Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 25–30 | Cite as

Biotechnology education as social and cultural production/reproduction of the biotechnology community

  • Maria AndréeEmail author
Forum

Abstract

This paper is a commentary to a paper by Anne Solli, Frank Bach and Björn Åkerman on how students at a technical university learn to argue as biotechnologists. Solli and her colleagues report from an ethnographic study performed during the first semester of a 5-year program in biotechnology at a technical university in Sweden. Their study demonstrates how students begin to acquire ‘the right way’ of approaching the controversial issue of producing and consuming genetically modified organisms. In my response I discuss the ethnographic account of this particular educational practice in terms of social and cultural production/reproduction of a biotechnology community and how the participants (students and teaching professors) deal with the dialectic of individual and collective transformation. In the perspective of the biotechnology community, the work done by the teaching professor becomes a way of ensuring the future of the biotechnology community in terms of what values and objectives are held highly in the community of practice.

Keywords

Argumentation Identity Community Social and cultural reproduction 

References

  1. Andrée, M. (2012). Altering conditions for student participation and motive development in school science: Learning from Helena’s mistake. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, A. (2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.Google Scholar
  8. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leontiev, A. N. (1986). Verksamhet, medvetande, personlighet. [Activity, consciousness, personality]. Moskva/Göteborg: Progress/Fram. (In original in Russian, first published 1977).Google Scholar
  10. Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roth, W.-M., Goulart, M. I. M., & Plakitsi, K. (2013). Science education during early childhood. A cultural-historical perspective. (Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Skolverket (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education. Retrieved January 2, 2013 from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2687.
  14. Solli, A., Bach, F., & Åkerman, B. (2013). Learning to argue as a biotechnologist: Dispriveliging opposition to genetically modified food. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9528-1.
  15. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2006). The role of argument during discourse about socio-scientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dortrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations