https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2017.6791

Mandates of maternity at a science museum, from should to must

Vol. 1 No. 3 (2017)
Submitted: 13 May 2017
Accepted: 3 August 2017
Published: 31 December 2017
Maternal health, science museums, framing, positioning, speech acts
Abstract Views: 906
PDF: 593
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

David Haldane Lee
dlee@citytech.cuny.edu
NYC College of Technology, New York, United States.
A pregnancy exhibit at a science museum is an opportunity to research how medical advice is communicated and interpreted. This paper is about the Beginning of Life area of an exhibition called The Amazing You at the Tampa Museum of Science and Industry, where exhibits are prescriptive as well as descriptive. Expectant women are urged to deliver full-term, normal birthweight babies, by behaving according to prescribed medical norms. This study provides ethnographic descriptions of the exhibits, as well as insights from museum visitors who were interviewed. The exhibits, which emphasize fetal rights and maternal duties, are interpreted and critiqued by women visitors. As the exhibits climb towards greater realism (from euphemistic computer graphics to actual fetal specimens) visitors encounter assertions of fact that precede sometimes tacit directives to undergo a medicalized pregnancy. Exhibits are viewed from the perspective of speech act theory, presenting a new approach to health communication research. I argue that this science center exhibit tells people what to do, in addition to passing on information.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
References
Davies B, Harré R. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. J Theory Soc Behav 1990; 20:20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x
Harré R. Positioning theory. Self-Care Dependent-Care Nursing 2008; 16:28-32.
Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley ST, R. Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 2007; 37:385-411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706068492
Braun K, Schultz S. “… a certain amount of engineering involved”: Constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements. Public Underst Sci 2010; 19:403-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509347814
ATSC. 2011 science center and museum statistics. 2014: Available from: http://www.astc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2011-Science-Center-Statistics.pdf.
Macdonald S, Silverstone R. Science on display: The representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibitions. Public Underst Sci 1992; 1:68-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/010
Henriksen EKF, M. . The contribution of museums to scientific literacy: Views from audience and museum professionals. Public Underst Sci 2000; 9:393-415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/304
Bud R. Science, meaning and myth in the museum. Public Underst Sci 1995; 4:1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/4/1/001
Yaneva AR, T.M., Greiner B. Staging scientific controversies: A gallery test on science museums' interactivity. Public Underst Sci 2009; 18:79-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507077512
Searle JR. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language and Society 1976; 5:1-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Searle JR. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, editors. Syntax and semantics volume 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press; 1975. p. 59-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004
Beattie A. Knowledge and control in health promotion: A test case for social policy and social theory. In: Gabe J, Calnan M, Bury M, editors. The sociology of the health service. London: Routledge; 1991. p. 162-202.
Weare K. The contribution of education to health promotion. In: Bunton R, Macdonald G, editors. Health promotion: Disciplines, diversity and developments. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1992. p. 102-25.
Lupton D. The imperative of health: Public health and the regulated body. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 1995
Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int 2000; 15:259-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
Tulchinsky TH, Varavikova E, Bickford JD. The new public health. Third ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2014
Petersen AR, Lupton D. The new public health: Health and self in the age of risk. St. Leonards, NSW Australia: Allen & Unwin; 1996
Hooper-Greenhill E. The educational role of the museum. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1999
Leinhardt G, Knutson K. Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press; 2004
Danilov VJ. Science and technology centers. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1982
Agar M. The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New York: Academic Press; 1980
Spradley JP. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1979
Atkinson P. Handbook of ethnography. London: SAGE; 2001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337
Bezemer J, Jewitt C. Multimodal analysis: Key issues (pre-print version). In: Litosseliti L, editor. Research methods in linguistics. London: Continuum; 2010. p. 180-97.
Kress G. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication Abringdon, UK: Routledge; 2010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006
Corbin JM, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Lindlof TR, Taylor BC. Qualitative communication research methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011
De Borhegyi S. Visual communication in the science museum. Curator 1963; 6:45-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1963.tb01331.x
Cameron D. A viewpoint: The museum as a communications sytem and implications for museum education. Curator 1968; 11:33-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1968.tb00883.x
Hooper-Greenhill E. A new communication model for museums. Curator 1991; 6:45-57.
Searle JR. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press; 1969 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Hymes DH. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1974
Frentz TS, Farrell TB. Language-action: A paradigm for communication. Q J Speech 1976; 62:333-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637609383348
Van Dijk TA. Pragmatic connectives. J Prag 1979; 3:447-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5
Wunderlich D. Methodological remarks on speech act theory. Searle JR, Kiefer F, Bierwisch M, editors. Amsterdam: Springer; 1980.291-312 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8964-1_14
Cooren F. The contribution of speech act theory to the analysis of conversation. In: Fitch KL, Sanders RE, editors. The handbook of language and social interaction. New York: Psychology Press; 2005. p. 21-40.
Toulmin S. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1958
Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1974
Tannen D. Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993
Hom AG, Plaza RM, Palmén R. The framing of risk and implications for policy and governance: The case of emf. Public Underst Sci 2011; 20:319-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509336712
Steier F, Jorgenson J. Ethics and aesthetics of observing frames. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 2003; 10:pp. 124-36.
Benveniste E. Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press; 1971
Morgan LM. The rise and demise of a collection of human fetuses at mount holyoke college. Perspect Biol Med 2006; 49:435-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2006.0043
NIDA. Dramatic increases in maternal opioid use and neonatal abstinence syndrome. Bethesda: National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2015 [cited 2017]; Available from: https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/dramatic-increases-in-maternal-opioid-use-neonatal-abstinence-syndrome.
WHO. Preterm birth fact sheet: World health organization. Regional office for europe. Geneva2013 [cited 2013 03/06/2013]; Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs363/en/index.html.
Stieb DM, Chen L, Eshoul M, et al. Ambient air pollution, birth weight and preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res 2012; 117:100-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.05.007
Darrow LA, Klein M, Flanders WD, et al. Ambient air pollution and preterm birth: A time-series analysis. Epidemiology 2009; 20:689-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a7128f
Torres-Sanchez LE, Berkowitz G, Lopez-Carrillo L, et al. Intrauterine lead exposure and preterm birth. Environ Res 1999; 81:297-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1999.3984
Fei C, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, et al. Fetal growth indicators and perfluorinated chemicals: A study in the danish national birth cohort. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168:66-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn095
Gottlieb P. The practical syllogism. In: Kraut R, editor. The blackwell guide to aristotle's nicomachean ethics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2006.
Eckholm E. Specialists join call for veto of drug bill. New York Times. 2014 04/15/14.
Wilson M. ‘Bodies’ exhibitors admit corpse origins are murky. New York Times. 2008 05/30/2008.
Layne LL. Motherhood lost: A feminist account of pregnancy loss in america. New York: Routledge; 2003
Ehninger D. Towards a taxonomy of prescriptive discourse. In: White EE, editor. Rhetoric in transition: Studies in the nature and uses of rhetoric. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press; 1980. p. 89-100.
Fitch KL. A cross cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance gaining research. ComM 1994; 61:185-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376333
Labov WF, D. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1977
Oaks L. Smoking and pregnancy: The politics of fetal protection. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2001
Pea R. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. J Learn Sci 2004; 13:423-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
Puntambekar S, Hübscher R. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educ Psychol 2005; 40:1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
Hovland CI, editor. The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1957.
Goffman E. "Footing". Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1981. p. 124-59.
Shen L. Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Commun 2014; 30:975-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.910882
Richards AS, Banas JA, Magid Y. More on inoculating against reactance to persuasive health messages: The paradox of threat. Health Commun 2016:1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1196410
Xu J. The impact of locus of control and controlling language on psychological reactance and ad effectiveness in health communication. Health Commun 2016:1-9.
Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX. The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 1996; 545:95-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296545001010
Schütz H, Wiedemann PM. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 2008; 17:369-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071282
Goodman JR, Goodman BP. Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Underst Sci 2006; 15:359-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506062468

How to Cite

Lee, David Haldane. 2017. “Mandates of Maternity at a Science Museum, from Should to Must”. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare 1 (3). https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2017.6791.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.