ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES

Recent studies on science museums and centres show that contemporary museums have fully adopted the so called ‘participatory turn’ (Jasanoff, 2003) for what concerns their engagement with visitors and other stakeholders (Bandelli and Konijn, 2015). Citing the examples of the new policies that selected European museums of science and technology have adopted, Bandelli and Konijn (2015) argue that this approach signals a new shift in the way museums relate to their public. They write: “The one-way, top-down model of communication through exhibitions was replaced by the 'engagement' model: exhibitions and programmes aimed at engaging the public in a debate about the implications of science and research; the focus shifted from the content to the context of science, that is, its social implications." The idea that the museum is an institution which is not only displays artefacts but also provides a space for public dialogue and a democratic discussion on science is a common one in Science and Technology Studies. (see for example, Davies et al, 2008, Cameron and Deslandes, 2011, Bandelli and Konijn, 2015).

The participatory turn in science museums and centres should also be seen in the larger context of science, technology and society debates which evolved with the turn of the millennium. One of the most significant documents to come out in this period is the House of Lords report ‘Science and Society’ published in 200079_{. Arguing against the phrase}

‘public understanding of science’ as one that presupposes ignorance on the part of the lay public, the report stresses the need for dialogue and building trust between the scientists and the non-scientists. For what concerns the understanding of science, it includes knowledge of the scientific method (that is, testing a hypothesis with the help of an experiment), awareness of current scientific advances and implications. It is interesting here to consider the understanding of the terms ‘science’ and ‘technology’ in the 1985 Bodmer report entitled ‘Public Understanding of Science’ and published by the Royal

79 See Chapter 3 ‘Public Understanding of Science’ from the ‘Science and Society’ Report of the House of Lords, 2000. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3805.htm#a26 (last accessed December 2016)

Society, of which this was a follow-up. The older report defines science in the following way:

'Science' we interpreted broadly to include mathematics, technology, engineering and medicine, and to comprise the systematic investigation of the natural world and the practical application of knowledge derived from such investigation. Though technology and engineering have a sense of direct purpose not usually associated with basic science, there is a continuum of activities that extends from basic through strategic to applied research and development. These activities are all based on

common underlying scientific principles. 80 (1985: 7)

The report also mentions in the introduction:

Science pervades our society. Most of our industry and much of our national prosperity are based on science. In the home as well as at work we use machinery that is the product of this industry. Science affects many, if not most, policy issues of national and international importance. It also affects a wide range of personal activities, from health and diet to holidays and sport. (1985: 7)

The similarities between the early documents of BITM which state the purpose of science and technology, the writings of Haldane and the role of science in society in the Bodmer report can all be seen in a continuum. What is interesting to note is however the tone of the 1985 report, which gave rise to what is called the deficit model, which assumes a superior role of science and the need to educate people in science and technology so that they are made aware of the policy developments of the state and latest research advancements. Can the BITM’s activities be studied under the same lens? Did the early science communication practitioners in India also devise a plan to address a deficit in the public’s appreciation/understanding of science? Were they interested in engaging in a dialogue with the visitors? If so, when did that start?

80 The Royal Society. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. Full text available at:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf (last accessed December 2016)

3.3.1 Participatory turn at BITM

As early as in 1959, BITM realized the importance of interactivity in science learning and hands-on experience for students. If people were to be told a specialised story, they had to be able to use their sensory faculties for better understanding. The very initial participation was then one which related to design of exhibits. Thus the artifacts were supplemented with a large number of working models with features which would allow visitors to physically interact with models and participate in the meaning-making. Early experiments were also carried out with immersive experience, as a “mock-up coal mine” came up in the museum in 1983, which offered visitors the possibility to interact inside a replica of a real coal mine. With the turn of the new millennium it was felt that while the older galleries were object and replica based displays, the new galleries had to be more interactive with focus on group learning, specifically targeted towards student groups.

Focus on creating a science-conscious population for the future through multi-pronged approach has always been strong in the BITM’s plan of action to bring science and technology to as many sections of the society. Students have been the greatest beneficiaries of this strong objective. As Sthanapati and Sanyal (2009) mention “The potential of museums as provider of non-formal science education was realized even by early science museums. In India, the BITM is the pioneer in non-formal science education to students through museum activities.” The museum’s activities have not only reached out to students but also other stakeholders who form the larger school community. In the essay by Sthanapati and Sanyal, the authors also mention instances of teachers requesting help in creating educational kits or demonstration lectures which could be used to supplement their own classroom work. As they recount, one of the very first examples of stakeholder involvement with the museum was in 1965, when a school teacher approached the museum to create a model of the solar system, thus also giving rise to the science demonstration lectures (SDLs) targeted towards students. Students were also proactive as requests for hands-on training also came from them, giving rise to specialised educational camps. In their own words: “An important aspect of BITM’s educational programmes was that they

were not imported from the west and imposed upon local students; instead, the demand came from the local student-teacher community.” This is also a very interesting example of early engagement of various groups of stakeholders in the society, coming together for the cause of public participation in the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The museum not only had its own programme to showcase the narrative of scientific and technological progress; it was also open to ideas coming from the public (here it is also important to mention that school teachers, while they are visitors/public, also belong to a special group of experts in their own fields), always ready to co-opt them into its own set of activities. Thus, the museum superseded its role as a provider of a specialised service. It worked in tandem with the society to address the needs and demands at large. It is thus only befitting when Saroj Ghose writes in the same volume commemorating 50 years of BITM:

In retrospect I look back at the golden days of my life in BITM, during 1965-70, when mobile science exhibition buses started rolling on the road, science demonstration lectures were introduced to supplement formal science education in schools, experimental district science centres started functioning in Purulia, Midnapore, Digha and Raigunj, science seminars and science fairs came out of the shell of Calcutta to spread at the district and state levels. These events were the forerunners of a nationwide science museum movement, and in the days ahead BITM was aptly called the ‘mother museum’ in India. (Ghose, 2009)

Terms such as ‘participation’, ‘engagement’ and ‘dialogue’ have become increasingly

important in museum studies vocabulary81. The phrases have gained currency and

popularity in the last decade or so, especially, following the publication of the 2000 House of Lords report, culminating with the publication of Nina Simon’s seminal work The Participatory Museum (2010) which discusses multi-modal methods of visitor participation, through design of exhibits, enhancing collaborative efforts between various stakeholders to ensure better engagement and dialogue. Based on the recollections of Sthanapati and Sanyal (2009) and Ghose (2009) in the special issue, it can be said that museum practitioners of BITM were already experimenting with stakeholder participation.

81 _{In the fourth chapter, methods of engagement and participation in museums will be taken up as one of}

Did this participation extend to the galleries and the public engagement programmes? In the next section, we will take a look at the galleries of the BITM. First, public opinion on the galleries will be discussed using data collected by the museum officials. Second, we will move inside the gallery space and take a close look at two of them.