In a critique of the science center movement, J. M. Bradburne (in Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 3 [July 1998]: 237-253) maintained that science centers were unwilling to adapt, and were therefore doomed. In this response, the author shows that science centers are adapting and changing. Science center attendance is growing worldwide, both in old and new institutions. Science centers typically operate from buildings, while providing services outside the site. There is a wide range of inventiveness in selecting sites, and, as a result, determining capital expenditure. Science centers are comparatively cost effective and viable. They typically depend on several sources of revenue. Through several examples, evidence of change in science centers is presented. Science centers likewise tend to have an individual flavor in different parts of the world. Science centers are attractive and competitive, and they cater to local audiences. Present day science centers should be considered third generation museums. The emphasis on hands-on exhibits in science centers may have limited the way in which science is depicted in science centers. Taken as a whole, science centers seem to be both sustainable and to provide value for money.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
J. M. Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and white elephants: the science center in the twenty-first century,”Public Understanding of Science7, no. 3 (1998): 237-253.
2.
and H. Salmi, Science center education. Motivation and learning in informal education, University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education, Research Report 119 (1993); The Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), founded in 1973, counts more than 500 members worldwide. Its annual conference has in recent years, attracted more than 1500 participants from usually about 25 countries; The European Collaborative of Science, Industry and Technology Exhibitions (ECSITE), founded in 1988, has more than 200 member institutions and arranges an annual conference with an attendance exceeding 300 in recent years; similar meetings are staged by the various regional networks: Red-Pop in Latin America, the Asia Pacific Network of Science and Technology Centers (ASPAC) in Asia, the Nordic Science Center Association (NSCF) in Scandinavia, the Australasian Science and Technology Exhibitors Network (ASTEN) in Australia-New Zealand, in addition to national networks in many individual countries (United Kingdom, France, Canada, etc.).
3.
P. E. Persson , “Do we deliver?”ECSITE Newsletter29 (1996): 10-11.
4.
and L. Klockars, The Explorers in Heureka: An Analysis of Historical Thinking of Sixth-grade Pupils, master's thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education (1998).
P. E. Persson , “The changing science center: sustaining our mission into the 21st century,”ASTC Dimensions (Jan-Feb 2000): 3-6.
7.
J. G. Beetlestone , C. Johnson, M. Quin, and H. White, “The science-center movement: context, practice, next challenges,”Public Understanding of Science7 (1998): 5-22.
8.
The Science Center World Congresses are joint efforts by several of the regional networks mentioned in reference 2. The first congress was arranged at Heureka, the Finnish Science Center, in Vantaa, Finland, in 1996 and the second at Science City in Calcutta, India, in 1999. Both congresses attracted attendance from almost 50 countries.
9.
P. E. Persson , “Science centers: a motivational asset,” paper presented at the UNESCO/ICSU World Conference on Science, Budapest, Hungary, June 28, 1999.
10.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” p. 241.
11.
ASTC , Yearbook of Science Center Statistics 1998 (Washington: ASTC, 1999). The publications can be purchased from the Association of Science-Technology Centers Inc., 1025 Vermont. Ave., NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 2005-3516, U.S.A.
12.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” p. 241.
13.
Persson , “Science centers: a motivational asset.”
14.
“A millennial trio.”
15.
John H. Falk and Lynn D. Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books, 1992).
16.
H. Salmi , “Career choices and Heureka.” Unpublished memo (in Finnish), Heureka (2000). Available from Heureka, the Finnish Science Center, P.O. Box 166, FIN 01301 Vantaa, Finland.
17.
Persson , “Science centers: a motivational asset.”
18.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” p. 241.
19.
There is a great variation in annual renewal rates of exhibitions in science centers. Heureka in Finland is at the high end with a 50 percent annual renewal of its exhibition space, surpassed only by the Palace of Miracles in Budapest, where the annual renewal rate is 100 percent (there is only one hall, and the contents are changed once a year).
20.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” pp. 243-245.
21.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” p. 244.
22.
Personal communication, Mr. Laszlo Egyed, Director, Palace of Miracles, in Budapest on June 29, 1999.
23.
Personal communication, Dr. Gilson Antunes da Silva, coordinator of Parque de Descoberta, UFRJ, in Rio de Janeiro on July 31, 1999.
24.
Falk and Dierking, The Museum Experience.
25.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” pp. 247-248.
26.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” p. 244.
27.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” p. 240.
28.
See, for example, the literature cited in reference 2.
29.
J. Pridmore , Inventive Genius. The History of the Museum of Science and Industry of Chicago (Chicago: Museum of Science and Industry, 1996).
30.
Unfortunately, most science center exhibitions and programs operate without publications or catalogues in a strict sense. Instead, there may be leaflets or handouts. The best source of information about ongoing activities in various centers, and professional news, are probably the various network newsletters, e.g., ASTC Dimensions (6 issues a year) and ECSITE Newsletter (4 issues a year). Public lectures and debates as part of their public programming have been offered by centers such as Deutsches Museum in Munich, Palais de la découverte in Paris, Museu de la Ciencia in Barcelona, Heureka in Vantaa/Helsinki, and many more.
31.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” pp. 239-240.
32.
On the controversy surrounding the exhibition, see Alan J. Friedman, “Exhibits and expectations.”Public Understanding of Science4, no. 3 (1995): 305-313.
33.
G. Farmelo and J. Carding (eds.), Here and Now: Contemporary Science and Technology in Museums and Science Centers (London: Science Museum, 1997).
34.
At Heureka, there was a program for students with learning difficulties in 1993-1998. Many other institutions have similar programs.
35.
R. Hipschman (ed.) Exploratorium Cookbook III. A Construction Manual for Exploratorium Exhibits (San Francisco: Exploratorium, 1987).
36.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” pp. 240-241.
37.
See the many references and programs listed at the Lawrence Hall of Science's World Wide Web site, http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/.
38.
Persson , “The changing science center.”
39.
Frank Oppenheimer , “A rationale for a science museum,”Curator11 (1968): 208-211.
40.
Bradburne , “Dinosaurs and White Elephants,” pp. 248-250.
41.
Graham Farmelo , “Responses,”Public Understanding of Science7 (1998): 23-26.
