Dawson (2014) - Social Exclusion in Informal Science Education Notes

Study Overview: 'Not Designed for Us'

• Research Title: "Not Designed for Us": How Science Museums and Science Centers Socially Exclude Low-Income, Minority Ethnic Groups.
• Author: Emily Dawson, Department of Science & Technology Studies, University College London.
• Publication Date: Published online on $11$ September $2014$ in Science Education.
• Primary Objective: To explore how people from low-income, minority ethnic groups perceive and experience social exclusion from informal science education (ISE) institutions like museums and science centers.
• Design: Qualitative study utilizing four focus groups, $32$ interviews, four accompanied visits to ISE institutions, and field notes.
• Core Argument: ISE practices are grounded in expectations regarding scientific knowledge, language skills, and finances that problematic for marginalized participants, reinforcing the sense that such spaces are "not for us."

The Landscape of Informal Science Education (ISE)

• Definition: The science learning landscape ranges from formal schooling and universities to homes, museums, designed environments, and casual conversations with friends.
• The Science Pipeline: Traditional research focuses on the "science pipeline"—increasing the pool of students studying science for careers. Significant research exists on the difficulties of minority ethnic students, females, and low-income students within the school system.
• Growth of ISE: In the last $30$ years, lifelong or informal science education has become a global feature (e.g., Australia, Saudi Arabia). It includes science centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos.
• Societal Role: ISE affects public scientific literacy, public debates, and personal/social empowerment.
• Access Paradox: Despite Frank Oppenheimer’s claim that "no one ever flunked a museum," data from the UK, US, and international surveys suggest ISE institutions are not inclusive.
• Demographics of ISE Visitors: Visitors typically come from affluent, middle-class, ethnically dominant (e.g., White European in the UK) backgrounds and live in urban areas.
• Resource Clustering: Those who visit science museums are more likely to attend science shows at school or participate in after-school science clubs, concentrating resources within already privileged groups.

Critical Analysis of the 'Barriers' Model

• Theoretical Framing: Social exclusion has traditionally been framed as "barriers," including structural barriers (cost, geographic distance) and attitudinal barriers (lack of interest).
• Failures of the Model: The removal of entrance fees at UK museums (such as the Science Museum and Natural History Museum) in the $1990s$ led to a rise in visitor numbers, but analysis showed it did not diversify the audience—existing visitors simply visited more frequently.
• Criticism of the Model: The barriers approach is criticized as "assimilationist" because it requires participants to change to fit institutions, privileges dominant knowledge, and pathologizes others as "problems."
• Institutional Representation: Research suggests science in museums is often represented as a form of "authority" or "truth," avoiding alternative interpretations and often being male-dominated or heteronormative.

Theoretical Framework: Bourdieusian Perspective

• Core Concepts: The study uses the work of Pierre Bourdieu to understand social disadvantage through the relationship between habitus, capital, and field.
• Habitus: A system of dispositions resulting from life experiences that define the "impossible," "possible," and "probable." It determines what feels "natural" or "unthinkable" to a group.
• Institutional Habitus: The processes and assumptions made by institutional staff that treat different kinds of visitors in specific, often exclusionary, ways.
• Capital: Resources leverage in a situaton. Types include:     * Cultural Capital: Knowledge and skills (e.g., scientific concepts, knowing how to behave in a museum).     * Linguistic Capital: Language competencies, accents, and the use of technical vocabulary (e.g., "hypothesis," "nucleus").     * Symbolic Capital: Honor, prestige, or status encoded in an activity.     * Social Capital: Property of social networks, family, and institutionalized relationships.     * Economic Capital: Financial resources for entry, travel, or gift-shop purchases.
• Symbolic Violence: The "gentle, invisible violence" of misrecognizing overt exclusion or inherited advantage as natural. It occurs when a system privileges dominant groups' knowledge, leading others to remove themselves from that system.

Research Methodology and Recruitment

• Site: Central London (chosen for its diverse population and density of ISE institutions).
• Participant Characteristics: Low-income backgrounds, minority ethnic status, mixed ages/genders, and diverse migratory trajectories (recent vs. established migrants).
• Community Groups Involved:     * Sierra Leonean group ($n = 21$).     * Latin American group ($n = 18$).     * Somali group ($n = 6$).     * Asian group ($n = 13$).
• Gender Breakdown: More women ($n = 38$) than men ($n = 20$) participated.
• Accomanied Visits:     * Sierra Leonean and Asian groups chose a museum with natural history and "hands-on" exhibits.     * Somali group chose an interactive science center with computer-based exhibits and audio-visual shows.     * Latin American group chose a science museum with living plants and animals.

Pre-Visit Expectations: Imagined Spaces

• Conflation with Tourism: Most participants knew little about ISE institutions and conflated them with expensive tourist attractions like the London Eye or Madame Tussauds.
• Social Distance: Fatimata (Sierra Leonean group) stated: "No, there’s not going to be anyone like me there, what’s wrong with you," highlighting a mismatch of habitus.
• The Metaphor of the Hoody: Thomas (Sierra Leonean group) imagined the museum as uncomfortable, where one could not wear a "hoody" or drink a "Supermalt" while chilling. He feared he lacked the "background knowledge" required to behave correctly.
• Persistent Non-Participation: Sarasa (Asian group) had lived near an ISE institution for $10$ years but had never visited, viewing it as simply "unthinkable" within her habitus.

Language Practices and Access Failure

• Institutional Monolingualism: All three visited sites relied exclusively on English. This constituted an "imposition of the dominant language" (Bourdieu).
• The Computer Interaction (Hamiido): Hamiido (Somali group) struggled with an interactive game about plant cells.     * The Dialogue: The machine said: "Remember, you need to keep the conditions right, the humidity, the pH…"     * Complexity: Hamiido required knowledge of pH, temperature, humidity, and plant cell growth, alongside the ability to read simultaneous fast-moving screen instructions in English.     * Conclusion: Hamiido remarked, "Yes, this is for scientists, yeah?"
• Navigation Anxiety: Mama Kamara and Mama Sesay (Sierra Leonean group) worried about getting lost because they could not read signs for the "exit."
• Internalized Deficiency: Rather than blaming the museum, some participants blamed themselves, associating linguistic difficulty with a lack of personal education.

Staff Interactions and the 'Ideal' Visitor

• Surveillance: Latin American participants (Maria) were repeatedly told not to touch live exhibits, even when behaving carefully, and were abruptly asked to leave the cafe by security at $5:30\,pm$.
• The Case of 'Deepak':     * Profile: A young man of South Asian background who used science to "escape" a rough council estate.     * Failures: Deepak used identity politics to relate to the Somali women but failed practically. He explained a game by comparing it to the British card game "Top Trumps," which the participants did not know.     * Dialogue: Deepak: "Have you played top trumps before?" Idyl: "No." Deepak then proceeded with a fast explanation of atmospheric gases (nitrogen vs. carbon dioxide) without checking understanding.     * Implicit Bias: His facilitation was geared toward English-speaking school students, positioning the Somali women as the "wrong" kind of visitor.

The Economic Cost of 'Free' Museums

• Hidden Expenses: Sofia and Flor (Latin American group) noted that even a free visit involves travel, food, and gift shop costs. Sofia observed the demographic: "Look at all the people going in mum, they’re all white, middle class and wealthy."
• Opportunity Cost: Many participants worked "round the clock" as cleaners, nurses, or security guards. Maria described working shifts as "dreadful," making the time required for a visit a luxury she could not afford.
• Feelings of Guilt: Maria expressed shame and guilt for not being able to provide "outings" for her children, an example of symbolic violence where structural inequality is misrecognized as personal failure.

Meaning-Making and Transgression

• Cross-Cultural Connections: When possible, participants connected exhibits to their own cultures. Ignacio (Latin American group) recognized "cocoa" and "ochuas" fruits from forests in Colombia.
• The Sierra Leonean Bird Dance:     * Scenario: Participants recognized a specific bird in a display.     * Action: Hawa and Mama Kamara began singing and dancing a ceremonial rite-of-passage song about hunting and eating the bird (referencing boiled, dried cassava called "acolopala").     * Meaning: This was a form of transgression—breaking the quiet museum atmosphere with noise and movement to claim the space.     * Aftermath: Later, Hawa reported feeling anxious that they had been "carried away," fearing they had misbehaved in a high-status environment.

Questions & Discussion

• Question: Why do participants view ISE as being for children?     * Response: Adult participants like Mrs. Mallick (Asian group) and Idyl (Somali group) concluded the centers were "childish" or for "children who study science," because the design and tone appeared geared toward school-aged students rather than adults from their communities.
• Question: How does ISE generate symbolic capital for non-visitors?     * Response: Participants utilized the visit as a status resource. One Sierra Leonean participant immediately called her children to report her presence at the museum. Maria’s daughters, Paola and Valentina, took leaflets to school to show their teacher they had engaged in a "valuable" weekend activity.
• Question: What was the final verdict on return visits?     * Response: Most participants felt no more inclined to visit after the research trip. Idyl stated she would only return "if you didn't have anywhere else to go," and concluded the institutions were "not designed for us."

Conclusions and Implications

• Summary: The study proves that people can "flunk" a museum. Visits often reinforce rather than modify social exclusion.
• Rethinking ISE: There is a need to move away from the "barriers" model toward an understanding of how institutional habitus "others" diverse visitors.
• Institutional Changes:     * Language: UK institutions should reconsider the reliance on English-only materials, citing examples in the US (Exploratorium) and Europe (Experimentarium) that offer multilingual support.     * Staff Training: Training staff to move away from the "ideal" visitor profile and toward facilitating cross-cultural meaning-making.     * Epistemic Practice: Breaking the privilege of a single "scientific" way of knowing to accommodate diverse cultural interpretations of objects.