Trends in North American Science Museums
Robert Mac West
Science and technology museums in North America are
growing, expanding, multiplying, and – most importantly – changing. They
are responding to the expectations of their traditional audiences, to
the mandate to be more inclusive and egalitarian, to the availability
of new technologies and experiences, and to the need to be financially
viable. Here I review the attraction decisions made by 30 North American
institutions – what they have opted to make available to their audiences
– and seek out explanations for these particular approaches. After then
evaluating the specific issues with which museums and their managements
have to cope, the paper concludes with an assessment of apparent trends
and opportunities.
Introduction
The North American museum industry is flourishing (Figure 1). Across the US and Canada, substantial numbers of science- and technology-based museums are being created, are expanding, and are moving into new, contemporary (and expensive) facilities. Many of these museums are about ideas and processes, rather than solely about objects and artifacts. They are as interested in creating engaging, memorable experiences for their audiences as they are in displaying “things.”
This is an analysis of North American science museum growth and development placed in the context of the larger attractions and entertainment industry. Many of the new and expanded museums are aware that they are playing in a much larger game than that of serious education. Instead, they are educational institutions which are challenged to attract broad audiences, with an emphasis on families and on engaging, technologically contemporary experiences. They understand that there is an economic imperative as well as an educational one.
I explore the specific needs of museums, how they see engaging technology-based and memorable experiences as their stock in trade, how they are using technology both as content and access to content, and what issues confront museums as they attempt to be competitive in the 21st century environment. This analysis will include an examination of the specific attraction strategies employed by a number of new and expanded museums. I selected a sample of 30 which have been created, relocated to new (and larger facilities) or significantly expanded their existing facilities. Many more have refocused, and/or added attractions, and even more expansions are underway across North America.
Implicit in this is an assessment of non-profit family and educational attractions as they realize that they are competing for audiences with Family Entertainment Centers, Location-Based Entertainment and a broad spectrum of other ways for people to spend their leisure time and budgets. In addition, museums are realizing that a key educational audience – organized school groups – is comprised of youth who are increasingly sophisticated and unimpressed by museums’ traditional presentations.
Museums which succeed in not only retaining, but expanding their family and school audiences are those which are nimble and able to take advantage of technological and experiential opportunities – many of which are or can be adapted from the entertainment industry.
Figure 1. Growth of ASTC membership, 1977 – 1998
Needs of Museums
The educational mission is fundamental to science museums. As nonprofit organizations operated by government agencies or private boards, their justification for staying in business is their contribution to the array of educational experiences available to their community. Therefore, decisions on what technologies to employ or experiences to create should – and frequently are – based on educational rather than economic outcomes. Exhibition designer Philip Aldrich (1998) and museum director Alan Friedman (1997) recently provided elegant descriptions of this decision-making process.
That said, the educational goals of science museums cannot be accomplished unless they are successful economically. Decisions on educational value and outcomes have to be tempered by awareness of the audience attractiveness and economic costs of the installation.
As science museums have increasingly adopted audience-attraction strategies from the for-profit sector, it appears that the audiences are drawing fewer distinctions between so-called educational attractions and so-called entertainment attractions. (Hence the bastard word “edutainment.”) Just as many for-profit attractions have become overtly educational as their audiences’ expectations have altered, so many nonprofit attractions have placed great stress on the fun and enjoyment of science.
The consequence of these trends is the apparent convergence of the two industries – although the motivations continue to be distinctive: return on stockholder investment contrasted with learning and authentic experiences with science and technology.
Current Uses of Technology/Experiences
With this as an introduction, the following matrix demonstrates the mix of technologies and experiences currently employed in North American science museums. It reflects an exchange of technologies among several different industries and parts of industries. For example, large-format film technology initially emerged in the nonprofit world, but in recent years an increasing proportion of new theaters and films are in entertainment centers and multiplexes. As another example, motion simulator technology developed in the military, moved quickly into entertainment, and now is struggling to find a mission-appropriate application in museums.
Large-format film has become a staple in the science museum industry. In 1971, the Cinemax Imax Theatre opened at Ontario Place and was followed by nonprofit theaters in San Diego (1973), Washington, DC (1976), and Detroit and St. Paul (1978), and the second for-profit theater at Cedar Point in Sandusky, OH in 1975. As of the end of 1997, there were 254 large-format theaters worldwide. Installations from 1998 onward are estimated to be 37% in commercial and theme park settings and 63% in nonprofit institutions (White Oak Associates, 1998), reflecting the trend toward commercialization of large-format theaters.
Beyond large-format theaters, there is no discernable trend in the new science museum facilities beyond an intensifying search for the new attraction which will satisfy both mission and market requirements. My interpretation of this variety of solutions is based on several attributes of the museum industry:
- Inherent conservatism
Museums, even those which educate about current science and technology and attempt to predict future scientific advances, tend not to take chances with novel approaches or technologies. However, once an approach is demonstrated to be successful – e.g., large-format film – a bandwagon effect kicks in quickly. The pattern of large-format theater adoption adequately demonstrates this tendency.
- Rejection of “Disneyfication”
Many in the nonprofit world are dismissive of for-profit endeavors and object to adopting any approach which originates there. Disney is a favorite whipping boy for non-profits. Thus, regardless of what Disney (or other entertainment attractions) has developed that clearly works well, satisfies visitors, AND provides clear educational benefits, it may not be easily adopted by museums.
- Mission rationalization
This is the reverse of Disneyfication – uncertainty that the content of an attraction/technology is sufficiently educational to produce the outcomes required by the museum. This is particularly the case when an approach which is inherently non-educational (e.g., simulator thrill rides and shoot ‘em up video games) is suggested for a museum environment.
- Unsuitable/insufficient libraries
A technology may have educational possibilities and measurable outcomes, but there isn’t enough product in the library to allow the exhibit to change frequently enough to attract repeat audiences. This is an issue of great importance to museums since they rely on the local family base rather than the geographically-broader, less-likely-to repeat audience of a theme park. The proliferation of large-format theaters has been very closely tied to the size of the library of educational films.
- Cost/benefit ratio
Many museum programs begin with a determination of the desired educational outcome and then move to selection of the most appropriate and efficient presentation mode. In the absence of a technology mandate, it frequently is more effective to use a low-technology solution than to invest heavily in technology which may well quickly become obsolete. Because museums are chronically undercapitalized, they regularly opt for the inexpensive, longer-lived product, even if it does not have the inherent attractiveness of a technological solution.
Technology as Subject and as Tool
Science and technology museums use technology in both theoretical and applied configurations.
In the theoretical configuration, technology is the subject of exhibitions and programs. It its most current representation, the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, California, is all about technology. Its exhibits and programs concentrate on how technology works – a most appropriate approach for a Silicon Valley museum. In the applied configuration, technology is a tool which facilitates learning about many things. Here, the less visible and intrusive the technology, the more effective the presentation. Clark Dodsworth (1999) discussed interfaces and their applications in the educational arena at last year’s TiLE meeting.
The animatronic dinosaur
exhibitions circulated by Dinamation and Kokoro are excellent examples
of the dual use of technology. The fully-“fleshed” dinosaurs are set in
habitats and do their moving and roaring; an accompanying exhibit displays
the hydraulic armature and computer controls which operate the robotic
creatures. Thus, the audience experiences the “real” dinosaur as well
as exploring the important question of “how do they do that?” In a similar
fashion, COSI Toledo has cut a window into the base of its platform simulator
so the audience can both take the ride and watch the workings of the apparatus.
COSI Columbus mounted its simulator on a pedestal to similar effect. Most
large-format theaters have the immense projector and reels of film on
display in the queuing area.
The Real Thing
An alternative to film or virtual experiences in science museums is an expansion of real-time and live experiences, with both animals and people. A few years ago, live animals were the domain of zoos, aquariums, nature centers and a small number of natural history museums. People were guards and explainers.
Through the 90s there has been a proliferation of both free-standing and embedded animal attractions, primarily of aquatic organisms and insects. Butterfly houses, in which live animals (native or exotic, depending on climate and local laws) fly freely in a tropical to subtropical greenhouse, are strong attractions for broad audiences. We have tracked this phenomenon since the early 90s (Anonymous, 1994). In addition to the new (1998-99) in-museum installations in Chicago, Durham, NC, Seattle, Milwaukee, and New York, there is a very successful free-standing butterfly house in Westminster, Colorado.
Aquatic exhibitions also have moved into science centers, led by the aquarium installed in the original Discovery Place, Charlotte, NC. Recent science museum aquariums are in the Carnegie Science Center, the Pacific Science Center and the McWane Center, Birmingham, Alabama.
Museum theater is yet
another way of creating a “value-added” experience for museum visitors.
While this has been standard fare at living history museums (e.g., Colonial
Williamsburg, Old Sturbridge Village), science museums have been more
inclined to have straightforward demonstrations of physical phenomena.
Two pioneering efforts opened in 1999 in Columbus, OH (where in-character
actors sell 50s appliances in the Progress area at COSI) and in Kansas
City, MO (where all the floor staff play roles in partial costume as characters
who "live" or "work" in Science City. These "interactors"
personalize the visitor experience by engaging visitors one-on-one and
in small groups.
Issues Confronting Museums
An ongoing and very difficult issue for science museums is coping with the rate of change of the science they present to their public as well as the rate of evolution of the tools used for presenting it. Visitors to a museum, just as to themed entertainment, expect experiences they are unable to have at home. Therefore the rate of movement of technology into middle-class homes poses an endless challenge. And, just as much, the rate at which tools become obsolete is a problem; it is difficult for a museum to provide a convincing educational experience if the interface with that experience is clearly two or three generations older than what is available in the commercial market.
Museum planning consultant John Jacobsen has developed a model that he calls the Delta Museum (1999). The premise of this model is that rather than produce traditional battle-hardened exhibits and highly structured accompanying programs, museums should anticipate change and structure their physical facilities and staffs to exploit it. They can do this by consciously constructing “experience platforms,” where the physical structure is essentially a stage set or hardware, and the content can be altered and modified quickly and at relatively low cost. Many technology solutions (e.g., large-format theaters, high-tech planetariums, virtual reality, simulators) fit this economic model; so-called “authentic” experiences (butterfly houses, aquariums) do not, although they often are regarded as content-rich.
The strongly-held internal culture of museums, especially those which are based on scientifically, historically and esthetically-significant collections, mitigate against rapid incorporation of technology-driven “faux” experiences, regardless of their visitor appeal. An excellent compilation of essays published as a special issue of Daedalus in summer 1999 dissects this matter from several directions. The general conclusion is that America’s museums – even the most hidebound traditional one - are in the midst of a major change which parallels the cyber and technology revolution affecting all of society. Museums must “make experience design and delivery central…and view artifacts and content as means rather than ends” (Skramstad, 1999, p. 122).
Over the last decade the science museum industry has developed a substantial palette of evaluation techniques to ensure that, when a new technology and strategy is adopted, the educational outcomes and expectations are achieved. In the 1980s evaluation was regarded as judgmental, a measure of success or failure, and was resisted by both exhibition developers and educators. More recently, however, evaluation has been seen as an essential tool to, if not ensure success, at least substantially increase its likelihood.
Large-format films, largely because of the insistence of the U. S. National Science Foundation as a condition for award of production grants, have long been subjected to intense evaluation. The educational impact of large-format films was documented at a Giant Screen Theater Association preconference symposium held in New York September 10, 1999, and published as an insert in The Informal Learning Review No. 38.
Excellent examples of evaluation being applied to a technology transfer from themed entertainment are the efforts made by SimEx and the Reuben Fleet Science Center to develop solid educational content in the recent ride-film “Comet Impact” and by SimEx and the Tyrell Museum of Paleontology in the ride-film “The Dinosaur Simulator.”
The final aspect of the development of new attractions for science museums is the heightened awareness of the competition from themed entertainment. The most current example of response to that pressure is newly-opened Science City in Kansas City, Missouri. Occupying a renovated historic railroad station, Science City is an educational and entertainment destination that combines elements of science centers, theme parks, theater and retail into a unique immersive experience that provides visitors a new adventure each and every time. All of Science City's more than 50 “neighborhood” science experiences are fully hands-on and immersive. Like many science centers, Science City features a giant screen theater, a planetarium and a live stage theater. In the daytime, Science City serves large numbers of school groups and families. At night, the Iwerks 3-D theater, the domed theater and the stage theater feature entertainment attractions oriented to a more adult, entertainment-seeking crowd.
Union Station's Grand Hall has three different restaurants plus a handful of specialty shops. Project planners expect that downtown office workers, tourists and area residents will embrace Union Station again as a gathering-place which is so important for a community's sense of place. The station also accommodates catered banquets, receptions, conventions, etc. The building's former North Waiting Room, more than a football field in length with 65-foot ceilings and turn-of-the-century ornamentation is the primary space available for banquets of up to 1,100 and "stand-up" activities for many more. Union Station is linked via a glass-enclosed skywalk to the nearby Westin Crown Center Hotel, Crown Center Shops and Hyatt Regency Hotel.
