Measuring and Understanding Diversity Is Not So Simple: How Characteristics of Personal Identity Can Improve Museum Audience Studies

ABSTRACT

For decades, museums have been seeking diversity in their audiences, for reasons including equity, vitality, community relations, and audience development. The initial emphasis on diversity was about race, and although museum initiatives and programming forged ahead with evolving definitions of diversity, the visitor studies field has a mixed record of participating in that evolution. The usefulness of visitor demographics in representing diversity has been debated and, although the field has exploded simple conceptions such as “the typical visitor,” visitor research professionals have not thoroughly applied our skills to help museums understand how to define, encourage, and monitor diversity, or to document its benefits. This article suggests that more thoughtful measures of audience diversity can be created by expanding demographics with characteristics of personal identity. Pragmatic examples of such measures in visitor research are presented.     

The Many Faces of Psychoontology

Psychoontology is a philosophical theory of the cognizing subject and various related matters. In this article. I present two approaches to the discipline—the first proposed by Jerzy Perzanowski, the second by Jesse Prinz and Yoram Hazony. I then undertake to bring these into unity using certain ideas from Husserl and Frege. Applying the functor qua, psychoontology can be described as a discipline concerned with: (a) the cognizing subject qua being—this leads to the question: what kind of being is the subject (is it an object?, simple or complex?, a process?) and what makes him/her/it possible; (b) being qua cognized, this leads to the question: under what conditions can we access the world? Since the notion of being qua cognized might seem peculiar, I present its context and discuss it in detail in the last section.