Public engagement with critical exhibitions: Insights from a Brazilian and a Canadian science museum (original) (raw)

Abstract

Critical exhibitions represent a trend in the science museums landscape. These installations, often issues-based, tend to: display complex socio-scientific issues, approach controversy, challenge visitors’ points of view, and engage visitors in active ways. Informed by theory in the fields of science communication, scientific literacy and science museums, I examined visitors’, curators’ and museum educators’ perspectives on critical exhibitions in Brazil and Canada. I also investigated dimensions of engagement that visitors experienced in these exhibits. Using a qualitative approach and multiple case study as a research strategy, I examined two individual cases: the exhibits Alerts: Knowing to Prevent. Drugs, Tobacco and Alcohol and Preventing Youth Pregnancy, displayed at the Catavento museum (São Paulo, Brazil), and Our World: BMO Sustainability Gallery displayed at the Science World (Vancouver, Canada). In both research sites I conducted observations and interviews with visitors,...

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (164)

  1. REFERENCES
  2. Achiam, M., & Sølberg, J. (2016). Nine meta-functions for science museums and science centres. Museum Management and Curatorship, 32(2), 1-21.
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Integrating Western and Aboriginal sciences : Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Education, 31, 337-355.
  4. Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G. & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In C.A., Linder, et al. (2011). Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 28-44). New York: Routledge.
  5. Albe, V., & Pedretti, E. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on courting controversy: socioscientific issues and school science and technology. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 303-312.
  6. Almeida, C., Britto, F., Ferreira, J. R., Massarani, L., & L. Amorin. (2015). Centros e museus de ciência do Brasil (Brazilian science museums and science centres). Rio de Janeiro: Associação Brasileira de Centros e Museus de Ciência: UFRJ.FCC. Casa da Ciência; Fiocruz. Museu da Vida.
  7. Alsop, S. (2005). Bridging the Cartesian divide: science education and affect. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht: Springer.
  8. Amodio, L. (2013). Science communication at glance. In A.M. Bruyas & M. Riccio (Eds.), Science centres and science events: A science communication handbook (pp.27-48). Dordrecht: Springer.
  9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2014). What is public engagement. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/page/what-public-engagement.
  10. Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. M. (2012). Learning science in informal contexts epistemological perspectives and paradigms. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1179-1187). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4020-9041-7
  11. Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. A. (2012). Science centers and public participation: Methods, strategies, and barriers. Science Communication, 35, 419-448.
  12. Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. a. (2015). Public participation and scientific citizenship in the science museum in London: Visitors' perceptions of the museum as a broker. Visitor Studies, 18(April), 131-149. http://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2015.1079089
  13. 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(October 2016), 9-23.
  14. Bauer, M. & Gregory, J. (2007). From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In M. Bauer & M. Bucchi (Eds.) Journalism, science and society: science communication between news and public relations (pp.33-52). Abingdon, UKÇ Routledge.
  15. Bazzul, J., & Yacoubian, H.A. (Eds). (2015). Special issue on rethinking education for citizenship. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.
  16. Bell, J., Falk, J., Hughes, R., High, N., Field, M., Hunt, G., … Ruffin, M. (2016). Informal STEM education: Resources for outreach, engagement and broader impacts. A report by the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) May 2016. Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/informal-stem-education-resources-outreach-engagement- and-broader-impacts
  17. Bell, L. (2008). Engaging the public in technology policy. A new role for science museums. Science Communication, 29(3), 386-398.
  18. Bellomo, K.S. (2014). Constructing biology curriculum for a diverse student population: Opportunities for the integration of STSE education and issues of social justice. (Doctoral Thesis). University of Toronto.
  19. 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: Springer Press.
  20. Birmingham, D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21127
  21. Blades, D. (2015). Encouraging citizenship in science education: Continuing questions and hopeful possibilities. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology education, 15(3), 216-220.
  22. Bodmer, W. (2010). Public understanding of science. The Royal Society and Copus. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, (64), 151-161.
  23. Bradburne, J.M. (1998). Dinosaurs and white elephants: The science center in the 21st century. Museum Management and Curatorship, 17(2), 119-137.
  24. Brasil (1998). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais 5ª a 8ª Séries (National Curricular Parametres 5th to 8th grades). Brasilia: Author. Retrieved from http://portal.mec.gov.br/par/195- secretarias-112877938/seb-educacao-basica-2007048997/12657-parametros-curriculares- nacionais-5o-a-8o-series
  25. Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. (n.d.) Popularização de C,T&I e melhoria do ensino (Popularization of science, technology and innovation and improvement of science education). Retrieved from http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/73433/20\_Popularizacao\_de\_CT\_I\_e\_Melh oria_do_Ensino.html
  26. British Columbia Ministry of Education (n.d.). Environmental learning and experience. An interdisciplinary guide for teachers. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade-12/teach/teaching- tools/environmental-learning/environ_learning_exper.pdf
  27. Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., … Jones, S. A. (2009). Commentary. Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518.
  28. 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: Routledge.
  29. Bybee, R. (2008). Scientific literacy, environmental issues, and PISA 2006: The 2008
  30. Paul F- Brandwein lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 566-585.
  31. Cafe Scientifique (n.d.). The cafe scientifique network. Retrieved from http://www.cafescientifique.org/index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=72&Ite mid=484
  32. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). "It changed our lives": Activism, science and greening the community. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,10(3), 207-222.
  33. Cameron, D. (1971/2004). The museum, a temple or the forum. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum (pp. 61-73). New York: Altamira Press.
  34. Canadian Academies of Science. (2014). Science culture: Where Canada stands. Expert panel on the state of Canada's science culture. Ottawa: Author.
  35. Castro, M. G., Abramovay, M., & da Silva, L. B. (2004). Juventudes e sexualidade (Youth and sexuality). Brasilia: UNESCO.
  36. Catavento Cultural (n.d.) Prevenindo a gravidez juvenil (Preventing Youth Pregnancy). Retrieved from: http://www.cataventocultural.org.br/four\_sections
  37. Chilvers, J. (2012). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35(3), 283-310. http://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454598
  38. Chittenden, D. (2011). Commentary: Roles, opportunities, and challenges -Science museums engaging the public in emerging science and technology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, 1549-1556. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0311-5
  39. Chittenden, D., Farmelo, G., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2004). Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
  40. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Introduction: The nature of inquiry. In L. Cohen & L. Manion (Eds.), Research methods in education (4 th ed.) (pp. 1-43). London: Routledge.
  41. Council of Canadian Academies (2014). Science culture: Where Canada stands. Retrieved from http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/science-culture.aspx
  42. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3 rd ed.). London: Sage.
  43. Delicado, A. (2009). Scientific controversies in museums: Notes from a semi-peripheral country. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 759-767.
  44. Denzin , N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 nd ed.) (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  45. Diamond, J., Luke, J. J., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Practical evaluation guide: Tools for museums and other informal educational settings (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
  46. Dos Santos, W. L. P. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Science Education, 93(2006), 361-382. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20301
  47. Dubek, M. (2014). Making meaning of von Hagens' Body Worlds: Towards an interdisciplinary approach to science exhibitions. (Doctoral dissertation. OISE, University of Toronto). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/43537/1/Dubek\_Michelle\_M\_201311\_thes is.pdf
  48. Dubin, S.C. (1999).Displays of power: Controversy in the American museum from the Enola Gay to sensation. New York: New York University Press.
  49. 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 Research (pp. 47-60). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  50. Eshach, H., (2006). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190.
  51. Einsiedel, E.F. (2010). Consensus conference. In Preist S. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 181-183). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  52. Einsiedel, A.A., & Einsiedel, E.F. (2004). Museums as agora: Diversifying approaches to engaging publics in research. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo and B.V. Lewenstein (Eds), Creating Connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 73- 86). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  53. Elo, S. & Kynga, S.H. (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
  54. Falk, J. (2006). An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49, 151-264.
  55. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  56. Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 9-24.
  57. Friedman, A. J. (2010). The evolution of the science museum. Physics Today, 63(10), 45-51. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3502548
  58. Gascoigne, T., Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Metcalfe, J., & Schiele, B. (2010). Is science communication its own field? Journal of Science Communication, 9(3) CO4.
  59. Gregory, J.E., & Bauer, M. (2007). From journalism to corporate communication in post-war Britain. In M. Bauer & M.Bucchi, M (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations. (pp. 33-52). Routledge: London.
  60. Griffin, J., (2004) Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups. Science Education, 88, 59-70.
  61. Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museum. Science Education, 81, 763-779.
  62. Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge.
  63. 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.
  64. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  65. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
  66. Hodson. D. (2013). Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. Be prepared. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 313-331.
  67. 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). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4360-1
  68. House of Lords. (2000). Science and technology. Third report. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm .
  69. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
  70. Hughes, C. (1993). Perspectives on museum theatre. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. International Council of Museums (2017). CIMUSET -Science and technology international committee for museums and collections of science and technology. Retrieved from http://icom.museum/the-committees/international-committees/international- committee/international-committee-for-museums-and-collections-of-science-and- technology
  71. Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  72. Jacobi, D. & & J. Luckerhoff. (2012). Publics and non-publics of cultural heritage. Two studies on differentiated expressions of interest and disinterest. In D. Jacoby & J. Luckerhoff (Eds.), Looking for non-publics (pp.71-91). Québec: Presses de l'Université Du Québec
  73. Jagger, S., Dubek, M., & Pedretti, E. (2012). 'It's a personal thing'. Visitors' responses to Body Worlds. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(4), 357-374.
  74. Janes, R. R. (2009). Museums in a troubled world: Renewal, irrelevance or collapse? New York: Routledge.
  75. Janousek, I. (2000). The 'context museum': integrating science and culture. Museum International, 52(4), 21-24.
  76. Kaplan (n.d.). Instalação Prevenindo a Gravidez Juvenil (Installation Preventing Youth Pregnancy). Retrieved from http://www.kaplan.org.br/institucional/sec/instalacao- prevenindo-a-gravidez-juvenil
  77. Kisiel, J. (2005). Understanding elementary teacher motivations for science fieldtrips. Science Education, 89, 936-955. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20085
  78. Kollmann, E.K., Reich, C. , Bell, L., & Goss, J. (2010) Using provocative questions to address societal health issues. Museums & Social Issues, 5 (2),175-190.
  79. Kollmann, E. K., Goss, J., Lussenhop, C., Iacovelli, S. & Reich, C. (2012). Provocative Questions: Supporting effective dialogue about societal issues informed by human biology in a changing world. Exploratory research report #2012-10. Boston: Museum of Science/National Science Foundation.
  80. 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 technology. Journal of Museum Education, 38(2), 174-186.
  81. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  82. Lederman, N.G. & Lederman, J.S. (2011). The development of scientific literacy: a function of the interactions and distinctions among subject matter, nature of science, scientific inquiry, and knowledge about scientific inquiry. In C.A., Linder, et al. Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 127-144). New York: Routledge.
  83. Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (2012). A framework for organizing a cumulative agenda in informal learning contexts. The Journal of Museum Education, 22(2/3), 3-8.
  84. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69-119.
  85. Lewenstein, B. (2003). Editorial. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 357-358.
  86. Lewenstein, B. (2016). Public engagement. Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/news-views/public-engagement
  87. Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imaging the future of science education: The case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40(December), 139-177. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057260408560205
  88. Lopes, M.M. (1997) .O Brasil descobre a pesquisa científica: Os museus de ciências naturais do século XIX. São Paulo: Husitec.
  89. Macdonald, S. (1998). The politics of display: Museums, science, culture. New York: Routledge.
  90. Macdonald, S., & Silverstone, R. (1992). Science on display: The representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibitions. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 69-87.
  91. 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?). (Master's Dissertation). Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
  92. Marandino, M., Contier, D., Navas-Iannini, A.M., Bizerra, A. & Cerqueira de Souza, A.L. Controvérsias em museus de ciências: Reflexões e propostas para educadores (Controversies in science museums: Reflections and suggestions for educators). São Paulo: FEUSP. Retrieved from http://www.geenf.fe.usp.br/v2/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/Controv%C3%A9rsias-em-Museus-de-Ci%C3%AAncias1.pdf
  93. Massarani, L. (1998). A divulgação científica no Rio de Janeiro: Algumas reflexões sobre a década de 20 (Science communication in Rio de Janeiro: Some reflections about the decade of 1920). Master's dissertation. School of Communication. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
  94. 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. 127-44). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  95. McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys of teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, (November), 24-27.
  96. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science and Education, 17, 249-263. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9081-y
  97. McManus, P. M. (1992). Topics in museums and science education. Studies in Science Education, 20(August 2015), 157-182. http://doi.org/10.1080/03057269208560007
  98. Miller, S. (2010). Deficit model. In Preist S. H. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of science and technology communication (pp. X). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  99. Montreal Science Centre (n.d.). Sex: A tell all exhibition. Retrieved from http://www.montrealsciencecentre.com/exhibitions/sex-a-tell-all-exhibition
  100. Moreira, I. (2006). Communicating science and technology in Brazil: Recent actions and attempts for establishing a National Program. Proceedings of the IX International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST), Seoul, Korea 2006. Retrieved from www.pcst2006.org
  101. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2003). Strength, sharing and service: Restorying and the legitimation of research texts. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 5-23.
  102. Navas, A.M., & Marandino, M. (2009). La popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología en América: El caso de Brasil (Popularization of science and technology in Latin America: Brazilian case study). Ciencias, 96, 52 -60.
  103. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science, 2008 (revised). Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science.html
  104. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Environmental education. Scope and sequence of expectations -2017 Edition. Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/environmental\_ed\_9to12\_eng.pdf Ontario Science Centre, 2008. Toronto declaration. Retrieved from https://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/AboutUs/TorontoDeclaration/
  105. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  106. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174-181.
  107. 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.
  108. Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Science Education, 88(1), S34-S47.
  109. 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). The Netherlands, Sense Publishers.
  110. Pedretti, E., & Dubek, M. (2015). Critical issues-based exhibitions. In R. Gunstone (Ed), Encyclopaedia of science education (pp. 236-238). Springer Netherlands.
  111. Pedretti, M & Navas-Iannini, A.M. (in press). Pregnant pauses: Science museums, schools and a controversial exhibition. In C., Bunnting; D. Corrigan; J. Alister & R. Gunstone (Ed). Navigating the changing landscape of formal and informal science learning opportunities.
  112. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field forty years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601-626.
  113. Pedretti, E., & Soren, B. (2003). A question of truth: A cacophony of visitor voices. Journal of Museum Education, 28(3), 17-20.
  114. Programme for International Student Assessment. (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECED). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ Programme for International Student Assessment. (2012). OECD Programme for international student assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/.
  115. 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.
  116. Reiss, M., Billingsley, B., Shen, C., & ... (2016). The contribution of natural history museums to science education . Phase 1 planning grant report. London, UK: UCL, NSF, ESCR, Wellcome Trust.
  117. Relevance of Science Education. (n.d.). ROSE in brief. Retrieved from http://roseproject.no
  118. Rennie, L., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 759-773.
  119. 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(2006), 791-820. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9035-8
  120. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 nd ed) (pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  121. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  122. Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science Education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263-291. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113
  123. Roth, W.M., & Désautels, J. (1994). Educating for citizenship: Reappraising the role of science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(2), 149-168.
  124. Roth, W. M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
  125. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
  126. Sanches, M.C. (2013). La relación museo-escuela: tres décadas de investigación educativa (The relationship museum-school: Three decades of educational research).In C. Aguirre Rios (Ed.). EL museo y la escuela conversaciones de complementos (pp. 15-22). Medellin: Parque Explora.
  127. Sasseron, L. H. & Carvalho, A. M. P.(2008). Almejando a alfabetização científica no ensino fundamental: a proposição e a procura de indicadores do processo (Wishing for scientific literacy in elementary school). Investigações em Ensino de Ciências,13(3), 333-352.
  128. Science World. Our mission and history. Retrieved from https://www.scienceworld.ca/history
  129. Shen, B. (1975). Science literacy. American Scientist, 63(3), 265-268.
  130. Shamos, M.H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers Univ. Press.
  131. Shume, T. J. (2016). Hunting for a worldview theory: Mapping conceptions of wolf hunting onto an ecological worldview conceptual framework. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual, International Conference. April 14-17, Baltimore, USA. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. Overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo.
  132. Sperling, E., & Bencze, J. L. (2015). Reimagining non-formal science education: a case of ecojustice-oriented citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(September), 261-275.
  133. Soren, B. J., & Armstrong, J. (2014). Qualitative and quantitative audience measures. In G. D. Lord & B. Lord (Eds.), The manual of museum exhibitions. London: The Stationary Office.
  134. Stake, R.E. (2000). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  135. Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  136. 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.
  137. Storksdieck, M., & Falk, J.H. (2004). Evaluating public understanding of research projects and initiatives. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo & B.V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 87-108). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
  138. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public understanding. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-75.
  139. Tal. T., & Steiner, L. (2010). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: school visits to the educational centre of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(1), 25-46.
  140. The Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science: Report of the Royal Society's ad hoc group. Author: London.
  141. Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emergent discipline. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), CO3.
  142. Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2015). Science communication research over 50 years : patterns and trends. In B. Schiele, J. Le Marec, & P. Baranger (Eds.), science communication today - 2015: Current strategies and means of action. PUN -Éditions Universitaires de Lorraine. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/14286143/Science\_communication\_research\_over\_50\_years\_pat terns_and_trends
  143. Tushabomwe, A. & Nashon, S.M. (2016). Interpreting teachers' perceptions of contextual influences on sexuality discourses within the school curriculum: Lessons from sex health education teachers in Kampala, Uganda. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(4), 331-344.
  144. UNESCO. (1994). Scientific and technological literacy, meanings and rationales: An annotated bibliography. Layton D. & Edgar J. (Eds.). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/325\_94.pdf.
  145. UNESCO. (1999). Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge.Science for the twenty-first century. A new commitment. World Conference on Science. Budapest, Hungary. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration\_e.htm
  146. Valente, M., Cazelli, S., & Alves, F. (2005). Museus, ciência e educação: novos desafios (Science, museums and education: New challenges). História, Ciências, Saúde- Manguinhos, 12 suplem, p.183-203. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/hcsm/v12s0/09
  147. Vergara, M. (2004). Ciência e literatura: A revista Brasileira como espaço de vulgarização científica (Science and literature: the Brazilian magazine as a space for science communication). Sociedade e Cultura, 7(1), 75-88.
  148. Visions of Science (2016). Annual report 2015-2016. Retrieved from http://www.vosnl.org/.
  149. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237
  150. Wynne, B. (1992). Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors?Public Understanding of Science, 1, 37-43.
  151. Yaneva, A., Rabesandratanaand, T.M., & Greiner, B. (2009). Staging scientific controversies: A gallery test on science museums' interactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 18,79-90.
  152. Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  153. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research- based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  154. Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: core issues and future directions. In C.A., Linder, et al. Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 171-192). New York: Routledge.
  155. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 99-105.
  156. Appendix A. Interview protocol and consent form for museum staff 6. a. Did everyone agree with the development and goals of the exhibit? Please elaborate, or if possible, explain with some examples. b. Is there something that you would have liked to seen in the exhibit?
  157. Is this exhibit intended to challenge visitors? How?
  158. Is this exhibit controversial? By controversies, we mean issues that may have a different, perhaps unsettling, meaning to different people. Can you give me an example? Main topic II -Relations between the exhibit and the visitors 9. In your view, how have visitors responded to the exhibit? 10. Where specific communication approaches implemented? 11. What do you expect visitors will 'take home' from their experience? Main topic III -Roles of science museums 12. How do you feel personally about the exhibit ? Have your feelings changed over time? 13. What do you think, in this age and time, the role of science museums should be? 14. Do you think that science museums can challenge visitors' beliefs? Should they? How? 15. Do you think that science museums are can be places for presenting and discussing sensitive topics? Why? Why not?
  159. Do you think that science museums can be places for promoting change? Thank you for your participation. Personal comments [for interviewer use only] ID #_______ Researcher Initials: _______ Main topic I -Visitors' motivations and expectations 6. Why did you decide to visit this particular exhibit?
  160. Before coming, what did you think you were going to see here? Main topic II -Visitors' responses to the exhibit (meaning-making, interaction, involvement) 8. How would you describe this exhibit to a friend?
  161. Was there something particular in the exhibit that drew your attention? Please elaborate. 10. In your opinion, what is the exhibit about or trying to do? 11. Will these the visit to this exhibit affect your future behaviours/actions? How? 12. Did you find something controversial in or about this exhibit? By controversial, we mean that it addressed issues that may have a different, perhaps unsettling, meaning to different people. Can you give me any examples?
  162. Was there anything in the exhibit that made you feel uncomfortable? 14. Is there something missing? Main topic III -Visitors' ideas about the role (identity) of museums and science centres 15. What do you think, in this day age, the role of science museums should be? 16. Do you expect to be challenged by an exhibit? If so, explain.
  163. Do you think that science museums can be places for presenting and discussing sensitive topics? Why? Why not?
  164. Do you think that science museums can be places for promoting change? Thank you for your participation! Personal comments [for interviewer use only] ID #_______ Researcher Initials: _______