Unspoken traditions: Revising traditions of science communication through sign language in Brazilian museums

Inclusive science communication has gained significance among scholars (Canfield et al., 2020; Judd, 2024), as it aims to understand the role of science communication in promoting social inclusion. However, traditional practices within science communication may still pose barriers for various groups and hinder their equal participation.

One example of these practices concerns language. Regardless of the methods science communicators use to share science, science communication traditionally relies on spoken language. Consequently, even unintentionally, it acknowledges only hearing audiences, excluding groups whose first language is not spoken, such as sign language users in the deaf community. This (unspoken) tradition persists across all science-communication settings, reinforcing invisible barriers that prevent the deaf community from fully participating in cultural and scientific engagement.

In this commentary, we address this issue by sharing the experience of a collaborative project to create a ‘Collective Glossary of Brazilian Museum Signs’. We argue that integrating sign language and co-creation with the deaf community are not merely a technically accessible measure, but a means to reconceptualize the traditions of science communication.

The deaf community and sign language

Sign languages are integral to the linguistic identity of the deaf community, representing both a vital component of their culture and an inherent human right of deaf individuals. ¹ Many members of the deaf community have sign language as their first language and may not necessarily have proficiency in spoken language. Consequently, even when information is available in written form, reliance on spoken language alone does not guarantee effective access for deaf individuals. To communicate effectively with deaf communities, science communicators must ensure that sign language is included not as an add-on, but as a primary mode of communication.

Invisible traditions in science museums

Science museums play a crucial role in informal science education and fostering public engagement (National Research Council, 2009). However, when communication and attitudinal accessibility are lacking, these institutions may function as gatekeepers, restricting public involvement in science (Norberto Rocha et al., 2020). As Dawson (2014) points out, structural and cultural obstacles maintain exclusion and inequality in science communication, forming invisible barriers that are frequently normalized and overlooked by institutions.

Recent studies on inclusive science communication (Dawson, 2014; Heck et al., 2025; Norberto Rocha et al., 2020; Vicente and Norberto Rocha, 2025) argue that inclusion and accessibility must be implemented organization-wide, guiding institutional policies, curatorial planning, content development and educational programmes to enhance engagement opportunities, foster a sense of belonging and stimulate active participation in scientific endeavours.

In Brazil, these dynamics intersect with broader inequities in the Global South (Polino et al., 2025), where accessibility policies are inconsistently implemented and linguistic diversity is often overlooked in scientific and cultural institutions. Addressing these gaps is not only a matter of equity but also a way to reimagine science communication to include multilingual, multimodal, multisensory and diverse forms of participation.

Historically, museums have primarily communicated through spoken language. This (unspoken) tradition renders deaf audiences invisible, as their language is often absent from internal and external communication strategies, including signage, websites, exhibits and interactions with museum personnel (Norberto Rocha et al., 2020). This practice overlooks the linguistic and cultural needs of the deaf community, preventing them from fully engaging with the museum's offerings. Nevertheless, the exclusion is not limited to the absence of sign language within the museum's headquarters; barriers may begin even before people enter the museum.

Typically, the names of these institutions are given only in the native spoken language, without a sign language version. Additionally, because many science museums still lack names in sign language, they remain outside the linguistic and cultural repertoires of deaf people. Drawing on Dawson (2014), we understand that the absence of a sign-language name can create feelings of not belonging, as it symbolically indicates who is (or is not) welcome in the museum.

Although complex, creating a culture of inclusion and accessibility is urgent, and it can begin with small steps. One example is involving the deaf community in actively contributing to the process of adopting a ‘name’ (or sign) in sign language for the museum through collaborative projects. Co-creation with the deaf community is a key factor in making science museums more welcoming for them. According to Vicente and Norberto Rocha (2025), participatory approaches can strengthen the relationship between the museum and communities of people with disabilities, bring their unique perspectives to strategically address their needs and expectations, and challenge existing exclusionary practices and beliefs within the museum. Therefore, such projects offer multiple opportunities for science museums to enhance the deaf community's access to science communication.

A case study from Brazil: Creating and disseminating Libras signs for museums

In 2021 and 2023, the Accessible Science Museums and Centres research group (MCCAC) ² issued a national public call, in Portuguese and Brazilian sign language (Libras), inviting participation in the ‘Collective Glossary of Museum Signs’. The primary objective was to co-create a comprehensive database of publicly accessible videos, structured as a glossary, to systematically document and disseminate the signs of Brazilian museums.

The call was primarily focused on deaf people, Libras interpreters, museum staff and other sign language users, asking them to submit short videos presenting museum name signs. We directly contacted more than 130 museums and science centres via email and social media, as well as deaf individuals through the research group members’ social networks. We solicited support from the Brazilian Association of Science Centres and Museums (ABCMC) and the Brazilian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZAB), both of which disseminated the information to their respective members.

To participate, an individual proficient in Libras was required to submit a video demonstrating the sign of any museum they knew. Submissions followed a shared template that included the contributor's name and personal sign, the city and state where the museum is located, and the museum's name in both finger spelling and Libras.

Collaborative process

The project was grounded in a voluntary, collaborative framework. Our co-production approach followed a participatory, ‘shared authority’ model in which deaf signers and other Libras users served as primary knowledge holders, while the research team and museum professionals provided facilitation, coordination and editorial infrastructure (Simon, 2010). Methodologically, the process combined: (1) an open, low-barrier public call; (2) community-led production of short videos demonstrating museum name signs; and (3) a curatorial and re-editing phase that transformed heterogeneous user-generated media into a coherent, multimodally accessible public resource. This sequence reflects core principles of participatory museum practice, in which institutions create structured opportunities for contributions and then scaffold these contributions into stable interpretive products rather than treating them as peripheral (Simon, 2010).

Co-production was organized as a distributed digital workflow: contributors generated the primary audiovisual material; the MCCAC team performed quality control and metadata standardization and added accessibility features (e.g., subtitles and audio descriptions) before publishing the content in an open online glossary. This editorial mediation aligns with theories of participatory digital culture, which understand remixing, recontextualization and the circulation of community-produced media as integral to collective meaning-making and knowledge production (Jenkins et al., 2006).

In many instances, participation went beyond cataloguing existing signs. Engagement ranged from individual submissions of established signs to ongoing collaborations between museums and deaf communities to create a sign for the institution. Museums and local partners also worked with local deaf networks to ascertain whether an institutional sign already existed and was in circulation within the community. When no established sign was identified, they facilitated a co-creative process with sign language users to develop one that reflected the institution's identity and deaf cultural‒linguistic conventions. ³ This process strengthens the linguistic and cultural bonds between deaf audiences and science museums.

This iterative cycle of outreach, contribution, verification and co-design is consistent with methodological frameworks for co-creation and co-production that emphasize reciprocity, transparency of roles and shared decision-making (Leask et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2023).

Collective Glossary of Brazilian Museum Signs

By 2025, the ‘Collective Glossary of Brazilian Museum Signs’ comprised 85 signs representing 79 institutions across all five Brazilian regions, including museums of science and technology, art institutions, history museums and multidisciplinary cultural centres. All videos are openly available on public online platforms ⁴ such as YouTube and the group's website.

The difference between the number of signs and institutions reflects our decision to retain multiple contributions when different individuals submitted videos referring to the same museum. In some instances, there exists more than one sign for a single institution. In others, the signs submitted by different individuals were identical. All submitted videos were preserved to acknowledge linguistic diversity and value collaborative engagement.

Beyond the glossary, museums are actively displaying and spreading their signs for the deaf community and other visitors. This is done either by actively disseminating the sign ⁵ and/or embedding it within sign language communication in daily use, ⁶ such as in educational visits, lectures and social media content.

Although the campaigns yielded promising results, the quantity of videos received constitutes only a small portion of the potential reach. Brazil possesses more than 3000 museums and cultural spaces officially documented in the Guia dos Museus Brasileiros ⁷ ; however, the contributions amassed for the Collective Glossary remain significantly below this figure, representing approximately 2.5% of all museums.

Participation was also uneven across Brazil, accounting for about 34.6% of Brazil's 26 states. Most submissions came from museums in the Southeast Region (73.4%), particularly in São Paulo (25), Rio de Janeiro (21) and Minas Gerais (12), which together have the highest concentration of museums in the country. At present, we do not have evidence that this geographical distribution reflects a higher concentration of deaf or Libras users in these regions; it is more plausibly linked to museum density, existing institutional networks and the uneven diffusion of accessibility initiatives.

This distribution highlights regional disparities in participation. The glossary has not yet gained significant traction in the northern, northeastern and central-western states, reflecting structural inequalities in cultural infrastructure and the challenges of reaching and mobilizing institutions in regions where accessibility initiatives are less well established. These gaps suggest that, while the project has increased visibility and engagement for deaf communities, its current reach still mirrors Brazil's broader patterns of inequality in science communication and museum accessibility, as observed by Polino et al. (2025).

Beyond producing an open repository, the glossary prompted institutions to reflect on deaf recognition as part of museum identity. By encouraging museums to connect with deaf communities, co-create and/or validate name signs and circulate them through official channels, the initiative strengthened linguistic and cultural ties and reframed deaf visitors as legitimate participants in museum publics. As a community-driven practice grounded in shared authority, it illustrates how small communicational shifts can trigger broader institutional learning and support more equitable participation in science communication.

Challenging the unspoken traditions: Recommendations towards inclusive science communication

The glossary initiative demonstrates that deliberate and community-focused efforts are essential to catalyse organizational change (Vicente and Norberto Rocha, 2025), which in turn influences both visitor experiences and institutional culture. Moreover, such efforts have the potential to challenge long-standing traditions of exclusion in science communication.

Although this project is grounded in the Brazilian context, its implications are of global relevance. Numerous science museums have implemented comprehensive accessibility policies aimed at eliminating physical barriers; however, linguistic and attitudinal obstacles continue to operate as invisible barriers, effectively excluding diverse communities. In this regard, institutions should consider the following steps: (1) acknowledging the absence of sign language within their identity as an accessibility gap; (2) collaborating with local deaf communities to co-create meaningful and culturally appropriate signs; and (3) publicly sharing these resources and integrating them into websites, social media platforms and on-site interpretation services.

By embracing accessibility as a practice that challenges tradition, science museums can confront the communicational, attitudinal and ableist barriers embedded within science communication. It serves as a reminder to institutions that traditions can—and should—be redefined. Furthermore, by documenting and disseminating such initiatives through open-access repositories, their impact is amplified, thereby advancing their adoption across national and international contexts and promoting collaborative innovation.

By making the invisible visible, this approach advocates revising conventional science-communication methods, emphasizing inclusion, diversity and community engagement. The integration of sign language into museum activities transcends mere accessibility; it signifies a symbolic and pragmatic dedication to equity, affirming that science is universally accessible. As science museums move beyond these unspoken traditions, they uphold their mission as authentic public institutions within a diverse and multilingual society.