This article is a follow-up to my Article 4, which addressed the controversy surrounding the National Museum of American History (NMAH) exhibition entitled Science in American Life. This article, written by members of the Smithsonian's Institutional Studies Office, looked at the results of the visitor survey that was conducted due to the controversy.

      Science in American Life was an attempt to address the relationship between science and society in America over the past 125 years. The main message was that science has had a major influence on American culture and consciousness.

      Shortly after the exhibition opened in 1994 it was criticized by the leadership of the American Chemical Society (the exhibition's main sponsor) and the American Physical Society. Critics argued that the content and presentation "did not present a balanced view of the historical development and role of science and technology in America" and that, both explicitly and implicitly, they "communicated to the visiting public a negative view of the role of science in their daily lives." (117)

      The museum's curatorial staff disagreed. They thought that the exhibition "encouraged visitors to think comprehensively about the role of science in their lives, both past and present." (117)

      Neither group had any solid evidence to support their views, so in April 1995, the NMAH asked that the Smithsonian's Institutional Studies Office conduct a visitor study to help adjudicate this debate. The study was to address three main questions using scientific methods and protocols that could be independently reviewed. These questions were: "(1) To what extent are the exhibition's key curatorial messages communicated to visitors? (2) Are visitors' attitudes towards science being changed by the exhibition and, if so, in what ways? (3) What overall ideas are visitors coming away with?" (119)

      The methodology was comprised of interviews conducted at the entrance and at the exit of the exhibition. Different, but equally representative, samples were used at the entrance and exit, thus allowing them to "identify any shifts of opinion on these issues." (119) Visitors were asked questions about previous visits to the museum, previous visits to the exhibition, where they had heard about the exhibition, what they had heard, and so on. They were asked several questions about science and technology. "Exiting visitors were also asked whether they thought the exhibition would influence the way they think about technology, if so, how, and if not, why not; what they thought the exhibition was trying to say about science in America; and where in the exhibition they had picked up that message, in particular." (119-120) Entering and exiting visitors were asked nine opinion questions that addressed the major themes of the exhibition. Lastly, standard demographic questions were asked.

      An unobtrusive tracking study was also conducted at the same time. Observation was made of the overall time visitors spent in the exhibition and of the time and location of each stop within the exhibition.

      The authors did note several limitations of their study. These were the limited time period of data collection (June-July 1995), the lack of a control sample, and the immediacy of the interview. A yearlong NMAH general use study conducted over the same period showed that it is mostly first-time visitors who come to the museum in the summer. These new visitors were also less critical of the museum and its exhibitions. Many people may have needed more time to reflect before answering the questions asked at the exit.

      Everyone interviewed was asked, "How do you feel about the impact of science and technology on our lives?" With one being very negative and ten being very positive, the average score was 8.67 with a standard deviation of only 1.37. The study shows that this opinion was unaffected by the exhibition as they was no statistical difference between the scores of those entering or of those leaving. This very high opinion of science and technology is consistent with studies of the U.S. population as a whole.

      The authors state that there may be at least two reasons why the exhibition did not change visitors' attitudes. First, "an individual's view of science and technology may be too basic a value to be changed by the relatively short experience of visiting a museum exhibition." (122) There is data to support this view. Secondly, is that the exhibition "confirmed, or at least did not contradict, commonly held views." (122) On the opinion questions that addressed the major themes, there was a 74% agreement between the curator and the public. The only difference showed on the intensity of feeling about public responsibility and involvement.

      Despite this difference, there was no statistical significant differences found on overall opinion scores or on any individual question between entering and exiting visitors. "In other words, the data show no signs that attitudes on this matter were significantly affected by the experience of the exhibition." (124)

      There are a few more interesting correlations and statistics within the article but space prevents discussing them here.

      The visitor study commissioned to test the allegations brought by the American Chemical Society and American Physical Society showed that visitor responses were quite the opposite. Visitors entered with a positive view of American sciences' contributions, which were reinforced and confirmed by the exhibit. The exhibit did not change these views in either direction.

Source: Pekarik, Andrew J., Doering, Zahava D. and Bickford, Adam, Visitor's Role in an Exhibition Debate: Science In American Life in Curator, April 1999, pp. 117-129.