Justin Dillon & Heather King
This is the inaugural blog of the Indepth group – a small collaboration of
European academics and practitioners. Our quest is to ask questions about how
visitors engage with museums and science centres. We share that mission with a
growing number of colleagues around the world. Some focus on ‘measuring’ the experience;
others are more interested in exploring the nature and potential of the
experience. We see ourselves more aligned with the latter group than the
former.
So, are we looking forward to Ecsite 2014 –
the largest gathering of informal science institution practitioners and
researchers in Europe this year? Well, yes. And no. While the conference, which
takes place in The Hague, offers a rare opportunity for sustained dialogue
between designers, content developers, researchers, evaluators and managers,
the reality is that we rarely tackle the big issues and so change in the field
is incremental rather than radical.
Every sector of public life has its
rhetoric and its reality and science engagement is no different. The conference
website proclaims, for example, that: ‘Science centres and museums channel the power
and rationality of science to solidify their roles as socially inclusive and
inspirational forums for learning’. What we argue, though, is that science
centres and museums are not just forums ‘for’ learning, they are forums ‘of’
learning. That is to say, we should see experiences in such settings as
opportunities for understanding learning, as much as we see them as resources
promoting learning.
The goal of
Indepth, then, is to promote the value
of learning about learning in the ‘informal’
science sector.
So, where
does learning fit into the Ecsite conference? Our own session – ‘In search of
an in-depth experience’ – asks how
institutions can systematically create an enjoyable experience, which
meaningfully integrates visitors’ personal context and that also supports
in-depth learning about science and technology? This is a crucial issue. How
can institutions with several million visitors per year provide each person
with an experience that values their individuality? And, at the same time, do
more than simply provide them with a short-lived cluster of barely-related
facts garnered from labels, audio-commentaries and explainers?
We are looking forward to a rich and
productive discussion.
Another session, not one of ours, asks how
can you measure and increase the impact of a visit if you do not know who your
audience is or what ‘cultural baggage’ (i.e. thoughts, opinions, experiences,
motivations, learning preferences etc.) they hold pre-visit? Questions such as
these move the sector’s thinking forward. Other sessions, however, still make
simplistic assertions such as ‘The business of exhibiting short documentary
films enhances learning for students and general audiences’.
The conference website asks a number of
interesting questions including:
How can our institutions use exhibits, collections,
design and marketing to make the science and technology of global
challenges more accessible to audiences?
What about inter-generational learning?
Are science centres and museums thinking about visitors of all ages when
communicating the problems and possible solutions of our times?
These
questions suggest a sector that is seeking to expand its reach and its impact.
Part of the approach to answering both questions should involve looking at what
research has to say. Interestingly, the
word ‘research’ appears in the conference programme three times as often as
‘evaluation’ – a sign that times are changing. Moreover, an encouraging number
of universities are represented at the conference, an indication that
partnerships between academics and museum and science centres are increasing.
Novel
practices, however, such as the increasingly popular ‘tinkering’ and the
involvement of visitors in co-designing exhibits and exhibitions are
surprisingly poorly researched. Sometimes the sector jumps on innovations
rather than taking a more considered look at whether or not they offer
effective engagement or value for money. Tinkering is a case in point – Ecsite
is unequivocal: ‘Equipping visitors with physical tools to innovate by tinkering is an inspiring mode of engagement gaining greater momentum and pushing more
people to seek solutions’. This may be true, but to find out, we need to
research it. We need to take, dare we say it, a scientific approach to testing
out new formats of science engagement.
And what of
this year’s novelty item – gamification? We are told that exhibits that learn
from serious gaming ‘can reach visitors emotionally and
personally so that the messages we want to convey get imprinted in them through
their experiences’. ‘The messages we want to convey’? ‘Imprinted’? Is this the
language we should be using in our all inclusive, empowering science centre of
the future? #No.
One thing we are looking forward to is the
opportunity for conversations about the European Commission’s new funding
programme, Horizon 2020. Our experience of working with European colleagues in
projects such as PENCIL, IRIS, PLACES, FEAST and ACRONYM has generally been
very positive. It has made us value looking east, across the Continent, as much
as we had valued looking west, towards the US, for collaborations and
collegiality. We are sure that Horizon 2020, which has a stronger research
dimension, than Framework 7, will allow us to answer some questions that the Indepth group has identified as its
priorities.
See you in Den Hague.
@justindillonkcl
@heatherkingkcl
