244

Pcst International Conference (Florence – Italy, 2012)60. The professionalisation of the explainer: a European perspective

Paola Rodari(1), Anne-Lise Mathieu(2), Maria Xanthoudaki(3)

(1)SISSA Medialab, Trieste, Italy; Ecsite THE group; (2)Universcience, la Cité des Scien-ces et de l’Industrie, Paris, France; Ecsite THE group; (3)Museo Nazionale della Scien-za e della Tecnologia, Milano, Italy; Ecsite THE group Explainers, pilots, facilitators, mediators, educators; whatever their name is, these profession-als have an essential role in science centres and museums (but also in outreach activities of universities and research institutes); they are the human, direct interface with the public, and therefore have a huge impact in the success of the communication of their institutions (Bevan and Xanthoudaki, 2008; Rodari and Xanthoudaki, 2005; Tran, 2006; Tran and King, 2007).

A key factor determining the quality of their work is training, but training schemes for ex-plainers are very often, all around the world, very short and practice-oriented, mainly aiming to empower explainers to repeat activities’ storylines developed by others. Very often the initial training consists only in the shadowing of senior explainers, and it does not include reflections on theirs and museums’ practices, nor any theoretical/methodological input re-garding informal learning or science communication issues. Besides a few, praiseworthy best practices, training schemes for explainers are far off the standards of the training practices for more developed professional families.

Usually the correct development of a training scheme follows precise steps as in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Training scheme development process

12th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST),Florence,Italy,18-20 April 2012.Published as book chapter in:Bucchi, M.,&Trench,B.(Eds.)(2012).Quality,Honesty and Beauty in Science and Technology Communication: PCST 2012 Book of Papers (Proceedings of the 12th International Conference"Public Communication of Science and Technology", Florence, Italy, 18-20 April 2012).Vicenza: Observa Science in Society,pp.244-249.

245

Pcst-12 Proceedings

A professional family should be identified, and its work tasks listed. Then a dictionary of the competencies related to the tasks has to be prepared. When this background information is ready, a specific community can be tested in order to identify training needs. On the basis of this analysis a training scheme is designed. The training evaluation can feed the process again, so to develop new and better training schemes.

In the case of the explainers, however, those standard procedures are not possible: the iden-tification of the explainers’ professional community and the definition of its tasks and compe-tences is still work in progress, in which action, research and practice merge, together with a few international studies (Bailey, 2006; Love-Rodgers and Kelly, 2001; Tran 2008a).

THE group, the Thematic Human Interface Group is a working group of Ecsite, the European network of science centres and museums, dealing since 2007 with the professional devel-opment of explainers. Different international projects funded by the European Commission (e.g. Dotik, Pilots, Feast) have in recent years undertaken actions or research, aiming to un-derstand explainers’ role and status in museums and science centres, and support their em-powerment. Surveys on their demographic profiles, roles and training needs have been car-ried out, training courses at a European level have been organised (and carefully evaluated) and many international seminars have been held to exchange best practices and to discuss pro and contra of different training schemes (Richard and Barrett, 2011; Rodari and Merza-gora, 2007; Rodari and Merzagora 2009). What can THE group’s experience and that of the related projects tell us about the state-of-the art of explainers’ professionalisation?

The explainers are a very diverse professional family, with a huge variety of profiles and roles, and work in institutions with very different organisational internal structures. In some institu-tions, for example, people who design activities and people who deliver them are different. In others, the same people are in charge of everything, from the visitors’ reception to the materials development and maintenance. In general, we can say that their work is defined by a continuum, in which every institution collocates in different way representing its own identity, mission and cultural context (for a more complete analysis of this issue see Aubouin, Kletz and Lenay, 2010). The continuum goes from activities at the backstage of museums and science centres, thus totally hidden to the visitors, to activities that become the institution’s public face.

As for the public programmes, a shared typology of the activities held in museums and sci-ence centres, still does not exist; on the contrary, the choice is based on the identity, strate-gies and priorities of each institution, and this means often limitations in the ‘transferability’ of programmes from one institution to another. In the case of EU-funded projects, a lot of time is spent just in order to understand which features characterize the different activities in the different institutions: guided tours, facilitation on the floor, science shows, science adventures, demonstrations, workshops, labs, debates, discussion games.

In general, explainers are engaged in a range of roles and tasks, that can be collocated on a continuum, that goes from the explainer as facilitator of visitors’ personal experience (de-bates, inquiry-based activities etc.), to the explainer as actor delivering performances in front of a mostly passive, but deeply engaged, large audience.

Neither is it easy to define explainers looking at their age, backgrounds and careers. The

246

Pcst International Conference (Florence – Italy, 2012)

Pilots project survey, coordinated by Universcience, deepened and confirmed the results of the previous Dotik survey, focusing also on the variety of ages and careers (Rodari and Merza-gora 2009; Richard and Barrett, 2011). It is true that many explainers are very young people, students who use this profession to sustain their academic career, but there are also large groups of senior explainers, to whom this work is their loved profession.

However, a sense of community can be found in explainers coming from the most different institutions and of all ages and backgrounds, as has been testified by a few studies (Bailey, 2006; Rodari and Merzagora 2009) and during the international training courses organised by THE group and the related EU-funded projects. For example, it is amazing to see how draw-ings developed by explainers coming from different countries and asked to draw in different moments and locations represent the typical explainer in the form of a fantastic animal. The drawings are indeed surprisingly (or not?) very similar! (Figures 2, 3,4).

Considering the variety and complexity emerging in all aspects of explainers’ work, it is easy to understand that a process of professional development cannot be simple nor obvious. Should we opt for a complete training of explainers, this should cover a wide range of com-petencies:

• Knowledge, that comprises general knowledge (such as learning and informal educa-tion theories and methods, but also science and technology topics) and local (institu-tion mission, vision, organisation, etc.);

• Communication and relational skills, comprising a large range of competences that specifically characterise the explainers’ job; competences linked to a macro-dimen-sion of the explainers’ activities (such as how to communicate science, how to facili-tate learning, how to engage different kinds of visitors) or to a micro-dimension of explainers’ activities (how to use questions as learning tools, how to manage emer-gencies and conflicts, etc.);

• Personal and working skills, such as voice and body control strategies, skills for flex-ibility and open mindedness, ability to work in a team, problem-solving, etc.

Figures 2, 3, 4: The explainer has a lot of hands in order to perform a lot of

tasks and use a lot of different instru-ments; s/he has plenty of creative ideas; always smiling, s/he knows

how to deal with different, sometimes critical, situations, etc.

247

Pcst-12 Proceedings

Besides these competences – that we may call since decades the evergreen of museum edu-cators – new areas of expertise are building up in the last years, in line with the evolution of museums’ and science centres’ missions (Czajkowski and Hudson, 2008; Henry, 2006; Mun-ley and Roberts, 2006). For example, explainers should now be able to contribute to the poli-cies or strategies for better community integration, for example making the museum more accessible to different kinds of people with different needs and cultural, religious or social backgrounds. They should also be able to tackle controversial issues and to facilitate debates on ethical, economic, social impacts of science and technology.

Is it possible to organise all these competences in a standard professional development scheme, applicable to all institutions? Is it possible, even more, to design and propose a standardised higher education level course of studies? The discussion is open (Bevan and Xanthoudaki 2008; Tran & King 2007; Tran 2008a; Tran 2008b).

What THE group has been doing in recent years can be certainly considered a contribution to the process of professionalisation. With a bottom-up approach to the problem, many Eu-ropean institutions (and some extra-European; see Massarani, Rodari and Merzagora, 2008) organise international training courses in which sharing of experiences and knowledge grad-ually leads to an international learning community, still very fluid in practice, but with a grow-ing awareness and reciprocal knowledge.

The advantages of this approach are many. An increasing number of explainers and heads of explainers are gaining the feeling of being part of a community; they are aware of debates and trends inside the museum and science centres community; they are able to meet people from all over the world and share practices and reflections; they are acquiring new skills and competences. In particular, through the participation of Ecsite – the European network of science centres and museums – conferences, with seminars and talks focusing on their work, are giving explainers external recognition of the importance of their role and contribution to their institutions’ mission.

A ‘hard’ interpretation of the word professional development should, however, lead to the hypothesis of a unique training scheme, offered by higher education institutions, recognised all around the world. Is this feasible, but is it also desirable? This hard approach presents, as viewed in the international debate on the issue, not only advantages but risks as well.

The advantages comprise a stronger external recognition of the explainers’ profession, and surely better career opportunities for practitioners. At the same time, to require something like a diploma for explainers, presents, at least in the present situation, not negligible risks:

• To lose the variety of people now acting as explainers, including young secondary school pupils as well as retired people, with all the richness this diversity offers (Mar-Mar-tin and Tames, 2008; Vakevainen, 2005);

• To lose the variety of practices created by institutions with different histories and cultures; a variety that is able to produces new formats continuously;

• To stop change, meaning also change in thinking about what it means to engage pe-ople in science: from the public understanding of science we moved to the notion of scientific governance and citizenship; the communication of science is changing fast in a fast-changing world: would an institutional course of studies be able to quickly adapt to the future changes?

248

Pcst International Conference (Florence – Italy, 2012)

• To reduce the distance from school educators. Many universities and higher educa-tion institutions do not have (with perhaps the exception of UK, USA and Canada) updated competences in informal learning; institutionalisation of explainers’ training inside academies would risk bringing their profession too close to that of school te-achers, losing the incredible innovation of explainers’ informal approach (Gomes da Costa, 2005).

• To exclude the explainers from the definition and the development of their own role. In the actual bottom-up approach, the process of definition of their role and profile they see themselves as proactive actors (Mott o, 2008). Would this role be guarante-Motto, 2008). Would this role be guarante-. Would this role be guarante-ed if universities and other higher education institutions take the lead?

References

Aubouin, Nicolas & Kletz, Frédéric & Lenay, Olivier. (2010). Médiation culturelle : l’enjeu de la gestion des ressources humaines, Culture etudes, 1, http://www.culture.gouv.fr/deps

Bailey, Elsa B. (2006). Researching museum educators’ perceptions of their roles, identity and practice, Journal of Museum Education, 31(3), pp. 175-197

Bevan, Bronwyn, Xanthoudaki, Maria (2008). Professional development for museum educators, Jour-nal of Museum Education, 33(2), pp. 107-119

Czajkowski, Jennifer Wild & Hudson Hill, Shiralee. (2008). Transformation and interpretation: What is the Museum educator’s role? Curator 33 (3), pp. 233-307

Gomes da Costa, Antonio (2005). Should explainers explain? JCOM, 4(4), http://jcom.sissa.it

Henry, Barbara. (2006). The educator at the Crossroads of Institutional Change, Journal of Museum

Education, 31(3), pp. 223-23

Love-Rodgers, Adam & Kelly, Bryony. (2001). A Survey of Explainer Management in Interactive Centres, British Interactive Group, http://www.big.uk.com/newsletter/01_aut/explainer_report.htm

Martin, Sebastian & Tames, Modesto. (2008). Explainers - New energy for the museum, JCOM

7(4), http://jcom.sissa.it

Massarani, Luisa & Rodari, Paola & Merzagora, Matteo. (2008). Trained to interact: echoes from the Workshop Sul-Americano de Mediação em Museus e Centros de Ciência, JCOM 7(4), http://jcom.sissa.it

Motto, Andrea. (2008). Peer learning: a strategy for practical explainer training, JCOM, 7(4),

http://jcom.sissa.it

Munley, Mary Ellen & Roberts, Randy (2006). Are Museum Educators still necessary? Journal of Mu-seum Education, 31(1), pp. 29-41

Richard, Olivier & Barrett, Sarah. (2011). Les médiateurs scientifiques en Europe: une diversité de pratiques, une communauté de besoins, La Lettre de l’OCIM 135, pp. 5-12, http://ocim.revues.org/859

Richards, Anthony. (2003). Crowd Pullers: Notes on Hiring and Managing the Ideal Explainer,

249

Pcst-12 Proceedings

Dimensions, The Journal of Association of Science and Technology Centers

Rodari, Paola & Merzagora, Matteo. (2009). The human face of museums. Scientific explainers

in Europe: numbers, activities and training, Museologia Scientifica, 3(1-2), pp. 7-21

Rodari, Paola & Merzagora, Matteo. (2007). Beautiful guides. The role of professional explainers and young scientists in science and society dialogue” Proceedings del 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST-9), Seoul (Korea)

Rodari, Paola & Xanthoudaki, Maria. (2005). Beautiful guides: Introduction, JCOM, 4(4),

http://jcom.sissa.it

Tran, Lynn Uyen. (2006). Teaching science in museum: The pedagogy of goals of museum educators, Science Education, 91, pp. 278-297

Tran, Lynn Uyen & King, Heather. (2007). The professionalization in Museum Educators: The case in Science Museum, Museum Management and Curatorship, 2, pp. 131-149

Tran, Lynn Uyen. (2008a). The work of science museum educators. Museum Management and Cura-torship 32(2), pp. 135-154

Tran, Lynn Uyen. (2008b). The professionalization of educators in science museums and centers, JCOM 7(4), http://jcom.sissa.it

Uzelmeier, Calvin. (2006). Learning to listen to the visitor, Curator 31(39), pp. 207-214

Vakevainen, Marjatta. (2005). Volunteers as explainers at the Finnish science center Heureka, JCOM,

4(4), http://jcom.sissa.it