Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2067–2086 | Cite as

Scientific Communication and the Nature of Science

  • Kristian H. Nielsen
Article

Abstract

Communication is an important part of scientific practice and, arguably, may be seen as constitutive to scientific knowledge. Yet, often scientific communication gets cursory treatment in science studies as well as in science education. In Nature of Science (NOS), for example, communication is rarely mentioned explicitly, even though, as will be argued in this paper, scientific communication could be treated as a central component of NOS. Like other forms of communication, scientific communication is socially and symbolically differentiated. Among other things, it encompasses technical language and grammar, lab communications, and peer reviews, all of which will be treated in this paper in an attempt to engage on an empirical and theoretical level with science as communication. Seeing science as a form of communicative action supplements the epistemological view of science that is standard to both NOS and the philosophy of science. Additions to the seven NOS aspects on Lederman’s (Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 831–879, 2007) list are put forward as well as preliminary thoughts on the inclusion of scientific communication into NOS instruction.

Keywords

Scientific Communication Scientific Knowledge Mobile Agent Science Learner Scientific Practice 
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.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abelson, P. H. (1980). Scientific communication. Science, 209(4452), 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). A historical perspective on science and its “others”. Isis, 100(2), 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biagioli, M., & Galison, P. (Eds.). (2003). Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in history and philosophy of science, 30A(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, C. (2003). The changing face of scientific discourse: Analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 926–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–73). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
  14. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. de Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  17. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 1–37). Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Galison, P. (2003). The collective author. In M. Biagioli & P. Galison (Eds.), Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (pp. 325–355). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Galison, P., & Hevly, B. W. (Eds.). (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. J. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goldacre, B. (2009). Peer review is flawed but the best we’ve got. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre. Assessed April 30, 2012.
  24. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting [Article]. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Gross, A. G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gunnarsdottir, K. (2005). Scientific journal publications: On the role of electronic preprint exchange in the distribution of scientific literature. Social Studies of Science, 35(4), 549–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Halliday, M. A. K. (1979). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  33. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1996). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harnad, S. (1997). Learned inquiry and the net: The role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright. Antiquity, 71(274), 1042–1048.Google Scholar
  37. Harnad, S. (1998). Learned inquiry and the net: The role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright. Learned Publishing, 11(4), 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hirschauer, S. (2010). Editorial judgments: A praxeology of ‘voting’ in peer review. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keith, W., & Rehg, W. (2008). Argumentation in science: The cross-fertilization of argumentation theory and science studies. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 211–239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–442). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
  43. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, (2nd ed.), enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kusch, M. (2002). Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Latour, B. (1999a). For David Bloor… and beyond: A reply to David Bloor’s ‘Anti-Latour’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30A(1), 113–129.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Latour, B. (2008). A textbook case revisited: Knowledge as a mode of existence. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 83–112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lavarnd. (2011). LavaRnd. http://www.lavarnd.org/. Assessed April 30, 2012.
  54. 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. 831–879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Luhmann, N. (2002). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  58. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  59. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. McComas, W. F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (2007). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635–689). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  64. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pinch, T. (2010). On making infrastructure visible: Putting the non-humans to rights. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Radder, H. (Ed.). (2010). The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  67. RAND Corporation. (1955). A million random digits with 100,000 normal deviates. New York: The Free Press, Collier-MacMillan.Google Scholar
  68. Secord, J. A. (2004). Knowledge in transit. Isis, 95(4), 654–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Topham, J., Daum, A. W., O’Connor, R., Pandora, K., & Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). Focus: Historicizing “popular science”. Isis, 100(2), 310–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science StudiesAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations