TY - BOOK

T1 - Can a Participatory Approach Twist the Boundaries of Science Education?

T2 - Co-Designing a Health Promotional Exhibition at a Science Centre

AU - Sandholdt, Catharina Thiel

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - This thesis is the result of a PhD-project conducted as part of theexhibition development project PULSE - a collaborative projectsituated at the science centre Experimentarium, Denmark. ThePULSE-project aimed to increase physical activity in families everydaylifeand was based on principal guidelines from the field of healthpromotion. The objective of the PhD-project was to explore methodsfor involving family visitors in the exhibition development processand specifically in relation to exhibits on health. To meet this initialobjective, the thesis combines museum research, design research andhealth promotional research in the field of science education.In the first part of the study, I participated as a member of thePULSE development team, designing the exhibition at the sciencecentre. This insider position provided a unique opportunity forinvestigating processes of collaboration and design practices. Duringthis period, I conducted a front-end study using ethnographic methodsto unfold existing challenges and motivations for physical activity infamilies, who constituted the target group of the PULSE-project.The front-end study was followed by user-involvement workshopsat the science centre to make families participate in the exhibitiondevelopment process. The qualitative methods applied in the studyconsist of self-documentation, semistructured interviews and variousdesign methods for creating participation and engagement.The findings from the PhD-project are synthesised in five papersincluded in the present thesis.Paper 1 takes departure in the Front-end study produced withfamilies and provide the framework for understanding the householdas a collective. Here the household collective takes precedence overindividual preferences and individual behaviours have collectiveimplications. This conceptualisation of everyday life in families bearsconsequences for health interventions, where health promotion ofindividuals must be negotiated and formulated with and within thecollective to increase the chances of success.Paper 2 reports on the findings from the user-involvementworkshops with families and the potentials of taking a participatorydesign approach when designing science education. The participatorydesign approach helped to reduce the gap between expert knowledgeand everyday experiences and gave exhibition designers and visitorsthe opportunity to learn from each other. This led to a context sensitivedesign process, thereby increasing the chance of creating an exhibition,which is perceived as relevant by the visitors.Paper 3 analyses exhibition documents to show how the subjectto be disseminated – health – was negotiated, de-constructedand put together in new ways, bearing consequences to existing communication traditions of the science centre; because the healthpromotional approach taken in the PULSE-project was based on adialogic and open-ended communication tradition, which challengesclassic expert-driven communication of science.Paper 4 and 5 examines the collaboration processes taking placein the development of the PULSE exhibition. Paper 4 analyses thedistributions of expertise and granting of modes of participation inthe co-design process between exhibition designers, researchers andparticipating families. The paper shows how the co-design processproduced ambivalence and disclosed uncertainties about authorityand expertise, and differences in expectations and goals. It alsodocuments how the same co-design process was a means to enablefields of different disciplines to meet and to involve the visitors,enabling negotiations over the distribution of expertise and how torepresent health in a science centre setting. Paper 5 examines thedevelopment process as a whole and suggests a model for futureresearch and development collaboration in museums and sciencecentres based on a design-based research (DBR) framework. Themodel formulates three phases in the collaboration process based onthe level or intensity of the collaboration.Based on a discussion of the findings across the five papers, the thesisadvocates for a participatory approach in science educational designprocesses. A participatory approach entails a collaborative projectstructure with a range of relevant stakeholders (e.g. researchers,designers, visitors) represented as equal members, but with differentresponsibilities assigned. In the PULSE-project the families involvedwere experts of their everyday lives and their responsibility was tocommunicate their experiences and priorities in the design process.Exhibition designers were experts of planning, formulating andexecuting exhibition designs and their responsibility was to convertideas and visions into tangible exhibit designs and exhibition narrative.Researchers were experts of health promotion theory and userinvolvementmethods and their responsibility was to facilitate themethods and generate knowledge. A participatory approach holdsbig potentials for cross-pollinating knowledge and innovative scienceeducation designs, because it makes it possible to synergise a widerange of relevant knowledges, values and social practices. However,this synergy does not happen automatically, and it is thereforenecessary to prioritize and facilitate a forum for negotiations,questions, doubts and fascination during the design process. Sucha forum can make project competences visible and make the valuegenerated across disciplines and project priorities explicit.

AB - This thesis is the result of a PhD-project conducted as part of theexhibition development project PULSE - a collaborative projectsituated at the science centre Experimentarium, Denmark. ThePULSE-project aimed to increase physical activity in families everydaylifeand was based on principal guidelines from the field of healthpromotion. The objective of the PhD-project was to explore methodsfor involving family visitors in the exhibition development processand specifically in relation to exhibits on health. To meet this initialobjective, the thesis combines museum research, design research andhealth promotional research in the field of science education.In the first part of the study, I participated as a member of thePULSE development team, designing the exhibition at the sciencecentre. This insider position provided a unique opportunity forinvestigating processes of collaboration and design practices. Duringthis period, I conducted a front-end study using ethnographic methodsto unfold existing challenges and motivations for physical activity infamilies, who constituted the target group of the PULSE-project.The front-end study was followed by user-involvement workshopsat the science centre to make families participate in the exhibitiondevelopment process. The qualitative methods applied in the studyconsist of self-documentation, semistructured interviews and variousdesign methods for creating participation and engagement.The findings from the PhD-project are synthesised in five papersincluded in the present thesis.Paper 1 takes departure in the Front-end study produced withfamilies and provide the framework for understanding the householdas a collective. Here the household collective takes precedence overindividual preferences and individual behaviours have collectiveimplications. This conceptualisation of everyday life in families bearsconsequences for health interventions, where health promotion ofindividuals must be negotiated and formulated with and within thecollective to increase the chances of success.Paper 2 reports on the findings from the user-involvementworkshops with families and the potentials of taking a participatorydesign approach when designing science education. The participatorydesign approach helped to reduce the gap between expert knowledgeand everyday experiences and gave exhibition designers and visitorsthe opportunity to learn from each other. This led to a context sensitivedesign process, thereby increasing the chance of creating an exhibition,which is perceived as relevant by the visitors.Paper 3 analyses exhibition documents to show how the subjectto be disseminated – health – was negotiated, de-constructedand put together in new ways, bearing consequences to existing communication traditions of the science centre; because the healthpromotional approach taken in the PULSE-project was based on adialogic and open-ended communication tradition, which challengesclassic expert-driven communication of science.Paper 4 and 5 examines the collaboration processes taking placein the development of the PULSE exhibition. Paper 4 analyses thedistributions of expertise and granting of modes of participation inthe co-design process between exhibition designers, researchers andparticipating families. The paper shows how the co-design processproduced ambivalence and disclosed uncertainties about authorityand expertise, and differences in expectations and goals. It alsodocuments how the same co-design process was a means to enablefields of different disciplines to meet and to involve the visitors,enabling negotiations over the distribution of expertise and how torepresent health in a science centre setting. Paper 5 examines thedevelopment process as a whole and suggests a model for futureresearch and development collaboration in museums and sciencecentres based on a design-based research (DBR) framework. Themodel formulates three phases in the collaboration process based onthe level or intensity of the collaboration.Based on a discussion of the findings across the five papers, the thesisadvocates for a participatory approach in science educational designprocesses. A participatory approach entails a collaborative projectstructure with a range of relevant stakeholders (e.g. researchers,designers, visitors) represented as equal members, but with differentresponsibilities assigned. In the PULSE-project the families involvedwere experts of their everyday lives and their responsibility was tocommunicate their experiences and priorities in the design process.Exhibition designers were experts of planning, formulating andexecuting exhibition designs and their responsibility was to convertideas and visions into tangible exhibit designs and exhibition narrative.Researchers were experts of health promotion theory and userinvolvementmethods and their responsibility was to facilitate themethods and generate knowledge. A participatory approach holdsbig potentials for cross-pollinating knowledge and innovative scienceeducation designs, because it makes it possible to synergise a widerange of relevant knowledges, values and social practices. However,this synergy does not happen automatically, and it is thereforenecessary to prioritize and facilitate a forum for negotiations,questions, doubts and fascination during the design process. Sucha forum can make project competences visible and make the valuegenerated across disciplines and project priorities explicit.

UR - https://soeg.kb.dk/permalink/45KBDK_KGL/fbp0ps/alma99122349166705763

M3 - Ph.D. thesis

BT - Can a Participatory Approach Twist the Boundaries of Science Education?

PB - Department of Science Education, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen

ER -