Applied Interpretation

To summarize from the previous two entries in this series:

First, a pre and post visit survey conducted at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (JNEM) found significant impact to the visitor related to their connections to the history of westward expansion, knowledge of the time period and attitude toward the museum.

Second, six month post qualitative interviews revealed that the visitors recalled a variety of experiences from the museum visit and it certainly seemed to have some impact on those that were contacted.

A third question that this study attempted to answer was if the results of the quantitative and the qualitative evaluation were similar or different for those who participated in both. In other words, was the immediate impact of the museum similar 6 months later or had there been changes in recollections and/or impact?

In order to attempt to answer this question the researchers utilized a statistical process to compare the scores of the pre and post visit surveys with responses from the interviewees. The procedure to learn of the comparisons includes the development of individual prospectus of each person*. The importance of this individual prospectus was to allow the researchers to compare and consider all aspects of data for each visitor that participated in both an interview and the pre / post questionnaire.

Part of the prospectus was to learn who had shown changes in the pre and post visit survey then compare those people with their interview responses. Ideally, the researchers were hoping that those who did show significant change would also have interview responses that offered many of the recollections that were found by the total group of interviewees. Unfortunately, the results of this analysis showed that only two of the participants who completed the on-site questionnaire and completed the six month post interview had significant changes on their on-site surveys and also offered in-depth responses from the interviews.

So… what does this mean? Well, a couple of things. First, it should never be assumed that if visitors “do well” in responding to on-site evaluations that it translates to a longer term recollection or possible impact from the experience. However, since the interview results overall were somewhat “rich” in recollection it can be inferred that folks who did NOT show changes in the questionnaire may retain more than we think which can be brought out later through interviews.

Certainly, this aspect of the research project is considered a pilot study and so the results can’t be weighted that heavily. From my end, however, this study does support the findings of another evaluation we had completed (See Words versus Numbers…The Best Approach to Evaluate Your Interpretive Program) that quantitative results may not always parallel qualitative investigation. And certainly, if it goes down to a choice, I would take my chances with words over numbers!

Finally, the results from the Jeffereson National Expansion Memorial DOES add to many other studies by the author as well as others that visiting a museum can and does have both short and long-term positive impacts!

*I’d be happy to send anyone more information regarding this process…since I attempt to keep these weekly entries brief I have left out lots of statistical description.