Jump to the text version

“I think it’s important to my well-being to continually be learning and growing in my mind, and imagination helps that. If I don’t have imagination or growth, I think I would be bored and depressed with this life.”

Visiting a museum is an act of imagination. We use our imaginations to imagine what the past was like, how animals live, the experiences of others, and to explore different places.

We also use our imaginations to imagine things in new ways, whether through art or science.

Museum-goers emphatically agree that museums spark our imaginations: 97%!

Each individual, however, uses their imagination in different ways and attributes different outcomes to those imaginative experiences.

In the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, as well as a broader population sample of U.S. Adults, we wanted to learn more about the role and impact of imaginative learning in museums, and asked respondents a series of questions on the topic. In this Data Story, we’ll share these overall results, and explore more deeply in follow-up infographics.

We first asked respondents: How would you like to use your imagination while learning in museums?

Our answer choices presented an expansive approach to imagination, and respondents were supportive: the average respondent selected four of the answer choices, and only 3% of frequent museum-goers admitted “I don’t really want to use my imagination when visiting museums.”

Immersion in beauty

• Museum-goers: 75%
• U.S. adults: 58%

Mental “time travel” to the PAST

• Museum-goers: 70%
• U.S. adults: 68%

Personal stories that build empathy and connection

• Museum-goers: 61%
• U.S. adults: 54%

Innovative thinking through STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math)

• Museum-goers: 47%
• U.S. adults: 55%

Mental “time travel” to the FUTURE

• Museum-goers: 45%
• U.S. adults: 52%

Problem-solving exercises

• Museum-goers: 39%
• U.S. adults: 47%

Brainstorming or idea-building activities

• Museum-goers: 38%
• U.S. adults: 47%

I don’t really want to use my imagination when visiting museums

• Museum-goers: 3%
• U.S. adults: 5%

Additionally, parents and guardians were the most enthusiastic about these answer choices, especially the more STEM-oriented answers around innovative thinking, problem-solving, and idea-building.

To follow-up, respondents were asked what outcomes of imaginative learning experiences in museums they wanted visitors to experience. They said:

Recharge us mentally, as we experience awe, wonder, or beauty

• Museum-goers: 76%
• U.S. adults: 56%

Inspire curiosity to wonder and learn on our own

• Museum-goers: 75%
• U.S. adults: 59%

Broaden our minds to imagine life experiences different than our own

• Museum-goers: 74%
• U.S. adults: 59%

Develop greater understanding of the experiences of people from the past through historical imagination

• Museum-goers: 72%
• U.S. adults: 60%

Promote critical thinking by imagining different possibilities and using evidence to understand what is most likely or the best choice

• Museum-goers: 59%
• U.S. adults: 53%

Build excitement about the new ideas and creativity the experiences spark

• Museum-goers: 59%
• U.S. adults: 52%

Help us imagine a better future, giving us something positive to work towards

• Museum-goers: 49%
• U.S. adults: 48%

None of these

• Museum-goers: 1%
• U.S. adults: 4%

Again, respondents were supportive, with the average respondent choosing nearly ve of the answer choices (and only 1% of frequent museum-goers saying “none of these”).

To help us understand how enthusiastic respondents were about imaginative learning in museums, we sorted respondents into three categories:

• RESISTANT: these respondents answered negatively to one or both of the questions.
• AMBIVALENT: these respondents like the idea of imaginative learning, but are not necessarily seeking it out. They typically chose one to four answer choices to each question.
• ENTHUSIASTIC: these respondents loved the idea of imaginative learning, and chose five or more answer choices to both questions; in fact, 85% of this segment chose ALL of the answer choices in one or both of the questions.

Resistant: Imagination

• Museum-goers: 3%
• U.S. adults: 5%

Ambivalent: Imagination

• Museum-goers: 52%
• U.S. adults: 58%

Enthusiastic: Imagination

• Museum-goers: 45%
• U.S. adults: 37%

Clearly, imagination is popular and generally welcome among our visitors. Nearly half of frequent museum-goers fall in the “enthusiastic” segment. The more ambivalent respondents are also happy to go along with imaginative learning, responding positively (just less enthusiastically). We’ll explore these three segments more in our next Data Story.

Overall, however, this suggests that we can be very proactive talking about imagination in museums. The more we talk about and support imagination, helping visitors to feel good about their own imaginative learning, the more effective we can be in their learning experiences and outcomes.

“Imagination is very important to me…it keeps me interested in the many layers of life’s complexity and quality, opportunities. It inspires me beyond ‘what is’ to ‘what could be.’ It is soul food for my right brain.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

U.S. demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums). See the Purpose and Methodology (Update) Data Story from September 5, 2024 for more information on methodology.

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

Across the country, millions of children get up and head to their home classrooms. These homeschooled children are primarily learning from their parents and guardians in a rather different environment than children in formal education (like public, private, and charter schools). And they are also a niche audience that many museums specifically serve.

In the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers we asked parents and guardians of school-age children what types of schools their children attended. Overall, here’s what we found:

• Public school: 72%
• Charter school: 7%
• Private school: 19%
• Homeschool: 11%

Parents and guardians could choose more than one answer, since siblings could be enrolled in different types of educational environments.

The latest data from the National Center of Education Statistics(2) (2021) says 6.8% of households with children homeschool at least one child. Note, however, they are counting all households with children, including those with very young children and infants. This suggests that if the households with children 4 and younger were removed from the calculation, the percentage of homeschooling households with school-age children would likely be in the 8 – 10% range…close to what we found.

In total, 1,178 museum-going homeschooling households responded to our survey…a truly robust sample of this specific audience.(1) Let’s explore what they shared with us.

Characteristics of Homeschooling Families

For the most part, homeschooling families are a lot like families whose children participate in formal education. In fact, a quarter of homeschooling families also have children in public, private, or charter schools, indicating that for some homeschool households, homeschooling decisions are made on a child-by-child basis.

Families choose to homeschool for a variety of reasons, and they hold diverse values.

That said, overall there were significant differences that set homeschool families apart:

• Education. Homeschooling parents and guardians generally have lower levels of educational attainment: they were a third less likely to have a graduate degree, and 70% more likely to have not completed college.
• Political Values. These households were 2.6x more likely to identify as conservative, and only half as likely to identify as liberal, than other parents and guardians. Overall, 35% identified as conservative and 25% liberal.
• Religious Values. While we didn’t explicitly ask about religion, homeschool respondents were nearly twice as likely to cite their religion or faith as giving them hope, suggesting stronger religious ties than other respondents.

There were no meaningful differences by race and ethnicity.

We don’t ask about income or employment status in our research, but data from the National Center of Education Statistics indicates that households that homeschool tend to have lower average income, likely because they are more likely to have a stay-at-home parent or guardian.

Thus, it wasn’t a big surprise to see that homeschool families were much more likely to say their membership makes visiting museums cost-effective, and to cite the cost of museum visits as a barrier to more frequent visitation.

“Cost: at the time it was affordable enough for us to attend.”

“Creates an affordable outing for me to take my kids to.”

Museum Visitation and Motivations

To our surprise, homeschool families don’t visit museums any more frequently than families participating in formal education. Visitation rates are about the same.

This doesn’t preclude some super-users of museums among homeschooling households…just that they are outliers (the same is true for families with kids in formal education).

Generally, their motivations are similar as well in that virtually all parents and guardians are focused on their children’s experiences. That said, homeschool families are even more likely to have laser-like focus on learning experiences for their children (80% versus 66% for other families). But they are somewhat less likely to visit for family time.

Homeschooling families tend to be a bit more critical of museums overall, being somewhat more demanding of additional content and less likely to say museums are doing a “great job” than other families.

“We are interested in genealogy and local history so we are hoping to learn how our membership can assist with that as well as local history for a homeschooling high school elective.”

“[Museums should] offer classes specifically for homeschool children.”

Community Orientation

Homeschool families were generally less enthusiastic about response choices that had a community theme. That is, they were significantly less likely to say:

• Museums contribute to the quality of life in their community
• That visiting museums makes them feel more a part of the community
• That being part of a community of people working to make things better gave them hope

This greater sense of separation from community may be deliberate for at least some homeschooling families. According to the National Center of Education Statistics, the top reason for homeschooling children is concerns about the school environment and other students.

Inclusion

Perhaps the most significant difference between homeschool families and families with children enrolled in formal education is their attitude towards inclusive content. Homeschooling parents and guardians are about 2.5x more likely to fall in the “anti-inclusive” segment than other parents and guardians, as seen below:

Additionally, homeschool parents and guardians were far less likely to identify as an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, only 20% versus 34% of other parents and guardians.

Some of the comments from less inclusive homeschooling parents and guardians were strongly worded. While we have chosen not to share the more offensive comments, the following two quotes provide a glimpse of the sentiments of a significant portion of homeschool parents and guardians.

“Being able to visit AND take my kids without being afraid of extreme wokeness or being told how racist, etc. Things are out of control. Can we please go back to educating society
without this craziness?”

“Any attempt to be inclusive this day and age there are people left out. I don’t want to visit a museum to have varying agendas pushed down my throat.”

Learning Learning Learning

Consistently, homeschool families hammered home how important the learning experience was for their children. In particular, they were significantly more likely to want museums to take a fact-based approach and minimize interpretation and what they articulated as “opinion.” Instead, they wanted to use those facts to draw their own conclusions.

“We used to love the museum–stick to presenting facts, not controversial social or political opinions.”

That said, they were not necessarily seeking a dry recitation of facts. Strong majorities of homeschool families wanted:

• To develop greater understanding of the experiences of people from the past through historical imagination
• To inspire curiosity to wonder and learn on their own
• To see things that inspire awe or wonder

“To see and experience beauty, so we can be expanded in our views of what is possible and have our wonder awakened.”

“Hands-on experiences, this is especially true for kids or tactile learners. Focus on truth and beauty, these things inspire wonder and awe which can lead to a lifetime of curiosity.”

So what have we learned about homeschooling families? Some of the results surprised us, including that homeschool families, on average, don’t visit museums any more frequently than other families. Other results fit into our expectations, including their even greater focus on child learning as well as their “just the facts” approach to content.

There are two areas of concern, however: their lower levels of community connection and their generally less inclusive attitudes. This suggests that, when planning homeschool events, museum educators need to consider more thoughtfully how they are sharing content that reflects different life experiences and worldviews, as at least some homeschooled children may not have been exposed to those ideas yet. Audiences and Inclusion: A Primer for Cultivating More Inclusive Attitudes Among the Public provides guidance for doing just this work.(3)

That said, keep in mind that parents and guardians have many reasons they choose to homeschool, and we need to be careful to not make assumptions. While the majority of homeschool families may fall on the anti-inclusive side of the spectrum, a third fall on the inclusive side. Some parents and guardians choose to homeschool because schools are not inclusive enough, or perhaps because their children are gender diverse or transgender and they want to provide a more supportive environment. And others homeschool because their children are medically fragile.

Bottom line, millions of families are choosing to homeschool, making reaching this audience, and these children, important for many museums. Additionally, museums can do a great deal to help these children learn more about their communities and the world they live in.

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:

• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

1. We did not ask this question of parents and guardians in our broader population sample of U.S. adults, only of frequent museum-going families.
2. See the National Center for Education Statistics “Homeschooled Children and Reasons for Homeschooling” for more information on homeschooling families.
3. You can download a copy at the AAM or Wilkening Consulting websites.

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

Over the past few years, the way history is taught in school has received a lot of scrutiny. In some places, state legislation and school boards have placed restrictions on what is taught, while other states have legislated a culturally responsive or inclusive curriculum.

Given these shifts, we wanted to learn more about what parents and guardians were thinking about K-12 history education, and dropped in a few questions in the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers.

First, parents and guardians of school-age children were asked what types of schools their children attended. They could choose more than one, since siblings could be in different types of educational environments. Here’s what we found:

• Public school: 72%
• Charter school: 7%
• Private school: 19%
• Homeschool(1) 11%

Those who chose public, charter, or private schools then received a question asking if they deliberately visited museums to fill in gaps they didn’t feel their child’s school covered adequately, asking about art, STEM, and history education specifically. Those three disciplines posted similar numbers, while a third of parents said no, they were happy with the school curriculum.

• Art education: 47%
• STEM education: 41%
• History education: 44%
• No, I’ve been happy with what schools are doing: 34%

Overall, those who were happy with schools were more likely to have younger children (more in the K-2 range), so they likely were not perceiving curriculum gaps…yet.

Respondents who chose STEM were more likely to have elementary-age children, with fewer parents and guardians of tweens and teens saying they visit museums for STEM content. This suggests that parents and guardians of older children are not finding that the science content in museums is fitting their child’s curricular needs effectively, presenting an opportunity for science museums to consider.

In contrast, respondents who chose art and history were more likely to have children in middle and high school, when those curricular gaps become most obvious.

The final question was only seen by parents and guardians who said they were seeking out history experiences.(2) We asked:

Thinking of history education specifically, what kind of history content do you want museums and historic sites to share? What do you think is missing or needs addressing from what is taught in your child’s classroom?

We then hand-coded every single written-in response to this question, nearly 2,000. They fell into three main categories.

1. Straightforward

About a third of respondents gave rather straightforward responses that supported the value of history, but didn’t veer into controversy. Common themes include:

Schools don’t spend enough time on history

These responses either lamented that schools emphasized other subjects over history or that schools didn’t have time to go in-depth on history topics.

“Elementary schools in my state gloss over social studies in favor of math and language.”

“School classrooms only skim the surface of history. Museums do an outstanding job of filling gaps and adding depth.”

Museums make history come to life

Most of these responses suggested that museums were the best educators for history due to the immersive, interactive, personal, object-based experiences we share…making museums better than books, classrooms, and screens.

“Museums help kids see and touch things in person instead of in a classroom setting, in a book, on a screen. They get that experience of witnessing it right in front of them in some tangible form. They’ll remember it more when they get to do that.”

Local history

Local history doesn’t make it into textbooks, and most history organizations are all about local history. So the value of local history also received a shout-out.

“Local stories. How are communities developed.”

2. The less inclusive

While only 2% of responses were explicitly anti-inclusive, about 12% used coded language or tropes and platitudes that are more likely to come from less-inclusive people.

Because explicitly anti-inclusive comments tend to be unkind, we are not sharing any of those.

Coded language

Over the past several years we have developed a list of certain words and phrases that we have learned are used to privilege a more narrow, typically celebratory, history that also tends to focus on the experiences of Europeans and white people. These include:

• “Important,” “significant,” or “real” history
• “Just the facts, so we can make up our own minds”
• “Don’t judge people of the past by today’s values”
• “History cannot/should not be erased” or “revisionist history”

“Only historically accurate content. Nothing rewritten or from a different perspective. Just stick to the facts and not present your own spin or opinion on things. Leave it up to the guests to draw their own conclusions.”

Tropes and platitudes

These comments tend to be stock phrases and ideas that sound innocuous and tend to have little context around them. We put them in this category because less inclusive people are much more likely to use them than inclusive people. These include:

• “Good, bad, and ugly” or “warts and all” approaches to history
• Learning from mistakes of the past/history repeats itself
• Inspiration of learning from sacrifices or successes of others

“They need to know the good and the bad that happened before us so history doesn’t repeat itself.”

3. The inclusive

The largest segment of respondents implored museums to provide the inclusive content schools could not provide. In fact, we received nearly 15x more explicitly inclusive comments than explicitly anti-inclusive responses.

On top of that, about twice as many people gave responses that leaned more inclusive and expansive than leaned less inclusive.

BOTTOM LINE: the response FOR inclusion was overwhelming.

More expansive history…but not explicitly inclusive

Over a fifth of responses supported a more expansive understanding of the past, but didn’t explicitly use inclusive language. These respondents were much more likely to come from inclusive respondents. Examples include:

• A desire for multi-cultural content
• The importance of uncomfortable and difficult history, typically with supporting context that demanded a more critical and thorough approach to the past
• A need for more complete history with multiple viewpoints

“Increased global content. History in primary and secondary education is incredibly focused on US and some parts of European history.”

“Approaches to history that are critical of heroic stories, approaches to history that pay attention to everyday objects and everyday experiences (not presidents and wars and political regime changes).”

Explicitly inclusive responses

Most of the inclusive responses were explicit about the need for diverse stories and perspectives. These included a smaller number of comments lamenting history censorship and teaching restrictions.

“There needs to be more inclusive history content of cultures and societies that are not as well covered in standard history lessons, and content of past issues in our history should be addressed and not hidden or whitewashed over.”

“Any topic that is considered controversial in public schools should be addressed! The list seems to get more exhaustive every day. Teachers fear retribution if certain topics are taught. Teach those.”

There was also a fundamental shift in comments from inclusive people that we had not seen before: they were taking the language of anti-inclusive people and using it to promote inclusive history. That is, we saw far more respondents specifically say they support critical race theory, say revising history was a critical part of historiography, and calling history censorship “indoctrination.” They are also looking to history museums to champion a more inclusive history.

And history museums should, because exploring all the evidence of the past is morally the right thing to do–even if it is controversial. Bravery in this moment matters…and in this case, the brave choice is one that is also supported by a majority of the public. (3)

“History is written by the winners. And that’s what kids learn in school. I’d like to visit museums that share different perspectives that they don’t get exposed to at school. Get controversial. Ruffle up some feathers. The kids need to learn that just because the winners ‘won’ and wrote the story doesn’t automatically mean that they were ‘good’ or ‘heroic’ or something we should look up to and be inspired by, or that their story is the only one that matters.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:

• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

1. A side benefit of this line of inquiry is a robust national sample of homeschool families. Stay tuned for a Data Story about them
2. We intend to cycle through art and STEM over the next two Annual Surveys.
3. See the Data Story “Inclusive Attitudes: Shifts Over Time“

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

Over the past several years, race and gender have received extraordinary attention. “Me too” conversations, racial reckonings, and conflict over how gender is expressed have resulted in shifts in inclusive attitudes…some towards a more inclusive viewpoint, and others less so.

Since 2021, we have been tracking how museum-goers feel about inclusive content in museums.

We use a battery of three questions to assess individual attitudes on inclusion, as there is no single question that helps us sort this out accurately. To learn more about the three questions we use, see our 2021 Data Story “The Spectrum of Inclusive Attitudes: Methodology.”

Overall, the news is good: most people want museums to share inclusive content, and inclusive attitudes strongly outnumber the anti-inclusive.

Frankly, it’s also been a bit of a roller coaster ride.

Let’s first examine frequent museum-goers and their attitudes.

Back in 2021, we found that just over half of museum-goers fell on the “inclusive” side of the spectrum, and about a quarter fell on the “anti-inclusive” side.

2021 – FREQUENT MUSEUM-GOERS

In 2022, we were surprised to see that attitudes had shifted quite a bit towards inclusion: nearly 2/3 falling on the more inclusive side and a small dip in anti-inclusive sentiment.

2022 – FREQUENT MUSEUM-GOERS

Over the past two years, however, we seem to have reverted back to 2021 norms, and 2022 increasingly looks like an outlier year.

2023 – FREQUENT MUSEUM-GOERS

2024 – FREQUENT MUSEUM-GOERS

We saw a similar shift of attitudes when we asked a representative broader population sample of U.S. adults the same questions.

Broader Population

For the broader population, inclusive attitudes have not fallen back to 2021 levels, unlike attitudes of frequent museum goers. Indeed, at least a small amount of growth toward inclusivity was maintained there.

So, what’s going on?

Honestly, we don’t know for sure. We can’t go to an individual person and ask why their attitudes are shifting, much less thousands of respondents.

We think, however, this pullback from 2022 may be a result of fatigue. Fatigue from the intense emotions these topics evoke. Fatigue from the political cycle. Fatigue from the many challenges we each face on a daily basis.

When people are tired, they look for respite, comfort, and norms that may make them feel more comfortable. But comfortable for whom? And at whose expense?

And if such fatigue prompts a turn away from inclusive attitudes, how might we do this work effectively? Sharing humanity’s history, experiences, and cultural and artistic expressions is at the heart of what museums do.

The 2025 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers and Broader Population Sampling will field these questions yet again, so we can continue to track this journey we are all taking together.

In the meantime, we encourage you to check out some of our resources for sharing inclusive content public, including: Audiences and Inclusion: A Primer for Cultivating More Inclusive Attitudes Among the Public and our Data Story “Beware! The False Consensus Effect.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

“The museum helps create community.”

“A museum is NOT a part of the local community! Its context is historical and global.”

“The museum should have more programs and exhibits that address important issues and topics in my community.”

Many of us who work in the museum field think a lot about how we serve the community. Typically, we are thinking about our geographic community (though there can also be communities of interest that are not geographically based).

Frequent museum-goers, however, don’t explicitly think about how museums serve the community nearly as much. And when they do, their attitudes vary widely, as the above examples demonstrate.

In this Data Story, we are going to take a look at how the perception that museums connect people to community appears to affect engagement and visitation. We’ll also explore the variety of perceptions museum-goers have about community engagement.

In the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, we asked respondents two questions that had community-oriented answers. For both questions, respondents were thinking of museums in general, and could choose as many answers as they liked.

1. What inspires you to make a return visit to a specific museum?
   18% of respondents chose “to feel connected to my community and/or support a community organization.”
2. When you think of an ideal museum visit, what do you want to experience?
   17% chose “greater connection to others/more a part of my community.”

We then sorted respondents into three categories:

• Those who chose BOTH community-oriented answers: 7% of respondents
• Those who chose ONE of the answers (but not both): 17% of respondents
• Those who did not choose EITHER answer: 76% of respondents

The first, most obvious, conclusion is that most museum-goers are not expressing a strong connection between museums and community. So, overall, there is a bit of a disconnect between what we think about a lot as practitioners…and the perceptions of most visitors.

But when we compare these three different categories of respondents, things get a bit more interesting.

Museums connect us to community!

“This is an exceptional museum…such an asset to our community.”

“I love the museum and everything you do for the community.”

While only 7% of respondents chose both community answer choices, these respondents were unquestionably the most engaged museum-goers. They:

• Visit museums much more frequently than other respondents
• Have more motivations for visiting
• Are much more likely to identify as curious
• Are most likely to think museums are doing a “great job”
• Are much more enthusiastic about imaginative learning
• Are much more likely to want museums to cultivate hope among visitors
• Are 50% more likely to hold inclusive attitudes
• And are significantly more likely to be under 40 without minor children (and significantly less likely to be 60 or older)

Respondents who chose one or the other of the two community-oriented answers, 17% of respondents overall, also skewed these ways. They simply didn’t veer from the norm as much as those that chose both the answers.

Not thinking about museums and community

Over three-quarters of respondents didn’t choose either answer, but compared to their community-oriented peers, they were significantly less engaged with museums. They:

• Visit less frequently
• Are not quite as strongly motivated
• And are generally not as enthusiastic about a lot of the other things we were assessing, such as imaginative learning, hope, and inclusion

This doesn’t mean they are negative museum-goers. Not at all! For the most part, they are engaged, frequent museum-goers.

This is more about comparison. The individuals who think museums connect us to community are just even more enthusiastic about museums.

But are there people who don’t want museums engaged in community?

Well, yes, but it is a relatively small percentage. In the 2023 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, when we asked about museums and their role in civic life, we saw about one in five respondents push back and share that they felt this was “political,” was “not your job,” or that they considered community engagement a distraction from the mission. Some felt “community” was coded language for inclusive efforts.

“The museum has unfortunately become a community center.”

“Community engagement…often detracts from the mission. Drop the ‘woke’ and pick up the painting.”

Additionally, we sometimes see museum-goers express the idea that museums are something that is completely outside of their daily lives (and community), thus supporting their need for respite and escape from the day-to-day grind.

While we acknowledge that respite is something virtually all of us need, it isn’t realistic, or even possible, for museums to be fully divorced from contemporary events locally, nationally, and internationally. After all, visitors bring their own life experiences and perspectives into museum spaces…and view museum content through those lenses. A museum that ignores contemporary events and experiences risks losing its relevancy.

Fortunately, we do know that most museum-goers are open to museums and community engagement and outreach…they are just not explicitly connecting the two. This suggests there is a significant articulation gap.

“For all of its apparent concern for the community, I’m not sure the museum is effective at communicating why their permanent collection and exhibitions are so important.”

“Not sure I would know how community members are helped.”

If we want to be vital community anchors, we need to:

• Understand how the community wants us to support them as humans and community members
• Do the work effectively
• Communicate broadly how we do it
• And share why it supports the mission and matters to community members; that is, measure the impact

When asked, however, museum-goers do have thoughtful, creative, and mission-based ideas that museums can implement to support their hopes for their community. We’ll explore these in a future Data Story.

But there is something great to celebrate here: when museum-goers see their local museums as vital community hubs, engagement increases significantly!

This suggests that community engagement efforts result in not only delivering more impact to more people, but increasing relevance (and visitation) on a much more frequent basis as well.

It’s a virtuous circle that helps our communities be more neighborly, thriving, and inclusive places, helps community members learn and grow individually, and helps museums share their missions more effectively.

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

While most people visit museums to learn, see amazing things, relax, and spend time with the people they care about, there is another aspect of visiting that can make or break a visit.

That is, an amazing exchange with staff can elevate an experience exponentially, but a negative experience can be ruinous. Because these interactions can affect museum experiences deeply, perspectives on staff deserve greater scrutiny.

To learn more about staff interactions, we looked at the results from the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers to sort respondents based on their answers. They fell into three categories:

• Staff is great! These respondents said that “staff members always make me feel welcome.” A third of respondents (33%) indicated this.
• Staff is a problem. These respondents indicated either they wanted “friendlier/ more welcoming staff” and/or that staff was “inattentive or rude.” Only 3% of respondents chose this.
• And nearly 2/3 (64%) of respondents didn’t weigh in at all…skipping over these staff-related answer choices.

Let’s now look at the differences amongst these respondents.

Staff is great!

“Best staff–friendly, welcoming vibe–best museum ever…”

“The staff members are always friendly, welcoming and engaging, and not just with the kids! As a parent, I feel welcome here each and every time we visit. A huge thank you to the staff for everything they do and the bright smiles they bring.”

The respondents who were complimentary about staff are super-engaged museum-goers. Compared to other respondents they:

1. Visit far more frequently
2. Are much more likely to visit to learn and to think museums are fun
3. Identify as curious
4. Are much more complimentary about exhibits and programs
5. Are 2 – 3x more likely to think museums help people in the community
6. Are 50% more likely to say museums contribute to the quality of life in the community
7. Hold more inclusive attitudes

The question is: if we can increase satisfaction with staff through excellent visitor services, does overall engagement increase? Or are visitors who are delighted with museum content more likely to say staff is welcoming?

It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, but if improving satisfaction with staff breaks more people into that virtuous cycle, this seems like an effective way of increasing engagement and visitation overall.

When it goes wrong…

“Every time I enter the museum, I get nervous because I get treated like a criminal smuggling in things, when in reality, I have a bottle and formula for my baby.”

“I was so turned off by the staff. I haven’t gone again in over a year.”

Respondents who wanted friendlier or more welcoming staff, or who said staff was inattentive or rude, were extremely unhappy with museums. While they are very few (only 3%), their extraordinarily negative feedback (and likely negative word-of-mouth) makes it worthwhile to stop and consider what’s happening here.

Interestingly, these respondents appear to care deeply about museums. They visit almost as frequently as those who felt staff was great, and they have similarly strong motivations to visit: they are actually the most likely to say they visit for their children’s learning experiences.

But something about the relationship has clearly gone wrong, and this comes out in their other negativity. Compared to those happy with staff they are:

1. A whopping 29x more likely to say the museum they are responding to “doesn’t do anything well”
2. 2.5x more likely to be critical of exhibitions
3. 3x more likely to cite the high cost of visiting
4. 3x more likely to say museums are “outdated”
5. 70% more likely to hold anti-inclusive values

It is unclear if their dissatisfaction with staff is the cause or a symptom of a problem. That said, what are the scenarios that create tension between staff and visitors? Written-in responses give us some insight.

Some negative comments are concentrated in a few museums where there are clearly staff and/or leadership issues. In this case, the problem is with the museum and needs to be addressed internally.

Some may have been flashpoint incidents where better training of staff in customer service generally can be helpful so that these types of incidents are minimized or addressed properly.

A significant percentage, however, are coming from individuals who are less inclusive and/or more “resistant” to content that museums share. When they complain, they become even more embittered when their values are not validated by staff. Here, the problem is with the visitor. To address this issue, museum leadership needs to be proactive about giving front-line staff the training, support, and resources needed to handle these situation as effectively as possible.

And some are just unavoidable. There is nothing museum staff can do to make that visitor happy.

There are two more things that are important to note. Respondents that are dissatisfied with staff are:

• 60% more likely to be people of color. While these respondents have not been all that forthcoming about their experiences with staff, it is reasonable to speculate that at least some of them did not feel welcomed in the museums they visited.
• 70% more likely to be parents or guardians of minor children. Overall, parents and guardians have consistently been the most critical audience segment for years. Why? Our research indicates they more likely to be visiting FOR their children, and a museum visit can often be perceived as more work than pleasure. That likely makes them more sensitive to staff interactions.

Finally, there is everyone else.

The people who didn’t weigh in one way or the other about staff. This is by far the biggest segment of respondents, nearly two-thirds. For these respondents, staff interactions likely haven’t been remarkable or memorable, leading to no strong opinion.

But what stood out about these respondents is that, in some ways, they appear to be the least engaged.

Why do we say that? Overall they are:

1. Visiting museums less frequently
2. Giving far fewer motivations for visiting, but in particular are significantly less likely to visit for fun or relaxation

They generally fall in the middle on most of the other metrics we are measuring: visitor satisfaction, attitudes towards inclusion, and the type of experiences they want to have in museums.

But their lower visitation rates indicate that a more personal experience, such as positive experiences with staff, could move the needle towards deeper engagement.

Interactions with staff are obviously not the only factor that affects visitor engagement. But its capacity to tip the experience into one that is stellar, or terrible, is great. Giving staff the support they need to provide high-quality experiences, while also hiring front-line staff for attitude more than aptitude (which you can train), can open the door to much more effective museum experiences that keeps people engaged, feeling valued, and coming back.

“Staff makes visitors feel important.”

“Staff remembers our names and engages with visitors.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Jump to the text version

The cost of admission has always been a concern for museums. While some museums are free, others generate a significant portion of revenue from admissions that support their mission-driven work.

And admissions fees can vary widely, from a few dollars to between $40 and $50 for adults at some museums.

In the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, we looked at why people don’t visit museums more frequently. Unsurprisingly, cost was a significant factor for many. Let’s take a look at what potential visitors to museums think about admission fees, and the financial tradeoffs they consider.

First, let’s look at the frequent museum-goers that we sampled. These are individuals who are already highly engaged with museums, on communications lists, and took time to take a survey on behalf of a museum.

Most frequent museum-goers did not cite cost as a barrier to even more frequent museum-going. But it varied widely by life stage:

% CONCERNED ABOUT COST

• Under 40, no minor children: 41%
• Parent or guardian: 44%
• 40 – 59, no minor children: 30%
• 60 or older, no minor children: 21%

Younger adults, with or without 21% minor children, were two times more likely to be concerned about admission fees than seniors.

Why is this?

Well, think about all of the financial constraint on young adults today: expensive housing, student loans, childcare. They are just beginning their careers, so are not earning nearly as much as middle-aged adults (and likely have lower incomes than many museum-going seniors). Additionally, incomes are not necessarily keeping up with inflation. Young adults are more likely to be struggling to make ends meet and less likely to have significant savings.

Meanwhile, the seniors who visit museums frequently tend to be well-educated, have reached (or passed) their highest-earning years, are more likely to own their homes outright, and have had significant time to accrue wealth for their retirement. Even if they are retired, incomes may be keeping up with inflation (Social Security adjusts yearly and retirement investments have been doing quite well).

Bottom line, older adults visiting museums seem to be in a much more comfortable financial position than younger adults.

Thinking about offering a “young adult” discount now that you’ve looked at the data? Hold up. Seniors are considered a “protected class,” meaning you can freely provide a discount to them without worrying about committing age discrimination. Children are also considered a protected class. But young adults are not, meaning a discount for them could open you up to age discrimination accusations. Instead, consider ways you can target discounts and coupons to younger adults, but not make those discounts age-dependent.

Let’s now look at the broader population of US adults. In our demographically-representative sample of US adults we found:

• 33% had visited a museum in the past year
• 45% visit museums occasionally, but not in the past year
• 22% said they “never” visit museums

Among the 78% of US adults who say they visit museums at least “occasionally,” cost was the #1 barrier to visitation, with 41% citing it. Interestingly, there were no significant differences by age among these much-more occasional visitors.

Instead, something else seems to be going on.

First, keep in mind that the vast majority of the “frequent museum-goers” we talked about earlier have college degrees. People with college degrees generally have higher incomes, and are more likely to visit museums.

In the broader population, college attainment rates among “occasional” visitors is much closer to that of the U.S. population of adults. (1)

To learn more about how education and income could be affecting museum visitation, we had to look to a different source: the Consumer Expenditures Survey, fielded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2)

This research asks a sample of US households to track all expenditures, so we can see what is “typical.” We can also examine households by different demographic characteristics. (It’s an amazing rabbit hole to dive into!)

One of the things they track is “fees and admissions.” This category includes a variety of things, such as tickets for movies, concerts and other performing arts, sporting events, and amusement parks. It also includes museums.

In 2023, the average US household spent $951 annually on fees and admissions.

But that masks a rather wide spread, with college-educated households spending 5.2x as much ($1,645 on average) as households without a college graduate ($315 on average).

When we break it down more granularly, you can see extraordinarily wide gulfs in average fees and admissions spending.

• No high school graduate: $97
• High school graduate: $187
• Some college: $393
• Associate degree:$502
• Bachelor’s degree: $1,355
• Graduate degree: $2,016

Now, consider your cost of admissions as a percentage of the “fees and admissions” budget for these different households. If your museum is charging only a few dollars, it may not represent a significant cost for many households.

But if your museum is one that is charging $30 or $40 a person, consider that a family visiting could wipe out half or even their entire “fees and admissions” budget for the year. And even if you charge a more moderate fee, it still could be a significant percentage of that budget.

Keep in mind as well what you are competing against. Theme parks. Water parks. Going to a movie. Seeing a favorite sports team.

Are you worth it?

That is, to a typical family, are you going to make the cut over those other, competing interests? Are you worth blowing the entire budget on? Or even three-months’ worth of the budget?

For some, you will be worth it … but there will be many who make a different choice and who will not be willing to sacrifice those other activities.

This exercise isn’t meant to discourage you, but to help you consider the constraints that families are experiencing when it comes to museum visitation. Additionally, doing away with admission fees typically doesn’t immediately diversify museum visitation by socio-economic status either. Cost is only one barrier.

Programs like Museums for All are a great start to addressing the cost challenge, but consider that many families with limited budgets earn just enough to not qualify for Museums for All discounts. Think about other ways you can reach those households.

Instead, this exercise is meant to help you think through the economic choices potential visitors are making and better understand how cost can be a barrier to museum visitation.

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

(1) 83% of frequent museum-goers have a college degree, and half of occasional museum-goers. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 36% of U.S. adults have a college degree.

(2) See https://www.bls.gov/cex/ to explore yourself. Note, we use educational attainment instead of income because educational attainment is a stronger predictor of museum-going. Unsurprisingly, expenditures by income increase dramatically with income: the highest 20% of households by income spend 17x more on fees and admissions than the lowest 20% of households.

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories

Jump to the text version

Over the past five years, visitation patterns at museums have changed dramatically. We all know that the COVID-19 pandemic devastated in-person visitation, but for the most part, people have returned to museums.

Frequency of museum visitation, however, has not yet returned to pre-pandemic norms, and the biggest gaps are with repeat visitation.

To learn more, we made “repeat visitation” a theme of the 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers.

Overall, respondents shared with us that the reasons they make return visits to specific museums are the same reasons they visit museums in the first place: for learning, respite, fun, and to spend time with family or friends.

A pithy way of putting it is: people visit museums to see your cool stuff, in the company of people they care about.

That said, there were a number of things that came up that either discouraged return visits or are opportunities for deeper engagement.

In this Data Story, we’ll cover four briefly. Upcoming Data Stories will focus on three other areas that merit more rigorous attention: cost, community, and staff interactions.

1. Novelty and Interest

Unsurprisingly, the top reason people gave for making a return visit was to “see something new.” We tracked this response over two different questions and found:

• 1/4 of respondents chose the “something new” response in both questions
• Just under 1/2 chose it in one or the other question
• And 30% did not choose it in either question

Respondents who most wanted to see something new were more likely to explicitly want exhibitions to change more often and a greater variety and depth of programming.

They also, however, visit museums more frequently and are even more motivated than other respondents to visit for their own learning, interests, and curiosity. Overall they are simply more deeply engaged with museums.

Meanwhile, those who did not select seeing something new at all were generally more negative about, and less engaged with, museums. They visited less frequently as well.

This suggests that the demand for new exhibitions and experiences is coming from the people who are already our biggest fans. In fact, this demand for new is likely more of an endorsement of our work than a criticism. We delight them regularly with what we do, so of course they want more!

Museums can’t change exhibitions every month to meet this need. But knowing that these audiences are making the request out of their already-high levels of delight with museums means we can instead consider more nimble ways of helping this audience view exhibitions through different lenses on each visit, or give them opportunities to go deep in unexpected (and low-cost) ways. Additionally, it also means that a bit of education about museum operations (and the high costs for changing exhibitions in particular) may also go a long way for this audience. In fact, they may find that interesting in and of itself.

2. Health Concerns

While the COVID-19 pandemic did bring greater awareness of viruses (including flu and RSV), for the most part, very few museum-goers said health concerns were keeping them from museums: only 5%.

The 5% with health concerns skews older: over three-quarters of these respondents are over the age of 60.

Interestingly, the health-concerned are much more likely than other respondents to say they were engaging with museums virtually. That said, it is only about a quarter of the health-concerned who are reaching out virtually–a relatively small percentage of people.

But the population of seniors, many of whom have health constraints, is growing. When resources allow, developing a digital strategy for serving that audience not only would extend the work of museums, but it would also support better health and wellbeing among our oldest stakeholders.

3. Crowds

While most museum-goers are fairly unconcerned about crowds, there were two segments of visitors who were much more likely to express concerns:

• Young adults (under 40) without children
• Families with children, especially those 5 and younger

These respondents were two to three times more likely than older respondents to say they dislike crowds. And if you imagine keeping track of young children while juggling a stroller, it isn’t hard to see why families in particular are more likely to want to avoid crowds.

We’re not sure why young adults without children are also more crowd adverse, but we think it may be because they are the most likely segment of museum-goers to be looking for respite in museums–something a crowded room would preclude. Interestingly, the segment of the population least likely to be worried about crowds was adults over the age of 60 (these older adults are less likely to seek respite from museums as well).

If your museum does have busy times, consider sharing more proactively, or incentivizing, your less-busy times so that those who dislike crowds can choose quieter times to visit.

4. The Breakup Lines

We’ve talked about “breakup lines” before, when exploring membership trends. Those lines that suggest it’s not you…it’s me…(but it’s really you).

They apply to museum visitation as well. Nearly 20% of museum-goers shared that the reason they didn’t visit museums more frequently is because they were “too busy” or just “didn’t think about it.”

And those are breakup lines, because if museum content was compelling enough, they would likely find time and think about it. They would make the effort because it would be worth it.

These respondents do care about museums (after all, they do visit and took time to share their thoughts in a survey!), but the relationship just isn’t working. Their lower levels of museum visitation indicate they are drifting away.

Why? Well, we’re not really sure. Overall, these respondents do seem to want more from museums. More immersive experiences. A greater variety of things to do when visiting. More events and programs. Broader community outreach and community-building. Respondents who gave these reasons were also somewhat more likely to be young adults without children.

We don’t really have much else to go on for now, but given that one in five respondents gave these answers, we’re putting this in the “needs follow-up research” category.

Results for these four areas give us some greater insight into why people don’t visit more frequently, but they also raise more questions.

• How can we create a sense of change for our most frequent visitors without draining significant resources?
• What are our opportunities for serving the health and wellbeing needs of homebound seniors?
• And what additional research do we need to field with younger adults to better understand how we can fit more meaningfully into their busy lives?

Keep in mind as well that these four areas were not the only ones that came up. Cost, community, and staff interactions also had significant effects on museum visitation rates. We’ll consider those individually over the next few Data Stories. Stay tuned.

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories

Jump to the text version

It’s been nearly 5 years since the COVID-19 pandemic devastated museum visitation. While increasing numbers of museums are back to pre-pandemic attendance norms, many museums are still recovering. As AAM’s fall 2024 “National Snapshot of United States Museums” survey indicates:

• Half of U.S. museums have not yet returned to pre-pandemic attendance.
• 78%: average pre-pandemic attendance levels for those 1/2 of museums

The good news is that incidence of museum-going is firmly back to pre-pandemic norms. Prior to the pandemic, we typically saw somewhere between 25% and 31% of U.S. adults reporting they had been to a museum in the past year.

In 2024, 33% of U.S. adults reported having been to a museum in the past year … slightly exceeding pre-pandemic norms.

So if incidence isn’t the primary issue, what’s responsible for ongoing attendance challenges? We’ve been tracking this via the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, and frequency of attendance continues to be the culprit. Let’s take a look.

First, let’s time-travel back to winter of 2020, when the Annual Survey was in the field. We began pulling the data for analysis in the middle of March … pretty much the exact moment everything started shutting down and the pandemic began. That was bizarrely fortuitous in terms of data collection, because it meant we had established a clean baseline for documenting pre-pandemic norms.

Our 2021 Annual Survey thus captured the first year of the pandemic (mid-March 2020 to mid-March 2021), 2022 captured year two, and so on.

Every year, the Annual Survey asks frequent museum-goers two questions about museum visitation.

1. Self-reported repeat visitation rates at “their” museum

The first question of the Annual Survey asks respondents to report their previous year in person visitation of the museum that invited them to take the survey.

When we aggregate responses by year, we can clearly see the devastating drop in attendance from pre-pandemic highs (March 2020) to pandemic lows (March 2021).

Since 2021, frequency has been increasing, but there is still a significant gap in frequency from pre-pandemic norms. Repeat visitation simply isn’t back where it was five years ago.

Additionally, when we examine repeat visitation by age and life stage, we find that parents and guardians of minor children have been the slowest to return.

2. How many different museums they visit

We also track how many different museums a respondent reports visiting in the course of the previous year. Once again we find that visitation at museums in general plummeted from 2020 to 2021. There was substantial recovery in 2022 and this has continued, putting this breadth of museum-going close to pre-pandemic norms … though we are not quite there yet.

Additionally, we are estimating that 3% of pre-pandemic frequent visitors are still sidelining themselves, and have not yet returned to museums at all.

While the results to this question are generally more promising, as we do seem to be approaching pre-pandemic norms, the reduction in frequency of visitation from our most avid visitors can really add up. Thus, it’s not that surprising that many museums have not yet reached 100% visitation recovery.

The good news overall is that yes, people have returned to museums, and attendance is continuing to improve for most museums.

But the return continues to be bumpy, with some museums still reporting low levels of visitation while others are exceeding pre-pandemic visitation.

As we head into 2025, new external forces are arising that may also affect leisure time and museum visitation. Ongoing economic concerns and severe weather are factors for many, which may help some museums attract more local visitors … or reduce visitation from other potential visitors.

Because of these challenges, “repeat visitation” was a theme of the 2024 Annual Survey, and upcoming Data Stories will explore what audiences said was keeping them from more frequent visitation. Stay tuned.

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

U.S. demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories

A primer for cultivating more inclusive attitudes among the public.

This article originally appeared in Museum magazine’s July/August 2024 issue, a benefit of AAM membership.

The following is an excerpt from Audiences and Inclusion: A Primer for Cultivating More Inclusive Attitudes Among the Public.

American attitudes toward inclusion are divided, complicated, and messy. They are also tied to emotions, values, and identity. National research indicates that there is a steep road ahead in building a truly just and equitable society. According to Pew Research Center and Public Religion Research Institute, 39 percent of US adults say there is discrimination against men in our society, and just 34 percent of registered voters in the US think white people benefit “a great deal” from advantages in society that Black people do not have. Additionally, their research shows 44 percent of white Americans think discrimination against white people has become as big a problem as discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities, and 49 percent of Americans describe immigrants as a “burden to local communities.”

What about museum-goers? How do they feel about inclusion? Our research (see graphic below) indicates less than half of museum-goers are proactively inclusive, so for us to be most effective in sharing inclusive content, we have to grapple with the fact that the majority of our audiences are not seeking inclusive content. The good news is that museum-goers are about twice as likely to want inclusive content as they are to reject it, and research consistently shows that the broader population is more likely than museum-goers to want museums to be inclusive. Additionally, inclusive content in museums can have major societal impact by helping our existing audiences become more inclusive and welcoming to new people in museum spaces.

Understanding Visitors

To understand how to expand inclusive attitudes, we have to examine our visitors more closely. Inclusive attitudes can vary widely, so it’s helpful to back up and examine what influences us in the first place. Factors like one’s upbringing, race, parental attitudes, and so much more help us each develop our unique values, attitudes, beliefs, and worldviews. In the aggregate, that means our audiences comprise a spectrum of worldviews, and while individuals have their own unique blends, there are key traits that tend to cluster together, forming what we’ll call “traditional” and “neoteric” segments that reflect society’s polarization. There is also a “middle,” but most people tend to lean one way or the other.

The “traditional” segment is more likely to be:

• anti-inclusive
• politically/socially conversative
• somewhat less engaged with museums and culture
• generally less engaged with their community and the broader world

of the belief that museums should be “neutral” and not take positions

• taking a “traditional” and often taking a celebratory approach to history and their own culture
• taking pride in the past and their own cultural heritage
• somewhat less curious
• demographically older, more men, and have less educational attainment

The “neoteric” segment is more likely to be:

• inclusive (though some may be fine with the status quo)
• politically/socially liberal
• somewhat more engaged with museums and culture
• generally more engaged with their community and the broader world

of the belief that museums can take an evidence-backed position

• taking an additive approach to history and culture
• curious about other cultures and worldviews, and more curious generally
• demographically younger, more women, and have more educational attainment

It is tempting to use these trait clusters, especially the demographic ones, to make assumptions about individual visitors. Don’t do it! Just because certain traits clustered together doesn’t mean they apply to the individual standing in front of you. In other words, an older white man can certainly be “neoteric” in his worldview, and, similarly, a young woman of color can be “traditional.” You have to get to know that visitor, and their worldviews, to begin to understand where they may fall on the spectrum.

But what about the status quo group—that messy middle group that isn’t seeking inclusive content but is not rejecting it either? This group represents our biggest opportunity! Since they are not rejecting inclusive content, we can help them become more inclusive in their own attitudes if we move at, as Adrienne Maree Brown describes, the “speed of trust.”

Everyone wants their identity to be recognized and valued in cultural spaces, but for those with a more “traditional” worldview, inclusive content can feel like a threat to their understanding of the world, their beliefs and customs, and even their identity. That results in a potential emotional response of fear that can be strong, palpable, and defensive.

So how do we mainstream inclusive content when our audiences are so divided and when emotional responses are so strong? That’s tricky, because while museums provide informal learning opportunities, expanding knowledge through evidence doesn’t always work, especially when fear drives a defensive response in a sizable segment of our audience. We need to understand how values, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions affect how individuals approach information in the first place.

As human beings, we practice what is known as intuitive epistemology all the time. That is, individual values and life experiences deeply affect how people process and establish facts. This also deeply affects the questions we ask about the past, science, social issues, and art, and thus the answers we find can vary based on our worldviews. When we ask different questions of museum content, we use that content to find answers that validate our individual worldviews and avoid content that creates dissonance. This is how two people can approach a single topic, such as climate change or the Civil War, and come to radically different conclusions. This is simply human nature and why “dueling facts” divide us and feed a culture of alternative facts, polarization, and cancellation. In fact, one thing most of us seem to agree on is that we can’t even agree on facts.

It is practically impossible to use evidence to change minds in a world of dueling facts. Instead, we need to consider how to help visitors change the questions they are asking as they approach content. By asking visitors new questions to consider, new information feels less threatening. Additionally, asking visitors to consider new, dialogic questions also makes them feel valued, especially more “traditional” visitors. Why? Because it fits into a desired pattern of museum engagement, which is to be presented with facts and given the opportunity to make up one’s own mind. So, your job then is to use questions to help visitors consider ideas and facts that they may not otherwise think of and crack open those worldviews, whether a tiny amount or significantly.

Developing an Inclusive Practice

Of course, there is more to inclusive practice than asking good questions. True inclusive practice and expanding the number of people who have inclusive attitudes begins with us. To be effective in our work, we need to also deploy radical curiosity and courageous empathy in our practice. By striving to understand different worldviews, what shaped them, and anticipating how those with differing worldviews respond to the content we share, we can create respectful environments where visitors are encouraged to ask new questions that just might broaden their worldviews in ways that matter. The 10-step primer below can help you in your inclusive practice.

Step 1: Acknowledge your bias from the beginning and then encourage your visitors to do likewise. Create a plan to address your biases (e.g., advisors, team approach, etc.), and be upfront with your audiences about how you strove to mitigate them. We all have biases, and acknowledging them from the beginning engenders trust. Additionally, gently asking your audience to consider how their own values and attitudes influence how they assess information can put them into a mindset that is more open to nuance.

Step 2: Reinforce their aspirational identity as curious, open-minded, and/or well-rounded individuals. Doing so can make it more likely that they will strive to achieve those aspirations, and this basic human psychology can be deployed to achieve pro-social outcomes. This aspirational reinforcement makes it more likely they will live up to those descriptors and consider new content or perspectives.

Step 3: Spark hedonic and eudaemonic curiosity (for more information on these types of curiosity, read the full primer at aam-us.org/audiences). Since we just validated aspirational identity, now is the time to create information gaps that stretch visitors just a bit. This stretching happens in two ways: introducing ideas just outside of visitors’ normal worldviews and helping visitors be more comfortable with uncertainty or even ambiguity. Both help them approach a complicated world more openly.

Step 4: Engage in dialogic questions. Present audiences with questions that their worldviews may not have considered, and practice courageous empathy by being open to their answers. Because of the intuitive epistemology we all practice, reframing questions is crucial. Now that visitors are in a more open mindset, and are seeing information gaps, help them formulate new questions that continue to help them stretch. “Consider this” is a great way to introduce a new question in a nonthreatening way. Mutual respect is important here. Sometimes, the answer visitors give still may not be inclusive. If we disparage those answers, we lose our credibility and our opportunity to try again.

Step 5: Give them all the facts. That includes multiple perspectives and telling the truth, even when it changes our understanding of the past, different cultures, or others. More “traditional” audiences often say, “Just give me the facts, and I’ll make up my own mind.” Thus, it is entirely appropriate to do just that, and give them all the facts. The trick is that sometimes the facts you share may not be what they expected. Hopefully, their curiosity has been sparked enough to consider those new facts thoughtfully and respectfully.

Step 6: Show your work. Trust cuts both ways, so you need to share your process and sources, and identify your advisors. In a time of “alternative facts,” showing your work is more important than ever. This can be as basic as footnotes in an exhibition or tour guides noting that a list of sources can be found on your website. It doesn’t matter if visitors actually check your references because the fact that you are providing that evidence signals credibility.

Step 7: Mainstream inclusive content, and never apologize for being inclusive. When museums, as highly trusted community institutions, mainstream inclusive content, it helps community belief systems shift to embrace it as well. And when that happens, visitors better contextualize detractors as outliers and become more likely to choose acceptance, tolerance, and understanding.

Step 8: Pace your work at the “speed of trust.” Some of the content you share may be difficult for some visitors, especially if it represents a change from what they thought they understood. Do not make them feel dumb and do not preach. It is so hard to slow down our work to bring others along with us, yet that is crucial if we are going to expand the number of people who want inclusion. So, think through how you are presenting content, and ensure it allows for empathy to grow.

Step 9: Be a forum for civil discourse. Most museum-goers are not asking museums to be places of civil discourse, but when museums do it effectively, it can be transformative. This is a case of “do it even when we are not being asked to.”

Step 10: Accept that, despite your best efforts, you will not be 100 percent successful. Have the confidence to know you’re doing your best and planning the most effective path. This makes it easier to keep your focus on your goal and not let detractors stop your work.

Inclusive practice takes work, but with radical curiosity, courageous empathy, and thoughtful engagement, museums can make a tremendous difference in promoting a more equitable and just world.