Museographic transposition: a didactical approach to museum exhibition engineering
Aim
This paper introduces the framework of museographic transposition as a theoretical approach to museum didactics. By museographic transposition we mean the adaptive transformation of knowledge that takes place in the engineering of museum exhibitions; from the knowledge present in the source material such as scientific literature to the knowledge present in the finished exhibition. The approach is illustrated by a case study: a preliminary analysis of the museographic transposition of the subject of animal adaptations to darkness.
Background
Science museum exhibitions are important educational devices that potentially influence many people. Objectives of such exhibitions are often stated in terms of visitors developing new knowledge, new behavioural repertoires, or new models for interpreting natural phenomena. Yet, there is no body of empirical and theoretical research available to exhibition engineers on how to achieve such goals. The quantity of museum research carried out in the last decades seems to contradict this statement; however, much of this research focuses on visitor learning processes within a given exhibition environment. While this work has provided key insights to learning in informal environments, it is clear that in terms of exhibition engineering, its focus is too far downstream for it to offer more than remedial feedback to the engineering process.
Framework
A useful perspective is offered by the theory of didactical transposition which presents an epistemological approach to teaching by delineating the processes which make an “object of teaching” from an “object of knowledge to be taught” (Chevallard, 1985). A crucial assumption in this theory is that knowledge may exist in different forms, depending on the institutions in which it is developed and circulated, but direct transfer of knowledge between institutions, for example from university research to classrooms, is normally not possible. Instead, to be viable in a new context, knowledge must be adaptively transformed, i.e. transposed, to the conditions of this new context (Chevallard, 1985). For example, a cell biologist may perceive of an animal cell as any member of a highly diverse group (e.g. red blood cells, liver cells, epidermal cells), while school textbook illustrations often show a strongly transposed prototypical version of a cell which combines attributes of many different types of cells without corresponding exactly to any single type (Clément, 2007).
Adapting the framework of didactical transposition to museum exhibition engineering, Simonneaux & Jacobi (2007) use the concept museographic transposition to describe the transposition of subject-related knowledge from the source, which is usually scientific literature, into the exhibition planning documents, here called the curatorial brief, and finally into the exhibition milieu, the intent of which is to stimulate knowledge construction among visitors (Fig. 1). In essence, the framework of museological transposition provides a structure with which to conceptualise the sequential phases of the exhibition engineering process and to organise the versions of subject-related knowledge pertaining to each phase.
The reference model (Fig. 1) constitutes the standpoint from which an epistemological analysis of each of the versions of knowledge may take place, and is thus the foundation of the approach. The reference model is elaborated from empirical data from each phase of the transposition, and serves as the basic theoretical model for the researcher (Bosch et al., 2006). The reference model must encompass all the pertinent versions of the subject-related knowledge in order for the researcher to avoid defining the transposition process in terms of just one of the phases of the transposition.
The following example illustrates the elaboration and use of the reference model. The example is based on a small excerpt of data collected in a larger study.
Case study
The present data were collected in 2007 at the science centre Experimentarium in Copenhagen and pertain to an exhibition unit[1] entitled Cave Expedition which is part of a larger cluster labelled Darkness. The cluster is one of five in an exhibition about animal adaptations to extreme environments. Cave Expedition presents the cave beetle Duvalius stankovitch, which is an insect that inhabits permanently dark caves.
The following example illustrates the construction and use of the reference model in the analysis of a single instance of transposition, namely from curatorial brief to exhibition milieu, regarding the concept of heterospecific species, specifically predators, in the cave beetle’s environment (Fig. 2).
The curatorial brief: the stated objectives of Cave Expedition
According to the curatorial brief, the purpose of the exhibition unit Cave Expedition is to illustrate, from a human point of view, what it is like to be a cave beetle (Executive Committee, 2005). The exhibition engineers explain: “We wanted to put the visitor in the place of the [beetle]” (M. Stentoft, pers. comm., 21-11-07); “the intent was to let the visitor pretend to be the animal” (P. Velk, pers. comm., 17-11-07)
These empirical data are extrapolated to form the reference model: what are the implications for illustrating the concept of a heterospecific predator to a visitor who is in the place of a cave beetle? One point, originating in the source knowledge, is that cave beetle predators are usually other arthropods at least an order of magnitude larger than the beetle. Thus, an illustration of this aspect of a heterospecific predator would be a model of an arthropod an order of magnitude larger than the visitor.
The exhibition milieu: the structure of Cave Expedition
The exhibition milieu of Cave Expedition consists of a darkened tunnel about 10 m long and 1.5 m wide. Along one wall, a number of life-sized (up to 15 cm in length) rubber animals are mounted at a height of about 1 m. The animals are two spiders, a scorpion, a centipede, and two lizards.
Analysis
Several restrictions constrain the transposition of the concept of heterospecific predators from curatorial brief to exhibition milieu. One subject matter related restriction is the choice of lizards to illustrate predators: whereas lizards are common predators of beetles in many habitats, they are ectothermic and thus do not inhabit permanently dark caves. Yet, statements by the exhibition engineers such as the following: “These are the types of animals you’d find in caves. These are the animals that would prey on the beetles [in the wild]” (P. Velk, pers. comm., 17-11-07) indicate that they view lizards as representatives of beetle heterospecifics.
Another restriction, related to the reality of maintaining an exhibition, is the scale of the models of the heterospecific predators: the rubber animals. An exhibition engineer explained that due to wear and tear, the models must be replaced quite often. Thus, the choice of the life-sized rubber model animals: “…was a practical issue. Which animals were available at the toy store?” (P. Velk, pers. comm., 17-11-07). Thus, the models of heterospecific predators in Cave Expedition are of a scale such as humans, not cave beetles, would experience them.
These examples may indicate an implicit attempt to create a cave environment such as it is experienced by humans rather than by cave beetles. The exhibition unit’s title Cave Expedition further emphasises the human viewpoint, signifying a dichotomy which may be the symptom of competing agendas among the exhibition engineers (c.f. Lindauer, 2005)
Conclusions and Implications
The case presented does not comprise an exhaustive analysis; rather, it illustrates the use of the model of museographic transposition as a tool for the investigation of one aspect of exhibition engineering. The case demonstrates how a thorough analysis of the subject to be exhibited and the objectives of such an exhibition may illuminate issues that must be resolved for optimal results, but more importantly, how the epistemological analysis of the chosen subject may provide the basis for new ideas regarding exhibition engineering.
References
Bosch, M., Chevallard, Y., & Gascón, J. (2006). Science or magic? The use of models and theories in didactics of mathematics. Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 1254-1263.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La Pensée sauvage.
Clément, P. (2007). Introducing the cell concept with both animal and plant cells: a historical and didactic approach. Science & Education, 16, 423-440.
Executive Committee (2005). Xtremes: storyline for an exhibition about adaptations to extreme environmental conditions on Earth.
Lindauer, M. A. (2005). From salad bars to vivid stories: four game plans for developing 'educationally successful' exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 20(1), 41-55.
Simonneaux, L. & Jacobi, D. (2007). Language constraints in producing prefiguration posters for a scientific exhibition. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 383-408.
4
[1] The term “exhibition unit” describes a self-contained exhibition component: a unit which can be understood on its own. Several units reflecting the same theme constitute a cluster.