Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2405–2425 | Cite as

Interactions of Economics of Science and Science Education: Investigating the Implications for Science Teaching and Learning

  • Sibel ErduranEmail author
  • Ebru Z. Mugaloglu


In recent years, there has been upsurge of interest in the applications of interdisciplinary perspectives on science in science education. Within this framework, the implications of the so-called “economics of science” is virtually an uncharted territory. In this paper, we trace a set of arguments that provide a dialectic engagement with two conflicting agendas: (a) the broadening of science education to include the contextual positioning of science including economical dimensions of science, and (b) the guarding of the proliferation and reinforcement of those aspects of economics of science such as commodification of scientific knowledge that embraces inequity and restricted access to the products of the scientific enterprise. Our aim is broadly to engage, as science education researchers, in the debates in economics of science so as to investigate the reciprocal interactions that might exist with science education. In so doing, we draw out some recommendations whereby the goals of science education might provide as much input into the intellectual debates within philosophy of science on issues related to the commercialisation and commodification of scientific knowledge. We explore some implications of commodification of science in the context of modelling and argumentation in science education.


Science Education Scientific Knowledge Science Teacher Hybrid Model Science Classroom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.Google Scholar
  2. Aduriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A semantic view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education. Google Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2003). STS education: a rose by any other name. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the world of Peter J. Fensham. London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, B., Reveles, J., & Kelly, G. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science education. Science Education, 89, 779–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant, R. (2001). Discovery and decision: Exploring the metaphysics and epistemology of scientific classification. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14, 97–103.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, Y., Chang, C., & Tseng, Y. (2010). Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 315–332. doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9202-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christie, M., & Christie, J. (2000). ‘‘Laws’’ and ‘‘theories’’ in chemistry do not obey the rules. In N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules (pp. 34–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The Role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DfES/QCA. (2006). Science: The national curriculum for England and Wales. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, A. M. (2008). Economics of science. In S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume (Eds.). The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd ed., Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2006). Guest editorial: Science studies and science education. Science Education, 90(6), 961–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45–50.Google Scholar
  17. Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in science education in the context of arguing about the Periodic Law in chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  20. Erduran, S., & Duschl, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Argumentation in science education research: Perspectives from Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.). World of Science Education: Research in Science Education in Europe, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Erduran, S., & Wong, S. L. (2013). Science curriculum reform on “scientific literacy for all” across national contexts: case studies of curricula from England and Hong Kong. In N. Mansour & R. Wegeriff (Eds.). Science education for diversity in the knowledge society: Theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. European Union. (2006). Recommendation of the European parliament and of the council of 18 december 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, 30–12–2006, L 394/10–L 394/18. (
  25. Gaskell, J. P. (1982). Science, technology and society: Issues for science teachers. Studies in Science Education, 9, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giere, R. (1997). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  27. Gilbert, J. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gott, R., & Roberts, R. (2004). A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum? Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
  31. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
  33. Irzik, G. (2007). Commercialization of science in a neoliberal world. In A. Bugra & K. Agartan (Eds.). Reading Polanyi for the 21st century: Market economy as a political project palgrave (pp. 135–153). City: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Irzik, G. (2010). Why should philosophers of science pay attention to the commercialization of academic science? In M. Suárez, M. Dorato & M. Rédei (Eds.) EPSA epistemology and methodology of science launch of the European philosophy of science association (pp. 129–138). doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3263-8_11.
  35. Jacob, M. (2003). Rethinking science and commodifying knowledge. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jenkins, E. W. (2000). Research in science education: Time for a health check? Studies in Science Education, 35, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Justi, R. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boutler (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 209–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justy, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. La Velle, B. L., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31–40.Google Scholar
  45. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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, 497V521.Google Scholar
  48. Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  50. Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Ministerio de Educacióny Ciencia, Republic of Chile (MEC). (2004). Estudio y comprensión de la naturaleza. Santiago de Chile: Author.Google Scholar
  53. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  56. OECD. (2006). PISA 2006. Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ozdem, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2012). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
  58. Radder, H. (2010). The commodification of academic research: analyses, assessment, alternatives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
  59. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Sadler, T. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Salomon, J. (1985). Science as a commodity-policy changes, issues and threats. In M. Gibbons & B. Wittrock (Eds.), Science as a commodity. Longman.Google Scholar
  62. Scerri, E. R., & McIntyre, L. (1997). The case for the philosophy of chemistry. Synthese, 111, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.Google Scholar
  64. Wibble, J. R. (1998). The Economics of science: Methodology and epistemology as if economics really mattered. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Woody, A. (2000). Putting quantum mechanics to work in chemistry: The Power of diagrammatic representation, Philosophy of Science, 67 (Proceedings): S612–S627.Google Scholar
  66. Yager, R. E. (1996). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3–15). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  67. Zeidler, D., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 357–377.Google Scholar
  68. Ziman, J. M. (1991). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale of STS education is in the approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Kristianstad UniversityKristianstadSweden
  3. 3.School of EducationBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations