Re-Visioning Science Education from a Science Studies and

A R T I C L E

Re-Visioning Science Education from aScience Studies and Futures Perspective

Lyn Carter and Caroline Smith Australian Catholic University Australia

.45

Journal of Futures Studies, May 2003, 7(4): 45 - 54

Introduction

The special space afforded by the advent of the newmillennium provides the science education communitywith a unique opportunity to engage in critical reflectionon the roles science and science education play withinthe 'big picture' state of our global community and itsfuture. In a world facing ecological degradation, and driv-en by global capital imperatives derived from technosci-entific agendas, the importance of a relevant, critical andjust science education cannot be overstated. Like othereducational endeavours, science education is a vast anddiverse field. It has developed its own areas of interestdistinct from the concerns of academic scientists, generalresearchers or teachers, only since the curriculumreforms of the early 1960's (Fensham, 1997). Its interestsrange from classroom-based teaching and learning, cur-riculum, teacher and student-related factors, historicalperspectives and so on, to policy development, and tothe more theoretical epistemological, philosophical andsociocultural concerns in the nature of science itself.

While these areas are formulated predominately in nor-mative terms, there is a small but important scholarshipof critical perspectives reflective of the cultural and lin-guistic turn in social science theory more generally (seefor example the work of Appelbaum & Clarke, 2001;Calabrese Barton & Osborne, 1998; Kyle, 2001; Weaver,Morris & Appelbaum, 2001). Owing much to the field ofscience studies and other oppositional discourses suchas ecofeminism, these critical perspectives include thesocial-interactional, the historical, the linguistic, the polit-ical, the sociological, the ecological and the economic(Lemke, 2001 that for Wong (2001), together with post-modern and feminist thinking, are part of enlightenedcontemporary science education discourse. In this paperwe contribute to this discourse, and briefly review thecritiques of Western modern science as a means of elab-orating some emergent guiding principles we believe areimportant for developing relevant science education.Within these principles we include a futures perspectivethat we judge to be absent from such scholarship. Morespecifically, we describe the development of a teaching

Abstract

It is heartening to note that while science education remains predominately conceptualised from normativepositions, there is a small but important literature adopting more critical perspectives. Drawn from the opposi-tional discourses including science studies and ecofeminism, such critiques aim to reformulate science educationwith far-reaching implications for science curriculum. Given the centrality of science in the Western worldviewand the future of the planet, a futures perspective is a critical omission from these critiques. Futures thinking canprovide a novel framework for organising the critiques of science, and facilitate the development of principles tore-vision a more open science education.

Journal of Futures Studies

46

unit for pre-service primary teachers thatattempts to problematise science from social,historical and futures points of view.

Science as Consciousness and Practice

Re-visioning a science education capable ofcontributing to a more just future requires anunderstanding of the deep structures of scienceand in particular, Western modern science andtechnologyi. Woolgar (1988) argues science tobe a complex and ambiguous field described bya range of epistemological, philosophical, socio-logical, cultural and historical perspectives. It isboth a form of cultural imagination that under-pins and pervades the modern, global matrixwith distinctive types of rationality, values, andclaims to universality, what Fuller (1997) calls an'Enlightenment consciousness', and the morespecific truth-seeking practices pursued by eliteprofessionals to various ends (Galison & Stump,1996; Proctor, 1991). There is also recent andgrowing interest in local knowledge systems,ethnosciences and science as local cultural prac-tice (Harding, 1998).

Characterising science as 'consciousness'means regarding science as "the dominant worldexplanation of modernity" (Heller, 1999:76), inother words, acknowledging science as moder-nity's referent for legitimating truth statements.It is this scientific 'consciousness' that firstly, colo-nialism and now, globalisation imposes on theworld, through modernisation's normative ideasof rationalisation, institutionalisation, autonomy,progress, and the rational calculation of thefuture. For Heller (1999) the power of science as'consciousness' is self-evident, as even withinpostmodern times, it has resisted the loss of itsauthority. On the other hand, modern Westernscience as elite 'practice' interrogates the worldgenerating unproblematic sets of repeatabletruths. Its numerous specialisations systematical-ly develop a view of reality as they incrementallyfill out the details of their various domains. Thisscience believes itself to be universally applicableand epistemologically internally-directed, owingmuch, Hess (1995) argues, to its selectively con-structed origin story that has been retold somany times it no longer has any rough spots.The origin story is a narrative of the triumph of

reason as the torch, "unique in its quest for theultimate, singular and unified truth" (Fuller,1997:80), is passed from one Great WhiteEuropean Male to another, establishing theassumptions about science, technology, natureand modernity that inform its current practices.It has generated a false consciousness that haseffectively 'blackboxed' scientific practice beyondthe scrutiny other disciplinary areas have had toendure (Kendall & Wickham, 1998). Science hasconsequently resisted the sceptical inquiry it hasroutinely applied to the other, and in doing so,has presented a united front able to safeguard itsprivileged and unique status for setting theboundaries of knowledge (Gieryn, 1999).

Critiques of Science

While science has provided powerful andreliable knowledge enabling much human flour-ishing, it has also become highly problematic(Galison & Stump, 1996). De Landa (1996) sug-gests one of the most significant epistemologicalevents in recent years has been the postmodernturn in conceptualising science. Science hasbecome a contested site, its identity destabilisedas its claims to value-free, objective and universaltruth have been progressively undermined bycounterclaims of the social construction of scien-tific knowledge (Gieryn, 1998). The resultant so-called 'Science Wars' (Ross, 1996) has propo-nents such as Wolpert (1997), Gross and Levitt(1994) and Sokal and Bricmont (1998) alignedagainst those whose more critical perspectiveshave emerged from the fields of postcolonialism,poststructuralism, cultural studies, sociology,anthropology, and feminism. Known collectivelyas the cultural studies of science (Weaver, 2001;Weinstein, 1998), the sociology of scientificknowledge (Rose, 1997; Turnbull, 2000), andelsewhere as science studies (Jasanoff, Markle,Peterson & Pinch, 1995; Sardar, 1996) or scienceand technology studies (Harding, 1998; McGinn& Roth, 1999), together these fields more thor-oughly examine the nature, history, productionand sociocultural location of European andethnosciences, and other local knowledges. Weuse the term 'science studies' here to be repre-sentative of these positions.

Re-Visioning Science Education

47

Science studies is a heterogeneous assem-blage of subfields not reducible to a single posi-tion yet efficacious in their interrogation of arange of practices and discourses. Science stud-ies argues that we can only know nature throughculturally constituted conceptual frameworks,enabled and limited by local cultural featuressuch as discursive practices, institutional struc-tures, interests, values, cultural norms, and so on(Turnbull, 2000). Within this view, Western sci-ence is itself a local knowledge system, orindeed ethnoscience (Hess, 1995), which cannotbe known in isolation from the cultural inten-tions, purposes, and values that has shaped itsknowledge claims. Harding (1998) organises sci-ence studies into the two schools of post-Kuhnian and postcolonial. Post-Kuhnian sciencestudies focuses on the construction of Westernscientific knowledge within the cultures andpractices of scientific institutions, permeated asthey are by social and personal beliefs. Harding(1998) describes microsociological laboratorystudies illuminating the interrelationshipsbetween scientific method and knowledge tounderstand how scientific statements emergefrom practice. They show scientists becomeinvolved in long, messy processes that includeindividual values, tacit knowledge, social negoti-ation and reputation to distil meaningful datafrom the background wash, persuading them-selves and others that their interpretations arevalid. As emergent statements pass through aseries of modifications, references to social, his-torical and personal contexts are progressivelyshed, and the scientific claim rises in status (alsoCollins & Pinch, 1993; Knorr-Cetina, 1995).Science behind the scenes, it would seem, ischaracterised by the same messy and conflictingsocial and cultural constructions as any otherknowledge field (also Turnbull, 2000).

By contrast, postcolonial science studiesmoves beyond Kuhn's preoccupation withWestern science, to postcolonial and localisedperspectives emerging from the globalisingworldview. Also known as oppositional sciencestudies (Haraway, 1996), their purpose, notesHarding (1998), is to expose the subjugation andassimilation of the other's different scientific tra-ditions. Postcolonial science studies argues the

view contentious within the 'Science Wars', thatWestern science and the other's knowledge tra-ditions should be treated on an epistemologicalpar as each developed in response to their cul-ture's need to understand, predict and influenceits environment. Goonatilake (1998) for instance,discusses recent work indicating that manyindigenous groups use processes congruent toWestern science in their systematic explorationof nature. Postcolonial science studies alsodraws from anti-Eurocentric histories such as 'sci-ence and imperialism studies' that have begun toreveal links between European colonialism andthe new kinds of oceanography, cartographyand botany that it required (Osborne, 1999; Paty,1999). These voyages turned the world into alaboratory for European scientists to test theirhypotheses and to forage in the traditions of theother, appropriating their knowledge withoutacknowledging its origins. There are numerousinstances where the Islamic, Indian, or Chinesecivilisational sciences or other indigenous ethno-sciences have been incorporated into Westernscience. Intentionally or not, Europeansdestroyed the other's knowledge traditions thatwould have offered the greatest competition toWestern science, or could have provided "poten-tial trajectories of knowledge-trajectorieswhich, if they were developed, would have ledto different explorations of physical reality"(Goonatilake, 1998:70; also Hess, 1995). Westernscience has defined itself as "the only way ofknowing, the sole path to universal knowledge,the exclusive arbiter of what is true and what isfalse" (Sardar, 1996:226, his italics). WithinBauman's (1995) view of modernity, Western sci-ence is privileged truth whose might resides inits power to define and make the definitionstick.

Both Post-Kuhnian and postcolonial sciencestudies also incorporate contemporary feministperspectives. The writings of Fox Keller (1985),Haraway (1989) and Merchant (1980) suggestthat science predominately investigates ques-tions important to such dominant social institu-tions as transnational corporations and the mili-tary, from which women have been systematical-ly excluded. They argue that preoccupations ofthese social structures do not arise from


48

women's lives nor serve women's interests.Consistent with these critiques of science

are those from the ecological domain, particularfrom the ecofeminists. Shiva (1994:15) arguesthat reductionist science is an inherently violentepistemology, a "masculine and patriarchal proj-ect that necessarily entailed the subjugation ofboth nature and women". The Cartesian mind-body split saw the body become associated withthe seeming irrationality of nature, and ofwomen, while Bacon's scientific method ensurednature (and women) was a resource to be manip-ulated. The participatory consciousness as thesense of being part of nature, and descriptive ofthe relationship between nature and pre-rationalcommunities, was desacralised and destroyed(also Broomfield, 1997). Moreover, many scien-tists themselves have become concerned withthe scale of destruction of the planet's ecologicalsystems and the unsustainable nature of humanactivity. Key members of the science communityincluding the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) produced the 1992 declaration starklytitled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity".Lowe (2001) believes that sustainability is theissue of the 21st century, and has called for 'sus-tainability science' to be a recognised discipline.

These strands of science studies erode themythological status of universal science withinthe rationalising framework of modernity, andrefract it through the prism of culture. Sciencebecomes bound and mediated through culturalcodes, and social and economic power intereststhat need to be teased out and exposed. Indeedcommentators, according to Aronowitz et al.(1996:8), "have often claimed that science is thedominant institutional and ideological player inthe global cultural scene, the one that most dra-matically affects or ... permeates our corporeal,subjective and social being". However, powerfulas these critiques of science are, they largely neg-lect any significant futures thinking. While futurestudies acknowledges the theoretical contribu-tion of science studies as a way of exposing thescientific and technological 'enframing' of theWest (see for example Slaughter, 1996), thereare few if any works from science studies thatinclude an explicit futures perspective. We find

this somewhat surprising given the purvey of sci-ence studies, and have argued elsewhere thatscience studies and futures studies exhibit con-siderable overlap (Carter & Smith, 1999). Theyare both contentious transdisciplinary enterpris-es drawing from similar intellectual and perspec-tival epistemologies and methodologies, andmuch science studies scholarship can be judgedto hold implicit futures perspectives. As webelieve science studies continued neglect of thefutures discourses is in danger of limiting itsintellectual pro- ject, we include futures perspec-tives in any of our thinking derived from sciencestudies.

The Role of Science Education

Turning now to consider the role of scienceeducation, it is perhaps to be expected that nor-mative science education recapitulates the domi-nant view of science as unproblematic sets ofuniversally applicable, epistemologically valid,repeatable truths stepped within its origin myth.Current science curriculum derives from Britainand America's massive 1960's science educationreform efforts delayed by World War 2 and theGreat Depression (Fensham, 1997). The reformswere contextualised within the political and eco-nomic agendas of the Cold War, and an unbri-dled confidence in the social benefits and utilityof modern Western science. While the primarylevel privileged science processes and concrete'hands-on' experience over content, the second-ary level revised well-established, theoretical top-ics to better fit approaches used at university fortraining vocational scientists and engineers. Thescience curriculum became highly abstract andorganised around fragmented bodies of canoni-cal knowledge, a sanitised understanding of sci-entific method, and a conceptualisation of sci-ence as objective truth-seeking within a unifiedview of reality.

Now, nearly half a century later, we findourselves in a new global economic and politicalspace. Where perhaps there was a possibility ofsomething different, the need for a technologi-cal, flexible, productive but uncritical workforceto serve the interests of the emerging knowl-


49

edge-economies has determined the shape ofcontemporary science education. The neoliberal,neoconservative and regressive forces of globali-sation have unfortunately envisaged school sci-ence yet again, as a steady induction into scienceformulated as a body of objectified knowledgeand methodology (Hurd, 2002). These forcesrecapitulate the 1960s curriculum reforms intocurrent standards-based science curricula thatHurd (2002:5) suggests is "(s)imply updating thetraditional principles and generalizations of sci-ence disciplines". The science curriculum derivedfrom a previous generation has been found towell-serve new masters!

In much the same way as science studieshas critiqued the construction of scientificknowledge, they have also been used to critiquethis abstract approach to science curricula, andhave hence been highly influential in the rise ofscience education's oppositional discourses.Science studies have lent themselves to beingused in a variety of ways with some scholarship(see for example Cunningham & Helms, 1998;Costa, Hughes & Pinch, 1998; Kelly, Chen &Crawford, 1998; Kelly & Chen, 1999; Roth &McGinn, 1998) drawing on its research method-ologies to explore school science as embodiedsociocultural practices. Other studies situate sci-ence education in society and culture (Aikenhead& Jegede, 1999; Lee & Fradd, 1998), while stillothers have coupled the intersections of race,gender and class with socio-transformationaleducation (Calabrese Barton & Osborne, 1998;Rodriguez, 1997). There is also scholarship onways that practitioners can innovate congruentwith science studies research (Hodson, 1999;McGinn &Roth, 1999; Weinstein, 1998), as thereis around the implications of debates about the(McComas, Clough & Almazroa, 1998). Drawnlargely, although not solely, from post-Kuhnianscience studies, these accounts are among themyriad seeking to challenge and w/ri(gh)t/e sci-ence education (Roth & McRobbie, 1999).Together they argue for a science education thatgoes beyond imparting scientific knowledge andskills and advocates critical participation in aworld dominated by technoscience.

Futures Perspectives and ScienceEducation

It is hardly surprising that research studiessuggest that students perceive the current buttraditional abstract approach to science educa-tion as largely irrelevant to the realities of theircomplex postmodern and global world. Despiteyears of formal science education, their scientificmisconceptions are common, and their lack ofmotivation and feelings of alienation show in thedecreasing numbers opting to take sciencebeyond the compulsory years (Dekkers & deLaeter, 2000; Eisenhart, Finkel & Marion, 1996;Millar & Osborne, 1998; see also Ogawa, 2001).Moreover, as futures research indicates that stu-dents' views of the future are dominated by bothutopian and distopian technoscientific images,the need for relevant and critical science educa-tion within a futures perspective seems morepressing than ever (see Carter & Smith, 1997;Mudzeilwana & Smith, 2001). A futures-derivedscience education provides the means to exam-ine and problematise students' views, and theiraccompanying concerns about social and envi-ronmental breakdown. Futures concepts likeforesight enable us to view the consequences ofthe products of Western science such as globalwarming and biotechnology, as having signifi-cant and unpredictable effects into the future.Problematising taken-for-granted scientific sce-narios of the future allow discourses about theorigin and inevitability of scientific products tobe considered as well as different futures to beenvisioned.

Towards a Re-visioned ScienceEducation

It seems to us that an approach to the sci-ence education which is based upon insightsfrom science studies and critical ecology firmlyembedded in futures perspectives is essential fora more relevant, critical and just science educa-tion for young people. Drawing together thestrands of science studies, ecological discoursesand futures, we suggest the following guiding


50

principles should inform science education. Wenote these principles are still a work-in-progress,and require greater elaboration and critiquethemselves. Nonetheless, we offer them here tocommence this vital discussion within scienceeducation and futures. Science education shouldbe:

Be framed in a futures perspectiveA futures perspective framed within futures

studies is fundamental for considering ways for-ward. Futures studies offers a range of powerfulconcepts and tools for developing foresight andbeing proactive about creating a future worthhaving. Incorporating and problematising stu-dents' views of the future opens up both discus-sion of the origins of these views and considera-tion of other options for the future.

Be socially criticalAn understanding of the sociocultural con-

struction of science derived from science studiesenables a science education that actively decon-structs the master narratives of science, andreveals the privileged positions and interestsassociated with its production.

Include the history and philosophy ofscience

An understanding of the historical andphilosophical context of modern Western sci-ence is vital to exposing the sedimenting histo-ries of the reductionist scientific worldview, andits exclusionary boundary construction and regu-lation role in the world of today. We believe acritical perspective is not possible without suchan approach.

Focus on what it takes to create a sus-tainable future

We believe that nothing less than a planetaryframework is required for students to begin tounderstand the interconnectedness of life on earth.Earth systems can be used as a source of curriculum,and their resacralisation holds the key to their pro-tection. Sustainability science focuses on relation-ships and systems as ways of understanding ourworld, as well as pertinent scientific processes, prod-ucts and decision-making.

Include postcolonial perspectivesWe need to be attentive to the imperatives

and perspectives of non-Western science withina postcolonial sensibility. Postcolonial thinkingoffers the promise of new ways of thinking atthe intersection of modernity and colonialitythat gestures towards future possibilities.

Invoke a sense of wonder and tran-scendence

A sense of awe and wonder is part of allhuman experience. We believe it should be anintegral part of any science curriculum, in con-strast to the dry and abstracted bodies of knowl-edge currently in place. Awe is apparent whenstudents can see their place in the vastness ofspace and time, and commences the process ofrekindling our reverence for nature and ourdesire for a sustainable future.

Developing a Preservice Unit

We have attempted to use these principlesto develop science curriculum in our ownspheres of practice. The resultant first yearundergraduate preservice primary teaching unitin science and technology is aimed students whoby and large, do not have a strong academic sci-ence background, and are consequently morereceptive to such an approach. The unit consistsof 36 hours, currently consisting of an hour lec-ture and 2 hour tutorial. The significant contentof the unit is delivered during the lectures, whilethe tutorials afford students the opportunities topresent their research and discuss issues fromthe lectures.We would like our students to understand that:

Humans have always tried to understand andshape their world: science and technology areas old as humanity;All cultures create their own stories or cos-mologies. Cosmologies provide a sense ofawe and wonder about the universe we live inand our place within it;As science is a product of culture, there aremany sciences as there are cultures. Scientificknowledge has hence arisen from local con-texts and in response to local needs;Western science is a local and now civilisation-al knowledge tradition, shaped by human


51

forces and interests and far from the disinterest-ed and objective body of knowledge it repre-sents itself to be;Western science is a powerful and reliableknowledge tradition. It is responsible for bothutopian and distopian agendas. It has providedfor much human flourishing while being mutu-ally coproductive of the interests of capitalismand imperialism; Science has a powerful influence on futuresthinking, and as such must be problematised;Technoscience and global consumer culture co-produce each other;

Outline of content1. The universe story: Deep Time meditation

(adapted from Swimme & Berry, 1992)2. Cosmologies3. Views of the future: what do they include?

Where do the images come from?4. Time lines: the human story and the rise of

Western science5. Energy and matter: the two organising concepts

on Western science6. Energy: historical and future use7. Energy and consumption8. Matter: history of use, understanding of struc-

ture, biotechnology and nanotechnology9. Technology in a social context: the social shap-

ing of technology10. Technologies for the 21st century: critical

examination of global culture11. Revisiting views of the future: what do they

include? Where do the images come from?What other futures are possible? What is therole of science and technology in framing thefuture?

Evaluation of this unit is still in progress.However, anecdotal evidence suggests that stu-dents appreciate science being approached in thisway, finding it relevant to their lives and offering abroad view of science and technology from bothan historical and a futures perspective. In the nearfuture, we intend to prepare additional papersthat not only describe the unit content in moredetail, but also discuss the further development ofthe guiding principles, as well as report on studentresponses.

Conclusion

Science education faces particular challengesin the 21st century. While mainstream scienceeducation continues its normative, and what weconsider to be outmoded, trajectory formulatedaround decontextualised abstract and theoreticalconcepts and methodologies, it is heartening tonote there are some sections of the science educa-tion community interested in pursuing new direc-tions. We add our voices to this oppositional dis-course in the hope that the emerging guiding prin-ciples we have elaborated in this paper, and thesubsequent innovative science curriculum we havedeveloped, can contribute towards science educa-tion worth doing.

We note the contentious problematic sur-rounding the uses of the terms science, modernscience, Western modern science, Eurocentric sci-ence and so forth. In this paper, we agree withHarding's (1998) more inclusive view of science,and follow Gough's (in press) usage to refer tomodern Western science as that endeavour pro-duced in Europe during a particular historical peri-od, whose cultural characteristics have endured todominate, as a consequence of Western imperial-ism, global understandings of science and the reg-ulation of its boundaries.

Correspondence: Trescowthick School of Education Australian Catholic UniversityLocked Bag 4115, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia [email protected]

ReferencesAikenhead, Glen S., and Olugebemiro J Jegede.

1999. "Cross-Cultural Science Education: ACognitive Explanation For A CulturalPhenomenon." Journal of Research inScience Teaching 36(3):269-287.

Appelbaum, Peter, and Stella Clark. 2001. "Science!Fun? A Critical Analysis Of Design/Content/Evaluation." Journal of Curriculum Studies33(5):583-600.

Aronowitz, Stanley, Barbara Matinsons, andMichael Menser. 1996. Technoscience andCyberculture. Routledge.


52

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1995. "Making AndUnmaking Strangers." Pp. 200-217 in TheBauman Reader, edited by Peter Beilharz(2001). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Broomfield, J. 1997. Other Ways of Knowing.Inner Traditions.

Calabrese Barton, Angela, and Margery D.Osborne. 1998. "Marginalized DiscoursesAnd Pedogogies: Constructively Confron-ting Science For All." Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 35(4):339-340.

Carter, Lyn, and Caroline Smith. 1997."Educators' Views of the Future." in WorldFutures Studies Federation Conference.

Carter, Lyn, and Caroline Smith. 1999. "Re-Visioning Science Education From AFutures Perspective." in AustralianAssociation for Education Research.

Collins, H M, and Trevor Pinch. 1993. TheGolem: What Everyone Should KnowAbout Science. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Costa, Shelley, Thomas B. Hughes, and TrevorPinch. 1998. "Bringing It All Back Home:Some Implications Of Recent Science AndTechnology Studies For The ClassroomScience Teacher." Research in ScienceEducation 28(1):9-21.

Cunningham, Christine M. 1998. "The Effect OfTeacher's Sociological Understanding OfScience (Sus) On Curricular Innovation."Research in Science Education 28(2):243-257.

De Landa, Manuel. 1996. "Markets AndAntimarkets In A World Economy." Pp.181-194 in Technoscience and Cybercu-lture, edited by Stanley Aronowitz, BarbaraMartinsons, and Michael Menser.Routledge.

Dekkers, John, and John de Laeter. 2001."Enrolment Trends In School ScienceEducation In Australia." InternationalJournal of Science Education 23(5):487-500.

Eisenhart, Margaret, Elisabeth Finkel, and ScottMarion. 1996. "Creating The ConditionsFor Scientific Literacy: A Re-Examination."American Educational Research Journal33(2):261-295.

Fensham, Peter J. 1997. "School Science And ItsProblems With Scientific Literacy." inScience Today: Problem or Crisis, editedby Ralph Levinson, and Jeff Thomas.

Routledge.Fuller, Steve. 1997. Science. University of

Minnesota Press.Galison, Peter, and David Stump (eds.). 1996.

The Disunity of Science: Boundaries,Contexts, and Power. Stanford UniversityPress.

Gieryn, Thomas (ed.). 1999. Cultural Boundariesof Science: Credibility on the Line.University of Chicago Press.

Goonatilake, Susantha. 1998. Towards A GlobalScience: Mining Civilizational Knowledge.Indiana University Press.

Gough, Noel. In press, 2003. "Thinking GloballyIn Environmental Education: SomeImplications For InternationalizingCurriculum Inquiry." in Handbook ofInternational Curriculum Research, editedby William F. Pinar. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. 1994. HigherSuperstition: The Academic Left and itsQuarrel with Science. John HopkinsUniversity Press.

Haraway, Donna. 1996. "Modest Witness:Feminist Diffractions In Science Studies."Pp. 428-441 in The Disunity of Science:Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, editedby Peter Galison, and David Stump.Stanford University Press.

Haraway, Donna J. 1989. Primate Visions:Gender, Race, and Nature in the World ofModern Science. Routledge.

Harding, Sandra. 1998. Is Science Multicultural?Postcolonisms, Feminisms and Epistem-ologies. Indiana University Press.

Heller, A. 1999. A Theory of Modernity.Blackwell.

Hess, David. 1995. Science and Technology in aMulticultural World. Columbia UniversityPress.

Hurd, Paul deHart. 2002. "Modernizing ScienceEducation." Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 39(1):3-9.

Jasanoff, Sheila, Gerald E. Markle, James C.Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (eds.). 1995.Handbook of Science and TechnologyStudies. Sage Publications Ltd.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on Genderand Science. Routledge.

Kelly, Gregory J., and Catherine Chen. 1999. "TheSound Of Music: Constructing Science AsSociocultural Practices Through Oral And


53

Written Discourse." Journal of Research inScience Teaching 36(8):883-915.

Kelly, Gregory J., Catherine Chen, and TeresaCrawford. 1998. "Methodological Consi-derations For Studying Science-In-The-Making In Educational Settings." Researchin Science Education 28:23-49.

Kendall, Gavin, and Gary Wickham. 1998. UsingFoucault's Methods. Sage PublicationsLtd.

Knorr Cetina, Karen. 1995. "Laboratory Studies:The Cultural Approach." Pp. 140-166 inHandbook of Science and TechnologyStudies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, GeraldE. Markle, James C. Petersen, and TrevorPinch. Sage Publications Ltd.

Kyle, William C. 2001. "Towards A PoliticalPhilosophy Of Science Education." Pp. xi-xvii in Teaching Science in DiverseSettings: Marginalized Discourses &Classroom Practice, edited by AngelaCalabrese Barton, and Margery D.Osborne. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Lee, Okhee, and Sandra H. Fradd. 1998. "ScienceFor All, Including Students From Non-English-Language Backgrounds." Edu-cational Researcher 27(4):12-21.

Lemke, J. L. 2001. "Articulating Communities:Sociocultural Perspectives On ScienceEducation." Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 38(3):296-316.

Lowe, Ian . 2001. "Sustainability Science." inOckham's Razor. ABC Radio.

McComas, William F. (ed.). 1998. The Nature ofScience in Science Education. Rationalesand Strategies. Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

McGinn, Michelle , and Wolfe-Michael Roth.1999. "Preparing Students For CompetentScientific Practice: Implications Of RecentResearch In Science And TechnologyStudies." Educational Researcher 28(3):14-24.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature:Women, Ecology and the ScientificRevolution. Harper and Row.

Millar, Robin, and Jonathon Osborne. 1998."Beyond 2000: Science Education for theFuture.". Kings College, London.

Mudzeilwana, N. , and Caroline Smith. 2001."Using Young People's Images of theFuture to Develop Futures OrientatedEducation." in XXVIIth World Futures

Studies Federation.Ogawa, Masakata. 2001. "Reform Japanese Style:

Voyage Into An Unknown And ChaoticFuture." Science Education 85:586-606.

Osborne, Michael A. 1999. "Introduction: TheSocial History Of Science, TechnoscienceAnd Imperialism." Science Technology &Society 4(2):161-170.

Paty, Michel. 1999. "Comparative history of mod-ern science and the context of dependen-cy." Science, Technology & Society4(2):171-203.

Proctor, Robert. 1991. Value-Free Science? Purityand Power in Modern Knowledge.Harvard University Press.

Ross, Andrew (ed.). 1996. Science Wars. DukeUniversity Press.

Roth, Wolfe-Michael, and Michelle McGinn.1998. "Knowing, Researching, AndReporting Science Education: LessonsFrom Science And Technology Studies."Journal of Research in Science Teaching35(2):213-235.

Roth, Wolfe-Michael, and Cam McRobbie. 1999."Lifeworlds And The 'W/Ri(Gh)Ting' OfClassroom Research." Journal ofCurriculum Studies 31(5):501-522.

Sardar, Ziauddin. 1996. "Other Futures: Non-Western Cultures In Futures Studies." inThe Knowledge Base of Futures Studies.,edited by Richard Slaughter. FuturesStudy Centre.

Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying Alive: Women,Ecology, and Development. Zed BooksLtd.

Slaughter, Richard (ed.). 1996. The KnowledgeBase of Futures Studies. Futures StudyCentre.

Sokal, Alan, and Jean Bricmont. 1998. IntellectualImpostures. Profile Books Ltd.

Swimme, Brian, and Thomas Berry. 1992. TheUniverse Story. Harper Collins.

Turnbull, David. 2000. Masons, Tricksters andCartographers. Harwood AcademicPublishers.

Weaver, John A. 2001. "Introduction. (Post)Modern Science (Education): PropositionsAnd Alternative Paths." Pp. 1-21 in (Post)Modern Science (Education): Propositionsand Alternative Paths, edited by John A.Weaver, Marla Morris, and PeterAppelbaum. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Weaver, John A., Marla Morris, and Peter


54

Appelbaum (eds.). 2001. (Post) ModernScience (Education): Propositions andAlternative Paths. Peter Lang Publishing,Inc.

Weinstein, Matthew. 1998. "Playing TheParamecium: Science Education From TheStance Of The Cultural Studies OfScience." Educational Policy 12(5):484-506.

Wolpert, Lewis. 1997. "In Praise Of Science." Pp.9-21 in Science Today: Problem or Crisis?,edited by Ralph Levinson, and JeffThomas. Routledge.

Wong, David. 2001. "Perspectives On Learning."Journal of Research in Science Teaching38(3):279-281.

Woolgar, Steve. 1988. Science: The Very Idea.Ellis Horwood Ltd.

Documents

Re-Visioning Science Education from a Science Studies and