Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Narrative Analysis of Stem Cell Research Scientists' Reflections on Ethical Issues and the Value of Science

  • Received : 2011.04.05
  • Accepted : 2011.05.31
  • Published : 2011.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which scientists reflect on the scientific practices, based on the premise that reflection is one of key elements for shaping scientific identities. This paper specifically considers scientists' reflections as the processes in which their senses of ethical issues and the value of science are articulated. To do so, the study developed a narrative inquiry for exploring the value of scientists' stories. Fourteen professional scientists' stories were collected in the context of the stem cell research, in ways that foreground their reflections on current scientific practices and the surrounding socio-cultural conditions. As for ethical issues, scientists' stories were analysed in terms of four claims regarding the themes of bioethics, integrity, scientific issues and communication. Furthermore, scientists' reflections on the value of science were analysed in relation to the elements of nature of science. Based on the results, discussion focused on the value of science stories as an instrument with which to guide students into the enculturation in the practices of scientific culture.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science, International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1683-1707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802380695
  3. Barker, C., & Galasinski, D. (2001). Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language and identity. London: Sage.
  4. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  5. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 17, 1-21.
  6. Cho, S., Cho, E., & Yoon, J. (2009). Public perception toward life science issues. Social Science Research, 20(1), 169-187.
  7. Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
  8. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  9. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781-795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
  10. Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists'discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Glasson, G. E., & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists' reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84(4), 469-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200007)84:4<469::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-Q
  12. Harre, R., Brockmeier, J., Muhlhauser, P. (1999). Greenspeak: a study of environmental discourse. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
  13. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461640
  14. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds) Establishing a consensus agenda for K-12 science inquiry (99-117). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
  15. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  16. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  17. Levinson, R. (2009). The manufacture of aluminium and the rubbish-pickers of Rio: Building interlocking narratives . School Science Review, 90(333), 119-124.
  18. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
  19. Martin, B.E., & Brouwer, W. (1991). The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Science Education, 75, 707-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750610
  20. Michael, M. (1996). Constructing Identities, London: Sage.
  21. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  22. Mills, J. (2001). Self-construction through conversation and narrative in interviews. Educational Review, 53(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120085883
  23. 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
  24. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  25. Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535 563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063
  26. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-aboutscience" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692 720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  27. Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87(1), 64 79. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1055
  28. Samarapungavan, A. Westby. E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90 (3), 468-495. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20111
  29. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G. & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 8(4), 610-645.
  30. 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
  31. Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: what can they do for our students? Studies in Science Education, 37(2), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560178
  32. Waterton, C., Wynne, B., Grove-White, R., & Mansfield, T. (2001). Scientists reflect on science: Scientists'perspectives on contemporary science and environmental policy. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
  33. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semistructured methods. London: Sage.
  34. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the Horse's Mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431-1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903104465
  35. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008