Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism

Including the perspectives of scientists about the nature and process of science is important for an authentic and nuanced portrayal of science in science education. The small number of studies that have explored scientists’ worldviews about science has thus far generated contradictory findings, with recent studies claiming that scientists simultaneously hold contradictory sophisticated and naïve views. This article reports on an exploratory study that uses the framework of Bhaskar’s critical realism to elicit and separately analyse academic scientists’ ontological and epistemological views about science in semi-structured interviews. When the views of scientists are analysed through the lens of critical realism, it is clear that it is possible to hold a realist ontological commitment about what knowledge is of, simultaneously with a fallibilist epistemological commitment about knowledge itself. The apparent incongruence of scientists’ so-called naïve and sophisticated views about science is resolved when analysed using a critical realist framework. Critical realism offers a simple and coherent framework for science educators that avoids many of the problems of positivism and social constructivism by finding a middle ground between them. The three pillars of critical realism: ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism and judgmental rationality help to make sense of how socially constructed scientific knowledge can be anchored in an independent reality.     

Do Biologists’ Conceptions of Science as a Social Epistemology Align with Critical Contextual Empiricism?

From literature on understandings of the “nature of science” (NOS), we know that sometimes scientists and others that participate in teaching and mentoring in the sciences lack an informed view of the philosophical underpinnings of their discipline. In this study, we ask whether biologists who are also teachers or mentors for college students agree with the tenets of critical contextual empiricism (CCE), a social epistemology of science that foregrounds the importance of a diversity of voices in knowledge-producing communities. We used a Q-sort methodology to examine beliefs about social knowledge construction that are related to teaching science inclusively. Overall, we found that biologists-teachers held viewpoints somewhat consistent with the tenets of Critical Contextual Empiricism. Although participants shared many beliefs in common, we found two significantly different groups of participants that were characterized under the themes “knowledge is constructed by people” and “the truth is out there.” Overall, although participants believed a diversity of cognitive resources aids scientific communities, they failed to recognize the more nuanced ways certain social interactions might impact objective knowledge production. For one group, outside of a belief that collaboration in science is valuable, other social influences on science were assumed to be negative. For a second group, the search for universal truth and the separation of rational and social aspects was critical for scientific objectivity. We use the results of our Q-sort to identify areas for professional development focused on inclusive science teaching and to recommend the explicit teaching of CCE to science educators.

     

ERNST VON GLASERSFELD'S RADICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND TRUTH AS DISCLOSURE

In this essay Clarence Joldersma explores radical constructivism through the work of its most well‐known advocate, Ernst von Glasersfeld, who combines a sophisticated philosophical discussion of knowledge and truth with educational practices. Joldersma uses Joseph Rouse's work in philosophy of science to criticize the antirealism inherent in radical constructivism, emphasizing that Rouse's Heideggerian critique differs from the standard realist defense of modernist epistemology. Next, Joldersma develops an alternative conception of truth, in terms of disclosure, based on Lambert Zuidervaart's work in aesthetics. Joldersma concludes by arguing that this notion of truth avoids the pitfalls of both realism and antirealism, giving educational theorists a way forward to accept some of the major insights of constructivism with respect to learning and teaching without having to relinquish a robust notion of truth.     

(Re)considering Foucault for science education research: considerations of truth,power and governance

This article is a response to Anna Danielsonn, Maria Berge, and Malena Lidar’s paper, “Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action”, and an appeal to science educators of all epistemological orientations to (re)consider the work of Michel Foucault for research in science education. Although this essay does not come close to outlining the importance of Foucault’s work for science education, it does present a lesser-known side of Foucault as an anti-polemical, realist, modern philosopher interested in the way objective knowledge is entangled with governance in modernity. This latter point is important for science educators, as it is the intersection of objective knowledge and institutional imperatives that characterizes the field(s) of science education. Considering the lack of engagement with philosophy and social theory in science education, this paper offers one of many possible readings of Foucault (we as authors have also published different readings of Foucault) in order to engage crucial questions related to truth, power, governance, discourse, ethics and education.     

Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda

This article focuses on (a) theoretical underpinnings of social constructivism and multicultural education and (b) aspects of social constructivism that can provide frameworks for research in multicultural science education. According to the author, multicultural science education is “a field of inquiry with constructs, methodologies, and processes aimed at providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn quality science.” Multicultural science education research continues to be influenced by class, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, and different lifestyles; however, another appropriate epistemology for this area of research is social constructivism. The essence of social constructivism and its implications for multicultural science education research includes an understanding of whatever realities might be constructed by individuals from various cultural groups and how these realities can be reconstituted, if necessary, to include a scientific reality. Hence, multicultural science education should be a field of study in which many science education researchers are generating new knowledge. The author strives to persuade other researchers to expand their research and teaching efforts into multicultural science education, a blending of social constructivism with multicultural science education. This blending is illustrated in the final section of this article. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching

Critics praise applications of constructivism in science pedagogy, but they argue that constructivism is severely impaired and hopelessly flawed as a theory. Flawed theory should not be employed to explain innovative practice. My purposes are twofold. First and foremost, I present a case to support my own and others' assertions that constructivism is a sound theory with which to explain the practice of science and science pedagogy. In accomplishing my primary purpose, I also fulfill my secondary purpose, to respond to constructivism's critics. My argument is presented in three parts. In Part 1, I delineate the epistemological ground with a brief synopsis of the purpose, nature, and orientation of radical and social constructivism. I then offer a synthesis of their foundations. In Part 2, I offer a constructivist account of five long-standing epistemological issues, including truth, solipsism, experience, instrumentalism, and relativity. Truth is the center piece of the argument, and I show how constructivism avoids the root paradox by embracing truth as coherence. Next, constructivism is shown to be a rejection of solipsism. Then, an account of experience based in neurophysiological theory, emergent properties, and the brain as a parallel data-processing organ is provided to support constructivism's inside-out view of experience, in which meaning making occurs within individual minds and in communities of individuals. In the final segment of Part 2, I present a constructivist account of relativity which focuses on physicists' acceptance of relativity, its translation to constructivist epistemology, and constructivists' request for silence regarding ontology. Response to critics' objections are also presented at appropriate points throughout Part 2. In the third part, I present constructivism as an epistemological foundation for a cybernetic perspective of knowing. I then summarize the value of constructivism in explaining and interpreting the practice of science and science pedagogy. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 501–520, 1998.     

An Alternative to Von Glasersfeld's Subjectivism in Science Education: Deweyan Social Constructivism

An influential view of constructivism in science and mathematics educational research and practice is that of Ernst von Glasersfeld. It is a peculiarly subjectivist form of constructivism that should not be attractive to science and mathematics educators concerned with retaining some sort of realism that leaves room for objectivity. The subjectivist constructivism of von Glasersfeld also becomes entangled in untenable mind/body and subject/object dualisms. Finally, these dualisms are unnecessary for social constructivism. I will provide one example of a social constructivist alternative to social constructivism, that of the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey. In presenting Dewey's position I will appeal to Ockham's razor, that is, the admonition not to multiply entities beyond necessity, to shave off the needless mentalistic and psychic entities that lead von Glasersfeld into his subjectivism and dualism.     

Public Reason and Teaching Science in a Multicultural World: a Comment on Cobern and Loving: “An Essay for Educators…’ in the Light of John Rawls’ Political Philosophy

This is a comment on the article “An Essay for Educators: Epistemological Realism Really is Common Sense” written by Cobern and Loving in Science &; Education. The skillful analysis of the two authors concerning the problematic role of scientism in school science is fully appreciated, as is their diagnosis that it is scientism not universal scientific realism which is the cause of epistemological imperialism. But how should science teachers deal with scientism in the concrete every day situation of the science classroom and in contact with classes and students? John Rawls’ concept of public reason offers three “cardinal strategies” to achieve this aim: proviso, declaration and conjecture. The theoretical framework is provided, the three strategies are described and their relevance is fleshed out in a concrete example.     

Ciencia en Nepantla: the journey of Nepantler@s in science learning and teaching

This paper presents a new approach to science education that takes a path through sociocultural theory and into the ideas of Gloria Anzaldúa. We apply Anzaldúan theory to science education by illustrating it in action through various examples which explore the multidimensionality of teaching science with Latin@ students in various contexts including dual language settings. We present what it is to journey through transformation using examples from educators at various levels of science within the world of teaching science with Latin@ students in the U.S. Our examples illustrate how Latin@ students cross many cultural borders in Spanish, English, Latin@ home culture, school culture, and the world of scientific dialogue and content, and in doing so, go through tensions and transformations between dominant and non-dominant worlds, which should be acknowledged and better understood through Anzaldúan theory. Fundamentally, we present a transformative notion of Latin@ science learning as “living on the bridges” of many dialogic and cultural practices, and having to negotiate these in-between spaces, or “nepantla” (Anzaldu´a and Keating in Interviews, Psychology Press, London, 2000), where Latin@ students must contend with the fragmented and sometimes painful struggle of living in racialized reality amidst the demands of a dominant culture, and where transformation and healing are possible through the path of conocimiento. We advocate for teachers to become science teacher nepantler@s, who guide their students through nepantla, and into a new mestiz@ consciousness of science education.     

EDUCATION AS AN AFFIRMATIVE INVENTION: ALAIN BADIOU AND THE PURPOSE OF TEACHING AND CURRICULUM

Schools can be places where students articulate a preferred social future and exercise informed judgment with others toward that goal. Yet, educators have few examples of what a curriculum explicitly concerned with undertaking such a process might look like. Distinct from questions about how best to receive an Other or social science investigations of what may constitute educational “best practices,” Kent den Heyer explores here the ways in which the work of Alain Badiou provides for a more proactive arrangement of knowledge in schools organized to instigate truth‐processes that might supplement individual and socially inherited commitments. Through this exploration, den Heyer argues for the democratic and life‐affirming benefits of scholars and teachers who take up a “disciplinary ethic of truths.” He provides one of potentially many curricular examples of such an arrangement of knowledge.     

Kay‐Shuttleworth and the training of teachers for pauper schools

Abstract

Radical constructivism has had a major influence on present‐day education, especially in the teaching of science and mathematics. The article provides an epistemological profile of constructivism and considers its strengths and weaknesses from the standpoint of its educational implications. It is argued that there are two central problems with constructivism: anti‐realism and individualism which, in turn, lead to difficulties associated with idealism and relativism which, together, prove fatal for the theory.     

A conceptual framework to analyse the multiscalar politics of education for sustainable peacebuilding

A critical and more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted relationship between projects of peacebuilding and educational provision is starting to develop. Drawing on an epistemological and ontological anchor of critical realism, and a methodology informed by the application of cultural political economy analysis and the strategic relational approach to understanding educational discourses, processes and outcomes, we illustrate how the ‘many faces’ of education in conflict-affected situations can be better theorised and conceptually represented. In doing so, we link goals of peacebuilding to those of social justice, and reinvigorate the notion of education playing a transformative rather than a restorative role in conflict-affected contexts. Making such ideas concrete, we provide examples of how such an analytical framework can be employed to understand the multi-faceted relationship between education and projects of social transformation in conflict-affected environments across the globe.     

Reclaiming Metaphysical Truth for Educational Research

It is not uncommon in educational research and social science in general either to eschew the word truth or to put it in scare quotes in order to signify scepticism about it. After the initial wave of relativism in the philosophy of natural science, a second wave has developed in social science with the rise of postmodernism and poststructuralism. The tendency here is to relativise truth or to bracket out questions of truth. In contradistinction, this paper revindicates the metaphysical nature of truth. Truth is a transcendental precondition of educational inquiry and is best understood as a formal, regulative norm. Realism about truth enjoins a defence of the correspondence theory, which is provided here. At the same time, however, the development of realism in the social sciences has ironically followed the postmodernists in its scepticism about truth and its rejection of the correspondence theory. This paper critically appraises such recent developments, since all research is unintelligible without realism about the social world and whether our substantive knowledge-claims correspond with it.     

Reconfiguring the optics of the critical gaze in science education (after the critique of critique): (re)thinking “what counts” through Foucaultian prismatics

The purpose of this article is to explore what Michel Foucault refers to as “the” critical attitude and its relationship to science education, drawing from Foucault’s (The politics of truth. Semiotext(e), New York, 1997) insight that the critical attitude is but a critical attitude. This article is a rejoinder to Anna Danielsonn, Maria Berge, and Malena Lidar’s paper, “Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action”. Where Danielsonn and colleagues think with Foucaultian power/knowledge to examine and (re)consider teacher-student didactic relations in science and technology education, this article critically examines the power/knowledge relationship between science educators and science education to critically explore the modes of criticality produced and produceable. Particularly, I explore possibilities for and of critique that stem from and respond to what Bruno Latour (Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1993) refers to as the crisis and critique of critique.     

A New ‘Idea of Nature’ for Chemical Education

“The idea of nature” (general model of how things work) that is accepted in a society strongly influences that group’s social and technological progress. Currently, science education concentrates on analysis of stable pre-existing items to minimum constituents. This emphasis is consistent with an outlook that has been widely accepted since the late Renaissance—that characteristics of individuals depend exclusively on the properties of their microscopic components. Much of 19th and 20th century science seems compatible with that now-traditional outlook. But major parts of contemporary science (and fundamental technological problems) deal with open-system dynamic coherences that display novel and important characteristics. These important entities are not adequately treated by the presently-dominant idea of nature. In contrast, the notion of how the world works that contemporary science and current technological practice generate emphasizes synthesis and self-organization of far-from-equilibrium “dissipative structures.” Arguably, eventual success in meeting the severe technological and social challenges occasioned by increasing world population will require general diffusion and appreciation of that newer overall outlook. Chemistry educators have been important in developing and disseminating the earlier worldview—they can and should provide leadership for widespread adoption of the alternative idea of nature.     

Towards multidimensional approaches to early childhood science education

In this forum paper, I respond to issues raised by Kristina Andersson and Annica Gullberg in their article titled What is science in preschool and what do teachers have to know to empower children? (2012). I seek to continue the discussion begun with Andersson and Gullberg’s paper, by further exploring the questions they introduce to guide their paper: “What is science in preschool?” and “What do teachers have to know to empower children?” In particular, I elaborate on the value of drawing on multiple perspectives and different epistemological frameworks, and I argue for the need for a reconceptualized notion of science as a school discipline; one that acknowledges the multifaceted ways in which young children engage in science.     

Science, Worldviews and Education: An Introduction

This special issue of Science & Education deals with the theme of ‘Science, Worldviews and Education’. The theme is of particular importance at the present time as many national and provincial education authorities are requiring that students learn about the Nature of Science (NOS) as well as learning science content knowledge and process skills. NOS topics are being written into national and provincial curricula. Such NOS matters give rise to questions about science and worldviews: What is a worldview? Does science have a worldview? Are there specific ontological, epistemological and ethical prerequisites for the conduct of science? Does science lack a worldview but nevertheless have implications for worldviews? How can scientific worldviews be reconciled with seemingly discordant religious and cultural worldviews? In addition to this major curricular impetus for refining understanding of science and worldviews, there are also pressing cultural and social forces that give prominence to questions about science, worldviews and education. There is something of an avalanche of popular literature on the subject that teachers and students are variously engaged by. Additionally the modernisation and science-based industrialisation of huge non-Western populations whose traditional religions and beliefs are different from those that have been associated with orthodox science, make very pressing the questions of whether, and how, science is committed to particular worldviews. Hugh Gauch Jr. provides a long and extensive lead essay in the volume, and 12 philosophers, educators, scientists and theologians having read his paper, then engage with the theme. Hopefully the special issue will contribute to a more informed understanding of the relationship between science, worldviews and education, and provide assistance to teachers who are routinely engaged with the subject.     

西方比较教育发展阶段的知识论分析

从知识论的角度看,西方比较教育知识的发展可以分为"向自然科学模仿时期"、"历史主义时期"、"社会科学时期"、"‘批判二元论’时期"和当前的"多元共存时期"。五个时期比较教育知识的发展体现了"实在论"与"建构论"从相互竞争到相互融合的过程,每一个时期都有其独特的研究对象和知识体系。比较教育的未来发展深受当前的哲学社会科学的影响,并在一定时间内型塑了比较教育知识的性质、知识的标准和知识获得的规范,但比较教育的发展最终必须要面对真实的教育现象、教育问题和教育改革。     

“五四”功用主义文学观新解

“民主”与“科学”是“五四”新文化运动的两大旗帜。“五四”小说所呈现的科学理性精神、思想方法以及创作观念与西方近代科学有着密切的关联,科学不仅改变了“五四”小说的外部形态,也使得传统的实用文学观披上“科学”的外衣,重新走上了现代小说创作的历史舞台。以往学者往往把实用的文学观摆在客观写实的对立面。事实上,客观写实所蕴含的科学精神本身就含有功用的目的。科学研究精神实际上就是要求作家注重对现实人生问题的“观察”、“分析”和“研究”,使得小说与当下社会存在的问题紧密地联系在一起。科学主义与儒家注重现世的功用文学观融合为一。     

Controversial Conversations in Science: Incorporating the Science “Sex Box”

Science classrooms—and science textbooks—are proving to be challenging spaces for education that contradicts abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) sex education. However, science educators can teach against this knowledge in a way that is critical of oppressive language. In fact, having explicit dialogue about gender identities and sexual orientation can help uncover oppressive cultural attitudes and help science educators challenge universal views of the human body. This article examines two narratives that use a pedagogic practice to help them teach in AOUM environments. The first narrative discusses personal experiences of the author as a science teacher and the dilemmas faced by including what I call a “sex box” in a life science class. The second narrative discusses an excerpt from a research study conducted with life science teachers in which a participant uses this same method. The purpose of this discussion is to help expose the science classroom as a place to have meaningful discussions, even with policies and cultures that do not support the discussion of safe sex for minority human sexualities.¹ This article suggests future science teachers and present teachers alike can advocate for the incorporation of national standards that counteract overtly discriminatory policies.