Social inequality determines science museums attendance in Latin America: a quantitative analysis of data from seven countries

ABSTRACT

This paper examines cultural engagement with science in Latin America based on probabilistic models derived from quantitative data gathered on public perceptions of science. We explore the influence of social stratification and contextual factors -gender, age, education, socioeconomic level, and interest in science, among others- on visiting science museums in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay. The data suggest that museum attendance is subject to the same social determinants affecting other cultural practices. The position individuals occupy in society mediates their opportunities and subjective dispositions. Cultural participation in science is stratified by social inequalities, marginalizing the most unprotected social classes: citizens with lower levels of education and income, the elderly, women, and people living outside large cities and urban areas. This evidence challenges the management and communication of science museums: Inequalities question participatory democracy efforts and transform cultural engagement into a matter of equity and social justice.

KEYWORDS:

• Science museums
• social inequality
• Latin America

Acknowledgments

We thank the ministries, national agencies, and the Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT) for providing access to the data collected in surveys on public perception surveys of science and technology.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethical statement

This research is based on the analysis of secondary data gathered by the national agencies responsible for science and technology in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, Panama, and Paraguay, under the legislation in force in each country for the collection of information from public opinion polls. This type of social research respects the anonymity of the participants under statistical secrecy laws. It usually also includes different ways of applying the principles of informed consent criteria (information, comprehension, and voluntariness) defined by the Belmont Report on the ethical principles and guidelines for behavioral research. Also, the dataset we integrated for the analysis, has no personal information or contact details about the respondents, contributing to guaranteeing their rights to anonymity and privacy.

Notes

1 The research project included museums from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, England (UK), Finland, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, the USA, Singapore, Sweden, and Taiwan (see Falk et al. 2016).

2 Bourdieu (1984) postulates that the cognitive structures that people create to know and recognize the social world are incorporated social structures. In that sense, it is less likely for dominated classes to discover their objective interests and to produce and impose the problems under their needs.

3 Neill (2006) argues that museums’ relationship with society must incorporate a theory of justice into museum epistemology. According to this author, even though museums cannot contribute to reducing social inequalities in the wider society, they must diminish inequalities in the cultural sector.

4 In practice, it means that most people with basic education belong to the segment of low socioeconomic level (SEL). In contrast, most people with higher education have a medium or high socioeconomic position. In the same way, there are comparatively few people with higher education and a low SEL, just as there are also few who have basic education and belong to the better-positioned socioeconomic segment of society.

5 The surveys we worked with collected gender data in a binary way. We note therefore that data about transgendered people were absent from the surveys and, as a result, our analysis.

6 Sociology studies status as a property that orders occupations and professions based on the prestige given to them. According to Chang and Goldthorpe (2007), higher, equal, or lower positions reflect evaluations of social ‘honorability’, and, in this sense, they form the hierarchies of status.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Carmelo Polino

Carmelo Polino is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oviedo (Spain). He is also an associated researcher to the Centro Redes (Buenos Aires, Argentina). He holds a PhD in Social Studies of Science, and his main research interests are public understanding of science, STS studies, philosophy of science, and sociology of science communication. E-mail: [email protected].

Luisa Massarani

Luisa Massarani has a Ph.D. in Science Education, Management, and Diffusion from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), is a Coordinator of the Brazil’s Institute of Public Communication of Science and Technology and researcher at House of Oswaldo Cruz, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation; CNPq productivity grant; FAPERJ Scientist of Our State grant; Honorary Research Associate, Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London; Coordinator of SciDev.Net for Latin American and the Caribbean. E-mail: [email protected].

Emily Dawson

Emily Dawson is an Associate Professor at the Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London. Her research explores how people learn and engage with science, with an emphasis on inclusion and social justice. She focuses on how we can understand and transform patterns of advantage and disadvantage caused by structural inequalities, such as racism, sexism, class discrimination, ableism, and their intersections. E-mail: [email protected].