Iannini & Pedretti 2022

International Journal of Science Education, Part B
Communication and Public Engagement
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsed20
Museum staff perspectives about a sustainability

exhibition: what do they tell us about scientific
literacy?
Ana Maria Navas Iannini & Erminia Pedretti
To cite this article: Ana Maria Navas Iannini & Erminia Pedretti (2022): Museum staff perspectives
about a sustainability exhibition: what do they tell us about scientific literacy?, International Journal
of Science Education, Part B, DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2021.2015638
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.2015638
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 13 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsed20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, PART B
https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.2015638
Museum staff perspectives about a sustainability exhibition: what

do they tell us about scientific literacy?
a b
Ana Maria Navas Iannini and Erminia Pedretti
a
Faculty of Education, University of Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia; bOntario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Science museums are beginning to see themselves as important players in Received 30 October 2020
a number of scientific, social, cultural and political contexts. They are Accepted 4 December 2021
embracing broader societal issues, especially in a time of population
KEYWORDS
and environmental stress. In this paper, we focus on museum staff Science museums; scientific
perspectives about the exhibition Our World (Canada), that delves into literacy; sustainability
issues of water, food and energy consumption, and waste. Specifically, exhibitions; environmental
we sought to explore expectations and tensions that framed the issues
renovation of the exhibit and to interpret them through theory related
to scientific literacy and exhibition typologies. Using case study, we
relied primarily on semi-structured interviews with museum staff, and
secondarily on observations, field notes, and documents. Our findings
are organized around: the renovation of narratives and forms of
representation, and the ways in which the visitor experience is
reimagined. The (re)conceptualization of this gallery illustrates an
attempt to move from a pedagogical to critical and agential emphases,
through which progressive views of scientific literacy could be at play.
Our discussion examines the role of information, the in-between
positions that museum staffers experienced and pathways towards civic
responsibility. Concluding thoughts centre around the concept of
productive struggle, the role of knowledge and issues of neutrality.
Introduction
Complex issues positioned at the intersection of science, technology, society and environment are
becoming part of the repertoire of educational and cultural actions enacted by these institutions
(Cameron & Deslandes, 2011; Cameron et al., 2013; Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020). Museums
are beginning to see themselves as important players in a number of scientific, social, cultural
and political contexts. Exhibits about climate change (KlimaX – The Norwegian National Museum
of Science, Technology, and Medicine), biodiversity loss (Schad Gallery: Life in Crises, Royal
Ontario Museum) and food consumption (Comer: Las mesas de América Latina [Eating: Dining
rooms in Latin America], Parque Explora) are but a few examples of museums’ evolving landscapes
and changing exhibitionary practices.
For some, it is imperative that museums embrace broader societal issues, especially in a time of
population, energy, environmental, climate and economic stress (Evans & Achiam, 2021; Janes,
2009; Janes & Sandell, 2019), and more recently, as we have witnessed, the pandemic. Transcending
the idea of temples housing collections, science museums are increasingly called to become arenas
CONTACT Ana Maria Navas Iannini a.navas@uniandes.edu.co

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 A. M. NAVAS IANNINI AND E. PEDRETTI
for public debate (Cameron, 1971; Cameron et al., 2013; Henriksen & Frøyland, 2000), and venues
where critical and civic scientific literacy can be fostered (Hine & Medvecky, 2015; Rennie &
Williams, 2006) and citizens can be prepared for sustainable futures (Barrett & Sutter, 2006;
Evans & Achiam, 2021). It also expected that these institutions could engage the ‘experiential, criti-
cal and political capabilities of the audience’ (Cameron, 2006, ‘Conclusion’, para. 3). Yet, embracing
broader and more relevant science and environmental issues pose challenges to science museums,
and their exhibitions, due to the myriad of contexts and tensions in which these contemporary
topics are immersed. Additionally, advancing critical and civic scientific literacy in/through science
museums (Henriksen & Frøyland, 2000; Hine & Medvecky, 2015) presents difficulties related to the
ways in which public engagement can be fostered and encouraged. According to Rennie and
Williams (2006), civic forms of scientific literacy confront traditional images of science museums
(as perceived by the audience) as places where impersonal, trustworthy information is displayed,
to spaces where relevant and sensitive information co-exists with opinions, points of view, criticality
and action.
In this paper, we explore museum staffs’ perspectives, aspirations and tensions that emerged
from their work while renovating the exhibition Our World: BMO Sustainability Gallery (Science
World, Vancouver; hereafter referred to as Our World). A Canadian exhibition, Our World focuses
on sustainability and delves into issues of water, food and energy consumption, and waste. It should
be noted that this case study is part of a larger funded research project focusing on critical science
exhibition case studies from around the world (Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020). Although our lar-
ger research interests have included visitor responses and engagement (e.g. Navas Iannini & Ped-
retti, 2017; Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2018), for the purposes of this paper we focus on staff
perspectives. Specifically, our research goals were to:
(1) examine the goals and expectations that framed the conceptualization and (re)development of
the exhibit Our World, and
(2) explore barriers or tensions that staff identified as part of these processes.
Using lenses provided by theory in the fields of scientific literacy and museum studies, we sought
to interpret museum staffers’ views and perspectives about the exhibit. Our intent is to unravel
some of the possibilities and complexities that emerge when science museums foster public engage-
ment around difficult and contemporary environmental and societal issues.
Literature review
For the purposes of this work, we draw upon literature pertaining to scientific literacy, and typologies
of science museum exhibitions. We argue these perspectives are useful in helping us make sense of
institutional aspirations and tension (for the visit and the visitor experience) in the specific context
of an exhibition about sustainability.
Scientific literacy is a theoretical construct that has been interpreted widely through different
arrays of abilities, capacities, dimensions, understandings and processes (Hodson, 2003). Recently,
progressive views of scientific literacy call for the development of skills that would help citizens
navigate the complexities of scientific issues and their social implications, engage in informed
decision-making and enact change. In tandem with these ideas, we note that education for sustain-
able development – alongside its contemporary purposes, competences and abilities (see, for
example, Reickmann 2018) – aligns with progressive views of scientific literacy and the pursuit
of social and environmental change. Similarly, typologies of science museum exhibitions (Pedretti,
2002; Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020; Wellington, 1998) have been interpreted widely, and include a
range of displays that historically have focussed on pedagogical and experiential goals to more con-
temporary purposes encompassing criticality and agency. With these considerations in mind, we
begin our review by unpacking scientific literacy.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, PART B 3
Unpacking scientific literacy

Despite the importance and spread of scientific literacy, its meanings and interpretations are
blurred and, under constant construction and reconsideration. Earlier works in the field of
scientific literacy can help us to grasp facets and dimensions of this construct. For example,
Shen’s (1975) iconic work suggests three forms of scientific literacy: practical, civic and cultural.
The first one refers to the use of scientific and technological knowledge to resolve practical pro-
blems (related, for example, to basic human needs) and, consequently, to improve living stan-
dards. This form of scientific literacy is mostly related to the dissemination of information.
Civic scientific literacy involves awareness of public issues in science and technology – such
as environmental pollution and food quality – and the full participation of citizens in demo-
cratic dialogue around them. Cultural scientific literacy is described as the enjoyment of certain
aspects of science and the understanding of science as located within other human and cultural
productions.
Viewing scientific literacy as a continuum, Roberts (2007, p. 730) proposed two visions that
communicate with each other. Vision I, located at one extreme of the continuum, involves the
understanding of the products and processes of science. Vision II, situated at the other extreme,
derives from situations with science issues that one can encounter as a citizen. Regarding
Robert’s work, some have advocated for the inclusion of a Vision III related to scientific engage-
ment (Sjöström & Eilks, 2018) and, therein, to ethical and political attitudes about science and
technology issues. Through these different views and interpretations of scientific literacy, we
observe a movement from basic forms – related to acquiring and understanding facts and con-
cepts (products of science) – to more complex views that articulate a broad and critical compre-
hension of the nature of science, its socio-political contexts and positioning and attitudes about
science and technology issues.
In tandem with these ideas, scholarly works in science education have focused on the devel-
opment of capacities and skills that will help citizens of contemporary societies participate in
decision-making and sociopolitical engagement (Aikenhead et al., 2010; Bencze, 2017; Dos San-
tos, 2009; Hodson, 2014; Roth & Barton, 2004). For Hodson (2014), commitments to sociopo-
litical action represent radical and politicised forms of scientific literacy that would enable
people to pursue solutions for societal problems. Similarly, Dos Santos (2009) argues that con-
nections between more politicized forms of scientific literacy and science education have the
potential to transform inequitable social realities (particularly in this globalized world where
the local tends to be disregarded) and empower individuals, and collectives, to pursue social
and environmental transformation.
Inspired by a Freirean perspective, Marques et al. (2017) identify scientific literacy as a process,
involving dialogue between experiential and scientific culture, appropriation of knowledge (related
to scientific concepts, nature of science (NOS) and science, technology, society and environment
(STSE) perspectives) and social participation (involving decision-making and social transform-
ation). In their view, scientific literacy should promote epistemological consciousness and should
be integrated into social projects involving, ethics, respect, tolerance, social justice and democracy.
Pedretti and Nazir (2011) reframe the meaning of scientific literacy through the lens of STSE edu-
cation. They describe six STSE currents that speak to a range of ideologies and practices that
embrace broader understandings of scientific literacy. In particular, their emphasis on socio-cul-
tural and socio-ecojustice perspectives informs more recent conversations about what it means
to be scientifically literate.
While we acknowledge the relevance that progressive views of scientific literacy bring to
science education practices, particularly in the formal sector where they have primarily emerged,
we wonder about their impact in informal sectors, and specifically the science museum
landscape.
Scientific literacy, sustainability and science museums

Connections between scientific literacy and science museums are longstanding and evident in the
literature (e.g. Bandelli, 2014; Bell et al., 2009; Christensen et al., 2016; Henriksen & Frøyland,
2000; Hodder, 2010). However, recently institutional goals and purposes have been questioned
and scrutinized in light of scientific literacy perspectives (e.g. Hine & Medvecky, 2015; Pedretti
& Navas Iannini, 2020; Rennie & Williams, 2006), and their relevance reconsidered in our
increasingly ‘troubled world’ marked by environmental crises and degradation (Janes, 2009).
By revisiting the practical, cultural, economic and democratic arguments for scientific literacy,
Henriksen and Frøyland (2000) question major contributions of science museums. In so
doing, they compiled a list of possible new goals for these informal institutions that reflect
civic aspects of scientific literacy. These goals create a space for considering museums as public
service institutions, meeting places, arenas for public debate, dialogue institutions and contribu-
tors to the resolution of global challenges. Similarly, Achiam and Sølberg (2017) analyse how
science museums are responding to calls for change. They identify cultural, social, networking
and political meta-functions of these institutions, alongside more traditional functions, such as
researching, disseminating science, educating and preserving. According to Rennie and Williams
(2006, p. 793), expanding science museums’ roles and mandates to include dialogue, problem-sol-
ving and citizenship ‘would enable them to make a greater contribution to the practical and civic
aspects [of scientific literacy]’. Rennie and Williams suggest utilizing scientific knowledge to solve
practical problems while promoting awareness of public issues in science and technology and full
participation of citizens in democratic processes.
In expanding science museums’ roles and mandates, institutions have been called to engage with
education for sustainable development (Evans & Achiam, 2021; Janes & Sandell, 2019) and to con-
sider transformative practices related to society and environment (see, for example, Barrett & Sut-
ter, 2006). When considering public education for sustainable development, Reickmann (2020,
p. 39) refers to competences that ‘enable and empower individuals to reflect on their own actions
by taking into account their current and future social, cultural, economic and environmental
impacts from both a local and a global perspective’. Similarly, Cloud (2014, p. 1) discusses the
need to foster knowledge and ways of thinking ‘that society needs to achieve economic prosperity
and responsible citizenship while restoring the health of the living systems upon which our lives
depend’. Cloud (2014) further notes that (public) educational practices for sustainability should
mobilize citizens to think critically about how to shape the future they want and to consider the
unique value of sustainability. Similarly, Reickmann (2020) argues that education for sustainable
development implies participation in socio-political processes, with the aim of promoting social
and environmental transformation that could lead to create sustainable and healthy societies.
An examination of contemporary purposes of education for sustainable development allows us
to establish a clear parallel with progressive views of scientific literacy (expressed, for example, in
the voices of Hodson [2014], and Sjöström and Eilks [2018]). Particularly, we see connections
across these two frameworks when it comes to (1) the notion of socio-political engagement with
contemporary science and environmental issues that are socially relevant (critical Vision III of
scientific literacy) and (2) the idea of pursuing social and environmental transformation (and jus-
tice) inspired by diverse forms of literacy (scientific, technological, environmental, economic, pol-
itical, media and so on).
Vivid examples of education for sustainable development, and approaches that look to engage
critically with, for example, the impact of our actions on our planet, can be found in the science
museum world – reflected in educational programmes, institutional practices and exhibitions.
One outstanding example is the Brazilian Museum of Tomorrow. Created in 2015, this space is
described as an ‘applied science museum that looks to explore the opportunities and challenges
that humanity will face in the upcoming decades through sustainability and co-existence lenses’
(Museum of Tomorrow, 2021a, para 5). Through permanent and temporary exhibitions and pro-
gramming, the museum aims to provoke/engage visitors with complex questions (e.g. the
Anthropocene) while, simultaneously, playing with the idea of producing collections (e.g. images,
simulations) about what the future might hold (Museum of Tomorrow, 2021b).
Depending on the forms of representation chosen and the ways of conceiving the visitor experi-
ence, complex environmental and social topics – such as sustainability, climate change, deforesta-
tion – have the potential to move visitors to work towards social and environmental transformation.
These reflections echo Cameron and Deslandes (2011, p. 2011) words, when they talk about ‘the
potential for museums and science centres to develop citizen capacities for living creatively with
the opportunities and threats posed by climate change – as both physical reality and social dis-
course’. With these reflections in mind, we now consider the ways in which civic perspectives
have permeated science exhibitions engaging with complex environmental issues.
Typologies of science exhibitions

The historical evolution of science centres and their exhibitions reflects different social purposes,
ways of representing science and means of fostering visitors’ engagement (Amodio, 2013; Fried-
man, 2010; McManus, 1992; Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020). In this section, we discuss exhibition
typologies (i.e. pedagogical, experiential, critical and agential) which are useful in helping us under-
stand the terrain of exhibitionary practices (Pedretti & Navas, 2020), changing social roles and
goals, and raises possibilities for enacting dimensions of scientific literacy.
We begin by recalling the work of Wellington (1998) who characterized pedagogical and experi-
ential exhibitions. The first type – pedagogical – refers to exhibition that look to teach something to
visitors – e.g. facts about water pollution, population ecology or biodiversity. The second type –
experiential– aligns with ideas of interactivity and hands-on displays. In this kind of exhibition visi-
tors experience phenomena related to, for example, gravity, light, electricity, waves and so on. In
our view, both typologies –pedagogical and experiential – reflect traditional ways of representing
science due to their focus on content (principles, theories, phenomena, science ideas) and the
absence of context (Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020).
In 2002, Pedretti expanded this typology by suggesting the emergence of critical exhibitions,
those ‘that speak to the processes of science, the nature of science, and science and technology in
its sociocultural context’ (p. 9). From a more dominant tradition of enlightening visitors, or pro-
moting interaction with scientific phenomena, this exhibit typology works towards contextualizing
science and technology issues, portraying their social implications and moving visitors to engage
critically with them. Here we begin to see an expansion of mandates and social purposes within
these public institutions.
More recently, Pedretti and Navas Iannini (2020) identify the emergence of a fourth typology
involving agential exhibitions. Agential exhibitions are those that: (1) critically engage visitors
with subject matter situated at the intersection of STSE (e.g. drug consumption, climate change,
biodiversity loss, reproductive technologies, sexuality and so on); (2) consider visitors as political
agents of change and transformation and (3) look to mobilize audiences to act at a personal, familial
or societal level. Exhibits within this typology, rooted in action, tend to include novel spaces and
practices such as dramatization, fictional stories, empathy building exercises, opportunities for
decision-making, and spaces for conversations and deliberation. In sum, critical and agential exhi-
bitions reflect a radical departure from the more traditional hands-on or interactive exhibitions and
their preoccupation with immediate sensory experience, and explication of scientific phenomenon.
They embrace and broach complex (at times controversial) subject matter mired in social-cultural,
political, environmental and ethical considerations.
Earlier we noted pressing public environmental issues (that urge awareness, consideration, dis-
cussion, agency and full democratic participation) such as climate change, waste management,
deforestation and sustainability are beginning to be included in the repertoire of science museums
and their exhibitionary practices through more contemporary approaches. We suggest that some of
these approaches reflect aspects of critical and agential emphases (see, for example, Cameron et al.,
2013; Lyons & Bosworth, 2019; Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020; Sutter, 2008) and, Vision III of
scientific literacy. Consider for, instance, The Human Factor exhibit displayed at the Royal Sas-
katchewan Museum. Inspired by eco-centric philosophy, this exhibit raised questions about indus-
trialized worldviews and opened up opportunities for reflection and awareness about human
activities that could lead to more sustainable ways of living (Sutter, 2008). Another example is Kli-
maX, a climate change exhibition hosted by Heureka The Finnish Science Centre. In this exhibit
visitors ‘experience’ impacts of climate change by wearing knee-high yellow rubber boots (provided
to them from the moment they enter the exhibit) and wading into the ‘ocean’, represented by the
exhibit floor inundated with cold water melting from oversized ice blocks. Our World, is yet another
example of a sustainability exhibition and the setting for our study. Below we describe Our World in
more detail.
Setting the context: Our World

Our World began as a permanent exhibition at Science World (Vancouver, British Columbia). The
focus was to portray how our everyday choices can affect our environment and the world. Accord-
ing to the museum professionals we interviewed, the first version of the exhibition – created in 2001,
was originally characterized by a text-heavy approach (reminiscent of a pedagogical exhibition
typology with a focus on teaching through the delivery of knowledge) that prompted the renovation
of the space. The exhibit was then recreated and redeveloped with the intention of offering a less
text-heavy emphasis. In its next iteration, Our World was renamed Our World: BMO Sustainability
Gallery. Our visit occurred within this renovated space.
In its new form, the gallery kept the original idea of approaching a variety of issues related to our
everyday choices and their impact on the environment – rather than choosing to focus on a single
theme. This was reflected in the arrangement of panels, installations, games and interactives that
visitors could encounter around the topics of water, food and energy consumption and waste.
For example, the exhibit opened with ‘real time’ statistics reporting barrels of oil and litres of
water consumed around the world and in Vancouver, respectively (Figure 1). Passing the entrance,
Figure 1. Statistics displayed at the entrance of Our World. Credits: Ana Maria Navas Iannini.
a graphic panel entitled Where in the world is my recycled waste? included a map reflecting the tra-
jectory and amount of waste in transit from Vancouver to South Korea and China. On a digital
screen, visitors could ‘recreate’ the kind of food that constituted their regular lunch and, then,
obtain information about the amount of water needed to produce it (Figure 2). On another inter-
active display, visitors could test their knowledge about sorting and recycling diverse items such as
flip-flops.
Additionally, the exhibit included large cylinders full of toys and other objects that cannot be
easily recycled – such as bells and purses. These were reminders of the quantity of waste that we
produce (Figure 3). Powerful photos depicting our disposal of garbage, and the subsequent impact
on wildlife, were projected onto different walls of the exhibit (Figure 4). Tables and chairs con-
structed with recycled materials (that visitors could actually use), shed light on the possibilities
of reusing materials for household purposes. Our World also displayed a dialogue box where visitors
were invited to comment on a daily fictional question related to consumption. Unfortunately, the
exhibition is now closed permanently.
Methodology
Our study is positioned within a qualitative tradition. Employing case study as the research strategy
(Flyvbjerg, 2011; Stake, 2000), we focused on museum professionals’ goals, expectations and ten-
sions behind the (re)conceptualization of Our World. We then articulated these perspectives
with understandings about scientific literacy and exhibition typologies. Sources of data include pri-
marily semi-structured interviews with four museum professionals directly involved with the reno-
vation and maintenance of the exhibit, as well as documents and artefacts related to the exhibition,
observations, field notes and photographic records of the gallery.
Data collection
Data collection at Our World involved independent visits to the exhibit in 2015. Interviews were the
primary source of data. We used and modified accordingly, a protocol we had developed for inter-
viewing museum professionals in other case studies (see our larger research project, e.g. Pedretti &
Navas Iannini, 2018 for more details). Originally, the protocol included 12 questions centred
around three main topics: (1) conception and development of the exhibit (e.g. What do you
think are the main goals of this exhibit); (2) relationships between the exhibit and the visitors
(e.g. What do you expect visitors will ‘take home’ from their experience?); and (3) the roles of science
Figure 2. Digital installation that calculates the amount of water used to produce our food. This amount is displayed through
bathtubs filled with water. Credits: Ana Maria Navas Iannini.
Figure 3. Cylinders full of toys and other items that cannot be recycled and that generate waste. Credits: Ana Maria Navas Iannini.
museums, as envisioned by the staff (e.g. Do you think that science museums can be places for pre-
senting and discussing sensitive topics? Please explain.). The changes we made to the protocol spoke
to the specific topics and installations that were displayed at Our World (i.e. Do you think that
science museums can be places for presenting and discussing sensitive topics such as waste manage-
ment, food waste or water deprivation?). Due to the nature of the topics and images presented in
Our World and, also, the history of the exhibition (i.e. a renovation, new floor location), we
added a new question: How do you feel personally about the [new] exhibit? Have your feelings chan-
ged over time? How? Our hope was that personal perspectives and reflections would be shared and,
from that, we could better understand goals and tensions related to the renovated exhibit and their
articulation with scientific literacy and typologies of science museum exhibitions.
Using the adjusted protocol, we interviewed four museum professionals on site. Two of them
were curators directed involved in the renovation of the space, and in the decision about the
kind of displays and topics that could be preserved (from the previous version of Our World)
and added to the new version of the exhibit. Additionally, we interviewed two facilitators working
on and at the exhibit on a weekly basis. The facilitators were undergraduate students, trained by the
curators to serve as mediators in the space. These interviews lasted between 40 and 80 minutes and
were all audio-recorded.
Figure 4. Photo displaying waste found in the stomach of a death albatross. Credits: Ana Maria Navas Iannini.
On site we took pictures of the different displays, objects and caption labels, and produced field
notes related to particulars of the exhibit. Regarding documents and artefacts, we gathered exem-
plars of daily questions asked in the exhibit’s dialogue box, maps and blueprints of the exhibit (these
were sent to us by museum staff prior to our visit).
Data analyses
In our first analytical stage, the interaction with data – verbatim interview transcripts, field notes and
documents – occurred through constant comparative analysis method (CCA), (Fram, 2013). Bor-
rowing from O’Connor et al. (2008), we view CCA as a process that ensures that all data are system-
atically compared to each other. In this iterative and inductive process, data reduction occurs
through constant recoding (Fram, 2013). We started CCA by independently moving across our
different sets of data and comparing each set to another. In this first round of coding, we started
to identify codes that could be related to the ‘behind the scenes’ of the exhibit Our World, in
other words, to expectations/goals or tensions particularly related to the renovation of the space.
For example, excerpts of the conversations where museum staffers personally disagreed about
specific aspects of the new exhibit or, expressed frustration and then hope that different views
would be presented in a next iteration of the exhibit, were initially coded as tensions. Similarly, pas-
sages related to desired interactions between visitors and specific displays, were initially coded under
expectations/goals. In a second round of coding, we collectively (re)examined all data initially coded
under expectations/goals, and tensions in order to collapse codes and isolate emerging themes.
In a second analytical stage, we made use of deductive strategies that allowed us to connect our
emerging themes with key theoretical constructs related to scientific literacy and typologies of
science museum exhibits. For O’Connor et al. (2008, p. 41) ‘It is the time and the process of this
constant comparison that determines whether the analysis is deductive and will produce a testable
theory or whether the analysis is inductive and will build a theory for a particular context’. In this
case, we used perspectives related to progressive and traditional views of scientific literacy (e.g. Dos
Santos, 2009; Hodson, 2014; Pedretti & Nazir, 2011; Shen, 1975) to interact with our data. Our
intentions in using these perspectives were to articulate museum staff views with different con-
ceptions/dimensions of scientific literacy and exhibition typologies identified in/through the litera-
ture and to consolidate major analytical themes. We felt compelled to move beyond our (re)telling
of museum staff’s experiences in the context of renovating a sustainability-based exhibit. We saw
this work as an opportunity to ask ourselves: What can we learn about sustainability exhibitions
when we use a scientific literacy lens?
Findings
Museum professionals’ perspectives about Our World and in particular its renovation,
revealed goals, expectations and tensions that we combined under two major topics: (1) rede-
veloping the exhibit and (2) reimagining the visitor experience. The first topic reflects complex
decisions and choices about the nature, forms of representation and relevance of the contents
and narratives displayed. The second topic presents aspirations and tensions that arose as the
ideas of promoting visitors’ criticality, introspection and agency became part of the discourse
concerning exhibition goals. More will be said about each topic, and their themes, in the fol-
lowing sections.
Redeveloping the exhibit: aspirations and apprehensions

Commitments to sponsors and to the community
While talking about the renovation of Our World, and the decisions behind content and narratives,
the museum professionals referred to commitments to sponsors that provided funding. That was
the case with BC Hydro, a Canadian electric utility in the province of British Columbia:
We received some money from BC Hydro to redevelop our energy exhibits … When it was moving downstairs I
said ‘well … it was decided [that] we really need to develop it all together’. So, I said ‘we will bring the electrical
end energy stuff down here’ … another area that was really weak before, in Our World, was the water area …
(Interview, curator)
Acknowledging the role and importance of this sponsorship, the staff integrated the topic of water
(use/reservation/waste) into others, such as energy consumption, already included in the previous
version of the exhibit. In this sense, Our World was renovated, in part, by combining new and old
themes:
The water exhibit, the waste exhibit, those things were kind of added on and re-imagined as part of this this
installment (Interview, curator)
So we basically … we added the water area. We redid the water area. We redid recycling in here … (Interview,
curator)
As described by facilitators and curators, the science centre also consulted with different mem-
bers of the community during the renovation, with the aim of including local topics (and practices)
that could be meaningful, especially for Vancouverites. This was the case of recycling:
I feel like they [curators] did a lot of outreach to the community … especially because this is such a … very envir-
onmentally conscious neighbourhood, it is very green. (Interview, facilitator)
We had discussions with people from city of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver and also private recyclers … Recy-
cling is a very competitive business … They do not like to issue out how much they recycle and who they recycle to
… but we managed to get some information from them. (Interview, curator)
In search of balance and relevance

In several instances, the museum team spoke at length about content they wished to have included
to achieve relevance and a better balance across topics. They described financial constraints such as
available funding as one of the barriers that impacted the content and final look of the exhibit; this
was particularly prevalent with regards to some displays that did not reflect the intensions of
curators:
I am not really crazy about that game over there [referring to the compost game]. That game was just … last
minute. We did not have very much money … so we did basically a version of operation where you took stuff -
food items out of the compost or out of the landfill and put them in the recycling bin, so they could be recycled. I
think if I could have done something on how much food does the average family waste … That might be inter-
esting. (Interview, curator)
An imbalance between the topics displayed was also acknowledged by facilitators, particularly
regarding issues related to food consumption and waste that might not be part of the public
imagination:
I think that they have lots of different stuff about power generation … tons of stuff about that. I think that they
could have more information, maybe, about … environmental impact of different foods that you eat … Because, I
recently became aware of the amount of carbon and water it takes … for the dairy industry and agriculture
industry to function. It is crazy! And I feel like it is one of those things that not a lot of people know about. (Inter-
view, facilitator)
Related still to the desire for more balance and relevance across topics, some members of the staff
expressed concerns about whether the exhibit would be valuable to broader audiences:
I think everyone agrees that [the exhibit] is a good idea, but I think, sometimes … this incarnation of the gallery
… is still relatively new compared to the rest of Science World … maybe, people do not see its importance yet,
whereas I think everyone can agree that in theory it is important. (Interview, facilitator)
Regarding content and its forms of representation, we identified tensions about how to negotiate
the desire of generating deeper scientific understandings about complex issues (such as climate
change), and the idea of having displays that were exciting but not too ‘scientifically’ heavy. This
delicate balance is expressed in the words of one of the curators:
For me, climate change is a really big [issue], well it is the biggest issue facing humans in the next while and, so, I
think of having something a bit more tied into that [would be important] … I think part of it, for me, as an
environmental educator and a science educator, is not [that] we are trying to get people to become scientists
… (Interview, curator)
The museum team also experienced conflicts between the idea of transmitting clear and short mess-
ages about well-known topics (that could move visitors to change or adjust everyday behaviours and
choices), and/or focusing on more extended scientific narratives relating to unknown and perhaps
difficult issues:
The exhibits [where engagement] was happening most were the ones that have … the simplest message … so one
was the compost game and the recycling trash or recycle sorting game. These ones … have the highest break-
through level but that is also because that is what people understand the most already … They are able to say
‘hey! I do this at home and I know what one goes in the trash or the recycling’. (Interview, curator)
A hopeless angle
According to the museum team, the renovated Our World tended to focus on the negative aspects of
our choices and the ways they relate to the environment (e.g. all that we waste, all that we consume),
thereby disregarding the more positives perspectives (for example, what could be done to live in
more sustainable ways or what could we offer to future generations). As acknowledged by one of
facilitators, the exhibit is ‘pretty depressing right now … [there are] … a lot of negative things,
sad facts in there. It’s horrible! You’re like ‘oh my goodness!’ (Interview, facilitator). In moving
forward, the staff expressed their desire to transform some of the negative and even hopeless angles
displayed into positive contexts or stories:
If you go up to a different gallery and you pull a ball and it does a thing … it is like ‘oh that’s a cool physics lesson!’
but, also I got to do that cool thing. Whereas here, you might play a game and it is like ‘we’re all going to die!’. So,
I am fighting that initial frustration of ‘what can I even do?’. (Interview, facilitator)
Some of the upcoming changes that we are looking for are … making it … having a bit more of a positive spin …
not ‘look what you’ve done with the choices you’ve made’ … but ‘look what other people are doing around the
world’. So, comparing to other countries, organizations or individuals that are making positive environmental
impact because of the choices that they are making – because of this understanding – we have this global con-
nection. (Interview, curator)
I get a lot of inspiration from hearing about what individuals are doing and so I think that that is currently miss-
ing in terms of … the ‘hero’ stories … Current cool green technology is a really good way of engaging people
because it is also … exciting … (Interview, curator)
As alluded to above, one approach that the museum team expected to employ more often involved
inspiring and empowering visitors by sharing/introducing sustainable actions taken by others:
It’s … putting the power in people’s own hands … I am very attached to the subject matter … that is where my
passion lies … environmental education and getting people keen about sustainability … and, yeah, there is
definitely some things I really love about it and I think are successful and then other things where I see we
can do it differently. As educators we are realizing that we need to move from this behavioralist perspective,
where … you … we … the teacher tells you what you should do and, instead, it is that idea of … ‘Hey! We are
all in this together’ What should we do? Look at what some other people are doing.’ How do we engage in
this subject matter and make it a little more empowering? I think it is what I would like to see … not feeling
like it is hopeless. (Interview, curator)
Curators and educators aspired to a future version of the exhibit that conveyed more clearly that
there is still hope for producing social and environmental change.
Reimagining the visitor experience: aspirations and apprehensions

Accessing new, updated and trustworthy information
On several occasions the Our World’s team referred to the exhibit as a space that could move visitors
to access updated information about environmental issues (and research) and contexts for their
choices and behaviours:
I think it was a little bit ‘journalistically’ what we wanted to do … expose people a little bit more about [news] …
current affairs … So just a little bit more than what you normally hear about recycling or about use of water and
so on. It was just [about] trying to provide people with a little bit more information, possibly for context … Like
this one, that wall graphic over there ‘How much food does an average family throw out?’. That came from a
fabulous British study where they went through everybody’s garbage and they just said ‘well, these grapes are
still good’. You know, they went back and basically did some stories, very simple. (Interview, curator)
I think he [referring to another staff member] was just trying to also incorporate … new science that ties into the
themes of Our World … A topic that is so dynamic, it is constantly changing, so the information that we have
about the environment is constantly changing. Our impacts are changing. The technologies we are using are
changing … And so, I think that one of our goals was just trying to keep a little bit more up-to-date in terms
of … exciting new science, new technologies or ideas that are going on right now. (Interview, curator)
In providing information that is not necessarily new in terms of research and developments
(although it may be for visitors), there was a deliberate attempt to make knowledge more accessible
and attractive in order to catch visitors’ curiosity and lessen the gap between scientists and the pub-
lic in terms of knowledge:
There is this kind of mistrust in science that makes me really uncomfortable … So, I want it [the exhibit] to be
science storytelling, in terms of ‘scientists are studying these things because they are really passionate and they are
worried about the planet and their communities’ and that kind of thing … trying to make it a little more real.
[We] try to provide them [the visitors] with some fascinating information or something that they think they will
find interesting and just peak their curiosity. Like ‘how much water goes into your meal’. So … it may change
their behaviour … but the first thing is maybe [that] they want to know more. … try to peak that curiosity.
In this spirit, educators and facilitators also made information available for visitors through
resources found outside of the exhibit (for example on the science centre’s website). Efforts to
keep Our World updated are part of the team’s work, as the science facilitator acknowledged:
Me and the other staff who work in Our World … if you see an interesting … newspaper article or whatever, you
can bring it to the attention of the exhibit’s curator and then we … keep the exhibit up to date. Sometimes guests
will come up and say ‘oh, have you heard about this story?’ and, then, that is a great way … a great resource to be
able to say ‘I’ll look into it!’. (Interview, facilitator)
Promoting awareness
A clear aspiration for the visitor experience was the need to raise individual awareness about com-
plex environmental issues that are directly related to the impact of human choices/activities on the
world around us. This was expressed by two staff members:
I would say [that the goal of the exhibit is] to get people thinking about and being aware of the impacts that their
choices, that they make every day, have on the Earth. (Interview, facilitator)
I hope that they [the visitors] are taking home the message that … ‘all of us are creating an impact’ … There are
over seven billion people on planet earth, we need to treat the Earth and each other well. (Interview, curator)
The expectation of generating awareness was tied to new displays that could affect visitors
through powerful images, statements, facts and statistics:
In the gallery there is a picture of the contents of an albatross’s stomach … people might not be too happy with
that. And … as I was saying before … you might feel a little humbled by what you haven’t done yet. (Interview,
facilitator)
Food being wasted in Canada 3122326156 Kilograms (Field notes, information displayed and counting on elec-
tronic panel)
Although the renovated version of the exhibit was intended to impact visitors and generate
awareness, there were concerns about risky choices related to content and its forms of represen-
tation and how they might impact the experience of the public in the space. In selecting some of
these new resources to be included in the exhibit, a curator explained part of the process:
We do not just put up something because we think it is important. I mean we will definitely test the community.
We do survey … on the risk … we surveyed the public about that Chris Jordan shot [of the dead albatross], and I
think I had four or five eight-and-a-half by elevens of different shots that Chris let me use. And [I] just said ‘which
one?’ … We came up with this [one] … Same with the sexuality [exhibition]. I showed a lot of people nude pic-
tures of people and said ‘are you comfortable with this?’ And about 80% said ‘not a problem at all’. (Interview,
curator)
Fostering change and agency

In the spirit of moving visitors to be forward thinking (and, to some extent, transitioning from
awareness to action), the museum team decided to combine global and local perspectives related
to consumption and waste. This is illustrated in the words of the curators and facilitators:
I think for Our World, particularly, it is just what is going on in Vancouver right now, more or less. I think that
there are … international ties in the gallery but I think there are quite a few local ties as well … which are impor-
tant. (Interview, facilitator)
Currently, I think [that] part of it is trying to engage people in the consequences of their daily choices and how the
things that we wear, the things that we buy, the things that we play with and what we eat … all of that has an
environmental impact … and that has a global impact as well … plastic waste in the ocean, how [scarce] …
accessible fresh water is on planet Earth and how much we use compared to other places in the world. The choices
we are making go beyond our day-to-day life. (Interview, curator)
By including local and global perspectives, the museum staff hoped to broaden the visitor’s
vision regarding cause–effect relationships and human impact on the environment. The museum
team spoke of their intentions to problematize personal perspectives:
I think the exhibit was trying to change people’s perspective on things a little bit. Give them a little bit more infor-
mation about things. I guess maybe try to break away from the standard kind of rhetorical phrasing that is used
around sustainability … Let us just say, looking a little bit deeper about recycling, water use … We always say
‘well, you know, you should stop, we should reduce this and this and this’ and then we think ‘okay then’. In some
ways how does that actually affect your life? (Interview, curator)
Curators were interested in also helping visitors look ‘inwards’, and to (re)consider their own beliefs
and practices:
Other galleries … are there to sort of bring to light science concepts just like physics concepts … We do chemistry
shows and things like that … This one [Our World] is really asking you to reflect inward and think about, ‘okay,
well, I do throw a lot of stuff out and, yeah, I did let vegetables rot in my fridge’ and … those kinds of choices that
you are making and how they connect. So, I think it challenges you to look inward and really see that there are
things that you can … that everyone can do to improve their environmental impact and have a positive change
… Some people may feel challenged in terms of their personal choices. (Interview, curator)
I have had one or two visitors who came up to me and said ‘wow, I had no idea about this’ [pointing at a display]
or the things about waste and all the toys … They were there with two kids and they said ‘well, next time you ask
me for a new toy, think about how many toys are thrown out. ‘Maybe we should stop buying so many new toys’.
So … I have seen it start some dialogues, between families that, if they remember it the next day, it could
definitely change their lives. (Interview, facilitator)
Aligned with these initiatives, the curators decided to include a dialogue box in the exhibit used
to explore and/or challenge visitors’ beliefs through complex questions that posed different fictional
scenarios. These questions varied from day to day as the following example and Figure 3 illustrate:
‘How would your life change if you could only eat locally produced food?’ (Field notes, question
written in the dialogue box, 23 October 2015) (Figure 5).
The introspective scope of the dialogue box was emphasized by the curators:
[The dialogue box] was a way that you provide some sort of profound question and then watch for people’s
response to it … and, then you know, to challenge that. (Interview, curator)
We do end up getting some pretty engaging answers on there [the dialogue box] and people really thinking
about the subject and really on polar opposite sides of the spectrum … Sometimes they are like ‘ugh!’ … We
change up the questions, we have a whole series of questions there. Just thinking right now it is the local
food ones and some people say ‘I would never give up eating pineapples and da da da’. And then other people
are like ‘it would be great!’ and ‘I will get all my stuff at the farmer’s market and it would make life easy’.
Through these initiatives, curators and educators hoped that ultimately visitors would develop
agency (and hope) outside the science centre:
I want people to take away that ‘it’s not too late, look what we can do!’, ‘look what people are doing around the
world!’ … and because we are so connected, it can actually be very positive because we can learn from our own
mistakes and other people’s mistakes and also other people’s gains. What others are doing around the world …
that works really well. (Interview, curator)
Maintaining a neutral space?

Museum staff expressed concerns about ‘finger pointing’. In our conversations, some facilitators
expressed struggles about the best way of approaching and engaging visitors with difficult conver-
sations about the topics displayed:
Figure 5. Dialogue box with questions posed to visitors. Credits: Ana Maria Navas Iannini.
One of the things I am always nervous about is … I do not want to go and … rant at a visitor and say … ‘well you
should be doing this and you should be doing that’ because it is going to have the opposite effect on them and they
are not going to feel [well] … Things like asking people to change their diet, remove red meat from it … some
people would passionately say ‘no, I do not want to do that’ … So, I feel … the way that it [the exhibit] presents
it is like ‘here is some information and you can do what you want with it’. So I like that component of it. (Inter-
view, facilitator)
The tension we identify here is between providing tools for promoting social and environmental
change, and, at the same time, avoiding mandates. In this context, some members of staff were will-
ing to keep the exhibit and the relationships with visitors within a ‘neutral space, where (in their
view) ‘objective’ information could be displayed (or offered) and from it, visitors could make
their own choices and decisions:
The way that it is [currently] done, it is meant to be a kind of a neutral territory. It is not necessarily condemning
anything as being bad. I mean … it is a good place … you can come from a really objective perspective, and
instead of saying that something is good or bad necessarily, just giving, presenting facts and [the] guest[s]
can, maybe, make up their own mind[s]. (Interview, facilitator)
In this ‘neutral space’, the museum team wondered about the effect of certain displays on visitors.
More specifically, they expressed worry about powerful images (see Figure 4) that could (poten-
tially) promote visceral reactions:
You can take an image and hardly add any words to it and it tells you something about it … We were actually
going to use some shots that were a little bit more punchy than this one [referring to the picture of the albatross].
There was a fear that some people were going be freaked out by it. (Interview, curator)
It appears that the museum team did not want to risk their relationship with visitors by strongly
challenging their beliefs and perspectives. This is a common sentiment, and not entirely surprising.
Discussion and implications

Our findings suggest that the renovation and (re)conceptualization of this gallery illustrates an
attempt to move from a pedagogical to a critical and agential agenda, through which progressive
views of scientific literacy could be at play. This movement comes with delicate decisions, nego-
tiations and choices about goals, content, context, forms of representation and ways of fostering
visitor engagement. Below we discuss this movement, and its implications for exhibitionary prac-
tices and for deepening understandings of scientific literacy dimensions.
The role of information

Disseminating information was a key component in the original version of Our World, and was still
relevant in the renovated version of the exhibit. As illustrated in the findings, the museum team
hoped that visitors could access updated and well-grounded information provided through the
exhibit’s displays, and also, through online resources. They spoke about keeping more up-to-
date information, sharing exciting new science, and new technologies, and the dynamism of that
knowledge. Their efforts relate to the practical and cultural dimensions of scientific literacy
described by Shen (1975) that involve (1) possession and use of scientific knowledge and (2) enjoy-
ment of science as a human endeavour. In this particular exhibit, the first dimension is reflected in
the representation of data, statistics and facts (that visitors can access, learn about, and incorporate
into their knowledge base). The second dimension involves displaying techno-scientific develop-
ments, updating information, and providing knowledge about contemporary advancements such
as wind turbines and fuel cells. They hoped that these efforts would serve to enhance visitor excite-
ment, curiosity and appreciation.
The need for information is an important and needed facet of scientific literacy and a legitimate
goal for science exhibitions. However, dissemination of information in a passive transmissive way,
is not enough when it comes to envisioning contemporary scientific literacy practices in the science
museum world. A pedagogical agenda might be useful in a science exhibit if the information that is
provided is relevant, robust and timely (Levinson, 2010) and more importantly, if it can support
other agendas (such as critical or agential goals). There are times, however, when sponsorship issues
may impose limits about what knowledge or narrative, for example, is included or privileged, not
included, and/or celebrated. As it happens, in Our World, finding balance and relevance for certain
topics was challenging, especially in an era when funding (recall the ‘BMO’ portion of the exhibit’s
title) and exhibition production intersect.
We argue that an over-reliance on knowledge or content at the expense of other domains of
scientific literacy in informal settings (expressing, for example, one’s position, attitudes and agency)
is problematic. More progressive views of scientific literacy (that articulate access to information
and content with issues of citizenship and civic participation) move us to consider more contem-
porary perspectives of the social roles and purposes of science museums (Henriksen & Frøyland,
2000; Stocklmayer et al., 2010; Pedretti & Navas Iannini, 2020) and calls for the articulation of
different typologies within a single exhibition. More will be said about this in the following sections.
Navigating the in-between positions

Although the renovated Our World was not intended to become an agential exhibit in the sense of
explicitly questioning visitors’ beliefs or inviting visitors to engage in debates and actions about
environmental topics, the articulated exhibit goals did approach issues with potential to be contentious
and provocative. In the new version of the exhibit, the museum team navigated a number of in-between
positions that implied difficult choices and carried implications for exhibition practices. These in-
between positions become spaces that require hard work amongst museum staff as they negotiate
aspects of content, messaging, production and visitor experience (Eikeland & Frøyland, 2020).
At Our World, staff hoped that visitors would interrogate and eventually change their own beliefs
and practices while cautioning against finger pointing (echoing the desire to maintain a neutral
space). In another example, the goal to promote awareness about critical environmental issues is
primarily driven by shocking/powerful statistics, images, and content alongside staff articulating
concerns about leaving visitors feeling hopeless. These tensions reflect, to some extent, the difficul-
ties of moving from traditional interpretations of scientific literacy to more critical and progressive
views that encompass epistemic consciousness (Marques et al., 2017) and epistemic capacity (Hine &
Medvecky, 2015). Epistemic capacity (in this context) refers to the development of skills that would
allow visitors/citizens to not only understand the issues posed by the exhibit but, also to asses them,
make informed decisions and (potentially) act.
Other in-between positions involve cause–effect relationship between humans and nature, and
tensions concerning the best ways to engage visitors with (and move them to consider) ecological
world views. Borrowing from Shume’s (2017) work, it is interesting to note that cause–effect per-
spectives in the exhibit have potential to critique and challenge anthropocentric views of nature,
including technocentrism (us over nature) and egocentrism (us vs. nature). This potential could
be seen in the powerful exhibit discourse about using and exhausting different kinds of natural
resources such as water and food. However, other views such as biocentrism could reflect more posi-
tive ways of envisioning the ideas (and ideals) of humans-within-nature and humans-in-nature.
Here, we can begin to see promising pathways for (re)envisioning these latter relationships and
ideals, and for developing and/or (re)imagining environmental and suitability exhibitions.
Towards civic responsibility

Over the years, we have been considering how socio eco-justice and socio-political perspectives (e.g.
Dos Santos, 2009; Hodson, 2014; Pedretti & Nazir, 2011; Sjöström, 2019) could be embraced by
exhibits that directly approach sensitive and complex environmental issues. Recalling Pedretti
and Nazir’s (2011, p. 608) work, a socio-ecojustice perspective involves ‘[c]ritiquing/solving social
and ecological problems through human agency or action’. Accordingly, this perspective considers
citizenship and civic responsibility to produce positive social and environmental transformation. For
Pedretti and Nazir, potential strategies for embracing a socio-ecojustice perspective include the use
of socio-scientific issues, the conception and development of community projects, and the develop-
ment of action plans. Borrowing from Barrett and Sutter (2006), we argue that Our World aimed to
promote behavioural modification primarily in terms of individual actions – how to better recycle;
how to choose products more wisely; how to make better choices regarding the food you consume,
the amount of energy you use, the waste you produce. Museum staff hoped that visitors would
become personally responsible citizens (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), acting responsibly in their
community, and making better and fairer choices regarding the environment.
In this context, we wonder how exhibits delving into complex environmental issues might more
fully embrace opportunities to approach civic responsibility – a feature that is at the core of socio-
ecojustice perspectives and agential exhibits – alongside other aspects of citizenship such as the par-
ticipatory and the justice-oriented profiles (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). These two profiles of citi-
zens involve critically assessing political, economic and social structures beneath the surface of the
issues and engaging in organizing collective efforts to generate social and environmental change.
Extending these ideas to the science museum landscape, we ask: Would it be possible (and desir-
able) for science museums to create exhibitions that invite small group of visitors to experience
together, parts of an exhibition and share their responses to it? Could groups of visitors be included
in an activity that implies pondering positions about a particular environmental concern and out-
lining a plan for action?
We can begin to see possibilities for fostering stewardship (Janes, 2009) through exhibitionary
practices. This implies moving from individual perspectives to more explicit articulation and atten-
tion to collective pathways for assuming and acting towards long-term care of the environment.
This is no easy task. For example, the focus on promoting awareness on cause–effect relationships
between humans and environment, as described in Our World, generated tensions in some staff
members who would like to have seen a more positive approach (and even more agency) versus
the negative and, somehow, hopeless perspective that the exhibit tended to convey. A more positive
spin – in terms of courting other possibilities of citizenship – could be achieved through more col-
lective, action-oriented approaches for sustainable and environmental education (Barrett & Sutter,
2006) enacted by/through the exhibition and its visiting publics.
Final thoughts: civic scientific literacy and museum practices

Progressive views of scientific literacy (when enacted in science museums’ practices) call for critical
and agential exhibitions and for spaces and practices that aim to engage the audience in reflection
and action about the complexities of the issues posed. It is a challenge, however, to imagine how
progressive views of scientific literacy can be embraced through exhibitionary practices. (Re)con-
ceptualizing an exhibit to include elements of participation, change and agency are often desirable,
but can be fraught with challenges. These approaches represent, to some extent, potentially ‘danger-
ous’ terrains due to what is implied when: (1) going beyond the surface of the issues, and opening
up a space to consider and engage with the social, political and economic forces involved (Janes,
2009; Pedretti & Nazir, 2011; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004); (2) developing deep and complex cri-
tiques (Sperling & Bencze, 2015); (3) openly challenging staff (and visitors) to examine their core
attitudes, beliefs and practices (Barrett & Sutter, 2006; Kollmann et al., 2013; Ng et al., 2017) and
(4) adopting an outward focus from which the visitors, and broadly speaking the community, pro-
vide feedback to the institution (Barrett & Sutter, 2006). Our work has prompted us to consider how
progressive views of scientific literacy (involving civic perspectives) could be envisioned in theory
and practice. In so doing, we offer some concluding thoughts.
Firstly, we are reminded of the concept of ‘productive struggle’ that can occur for staff (and visi-
tors too) when engaging with more complex subject matter and participatory visitor engagement
strategies. Productive struggle implies that people are engaged in thinking critically and probably
experiencing some emotional disequilibrium (D’Mello et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2017). This concept
provides a powerful way forward as we consider staff (and visitor experiences), and the inherent
tensions that emerge. Productive struggle can be problematic and uncomfortable as museum
staff negotiate, for example: new exhibitions that approach controversy; decisions around content
to be included/excluded or privileged/not privileged; funding issues; and institutional positioning
with respect to the public gaze. However, these moments are necessary and provide opportunities
for institutional growth, re-prioritizing of goals and possibly re-interpretations of what it means to
be scientifically literate (Achiam & Sølberg, 2017; Henriksen & Frøyland, 2000; Pedretti & Navas
Iannini, 2020).
Secondly, when displaying critical and complex environmental issues the role of knowledge is
nuanced. Exhibitions that are willing to engage in sensitive science and technology topics, tend
to promote awareness, generate introspection and foster dialogue opportunities. By implication,
science museums would need to provide information that is relevant and useful for the commu-
nities that attend (Navas Iannini & Pedretti, 2017). Similarly, Levinson (2010) reminds us of the
importance of relaying robust, timely and relevant knowledge, particularly when it can support
other dimensions of engagement such as deliberation and praxis (potentially, as part of the visitor
experience) - hallmarks of critical and agential exhibitions. The provision of useful information,
within a pedagogical emphasis, needs to be combined with other agendas that require active and
critical involvement. Critical and agential exhibition add the potential to foster other skills associ-
ated with more progressive views of scientific literacy such as formulation of own opinions,
decision-making, weighing of evidence and agency.
Thirdly, issues of neutrality need to be (re)considered when thinking about science exhibi-
tions that are willing to go beyond the surface and explore, in deeper ways, the social, political
and economic contexts in which complex topics are immersed. Hodson’s (2014) reflections
about introducing critical themes in science education are useful to discussions about whether
science museums should keep or aim to maintain neutral positions regarding the issues they dis-
play. For Hodson (2014, p. 74) neutrality is a position that threatens credibility as ‘[t]he key
point is that all views embody a particular position, and that position needs to be rationalized
and justified if indoctrination is to be avoided’. Science museums have been often seen as repo-
sitories of truth, places that could be related to a search for neutrality and ‘objectivity’. However,
authors such as Cameron (1971, 2012), Cameron and Kelly (2010), Henriksen and Frøyland
(2000), Hine and Medvecky (2015), Mazda (2004), and Rennie and Williams (2006) have called
science museums to become forums for rich conversations - places that promote questioning,
criticality and yes, scepticism. In this context, we argue that if it is difficult for science museums
to assume and defend a specific position (due primarily to the different voices articulated in the
mounting of exhibits including CEOs, curators, sponsors, community, etc.) other pathways
could be taken. For example, exhibits that focus on critical science and technology themes
could consider affirmative neutrality as a way of (1) acknowledging different positions, voices,
points of view and arguments around the issues; (2) portraying more realistic science and tech-
nology perspectives and deeper understandings on the complex interactions among science,
technology, society, and environment and (3) raising the (social, cultural, economic, political)
implications of scientific and technological advancements according to the interest of different
social actors.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that embracing progressive views of scientific literacy through
exhibitionary practices is hard work. Our study, however, suggests that in spite of barriers and
risks that might accompany such a shift, science museums, worldwide are increasingly engaging
in discussions and practices that reflect a growing trend to engage visitors in different and critical
ways with complex topics such as environmental sustainability, climate change and biodiversity
loss. Whether creating a new exhibition, or re-imagining and renovating an existing exhibition,
it can be done. Amidst the challenges of embracing more progressive views of scientific literacy
in/through science exhibitions, we see and welcome the possibilities for moving forward and fos-
tering different dimensions of public engagement and scientific citizenry around science, technol-
ogy and environmental issues that matter.
Acknowledgements
We thank Daniel James Atkinson for his enthusiasm and support in collecting data for this research. We are grateful
to the Science World staff who so generously welcomed us into their space and provided us with all the opportunities
and conditions for conducting data collection.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for
funding this study [grant number 30124].
ORCID
Ana Maria Navas Iannini http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-2649
Erminia Pedretti http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9825-8813
References
Achiam, M., & Sølberg, J. (2017). Nine meta-functions for science museums and science centres. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 32(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2016.1266282
Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2010). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In C. Linder & A.
MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 28–44). Routledge.
Amodio, L. (2013). Science communication at glance. In A. M. Bruyas & M. Riccio (Eds.), Science centres and science
events (pp. 27–46). Springer.
Bandelli, A. (2014). Assessing scientific citizenship through science centre visitor studies. Journal of Science
Communication, 13(1), C05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13010305
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),
9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556685
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People.
Places, and Pursuits. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190
Bencze, L. (2017). Science and technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments:
STEPWISE (Vol. 14). Springer.
Cameron, D. (1971). The museum, a temple or the forum. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum (pp. 61–
73). Altamira Press.
Cameron, F. (2006). Beyond surface representations: Museums, ‘edgy’ topics, civic responsibilities and modes of
engagement. Open Museum Journal: Contest and Contemporary Society, 8.
Cameron, F. (2012). Climate change, agencies and the museum and science centre sector. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 27(4), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.720183
Cameron, F., & Deslandes, A. (2011). Museums and science centres as sites for deliberative democracy on climate
change. Museum and Society, 9(2), 136–153.
Cameron, F., Hodge, B., & Salazar, J. F. (2013). Representing climate change in museum space and places. WIRES
Climate Change, 4(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.200
Cameron, F., & Kelly, L. (2010). Hot topics. Public culture, museums. Cambridge Scholars.
Christensen, J. H., Bønnelycke, J., Mygind, L., & Bentsen, P. (2016). Museums and science centres for health: From
scientific literacy to health promotion. Museum Management and Curatorship, 31(1), 17–47. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09647775.2015.1110710
Cloud, J. (2014). The essential elements of education for sustainability (EfS) editorial introduction from the guest
editor. Journal of Sustainability Education, 6, 1–9.
D’Mello, S., Dale, R., & Graesser, A. (2012). Disequilibrium in the mind, disharmony in the body. Cognition &
Emotion, 26(2), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.575767
Dos Santos, W. L. P. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science edu-
cation. Science Education, 93(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20301
Eikeland, I., & Frøyland, M. (2020). Pedagogical considerations when educators and researchers design a contro-
versy-based educational programme in a science centre. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 16(1), 84–100.
https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.7001
Evans, H. J., & Achiam, M. (2021). Sustainability in out-of-school science education: Identifying the unique poten-
tials. Environmental Education Research, 27(8), 1192–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1893662
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 301–315). SAGE.
Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report,
18(1), 1–25.
Friedman, A. J. (2010). The evolution of the science museum. Physics Today, 63(10), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.
3502548
Henriksen, E. K., & Frøyland, M. (2000). The contribution of museums to scientific literacy: Views from audience and
museum professionals. Public Understanding of Science, 9(4), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/304
Hine, A., & Medvecky, F. (2015). Unfinished science in museums: A push for critical science literacy. Journal of
Science Communication, 14(2), A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.14020204
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963662509335526
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International journal of science edu-
cation, 25(6), 645–670.
Hodson, D. (2014). Be part of the solution learning about, from activism. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist
science and technology education (pp. 67–98). Springer Netherlands.
Janes, R. R. (2009). Museums in a troubled world: Renewal, irrelevance or collapse? Routledge.
Janes, R. R., & Sandell, R. (2019). Museum activism. Routledge.
Kollmann, E. K., Reich, C., Bell, L., & Goss, J. (2013). Tackling tough topics: Using socio-scientific issues to help
museum visitors participate in democratic dialogue and increase their understandings of current science and tech-
nology. Journal of Museum Education, 38(2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2013.11510768
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science
Education, 46(1), 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903562433
Lyons, S., & Bosworth, K. (2019). Museums in the climate emergency. In R. R. Janes & R. Sandell (Eds.), Museum
activism (pp. 174–185). Routledge.
Marques, A. M. C. T. P., Júnior, P. M., & Marandino, M. (2017). Alfabetização científica e crianças: As potenciali-
dades de uma brinquedoteca. Enseñanza de las Ciencias: Revista de Investigación y Experiencias Didácticas,
1661–1666.
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). AltaMira Press.
McManus, P. M. (1992). Topics in museums and science education. Studies in Science Education, 20(1), 157–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269208560007
Museum of Tomorrow. (2021a). About. https://museudoamanha.org.br/pt-br/sobre-o-museu
Museum of Tomorrow. (2021b). Exhibits. https://museudoamanha.org.br/pt-br/exposicoes
Navas Iannini, A. M., & Pedretti, E. (2017). Preventing youth pregnancy: Dialogue and deliberation in a science
museum exhibit. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(4), 271–287.
Ng, W., Ware, S., & Greenberg, A. (2017). Activating diversity and inclusion: A blueprint for museum educators as
allies and change makers. Journal of Museum Education, 42(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2017.
1306664
O’Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Grounded theory: Managing the challenge for those facing
institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407308907
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., & Navas Iannini, A. M. (2020). Controversy in science museums: Reimagining exhibit spaces and practice.
Taylor & Francis UK.
Pedretti, E., Navas Iannini, A. M. (2018). Pregnant pauses, science museums, schools and a controversial exhibition.
In R. Gunstone, D. Corrigan & A. Jones (Eds.), Navigating the changing landscape of formal and informal science
learning opportunities (pp. 26–40). Springer.
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field forty years on. Science
Education, 95(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20435
Rennie, L. J., & Williams, G. F. (2006). Communication about science in a traditional museum: Visitors’ and staff’s
perceptions. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 791–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9035-8
Rieckmann, M. (2018). Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in education for sustainable develop-
ment. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development, 39, 39–59.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. RoutledgeFalmer.
Shen, B. (1975). Science literacy. American Scientist, 63(3), 265–268.
Shume, T. J. (2017). Mapping conceptions of wolf hunting onto an ecological worldview conceptual framework. In
M. P. Mueller, D. J. Tippins, & A. J. Stewart (Eds.), Animals and science education (pp. 223–241). Springer.
Sjöström, J. (2019). Didactic modelling for socio-ecojustice. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education,
10(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.33137/jaste.v10i1.32916
Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the
concept of Bildung. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in
STEM education: Innovations in Science Education and Technology (Vol. 24, pp. 65–88). Springer.
Sperling, E., & Bencze, J. L. (2015). Reimagining non-formal science education: A case of ecojustice-oriented citizen-
ship education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 261–275. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1062937
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–
454). Sage.
Stocklmayer, S. M., 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057260903562284
Sutter, G. C. (2008). Promoting sustainability: Audience and curatorial perspectives on the human factor. Curator:
The Museum Journal, 51(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2008.tb00305.x
Wellington, J. J. (1998). Interactive science centres and science education. Croner’s Heads of Science Bulletin (16).
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237

Iannini & Pedretti 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iannini & Pedretti 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Science Education, Part B

Communication and Public Engagement

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsed20

Museum staff perspectives about a sustainability

Ana Maria Navas Iannini & Erminia Pedretti

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.2015638

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 13 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Museum staﬀ perspectives about a sustainability exhibition: what

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Ana Maria Navas Iannini a.navas@uniandes.edu.co

Unpacking scientiﬁc literacy

Scientiﬁc literacy, sustainability and science museums

Typologies of science exhibitions

Setting the context: Our World

Redeveloping the exhibit: aspirations and apprehensions

In search of balance and relevance

Reimagining the visitor experience: aspirations and apprehensions

Fostering change and agency

Maintaining a neutral space?

Discussion and implications

The role of information

Navigating the in-between positions

Towards civic responsibility

Final thoughts: civic scientiﬁc literacy and museum practices

You might also like