Neutral, balanced or controversial: an overview and some remarks on how technoscientific issues are treated in museum exhibitions

ANASTASIA FILIPPOUPOLITI

Abstract

In the last two decades museum exhibitions that deal with the representation of technoscientific issues and their impact to society have gradually gained the attention of researchers in Museology, Science Education, Science and Technology Studies (STS) as well as the field of Science Communication. Older exhibition tactics on such topics presented a neutral or balanced narrative to visitors more or less descriptive in its content. Yet, from the end of the 1990s, bibliography particularly on Scientific Museology refers to examples of exhibition experiments which propose innovative ways of representation and visualization. Creating an exhibition narrative that could hopefully inform citizens on science and technology issues, provoke their minds and support critical thinking is a stimulating task for museum professionals considering the fluidity and unpredictability of the nature of scientific practice. Among the broad repertoire of technoscientific themes treated occasionally in exhibitions, science controversies and science issues that may create a controversy to the public are of particular interest. The article attempts to investigate the repertoire of technoscience as a theme in museum exhibitions, uncover the communication frames that underpin their presentation and gives particular emphasis on the concept of controversy as a promising framework that enable visitors’ understanding of the impact of Science in everyday life.  

Keywords

Science exhibitions, technoscientific issues, practice and process, communicating controversy in science, critical viewer, negotiation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Basu, P., & Macdonald, S. (2007). Introduction: Experiments in exhibition, ethnography, art and science. In S. Macdonald & P. Basu (Eds.), Exhibition Experiments (pp. 1-24). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 57-76). New York: Routledge.

Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge.

Cameron, F. (2011a). From mitigation to creativity: The agency of museums and science centres and the means to govern climate change. Museum and Society, 9(2), 90-106.

Cameron, F. (2011b). Museums and science centres as sites for deliberative democracy on climate change. Μuseum and Society, 9(2), 136-153.

Cameron, F., Hodge, B., &. Salazar, J. F. (2013). Representing climate change in museum space and places. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 4, 9-21.

Davies, S. (2010). The exhibition and beyond controversial science in the museum. In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science Exhibitions. Curation and Design (pp. 138-163). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.

Davies, S., Tybjerg, K., Whiteley, L., & Soderqvist, T. (2015). Co-curation as hacking: Biohackers in Copenhagen’s Medical Museion. Curator. The Museum Journal, 58(1), 117-131.

Delicado, A. (2007). “What do scientists do?” in museums: Representations of scientific practice in museum exhibitions and activities. Pantaneto Forum, 26. Retrieved from http://pantaneto.co.uk/issue-26/.

Filippoupoliti, A., & Koliopoulos, D. (2014). Informal and non-formal education: History of science in museums. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, (pp.1565-1582). Springer.

Filippoupoliti, A., Krieghofer, G., Schmidl, S., & Yaneva, A. (2006). Sites of science: City dynamics and scientific practices in Vienna from 1900 to 1930. In D. Billier, T. Froehlicher & J. B. Jolie (Eds.), Work Spaces in Art, Science and Business (pp. 60-70). Stuttgart: Reihe Reflexiv Series.

Hetland, P. (2014). Models in science communication policy. Formatting public engagement and expertise. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 2(2), 5-17.

Janes, R. R., & Sandell, R. (2019). Museum Activism. London: Routledge.

Kera, D. (2010). The museum as a 21st century bestiary: Biotechnology, nanotechnology and art between protocols and manifests. In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science Exhibitions. Curation and Design (pp. 196-221). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.

Kwint, M. (2010). Desiring structures: The dendritic form revisited. In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science Exhibitions. Curation and Design (pp. 224-253). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.

Laurent, B. (2010). Technologies of representation. Representing nanotechnology and society. In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science Exhibitions. Curation and Design, (pp. 164-195). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.

Laurent, B. (2012). Science museums as political places. Representing nanotechnology in European science museums. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 11(4), 1-6.

Law, J., & J. Hassard (Eds.) (1999). Actor Network Theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lyons, L. (2010). Delineating disease: Drawing insights in the Medical Museum. In A. Filippoupoliti (Ed.), Science Exhibitions. Curation and Design (pp. 254-291). Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc.

Meyer, M. (2011). Researchers on display: Moving the laboratory into the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(3), 261-272.

Obrist, H. U. (2016). Conversation on Experimentality. MaHKUscript: Journal of Fine Art Research, 1(1), 1-8.

Oliveira, B. J., Lansky, S., Santos, K.V., Pena, E. D., Karmaluk, C., & Friche, A. A. L. (2020). Senses of Birth: An interactive and provocative exhibition to change the culture about childbirth in Brazil. Interface. Retrieved from https://www.scielo.br/j/icse/a/pDrxXM9yFftxFkGDhFbJBcQ/?lang=en.

Pedretti, E., & Iannini, A. M. N. (2020). Controversy in Science Museums. Re-imaging Exhibition Spaces and Practice. London: Routledge.

Pedretti, E., Iannini A. M. N., & Nazir, J. (2018). Exploring controversy in science museums: non-visitors and the Body Worlds Exhibits. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 18, 98-113.

Salazar, J. F. (2011). The Mediations of climate change: Museums as citizens’ medium. Museum and Society, 9(2), 123-135.

Steels, L. (2015). The Talking Heads experiment: Origins of words and meanings. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory, Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273.

Venturini, Τ., Ricci, D., Mauri, M., Kimbell, L., & Meunier. A. (2015). Designing controversies and their publics. Design Issues, 31(3), 74-87.

Yaneva, A., Rabesandratana, T. M., & Greiner, B. (2009). Staging scientific controversies: a gallery test on science museums' interactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 79-90.

Weibel, P., & Latour, B. (2007). Experimenting with representation: Ikonoclash and making things public. In S. MacDonald & P. Basu (Eds.) (2007). Exhibition Experiments (pp. 94-131). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.


DOI: https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.3982

View Counter: Abstract | 281 | times, and PDF | 169 | times



Re S M ICT E | ISSN: 1792-3999 (electronic), 1791-261X (print) | Laboratory of Didactics of Sciences, Mathematics and ICT, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education - University of Patras.

Pasithee | Library & Information Center | University of Patras