Understanding visitors or users is paramount in today’s museum work. Understanding our visitors helps museum professionals be more effective. The educating, preserving, interpreting and exhibiting we do is enhanced by deeper understanding of the people who come to visit us.
One of the most exciting pieces of research I came across in graduate school was Dr. John H. Falk’s visitor identity theory. Dr. Falk outlined the five common visitor motivations he discovered in his book Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience, published in 2009. This is an essential book for any museum professional working in the 21st century to read.
According to Falk, most visitors have one of five motivations for visiting a museum:
- Experience Seekers are similar to tourists. This type of visitor wants to see the building and grounds and the most important parts of the collection or experience.
- Explorers describe themselves as curious and enjoy learning. They have a general interest in the subject matter of the museum and come to learn more.
- Facilitators come in two subgroups. Facilitating Parents come to have a shared experience with a child. I advocate for this group to be called Facilitating Caregivers since this type of visitor could be a grandparent, aunt/uncle, older sibling, mentor, etc. Facilitating Socializers come with another adult – a spouse or friend – because they think their companion will enjoy the museum’s experience.
- Professionals / Hobbyists have a specific goal in mind for their visit. An example would be a visitor who has photography as a hobby and wants to come to take photos of plants, gardens, or sculpture. Another example would be a visitor who has a deep interest in impressionism and comes to see your museum’s collection of impressionist paintings.
- Rechargers seek what Falk calls a “restorative experience.” They use the museum as a setting for a mental and physical break that they use to recharge their batteries.
Visitor identities have important implications for museums. Understanding visitors in this way means that museums will need to create experiences and services that cater to the needs, expectations, and preferences of each visitor type in order to successfully serve visitors.
In my first position out of graduate school I was responsible for creating the organization’s “guest experience.” One of the first things that I wanted to do was conduct a study to help the staff better understand visitors, including their identity.
I knew that Dr. Falk’s research had been funded by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and that the tool he used in his study was available on the organization’s website. I figured I could use this tool myself.
Dr. Falk’s original tool was 20 statements that the visitor had to read through. Each statement was a possible reason the visitor had decided to visit the museum that day. The visitor was asked to choose five statements that most closely matched the reason for their visit. Next, the visitor was asked to select on a scale of 1 to 7 how important each of the five statements was to that day’s visit.
The person administering the survey would then take the information the visitor had provided and input it into a spreadsheet, also available on the AZA website. The spreadsheet would then indicate the visitor’s identity.
I was no more than 10 surveys in when I realized I had a problem. Each time I would enter the information in the spreadsheet it would tell me the visitor had a non-dominant identity. In other words, the visitor did not seem to fit into one of Falk’s visitor types.
The problem was with how the data was collected. When doing any type of visitor survey it should not be too difficult for the visitor to provide you with information. In these initial surveys, visitors seemed to be struggling with the three tasks of reading through all the statements, selecting five that applied to them, and then ranking those five statements on a 1 to 7 Likert scale. I knew I needed to simplify the survey.
The tool I created also had a list of statements about why the visitor had decided to come to the museum that day. There were two statements for each type of visitor identity. For example, two of these simple statements were “I’m here because this is a good place for a child to learn about plants / nature / gardening” (Facilitating Caregiver, this survey was done at a botanical garden) and “I was looking for something to do and someone recommended I come here” (Experience Seeker). The visitor was asked to select one of the statements that applied to their visit.
I was pleasantly surprised that the new tool worked effectively! Suddenly, it was easier for visitors to fill out the survey tool and for me to gather the information I was looking to capture.
Visitors were asked to complete this part of the survey when they entered the museum. Before they left I conducted a short interview with them to ask about their experience. The first question I asked was why they had decided to visit that day. I asked this question because I wanted to ensure that the statement they had checked on the survey tool was accurate. I found that the answers to my verbal question supported the information visitors gave me in the survey tool. This validation supports what Falk has said about museum visitor identity—that the identity of the visitor will influence their motivation for visiting, what they will see and do during the visit, and what they will remember about the visit after they leave.
I had the opportunity to attend the American Public Gardens Association’s Education Symposium earlier this year. The keynote speaker was Dr. Falk. I asked him about what tool he uses to gather visitor identity from visitors. He said that he has five cards with pictures of visitors. There is a word bubble, kind of like what you would see in comics. In each bubble is a simple statement that reflects one of the five visitor identities. He asks the visitor to hand him the card that represents why he or she is visiting the museum that day. I felt a bit of pride as I heard him say this. I had simplified Falk’s tool in the same way he had!
In my next post, I’ll share more information about designing this visitor study, including the other types of information I gathered.