Praça passarinhar: investigando os bastidores da transposição museográfica de uma exposição do Museu Diversão com Ciência e Arte (DICA)

• Ano de defesa: 2017
• Autor(a) principal: Nunes, Natália de Andrade
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; Brasil; Programa de Pós-graduação em Ensino de Ciências e Matemática (Mestrado Profissional)
• Palavras-chave em Português: Espaços Não Formais de Educação; Non-formal Spaces of Education; Discurso Expositivo; Museum Knowledge; Educação em Museus de Ciências; Science Museum; CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::EDUCACAO; Ciência - Estudo e ensino; Museus - Educação; Arte e ciência - Estudo e ensino; Museus - Aspectos educacionais
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufu.br/handle/123456789/34939; http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2018.570

Studies on the museum object and the exhibition are few explored, mainly in the science museums. The research focus is usually on the public and on its interaction with the exhibition (MARANDINO, 2001; MCMANUS, 2013) or on an already ready exhibition, investigating the expository discourse based on the elements that the object / exposition provides and the element human resources available (MARANDINO, 2001; FERREIRA, 2014). Thus, the research sought to explore the process of museographic transposition from the relationships with the team involved in the creation of a longterm exhibition for the Diversão com Ciência e Arte Museum (DICA). Let us look at the design, construction, installation and repercussions for the museum. The corpus of analysis was constructed during the development of the exhibition, because this process is the object of study. The data were constructed along the proposed activities and the development of the exhibition. The interaction with the subjects of the research was through direct and participatory observation, being the information obtained through dialogues and semi-structured interviews, social media Facebook and Whatsapp, material produced by the characters and exploratory questionnaire, as well as records in the field journal. Because it was a qualitative research, the data were being constructed and a directed, but malleable look was necessary (BARDIN, 2016) Content Analysis was relevant and useful. From the empirical material analyzed, two aspects were highlighted: i) the museographic transposition process; ii) the knowledge and experiences involved in the creation, development and materialization of the exhibition. The works of Marandino (2001) and Tardif (2012), respectively, were the main works with which we dialogued to support the discursions on those elements that stood out in the work. The results indicated that the process of museographic transposition is complex and challenging, since the knowledge disseminated in these spaces is proposed in another logic and dynamics. Another element that the development of this exhibition indicated was how art / cultural elements and science can talk and that a science museum can be a propitious space for this. In addition, immersion in this process and in the daily life of the museum indicated that the context of the university museum, which is the case of the DICA Museum, in relation to the policies that govern it are confusing and that this interferes in its operation and activities of the museum, showing that further studies and reflection on the institutional and political relations governing university museums are needed. Another aspect that the results indicated was about the relation of the team with the exhibition and the museum. The work showed how, in the context of a university museum, the relations present in the development of an exhibition is interesting, rich and formative. The subjects of the research were those who participated in the work team, we realized that the different knowledge that they have would flow in the final result of the exhibition, that part of the expositive discourse was crossed by these knowledge and experiences, and that, in addition, the relation with the activities and the work of development also gave them some intimate forum. Thus, we understand that the possible contributions of this investigation were with respect to what involves the process of museographic transposition; who is and can be the subjects involved in the museographic transposition; how scientific discourse can dialogue with other discourses in a science museum; the formative role of science museums and the various partnerships that are possible. It also provided evidence to support the movement for further studies and discussion on the policies and role of university museums.