On the Possibility of Authorship in Science Education

  • Juliano CamilloEmail author
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 17)


The four sections of this chapter are named with sentences I have heard in discussions that followed presentations of my work. They are related to four moves made by others: (1) ignoring any discussion, since I am not an authority; (2) reframing the discussion exclusively within what has been done; (3) affirming that my discussion is (too) specific and only makes sense within my own framework; (4) evaluating my research through the lens of its immediate applicability. I will engage here in a sort of dialogue with these moves, to elucidate the way I navigate through different settings in the science education field. I assume the risk of being monologic, and presenting other voices through my own. I do not aim to produce a very precise narrative. Instead, I use poems, remembrances, fiction, metaphors, and less argumentative language to express the inexactitude of my journey. Moreover, I assume the risk of making my own limitations open to others, but to me this is not essentially problematic. Rather it is an invitation to build alternative spaces for dialogue and to strengthen my/our criticism within a conservative field, wherein there is little space to experience a deeper sense of authorship.


Activity theory Critical pedagogy Human development 


  1. Andrade, O. (1954). The mistake of Portuguese. In L. S. Downes (Ed.), An introduction to modern Brazilian poetry (p. 23). São Paulo: Clube da Poesia do Brasil.Google Scholar
  2. Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apple, M. W., Au, W., & Gaudin, L. A. (2009). Mapping critical education. In M. W. Apple, W. Au, & L. A. Gaudin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 3–19). New York: Routledge, T&F Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11(4), 361–375. Scholar
  5. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist: Trans.; M. Holquist, ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brecht, B. (1992). The Jewish wife and other short plays. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, L. E. C.-A., & Bazzul, J. (2016). Locating a space of criticality as new scholars in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–15. doi: Scholar
  8. Camillo, J. (2015). Contribuições iniciais para uma filosofia da educação em ciências. Doctoral thesis, Ensino de Ciências (Física, Química e Biologia), University of São Paulo, São Paulo. doi:
  9. Camillo, J., & Mattos, C. (2014). Making explicit some tensions in educational practice: Science education in focus. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 10(2), 110–115.Google Scholar
  10. Cortázar, J. (1984). A certain Lucas. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  12. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  14. Goldemberg, S. (2005). Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  15. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ilyenkov, E. V. (2009). The ideal in human activity. Marxists Internet Archive. Pacifica.Google Scholar
  17. Kincheloe, J. L., & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of positivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 513–528. Scholar
  18. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1992). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lemke, J. (2011). The secret identity of science education: Masculine and politically conservative? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 287–292. Scholar
  20. Leontyev, A. N. (2009). The development of mind. Pacifijica: Marxists Internet Archive Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Marx, K. (2009). Introduction to a contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. Marxists Internet Archive.
  22. McLaren, P. (2009). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. Torres (Eds.), Critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 61–83). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Neruda, P. (1991). The book of questions. Port Townsend: Copper Canyon Press.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  25. Rodrigues, A., Camillo, J., & Mattos, C. (2014). Quasi-appropriation of dialectical materialism: A critical reading of Marxism in Vygotskian approaches to cultural studies in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 583–589. Scholar
  26. Rosa, J. G. (1963). The devil to pay in the backlands. New York: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education: Part I. The search for a philosophy of science education. Science Education, 18, 225–249. Scholar
  28. Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) project. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 32, 471–491. Scholar
  29. Voloshinov, V. N. (2000). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations