↓ Skip to main content

Medicalization of the Post-Museum: Interactivity and Diagnosis at the Brain and Cognition Exhibit

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Humanities, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Medicalization of the Post-Museum: Interactivity and Diagnosis at the Brain and Cognition Exhibit
Published in
Journal of Medical Humanities, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10912-015-9336-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Gruber

Abstract

The introduction of digital games and simulations into science museums has prompted excitement about a new "post-museum" pedagogy emphasizing egalitarianism, interactivity, and personalized approaches to learning. However, many post-museums of science, this article aims to show, enact rhetorical performances that lead visitors to narrowly targeted answers and hide the authority of the expert in a play of tactile and affective activities, thus operating in opposition to many of the basic ideals of the post-museum. The Brain and Cognition Exhibit at the Hong Kong Science Museum serves as a case study for how a post-museum exhibit, through embracing interactivity and visitor-centered tasks, becomes a site where science is tested on and performed through visitors' bodies such that institutional prescriptions are applied. Visitors are not merely encouraged at this exhibit to learn about the brain through doing but are trained to see functional and dysfunctional brains and to then diagnose themselves and their children by playing games and taking brain-measurement tests. As a result, the interactive engagement of the exhibit creates a new space of public medicalization. Reflections and suggestions are offered at the end of the article.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Computer Science 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,789,675
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Humanities
#338
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,979
of 264,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Humanities
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.