Early results are mixed. While the museum met forecasts in its first three months of operation, the Theater District and food and beverage suffered a rocky opening. The entire complex fell $900,000 short of break-even operating revenue (The Kansas City Star, February 14, 2000).
Trends in Science Museums
The trend definitely is toward more and diverse uses of technology in support of the educational experience. Increased attention is being paid to evaluation and to educational content enhanced by the new technologies. This means that content developers who begin with educational outcomes and use the technology to facilitate and enhance these experiences will have a very substantial future market.
As society becomes more egalitarian and previously-marginalized cultural groups demand access to museums hitherto seen as middle-class majority bastions, content and presentation will be modified to be more inclusive. The nature of individual experiences in museums also will become more diverse as museums pay more attention to the social needs of their diversifying audiences. A significant challenge for (especially traditional) museums is to diversify content and experience and thereby grow their audiences while not alienating their traditional audience and economic base.
Museums will be more aware of the many facets of popular culture and will use these themes and commonalities to carry educational messages. We see this in our database of traveling exhibitions (West and Runge, 1999) which includes presentations based on specific television and movie programs and personalities (Star Trek, Sesame Street, Bugs Bunny, Beakman’s World), popular children’s books and authors (Richard Scarry, Superheroes), news events (Mars exploration, new dinosaurs, endangered species), and historic characters (Genghis Khan and Egyptian Pharaohs). These populist entry points often blur the distinction between themed entertainment and educational recreation.
The need for revenue generation to support educational activities will only continue as technology evolves faster and becomes obsolete faster and as audience expectations are raised. Science City, with its seamless merger of education, themed entertainment, food and beverage, and interesting history and architecture, may well be the prototype of location-based entertainment zones emerging from an educational facility. This is in some contrast to the Simon Group’s enticing Philadelphia’s Please Touch Children’s Museum to Penn’s Landing and the relocation of the Chicago Children’s Museum to Navy Pier several years ago.
Most important is the rapidly-increasing awareness on the part of science museums that their content is pervasive in the early 21st century and that their target audiences can encounter and experience it in many venues. The lessons of Gilmore and Pine's "Experience Economy" are being learned and applied. With science museums focusing on their audiences and the singular experiences they are seeking, there is a wide window of opportunity for new and creative approaches.
Acknowledgment
I thank Clark Dodsworth of Osage Associates, San Francisco, for many stimulating conversations about the use of technology in museums and for a careful review of this paper.
References
Aldrich, Philip.
"Why Not Let Theme Parks Take Over Informal Education?"
The Informal Science Review, no. 31, July-August 1998, pp. 1, 4-6.Anonymous.
"Bugs are Big – and Becoming Higher Profile."
The Informal Science Review, January-February 1994, pp. 1-2, 4, 9-10.Anonymous.
"Science & Technology Museums Plot New Courses for the Future."
Tourist Attractions and Parks, November 1999, pp. 28-36.Dodsworth, Clark.
"Evolution of the Tools…and Devolution of the Users."
The Informal Learning Review, no. 36, May-June 1999, pp. 1, 8-10.Friedman, Alan.
"Are Science Centers and Theme Parks Merging?"
The Informal Science Review, no. 25, July-August 1997, pp. 1, 4.Giant Screen Theater Association
"Giant Screen Films and Lifelong Learning"
Supplement to The Informal Learning Review, no. 38, September-October 1999, 26pp.Jacobsen, John.
"The Delta Museum: Building an Institution for Change."
White Oak Associates, Marblehead, MA. 10pp.
(Reviewed by Robert Mac West. 1999. The Informal Learning Review, no. 38, September-October 1999, p. 14.)Peterson, Mark, Ed.
White Oak Inventory of Large Format Theaters.
White Oak Associates, Marblehead, MA: 114 p, 1998.Pine, B. Joseph II and James H. Gilmore.
The Experience Economy.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA: 247pp., 1999.Skramstad, Harold. 1999.
"An Agenda for American Museums in the Twenty-First Century", pp. 109-128
In "America’s Museums",
Daedalus: Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 128, no. 3, 1999: 337 p.West, Robert Mac and Christen E. Runge, compilers.
Traveling Exhibitions Report: Winter 2000.
Informal Learning Experiences, Washington, DC: 129pp.
Robert “Mac” West is the Editor and Publisher
of The Informal Learning Review. He may be reached at ile@informallearning.com.