research
Says about Learning in Science Museums, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1990, pp. 4–6.
Mulberg, C. and Hinton, M., ‘The Alchemy of Play: Eureka! The Museum for Children’, in Pearce,
S. (ed.), Museums and the Appropriation of Culture, London: Athlone Press, 1993, pp. 238–43.
Nuffield Foundation, Sharing Science: issues in the development of the interactive science and
technology centres, London: British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.
Oppenheimer, F., ‘Exhibit concept and design’, in Working Prototypes, San Francisco: The
Exploratorium, 1986, pp. 5–15.
Palmer, A., Principles of Service Marketing, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill, 1994.
Peirson Jones, J. (ed.), Gallery 33: a visitor study, Birmingham: Birmingham Museums and Art
Gallery, 1993.
Pizzey, S. (ed.), Interactive Science and Technology Centres, London: Science Projects Publishing,
1987.
Quin, M., ‘Aims, strengths and weaknesses of the European science centre movement’, in Miles, R.
and Zavala, L. (eds), Towards the Museum of the Future, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 39–55.
Quin, M., ‘The Interactive Science and Technology Project: the Nuffield Foundation’s launchpad
for a European collaborative’, International Journal of Science Education, 13, 5, 1991, pp. 569–
73.
Quin, M., ‘The Exploratory pilot, a peer tutor?—the interpreter’s role in an interactive science and
technology centre’, in Goodlad, S. and Hirst, B. (eds), Explorations in Peer Tutoring, Oxford:
Blackwell, 1990, pp. 194–202.
Quin, M., ‘What is hands-on science, and where can I find it?’, Physics Education, 25, 1990, pp.
243–6.
Russell, T., ‘The enquiring visitor: usable learning theory for museum contexts’, Journal of
Education in Museums, 15, 1994, pp. 19–21.
Screven, C.G., ‘Uses of evaluation before, during and after exhibit design’, ILVS review, 1, 2, 1990,
pp. 36–66.
SEARCH, Going Interactive, Hampshire County Museums Service/South Eastern Museums
Service, 1996.
Serrell, B., What Research Says about Learning in Science Museums, Washington, DC: ASTC,
1990.
 Selected bibliography 145

Silberberg, E. and Lord, G.D., ‘Increasing self-generated revenue: children’s museums at the
forefront of entrepreneurship into the next century’, Hand to Hand, 7, 2, 1993, pp. 1–5.
Stephenson, J., ‘The long-term impact of interactive exhibits’, International Journal of Science
Education, 13, 5, 1991, pp. 521–31.
Steuert, P., Opening the Museum: history and strategies towards a more inclusive institution,
Boston: The Children’s Museum, 1993.
St. John, M. and Grinell, S., Highlights of the 1987 ASTC Science Center Survey: an independent
review of findings, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1989.
Swift, F., ‘Time to go interactive’, Museum Practice, 4, 1997, pp. 23–31.
Taylor, S., Try It! Improving exhibits through formative evaluation, Washington, DC: ASTC, 1992.
Thomas, G., ‘How Eureka! The Museum for Children responds to visitors’ needs’, in Durant, J.
(ed.), Museums and the Public Understanding of Science, London: Science Museum, 1992, pp.
88–93.
Thomas, G., “‘Why are you playing at washing up again?” Some reasons and methods for
developing exhibitions for children’, in Miles, R. and Zavala, L. (eds), Towards the Museum of
the Future, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 117–31.
Thomas, G. and Caulton, T., ‘Communication strategies in interactive spaces’, in Pearce, S. (ed.),
New Research in Museum Studies: Vol. 6 Exploring Science in Museums, London: Athlone
Press, 1996, pp. 107–22.
Thomas, G. and Caulton, T., ‘Objects and interactivity: a conflict or a collaboration’, International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 1, 3, 1995, pp. 143–55.
Trevelyan, V. (ed.), ‘Dingy places with different kinds of bits: an attitudes survey of London
museums amongst non visitors’, London: London Museums Service, 1991.
Wood, R., ‘Museum learning: a family focus’, Journal of Education in Museums, 11, 1990, pp. 20–
3.
 Index

All Hands, National Maritime Museum 36, 70

A Common Wealth 130–3, 138
American Association of Museums 5–6
Anderson, D. 130–3, 138
Archaeological Resource Centre, York 14–15, 115–16, 118
Arts Lottery Fund 71, 73;
see also National Lottery
Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) 4, 8, 11, 57, 60, 66, 68, 73, 108–9, 112,
116, 122–3, 131–2, 134, 137
Association of Youth Museums 5, 8

Beamish Open Air Museum 88

Beetlestone, J. 6–7, 40;
see also Techniquest
BIG see British Interactive Group
Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery 4, 47;
Birmingham Discovery Centre 71;
Light on Science 71, 86, 109, 115
Birmingham Discovery Centre 71
Borun, M. 23
Boston Children’s Museum 5, 19, 69, 109, 110–11, 112, 118, 123–5;
see also Spock, M.
Boston Museum of Science 111, 112, 118, 127
breakdowns 102–4
Bristol 2000 15–16, 70;
see also Exploratory, Science World
British Association for the Advancement of Science 9, 69, 71, 126;
see also COPUS
British Interactive Group (BIG) 10, 11, 12, 66, 115
Brooklyn Children’s Museum 5, 19, 36, 112, 119, 124–5, 127;
Kid’s Crew 124–5
building costs 72–3
burn-out 115–16;
see also enabling staff

capacity 92–7
capital funding 68–74
charitable institutions see Clore Foundation;
Gatsby Foundation;
Leverhulme Trust;
Nuffield Foundation;
Sainsbury family;
 Index 147

Vivien Duffield Foundation

Chicago Children’s Museum 58–9
Children’s Discovery Centre 69;
see also Eureka!
children’s museums:
definition 6;
origins 4–6
Children’s Museum of Manhattan 58–9, 99, 112, 124
children under five 27–8
Cleethorpes Discovery Centre 24, 47
Cleveland Children’s Museum 87
Clore Foundation 69–70
Colchester Museums 115, 117
communication strategies 26–34
complaints 104–5
constructivism 36–8
COPUS 9, 69, 126;
see also British Association for the Advancement of Science, Royal Institution, Royal Society
current market 10–12

definitions:
children’s museum 6;
hands-on exhibit 2;
interactive exhibit 2
demand 77–82
demographic trends 77–8
Denver Children’s Museum 5, 29, 44, 87
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 4, 9, 48, 69
design 26–38, 39–56
Deutches Museum, Munich 3
Diamond, J. 24
Dierking, L. 25, 108
Discovery Domes 4, 9, 42, 69
discovery galleries 35
Disney 7–8, 135
draw-and-write techniques 49–50
Duffield, V. 69–70

early science museums 3–4

ECSITE 8–9, 69
educational context 17–38
educational market 83–4
educational programmes 120–33
Elsecar Discovery Centre, Barnsley 42, 69, 70, 72
enabling staff 109–19
English Tourist Board 11
Eureka! The Museum for Children, Halifax 10, 13, 14, 29, 32–4, 43–5, 46, 48–54, 55, 57, 59–68,
69–70, 72, 81–5, 86, 87–9, 93–7, 98–100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 109, 113–14, 115, 125–6;
see also Duffield, V.;
Thomas, G.
European Community (EC) 70, 118
 Index 148

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 71

evaluation 45–56;
see also formative evaluation, front-end analysis, summative evaluation
Evans, F. 40
exhibit development 39–56
exhibition costs 73
exhibition design 26–38, 39–56
Exploratorium, San Francisco 3, 4, 19, 41, 42, 109, 110, 111, 115, 117, 118, 126
Exploratory, Bristol 4, 9, 15–16, 41, 59–60, 63–8, 69, 70, 71, 72, 85, 86, 88, 109, 115, 126;
see also Bristol 2000, Gregory, R., Science World

family learning 22–8

family entertainment centres 137;
Action Stations 137;
Discovery Zone 16, 137;
Fun Factory 137;
Planet Fun 16, 137;
Planet Kids 137
Falk, J. 24, 25, 108
formative evaluation 47, 50–1, 103;
see also evaluation
Franklin Institute, Philadelphia 3, 23, 136
Feher, E. 22, 37
finance 57–74
Froebel, F. 18
front-end analysis 46, 48–51, 54;
see also evaluation
front-of-house staff 109–19
future developments 134–40

Gardner, H. 20, 37
Gatsby Foundation 6, 70, 126
Goldsmith, R. 69
graphics 31–2, 32–4;
see also design
Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry 11, 83–4;
see also Xperiment!
Great Sheffield Exploratory 69
Green’s Mill, Nottingham 13–14
Gregory, R. 9, 17–18, 41;
see also Exploratory
group bookings 97–101

Hampshire County Council Museum Service 115

hands-on exhibit definition 2
Health Education Authority 48
Health for Life 48–9
Heritage Lottery Fund 71, 139;
see also National Lottery
human resource management 107–19
 Index 149

Imagination 44
Indianapolis Children’s Museum 5, 19, 58–9, 112, 118, 125, 127;
Museum Apprentice Programme 125, 127
integrating adults and children 27–8;
see also design, family learning
interactive exhibit definition 2
Interactive Science and Technology Project 9, 69
interpretation staff 109–19
Inventorium (La Villette), Paris 4, 48, 49, 94, 109, 112

Jackson, R. 22
Jodrell Bank, Cheshire 86
Jones, A. 116
Jorvik Viking Centre 94

Kelham Island Museum, Sheffield 69

La Villette, Paris 4, 48, 49, 94, 109, 112

learning styles:
McCarthy, Kolb and Gregorc 19–20
leisure time 79–81
Leverhulme Trust 4, 70
Light on Science, Birmingham 71, 86, 109, 115
lunchtime management 101–2

Magician’s Road, National Railway Museum, York 101

marketing 75–91
market planning 75–6
market segments 82–6
McManus, P. 24–5, 47
Micrarium, Buxton 14
Millennium Commission 10, 15, 16, 71, 127, 139;
see also National Lottery
Museum de los Niños, Caracas 32
museum education 120–33
museum learning 17–38;
see also personal context, physical context, social context
museum objects (and hands-on exhibits) 34–6;
see also design

National Centre for Popular Music, Sheffield 46, 71, 73

National Lottery 10, 11, 71, 72, 74, 85, 134, 139;
see also Arts Lottery Fund, Heritage Lottery Fund, Millennium Commission
National Maritime Museum, London 36, 70
National Palace Museum, Taiwan 26
National Railway Museum, York 101
Natural History Museum 88, 101, 109;
Travelling Discovery Centre 70
Newcastle Discovery 86
 Index 150

new technology 138–40

New York Hall of Science 111, 112, 117, 118, 124–5
non-visitor surveys 46;
see also evaluation
Nottinghamshire Primary Science and Technology Trailers 127–30
Nuffield Foundation 4, 9, 68–9

Ontario Science Centre 4, 109

operations management 92–106
Oppenheimer, F. 3, 4, 19, 41, 110;
see also Exploratorium
orientation 27, 52–3
origins 3–8
overlapping markets 85–6

Palais de la Découverte, Paris 3

performance indicators 65–8
personal context 18–22;
see also museum learning
Piaget, J. 18–20, 37
Pizzey, S. 4, 9;
see also Discovery Domes, Science Projects
Please Touch Museum, Philadelphia 58–9, 88, 112, 124
physical context 26–7;
see also museum learning
PowerHouse, Elsecar 42, 69, 70, 72
price 86–8
primary market 82–3
product life-cycle 12–16, 62, 64, 74, 88, 125
promotion 88–91

queues 95–7
Quin, M. 9

Royal Institution 9, 69;

see also COPUS
Royal Ontario Museum 35
Royal Society 9, 69, 71;
see also COPUS

Sainsbury family 4, 6, 9, 68, 70;

see also Gatsby Foundation
Science Museum, London 3, 4, 13, 21–2, 36, 42, 45, 54–5, 59, 70, 71, 81, 86, 88, 94, 108, 109, 114,
115, 117, 126;
Children’s Gallery 3;
Flight Lab 21, 59;
Launch Pad 4, 11, 12, 21, 54, 59, 70, 94, 109, 114;
Test Bed 4;
Things 13, 36, 54–5, 70, 108
Science Projects 4, 42, 127;
 Index 151

Discovery Domes 4, 9, 42, 69;

LightWorks 9, 69;
SchoolWorks 127;
see also Pizzey, S.
Science Week 126
Science World 15–16, 64, 71
secondary market 84
site costs 72
Smithsonian Institute, Washington 71
Snibston Discovery Park, Leicestershire 70, 86
social context 22–6;
see also museum learning
South Eastern Museums Service 115
special events 120–33
Spock, M. 5, 19;
see also Boston Children’s Museum
Stephenson, J. 21–2
summative evaluation 47–8, 52–4
supporting organisations 8–9, 68–71

Techniquest, Cardiff 4, 6–8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 42, 59–68, 69–70, 72, 80–1, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94, 101, 102,
109, 115, 118, 127;
see also Beetlestone, J.
Technology Testbed, Liverpool 109
text 30–1, 32–4;
see also design
Thomas, G. 48, 108;
see also Bristol 2000, Eureka!, La Villette, Science Museum
travelling hands-on exhibitions 127–30
Tullie House Museum, Carlisle 90

visitor surveys 45–6;

see also evaluation
time limits 94–5
tourist market 84–5
Vivien Duffield Foundation 69–70
volunteers 112, 115–16
Vygotsky, L. 18, 22

Wetton, N. 48–9

Xperiment!, Manchester 11, 86;

see also Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry