Epistemic injustice and the “Nature of Science”

IF 4.5 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":4.5000,"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
认识的不公正与“科学的本质”
科学家和科学教育者认为,学习者(学生、职前教师和在职教师)除了了解学科核心思想外,还应该了解科学知识的构建。鉴于这一目标,一些科学教育学者创建了一个名为“科学的本质”(NOS)的结构,旨在为学习者简化复杂的科学知识生产工作。自20世纪80年代以来,NOS的建设已经塑造了国家和国际科学教育改革,其目标是培养更具科学素养的民众。在本文中,我们使用认知不公正的哲学视角命名并质疑NOS结构中的假设。使用贡献性不公正和证言不公正的特定镜头,我们分析了97篇被引用最多的同行评议的NOS期刊文章,以检查哪些学者被选中创建NOS结构。我们还研究了研究人员如何使用NOS定位学习者与结构的关系。我们发现白人男性主要是由NOS学者命名的,以告知结构。我们还发现,与构念相比,NOS研究经常从缺陷的角度来定位学习者。最后,我们讨论了NOS结构所带来的潜在不公正,并提供了一个在学习场所更完整的科学故事的愿景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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 Haptic Experiences Shift Students' Representational Gestures and Knowledge Resources Rigor and Representation: Leading the Next Five Years of JRST Indigenous Students Enacting and Advancing Sovereignty in Higher Education: Relationships, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, Representation, and Respect Along STEMM Pathways
×
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:604180095
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