Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 565–579 | Cite as

Locating a space of criticality as new scholars in science education

  • Lydia E. Carol-Ann Burke
  • Jesse Bazzul
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

As newcomers in the field of science education research we discuss our perspectives on critical scholarship in the academy. Using the metalogue approach we explore our perceptions of science education, our experiences of the barriers to critical science education research, our analyses of why these barriers exist, and imaginings about how these barriers could be removed. In this paper, metalogue provides us with a way to retain our individual voices, thoughts and ideas, yet challenge our pre-conceived notions about finding a critical space in science education. Through an interaction with each other’s thoughts and past experiences we outline some aspects of the field of science education as we see it; for example, we discuss why the field may be seen as rigid as well as the contexts that surround possibilities for interdisciplinary, critical, social justice research. We conclude that a larger, multi-vocal discussion is necessary to locate the possibilities for critical, social justice oriented science education.

Keywords

Metalogue Dialogue New scholars Science education Critical scholarship Social justice Identity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Atwater, M. M. (2012). Significant science education research on multicultural science education, equity, and social justice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), O1–O5. doi: 10.1002/tea.20453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0001.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, N. (Producer & Director). (2011). An ecology of the mind [Motion picture]. USA: The Impact Media Group.Google Scholar
  4. Bazzul, J. (2014). Tracing “ethical subjectivities” in science education: How biology textbooks can frame ethico-political choices for students. Research in Science Education, 45(1), 23–40. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9411-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazzul, J. (2015). Towards a politicized notion of citizenship for science education: Engaging the social through dissensus. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(3), 221–233. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2015.1051670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669. doi: 10.1002/tea.20419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (2004). What is critique? An essay on Foucault’s virtue. In S. Salih & J. Butler (Eds.), The Judith Butler Reader (pp. 302–322). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Chase, S. E. (2011). Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 421–434). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2007). Dialogues II. (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: The use of pleasure, Vol. 2: The use of pleasure. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Random House Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (2003). Questions of method. In M. Foucault, P. Rabinow, & N. S. Rose (Eds.), The essential Foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (pp. 251–261). New York, NY: New Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Harding, S. (2008). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities, and modernities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardt, M. (2010). The militancy of theory. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 110(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault’s methods. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klinkenborg, V. (2013, September 21). Silencing scientists. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/silencing-scientists.html?_r=1.
  19. Kumashiro, K. K. (2005). Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75(3), 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, A. (2011). Discourse analysis. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and methods in social research (pp. 139–146). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Lemke, J. (2011). The secret identity of science education: Masculine and politically conservative? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 287–292. doi: 10.1007/s11422-011-9326-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKinley, E. (2008). From object to subject: Hybrid identities of indigenous women in science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(4), 959–975. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9128-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E. M. (2008). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635–689). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rancière, J., & Corcoran, S. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Richardson-Bruna, K., & Vann, R. (2007). On pigs and packers: Radically contextualizing a practice of science with Mexican immigrant students. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(1), 19–59. doi: 10.1007/s11422-006-9041-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roth, W.-M., McRobbie, C. J., & Lucas, K. B. (1998). Four dialogues and metalogues about the nature of science. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2004, September). Co-generative dialoguing and metaloguing: Reflexivity of processes and genres. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/560/1214.
  30. Staller, K. (2007). Metalogue as methodology: Inquiries into conversations among authors, editors and referees. Qualitative Social Work, 6(2), 137–157. doi: 10.1177/1473325007077236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2002). The contradictions in science education peer review and possibilities for change. Research in Science Education, 32(2), 269–280. doi: 10.1023/A:1016038414389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science what it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Werklund School of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of STEM Education and Teacher DevelopmentUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthDartmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options