Abstract
The family resemblance approach to nature of science is receiving increasing attention by science educators since its inception about a decade ago. Many scholars of science education have contributed and continue to contribute to it not only theoretically but also by applying it empirically to a wide range of areas such as curriculum and textbook analyses, pre-service teacher training, undergraduate teaching and, STEM education. This article aims to develop the family resemblance approach further. We do this in several ways. First, we clarify its foundations in a way to reveal that it provides not only a domain-specific, but at the same time a domain-general conceptualization of nature of science. Second, we expand the structure of science as a social institution by adding a new category to it, i.e., the reward system, and justify it. Third, we show that two of the most common elements of the category “practices,” namely, observation and experimentation, display the character of family resemblance. Then, we explore this for methods and values in science. Finally, we discuss the possibility of a rapprochement between the family resemblance approach and the consensus view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some scholars speak of internal and external rewards. This distinction corresponds to our classification in terms of intellectual and non-intellectual rewards respectively. See, for example, List (1985).
This is not to say that this rule is always observed. For example, there have been a number of cases in the history of science where female scientists’ achievements were not recognized. However, such cases illustrate the importance of the rule rather than nullify it.
There are other causes of ethical misconduct. Profit motive due to the commodification of scientific knowledge is another. See Resnik (2010).
For a notorious case that involves all of these, see Fitzpatrick (2004).
The popularity of the Nobel Prize provides an easy and attractive entry point for discussing the reward system of science in the classroom. For instance, the discovery of the structure of DNA that every biology textbook covers presents a wonderful opportunity to introduce several aspects of this system all at once: the competition between the Cambridge researchers (Watson and Crick) and King’s College researchers (Wilkins and Franklin), the enormous prestige, fame and monetary gain that the Nobel Prize brings with it.
Needless to say, those outputs need to be interpreted by humans.
There is a large literature in science education and philosophy of science that has explored the use of the concept of observation by scientists, the role of instrumentation in making observations, the evidential value of observation, the extent to which observation is theory-dependent, and how it differs from experimentation and explanation. See, for example, Hacking (1983), Hanson (1958), Matthews (1994), Norris (1985), and Shapere (1982) (which provides on p. 492 an account of directly observed or observable consonant with that suggested here).
The literature on experiment is vast. We simply refer the reader to Arabatzis (2008) for a succinct review of it.
Indeed, Kampourakis’ comparison of “general aspects” conceptualization of NOS (i.e., the consensus view) and the FRA in Table 3 reveals that the former is silent about science as a social enterprise. See Kampourakis (2016, p. 678).
References
Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2020). How do university students perceive the nature of science? Science & Education, 29, 299–330.
Albayrak, M., & Kaya, E. (2020). Fifth-grade students’ understanding of social-institutional aspects of science. International Journal of Science Education, 42(11), 1834–1861.
Arabatzis, T. (2008). Experiment. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (1st ed., pp. 159–170). Routledge.
Bishop, R. (2015). Chaos. Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
BouJaoude, S., Dagher, Z. R., & Refai, S. (2017). The portrayal of nature of science in Lebanese 9th grade science textbooks. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: a global perspective (pp. 79–97). Routledge.
Dagher, Z., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164.
Dagher, Z., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 46–52.
Dasgupta, D., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.
Develaki, M. (2021). Trustworthiness of science in debate: challenges, responses, and implications. Science & Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00300-4
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014a). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014b). Regaining focus in Irish Junior Cycle Science: Potential new directions for curriculum and assessment on Nature of Science. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 335–350.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z., & McDonald, C. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education: a review of emergent research and development. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 311–328.
Erduran, S., Kaya, E., Cullinane, A., Imren, O., & Kaya, S. (2020). Practical learning resources and teacher education strategies for understanding nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction. Springer: 377–397.
Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. (2017). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: Nature of science, scientific practices and science teacher education. In J. Yeo, T. Teo, & K.S. Tang (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Asia-Pacific and beyond (3–24). Springer.
Feest, U., & Steinle, F. (2016). Experiment. In P. Humphreys (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science (pp. 274–295). Oxford University Press.
Fitzpatrick, M. (2004). MMR and autism: what parents need to know. Routledge.
Freudenthal, G. (1986). Atom and individual in the age of Newton: on the genesis of the mechanistic world view. Reidel.
Giere, R. (1997). Understanding scientific reasoning (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, R. N. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press.
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). Open Court.
Irzik, G. (2013). Introduction: commercialization of academic science and a new agenda for science education. Science & Education, 22(10), 2375–2384.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (999–1021). Springer.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The ‘general aspects’ conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.
Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 1115–1133.
Kaya, S., Erduran, S., Birdthistle, N., & McCormack, O. (2018). Looking at the social aspects of nature of science in science education through a new lens. Science & Education, 27(5–6), 457–478.
Kragh, H. (2019). Controversial elements: priority disputes and the discovery of chemical elements. Substantia 3(2) Suppl. 5, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.13128/Substantia-740
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In Kuhn, T. S. (Ed.), The Essential Tension—Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (320–339). Chicago University Press.
Leatherdale, S. T. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 19–35.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971–997). Springer.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In Abell, S. K., & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II pp. 600–620). Routledge.
List, C. J. (1985). Scientific fraud: social deviance or the failure of virtue? Science Technology & Human Values, 10(4), 27–36.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press.
Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching. Routledge.
Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago University Press.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Kluwer.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2,3), 249–263.
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Springer.
Norris, S. (1985). The philosophical basis of observation in science and science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(9), 817–833.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
Park, W. W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). Investigating the epistemic nature of STEM: analysis of science curriculum documents from the USA using the family resemblance approach”, In J. Anderson, & Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education (137–155). Springer.
Petersen, I., Herzog, S., Bath, C., & FleiBner, A. (2020). Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post-survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the nature of science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
Resnik, D. (2007). The price of truth. Oxford University Press.
Resnik, D. (2010). Financial interests and the norms of academic science. In H. Radder (Ed.), The commodification of academic research (pp. 65–89). Pittsburgh University Press.
Salmon, W. (1990). Rationality and objectivity of science: Tom Kuhn Meets Tom Bayes. In W. Savage (Ed.), Scientific Theories (14 vol., pp. 175–204). University of Minnesota Press.
Salmon, W. (2005). Rationality and objectivity in science. Reality and rationality (pp. 93–116). Oxford University Press.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-Experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shapere, D. (1982). The concept of observation in Science and Philosophy. Philosophy of Science, 49, 485–525.
Steinle, F. (2002). Experiments in history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 10(4), 408–432.
Strevens, M. (2003). The priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.
Acknowledgements
We thank Faik Kurtulmus and two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their useful comments and criticisms.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Irzik, G., Nola, R. Revisiting the Foundations of the Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science: Some New Ideas. Sci & Educ 32, 1227–1245 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00375-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00375-7