Editorial

This issue contains four research and evaluation reports, two methodology reviews, and one book review. The articles address ongoing concerns in the visitor studies field and build on prior publications from the journal in three areas: (a) research methodologies, especially issues around efficient and accurate data collection (see, e.g., Moussouri & Roussos, 2013; Rainbolt Nurse, Benfield, & Loomis, 2012; Schautz, van Dijk, & Meisert, 2016) and the impact of our methods on visitors (e.g., Pattison & Shagott, 2015); (b) the use of photography by museum visitors (e.g., Vartiainen & Enkenberg, 2014); and (c) strategies for enhancing the educational value of school field trips to informal educational organizations (e.g., Aerila, Rönkkö, & Gronman, 2016; Pecore, Kirchgessner, Demetrikopoulos, Carruth, & Frantz, 2017). The issue beginswith a research report byTheopisti Stylianou-Lambert inwhich she examines visitors’ attitudes about taking photographs in art museums. She notes that museum professionals disagree about the value of visitor photography—does it enhance or detract from the visitor experience?—and whether museums should prohibit or encourage visitors to use photography. Through in-depth interviews with museum visitors, she uncovered common motivations of visitors who take photos and the reasons other visitors do not. Of special interest are visitors who take photographs but believe that doing so is harmful to themuseum experience. Scott A. Pattison, Scott M. Randol, Marcie Benne, Andee Rubin, Ivel Gontan, Elizabeth Andanen, Crosby Bromley, Smirla Ramos-Montañez, and Lynn D. Dierking describe a design-based research project in which they examined how experienced museum staff members facilitate learning for families. The study uses design-based research techniques comprised of iterative cycles of theorizing, data collection, and reflection. The authors developed amodel composed of three factors for understanding unstructured staff facilitation at exhibits designed to promote algebraic thinking: (a) the desired outcomes for visitors’ interactions with the exhibits (including visitor satisfaction, mathematical reasoning, and intergenerational communication), (b) staff facilitation strategies (such as orienting visitors to an exhibit and providing explanations), and (c) influencing factors (characteristics of staff, visitors, and the environment that influenced how staffmembers interactedwith families, such as the number and ages of members in family groups). Both the design-based research process and the findings about facilitation techniques should be of interest to practitioners in a variety of settings. Nils Petter Hauan and Jennifer DeWitt address an issue of great importance to many educational researchers and museum practitioners: How to improve the learning experience of students on field trips to science museums. In their study, they assigned 11to 13-year-old students to small, self-directed groups as they explored select exhibits in a Norwegian science center. Each groupwas asked to followone of four specially prepared handouts: an open exploration version that encouraged students to use the exhibits and discover the science concepts they illustrate, a traditional handout with photos of the exhibits and key information about the science embedded in them, and two versions (one on paper and one presented digitally)