Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 795–813 | Cite as

The ontology of science teaching in the neoliberal era

  • Ajay Sharma
Original Paper


Because of ever stricter standards of accountability, science teachers are under an increasing and unrelenting pressure to demonstrate the effects of their teaching on student learning. Econometric perspectives of teacher quality have become normative in assessment of teachers’ work for accountability purposes. These perspectives seek to normalize some key ontological assumptions about teachers and teaching, and thus play an important role in shaping our understanding of the work science teachers do as teachers in their classrooms. In this conceptual paper I examine the ontology of science teaching as embedded in econometric perspectives of teacher quality. Based on Foucault’s articulation of neoliberalism as a discourse of governmentality in his ‘The Birth of Biopolitics’ lectures, I suggest that this ontology corresponds well with the strong and substantivist ontology of work under neoliberalism, and thus could potentially be seen as reflection of the influence of neoliberal ideas in education. Implications of the mainstreaming of an ontology of teaching that is compatible with neoliberalism can be seen in increasing marketization of teaching, ‘teaching evangelism’, and impoverished notions of learning and teaching. A shift of focus from teacher quality to quality of teaching and building conceptual models of teaching based on relational ontologies deserve to be explored as important steps in preserving critical and socially just conceptions of science teaching in neoliberal times.


Ontology Neoliberalism Science teaching 


  1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07308739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amable, B. (2011). Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-Economic Review, 9(1), 3–30. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwq015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2007). What makes education research “educational”? Educational Researcher, 36(9), 529–540. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07312896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beed, C. (2005). Naturalised epistemology and economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(1), 99–117. doi: 10.1093/cje/bei013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berman, M. (2004). Merleau-Ponty and Nagarjuna: Relational social ontology and the ground of ethics. Asian Philosophy, 14(2), 131–145. doi: 10.1080/0955236042000237372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanton, L. P., Sindelar, P. T., & Correa, V. I. (2006). Models and measures of beginning teacher quality. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 115–127. doi: 10.1177/00224669060400020201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, B. (2006). Towards a new earth and a new humanity: Nature, ontology, politics. In N. Castree & D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A critical reader (pp. 191–222). Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470773581.ch10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. I. K. (2010). Variegated neoliberalization: Geographies, modalities, pathways. Global Networks, 10(2), 182–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00277.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, D. J., & McEwan, P. J. (2010). Economics of education. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Bush, R. (2007). Poverty and neoliberalism: Persistence and reproduction in the global south. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2013). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Castree, N. (2003). Environmental issues: Relational ontologies and hybrid politics. Progress in Human Geography, 27(2), 203–211. doi: 10.1191/0309132503ph422pr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coates, D. (2003). Education production functions using instructional time as an input. Education Economics, 11(3), 273–292. doi: 10.1080/0964529032000148809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The unforgiving complexity of teaching: Avoiding simplicity in the age of accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 3–5. doi: 10.1177/0022487102238653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Taking stock in 2004: Teacher education in dangerous times. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 3–7. doi: 10.1177/0022487103261227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coulter, D. (2001). Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 4, pp. 90–98). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  18. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 20(3), 247. doi: 10.1080/09518390701281751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esposito, R. (2008). Bíos: Biopolitics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 901–914. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter (S. Sampson, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810503.
  22. Foucault, M. (1997). The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (pp. 281–301). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (2003). Technologies of the self. In P. Rabinow & N. Rose (Eds.), The essential Foucault (pp. 145–169). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  25. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  26. Galman, S. (2012). Wise and foolish virgins: White women at work in the feminized world of primary school teaching. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  27. Geertz, C. (1993). “From the native’s point of view”: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (pp. 55–70). London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  28. Georgia Public Service Commission. (2006). Revisions to Georgia’s plan for Title II, Part A: Reaching and maintaining the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers. Atlanta. Retrieved from
  29. Giddens, A. (1984). Hermeneutics and social theory. In G. Shapiro & A. Sica (Eds.), Hermeneutics: Questions and prospects (pp. 215–230). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gleick, J. (1997). Chaos: Making a new science. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  31. Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Greene, M. (2003). Teaching as possibility: A light in dark times. In Jossey-Bass Inc. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass reader on teaching (pp. 62–73). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher Quality. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 2, pp. 1051–1078). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.2.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hay, C. (2007). Does ontology trump epistemology? Notes on the directional dependence of ontology and epistemology in political analysis. Politics, 27(2), 115–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2007.00287.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haymes, S., De Haymes, M. V., & Miller, R. (2014). The Routledge handbook of poverty in the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2014). Teach for America: A return to the evidence. Retrieved from
  39. Hess, F. M. (Ed.). (2008). When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  40. Humes, W., & Bryce, T. (2003). Post-structuralism and policy research in education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 175. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hursh, D. W. (2008). High-stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning: The real crisis in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Husserl, E. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Jackson, C. K. (2009). Student demographics, teacher sorting, and teacher quality: Evidence from the end of school desegregation. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(2), 213–256. doi: 10.1086/599334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. James, M. (2013). Neoliberal heritage redress. In J. A. Henderson & P. Wakeham (Eds.), Reconciling Canada: Critical perspectives on the culture of redress (pp. 31–62). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  45. Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  46. Kennedy, M. M. (2004). Examining teacher quality. In F. K. Lester & J. Ferrini-Mundy (Eds.), Proceedings of the NCTM research catalyst conference. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  47. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591–598. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10390804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kiel, L. D., & Elliott, E. W. (1996). Chaos theory in the social sciences: Foundations and applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. doi: 10.3998/mpub.14623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuhlmann, M. (2013). What is real? Scientific American, 309, 40–47. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0813-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Laclau, E. (1989). Politics and the limits of modernity. Social Text, 21, 63–82. doi: 10.2307/827809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. LaFrance, D. L. (2013). Systems of accountability as a technology of governmentality: Policy, preparation, and inclusive practice. Dissertations. Retrieved from
  52. Larner, W. (2000). Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy, 63, 5–25. doi: 10.1080/19187033.2000.11675231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lawson, T. (2003). Ontology and feminist theorizing. Feminist Economics, 9(1), 119–150. doi: 10.1080/1354570022000035760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the College de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207. doi: 10.1080/03085140120042271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lemke, T. (2011). Biopolitics: An advanced introduction (E. F. Trump, Trans.). New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  57. Levitt, K. E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1002/sce.1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mohanty, J. N. (2000). Classical Indian philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  59. Mouffe, C. (2008). Critique as counter-hegemonic intervention. In Transversal.
  60. Murnane, R., & Cohen, D. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1–18. doi: 10.17763/haer.56.1.l8q2334243271116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nelson, J. A. (2004). Beyond small-is-beautiful: A Buddhist and feminist analysis of ethics and business: Working paper No. 04-01. Retrieved from
  62. Noddings, N. (2001). The caring teacher. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Vol. 4, pp. 99–105). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  63. Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161. doi: 10.1080/02680930500500138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Quiggin, J. (2012). Zombie economics: How dead ideas still walk among us. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Readfearn, G. (2013). Zombie climate sceptic theories survive only in newspapers and on TV. In The Guardian. Retrieved from
  66. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ryle, G. (1937). Categories. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 38(1937–1938), 189–206.Google Scholar
  68. Schmiechel, M., Sharma, A., & Pittard, B. (October, 2013). Neoliberalism in American educational research. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Curriculum Theory and Classroom Practice, Dayton, Ohio.Google Scholar
  69. Smyth, J., Dow, A., Hattam, R., Reid, A., & Shacklock, G. (2000). Teachers’ work in a globalizing economy. New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  70. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Van Horn, R., Mirowski, P., & Stapleford, T. A. (2011). Building Chicago economics: New perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics program. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139004077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White, S. K. (2000). Sustaining affirmation: The strengths of weak ontology in political theory: Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Widder, N. (2012). Political theory after Deleuze. London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  74. Wildman, Wesley. (2010). An introduction to relational ontology. In J. Polkinghorne & J. Zizioulas (Eds.), The Trinity and an entangled world: Relationality in physical science and theology (pp. 55–73). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Theory and PracticeUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations