No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper argues that the Queering the Science Museum tour series (2018) provides an example of a conceptual pathway for translating queer tour guiding approaches found in socio-historical and arts museums into STEMM spaces. I use participatory methods and qualitative and quantitative participant data to reflect on my work on the tours in the context of wider practices of tour-guided interventions. I highlight how the Queering the Science Museum tours, at the Science Museum, London, moved beyond existing models of queer engagement in socio-historic and arts museums by introducing an explicitly critically queer approach to science and technology, which has the potential to expand the possibility of queer interventions in museums generally. I close by examining the limitations of tour-as-intervention for change within the museum, while exposing the tensions around how resolving such issues would challenge queer theory’s call for rejecting the making of queer ‘normal’ within displays.

Queering the scene at the science institutionWhile approaches to queer interrogation/integration within arts and socio-historical museums are well documented (e.g. Sullivan & Middleton, 2019), there is little yet written on the value of extending this approach to public science institutions. In this chapter, we think about queering public science institutions. Here we argue that that queer/ing can (and should) be an equally valuable lens for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medical (STEMM) institutions. We use the phrase 'public science institutions' to describe a myriad of locations where everyday STEMM learning is performed and received publicly through science communication. We also recognise that many of these public science institutions are active sites of scientific research (e.g. Singapore Botanical Gardens, American Museum of Natural History); and as such they are not only representing science but also creating the very knowledge they represent. Thus, we collate here some ideas and directions spanning zoos, botanical gardens, natural parks, farmyards, makerspaces, aquaria, open air science sites, as well as science museums and science centres, that are aimed to direct the reader to ways of engaging queer theory in science communication practices and institutions in all these contexts. However, in writing this chapter we acknowledge that any queer work can never be definitive: thus we encourage unpicking and redeveloping these in any future queer interventions into science institutions.Public science institutions have multiple valences for publics as sites of leisure, sites of learning, or sites of (un)official pedagogy. Underpinning these, such institutions are also part of projects to create and uphold the social and structural norms of societies they claim to represent. This This preprint copy is an accepted manuscript of the chapter published in Orthia, L and Roberson, T (eds),.