Abstract
Based on a website search with the keyword “objectivity,” 110 articles in the 24-year period (1992–2015) referred to some form of objectivity and were classified according to the following criteria: Levels I–V (same as presented in Chap. 3). Results obtained showed the following distribution of the 110 articles evaluated: Level I = 4, Level II = 33, Level III = 68, Level IV = 5, and Level V = none. Only 5% (5 out of 110) of the articles were considered to have an understanding of objectivity that approximated to its historical evolution. None of the articles referred to the work of Daston and Galison on objectivity or mentioned “trained judgment.” Traditional standards of educational research are based on positivist philosophy. One article reported that based on Guba and Lincoln’s notion of trustworthiness traditional standards of internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity can be replaced by notions of credibility, transferability, dependability, and triangulation of data sources (Level III). In order to facilitate objectivity and researcher independence it is generally recommended in educational research that the researchers must maintain a distance between themselves and the subjects of their investigation. This prescription is, however, problematic as one article reported that in order to establish a mutually acceptable dialogue with the teacher in the classroom it is important to audit the process rather than the product (Level III).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061. Washington: Oxford University Press.
Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward a more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521–539.
Beth, E. W., & Piaget, J. (1966). Mathematical epistemology and psychology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Boyd, R. N., Gaspar, P. & Trout, J. D. (1990). The philosophy of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1988a). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In E. S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science (pp. 315–333). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (first published in 1984).
Campbell, D. T. (1988b). The experimenting society. In E. S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science (pp. 290–314). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Collins, H. M. (1982). Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. In B. Barnes & D. Edge (Ed.), Science in context. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cooper, L. N. (1992). Physics: structure and meaning. Hanover: University Press of New England.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. L. (1992). The image of objectivity. Representations, 40(special issue: seeing science), 81–128.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.
Fox-Keller, E. (1992). Secrets of life, secrets of death: essays on language, gender and science. London: Routledge.
Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana State University Press.
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Books.
Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
Giere, R. N. (2006a). Perspectival pluralism. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 26–41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education 24, (355–392). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Gooday, G., Lynch, J. M., Wilson, K. G., & Barsky, C. K. (2008). Does science education need the history of science? Isis, 99, 322–330.
Gould, S. J. (1977). Ever since Darwin. New York: Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. (trans: Shapiro, J.J.). London: Heinemann.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Harding, S. (1987). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (1998). Is science multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Harding, P. A., & Vining, L. C. (1997). The impact of the knowledge explosion on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 969–975.
Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77, 685–711.
Holton, G. (1969). Einstein and the ‘crucial’ experiment. American Journal of Physics, 37, 968–982.
Holton, G. (1978a). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161–224.
Holton, G. (1978b). The scientific imagination: case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holton, G. (1996). Science education and the sense of self. In P. R. Gross, N. Levitt & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 551–560). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Hubbard, R. (1988). Some thoughts about the masculinity of natural science. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 1–15). New York: New York University Press.
Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kitchener, R.F. (1986). Piaget’s theory of knowledge: Genetic epistemology and scientific reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: a developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.
Klassen, S. (2011). The photoelectric effect: reconstructing the story for the physics student. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 719–731.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laats, A., & Siegel, H. (2016). Teaching evolution in a creation nation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacey, H. (2004). Is there a significant distinction between cognitive and social values? In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, values and objectivity (pp. 24–51). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradidtions, emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research 2nd ed. (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Machamer, P., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction: science, values and objectivity. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, values and objectivity (pp. 1–13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Medawar, P. B. (1967). The art of the soluble. London: Methuen.
Merton, R.K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1. Reprinted as ‘Science and Democratic Social Structure’, in his Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press (1957).
Myrdal, G. (1944/1962). An American dilemma: the negro problem and modern democracy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Research Council, NRC (1992). National science education standards: A sampler. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
Niaz, M. (1991). Role of the epistemic subject in Piaget’s genetic epistemology and its importance for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 569–580.
Niaz, M. (1997). Can we integrate qualitative and quantitative research in science education? Science & Education, 6, 291–300.
Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: a rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82, 527–552.
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht: Springer.
Niaz, M. (2011). Innovating science teacher education: a history and philosophy of science perspective. New York: Routledge.
Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘Science in the Making’ to understanding the nature of science: an overview for science educators. New York: Routledge.
Niaz, M. (2014). Science textbooks: the role of history and philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1411–1441). Dordrecht: Springer.
Niaz, M. (2015). That the Millikan oil-drop experiment was simple and straightforward. In R. L. Numbers & K. Kampourakis (Eds.), Newton’s apple and other myths about science (pp. 157–163). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Niaz, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Benarroch, A., Cardellini, L., Laburú, C. E., Marín, N., Montes, L. A., Nola, R., Orlik, Y., Scharmann, L. C., Tsai, C.-C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2003). Constructivism: defense or a continual critical appraisal --- a response to Gil-Pérez, et al. Science & Education, 12, 787–797.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505–525.
Niaz, M., & Robinson, W. R. (1993). Teaching algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding: role of developmental level, mental capacity, and cognitive style. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 407–416.
Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.
Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste: the American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Pascual-Leone, J., Goodman, D., Ammon, P., & Subelman, I. (1978). Piagetian theory and neo-Piagetian analysis as psychological guides in education. In J. M. Gallagher & J. A. Easley (Eds.), Knowledge and development 2, (243–289). New York: Plenum.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: an essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.
Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Rutherford, E. (1911). The scattering of alpha and beta particles by matter and the structure of the atom. Philosophical Magazine, 21, 669–688.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sewell, Jr., W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Sheperd, L. (1993). Lifting the veil: the feminine side of science Boston: Shambhala Publications.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tsaparlis, G. (2014). Linking the macro with the micro levels of chemistry: demonstrations and experiments that can contribute to active/meaningful/conceptual learning. In I. Devetek & S. A. Glažar (Eds.), Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom (pp. 41–61). Dordrecht: Springer.
Wertheim, M. (1995). Pythagoras’ trousers. New York: W.W. Norton.
Yeany, R. H. (1991). Dissemination and implementation of research findings: impacting practice. NARST News, 33(4), 1.
Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale of STS education is in the approach in science education. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: international perspectives on reform (pp. 21–31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Niaz, M. (2018). Understanding Objectivity in Research Reported in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Wiley-Blackwell). In: Evolving Nature of Objectivity in the History of Science and its Implications for Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67726-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67726-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67725-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67726-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)