This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the May/June 2013 issue of Dimensions magazine.

Scitech has been running adults-only nights twice a year since 2009, the year we turned 21. We started doing these evenings as we realized that there must be an increasing number of young people who had experienced Scitech as children, but most likely hadn’t returned as they were either not yet parents, or felt that the center was just for kids, and they wouldn’t feel comfortable visiting during normal opening hours where they would be bumping shoulders with 5- to 12-year-olds. These nights have been a marked success with an average of 800 people visiting during the Saturday night opening from 6 to 10 p.m., and with regular inquiries about the date of the next event. Even though families with young children will continue to be our primary target market, we believe it’s still valuable to engage young adults at our center, as it helps foster an increasing appreciation of the value and impact of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in the Western Australian community, regardless of whether these young people work in a STEM field.

Kate Elder, director of communications and marketing
Scitech, Perth, Australia

There’s nothing wrong with science centers that focus on children—we need more children to feel competent and be interested in science. However, adults view science museums as reliable sources of science information, and it would be a shame to ignore the needs and interests of adults who, as citizens and voters, are asked to make decisions that increasingly involve complex science. Science centers that don’t focus exclusively on children should make an effort to provide science exhibits and programs relevant to adults who visit with or without children. Science centers suffer from a public perception problem; they are seen as “for” children, much more so than natural history museums. Perhaps a concerted, “industry-wide” effort on the part of science centers to prioritize, even temporarily, adult-oriented programming and exhibits could combat this perception and invite adults to view science centers as valuable community resources for lifelong science learning.

Winifred Kehl, Museo Collective Museum Consulting
Seattle, Washington

How do we evaluate Return On Investment (ROI) for adult programs in science centers? Certainly not by numbers of participants or by revenue. So why struggle to develop new formats that do not appeal to our “core” visitors at a time of economic crisis? Is it the need to respond to changes in society? Is it to meet the challenge to be a major player in public discourse? Is it the opportunity to be more relevant in our community?

When we talk about adult-oriented programs, we need to be more specific. Which public are we aiming for? Young adults? Mothers? People in mid-career? Retired people? All of the above? We believe these are still open questions and we are still in the development phase, an experimental arena for issues of science in society.

Maya Halevy, director, and Dea Brokman, deputy director
Bloomfield Science Museum Jerusalem

The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) has a long history of producing lectures, classes, and events marketed to adult audiences with great success, with a monthly series of Science Cafés being among the most recent popular additions. A recent survey of AMNH’s adult members and public program attendees found that demand for adult education opportunities is high, with the overwhelming majority of respondents indicating their interest in taking an adult learning class at AMNH and/or in becoming more scientifically literate.

The challenge for this institution and perhaps for the field at this point is how to produce programming that is more intentional in learning goals for adults, tied to the critical issues of the day that impact our society and our world. To this end, AMNH is instituting adult learning classes in a series of scientific disciplines and across modes—on-site, online, one-day to multi-week. Some even have homework!

Samara Rubinstein, senior manager, Sackler Educational Laboratory for Comparative Genomics and Human Origins
American Museum of Natural History, New York City

I think that the dissemination mission of science museums can be especially effective when applied to one particular segment of the adult population: professional scientists. Nowadays, many scientists work daily on extremely specific scientific issues. There are many aspects of science that they do not know, and this situation may hinder them. Science museums can help them understand science as a broad and continuously growing discipline.

Guillermo Fernández, science museums consultant, science museology professor
IDEC Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Children’s exhibits within science centers have been addressing the challenge of effectively reaching their adult audiences for years. Many of us have seen a rise in visitation of families with young children who see museums as a great place for their kids to learn, but not necessarily as a learning opportunity for themselves. Many children’s exhibits have successfully engaged this “lost audience” in scientific thinking by integrating adult-centered programming, signage, and exhibits about the science of child development alongside exhibits for younger visitors. By using the science of how children learn as a vehicle to engage this captive adult audience in scientific inquiry, we meet our educational mission and impact the family members who will ultimately decide whether or not they will become repeat visitors.

Marta Biarnes, professional development associate, National Living Lab
Museum of Science, Boston

Prioritize? No. However, programming for adults should be a part of every science center’s public program schedule. Science centers exist to communicate science and technology to the population regardless of age, culture, or education. Having some form of programming for adults—be they just over 18, parents of school-age children, or grandparents—results in a community that is more aware of and more likely to discuss issues of science and technology.

Our Science Time program for children ages 3 to 6 is designed just as much for the attending adults. It is all about influencing the influencers. The aim is to create a household comfortable with science where a child who talks about studying science in high school and university is encouraged and engaged rather than misunderstood and ignored.

Jared Wilkins, visitor programs manager
Questacon—The National Science and Technology Centre, Canberra, Australia

As cultural repositories of learning, it is not only the role of the science center, but also its moral obligation, to educate the adult public with science, for the lives of future generations depend on it. We are living in an era of seismic change—weather patterns are more erratic, the ice caps are melting, and biodiversity is dwindling.

In a culture of limitless distractions, the real challenge is to capture the attention of adults. Adults model behavior for their children and ultimately create future science center visitors, so it is their patronage that is essential.

Science centers need to incorporate programs of interest to adults like digital media labs, cultural mash-ups, young entrepreneur centers, games for social change, and legible cities projects. The challenge for science centers will be to develop these new models without losing their existing audience and while leveraging their current assets.

Eli Kuslansky, founding partner and chief strategist
Unified Field, New York City

The Koshland Science Museum’s mission is to help teens and adults use science to solve problems. Our exhibits and programs are based on the work of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council. We were intentional about selecting our audience and felt that we could help fulfill an unmet need. Over time, our core audience of educated adults between the ages of 20 and 30 has increased, with many repeat visitors to programs and events. Benefits of this approach include the length of engagement and the quality of conversation. Our audience often spends a few hours or more participating in substantive discussions and in-depth workshops. Challenges include facilitating discussions about complex issues, such as climate change, to foster critical thinking and decision making.

Amy Shaw, community relations manager
Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Science centers should absolutely prioritize adult-oriented programming. The evidence lies in changing visitor demographics! This is an opportunity to cultivate interest and relationships with new audiences.

Adult programs can generate significant revenue efficiently, in a three-hour block in the evening, for example. Having local businesses as guest experts and experience providers furthers relationships with community partners.

It can be challenging, particularly in a smaller community, to predict audience participation. We’ve enjoyed success by ensuring visitor “buy-in” with popular topics, and by getting to the root of what people want from their experience. Sustaining that interest is also key to successful adult programming.

Our recent findings show that adults of all ages want more opportunities to enjoy an intellectual evening out with friends embedded within a social environment. An adult evening at a science center provides a dynamic and new dimension to visitor experiences.

Lora Clausen, staff scientist
Science North, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Many adults feel that science centers are just for children. When we hold cool events for adults, where kids aren’t allowed, we send a strong message that says we want grown-ups to feel welcome too.

In today’s world, adults need to nurture their own curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking skills as much as kids do. Adult programming, designed just for them, keeps them actively engaged in figuring out how they like playing with science, developing a passion for it, and discovering science’s purpose in their lives—with the option to have a beer while they do!

At the Museum of Life and Science, we love these programs because we’ve discovered an entirely new audience of people who are hungry to reconnect with us after forming fond memories of museum experiences as children. We’ve also discovered a new source of revenue. In our most recent adult-oriented program, Museum After Hours: The Science of Eats, we sold over 700 tickets and grossed over $10,000. Everybody wins!

Adrienne Testa, master teacher, and Troy Livingston, vice president for innovation and learning
Museum of Life and Science, Durham, North Carolina

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

About the image: Visitors enjoy a Scitech After Dark adults-only event in Perth, Australia, in connection with the exhibition Rescue. Photo courtesy Scitech

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the January/February 2013 issue of

“If they had more special exhibitions, then we’d get a membership and come more often.”
—Science Museum of Minnesota visitor, August 2011

Our most recent audience survey, conducted in 2011 (n=830), suggests that there are factors beyond immediate attendance to blockbuster exhibitions to consider. For instance, 85% of visitors responded that they would be more likely to visit the museum more frequently if they knew something was different or had changed. While visitors’ intentions do not necessarily lead to actions, blockbuster exhibitions may inform visitors’ perceptions of change at the museum and encourage repeat visits and new memberships.

Gayra Ostgaard, museum evaluator 2
Gretchen Haupt, museum evaluator 1
Al Onkka, museum evaluator 2
Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul

This is a complex question. I have been responsible for bringing traveling exhibitions into my respective institutions for over 20 years and I have researched both the marketing/product side as well as the financial aspects of this question. I have come to the following conclusions:

• Blockbuster exhibitions may not necessarily be as much of a huge “gate” revenue generator as you may think. After paying all of the costs, both direct and indirect, associated with bringing them in, your net profit may not be any larger than similar profits made from much less costly exhibitions. Careful research and planning are key.
• However, blockbuster exhibitions greatly expand your marketing reach, and we all know that first and foremost, traveling exhibitions are marketing tools. And we can’t forget about their power to generate greater amounts of spin-off revenue. Gate-take versus exhibition fees may yield a less than anticipated net revenue, but all those feet through the door mean higher membership sales and renewals, bigger retail and café sales, fee-based program and school field trip sales, and the like. Advice? The greater the potential of the exhibition to attract new audiences, the farther out you need to plan.
• Blockbuster exhibitions have the potential to backfire on you. Imagine all of those first time visitors now streaming through your door to see this fabulous thing—but what do they see when they leave the exhibition and wander through the rest of your institution? If they don’t like what they see, they won’t be back. And they’ll tell their friends, “Yes, the exhibition was great, but the rest of the place… (insert something unflattering here).” As Marilyn Hood wisely advised many years ago, “Get your current house in order before attempting to attract new audiences.” Considering that many, if not most, of us scrape together the funds needed to bring in a blockbuster at the expense of our core product, this puts us on a dangerous downward spiral. My advice? Make sure your entire institution shines when that blockbuster comes in. Then, those new audiences you caught will be audiences you keep. Yes, that adds a few more costly line items to your budget. But it’s money well spent.

Kim Hunter, senior director, exhibit development, Orlando Science Center, Florida

While visiting exhibitions can provide a short-term boost in public interest, revenue, and forwarding your core education mission, science centers and museums are best served by investing their resources in internal innovation, growth, and human capital. You’re best served by strengthening your institution for year-round attraction, innovation, and education for long-term sustainability.

