Abstract
This response to Tom Bryce’s paper aims to supplement some of the critical points made regarding the imbalance between content, process, and context in today’s science education curriculum in higher learning institutions. Discussion and examples of how the present student-mentor relationship fosters tribe mentality are also included. However a caution is also suggested against the treatment of science as a purely subjective process, overrun by self-interested and exclusive parties.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
DuBois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. New York: Penguin Classics.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1981). Science and pseudoscience. In S. Brown, J. Fauvel, & R. H. Finnegan (Eds.), Conceptions of inquiry: A reader (pp. 114–121). London: Open University.
Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In R. Figueroa, S. Harding, & S. G. Harding (Eds.), Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology (pp. 26–48). New York: Routledge.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodriguez, B. The resistance to more humanistic forms of science education. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 5, 621–624 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9268-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9268-4