ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Great note, Charlie. I wish I weren't in the midst of a deadline or I'd have
more to say... ;)

FYI, I'm not an expert on evaluation. I'm a developer. So with all caveats I
go.

As a rule of thumb, exhibit developers are people who are uniquely equipped
to take something out of thin air and
realize it into an actual, tangible thing, nursing it through the myriad
content, political and technical hurdles. Placing such emphasis and funding
on evaluation has added an often confusing step in that process at times.

Most developers, designers, and artists must engage in some sort of informal
front end evaluation of their own to both understand the concept and the
intended audience. That's part of a good design process.

Out of professionalism (not to mention a tough economy) it seems to me that
most exhibits strive to use best practices. As an industry, Museums are
brimming with intelligent, underpaid idealists who like to talk. So we tend
to as a group, inherently apply rigor.

Where I have seen evaluation be of use in a development process is to help a
team clarify the larger intent of what exhibit to pursue developing and what
might best meet the content or goals of a grant or project.

As a developer, I'd like to propose re-framing evaluation subtly. I'd like
to know "where else do you see this idea in your life?" "How else have you
engaged with it?" Not "did we do a good job of conveying this to you", but
rather, help us do a fuller job and then have some flexibility built-in to
add or iterate on the spot, or at least online.

Seems there is a lot of room for forms of evaluation given our extended and
oftentimes remote engagement with the content at museums. In this I mean
people engaging with photos of an exhibit, on a website, etc., vs. the
experience itself.  Even if we visit, we are spinning our meaning further
and further away from a visit as well through these pathways. Which is
wonderful, btw.

Is it useful to know what people do with it? Yes, is it useful right then
and there, or is it useful in a cumulative sense over time, for an
institution's professional development? I think the latter. I'm thinking of
books like Groundswell<
http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009
>as
I type...

How much do we want and need to spend on the analysis of our work versus the
creative production of it? Do we want to be creators, framers, or analyzers,
or managers of content?

I agree the museum visit could be enhanced and evaluated in a more
meaningful way for the content folks, the funders, and ultimately the
public.  To what extent and what is it we truly can have impact on by doing
so, might be best done in terms of dissemination after the fact, or again,
focusing a team's point of view before launching into the creative
production.

It places a burden when you approach with subtractive point of view during a
formative process. I'd like to see those decoupled. Foster Focused
Creativity.

Happy New Year all!

Maria

***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]