The Main Course Was Mealworms - Specialized Research AI at MIT

The Main Course Was Mealworms
The Epistemics of Art and Science

in Public Engagement

B R o n W y n B e v A n , S A M M e j i A S , M A R k R o S i n a n d j e n W o n g

T
C
A
R
T
S
B
A

The authors share an emerging analytical approach to designing and
studying STEAM programs that focuses on how programs integrate
the respective epistemic practices—the ways in which knowledge is
constructed—of science and art. They share the rationale for moving
beyond surface features of STEAM programs (e.g. putting textiles and
electronics on the same table) to the discipline-specific ways in which
participants engage in creative inquiry and production. They share a
brief example from a public STEAM event to demonstrate the ways in
which this approach can foster reflection and intentionality in the design
and implementation of STEAM programs.

There is a long history of art-science integration in education,
particularly in out-of-school learning programs such as sum-
mer camps, after-school offerings and public engagement
events. Today, these types of programs often rebrand them-
selves as STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and
mathematics) programs. Some programs integrate art and
science in surface ways, e.g. decorating bridges engineered
from paper straws or listening to mini-lectures about color
mixing in a painting class. Others adopt deeper approaches,
often toward some greater transdisciplinary purpose, such
as creating museum exhibitions or conducting community
journalism.

Out-of-school learning programs can range from a year-
long to a weeklong time span, to more ephemeral (hour- or
even minutes-long) “public engagement” activities occurring
on street corners or at community festivals (Fig. 1). Because
they are designed to appeal to people who may not already

Bronwyn Bevan (learning scientist), University of Washington, College of Education,
U.S.A. Email: bronwynb@uw.edu. ORCID: 0000-0002-9417-3361.

Sam Mejias (sociologist), Parsons School of Design, The New School, School
of Design Strategies; and London School of Economics and Political Science,
Department of Media and Communications, U.K. Email: mejiass@newschool.edu.
ORCID: 0000-0003-3462-3815.

Mark Rosin (science communicator, mathematician), Pratt Institute, Department
of Mathematics and Science, U.S.A. Email: mark@guerillascience.org.
ORCID: 0000-0002-8921-4683.

Jen Wong (science communicator, curator), Science Gallery London, King’s College
London, U.K. Email: jen@guerillascience.org. ORCID: 0000-0002-7993-4812.

See www.direct.mit.edu/leon/issue/54/4 for supplemental files associated
with this issue.

Fig. 1. The mathematics of tic-tac-toe, National Math Festival,
Washington, D.C., 2015. (© Guerilla Science. Photo: Victoria Louise.)

identify as productive STEM learners, STEAM programs are
argued to have particular salience for communities contend-
ing with significant systemic barriers to STEM learning [1],
e.g. underresourced schools, limited access to high-quality
out-of-school programs or strong cultural messaging. Re-
search on STEAM programs has demonstrated that such
programs can engage young people in exploring ideas, de-
veloping competencies and finding personal direction [2–5].
But the evidence remains thin on if and how they deepen
learners’ long-term engagement with and understanding
in the disciplines. Driven by STEM funders, many STEAM
programs contort themselves to demonstrate impact in areas
such as test scores, enrollment in STEM academic majors or
even interest in or pursuit of STEM careers.

We define STEAM as the integration of disciplines from
the arts and design with the STEM disciplines. We leave un-
discussed here our views on the extent to which the history of
the term STEAM belies its political versus its pedagogical ori-
gins (but see Mejias et al. [6]). We note that the term STEM
similarly had political origins before evolving into a field of
pedagogical activity; it today undergoes similar contestation
in terms of if and how it is a disciplinary phenomenon ver-

456 LEONARDO, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 456–461, 2021

https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01835 ©2021 ISAST
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/54/4/456/1959078/leon_a_01835.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023

0
n
.
o
2
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
m
u
d
n
e
o
n
r
o
v
n
e
v
e

i
t
a

i
t
i
n

m
a
e
t
s

sus an expedience. Nevertheless, to strengthen rather than
subvert current STEAM programs, we posit a need to delve
beneath the surface dimensions of art and science (e.g. the
materials used, the terminology provided) to attend to the
integration of the epistemic, or knowledge-building, prac-
tices of the respective disciplines [7].

epiSTeMiCS

In 2012, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a
framework for K–12 science education that identified eight
epistemic practices of science, later parsed into three clus-
ters of activity: investigating, sensemaking and critiquing
practices [8,9]. At about the same time, two learning scien-
tists described seven arts practices, clustered into technical/
critical, creative and ethical practices [10]. (See the online
supplementary materials for a brief discussion of the practice
turn in science and science education.) In our study, we build
on these frameworks (see Table 1) to explore what epistemic
practices look like in public engagement events styled as
STEAM events. A leading question we explore is whether
there are truly integrated epistemic practices of STEAM or
if STEAM programs are more likely to interweave specific
artistic or scientific practices at different times and for dif-
ferent reasons.

We begin with an understanding that, when done well,
programs that integrate arts and science can spark delight,
curiosity, anxiety and other intertwined forms of emotion
and cognition that heighten attention and engagement with
ideas and questions (Fig. 2). Such approaches are often miss-
ing from classroom science and may or may not be present
in school or out-of-school STEAM programs.

We see two main benefits of adopting an epistemic ap-
proach to studying STEAM programs: First, we posit that
learning in STEAM programs can be strengthened. For ex-
ample, the arts practice of critical historicity (i.e. critically

Table 1. Framework for epistemic practices in STeAM

Fig. 2. Visitors to Sweet Shoppe, an urban pop-up exploring the unexpected
sides of the stuff we call “sweet,” delight in a demonstration differentiating
the most preferred levels of sugar in adults and children in Brooklyn, 2017.
(© Hunter Canning)

examining an artwork in relationship to its historical mo-
ment and the moments before it), if better incorporated into
STEAM programs, can make the usually invisible (to the
nonscientist) process of peer review more visible to learners,
helping the public better understand how scientific knowl-
edge is constructed. Likewise, better integrating the science
practice of evidence-based reasoning could potentially en-
rich learning in STEAM programs. Second, an epistemic ap-
proach to STEAM can allow more proximal documentation
of program impacts, reducing pressure on programs to re-
sort to test scores and other measures developed for different
purposes.

exAMple

To illustrate, we share early data from our study of Guerilla
Science, an organization based in London and New York that
designs immersive storyworlds in which scientists engage the
public [11]. Guerilla Science’s programs are staged at music

STeM practices

Conjectured STeAM practices

Arts practices

exploring

Asking questions/defining problems

Noticing and questioning

Deep noticing

Planning and carrying out
investigations

Exploring materiality

Defining the problem space

Deconstructing component elements
and their respective meanings

Using mathematical and computational
thinking

Meaning-Making

Developing and using models

Producing tentative representations

Analyzing and interpreting data

Constructing explanations/designing
solutions

Conducting principled iterations/
revisions

Engaging multiple modalities

Finding relevance

Applying artistic principles to
augment meaning

Designing interrelations within
and across multiple sign systems

Referencing or combining existing
works and ideas

Critiquing

Arguing from evidence/peer
review

Critical historicity; Hacking the
ideas of others

Critical historicity; negotiating what
constitutes a “good” project

Evaluating and communicating
findings

Cultivating dissent

Holding commitments to standards
of the field

Sharing results/“audiencing”

Given a particular artistic goal,
evaluating how successfully this goal
has been met

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/54/4/456/1959078/leon_a_01835.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023

Bevan et al., The Main Course Was Mealworms 457

0
n
.
o
2
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
m
u
d
n
e
o
n
r
o
v
n
e
v
e

i
t
a

i
t
i
n

m
a
e
t
s

Fig. 3. Enticing new audiences, National Math Festival, Washington, D.C.,
2015. (© Guerilla Science. Photo: Victoria Louise.)

Fig. 4. Exploring love and neuroscience, 2017 Oregon Eclipse Festival.
(© Guerilla Science. Photo: Skyler Greene.)

festivals, county fairs, nightclubs and other settings where
young people are not actively seeking out science engage-
ment but rather stumble across it and choose to participate
(Fig. 3). (See online supplementary materials for more detail.)
Our study documents how the epistemic practices central
to participation in Guerilla Science storyworlds (Fig. 4)—e.g.
practices engaged during blindfolded sensory speed dating
(neuroscience), eating at an insect diner (environmental
sustainability) or booking a vacation to the moons of Jupi-
ter (physics and space science)—lead to new questions and
understandings. We share an example from the Dutchess
County Fair, 100 miles north of New York City. Over six
days, 400,000 visitors walk through barns filled with chick-
ens, cows and goats; admire the products of local quilters and
bakers; and take rides on Ferris wheels and carousels. They
line up at food stands serving deep-fried onions, hamburgers
and cotton candy. The fair is attended by local communities
from all walks of life, including migrant agricultural workers,
tradespeople, local professionals and vacationing families.

In August 2018, Guerilla Science installed a retro diner
called the Entomophatron in one of the barns. Actors, sci-
entists and artists of multiple gender identities, dressed in
pink polka-dotted dresses and steeped in information about

Fig. 5. Two actors at the Entomophatron, 2018.
(© Guerilla Science. Photo: Cassandra Flores.)

Fig. 6. The Entomophatron menu. (© Marina McClure)

insects and the future of food, staffed the Entomophatron
(Fig. 5). County fairgoers who stumbled upon this unlikely
sight approached the diner counter curiously, if tentatively,
enticed by free bags of popcorn seasoned with agave worm
salt. Once seated at a counter stool, “customers” were handed
a menu and invited to take a blind taste test, comparing a
bean nacho chip to a cricket nacho chip. Next, they were
invited to eat roasted crickets, then mealworms, then “ants
on a log” (dried ants sprinkled over celery and peanut butter)
and, finally, a handful of roasted ants with no chaser (Fig. 6).

458 Bevan et al., The Main Course Was Mealworms

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/54/4/456/1959078/leon_a_01835.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023

0
n
.
o
2
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
m
u
d
n
e
o
n
r
o
v
n
e
v
e

i
t
a

i
t
i
n

m
a
e
t
s

Fig. 7. Daring diner at the Entomophatron. (© Marina McClure)

Fig. 8. Mealworms with goat cheese, sun-dried tomato and fresh herbs.
(© Marina McClure)

Over three days we recorded 48 interactions involving 134
participants. Laughter, curiosity or disgust (feigned or not)
were starting points for most of the participants. Interactions
were all under 30 minutes, with an average of about 12. While
they ate, participants engaged in dialogue with the actors/
servers, who both maintained the storyworld of the diner
experience and wove in information about insects as food.
Much of this process was performative on the participants’
part as they engaged in the activities in front of their friends
or family members, some of whom snacked along with them,
others of whom watched in horror (Fig. 7).

Table 2 transcribes an interaction where an adult male
“customer” (C), who has been observing four schoolgirls in-
teract with the female actor/server (S) at the counter, leans
in and points to the “ants on a log.”

We selected this example due to its representative nature
as well as its short duration. In longer-term (e.g. weeklong,
semester-long) STEAM programs, where program leaders
might have predetermined learning goals or experiences
planned for participants, we would expect to see more fully
developed epistemic practices. But by studying shorter-term
engagements, where learning goals and activities are more
emergent, we can shed light on the different guises that epis-
temic practices can take, and, critically, provide insights into
how such an analytical framework can illuminate the contri-
butions of shorter-term arts-integrated public engagement
events to the public’s relationship with science, without hav-
ing to use obtrusive tools such as pre/post surveys.

We found that, with some exceptions, “customers” at the
counter tended to make short utterances, largely reacting
to the prospect or the experience of eating an insect. The
servers’ explanations were also short and generally met with
expressions of interest but with little probing or counterar-
gument. Thus, in this short excerpt, as in most, we find the
epistemic practices of exploring and meaning-making but,
notably, not critiquing.

For example, here, as in much of our data, the participant
observed others at the counter for some time before decid-
ing to join in. This careful noticing enabled him to monitor
the emotional affect of those already eating the insects. The
physical “theater” of the diner created a venue for observa-

tion—observers were able to watch other customers squirm,
laugh and egg each other on. The physical theater also served
as a tool for the actor/server, who used it to beckon new
customers to take a seat and look at a menu.

We see the customer exploring the materiality or sensory
dimensions of the different insects (Fig. 8)—contrasting the
textures and tastes of the different critters (lines 9–19 and
25–27 in Table 2).

In lines 3–4 of Table 2, the double-voiced dialogue shows
that the customer is defining the problem space—that in-
sects represent a significant protein source—which the server
echoes, affirming and acknowledging his existing under-
standing. Later, in line 29, the customer will make it explicit
that he understands the significance of the science.

In lines 26–31, the dialogue shifts to more meaning-making
practices, where both customer and server begin to share ex-
planations with one another, producing tentative represen-
tations of their understanding of the concepts and contexts
being explored. In their brief back-and-forth they find the
relevance of insect protein in a changing world. The perfor-
mative aspects of this interaction might constitute a creative
production, an imaginary world of server and customer talk-
ing about what’s on the menu. The participant’s use of his cam-
era to document the experience (lines 19, 29, 31 and 33) may
indicate an intention of further meaning-making, beyond the
scope of the event itself, whether through posting and sharing
via social media or through reflection at a later time.

We also see what is not here. The server asks few ques-
tions about what the customer might know or wonder about.
There is no sense of critical historicity about insects as a
food source (for example, if and how it intersects with cul-
tural practices of vegetarianism). There is no discussion of
how and why scientists have constructed knowledge about
human protein consumption, nutrition, population growth
and environmental sustainability. There is no critique or
systematic comparison, that might reflect a commitment
to standards of the scientific field, of the different insects
consumed. We conjecture that shorter-term engagements,
both for temporal and relationship/trust reasons, may not
as readily afford critiquing practices (although they may be
preparing participants for future critical engagement).

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/54/4/456/1959078/leon_a_01835.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023

Bevan et al., The Main Course Was Mealworms 459

0
n
.
o
2
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
m
u
d
n
e
o
n
r
o
v
n
e
v
e

i
t
a

i
t
i
n

m
a
e
t
s

Table 2. Transcript of an exchange at the Entomophatron

I’ll try this. It looks good.
[Reaches over and picks up a piece of ant-covered celery.]

Makes initial positive contact.

They’re good!

A protein source.

Great protein source!

Double-voicing; affirms his observation.

Indicates prior knowledge.

Double-voicing; recognizes his knowledge.

Yeah. [Nods and swallows the celery.] What else do you have here?

Suggests willingness to participate.

Join us! I’d be happy to go over the menu with you!

Reasserts the storyworld via server role.

Okay.

Since you started out with this, we could just let that go. . . .
[Points to dish with ants on a log.] We have roasted mealworms and
roasted crickets. If it was me. . . . These [Points to mealworms.] have
a pumpkin flavor . . . and these [Points to crickets.] have more of a
nutty flavor. Which would you like to . . .

I’ll try one of each.

Awesome. Here you are. [Drops mealworm into his palm.]

Mmmm. [Tosses mealworm into his mouth, nods in affirmation.]

These [Points to mealworms.] are much better—I should be giving you—

—Delicious. [Interrupts.]

—the cricket first because these [Points to mealworms.] are better.
So I can give you more mealworms if you like after.

That’s good too. [Refers to cricket.] A little bitter.
Those are really good. [Points to mealworms.]

Yeah, these are really good. Would you like some more?

Enters the storyworld by sitting down at the counter.

Marks differences between the insects. Analogues to
everyday experiences (pumpkin and nut flavors).

Recognizes she has deviated from the storyworld’s
menu sequence.

Communicates his discernment of difference.

Okay. So they’re roasted? [Extends his palm.]

Rubs mealworms to explore texture.

Roasted, lightly seasoned.

This is great. I gotta get a picture of this. [Puts one into his mouth.
Takes out camera.]

Documents experience.

I also have a regular bag of agave popcorn.

I have it already.

Oh, perfect.

That’s how you got me in here, the popcorn.

Would you like to try the ants on their own, because the peanut butter
overpowers it?

Okay. So these are just natural? You didn’t flavor them?
[Pops a fistful of ants into his mouth.]

Communicates his discernment of difference.

No, roasted ants: That’s their own flavor. I’ll show you the container.
They release an acid that they use as a self-defense mechanism.
That’s what makes it tastes like . . .

Explains the science.

Pretty good. [Nods.]

[Unintelligible]

Thank you. Let me get a picture of this. These are great. [Takes a picture.]
I saw a show where in the future, when there’s going to be food shortages,
they’re gonna harvest insects like from the Amazon. Giant beetles and
things and then you can eat them too.

Responds to her scientific fact by indicating
awareness of other science, including its social
relevance. Continues to document.

Well, that’s what we’re talking about. Like crickets.
They turn feed into protein 12 times more efficiently than cattle.

Moves from qualitative to quantitative facts.

Uh-huh. Wow. [Photographs the jars.]

Appreciates factual information.

Yeah.

I’ll get you in the picture too. [Takes more pictures.] Thank you.
[Smiles at server and departs.]

Displays emotional affect by commemorating
experience with a photo.

460 Bevan et al., The Main Course Was Mealworms

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/54/4/456/1959078/leon_a_01835.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023

0
n
.
o
2
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
m
u
d
n
e
o
n
r
o
v
n
e
v
e

i
t
a

i
t
i
n

m
a
e
t
s

Early analysis of the data we collected at the Dutchess
County Fair demonstrate the many ways in which the carni-
val aspects of the Guerilla Science event created the invita-
tion for participants to relate their personal histories to the
event’s science focus. Initial disgust almost uniformly gave
way to the exchange of ideas and questions. About one-third
of coded utterances involved personal perspectives, ranging
from wry comments about wishing to consume the ants in-
vading their kitchen to memories of beetles that had been a
delicacy in their youth in Mexico. These types of personal
exchanges appear to contribute to sustained conversations,
perhaps creating more time and opportunity for participants’
science learning and meaning-making.

ConCluSion

The purpose of taking an epistemic view of STEAM pro-
grams is to understand if and how they can engage the public
more deeply in the questions, processes and epistemologies
of science and art in ways that are relevant to their lives. We
posit that the theatrical aspects of the experience described
above created a more inclusive, embodied and therefore per-
sonal invitation to engage in epistemic practices of investiga-

tion and sense-making. The dialogic nature of the experience
helps us see how these practices lead to the exchange of ideas,
histories and information.

Our research seeks to map existing and new practices
in the STEAM programs we design and study and to de-
termine if there are epistemic practices that are specific to
STEAM. As we refine Table 1, we hope to develop tools that
can help STEAM program leaders reflect on and be inten-
tional about how their programs engage their audiences in
epistemic practices. For example, the analysis presented here
illuminated a paucity of critiquing practices in this particular
event. In response, Guerilla Science leaders are developing
new training approaches to prepare science communicators
to more systematically engage audience members in critiqu-
ing practices such as arguing from evidence, cultivating dis-
sent and sharing results (with fellow diners). It is this sort of
reflective practice—on the what, when and how of science
and art integration—that this study seeks to provoke and
support to advance our understanding of how STEAM can
promote more inclusive learning opportunities in both art
and science.

Acknowledgment

Research was funded by the US National Science Foundation Award
#1647150.

References and Notes

1 L.D. Carsten Conner et al., “Designing STEAM for Broad Participa-
tion in Science,” Creative Education 8, No. 14, 2222–2231 (2017).

2 S. Ghanbari, “Learning across Disciplines: A Collective Case Study
of Two University Programs That Integrate the Arts with STEM,”
International Journal of Education and the Arts 16, No. 7 (2015).

3 V. Chávez and E. Soep, “Youth Radio and the Pedagogy of Collegial-

ity,” Harvard Educational Review 75, No. 4, 409–434 (2005).

4 M. Greene, Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the Arts,

and Social Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).

5 R. Root-Bernstein, A. Pathak and M. Root-Bernstein, “A Review of
ACD-STEMM Integration” Parts 1–3, Leonardo 52, No. 5, 492–497
(2019).

6 S. Mejias et al., “The Trouble with STEAM and Why We Use It Any-
way,” Science Education 105 (2021) pp. 209–231: www.doi.org/10.1002
/sce.21605 (accessed 9 April 2021).

7 B. Bevan et al., “Purposeful Pursuits: Leveraging the Epistemic
Practices of the Arts and Sciences,” in Arthur J. Stewart, Michael P.
Mueller and Deborah J. Tippins, eds., Converting STEM into STEAM
Programs: Methods and Examples from and for Education (New York:
Springer, 2019).

8 K.L. McNeill, R. Katsh-Singer and P. Pelletier, “Assessing Science
Practices: Moving Your Class Along a Continuum,” Science Scope
39, No. 4, 21–28 (2015).

9 National Research Council, A Framework for K–12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press, 2012).

10 Y. Kafai and K. Peppler, “Youth, Technology, and DIY: Developing
Participatory Competencies in Creative Media Production,” Review
of Research in Education 35, No. 1, 89–119 (2011).

11 M. Rosin et al., “Guerilla Science: Mixing Science with Art, Music
and Play in Unusual Settings,” Leonardo 54, No. 2 (2021): www.doi
.org/10.1162/leon_a_01793.

Manuscript received 24 April 2019.

Bronwyn Bevan is a senior research scientist at the Uni-
versity of Washington.

Sam mejiaS is an associate professor of Social Justice and
Community Engagement at Parsons School of Design, The New
School, and a research fellow at London School of Economics
and Political Science.

mark roSin is director of Guerilla Science U.S. and faculty
at the Pratt Institute.

jen wong is director of Guerilla Science U.K. and head of
programming at Science Gallery London.

Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/54/4/456/1959078/leon_a_01835.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023

Bevan et al., The Main Course Was Mealworms 461