The museographic transposition of scientific knowledge leads notably to the preparation of exhibition posters. This is a delicate operation, on account of the constraints imposed by space, language, concepts and the text. These difficulties are even greater in the case of bovine reproduction biotechnologies, such as cloning, where knowledge is not yet stable. This paper deals with the choices made during the phase of museographic transposition. First of all, based on an epistemological approach, a historical analysis of knowledge-building underpins the choice of information to be presented. Language is then selected according to the linguistic analysis of a series of articles which popularize science. Finally, the posters are assessed by samples of potential visitors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Laurian, A. M., 1991, Muséologie et linguistique; quels rapports. Communication au 2ème Congrès CSP, Madrid.
2.
Guichard, J., 1990, Diagnostic didactique pour la production d'un objet muséologique, Thèse, Université de Genève.
3.
The concept of `didactic transposition' has been defined by Chevallard in formal education. Chevallard has described the transformations made during the transposition of the learned knowledge into the knowledge to be taught. We use the concept `museographic transposition' to describe the transposition of the learned knowledge into the knowledge to be presented in an exhibition. Chevallard, Y., 1985, La transposition didactique (Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage).
4.
La reproduction par clonage passe par l'embryon, September 1989, Typex.
5.
Speeman, H. , 1938, Embryonic Development and Induction (New York: Hafner).
6.
Wilmut, I. , Schnieke, E., McWhir, J., Kind, A. J., and Campbell, K. H. S., 1997, Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385, 810-813.
7.
McGrath, J. , and Solter, D., 1983, Nuclear transplantation in the mouse embryo by microsurgery and cell fusion. Science, 220, 1300-1302.
8.
Stice, S. L. , 1992, Multiple generation bovine embryo cloning. IETS Symposium on Cloning (Denver, CO: Seidel), pp.28-31.
9.
Renard, J.-P. , and Heyman, Y., 1992, La multiplication par clonage: un nouvel outil pour la sélection animale. Cahiers Agricultures, 1; 5.
10.
Saito, S. , Strelchenko, N., and Niemann, H., 1992, Bovine embryonic stem cell-like cultured over several passages. Roux's Archives of Developmental Biology, 201, 134-141.
11.
Wilmut, I. , Campbell, K. H. S., McWhir, J., and Ritchie, W. A., 1996, Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from cultured cell line. Nature, 380, 64-66.
12.
cited by M. Blanc, 1981, Des biologistes partisans du “meilleur des mondes”, La Recherche, 127, 484
13.
Galton, F. , 1869, Hereditary Genius (London: Macmillan).
14.
Stillman, R. J., and Hall, J. L., 1993, Experimental cloning of human polyploid embryos using an artificial zona pellucida. Communication au Congrès conjoint de l'American Society et de la Société canadienne de fertilité et d'androgénie, Montréal.
15.
Jacobi, D., and Schiele, B., 1988, La vulgarisation scientifique, Thèmes de recherche. Vulgariser la science (Champ Vallon, Seyssel: PUF), pp.12-46.
16.
Holton, G., 1981, L'imagination scientifique (Paris: Bibliothèque des Sciences humaines/Gallimard).
17.
Mortureux, M.-F., 1988, La vulgarisation scientifique, parole médiane ou dédoublée. Vulgariser la science, le procès de l'ignorance, edited by D. Jacobi and B. Schiele (Champ Vallon, Seyssel: PUF), pp.118-148.
18.
Jacobi, D., 1989, Les formes du savoir dans les panneaux des expositions scientifiques; principes d'analyse. Faire voir, faire savoir, edited by Bernard Schiele (Quebec: Musée de la civilisation), pp.129-153.
19.
Weinrich, H., 1973, Le temps (Paris: Le Seuil).
20.
Mortureux, M.-F., 1988, La vulgarisation scientifique, parole médiane ou dédoublée. Vulgariser la science, le proceès de l'ignorance, edited by D. Jacobi and B. Schiele (Champ Vallon, Seyssel: PUF), pp.118-148.
21.
Jacobi, D., 1993, Lexique et reformulation intradiscursive dans les documents de vulgarisation scientifique, CNRS, INaLF, Vocabulaires technoscientifiques et dictionnaire de langue. Lexicologie française.
22.
Poli, M. S., 1994, Dans l'exposition, ce qui est écrit. La Lettre de l'OCIM, 32.
23.
McManus, P. M. , 1989, Oh, yes, they do: how museum visitors read labels and interact with exhibit text. Curator, 32(3), 174-189.
24.
Goanac'h, D. , and Passerault, J. M., 1990, Marquage de l'importance et traitement des eléments dans un texte: effets immédiat et différés. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5(1), 59-68.
25.
Rossi, J. P. , and Bert-Erboul, A., 1991, Information selection strategies in the reading of scientific texts, Tubingen, Second European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction.
26.
Zagar, D., Fayol, M., and Devidal, M., 1991, Une stratégie de prise d'information particulière à la lecture de problèmes? Psychologie Française, 36(2), 143-149.
27.
Koran, J. J. Jr , Lehman, J. R., Dierking, L. D., and Koran, M. L., 1983, The relative effects of pre- and post-attention directing devices on learning from a `walk through' museum exhibit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 341-346.
28.
Dagnelie, P., 1973, Théories et méthodes statistiques, Vol. 2 (Les presses agronomiques de Gembloux).
29.
Rumehart, D. E. , 1977, Understanding and summarizing brief stories. Basic Processes in Reading: Perception and Comprehension, edited by D. Laberge and S. J. S. Samuels (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
30.
Rossi, J. P. , Bert-Erboul, A., 1991, Information selection strategies in the reading of scientific texts, Tübingen, Second European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction.
31.
Caron, J. , 1987, Processing connectives and the pragmatics of discourse. The Pragmatic Perspective, edited by J. Verschueren and M. Bertucelli-Papi (J. Benjamins: Amsterdam), pp. 567-580.
32.
Adam, J. M., 1992, Les textes: types et prototypes (Paris: Nathan-Université).
