There is a vein of democratic idealism in the work of science museums. It is less about political democracy than epistemological democracy. As a one-time museum educator and a researcher who studies science museums, I have always thought of it in terms of an unspoken two-part motto: “see for yourself–know for yourself.” Although this strain of idealism has remained constant throughout the history of science museums, it has been interpreted differently in different eras, responding (in part) to the social upheavals of the day. In the late 1960s, for example, a new generation of self-described
Science learning occurs throughout people's lives, inside and outside of school, in formal, informal, and nonformal settings. While museums have long played a role in science education, learning in this and other informal settings has not been studied nor understood as deeply as in formal settings (i.e., schools and classrooms). This position paper, written by learning researchers in a science museum engaged in equity and access work, notes that while the researchers consider the ethics of their work regularly and deeply, little formal guidance exists for the ethical challenges they routinely
Although cooperative, interorganizational networks have become a common mechanism for delivery of public services, evaluating their effectiveness is extremely complex and has generally been neglected. To help resolve this problem, we discuss the evaluation of networks of community-based, mostly publicly funded health, human service, and public welfare organizations. Consistent with pressures to perform effectively from a broad range of key stakeholders, we argue that networks must be evaluated at three levels of analysis: community, network, and organization/participant levels. While the three