Upload
kenneth-weaver
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Exploring the
Competent
Outsider
Hypothesis
Noah Weeth Feinstein18 March, 2015
The biology of a comet tail
Listeria’s Tail
A different take on Listeria
Listeria’s Tail
Two sorts of engagement
Listeria?
In practice, these different ways of learning about Listeria involve different actions, taken with
different motivations, and produce different sorts of results
Listeria’s Tail
So, is science education about the cantaloupe or the comet tail?
Or both?
Both, right?
Listeria’s Tail
Agenda Two ways of learning about Listeria
Understanding engagement in context
What science education does – and what it might do differently
NEW DATA!
“Making sense of autism” Longitudinal interview study: 10
families followed for 6 months How did science matter to parents as
they attempted to understand and advocate for their children?
Did some parents engage with science in a deeper or more intense manner?
Engagement in context
“Don’t give me a list of books that tell me everything on earth about autism because I don’t have time to read a list of books on everything. What do I need to do now? What can I specifically expect from my son?”
Engagement in context
I have a question… Is it a job for
SCIENCE?
Hmmm… ask a different discipline!
NO
Use your science education to figure
out the right scientific source! Way to go, science education!
NOCan you “apply” the
answer from your science education?
YES
Way to go, science education!
YES
Engagement in context
“Is this normal?” Because my first child, he would flip his R’s… but never the whole word...
So, I’m like, okay, what is dyslexia? What should I be looking for? Should I be worried about it? So, talking to friends, and they’re going, “Well, that’s kind of weird.”
…next step I check online for… testing of dyslexia and I guess it doesn’t happen ’til… they’re seven.
So, I’m like, “Okay, great. Now what?” So, I called Dr. S and she’s fine, it’s okay. It’s okay. It’s probably just the way she’s learning her spelling. And I’m like, “All right. All right. I feel a little better now.”
Sara’s concern
Engagement in context
Q
R
Q'
R'
Q''
R''
PROGRESSIVE ENGAGEMENT: Engagement that develops over time through an iterative pattern of questions and resources
TRADING ZONES: “Within a certain cultural arena…two dissimilar groups can find common ground. They can exchange fish for baskets, enforcing subtle equations of correspondence between quantity, quality, and type, and yet utterly disagree on the broader (global) significance of the items exchanged.” (Galison, 1997, p783)
World of family
lifeWorld of medico-science
Engagement in context
Agenda Two ways of learning about Listeria
Understanding engagement in context
What science education does – and what it might do differently
NEW DATA!
“Curiously, the triumphal progress of science literacy has for the most part taken place in an empirical vacuum. Our field has produced little evidence that any science taught in school, from Newton’s laws to natural selection, helps people lead happier, more successful, or more politically savvy lives.”
What science education does
Norms
Rituals
Ways of making
knowledge
Norms
Rituals
Ways of making
knowledge
NormsRitualsWays of
making knowledge
Knorr Cetina (1999). Epistemic Cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Galison (1997). Image and Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
What science education does
Norms
Rituals
Ways of making
knowledge
Phelan, Davidson, & Cao (1991). Students' multiple worlds. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,22 (3), 224-250.
Aikenhead (1996). Border-crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52
Jenkins (2007). School science – a questionable construct? J. Curriculum Studies, 39 (3), 265–282
What science education does
Norms
Rituals
Ways of making
knowledge
What science education does
Marginal insider (version 1): Someone who possesses an expert-selected set of high-value knowledge
Miller (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294
What science education does
Most schooling is based on the ability to answer questions unrelated to any context outside of the school Latour (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
What science education does
Marginal insider (version 2): someone who understands the “family resemblance” – the common structural and epistemic featuresLederman (2006). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. JRST, 29 (4), 331–359.Ford (2008). ‘Grasp of Practice’ as a Reasoning Resource for Inquiry and Nature of Science Understanding. Science and Education, 17 (2-3), 147-177.Osborne (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science. Science, 328 (5977), 463-466.
What science education does
Peoples’ questions aren’t about “science”
What causes autism?
What causes my son’s autism?
Did he get it from me?
Could I have done anything to prevent it?
Shouldn’t someone do something to prevent it in
the future?
Will he ever speak
normally?
What therapy will help him the
most?
Is there a raised incidence of cancer
in this area?
Why are so many children dying here?
Is it safe to drink the tap
water?How come no-one
else is worried?
Why don’t the authorities accept
MY evidence?
Where can I get the best medical
care?Do I need to move somewhere else?
What is the persistence of
radioactive fallout in chalky soil?Is this going to ruin a
whole year’s flock?
When can I graze the sheep again?
Which pastures are most affected?
Who pays for the damage, and when?
Why don’t they understand grazing?
Who can I trust to give me the straight
story?
How can the progression of
AIDS be slowed or stopped?
How long do I have to live?
Which doctors do I trust?
How can I access experimental treatment?
Will diet and exercise make a difference?
Which treatments should I choose?
How can I get scientists to care
about this?
Brown and Mikkelsen (1997). No Safe Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wynne (1992). Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstandings. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (3): 281-304.
Epstein (1996). Impure Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
What science education does
[using science is] no more a straightforward application of the scientific knowledge acquired at school or in other formal contexts than technology is merely applied science. Rather it is about creating new knowledge or, where possible, restructuring, reworking and transforming existing scientific knowledge into forms which serve the purpose in hand.
Layton, Jenkins, Macgill, & Davey (1993). Inarticulate science? Driffield, East Yorkshire, UK: Studies in Education. (p. 236)
What science education does
Competent outsiders:People who can develop satisfying, accurate, and actionable answers to the science-related questions emerging from their lives.
Non-scientis
t
Scientist
Marginal insider
Competent outsider
What science education does
Agenda Two ways of learning about Listeria
Understanding engagement in context
What science education does – and what it might do differently
NEW DATA!
Many nagging questions Are competent outsiders really “a type
apart?” How specialized are competent outsiders? How should we understand the value of
what they do? Is it better or just different? Is there any way to see the difference at
lower resolution and in a shorter time? How do scientists interpret everyday
science?
New data
Competent Outsider hypothesis (in one form)
At least some non-scientists who have sustained contact with a scientific domain will (1) access and (2) interpret knowledge from that domain differently than EITHER domain experts OR a comparable peer group without such sustained contact
Do these differences extend to other
domains?
Better?
Can this be achieved through
practice or preparation?
New data
Design of the studyParents of
autistic children
(n=23)
MD and PhD level autism researchers
(n=6)
Parents of non-
autistic children
(n=21)
News article about autism research
News article about other research topic
New data
Data sources Demographics (including education
level) 3-item validated health literacy scale Articles highlighted during reading Structured interview
4 Likert-style items Each followed by a qualitative prompt
New data
Keep in mind: Numbers are not historically my thing A first stab at deductive, theory-driven
coding/counting of the qualitative data Focusing on “low-inference” codes Due diligence remains to be done What would you want to know
next?
New data
The likert scale items (1-5) How much did you know about this…?
How interesting or important to you…?
How credible/trustworthy…?
How confident are you that you could find the answers to any remaining questions you have…?
New data
The likert scale items
Knowledge Interest Credibility Efficacy0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Comparison parentsAutism parentsResearchers
Not actually so interesting
New data
Coding categories
Formal / methodologica
l cues
Social / Institutional
cues
Rhetorical / contextual
cues
Sense-making
• study design & sample
• data collection & analysis strategies
• appropriateness of conclusions
• peer review • researcher
reputation • journal
reputation • institutional
affiliation • funding source
• news source• discussion of
balance and limitations
• prose quality and clarity
Information-seeking
What type of information did they want more of?
New data
Sense-making: F/M cues
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Number of different Formal / Methodological cues discussed
no cuesone type of cuemore than one type
New data
WITH EACH TYPE OF CUE: First, the number of cues
people discussed Then, the specific cues they
discussed
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Specific Formal / Methodological cues discussed
study design & sampledata collection & analysisappropriateness of findings
Sense-making: F/M cues
New data
Sense-making: S/I cues
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Number of different Social / Institutional cues discussed
no cuesone type of cuemore than one type
New data
Sense-making: S/I cues
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Specific Social / Institutional cues discussed
researcher reputationjournal reputationinstitutional affiliationfunding source
New data
Sense-making: R/C cues
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Number of different Rhetorical / Contextual cues discussed
no cuesone type of cuemore than one type
New data
Sense-making: R/C cues
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
attended to rhetorical cues
news source/ mediumbalance/ bias/ limitationsprose quality and clarity
New data
Info-seeking: types of cues
comparison parents autism parents researchers0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Number of types of cue sought (F/M, S/I)
neitherone typeboth types
New data
What’s the take home? In the sheer number of things they paid
attention to, autism parents often looked more like researchers
BUT they paid attention to different things You won’t see any of this if you just look
at formal/methodological cues This suggests that autism parents are
doing something that is qualitatively different – not merely intermediate.
New data
Competent Outsider hypothesis (in one form)
At least some non-scientists who have sustained contact with a scientific domain will (1) access and (2) interpret knowledge from that domain differently than EITHER domain experts OR a comparable peer group without such sustained contact
New data
Aggregate signal despite noise There was enormous variance in each
group – including researchers. Using low-inference codes is likely to
add both false positives and false negatives.
My previous research suggests that many autism parents won’t be doing anything that interesting.
So… I’m pleasantly surprised.
New data
About those researchers… They pay more attention to
formal/methodological cues than anyone else.
But they are not naïve empiricists – they pay a lot of attention to other cues!
“Acting like a scientist” doesn’t means focusing only on the evidence – at least not in the typical, narrow sense
New data
What’s next? Comparisons across the two articles. Predictive value of demographics and
health literacy measures Deeper, inductive coding that focuses
on contextualized meaning-making (here, I’ll pull in the highlighting data)
Looking for patterns of particularly intense engagement within both parent groups
New data
QUESTIONS?