Explore, @Bristol
The poster at the entrance declares the new first-floor gallery of Explore @Bristol to be 'now open for mind-boggling, hands-on fun!' The science centre has recently redisplayed some of its exhibits, and judging by the people who were there during this visit, fun was the order of the day. But one important ingredient seems to be thin on the ground - the science.
The first floor of Explore is set out as a traditional science centre. The space is large, almost warehouse-like, so visitors have to explore both the space and the exhibits. It doesn't offer the best welcome to visitors stepping out of the lift.
Initial impressions are of a dark space with a low-level background humming sound, and two large walls guiding your sight to a vending machine. However, walking around the walls brings you to the exhibits. These are mostly hands-on and grouped around themes, which roughly fall into two categories: basic science (optics, sound, mechanics, etc), and sport.
There are also 'issues'-based interactive exhibits that encourage visitors to record their responses to questions posed by Explore and prompted by recent events. However, the amount and quality of science coverage the exhibits give is questionable.
Perhaps the best illustration of this is the section on sport. Here you can find out how fast you can run, test your reaction time, play virtual volleyball and try to score some goals in the football area. The group of teenagers who came in en route to a film at the Wildwalk IMAX (another part of the @Bristol complex) had a whale of a time, but there's no science here.
Even at the simplest level one might expect, for instance, some sort of analysis of how sprinters achieve such high speeds, but there is nothing like this. Some of the exhibits in the 'basic science' theme have the same problem: the music-mixing interactive was great fun, but didn't say anything about music, sound or the technology used.
Other exhibits suffer from poor interpretation - for example, 'Bubble Trouble'. This is a tube full of water with a plastic boat floating on the top; when you press a button lots of large bubbles rise from the bottom of the tube and the boat sinks. The accompanying text panel asks if this could be the reason that ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle.
From the exhibit the answer seems to be yes; but what the panel doesn't say is whether the exhibit is an accurate representation (there were a lot of very big bubbles compared with the size of the boat), or even whether this is considered to be a viable explanation.
The exhibits on optics follow the traditional science-centre method of conveying simple ideas by illustrating the accompanying text, although some of text is poorly positioned, sometimes at a distance from the exhibits or at right angles to them.
This didactic approach has been common for many years and its value is limited. Surely a refurbishment might have been the right time to reconsider it?
It may be that this is what the 'issues'-based interactives are intended to do. These exhibits are in the centre of the floor, and comprise round tables with inset computer screens and keyboards. A menu on the first screen of this interactive gives a choice of five subjects that visitors can choose to investigate.
By selecting a subject, visitors can read pre-selected articles, vote in a poll and record their comments either on screen or on a card. One topic was headlined 'The world's oldest mother', referring to the 66-year-old Romanian woman who recently gave birth.
This subject highlights the difficulties in having such simple news-and-views exhibits, namely the amount of background information given, the phrasing of polling questions and the options for responses. The question asked in the poll in this case was, 'Should fertility treatment be available for couples unable to conceive?'
This is by no means a simple question and yet the only possible answers are yes, no and don't know. The question is also unrelated to the topic of 'The world's oldest mother' and so the background material provided (six articles from three sources) is not sufficient for people unfamiliar with the subject to make an informed response.
The exhibits in this gallery raise some important questions for science centres, and especially for the role of interactive exhibits. Many such exhibits follow an approach to science communication set out 20 years ago, which said that science had to be made fun in order to catch the attention of visitors.
At this newly refurbished Explore gallery this principle seems to have been taken to a level where the science is secondary to the fun.
Rachel Souhami is a freelance curator and visiting lecturer in science communication at Imperial College, London
The poster at the entrance declares the new first-floor gallery of Explore @Bristol to be 'now open for mind-boggling, hands-on fun!' The science centre has recently redisplayed some of its exhibits, and judging by the people who were there during this visit, fun was the order of the day. But one important ingredient seems to be thin on the ground - the science.
The first floor of Explore is set out as a traditional science centre. The space is large, almost warehouse-like, so visitors have to explore both the space and the exhibits. It doesn't offer the best welcome to visitors stepping out of the lift.
Initial impressions are of a dark space with a low-level background humming sound, and two large walls guiding your sight to a vending machine. However, walking around the walls brings you to the exhibits. These are mostly hands-on and grouped around themes, which roughly fall into two categories: basic science (optics, sound, mechanics, etc), and sport.
There are also 'issues'-based interactive exhibits that encourage visitors to record their responses to questions posed by Explore and prompted by recent events. However, the amount and quality of science coverage the exhibits give is questionable.
Perhaps the best illustration of this is the section on sport. Here you can find out how fast you can run, test your reaction time, play virtual volleyball and try to score some goals in the football area. The group of teenagers who came in en route to a film at the Wildwalk IMAX (another part of the @Bristol complex) had a whale of a time, but there's no science here.
Even at the simplest level one might expect, for instance, some sort of analysis of how sprinters achieve such high speeds, but there is nothing like this. Some of the exhibits in the 'basic science' theme have the same problem: the music-mixing interactive was great fun, but didn't say anything about music, sound or the technology used.
Other exhibits suffer from poor interpretation - for example, 'Bubble Trouble'. This is a tube full of water with a plastic boat floating on the top; when you press a button lots of large bubbles rise from the bottom of the tube and the boat sinks. The accompanying text panel asks if this could be the reason that ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle.
From the exhibit the answer seems to be yes; but what the panel doesn't say is whether the exhibit is an accurate representation (there were a lot of very big bubbles compared with the size of the boat), or even whether this is considered to be a viable explanation.
The exhibits on optics follow the traditional science-centre method of conveying simple ideas by illustrating the accompanying text, although some of text is poorly positioned, sometimes at a distance from the exhibits or at right angles to them.
This didactic approach has been common for many years and its value is limited. Surely a refurbishment might have been the right time to reconsider it?
It may be that this is what the 'issues'-based interactives are intended to do. These exhibits are in the centre of the floor, and comprise round tables with inset computer screens and keyboards. A menu on the first screen of this interactive gives a choice of five subjects that visitors can choose to investigate.
By selecting a subject, visitors can read pre-selected articles, vote in a poll and record their comments either on screen or on a card. One topic was headlined 'The world's oldest mother', referring to the 66-year-old Romanian woman who recently gave birth.
This subject highlights the difficulties in having such simple news-and-views exhibits, namely the amount of background information given, the phrasing of polling questions and the options for responses. The question asked in the poll in this case was, 'Should fertility treatment be available for couples unable to conceive?'
This is by no means a simple question and yet the only possible answers are yes, no and don't know. The question is also unrelated to the topic of 'The world's oldest mother' and so the background material provided (six articles from three sources) is not sufficient for people unfamiliar with the subject to make an informed response.
The exhibits in this gallery raise some important questions for science centres, and especially for the role of interactive exhibits. Many such exhibits follow an approach to science communication set out 20 years ago, which said that science had to be made fun in order to catch the attention of visitors.
At this newly refurbished Explore gallery this principle seems to have been taken to a level where the science is secondary to the fun.
Rachel Souhami is a freelance curator and visiting lecturer in science communication at Imperial College, London
Project data
Cost: £1,247,480 Funders: Millennium Commission, Orange, Wellcome Trust
Design: Exhibition design: Uplands, Steel Monkey, Ardcor
Interactive design: @Bristol's exhibition staff
Cost: £1,247,480 Funders: Millennium Commission, Orange, Wellcome Trust
Design: Exhibition design: Uplands, Steel Monkey, Ardcor
Interactive design: @Bristol's exhibition staff
