Since I first took up the EVR position at Museum Victoria in
January 1994 much has changed in regards to EVR within my organisation and in
the museum sector. EVR practitioners have become more skilled and
professional in conducting studies and we continue to experiment with new
methodologies. Between us all we have probably evaluated every aspect of
the work of museums and their engagement with the public. And now we have large
storehouses of studies, and insights from them, in our organisations – I have
just completed the 833th study conducted here at Museum Victoria. EVR no
longer needs to justify its existence and people within our museums naturally
turn to it to inform their work.
However, in recent times I have begun to wonder if that is about
to change. Has the visitor’s voice become so central to our thinking that
we run the risk of believing we know it all and so do not require EVR as we
have in the past? In fact, fewer full-time EVR positions exist and there
is a greater reliance on part-time positions and student projects.
Indeed, it is more likely that EVR is represented within an organisation
by someone who is keenly interested but has another role to fulfil as well.
I have also noticed that the practitioner is being replaced at
conferences and the like by an increasing number of academics. So are
thing changing and what might be the future for EVR in the museum sector?
I asked Dr Patrick Greene, CEO Museum Victoria and the new
Chairperson of the CAMD, his thoughts on the past and future contributions of
EVR to the sector.
On arrival from Manchester 10 years ago, Dr
Greene was impressed by how museums in Australia had embraced EVR to inform
their work. His experience in Manchester confirmed for him that
evaluation most definitively leads to better exhibitions and even now it is
important to keep asking public what it is they want from museums. Dr
Greene stated that EVR continues to be a strong factor in shifting the long
standing belief that museums know best to one that recognises that people in
the community have all sorts of valuable knowledge that museums must embrace.
As for the future, the new frontier is
digital and with the NBN roll out it is particularly pertinent. Museums
are faced with a bewildering range of opportunities for using digital mediums,
but we do not yet know which ones will work best for us. Unless we become
deliberate in examining the effectiveness of each form we won’t know where to
put our effort. The rate of change is so speedy, we find ourselves in a
scramble to catch up. We must get the right tools in place to do work
within our organisations and we should look to collaborating across museums.
EVR also has a strong role to play in
providing information that can be used to advocate the work of museums to
stakeholders and partners. The assertions of an organisation are all very
well but they are made stronger when backed up with facts which add authority
and verification. If museums are not already involved in advocacy they
should be, and it will only become a more important thing to do to keep our
museums sustainable. This work, and the role of EVR in it, is ongoing.
So if there is, as Dr Greene says, a strong need for EVR in
the sector, how can the EVR SIG support this? There has been a slow
demise in the vigour of this, and other, SIGs in recent times. Member
numbers have declined and contact between them has become tenuous. At the
next committee meeting, we will be discussing the role of the SIG. Should
we reinvigorate it or has it no role to play? Use the comments section below to tell us what you need from your EVR SIG. The committee will get back to
you with some initiatives either way.
A rose by any other name . . .
Our name, Evaluation and Visitor Research Special Interest Group
(EVR SIG) needs to change in line with Museums Australia renaming of these
dedicated interests groups. So the new name is Evaluation and Visitor
Research National Network (EVRNN). How do people feel about that?
Caroyn Meehan
EVRSIG President
