安德森,D.,德科森,A.,&McIntosh,L.(编辑)。2015年。

IF 1.6 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Heather King
{"title":"安德森,D.,德科森,A.,&McIntosh,L.(编辑)。2015年。","authors":"Heather King","doi":"10.1080/10645578.2017.1297135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It’s taken me some time to finally sit down and write this review. The reason being: I am in two minds about this publication. On the one hand, I value its intent and commend the contributing authors for their insightful analyses. On the other hand, I feel somewhat let down and disappointed that the book does not deliver all that it promises. The editors note that the book focuses on “informing, broadening and enhancing the pedagogy ofmuseum education and the practice ofmuseum educators.” The 14 chapters are organized into three sections. The first section is entitled, “MuseumEducators SupportingDiverse Audiences.” Rather surprisingly, the notion of diverse did not refer to ethnic or cultural diversity. Rather, the term is used to refer to “under-researched” audiences. Thus, authors Chong, Wong, Hall, and Mehai discuss issues pertinent to home educators and teenagers, but also family groups. The second section, “MuseumEducators’ Practice,” is concerned with the ways in which museum educators contend with challenging topics within their practice. Calvert discusses considerations of death, Zhang explores reactions to natural history specimens, and Gibbons examines treatment of First Nation communities. Hu’s study, meanwhile, explores the skills needed by practitioners to communicate controversial topics in science, whilst Masterton considers the skills required when working with children with cognitive disabilities. The final section, “Museum Educators’ Praxis,” comprises a series of accounts documenting educators’ reflexive analyses of their practice. The chapters by Fehr, Smedley, Petrusa, Fuchs, and Sienkiewicz comprise a broad discussion of approaches employing ethnographicmethodology to examine the ways in which practitioners interpret and make sense of their efforts in programming and exhibition design. The quality of writing and themethodological rigor within each chapter are excellent. Each author displays an impressive ability to introduce the issues, to synthesize the relevant literature, and to outline the findings of their particular study in a clear and highly readable manner. But herein lies the rub and the basis of my dilemma. The 14 chapters each represent research conducted by a masters-level student for her dissertation at the University of British Columbia. Thus, each chapter is a discrete analysis and whilst together may address a range of concerns facing the field of museum education, each individual study focuses on one particular, often highly localized, issue. No attempt is made to draw together the various findings and identify broader themes emerging for the field. And, perhaps most worryingly given the academic provenance of this book, no attempt is made by the authors or the editors to identify and highlight new theoretical contributions pertaining to museum pedagogy.","PeriodicalId":45516,"journal":{"name":"Visitor Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"105 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10645578.2017.1297135","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anderson, D., de Cosson, A., & McIntosh, L. (Eds.). (2015).\",\"authors\":\"Heather King\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10645578.2017.1297135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It’s taken me some time to finally sit down and write this review. The reason being: I am in two minds about this publication. On the one hand, I value its intent and commend the contributing authors for their insightful analyses. On the other hand, I feel somewhat let down and disappointed that the book does not deliver all that it promises. The editors note that the book focuses on “informing, broadening and enhancing the pedagogy ofmuseum education and the practice ofmuseum educators.” The 14 chapters are organized into three sections. The first section is entitled, “MuseumEducators SupportingDiverse Audiences.” Rather surprisingly, the notion of diverse did not refer to ethnic or cultural diversity. Rather, the term is used to refer to “under-researched” audiences. Thus, authors Chong, Wong, Hall, and Mehai discuss issues pertinent to home educators and teenagers, but also family groups. The second section, “MuseumEducators’ Practice,” is concerned with the ways in which museum educators contend with challenging topics within their practice. Calvert discusses considerations of death, Zhang explores reactions to natural history specimens, and Gibbons examines treatment of First Nation communities. Hu’s study, meanwhile, explores the skills needed by practitioners to communicate controversial topics in science, whilst Masterton considers the skills required when working with children with cognitive disabilities. The final section, “Museum Educators’ Praxis,” comprises a series of accounts documenting educators’ reflexive analyses of their practice. The chapters by Fehr, Smedley, Petrusa, Fuchs, and Sienkiewicz comprise a broad discussion of approaches employing ethnographicmethodology to examine the ways in which practitioners interpret and make sense of their efforts in programming and exhibition design. The quality of writing and themethodological rigor within each chapter are excellent. Each author displays an impressive ability to introduce the issues, to synthesize the relevant literature, and to outline the findings of their particular study in a clear and highly readable manner. But herein lies the rub and the basis of my dilemma. The 14 chapters each represent research conducted by a masters-level student for her dissertation at the University of British Columbia. Thus, each chapter is a discrete analysis and whilst together may address a range of concerns facing the field of museum education, each individual study focuses on one particular, often highly localized, issue. No attempt is made to draw together the various findings and identify broader themes emerging for the field. And, perhaps most worryingly given the academic provenance of this book, no attempt is made by the authors or the editors to identify and highlight new theoretical contributions pertaining to museum pedagogy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Visitor Studies\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"105 - 106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10645578.2017.1297135\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Visitor Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2017.1297135\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Visitor Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2017.1297135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我花了一些时间才最终坐下来写下这篇评论。原因是:我对这份出版物犹豫不决。一方面,我重视它的意图,并赞扬贡献作者的深刻分析。另一方面,我对这本书没有兑现承诺感到有些失望和失望。编辑们注意到,这本书的重点是“告知、拓宽和加强博物馆教育学和博物馆教育工作者的实践”。这14章分为三个部分。第一节题为“支持多样化观众的博物馆教育工作者”。令人惊讶的是,多样化的概念并没有指种族或文化多样性。相反,这个词是用来指“研究不足”的受众。因此,作者Chong、Wong、Hall和Mehai讨论了与家庭教育工作者和青少年以及家庭团体有关的问题。第二部分,“博物馆教育工作者的实践”,关注博物馆教育工作者在实践中应对挑战性话题的方式。卡尔弗特讨论了对死亡的考虑,张探讨了对自然历史标本的反应,吉本斯研究了第一民族社区的待遇。与此同时,胡的研究探索了从业者在科学领域交流有争议话题所需的技能,而Masterton则考虑了与认知障碍儿童合作所需的技巧。最后一节,“博物馆教育工作者的实践”,包括一系列记录教育工作者对其实践的反射性分析的叙述。Fehr、Smedley、Petrusa、Fuchs和Sienkiewicz的章节广泛讨论了使用民族志方法来研究从业者解释和理解他们在节目和展览设计中的努力的方法。每一章的写作质量和方法论的严谨性都非常优秀。每一位作者都表现出了令人印象深刻的能力,能够以清晰易读的方式介绍问题,综合相关文献,并概述其特定研究的结果。但这就是我陷入困境的症结所在和基础。这14章分别代表了不列颠哥伦比亚大学一名硕士生为论文所做的研究。因此,每一章都是一个离散的分析,虽然一起可以解决博物馆教育领域面临的一系列问题,但每一项单独的研究都集中在一个特定的、往往高度本地化的问题上。没有试图将各种发现汇集在一起,并确定该领域出现的更广泛的主题。而且,考虑到这本书的学术渊源,也许最令人担忧的是,作者或编辑没有试图确定和强调与博物馆教育学有关的新理论贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anderson, D., de Cosson, A., & McIntosh, L. (Eds.). (2015).
It’s taken me some time to finally sit down and write this review. The reason being: I am in two minds about this publication. On the one hand, I value its intent and commend the contributing authors for their insightful analyses. On the other hand, I feel somewhat let down and disappointed that the book does not deliver all that it promises. The editors note that the book focuses on “informing, broadening and enhancing the pedagogy ofmuseum education and the practice ofmuseum educators.” The 14 chapters are organized into three sections. The first section is entitled, “MuseumEducators SupportingDiverse Audiences.” Rather surprisingly, the notion of diverse did not refer to ethnic or cultural diversity. Rather, the term is used to refer to “under-researched” audiences. Thus, authors Chong, Wong, Hall, and Mehai discuss issues pertinent to home educators and teenagers, but also family groups. The second section, “MuseumEducators’ Practice,” is concerned with the ways in which museum educators contend with challenging topics within their practice. Calvert discusses considerations of death, Zhang explores reactions to natural history specimens, and Gibbons examines treatment of First Nation communities. Hu’s study, meanwhile, explores the skills needed by practitioners to communicate controversial topics in science, whilst Masterton considers the skills required when working with children with cognitive disabilities. The final section, “Museum Educators’ Praxis,” comprises a series of accounts documenting educators’ reflexive analyses of their practice. The chapters by Fehr, Smedley, Petrusa, Fuchs, and Sienkiewicz comprise a broad discussion of approaches employing ethnographicmethodology to examine the ways in which practitioners interpret and make sense of their efforts in programming and exhibition design. The quality of writing and themethodological rigor within each chapter are excellent. Each author displays an impressive ability to introduce the issues, to synthesize the relevant literature, and to outline the findings of their particular study in a clear and highly readable manner. But herein lies the rub and the basis of my dilemma. The 14 chapters each represent research conducted by a masters-level student for her dissertation at the University of British Columbia. Thus, each chapter is a discrete analysis and whilst together may address a range of concerns facing the field of museum education, each individual study focuses on one particular, often highly localized, issue. No attempt is made to draw together the various findings and identify broader themes emerging for the field. And, perhaps most worryingly given the academic provenance of this book, no attempt is made by the authors or the editors to identify and highlight new theoretical contributions pertaining to museum pedagogy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Visitor Studies
Visitor Studies HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
13.30%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信