Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 45(7), 835–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education, 8(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012). Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Science Education, 96(5), 904–926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: A view from the classroom. Science & Education., 23, 1911–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism. Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, C., Angle, J., & Montgomery, D. (2015). Teachers describe epistemologies of science instruction through Q methodology. School Science and Mathematics, 115(3), 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 493–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Heaven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003). Learning, reasoning, motivation, and epistemological beliefs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W. W. (2000). The nature of science and the role of knowledge and belief. Science & Education, 9(3), 219–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couló, A. C. (2014). Philosophical dimensions of social and ethical issues in school science education: Values in science and in science classrooms. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1087–1117). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95, 961–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, L. A., & Argyle, S. (2011). Teachers’ willingness to adopt nature of science activities following a physical science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 475–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donner, J. C. (2001). Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. Social Development Papers, 36, 24–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy in science education. Science Education.

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 1–37). Netherlands: Brill Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education., 38(1), 39–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dziopa, F., & Ahern, K. (2011). A systematic literature review of the applications of Q-technique and its methodology. Methodology.,7(2), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (Vol. 43). Springer.

  • Fuselier, L., & Jackson, K. J. (2010). Perceptions of collaboration, equity and values in science among female and male college students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ 342 (jan05 1):c7452–c7452.

  • Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man (p. 444). Norton & Co..

  • Griffard, P. B., Mosleh, T., & Kubba, S. (2013). Developing the inner scientist: book club participation and the nature of science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12, 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1993). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N. L., Lin, M. H., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. L. (2008). Diversifying science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 189–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, G., & Montgomery, D. (2011). Demonstrating the value of extending qualitative research strategies into Q. Operant Subjectivity, 34(4), 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 591–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2017). Science teaching in university science departments. Science & Education, 26(3-4), 201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation (pp. 99–91). Netherlands: Brill Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. (2014). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time. Socius. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutrovátz, G., & Zemplén, G. A. (2014). Social studies of science and science teaching. In International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1119–1141). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lariviere, V., & Ni, C. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science: Nature news & comment. Nature. http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321.

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science: modifying activities to enhance student understanding of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 39, 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology., 1, 138–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. A., & Brown, J. J. (2018). Connecting inquiry and values in science education: An approach based on John Dewey’s philosophy. Science & Education, 27, 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1055–1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. Science Teacher, 71, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Q methodology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina, J. (2013). The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination (p. 332). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.

  • Miller, M. C. D., Monplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F. C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., & Foy, M. J. (2010). The effects of teachers’ beliefs on elementary students’ beliefs, motivation, and achievement in mathematics. In Personal epistemology in the classroom: theory, research and implications for practice (pp. 435–469). Cambridge University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, C. M. (2001). Hermit crabs, women and scientific literacy. In Gender, Science and the Undergraduate Curriculum: Building Two-Way Street. Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Science (NAS). (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. 3rd ed. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

  • National Science Board. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Arlington: National Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, M. W. (2011). What research should be done and why? Four competing visions among ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 462–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2014). Science textbooks: The role of history and philosophy of science. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1411–1441). Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

  • Posner, J., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 636–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Students’ perceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Washington D.C: Association of American Colleges Project on the Status and Education of Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod (version 2.35). Retrieved from http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/.

  • Solomon, M. (2008). Social epistemology of science. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations and Implementation (pp. 86–94). Chicago: Brill Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sreejith, K. K. (2011). Critical contextual empiricism and its implications for science education. Episteme-4 Proceedings (fourth international conference to review research on Science Technology and Mathematics Education), Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR, Mumbai, Macmillan advanced research series, Macmillan

  • Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J., & Eischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the status of introductory biology laboratory education in US colleges and universities. American Biology Teacher., 67, 525–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A., Dupré, J., & Kincaid, H. (2007). Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemplen, G. A. (2009). Putting sociology first–Reconsidering the role of the social in nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 525–560.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Spencer Small Grant: #201700080

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Department, University of Louisville, 1905 South 1st Street, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Linda Fuselier & Katherine Ray King

  2. College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, 1905 South 1st Street, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Justin McFadden

Authors
  1. Linda Fuselier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin McFadden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine Ray King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Linda Fuselier, Justin McFadden or Katherine Ray King.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fuselier, L., McFadden, J. & King, K.R. Do Biologists’ Conceptions of Science as a Social Epistemology Align with Critical Contextual Empiricism?. Sci & Educ 28, 1001–1025 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00084-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00084-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation