Series details: CRDA/12

The Digest of Museum Statistics (DOMUS) was an annual survey conducted by the former Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) of museums which participated in the MGC's Registration Scheme. The Registration Scheme was established in 1988 as a voluntary scheme to raise standards in museums by requiring institutions to demonstrate, as a condition of registration, that they had met basic standards in the areas of collection care, public services and museum management. DOMUS was launched by the MGC in spring 1994 to add to the body of information about museums which was being gathered through the Registration Scheme. The name 'DOMUS' was also used by the MGC to refer to the database that held the results of the survey.1

According to the MGC, DOMUS was intended to act as "a Domesday of the museum business", providing the MGC, Area Museum Councils (AMCs) and individual museums with information that would facilitate strategic planning, comparison and partnerships between institutions, benchmarking, the targeted delivery of services and mailings, and the marketing of the museum sector to the outside world.2 Its aim was to address the need for accurate statistical data about the museum sector, a need which had been identified in the year of DOMUS's launch in an analysis of the market potential for museums and art galleries.3 DOMUS was also portrayed as the successor to a similar statistics gathering project, Museums UK, which had been commissioned by the Museums Association in the 1980s.4 Although the MGC's original aim was that DOMUS would be extended to cover all UK museums (estimated at about 2500 in 1998), in the event the survey only ever covered the roughly 1700 museums which participated in the Registration Scheme.5 Most of the records in the datasets held by NDAD relate to museums which were fully registered or provisionally registered under the Scheme, although a small number relate to museums whose registration status was 'deferred', 'ineligible' or 'removed'.

The launch of DOMUS in 1994 was preceded by a pilot survey in July 1993 involving 168 museums in the London and Norfolk regions of the Area Museums Service for South Eastern England.6 Full DOMUS surveys were then held annually from 1994 until 1999. Beginning in 1996, supplementary questionnaires were introduced to gather information on a special topic (different each year), in addition to the topics covered by the main DOMUS questionnaire. The data from DOMUS was used by the MGC for its own purposes, and also to answer external enquiries from non-commercial sources (e.g. from museums, academics or students). However, the MGC would not disclose information which it regarded as sensitive, such as financial information or the addresses of individual curators.7 DOMUS data was also used to provide background material for MGC publications, such as the MGC's annual reports. In 1998 the MGC launched a new series of annual publications, Museum Focus, as the main means of disseminating the results of DOMUS (see Publications produced by the originating department).8

In addition to being used by the MGC, copies of the database were supplied to the Museum Documentation Association and the Department of National Heritage (succeeded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport).9 Each AMC held a copy of DOMUS relating to its region, with updates being supplied periodically by the MGC.10 Representatives of AMCs participated with officers from the MGC and other interested bodies in a DOMUS Users Group (set up in 1995) and a DOMUS Advisory Panel (set up in 1996), to provide feedback and develop policies in regard to DOMUS. A DOMUS Users Group Newsletter was also produced periodically. These bodies and the Newsletter were eventually discontinued by the MGC in favour of more informal contacts with DOMUS users.

The original DOMUS database was created on behalf of the MGC by a consultant (see Statement of Responsibility). It was linked in the MGC's local network to a database relating to the administration of the Registration Scheme.11 In 1997 discussions commenced within the MGC about the possibility of integrating the DOMUS and Registration Scheme databases and other MGC databases. A tender for the creation an MGC Core Database was issued in October 1998, and was awarded in December 1998 to BitbyBit International Ltd. BitbyBit's development work on the Core Database was suspended by mutual agreement in August 1999, after the merger of the DOMUS and Registration Scheme databases (stage 2 of a 5-stage process). The project was placed on indefinite hold following the announcement, in December 1999, that the MGC would be merged with the Libraries and Information Commission. BitbyBit continued to be responsible for maintaining the system until March 2000. The DOMUS survey itself was suspended in 2000 by the MGC's successor body, Resource, pending a review of its information needs and data gathering procedures.12 Following this review, Resource announced that it would phase in a new programme of data collection in 2002 which would involve a consistent approach across the domains (archives, libraries, museums) for which it was responsible. The DOMUS survey would not be continued in its previous form.13

The final significant episode in the history of DOMUS occurred in 2001. The Library and Information Statistics Unit (LISU) of Loughborough University, in collaboration with Sara Selwood (University of Westminster), was commissioned by Resource to examine the DOMUS data, supplement it with estimates and data from other sources where practicable, and derive trends from the refined data. LISU analysed a copy of the merged DOMUS and Registration Scheme database which was supplied in June 2001. This reflected the structure of the system at the end of the aborted Core Database project. As part of the analysis, LISU entered data from questionnaires from the 1999 survey which had been returned but not entered onto the system, and corrected anomalies in the data where possible (see How data was originally captured and validated for further information).14 LISU's report on the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects, including a critique of DOMUS, was completed in December 2001 (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, references CRDA/12/DD/7/2-6).

As previously noted (see Aim and purpose), the Museums and Galleries Commission initiated and conducted the DOMUS survey. Responsibility for DOMUS was inherited by Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, which succeeded the MGC in April 2000. Further details of the history of MGC and Resource are given in the Administrative History of the Museums and Galleries Commission.

The original DOMUS database was created on behalf of the MGC by Bryan Alvey of Cultural Heritage Information Consultants. The database was substantially redesigned in 1998-1999 as part of the MGC Core Database project, carried out for the MGC by BitbyBit International Ltd. Further changes to the database were made in 2001 as part of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects undertaken by the Library and Information Statistics Unit (LISU) of Loughborough University, in collaboration with Sara Selwood of the University of Westminster. See Aim and purpose for further information.

The first two DOMUS datasets (CRDA/12/DS/1 and CRDA/12/DS/2) were transferred to NDAD from the Museums and Galleries Commission in 1998 and 1999, respectively, when the database was still being used by the MGC as a 'live' system. By contrast, the third dataset was transferred to NDAD in 2002 (with permission from Resource) from the Library and Information Statistics Unit (LISU) of Loughborough University, which had worked on the data as part of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects (see Aim and purpose).

NDAD holds three datasets which were extracted at various times from the DOMUS database. The contents of these datasets have been shaped by the following factors:

• The method initially adopted by the MGC and the Public Record Office (PRO) for transferring datasets to NDAD.
• Changes in the DOMUS system which occurred between the first transfer of data to NDAD in 1998, and the transfer of a final copy of the database in 2002.
• The nature of the DOMUS survey itself.

Prior to the transfer of the first DOMUS dataset to NDAD in 1998, the PRO and MGC decided that NDAD should receive annual transfers of data from DOMUS, and that each transfer should be a partial snapshot of the system at the time of transfer. The snapshots would be 'partial' in the sense that they would exclude the following data:

• Data gathered in the most recent DOMUS survey relating to questions where museums were asked to supply information on their last full financial year.
• Data relating to the most recent supplementary questionnaire.

This approach was adopted in the first two transfers of data to NDAD. Thus the dataset received in January-May 1998 (CRDA/12/DS/1) excluded data in the ANNUAL table relating to the 1997 survey (QYEAR = 1997), and data from the 1997 supplementary questionnaire. The second dataset, received in February 1999 (CRDA/12/DS/2), excluded 'annual' data gathered in the 1998 survey, and data from the 1998 supplementary questionnaire (a decision was also taken by NDAD not to include data from the 1996 supplementary questionnaire, which was found to be identical to that received in the previous transfer). These exclusions from the 1998 and 1999 datasets should be considered when using the data. Further information about these datasets is provided in the dataset catalogues (see Links to dataset catalogues).

Unsuccessful attempts were made by Resource to transfer another DOMUS dataset to NDAD in 2000. In the event, no usable or complete dataset was transferred until September 2002, when NDAD received a copy of the merged DOMUS and Registration Scheme database from LISU (see Custodial history). This dataset (CRDA/12/DS/3) is the most complete of the DOMUS datasets, in that it appears to include all data gathered in DOMUS up to and including the final survey in 1999. In effect, it is the database in its final form, following completion of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects (see Aim and purpose). The dataset also reflects the substantial changes to the DOMUS database which occurred in 1998-1999 as a result of the Core Database project (see Aim and purpose). The logical structure is significantly different from the earlier datasets. The incomplete nature of the Core Database project is reflected in the presence of tables which appear to duplicate data in other tables, and tables whose function is unknown (see Logical structure and schema for further information). Several tables relating to the Registration Scheme have no equivalents in the first two datasets, which were produced when DOMUS and the Registration Scheme were separate databases. The dataset also includes a table relating to the MGC's Designation Scheme (see below).

The history of the DOMUS database and the methods of transfer are therefore important for understanding the data held by NDAD. However, the most important factor shaping the datasets was the DOMUS survey, and in particular the distinctions drawn by the MGC between the following types of survey data:

• Core information on museums, such as the museum's address and other contact details, and details of the types of collections and facilities. This data was updated by the MGC as new information was received via the main DOMUS questionnaire in subsequent surveys. No attempt was made to preserve deleted or overwritten data. In the datasets held by NDAD, this type of data represents the most recent data in the system at the time of transfer.
• Annual information on museums, relating to questions on the main DOMUS questionnaire which asked museums to supply data reflecting "your last full financial year", according to the financial calendar used by the institution (e.g. January-December or April-March). The database preserved a record of each institution's responses in each year of the survey. The data covers questions such as the museum's finances, staffing, opening hours and numbers of visitors. As previously noted, the first two datasets do not include the most up-to-date 'annual' data in the database at the time of transfer.
• Data from the supplementary questionnaires which were introduced in 1996. Each supplementary questionnaire was effectively a one-off survey, as the topics were not repeated from year to year. The data gathered in each questionnaire was preserved in the DOMUS database, and is reflected in the datasets. Only the final dataset contains data from all four supplementary surveys.

The following sections summarise the information contained in the datasets for each of the above categories of data. Although there are significant differences in the structure of the final dataset and the two earlier datasets, much of the content is broadly the same. There were relatively few changes in the main DOMUS questionnaire between 1994 and 1999 (see How data was originally captured and validated). In order to facilitate comparison between the datasets, a concordance is provided between the tables in the first two datasets, and corresponding tables in the final dataset. An overview is also provided of the data in the final dataset relating to the Registration Scheme and the Designation Scheme:

(1) Core museum information

(2) Annual museum information

Annual information is recorded in the ANNUAL table in CRDA/12/DS/1-2, and in the ANNUAL and RT_ANNUAL tables in CRDA/12/DS/3. The tables in CRDA/12/DS/3 essentially present the data in different formats (see Logical structure and schema), with RT_ANNUAL reflecting the work done by LISU to rectify anomalies in the data (see How data was originally captured and validated). All three datasets include 'annual' data covering the following areas:

1. The year the questionnaire was sent out (field QYEAR) and the year to which the data relates (field DOMYEAR). DOMYEAR is usually standardised to the year prior to QYEAR.16 However, where the financial calendar used by the museum is also recorded (see (2) below), it is often clear that the financial year extended into the year of the survey: e.g. a record where DOMYEAR = 1995 might relate to the 1995-1996 financial year.
2. The start date and end date of the financial year to which the data relates, according to the financial calendar operated by the museum.
3. The museum's income and expenditure during the year (e.g. gross income, gross expenditure), and whether the museum was unable to supply financial data because it was a branch museum.
4. The museum's opening hours, including whether the museum was open to the public; the number of months open per year; the number of months open by appointment only; and the number of hours per week open in summer and winter.
5. Whether the museum charged for admission to its core collections.
6. Data on staffing levels, including the full time equivalents of permanent and temporary staff, the number of volunteers, the number of paid freelance staff, and whether the museum was unable to provide staffing data because it shared staff with a museum service.
7. The types of policies, plans and programmes in place during the most recent financial year: e.g. whether the museum had a staff training policy, a temporary exhibition programme, or a disaster plan.
8. Whether the museum had a friends organisation.
9. The types of bodies managing the museum and owning the museum.
10. The status of the museum in the Registration Scheme during the year in question.

The earliest annual data appears to be records where the value in DOMYEAR is '1991' or '1992', and QYEAR is '1993' or missing. These records are thought to relate to the pilot survey which was carried out in 1993 (see Aim and purpose).17 The final DOMUS survey in 1999 included a number of new questions in the 'Annual' section on staffing, visits, admission charges and opening hours (see How data was originally captured and validated). Consequently, the ANNUAL and RT_ANNUAL tables in the final dataset include data relating to certain questions for which there are no comparable fields in the first two datasets.

(3) Supplementary questionnaires

(4) Registration Scheme

The DOMUS surveys gathered some basic data relating to the Registration Scheme. Each main DOMUS questionnaire (apart from that used in 1999) asked museums to indicate their status in the Scheme, and to provide their registration number if they were fully or provisionally registered.18 All three datasets provide this basic level of Registration data. 19 However, the final dataset contains significantly more data on the Scheme, as a result of the merger of the DOMUS and Registration Scheme databases in the Core Database project (see Aim and purpose). In particular, three tables (MEETING, OUTCOME and POINTS) contain the following information relating to the administration of the Scheme:

1. The dates of Registration Scheme meetings. These are likely to represent the meetings of the Registration Committee (after 2000, Registration Panels) which considered museums' applications for Registration.20
2. The outcome of Registration Scheme meetings for individual museums: i.e. whether the museum's application led to full registration, provisional registration, deferment etc. Applications appear to have included new applications, and applications for re-registration during Phase 2 of the Scheme (introduced in 1995) by institutions which had been registered during Phase 1 of the Scheme (operated between 1988 and 1995).21
3. "Points" relating to individual museums at Registration meetings. "Points" are categorised by "type" (e.g. "Documentation: Backlogs", "Care of Collections: Plan") and by whether the point was "Action" or "Monitoring".

The dates recorded for Registration meetings cover the period from November 1988 until May 2001. The Registration data in the final dataset therefore predates and postdates the DOMUS data.

(5) Designation Scheme

The Designation Scheme was introduced by the MGC in 1997 in order to identify collections of national and international importance in England's non-national museums.22 The final dataset contains a single table (DESIGNATED_COLNS) which records details of museums' designated collections. This data was not gathered in the DOMUS surveys, and it is not known whether it was tied in any way to the operation of the Registration Scheme.

As the DOMUS survey has been discontinued (see Aim and purpose), no further transfers of data are expected.

The DOMUS datasets and dataset documentation are public records under the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. The National Archives has assigned these datasets and documents the class reference EB 6.

Some data in the DOMUS datasets is closed for 30 years. The catalogues of individual datasets give details of the fields which are affected: see Links to dataset catalogues. Open data is available on demand to registered users of NDAD and does not have to be booked in advance. Certain items of dataset documentation are also subject to access restrictions (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue for further details).

The DOMUS datasets and dataset documentation are subject to Crown Copyright. Copies may be made for private study and research purposes only.

The DOMUS datasets are subject to registration under the Data Protection Act. Subject access to the data as defined by the Act is permitted.

The language of the materials is English.

Documents relating to DOMUS (including MGC publications) have been transferred to NDAD. See the Dataset Documentation Catalogue for further details. No accompanying documentation (i.e non-archive material) has been transferred to NDAD for this dataset.

In 1998 the MGC launched Museum Focus as its main means of disseminating the results of the DOMUS surveys. It was intended that Museum Focus would be published in the first half of the calendar year following the year of the survey.23 Two issues were published, in 1998 and 1999. The first issue covered the 1997 main questionnaire and 1996-1997 supplementary questionnaires; the second analysed results from the 1998 DOMUS survey (including the main and supplementary questionnaires), as well as results from a separate Survey of Public Sector Conservation Provision which was undertaken by the MGC in 1998. Both issues have been transferred to NDAD (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7-8).

An analysis of DOMUS was undertaken in 2001 by the Library and Information Statistics Unit of Loughborough University and Sara Selwood of the University of Westminster (see Aim and purpose). The report of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects was published on Resource's website, and can also be consulted via the Dataset Documentation Catalogue (reference CRDA/12/DD/7/1-6).

When the first DOMUS dataset was transferred to NDAD in 1998, the database was held at the MGC on an Olivetti M400 (20 Mb RAM) [an IBM compatible PC with Windows]. By September 2000, the merged DOMUS and Registration Scheme database was being accessed by staff in Resource using PCs linked to a server.24

Microsoft DOS version 5.0 was the operating system used with the MGC's FoxPro database in 1998 (see Application software). By 2000, the PCs used to access the DOMUS/Registration Scheme database ran on Windows 95. Windows NT was the operating system used on the server.25

The original DOMUS database was developed using Microsoft FoxPro version 2.5 for DOS.26 FoxPro Report Writer was used for report generation. It is not known what database software was used with the MGC's Registration Scheme database.

The Core Database project in 1998-1999 (see Aim and purpose) saw the transfer of both databases to an Oracle 7 database (Oracle 7.3.3.0.0 for Windows was in use in September 2000). This was used by the MGC and Resource in conjunction with a report writing package, Arpeggio. The copy of the database which was transferred to LISU as part of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects was interrogated by LISU using SQL* PLUS Release 3.3, a database tool produced by Oracle to act as an intermediary between the user and the underlying database.27

The user interface of the original DOMUS system is reflected in a training guide for DOMUS users which was produced in 1997 by a commercial training company (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/3). This shows that the interface was based around a series of windows (referred to as "screens"), which allowed staff to move through the data relating to an individual museum. They included:

• An "Address" screen giving basic details for each museum (DOMUS number, name, address, ownership, DOMUS contact).
• A "Facilities" screen giving details of the facilities and types of collections held by a museum.
• A "Museum Info" screen which repeated address information, and gave the type of museum, its status under the MGC's registration scheme, its registration number, the museum service, the museum's Registered Charity Number, Registered Company Number and VAT Number, the local authority, year of the museum's foundation, date of the last visit by the MGC's museum security adviser, and general comments.
• A "Museum Statistics" screen which displayed the 'Annual' information collected in DOMUS, including data from previous years.
• Screens displaying the data for a museum which had been gathered in the supplementary questionnaires.

The screens allowed users to view, enter and edit data. Searching facilities included the ability to select a museum from a list of museums ordered by DOMUS number, to search for a museum by name, or to find museums which matched defined search criteria. Pre-defined reports and customized reports of searches could be produced and printed out, and exported to WordPerfect. The system also included a mail merge facility which supported the mass mailing of standard and customized letters to museums.28

Following the suspension of the Core Database project, BitbyBit International produced a user manual for the MGC which was intended to facilitate use of the merged DOMUS and Registration Scheme databases (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/6/3). This shows that users were provided with a typical Windows-style GUI interface consisting of windows, icons, menus, forms and dialogue boxes. As with the earlier version DOMUS, the interface was built around a series of windows ("screens"):

• A "Main Screen", acting as gateway to other utilities.
• A "Person" screen, allowing details of individuals and their roles to be entered and updated.
• An "Institution" screen, allowing the entering and editing of the name, address and other basic data relating to museums and institutions associated with museums.
• A "Registration" screen, relating to Registration Scheme data (i.e. "points", outcomes and dates of Registration meetings).
• A "DOMUS" screen, which provided access via other screens to the bulk of the data gathered in the DOMUS surveys: data on museum collections, facilities, 'annual' information, and information from the supplementary questionnaires.

The interface also provided a variety of searching, sorting and filtering functions.29

A final DOMUS users manual was produced by LISU for its own use, and for potential use by Resource in connection with the database in its state following the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/1).30 The manual outlines how to interrogate the database by executing SQL query statements using the SQL* PLUS database tool.

Until the 1998-1999 Core Database project, the DOMUS database had a relatively simple logical structure, consisting of eight core tables plus tables which were added for the one-off supplementary questionnaires (one table per supplementary questionnaire). This structure is reflected in the first two DOMUS datasets. Two entity relationship diagrams have been produced by NDAD to illustrate the relationships between the tables in the DOMUS system. See the Dataset Documentation Catalogue (references CRDA/12/DD/8/1 and CRDA/12/DD/8/2) or click on the thumbnails below.

The structure of the final DOMUS dataset is more complex and less coherent, reflecting the incomplete nature of the Core Database project. The dataset consists of 42 tables. Further tables were transferred to NDAD, but were found to contain no data. Fourteen tables appear in an entity-relationship diagram which was produced by the contractor in April 1999 (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/6/1). It is more difficult to understand the intended function of the other tables, which include:

(1) Tables which appear to be designed to facilitate "fuzzy" searching (e.g. T_FUZZY_INST, T_ADMIN_DSCT).

(2) Tables whose precise function is unclear (e.g. EVT_PROFILE, EVT_PROFILE_EVENTS, AQ$_QUEUE_TABLES).

(3) The table relating to the Designation Scheme (DESIGNATED_COLNS).

(4) Tables which cover the same data as other tables, but present it in a different format. For example, data relating to the 'annual' information gathered in DOMUS is held in both ANNUAL and RT_ANNUAL. In table ANNUAL (which appears in the contractor's diagram), each record corresponds to a museum's response to an individual question in a particular survey. The question is indicated by the code entered in the CODE field. By contrast, table RT_ANNUAL has one record for each museum's responses to all 'annual' questions in a particular year, with each question normally corresponding to an individual field. RT_ANNUAL thus has 91 fields and 8278 records, while ANNUAL has nine fields and 251,066 records. (RT_ANNUAL also reflects changes to the data made by the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects: see How data was originally captured and validated). The situation is similar for the tables relating to the supplementary questionnaires: SUPPLEMENTAL, RT_SUPP_1996, RT_SUPP_1997, RT_SUPP_1998 and RT_SUPP_1999. The last four tables each consist of the data gathered in the supplementary questionnaire in one survey year, with usually one field per question. Table SUPPLEMENTAL (which appears in the contractor's diagram) contains data for all four supplementary surveys, with one record for each question in an individual year.

It is possible that some of the tables in the third dataset are 'working' or intermediate tables that were not intended to appear in the final database: e.g. T_INST_FROM_INST, T_INST_FROM_DOMUS_AND_BRANCHES, SUPPLEMENTAL_OLD.

Further information about the tables in the DOMUS datasets is provided in the catalogues of individual datasets: see Links to dataset catalogues.

The DOMUS database exhibited a mixture of dynamic and 'closed' (i.e. static) elements. The static side was represented by the tables which held the data from the 'annual' section of the main questionnaire, and the tables for the supplementary questionnaires. Each year new data was added to the 'annual' tables (ANNUAL in CRDA/12/DS/1-2, ANNUAL and RT_ANNUAL in CRDA/12/DS/3), without affecting the data which had been entered in previous surveys. Data in the 'annual' tables was thus in effect closed, though it should be noted that where forms were received late by the MGC, the data would be entered into the database even if the survey had officially ended.31

The tables which held the data for the supplementary questionnaires were also effectively closed. The supplementary questionnaires were one-off surveys, so once entered and validated the data would not have been altered. The tables in the final dataset relating to the Registration Scheme also appear to have been 'closed', in that data from past meetings was preserved in the system and not overwritten.

The other tables in the DOMUS system were dynamic in that they were updated whenever new information was received (normally as a result of the annual receipt of survey forms). When the first dataset was transferred, NDAD was told that records were not deleted from the DOMUS table: i.e. information on a museum which had permanently closed would be retained in the table, although no further data would be entered in the ANNUAL table.32

DOMUS data was gathered through paper questionnaires which were sent to museums which were part of the Registration Scheme (see Aim and purpose). Although return of the forms was voluntary, museums which had joined the Scheme were strongly encouraged to participate, so the response rate was fairly high: 86 percent in 1994, 77 percent in 1995, 85 percent in 1997.33 From 1997 questionnaires were sent to museums in June of each year and were returned directly to the MGC. Prior to that date questionnaires were sent to museums at staggered dates throughout the year, along with documents relating to the annual returns which museums in the Registration Scheme were asked to complete. Museums returned their forms to the MGC via Area Museum Councils.34

The main DOMUS questionnaire appears to have been relatively stable over the life of the survey. The MGC tended to add new questions or categories rather than to withdraw topics which had previously been asked. The following table summarises the changes which are known to have occurred to the questionnaire between 1994 and 1999. For examples of DOMUS forms, see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, references CRDA/12/DD/3/1-11, and appendix 3 of the report of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects (Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/4):

As previously indicated (see Scope and content), these changes in the questionnaire are reflected in the datasets, particularly in the tables recording 'annual' information. In some records, certain fields may have missing or default values because the field relates to a question which was not added until a later sweep of DOMUS.

The inputting of data from the forms was done in-house by the MGC in all DOMUS surveys except for the 1997 survey, when an external contractor was employed to enter data onto the database. The MGC returned to in-house inputting in 1998. The MGC would contact museums to resolve any ambiguities or uncertainties in their returns, though no systematic attempt was made to validate the data after it arrived.35

A telephone survey involving 45 interviews with DOMUS respondents was conducted by the Museum Documentation Association in 1996 to evaluate the accuracy of data gathered in the survey and attitudes towards DOMUS. A copy of the report on this survey has been transferred to NDAD (see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/5).

As part of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Projects, LISU attempted to resolve a number of anomalies in the DOMUS data. Data was input from 80 questionnaires from the 1999 survey which had been returned but not entered onto the system. LISU did not input data which was regarded as not being relevant to statistical analysis, such as details of individual contacts. A few records were deleted which were thought to contain 'dummy' data entered during initial testing of the database. LISU also rectified 319 records where QYEAR (year the questionnaire was sent out) had a value of '0', setting these records to DOMYEAR (year to which the data relates) plus 1. These changes are thought to have been made to table RT_ANNUAL, which contains no records where QYEAR = 0 or missing, rather than to table ANNUAL.36

As with any survey, DOMUS was constrained by the accuracy of information supplied by museums. This was a particular problem with data relating to museums' finances. The MGC acknowledged that many museums (especially those in the local authority and university sectors) had difficulty supplying accurate financial information because their accounts could not be distinguished from those of their parent organisation.37 Moreover, if a number of museums were operated in a group, one might make a return which covered the finances of the others. Museums operating as part of a group could usually give individual figures for visitors; however, according to the MGC, it was possible that some returns might include combined visitor figures.38 Many museums found it difficult to supply accurate full-time equivalents for volunteer and freelance staff, due to the fact that the numbers of such staff and their hours varied widely across the year.39

Figures of 0 in the financial and other numeric fields in the 'annual' tables do not necessarily indicate a true 0, but are normally where no figures were received or entered. Likewise, 0 in the VISITORS field (ANNUAL table in CRDA/12/DS/1-2, RT_ANNUAL in CRDA/12/DS/3) does not indicate 0 visitors.40

The report of the UK Museums Retrospective Statistics Project contained a critique of DOMUS, which highlighted the following limitations of the survey:

• DOMUS always focussed on museums which had entered the MGC's voluntary Registration Scheme, despite long-standing plans by the MGC to extend it to museums outside the scheme. Consequently DOMUS misrepresented the total number of museums in the UK. The MGC itself estimated that about 700 out of approximately 2500 museums in the UK were ineligible for Registration and hence were outside the scope of DOMUS, usually because their collections were privately or corporately owned rather than being vested in public or charitable trust ownership.41
• Museums appear to have frequently misunderstood questions or were incapable of answering certain questions.
• There was a lack of proper data verification before the data was input.
• The data was always out of date, because of when it was collected and the time taken to process the data.
• Many AMCs questioned the accuracy of DOMUS for regional purposes, and tended to use their own data instead of DOMUS. There was also a failure to address AMCs' criticisms of DOMUS.42

The report concluded that "DOMUS as a concept was a potentially very valuable tool to provide statistics for policy makers and practitioners . . . [but] the database now has such a bad name in the museum domain that a complete break must be made with the past . . . a line should be drawn under DOMUS . . . and a new data set started, learning from the mistakes of the past".43

Details of the content and transformation validation checks performed by NDAD staff on each DOMUS dataset are contained in the catalogues of individual datasets: see Links to dataset catalogues.

Dataset catalogues provide more detailed information about individual datasets, and are currently available for the following dataset(s):

1. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/1/1; CRDA/12/DD/5/2.

2. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/2, pp. 2-3; reference CRDA/12/DD/7/2, p. 6.

3. S. Davies, By Popular Demand: A strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and art galleries in the UK (London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1994); Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/2, p. 2.

4. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 11; reference CRDA/12/DD/7/2, p. 5.

5. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/2, p. 1; CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 10; CRDA/12/DD/7/2, pp. 3, 6.

6. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/2, p. 6.

7. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/1.

8. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 11.

9. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/2/6, p.[1].

10. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/1/2; CRDA/12/DD/2/9, p. [2]; CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 12.

11. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/2/9, p.[2]; notes of telephone conversations between NDAD and the MGC on 18 February 1998 and 25 May 2000.

12. Notes of meeting between NDAD and Resource on 21 September 2000; notes of telephone conversations between NDAD and Resource on 15 May 2000 and 25 May 2000.

13. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and Resource on 11 September 2002; Resource, Preserving the Past for the Future: Towards a National Framework for Collections Management, part 2(B)(2) (n.d.), on-line copy (http://www.resource.gov.uk/action/stewardship/preserv05.asp#b) consulted 23 June 2003.

14. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, references CRDA/12/DD/7/2, pp. 2, 16, 19-22.

15. Resource, "Museum Registration Scheme" (http://www.resource.gov.uk/documents/musreg_eng.pdf) consulted on 24 June 2003.

16. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and Bryan Alvey (Cultural Heritage Information Consultants) on 11 February 1998.

17. Notes of telephone conversations between NDAD and the MGC, and NDAD and Cultural Heritage Information Consultants, on 11 February 1998.

18. For examples of the DOMUS survey forms, see the Dataset Documentation Catalogue, references CRDA/12/DD/3/1-11, and CRDA/12/DD/7/4.

19. See fields REG_STATUS and REG_NO in table DOMUS, and field ANN_STATUS in table ANNUAL, in CRDA/12/DS/1-2; and field REG_STATUS in RT_ANNUAL, and fields REG_NO, REG_STATUS in table INST, in CRDA/12/DS/3.

20. Resource website, page "Registration Scheme for Museums and Galleries" (http://www.resource.gov.uk/action/registration/regcurrent.asp) consulted on 25 June 2003.

21. Resource website, page "Registration Scheme for Museums and Galleries" (http://www.resource.gov.uk/action/registration/regcurrent.asp) consulted on 25 June 2003; Museums and Galleries Commission, Registration Guidelines (London: Museums and Galleries Commission, 1995), p. 1.

22. Resource website, "The Designation Scheme" (http://www.resource.gov.uk/action/designation/desig_scheme.asp) consulted on 18 September 2003.

23. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, pp. 10-11.

24. Notes of meeting between NDAD and Resource on 21 September 2000.

25. Notes of meeting between NDAD and Resource on 21 September 2000.

26. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/4

27. Notes of meeting between NDAD and Resource on 21 September 2000; (Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/1, p. 1; CRDA/12/DD/7/2, p. 16.

28. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/1; note of a telephone conversation between NDAD and the MGC on 27 May 1998.

29. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/6/3; notes of meeting between NDAD and Resource on 21 September 2000.

30. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and LISU on 13 September 2002.

31. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and the MGC on 16 February 1998.

32. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and Bryan Alvey (Cultural Heritage Information Consultants) on 11 February 1998.

33. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 13; CRDA/12/DD/2/2, p.[1].

34. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 11.

35. Notes of telephone conversations between NDAD and the MGC on 18 February 1998 and 22 February 1999.

36. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/2, pp. 19-22.

37. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 20.

38. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and the MGC on 16 February 1998.

39. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 19.

40. Note of telephone conversation between NDAD and Bryan Alvey (Cultural Heritage Information Consultants) on 11 February 1998; note of telephone conversation between NDAD and the MGC on 16 February 1998.

41. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/5/7, p. 10.

42. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/2, pp. 8-12.

43. Dataset Documentation Catalogue, reference CRDA/12/DD/7/2, p. 54.