Advertisement

A Reflective Science Education Practice

Why, What, and How?
Chapter

When the Danish University Law (Videnskabsministeriet, 2003) was reformed, a component was added stating that Danish universities should not only do research and offer education that meet the highest international standards, but that they should, moreover, convey to society research and educational results for the further prosperity of the latter. In the legal text it is further explained that universities shall be obliged to actively exchange knowledge and competence with society, and that this includes an obligation to engage in public debate about important social issues. Apparently, something has changed—a change that seems to include a closer entanglement of academic science and society. In the context of science education at least two questions are thus raised: How is the social role of science changing? And what (if any) implication does this bear for science education?

The argument made here is that a change is indeed taking place; from traditional (academic) science which celebrates disinterestedness and unblemished quest for objective knowledge to contemporary science infused with socio-cultural and political-capitalist interests and influencing societal development profoundly. A change, which makes the scientific community a much-needed participant in social reflectivity. However, studies encountered below suggest that contemporarily the scientific community tends to cling to the old celebrated virtues and it only reluctantly enters its new role as participant in societal development and debate. The problem is not only that science apparently “chooses” not to participate in the social reflective processes, but more significantly that this choice is grounded in the traditional academic ethos according to which scientists of today have been trained. Science education, the entry point of the scientists of tomorrow, hence becomes extremely important as a place for inducing changes to the institution of science and the scientific self-perception.

Keywords

Academic Science Pedagogical Interaction Contextual Awareness Societal Development Risk Society 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society—Towards a New Modernity. London: SageGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1997). The Politics of Risk Society. In J. Franklin (Ed.), The Politics of Risk Society (pp. 9–22). Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
  4. Bö;schen, S. (2002). DDT and the Dynamics of Risk Knowledge Production. HYLE—International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry, 8(2), 79–102Google Scholar
  5. Eriksen, K. (2003). Reflectivity and Tertiary Chemistry Oriented Education, Doctoral Thesis. Copenhagen: University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Flyvbjerg, B. (1993). Aristotle, Foucault and Progressive Phronesis: Outline for an Applied Ethics for Sustainable Development. In E.R. Winkler and J.R. Coombs (Eds.), Applied Ethics: A Reader (pp. 11–27). Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: SageGoogle Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society—Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellesnes, J. (1976). Socialisering og teknokrati. Copenhagen: Gyldendals pædagogiske bibliotekGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobsen, B. (1981). De højere uddannelser mellem teknologi og humanisme. Copenhagen: RhodosGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaspersen, L.B. (1996). Anthony Giddens. In H. Andersen and L.B. Kaspersen (Eds.), Klassisk og moderne samfundsteori (pp. 397–412). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels forlagGoogle Scholar
  12. Klafki, W. (2001). Dannelsesteori og didaktik—nye studier. Århus: Forlaget KlimGoogle Scholar
  13. Merton, R. (1968). Science and Democratic Social Structure. In R. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 604–616). New York: The Free Press/MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  14. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Cambridge: PolityGoogle Scholar
  15. Östman, L. (1999). Science Education Versus Science—Conflicts Within the Academic Setting. Presentation at the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association. Kiel, Germany, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon, C. (1999). DDT — Kulturgeschichte einer chemischen Verbindung. Basel: Christoph Merian VerlagGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomassen, N. (1997). Etik — En introduktion. Copenhagen: GyldendalGoogle Scholar
  18. Videnskabsministeriet. (2003). The new Danish University Law (law no. 403 May 28, 2003). Retrieved 14 October 2003. http://www.videnskabsministeriet.dkGoogle Scholar
  19. Winkler, E.R. (1993). From Kantianism to Contextualism: The Rise and Fall of the Paradigm Theory in Bioethics. In E.R. Winkler and J.R. Coombs (Eds.), Applied Ethics: A Reader (pp. 343–365). Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  20. Ziman, J. (1996). Is Science Losing its Objectivity? Nature, 382, 751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science — What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Ziman, J. (2002). Getting Scientists to Think About What They are Doing. In T.B. Hansen (Ed.), The Role of Philosophy of Science and Ethics in University Science Education (pp. 23–44). Göteborg: NSU PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College SealandDenmark

Personalised recommendations