Science & Education

, Volume 27, Issue 5–6, pp 407–433 | Cite as

Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism

  • Robyn Yucel


Including the perspectives of scientists about the nature and process of science is important for an authentic and nuanced portrayal of science in science education. The small number of studies that have explored scientists’ worldviews about science has thus far generated contradictory findings, with recent studies claiming that scientists simultaneously hold contradictory sophisticated and naïve views. This article reports on an exploratory study that uses the framework of Bhaskar’s critical realism to elicit and separately analyse academic scientists’ ontological and epistemological views about science in semi-structured interviews. When the views of scientists are analysed through the lens of critical realism, it is clear that it is possible to hold a realist ontological commitment about what knowledge is of, simultaneously with a fallibilist epistemological commitment about knowledge itself. The apparent incongruence of scientists’ so-called naïve and sophisticated views about science is resolved when analysed using a critical realist framework. Critical realism offers a simple and coherent framework for science educators that avoids many of the problems of positivism and social constructivism by finding a middle ground between them. The three pillars of critical realism: ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism and judgmental rationality help to make sense of how socially constructed scientific knowledge can be anchored in an independent reality.



The author would like to thank the academic scientists who willingly gave their time to participate in this study. Thank you to Michael Matthews for his helpful comments and encouragement on an earlier version of the paper. Thank you also to Liz Johnson, Tai Peseta and Jan West for their support, guidance and feedback. And finally, thank you to the anonymous reviewers who may not have agreed with each other, but whose comments and suggestions all contributed to the improvements in the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author reports no potential conflict of interest.


  1. Al-Amoudi, I., & Wilmott, H. (2011). Where constructionism and critical realism converge: interrogating the domain of epistemological relativism. Organizational Studies, 32(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2014). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ view of NOS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1083–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayir, E., Cakick, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1286–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. (1998). General introduction. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: essential readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Bunge, M. (1959). Causality and modern science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Dover reprint, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. Carpi, A., & Egger, E. (2010). The process of science. Conneticut: Visionlearning.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: a study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Cooke, E. F. (2003). Peirce, fallibilism and the science of mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica, 3(11), 158–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. K. (2002). Explaining society: an introduction to critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Eggertson, L. (2010). Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(4), 199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glasson, G. E., & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groff, R. (2004). Critical realism, post-positivism and the possibility of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: a teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Hume, D. (1740/1969). A treatise of human nature. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaidesoja, T. (2009). Bhaskar and Bunge on social emergence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 39(3), 300–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kant, I. (1787/1896). Critique of pure reason. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  25. Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Lockie, S. (2016). Post-truth politics and the social sciences. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lubchenco, J. (2017). Environmental science in a post-truth world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S. A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing early childhood research: international perspectives on theory and practice. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  32. Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(l), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Neyman, J. (1934). On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97(4), 558–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers need to know about models: an overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olssen, M. (1996). Radical constructivism and its failings: anti-realism and individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(3), 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pahre, R. (1995). Positivist discourse and social scientific communities: towards an epistemological sociology of science. Social Epistemology, 9(3), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pickering, M. (2006). Auguste Comte volume 1: an intellectual biography. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 26–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: how science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: a comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sandoval, W. A., & Redman, E. H. (2015). The contextual nature of scientists’ views of theories, experimentation, and their coordination. Science & Education, 24, 1079–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shaheen, K. & Hatunoglu, G. (2017, June 23). Turkish schools to stop teaching evolution, official says. The Guardian. Retrieved from: Accessed 27 July 2018.
  45. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: the impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taskin, O. (2014). An exploratory examination of Islamic values in science education: Islamization of science teaching and learning via constructivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 855–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tira, P. (2009). Comparing scientists’ views of science within and across disciplines and levels of expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  48. von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Key works in radical constructivism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Wise, S. B. (2010). Climate change in the classroom: patterns, motivations, and barriers to instruction among Colorado science teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(5), 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zammito, J. H. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes: post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.La Trobe Learning and TeachingLa Trobe UniversityBundooraAustralia

Personalised recommendations