What Do We “Know” About Museum Audiences?
In reviewing our recent blog posts, I realized that we don't talk as often about museum audiences as I would have expected. This surprised me because—as a company with over 35 years of history—we have learned so much about museum audiences over the years. We also advocate for museums to center their work around people! Therefore, I wanted to tap into our collective knowledge and share some key insights about museum audiences.
The writing journey was interesting as I found myself switching perspectives—sometimes putting on the hat of a researcher🎩, an evaluator👒, or a strategist🧢. (Apologies, my hat emoji options are limited so don’t read too much into what icon I connected to each perspective!).
On Knowledge
I’d like to put on my researcher hat 🎩 and state emphatically: knowledge is NOT static. I believe it is harmful to dismiss something as learned (i.e., check it off the list and move on). Rather, knowledge is about questioning, recognizing that you know nothing, and even unlearning. That is, developing knowledge is an ongoing process.
“I know only one thing; that I know nothing.”
"The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn."
On Action
However, as a strategist🧢, I believe there are times when we should operate from the assumption of “known.” Because if we are constantly in a state of questioning, we can get trapped in an inaction loop, overthinking, or analysis paralysis.
"Thinking too much leads to paralysis by analysis. It's important to think things through, but many use thinking as a means of avoiding action."
On the Use of Information
The concept of what we can agree is “known” often comes to mind for me when a museum approaches us about audience research and engagement work. Ideally, a museum will come to us with at least a vague idea about what they want to learn about their museum’s audience AND can identify how they will use this information. With my evaluator hat on👒, I believe the use or utility of knowledge for decision-making and change is essential to the ethics of data collection (i.e., actionable and not just nice to know).
“Gathering data that ‘might be interesting’ is not an ethical use of data.”
—Joe Heimlich, researcher & evaluator for museums and informal science
On What We Know About Museum Audiences
Sometimes, the questions museums have about their audiences do not feel like ones that warrant new, human subjects audience research. Rather there is literature, other wisdom, or ways of knowing in the field that sufficiently address the museum’s questions. This came to mind as I was rereading Marilyn G. (Molly) Hood’s article, “After 70 Years of Audience Research, What Have We Learned? Who Comes to Museums, Who Does Not, and Why?” While published in 1993, this article continues to feel relevant to museums today. It also reminds us that audience research and the field of visitor studies has a large body of research to learn from.
Here are some things we know about museum audiences from published research, reaffirmed by Kera Collective’s own audience research and evaluation knowledge base:
Museum visitors tend to come from privileged backgrounds, with high educational attainment and high household incomes (Hood, 1993; Korn, 1995; Lussenhop & Auster, 2025)
Museum visitors are often socially motivated, enjoying spending time with family and friends and seeking human connections (Falk, 2009; Dilenschneider, 2015; Lussenhop & Auster, 2025)
Museum audiences differ seasonally by geographic location (Arthur Niehoff in 1959, as cited in Hood, 1993; A Four-Season Survey of Visitors' Experiences Across 15 of the Smithsonian's Museums and its Zoo, 2017; Kera Collective study for the United States Botanic Garden, 2023).
People tend to bring their children to science, natural history, and children’s museums over art museums (Wilkening, 2024; Lussenhop & Auster, 2025).
Museum visitors (and people generally) need physical comfort and to feel cared for (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; Hood, 1993; Rand, 1997; Serrell, 2017)
Museum fatigue is real; people hit points of physical fatigue (make seating widely available!) but also mental saturation (Gilman, 1916; Robinson, 1928; Alger, 2025)
Museum visitors move relatively quickly through galleries, spending 20 minutes on average and visiting fewer than half of the available exhibits (Serrell, 2017, Serrell, 2020).
Museum visitors DO read but they won’t read everything. Given the average reading speed with consideration of actual time spent in museums, museum labels should be about 100 words (200 words max). (Reitstätter, Karolin Galter & Flora Bakondi, 2022, Serrell, 2025). Accessibility guidance recommends museum labels should use a font size of 24pt, but adjust larger depending on how far away a viewer may be (Smithsonian Guidelines for Accessible Exhibit Design).
In Reflection
As an evaluator 👒, data-informed decision making is important to me. But audience research is a big endeavor that takes time away from people—museum staff and museum audiences. Time is a gift, so I ultimately hope for everyone’s time to be used wisely. Here are some questions that museum staff should consider when thinking about audience research:
What knowledge already exists?
Does it still seem relevant to our museum’s situation? Why or why not?
Does the benefit of conducting audience research within the context of our specific museum outweigh the burden placed on museum audiences?
And, some questions for evaluators and knowledge generators who want to ensure existing knowledge about museum audiences is widely used and not forgotten:
How do we disseminate information more effectively?
What funding or projects can help support more literature reviews and dissemination?
Outside of literature, how can we advance other ways of knowing to promote action across the museum field?
