‘It's a personal thing': visitors' responses to Body Worlds

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 08 October 2014, At: 04:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Museum Management and CuratorshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmc20

‘It's a personal thing': visitors'responses to Body WorldsSusan L. Jagger a , Michelle M. Dubek a & Erminia Pedretti aa Ontario Institute for Studies in Education , University ofToronto , 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto , ON , M5S 1V6 , CanadaPublished online: 26 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Susan L. Jagger , Michelle M. Dubek & Erminia Pedretti (2012) ‘It's a personalthing': visitors' responses to Body Worlds , Museum Management and Curatorship, 27:4, 357-374,DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2012.720185

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.720185

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09647775.2012.720185

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.720185

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

CURATORSHIP

‘It’s a personal thing’: visitors’ responses to Body Worlds

Susan L. Jagger, Michelle M. Dubek and Erminia Pedretti*

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, TorontoON M5S 1V6, Canada

(Received 22 November 2011; final version received 26 March 2012)

von Hagens’ Body Worlds is a traveling exhibition that allows the public toexperience the internal human body through the use of plastinated cadavers.Visitor responses to Body Worlds have been mixed � ranging from awe andfascination to disgust. Some feel that the exhibition is undignified anddisrespectful to the human body. Others marvel at the beauty and complexityof the human body and the ability to see such detail. This study investigatesvisitor responses and meaning-making to a controversial exhibition, Body Worlds.Using a naturalistic, qualitative case study approach, three highly personal visitorresponses emerged: (1) personal narratives; (2) validations; and (3) transpositions.Our study suggests that the personal context of learning in informal settings iscentral to visitor meaning-making for visitors to exhibitions of this type. Inparticular, personal histories and strong emotional responses were pervasive. Weinfer that by encouraging personal connections to exhibits, science centers mayenhance visitor meaning-making.

Keywords: visitor experience; personal narratives; Body Worlds; meaning-making;science centers; museum exhibitions

Introduction

von Hagens’ Body Worlds and the Story of the Heart is a traveling exhibition of

plastinated human cadavers on display for the general public. The exhibition, which

includes full body plastinates, organs, body slices, and animals, allows the public to

view the internal human body in unflinching detail. Visitor responses to Body Worlds

have been mixed � ranging from awe and fascination to disgust. Voices have been

passionate and fierce. Some feel that the exhibition is undignified, disrespectful to the

human body, and inappropriate for children. Others marvel at the beauty and

complexity of the human body and the ability to see such detail in the exhibit.

Whether awe or aversion is expressed, emotions run high.

Dr von Hagens patented his invention of plastination in 1978, although full body

plastinates did not emerge until 1991 (Lewis 2008). The Body Worlds’ premiere show

was presented in Tokyo in 1995 and to date Body Worlds exhibitions in museums and

science centers have had over 34 million visitors in 45 cities around the world.

Supporters for Body Worlds emphasize the educational potential of the exhibition as

it contains plastinated figures and specimens that portray both healthy and diseased

organs. Common ailments, diseases, and medical advances are available for the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Museum Management and Curatorship

Vol. 27, No. 4, October 2012, 357�374

ISSN 0964-7775 print/ISSN 1872-9185 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.720185

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.720185

http://www.tandfonline.com

public to experience, resulting in an exhibition intended to enhance health awareness

and promote healthy living (vom Lehn 2006).

In Body Worlds, plastinates may either embody a humanized character (e.g.,

hockey player, hurdler) or be a gestalt � a body that has been dramatically altered to

create a surreal character. Upon entering the exhibition, visitors are hushed as the

plastinates come into view. The atmosphere seems reverent and respectful while

visitors contemplate and observe the plastinates. Even though some members of

the public, general interest, and religious groups, consider Body Worlds to be

controversial and unethical, von Hagens (2010) claims that millions continue to be

drawn into the exhibition for, ‘the opportunity to better understand the human body

and its functions’.

Body Worlds has been exhibited all over the world, most often in science centers

that are historically understood to hold valuable scientific information that is

reliable, authentic, and presented in a way that the public can understand (Falk and

Dierking 2000). Over the years, however, the ways that science centers re/present

science to the public has shifted dramatically. Common today are the interactive

exhibits that foster hands-on interactions and displays that address contemporary

science and technology issues with all of their social, cultural, and political trappings

(Bradburne 1998; Farmelo and Carding 1997; Koster 1999; Pedretti 2002, 2004,

2007). Less popular today are object displays (traditionally the hallmark of science

museums) that only allow visitors to observe objects in glass cases (Conn 2010;

Pedretti 2004).

Interestingly, Body Worlds resembles this traditional ‘curiosity cabinet’ display

typical of mid-nineteenth and twentieth centuries museums, as plastinates are not

intended to be touched, only viewed. In the exhibition, knowledge is recognized to be

objective and the visitor does not engage in subjective experiences that are typical of

interactive science centers (Walter 2004a) or issues-based exhibitions. Even so, Body

Worlds as an object exhibition generates, for many, ethical concerns and strong

responses to the plastinates themselves. This exhibition evokes highly personal responses

that, as will be argued, exist owing to the unique nature of the Body Worlds experience.

Research related to Body Worlds has viewed the exhibition mainly through

medical (Leiberich et al. 2006; Moore and Brown 2007; Preub 2008), bioethical

(Allen 2007; Burns 2007; Jones 2007; Myser 2007), anthropological (Walter 2004b),

sociological (vom Lehn 2006; Walter 2004a), and feminist lenses (Kuppers 2004), and

there has been limited work from an educational perspective. The purpose of this

research is to explore visitor responses to the Body Worlds exhibition and to

contribute to understanding the meaning-making that is taking place. The following

research question guided this study: Given the controversial and provocative nature

of the Body Worlds exhibition, how do visitors respond to and make meaning of their

experiences?

Background

Visitor meaning-making

In this study, we adopt the term visitor meaning-making, rather than learning, as

there is inconsistency in what it means to learn and how to measure learning,

particularly in a museum setting. Falk and Dierking (2000, 113) note that:

358 S.L. Jagger et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

The dominant motivation for humans is meaning-making; the need to make meaning isinnate . . . an evolutionary strategy designed to help humans make sense of what ishappening in their world, to make meaning of the world. This need plays out inmuseums in many ways.

Similarly, Silverman (1995, 161) details the process of meaning-making, asserting

that meaning is constructed ‘in the eyes, heart, and head of the particular

beholder,’ identifying the fundamental role of the individual in creating meaning

from experience. Falk and Dierking (2000) identify that meaning-making is a

‘process . . . at the root of all learning � learning is about meaning-making’ (61).

Given the inherence of meaning-making in learning and the difficulty in measuring

learning, we chose to examine visitor meaning-making in this study.

In order to better understand meaning-making in museums, Falk and Dierking

(2000) proposed their Contextual Model of Learning. This model organizes

contextual influences into three fluid and overlapping categories: physical, socio-

cultural, and personal contexts, with key factors contributing to the museum

experience grouped within each context. Falk and Dierking (2000) posit that learning

is an emotionally rich experience that draws upon prior knowledge in the presence of

appropriate contextual cues. The physical context influences meaning-making

through design, exhibition organizers, and orientations, while the sociocultural

context acknowledges group mediation and facilitated mediation by museum staff.

The personal context describes factors involved in meaning-making including visitor

motivation and expectations, interest and beliefs, and choice. Central to meaning-

making in the personal context is the notion that knowledge is constructed upon

prior understandings and experiences (Falk and Dierking 2000). The model,

therefore, draws from constructivist, cognitive, and sociocultural theories of learning

(Falk and Storksdieck 2005) and suggests that learning is embedded within personal,

sociocultural, and physical contexts over time. The model in no way intends to

trivialize the visitor experience; rather it offers a way to organize the complexity of

meaning-making that occurs in museums (Falk and Dierking 2000).

Visitor responses to science center exhibitions

It is a considerable challenge for science center exhibitions (which are often

interactive) to evoke sensory and emotional responses from visitors, while at the

same time encouraging scientific understanding of phenomena (Bell et al. 2009).

Jacobsen (2006 as cited in Bell et al. 2009) suggested that connections with visitors,

and the potential for meaning-making, is maximized when informal learning settings

promote a range of emotional responses, such as surprise and awe, and engage

multiple means of processing (observation, discovery, critical thinking). Emotional

responses, including joy, wonder, surprise, care, and love have been identified in

visitor experiences of informal science learning centers as being deeply connected to

visitors’ meaning-making (Beaumont 2005; Korn 2004; Myers, Saunders, and

Birjulin 2004; Tisdal 2004). In a broad review of the literature on learning science

in informal contexts, Bell et al. (2009) propose that strong emotional responses

and excitement related to experiences in science and the natural world may lead to

further learning by the visitor. Similarly, Barriault (1999) and Pedretti (2002, 2004)

Museum Management and Curatorship 359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

also identified that expressions of positive emotional responses can enhance

meaning-making.

Previous studies have examined visitors’ emotional responses to exhibits (see, e.g.,

Adelman, Falk, and James 2000; Briseno-Garzon, Anderson, and Anderson 2007;

Falk, Heimlich, and Bronnenkaut 2008; Pedretti et al. 2001; Pedretti and Soren

2006). Often these studies reveal visitor responses that include awe, wonder,

appreciation, surprise, and excitement. For example, Adelman, Falk, and James

(2000) studied the influence of an aquarium visit on visitors’ conservation knowl-

edge, attitudes, and beliefs. Visitors’ emotional disposition toward conservation

issues significantly increased and visitors were motivated to become more aware of

conservation issues and make changes in their own lives (Adelman, Falk, and James

2000). Falk, Heimlich, and Bronnenkaut (2008) found that there was an overall

positive change in conservation-related affect, but not conservation-related knowl-

edge in zoo and aquarium visitors who typically expressed feelings of excitement,

interest, peacefulness, and amazement related to their visits. Similarly, Briseno-

Garzon, Anderson, and Anderson (2007) identified that aquarium visitors made

emotional connections (amazement, interest) to marine life. These researchers noted

that, while affective outcomes of learning experiences are significant in formal and

informal education, they are customarily less valued by educators and learners.

Silverman (1995) stated that visitors making sense of museum exhibits constantly

move between remembering and connecting to existing mental frameworks.

Specifically, visitors draw from their existing knowledge, expectations, and life

events to develop present understandings (Silverman 1995). Barriault (1999) noted

that visitors who make reference to past experiences while engaging in museum

activities can greatly enhance the potential for meaning-making. Callanan and

Jipson (2001) defined three types of explanations used in family discussions in

museum settings: (1) abstract science concepts (explanations are devoid of context,

an abstraction); (2) causal connections (X happened because Y changed); and (3)

connections to previous experiences. In the last explanation, parents made explicit

verbal connections to their children’s prior experiences and understandings to help

them to engage in science topics (Callanan and Jipson 2001). Briseno-Garzon,

Anderson, and Anderson (2007) found that aquarium visitors made emotional

connections to their own past experiences (e.g., childhood stories, past interactions

with marine life) and shared these connections in discussions with researchers.

While emotional responses and connections to prior experiences are important in

supporting learning in informal contexts (Bell et al. 2009), such responses are evident

primarily in visitors’ interactions with live animals at zoos, aquaria, and butterfly

conservatories, as well as with specific emotionally charged issues. Visitor responses

to science center exhibitions, in general, tend not to elicit such strong personal

responses, although there are examples to draw upon (see e.g., Arnold 1998; Cooks

1999; Ehrman 1993; Gieryn 1998; Macdonald 1998; Pedretti 2002, 2007; Pedretti

et al. 2001). These researchers write about the important role that controversial

exhibitions play in the museum world. Many of these exhibitions are issues based

(i.e., focusing on reproductive technologies, mining, or AIDS) and invite visitors to

consider material from a variety of perspectives. These issues-based exhibitions ‘are

often emotionally and politically charged, and call upon a different kind of

intellectual and emotional response from the visitor’ (Pedretti 2007). They reflect a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

radical departure from more traditional interactive hands-on exhibitions and their

preoccupation with immediate sensory experience or explication of phenomena.

Given the controversial nature of Body Worlds publicized as an exhibition that

seeks to teach visitors about the human body, while simultaneously providing a placefor contemplation and enlightenment, it is worth examining if and how visitors

respond to this ‘object-based’ exhibition and the role their personal experiences,

emotion, and connections might play in meaning-making.

Previous research on the Body Worlds exhibition

While a limited number of studies have explored visitor experiences with the Body

Worlds exhibition, their findings have been varied. Burns (2007) theorizes thatviewers of Body Worlds are able to view the plastinates abstractly, contending that the

plastinates’ faces and hands, two human features thought to hold emotive value, are

unrecognizable. In addition, plastinates are anonymous with no personal informa-

tion displayed. Walter (2004a) suggests that observers are able to view plastinates as

dynamic objects rather than human beings (i.e., they have a kind of ‘clinical

detachment’). However, studies of visitor comment books (Moore and Brown 2007;

Walter 2004a) have identified a variety of terms that were used to describe the

plastinates: real people, dead people, plastic, meat, synthetic, and someone’s father, toname but a few (Walter 2004a).

The variety of comments suggests that the multiple interpretations of the figures

will certainly lead to variance in visitors’ meaning-making. For example, many

visitors commented on the dichotomy between life and death. The fetal display

evoked debate among some visitors about when life begins, while many others

considered the end of life and the possible existence of an immortal soul. Visitors

also responded to the nature of the display and the origin of the body. Some

condemned the exhibition for being a freak show, while others felt respect should bepaid to the plastinates. Some comments alluded to intelligent design, claiming that

the exhibition was proof of God’s engineering, while others found the exhibition to

support evolutionary theory (Moore and Brown 2007).

Using video footage and field notes of visitors’ actions while in the exhibition,

vom Lehn (2006) found that individuals interacted with one another and engaged in

discussion surrounding the body and illness. As groups of people observed displays,

they momentarily transposed their observations onto their own bodies. This resulted

in the members of the group orienting themselves toward a common object; whiletheir gestures and dialog suggested that they were sharing their own personal

experiences of pain and suffering. Thus, the visitor engaged in a ‘social interaction

that involve[d] both awareness of the biological aspects of the body and the

experience of a bodily condition they have once been affected by’ (vom Lehn 2006,

244).

In a study conducted by the Institute for Plastination (IfP) (2005), 46 percent of

individuals felt motivated to improve their lifestyle after visiting an anatomical

exhibition, while 54 percent did not feel inspired to change their way of living. Adelayed exit poll conducted six months later by the IfP (2004) found that 9 percent of

visitors drank and smoked less, 33 percent improved their diets, 25 percent played

more sports, and 14 percent became more conscious of their bodies compared with

their lifestyles prior to visiting the exhibition.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

With few studies exploring visitor responses to an exhibition that has accrued

over 34 million visitors worldwide, further exploration of visitor responses to Body

Worlds may offer insight into how visitors make meaning and the reasons for the

success of this exhibition.

Research methodology

This research is part of a larger research project that broadly explores visitor

meaning-making at the Body Worlds exhibition. In this particular study, we followed

a naturalistic case study approach (Stake 1995) to better understand visitor responses

to Body Worlds. Case study methodology allowed us to examine authentic and

naturally occurring responses of exhibition visitors. By following a primarilyqualitative approach, we hoped to enrich and deepen our understanding of visitor

responses to Body Worlds and how these responses related to other studies.

We adopted a purposeful sampling approach (Creswell 2008), drawing our

participants from those who attended Body Worlds and the Story of the Heart at the

Ontario Science Centre, during the winter of 2009/2010. As visitors exited the

exhibition and entered the exhibition gift shop, they were invited to participate in a

research project about visitor meaning-making of Body Worlds. In total, 82 visitors

were invited to participate and 80 of those visitors agreed. Visitors were asked tovolunteer their age range and occupation; at no time were visitors asked to share

their names. The interview protocol (see Appendix 1) was created collaboratively by

all three researchers and was used as a guide for the conversations with visitors.

Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended. This allowed us to build rapport

and put participants at ease, thus creating a rich and meaningful data source. We

recognized museums as places of dialogs (Allen 1998) and therefore we encouraged

conversations between visitors and the researchers.

Following the initial few interviews (which served as pilot interviews), theresearchers debriefed, revisited, and discussed how the protocol could be improved.

Appropriate modifications to the protocol were then made. We attempted to make

the interviews as conversational as possible; because of this, their duration ranged

from 10 minutes to over 50 minutes. Some visitors were interviewed in pairs or in

groups of three or four � we were flexible in order to accommodate those visitors

who were with others and keen to discuss the exhibition. In total, we conducted and

audio-taped 46 interviews (involving 80 people) at a small cafe located directly

outside of the exhibition’s gift shop. Interviews took place during the afternoons onweekdays and weekends.

All interviews were fully transcribed and formed the raw data that were coded

and categorized. Thematic coding was done using a constant comparative method

(Glaser and Strauss 1967) that involved multiple readings of the transcripts and a

greatly evolved set of categories and themes. After an initial independent reading and

analysis of five transcripts, the researchers came together to compare findings and

compile an initial list of emergent categories through an inductive�deductive iterative

approach (Patton 2002). With Falk and Dierking’s (2000) Contextual Model ofLearning in mind, we broadly organized the themes into personal, physical, and

sociocultural categories. Within these three categories, we identified specific sub-

categories � the personal category included eight sub-categories; the physical, three,

and the sociocultural, two. We found that visitors’ shared experiences were first and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

foremost personal, with the physical and sociocultural contexts discussed as

secondary elements to their experience.

Given the rich diversity of visitor experiences located within the personal

category, we chose to shift our focus from all three contexts of Falk and Dierking’smodel to visitor experiences related to the personal context. Pedretti (2004) used a

similar method of developing categories, noting that dialog, reflexivity, personaliza-

tion of subject matter, and emotion emerged as dominant personal constructs. The

entire set of transcripts was then read, re-read, and analyzed together by the research

team. Additional categories were added and some initial categories were collapsed

into combined categories. Only those recurrent and prevalent themes that were

distinctly personal in nature � (1) personal narratives; (2) validations; and (3)

transpositions � are reported below.

Results

Participants

Participants came from diverse backgrounds and represented a range of ages,

genders, and occupations: students, health care professionals, artists, service and

clerical workers, trades people, administrators and managers. The largest group of

interviewees was between the ages of 20 and 29. It should be noted that, during the

month of interviews, local universities were on a reading break and this couldaccount for the relatively large percentage of 20�29 year old visitors. We did not

approach visitors under the age of 20, but some young adults accompanying their

parents chose to take part in the interviews; these visitors were high school or post-

secondary students. More than half (61 percent) of the interviews were with pairs of

visitors. Pseudonyms are used throughout this study to identify visitors.

Personal narratives

It quickly became apparent that common among the interviewees was their sharing

of personal narratives and family connections to Body Worlds. Czarniawska (2004,

17) defines narrative as ‘a spoken or written text giving an account of an event/

action.’ Building on this, we defined personal narratives as shared, spoken stories that

are often private and draw on previous experiences, identity, and life events. Stories

uncovered in our research included personal illness narratives (e.g., recollections of

one’s own past surgeries and maladies), family history stories (e.g., stories of parentalillness and death), and work-related stories (e.g., connection to hospital patients

cared for). Forty-seven participants (59 percent) shared such narratives, commu-

nicating one or more stories about themselves or family members in relation to what

they had seen and experienced in the exhibition. Within this category we identified

three narrative sub-themes: autobiographical stories, family-related stories, and

work-related stories. Each is discussed below.

Autobiographical stories

The most prevalent type of narrative shared was the autobiographical story. Here

visitors shared stories of past addictions, surgeries, treatments, and health-related

successes and struggles. Visitor responses seemed to be candid, honest, and open as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

they shared extremely personal stories on sensitive topics including miscarriages,

weight issues, death, and personal health concerns. As they discussed the fetal

exhibit, several parents, particularly mothers, spoke of their challenges with

conception and recalled when their own children were in utero or newborn. Margaret,

a bookkeeper in her forties, shared, ‘It was personal to me because I’ve had a number

of miscarriages, and seeing that is . . . it was really touching and fascinating to think

how humans develop . . .within weeks.’ Christine, a project coordinator also in her

forties, spoke of her connection to the fetal exhibit, and ‘especially having had a child

grow in you, it’s really looking and saying ‘‘wow, that’s what he looked like.’’’Visitors shared a range of personal illness narratives including stories of cancer,

diabetes, heart conditions, blood pressure, joint replacement, arthritis, and appendi-

citis. ‘I’ve had part of my colon removed and so seeing that, and looking at that and

saying, ‘‘okay I’ve that much of that missing.’’ So yeah, it brings perspective to that,’

said Johanne, a clerical worker, aged 50�59. ‘I’m a cancer survivor so I was looking

at . . . . where I had the cancer . . . ‘‘wow, he took that out,’’ . . .That was my sort of

personal emotion attachment to the thing, that’s where it kind of came into play with

me,’ said Judith, a teacher, aged 40�49.

Family-related stories

Visitors also shared stories of connections to family members and close friends.

Examples and memories of family illness and health-related issues included injuries,

smoking, pregnancy, eating habits, and exercise. Karen, a police dispatcher in her

fifties, shared that her ‘. . . father has had the stents put in, and so it’s very relevant to

the things that you know people experience.’ Parminder, a corporate communica-

tions worker, aged 40�49, related her family connections: ‘When you saw anything

that had to do with any condition they had. ‘‘Oh, look at the knees with the

arthritis,’’ because my mother’s knees bother her.’ While some participants shared

brief connections to family, others used detailed conversations to describe family

health. For example, Mick and Bianca, both sales consultants in their twenties,

carried on an in-depth conversation about the kidney transplant undergone by

Mick’s father.

Although many visitors described their family connections with relative ease,some were unhappy seeing displays that reminded them of illnesses they directly or

indirectly experienced. Bonnie, a public transit operator, aged 40�49 said:

I know a lot of people who are sick. I don’t want to be reminded of it. I don’t need apicture of it to know that they are sick. I know that they are sick. Do I want to see a sicklung, or liver, or something . . . . I had four people die of cancer last year. I didn’t want tolook at that stuff. Quite honestly, I didn’t think I’d be looking at that.

Two visitors, in particular, shared deeply emotional responses to Body Worlds beyond

the typical emotional responses of awe, amazement, and appreciation reported in

many visitor research studies (see e.g., Briseno-Garzon, Anderson, and Anderson

2007; Silverman 1995). When the researchers were speaking with Muriel, a 50- to 59-

year-old nurse and her daughter Kate, a 20- to 29-year-old sales support worker,

Kate became visibly upset, even tearful, when discussing parts of the exhibition that

she found disturbing, relating this to her father’s passing. Kate revealed, ‘My dad


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

died of cancer and the smoker system and all that was . . . [visitor cries] I would have

liked to have been forewarned. It was really disturbing.’ Another visitor, Alice, a 50-

to 59-year-old volunteer resource coordinator, spoke of her ongoing struggle with

weight management, sharing that she still had a long way to go before she reached ahealthy weight. This was an acutely emotional subject for her and she too became

tearful as she recalled her story.

Work-related stories

About 15 percent of visitors worked in health care or as medical professionals.

Within this group, a number of participants made explicit connections between

patients they had worked with or procedures they had seen and their experiences inBody Worlds. Sally, a nurse in her twenties, explained, ‘I’m a cardiac nurse, so I kind

of felt connected to parts on the heart and the pacemakers, because with the different

examples they used, I could connect them in my head to different patients.’ Kay, a

critical care nurse in her thirties, described the connections she saw between the

exhibition and her work in the hospital: ‘Clinical relevance working in critical care, I

see a lot of procedures and different illness, so it’s kind of interesting to see what we

do on the outside, how it relates to what goes on in the inside.’ Other health care

workers made general connections between what they had seen in Body Worlds andwhat they had seen previously at work. Sally also speculated on how the exhibition

might influence her the next time she is in the operating room: ‘Going into work, the

next time I have someone’s open chest in front of me, I’ll be looking around in there a

little more inquisitively.’

Validations

Another prevalent theme that emerged in our analysis was visitors’ tendency toactively validate and reinforce their current or planned health-related behaviors. We

define validation as a confirmation of beliefs, behaviors (intended or enacted), and

understandings. Visitor responses in this category were action oriented, and involved

the visitor practising or planning to make positive health-related choices, or voicing

revelations about the influences of actions on their personal health, or making

resolutions to make positive changes in his or her lifestyle.

In our interviews, 47 participants (59 percent) shared responses related to

validation. Key words used by visitors making statements in this category includedaction-oriented words such as: affirm, re-affirm, encourage, inspire, deter, convince,

remind, solidify, reinforce, re-evaluate, and re-confirm. Some visitors spoke of positive

changes that they had made in the past and how Body Worlds confirmed the benefits

of these choices. Others spoke of changes they were planning to make. It should be

noted that these assertions were self-reported and were not authenticated observa-

tions of reported behaviors. Within this category, three health-related sub-themes

emerged: smoking, diet and exercise, and general health.

Smoking

Seeing the diseased, blackened lung display clearly affected visitors who either

smoked or had been smokers. Clint, a wildlife removal specialist in his thirties,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

optimistically related, ‘I quit smoking recently so I looked at the lungs. They’ll never

be that pink, but hopefully they won’t be that black either.’ Johanne, on the other

hand, shared her concerns about her habit: ‘This is probably what my lung[s] look

like now. I mean I haven’t smoked for ten years but it’s going to take another tenyears before I feel that I’m safe. I don’t feel safe.’ Visitors also shared the value of the

lung display as a way of convincing family members and friends to quit smoking.

‘Pierre’s father smokes, so when we were at the lung thing, my Claude said, ‘‘see

Pierre, that’s what your dad’s lungs look like.’’ And I’d say, ‘‘yup, your dad has to

quit smoking,’’’ said Christine, a project coordinator, aged 40�49. Even those who

had never smoked had their decisions reaffirmed. David, a student in his twenties,

said, ‘I’m glad I don’t smoke. Seeing the lungs was pretty shocking.’

Diet and exercise

Another common topic of discussion was the importance of healthy living,

specifically choices related to diet and exercise. Estelle, a lunch room supervisor in

her fifties, shared, ‘I know there were a couple of times I went through there, and I

thought, ‘‘okay, I really need to eat more salad,’’ or, ‘‘we’re not going to have pasta

for dinner tonight.’’’ Visitors also responded to specific plastinates in the exhibition,

for example seeing the cross-section of the obese man. Ruby, a nurse in her fifties,explained, ‘When we saw the 300 pound guy, my daughter said, ‘‘we need to do the

cross trainer more than twice a week, mom. We need to get on that cross trainer

more . . .’’.’ Bianca described how the same plastinate made her reflect on her lack of

exercise, ‘It makes me want to use my gym membership more too . . . . It just sits in

my wallet, while I sit on the couch.’

General health

Visitors relayed their appreciation and respect for the human body as a whole,

integrated, and complementary working system. The exhibition encouraged some

visitors to consider how they treated their own bodies. In this subcategory, visitors

were reminded by the exhibition of the need to care for their bodies and to respect

the intricate workings of its systems. Yemi, an anthropology student, under 20 years

old, commented, ‘Being able to see how complicated the body actually is, is a kind of

eye opening experience to how you need to take care of your body.’ In addition to

reminders of healthy eating practices and exercise, visitors reflected on their spiritualand mental health, with some asserting that they were now keen to take up

meditation and yoga to reduce stress. Visitor comments indicated that seeing the

plastinates helped to raise their awareness of general health and to confirm the

importance of taking care of the whole body. Mick proclaimed, ‘Wow, my body is not

just something for me to abuse, and to take for granted! My body does a lot, and I

owe it a lot more than I’m currently giving it.’

Transpositions

In our discussion with visitors, 60 participants (75 percent) expressed explicit

connections to the plastinates on display � described by us as transpositions. We

define the term transposition to be a mental transference of the sensory experience of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the exhibition, in particular the plastinates, onto oneself or others, thereby allowing

the opportunity to make very personalized meaning. We base our definition on vom

Lehn’s (2006, 242�3) suggestion that:

We can begin to understand how visitors to Body Worlds make sense of the exhibits byseeing them in the light of their own bodies and those of others. They discover certainaspect[s] of an exhibit, transpose them onto their body [or the body of someone close tothem] and then talk about it in the light of the discovery of the exhibit feature.

Not surprisingly, most transpositions involved words that highlighted the visual

experience such as: looking and seeing. Three categories of transposing emerged in

our research: transposing onto the self; transposing onto family and friends, and

transposing onto the general public.

Transposing onto the self

Visitors explicitly related specific elements of the exhibition to themselves, and their

comments included examples of artifacts they were able to describe in relation to

their own bodies. A textile manufacturer in his forties named Ira shared his

experience:

In my case I have a heart condition and I can see some of the valves and how they havethe different treatments for heart issues. What I found easily the most interesting partbecause it hits home. It’s a personal thing.

Parminder discussed her recent weight loss and described her response to the displayof the obese man: ‘Last year, I lost, personally, 91 pounds. So, I think ‘‘whew, look at

the fat person. Wow!’’ A lot of that’s gone, not all, I still have some to go.’

Some visitors also physically gestured to their own bodies as they described their

personal transpositions. Christine pointed to her own body as she described her night

pains:

Just being able to show things . . . and make it so easy to relate to, to identify. And say,‘wow I can see that.’ Where you sit and go, ‘oh that’s there on me, that right there iswhat’s giving the pain at night on my left side.’

Similarly, Kinsely, an under-20 kinesiology student, motioned toward her abdomen

while proclaiming:

The fact that we have so much in our body compressed into such a small area reallyfascinated me. It’s really neat that our intestines are 30 metres long. And it’s, like, howdoes that fit into this section right here?

Transposing onto family

Along with making transpositions onto themselves, participants also transposed

their experience onto family members. These transpositions related to family illnesses

and ongoing health-related practices. Sophia, a health care aide in her thirties,

transposed the exhibition onto her father: ‘My dad had a triple by-pass, and when I

got to that exhibit you could clearly see where they did the procedure and how they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

did it.’ Paul transposed onto his son: ‘My son had a concussion, you could actually

point out how the brain works and you could show this is what happened.’ Matteo, a

salesman in his thirties, described his wife’s pregnancy, saying:

My wife is pregnant with our second kid, the baby part was really neat. So, you’re goingthrough that now. So, you’re watching the different stages. She’s 29 weeks. So it was neatto see the size of the baby actually right now.

Visitor experiences with negative family-related health practices transposed variousartifacts, including the black lung, the obese man, and the diseased liver, onto those

members. For example, Ken, a 50- to 59-year-old consultant, said, ‘We’ve got a

daughter that’s a smoker and you just see the lungs and the development of cancer

and stuff and you just shake your head.’

Transposing onto the general public

Visitors made much broader transpositions onto the general public, using words

such as you, one, we, same, ourselves, everyone, and common. Typical responses were

broad in nature and often referred to the exhibition and body as a whole.

I said to my sister when we were walking through and we were looking at what’s insideof each and every one of us that is walking around looking at the exhibit, that we allcarry this. It’s a part of ourselves that isn’t visible to us. So, yeah, something that we havein common with all people. (Margaret, 40�49, bookkeeper)

Discussion

Our findings highlight the prevalence of visitors’ deeply personal and emotional

responses to the Body Worlds exhibition, which we argue enhances visitor meaning-making (see also Barriault 1999; Pedretti 2002, 2004). Although we have identified

three distinct themes � (1) personal narratives, (2) validations, and (3) transpositions �common across these themes (and their accompanying sub-themes) is their location

within the personal context. Furthermore, the themes are not mutually exclusive;

rather, they complement, interact, and support each other. The extent to which these

highly personalized and emotional responses encourage scientific understanding of

phenomena (e.g., disease) or ideas (e.g., anatomy) is unclear. As noted by Bell et al.

(2009), strong emotional responses to exhibits may contribute to further visitorlearning. However, it is acknowledged that supporting evidence of this is lacking and

that further research is required. What we do know is that identity, interest,

motivation, and strong personal connections are important to visitors’ meaning-

making (Falk 2009; Falk and Dierking 2000; Pedretti 2004) in the museum context.

The first theme, personal narratives, suggests that stories emerge from a complex

set of frameworks. Burns (2007) identifies how prior knowledge and interest can

categorize the museum visitor as either a specialist or general public which, in turn,

provides a lens through which objects are viewed and stories are told. Specialists arethose who are members of a particular profession (e.g., medicine, nursing, dentistry)

and who, in this case, might have expertise and experience with anatomy. The work-

related narratives shared by Body Worlds visitors support Burns’ (2007) assertions, as

the work-related stories highlight connections made by visitors to their medically


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

related, work experiences. On a broader level, visitors who represent the general

public (this is also true of the specialist) move between remembering and connecting

to existing frameworks, and drawing on connections to previous experiences, prior

knowledge, identity, expectations, and life events (Burns 2007; Falk 2009; Falk and

Dierking 2000; Silverman 1995).

We also note the narratives were primarily illness narratives and this is not

surprising given the context of the exhibition. More unexpected was participants’

enthusiasm and willingness to share with researchers the often intimate details of

their lives. Visitors told their own stories of illness and of illness in family members,

in relation to the exhibits they were viewing. Across these shared narratives, visitors

discovered features of the plastinates and viewed them through the lens of their

personal knowledge or experience with the displayed illness or injury. In this way,

their personal illness narratives were recalled in relation to what was observed (vom

Lehn 2006).

The second theme, validations, gives us a glimpse into visitors’ desires to improve

their health. Visitors to this Body Worlds exhibition described their motivations to

improve personal health practices, complementing vom Lehn’s (2006) and the IfP’s

(2005) findings. Similarly, visitors referred to specific displays in the exhibition to

affirm their existing healthy lifestyle choices. The changes identified in the Institute

for Plastination’s exit poll � reduced drinking and smoking, improved diet, increased

sports, and being more body-conscious � were mirrored in our findings, as visitors

spoke predominantly of their own smoking, diet and exercise, and general health.

The visitors’ responses, in which they anticipated positive actions, parallel those

found in research into visitor responses to issues-based exhibitions (e.g., conserva-

tion-related exhibitions) (Adelman, Falk, and James 2000). However, whether these

intentions are implemented by the visitor cannot be determined from the data in this

study.

The final theme, transpositions, supports vom Lehn’s (2006) study of visitor

interactions with the artifacts on display in Body Worlds. Through gestures, visitors

articulate and transfer understandings to their own bodies. vom Lehn (2006) found

that through their experience with the plastinates, visitors can add to their personal

knowledge by making comparisons between themselves and the visuals presented

before them: ‘people relate [the] images of the plastinates to the bodies of others and

thus come to see the exhibit as ‘‘real’’ . . . [and] reflect on and produce an

understanding of their own bodies’ (225). Body Worlds allows visitors to see

anatomical features that would otherwise be hidden, and this unique medium enables

visitors to deepen their understanding of personal illness and body complexity. Our

data further indicate that participants did not necessarily experience ‘clinical

detachment’ as described by Walter (2004a). Instead, their transpositions suggest

perceptions of the universality of the body as a shared personal characteristic.

Although similar personal and emotional responses have been previously

documented, primarily in studies of visitor responses to zoo and aquarium

exhibitions, butterfly conservatories, and conservation-related issues (Adelman,

Falk and James 2000; Briseno-Garzon, Anderson, and Anderson 2007; Falk,

Heimlich, and Bronnenkaut 2008), Body Worlds provides a unique perspective.

The Body Worlds exhibition is obviously different � it is a display of static, dead

bodies rather than dynamic and live beings. It is essentially a collection of objects


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

(plastinates) that draws visitors into a highly personalized and emotionally charged

experience.

How then are visitors viewing the plastinates? The nature of the relationship

between the visitor and what is viewed (i.e., the object or plastinate) is complex, asvisitors move between observation and connection to the medium. In contrast to

Walter’s (2004a) assertion that the plastinates are seen as objects rather than human

beings, our results support Burns’ (2007) observations that plastinates embody a

character through their humanizing poses and use of props. Burns claims that this

humanization is an invitation to connect and empathize with the plastinates, thus

allowing the viewer to be more receptive to the messages intended by the exhibition

designers. Our study supports these assertions.

Implications

Our findings have implications for specific features of this exhibition in relation to

the personal context. Although visitors’ responses to Body Worlds were highly

personal, the plastinates themselves are void of personal identifiers. Within the

exhibition, there are no panels or texts that speak about the individual plastinates as

previously living persons, no stories or clues as to who they might have been (except

gender), and no pre-mortem identity (Walter 2004a). Some of the visitors weinterviewed were keen to know more personal data about the plastinates (e.g., their

cause of death, how old they were, and their occupation). Without compromising

anonymity and ethical considerations, we think it is possible to offer exhibition

visitors a more detailed narrative of the plastinate.

If visitors know more about the personal history of the donor, it is possible that

they would make stronger connections to the exhibition and, in turn, experience a

deeper and more meaningful response. Even simply stating age and cause of death

could offer more insight into the life of the donor. Along with personalizing theplastinates themselves, other components of the Body Worlds exhibition could also

be made more personal. A few visitors spoke of the panels displayed throughout the

exhibition. Curators might include more stories of illness suffering and survival by

artifacts and figures that visually display those ailments. For example, beside the

display of the knee replacement, the narrative of a person suffering from

osteoarthritis who had knee replacement surgery could be shared.

The Body Worlds exhibition is presented in a dark and dramatic physical space.

This creates a look but don’t touch setting typical of many museums. With this comesthe expectation of quiet observation and contemplation, an expectation that is, in

fact, realized in this exhibition. Here we are reminded of Allen’s (1998, 2002)

research, which attests to the importance of visitor talk and engagement with one

another. This is particularly important in exhibitions that elicit controversy and/or

ethical debate. Allen’s (1998, 2002) work recognizes museums as places of dialogs,

including implicit dialogs where exhibitions and objects hold stories. This dialog is

significant as we try to understand visitor meaning-making in its larger sociocultural

context. Encouraging conversations and reflections among visitors could allow morepersonal and emotional responses to emerge as connections, recollections, and

experiences are drawn upon.

Not only does our work inform Body Worlds as an individual exhibition, but it

also has implications for science museum exhibitions in general. When testing or


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

prototyping potential exhibitions, curators should be mindful of their visitors and

how visitors might (or might not) personally connect and relate to the exhibits.

Specifically, our study suggests that meaning-making may be enhanced when visitors

connect with the exhibitions through their personal narratives, validations, andtranspositions. Here, curators should consider engaging visitor identities, emotions,

interests, motivations, prior knowledge, expectations, and life experiences, so that

they design personally relevant and meaningful exhibitions.

Our study also has implications for the research methods used in studying

informal learning environments. Here we wish to make two points. First, conversa-

tions between and among the researchers and the researched were central to our

study. Narratives and stories that emerged through conversations proved to be

critical in our understanding of visitor meaning-making. Many of the interviews andfieldnotes in this study capture conversations with more than one person at a time,

are often lengthy, and more often than not, are deeply personal. Body Worlds is an

example of a naturalistic social setting where personal stories about visitors’ own

lives, families, and friends emerged. This leads us to consider how, in the future,

science centers and researchers might use stories to better understand visitors’

meaning-making in light of other exhibitions. Second, while we agree with Allen’s

(1998) assertion that researchers and exhibition developers should engage in real

collaboration, we go further to include the research participants in this relationship.

Conclusion

Body Worlds presents potentially highly emotional stimuli � dead bodies and

diseased organs � to its visitors. In unflinching detail, Body Worlds provides visitors

with a glimpse into an inner world by laying open muscles, organs, body tissues, and

skeletons. Visitors’ responses and stories reveal much about how they interact andrespond to an exhibition like Body Worlds. The exhibition evokes deeply personal

and often emotional stories from the viewer, while raising questions about progress

and modernity, including existential questions about life and death. The mere

technological innovation of plastination makes the preserving of human bodies

possible and so the question of whether this is ethical inevitably emerges. We suggest

that installations that are controversial in nature, or attend to sensitive material,

engage visitors in different ways: intellectually, emotionally, and even spiritually.

These exhibitions provide visitors with experiences beyond the usual interactiveexhibition and hold the potential to enhance meaning-making by personalizing the

subject matter, evoking emotion, and eliciting stories.

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to the Ontario Science Centre and Body Worlds for supporting thiswork, and to all the participants who so graciously agreed to be interviewed. We also thankthe Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Grant #482799 for funding thiswork.

Notes on contributors

Susan L. Jagger is a Ph.D. candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto. Prior to returning to graduate studies, she worked as an elementary


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

schoolteacher in British Columbia, Canada, and in the UK. Her research interests includeenvironmental education, place-based education, and science education in school andnonschool contexts with a particular interest in school garden projects.

Michelle M. Dubek is a Ph.D. candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto, and has been teaching for six years in the elementary school system.She is also an instructor of child psychology and science instruction in the Faculty ofEducation at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her research interests includelearning science in formal and informal settings.

Erminia Pedretti is a professor of science education and teaches in the graduate and pre-service programs. Her research interests include: teaching and learning about science,technology, society and environment (STSE) education, environmental and outdoor educa-tion, action research, and science education in formal and informal settings. Over the yearsshe has received numerous grants and has published over 35 articles. Her most recent book(co-authored with Catherine Little) is entitled From Engagement to Empowerment: Reflectionson Science Education.

References

Adelman, L.M., J.H. Falk, and S. James. 2000. Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore onvisitors’ conservation attitudes, behaviour, and knowledge. Curator 43, no. 1: 33�61.

Allen, S. 1998. Sociocultural theory in museums: Insights and suggestions. Journal of MuseumEducation 22, no. 2 and 3: 8�9.

Allen, S. 2002. Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In Learningconversations in museums, eds. G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson, 259�303.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Allen, A.L. 2007. No dignity in Body Worlds: A silent minority speaks. The American Journalof Bioethics 7, no. 4: 24�47.

Arnold, K. 1998. Birth and breeding: Politics on display at the Wellcome Institute for theHistory of Medicine. In The politics of display, museums, science, culture, ed. S. Macdonald,183�96. New York: Routledge.

Barriault, C. 1999. The science centre learning experience: A visitor-based framework. TheInformal Learning Review 35, no. 1: 14�16.

Beaumont, L. 2005. Summative evaluation of wild reef-sharks at Shedd. Report for the JohnG. Shedd Aquarium. http://informalscience.org/evaluations/report_133.doc

Bell, P., B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder, eds. 2009. Learning science in informalenvironments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Bradburne, J.M. 1998. Dinosaurs and white elephants: The science centre in the 21st century.Museum Management and Curatorship 17, no. 2: 119�37.

Briseno-Garzon, A., D. Anderson, and A. Anderson. 2007. Adult learning experiences froman aquarium visit: The role of social interactions in family groups. Curator 50, no. 3: 299�318.

Burns, L. 2007. Gunther von Hagens’ Body Worlds: Selling beautiful education. AmericanJournal of Bioethics 7, no. 4: 12�23.

Callanan, M.A., and J.L. Jipson. 2001. Explanatory conversations and young children’sdeveloping scientific literacy. In Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom,and professional settings, eds. K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, and T. Okada, 21�49. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Conn, S. 2010. Do museums still need objects?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Cooks, R. 1999. Is there a way to make controversial exhibits that work? Journal of Museum

Education 23, no. 3: 18.Creswell, J.W. 2008. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and

qualitative research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Czarniawska, B. 2004. Narratives in social science research: Introducing qualitative methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://informalscience.org/evaluations/report_133.doc

Ehrman, E. 1993. Review of birth and breeding. Social History Curators Group News, Winter9�10.

Falk, J.H. 2009. Identity and the museum visitor experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left CoastPress.

Falk, J.H., and L.D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and themaking of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Falk, J.H., J. Heimlich, and K. Bronnenkaut. 2008. Using identity-related visit motivations asa tool for understanding adult zoo and aquarium visitors’ meaning making. Curator 51, no.1: 55�79.

Falk, J.H., and M. Storksdieck. 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understandvisitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education 89: 744�78.

Farmelo, G., and J. Carding, eds. 1997. Here and now: Contemporary science and technology inmuseums and science centres. London: Science Museum.

Gieryn, T.F. 1998. Balancing acts: Science, Enola Gay and history wars at the Smithsonian. InThe politics of display: Museums, science, culture, ed. S. Macdonald, 197�228. New York:Routledge.

Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.Institute for Plastination (IfP). 2004. Donating your body for plastination. 7th rev. ed.

Heidelberg: Institute for Plastination. http://www.bodyworlds.com/Downloads/Temp/Amsterdam12/BoDo/KSP_Broschuere_EN_EU.pdf

Institute for Plastination (IfP). 2005. Survey in the United States on anatomical exhibitions.Bielefeld: TNS Emnid. http://www.koerperwelten.com/Downloads/EmnidSep05_USA_E.pdf

Jones, N.L. 2007. A visual anthropological approach to the ‘‘edutainment’’ of Body Worlds.The American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 4: 40�2.

Korn, R. 2004. Invention at play: Summative evaluation. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution National Museum of American History, The Lemelson Center for the Study ofInvention and Innovation. http://informalscience.org/evaluations/report_62.pdf

Koster, E.H. 1999. In search of relevance: Science centers as innovators in the evolution ofmuseums. Daedalus 28, no. 3: 277�6.

Kuppers, P. 2004. Visions of anatomy: Exhibitions and dense bodies. Differences: A Journal ofFeminist Cultural Studies 15, no. 3: 123�57.

Leiberich, P., T. Loew, K. Tritt, C. Lahmann, and M. Nickel. 2006. Body Worlds exhibition �Visitor attitudes and emotions. Annals of Anatomy 188: 567�73.

Lewis, M. 2008. The history of plastination from the notion to invention. Manchester: Mosi.http://www.bodyworlds.com/.../07_History%20Plasti_mosi_0408.pdf

Macdonald, S, ed. 1998. The politics of display: Museums, science, culture. New York:Routledge.

Moore, C.M., and C.M. Brown. 2007. Experiencing Body Worlds: Voyeurism, education, orenlightenment? Journal of Medical Humanities 28: 231�54.

Myers, Jr. O.E., C.D. Saunders, and A. Birjulin. 2004. Emotional dimensions of watching zooanimals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator 47,no. 3: 299�321.

Myser, C. 2007. Taking public education seriously: Body Worlds, the science museum anddemocratizing bioethics education. The American Journal of Bioethics 74, no. 4: 34�6.

Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Pedretti, E. 2002. T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in sciencecentres and museums. Studies in Science Education 37: 1�42.

Pedretti, E. 2004. Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based sciencecenter exhibitions. Science Education 88, no. 1: S34�47.

Pedretti, E. 2007. Challenging convention and communicating controversy: Learning throughissues-based museum exhibitions. In In principle, in practice: Museums as learninginstitutions, eds. J. Falk, L. Dierking, and S. Foutz, 121�35. New York: AltaMira Press.

Pedretti, E., H. McLaughlin, R. Macdonald, and W. Gitari. 2001. Visitor perspectives on thenature and practice of science: Challenging beliefs through A Question of Truth. CanadianJournal of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education 1, no. 4: 399�418.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.bodyworlds.com/Downloads/Temp/Amsterdam12/BoDo/KSP_Broschuere_EN_EU.pdf

http://www.bodyworlds.com/Downloads/Temp/Amsterdam12/BoDo/KSP_Broschuere_EN_EU.pdf

http://www.koerperwelten.com/Downloads/EmnidSep05_USA_E.pdf

http://www.koerperwelten.com/Downloads/EmnidSep05_USA_E.pdf

http://informalscience.org/evaluations/report_62.pdf

http://www.bodyworlds.com/.../07_History%20Plasti_mosi_0408.pdf

Pedretti, E., and B. Soren. 2006. Reconnecting to the natural world through an immersiveenvironment. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 6, no. 1:83�96.

Preub, D. 2008. Body Worlds: Looking back and looking ahead. Annals of Anatomy 190:23�32.

Silverman, L.H. 1995. Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age. Curator 38, no. 3:161�70.

Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Tisdal, C. 2004. Going APE (active prolonged exploration) at the Exploratorium: Phase 2

summative evaluation. http://informalscience.org/evaluations/report_156.pdfvom Lehn, D. 2006. The body as interactive display: Examining bodies in a public exhibition.

Sociology of Health and Illness 28, no. 2: 223�51.von Hagens, G. 2010. Body Worlds the original exhibition of real human bodies. Heidelberg:

Institute for Plastination. http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/mission_exhibitions.html

Walter, T. 2004a. Body Worlds: Clinical detachment and anatomical awe. Sociology of Healthand Illness 26, no. 4: 464�88.

Walter, T. 2004b. Plastination for display: A new way to dispose of the dead. Journal of RoyalAnthropological Institute 10: 603�7.

Appendix 1: Body Worlds interview protocol

1. Some general demographic detail: [] male [] female2. Age range: [] 20�29 [] 30�39 [] 40�49 []50�59 []60�69 [] �703. Can you share your occupation with us?4. Did you come alone or with others? Who?5. Why did you choose to visit the Body Worlds and the Story of the Heart exhibition?6. What did you expect to see/experience/observe at the exhibit?7. What did you find most interesting and why? (specific part of the exhibition)8. Please describe any emotions that the exhibit evoked in you.9. Did anything about the exhibit disturb you? Please explain.

10. Does this exhibition pose any discomfort/conflict for you personally? Why? Pleaseexplain.

11. What do you think is the purpose of this exhibition?12. What messages are you taking away from this exhibit?13. Will these messages affect your future behaviors/actions? How?14. Do you think that this is an appropriate exhibition for a science center? Why or why not?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

4:34

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://informalscience.org/evaluations/report_156.pdf

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/mission_exhibitions.html

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/exhibitions/mission_exhibitions.html

Documents

‘It's a personal thing': visitors' responses to Body Worlds