Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contemporary Scientists and their Interactions with Non-Scientists: Alternative Companion Stories for School Curricula

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students learn more than science knowledge in a science classroom; they also acquire important messages about the purposes and contexts of science. Roberts (2011) calls these messages a companion story. In this article, we present a case study of high-profile Australian contemporary scientists to argue that there is a need to broaden the range of companion stories presented to students. A key companion story presently conveyed in schools is that the products of science are more important than the involvement of scientists in the construction of scientific knowledge. By contrast, the experiences and insights of the scientists in this case study shifts our understanding away from the idea that science is something that humans do—although that is true—to a deeper understanding that science is a discipline in which being human is important. We identify fresh companion stories that arise from these data and argue that the inclusion of such companion stories in the science curriculum is likely to better meet the needs of all citizens, scientists and non-scientists alike.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, for example, the following articles:

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-is-putting-business-profits-ahead-of-the-community-bernie-fraser-20140313-34os6.html

    http://www.theage.com.au/comment/climate-change-bad-guys-apply-heat-to-labor-20140313-34pbd.html

  2. Landcare is a nation-wide network in Australia of locally based community groups who care for the country’s natural resources.

References

  • ACARA. (n.d.). The Australian curriculum: science—structure v8.3. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/structure.

  • Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186

  • Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2011). Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: what do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. M. D. & Bodmer, W. F. (1986). The public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 96–104.

  • Darby-Hobbs, L. (2013). Responding to a relevance imperative in school science and mathematics: Humanising the curriculum through story. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P., & Lacey, J. (2014). Can’t climb the trees anymore: social licence to operate, bioenergy and whole stump removal in Sweden. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 28(3–4), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging scientific literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. (2014). Making sense of autism: progressive engagement with science among parents of young, recently diagnosed autistic children. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 592–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512455296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazzetto, G. (2004). The changing identity of the scientist. EMBO Reports, 5(1), 18–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-normal science. In International Society for Ecological Economics (Ed.), Online encyclopedia of ecological economics. Retrieved from http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf.

  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield: Studies in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2015). Nature of science, assessing of. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 694–698). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1976). Scientist as subject: the psychological imperative. Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Sempere, M., Garzon-Garcia, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid science fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506067660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. (2014). Globalization and discontent. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 28(3–4), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<175::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-P.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulhall, P. J., Smith, D. V., Hart, C. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (2017). Contemporary scientists discuss the need for openness and open-mindedness in science and society. Research in Science Education, 47 (5), 1151-1168

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. A. Roberts & L. Ostman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 54–70). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prno, J., & Slocombe, D. S. (2012). Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resources Policy, 37(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: the influence of a science curriculum policy image. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 11–27): Taylor and Francis.

  • Rooney, D., Leach, J., & Ashworth, P. (2014). Doing the social in social license. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 28(3–4), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.922644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1–103). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701225801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. V., & Gunstone, R. F. (2009). Science curriculum in the market liberal society of the 21st century: ‘Re-visioning’ the idea of science for all. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 1–16.

  • Smith, D. V., & Mulhall, P. J. (2015). Getting it on the table: Using diagrams and graphs within an interview. Paper presented at the 2015 Contemporary Approaches to Research Symposium. Deakin: University Melbourne City Centre.

  • Smith, D. V., Mulhall, P. J.,. Hart C. E, & Gunstone, R. F. (2016) Contemporary high-profile scientists and their interactions with the community. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1607–1621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods (pp. 53–80). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnpenny, J. R. (2012). Lessons from post-normal science for climate science-sceptic debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(5), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, D. I., & Weeth Feinstein, N. (2016). Beyond the search for truth: Dewey’s Humble and Humanistic Vision of Science Education. Educational Theory, 66(1-2), 111–126.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council, grant DP120102714.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia

    Dorothy V. Smith & Christina E. Hart

  2. Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

    Pamela J. Mulhall & Richard F. Gunstone

Authors
  1. Dorothy V. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela J. Mulhall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christina E. Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard F. Gunstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorothy V. Smith.

Appendix

Appendix

Examples of Interview Questions

Following elicitation and clarification of different groups that scientist has worked with:

  • 1. B. Have you developed different ways of interacting with these different groups? What differences are there? Why?

  • 2. A. What particular capacities/abilities have you needed to develop in order to engage with each group? What has helped you develop these changing capacities/abilities/competencies? Describe how you came to understand what was needed? How did you figure out how to do it?

  • 3.A. Is there a need for scientists in your field to engage with the public about their work? How important do you think this is? Why?

  • 3.C. What capacities do scientists require for productive engagement with the public? Have you any experience doing this yourself?

  • 3.E. What capacities/abilities/competencies do members of the public require for productive engagement with scientists in your field?

  • 5.A. I’d like you to think back to your school science education. Did it contribute in any way to your capacity to engage as a scientist in conversation with the groups you identified …? With the public? How did it contribute? What could it have done to contribute? Would it have helped if it had?

  • 5.C. Did school science contribute in any way to your capacity to participate in discussions of science unrelated to the work you do? How did it contribute? What might it have done to better prepare you?

  • 5.D. What did school science teach you about the way science works? About the role science plays in society? About the social responsibility of scientists and the institutions of science?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, D.V., Mulhall, P.J., Hart, C.E. et al. Contemporary Scientists and their Interactions with Non-Scientists: Alternative Companion Stories for School Curricula. Res Sci Educ 50, 2111–2130 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9765-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9765-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation