Accessibility of the Copernicus Science Center for People with Disabilities

Article Metadata and Context

Author: Marta Sałkowska, Copernicus Science Center (CNK), ORCID: $0000-0002-80111-8214$ .
Publication Title: ‘Freedom here only risks gaining experience.’ About the accessibility of the Copernicus Science Center for people with disabilities (‘Wolnoŗć tutaj grozi tylko nabyciem doŗwiadczenia.’ O dostępnoŗci Centrum Nauki Kopernik dla os3b z niepełnosprawnoŗcią).
Journal: Zarządzanie w Kulturze (Culture Management), $2024$ , $25(3)$ , pp. $435\u2013448$ .
Project Context: Based on the experience of the ‘Wielozmysły Kopernika’ (Copernicus Multisenses) project implemented in $2023$ .
Funding: Part of the ‘Kultura bez barier’ (Culture without Barriers) project by PFRON (State Fund for Rehabilitation of Disabled People), in partnership with the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, Institut f3r Bildung und Kultur e.V., and the Culture without Barriers Foundation. It was co-financed by the European Social Fund under Action $4.3$ of the Operational Program Knowledge Education Development $2014\u20132020$ .

The Goal and Role of the Copernicus Science Center (CNK)

Institutional Identity: CNK is described as an institution that inspires visitors to discover independently and ask questions.
Core Activities: * Free exploration of exhibitions. * Interaction with exhibits. * Independent experimentation in laboratories. * Attendings screenings at the Planetarium.
Primary Objective: The institution does not focus on the mere transfer of knowledge, but on arousing ‘situational interest’ which can lead to a long-term change in attitude toward science.
Social Mission: Museums and science centers are viewed as spaces with change-making potential, facilitating social change toward a more just, equal, and solidary society (Murawski, $2021$ ).
Paradigm Shift: The text notes a shift from museums as oppressive/marginalizing institutions to inclusive spaces representing social diversity (Sandell & Nightingale, $2012$ ).

Theoretical Framework: Science Capital and Disability Models

Science Capital Framework: Proposed by Louise Archer ( $2014, 2015$ ), this concept includes three resource categories required for an individual to feel that science is ‘for them’: * Embodied Resources: Divided into practices of action, social environment, and individual attitudes/beliefs. It concerns personal experiences, visits to museums, and contacts with scientists. * Material (Objectified) Resources: Cultural goods acquired through cultural competence. * Institutionalized Resources: Diplomas, grades, and objective scientific/cultural achievements.
Disability Studies Framework: The project adheres to the ‘Social Model of Disability’ rather than the ‘Medical Model’. * Medical/Biological/Charitable Model: Views disability as a deficit within the body requiring ‘fixing’ or pity. * Social Model: Views disability as a result of social discrimination, oppression, and barriers. It focuses on human rights (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and de-medicalization, treating people as active actors rather than objects of help.

The ‘Wielozmysły Kopernika’ Project Details

Objectives: * Eliminating obstacles to independent use of CNK. * Implementing a participatory model for accessibility solutions. * Facilitating easier information acquisition. * Developing model accessibility solutions for various types of exhibitions. * Increasing the participation of people with disabilities in cultural and scientific life (combating social exclusion). * Training staff to cooperate with visitors with special needs to reduce anxiety and stereotypes regarding interactions.
Accessibility Scope: Moving beyond just ‘architectural accessibility’ (toilets, ramps, elevators) toward communicative and informational accessibility.

Participatory Research Methodology

Research Problem: How to ensure accessibility without depriving visitors of the opportunity for free and independent discovery/experimentation.
Philosophy: ‘Nothing about us without us’ (‘nic o nas bez nas’) \u2013 people with disabilities are experts in their own accessibility needs.
Study Design: * Sample Size: Total of $48$ participants. * Sampling: Purposive and availability-based sampling, including snowball method and private contacts. * Participants: Included adults, children (with parental/teacher consent), and representatives of NGOs. Specifically focused on those with visual and hearing impairments. * Format: Night visits for adults, exhibition tours (research walks), and follow-up ‘dialogue meetings’ (moderated group interviews).
Adaptations: During visits for the Deaf, PJM (Polish Sign Language) translators were present. For the visually impaired, tours were conducted as ‘research walks’ with immediate note-taking on interactions.
Data Analysis: Qualitative content analysis with a mixed coding scheme (Gibbs, $2011$ ).

Barriers and Challenges to Participation

Recruitment Difficulties: Recruiting visually impaired participants was hardest. Reasons for refusal included: * Financial expectations (participants viewed their role as conducting a professional ‘accessibility audit’). * Perceptions of CNK as loud, crowded, and dangerous for blind people.
The ‘Word of Mouth’ Effect: In the blind community, information about whether a place is ‘worth visiting’ spreads through informal channels; CNK was often seen as ‘not for them’ based on shared opinions.
Mental and Habitual Barriers: Monika Dubiel notes that individuals who went through special education centers (rather than mass schools) often never developed the ‘habit’ of visiting cultural institutions.
The ‘Vicious Circle of Inaccessibility’: Institutions don't invest in accessibility because people with disabilities don't visit, and people don't visit because the institution isn't accessible.
Ableist Practices: The research argues against creating ‘special’ or ‘dedicated’ offers that can lead to ‘ghettoization’ and stigma. True inclusivity means the whole institution is designed for everyone.

Research Findings and Reflections

Beyond Architecture: Justyna Wielgus (Teatr $21$ ) argues that if accessibility is narrowed to technology and infrastructure, presence will not increase. Inclusivity requires recognizing people with disabilities as equal creators and managers of culture.
Normalcy in Public Space: A participant (parent of a child with Down syndrome) expressed that for the first time he felt ‘normal’ in a public space because he didn't have to worry about judgment or pitying looks.
The Importance of Interest: The study found that even if a place is $100\%$ accessible, attendance depends on interest. It is a stereotype to assume people with disabilities only care about events related to health or disability.
Ethical Considerations: Managing sensitive data; researchers cannot easily track the number of disabled visitors because disability is not always visible and isn't asked about at ticket counters (only estimated via discount tickets).
Key Closing Quote: An anonymous visually impaired male participant stated: ‘Freedom here only risks gaining experience.’ This encapsulates the idea that a science center should be a safe space for taking risks and learning through trial and error.

Questions & Discussion Highlights

Question of Representation: How are disabilities portrayed in culture? Sałkowska et al. ( $2021$ ) found they are often absent or stereotypical in school textbooks.
Language and Communication: Use of PJM and ETR (Easy to Read) formats are listed as critical tools, alongside ‘pre-guides’ offered by institutions like Hevelianum in Gdańsk.
Institutional Responsibility: The text emphasizes that the labor of outreach and convincing individuals that institutions are ‘for them’ lies with the institution (Dubiel & Wielgus, $2019$ ).