Science centers, despite their growing popularity (Association of Science and Technology Centers [ASTC], 2022), have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) concerns (Garibay & Olson, 2020) that threaten the achievement of their mission (Feinstein & Meshoulam, 2014) and the very utility of their existence (Ash 2022; Dawson, 2019). The cultural atmosphere of science centers closely mirrors the culture and politics of science, which is a reflection of the population in power (Ash & Lombana, 2013; Dawson 2014a). Comparable to science, which often excludes perspectives of minoritized groups (Aikenhead, 1999; Brown et al., 2016), science centers fail to attract culturally diverse communities (Ruffo, 2013). Informal science education (ISE) institutions regularly employ educational learning theories, like constructivism (Ash, 2022), that promote experiential, hands-on learning, but are inadequate to address DEI issues (Collins, 2000; Dancstep & Sindorf, 2018). To address DEI issues in formal science classrooms researchers like Aronson & Laughter (2016), Brown (2017), and Brown et al. (2019) adopt critical educational theories that centered culture. However, there are relatively few research studies addressing cultural barriers to participation in ISE (Rennie, 2014), compared to cultural studies in formal science education (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Brown et al., 2019). Statement of the ProblemScience centers are important, yet struggles to diversify their boards, staff, and visitors point to systemic flaws (Garibay & Olson, 2020). They attract over 90 million visitors a year (ASTC, 2022), are popular places for multigenerational free-choice learning (Falk & Dierking, 2013; Ruffo, 2013; Stocklmayer et al., 2010), and play an essential societal role in popularizing science (National Research Council (NRC), 2009). In spite of their promise, issues of inequity and inaccessibility have hindered science museums, planetariums, and technology centers from reaching their full potential (Ash, 2022; Rennie, 2014). Unfortunately, ISE institutions have traditionally attracted a very narrow population: affluent, White Americans with young children (Ruffo, 2013). Science should be accessible to all people regardless of race, gender, or socioeconomic status (Rahm, 2004). Many researchers agree that issues of inequity and inaccessibility are systemic to ISE and that science museums and science centers have failed to live up to their charge of reaching the broader public (Dawson, 2014a, 2014b; Feinstein & Meshoulam, 2014). The failure to diversify threatens to eliminate the need for ISE institutions for without the ability to attract the variety of cultures that make up the general public, they cannot fulfil their role of mediation and interpretation of "official science" (Rennie, 2014. p. 124). Tlili et al. (2006) point out that one of the six ways in which science centers mediate science is by relaying the concept that science is multicultural. However, the AAM (2022), in their current issue of TrendsWatch noted the following: Historically, the corps of museum volunteers have skewed towards older adults with the time, inclination, and financial resources that enable them to volunteer. As a result, their demographics typically mirror that of museum personnel (both staff and board)--which is often disproportionately white, well-educated, and relatively well-off. Volunteerism can exacerbate inequality if, as in many museums, it is only accessible to people who are already comparatively privileged. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]