Advertisement

Communicating Through Silence: Examining the Unspoken, the Unsaid, and the “Not Done” in Science Education

  • Kathryn ScantleburyEmail author
  • Anna T. Danielsson
  • Anita Hussénius
  • Annica Gullberg
  • Kristina Andersson
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 18)

Abstract

The unspoken, the unsaid, the silent. In this chapter, we evoke Baradian theory to examine different aspects of silence in science education. We will first discuss how silence is defined, studied, and examined in feminist research. Then using Karen Barad’s concepts of diffraction and agential realism, we will explore silence from a feminist perspective focusing on silence’s contribution to, or absence from, the production of knowledge in science education research. This discussion will include participants’ silence, researchers’ silence, and how the silence in science education related to matter and materiality is ignoring the possibility of producing new knowledge and understandings. The chapter concludes with a discussion of implications for how science education researchers could take a diffractive view of their practices and use agential cuts to produce phenomena that incorporate silence.

References

  1. Ahmed, B. (2010). Not telling it how it is: Secrets and silences of a critical feminist researcher. In R. Ryan-Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 96–104). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168–187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In D. Haraway (Ed.), Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–201). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  7. Nordstrom, S. (2015). Not so innocent anymore. Qualitative Inquiry 21(4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Roth, W. M. (Ed.). (2010). Re/structuring science education: Reuniting sociological and psychological perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Scantlebury, K. (2014). Gender matters: Building on the past, recognizing the present, and looking towards the future. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 187–203). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Scantlebury, K., & Martin, S. (2010). How does she know? Re-visioning conceptual change from feminist perspectives). In W. M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education: Reuniting sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 173–186). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scharff, C. (2010). Silencing differences: The ‘unspoken’ dimensions of ‘speaking for others. In R. Ryan-Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 83–95). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Taylor, C., & Hughes, C. (2016). Posthuman research practices in education. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tobin, K. (2010). Tuning into others’ voices: Beyond the hegemony of mono-logical narratives. In W. M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education: Reuniting sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 13–29). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Scantlebury
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna T. Danielsson
    • 2
  • Anita Hussénius
    • 2
  • Annica Gullberg
    • 3
  • Kristina Andersson
    • 2
  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Örebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations