Rethinking the Role of Museums in Society

Dr. John H. Falk is the Principal of John H. Falk, LLC. He was the Founder and long-time CEO of the Institute for Learning Innovation and is Emeritus Sea Grant Professor of Free-Choice Learning at Oregon State University. He is internationally recognized as a leading expert on well-being and free-choice learning. For more than 50 years, Dr. Falk has been investigating why people go to museums, what they do there, and what benefits they derive from these experiences. He has authored over 250 articles and chapters, hundreds of technical reports, and more than two dozen books. His most recent books are The Value of Museums: Enhancing Societal Well-Being and Leaning into Value: Becoming a User-Focused Museum. Like all his work, these books emphasize the importance of viewing the museum experience through the eyes of the user.

Diana:

Museums have already played many roles in society, serving as places of education, cultural preservation, historical documentation, and public engagement. Over time, they have evolved beyond simply displaying artefacts to becoming spaces that encourage learning, dialogue, and community participation. As societies continue to change, museums also adapt to meet new social, cultural, and technological needs. Building on their existing functions, you argue that museums should embrace a new role—something akin to that of the Societal Elder, as you have outlined in your article, Museums as Societal Elder.

John:

For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, museums helped to fill a critical cultural void. Along with libraries and schools, museums were one of the few institutions committed to providing people with the opportunity to gain insights and understanding about the human and natural world. For most of human history, information about the world was limited and hard to come by. That is no longer the case. Everyone now has nearly limitless, continuously updated information and images at their fingertips, an ability to learn about virtually any topic or subject they might care to know about, wherever they are, whenever they need it. In short, the need for time-consuming, static information dispensaries like museums has largely come and gone.

However, despite living in a world that is information rich, most people feel like they are meaning and wisdom poor. We live in a society where people experience fragmentation, disorientation, loneliness, historical amnesia, and short-term thinking. In short, we live in a world that has lost many of the societal roles once played by a community’s elders, individuals one could turn to who were rich in lived experience, historical knowledge, and most importantly, wisdom. 

I am proposing that museums, as a community, try to imagine what would happen if they attempted to proactively fill this societal void. What if museums, building on existing practices and capabilities, could become the places people go to for reflection and historical perspectives on current problems? What if museums could become places that specialized in providing emotional connection, that were known for being places that supported personal growth and enhanced well-being?

Diana:

These are important questions, and these are not challenges that museums have to address alone. But what was the key moment or insight that led you to this perspective?

John:

What motivated me to think this way is the research I’ve been doing over the last 50+ years. Again and again, it has confirmed the value that museums already create, even though many museums don’t fully recognise—or even acknowledge—that value. The public is already seeking museums out for reasons that align with this idea. People come to museums looking for places that can support them when they feel lonely, disoriented, or disconnected from history, culture, and collective wisdom.

So, in many ways, what I’m proposing is not that museums completely reinvent themselves. Rather, I’m suggesting that they fully commit to a form of value they are already creating. At the same time, they should be willing to let go of roles that served them well for more than a century but are, frankly, no longer essential—particularly the role of being the world’s encyclopaedia. Museums can no longer compete as one of society’s primary information sources, nor do they need to. Of course, this does not mean abandoning accuracy, authenticity, or the responsibility to engage deeply with evidence and history. Instead, museums can become places that allow people to contemplate their own lives within historical contexts, to understand themselves in relation to other societies and communities, and to explore what it means to be creative and human across diverse populations and experiences. The key in the above is for museums to perfect the ability to be relatable and relevant to an individual’s lived reality.

These are all positive contributions that museums are capable of making, and in many ways are already making in small ways. That is what I am advocating for. More than anything, I see this as a centering exercise: looking deeply at two things. First, what are the needs of society that museums, as public institutions, should be committed to supporting—not simply doing what they want to do because they believe it is important. And second, how can the expertise, collections, and unique affordances of museums be used to support those needs in ways that directly connect to users’ lives?

The idea of the Societal Elder emerged from this recognition: by asking what society needs from museums as public institutions and how museums’ expertise and unique capabilities can support those needs. It is less about reinvention and more about refocusing museums on the forms of value they are uniquely positioned to create.

Diana:

Your research also shows that many people come to museums for experiences connected to reflection and connection that support people’s social, emotional, and intellectual well-being. But these responses often come from existing museum visitors. How can museums communicate this broader role—and the value they provide— not only to people who don’t yet see museums as places that are relevant to them, but also internally in their own organisations?

John:

My research also raises an important question about how museums define success. Rather than focusing only on increasing visitor numbers, museums should also consider how to create deeper, more meaningful experiences for the people who already come—experiences that encourage them to return again and again.

I have even suggested that museums should rethink what it means to be a frequent visitor. Today, it is common for museums to consider as a frequent visitor someone who visits two or three times a year. I would ask, why couldn’t museums become places people visit weekly? We regularly return to places that meet our needs, whether that is a gym, a market, or sources of entertainment. The challenge is to create museum experiences that are relevant, engaging, and valuable enough to become part of people’s everyday lives, and of course the experiences must also be easily accessible.

My research has been fascinating because it has helped define the specific well-being outcomes that museums create—across personal, intellectual, social, and physical dimensions. But it is important to clarify that well-being is not simply about happiness or feeling good. It can also come from curiosity, understanding, connection, and even engaging with difficult subjects that help us make better sense of the challenges within the world.

What surprised me most was the consistency and lasting impact of these experiences. When I asked visitors a month after their museum visit whether they had experienced these forms of well-being, more than 99% said yes, and many said the effects lasted a week or two beyond their visit. People described feeling more connected to others, calmer, more curious, and inspired by what they encountered. Even though people may spend only a few hours in a museum, the value of that experience continues long afterward. More than 90% of visitors reported multiple positive outcomes across different dimensions of well-being.

Another important finding from the research is that demographic factors did not predict people’s experiences. Age, gender, education, income, visitor frequency, or background made little difference—people across all groups reported positive outcomes. What did matter was why people came. Visitors who came for social connection, relaxation, or personal interest tended to have stronger outcomes in those areas. Most notably, the people who came with a deep personal interest in the subject—often professionals or dedicated enthusiasts—reported the highest levels of satisfaction. However, this group represented less than 10% of visitors and largely reflected the same interests and perspectives as museum professionals.

What this research shows, and what needs to be communicated broadly, is the fact that museums are already creating meaningful value for the people who visit them—and though this value is both widespread and enduring, currently they continue to disproportionately benefit a select few. To reach their full potential, museums will need to overcome their current, unduly narrow audience engagement strategies. To truly embrace their role as a Societal Elder, museums will need to design experiences that better serve a broader public. They have the capacity to help more people access the value they are already capable of providing, but that will require real changes and real commitment.

Diana:

Transforming museums into Societal Elders will require a fundamental shift in how they are understood, both within the museum sector and by the public. Where do you think this transformation should begin, and who needs to lead it?

John:

One important point about the idea of the museum as Societal Elder is that it should be understood as a metaphor, not a demographic category. It is about the role museums can play: providing a space where people can learn from past experiences, explore how other societies have addressed challenges, and gain perspective on their own lives.

This is not a quick transformation. Because museums are deeply embedded in public perception and people’s existing habits, changing how society understands and uses museums will require long-term, collective effort. While the idea builds on strengths museums already have, making this shift will require changes within museums themselves. To begin with, museum professionals will need to rethink what makes their institutions relevant in today’s society—that relevance is not, as many professionals still think, the museum’s collection, but rather the true relevance of museums today is their ability to support people and their needs. Thus, the focus of the museum needs to move beyond objects and information toward the human experiences the museum is capable of facilitating.

At a time when society is facing increasing polarization, loneliness, and digital overload, museums have an opportunity to strengthen communication, empathy, reflection, and human connection. Objects remain important, but they need to be seen as the means rather than the end. The real value of museums lies in how they use their collections to help people better understand themselves, one another, and the world they share.

Diana:

I am sure you can share some good examples of how museums have successfully fulfilled this role. 

John:

Yes, of course. In the blog I wrote, one of the examples that I gave was a museum in Belgium that invited visitors to describe a painting to a blind person. The experience wasn’t just about art—it created a meaningful human connection and encouraged visitors to observe the artwork more deeply. “Radio Bart” became incredibly popular because it transformed a traditional museum visit into a shared experience.

Another example is the What About AIDS exhibition developed by science centres in the United States during the early years of the AIDS epidemic. Museums partnered with local healthcare professionals who were available to answer visitors’ questions privately and free of charge. While the exhibition provided information, its greatest value came from connecting people with someone who could address their personal concerns.

The point is that while every person’s life is unique, the human experiences we go through are often shared. We all fall in love, experience loss, face uncertainty, or cope with illness. The details may differ, but the emotions are universal. That is why support groups exist for people with cancer—not because everyone’s diagnosis is the same, but because there is wisdom to be gained from others who have faced similar problems and strength gained in knowing you are not alone in facing these challenges.

Museums have the opportunity to provide that same kind of perspective. Rather than focusing solely on presenting the “right” interpretation of an object, they can become places that foster empathy, reflection, and a deeper understanding of our shared humanity. This represents a fundamental shift in purpose: from delivering information to helping people make meaning.

Diana:

What I’m getting from this is that emotions and deep human connections are what move people most, and the value museums can create is to link them with humanity’s cultural heritage in today’s world. 

John:

One of my biggest realizations came about six months ago, when I recognized that well-being is fundamentally driven by emotion. In humans, emotions are the mechanism that tells us whether an experience has value and contributes to our well-being. 

Emotions are the physiological mechanism we evolved to help us understand whether we are having well-being or not. And so, when I actually started looking again at how people describe the value of their museum experience, it was all affect. It wasn’t cognitive. People rarely described their museum experiences in cognitive terms. Instead, they spoke about how the experience made them feel—descriptions of greater curiosity, connection, wonder, reflection, and empathy. That emotional resonance is what people valued most.

I think museums have often been hesitant to talk about emotions, but they shouldn’t be. Emotions are central to how people experience and make sense of the world, and they are at the heart of the value museums create.

Ironically, museums still tend to promote themselves by emphasizing their collections and expertise, much the way companies in the late nineteenth century used to advertise their products. Most businesses moved beyond that a century ago, learning to connect with people through experiences and emotions. Museums have the opportunity to make the same shift—not by abandoning their collections, but by using them to create experiences that are personally meaningful and socially relevant. And they also need to start communicating to the public that these emotional benefits are the benefits they will gain by going to the museum.

Diana:

When discussing how museums could market themselves, shape their “new” brand, and the general perception of what museums mean to most people today, there is definitely a significant discrepancy. But since they mostly work in silos, I also don’t think that it helps that museums rarely engage in the kind of external collaborations that could help transform their image, build broader recognition for this new role, and reinforce their relevance in society. In your opinion, what can be done to redress this imbalance?

John:

Yes, rebranding the museum will be a challenging task. Organisations often think they create their own brand, but ultimately a brand is defined by how people perceive and experience the organization. Museums can influence that perception through their actions, communication, and partnerships, but they cannot fully control it.

Interestingly, museums today, as they have for decades, attract large percentages of first-time visitors. These first-time visitors are not new to museum-going, just new to visiting that particular museum. Each of these visitors arrives at the museum with a concept of what their visit experience will be like, but those expectations are not based upon hours of studying the content and nuances of the new museum they are about to visit. Rather, the first-time visitor’s expectations are primarily based on the experiences they have had at other museums. In other words, it will be challenging for any one museum to unilaterally change its public perception, its brand. The type of change in public perception of the value of museums we have been talking about will be most effectively accomplished through the collaborative efforts of many museums, perhaps even the whole community of museums. 

If museums want the public to see them differently than they currently do, then they will need to, ideally as a community, change both their messaging and their actions; both are important. People, first of all, need to experience change. But they also need to be provided words and descriptions of these new experiences to help them understand why and how their museum visit was different from the past. Only by combining actions and messaging will people come to understand and value the changed role museums want to play. This will neither be a simple nor a short-term task – building a new brand takes time and considerable effort, and as discussed above, will also require the support of other museums in your community.

Diana:

Thank you very much, John, for sharing your thoughts with us on the potential new role of museums as Societal Elders and how we can raise awareness of this within the museum sector and amongst the general public.