1.
instructions for use
This resource is for anyone who has an interest in the process that lies behind the exhibition. It is an attempt to bring together useful material, information and commentary that others can learn from & comment on.
You can navigate it in different ways -
-
Look at different stages of the project - you can skim down the timeline, or click to go direct to one section.
-
From the point of view of one group - you can hear directly different viewpoints by clicking on the buttons.
-
To see the comments made by the reviewers, you can hover on the red crosses - more detailed comments are in the endnotes section.
-
As an evaluation report - click on the ‘E’ button on the menu to read the evaluator’s commentary about the project.
Or you can move down the timeline, reading and listening to the experiences and viewpoints from multiple voices to get the fullest possible picture.
2.
methodology
Evaluation approach
This resource takes the place of a traditional evaluation report. It aims to capture learning in a format that is accessible at different levels, to represent the many facets of the group experience as honestly and democratically as possible.
-
not about outputs
-
not a written report
-
not a single viewpoint with a single (or lead) editorial voice
It is an attempt to capture learning – as a process not a finished ‘end point’. To include actual voice, without interpretation, translation or transcription individual and shared experiences and how our sense of them shifts over time.
The project represents different things to different people. This evaluative resource attempts to capture something of the mosaic of shifting positions. Material has been gathered over three years through interviews, observations, desk research, participant surveys.
Key moments have been identified by the research group, focused into six areas of inquiry and grouped around a chronological narrative. These inquiries were explored during a one day symposium - 'People. power & curating', and have fed into the evaluation process. The approach is experimental, mirroring the practice and process of the project.
Deciding what should be measured, observed, judged through evaluation required hours of talk and thought. We tested many ideas, designed tools and strategies - much of which was abandoned. However negotiating a path for evaluation played a really valuable part in the development of the wider enterprise - that could honour the values of many, with all their different needs and priorities.
Right to reply
People who have been involved at all stages were invited to review the toolkit and contribute comments and revisions. Some of these are visible as corrections throughout the resource. A full list of comments can be found in the 'endnotes and references' section.
3.
roles
The project set out to challenge knowledge hierarchies and received ways of doing things. Responsibilities were clearly defined from the outset. However, definitions of roles have shifted as the project progressed.
Five key roles and functions are represented in this resource.
The Facillitating Curators convened and supported an integrated curatorial process. Mike Tooby was the architect of the project, visiting regular to steer the process and offer expert professional input. Trish Scott was based at Turner Contemporary, and worked closely with the group, acting as ‘guardian of the process’.
The Gallery - Turner Contemporary held the project within it’s exhibition programme, the curatorial and learning teams working closely on its development.
The Research Group led the curatorial process, working in partnership with the Gallery and Curators.
The Evaluator - Michele Gregson took the position of ‘reflective witness’ to a series of parallel but connected journeys and is the author of this toolkit.
The Audience is defined as those visiting the exhibition - visitors, educators, academics, critics- giving feedback about the project and the show.
Just as the title shifted from a focus on the individual - 'A journey with...' to the more communal 'Journeys with...' the names given to these contributors is not fixed. Like everything else in the resource, these labels are open to question.
4.
themes
The Research Group were asked to map their most significant moments from the project across the timeline. These were then categorised to reflect how individuals experienced these events and milestones. Concentrations of particular themes were noted and added to the timeline.
Each of the five themes thread throughout the timeline, but were seen to be more intensely felt by a number of people at particular points. For example, many identified the early stages as being a particularly intense period of learning - but that doesn’t mean that the learning stopped there. Likewise, individuals experienced feelings of crisis at different points, personal to them, but we have noted a concentration of people having a sense of ‘crisis’ during the decision making process.
These broad categories give an insight into the mood and tempo of the project across three years, and have informed reflections about the process.
5.
endnotes & information
this section is where you can find further information and detail about references made throughout the resource.
1. Aims & Success Indicators
2 - Right to reply
6.
visitor data
Data gathered by COAST (who conduct ongoing visitor research for Turner Contemporary) indicates that visitors to this exhibition had a positive experience, comparing favourably with other shows at the gallery. Journeys with ‘The Waste Land’ saw 114,480 visits to the gallery - the second largest audience for a spring exhibition. Respondents rated the Journey with ‘The Waste Land’ exhibition as 92% “good or very good”.
In addition to this research, members of the research group surveyed 145 visitors. They found the following:
Key findings
Did visitors have a positive experience?
Yes – 91% agreed that they enjoyed the exhibition. 88% would recommend it to others, with almost half (46%) of those surveyed saying that they would strongly recommend it.
Did the knowledge they already had of the poem influence their experience?
It seems so. All of those who felt very familiar with the poem agreed that they would recommend it to others, with 73% making a strong recommendation – higher than across respondents as a whole.
Did those with limited knowledge of the poem learn new things?
Yes, only one respondent said they had learned nothing new at all.
Did those who felt they knew the poem well learn new things and/or deepen their knowledge?
Yes, 86% of those already very familiar agreed that they had learned new things and/or deepened their understanding.
Would those who knew the poem well recommend the exhibition to others?
Yes, 96% of those already very familiar would strongly recommend the exhibition.
What was the experience of those who would recommend it to others?
92% of those recommending the exhibition had learned something new. 80% had deepened their understanding. 75% of this group enjoyed the exhibition. 59% could relate to it easily. Being able to relate to the exhibition did not appear to be as important as gaining knowledge and understanding for most people.
However, of those who were unlikely to recommend the exhibition, only 5% agreed that they could relate easily to the exhibition, even though 73% of them did agree that they enjoyed it....
How many people made a special visit to the gallery to see this exhibition?
58% of those surveyed had come specially to see this exhibition
Did people who came especially know somebody involved with the project?
Most people - 81% - did not know anyone who had been involved. 23% of those that did had come specially to see the exhibition
Were people who were very familiar with the poem likely to have made a special visit?
Yes, 88% of those very familiar with the poem had come specially for the exhibition, compared with 40% of those with little familiarity with the poem.
Did visitors recognise that the exhibition had been curated by a community group?
77% of visitors were aware of the process.
Did visitors think this process made a difference?
Of those that were aware of the process, 87% thought it had made them enjoy the show more.
Could visitors relate easily to the exhibition?
55% agreed that they could, 13% could not, whilst 30% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Did visitors engage with the interpretation materials/
Yes - 93%