A Cartographic Approach Toward the Study of Academics’ of Science Teaching and Learning Research Practices and Values

  • Michelle M. WootenEmail author


The research practices of academics of science teaching and learning (academics-of-st&l) may be considered a connected, constructed landscape, the peaks of which are shaped by accumulation of like practices. Entangling interviews with twenty-seven academics-of-st&l and document analyses, in this paper I map the presence of two landscape peaks—scientific and theoretical practice—in addition to their material-communal effects. This mapping renders our research landscape as an ongoing production in need of ethical attunement. Invoking ethics of Deleuzeguattarian thinking and flow in my mappings, I conceptualize cartography as a mode of inquiry disruptive to normative research methodology used in science teaching and learning, capable of enabling landscape reconfiguration.


Qualitative research Social cartography Feminist new materialisms Science education Discipline-based education research 


Les pratiques de recherche des chercheurs en enseignement et en apprentissage des sciences (chercheurs EAS) peuvent être considérées comme faisant partie d’un environnement construit et inter-relié dont les saillies sont façonnées par le cumul de pratiques similaires. En combinant d’une part les résultats d’entrevues réalisées avec vingt-sept chercheurs EAS, et d’autre part l’analyze de différents documents, je révèle deux saillies émergeant de ce paysage de recherche (la pratique scientifique et théorique), en plus d’en exposer les effets matériels et collectifs. Cette analyze de type cartographie présente notre paysage de recherche comme un effort continu qui requiert une harmonization éthique. En invoquant l’éthique de la pensée et les flux deleuziens/guattariens dans mes relevés, je conceptualize cette cartographie comme un mode de recherche capable de perturber la méthodologie de recherche normative utilisée par les chercheurs EAS, mais également comme méthode propice pour une reconfiguration du paysage.



I acknowledge Dr. Aaron Kuntz’ valuable input toward my conceptualizing cartographic inquiry and Maureen Alice Flint for her input regarding the presentation of this study for readability among academics of science teaching and learning.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding Information

This study was funded by the University of Alabama College of Education’s William E. Sexton Endowed Scholarship and the University of Alabama College of Education’s Dr. Brad S. Chissom Memorial Scholarship.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Stassen, M. L. A. (2012). Dissecting doctoral advising: A comparison of students’ experiences across disciplines. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(3), 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzul, J., & Carter, L. (2017). (Re)considering Foucault for science education research: considerations of truth, power and governance. Cultural Studies of Science Education.
  4. 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.
  5. Bush, S. D., Pelaez, N. J., Rudd, J. A., Stevens, M. T., Tanner, K. D., & Williams, K. S. (2013). Widespread distribution and unexpected variation among science faculty with education specialties (SFES) across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  6. Coppola, B. P., & Krajcik, J. S. (2013). Discipline-centered post-secondary science education research: Understanding university level science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  7. Coppola, B. P., & Krajcik, J. S. (2014). Discipline-centered post-secondary science education research: Distinctive targets, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  8. Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. (S. Hand, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Original work published in 1991).Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Classics. (Original work published in 1977)Google Scholar
  12. Dolphijn, R., & Tuin, I. van der. (2012). New materialism: Interviews & cartographies. Ann Arbor, Michigan: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.Google Scholar
  13. Fendler, R. (2013). Becoming-learner: Coordinates for mapping the space and subject of nomadic pedagogy. Qualitative Inquiry.
  14. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity (Vol. 20). Springer Netherlands.
  15. Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason (R. Howard, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. (C. Gordon, Ed., C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. (P. Rabinow, Ed.). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, vol. 1: An introduction. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage. (Original work published in 1984)Google Scholar
  19. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 143–168). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  20. Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling Theory in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hickey-Moody, A. C. (2015). Beside ourselves: worlds beyond people. British Journal of Sociology of Education.
  22. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education.
  24. MacLure, M. (2017). Qualitative methodology and the new materialisms: “A little of Dionysus’s blood?” In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Neoliberal Times. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. NARST Proposal Review Rubric. (2016). National Association of Research on Science Teaching. Accessed 18 May 2018.
  26. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  27. Rabinow, P. (1984). Introduction. In The Foucault reader (pp. 3–30). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  28. Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2014). “F**k rape!” Exploring affective intensities in a feminist research assemblage. Qualitative Inquiry.
  29. Roets, G., Roose, R., Claes, L., Verstraeten, M., & Vandekinderen, C. (2009). The pointer sisters: Creating cartographies of the present. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography.
  30. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research.
  31. Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher.
  32. Schizas, D., Katrana, E., & Stamou, G. (2013). Introducing Network Analysis into Science Education: Methodological Research Examining Secondary School Students’ Understanding of “Decomposition.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(1), 175–198.Google Scholar
  33. Walls, L. (2016). Awakening a dialogue: A critical race theory analysis of U. S. nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Copyright information

© Ontario Institute for Educational Studies (OISE) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Research MethodologiesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations