Museums, the Public, and Public Value

Author(s): Carol Scott

Source: The Journal of Museum Education , SPRING 2010, Vol. 35, No. 1, Museum
Education and Public Value. New Ideas and Strategies (SPRING 2010), pp. 33-42
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25701639

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Museum Education

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Museums, the Public, and Public Value

Carol Scott

Abstract Though adopting a Public Value orientation to guide museum

planning and positioning has advantages, its implementation, particularly
with regard to the role of the public, is complex. Here, the terrain of Public
Value is emergent, fluid and contested. This paper examines various views
of the role of the public in Public Value including that of recipient, re
spondent and participative producer. It maps these roles onto current
museum practice in relation to public participation and finds that, al
though museums have embraced an increasing array of participative
practice, a role for the public as "authorizes" of Public Value requires a
conceptual shift; to allow for greater democracy in decision-making.

Public Value is an emerging model of public sector management which orig

inated with Mark Moore, Director of Harvard's Hauser Center for Nonprofit
Organizations and the author of Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in
Government (1995). Moore illustrates the components of Public Value
through the use of a strategic triangle which shows the relationship between
three main components. Moore titles these three components "the au
thorising environment," "operational capacity," and "public value."
The "authorising" environment refers to the political sphere, the area
which confers legitimacy and provides funding support. It encompasses
those who have the power to grant, withdraw or place conditions on the al
location of resources and those who initiate and implement policy. It in
cludes policy makers and legislators, bureaucrats and funders as well as all
those who seek to influence decision-makers including lobbyists, the media,
special interest groups and professional associations, directors' groups and
government bodies such as the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
(MLA) in Britain and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
in the United States (Moore and Moore, 2005, 37). For the purposes of this

Journal of Museum Education, Volume 35, Number 1, Spring 2010, pp. 33-42.
?2010 Museum Education Roundtable. All rights reserved. 33

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 CAROL SCOTT

paper, I am going to use the term "political environment"1 to des

area.

The second component, operational capacity, refers to the public

institution or organization and the assets and capabilities entrusted
public sector manager. It begins with the idea that an organizat
control over a set of assets and is responsible for using its assets effectiv
the light of existing conditions. These assets include an institution's m
the quality of its leadership, strategic partnerships, and stakehold
tionships as well as its human and monetary resources. The public
manager must use these assets and capacities to address both t
quirements of the political environment and the needs of the public.
The most important public purpose of an institution's operation
pacity is the focus of the next part of the strategic triangle ? the public
that is to be produced for individuals and communities as a result o
stitution using its operational capacity with the approval of the poli
vironment to achieve "... its politically mandated mission?roughly stated, t
a positive difference in the individual and collective lives of citizens" (Mo
Moore: 2005,17).
From the perspective of public managers, Public Value offers an
native to the "public management" of the 1980s and 1990s with its f
utilitarian outcomes determined by economic and social policy and,
imposed on the sector. Public Value holds out the possibility of a new
(Holden, 2004) in which the conflicts, tensions, and contested terrai
characterized this model of public management give way to a more
sensual approach to decision-making in which the political environ
and cultural leaders jointly decide what Public Value should be crea
livered, and measured.
And what of the public in Public Value? This is an unresolved area
the potential for impacts on citizens, it would seem that there is log
gaging the general public in the identification of what value, which prio
and what outcomes they consider important. Moore's position, how
focuses on the negotiation, dialogue and influencing processes that
place between the political and operational environments. He argues
reality, taxpayers do not determine public value in some kind of ref
and there is no process that allows them to earmark public funds.
Moore's perspective, the determination of the public value of arts and
is subject to a complex political process in which individuals with f
power to provide funds make choices (based in part on the guid

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUSEUMS, THE PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC VALUE 35

various stakeholders) about how much public money to spend and for what
particular purposes.

... elected representatives set levels of taxation and, based on their

decisions about what important collective purposes the state should
pursue, pass on a (larger or smaller) portion of tax revenues to public
agencies.... Thus, the proper arbiter of the value of public-sector or
ganizations is less likely to be the customers or clients and more
likely to be the legislators who make choices on behalf of citizens
and taxpayers (Moore and Moore, 2005,15)

Others strongly contest this view. Kelly, Mulgan, and Muers (2002) and
Horner, Lekhi, and Blaug2 (2006) argue for engagement with the public to
determine what constitutes Public Value and envisage a role that offers the
public direct engagement in decision-making. They argue that the political
environment and public sector agencies (the operational environment) have
traditionally failed to create Public Value for reasons ranging from the under
representation of the public in decision-making to ignoring the importance
of recipient satisfaction and disregarding the significance of the public's de
clining trust in government and public service providers.
Kelly et al. (2002, 6) argue the case for public engagement from the per
spectives of both principle and pragmatics. With regard to principle, they
contend that public preferences are at the heart of Public Value in a de
mocracy where only the public can determine what is truly of value to them.
Pragmatically, they point out that engaging the public makes sense for gov
ernments because it gives access to intelligence necessary to gain a better un
derstanding of established preferences and to predict and pre-empt emerging
attitudes and expectations. They also remind us that, as Public Value is a dis
tinctive kind of value created through public funding, a public institution
should use this funding to fulfill its politically mandated mission to make a
positive difference in the individual and collective lives of citizens. That
citizens are central to determining what this difference consists of is a key
tenet asserted by Kelly et al. (2002, 16), Holden (2004, 10) and Horner et al.
(2006, 8). In Blaug, Horner, & Lehki's opinion (2006,7):

If organizations are to create public value in their practices and use

evaluative standards to measure their performance, then those
values and evaluative standards must be authorized by the public.

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36 CAROL SCOTT

THREE ROLES

This brief introduction reveals three approaches to a role for the pu

Public Value creation. The first approach sees the public as the recipien
end-users of value created on their behalf by the joint efforts of the polit
and the organizational environments. The second approach sees the p
as informants, providing needed intelligence to the political and org
tional environments that enables them to keep pace with emerging tr
monitor change and inform policy and planning. The third approach
ognizes the public as the real authorizers of Public Value and advocates
direct engagement, along with political decision-makers and public s
managers, in value identification, direction-setting and evaluat
progress towards commonly-determined goals. The next section offers
clarification about each of these roles.

The Public As Recipients

Ultimately, the creation of Public Value by the political and operationa

ronments on behalf of 'the public, puts the public into the passive role of
cipient," "responsive to some influence" who "takes into one's posses
something offered by another."3 Although the received value may be posi
the role of the public is as end-users of value determined, authored
created on their behalf by the joint efforts of the political and opera
environments.

The Public As Informants

Both the political and the operational environments can benefit from
to intelligence necessary to gain a better understanding of established
erences and to predict and pre-empt emerging attitudes and expecta
Engaging the public as informants in intelligence-seeking exercises for
purposes offers the public a degree of participation. The information f
largely one-way (from the informant to the political or operational
ronment) and may be sought to gain understanding, provide eviden
evaluate or substantiate something, gauge public opinion to a pro
issue, project or process and/or conform to a requirement to seek p
views as the result of policy and/or legislation. While the informant may
some indirect role in the formation of value through information pro

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUSEUMS, THE PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC VALUE 37

Table 1: Three Roles for the Public in Public Value

Recipient Informant Producer

Definition Responsive to some One who gives information Make a contribution,
influence, to take into one's of some fact or occurrence provide input, have a share
possession something in, become involved
offered by another

Role Beneficiary Respondent Creator

Control of Political and operational Political and operational Political, operational an
Decisions environments environments public environments

decision makers are not necessarily under any obligation to involve

public in this way

The Public As Participants

A participative role for the public has other connotations. It is synonym

with "making a contribution," "providing input," "having a share in,"
"becoming involved."4 It describes an active and on-going role for the pu
in Public Value creation, direction setting and monitoring. It is based
principles of equity, a belief in the expertise of the public and a commitmen
to community involvement. These three roles are summarized in Table 1

TAKING THE PULSE IN MUSEUMS

If we now consider the museum setting, we find all three approaches

public participation evident in varying degrees. This increased emphasis
public participation has gained momentum over the last three dec
through the convergence of factors including the impact of goverment polic
and models of public sector management, the implications of leisure com
tition and changed perceptions within the museum profession itself tow
the visitor.

One factor is related to the legacy of public sector management models

that preceded Public Value. The modernizing government reforms that
dominated countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) from the late 1970s witnessed an emphasis on
both economic rationalism and making government funding to public
sector agencies contingent on achievements within a wider policy agenda of

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 CAROL SCOTT

progressive social change. The managerial model underlying the

reforms of this public management system with its emphasis on
based accountability brought the issue of evidence to the forefron
management. Demands for evidence of economic and social retur
vestment found a comfortable indicator in numerical data based o
pation statistics. A primary indicator of engagement continues t
numbers of visitors.
Another factor is found in the extended remit of museums w
occupy a role as part of the attractions and leisure market as well as t
ditional cultural/educational position. Competitive marketing
programs, and acquiring intelligence about the motivational driv
encing consumer's leisure choices have focused attention on stra
building long-term engagement with the public.
Other factors that contribute to the focus on visitor engagem
participation are internal to the museum profession which has sh
a primary focus on collections to increased emphasis on the visit
2003). Influenced by communication theory and behavioural psy
the museum profession recognizes the prior knowledge, attitudes
riences that visitors bring to the museum experience. Education
including that which celebrates "learning by doing," has encour
ways of engaging visitors in museum exhibitions. The multiple v
witness history have opened curators to stories beyond the ac
pertise of professionals.
When we take the pulse of museums and their approaches to
gagement we find examples of all three roles ?the public as reci
public as respondent/informant, as well as evidence of more par
practice.
Both directly and indirectly, the public are the direct recipients of
museum exhibitions, events, and services authored and developed by profes
sional management and staff. Contemporary best practice in exhibition and
program design emphasises access, increased opportunities to interact with
content, changing exhibition and event programs to encourage repeat visi
tation and online provision to an institution's cultural and intellectual
capital.
Audience evaluation and research regularly engage the public as in
formants for studies through which museums gain vital knowledge about
the effectiveness of their programs, emerging trends in audience behaviour
and changes in visitor composition. However, audience research and eval

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUSEUMS, THE PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC VALUE 39

uation also offer opportunities for greater engagement, especially through

front-end studies where public input at the early stages of exhibition and
program development can markedly affect approach, tone, content, and
design.
Significant use of public input into program decision-making is also
more likely to occur where there is a limit to curatorial expertise and the
witness statements, perspectives or experiences of the public are required to
complete the narrative. This happens in holocaust and other social history
museums and often in exhibitions telling the story of culture-specific com
munities. Models of participative direction-setting also exist where museums
have invited the community to develop new public spaces and ongoing edu
cational and public programs.
The defining aspect of these participatory examples is that they tend to
be program-specific, usually of limited duration, and initiated by the
museum. There are fewer examples of public participation in overall organi
zational goal-setting where there is a long-term and more equal relationship
between the museum and the public and a joint stake in the outcomes. This
model of engaging the public in co-production at an institutional level re
quires a paradigm shift requiring further elaboration.
Co-production refers to a way of working whereby decision-makers and
citizens, or service providers and users, work together to create a decision or
a service which works for them all. The approach is value-driven and built on
the principle that those who are affected by a service are best placed to help
design it... It stems from the recognition that if organizations are to deliver
successful services, they must understand the needs of their users and engage
them closely in the design and delivery of those services at every stage of the
decision-making process (http://www.peopleandparticipation.net/display/
methods/Co-production viewed 17th March 2010).
For museum managers, engaging the public as co-producers may well
appear risky and daunting, raising questions about the benefits of embarking
upon such a journey and what precedents there are to offer guidance.

ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CREATING PUBLIC VALUE

One of the reasons for engaging the public as co-producers in creating Public
Value is that it is synonymous with a growing trend to greater democracy in
cultural decision-making. De la Torre and Mason (2002) and Holden (2004)
argue that, while values identification should include the perspectives of

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 CAROL SCOTT

professional experts, the process also needs to involve the public

cipients and creators of value, a fact attested to by both Legget
Scott (2008, 2009), who separately found differences in value iden
between museum professionals and the public. At the core of the
is the question of "whose values" and "what values" are being us
basis for creating Public Value and how the public perspective can
modated in a democracy (Mason, 2002,17).
At pragmatic level, museum managers need to ensure that the
an organization are in tune with those of the public. If the priori
pectations of the public shift, and the culture of a public body doe
satisfaction and trust in the service may be undermined, a point
by research indicating that service users are well attuned to the et
viders (Kelly et al., 2002, 24; Weil, 2002 in Weinberg and Lewis, 2
Basically, service providers need the insights and expertise of use
the right decisions to build effective services. An engaged public with
in shared outcomes can become powerful advocates in negotiation
political environment for a sustainable future. Moreover, at a p
level, Public Value offers both a rationale and support to manage
seeking a leadership model that goes beyond traditional custodial
and embraces strategic response, entrepreneurial vision and chan
1995,20).
It is useful (and perhaps, comforting) to know that there are a growing
number of existing precedents for public involvement in cultural values
identification and direction-setting. Importantly, recent examples in this di
rection revealed the competency and objectivity of the public as a partner.
The Heritage Lottery Fund has convened citizens' juries to articulate
what it is about heritage that the public values. Although the sample sizes are
small, results show an unprompted high level of sophistication on the part
of the public, and an appreciation of what culture can and does achieve, once
they are made aware of the provision (Holden, 2004,39).
Similar outcomes were found by Arts Council England in a much larger
study5 when they sought the public's perspective on both the value of'the arts
and what value they (the public) wanted from the arts. For those concerned
that public participants might be subjectively oriented to the exclusion of
wider collective issues, "Whatpeople wantfrom the arts" (ACE 2008) found that
public participants easily differentiated individual and community value
and, when asked to assume the role of public funder for the arts, focused on
results that would achieve public good for the community, including wide

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MUSEUMS, THE PUBLIC, AND PUBLIC VALUE 41

spread access and engagement and quality experiences to enrich and sustain
lives and build social capital (ACE 2008,4).

CONCLUSION

Museums are in a period of transition. We are challenged to go beyond being

visitor-centered and actively seek a partnership with the public to create
Public Value. To do this, we need to extend our understanding of partici
pative practice, use models for engagement based on collaboration and co
production, and recognize and respect the expertise that the public can bring
to a collective conversation. The impetus to do this is integral to our survival.
The late Stephen Weil, in his book Making Museums Matter (2002), argued
that if museums are not valuable to their communities, they will always be
seen as a luxury, expendable in difficult times. Engaging the public in value
identification and creation offers the potential to build the widest possible
constituency for ongoing museum support.

Notes
1. The reason for using the term "political environment" is to avoid confusion with two ap
plications of the term "authorizing" within the literature on Public Value. Moore (1995),
and Moore and Moore (2005), refer to the policy makers, funders, legislators, bureaucrats,
and elected representatives as the "authorizing environment" while the Work Foundation
(2004, 2006), Kelly et al. (2002), and Holden (2004) claim that only the public can be the
true "authorizers" of Public Value.
2. There were two publications produced by the Work Foundation in 2006 on the subject of
Public Value. Both publications involved the same authors (Horner, Lekhi, and Blaug) but
the order of their names is cited differently on each of the two documents. Both publica
tions are cited in the references of this paper with the author order reproduced as per the
Work Foundation publications.
3. The Macquarie Dictionary online, 2005, http://www.maquariedictionary.com.au
4. The Macquarie Dictionary online, 2005 http://www.maquariedictionary.com.au
5. Arts Council England's study involved 1500 stakeholders and members of the public.

References
Arts Council England (ACE). What people want from the arts. London: Arts Council England, 2008.
Blaug R., Horner L.& Lekhi R. Public value, politics and public management: A literature review. Lon
don: The Work Foundation, 2006.
de la Torre, M. & Mason, R. "Introduction," in M. de la Torre (ed.), Assessingthe values of cultural
heritage. Research report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2006.
Holden, J. Capturing cultural value: how culture has become a tool of government policy, London: DEM
OS, 2004.
Horner L., Lekhi R., & Blaug, R. Deliberative democracy and the role of public managers. Final report of
The Work Foundation's public value consortium. London: The Work Foundation, 2006.

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 42 CAROL SCOTT

Kelly, G., G. Mulgan, & Muers, S. Creating public value: an analytical framework for public serv
form. London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, 2002.
Legget, J. "Measuring what we treasure or treasuring what we measure? Investigating wh
community stakeholders locate the value in their museums." Museum Management an
torship, 24, no. 3 (September 2009): 213-232.
Mason,, R. 2002. "Assessing values in conservation planning: methodological issues and
es." Assessing the values of cultural heritage: research report, ed. M. de la Torre. Los Angeles: T
Getty Conservation Institute: 5-30.
Moore, H. Creating public value: strategic managementin government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
versity Press, 1995.
Moore M. & Moore G. Creating Public Value Through State Arts Agencies. Minneapolis: Arts Mi
2005.
Scott, C. "Using 'Values' to Position and Promote Museums." International Journal of Arts Manage
ment, 13, no.l (Fall, 2008): 28-41.
Scott, C. "Exploring the evidence base for museum value". Museum Management and Curatorship,
24, no. 3, (September, 2009):195-213.
Weil, S. Making Museums Matter. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002.
Weil, S. When the public comes first, what follows? Ten consequences of decentralising the collection and
shiftingthe focus to the public. Public lecture at the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia,
August 27,2003.
Weinberg, M., and Lewis, M. "The public value approach to strategic management." Museum
Management and Curatorship, 24, no. 3, (September, 2009): 253-271.

Carol Scott is a museum consultant based in London, England. As the Director of

Carol Scott Associates, she works internationally with museums to plan for impact,
use change creatively, and identify the Public Value of museums. She was the
Manager of Evaluation and Audience Research at the Powerhouse Museum in
Sydney from 1991-2008 and has more recently worked with London's non
national museums to develop their successful bid as part of the 2012 Cultural
Olympiad program. Her PhD thesis models a value-based typology for assessing
museum performance.

This content downloaded from

95.90.182.215 on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:33:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms