Naturalis live science

Live Science in Naturalis

Thursday I went to Naturalis as they opened what might in commercial terms be called their concept store. A science work street, inhabited by employees of Naturalis who do their work in front of the public. Their work of conserving, cataloguing, charting, organizing. At first sight it reminded me of the Darwin Centre of the Natural History Museum in London: exhibiting the process of science, working with interactive displays that allow visitors to be part of the exhibition, the fact that the subject is life sciences....But up close I realised that Naturalis is actually going further. Much further. In the Darwin Centre the process of (life) science is made visible through interactive exhibits including short movies in which employees of the Natural History Museum tell about their work, the relevance of their work and their passion for their work. In Naturalis you can actually see the people at work. Live and in real life. You can talk to them, ask your own questions, assist them in the cataloguing...In short: it's truly interactive. It's not an exhibition made with interactives, in pointed fact it's not even an exhbition anymore. It is an interactive process of which you - the visitor - are a full part of it all - crowd sourcing Naturalis style. I was impressed. Truly impressed. Both by the concept and the operationalisation thereof, but also because having worked with Naturalis I think I have somewhat of understanding of what an enormous change this is for this institution. A complete turn around, from an institution which presented everything 100% finished, researched, thought through to now creating an open ended experience with many unknown and in a way uncontrollable variables. A fundamentally new way of thinking, of working, of looking at the concept of a science center/natural history museum and a new way of looking at science education. Especially the latter has captured my philosophical interest. My hat is off for Naturalis and I will follow with much interest! Some pictures and short movies taken with my iPhone (although it cannot beat the real experience). For the movies please go to my newly opened YouTube channel as I found it totally hopeless to try and upload movies on blogger. Takes forever and a day.

Finding my own way...or not?

I'm a philosopher (of science and technology to be precise) and an ethicist. So you'd think I would be able to steer myself out of dilemma's and would be able to reason my own way out of difficult questions. Sorry to disappoint. I find myself in a difficult spot. I am adament that I will focus MK5060 more on questions related to science and technology education and communication and on shaping, forming and giving a head and a heart to cooperations between knowledge institutions. Connections that I believe are essential for a fertile future, in fact: connections that are the only way forward. As each institution on its own will not be able to cope with the demands of times, peoples and cultures to come. Anyways, before I go into a long winded blog about this, let's return to the point of this blog entry.
Because where are my limits? Do I have any limits to the services I provide when it comes to enabling these cooperations? Because it sounds all pretty highbrow and I notice that many people - including myself if I don't watch me! - have the connotation of in sector cooperation: libraries with libraries, schools with schools etc. Or at best cross sector, where e.g. libraries cooperate with schools and museums. Out of sector cooperation is rarely on the charts, although it should be. And if so, it can take many forms including sponsorship.
You're guessing the point: a dear client has asked me to assist in fundraising. Now should I or should I not take this on? I am inclined to as I am very reluctant to put boundaries on my services as long as they fit the - rather broad - framework. So why am I in doubt? Because there is still this hopeless gap between content and form, between strategy and operationalisation. Fundraising combines the layers, it cuts straight through organisational boundaries and it is a true form of cooperation, of forming partnerships, across sectors and branches it connects people and organisations. But is still seen as operational. So actually I am wondering: how does that frame me and my services if I take this on? And simultaneously in writing this I realise that I am not inclined to consent to existing boundaries, to judge myself by standards other people may use. To allow myself to be put into boxes created by others that I do not agree with in the first place. My, it's all clear now! Thanks for reading and listening, let me know if you have any thoughts. But I think I sorted myself out. All you need to sometimes do is talk out loud. I guess.

Don't let schooling get in the way of (science) education

Through twitter this article on the value of free choice learning for science got my attention. This study is ground breaking as it covers both the concept of free choice learning (thus going past the old paradigm of formal, non-formal and informal learning, Dierking and Falk are pioneers in this field I think) and the productivity of this way of educating/learning. As such it is one of the first and few studies that I know of that actually shows how strongly and deeply a science museums can influence the publics knowledge on attitudes about science and technology. And moreover how this type of education can overcome barriers of education, economy, race etc. I would be interested if this is a unique trait of science museums (or science centers) or whether this is a trait of education outside schools anyway. Because if so this would mean a new road ahead for schooling and education. A road in which maybe even at some point schools will be part of museums as an interactive exhibit on teaching and learning. An exhibit that shows how we once thought the educational process should be organised:-) This article also fuels profound questions on whether you can actually teach if there is no innate interest in the receiving party. In others words: what is the value of teaching without a receptive learner? But also on what knowledge is, and how one gets by knowledge. What actually is the learning process, and can we totally, consciously design this? Should we actually aim to maximize the learning potential or should we rather be talking about optimization, thus truly changing the educational paradigm? Most methods are now geared towards maximizing the learning process in an instrumental way, e.g. through mixing entertainment and education, but still eventually measuring the educational output through the looking glass of maximization. The questions thus effectively being: did the student learn more by using this method than that method? In a paradigm that departs from optimizing the learning process that central question would rather be: what did this person learn that he/she previously was unaware of? And isn't that exactly what education, learning and teaching are about in the first place?

(cartoon: Rat Race escape artists)

Educating science communication?

My week was governed by pushing EthiekZaak (of course!) and for MK5060 by science and technology education or communication (is there a fundamental difference?). It is a week that left me wondering how and when we are going to science e&c 2.0. From a meeting on Monday in NEMO where science professionals from mainly universities and a few science centers representatives discussed how to better position science in society to newspaper articles on wrong science and emotions governing the discussion on nuclear energy (http://tinyurl.com/5svgnsv sorry Dutch only!). A Kohnstamm lecture delivered by Louise Fresco who wonders how we get past the era in which emotions have become a source of konwledge and signals that society suffers from an overkill of non information. 

Facts versus emotions. Science versus society. Scientists and communicators who wonder how to redevelop the message they are sending. Because the public does not understand. Because the public chooses to rely on peer information from internet fora rather than trust the experts. And happily lets their emotions rule. So the experts say.

I wonder: why are we still stuck in this polarising line of thought? And in this sender-message-receiver line of working? 

In philosophical tradition the relation between rationality and emotions is one of the most difficult subjects and after a good 2500 years we have a rich tradition but no definite answers (hey, we are philosophers:-)). One of the finest works written on this subject in my opinion is Upheavels of thought by Martha Nussbaum. Elaborating on and working on the basis of philosophical tradition and the arts she comes to the conclusion that the tangle of human emotions is an aid and fundamental to our existence rather than a handicap, an impediment. She positions emotions as intelligent responses to the perception of value. This is a nearly cosmis shift in philosophical thinking which has long evaded matters of the heart and placed great value on detachment from these matters and opted for values like "coolness", "pure rationality" and the likes.

Science communication would do well to take this perspective into account I feel as it would help to shift the dynamics of the debate. Rather then alsmost verbally beating up "the public" (whoever that may be) by more facts, more facts, still more facts, labelling articulated emotions as "hysteria" and basically telling the public off for not knowing better, the emotions could be taken seriously and be addressed as such. In other words: make the debate inclusive and consciously accept that emotions are part of science and in effect help shape science. It would mean a move away from th sender-message-receiver line of working and a move towards a participatory way of thinking about science and science c&e. Anybody fancies elaborating this line of thought and experimenting with it?