Ben Cober, director of business development and research, PGAV Destinations, St. Louis, Missouri

There is no single, definitive answer. The variables are numerous—museum location; timing of venue; ability to market, staff, and maintain the exhibition; local competition; topic and presentation style of the exhibition; exhibition lease requirements; availability of sponsors; facility capabilities; expected/required outcomes; relationship to mission; museum personality, etc. Each institution must consider this long list of variables, calculate its willingness to take risks in view of the potential for popular and economic success, and make decisions based on its own circumstances.

Robert (Mac) West, president, Informal Learning Experiences, Denver

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

About the image: Visitors pack the lobby at the Orlando Science Center. Photo courtesy RF Photography

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the November/December 2012 issue of

My ideal museum experience is memorable. It requires only one cool exhibit experience where I spend significant time, engaged in a way that taps into previous interests and expands my thinking. It makes me wonder about something and allows me to explore an idea viscerally, using my hands—even my full body. Connecting with others (family, friends, or a museum educator) around the phenomenon is important, too, as it shapes and grows my own perspective. Yet I have to own the activity, by directing next steps and reflecting on what I did and learned. Ideally, I’ve embodied a concept, had my interest piqued, and am primed to explore further. In fact, my ideal museum experience is more than memorable. I’ve come to care.

Tracey Wright, senior researcher and developer, TERC, Cambridge, Massachusetts

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History is developing a 10,000-square-foot (929-square-meter) education space that is equal parts collections vault, lab, field station, and town square where visitors will build their own ideal museum experiences. With Slover-Linett Strategies, we asked our visitors what that meant to them. They told us that their ideal museum experiences are dynamic, immersive, personalized, relevant, one-of-a-kind, and surprising. We’ve built a process to develop experiences that deliver on these expectations and will constantly test them in the education space, learning with our visitors about ideal museum experiences and when we know we’re achieving them.

Shari Werb, director of education and outreach, and the Education Center Team, Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History

Affordable parking. Bathrooms that are easy to find. And plenty of floor staff who are knowledgeable and excited about the content while being committed to making the visitors comfortable in the museum.

Erika Kiessner, senior exhibit developer, Aesthetic Studios, Toronto

The key may be not to focus on federal mandates or broadly defined needs (though I know it’s difficult because they pay the bills) but rather to find out who your visitors are and what they say they want, and add your expertise and experience to interpret those needs. This may require the critical skill of being able to step out of the “professional” shoes and think about what each of us would want from a museum through the lens of our own consumer/learner experiences. We are not very different. Just pay attention to what drives your unique visitors in your unique institution. It doesn’t need to be complicated.

Hever Velázquez, research and evaluation associate, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Portland

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

About the image: At the Mobius Science Center in Spokane, Washington, visitors move a ball using only the power of their minds. Headbands equipped with metal sensors detect brainwaves, which become elevated with relaxation. Photo courtesy Hamilton Studios

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the September/October 2012 issue of

The central focus for science centers is serving the communities in their region. Many of the science festivals popping up in the United States are led by museums, reflecting the responsibility that science centers have to reach out to audiences that do not normally attend exhibitions. Science festivals enable this by hosting events and programs in places where the people in their communities naturally live, work, and play.

Many of the greatest successes of the science festivals I have seen are events that take place in unexpected venues (not in a museum facility or on a university campus). Bringing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) experiences into the public sphere creates immediacy and relevance for your message, and resonates with audiences you never would have connected with otherwise.

A central focus on exhibitions is ingrained in much of the field, including institutional business models that rely on attendance at a single facility. But there are many clear arguments for leaving your building behind to reach new audiences in new ways (including evidence that it can work as an attendance driver). If you acknowledge that it is our charge to serve the diverse communities in which we operate, it follows that there must be diverse methods we employ to achieve our goals.

Ben Wiehe, manager, Science Festival Alliance, MIT Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts

 
Absolutely, in my opinion. I think that the museum’s language of communication is museology, and the exhibition is the channel of that kind of communication. Of course, museums can develop other complementary activities, but the exhibition is always the star. Otherwise, museums would be abandoning their proper role in society and in the world of popular science teaching.

Guillermo Fernández, science museums consultant, science museology professor, IDEC Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Simply, no. For me, the main focus of science centers and museums should be the visitor—engaging them in as many ways as are relevant to them. Exhibitions represent just one important tool in the arsenal organizations can use to communicate with their audiences.

Over the past few decades, science museums and science centers have positioned themselves as multiexperiential communication hubs for STEM. The public has come to expect more than just exhibits. Experiences such as events, programming, and those on the web have greatly contributed to the sustainability of institutions and kept them relevant, I think ensuring the survival of many museums. Also, some of the best exhibitions are those that are augmented by compelling public engagement through programs or other nonexhibit means. All of these tools—including programs, events, web-based experiences, and exhibitions—need to be given equal focus in order to offer a holistic, high-quality experience for visitors. We, as a field, and our public have moved beyond the museum as a simple showcase for exhibits, and I think this is a good thing.

I have developed quite a few exhibitions, and hope to continue to do so, but no exhibit exists in a vacuum. Exhibitions can be compelling experiences, but they exist in a context of many other ways to communicate. It is exciting that we are working at a time where so many ways to talk to our audiences exist. If engaging the public with messages that are important to them and through means that are meaningful to them guide our work and are our main points of focus, then no single tool, such as exhibitions, should get more attention than any other.

Ben Dickow, consultant, Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education, Venice, California

A number of colleagues across the United States are working to shift galleries to “maker”-type content. We know our science center visitors love Maker Faires and turn out for them in droves. But we don’t seem to have experience, let alone actual studies, informing us as to whether visitors learn content at the same levels as they do with exhibits, or whether maker galleries will be compelling enough to drive return visits and associated memberships. In addition, although we have—as a field—a lot of experience with the costs of building and maintaining exhibitions using different business models (volunteer, in-house staff, out-of-house), we need to develop this experience with building and maintaining maker spaces. Does a successful festival a successful 12-month experience make? We really don’t know, but there is a huge experiment underway in the field right now.

Marilyn Hoyt, nonprofit consultant, Riverside, Illinois, founding staff, New York Hall of Science, Queens

 
The prevailing winds from this year’s Ecsite (European Network of Science Centres and Museums) Annual Conference are that science centers’ focus should be on science communication across a wider audience and in new forums. This includes exhibits, but ones that are more connected to the outside world.

Eli Kuslansky, founding partner, chief strategist, Unified Field, New York City

Not only should exhibitions be what all types of museums, including science centers, focus on, but the authentic objects and experiences embedded in those social environments are what truly set the best exhibitions apart from any other creative medium.

Paul Orselli, president and chief instigator, Paul Orselli Workshop (POW!), Baldwin, New York

 
Experiences, rather than exhibitions, should be central. That emphasis places the focus more directly on engaging learners and encourages thinking more broadly than any one particular approach.

David Ucko, president, Museums + more, Washington, D.C.

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the July/August 2012 issue of

Groupon and LivingSocial are neither good nor bad for museums. However, they are a tool that must be used with great care. As museum professionals, we must ask: What is the value to the museum for each patron generated by a deal of the day promotion over the life of that patron’s relationship with the museum? Will the patron spend money on food and retail? Will they become members and renew? Will they return for more visits once they have experienced our offerings? Will they send their children to summer camps? Will they make philanthropic gifts to the museum? Ultimately, these services deliver new patrons to our doors. We must be prepared to deepen the relationship once they arrive. If we can do that effectively, these services are a boon. Otherwise, we’ve just had a deeply discounted transaction with a one-time visitor, and that is a bust.

Jeff Hill, director of external relations, Morehead Planetarium and Science Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Ultimately, deal of the day services hurt museums and all businesses. First of all, they publicize us for one day. That does not equal the amount of discount they require. For us, a ticket of $8 becomes income of $2. Just not worth it. Worse yet, people come to expect that they will get such discounts and then refuse to pay full price. It subsequently causes deflation, which hurts museum organizations. Bad, bad, bad, all the way around. Finally, they couldn’t give two figs about our mission and whether we are solvent or not; we are just another company trying to launch an IPO. Shameful!

Lon Smith, executive director, Kansas Aviation Museum, Wichita

We did our first Groupon deal in 2010 and have tried several similar offerings since then. With all of these, we offered a Family Day Pass at a discounted rate. Our biggest worry before doing our first one was that it would give existing customers a cheaper way to visit without any benefit to us. We did an informal survey of visitors using the Groupon passes and found that most had not visited in the previous three years (many had never been) and came specifically because of the deal. We have plans to continue offering these deals at random times through the next year.

T. Woody Sobey, education director, Discovery Center of Idaho, Boise

We have been very selective about running these offers. I think each market and each museum has to see how it will affect them in the long run. Our region has many deal of the day options. I have chosen to keep with the local TV and magazine vehicles, not using Groupon or LivingSocial. Timing is also very important. For example, we ran an offer during spring break to be at the top of people’s minds, because we do not do any advertising. This was a huge success. As a new twist on this, we will soon try offering a discount for a specific event. We will see how that works.

Charlotte McCoy, marketing/special events director, Discovery Center of Springfield, Missouri

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

About the image: Morehead Planetarium and Science Center is considering a Groupon-style offer for its planetarium shows with a local online advertiser to boost summer attendance. Photo courtesy Morehead Planetarium and Science Center

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the May/June 2012 issue of

There are more ways in which a science center can be seen to be advocating a position than by just saying it outright. If you call yourself a science center, for example, your audience is likely to draw a conclusion as to where you stand in the evolution/creationism debate. The International Centre for Life leases space to a cutting-edge stem cell research lab, and however much we may hold debates on the ethics of stem cell research, by doing this we are clearly implicit supporters of the research

Ian Simmons, science communication director, International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom

Yes, science centers should advocate for reality- and fact-based approaches and positions on political and controversial issues. ASTC-affiliated institutions are expected by the public they serve not to cave in to ideology, political correctness, and wishful thinking. They should develop experiential-based education and awareness activities and exhibits that get at the scientific questions underlying political and controversial issues. They need to encourage questioning and to have staff/volunteers with the interests and resources to objectively address those questions.

Joe Andrade, director, Visual Values, and science advisor, the Leonardo, Salt Lake City, Utah

Taking a position is appropriate when it is based on the preponderance of scientific evidence, and the issue is framed in sensitive ways that respond to and respect different perspectives. Effective advocacy acknowledges that information by itself does not change a person’s mind but may instead reinforce an existing point of view.

David Ucko, president, Museums + more, Washington, D.C.

Scientific facts are often the missing component in political discussions on a whole range of topics from pollution to population growth. Museums and science centers should never shy away from presenting the facts out of “political” concerns. We serve the public, not the corporations or politicians we might obtain funding from.

Erich Rose, owner, Erich Rose Design, Austin, Texas

Advocacy is a tough one. On one side, no one wants to be preached at when they’re digesting the evidence. Conversely, some issues seem so important and the evidence so clear that you’re a fool to hold your tongue. Generally, it’s best to err on the side of evidence and allow for human judgment to take its course.

Charlie Carlson, senior scientist, Exploratorium, San Francisco

As advocates of change to suboptimal status quos, it is incumbent on all science center and museum personnel to voice their stance on tough issues. Not doing so is anathema to our values as thoughtful, literate, and vibrant members of the Illuminati. Every voice enriches dialogue, cogent dissenters and debaters alike. In this light, every voice matters and every voice increases the conversation’s worth. To remain mum on controversial or sensitive political topics is irresponsible. Even more, it’s a hypocritical digression from the very nature of free thinking, creativity, and empiricism we so ardently engender our visitors and students to undertake and contemplate throughout their lives. Accordingly, we must speak up in support of, or disagreement with, issues of import.

Christopher Wirkkala, placement manager, NRG! Exhibits, Kirkland, Washington

When we talk about the theory of evolution to our audiences, we are relaying an overwhelming scientific consensus that has resulted from some 200 years of observation, research, and the rigors of the scientific method. We come to the public with the science and, through our collections and exhibitions, show the evidence that supports our conclusions—the science behind the theory. By telling and showing the public how the world works, we describe and give evidence for evolution.

Today, informal science education (ISE) providers find themselves with an increasingly difficult challenge. For many of the compelling issues that society is facing today—particularly with regard to energy transitions—we don’t have the scientific research and therefore consensus needed to tell us how much of it “works.” As a result, our responsibility to the public is to say, “This is the Earth science behind the issue, but there are many things that we don’t yet understand or have the data for.” Much of the research that would shed light on the ramifications of the processes is yet to be done, so we can’t deliver all the scientific facts that might help the public make educated decisions. In fact, we wind up having to tell them that the situation is much more complicated than they imagine.

All the ways of procuring energy that we have in place right now are not sustainable. None are “good” in a carbon footprint sense. So, the second most difficult thing about education and outreach on energy transitions is the bottom line: We, as a species, have to reduce our energy consumption by, depending on which method of calculation one uses, 60–80%—or reduce our population by roughly the same—if we are to mediate climate change and reach a point where we might live sustainably. That is the issue, and it’s a tough fact to swallow for most.

This is not what the public wants to hear. They want to know, black or white, “Which energy source should we use? Which is best?” They want science to tell them what to do. As an industry, ISE providers need to keep in mind that science tells us how the world works; it does not tell us what society should do.

Truly, the most positive (and, we would argue, the most effective) action ISE providers can take is to be the facilitators within our communities—to educate the public on the science behind the issues, and foster civil discourse about these topics. Natural history museums (and science centers, nature centers, and other ISE providers) are the perfect venues to host these types of discussions with the public because (1) many venues have scientists on staff who are involved in doing the research that can shed light on the issues; (2) we have the collections to show empirical evidence; (3) we have venues across the nation—in rural, suburban, and urban settings—to host such conversations and offer educational programming; (4) we have staff that are particularly trained to communicate science to the public; and (5) we have the integrity amongst our public that we are the experts in the field on Earth science issues. These larger discussions also open the door to discussions of the nature of science, thereby increasing our visitors’ understanding of science as a process and, as a result, empowering them to more critically evaluate situations and make evidence-based conclusions and decisions.

Within communities of many opinions, ISE providers have the opportunity to be the rational place for the public to learn and consider the facts available, to promote civil discourse about the ramifications of the options based on the available data, and to be clear on what information is still needed. As ISE providers, we can—and do—facilitate an understanding of how the world works so the public can make informed decisions. Being a good facilitator is no easy job. However, as we venture into the 21st century and face the issues of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other challenges to our species, few others are as equally suited to carry out this much-needed outreach. And, if we don’t, who will?

Carlyn S. Buckler, senior education associate, and Richard A. Kissel, director of teacher programs, Paleontological Research Institution and its Museum of the Earth, Ithaca, New York

From our Facebook page:

I think the real question is whether we should do so deliberately rather than passively, or by default.

Alexander Zwissler, executive director/CEO, Chabot Space & Science Center, Oakland, California

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

About the image: Stem cell work at Newcastle University’s Institute of Genetic Medicine, which leases space from the International Centre for Life. Photo courtesy Centre for Life/Newcastle University

This discussion was originally published in the Viewpoints department of the March/April 2012 of

Along with traditional measures of financial performance and customer satisfaction, a successful science center needs to show how it achieves its mission of engaging the public in science and technology. An innovative approach would be to convert evaluation studies into measures that account for the quality of the visitor learning experience, and to include these measures in the museum’s organizational scorecard.

Chantal Barriault, co-director of science communication and senior scientist, research and evaluation, Science North, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

We have recently developed a logic model based on a 21st-century skills framework (PDF, 2.15 MB, see page 3), which we are now using to inform and evaluate all of our exhibits and programs. We can better assess how engaged visitors are with the content, so that we’re not just measuring our success by how many people we served, or whether they went away knowing a single fact. Instead, we try to find out if our visitors have increased critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills that they can take with them and apply to other situations.

Erika C. Shugart, deputy director, Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

A science center’s success should be measured by its impact on people, on the community where it exists, and on the economic status of its community. Its overall success should be anchored to its achievement in the development and/or promotion of science culture.

Dexter Bautista, science research specialist, National Academy of Science and Technology, Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines

When I was with the Austin Children’s Museum, we looked at repeat visitorship as a measure of success. For many years, the museum measured each year by total attendance and number of memberships. These are the two big numbers most museums would strive to grow. To achieve this, we tried to create an environment, exhibits, and programs that made folks want to come back again and often.

Erich Rose, Erich Rose Design, Austin, Texas

In the end, the measure of success has to be about learning—broadly defined to encompass both cognitive and noncognitive outcomes, such as engagement, interest, attitudes, behaviors, and skills. We need researchers and evaluators to continue to improve the means to capture these often elusive impacts.

David Ucko, president, Museums + more, Washington, D.C.

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the January/February 2012 issue of

Science centers and museums should adopt overarching gift acceptance and ethical fundraising policies that should be approved by their governing boards.  In addition, in order to ensure accountability and informed decision-making regarding corporate sponsorships, institutions should develop written and board-approved policies and procedures to protect their assets and reputation and to guide institutional actions consistent with their mission. The American Association of Museums (AAM) has developed a document on this topic: Guidelines for Museums on Developing and Managing Business Support, which is available on the AAM website; the Association of Fundraising Professionals provides additional resources, including the Donor Bill of Rights; and Board Source provides sample policies and a variety of white papers related to this topic.

Erik G. Pihl, vice president for development, Pacific Science Center, Seattle

Unlike philanthropic donors, corporate sponsors exchange funds for benefits that advance their marketing objectives. Inherently, the goals of the sponsor and the institution will be different, but they don’t have to be in opposition. From my experience, there are countless ways to fulfill sponsor benefits without surrendering a museum’s integrity or control over its content.

Experienced sponsors respect a “content firewall” that prevents even the appearance of their intrusion into the substance of museum exhibitions or programs. Indeed, most sponsors acknowledge the “value” of working with a museum is maximized when such a barrier is discussed, understood, and carefully expressed in a sponsor agreement. This does not require the creation of new ethical guidelines for sponsorships, especially as most museums already have an ethics statement guiding employee behavior and all its programs.

Charles L. Katzenmeyer, senior vice president for external affairs, Adler Planetarium, Chicago

At Sciencenter, we recognize that corporate relationships and sponsorships serve as an important source of support for our mission-based educational activities.  We also feel strongly that our sponsor relationships must support the core values of our organization.  Thus, we have in place a board-adopted policy that establishes guidelines for such relationships to ensure that Sciencenter maintains independence, acts with ethical integrity, and avoids actions that could compromise its relationships with members, donors, the media, and the public.  Our policy not only includes a description of our process for entering into a sponsorship arrangement, but also specifically spells out how we manage potential conflicts of interest, priorities and exclusions, sponsor recognition, documentation procedures, public accountability and legal, tax, and accounting issues.

Lara Litchfield-Kimber, deputy director, Sciencenter, Ithaca, New York

Many years ago, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) published a white paper accusing science centers of being little more than shills for corporate marketing interests.  It caused quite a stir!  The next ASTC annual conference was devoted to discussing the subject, and the CSPI author came to debate the issue.  After the conference, many ASTC members created or revised guidelines for sponsorship in order to create more distance between exhibit content and the sponsor’s interests.

Science centers need corporate partners, for intellectual as well as financial support.  Many of these companies believe strongly in our mission, and many are doing important work that can form the basis for great exhibits.  Precisely because that is true, we need to make sure that we have clear and unambiguous guidelines in place, and that we know how far we are willing to go to adjust content in response to donor concerns.

Chuck Howarth, vice president, Gyroscope, Inc., Oakland, California

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

Yes, we should. Science and technology raise controversial topics, and as institutions that promote civil engagement, we should present these topics as part of our responsibility to society. (Pictured: Bloomfield’s Peace Labyrinth exhibition.)

Maya Halevy, director
Bloomfield Science Museum Jerusalem, Israel

I don’t think that there’s any question that we should be presenting the science behind issues that might be socially or politically controversial (e.g., stem cells, climate change, evolution), but we should not portray them as scientifically controversial. The science is what the science is, mostly settled, with little disagreement based on evidence.

I think that the question is not whether, but how; in particular, should science centers teach the science and let people make up their own minds, or should we advocate for action on a particular social or political point of view?

Elizabeth Stage, director
Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley

We have a role for sharing the genuine debates and disagreements between scientists on the interpretation of the data or evidence that they obtain. The route from information to knowledge-with-understanding can be a long and contentious one, and scientists would be the last to make claims of certainty when research evidence and methodologies are open to challenge or reinterpretation.

Certainly we should not go down the route of advocating (or even giving space to) some kind of “balanced” approach which has—to take an extreme example—a creationist exhibit on one page and an evolution one on the next. The Ecsite position statement (PDF, 57 KB) on this issue is worth noting.

Colin Johnson, recipient of the 2011 ASTC Fellow Award for Outstanding Contribution
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom

Yes. I think science centers have a very important role in developing exhibits and other kinds of educational strategies on controversial topics. Science is a social practice, and as educational institutions, we have a strong responsibility in helping citizens understand the relationship between science and technology and social, ethical, and political issues. This will enable them to develop their own criteria to make personal decisions and also to participate in political scenarios, where science has a role that will affect their lives.

Sigrid Falla, director of research and development
Maloka, Bogota, Colombia

There are many reasons for museums to exhibit controversial themes: to attract visitors, to help educate them, to raise issues on the international and local agenda, and more.

MadaTech’s experience with the Body Worlds exhibition demonstrated that controversy creates media coverage and stimulates public discussion, putting the subject on the local agenda; increases visitor numbers; and draws new and varied audiences, of all ages and backgrounds, to the museum.

Moreover, preparations for the controversial exhibition forged new ties with diverse elements in the community, strengthened existing ones with local and national authorities, and stimulated new collaborations with senior members of the medical profession.

The after-effects of Body Worlds persist, as we build on the brand name created and heightened regard, by both community and decision makers.

Irit Wertheim, director of education and visitor services
MadaTech, Israel National Museum of Science, Technology, and Space, Daniel and Matilde Recanati Center, Haifa

Yes, we have a very strong role, I’d say a mission, to play in both developing and hosting exhibitions on “controversial” topics. One problem is that not all issues are controversial to everyone. There may be just be a lack of understanding of the science. For developers and museum directors, there may also be trepidation about responses to these exhibitions.

For example in the early 1990s, there was a consortium of museums formed to develop an exhibition on HIV/AIDS (What About AIDS?). We developed the exhibition and ASTC began to travel it with some concerns about how it would be received outside of New York City and Philadelphia, its inaugural sites. To our surprise and relief, there were no overt problems. Sure, probably some visitors with children avoided the area about sexual transmission of the virus, and others may have pointedly avoided the exhibition entirely, but on the whole there were no real issues. The “controversial” exhibition was well received and traveled in three copies. I know that we at the New York Hall of Science took our experience as a lesson that exhibitions on “controversial” issues are OK and necessary.

Museum visitors look to us as authorities for exhibitions and programs on real science, science behind the news, science behind the issues. How else with the decline in newspaper coverage of science and the sparse coverage on nightly news shows is the public going to get to understand issues in science that are challenging or challenged? And enjoy themselves while learning!

We can provide the means for understanding and appreciating the science behind issues like evolution, climate change, stem cell research, genetic control of plants and animals for foods, and understanding of human diseases and HIV/AIDS. I would encourage us to push, and push hard, on these and other “controversial” issues. I also argue that it is in our individual missions and ASTC’s mission to confront the attacks on the integrity of science by presenting the very science under attack. No comments about the naysayers necessary. As the old beef advert said, “Where’s the controversy?”

Martin Weiss, science interpretation consultant
New York Hall of Science, Queens

I like to think that science centers are like the cafés in the main squares of Spanish villages: places where citizens meet the mayor, the physician, or the pharmacist, and chat with them more frankly than in the city council, the hospital, or the pharmacy. In this sense, I am quite sure that science centers and museums are suitable places in which to speak about controversial scientific matters. In fact, one of our more successful programs consists of presenting to the public the science behind the news.

Francisco J. Franco del Amo, technical manager
Aquarium Finisterrae-Museos Científicos Coruñeses, A Coruña, Spain

I think science centers and museums play an important role in helping our audiences understand controversy by understanding good science. As scientific research and knowledge continues to grow, our many publics need the skills and confidence to question the science in a way that leads to greater understanding.

During my early years in the museum profession and as a public school educator, I was a teacher of Human Sexuality and Growth and Development. I found that by being aware and respectful of different viewpoints, I was able to share current knowledge with a scientific base to both children and adults in a meaningful way. Exhibits can do the same thing; present accurate, scientific information; demonstrate the dynamic nature of scientific discovery; and provide the information and interactions in a respectful and meaningful way so that the museum visitor develops an informed opinion.

Bev Sanford, president/CEO
SciWorks, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Yes, we have an important role. We are an essential part of cultural change. Controversial topics should be approached seriously so that the population will be able to make informed decisions. Explora developed an exhibition about HIV/AIDS a little more than 10 years ago, and it has been very successful.

Gerardo Ibarra Aranda, director of educational services/project director
Centro de Ciencias Explora, León, Mexico

From our Facebook page:

Absolutely. We have such a unique opportunity to present such topics, and it is our responsibility to take advantage of that opportunity.

Damon Gibbs, youth program manager
Connecticut Science Center, Hartford

Of course! These topics give visitors a conversation piece and encourage discussion.

Monae Verbeke, seminar series support officer
Public Engagement in Science Education, University of Warwick, England, United Kingdom

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.

This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the September/October 2011 issue of Dimensions magazine.

We make time to celebrate successes! It’s important to focus on the impact our institution has on its visitors and how each staff person contributes to this impact. Additionally, we continue to have an Activities Team to develop time and space for staff to engage in fun activities during and outside of work hours. From chili cook-offs to baseball games, there are opportunities for staff to get to know each other and take their minds off of work from time to time. (Pictured: A staff-intern outing to a food festival in downtown Chicago.)

Joy Kubarek-Sandor, student and teacher programs manager
John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago

We share problems and ask for solutions from all staff and the board.

Maya Halevy, director
Bloomfield Science Museum Jerusalem, Israel

Among other things, the museum has weekly “free coffee” sessions Friday mornings in the Atrium at 9:00 a.m. (We open officially at 9:30 a.m.) At our bimonthly all-staff meetings, we have contests and reward prizes like “free parking for a month,” etc., to staff.

Kat Stein, director, public relations and communications
The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia

“The need sharpens the wit,” says a popular Spanish proverb. In fact, in our museum, the current economic crisis is acting as a stimulus to test new, creative, cost-effective solutions, and everybody in this business knows that this means a lot of fun. For instance, we turn our main design efforts from expensive exhibitions to state-of-the-art activities.

Francisco J. Franco del Amo, technical manager
Aquarium Finisterrae-Museos Científicos Coruñeses, A Coruña, Spain

The National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation (Miraikan) has science communicators involved in reaching out to the public with precise and scientific knowledge. We engage in multiple methods of science communication with the general public. Their many responses suggest that the issues are “alive,” and that encourages us. Plus, Miraikan continues to train, advise, and acknowledge each staff person’s efforts, thereby providing a base of respect, recognition, and sense of accomplishment within the entire Miraikan family. This results in a strong sense of belonging and a strong sense of teamwork. We share all feedback and take a positive learning approach to achieve open and innovative communication.

Yuko Okayama, science communicator
Miraikan: National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation, Tokyo, Japan

The economic difficulties have been an impetus to fight “against all odds,” ensuring that El Museo de los Niños de Caracas continues to help children “learn by playing.”

Mireya Caldera Pietri, director
El Museo de los Niños de Caracas, Venezuela

It is increasingly difficult to sustain staff morale and more importantly to retain staff in these tough economic times. Our science centers face the challenge that they are not widely recognized or funded, and there are no clear career paths for staff. We hope that the 6th Science Centre World Congress in Cape Town in September 2011 will help to bring our centers into the forefront of public thought and support.

Derek Fish, director
Unizul Science Centre, Richards Bay, South Africa

While we have not been able to offer raises in this economy, our senior management has made a point of advocating for continued investment in staff through avoiding pay cuts, adding staff positions to ease workload if needed, and providing additional professional development opportunities. Staff is encouraged to attend professional conferences and workshops. We have also instituted a “Brown Bag” training program that educates staff from all functions of the organization on different aspects of our operations—exhibit development, animal training, science programs, and personal health.

Rachel Meyer, executive director
CuriOdyssey, San Mateo, California

Because of the kind of institution that Maloka is (we must be a self-sustaining institution in a Latin American country), we are used to working in difficult economic conditions. I think difficult times are the moments when morale must be higher; they are the times when you as a professional are working for a community facing its greatest challenges, and it might inspire you. Motivation is something very personal, so the best I can do is to show the staff the opportunities that a time of crisis gives to us and let them participate in the design of new solutions.

Sigrid Falla, director of research and development
Maloka, Bogota, Colombia

Every year, all the employees of Technopolis go on a day trip together to another tourist attraction or science center. During a real team-building day, they catch a glimpse of how other tourist institutions are working and handling things.

Twice a year, a meeting with all Technopolis employees reviews the status of our current activities and reveals the future plans of the science center for the next half year.

Every year, in September, all Technopolis employees (public workers, technicians, office employees, etc.) clean the exhibition room, the cafeteria, the offices…together. This also is a sort of team building and a way to create some involvement for everyone.

Technopolis believes it is important to set up inspiring projects that are highly appealing to the media. For example, in February 2011, Technopolis broke the world record of the largest chemistry lesson with 526 students. The positive vibes of the event and the accompanying media attention gave a good feeling to everyone and was a boost for staff morale.

Steven Vols, marketing and communication director
Technopolis, the Flemish Science Center, Mechelen, Belgium

Over the past year, I’ve been fortunate enough to serve on our museum’s Rewards and Recognition Committee. The purpose of the program was not necessarily to raise morale, but to reward and recognize staff in nonmonetary ways. The goals of the program are to

• recognize employees whose efforts make a difference
• recognize individual team members equally for their efforts
• build a spirit of teamwork and cooperation among co-workers
• demonstrate that employees’ work is valued and appreciated.

The committee members are museum employees from all departments and serve for a term of one year. The first task for the committee was to conduct an employee survey to establish a baseline for future metrics and gather ideas from staff on what they would like to see as part of the program. From that, we put together an action plan of potential programs to implement throughout the year. The plan was reviewed and approved by our senior management team. Some of the new programs the committee initiated are

• raffles held during monthly all-staff meetings
• a peer recognition program where staff can recognize their peers for small achievements
• a reciprocal pass with local museums and attractions to provide free admission for employees (+1 guest) to participating organizations
• pins and lanyards to recognize staff service milestones
• a staff variety show to showcase staff talent
• lunchtime professional development programs for staff.

Based on annual survey results, staff found Rewards and Recognition to be a great program and appreciates the effort the museum is taking to recognize staff. For year two of Rewards and Recognition, we will continue to support ongoing initiatives and are looking to add new programs based on feedback from staff, such as a staff break room, a summer picnic for staff and their families, and a staff weekend at one of our residential outdoor school sites.

Nate Lesiuk, program developer
The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Portland

From our Facebook page:

I’ve found that giving people ownership over small projects really helps. Most of my staff members are part-time and they have qualifications to be full-time, but the institution cannot afford it.

However, if they feel they can contribute a program to the whole institution, it increases the value they feel in the job. It also helps that part-timers know that we tend to hire from within for full-time jobs, so they have opportunities to advance.

Sarah Schoenlaub, physical science gallery leader
Saint Louis Science Center, Missouri

The above statements represent the opinions of the individual contributors and not necessarily the views of their institutions or of ASTC.