Heidi B. Carlone

Unpacking ‘culture’ in cultural studies of science education: cultural difference versus cultural production

In this article, we explore three anthropological approaches to science education research: funds of knowledge, third space/hybridity and practice theory. Definitions, historical origins, uses and constraints of each approach are included along with reviews of exemplary studies in each tradition. We show that funds of knowledge research draws on an earlier research tradition, cultural difference theory and rests on an assumption that groups build culture in response to fixed and static socio-political conditions. Practice theory is more flexible in that it allows researchers to study how groups create local meanings, which may conform to, resist or even transform those larger conditions through cultural production. We then illustrate the approaches by analysing the same case (that of a Mexican-American boy) using both cultural difference theory and practice theory, to illustrate the strengths and limitations of each approach.

Science Education and the Commonplaces of Science.

In this paper, we describe science as a set of “commonplaces,” similar to Schwabs commonplaces of teaching, for framing the nature of science and science education (Schwab, J. J. [1978]. Science Curriculum, and Liberal Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Framed thoughtfully, these commonplaces have the potential to incorporate insights from a variety of perspectives. We propose four formulations of the commonplaces of science, based on distinct views of the nature of science, and explore the consequences of each. We argue that, although there are strengths to each formulation, some commonplaces prove more comprehensive than others in capturing the essence of science for the purposes of developing curriculum, educating science teachers, and conducting science education research.

‘Unthinkable’ Selves: Identity boundary work in a summer field ecology enrichment program for diverse youth

The historical under-representation of diverse youth in environmental science education is inextricably connected to access and identity-related issues. Many diverse youth with limited previous experience to the outdoors as a source for learning and/or leisure may consider environmental science as ‘unthinkable’. This is an ethnographic study of 16 diverse high school youths’ participation, none of who initially fashioned themselves as ‘outdoorsy’ or ‘animal people’, in a four-week summer enrichment program focused on herpetology (study of reptiles and amphibians). To function as ‘good’ participants, youth acted in ways that placed them well outside their comfort zones, which we labeled as identity boundary work. Results highlight the following cultural tools, norms, and practices that enabled youths’ identity boundary work: (1) boundary objects (tools regularly used in the program that facilitated youths’ engagement with animals and nature and helped them work through fear or discomfort); (2) time and space (responsive, to enable adaptation to new environments, organisms, and scientific field techniques); (3) social support and collective agency; and (4) scientific and anecdotal knowledge and skills. Findings suggest challenges to commonly held beliefs about equitable pedagogy, which assumes that scientific practices must be thinkable and/or relevant before youth engage meaningfully. Further, findings illustrate the ways that fear, in small doses and handled with empathy, may become a resource for youths’ connections to animals, nature, and science. Finally, we propose that youths’ situated identity boundary work in the program may have the potential to spark more sustained identity work, given additional experiences and support.

Methodological Considerations for Studying Identities in School Science

Studying identity is a daunting task for new science education scholars. Part of the problem lies in the difficulty of theorizing the concept in rigorous, cohesive, and empirically accessible ways. When I teach qualitative research methods, my favourite question to ask students about their primary concept of interest is, “How will you know it when you see it?” Those studying identity inevitably have considerable difficulty answering this question. The purpose of this chapter is to provide methodological direction for those beginning the formidable task of studying identity in school science or for those who want to broaden their identity studies toolkit.

Ethnographies of science education: situated practices of science learning for social/political transformation

Transforming science education has been cited as a global imperative in terms of: producing technological innovation to maintain economic security (Bybee and Fuchs 2006; Tytler 2007); creating critical consumers of scientific knowledge (Osborne and Dillon 2008) and fostering a more environmentally sustainable and equitable world (Calabrese Barton 2001; Carter 2008). In light of these agendas, viewing science as a cultural process has significantly contributed to our understanding of the interplay between local micro-level contexts and macro-level political influences in the science classroom. Moreover, ethnography has chronicled the experiences of ethnically and linguistically diverse populations who have been historically excluded from participation in science. Cultural studies of science education speak directly to issues of economics, sustainability and inclusion but also address theoretical and empirical gaps in our understanding of science education and its context: ‘What precisely is the nature of science, of nature, of culture, and of the relationship among them?’ (Weinstein 1998, 486). Researchers who conduct ethnography in science education tend to have a deep commitment for transforming science to become an agentic tool, one that improves the lives of people in underserved communities (Hammond and Brandt 2004). In this light, identity and agency the human capacity for making choices and the ability to act upon these intentions is viewed as being both important in terms of learning science, as well as understanding social change in schools and the broader society. Yet, by taking up this stance, the ethnographer in science education is often at odds with the very practices that distinguish the sciences as a process of inquiry separate from other disciplines. Ethnographers of science education have opened up the science classroom to describe cultural practices surrounding the teaching and learning of science in the same way that sociologists have studied the construction of knowledge in the science laboratory (Collins 1982; Latour and Woolgar 1979/ 1986) and the socialisation of scientists-in-the-making (Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay 1983). Through their research, ethnographers of science education challenge the ‘culture of no culture’ (Subramaniam and Wyer 1998; Traweek 1988) and the prevalent myth of objectivism in science. As ethnographers examine the ways science is given meaning in schools, they ask: What is science education? Whose purposes does it support? This special journal issue explores how contemporary ethnographers in science education study the local production of scientific knowledge and how this meaningmaking is implicated in larger social and political struggles. The articles in this issue have a two-fold purpose. First, these articles offer examples of the socially and politically situated practices of science learning (inand out-of-school contexts). Second, these articles highlight the tensions in critically examining science as a social Ethnography and Education Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2012, 143 150

Field Ecology: A Modest, but Imaginable, Contestation of Neoliberal Science Education

ABSTRACT Science education has become a valuable market tool, serving the knowledge economy and technocratic workforce that celebrates individualism, meritocracy, entrepreneurship, rational thought, and abstract knowledge. Field ecology, however, could be a modest, but imaginable contestation of market-driven neoliberal ideology. We explored diverse high school youths’ meaning making of a summer field ecology research experience. Youths’ narratives, elicited with a modified card sort and qualitative interviews, highlight the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical aspects of learning demonstrating considerably broader views of knowledge, meanings of the natural world and their place within it, and access to scientific practices than implied by neoliberalism.

Disciplinary Identity as Analytic Construct and Design Goal: Making Learning Sciences Matter

We must take up problems that matter to the local, national, and global communities in which we live, and we must do it in ways that matter; we must focus on issues of values and power … If we do t...