1. Instrumental Museum and Gallery Policy Lynn D. Dierking John H. Falk Oregon State University USA

2. IMLS Approach

3. IMLS Outcome Example

4. NSF Approach

5. One other bit…. Based on No Child Left Behind and Academic Competitiveness Council Only certain designs are considered “rigorous” Only certain designs are considered “rigorous” Developed a pyramid with randomized control treatment (RCT) designs at the apex Developed a pyramid with randomized control treatment (RCT) designs at the apex Bottom is “well-matched” comparison groups Bottom is “well-matched” comparison groups Qualitative designs and measures do not even make it on the pyramid Qualitative designs and measures do not even make it on the pyramid Confusion between research and evaluation Confusion between research and evaluation

6. No question there is a need for measurable accountability Who should be defining the metrics? Top down from the government or bottom up from organizations? Why? To legitimize institutional value or improve institutional performance? Is it possible to have one set of metrics that do both? If it was bottom up, what would it look like?

7. Social Context EXTERNAL ASSETS Individuals Organizations Communities INTERNAL ASSETS Physical Human Intellectual FINANCIAL ASSETS Earned Support Contributed Endowment MEETING PUBLIC NEEDS & DESIRES THROUGH PRODUCTS, SERVICES & EXPERIENCES Political Context Economic Context Assessment

8. Assessing Museum Value The good that the organization provides to its visitors. The assets of the organization, including particularly its intellectual capital and brand. The benefits provided by the organization to the community above and beyond the specific good generated for individual visitors or other stakeholders. The quality of the organization’s workplace, including that each employee experiences continued growth and development. The financial health of the organization.