Science for all is a global educational pursuit; however, the realities in formal science education show that it is a goal still challenged by inequitable outcomes that are marked by gender, race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Whether these inequities persist in the informal settings still remains a question that is open for more investigation. This empirical study aims to examine the factors that relate to access to informal science education institutions. A representative sample of 1611 Taiwanese adults was asked if they have visited six popular informal science education institutions in the last 12 months. Nine factors related to travel distance, social demography, and scientific literacy, were included to explain the likelihood of visiting each institution. The findings showed that the travel distance, education, presence of children, interest in scientific issues, and attitudes toward these institutions were statistically significant predictors of visitation. The paper provides empirical and practical implications to help informal science educators and policy makers to ensure equitable access to these institutions for all.
Keywords: Access Equity Informal science education Non-visitors Outreach Social inclusionAbell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In the Handbook of research on science education (pp. 185–212). Routledge.
Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. H., & James, S. (2000). Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal, 43(1), 33–36.
Analystcave. (2014). Excel: Calculate Google maps distance between two addresses. Retrieved from http://analystcave.com/excel-calculate-distances-between-addresses/.
Anderson, D., Piscitelli, B., Weier, K., Everett, M., & Tayler, C. (2002). Children’s museum experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(3), 213–231.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habits how families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.
Atkinson, R., Siddall, K., & Mason, C. (2014). Experiments in Engagement: Engaging with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. London: Wellcome Trust.
Baker, D. R. (2016). Equity issues in science education. In Understanding Girls (pp. 127–160). Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. A. (2013). Science centers and public participation: Methods, strategies, and barriers. Science Communication, 35(4), 419–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012458910.
Bandelli, A., Konijn, E. A., & Willems, J. W. (2009). The need for public participation in the governance of science centers. Museum Management and Curatorship, 24(2), 89–104.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Borun, M. (2008). Why family learning in museums? Exhibitionist, 27(1), 6–9.
Borun, M., & Chambers, M. (1999). Gender roles in science museum learning. Visitor Studies Today, 3(3), 11–14.
Brida, J. G., Disegna, M., & Scuderi, R. (2013). Visitors of two types of museums: A segmentation study. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(6), 2224–2232.
China Research Institute for Science Popularization (CRISP). (2008). Chinese public understanding of science and attitudes towards science and technology. Beijing: China Research Institute for Science Popularization.
Dawson, E. (2014a). Equity in informal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209–247.
Dawson, E. (2014b). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008.
Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation. Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625177500.
Dierking, L. D. (2014). Cascading influences: Long-term impacts of informal STEM experiences for girls. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Visitor Studies Association Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Directorate-General of Budget, Association for Asian Studies, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2014). Overview of family income and expenditure. Retrieved from http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/fies/.
European Commission. (2005). Special Eurobarometer 224: Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
Evans, J., Bridson, K., & Rentschler, R. (2012). Drivers, impediments and manifestations of brand orientation: An international museum study. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11/12), 1457–1475.
Fadigan, K. A., & Hammrich, P. L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20026.
Falk, J. H. (2011). Contextualizing Falk’s identity-related visitor motivation model. Visitor Studies, 14(2), 141–157.
Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Osborne, J., Wenger, M., Dawson, E., & Wong, B. (2015). Analyzing science education in the United kingdom: Taking a system-wide approach. Science education, 99(1), 145–173.
Falk, M., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2015). Cultural participation in Europe: Can we identify common determinants? Journal of Cultural Economics, 40(2), 1–36.
Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2011). Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 1–12.
Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2013). Factors contributing to adult knowledge of science and technology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21080.
Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506064240.
Feinstein, N. W., & Meshoulam, D. (2014). Science for what public? Addressing equity in American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 368–394.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fletcher, A., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Current social media uses and evaluations in American museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(5), 505–521.
Garnett, R. (2002). The impact of science centers/museums on their surrounding communities: summary report. Retrieved from http://www.astc.org/resource/case/Impact_Study02.pdf.
Garrod, B., Fyall, A., Leask, A., & Reid, E. (2012). Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction. Tourism Management, 33(5), 1159–1173.
Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140.
Gilbert, J. K., & Stocklmayer, S. (2001). The design of interactive exhibits to promote the making of meaning. Museum management and curatorship, 19(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770100401901.
Google. (2016). The Google Maps geocoding API. Retrieved from https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/intro#geocoding.
Guagliardo, M. F. (2004). Spatial accessibility of primary care: Concepts, methods and challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3(1), 3–13.
Henriksen, E. K., & Frøyland, M. (2000). The contribution of museums to scientific literacy: Views from audience and museum professionals. Public Understanding of Science, 9(4), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/304.
Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachiotte, W., Jr., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Housen, A. (1987). Three methods for understanding museum audiences. Museum Studies Journal, 2(4), 41–49.
Huang, T.-C. (2015). Technical report of the 2015 Taiwan public scientific literacy survey. Kaohsiung: Center for Promoting Civic Scientific Literacy.
Ipsos MORI. (2014). Public attitudes to science 2014. London: Social Research Institute.
Latham, K. F., & Simmons, J. E. (2014). Foundations of museum studies: Evolving systems of knowledge. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Lawler, S. (2014). Identity: Sociological perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Maat, K., Van Wee, B., & Stead, D. (2005). Land use and travel behaviour: Expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), 33–46.
Massarani, L., & Merzagora, M. (2014). Socially inclusive science communication. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 13(2), 1–2.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Board.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Education at a Glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pu, C.-C. (2013). The trend of the demographic characteristics of museum visitors: A case study of national science and technology museums. Technology Museum Review, 17(1), 27–59.
Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centres and science learning. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 53–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560078.
Schäfer, H. (1996). Non-visitor research: An important addition to the unknown. Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, 9, 195–205.
Schuster, J. (1991). The audience for American art museums. Research Division Report# 23. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.
Shaby, N., Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Tishler, C. E. (2016). The goals of science museums in the eyes of museum pedagogical staff. Learning Environments Research, 19(3), 359–382.
Shein, P. P., Li, Y. Y., & Huang, T. C. (2015). The four cultures: Public engagement with science only, art only, neither, or both museums. Public Understanding of Science, 24(8), 943–956.
Siu, N. Y.-M., Zhang, T. J.-F., Dong, P., & Kwan, H.-Y. (2013). New service bonds and customer value in customer relationship management: The case of museum visitors. Tourism Management, 36, 293–303.
Stevenson, J. (1991). The long-term impact of interactive exhibits. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130503.
Streicher, B., Unterleitner, K., & Schulze, H. (2014). Knowledge rooms—science communication in local, welcoming spaces to foster social inclusion. Journal of Science Communication, 13(2), 1–5.
The European Collaborative of Science, Industry and Technology Exhibitions. (2008). Inspiration, engagement and learning: The value of science and discovery centres in the UK, working towards a benchmarking framework. Retrieved from http://sciencecentres.org.uk/reports/downloads/inspiration-engagement-learning-the-value-of-science-discovery-centres-in-the-uk.pdf.
Tourism Bureau Ministry of Transportation & Communication in Taiwan. (2014). Visitors to principal tourist spots in Taiwan by month. Retrieved December 29 2015 http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/year_en.aspx?no=15.
Wang, F., & Tang, Q. (2013). Planning toward equal accessibility to services: A quadratic programming approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(2), 195–212.
Zhan, Y. (2016). Science as Gift: NGO-supported informal science education for rural migrant children in contemporary China. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(3), 247–258.