This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 27 October 2014, At: 03:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cultural TrendsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccut20

Commentary 2: One Small Step TakingPart and MuseumsPublished online: 24 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: (2007) Commentary 2: One Small Step Taking Part and Museums, CulturalTrends, 16:4, 361-371, DOI: 10.1080/09548960701692753

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09548960701692753

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 warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising 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

Commentary 2: One SmallStep Taking Part and Museums

Introduction

In May 2007, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published TakingPart: England’s Survey of Leisure, Culture and Sport (Taking Part; Aust & Vine, 2007).The DCMS publishes many reports but few can have been as welcome as this one: it

marks a significant step forward in the understanding of the sector. This first annualreport—available in print and on the DCMS website and covering data collected in

2005/6—is excellent in its clarity and analysis. The authors have delivered somethingwhich all policy makers, consultants and practitioners should be closely reading.

One of the government’s aims is to improve the quality of life for everyone, byproviding people with the chance to get involved with a variety of sports, arts and cul-

tural activities. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has responsi-bility for this and along with their partner organizations, need to know what helps or

hinders people taking part in these activities.Until now there has been no single survey providing the required detail of data on

participation and attendance across the DCMS sectors, and the Department and its

partners relied on compiling research from a variety of sources. Both the DCMSand its Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) partners recognized the need for

quality-assured data on participation, attendance, attitudes and related factorsacross its sectors, particularly to inform policy and planning.

Critically, while there has been an abundance of data collected by individualmuseums for planning purposes, or, more often, as part of producing audience

development and business plans for an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund(HLF), the commissioning of large scale off-site surveys about attendance has beenrare and periodic. The reasons for this are not difficult to find. They are expensive

and no individual museum or gallery has felt the need to survey nationally. Off-site(sometimes called, misleadingly, ‘non-user’) surveys are conducted, but usually only

locally, in the context of the needs of one institution.Dealing with this hole in the data has long been desired and called for. But it is

not until now that the hole has been substantially plugged. The new survey—andthis too is critically important—is going to be an ongoing, rolling survey of

museum and gallery users and non-users. It will provide continuous consistent yearon year data where before we had only occasional bursts of light to illuminate the dark-

ness. The DCMS is to be strongly congratulated for having managed to create thissource of enlightenment.

Cultural Trends

Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 361–371

ISSN 0954-8963 (print)/ISSN 1469-3690 (online) # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09548960701692753

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Taking Part survey has been commissioned by DCMS in partnership with Arts

Council England, Sport England, English Heritage and the Museums, Libraries andArchives Council. It began collecting data in July 2005 and published its first

Annual Report in May 2007. Between July 2005 and July 2006, 28,117 interviewswere conducted with adults in England aged 16 or over, in their own homes.Two methodological issues need to be flagged up: firstly, the results in Taking Part

are largely expressed in terms of what proportion of a particular socio-economic/demographic group attend identified cultural forms or activities at least once a year.

This is quite different from the much more common on-site survey which tells uswhat proportion of a museum’s visitors, for example, come from which socio-

economic/demographic group. The two need to be carefully separated and notconfused. Conversion from one to the other for direct comparisons (for trend analysis

purposes, for example) has to be achieved by a conversion process facilitated by the useof census data.Secondly, the Taking Part survey is produced with the needs of government and

DCMS to the fore. We are told that the key objectives of this project are to:

. provide a robust measurement of the Departmental Public Service Agreement(PSA) target 3;

. meet the key data requirements of stakeholders around the general theme of partici-

pation, attendance and attitudes amongst individual DCMS targets at a nationallevel; and

. provide data comparable across different sectors.

The dataset will allow robust measurement of the Departmental PSA target onincreasing participation and attendance amongst priority groups. In the past, the

DCMS has not been able to report on progress against similar targets with the samelevel of confidence over accuracy that will be provided by Taking Part.

However, this focus on government policy concerns (perfectly understandable)means that there will still be a need for other surveys to explore issues which may,for example, be of greater interest to particular sectors, such as museums—including

individual institutions, to programmes such as Renaissance in the Regions, or togeneric groups of museums, such as the Nationals. But Taking Part will produce a

benchmark to assess other research against and to also stimulate greater enquiry asto what the data means when we finally have it in quality assured quantity.

This Commentary

The purpose of this brief commentary on the published report on Taking Part isprincipally to introduce it to a wider readership, to make some preliminary obser-

vations on the significance of the first year’s results for museums and galleries, andto consider what we may expect from the survey in the future. It reviews the first

year’s results in the context of previous data, where that is available.In this respect, it is a response to Neil Churchill’s commentary in this issue of

Cultural Trends which examines The Golden Age of the Arts? Taking Part Survey

362 S. Davies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Findings on Arts Engagement Among Older People. The Golden Age examines what the

headline findings of Taking Part reveal and use them to highlight the importance of agein arts engagement. The next stage in their study would be to conduct multivariate

analysis on the data and try to untangle the interacting influences of poverty, trans-port, health and access in order to try and understand the reasons behind the obser-vable headline statistics.

The present commentary takes a different route. It follows similar principles asEmily Keaney and Anni Oskala’s article—it looks at the published headline results

and tries to see what pointers exist for further research on emerging trends or features.But rather than considering the arts, this study focuses on museums. Like the arts, they

are a highly visible part of the cultural and heritage landscape, consuming not incon-siderable sums of public money each year. It is timely to consider them now because

two of the most high profile DCMS successes since 1997 have been free admission forthe National Museums and the returns on investment in the Renaissance in theRegions programme.

The Taking Part published report, of course, only covers a selective summary ofwhat the research might reveal. Multivariate analysis of the data will reveal much

more than has been published and clearly the value of Taking Part will increase yearafter year as the dataset expands. But, for the moment, this commentary confines

itself to the headline results as they apply to museums and galleries. It does notcomment on how museums and galleries compare with other cultural and heritage

sectors. That sort of analysis seems best left until Taking Part has a few years’ dataunder its belt.

It is worth observing that the survey can, or will be able to, identify interestingtrends in the consumption of cultural and heritage products. Questions about whoconsumes what will find answers. But it does less well in terms of revealing motivations

or directly assessing the effectiveness of government policy. We cannot, for example,directly deduce whether government spending in this or that area has been efficient

or effective.

Headline Results

This section presents a summary of the results for the first year (2005/6) of the survey,and considers how new or illuminating these have proved to be. All Taking Part datarefers to England only.

Frequency of Attendance

The top headline is that 42 per cent of all adults in England (16.8 million) attended a

museum at least once during the survey year; 25 per cent apparently attended once ortwice, 17 per cent three times or more a year and 3–4 per cent attended at least once a

month.Table 1 attempts to show how this new statistic fits with what has been observed in

previous surveys since 1990. The methodological issues are discussed in Davies (2005),

Cultural Trends 363

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

but it can be seen that, if one accepts these figures at face value, the new result fits

within our understanding of trends over the last 17 years.It appears that the proportion of UK adults visiting at least once a year dipped a

little towards the end of the 1990s (though most observers agree that the November1999 MORI survey (MORI, 2001), result was unreliable but has since picked upagain. The reasons for this ‘revival’ (which should not be exaggerated, given the stat-

istical error ranges) could be the wave of HLF supported refurbishments across thecountry. Whatever the reason, the Taking Part figure of 42 per cent fits well within

existing knowledge.One further observation highlighted in the Taking Part report is the fact that only 8

per cent of those who visited at least once a year appear to have visited any museummore than four times a year (Aust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.1). The museum visiting

experience is therefore a relatively infrequent, although a large number of peoplesample it. Location will have something to do with this. Someone living near alarge urban museum may visit more frequently than someone who does not. But it

does raise a question about repeat visiting and how one persuades more people tomake museum visiting a larger part of their leisure or learning activity.

Profile of the Visitors

Age

Table 2 shows the predictable ‘bulge’ between ages 25 and 64, with museum-visitingbeing a little less popular in the 16–24 age group and unsurprisingly falling off

quite sharply with old age (and doubtless the associated mobility issues).What is different about Taking Part’s findings is that while other large surveys in the

past have suggested a decline in the proportion of over-65s, Taking Part appears to

restore it to a level last seen several years ago.

GenderThere were no significant differences in rates of attendance between males (43 per

cent) and females (42 per cent).

Disability and illness

Adults with limiting disability/illness had significantly lower rates of attendance,though this is probably true of all social activities that take place outside the home

or the immediate environment.

Table 1 UK Adults Visiting a Museum/Gallery in the Last 12 Months (%)

Year 1991 1995 1997 1999 (Feb.) 1999 (Nov.) 2004 2005/6

% 42 38 37 35 28 37 42

Sources: Davies, 2005; Aust & Vine, 2007, p. 30.

364 S. Davies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

EthnicityWhite attenders (43.1 per cent) contrast sharply with Asian (31.7 per cent) and Black

(31.5 per cent) attenders.

Socio-economic groupOne characteristic of museum visiting continues to haunt the sector: the belief that

museums are largely visited by the middle classes (the ‘ABs’) and that they are too‘academic’ or ‘boring’ for the ‘C2DEs’. The sharp end of government policy for

museums is to increase the number of new visitors each year and to increase the pro-portion of C2DE visitors. There will thus be particular interest in the Taking Part

results for this area.Table 3 reinforces accepted wisdom: that a higher proportion of the managerial and

professional occupations attend museums than others in the workforce; and that the

employed are more likely to visit than the long-term unemployed.Table 4 attempts to set the Taking Part results in a longer time context. Unfortu-

nately there are some technical difficulties to overcome. Since 2001 the National Stat-istics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SeC) has been the classification system used

in all national official statistics. Taking Part uses the National Statistics protocols toensure a high degree of quality assurance and also makes it easier to directly

compare cultural and heritage statistics with those for the population at large.However, the well-known Social Class based on occupation (SC) classification

system is still considered easier to use and understand by many. The SC categories

(A/B/C1/C2/D/E) are well embedded in the minds of users and their use continues.‘Converting’ the SC classification to the NS-SeC classification is difficult, involving the

reconciliation of a 6-point system with an 8-point system. It is made easier if oneassumes that the first four categories in Table 3 equate to C2DE and the second

four to ABC1, and that is the basis of the figures in Table 4 (which make use of theconversion to percentages of total visitors featured in the second and third columns

of Table 3).

Table 2 Trends in the Age Profile of Museum and Gallery Visitors

16–24 years 25–44 years 45–64 years 65þ years

1991a 16 41 28 151994b 14 44 30 132003c 12 43 35 112005/6d 12 40 32 16

The table shows the % of the total number of people who say that they have visited at least

once in the last 12 months, according to age groups.

Sources:aDavies, 1994, p. 53 (Table 5.3).bDavies, 1994, p. 53 (Table 5.4).cDavies, 2005, Table 13; MORI, 2004.dAust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.2.

Cultural Trends 365

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

If the figures in Table 4 are reliable, the latest results from Taking Part reinforce a

trend observable from previous surveys, that between about 1994 and about 2004there was a considerable shift in the proportion of ABC1 and C2DE visitors to

museums. The movement was from about 60 per cent ABC1s to about 75 per cent.

Table 3 The Socio-economic Profile of Museum and Gallery Visitors (aged 16þ) 2005/6,by NS-SeC classification (England only)

Classification

% of whomvisit at leastonce a year

Numberfrom each

classification

% of totalvisiting at leastonce a year

Never worked and long-termunemployed

21.9 290,111 2.6

Routine occupations 24.2 775,311 6.8Semi-routine occupations 30.4 1,258,468 11.1Lower supervisory and technicaloccupations

32.5 820,989 7.2

Small employers and ownaccount workers

39.2 971,953 8.6

Intermediate occupations 45.6 1,521,524 13.4Lower managerial andprofessional occupations

55.8 3,714,560 32.8

Higher managerial andprofessional occupations

64.8 1,982,853 17.5

Totals 11,335,769 100.0

Sources: National Statistics, 2001 Census Table KS14a. Retrieved 19 September 2007, from www.statistics,gov.uk/

STATBASE/Expodata/Speadsheets/KS14a; Aust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.6.

Table 4 Trends in the Socio-economic Profile ofMuseum and Gallery Visitors

ABC1 C2DE

1991a 55 451994b 56 441999c 66 342003d 75 252005/6e 72 28

The table shows the % of the total number of people who say

that they have visited at least once in the last 12 months,

according to socio-economic groups. The first four rows

use the SC classification; the fifth uses the same system

but the original data has been ‘converted’ from the NS-

SeC classification system.

Sources:aDavies, 1994, p. 56 (Table 5.7).bDavies, 1994, p. 57 (Table 5.8).cMORI, 2001, p. 16.dDavies, 2005; MORI, 2004.eAust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.6.

366 S. Davies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Assuming that the figures are a true reflection of reality, does this indicate a

significant government policy failure? Not necessarily. It is a well-known marketingmaxim that it is easier to recruit more customers from the ranks of those similar to

existing customers than it is to penetrate currently unsympathetic or disinterestedgroups or markets. What may be happening in the museums and galleries sector isthat the improvements in content, presentation, child-orientation and so on which

have undoubtedly occurred over the last decade are attracting more C2DE customers,but are attracting even more ABC1 visitors and users. Thus although the government

objective of getting more of the C2DE group into our museums is being achieved, theproportion of ABC1 group customers is also increasing.

There may be other factors at work too. The population in general is becoming moremiddle class and there is a gradual drift into the upper categories. The government

policy of free admission to the National Museums and of promoting the Renaissancein the Regions programme may have contributed as well. Finally, when governmentdoes something well, even if it is intended to support and help the more needy and

underprivileged, the first people to spot this and make use of it are the middle classes.

Personal incomeTable 5 is interesting because this statistic is rarely collected. It broadly shows two‘lines’ segmenting the likelihood of visiting by personal income. One is at £20,000;

the other at £50,000.

Tenure

Table 6 reinforces a clear trend relating to income and social status, but again usefulbecause it is data rarely collected.

HouseholdThere is yet more novel data in Table 7, showing a breakdown by household structure.

This is interesting because it suggests that the frequency of attendance is not particu-larly influenced by whether or not the visitor has children.

Table 5 Attendance by Personal Income: England2005/6

Annual income

% within band who attended amuseum/gallery at least once in

last 12 months

Nothing 40.9Under £10,000 35.5£10,000–19,999 41.2£20,000–29,999 50.9£30,000–39,999 55.9£40,000–49,999 53.6£50,000þ 65.6

Source: Aust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.7.

Cultural Trends 367

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Qualifications

With Table 8 we are back to much more familiar territory. Essentially, the Taking Partresults tell us that someone with A-levels or higher qualifications is twice as likely to

visit museums as someone who has qualifications below the level of A-levels.

Government office region

There have always been—often inexplicable—regional differences in audienceattendance levels at museums. The differences, which are not huge if you exclude

London, are difficult to explain in this study. One might speculate that free admissionto the Nationals has helped put London in pole position in the Taking Part survey, butwhat explanation is there for the low score for the West Midlands?

Table 6 Attendance by Tenure: England 2005/6

Type of tenure

% within tenure type whoattended a museum/gallery atleast once in last 12 months

Owners 45.5Private rented sector 46.8Social rented sector 24.9

Source: Aust & Vine, 2007, Table 4.2.8.

Table 7 Attendance by Household Structure: England 2005/6

Household structure

% within household structure typewho attended a museum/gallery at

least once in last 12 months

1 adultþ no children 37.52þ adultsþ no children 43.5Adultsþ children 43.2Lone parent 38.3

Source: Aust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.9.

Table 8 Attendance by Qualifications: England 2005/6

Qualifications

% within band who attendeda museum/gallery at leastonce in last 12 months

No qualifications 22.7Some qualifications—level unknown 32.5Below A-levels 35.4Trade apprenticeships 31.5A-levels and above 57.9

Source: Aust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.10.

368 S. Davies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

There is no significant difference in visit frequency between urban areas (42 per

cent) and rural areas (44 per cent).

Main Reasons for Non-Attendance

About one-third seem uninterested in visiting museums and a further quarter feel that

theydo not have the time (whichmay be a sub-set in part of the first) (Table 10). Togethertheymake up the 60 per cent who are not visiting at least once a year. Onemight speculate

that those who are not interested have fewer qualifications and are poorer. But somemultivariate analysis against the results in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 6 might be very interesting.

Previous studies have used different protocols, making comparison with the newTaking Part data a little difficult. Table 11 summarizes some previous findings.

There is some correlation between the Taking Part findings and previous studies butno clear trend evidence. About one-third of respondents say that they do not have timeto visit. A further 40 per cent or so are not particularly interested in visiting. Most of

the rest claim more tangible reasons for not going: poor health; poor transport;location or opening hours; and, of course, the existence of an admission charge.

In 1994, By Popular Demand concluded that 40 per cent of UK adults were regularvisitors to museums and galleries (going at least once a year), 40 per cent were

‘occasional’ visitors, ‘and the final 20per cent rarely go’ (Davies, 1994, p. 39).

Table 9 Attendance by Government Office Region (England)

Region 1991 2005 2005/6

North East 38 42North West 38 40Yorkshire & Humberside 44 39East Midlands 37 41West Midlands 31 35East of England 42 44London 42 51South East 43 44South West 41 40

Sources: Davies, 1994, Figure 4.3; Aust & Vine, 2007, Figure 4.2.11.

Table 10 Main Reasons for Non-attendance atMuseums and Galleries

Main reason for not visitingmuseums and galleries % of respondents

Not really interested 32.6It’s difficult to find the time 27.4Health isn’t good enough 8.0‘Never occurred’ to go 7.0‘No need to go’ 6.0

Source: Aust & Vine, 2007, Table 4.3.1.

Cultural Trends 369

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

No study since then has seriously challenged this basic breakdown. Looking just at that20 per cent who do not go, the Taking Part results could be interpreted to suggest that

the ‘hard core’ of people who are just not interested in visiting museums and galleries(and by implication are going to be difficult to tempt or persuade) have not substan-tially changed their reasons for not going and there is no justification for being

optimistic about changing their minds.

Main Reasons for Attending

The importance of the temporary exhibition programme is one clear message inTable 12, along with, perhaps, a suggestion that the importance of children in encoura-

ging visits could be sometimes overstated.

Socialization

Aust & Vine (2007, p. 37) state that ‘those who were taken to museums/galleries as achild had significantly higher recent attendance rates than those who were not taken asa child (53% and 29% respectively)’. Although intuitively suspected, this is a useful

piece of evidence to support the importance of getting children into museums.

Conclusions

In many respects it is too early to derive conclusions from Taking Part. Whenwe have 3

or 4 years’ worth of data we will be able to say so much more. If the data is consistentthen the quality assurance safeguards will have worked and serious trend analysis will

be possible. The large off-site surveys available to date have always been weakened byconcerns over quality assurance (as well as the failure to construct a methodologically

robust series).Nevertheless, it is possible to see where Taking Part is going to be valuable, beyond

providing a longitudinal series of consistent data. The adoption of National Statistics’

Table 11 Reasons for Not Visiting a Museum or Art Gallery in the Last 12 Months (%)

Reason 2004 Nov. 1999 Feb. 1999

No time/too busy/no opportunity 32 6 2I’m not interested in visiting 22 n/a n/aNothing particular I want to see 19 41 33Find it difficult to get there or get around formedical/health reasons

11 12 13

Admission charges are too high 8 10 14Poor public transport/too far to travel 7 8 12Museums/galleries are boring 6 12 12Children wouldn’t be interested 4 6 8Not open when I have time to visit 4 3 8

Source: Davies, 2005, Table 17.

370 S. Davies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

protocols will facilitate more sophisticated studies of the place of museums in society

and establish some helpful standards.On that point, it is to be hoped that Taking Part will be the springboard to introducing

more consistency into data collection not just by the DCMS agencies but by institutions,the HLF and consultants too. The Renaissance programme has initiated some rational-ization in data collection and there seems no reason that Taking Part cannot do the same.

The Taking Part surveys should provide us with some essential benchmarking data.This could have important consequences for how performance management is

approached in the future, including Audit Commission performance indicators.Until now, this has been difficult. But once you have a national set of quality

assured statistics then all other data can, theoretically, be compared with it.Taking Part will, however, not be the answer to everything. It will inevitably be

focused on government policy concerns. There will still be the need for othersurveys to fill the gaps.

This first annual report on the Taking Part data has already produced some valuableobservations and questions. Participation appears to be on the increase. It may be thatnot only are there more new users but the degree of penetration into the ABC1s

has also increased. There are many questions and suggestions as to the directionthat museums might go in the future. We look forward to reports to come.

Stuart DaviesSDA, London

stuartwdavies@btinternet.com

References

Aust, R., & Vine, L. (Eds). (2007). Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport.Annual report 2005/6. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Davies, S. (1994). By popular demand: A strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and artgalleries in the UK. London: Museums & Galleries Commission.

Davies, S. (2005). Still popular: Museums and their visitors 1994–2004. Cultural Trends, 14(1),67–105.

MORI. (2001). Visitors to Museums and Galleries in the UK. London: MORI/Resource.MORI. (2004) Visitors to Museums and Galleries 2004. London: MORI/Museums, Libraries and Archives

Council. Retrieved 19 September 2007, from http://www.mla.gov.uk/documentation/mori

Table 12 Main Reasons for Attendance at Museums and Galleries

Main reason for attendance % of respondents

To see a specific exhibition/display 31.6General interest in the subject of museum/collection 29.2Something to interest the children 15.2Part of a group or tour 5.0Meeting with friends or family members 4.0Sightseeing 4.0

Source: Aust & Vine, 2007, Table 4.3.2.

Cultural Trends 371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 03:

34 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014