Artefacts and Activities:
A new challenge for science Centres
Chris Boyle, 1996

Bruce Durie wrote in "Food for Thought" (Summer 1995) that suddenly 
science centres have attained acceptance, and that the practitioners 
could move from crusading for the good cause to "find another hill" to 
climb.
Science centres have, in all those years, cemented a tradition of 
their own marked by a remarkable degree of conceptual purity. As we 
all saw at the conference last year Techniquest has perfected the 
model formulated almost 30 years ago at the Exploratorium in San 
Francisco. Science centre practitioners stood by their stand-alone 
interactive exhibits and their explainers. This purity was necessary, 
as they "shouted in the dark, pushing the rock uphill daily" (Durie). 
They saw themselves as an embattled folk, needing to consolidate and 
defend their identity, particularly as a real alternative to museums. 
Well, now that the fight is fought, and science centres can go off the 
defensive, what is the next step toward making science and technology 
accessible to everyone? It was in this light that the session 
"Artefacts vs. Activities" at last year's conference promised much. 
Perhaps science centres were willing to look back to museums for other 
tools to communicate their messages?
All the speakers concentrated on the application of interactive 
elements within traditional museums. Of course this was to be 
expected, since our only experiences to date with this particular mix 
of media have come from museums.
Ian Simmons explained in his talk how, if museums developing 
interactive exhibitions don't learn from the experiences of science 
centres and employ their methods, they will be very definitely 
"Shooting themselves in the foot". He spoke of the "conflict of 
cultures" between the two disciplines. In this he is certainly 
correct: Many of us are familiar with the difficult births of 
interactive displays within our traditional museums. It is clear that 
museums must approach the new communications technologies (of which 
hands-on exhibits are just one) with new and appropriate planning and 
maintenance strategies. However, this is only one element of an 
overhaul in museum thinking currently taking place as these 
institutions struggle to reassess their communication role in our 
complex technological society.
A good example of this development was presented by Bhagwant Singh in 
his presentation of the public programmes at the Museum of Science and 
Industry in Manchester. With his example of organised activities 
within the museum, allowing physical access to the collections for 
specific target groups within the community, Bhagwant demonstrated how 
the approach normally associated with science centres, "dynamic and 
improvisational" (Simmons), can provide an interactive experience 
unique to museums.
We were treated to a slide show of the Tekniska Museet in Stockholm in 
which Graziella Belloni gave us a taste of the mixed-media museum: 
Interactive exhibits and artefacts in the same gallery, each taking up 
a different aspect of the abstract communication aim.
Sue Dale Tunnicliffe took this approach further with her talk dealing 
specifically with the display of animals. She introduced the concept 
of "minds-on", which must surely be our goal, whether stimulated by 
"hands-on", "eyes-on", or, for that matter, by any method. She 
emphasised the importance of all the senses in communicating about 
animals.
The Science Museum in London has played a leading role in the 
integration of interactivity into traditionally artefact-oriented 
exhibitions. Initially with Launch Pad (1986), the science-centre-in-
the-museum approach was tried. The then "unwieldy and problematic" 
(Simmons) linear process has been refined through long experience. Jo 
Graham presented their latest offering, things, during this session.
The things gallery has a number of abstract aims and sets about 
communicating them with no holds barred. This means interactive 
exhibits, explainer/ guides, artefacts, activities, props and 
graphics. The different elements weave a contextual web around the 
idea under investigation, providing visitors with a number of 
different "ways in" to the material. Furthermore, with this approach 
there are no stand-alone exhibits. The different media provide 
conceptual links, allowing ideas to be seen in context. As an example, 
an idea can be seen in its physical form through an artifact, in its 
manufacturing context through graphics and AV, in its functional 
context through an interactive exhibit, and in its social context 
through activities which connect the idea to everyday life.
As Ian Simmons suggested, traditional museums have had a lot to learn 
from the success of science centres, but lately they have been showing 
that they have learnt, and they are putting these ideas (however 
painfully) into practice. But what of science centres? What is that 
next hill to climb?
Traditional museums have often been accused of "putting the artifact 
on a pedestal"; creating displays which awe visitors, and, these days 
we know that awe will not reliably promote access and understanding. 
Many science centres can be accused of the same thing in the way they 
present scientific phenomena stand-alone and out of context. Science 
is often presented as a collection of clean, true and solved physical 
facts. Just because visitors can manipulate the exhibits to entice the 
phenomena to work, does not necessarily stimulate an interest in 
science.
Scientific endeavour is highly process-oriented, and in order to 
understand science, we believe it is necessary to see it in it's 
historical, economic, political and social context. Moreover, to 
interest our visitors in science we need to anchor the ideas which we 
display in their everyday experiences- in their context.
Sue Dale Tunnicliffe quotes Falk and Dierking (1992) in her paper in 
order to make this point:
'Museum visitors must somehow perceive information before they can 
store it in memory. Under normal conditions, people pay attention to 
things that interest them. Their interests are determined by 
experiences, knowledge, and feelings. This is a classic feedback loop: 
People learn best those things that they already know about and 
interest them, and people are interested in those things that they 
learn best.'
So, what is that next hill? Perhaps science centres could learn 
something from their museum cousins who are confronting the challenge 
to make science and technology accessible to their visitors using all 
available media. Perhaps now that the fight for recognition is largely 
won, we can stop looking to the Exploratorium in its San Francisco 
setting, and start looking outside our own doors for our own contexts.


References
Simmons, I. (1995). Shooting yourself in the Foot. Conference Paper, 
ECSITE 1995.
Simmons, I. (1995). A Conflict of Cultures: Hands-on science centres 
in UK museums. in Pearce, S. New Research in Museum Studies. 
Publishing pending.
Singh, B. (1995). Workshop on Artefacts vs. Activities. Conference 
Paper, ECSITE 1994.
Tunnicliffe, S.D. (1995). What about animals. Conference Paper, ECSITE 
1994.
Hemming, K. (1995). about things. London, The Science Museum.
Falk, J. and Dierking, L. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington, 
DC., Whalesback Books.