Epistemic injustice and the “Nature of Science”

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Science Teaching Pub Date : 2024-09-24 DOI:10.1002/tea.21988
David Stroupe, Enrique Suárez, Déana Scipio
{"title":"Epistemic injustice and the “Nature of Science”","authors":"David Stroupe,&nbsp;Enrique Suárez,&nbsp;Déana Scipio","doi":"10.1002/tea.21988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scientists and science educators have argued that learners (students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers) should understand knowledge construction in science, in addition to figuring out disciplinary core ideas. Given this goal, some science education scholars created a construct called the “Nature of Science” (NOS), which aims to simplify the complex work of scientific knowledge production for learners. Since the 1980s, the NOS construct has shaped national and international science education reforms with the goal of creating a more scientifically literate populace. In this article, we name and question assumptions built into the NOS construct using the philosophical perspective of epistemic injustice. Using specific lenses of <i>contributory injustice</i> and <i>testimonial injustice</i>, we analyzed the 97 most-cited peer-reviewed NOS journal articles to examine which scholars are selected to create the NOS construct. We also examined how researchers using NOS position learners in relation to the construct. We found that White men are primarily named by NOS scholars to inform the construct. We also found that NOS research often positions learners from a deficit perspective compared to the construct. We conclude by discussing the potential injustices perpetuated by the NOS construct, and offer a vision for a more complete story of science in sites of learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"62 4","pages":"901-941"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.21988","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21988","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientists and science educators have argued that learners (students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers) should understand knowledge construction in science, in addition to figuring out disciplinary core ideas. Given this goal, some science education scholars created a construct called the “Nature of Science” (NOS), which aims to simplify the complex work of scientific knowledge production for learners. Since the 1980s, the NOS construct has shaped national and international science education reforms with the goal of creating a more scientifically literate populace. In this article, we name and question assumptions built into the NOS construct using the philosophical perspective of epistemic injustice. Using specific lenses of contributory injustice and testimonial injustice, we analyzed the 97 most-cited peer-reviewed NOS journal articles to examine which scholars are selected to create the NOS construct. We also examined how researchers using NOS position learners in relation to the construct. We found that White men are primarily named by NOS scholars to inform the construct. We also found that NOS research often positions learners from a deficit perspective compared to the construct. We conclude by discussing the potential injustices perpetuated by the NOS construct, and offer a vision for a more complete story of science in sites of learning.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Lung Collapse during Mini-Thoracotomy Reduces Penetration of Cefuroxime to the Tissue: Interstitial Microdialysis Study in Animal Models.
IF 2 4区 医学Surgical infectionsPub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1089/sur.2019.273
Martin Děrgel, Martin Voborník, Marek Pojar, Mikita Karalko, Jan Gofus, Věra Radochová, Šárka Studená, Jana Maláková, Zdeněk Turek, Jaroslav Chládek, Jiří Manďák
Weight-based cefuroxime dosing provides comparable orthopedic target tissue concentrations between weight groups – a microdialysis porcine study
IF 2.8 4区 医学ApmisPub Date : 2021-12-04 DOI: 10.1111/apm.13198
Sara Kousgaard Tøstesen, Pelle Hanberg, Mats Bue, Theis Muncholm Thillemann, Thomas Falstie-Jensen, Mikkel Tøttrup, Martin Bruun Knudsen, Anne Vibeke Schmedes, Maiken Stilling
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Troubling the Definition of Black Resilience in STEM-CS Education Issue Information Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1