Advertisement

Understanding Objectivity in Research Reported in Reference Works

  • Mansoor NiazEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 46)

Abstract

This chapter is based on the evaluation of research in two reference works: (a) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (HPST); and (b) Encyclopedia of Science Education (ESE). Based on a website search with the key word “objectivity,” 8 articles in the HPST and 12 articles in ESE referred to some form of objectivity and were classified according to the following criteria: Levels I–V (same as presented in Chap.  3). Results obtained showed the following distribution of the 20 articles evaluated in the two reference works: Level I = none, Level II = 10, Level III = 7, Level IV = 3, and Level V = none. Only 15% (3 out of 20) of the articles were considered to have an understanding of objectivity that approximated to its historical evolution. One of the articles referred to the work of Daston and Galison on objectivity and none mentioned “trained judgment.” There is some consensus that mathematical propositions are not empirically falsifiable and thus possess the absolute certainty of analytical statements or logical truths. One article has questioned this role of mathematical propositions as many advanced sciences are very much like mathematics in their conceptual apparatus, as can be illustrated with relativity and string theory. Radical constructivism was promoted by science educators who were dissatisfied with objectivism, namely scientific knowledge as an accurate depiction of physical reality.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: a cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G., & Michell, H. (2011). Bridging cultures: indigenous and scientific ways of knowing nature. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: applications for advancing social justice studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  5. Dawid, R. (2006). Underdetermination and theory succession from the perspective of string theory. Philosophy of Science, 73, 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Giere, R. N. (2006a). Perspectival pluralism. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 26–41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Giere, R. N. (2006b). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Holton, G. (1978a). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irzik, G. (2015). Values and Western science knowledge. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 1093–1096). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Le Grange, L. (2004). Western science and indigenous knowledge: competing perspectives or complementary frameworks? South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(3), 82–91.Google Scholar
  14. Longino, H.E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Machamer, P., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction: science, values and objectivity. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, values and objectivity (pp. 1–13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  16. Matthews, M. R. Ed. (2014a). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Matthews, M. R. (2014b). Introduction: the history, purpose and content of the Springer International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1–15). Dordrecht: Springer. vol. I.Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy, C.L. (2014). Cultural studies in science education: philosophical considerations. In M.R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (Vol. III, pp. 1927–1964). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Niaz, M. (2011). Innovating science teacher education: a history and philosophy of science perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘Science in the Making’ to understanding the nature of science: an overview for science educators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niaz, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Benarroch, A., Cardellini, L., Laburú, C. E., Marín, N., & Tsaparlis, G. (2003). Constructivism: defense or a continual critical appraisal—A response to Gil-Pérez, et al. Science & Education, 12, 787–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niaz, M., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., & Metz, D. (2010b). Leon Cooper’s perspective on teaching science: an interview study. Science & Education, 19, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Popper, K. R. (1981). Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  25. Reiss, M. J. (2014). What significance does Christianity have for science education? In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1637–1662). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Roth, W.-M. (2008). Bricolage, metissage, hybridity, heterogeneity, diaspora: Concepts for thinking science education in the 21st century. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 891–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skoog, G. (2005). The coverage of human evolution in high school biology textbooks in the 20th century and in current state science standards. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vargas Llosa, M. (2010). Nobel Prize in Literature acceptance speech. http://www.nobel-prize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2010/vargas_llosa-lecture. Accessed 11 December 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Epistemology of Science Group, Department of ChemistryUniversidad de OrienteCumanáVenezuela

Personalised recommendations