Abstract
Recently, there have been movements towards the inclusion of critical and often controversial exhibitions in science centres and museums. In this case study we consider the controversial exhibition Preventing Youth Pregnancy, hosted by the Catavento museum (São Paulo, Brazil). Specifically, we explore responses from, and relationships between, school and museum communities that attended the exhibit. We begin with a brief literature review on informal settings and controversial exhibitions, and present a science communication framework that informed our research. Findings are framed by three major themes: building connections between the formal and the informal sector through collaboration, building connections with youth culture, and building pathways for change. The chapter concludes with a discussion about the challenges faced by museums and science centres in creating and/or displaying controversial exhibitions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The models of science communication represent one of the most important theoretical contributions in the emergent field of science communication (Gascoigne et al. 2010; Trench & Bucchi, 2010) and they have been used to describe and analyse the ways in which science and society interact. For more information, descriptions and discussions about those models, see Durant (2004), Lewenstein (2003), Pouliot (2009), Schiele (2008), and Trench and Bucchi (2010).
- 2.
The Kaplan Institute created in 1991 is a Brazilian institute for studies in human sexuality. Its aims are: therapeutic treatments for sexual difficulties, sexual education, health education and sexual responsibility. In 2006, the institute focussed exclusively on sexual education, particularly sexual education for teenagers (http://www.kaplan.org.br/).
- 3.
In Brazil, the National Curricular Parameters (PCN) include, for grades 1–4, the cross-curricular theme called Sexual Orientation. This theme includes topics such as the human body, gender relations and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS (Secretaria de Educação Fundamental, 1997). In grades 5–8, this theme covers topics such as the body, the continuum of sexuality, gender relations and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS (Secretaria de Educação Fundamental, 1998).
- 4.
According to the information provided on the Kaplan Institute’s website (http://www.kaplan.org.br/) three workshops are proposed: (1) Identification of the dream, (2) Not all sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy and (3) Getting pregnant is a choice. These workshops include, as the exhibit does, role play and dramatisation.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2014). What is public engagement? Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/page/what-public-engagement.
Barrett, M. J., & Sutter, G. C. (2006). A youth forum on sustainability meets the human factor: Challenging cultural narratives in schools and museums. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(1), 9–24.
Bell, L. (2008). Engaging the public in technology policy. A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29(3), 386–398.
Bencze, L., & Alsop, S. (2014). Activism! Toward a more radical science and technology education. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bradburne, J. M. (1998). Dinosaurs and white elephants: The science center in the 21st century. Museum Management and Curatorship, 17(2), 119–137.
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, NY: Routledge.
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education and the end of the critical consumer. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 309–327.
Cameron, D. (1971/2004). The museum, a temple or the forum. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum (pp. 61–73). New York, NY: Altamira.
Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2004). Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Delicado, A. (2009). Scientific controversies in museums: Notes from a semi-peripheral country. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 759–767.
Diamond, J., Luke, J. J., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums & other informal educational settings (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Durant, J. (2004). The challenge and opportunity of presenting ‘unfinished science’. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, & B. V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 47–60). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Einsiedel, A. A., & Einsiedel, E. F. (2004). Museums as agora: Diversifying approaches to engaging publics in research. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, & B. V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 73–86). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Gascoigne, T., Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Metcalfe, J., & Schiele, B. (2010). Is science communication its own field? Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), CO4.
Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Research on Students and Museums, 88, S59–S70.
Hodder, A. P. W. (2010). Out of the laboratory and into the knowledge economy: A context for the evolution of New Zealand science centres. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 335–354.
Hodson, D. (2014). Becoming part of the solution: Learning about activism, learning through activism, learning from activism. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 67–98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
House of Lords. (2000). Science and technology. Third report. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
Hughes, C. (1993). Perspectives on museum theatre. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Instituto Kaplan. (n.d.). Historia (History). Retrieved from http://www.kaplan.org.br
Janousek, I. (2000). The ‘context museum’: Integrating science and culture. Museum International, 52(4), 21–24.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Lewenstein, B. (2003). Editorial. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 357–358.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Macdonald, S. (1998). The politics of display: Museums, science, culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Macdonald, S., & Silverstone, R. (1992). Science on display: The representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibitions. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 69–87.
Macedo Guastaferro, C. (2013). Adolescência, Gravidez e Doenças Sexualmente Transmissíveis (DST): Como os adolescentes enfrentam estas vulnerabilidades? [Teenage, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STD): How do teenagers face those vulnerabilities?]. Unpublished Masters dissertation, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
Mazda, X. (2004). Dangerous ground? Public engagement with scientific controversy. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, & B. V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 127–144). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Michie, M. (1998). Factors influencing secondary science teachers taking field trips. Darwin, Australia: Northern Territory Department of Education.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centres and science museums. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 1–41.
Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Science Education, 88(1), S34–S47.
Pedretti, E. (2012). The medium is the message. In E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums: Approaching sociocultural perspectives (pp. 45–61). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Pedretti, E., & Dubek, M. (2015). Critical issues-based exhibitions. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 236–238). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Pouliot, C. (2009). Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens’ participation in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1), 49–73.
Schiele, B. (2008). On and about the deficit model in an age of free flow. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 93–117). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. (1997). Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: apresentação dos temas transversais, ética [National Curricular Parametres: Introduction to cross-curricular themes, ethics]. Brasília: MEC/SEF. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/livro081.pdf
Secretaria de Educação Fundamental. (1998). Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: terceiro e quarto ciclos: apresentação dos temas transversais [National Curricular Parametres: third and fourth cycle: introduction to cross-curricular themes]. Brasília: MEC/SEF. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/ttransversais.pdf
Soren, B. J., & Armstrong, J. (2014). Qualitative and quantitative audience measures. In G. D. Lord & B. Lord (Eds.), The manual of museum exhibitions (pp. 58–66). London, UK: The Stationary Office.
Stocklmayer, S., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1–44.
Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emergent discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), CO3.
Yaneva, A., Rabesandratana, T. M., & Greiner, B. (2009). Staging scientific controversies: A gallery test on science museums’ interactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 18(1), 79–90.
Acknowledgements
A special thank you to the staff and visitors of the Catavento museum in São Paulo, Brazil, for being so welcoming and generous with their time. We are also grateful to Mitacs Globalink and SSHRC grant #30124 for funding this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Exemplar panels of the exhibit Preventing Youth Pregnancy. The information cited “at the top of the panel” is in response to the choice the visitor made at the previous panel.
Panel 03
(At the top of the panel) If you came from panel 01. Attention! It is a risky behaviour. The condom has to be worn before the penis comes in contact with the vagina.
(At the top of the panel) If you came from panel 17. Congratulations! Always allow some space in the condom for sperm by twisting the end a little bit and letting the air out.
(On the bottom of the panel) You two decided to have anal sex. When the time came penetration was very difficult as the condom had no lubricant. You: (A) Did not take out the condom and suggested to use a water-based lubricant; (B) Took out the condom and continued to have sex.
Panel 08
(At the top of the panel) If you came from panel 01. Congratulations! Any contact between the penis and the vagina is enough for transmitting a sexually transmitted diseases.
(At the top of the panel) If you came from panel 05. Well done! Having sex without using condoms is always risky.
(On the bottom of the panel) Your friend told you that he doesn’t use condoms because his girlfriend is on the pill. You decide to do the same: (A) You are not at risk. (B) You are at risk.
Panel 18
(At the top of the panel) If you came from panel 16. Well done! If you lose your condom while having sex; there is risk of having contact with sperm.
(At the top of the panel) If you came from panel 19. Be careful. Spermatozoids move fast and by washing with water you are not going to impede their coming in contact with the egg.
(On the bottom of the panel) Your other half asked you for proof of love: the first time with no condom. You decide: (A) A real proof of love would be to respect your choices and not be at risk. (B) To give that proof of love.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pedretti, E., Navas-Iannini, A.M. (2018). Pregnant Pauses: Science Museums, Schools and a Controversial Exhibition. In: Corrigan, D., Buntting, C., Jones, A., Loughran, J. (eds) Navigating the Changing Landscape of Formal and Informal Science Learning Opportunities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89761-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89761-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89760-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89761-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)