This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 19 January 2014, At: 12:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Museum Management andCuratorshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmc20

Methods for studying family visitorsin art museums: A cross-disciplinaryreview of current researchPat Sterry a & Ela Beaumont aa School of Art and Design , University of Salford , CentenaryBuilding, Peru Street, Salford, M3 6EQ, UKPublished online: 04 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Pat Sterry & Ela Beaumont (2006) Methods for studying family visitorsin art museums: A cross-disciplinary review of current research, Museum Management andCuratorship, 21:3, 222-239

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647770600402103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239

Methods for studying family visitors in art museums:A cross-disciplinary review of current research

Pat Sterry�, Ela Beaumont

School of Art and Design, University of Salford, Centenary Building, Peru Street, Salford M3 6EQ, UK

Received 9 June 2005; received in revised form 30 August 2005; accepted 4 November 2005

Abstract

This paper examines current trends in family studies research, details the methodological and

topical perspectives that are emerging, and reflects on how these findings could be integrated to

provide a more coherent approach to researching the leisure, learning and recreational aspects of

family visitors to art museums. Research findings from disciplines such as sociology, ethnography,

education, design and marketing are of interest to the field of visitor studies, and this paper

contributes to the wider research agenda by providing an overview of family research methods from

a range of other disciplines, as well as those used within visitor studies.

Over the last decade, there has been a growth of research in family learning in science museums,

leading to an emerging disciplinary matrix, whilst many aspects of family visits to art museums

remain relatively unexplored. The paper discusses the problems of gathering meaningful data from

adults and children in family groups, and concludes by suggesting that a challenge for art museums

is to learn from what is happening in other areas of cultural research into families, and to develop a

framework for research which builds on the methodological strengths and practical experience of

robust studies.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Family studies research; Art museums; Visitor experience

1. Introduction

This paper examines current trends in family studies research, details the methodolo-gical and topical perspectives that are emerging, and reflects on how these findings could

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0260-4779/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.musmancur.2005.11.003

�Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 161 295 2628.

E-mail addresses: p.sterry@salford.ac.uk (P. Sterry), e.beaumont@salford.ac.uk (E. Beaumont).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

be integrated to provide a more coherent approach to researching the leisure, learning andrecreational aspects of family visitors to art museums.

The study of families is complex and a thorough, but not exhaustive, list of topics thatare of current interest in terms of family research includes: cultural and situationaldiversity, family values and priorities, cultural, situational and normative factors, familyformation and dissolution, parenting, childcare, time use, roles, childhood, adolescence,intergenerational relationships, employment, tourism, leisure, education and learning,social exchange, social networks, and social policy (Commuri & Gentry, 2000). We mustalso include media, management and design, including the robust research on familiescurrently underway (Sterry & Beaumont, 2005), that will feed into the design process andwhich ultimately will aid the planning and design of the overall museum experience forfamily groups.

Research findings from each of these areas are of interest to the field of visitor studies fora number of reasons. It is clear that the political context is in many ways driving theresearch agenda in museums, in that they are regarded as ‘‘central to networks ofknowledge, engaging with people locally, nationally and internationallyy supportingleaning and skills, community identity and cohesion and the economy and opening upworlds of creativity and new experience for all’’ (Morris, 2003). Over the past decade therehas been great pressure for publicly funded institutions to be accountable. Not only is itcrucial to get the product right, but also to understand the attitude, motivation, learning,perception, culture and background of the audience or visitor. Millions are spent on designand new visitor attractions, and research and evaluation are a significant part of theprocess of accountability.

Several recent bibliographic projects (Hooper-Greenhill & Moussouri, 2001 in the UK,Ellenbogen, Luke, & Dierking, 2004; Museum Learning Collaborative, 2001; Rounds,2001, in the US) have established that, globally, a core literature of family visitor studiesresearch exists, forming an emerging body of discipline-specific knowledge. Furthermore,evidence suggests that the discipline is in a dynamic phase, with recent publications quicklyleading to further research, a pattern consistent with other dynamic social sciences(Rounds, 2001). Research and evaluation originating from the US is widely andsystematically disseminated in publications and at international conferences. Familyvisitor research is increasingly undertaken in Europe and the UK, often modelled on USstudies, in part because European and UK researchers and practitioners make a point ofattending visitor studies conferences and following developments in family visitor studiesresearch in the United States, where the field is more highly developed.

Compared to the number of studies carried out in science museums, there are fewerresearch studies carried out in art museums, and very few into family group visitors to artmuseums. Like studies of families in science museums, a prevalent feature of research intofamilies in art museums is the focus on learning.

2. Research into family learning in science museums

Researchers in the field of family learning in science museums have frequently adaptedmethods created for investigation in other disciplines, and the study of family activity inmuseums relies upon measures developed in fields outside visitor studies. Thesecircumstances present methodological challenges to the researcher within the field ofvisitor studies, as there is no widely accepted methodological strategy or set of methods for

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

investigating family visitors. As a result, researchers often have recourse to methods drawnfrom other fields, particularly education, sociology, anthropology and ethnography.Fig. 1 below shows the range of methods from the author’s review of 211 visitor studies

that demonstrate both the experimental scientific tradition and the more naturalisticethnographic and anthropological tradition within visitor studies research, giving examplesof methods in each.Many family visitor studies employ a variety of methods from both experimental and

naturalistic traditions to investigate family activity, demonstrating a pragmatic approachthat uses whatever methodological approach works best, and this is a perfectly respectableresearch position to take (Cherryholmes, 1992; Howe, 1988; Robson, 2002). Increasingly,however, family visitor studies are shifting towards qualitative research, with an emphasison in-depth investigation into conversation as most suitable for research into familylearning in museums. For example, recent initiatives from the Museum LearningCollaborative at the University of Pittsburgh in the United States have focused on theways in which conversations in museums elaborate, enrich and extend the visitor’sexperience (Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson, 2002). These, and other innovative researchstudies use a wide variety of methods to gather data, including discourse analysis (Borun,Cleghorn, & Garfield, 1995), video and audio recording (Gutwill-Wise, 2002; Vom Lehn,Heath, & Hindmarsh, 2002), interviews, diaries (Callana et al., 2002), cameras, drawings,and personal meaning mapping (Luke, Coles, & Falk, 1998; Falk & Dierking, 2000).Fig. 2 shows the major methods available for studying families and summarises their

strengths and weaknesses.Family learning studies often rely on procedures and methods derived from school and

formal learning environments (Paris & Ash, 2002), and these studies have gone a long wayto helping understand how visitors, as learners, think and behave in exhibitions (Falk &Dierking, 2000, Leinhart et al., 2002, Paris, 2002).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig 1. Experimental and naturalistic research methods in visitor studies.

P. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239224

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

3. What we know about families in art museums

Since the early 1980s art museums have consistently asked ‘what do we know about thenature of our audience, their needs? (La Villa-Havelin, 1989). Research conducted bySmith and Wolf in 1996 suggests that individuals differ in the way they constructexperience in art galleries and that three main factors control the visit:

� the works of art,� the presentation, and� the visitor themselves.

Consideration must also be given to the place itself, which impacts greatly on the visitorexperience.

A summary of findings from family visitor research in art museums shows that familiescome for entertainment and social reasons, but also to learn (McManus, 1994). Theyexperience the diverse exhibit components, and often transform the formal agenda intopersonal activities based on their family background, mode of interaction, or the adult’sparenting and teaching style (Borun et al., 1995; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 2001;Pfrommer, 2002). Families may well put more emphasis on social interaction,active participation and entertainment than they do on opportunities to learn or dosomething worthwhile with their leisure time (Hood, 1993). It would appear that sharedparticipatory experiences, and having fun together, have the most memorable effects onfamilies in art museums. Engaging all family members, providing individual choices andintroducing new concepts that include achievable clear tasks have a positive effect onfamily visits (Hood, 1993; Leinhardt, Title, & Knutson, 2000), and parents associatespending time in an art museum with their children with good parenting (Cox et al., 2000).This indicates the very positive effect and continued relevance of family orientatedexhibitions and workshops.

Interactive, hands-on exhibits are seen by family visitors as part of the wholeart museum experience, rather than separate or additional to the permanentcollection (Adams, 1999; Arts About Manchester, 1998). Overall, the evidence from thesestudies suggests that children are more predisposed to visiting science museums thanart museums, partly because of lack of experience and understanding, but alsobecause some have had boring experiences in the past (Farmery, 2001; HarrisQualitative, 1997). However, the majority of adult visitors with children aged between 5and 10 go to art museums with their children ‘‘because the children want to come’’(MORI, 2002).

4. Why family groups are underrepresented in research literature

Contemporary art museums often define their family activities as a central andstraightforward component of their mission statement (Milligan, 2004), but studies offamily groups are underrepresented in the research literature because there areconsiderable problems in researching families in art museums. These problems includethe time and cost of implementing useful studies (Cox, 2001; McManus, 1994;Wright, 1989), the intrinsic difficulty of the subject dealing with feelings, impressionsand personal perceptions (Wright, 1989), and methodological dilemmas in finding research

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

techniques suitable for both adults and children (Punch, 2002). Also, the emphasis onresearch into pedagogic outcomes can sometimes obscure the more personal, aesthetic andsubjective dimensions inherent in the art museum experience. In 1996 Smith and Wolfasked:

How do people like to look at art and what kind of visiting practices do they prefer?Do they like to look at many works of art for a brief time each, or at a few for longerperiods? Do they like to discuss works with others? When they walk into themuseum, do they have a plan for the day or are they open to the possibilities thatpresent themselves? Are they at the museum to learn or to enjoy themselves? (Smith& Wolf, 1996).

In art museums, these questions remain largely unanswered with regard to familyvisitors. Evidence suggests that staff in art museums spend a significant amount of timedevising strategies to engage family groups (Martin & Nordgren, 2000), and exhibitioneffectiveness has been evaluated by visitor studies researchers (Bitgood & Patterson, 1993;Borun, 1999; Hein, 1999; Hood, 1983). In art museums, families are typically studied whenexhibits are specifically designed with family groups in mind, or when families make up themajority of visitors (Macdonald, 1993) and evaluating the success of family activitiesincludes evaluating learning outcomes.Like family learning in science museums, research protocols for studying family visitors

in art museums draw upon a wide variety of disciplines, including ethnography,anthropology, as well as textual, hermeneutic, feminist and psychoanalytic methods.Methods derived from semiotic and narrative analysis in cultural and literary studies,including discourse and conversational analysis in communications theory, have also beenutilised in recent studies (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). The result has been a small number ofstudies using different methods through which the methodologies are constantly refined inthe search for a unifying theoretical or conceptual base (Adams, 1999; Arts aboutManchester, 1998; Cox et al., 2000; Luke et al., 1998).Typical art museum evaluations assess the effectiveness of educational programmes, but

the field needs more information about the less structured visits of the majority of familiesin art museums (Downs, 1995). Evidence suggests that visiting art museums is more of amass phenomenon than is often accepted and there is a core audience of local people,including families. This has implications for the type of research that needs to be carriedout, because audience research has not shed much light on how best to understand thecultural needs of the local community (Worts, 2002).

5. Main research methodologies used for family visitor research

Three recent research studies into families in art museums (two from the UK and onefrom the United States) demonstrate the range of methods used in researching families inart museums, and the types of research questions that have resonance across a number ofcurrent studies. They are discussed further in this section in order to illustrate the rangeand applicability of the varied methods. The three studies are Adams (1999), Cox et al.(2000), and Arts About Manchester (1998).The work by Adams (1999) at the Institute for Learning Innovation was designed to

explore how families and school visitors made sense of the interactive gallery. The sample

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239226

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

size was representative and included 36 adult and child respondents. Seven data collectionmethods were used:

� written survey,� focused observation,� full gallery tracking,� personal meaning mapping,� interviews,� children’s written reflections,� children’s drawings.

The study found that the Art Learning Centre attracted and interested families, whoconsidered it a children’s space that adults also found enjoyable, and that parentsconsidered safe and inviting The study concluded that although the potential for the ArtLearning Centre to help families make connections to the permanent collections was high,gallery staff did not appreciate how this happens. Second, that the experience stimulatedcreativity and play, enhancing rich and complex learning about art, particularly for repeatvisitors, but this concept was not well understood by gallery staff.

The Cox et al. (2000) qualitative evaluation of family activities and resources atthree Tate Gallery sites’ was conducted between 1997 and 2000, and included TateGalleries in Liverpool, St Ives and Millbank in London, UK. The sample sizewas approximately 90 adult respondents. Data collecting methods included shortinterviews, in-depth interviews, focus groups and observations. The objectives of theresearch were:

� to find out more about the value of interactive family activities in art galleries;� to understand how these activities affect families’ experience of, and engagement with,

learning about works of art;� to understand how families function as a social unit in art galleries, in particular the

Tate sites;� to promote staff development;� to share expertise in organising family activities.

The conclusions of the research were that regular visitors are more likely to have alearning agenda, and that learning takes place in a variety of ways, and not always asintended. Families prefer activities not to look like what they might do at school; they wantto learn without realising it, and adults enjoy doing activities with their children and enjoylearning from their children. The study suggested that the differences between theinteractive gallery and the permanent non-interactive collection were not always clear tovisitors and that this needed to be explored further.

The Arts About Manchester (1998) research explored the effectiveness of the exhibitionin reflecting curatorial and educational interests, the appropriateness of collaborativeapproaches, and roles and responses to the methods of exhibition interpretation. Thesample size was 131 adult respondents and data were collected via:

� Questionnaires,� Tracking,

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

� Observation,� Telephone questionnaires.

The study concluded that the exhibition raised expectations and stimulated awareness inadults and artists about children, and successfully transcended some social and perceptualbarriers to the use of the art museum.These three examples illustrate developed methodologies that test theory, and offer some

interesting conclusions that inform the field. There is, however, a paucity of gooddocumented research in the academic literature. It would appear that the number ofresearchers and practitioners in this particular field is still small, and innovative studies aredifficult to find—not because they are not happening, but because they are not widelydisseminated. Unlike family learning in science museums, a body of work open to criticalreview has not yet become established. Recently, however, both the art museum visit as aleisure time experience and the personal context of the visitors’ agenda are being studiedmore frequently (Beaumont, 2004; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 2001; Sterry & Beaumont,2005) (Fig. 2).We now recognise that there is a real interest and need for research in this area. Art

museums are very much the focus for recreational experiences, and contemporary artmuseums have to situate themselves within the larger context of leisure attractions.Contemporary art museum visiting takes place during leisure time, draws upondiscretionary income and occurs with an attendant expectation of a pleasurable experience.These are the same conditions which describe the contexts of other forms of recreation andamusement (Stephen, 2002).

6. Learning more by drawing upon family research from other disciplines

Contemporary research into family life is pluralistic and contextual (Allen, 2000; Cheal,1993). Doherty (1999) has identified five prevailing influences on current family researchtheory. First, he identifies the opposition to the standardization of family (e.g.heterosexual, two generational) as having a significant impact. Second, he identifiescriticism of quantitative approaches to family theory. Third, the increasing use of discourseanalysis in family research has highlighted examination of everyday language and thenarrative as a method for uncovering the social and personal construction of meaning.Fourth, the combined influence of feminism and postmodernism has created a view of thesocial construction of gender differences. Finally, Doherty identified the ‘new familyhistoricism’, which emphasises the specific character of culture and society (Emery &Lloyd, 2001). These five influences are examined more fully below, using examples from anumber of disciplines, including visitor studies.

7. Not a standard family

Recent marketing literature has identified a gap in research aimed at presenting a robustand comprehensive classification of families based on economic potential, and has arguedfor a multidimensional perspective of families that would trace them along economicpurchase potential, family composition (who is in the family), and form (how they arerelated). Such research has focused on family dynamics, such as parental style (Carlson &Grossbart, 1988), and power and cohesion (Holdert & Antonides, 1997), as the

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239228

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Methods for studying children in family vistor research.

P. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

composition of households continues to evolve. Consistency across research in terms ofwhat constitutes the family is rare, although it is clear that emerging forms of family suchas cohabiting couples, same sex couples, single parent families, and bi-nuclear families areunder-researched. Other shifts in the composition of family include the falling size of thefamily and delayed formation. The implications of such changes remain to be investigated.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. (Continued)

P. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239230

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

In visitor studies, there are fundamental changes to the concept of ‘family’ underwaywithin museums, leading to programming for families and other multigenerational groups.There is an understanding that family groups vary significantly in their composition:grandparents may visit with toddlers; divorced and separated fathers may bring visitingchildren; young couples may seek mutual interests; siblings of different ages may exploretogether (Leichter, Hensel, & Larsen, 1989).

The composition of a family group is extremely varied and difficult to define, because ofthe growing diversity of family types and the contemporary changes in family formationand dissolution (Haskey, 1995). Families with dependent children include twoparent families in which the adults may be married, cohabiting or forming step-families,and one parent families in which the adult has either divorced or (increasingly) nevermarried.

It is increasingly clear from the research that the UK’s General Household Survey (2000)definition of a family as ‘a married or cohabiting couple living alone or with their children,or a lone-parent with his or her children, does not adequately describe the diversity offamily types encountered throughout research into family visitor groups. Hilke (1989)found, for example, in her study of the Family as a Learning System, that 50% of visitorsto the museums under investigation were in groups which included at least one child, andin which all the group were related by blood or resided in the same household. Hilkeincluded in the research any group that was inter-generational with no more than twoadults and four children. Her research found that participating families ranged in size fromtwo to five members. Falk (1991), investigating the behaviour of family visitors in naturalhistory museums, concluded that a family was at least one adult and one child, but nomore than four adults and five children, differing in age in larger groups.

Research practitioners conclude that it no longer makes sense to restrict the definition offamily to a monolithic view, or use the traditional nuclear family as the standard ofcomparison (Peterson & Steinmitz, 1999). Knowing the exact composition of the family istherefore important in this context. More accurate baseline data in relation to familyaudiences, and more information on the social composition of family visitor groups,remain to be gathered (Pfrommer, 2002).

For operational reasons, and based on a sound understanding of the varied viewpoints,the author’s current study into families in art museums has defined a family as any multi-generational social group of up to 5–6 people, with children, that comes as a unitto the museum (Beaumont and Sterry, 2005). This definition is modified from Hein (2001),in that it includes children and takes into account the fact that families are not staticstructures, but are in a continual process of change according to family type and ethnicbackground.

8. The shift to qualitative research

Traditional, quantitative research in family studies, which includes descriptive andexperimental research, has gradually given way to a more qualitative approach whichinvolves collecting and analysing extensive narrative data in naturalistic settings (Couch &Felstenhausen, 2001). Increasingly, family research in the social sciences has aimed todevelop age sensitive methods that facilitate children’s ability to express their views andrepresent their views in research findings (Christiansen & James, 2000). The inclusion ofchildren in social research recognises that children are social actors within their families

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

and communities, both influenced and influencing those around them (Lewis & Lindsay,2000). For example, the use of multiple methods in recent research into children’s views oflegal services (Smart & Neale, 2000); children as researchers (Alderson, 2000) and pre-schoolers’ attitudes towards their play environment (Clark & Moss, 2001), demonstrate amove towards focusing on methods to investigate children in their own right, rather thanextrapolating from methodological knowledge on how to survey adults (Borgers, deLeeuw, & Hox, 2000).Using family systems theory to identify family interactions, researchers from a number

of social science disciplines are turning increasingly to observational methods that capturereliable data that are unavailable through other means to examine, for example, the familycontext of child development (Kerig & Lindahl, 2001), or parent and toddler play (Russell,Mize, & Saebel, 2001). Observational methods are uniquely suited to the study of families,because they can provide access to the relationships among individuals, and provide anefficient tool for assessing family problem solving characteristics, especially in settingswhere family discussions take place ( Forbes, Vuchinich, & Kneedler, 2001). Observationalmethods can shed light on mother/father/child behaviour (Westerman, 2001) and can bedesigned specifically to assess nonverbal or pre-verbal behaviour in very young children(Paley, Cox, & Kanoy, 2001).

9. Discourse analysis: everyday language and narrative

Much family research has focused only on adults in the family group, giving amisleading impression of family in which the children are left out. Mother, father and childiterative influences on decision making are complicated, and it is easy to see why thechallenges of adult and child family research have not been realized. Families are messy,complex and difficult to research, compared to individuals, and understanding reciprocalrelationships among family members requires a methodological model that can handleresearch on the family as a unit of analysis (Commuri & Gentry, 2000). The family as aunit develops beyond the sum of the individuals, and there is scope for developinginnovative approaches to understanding them.Recent family studies in science museums have analysed conversations between parents

and children, and these participatory studies have helped to clarify meaning in on-goingdialogues between adults and children about learning in science museum settings (Crowley& Galco, 2001; Callanan & Jipson, 2001). Children’s perspectives change with age andexperience, and within social science research into families, child-centred researchmethodologies have been developed that explore children’s points of view.

10. Gender issues

In marketing theory, Beatty and Talpade (1994) found that children’s influence ondecision making was directly related to their knowledge and use of products. Belch, Belch,and Ceresino (1985) reported that discrepancies were greater between fathers and childrenthan mothers and children. From a museum perspective, Brown (1995) found that ininteractive science exhibits, fathers were generally ‘active’ participants in hands-onactivities, whereas mothers were ‘active’ participants with their daughters, but not theirsons. Changes in gender roles means that research that focuses on who, rather than how,will be limited in effect. Little critical examination has been noted of the changing influence

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239232

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

of the role of women in society in general on family decision making, but sex-role attitudesand education appear to be the most relevant determinants (Joag, Gentry, & Ekstrom,1991).

To date, the underlying causes for differences in relative influence remain unexplained.For example, early research by Filitrault and Ritchie (1980) found that fathers dominateddecisions when children were present. Furthermore, children attribute greater influence tofathers than mothers, but the reasons for such dominance still remain largely unexplored.Roles within the family serve as a platform for playing and learning about gender (West &Zimmerman, 1985), and studies on sex differences in science museum behaviour(Greenfield, 1995; Blud, 1990; Crowley and Callanan, 1998) have raised fascinatingpossibilities for further research in this area.

11. The role of children in family decision making processes

More than two players in decision making is complex, and outcomes can be equallysatisfying but for different reasons. The process of joint decision making is one whichfamilies appear to muddle through, rather than steer according to any predeterminedstrategy (Park, Patriya, Spangenberg, & McCullough, 1995). Recent studies of parent andchild interactions in science museums have highlighted the need for future research thatconsiders all family members, and their implicit and explicit roles in decision making andproblem solving (Crowley and Galco, 2001; Gleason and Schauble, 2000). For example,studies remain to be carried out into sibling influence, despite the modelling by youngerchildren of their (especially same sex) siblings. Much remains to be learned about theconsumer socialisation of children and, looking beyond parent to child socialisation, thereis a greater need for understanding intergenerational influence.

A priori assumptions about family structures need to be examined carefully. Forexample, in marketing theory, family decision making in women-led households hasrecently been examined (Ahuja and Stinson, 1993). The Palan and Wilkes (1997) study ofadolescent success in influencing family decisions by mirroring their parents strategiespresents intriguing possibilities for family visitor research. Still in marketing theory,Tansuhaj and Foxman (1990) recommend triangulating data on families, while Venkatesh(1990) recommends longitudinal methods—a call recently reiterated in the field of familylearning (Ellenbogen et al., 2004).

Family decision making is an interactive process and investigating only one respondentin a family ignores the dynamic nature of family influence within a single decision context.Much remains to be investigated in this area, as parent child interface in decision makingvaries across the age of the child, the child’s personal resources, product expertise andusage, and the stage in decision making. The role of the child depends on who is asked, andpatterns of influence depend on how many members of the family are questioned and howmany members are included in the evaluation process. Even multi-member studies oftenrely on older children to constitute the child’s opinion, making the results not generalisableto other family members.

12. Developing models for studying families in art museums

The use and acceptance of diverse research methods have increased our understandingof the complex phenomena involved in studying families, and combinations of qualitative

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

and quantitative techniques help to explain multi- dimensional constructs. Rather thandebate the superiority of one method over another, contemporary theory challengesresearchers to value and utilise the strengths of both approaches. But much research intofamily audiences in art museums remains to be done.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. Ideas for future research related to the age of children in family groups.

P. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239234

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. (Continued)

P. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

13. Conclusion and suggestions for further research

Traditional approaches to feedback and assessment in art museums have tended to findout about audiences comprised of tourists, the well-educated and the relatively affluent(Ernst & Young, 2002). As Commuri and Gentry (2000) have suggested, there is scope fordeveloping innovative approaches to understanding families, and there is potential forexperimenting with other forms of representing research data. Recent research into familygroup visitors suggests that social and interactional organisation, largely unexplored incurrent studies of visitor behaviour, can be revealed by examining a series of videofragments of people looking, seeing and inspecting exhibits (Allen & Gutwill, 2004; VomLehn et al., 2002), and family researchers should consider presenting evidence of suchbehaviour as research output—as video/audio recordings, for example. Key features ofmeaningful research into families in art museums would include:

� Investigating real-life family activities.� The use of multiple methodologies.� The family group (children and adults) as the unit of analysis.

When family visitor research is conducted there are a number of issues which must betaken into account including:

� Not collecting data from one family member and projecting it to make generalisationsabout the entire family (Krampf, Burns, & Rayman, 1993).� Recognising limitations in how ‘family’ has been conceptualised in current literature.

Fig. 3 summarises what we know of children in families from the research reviewed inthis paper, and suggests areas of further research into family visitors to art museums.From this wide ranging review of current research into families, it is clear that there is

scope for developing an international framework for research which builds on themethodological strengths and practical experience of the best studies from a range ofdisciplines. This paper is arguing for researchers in visitor studies to harmonise strategiesand methods for empirical investigations into family visitors to art museums, so thatfindings can be implemented within a clearly articulated conceptual framework that relatesto the wider field of social science research (Fig. 3).

References

Adams, M. (1999). Summative evaluation, art learning center art sparks interactive gallery speed art museum

Louisville Kentucky. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation www.ilinet.org.

Ahuja, R., & Stintson, K. (1993). Female-headed single parent families: An exploratory study of children’s

influence in family decision making. In Advances in Consumer Research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer

Research.

Alderson, P. (2000). Children as researchers; the effect of participation rights on research methodology. In

P. Christiansen, & A. James (Eds.), Research with children; perspectives and practices. London: Falmer Press.

Allen, K. (2000). Conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 4–17.

Allen, S., & Gutwill, J. (2004). Designing with multiple interactives: Five common pitfalls. Curator, 47(2).

Arts about Manchester. (1998). Visitor responses: Questionnaire and observation results. Me and You: An

interactive exhibition, Walsall Museum and Art Gallery.

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239236

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Beatty, S., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence on family decision making: A replication with extension.

Journal of Consumer research, 21, 493–517.

Beaumont, E. (2004). An empirical study of family group visitors to a millennium art gallery in the UK. Unpublished

Ph.D., University of Salford, UK.

Beaumont, E., Sterry, P., (2005). Grandparents and grandchildren; Visits to local museums and art galleries.

UNESCO 3rd international symposium on tourism and education, Yjskla, Finland

Belch, G., Belch, M., & Ceresino, G. (1985). Parental and teenage child influences in family decision making.

Journal of Business Research, 13, 163–176.

Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. (1993). Systematic label changes and object viewing time. Environment and Behaviour,

25(6), 761–781.

Blud, L. M. (1990). Social interaction and learning among family groups visiting museums. Museum Management

and Curatorship, 9, 43–52.

Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and

response quality. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique no. 66, April ,2000, Paris.

Borun, M. (1999). Front-end evaluation: A tool for exhibit and program planning. In A. Borun, & A. Korn

(Eds.), Introduction to museum evaluation. Washington, DC: AAM TIS.

Borun, M., Cleghorn, A., & Garfield, C. (1995). Family learning in museums: A bibliographic review. Curator,

38(4).

Brown, C. (1995). Making the most of family visits: Some observations of parents with children in a Museum

Science Centre. Museum Management and Curatorship, 14(1), 65–71.

Callanan, M. A., & Jipson, J. (2001). Explanatory conversations and young children’s developing scientific

literacy. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday,

classroom, and professional science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L., & Soennichsen, M. S. (2002). Perspectives on object-centred learning in museums.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and the consumer socialization of children. Journal of

Consumer Research, 15, 77–94.

Cheal, D. (1993). Unity and difference in postmodern families. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 5–19.

Cherryholmes, C. C. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 21.

Christiansen, P., & James, A. (2000). Research with children; perspectives and practices. London: Falmer Press.

Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2001). Listening to young children: The Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s

Bureau for the Joseph, Rowntree Foundation.

Commuri, S., Gentry, J. (2000). Opportunities for family research. In Marketing Academy of Marketing Science

Review,8, www.amsreview.org/articles.

Couch, S., & Felstenhausen, A. (2001). Research in family and consumer sciences education 1985–2000. Family

and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 30(2).

Cox, M. (2001). Family friendly exhibitions report. Arts About Manchester.

Cox, A., Lamb, S., & Orbach, K. (2000). A shared experience: A qualitative evaluation of family activities at three

Tate sites. Tate Internal Report, August.

Crowley, K., & Callanan, M. (1998). Describing and supporting collaborative scientific thinking in parent–child

interactions. Journal of Museum Education, 23, 12–17.

Crowley, K., & Galco, J. (2001). An explanation gap in everyday conversations about science. In K. Crowley, C.

Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom and professional

science (pp. 393–413). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Doherty, W. (1999). Postmodernism and family theory. In B. Sussman, S. Steinmetz, & A. Peterson (Eds.),

Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum.

Downs, L. (1995). The need for learning research in museums in falk and dierking public institutions for personal

learning. Washington, DC: AAM TIS.

Ellenbogen, K., Luke, J., & Dierking, L. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary

matrix. Science Education, 88(Supplement 1), 48–58.

Emery, B., & Lloyd, S. (2001). The evolution of family studies research. Family and Consumer Sciences Research

Journal, 30(2).

Ernst and Young. (2002). Innovate UK: New ideas for new times, October 2002 www.cgey.com

Falk, J. (1991). Analysis of the behaviour of family visitors in natural history museums. Curator, 34(1), 44–50.

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Farmery, K. (2001). If they build it they will come. Museums Journal.

Filitrault, P., & Ritchie, J. R. (1980). Joint purchasing decisions: A comparison of influence structure in family

and couple decision making units. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 131–140.

Forbes, C., Vuchinich, S., & Kneedler, B. (2001). Assessing families with the family solving code in family

observational research in family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

General Household Survey, (2000). UK www.statistics.gov.uk

Gleason, M. E., & Schauble, L. (2000). Parent’s assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and

Instruction, 17(4), 343–378.

Greenfield, T. A. (1995). Sex differences in science museum exhibit attraction. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 32(9), 925–938.

Gutwill-Wise, J. (2002). Audio/videotaping museum visitors: Methods for obtaining informed consent. Visitor

studies conference presentation 2002, Cody, WY.

Harris Qualitative. (1997). Children as an audience for museums and galleries. London: Arts Council and Museums

and Galleries Commission.

Haskey, J. (1995). Trends in marriage and cohabitation. Population Trends, Vol. 80. London: HMSO.

Hein, G. E. (1999). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.

Hein, G.E. (2001). Constructivism: More than meaning making. Museological Review, Vol. 7, RCGM, Leicester

University.

Hike, D. D. (1989). The family as a learning system: An observational study of families in museums. Marriage and

Family Review, 13(3/4).

Holdert, F., Antonides, G. (1997). Family type effects on household members decision making. Advances in

consumer research, Vol. 24. Ann Arbor: Brocks and McInnis.

Hood, M. (1983). Staying away: Why people choose to not visit museums. Museum News, 61(4), 50–57.

Hood, M. (1993). Comfort and caring: Two essential environmental factors. Environment and Behaviour, 25(6),

710–724.

Hooper-Greenhill, E., Moussouri, T. (2001). Researching learning in museums and art galleries 1990– 1999:

A bibliographic review. RCMG, University of Leicester.

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative–qualitative incompatibility thesis. Educational Researcher, 19.

Joag, S., Gentry, J., Ekstrom, K. (1991). An investigation of a role/goal model of wives’ role overload reduction

strategies advances. Consumer Research, 18.

Kerig, P., & Lindahl, K. (2001). Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krampf, R., Burns, D., & Rayman, D. (1993). Consumer decision making and the nature of the product: A

comparison of husband and wife adoption process location, Psychology and Marketing, 10 March/April,

95–109.

La Villa-Havelin, J. S. (1989). Family learning in museums. Marriage and family review-museum visits for family life

enrichment. New York: Haworth Press.

Leichter, H. J., Hensel, K., & Larsen, E. (1989). Families and museums: Issues and perspectives. Marriage and

family review-museum visits and activities for family life enrichment. New York: Hawarth Press.

Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson (Eds.). (2002). Learning Conversations in Museums. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leinhardt, G. Tittle, C., & Knutson, K. (2000). Talking to oneself: Diaries of museum visits. Museum learning

collaborative report MCL-04, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Luke, J., Coles, U., & Falk, J. (1998). Summative evaluation of DNA zone. Missouri: St. Louis Science Center.

Macdonald, S. (1993). The enigma of the visitor sphinx. In Bicknall and Farmelo Museum Visitor Studies in the

90’s. London: Science Museum.

Martin, S., & Nordgren, S. (2000). New sites-new art. First Baltic international seminar. Baltic and University of

Newcastle, 2002.

McManus, P. (1994). Families in museums. In R. Miles, & L. Zavala (Eds.), Towards the museum of the future.

London: Routledge.

Milligan, M. J. (2004). Museums and childhood: Negotiating organisational lessons. Childhood, 11(3), 275–301.

MORI. (2002). Visitors to museums and galleries in the UK. London: Resource.

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Morris, E. (2003). Keynote speech. Museums association conference, Brighton.

Museum Learning Collaborative. (2001). Annotated literature. Learning research and Development Center,

University of Pittsburgh.

Palan, K., & Wilkes, R. (1997). Adolescent–parent interaction. Family Decision Making Journal of Consumer

Research, 24.

Paley, B., Cox, M. J., & Kanoy, K. (2001). The young family interaction coding system in family observational

research. In Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Paris, S. (Ed.). (2002). Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Paris, S. G., & Ash, D. (2002). Reciprocal theory building inside and outside museums. Curator, 43(3).

Park, J.-H., Patriya, S., Spangenberg, E., & McCullough, J. (1995). An emotion based perspective of family

purchase decisions. Advances in Consumer Research, 22.

Peterson, G. W., & Steinmitz, S. K. (1999). Perspectives on families as we approach the 21st century. In M.

Sussman, & R. Lewis (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum Press.

Pfrommer, P. (2002). Family friendliness: Audit of recent research and recommendations for the development of

family audiences in the arts. Arts Council of England.

Punch, S. (2002). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9 (3).

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rounds, J. (2001). Is there a core literature in museology? Curator, 44(2), 194–206.

Russell, A., Mize, J., & Saebel, J. (2001). Coding the social dimension of parent-toddler play in family observational

research. In Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Smart, C., & Neale, B. (2000). Its my life too—children’s perspectives on post divorce parents. Family Law, 30,

163–169.

Smith, J. K., & Wolf, L. (1996). Museum visitor preferences and intentions in constructing aesthetic experience.

Poetics, 24, 219–238.

Stephen, A. (2002) The contemporary museum and leisure: Recreation as a museum function. Curator, 2.

Sterry, P., & Beaumont, E. (2005). Family group visitors to art galleries and museums in the UK. University of

Salford, UK, May.

Tansuhaj, P., & Foxman, E. (1990). The use of triad data to study family purchase decisions. Advances in

Consumer Research, 17, 523–525.

Venkatesh, A. (1990). Longitudinal methods for family consumer research. Advances in consumer research, Vol.

17. Goldberg, Gorn and Pollay.

Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Video-based field studies in museums and galleries, Visitor

Studies Today, Fall.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1985). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.

Westerman, M. A. (2001). Measuring triadic coordinations in mother-father-child interactions in family

observational research. In Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Worts, D. (2002). On the brink of irrelevance? Art museums in contemporary society. Unpublished copy sent to the

author by Douglas Worts.

Wright, P. (1989). The quality of visitor’s experiences in art museums. In P. Vergo (Ed.), The new museology.

London: Reaktion.

Pat Sterry is Head of Research in the School of Art and Design, University of Salford and a Professorial Fellow.

She directs the Art and Design Research Centre in the Adelphi Research Institute and Vis A Vis—a research

Centre for Visitor and Audience Research. Her research interests are multi-disciplinary and include visitor studies,

heritage interpretation and design, urban regeneration and the built environment. Pat is the Principal Investigator

of the AHRC funded Family Group Visitors to Museums and Galleries Project.

Ela Beaumont is a Research Fellow at the University of Salford working with the AHRC funded Family Group

Visitors to Museums and Galleries Project. Her research interests, situated in art galleries and museums, are

interdisciplinary, addressing sociological and anthropological themes such as cultural capital, and the use of cross-

disciplinary research methods with work, individually and collectively, published in Media, Sociology, Museum,

and Education Studies journals.

ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Sterry, E. Beaumont / Museum Management and Curatorship 21 (2006) 222–239 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ast

on U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

28 1

9 Ja

nuar

y 20

14