Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Directions for Nature of Science Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching

Abstract

The idea of family resemblance, when applied to science, can provide a powerful account of the nature of science (NOS). In this chapter we develop such an account by taking into consideration the consensus on NOS that emerged in the science education literature in the last decade or so. According to the family resemblance approach, the nature of science can be systematically and comprehensively characterised in terms of a number of science categories which exhibit strong similarities and overlaps amongst diverse scientific disciplines. We then discuss the virtues of this approach and make some suggestions as to how one can go about teaching it in the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 749.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990, 1993), Council of Ministers of Education (1997), National Curriculum Council (1988), National Research Council (1996), Rocard et al. (2007), and McComas and Olson (1998).

  2. 2.

    This point is commonly made, for example, in Driver et al. (1996), McComas et al. (1998), Osborne 2007, and Rutherford and Ahlgren (1990).

  3. 3.

    See Abd-El-Khalick (2004), Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000), Bell (2004), Khishfe and Lederman (2006), Lederman (2004, 2007). Note that all of these characteristics pertain to scientific knowledge. For that reason, Lederman suggested replacing the phrase ‘nature of science’ with ‘nature of scientific knowledge’ in his recent writings (Lederman 2007).

  4. 4.

    See Ford and Wargo (2007), McGinn and Roth (1999), Rudolph (2000), Samarapungavan et al. (2006), Wong and Hodson (2009, 2010), and Wong et al. (2009).

  5. 5.

    See Sadler (2011), Weinstein (2008), Wong and Hodson (2010), Zemplen (2009); see also the special issue of the journal Science & Education vol. 17, nos. 8–9, 2008.

  6. 6.

    For a more detailed discussion of these, see Nola and Irzik (2005, Chaps. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10).

  7. 7.

    See Godfrey-Smith (2003) for a succinct summary of different models of explanations in science.

  8. 8.

    STS scholars are generally critical of Mertonian norms and claim that there is a counter-norm for every Mertonian norm, with the implication that Mertonian norms do not guide scientific practice and therefore are simply functionless. See, for example, Sismondo (2004, Chap. 3) and the literature cited therein. However, there are also excellent critiques of these critiques such as Radder (2010).

  9. 9.

    See some of the following who may be, in addition, critical of the idea of the demarcation of science from non-science but whose focus in so doing is just upon the fourth category, viz. what is to count as a scientific statement: (Alters 1997; Hacking 1996; Laudan et al. 1986; Stanley and Brickhouse 2001; Ziman 2000).

  10. 10.

    John Searle has disputed this example, arguing that ‘game’ can be defined as follows: a series of attempts to overcome certain obstacles that have been created for the purpose of overcoming them (Searle 1995, 103). However this dispute is resolved, there might still be other cases where the family resemblance idea gets some traction, as we think it does in the case of the term ‘science’.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). ‘Over and over and over again: College Students’ Views of Nature of Science’. In: L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (eds.) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 389–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). ‘Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature’. International Journal of Science Education 22: 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1985a). ‘Training teachers for STS education’. In: R. James (ed.) Science, Technology and Society: Resources for Science Educators. The Association for the Education of Teachers in Science 1985 Yearbook. Cookeville, Tennessee: Tennessee Technological University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1985b). ‘Science curricula and preparation for social responsibility’. In: R. Bybee (ed.) Science, Technology, Society. The National Science Teachers Association 1985 Yearbook, Washington, D.C.: NSTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). ‘Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science’. Science Education 95: 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). ‘Whose nature of science?’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34: 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. (2004). ‘Perusing Pandora’s box: exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science’. In: L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (eds.) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 427–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W. & Loving, C. (2001). ‘Defining “Science” in a multicultural world: Implications for Science Education’, Science Education 85: 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto, Canada: CMEC Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F. (2011). ‘Students’ views of the nature of science: a critical review of research’, Science Education 95: 961–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, A. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science, Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupre, J. (1993). The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). ‘Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education’. Studies in Science Education 38: 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S. & Reisch, G. (1999). ‘The Nature of Science: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). ‘On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology’. Science Education 85: 554–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. & Wargo, B. M. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices’. Science Education 91: 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R. E. & Duschl, R. A. (2007). ‘Reconsidering the character and the role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference’. Science & Education 16: 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1996). ‘The Disunities of the Sciences’. In: P. Galison & D. Stump (eds.) The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp 37–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G. & Nola, R. (2011). ‘A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science for Science Education’, Science & Education 20: 567–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. & Lederman, N. G. (2006). ‘Teaching Nature of Science within a Controversial Topic: Integrated versus Nonintegrated’. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43: 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society, New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolsto, S. D. (2001). ‘Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of socio-scientific issues’. Science Education 85: 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1977). ‘Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice’. In: The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp 320–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., Thagard, P., & Wykstra, S. (1986). ‘Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research’. Synthese 69: 141–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method and Evidence. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 831–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2004). ‘Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction’. In: L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (eds.) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp ix-xviii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, D. (1992). The Beginnings of Western Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1998a). ‘The nature of science and science teaching’. In: B. Fraser & K. Tobin (eds) International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp 981–999.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2011). ‘Changing the focus: from nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS)’. In: M. S. Khine (ed.) Advances in Nature of Science Research, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P. & Almazroa, H. (1998). ‘The role and character of the nature of science in science education’. In: W. F. McComas (ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Hingham: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 3–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. & Olson, J. K. (1998). ‘The nature of science in international science education standards documents’. In: W. F. McComas (ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Hingham: Kluwer, pp 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, M. K. & Roth, W. M. (1999). ‘Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies.’ Educational Researcher 28: 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Curriculum Council (1988). Science in the National Curriculum. York, UK: NCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. & Irzık, G. (2005). Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. & Sankey, H. (2007). Theories of Scientific Method. Stocksfield: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty-first century. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3: 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Education 40: 692–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2001). What Should we teach about science? A Delphi Study. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (2011). ‘Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion? Demarcation revisited’. Synthese 178: 177–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K, R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1975). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radder, H. (2010). ‘The commodification of academic research’. In: H. Radder (ed) The Commodification of Academic Research. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2007). The Price of Truth. New York: Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rocard, M. et al. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. EU report Rocard on science education_en.pdf. Retrieved 31 January 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A. (2008). ‘Biology’. In: S. Psillos & M. Curd (eds) The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, pp 511–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). ‘Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component’. Journal of Curriculum Studies 32: 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, J. F. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2004). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U. & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). ‘Defining versus describing the nature of science: a pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators’. Science Education 83: 493–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, W. B. & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). ‘Teaching science: The multicultural question revisited’, Science Education 85: 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E (1989). ‘Cognition, Construction of Knowledge and Teaching’. Synthese 80: 121–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M. (2008). ‘Finding science in the school body: Reflections on transgressing the boundaries of science education and the social studies of science’. Science Education 92: 389–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L. & Hodson, D. (2009). ‘From horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge’. Science Education 93: 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. W. (2009). Turning crisis into opportunity: Nature of science and scientific inquiry as illustrated in the scientific research on severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science & Education 18: 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L. & Hodson, D. (2010). ‘More from horse’s mouth: What scientists about science as a social practice’. International Journal of Science Education 32: 1432–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. N., Walker, K. A. & Ackett, W. A. (2002). ‘Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socio-scientific dilemmas’. Science Education 86: 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemplen, G. A. (2009). ‘Putting sociology first–Reconsidering the role of the social in nature of science’. Science & Education 18: 525–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What it is and What it Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sabancı University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gürol Irzik

  2. The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Robert Nola

Authors
  1. Gürol Irzik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Nola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gürol Irzik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Irzik, G., Nola, R. (2014). New Directions for Nature of Science Research. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_30

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation