ABSTRACT
Museum workers and museum organizations believe that museums are critical vectors for social change. The essay reports a study that examined whether there is sufficient evidence in the museum literature to make claims about the museum sector or museums as a class capable of supporting the many claims about social change. The study focused on research papers about the intersection of STEM and social issues in museums that were collected from three primary sources of knowledge: peer-reviewed journals, grey literature from a national online repository, and academic dissertations. The study identified several deficits in methodology issues of these papers, including sample sizes, sampling methods, and data analysis. Some of these deficits were more pronounced in peer-reviewed journals than in academic dissertations. While some exemplary studies are presented, the study concludes that informal STEM learning about social issues at museums remains an emerging field, relying heavily on qualitative inquiry. Museums should limit their claims to impact until there is sufficient evidence to stand behind. Recommendations for improvement include anchoring new case studies to precedent, using validated scales to help build enough data to support future meta-analysis and paying attention to minoritized voices.
