Showing papers on "Science studies published in 2006"

Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique

Abstract: Starting from the debates over the ‘reality’ of global warming and the politics of science studies, I seek to clarify what is at stake politically in constructivist understandings of science and nature. These two separate but related debates point to the centrality of modern science in political discussions of the environment and to the difficulties, simultaneously technical and political, in warranting political action in the face of inevitably partial and uncertain scientific knowledge. The case of climate change then provides an experimental test case with which to explore the various responses to these challenges offered by Ulrich Beck’s reflexive modernization, the normative theory of expertise advanced by Harry Collins and Robert Evans, and Bruno Latour’s utopian vision for decision-making by the ‘collective’ in which traditional epistemic and institutional distinctions between science and politics are entirely superseded.

The philosophy of expertise

Abstract: Introduction, by Evan Selinger and Robert P. CreasePart I: Trusting Experts Introduction1. Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?, by Alvin I. Goldman2. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, by H. M. Collins and Robert Evans3. Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process, by Scott Brewer4. What Is the Problem with Experts?, by Steven Turner5. Moral Experts, by Peter SingerPart 2: Expertise and Practical Knowledge Introduction6. How Far Is Distance Learning from Education?, by Hubert Dreyfus7. Dreyfus on Expertise: The Limits of Phenomenological Analysis, by Evan Selinger and Robert P. Crease8. Do Angels Have Bodies? Two Stories About Subjectivity in Science: The Cases of William X and Mr. H, by H l ne Mialet9. Moral Knowledge as Practical Knowledge, by Julia Annas10. On Interactional Expertise: Pragmatic and Ontological Considerations, by Evan Selinger and John MixPart 3: Contesting Expertise Introduction11. Epistemic Dependence, by John Hardwig12. The Constitutively Social Character of Expertise, by Steve Fuller13. How to Defend Society Against Science, by Paul Feyerabend14. Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and Community, by Edward Said15. Why Not Science Critics?, by Don IhdeList of ContributorsAcknowledgmentsIndex

The Cognitive-Cultural Systems of the Research Laboratory

Abstract: A central challenge for science studies researchers in developing accounts of knowledge construction in science and engineering is to integrate the cognitive, social, cultural, and material dimensions of practice. Within science studies there is a perceived divide between cognitive practices, on the one hand, and cultural practices, on the other. Any such divide, though at times analytically useful, is artificial. Producing scientific knowledge requires the kind of sophisticated cognition that only rich social, cultural, and material environments can enable. This paper aims to move in the direction of an integrative account of these dimensions of practice. It discusses model-based reasoning practices in biomedical engineering research laboratories construed as ‘evolving cognitive-cultural systems’.

Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies

Abstract: "Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies" firmly establishes the rhetorical analysis of science as a respected field of study Alan G Gross, one of rhetoric's foremost authorities, summarizes the state of the field and demonstrates the role of rhetorical analysis in the sciences He documents the limits of such analyses with examples from biology and physics, explores their range of application, and sheds light on the tangled relationships between science and society In this deep revision of his important Rhetoric of Science, Gross examines how rhetorical analyses have a wide range of application, effectively exploring the generation, spread, certification, and closure that characterize scientific knowledge Gross anchors his position in philosophical rather than in rhetorical arguments and maintains there is rhetorical criticism from which the sciences cannot be excluded Gross employs a variety of case studies and examples to assess the limits of the rhetorical analysis of science For example, in examining avian taxonomy, he demonstrates that both taxonomical and evolutionary species are the product of rhetorical interactions A review of Newton's two formulations of optical research illustrates that their only significant difference is rhetorical, a difference in patterns of style, arrangement, and argument Gross also explores the range of rhetorical analysis in his consideration of the "evolution of evolution" of Darwin's notebooks In his analysis of science and society, he explains the limits of citizen action in executive, judicial, and legislative democratic realms in the struggle to prevent, ameliorate, and provide adequate compensation for occupational disease By using philosophical, historical, and psychological perspectives, Gross concludes, rhetorical analysis can also supplement other viewpoints in resolving intellectual problems "Starring the Text", which includes fourteen illustrations, is an up-to-date, readable study geared to rhetoricians, historians, philosophers, and sociologists interested in science The volume effectively demonstrates that the rhetoric of science is a natural extension of rhetorical theory and criticism

Introduction to a special issue on the assessment of interdisciplinary research

Abstract: HILE BOTH interdisciplinary research and evaluations grow throughout the science system, the two meet each other with increasing frequency. More and more assessments — of manuscripts, project proposals, funding programmes, and research organisations — are confronted by interdisciplinarity, that is, by research that combines knowledge from different fields. The problem of how to assess interdisciplinary research is thus becoming more and more pressing. The common response to this problem by evaluators is to ‘muddle through’ by slightly adapting evaluation procedures for disciplinary research. British funding agencies adapted the weight of assessment criteria for some small grant schemes aimed at encouraging interdisciplinary research by putting emphasis on the applicant’s track record and the potential impact of the interdisciplinary collaboration rather than experimental details (O’Toole, 2001). Members of the Canadian Research Council proposed the opposite, namely to put less emphasis on the track record when applicants start to work in a field that is new to them (NSERC, 2004). US funding agencies introduced a procedural solution by giving their managers leeway to put a higher priority on interdisciplinary proposals that peer reviewers seem to have unjustly overlooked (Brainard, 2002). British and Canadian funding agencies introduced additional interdisciplinary committees (POST, 2002: 4; INST, 2002: chap. 3). This strategy not only brings competent reviewers together but also avoids direct competition between interdisciplinary and disciplinary grant proposals, because the latter are ranked separately (Brainard, 2002). These experiments confirm that there is no consensus about the best way of assessing interdisciplinary research. What assistance can be offered by science studies? Not much. While studies on both interdisciplinary research and research evaluation (in particular of the peer-review mechanism) have a long tradition, there is hardly any study which deals with the intersection of both. Studies on interdisciplinarity concentrated on the actual research process, often with the aim of finding conditions that promote or hinder (see for example the contributions in Weingart and Stehr, 2000), without taking the assessment of such processes into account (an exception is Hackett’s chapter in that volume). The problem of interdisciplinarity has surfaced in studies of peer-review processes with reviewers from different fields. These studies revealed that it can be difficult to integrate different scientific perspectives of reviewers in grant review processes (eg Porter and Rossini, 1985; Travis and Collins, 1991) or in the review of journal articles (e.g. Fiske and Fogg, 1990; Mahoney, 1977). Specific precautions are necessary to make sure that interdisciplinary research is not the looser in the assessment process. Procedure matters, as it is clearly stated in the recommendations of a recent workshop on “Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education” of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ‘Getting the process right’ is one of the central challenges of the evaluation of W

Understanding Popular Science

Abstract: Science is a defining feature of the modern world, and popular science is where most of us make sense of that fact. "Understanding Popular Science" provides a framework to help understand the development of popular science and current debates about it. In a lively and accessible style, Peter Broks shows how popular science has been invented, redefined and fought over. From early-nineteenth century radical science to twenty-first century government initiatives, he examines popular science as an arena where the authority of science and the authority of the state are legitimized and challenged. The book includes clear accounts of the public perception of scientists, visions of the future, fears of an "anti-science" movement and concerns about scientific literacy. The final chapter proposes a new model for understanding the interaction between lay and expert knowledge. This book is essential reading in cultural studies, science studies, history of science and science communication.

Tales of an island‐laboratory: defining the field in geography and science studies

Abstract: This paper investigates the ways in which field sites are defined in both science and science studies. Drawing on the example of how Iceland became a laboratory for both genetic science and science studies, it suggested that the spaces of science social scientists critique are also, to some extent, endorsed and reproduced through their own critical representations and practices. It is argued that this complicity between science studies and science both poses challenges and offers opportunities for geographers studying the relationship between life sciences, science studies and space.

From text to self : the interplay of criticism and response in the history of parapsychology

Abstract: The thesis examines the history of criticism and response in scientific parapsychology by bringing together the tools of history, rhetoric of science, and discursive psychology to examine texts generated in the heat of controversy. Previous analyses of the controversy at hand have been conducted by historians and sociologists of science, focusing on the professionalisation of the discipline, its philosophical and religious underpinnings, efforts of individual actors in the history of the community, and on the social forces which constrict and restrict both the internal substantive progress of the field and its external relations with the wider scientific community. The present study narrows the problem domain from the English-language literature ---an extensive database of over 1500 books and articles ---to the following: (1) a brief history of the development of the field in the U. K. and the U. S. that includes a survey of previous reviews of the controversy; (2) a specific controversy that extended over a 10-year period in the mid-twentieth century; and (3) a solicited debate on parapsychology with two target articles, 48 commentaries, and 3 responses published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. The thesis is comprised of eight chapters. In Chapter 1, the goals and methods of the thesis are described, previous considerations of controversy and closure in science studies are reviewed, the notion of closure is discussed, and the thesis content is described. In Chapter 2, a brief history of the field is provided which emphasises the broad structure and content of the field rather than specific methodology, results, or theory. In Chapter 3, previous reviews of the controversy are examined to provide a sense of the controversy terrain and to examine the extent to which what Gilbert and Mulkay (1984) have called ‘‘contingent’’ and ‘‘empiricist’’ repertoires have been used in criticisms and response. In Chapter 4, case studies on parapsychology that appeared in the science studies literature are reviewed. Rhetoric of science is introduced as a domain from which analytic tools for the present research are drawn. In Chapter 5, a case study tests the hypothesis that differences in style and structure in the two volumes that bracket the most important controversy in the history of American experimental parapsychology may have contributed to the scope and persistence of the controversy. The controversy extended from 1934 to 1944, beginning with the publication of the monograph Extra-sensory Perception (Rhine, 1934) and ending with the publication of Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years (Pratt, Rhine, Smith, Stuart & Greenwood, 1940). In Chapter 6, I justify a turn towards the methodology of discourse analysis by reviewing both the antecedents of modern discursive psychology, and methods that are currently in use. I also review Mulkay’s (1985) The Word and The World as a prelude to the case study in the next chapter. In Chapter 7, a subset of the methods available in discourse analysis, particularly the concepts of formulation, category entitlement and footing are used to analyse a target article, 48 commentaries and two responses to the commentaries that center on James Alcock’s contentions that parapsychology is the search for the soul and that dualism as a philosophical position is incommensurate with science. I show how Alcock’s use of the contingent repertoire in characterising science

Conservation as Virtue: a Scientific and Social Process for Conservation Ethics

Abstract: Most scientists take ethical arguments for conservation as given and focus on scientific or economic questions Although nature conservation is often considered a just cause, it is given little further consideration A lack of attention to ethical theory raises serious concerns for how conservation scientists conceive and practice ethics I contrast two common ways scientists approach ethics, as demonstrated in the writings of Stephen Jay Gould and E O Wilson Gould casts severe doubt as to whether any ethics are possible from science, whereas Wilson proposes science as the only path to ethics I argue these two methods ultimately limit popular support for conservation and offer Alasdair MacIntyre's "virtue ethics" as an alternative Unlike Gould and Wilson, MacIntyre provides an ethical theory that reconciles scientific inquiry and social traditions Recent studies of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States affirm MacIntyre's claims and provide important insights for conservation today These accounts argue that social solidarity and political success against segregation were possible only as rooted in the particular language, logic, and practices of a robust cultural tradition If correct, conservation science should attend to several questions On what basis can conservation achieve widespread cultural legitimacy? What are the particular social currencies for a conservation ethic? What role does science play in such a scheme? MacIntyre's careful positioning of scientific and social traditions provides a hopeful ethical direction for conservation

The Situated Materiality of Scientific Practices: Postconstructivism – a New Theoretical Perspective in Science Studies?

Abstract: For about 20 years, a rather wide range of conceptual approaches to the social study of science and technology have emerged which have occasionally been labelled “postconstructivist”. Although these conceptions differ in various respects, they have in common a twofold opposition: against traditional representationalist realism as well as “classical” social constructivism established by the “sociology of scientific knowledge” (SSK). In order to escape the pitfalls of both these views (and to overcome the familiar, yet unfruitful opposition between them), postconstructivist perspectives understand and study the sciences primarily in term of their situated material and discursive practices. The present article starts with a brief retrospect on why and how since the mid-1980s postconstructivist trends have questioned not only rationalist and realist accounts but also the conceptual foundations and background assumptions of SSK’s claim to explain sociologically the content of science. Subsequently, the central features of a postconstructivist perspective in science studies are outlined, referring to the key concepts of “knowledge”, “practice”, and “performativity”. The fruitfulness of a theoretical approach focusing on scientific practices is illustrated using the example of the increasingly important issue of scientific non-knowledge: In the same way that knowledge is not to be comprehended as simply the mental “possession” of a knower, non-knowledge is not merely the lack thereof but an (unrecognised) implication of materially and socially situated research practices. Finally, it is emphasised that postconstructivist science studies should not be misunderstood as claiming (as do realism and constructivism) to provide a meta-theoretical explanation or legitimation of science. Instead, postconstructivism should be conceived as a situated critical effort to challenge one-sided accounts of scientific knowledge and foster more self-reflective research practices.

Economic and Social Studies of Scientific Research Nature and Origins

Abstract: Interest in the role that science and scientific research play in economics and the other social sciences has exploded in the last fifty years. This attention undoubtedly reflects the increased importance that scientific research is contributing more and more to employment and economic growth, as well as the comparative advantage of countries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature and origins of the studies which focus scientific research and organization (such as economics of science, sociology of science, managerial economics of research organizations, political economy of science, etc.). The paper shows as the foundations of this discipline are the works of Huxley, Bernal, Bush, Peirce, Polanyi, and Freedman and the success of the Manhattan and Rand projects (1930s-1950s) that symbolised the power of big science projects involving governments, scientists, industrialists and universities.

No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in Law

Abstract: Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 1. What's the Problem? Chapter 3 2. On Judges Who Are Too Strict Chapter 4 3. On Judges Who Are Too Gullible Chapter 5 4. The Idealizations of Legal Scholars Chapter 6 5. Science is a Pragmatic Activity Chapter 7 6. Science Studies for Law

The ethics of reality and virtual reality: Latour, facts and values

Abstract: In the context of the question of the extent to which science studies is able to mount an adequate critique of contemporary developments in science and technology, and in view of the proliferating interest in ethics across the social sciences, this article has two aims. Firstly to address some of the implications for ethics of Bruno Latour's, and to a lesser extent Alfred North Whitehead’s, conceptions of reality, both of which have a bearing on the long-standing dichotomy between facts and values. Drawing on Whitehead's work, it also, secondly, seeks to make a positive argument for ethics and to ask again, in the light of this discussion, where the ethical dimensions of Latour's work might be located. Towards the end of the article, I suggest that Latour's concept of exteriority obliges him to pursue a politics of reality which is the special providence of ‘moralists’, rather than a politics of virtual reality in which all entities, human and non-human, are engaged.

Science Studies and the Theory of Games

Abstract: Being scientific research a process of social interaction, this process can be studied from a game-theoretic perspective. Some conceptual and formal instruments that can help to understand scientific research as a game are introduced, and it is argued that game theoretic epistemology provides a middle ground for ‘rationalist’ and ‘constructivist’ theories of scientific knowledge. In the first part (‘The game theoretic logic of scientific discovery’), a description of the essential elements of game of science is made, using an inferentialist conception of rationality. In the second part (‘Sociology of science and its rational reconstructions’), some ideas for the reconstruction of case studies are introduced, and applied to one example: Latour's analysis of Joliot's attempt to build an atomic bomb. Lastly, in the third part (‘Fact making games’), a formal analysis of the constitution of scientific consensus is offered.

A Step Toward the Legalization of Science Studies

Abstract: In February 2005, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, sought my help as a 'rebuttal witness' for the defence in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a trial scheduled to begin early in the autumn of that year, which would be the first case to test the eligibility of 'intelligent design theory' (IDT) for inclusion alongside the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution in high school biology classes. As a rebuttal witness, my charge was to contradict the claims made by the plaintiffs' witnesses, all of whom were seasoned veterans of related trials involving creationism. However, I learned of their prior experience only once I started preparing for the trial.1 I decided to participate simply after having read the expert witness reports as filed by the plaintiffs' lawyers. These struck me as based on tendentious understandings of the nature of science that would not have survived scrutiny on an informed listserv such as HOPOS-L, let alone the peer review process of a relevant journal. My critical eye was clearly informed by knowledge gained from the science studies disciplines, since I am not a known advocate of or expert in either IDT or Neo Darwinism.2 I may be the first person to declare under oath that knowledge of the history, philosophy and sociology of science provides a better basis for evaluating the scientific standing of a field of inquiry than someone formally trained in science. However, I am not the first whose expertise conformed to this declaration. The testimony of Michael Ruse, a scientific amateur, was the intellectual centerpiece in the verdict delivered in McLean v. Arkansas (1982).3 It was based on a Popper-inspired criterion, according to which the proposed version of creation science failed to be a science by virtue of its reliance on unfalsifiable indeed, infallible Biblical pronouncements about nature. At the time, Ruse was criticized by fellow philosophers for having advanced a largely discredited conception of

The social and intellectual development of library and information science

Abstract: The background of the project is partly found in a long tradition within library and information science (LIS) of meta-analyses on the field, partly in a science studies discussion on research fiel ...

Science Teaching: What Does It Mean?

Abstract: This study considers the relationship between science, science teaching and the philosophy of science perceiving these three cultural phenomena as a semantic triad. This approach presents science teaching as being a form of a scientific reflection. The relationship of science teaching to the philosophy of science is advocated to be essential, revealing the conceptual meaning of science in the science curriculum and thus removing the semantic degeneracy taking place when the philosophy of science is ignored in science education. The study points at the bricolage as well as magic nature of the science curriculum preserving as long as science teaching preserves semantic degeneracy. Different types of meaning of Schwab’s commonplaces were recognized. The study challenges the common view of the relationship between science, science teaching and pedagogy and suggests effective representation of individual knowledge of science educators.

Mapping of science studies: the trend of research fronts

Abstract: Using mapping of science and information visualization to analyze 126244 citations of 4800 papers published in the six international journals of science studies during 1995-2004,we got the document co-citation map to identify the trend of research fronts of science studies.And by mapping of science studies we analyzed the potential intellectual structure and dynamics of science studies on the international academic arena during the last decades.

Intellectual property and the nature of science

Abstract: The debate about the patenting of research is perhaps the most passionate now taking place about science and scientific culture. It is widely maintained that the expansion of patenting since about 1980 betrays a scientific tradition to which norms of universalism and common ownership of knowledge were central. This paper goes back to mid-twentieth century debates about science and intellectual property (IP) to argue that many of the norms we take as so central to science were themselves first articulated to critique patenting practices. In particular, it looks at how an economist (Arnold Plant), a scientist/philosopher (Michael Polanyi), and an information theorist (Norbert Wiener) responded to such practices. It especially focuses on the role of intellectual-property concerns in the making of Polanyi's philosophy of science, which it excavates through a reading of his unpublished papers. This reveals that the modern field of ‘science studies’ is indebted for some of its key concepts to an earlier generat...

The Situated Materiality of Scientific Practices: Postconstructivism - a New Theoretical Perspective in Sci-

Abstract: For about 20 years, a rather wide range of conceptual approaches to the social study of science and technology have emerged which have occasionally been labelled “postconstructivist”. Although these conceptions differ in various respects, they have in common a twofold opposition: against traditional representationalist realism as well as “classical” social constructivism established by the “sociology of scientific knowledge” (SSK). In order to escape the pitfalls of both these views (and to overcome the familiar, yet unfruitful opposition between them), postconstructivist perspectives understand and study the sciences primarily in term of their situated material and discursive practices . The present article starts with a brief retrospect on why and how since the mid-1980s postconstructivist trends have questioned not only rationalist and realist accounts but also the conceptual foundations and background assumptions of SSK’s claim to explain sociologically the content of science. Subsequently, the central features of a postconstructivist perspective in science studies are outlined, referring to the key concepts of “knowledge”, “practice”, and “performativity”. The fruitfulness of a theoretical approach focusing on scientific practices is illustrated using the example of the increasingly important issue of scientific non-knowledge: In the same way that knowledge is not to be comprehended as simply the mental “possession” of a knower, non-knowledge is not merely the lack thereof but an (unrecognised) implication of materially and socially situated research practices. Finally, it is emphasised that postconstructivist science studies should not be misunderstood as claiming (as do realism and constructivism) to provide a meta-theoretical explanation or legitimation of science. Instead, postconstructivism should be conceived as a situated critical effort to challenge one-sided accounts of scientific knowledge and foster more self-reflective research practices.

The effect of ICT teaching activities in science lessons on students’ understanding of science ideas

Abstract: s and titles screened N=557 Systematic map Studies included N=43 papers containing 37 studies In-depth review Studies included N=9 Duplicate references excluded N=71 Papers excluded N=410 Potential includes N=147 Papers not obtained N=4 Full document screened N=143 Criteria 1 N = 5 2 N = 32 3 N = 17 4 N = 19 5 N = 24 6 N = 2 7 N = 1 Papers excluded N=100 In-depth criteria 1 N = 18 2 N = 6 3 N = 3 4 N = 1 In map but excluded from in-depth review N=28 Chapter 3 Identifying and describing studies: results 13 ICT in science teaching 14 3.2 Characteristics of the included studies (systematic map) As can be seen in Table 3.1, studies included in the map were carried out in ten countries. While the review focused on studies published in English, nearly half (46%) of them were carried out in countries where English is not the national/first/ mother language. The remaining 20 studies (54%) were from the USA, the UK and Australia. As was found in previous Science reviews, the highest proportion of studies was from the USA: 32% in Bennett et al. (2003) and 39% in Bennett et al. (2004). The relatively high proportion of studies from Taiwan is in part due to the continuing work of one researcher who has published four studies (seven papers) on various pedagogical aspects of the ICT he has been developing (Chang, 2000, 2001a, 2003, 2004 as the main papers in this review). One of the inclusion/exclusion criteria at the screening stage was that the studies should be evaluations; 27 (73%) in this review were found to be researcher-manipulated and ten (27%) naturally occurring evaluations. Within the researchermanipulated group, eight (30%) were randomised controlled trials and 19 (70%) controlled trials. This balance reflects the limited opportunities within the educational setting for researcher(s) to have full control and to randomise which students or classes can be allocated to which treatments. In some cases, randomisation was limited to allocation of classes. However, where this occurred with less than four classes for each treatment the study was not classified as randomised for this review. This follows the recommendation of Ukoumunne et al. (1999) as to what constitutes a randomised trial or study when allocation is by class. Table 3.2 shows that the biggest proportion of studies was Biology-based, with nearly as many in Physics. ICT seems to be little used, or little reported, in Chemistry teaching. This imbalance is consistent with an earlier EPPI-Centre systematic science review (Bennett et al., 2004) into the use of small-group discussions where only 4% of the studies involved Chemistry teaching and learning. On the other hand, in a systematic review focused on context-based and Science-Technology-Society approaches to teaching science, chemistry-based studies formed 23% of the sample (Bennett et al., 2003). The close link between ICT and physics for the physics researchers, teachers and students can easily be appreciated. There are a number of reasons for the interest in ICT for biologists: the facility that it provides to avoid using animals for dissection (Akpan and Andre, 2000; Kariuki and Paulson, 2001); the manner in which it can speed up generation time when teaching evolution (Miglino et al., 2004); and the opportunity it gives to teach genetics in a more interactive way (Tsui and Treagust, 2003a). As described above in relation to country, four of the seven earth science studies are those carried out by Chang (2000, 2001a, 2003, 2004) as his series of investigations into different aspects of the use of ICT in teaching students about the effects of typhoons and debris flow. The most striking aspect of the data in Table 3.3 is that few authors give any details of the ability or motivational level of the learners taking part in their studies. As many educational systems are mixed ability, it is likely, unless specified otherwise, that the students would be of mixed ability for their age group or grade class. If this were the case, 87% of the studies reported on would be in this category. Table 3.4 shows that 22 (60%) of the studies gave information on the ways in which students work with ICT, ranging from singly to whole classes. Within the sub-sample of 22 studies the most common practice (64%), was for single working followed by working in pairs (36%). It was unusual for students to work in larger groups. A very high proportion of the studies was focused on measuring students’ gains in scientific knowledge/explanations. Table 3.5 also demonstrates that nearly half of the investigations measured some aspect of students’ learning about scientific approach / method. Twelve studies considered both scientific knowledge / explanations and scientific approach. The cross-tabulations in Table 3.6 show that researchers in all five science subject areas were principally interested in the effect of ICT on scientific knowledge / understanding. The numbers by subject for scientific knowledge / explanations in Table 3.6 are very close to those for subject distribution in Table 3.2. It should be noted that the totals for scientific knowledge and scientific approach do not exactly match those in Table 3.5, 32 and 17 studies respectively, because one study (Dimitrov et al., 2002) involved Biology and Physics. A considerably higher proportion of studies of the use of ICT in Integrated Science (3 out of 4) and Earth Science (6 out of 7) explore effects on understanding of the scientific approach than in Biology (5 out of 14) and Physics (3 out of 11), but the absolute numbers are very small for Integrated Science and for Earth Science, and so no conclusions can be drawn about the difference between the map sample and the in-depth sample for these two science areas. How authors described their ICT activity varied somewhat. Nonetheless the frequency distributions in Table 3.7 show that simulations / virtual Table 3.1 Country in which the study was carried out (mutually exclusive) (N=37) Country of origin Number of studies Percentage USA 15 40 Taiwan 8 22 England/UK 3 8 Israel 3 8 Australia 2 5 Korea 2 5 Greece 1 3 Hong Kong/China 1 3 Italy 1 3 Turkey 1 3 Total 37 100 Chapter 3 Identifying and describing studies: results 15 Subject Number of studies Percentage Integrated science 4 11 Biology 14 38 Chemistry 2 5 Physics 11 30 Earth science 7 19 Total 38* Table 3.2 Distribution by science subject areas (not mutually exclusive) (N=37) *One study (Dimitrov et al., 2002) used a multimedia virtual environment to teach a biological topic and a physical topic. Types of learners Number of studies Percentage Mixed ability 7 20 Lower ability/slow learners 0 Upper ability/gifted 2 5 Disaffected 0 Unspecified 25 67 Other 3 8 Total 37 100 Table 3.3 Types of learners involved (mutually exclusive) (N=37) Ways of working Number of studies Percentage Singly in school 14 38 In pairs in school 8 22 In groups of up to 5 in school 4 11 Whole class together in school 1 3 Unspecified 15 41 Total 42 Table 3.4 How students work with the ICT (not mutually exclusive) (N=37) Aspect of understanding Number of Percentage of science studies Scientific knowledge/ explanations (facts, concepts, laws, theories) 32 86 Scientific approach (evidence, scientific methods, problem-solving) 17 46 Ideas about science (limitations, scientific community, risk, etc.) 1 3 Applications of science 1 3 Other 1 3 Total 52 Table 3.5 Aspects of science understanding investigated (not mutually exclusive) (N=37) Scientific Scientific Ideas Applications Other knowledge/ approach about of science explanations science Integrated Science 2 3 0 1 0 Biology 13 5 0 0 1 Chemistry 1 1 0 0 0 Physics 11 3 0 0 0 Earth Science 6 6 1 0 0 Total 33 18 1 1 1 Table 3.6 Relationship between area of science and aspect of science understanding studied (not mutually exclusive) (N=37) Aspect of ICT Number of studies Percentage Modelling 3 8 Simulations/virtual environments 19 51 Data-logging 4 11 Use of databases 4 11 Multimedia 10 27 Internet/WWW 7 19 Online discussion 1 3 Tutorial applications 6 16 Hypertext 2 6 Moving image (animations, video clips) 11 30 Email 2 6 Games/adventures 1 3 Other 7 19 Total 77 Table 3.7 Types of ICT used in the studies (not mutually exclusive) (N=37) Size of study Number of studies Percentage Across several/many schools 4 11 One school, several classes 20 54 One class 4 11 Other 9 24 Total 37 100 Table 3.8 Size of the study (mutually exclusive) (N=37) ICT in science teaching 16

Composition and the Rhetoric of Science: Engaging the Dominant Discourse

Abstract: Composition and the Rhetoric of Science: Engaging the Dominant Discourse. By Michael J. Zerbe. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2007; pp. xii + 216. $35.00 paper. Drawing from and building upon a rich tradition, Zerbe contributes insightfully to rhetoric and composition studies as well as to scholarship in the rhetoric of science. Gross and Gurak (2005) note that the rhetoric of science field continues to develop, pursuing new directions such as reception studies. Zerbe suggests yet another area of emphasis: pedagogy. Just as Roberts-Miller's (2004) Deliberate Conflict offers a compelling account of argument theory and practice in the composition classroom, so too can rhetoricians benefit by considering questions of teaching in their work. Zerbe's purpose is twofold. First, he argues that scholars need to focus more on scientific texts, including scholarly articles, in teaching and research. Currently, he notes, "composition dances around scientific discourse for the most part, and even when it does take this discourse for a spin, as in the case with the rhetoric of science, the dance occurs in private" (p. 50). Second, turning to practitioners of rhetoric of science, he argues that scholars have not paid adequate attention to pedagogy and to rhetoric's ability to impact a wider public. Noting its "lack of visibility" (p. 64) among undergraduate and graduate students, Zerbe argues: "For the rhetoric of science to achieve the disciplinarity that Gross and others seek, the questions of its relevance to undergraduate students and how to teach the rhetoric of science to them must be considered" (p. 64). Other forms of science studies, including those with a cultural studies orientation, also are "fascinating and valuable but ultimately insufficient because of ... limited visibility and impact" (p. 83). The book is organized straightforwardly and accessibly. Part one treats theoretical issues, including: the importance of scientific discourse in society, the shortcomings of rhetoric and composition as well as rhetoric of science, and the status of science as both a cultural studies and a literacy issue. Part two explores specific concepts, practices, and even teaching exercises that can generate new insights. Specifically, Zerbe examines scientific popularizations, scientific discourse from a cross-cultural perspective, and classics of scientific writing. Throughout, Zerbe creatively blends theory (citing, discussing, and interacting with landmark texts in science studies, rhetoric of science, and rhetoric and composition) and practice (suggesting concepts and exercises for pedagogy). This timely work suggests at least two questions for rhetoricians. First, what resources are available to scholars interested in featuring science in the classroom? Although Communication Education is one possibility, even a brief examination of recent issues suggests that treatments of scientific discourse and pedagogy appear infrequently. Another resource is the University of Colorado at Boulder's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, whose mission "is to improve how science and technology policies address societal needs, including research, education and service" (Center, n.d.). Classroom teaching plays a robust role in this program, which also strives to harness science for progressive social ends. Gordon Mitchell's recent seminar offerings at the University of Pittsburgh also illustrate some possibilities. In 2005, Mitchell taught a seminar in "Rhetorical Production" in which students generated weblogs and hosted public debates on scientific issues. In 2007, Mitchell conducted a "Rhetoric of Science Policy" seminar in which students created role-play exercises on medical controversies, such as direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and then linked video of these projects to medical weblogs or other points of online public access (Gordon, 2007). A final resource is the Communication of Science and Technology program at Vanderbilt University, whose website suggests its goal: "society needs people with special bridging skills who can provide a link between science, technology and the public" (Communication, 2006). …

Humanistic science education: moves from within and challenges from without

Abstract: For a number of years now it has been evident that the major issue facing science educators in the more developed countries of the world is the quantitative decline in enrolments in the senior secondary sciences, particularly the physical sciences, and in the number of higher achieving students applying for places in universities to undertake further studies in science. The deep malaise in school science to which these quantitative measures point has been elucidated by more qualitative studies of the students’ experience of studying science in secondary school in several of these countries (Sweden, Lindahl (2003); England, Simon and Osborne (2002); and Australia, Lyons (2005)). Remarkably concordant descriptions of these experiences can be summarized as: School science is: • transmission of knowledge from the teacher or the textbook to the students. • about content that is irrelevant and boring to our lives. • difficult to learn in comparison with other subjects Incidentally, the Australian study only involved consistently high achieving students; but even so, most of them found science more difficult than other more interesting subjects, and concluded that further science studies should be avoided unless they were needed for some career purpose. Other more representative confirmations of negative evaluations of the science curricula across Australia (and in particular states) are now available in Australia, from the large scale reviews of Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2001) and from the TIMSS (2002). The former reported that well under half of secondary students find the science at school relevant to my future, useful ion everyday life, deals with things I am concerned with and helps me make decisions about my health.. TIMSS found that 62 and 65 % of females and males in Year 4 agree with I like learning science, but by Year 8 only 26 and 33 % still agree. Students in Japan have been doubly notably because of (a) their high performance in international measures of science achievement like TIMSS and PISA and (b) their very low response to items in these studies which relate to interest in science. Ogura (2003) reported an intra-national study of students across Years 6-9 (upper primary through Junior High); interest in a range of their subjects (including science) that make up that country’s national curriculum. There was a steady decline in interest in all these subjects which might have indicated an adolescent reaction against schooling generally. However, this study went on to ask the students a further question that is very meaningful in the Japanese context, If you discount the importance of this subject for university entrance, is it worth studying? Science and mathematics remained in decline while all the other subjects were seen more positively. It is thus ironic, at a time when some innovations in curriculum and other research-based findings are suggesting ways that these failures of school science might be corrected, to find school science under a new demands that come from quite outside science education, and which certainly do not have the correction of this malaise as a priority. The positive curricular and research findings can be characterized as moves from within science education, whereas the new demands are moves that come from without science education. In this paper I set out these two rather contrary challenges to the teaching of science as it is currently practised, and go on to suggest a way forward that could fruitfully combine the two.

Toward a Cognitive-Historical Understanding of Michael Faraday's Research: Editor's Introduction

Abstract: It has become common to acknowledge Thomas Kuhn as a seminal agure in bringing history into science studies, and to credit him for introducing sociological concerns that broadened both history and philosophy of science. Kuhn also freely used psychological constructs, for example using early cognitive experiments by Jerome Bruner and others to interpret the discoveries of oxygen, X-rays, and the development of the Leyden Jar (Kuhn 1970, pp. 62–64). Ironically, however, Kuhn’s own reliance on both psychology and sociology to understand science in its historical context remained an unusual effort. For most in science studies (and even in the history and philosophy of science), psychological approaches and those rooted more broadly in cognitive science, have seemed unnecessary, or even perniciously reductive. However, in recent years, a speciacally cognitive historical approach to science studies has reawakened Kuhn’s vision (see, for an overview, Nersessian 1995). Drawing upon theories and andings in cognitive science since Kuhn’s time, cognitive historical accounts have deepened understanding of the cognitive practices of scientists, enlarged our view of the nature of scientiac representations, and shed new light on the relationship between scientiac thought and the social and cultural dynamics of history. In this special issue four such studies illustrate the range of possible approaches by presenting complementary analyses of the work of one historical agure, Michael Faraday. Each paper deals with a different aspect of Faraday’s work and adopts a different chronological “grain,” ranging from the very molecular to the very broad. Each author exempliaes a cognitive historical approach, but each in slightly differing ways. Each paper makes clear the need for such approaches, if we are to obtain a full understanding

The Past and Future of the Psychology of Science

Abstract: As the British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote, “Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.” (Not to be confused with George Santana's comment: “Those who do not learn from history ...

What Everyone Should Know About STS

Abstract: This book constitutes the best history of post-positivist philosophy and sociology of science we are likely ever to get. To a large extent, the power of the narrative derives from its being restricted to broadly epistemological issues. Thus the title, which mimics the title of a paper by the philosopher of language, Donald Davidson, someone little known among members of the science studies community (Davidson, 1986). The restriction to epi stemological issues is surely well justified since among the founding themes of contemporary science studies were 'the sociology of scientific knowledge' (SSK) and 'the manufacture of knowledge'. The opposition to positivist, particularly Popperian, accounts of the nature of scientific knowledge in these early sociological studies was explicit. Of course, as science studies has broadened into science and technology studies (STS) and includes major contributions from many others, including historians and anthro pologists of science, many in the broader STS community are now not much concerned with epistemological issues. Nevertheless, this book should be required reading for all graduate students beginning their studies in the history, philosophy, or social study of science, for there is no better account of the debates about the nature of scientific knowledge that have taken place since the 1950s. Part of what makes this a good history is that the author has not been a participant in these past debates. He is neither a philosopher nor sociologist, but an intellectual historian whose previous books include: The Great Debate: 'Bolshevism' and the Literary Left in Germany, 1917-1930 (1984); The Genesis of Kant's Critique of Judgment (1992); and Kant, Herder, and the Birth of Anthropology (2002). He exhibits the good historian's sense

Postcolonial, gender und science studies als Herausforderung der Soziologie

Abstract: Postcolonial, gender and science studies have long been neglected in German sociology and kept separate in special discourses with regard to their different studied phenomena. Nevertheless are their heuristics very similar: They discuss the differentiation of nature and culture, decentralize the >classical Western< project of modernity. This convergence of postcolonial, gender and science studies will be developed systematically in this article with reference to their central concepts. Furthermore it will be asked which blind spots of sociology it can illuminate and where the limits of their renewal of social theory are.