Using Outcome-based Evaluation to Assess the Impact of a Museum-based Program

박물관을 활용한 사회적 약자 지원 교육 프로그램 영향 평가

  • 한주형 (미시간주립대학교 관광학전공) ;
  • 노은정 (미시간주립대학교 관광학전공)
  • Received : 2014.07.11
  • Accepted : 2014.09.12
  • Published : 2014.11.28


Museums increasingly are expected to be accountable for effectiveness of both new and existing programs, and to broaden and diversify community members served. One approach is to expand program services beyond those for traditional on-site visitors to non-traditional more diverse populations, including at-risk populations. Program evaluators are challenged to verify achievement of such lofty goals in the short term and during early program implementation. Nevertheless, it is critical to examine impacts of newly developed programs to determine viability and to improve them. This study assessed the impacts and efficacy of an on-going, non-traditional museum program targeting transitional homeless people in the community. Results presented a strategy for conceptually framing an assessment of a collaborative museum program serving non-traditional museum clients. Also, this study showed how aspects of one program were perceived by participants, and how those perceptions correspond with program outcomes.


Museum Program;Outcome-based Evaluation;At-risk Population;Qualitative Analysis


  1. J. S. Oh, "Development Direction and Analysis on Current Usage of the Museum Concept in Korea," Journal of The Korea Contents Association, Vol.13, No.11, pp.644-654, 2013.
  2. J. Y. Yang. "Museum Education in Korea: Practice and Problems," Journal of the Korea Association of Arts Management, Vol.2, pp.36-53, 2002.
  3. R. I. Simon, "Museum, Civic Life, and the Educative Force of Remembrance," Journal of Museum Education, Vol.31, No.2, pp.113-122, 2006.
  4. D. Chhabra, "Positioning Museums on an Authenticity Continuum," Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.35, No.2, pp.427-447, 2008.
  5. T. Link, "Models of Sustainability: Museum, Citizenship, and Common Wealth," Museums and Social Issues, Vol.1, No.2, pp.173-190, 2006.
  6. J. M. Gold and S. K. Hauser, "Homeless Families: A Treatment Outcome Study," International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, Vol.20, No.2, pp.87-93, 1998.
  7. H. J. Freiberg, Understanding Resilience: Implications for Inner-city Schools and Their Near and Far Communities. In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational Resilience in Inner-City America: Challenges and Prospects (pp.151-165), Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, New Jersey, NY, 1994.
  8. A. Gilmore and R. Rentschler, "Changes in Museum Management: A Custodial or Marketing Emphasis?," The Journal of Management Development, Vol.21, No.9/10, pp.745-760, 2002.
  9. D. Edwards and M. Graham, "Museum Volunteers: A Discussion of Challenges Facing Managers in the Cultural and Heritage Sectors," Australian Journal on Volunteering, Vol.11, No.1, pp.19-27, 2006.
  10. G. W. Kuhne, D. Weirauch, D. J. Fetterman, R. M. Mearns, K. Kalinosky, K. A. Cegles, and L. Ritchey, "Case Studies of Action Research in Various adult Education Settings," New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol.73, pp.41-62, 1997.
  11. Code of ethics for museums. Retrieved from
  12. M. Q. Patton, Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997.
  13. J. Brinkerhoff, "Assessing and Improving Partnership Relationships and Outcomes: A Proposed Framework," Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol.25, pp.215-231, 2002.
  14. J. C. Greene, Qualitative Program Evaluation: Practice and Promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, pp.530-544, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.
  15. M. Scriven, Evaluation thesaurus(4th ed.), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1991.
  16. B. M. Mohr, "The Qualitative Method of Impact Analysis," American Journal of Evaluation, Vol.20, No.1, pp.69-84, 1999.
  17. J. Dart and R. Davies, "A Dialogical, Story-based Evaluation Tool: The Most Significant Change Technique," American Journal of Evaluation, Vol.24, No.2, pp.137-155, 2003.
  18. J. W. Anastas, "Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: Issues and Possible Answers," Research on Social Work Practice, Vol.14, pp.57-65, 2004.
  19. M. Q. Patton, "Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative Analysis," Health Services Research, Vol.34, No.5, pp.1189-1208. 1999.
  20. A. Cornwall and R. Jewkes, "What Is Participatory Research?," Social Science and Medicine, Vol.41, pp.1667-1676, 1995.
  21. T. F. Carney, Collaborative Inquiring Methodology, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1990.
  22. P. Weber, Basic Content Analysis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
  23. C. Bennett, "Up the Hierarchy," Journal of Extension, Vol.13, No.2, pp.7-12, 1975.
  24. D. Harper, "Talking about Pictures: A Case for Photo Elicitation," Visual Studies, Vol.17, No.1, pp.13-26.
  25. C. Glesne, Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction(4th ed.), Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA, 2006.
  26. R. J. Kitto and J. Barnett, "Analysis of Thin Online Interview Data," American Journal of Evaluation, Vol.28, No.3, pp.356-368, 2007.
  27. S. Y. Kim and Y. R. Kweon, "Role conflict Experience of Geriatric Nurse Practitioners," Journal of The Korea Contents Association, Vol.14, No.6, pp.186-199, 2014.
  28. J. A. Irving, and D. I. Williams, "Personal Growth and Personal Development: Concepts Clarified," British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, Vol.27, No.4, pp.517-526, 1999.
  29. E. Gubba and S. Lincon. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London, 1994.