Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 1049–1060 | Cite as

The paradox of un/making science people: practicing ethico-political hesitations in science education

  • Maria F. G. Wallace
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

Over the years neoliberal ideology and discourse have become intricately connected to making science people. Science educators work within a complicated paradox where they are obligated to meet neoliberal demands that reinscribe dominant, hegemonic assumptions for producing a scientific workforce. Whether it is the discourse of school science, processes of being a scientist, or definitions of science particular subjects are made intelligible as others are made unintelligible. This paper resides within the messy entanglements of feminist poststructural and new materialist perspectives to provoke spaces where science educators might enact ethicopolitical hesitations. By turning to and living in theory, the un/making of certain kinds of science people reveals material effects and affects. Practicing ethicopolitical hesitations prompt science educators to consider beginning their work from ontological assumptions that begin with abundance rather than lack.

Keywords

Subjectivity Science education Science identity Neoliberalism Ontology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baldwin, J. (1998). A talk to teachers. In T. Morrison (Eds.) Library of America’s Collected Essays: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzul, J. (2012). Neoliberal ideology, global capitalism, and science education: Engaging the question of subjectivity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 1001–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzul, J., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Toward a social ontology for science education: Introducing Deleuze and Guattari’s assemblages. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(3), 284–299.Google Scholar
  5. Bazzul, J., & Siry, C. (in-press). Critical voices in science education research: Narratives of academic journeys. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bazzul, J., Tolbert, S., & Kayumova, S. (in press). New materialisms and science classrooms: diagramming ontologies and critical assemblies. In K. Scantlebury & C. Milne, (Eds.), Material practice and materiality: too long ignored in science education. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bencze, J. L., Carter, L., Chiu, M.-H., Duit, R., Matin, S., Siry, C., et al. (2012). Globalization and science education. COSMOS, 8(2), 139–152.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S021960771250005X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Learner, student, speaker: Why it matters how we call those we teach. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(5–6), 540–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. J. J. (2012). Making sense of education: Fifteen contemporary educational theorists in their own words. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter, L. (2014). The elephant in the room: Science education, neoliberalism, and resistance. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 23–26). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hacking, I. (2006). Making up people. London Review of Books, 28(16), 23–26.Google Scholar
  16. Hacking, I. (2007). Kinds of people: moving targets. In Proceedings of the British Academy 151, 285–317. Retrieved from http://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/hacking-draft.pdf.
  17. Higgins, M. (2017). Reconfiguring the optics of the critical gaze in science education (after the critique of critique): (Re)thinking “what counts” through Foucaultian prismatics. Cultural Studies in Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9799-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins, M., Madden, B., Berard, M.-F., Kothe, E. L., & Nordstrom, S. (2017). De/signing research in education: Patchwork(in) methodologies with theory. Educational Studies, 43, 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1237867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. hooks, B. (1999). Teaching to transgress: Education as a practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Manning, E. (2016). The minor gesture. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for the flat world. New York: Palgrave-McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Springgay, S., & Truman, S. E. (2017). On the need for methods beyond proceduralism: Speculative middles, (in) tensions, and response-ability in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 00, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strom, K. J., & Martin, A. D. (2013). Putting philosophy to work in the classroom: Using rhizomatics to deterritorialize neoliberal thought and practice. Studying Teacher Education, 9(3), 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2013.830970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stromholt, S., & Bell, P. (2017). Designing for expansive science learning and identification across settings. Cultural Studies of Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9813-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor, C. (in press). Diffracting the curriculum: putting ‘new’ material feminist theory to work to reconfigure knowledge-making practices in undergraduate higher education. In K. Scantlebury, C. A. Taylor, & A. Lund (Eds.), Turning feminist theory into practice: enacting material change. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Tobin, K. (2010). Global reproduction and transformation of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(1), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulmer, J. (2016). Writing slow ontology. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
  30. Wallace, M. F. G. (2016). Trash or treasure: Re-conceptualizing my ruins as a tool for re-imagining the nature of science teacher education. In G. A. Buck & V. L. Akerson (Eds.), Allowing our professional knowledge of pre-service science teacher education to be enhanced by self-study research: Turning a critical eye on our practice (pp. 341–362). Springer: Switzerland.Google Scholar
  31. Wallace, M. F. G. (2017). Deterritorializing dichotomies of teacher induction: a (post)ethnographic study of un/becoming an elementary science teacher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.Google Scholar
  32. Wallace, M. F. G. (in press). Subjects in the threshold: Opening-up ethnographic moments that complicate the novice/veteran science teacher binary. Issues in Teacher Education: Special Issue.Google Scholar
  33. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructural theory (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Weinstein, M., Blades, D., & Gleason, S. C. (2016). Questioning power: deframing the STEM discourse. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationMillsaps CollegeJacksonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options