Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 305–310 | Cite as

A convenient dichotomy: critical eyes on the limits to biological knowledge

Forum

Abstract

In The Secret Identity of a Biology Textbook: straight and naturally sexed, Jesse Bazzul and Heather Sykes conduct a case study of a biology textbook as an oppressive instructional material. Using queer theory they explore how the text of the biology textbook produces “truths” about sex, gender, and sexuality. Their analysis is complemented by the Forum papers by Jay Lemke and Francis Broadway who broaden the analysis examining the way that what counts as knowledge in science is a political decision while also encouraging authors, including Bazzul and Sykes, to also look critically at their own theoretical lenses. In this paper I pull together their ideas while exploring cultural contexts for a more nuanced representation of biological knowledge and the politics of what it means to know science.

Keywords

Biology Nature of science Sex Gender Ideology Sexuality History 

References

  1. Bazzul, J., & Sykes, H. (2011). The secret identity of a biology textbook: Straight and naturally sexed. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9297-z.
  2. Broadway, F. S. (2011). Queer (v.) queer (v.): Biology as curriculum, pedagogy, and being albeit queer (v.). Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9325-7.
  3. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brush, S. G. (1978). Nettie M. Stevens and the discovery of sex determination by chromosomes. ISIS, 69, 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, E. A. (2004). Mendel’s legacy: the origin of classical genetics. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, G., & Raven, P. (2004). Holt biology. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston.Google Scholar
  8. Lemke, J. (2011). The secret identity of science education: masculine and politically conservative? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9326-6.
  9. McClung, C. E. (1902). The accessory chromosome-sex determinant? Biological Bulletin, 3, 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Milne, C. (in press). Beyond argument in science: science education as connected and separate knowing. In: K. Tobin, B. Fraser & C. McRobbie (Eds.) Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Spinger.Google Scholar
  11. Nehm, R. H., & Young, R. (2008). “Sex hormones” in secondary school biology textbooks. Science & Education, 17, 1175–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ogilvie, M. B., & Choquette, C. J. (1981). Nettie Maria Stevens (1861–1912): Her life and contributions to cytogenetics. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 125, 292–311.Google Scholar
  13. Simpson, J. L., Ljungqvist, A., Ferguson-Smith, M. A., de la Chapelle, A., Elsas, L. J., Ehrhardt, A. A., et al. (2000). Gender verification in the olympics. JAMA, 284, 1568–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Young, R. (2000). Sexing the brain: Measurement and meaning in scientific research on human sexuality, 19591995. Dissertation for the Ph.D. in sociomedical sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steinhardt School of CultureEducation, and Human Development, New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations