The value of making science visible to zoo visitors is addressed by Creative Research (2007) whose report notes that: “respondents clearly liked the idea of being able to see into a real working lab”. The merits of exposing bench work are also seen in the work of Bowler, Buchanan-Smith & Whiten (2012). Ideas surrounding science orientated, self-guided undergraduate engagement are found in Kirkby, Phipps & Hamilton (2010).
The seemingly unproblematic issue of how to name scientific activity in a zoo or aquarium is thoughtfully challenged in the work of Carson, (2012). Work on the adoption of the right tone of voice for scientific display and interpretation texts is found in trials done for the NHM’s Darwin 2 building, by Creative Research (2007) where informal language was seen to alternate with a more formal “Zoo Voice” depending on the job in hand.
Problematisation of the term ‘conservation’ in an aquarium context is found in Smith 2011. Flexible meanings of the word found within a single institution are finessed by visitors, and range between simple notions of animal knowledge and the more obvious associations with ‘sustainability’. Key conservation terms can be usefully described too. Creative Research (2007) advised the NHM that “providing definitions of key terms [e.g. biodiversity] was well received” by those consulted.
We read in Patrick & Tunnicliffe that “The main principles, concepts, goals, and values of conservation literacy have been set out by the Society of Conservation Biology [it] states that the central values of conservation biology that people should possess are represented by conservation literacy. [This] should be a part of good citizenship and should be addressed by practitioners to make the public conservation literate citizens” (2013, 14).
Fa et al state: “Conservation biology […] incorporates subjects […] such as philosophy, psychology, economics and sociology; it also stretches into law and education […] It also relies on the pure sciences such as chemistry, mathematics and biology.” Soulé (1985) labeled conservation biology a ‘crisis discipline’ [wherein] action is better than inaction even though decisions may need to be made with incomplete information. Such immediate response requires working with available data with the best intuition and creativity one can muster, while tolerating a great deal of uncertainty.” […] Furthermore, conservation biology is value-laden” (Fa et al, 2011, 23).
This is a complex array of subjects to be sure. The Museum needs to be certain it is able and willing to communicate the facts, values and uncertainties of these subjects to its visitor body.
A substantial collection of papers looking broadly at the zoo’s ability to pursue conservation work is found in Zimmerman, Hatchwell, Dickie & West, (2007). One of the most recent books on conservation work in zoos is that of Fa et al (2011). This is a detailed, principled account of science and its application in conservation work that features in much of this review. Jensen (2012) should be consulted for an extensive, cross-disciplinary literature survey and accompanying research into the conservation education practice of zoos and aquariums.
Engaging ways of extending an aquarium’s purview are found in George, Hamilton & Alford’s report on freshwater fish reintroductions (2013) and may prompt the Aquarium to think about new liaisons with Thames21 and the potential of promoting something like the Wandle Trust-inspired ‘Trout in the Classroom’ projects with local adults or amphibian groups. The worth of local, ex-situ projects supported by an aquarium is also aired in Prendergast (2012), this report also raises the potential of linking aquariums and ecotourism ventures.
Heimlich, Elaline & Horr (2010) remind us that environmental learning is ‘lifelong’ and happens in many ‘free-choice’ social and cultural settings. Tuning-in to individual learning and social agendas within these settings (zoos or otherwise) for them has to be an institutional priority.
A comprehensive account of qualitative audience research in the conservation sector is found in Jacobson (2009). Identification of positive, socially constructed conservation learning by zoo visitors is found in Clayton, Fraser & Saunders (2009).
Interpretation
The question of what should feature on an aquarium species label is researched by Fraser, Bicknell, Sickler, & Taylor, (2009). They conclude that unusual facts and behaviours placed alongside conservation status, habitat and longevity find greater favour than scientific name and phylogeny alone. Moss, Esson & Francis (2010) touch on signage in naturalistic displays whilst Giusti & Condon in their work on botanical texts (2008) argue for a hierarchy of sign types that can convey main and sub-themes and connect successfully with a variety of visitors, including ‘returners’ already familiar with displays. The impact of multiple layers of media interpretation in zoos is assessed by Weiler & Smith (2009). Jensen (2012) looks at the merits of combining playful phrases and puns with objective language in labels. He also looks at the value of backlit signage, visitor flow, leaflets and seating.
New & social media
Beddington (2013) writes of a coming “hyper-connectivity” and the move into adulthood of so-called ‘digital natives’. Indeed digital platforms could be the way to link collections, curators and visitors in new ways. Certainly, mobile technologies are now ubiquitous and appeal to a wide age range. Reporting on interpretation matters in AZA institutions for the Oregon Coast Aquarium, O’Connor Consulting write that whilst “Zoos and aquariums need to be experiential and engaging […] learning how to make technology family-friendly and getting people to engage in dialogue with each other are our current challenges” (O’Connor, 2010, 4). Mobile devices do lend themselves to what Elizabeth Bandy calls “coordination around learning” (Bandy, 2010) but there are limits. In her assessment of digital options for informal science learning, Bandy sees new mobile media as being “anti-social, episodic, artificial” but valid for “rote quizing”.
Technology can indeed diminish the visitor experience, becoming a disorientating obstacle to unmediated engagement with live exhibits. Additionally, technology breaks down, can be costly and quickly superseded.
Visitor research
The identification of visitor identities, learning styles and on-the-day motivations are challenging. But there is sufficient published theory and research to inform any surveys at Forest Hill, Briseño-Garzón, Anderson & Anderson (2007) is an example.
The work of J. H. Falk (Sea Grant Professor of Free-Choice Learning, Oregon State University) is distinctive and plausible and colours much of the most useful thinking and debates in the recent literature. His early writing asserted that “grouping learners into minimal, moderate and extensive conservation knowledge and attitude categories [has] enabled a more fine-grained and accurate understanding of changes in aquarium visitors’ conservation learning” (Falk & Adelman, 2003). His more detailed formulation of visitor’s types and roles (Falk et al 2007, Falk 2009) is carefully critiqued by the likes of Dawson & Jensen (2011) and is revisited in Falk’s own reply to them (2011). Most recently, Christmas et al (2013) have produced a report for DEFRA that looks at biodiversity engagement and identifies tiers of awareness and willingness to act. These accounts of types and groups could be usefully read alongside critical descriptions of relevant qualitative methods for small-scale social research projects found in Denscombe (2010).
Discussion paper references [in full]
Aldridge F., & F. Dutton (2009), for NIACE, Building a society for all ages. Benefits for older people from learning in museums, libraries and archives. http://shop.niace.org.uk/building-a-society.html
Attfield, R., (2003), Environmental Ethics: An overview for the twenty-first century, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Bandy, E., (2010), The Role of Media in Supporting Informal Science Learning, Conference and website evaluation report, Rockman et al. Accessed online.
Banz, R., (2008), ‘Self-Directed Learning: Implications for museums’, Journal of Museum Education, no.1, Spring 2008, 43-54.
Beddington, J., (2013), foreword in Future Identities: Changing identities in the UK: The next 10 years, by Foresight/Government Office for Science, London.
BIAZA, (2009), Paper 51/09. www.biaza.org.uk/uploads/biaza%20ed%20policy.pdf Accessed October 31 2013.
BIAZA, (2013), http://www.biaza.org.uk/education/education-policy Accessed October 31, 2013.
Black, G., (2005), The Engaging Museum: Developing museums for visitor involvement, (Oxford: Routledge).
Black, G., (2011), Transforming Museums in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Routledge).
Bowler, M. T., H. M. Buchanan-Smith & A. Whiten (2012), ‘Assessing Public engagement with Science in a Univeristy Primite Research Centre in a National Zoo’ PLoS ONE, 7(4): e34505.
Briseño-Garzón, A, D. Anderson & A. Anderson (2007), ‘Entry & Emergent Agendas of Adults Visiting an Aquarium in Family Groups’, Visitor Studies 10 (1), 73-89.
Bressey, C., (2013), Director Equiano Centre, UCL www.museumsassociation.org/museums2020/m2020-caroline-bressey Accessed June 11, 2013.
Carson, L., (2012), ‘Zoo Visitors’ Understanding of terms Denoting Research Activity’, Public Understanding of Science, 0 (0) 1-10, Accessed online.
Chesnin, N., (2012) ‘Taking the Plunge: How Aquariums Can Help Build a Public Constituency for the Ocean’ Masters thesis, Duke University, http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5233/Chesnin%20Noah%20Masters%20Project%20FINAL.pdf?sequence=1 Accessed May 29 2013.
Christmas, S., L. Wright, L. Morris, A. Watson and C. Miskelly (2013), Engaging People in Biodiversity Issues. Final Report of the Biodiversity Segmentation Scoping Study. (Commissioned & funded by DEFRA). http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11265_Engagingpeopleinbiodiversityissues-FinalReport.pdf Accessed October 10 2013.
Clayton, S., J. Fraser & C. D. Saunders, (2009) ‘Zoo Experiences, Conversations, Connections & Concerns for Animals’, Zoo Biology, 28: 377-397.
Concordat (n.d.) Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research, www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/ConcordatforEngagingthePublicwithResearch.pdf Accessed October 1 2013.
Corporate Plan (2012), Horniman Public Museum & Public Park Trust Corporate Plan, 2012-15 April 2012.
Creative Research (2007), Darwin Centre Phase 2: Key findings from First Formative Evaluation for NHM Accessed online.
Crossley, N., (1996), Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming (London: Sage).
Dawson, E., & E. Jensen (2011), ‘Towards A Contextual Turn in Visitor Studies: Evaluating Visitor Segmentation and Identity-Related Motivations’, Visitor Studies, 14:2, 127-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.608001 Accessed March 7 2013.
DEFRA, (2011), Water for Life, A Parliamentary White Paper (The Stationery Office), http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm82/8230/8230.pdf, Accessed August 11 2012.
Denscombe, (2010) M., The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, Fourth Edition, (Maidenhead, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill).
Dobson, Andrew (2010), ‘Environmental Citizenship & Pro-environmental Behaviour’, Rapid Research & Evidence Review, (Sustainable Development Research Network). http://www.sd-research.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sdrn_environmentalcitizenshipreview_formatted_final.pdf Accessed 5.9.2012.
Dornan, Russell, (2013). Dead Interesting: The search for star specimens in a natural science collection, Pubsci presentation, Elephant & Castle, London, 10.6.2013.
Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, D., & R. Grenier (2008), ‘Non-formal & informal Adult Learning in Museums: A literature review’, Journal of Museum Education, no. 1, Spring 2008, 9-22.
Everett M., & M. S. Barrett (2009), ‘Investigating Sustained Visitor/Museum Relationships: Employing Narrative Research in the Field of Museum Visitor Studies’, Visitor Studies, 12:1, 2-15.
Fa, J. E., S. M. Funk & D. O’Connell, (2011), Zoo Conservation Biology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Falk, J. H., (2009), Identity & The Museum Visitor Experience, Left Coast Press Inc.
_________ . (2011), ‘Contextualizing Falk’s Identity-Related Visitor Motivation model’, Visitor Studies, 14, 2 141-157.
Falk, J.H.; E. M. Reinhard; C. L. Vernon; K. Bronnenkant; N. L. Deans; J. E. Heimlich., (2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD.
Falk, J. H., J. E. Heimlich & S. Foutz (eds.) (2009), Free-choice Learning & the Environment, (AltaMira Press).
Falk, J. H., & L. M. Adelman, (2003), ‘Investigating the Impact of Prior Knowledge & Interest on Aquarium Visitor Learning’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 2 163-176.
FEAST (2013) http://feastportal.wordpress.com/the-project Accessed March 26 2013).
Fraser, J., J. Bicknell, J. Sickler, A. Taylor, (2009), ‘What Information Do Zoo & Aquaria Visitors Want on Animal Identification Labels?, Journal of Interpretation Research, vol. 14, no 2, 7-19.
George, A. L., M. T. Hamilton & K. F. Alford, (2013), ‘We All Live Downstream: Engaging partners & visitors in freshwater fish reintroduction programmes’, International Zoo Yearbook, 47, issue 1, 140-150.
Gibbs, K., M. Sani & J. Thompson (eds.) (2007), Lifelong Learning in Museums: A European Handbook, (Ferrara, EDISAI srl).
Giusti, E. & K. Condon, (2008), Brooklyn Botanic Garden: New Interpretative Signage in the tropical Pavilion. Summative evaluation. http://informalscience.org/images/evaluation/BBG_Summative.final.pdf Accessed June 28 2013.
Golinsky, J., (2005), Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
Gregory, J., and S. Miller (1998), Science in Public: Communication, culture and Credibility, Cambridge MA, Basic Books.
Guardian (2013) editorial: ‘London zoo: creature comforts’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/london-zoo-creature-comforts Accessed March 22 2013.
Hamilton-Patterson, J., (2007), Seven Tenths: The sea and its thresholds (London: Faber & Faber).
Heimlich, J. E., & T. Horr, (2010), ‘Adult Learning in Free-choice Settings: What makes it different?’ New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, issue 127, Fall 2010, 57-66.
HM Statistics, (2012), Horniman Museums & Gardens Trustees away-day statistical summary, Monday October 15, 2012.
HM Website, (2013) http://www.horniman.ac.uk/visit/displays/aquarium#image-0, accessed May 20 & 29 2013.
(HM meeting, March 2012) Meeting held March 8 2012 with JC, JR, KE and Alison (Press Officer) and Shuk Kwan Liu (Marketing and Events).
Ipsos MORI (2011) Public Attitudes to Science, May 2011. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/sri-pas-2011-main-report.pdf Accessed March 7 2013.
Irwin, A., & M. Michael, (2003), Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge (Maidenhead: Open University Press).
Jacobson, S. K., (2009), Communication Skills for Conservation Professionals. Second Edition, (Washington: Island Press).
Jensen, E., (2012), A Critical Review of Conservation Education & Engagement Practices in European Zoos & Aquaria, Durrell Wildlife Trust & The University of Warwick.
Johnson, S., (2013), ‘Communicating Sustainability: Lessons from public health’: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/communicating-sustainability-behaviour-change-public-health Accessed April 3 2013. SJ is an independent creative consultant specialising in sustainability.
Kelly, L. J., (2007) The Interrelationships between Adult Museum Visitors’ Learning Identities and Their Museum Experiences. A PhD.
Kelly L., and P. Fitzgerald, (2011) Cooperation, collaboration, challenge: how to work with the changing nature of educational audiences in museums. In Rethinking Educational Practice Through Reflexive Inquiry. Nicole Mockler & Judyth Sachs (eds)., 77-88 (http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/book/978-94-007-0804-4).
Kirkby, K. C., M. Phipps & P. Hamilton, ‘Unlocking resources: Self-Guided Student Explorations of Science Museum and Aqaurium Exhibits’, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, 2010, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMED31B0651K Accessed June 28 2013 .
Lords, (2000), House of Lords, Science & Technology Committee Report, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm, accessed August 23 2012.
LMG, (2013): London Museums Group Blog http://londonmuseumsgroup.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/university-challenge.html Accessed March 26 2013.
Luebke, J. F., & A. Grajal, (2011), ‘Accessing Mission-Related Leaning Outcomes at Zoos & Aquaria: prevalence, barriers & needs’, Visitor Studies (14,2), 195-208.
MA (2013), Public perceptions of – and attitudes to – the purposes of museums in society a report prepared by BritainThinks for The Museums Association. Published online, March 2013. http://www.museumsassociation.org/news/03042013-public-attitudes-research-published Accessed June 25 2013.
Ma, J., (2011), ‘Visitors’ Prior Knowledge & Interests in Marine Microbes & Metagenomics’, Living Liquid exhibition Front-End Evaluation Accessed online, 2013.
Mace, Georgina (2013), ‘Looking Forward not Backwards – biodiversity in the 21st Century’ INTECOL [International Association for Ecology] Plenary Lecture, 2013, 18-23rd August 2013, www.ucl.ac.uk/cber/cber-news-publication/INTECOL2013 Accessed October 31 2013.
MBA (2010), Research & Conservation at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, pp.62 full-colour PDF available online.
MBA (2012) Shorelines, members’ magazine, Monterey Bay Aquarium, vol., 28 no.3 Fall 2012.
Meisner, Mark, (2013), ‘What is Environmental Communication?’ Version 2.6,
The International Environmental Communication Association, http://theieca.org/what-environmental-communication Accessed October 31 2013.
Miller T., and G. Yúdice (2002), Cultural Policy (London: Sage).
MLA (2010), Museums, Libraries & Archives Council/Leanring Unlimited, ‘Engaging Adult Audiences’. An MLA ‘Renaissance South East’ delegate pack. http://abcofworkingwithschools.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/engaging-adult-audiences.pdf Accessed June 28 2013.
Moss, A., M. Esson, D. Francis, (2010), ‘Evaluation of a Third-Generation Zoo Exhibit in Relation to Visitor Behavior and Interpretation Use’, Journal of Interpretation, vol. 15, no. 2, 7-28.
Moss, A., and M. Esson (2013), ‘The Educational Claims of Zoos: Where Do We Go From Here?’ Zoo Biology 32, 13–18.
NHM/visitor research methods (2013) http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/visitor-research/methods/index.html Accessed January 24 2013.
O’Connor, T., (2010), Trends in Zoo & Aquarium Exhibition Interpretation, Oregon Coast, January 2010, accessed online.
Padel, R., (2013), ‘Don’t let good zoos go extinct’ Guardian March 22 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/22/good-zoos-conservation Accessed March 26 2013.
Patrick, P. G., and S. D. Tunnicliffe, (2013), Zoo Talk (London: Springer).
Prendergast, L. D., (2012), ‘Developing a Strategic Conservation Project for the Oregon Coast Aquarium’ Master’s Project Report, Oregon State University.
http://nature.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/7_Prendergast_Thesis.pdf Accessed June 28 2013.
Pullen, Andrew, S., Conservation biology, Cambridge, CUP (2002).
Ramberg, J. S., J. Rand & J. Tomulonis (2002), ‘Mission, Message & Visitors: How exhibition philosophy has evolved at the Monterey Bay Aquarium’, Curator: The Museum Journal, 45, 302-320.
Reid, G. McGregor (1990) “Captive breeding for the conservation of cichlid fishes.” Journal of Fish Biology 37.sA : 157-166, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb05031.x/abstract Accessed May 29 2013.
Ross, M., (2004) ‘Interpreting the new Museology’ Museum & Society, July 2004. 2 (2) 84-103, http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies/museumsociety/documents/volumes/ross.pdf Accessed May 29 2013.
Rowe, S., and A. Nichols (2011), ‘Visitor Motivations Across Three Informal Education Institutions: An Application of the Identity-Related Visitor Motivation Model, Visitor Studies, 14:2, 162-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.608006 Accessed March 7 2013.
Russo, A., J. Watkins, L. Kelly & S. Chan, (2008), ‘Participatory Communication with Social Media’, Curator 51 (1), 21-31.
Selinda Research Associates (2011), Web 2.0 at the Museum of Life & Science, unpublished MS, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Accessed online, 2013.
Simon, N., (2008), Museum 2.0 blog, Wednesday October 8 2008.
_________ . (2010a), The Participatory Museum, (Museum 2.0).
_________ . (201b), Museum 2.0 blog, January 25 2010.
Smith, S., (2011), ‘Meanings of “Conservation”: Effects of flexible definitions at the Oceanic Aquarium Marine Science Centre’, Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, vol. 19, issue 1, Article 12 Accessed online, 2013.
Smith, Tracy-Ann, (2013), www.museumsassociation.org/museums2020/m2020-tracy-ann-smith Accessed June 11 2013.
Steyaert, P., and G. Ollivier, ‘The European Water Framework Directive: how ecological assumptions frame technical & social change’, Ecology & Society vol. 12, issue 1, article 25, (2007), http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art25/ Accessed August 15 2012.
Stirling, S., (2009), ‘Ecological Intelligence: Viewing the world relationally’, in Arran Stibbe (ed.) The Handbook of Sustainable Literacy: Skills for a changing world, (Totnes: Green Books), 77-83.
Taylor, E. W., (2010), ‘Cultural Institutions & Adult Education’, New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 127, 5-14 (Wiley). http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/83/04709520/0470952083.pdf Accessed June 28 2013.
Thackray, J., and B. Press, (2009), Nature’s Treasurehouse: A history of the Natural History Museum (London: Natural History Museum).
UN/Aarhus (1998), UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making & Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. 25.6.1998, Fourth Ministerial Conference in the ‘Environment for Europe’ process, Aarhus, Denmark, (1998), http://www.unece.org/env/pp/introduction.html Accessed August 6 2012.
Stephen C. Trombulak, Kristian S. Omland, Julie A. Robinson, Jeffrey J. Lusk, Thomas L. Fleischner, Glenn Brown and Meg Domroese, (2004), ‘Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology’, Conservation Biology, Volume 18, No. 5, October 2004, 1180-1190. www.conbio.org/images/content_prof_dev/conservation_literacy_english.pdf. Accessed October 26 2013.
Viscardi, Paolo (2013), informal conversation, June 10 2013.
WAZA (2009), compiled & edited by M. Penning, G. McG. Reid, H. Koldewey, G. Dick, B. Andrews, K. Arai, P. Garratt, S. Gendron, J. Lange, K. Tanner, S. Tonge, P. Van den Sande, D. Warmolts & C. Gibson, Turning the Tide: A Global Aquarium Strategy for Conservation and Sustainability, World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Bern, Switzerland.
Weiler, B & L. Smith (2009), ‘Does More Interpretation Lead to Greater Outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 17, 1 91-105 Accessed online 2013.
Wick, Rob, (2013), ‘The Technoquarium?’, National Aquarium Conference paper, Bristol Zoo, October 19 2013.
Wood, J., (2011), ‘The Cultures of Academic Rigour: Does design research really need it’ [originally in Design Journal 3.1 2000, 44-57] Reprinted in D. Bhagat & P. O’Neill (eds.) Inclusive Practices, Inclusive Pedagogies, CHEAD 2011, 180-197.
Würtz, M., (2000), ‘A View into the Third Millennium Aquarium. Are the new aquaria really the future?, Bulletin del’Institut Oceanographique Monaco, no. special, 20; 49-56.
Wylie, John, (2007) Landscape (London: Routledge).
Zimmerman, A., M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie & C. West (eds.) (2007), Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Conservation Biology 15, Cambridge University Press.
ZSL/Fishnet (2013), http;//www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/habitats. Marine/fish-net/fishnet,1765,AR.html Accessed March 26 2013.