This issue of Legacy—which had a record number of submissions from interpreters wanting to write on the subject—deals with the challenges of making science accessible, engaging, and relevant to visitors to interpretive sites. How do we take information and ideas that can be highly technical or specicialized to a certain field of study and make it pertinent to visitors whose expertise lies elsewhere? The articles that follow tackle that subject.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Alyssa Parker-GeismanTim WatkinsPatrick Kark
There are many lenses through which we can measure the value of a museum experience.
There is the satisfaction factor: Did visitors have a good time? Were they engaged? Do they want to return?
There are learning outcomes: Did visitors learn something new? How much did they learn? How did their experience compare to other types of learning experiences?
And there is also meaning-making: Did respondents have a meaningful experience? A memorable one? A connective experience that made them want more?
While all three of these lenses (and many others) are important, meaning-making is
People love stuff. It speaks to them; it reminds them of special moments or people in their lives. They collect it and they love to tell stories about it and show it off. Museums’ deepest roots are in the stuff of collections. But over the last 200 years, the value and importance of collections to effective science interpretation (including exhibits, education, and outreach) has waxed and waned. It is clear from recent studies that using collections in concert with media and interactivity in exhibits and programs yields an extremely effective visitor experience. The recent work of Reach
A collective mass of youthful exuberance pulses through our science centers and museums on any given day. As I visit our ASTC-member institutions around the world, I find it extremely rewarding to watch all that energy being transformed into focused, intense contemplation of specific topics or experiences.
I have always been fascinated by the concept of “dwell time” in our science centers and museums. Dwell time usually refers simply to the period of time visitors spend in an exhibition or at a specific exhibit or activity. This time period can be extended in ways that are not entirely
On the first day of the Science and Society course at the Cooperstown Graduate Program in Cooperstown, New York, I present the students with an incandescent lightbulb, with clear glass so one can easily see the filament inside. I ask the students how it works and they are able to tell me that the electricity comes in there, runs through the filament here, heats up, and produces light. Then I take out my iPhone and slide it across the table and ask, “How does this work?” Blank stares abound.
You’ve probably heard the adage, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” A study published in Marketing Science concluded, “Although negative publicity is not always a good thing, in some cases, negative can actually be positive” (Berger, Sorensen, & Rasmussen, 2010). As a science center, you want to pique interest and perhaps push your marketing comfort zone in order to create a buzz, but there are always risks when you push the envelope.
From May to September 2013, Science World British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, presented an exhibition entitled The Science of Sexuality. The
Keystone Connect Network is a proposed regional broadband network whose purpose is to increase educational opportunities and generate business growth. The backbone of this plan is the Pennsylvania Research and Education Network's (PennREN), a next generation high-speed internet network, managed by KINBER, which educational institutions can use to train their students and create new learning opportunities; and business can create new products and connect with their customers.
Measuring impact may be challenging, but does that mean we should accept a lack of ambition? Researchers in all fields are grappling with the challenge of how to measure impact (in many different contexts, which naturally leads to many different approaches), and so perhaps it is not surprising that the ‘impact culture’ is spreading to public engagement. But is the field rising to the challenge or should we think more broadly about how we demonstrate impact, perhaps freeing individual and smaller projects from the need to measure public impact and allowing them instead to focus on formative
Taking the International Science in Popular Culture conference as a starting point, this editorial considers audiences for cultural products, considering the size of audiences (from blockbuster films, to intimate science slams), their pre-existing (or lack of pre-existing) interest in the subject and what this might offer the field of science communication.
During the last decade universities have developed policies and infrastructures to support open access to publications but now it is time to move a step forward. There is an increasing demand for accessing data supporting the research results to validate and reproduce them. Therefore universities have to be prepared for this new challenge that goes beyond dissemination because it requires a strategy for managing research data within institutions. In this paper I will try to give some hints on how to deal with this challenge that can be framed in the new open science movement aimed at providing
Open science is the most recent paradigm shift in the practice of science. However, it is a practice that has emerged relatively recently and as such, its definition is constantly-shifting and evolving. This commentary describes the historical background of open science and its current practice, particularly with reference to its relationship with public engagement with research.
Open Science may become the next scientific revolution, but still lingers in a pre-paradigmatic phase, characterised by the lack of established definitions and domains. Certainly, Open Science requires a new vision of the way to produce and share scientific knowledge, as well as new skills. Therefore, education plays a crucial role in supporting this cultural change along the path of science. This is the basic principle inspiring the collection of essays published in this issue of JCOM, which deals with many subjects ranging from open access to the public engagement in scientific research