Evaluation

Evaluation is empowering, because it informs and improves future practice. Successful evaluation should make an organisation think critically and yet positively about its work, by motivating staff and by encouraging fresh and innovative thinking and approaches. Most importantly, evaluation can help an organisation to make its work more relevant both to existing audiences and to new ones, to maximise the impact of exhibitions, and to enhance the quality of the visitor’s experience.

A key proviso of many grants, such as those given by Arts Council England (ACE) is that the project is evaluated against pre-set aims and objectives, but the value of evaluation goes well beyond fulfilling this requirement; evaluation can demonstrate that money has been well spent and will increase the confidence of funders and other partners in the organisation’s ability to deliver. Others will be more willing to work with an organisation which not only has a proven track record but can also demonstrate through evaluation how successful its exhibitions have been.

Colleagues and partners will benefit by example, where evidence can be produced of the results of good practice or new ideas, generating debate and furthering professional skills.

Above all, evaluation should improve and inform ongoing and future practice. It can influence policies and planning, feeding into future work, including exhibition programming and fundraising.

Evaluation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The guidelines which follow are intended to help both originators and recipients of touring exhibitions to evaluate their exhibitions more effectively and to recognise the benefits that well-planned evaluation can bring.

Evaluation is the gathering of evidence about a project to make judgements about what happened, including successes and failures. Normally, evaluation will involve consultation with audiences. In the case of touring exhibitions, consultation will also involve the hiring venues. For many, though, evaluation can feel like another layer of bureaucracy; confusion as to what it involves and how best to do it is compounded by a quick succession of deadlines in a busy exhibition programme which make reflecting on an exhibition that has recently closed seem like an unnecessary luxury.

Evaluating touring exhibitions is still sometimes an ad hoc process. Quite often, evaluation can be an afterthought, when it should be incorporated during the early stages of exhibition planning. Evaluation can be time-consuming and costly, but effective evaluation doesn’t have to be either, as approaches can be adapted to suit the capacity of different institutions. It is, instead, more about embracing a different way of working. For a touring exhibition organiser it is particularly important to plan your evaluative approach, as you will be one step removed from the people who attend the exhibition at the venues to which you hire; you will need to work with them to gather the data you and they require.

Traditionally ‘summative’ evaluation is the type most commonly used in museums and galleries, with organisers measuring success once an exhibition is open to the public. ‘Formative’ evaluation, however, is particularly appropriate for touring exhibitions, as it is possible to ‘pilot’ the tour at the first venue. Feedback can be sought not only from visitors but also from the venue’s staff, so that the exhibition gradually evolves to the benefit of subsequent venues. The possibilities that touring exhibitions offer to adapt and change should be embraced, and regarded as a strength, not a weakness. Evaluation may lead to changes which enhance the visitors’ experience or help with the logistics and practicalities of planning and delivering a difficult tour. ‘Formative’ evaluation can also be usefully used to test specific components prior to the exhibition opening, such as the design of interactives in a child-friendly exhibition.

To evaluate a project successfully, the organiser and hiring venue must know from the outset what it aims to achieve with the exhibition and establish the information it needs to collect, to measure the extent to which the aims have been met. Evaluation should be based on aims and objectives and measurable indicators of success which are identified at the start of the project. These may include the key audiences for which an exhibition is intended. Other considerations may range from the visitors’ experience and learning outcomes to the effectiveness of marketing and publicity.

A baseline should also be established against which any changes can be measured. For example, an exhibition designed or marketed to attract more families will need a baseline count of the number of families visiting the organisation in the first place, in order to compare ‘before’ with ‘after’.

For a touring exhibition it is important that all partners are consulted and fully involved. There will often be a wide variety of reasons as to why something has been programmed and what the individual venues want to achieve. For evaluation to work, it is important that common ground is found between the different venues and that key issues are identified which are of interest to everybody. An agreed evaluation strategy should be outlined in the exhibition hire agreement.

Although the organiser will normally lead on the evaluation, a collective decision should be made about how evidence is gathered. Venues will differ in their capacity to undertake evaluation, and this must be recognised at the planning stage.

• Will the chosen methods for gathering evidence be feasible and realistic for all of those involved?
• What level of information do the venues have to act as a baseline?
• Who will analyse the results? Is it more appropriate to contract out the analysis of research and report writing?

Whoever undertakes the gathering of evidence and its analysis, a budget appropriate to the scale of the exhibition and the evaluation should be allocated. Costs may include meetings with partners, employing a specialist to analyse material and write reports, contracting out design or the photocopying and binding of in-house reports.

For a touring exhibition, the chosen methods should not only suit all the venues, both the originator and the recipients, but they should remain consistent throughout the tour. Methods will vary according to what sort of evidence is required; quantitative methods involve gathering factual and statistical evidence, such as the number of people visiting an exhibition; whereas qualitative methods gather evidence illustrating opinions, ideas and emotional experience, indicating the quality and depth of experience.

Different methods include:

• Visitor comment books/cards and self-completion questionnaires: Design can be adapted to suit different ages. Because visitors decide whether to complete them, they are not usually representative, so consider an incentive, such as a cash prize, for completing. These can be delivered through digital interfaces in the gallery and online, as well as in analogue formats to reach different audiences. Digital approaches can support the tabulating and analysis of data.
• Focus groups: Useful for gathering qualitative evidence from existing and new users. Preferable to have someone impartial leading, although not essential. Don’t forget to offer and budget for hospitality.
• Face-to-face interviews: Best carried out by trained researchers, or trained staff or volunteers.
• Press photos/cuttings/tweets/blogs/Facebook comments: Useful for reports, but not always easy for smaller organisations to monitor. If you work with a PR Agency they can compile this information on your behalf.
• Photography: Good photographs for reports are always in short supply. Include people as well as general installation shots.
• Observation: Time-consuming but can provide in-depth insights about how people behave in an exhibition.

It may be appropriate to work with a company specialising in evaluation, such as The Audience Agency, or a freelance evaluator to develop or deliver your evaluation strategy.

If personal data is collected, ensure that the provisions of the Data Protection Act are observed, for handling and storing records securely. If necessary, seek specialist advice.

All too often, useful results and reports end up in filing cabinets and never again see the light of day. If this happens, the effort and cost of carrying out the evaluation in the first place are wasted, and key findings are unlikely to shape future practice. Make sure that colleagues have access to the material and that the results are shared and discussed. If possible, all the partners in the tour should be invited to a debriefing.

Disseminate the results with funders, key decision makers and stakeholders outside the venues in the tour; share the results (and be open about failures as well as successes), to make them aware of what has been achieved. The project might then become a model or framework, shaping not only future practice in the venues themselves, but also having a wider influence beyond them.

• ACE Self Evaluation framework: www.artscouncil.org.uk/selfevaluation/
• Partnerships for Learning (ACE 2004, revised 2008: www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication_archive/partnerships-for-learning-a-guide-to-evaluating-arts-education-projects/ (link updated 2017); can be downloaded from www.artscouncil.org.uk). This is a very useful guide with case studies and detailed information about different methods of collecting evidence. Although written specifically for education projects, useful for anyone undertaking evaluation
• Visitor Studies Group: www.visitors.org.uk

Authors: Christine Brady (2005), updated by Charlotte Dew (2015)