The four cultures: Public engagement with science only,art only,neither,or both museums

Abstract

This study uses an art-and-science comparative lens to understand the science culture, particularly the public engagement with science museums. A representational Taiwanese sample of 1863 subjects was categorized into “four cultures,” who visit science only, art only, neither, or both museums, resulting in six multivariate logistic regression models. Knowledge of science, interests in scientific and social issues, and socio-demographic variables were considered in the models. Adults with children and males prefer science museums, females prefer art museums, and the young and urban intellects show no strong preference, appearing to be open to both science and art museums. The findings show the complex decisions the public make in visiting museums. It is no longer a strictly science or art decision, as framed by Snow’s “The Two Cultures” argument; rather, the possibility of visiting both museums has emerged, a phenomenon we describe as cognitive polyphasia.

Keywords

art and science public understanding of science science museums

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman

Falk

James

(2000) Impact of national aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal 43(1): 33–61.

Anderson

Piscitelli

Weier

Everett

Tayler

(2002) Children’s museum experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning. Curator: The Museum Journal 45(3): 213–231.

Bauer

Allum

Miller

(2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.

Beetlestone

Johnson

Quin

White

(1998) The science center movement: Contexts, practice, next challenges. Public Understanding of Science 7(1): 5–22.

Bell

Lewenstein

Shouse

Feder

(eds) (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Black

(2012) Transforming Museums in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ceci

Williams

(2007) Why Aren’t More Women in Science. Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

China Research Institute for Science Popularization (CRISP) (2008) Chinese Public Understanding of Science and Attitudes towards Science and Technology. Beijing, China: CRISP.

Chinese Association of Museums (2015) Taiwan museums directory. Available at: http://www.cam.org.tw/big5/museum01.asp (accessed 13 May 2015).

10.

Dawson

(2014) “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education 98(6): 981–1008.

11.

Dodd

Sandell

(1998) Building Bridges: Guidance for Museums and Galleries on Developing New Audiences. London: Museums & Galleries Commission.

12.

Ellenbogen

Luke

Dierking

(2004) Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education 88(S1): S48–S58.

13.

European Commission (2001) Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.

14.

European Commission (2005) Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, Science & Technology. Brussels: European Commission.

15.

Falk

(2009) Identity and the museum visitor experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

16.

Falk

Needham

(2011) Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48(1): 1–12.

17.

Furnham

Batey

Anand

Manfield

(2008) Personality, hypomania, intelligence and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences 44(5): 1060–1069.

18.

Furnham

Batey

Booth

Patel

Lozinskaya

(2011) Individual difference predictors of creativity in Art and Science students. Thinking Skills and Creativity 6(2): 114–121.

19.

Garnett

(2002) The impact of science centers/museums on their surrounding communities: Summary report. ASTC. Available at: http://www.astc.org/resource/case/Impact_Study02.pdf

20.

Gilbert

Stocklmayer

(2001) The design of interactive exhibits to promote the making of meaning. Museum Management and Curatorship 19(1): 41–50.

21.

Gokhberg

Shuvalova

(2004) Russian public opinion of the knowledge economy: Science, innovation, information technology and education as drivers of economic growth and quality of life. The British Council. Available at: http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/02/18/1238496966/Russian%20public%20opinion%20of%20knowledge%20economy.pdf

22.

Gould

(2003) The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox: Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. New York: Random House LLC.

23.

Haden

Jant

Hoffman

Marcus

Geddes

Gaskins

(2014) Supporting family conversations and children’s STEM learning in a children’s museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29(3): 333–344.

24.

Huang

T-C

(2012) Technical Report of the 2012 Taiwan Public Scientific Literacy Survey. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Center for Promoting Civic Literacy.

25.

Jovchelovitch

(2002) Re-thinking the diversity of knowledge: Cognitive polyphasia, belief and representation. Psychologie et société 5(1): 121–138.

26.

Jovchelovitch

(2007) Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Kahr-Højland

(2010) Hands on, mobiles on: The use of a digital narrative as a scaffolding remedy in a classical science centre. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research 27(50): 18.

28.

Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (KOFAC) (2009) Survey of Public Attitudes towards and Understanding of Science and Technology 2008. Seoul, South Korea: KOFAC.

29.

McManus

(2006) Measuring the culture of CP Snow’s Two Cultures. Empirical Studies of the Arts 24(2): 219–227.

30.

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC) (2010) Public Awareness of Science and Technology Malaysia 2008. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

31.

Mills

Van de Bunt

De Bruijn

(2006) Comparative research persistent problems and promising solutions. International Sociology 21(5): 619–631.

32.

National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) (2004) National Science Survey—2004. New Delhi, India: NCAER.

33.

National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) (2002) The 2001 Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science & Technology in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: NISTEP.

34.

National Science Board (2012) Science and Engineering Indicators—2012. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

35.

Pattison

Dierking

(2012) Exploring staff facilitation that supports family learning. Journal of Museum Education 37(3): 69–80.

36.

C-C

(2013) The trend of the demographic characteristics of museum visitors: A case study of national science and technology museum. Technology Museum Review 17(1): 27–59.

37.

Quistgaard

Kahr-Højland

(2010) New and innovative exhibition concepts at science centres using communication technologies. Museum Management and Curatorship 25(4): 423–436.

38.

Rea

Parker

(2012) Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

39.

Renedo

Jovchelovitch

(2007) Expert knowledge, cognitive polyphasia and health: a study on social representations of homelessness among professionals working in the voluntary sector in London. Journal of Health Psychology 12(5): 779–790.

40.

Rennie

Stocklmayer

(2003) The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas. International Journal of Science Education 25(6): 759–773.

41.

Rennie

McClafferty

(1996) Science centres and science learning. Studies in Science Education 27(1): 53–98.

42.

Roberts

(1997) From Knowledge to Narrative: Educators and the Changing Museum. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.

43.

Rodari

Merzagora

(2007) The role of science centres and museums in the dialogue between science and society. Journal of Science Communication 6(2): 1–2.

44.

Russell

(2006) Informal learning in context. Informal Learning Review 77. Available at: http://www.informallearning.com/ilr-archive.htm (accessed 6 May 2015).

45.

Sánchez-Ruiz

Hernández-Torrano

Pérez-González

Batey

Petrides

(2011) The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across subject domains. Motivation and Emotion 35(4): 461–473.

46.

Schäfer

(1996) Non-visitor research: An important addition to the unknown. Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice 9: 195–205.

47.

Shukla

(2005) India Science Report: Science Education, Human Resources and Public Attitude towards Science and Technology. New Delhi, India: National Council of Applied Economic Research.

48.

Snow

(2012) The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Stevenson

(1991) The long-term impact of interactive exhibits. International Journal of Science Education 13(5): 521–531.

50.

Tallis

(1995) Newton’s Sleep: The Two Cultures and the Two Kingdoms. London: Macmillan.

51.

Wang

C-H

Zhu

S-C

(2010) Behaviors of family groups in a science museum: Interpretation of identity approach. Museology Quarterly 24(2): 57–81.

52.

Xie

Shauman

(2003) Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes, vol. 26. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB