Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Epistemological Anarchism (Feyerabend) in Research Reported in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Wiley-Blackwell)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 50))

  • 385 Accesses

Abstract

The Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) is the official journal of the US-based National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), which has members in many countries around the world. JRST started publishing in 1963 and is indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (Thomson-Reuter). In October 2017, I made an online search on the website of JRST with the key words “epistemological anarchism” and “Feyerabend” (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10982736). This gave a total of 21 articles which were evaluated on the same criteria (Levels I–V) as in the previous study (see Chap. 3). Following the guidelines based on Charmaz (2005), presented in Chap. 3, and in order to facilitate credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (cf. Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) of the results, I adopted the following procedure: a) All the 21 articles from the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, were downloaded and after evaluation were classified in one of the five levels, I–V (for levels see Chap. 3); After a period of approximately three months all the articles were evaluated again and there was agreement of 93% between the first and the second evaluation. It is important to note that all the articles evaluated in this study referred to epistemological anarchism in some context, which may not have been the primary or major subject dealt with by the authors. Detailed examples from different levels are presented in the next section. A complete list of all the 21 articles from JRST that were evaluated is presented in Appendix 3. Distribution of all the articles according to author’s area of research, context of the study and level (classification) is presented in Appendix 4.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A.-P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993b). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghetto, R.A. (2007). Factors associated with middle and secondary students’ perceived science competence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 800–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjelic, D., & Lynch, M. (1992). The work of a (scientific) demonstration: Respecifying Newton’s and Goethe’s theories of prismatic color. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 52–78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Donovan, S. M. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In S. M. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 397–420). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Galison, P. L. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R.A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1963). How to be a good empiricist. In B. Baumrin (Ed.), Delaware seminar in philosophy of science (Vol. 2, pp. 3–40). New York: Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1970a). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. IV, pp. 17–130). Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1975a). Against method. Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. Londond: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1978/1982). Science in a free society. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1991a). Concluding unphilosophical conversation. In G. Munévar (Ed.), Beyond reason: Essays on the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend (pp. 487–527). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1991b). Three dialogues on knowledge. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against method. Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge (3rd Rev and enlarged edn). New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galileo, G. (1960). On motion and on mechanics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. G. (1993). Editorial: The slippery slopes of postmodernism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1980). The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. Paleobiology, 6(1), 96–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1969). Perception and discovery: An introduction to scientific inquiry. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work. Science & Education, 1(2), 115–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koertge, N. (1996). Toward an integration of content and method in the science curriculum. Science & Education, 5(4), 391–406 (First published in 1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992). Aramis ou l’amour des techniques [Aramic or the love of technology]. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loving, C. C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science models for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (20th Anniversary Rev. and Exp. ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, G. (1962). The ontological status of theoretical entities. In H. Feigel & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol III (pp. 3–27). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motterlini, M. (1999). Ed. For and against method: Including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2018). Evolving nature of objectivity in the history of science and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, D. K., & Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “little scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1963a). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K. R. (1963b). The open society and its enemies (4th ed., first published 1945). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robottom, I. (1989). Social critique or social control: Some problems for evaluation in environmental education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(5), 435–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M.K. (1998). Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lessons from science and technology studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 213–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D.J., & Nichols, S.E. (1995). Gender-inclusive science teaching: A feminist-constructivist approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 897–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., McRobbie, C.J., Lucas, K.B., & Boutonné, S. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Universidad de Oriente, Cumaná, Sucre, Venezuela

    Mansoor Niaz

Authors
  1. Mansoor Niaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Niaz, M. (2020). Understanding Epistemological Anarchism (Feyerabend) in Research Reported in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Wiley-Blackwell). In: Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36859-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36859-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36858-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36859-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation