Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 231–247 | Cite as

A critical materialist entry into the comforts and dangers in defining academics’ of science teaching and learning research communities

  • Michelle M. WootenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Research on science teaching and learning commonly makes use of reductionism to specify conditions of science learning. In my studies of academics’-of-science-teaching-&-learning (academics’-of-st&l) research practices and values, I discuss how philosophic inquiry shifted my research practices from reductionism to critical (or, “new”) materialism, where critical materialism is a research approach attuned to the materiality of social practices. Reading materiality as affectual, intellectual, and spatial components of practices turns my attention toward the logics informing academics’-of-st&l research practices as well as the comfortable and dangerous effects of particular practices on our connectible landscape. In this forum response, I briefly explore multiple logics informing academics’-of-st&l conference attendance choices, in addition to these choices’ alignment to communal definition rendered by governmental and conference entities. I also explore other modes of communal boundary-marking experienced by academics-of-st&l that do not make use of formal definitions, but suggest that it is in the minutiae of conference relating that academics-of-st&l construct their sensing of communal un/boundedness. With these explorations, I hope to generate awareness of the small shifts that re-configuring practices can make possible in academics’-of-st&l connectivity.

Keywords

Science education Trans-disciplinarity Feminist new materialisms Discipline-based education research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the University of Alabama College of Education’s William E. Sexton Endowed Scholarship and Dr. Brad S. Chissom Memorial Scholarship. I acknowledge Dr. Kelly Guyotte and MTSU’s Biology Education Association’s valuable input toward shaping my methodology’s phrasings and demonstration.

References

  1. Aitken, V., Fraser, D., & Price, G. (2007). Negotiating the spaces: Relational pedagogy and power in drama teaching. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(14), 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Akarsu, B. (2010). Science education research vs. physics education research: A structural comparison. European Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch, M. (2004). A discourse that disciplines, governs, and regulates: The National Research Council’s report on scientific research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 96–110.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403259482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braidotti, R. (2012). Interview with Rosi Braidotti. New Materialism: Interviews & cartographies (pp. 19–37). Ann Arbor, Michigan: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.Google Scholar
  6. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman (1st ed.). Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bush, S. D., Pelaez, N. J., Rudd, J. A., Stevens, M. T., Tanner, K. D., & Williams, K. S. (2008). Science faculty with education specialties. Science, 322(5909), 1795–1796.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1162072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canguilhem, G. (1991). The Normal and the pathological. (C. R. Fawcett, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  9. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (Eds.). (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham NC; London: Duke University Press Books.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.) (1st ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1996). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Denzin, N. K. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek, California: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Dolan, E. L., Elliott, S. L., Henderson, C., Curran-Everett, D., John, K. S., & Ortiz, P. A. (2018). Evaluating discipline-based education research for promotion and tenure. Innovative Higher Education, 43(1), 31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9406-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, J. (2010). The materialism of historical materialism. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 281–298). Durham NC; London: Duke University Press Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. (C. Gordon, Ed.) (1st ed.). New York: New York.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. (P. Rabinow, Ed.). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (2009). Preface. In G. Deleuze & F. Guattari, R. Hurley (Trans.), Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. New York, NY: Penguin Classics. (Original work published in 1977).Google Scholar
  18. Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2013). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 5–22.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez, R. (2009). Framing equity: Helping students “play the game” and “change the game.” Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 1(1), 4–8.Google Scholar
  20. Henderson, C., Connolly, M., Dolan, E. L., Finkelstein, N., Franklin, S., Malcom, S., et al. (2017). Towards the STEM DBER Alliance: Why we need a discipline-based STEM education research community. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 14.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0076-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howley, A., & Hartnett, R. (1992). Pastoral power and the contemporary university: A Foucauldian analysis. Educational Theory, 42(3), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2004). On qualitative inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kayumova, S., McGuire, C. J., & Cardello, S. (2018). From empowerment to response-ability: rethinking socio-spatial, environmental justice, and nature-culture binaries in the context of STEM education. Cultural Studies of Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9861-5.Google Scholar
  24. Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Ulmer, J. B. (2015). Vital illusions, images, and education. In G. S. Cannella, M. S. Perez, & P. A. Pasque (Eds.), Critical qualitative inquiry. Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315431161/chapters/10.4324%2F9781315431178-17.
  25. Kuntz, A. M. (2015). Logics of extraction. In The responsible methodologist: Inquiry, truth-telling, and social justice. Walnut Creek, California: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kuntz, A. M., & Guyotte, K. W. (2017). Inquiry on the sly: Playful intervention as philosophical action. Qualitative Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417734566.Google Scholar
  27. Mulder, Y. G., Bollen, L., de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding learning by modelling: The effects of partially worked-out models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 502–523.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rutledge, M. (2013). “Biology education”—An emerging interdisciplinary area of research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(3), 58–62.Google Scholar
  30. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  31. Seidman, I. (1997). Interviewing as qualitative research (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shipley, T. F., McConnell, D., McNeal, K. S., Petcovic, H. L., & John, K. E. S. (2017). Transdisciplinary science education research and practice: Opportunities for GER in a developing STEM discipline-based education research alliance (DBER-A). Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4), 354–362.  https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-65.4.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slater, S. J., Slater, T. F., & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Discipline-based science education research: A scientist’s guide (1st ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  34. Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442–468.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trauth-Nare, A. (2016). Re-envisioning scientific literacy as relational, participatory thinking and doing. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 327–334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9676-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ulmer, J. B. (2017). Writing slow ontology. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(3), 201–211.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416643994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ulmer, J. B., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2014). Writing visually through (methodological) events and cartography. Qualitative Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414542706.Google Scholar
  38. Walkerdine, V. (2013). Using the work of Felix Guattari to understand space, place, social justice, and education. Qualitative Inquiry.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413502934.Google Scholar
  39. Wallace, M. F. G. (2018). The paradox of un/making science people: practicing ethico-political hesitations in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9831-3.Google Scholar
  40. Wooten, M. M. (2018). A cartographic approach to the study of academics’ of science teaching & learning (academics’-of-st&l) research practices and values. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  41. Wooten, M. M., Coble, K., Puckett, A. W., & Rector, T. A. (in press). Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences. Physical Review Physics Education Research.Google Scholar
  42. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Zeyer, A., Çetin-Dindar, A., Zain, A. N. M., Juriševič, M., Devetak, I., & Odermatt, F. (2013). Systemizing: A cross-cultural constant for motivation to learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1047–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Research MethodologiesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations