Postmodernism and Science Education: An Appraisal

  • Jim Mackenzie
  • Ron Good
  • James Robert Brown


Over the past 50 years, postmodernism has been a progressively growing and influential intellectual movement inside and outside the academy. Postmodernism is characterised by rejection of parts or the whole of the Enlightenment project that had its roots in the birth and embrace of early modern science. While Enlightenment and ‘modernist’ ideas of universalism, of intellectual and cultural progress, of the possibility of finding truths about the natural and social world and of rejection of absolutism and authoritarianism in politics, philosophy and religion were first opposed at their birth in the eighteenth century, contemporary postmodernism sometimes appeals to (and sometimes disdains) philosophy of science in support of its rejection of modernism and the enlightenment programme.


Science Education Irrational Belief Tennis Player Objective Truth National Science Education Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aronowitz, S. (1988) Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aronowitz, S. (1996) “The Politics of the Science Wars”, Social Text, 177–196.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baynes, R. & Austin, J. (2012), ‘Indigenous Knowledge in the Australian National Curriculum for Science: From Conjecture to Classroom Practice’. In K. Bauer (ed.) International Indigenous Development Research Conference 2012, Auckland, pp. 60–66.Google Scholar
  5. Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. & Raven, P. H. (1974) Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An introduction to the botanical ethnography of a Mayan speaking people of highland Chiapas (New York; Academic Press).Google Scholar
  6. BjörnsenGurung, A. 2003: “Insects – a mistake in God’s creation? Tharu farmers’ perception and knowledge of insects: A case study of Gobardiha Village Development Committee, Dang-Deukhuri, Nepal.” Agriculture and Human Values, 20 (4), pp. 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloor, D. (1976/91) Knowledge and Social Imagery, (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boster, J., & D’Andrade, R. (1989) “Natural and Human Sources of Cross-Cultural Agreement in Ornithological Classification.” American Anthropologist, 91 (1), pp. 132–142.Google Scholar
  9. Brandom, R. B. (1994) Making It Explicit: Reasoning. representing, and discursive commitment (Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J. R. (2001) Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992) “Epistemological chicken.” in Science as Practice and Culture, ed. A. Pickering (Chicago; University of Chicago Press) pp. 301–326.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. (1984) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (New York; Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, J. (1966) “Zoological classification system of a primitive people.” Science 151, pp 1102–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Flynn, J. J., Finarelli, J. A., Zehr, S., Hsu, J., Nedbal, M. A. (2005). “Molecular phylogeny of the carnivora (mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships”. Systematic Biology 54 (2): 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forman, P. (1971) “Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, vol. 3.Google Scholar
  17. Gould, S. J. (1980) The Panda’s thumb (Repr. Harmondsworth, Middlesex; Penguin, Pelican, 1983).Google Scholar
  18. Haack, S.: 2003, ‘Knowledge and Propaganda: Reflections of an Old Feminist’. In C. L. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R.F. Almeder (eds.) Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 7–19.Google Scholar
  19. Harré, R. 1989, ‘Idealization in Scientific Practice’, Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 16, 183–191.Google Scholar
  20. Holton, G. (1993). Science and anti-science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hunn, E. (1976) “Toward a perceptual model of folk biological classification.”American Ethnologist, 3 (3), pp. 508–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huxley, A.: 1947, Science, Liberty and Peace, Chatto & Windus, London.Google Scholar
  23. Koertge, N.: 1969, ‘Towards an Integration of Content and Method in the Science Curriculum’, Curriculum Theory Network 4, 26–43. Reprinted in Science & Education 5(4), 391–402, (1996).Google Scholar
  24. Koertge, N.: 1981, ‘Methodology, Ideology and Feminist Critiques of Science’. In P. D. Asquith & R. N. Giere (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980, Edwards Bros, Ann Arbor, pp. 346–359.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, T. S. (1962/70) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T. S.: 1991/2000, ‘The Trouble with Historical Philosophy of Science’, The Robert and Maurine Rothschild Lecture, Department of History of Science, Harvard University. In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (eds.) The Road Since Structure: Thomas S. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 105–120.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T. S.: 1993, ‘Afterwords’. In P. Horwich (ed.) World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 311−341.Google Scholar
  28. Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and Its Problems, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979) La Condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir (Paris; Éditions de Minuit, 1979). Tr. by G. Bennington and B. Massumias as The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  30. Lyotard, J.-F. (1983) “Answering the Question: What Is Postmodernism?” Repr. in Postmodernism: A reader ed. T. Docherty (London; Harvester Wheatsheaf), pp. 38–46.Google Scholar
  31. Majnep, I. S. & Bulmer, R. (1977) Birds of My Kalam Country: Månmonyad Kalamyakt (London; Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  32. Marx, K. (1859) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, (trans. from the German original, 1970), New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Masterman, M. (1970). “The nature of a paradigm.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press), pp. 59–89.Google Scholar
  34. Matthews, M. R. (2004), ‘Thomas Kuhn and Science Education: What Lessons can be Learnt?’Science Education 88(1), 90–118.Google Scholar
  35. Mayr, E. (1963) Animal species and evolution (Cambridge, Mass.; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  36. McMullin, E.: 1985, ‘Galilean Idealization’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16, 347–373.Google Scholar
  37. Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Merton, R. K. (1970) Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England, New York: Harper & Row (Originally published in 1938).Google Scholar
  39. Needham, J. et al. (1954–2004) Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  40. Nowak, L.: 1980, The Structure of Idealization, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Brien, S. J. (1987) “The ancestry of the giant panda.” Scientific American 257(5), pp. 102–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Brien, S. J., Nash, W. G., Wildt, D. E., Bush, M. E. & Benveniste, R. E. (1985) “Molecular solution to the riddle of the giant panda’s phylogeny.” Nature 317 (6033) (12 September 1985), pp. 140–144.Google Scholar
  43. Okruhlik, K. (1994) “Gender and the Biological Sciences”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supp. Vol. 20, 21–42 (Reprinted in Curd and Cover 1998).Google Scholar
  44. Orwell, G. (1945), ‘Politics and the English Language’. In his Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Pettigrew, J. D. (1986) “Flying primates? Megabats have the advanced pathway from eye to midbrain.” Science: 231 (4743) (14 March 1986), pp. 1304–1306.Google Scholar
  46. Pinnick, C. L.: 2003, ‘Feminist Epistemology: Implications for the Philosophy of Science’. In C. L. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R. F. Almeder (eds.), Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science, Rutgers University Press, pp. 20–30.Google Scholar
  47. Pinnick, C. L.: 2005, ‘The Failed Feminist Challenge to “Fundamental Epistemology”’, Science & Education 14(2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinnick, C. L.: 2008, ‘Science Education for Women: Situated Cognition, Feminist Standpoint Theory, and the Status of Women in Science’, Science & Education 17(10), 1055–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Planck, M. (1950) Scientific Autobiography, and other papers (London; Williams & Norgate).Google Scholar
  50. Popper, K. R. (1945) The Open Society and its Enemies (London; Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  51. Popper, K. R. (1957) The Poverty of Historicism (London; Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  52. Popper, K. R. (1959 [1934]) The Logic of Scientific Revolutions (London; Hutchinson).Google Scholar
  53. Reis, G. (2010) “Making science relevant: Conceptual change and the politics of science education.” in Re/Structuring Science Education: ReUniting sociological and psychological perspectives, ed. W.-M. Roth (Dordrecht; Springer, 2010), pp. 233–241.Google Scholar
  54. Roth, W.-M. & Tobin, K.: 2007, ‘Introduction: Gendered Identities’. In W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (eds) Science, Learning, Identity. Sociocultural and Cultural-Historical Perspectives, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 99–102.Google Scholar
  55. Roth, W.-M., Eijck, M. van, Reis, G. & Hsu, P.-L.: 2008, Authentic Science Revisited: In Praise of Diversity, Heterogeneity, Hybridity, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  56. SextusEmpiricus. (tr. 1935) Against the Logicians, tr. R.G. Bury (London; William Heinemann, Loeb Classical Library, 1935, repr. 1967).Google Scholar
  57. Sokal, A. (1996) “Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.” Social Text 46–7, pp. 217–252; repr. in Sokal & Bricmont, 1998, pp. 199–240.Google Scholar
  58. Stove, D. (1991). The Plato cult and other philosophical follies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Tobin, K. & Roth, W.-M. 2006, ‘Editorial’, Cultural Studies of Science Education vol. 1 no. 1, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tobin, K. (2010) “Tuning in to others’ voices: Beyond the hegemony of mono-logical narratives.” in Re/Structuring Science Education: ReUniting sociological and psychological perspectives, ed. W.-M.l Roth (Dordrecht; Springer, 2010), pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
  61. Van Eijck, M. & Roth, W-M. (2007). Keeping the local local: Recalibrating the status of Science and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in education. Science Education 91: 926–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Eijck, M. & Roth, W-M. (2011). Cultural diversity in science education through “novelization”: Against the epicization of science and cultural centralization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (7), pp. 824–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.College of EducationLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations