Rudolph (2001) “Portraying Epistemology: School Science in Historical Context"
“The point to be emphasized here is simply
that there are no socially neutral images of science, all have inherent consequences of some kind or another." p.75
In this article Rudolph argues for the
importance of not treating school science as a settled domain. He argues that
curriculum designers’ ideas of what science is and what it is for are formed
within a particular social and political context and thus shape the type of
science presented in schools. To illustrate his point, Rudolph compares the
science education visions of John Dewey and Joseph Schwab. While both saw
scientific knowledge as fluid, Dewey advocated that “the method of scientific
reasoning” be instilled in the public at large, while Schwab stated that
science was best practiced by experts and that the role of school was to give
citizenry the faith to support scientific endeavors, even in the face of
uncertain outcomes. What matters in this juxtaposition is not whether one
agrees with Schwab’s or Dewey’s views, but the ramifications that each
philosophy carries once it is put into practice. In Rudolph’s words: “For the
individual student, the relocation of epistemic authority from process to the
professional community of scientists had a decidedly disempowering effect. Rather
than seeing science as an intellectual resource or tool anyone might use for
their personal, social, or even political benefit as Dewey advocated, students,
according to Schwab, were to learn enough about science to appreciate its
legitimacy, but also its inherent complexity, a complexity that placed it
beyond the intellectual grasp of the lay public. This lesson, properly learned,
would result in public deference to the authority of an expert class—an outcome
Dewey had worked to guard against throughout his career (Westhoff, 1995).” p.74
My initial gut reaction to this paper is
to side with the Dewey-inspired populist notion that science is for all, and
that if people understand the myriad ways in which science works and is
interpreted, we will have the appropriate level of criticism and faith in
scientific endeavors. That said, I’m not entirely convinced that Rudolph gave Schwab’s
view full merit. While the “disempowering effect” of “the relocation of epistemic
authority” is pointed out, the downside of Dewey’s vision of science as a decontextualized
habit of mind is not played out as fully the Schwab-ian scenario exemplified in
the quote above.
Is Dewey’s idea of science too simplistic
or too amorphous? My charge to the upcoming class discussion is to flesh out
Schwab’s argument in a manner that demonstrates faith in the intellectual
capacity and judgment of the public at large. Engaging in this discussion may
well bring us right back to Rudolph’s original points about the epistemology of
science.
Some quotes to consider in our
discussion:
“In any portrayal of science—and most
importantly in the portrayal of school science—at least two things should be
considered: (1) what it is scientists actually do in the myriad research
settings that exist, and (2) some vision of what the appropriate relationship
should be between science and the public. It is this second factor, I would
argue, that should provide the guiding framework for culling, reorganizing, and
finally presenting the practices of science to students in the classroom.” p.75
“Deciding which among the often
conflicting images of science to embrace in any given instance has real
consequences, especially since such decisions are usually made in
venues—legislative hearings, courts of law, medical consultations, etc.—where
some other, perhaps momentous, decision hangs in the balance. The lasting
effects of having one’s characterization of science accepted over one’s rivals,
in addition to the immediate legitimacy such acceptance accords, include the allocation
of prestige, and often financial resources, favorable government legislation,
and the like. Inevitably benefits accrue to some and not to others based on how
the boundaries of science are drawn.” p.67
No comments:
Post a Comment