Category: research methods/philosophy

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings learning theory research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Expanding conceptions”

Tara J. Fenwick. “Expanding Conceptions of Experiential Learning: A Review of the Five Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition.” Adult Education Quarterly 50: 243-272, 2000.

Summary: Fenwick summarizes & contrasts five current theories of experiential/informal learning. She argues that traditional theory is based on an experience + individual reflection model, which neglects embodied activity and communal processes; these theories include both individual and sociocultural processes. 1) Constructivist: individuals construct meaning from experience to produce knowledge; knowledge is a set of mental constructs. 2) Psychoanalytic: interested in how the unconscious shapes the self; knowledge is driven by passionate tensions. 3) Situative: Adaptive learning through participation; knowledge is based on situated effectiveness, rather than theoretical. 4) Critical-cultural: Focus on power effects and identity; knowledge is emancipation from passive acceptance of identity and dominant cultural critiques. 5) Enactivist: cognition and the environment are simultaneously enacted; cognition is embodied action; knowledge is collective, not individual.

Comments: I’ve left off the critiques for this summary, but she basically looks at each theory through the lens of the other four (mostly based on other researchers’ criticism, but enactivist ideas are pretty new, so for these she uses the looking through the lens approach.) Basically, this is an overview and useful for me in comparing and contrasting. The most relevant frameworks for my research are probably constructivist (more traditional, and a lot of the digital media research seems to build off of this) and situative (e.g., Lave & Wenger). The enactivist approach is newest; not sure if I’ve seen much in that vein at this point…

Links to: Lave & Wenger, others (community participation); Zhang & Norman (constructivist/cognitive)

Categories
exam readings public participation in science research methods/philosophy science communication science studies

Exam readings: Public participation in science

Well, here they are: my last three readings for my public understanding of science reading list. After this, I’ll be spending the next week thinking ONLY about my first exam, which is coming up… And I will be presenting a paper at a conference this weekend- but more on that anon.

Anyway, here are the last three readings. These are all gray literature, but give a current overview of at least NSF’s thinking about the field of PUoS:

First: Friedman, Alan J., Sue Allen, Patricia B. Campbell, Lynn D. Dierking, Barbara N. Flagg, Cecilia Garibay, Randi Korn, Gary Silverstein, and David A. Ucko. “Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects.” Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2008.

Summary: Report from a Natl. Science Foundation workshop on informal science education (ISE) in STEM fields; provides a framework for summative evaluation of projects that will facilitate cross-comparison. The authors identify six broad categories of impact: awareness, knowledge, and understanding; engagement or interest; attitude; behavior; skills; and “other” (project-specific impacts.) For funding purposes, proposals must outline their goals in these categories- while this won’t fully capture learning putcomes, in provides baseline information for evaluating the field of ISE. Also provides advice and suggestions, e.g., what to think about when coming up with goals, what approaches to take, how to evaluate, and how to document unexpected outcomes. It also discusses evaluation designs: NSF’s preference is for randomized experiments, but general advice is to use the most rigorous methods available (e.g., ethnography, focus groups)- discusses pros and cons of various methods. Some specific considerations for ISE evaluation include different starting knowledge of participants; assessments should be inclusive to those from different backgrounds (draw pictures, narratives, etc.) Also discuss specific methods, potential problems, how to assess impact categories for various types of projects (e.g., exhibits, educational software, community programs.)

Comments: Report is targeted to researchers being funded by NSF, to help them navigate new reporting requirements for projects with a public education component. Not useful for my purposes for theoretical background, but does give an outline of the current state of thinking of the NSF for this field.

Links to: Bonney et al. (use this framework for their report); Shamos (discusses different types of evaluation of scientific literacy)

Second: McCallie, Ellen, Larry Bell, Tiffany Lohwater, John H. Falk, Jane L. Lehr, Bruce V. Lewenstein, Cynthia Needham, and Ben Wiehe. “Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education.” Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 2009.

Summary: Study group report on public engagement with science (PES) in the context of informal science education- the focus is on describing/defining this approach. PES projects by definition should incorporate mutual discussion/learning among public and experts, facilitate empowerment/new civic skills, increased awareness of science/society interactions, and recognition of multiple perspectives or domains of knowledge. This approach is most common in areas of new science or controversy; the authors mention that the idea is not to water down the science, but to bring social context into the discussion. There are two general forms of PES in informal science education (ISE) projects: “mechanisms” (mutual learning is part of the experience- blogs, discussions) and “perspectives” (no direct interaction, but recognition of multiple values-e.g., incorporating multiple perspectives into an exhibit.) They contrast this approach with two views of traditional PUoS (making knowledge more accessable/engaging): the first view (generally held by ISE practitioners) sees PUoS as a public service; the second view (generally an academic STS/science communication perspective) sees PUoS as non-empowering, based on a deficit model, and not recognizing that the public can be critical consumers or even producers of science. PES arises from this second view: the key is that organizations must think critically about publics and experts are positioned in interactions, and bring in “mutual learning.”

Comments: While the authors recognize that “engagement” has multiple meanings (action/behavior, learning style, overall learning, participation within a group), the PES approach is not about directly influencing public policy or the direction of research. Presumably that approach is too activist(?)- they do mention the need to work toward using PES to affect policy/research. This report seems to take as a given that mutual dialogue between public and experts is a good thing; I’m not sure how well it would make that case to organizations who are skeptical about that approach.

Links to: Trench-“Analytical Framework” (assessment of the place of “engagement” model)

Third: Bonney, Rick, Heidi Ballard, Rebecca Jordan, Ellen McCallie, Tina Phillips, Jennifer Shirk, and Candie C. Wilderman. “Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education.” Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 2009.

Summary: Study report on public participation in science research (PPSR) as part of informal science education (ISE.) History of ISE: began as public understanding of science (PUoS)- experts determined what public should know, explanations should lead to greater knowledge, which should lead to greater appreciation. Shortcomings of PUoS are that people have greater engagement when topic is directly relevant or interactive; focus is on content delivery, rather than understanding scientific processes. PPSR projects (citizen science, volunteer monitoring, etc.) ideally lead to learning both content and process. These projects involve public in the various stages of the scientific process to some degree. Three types: contributory (scientists design, public just gathers data), collaborative (scientists design, public helps refine, analyze, communicate), and co-created (designed by both and at least some public participants involved in all steps.) They evaluated 10 existing projects using Friedman at al.’s rubric; potential in PPSR projects to address all categories of impacts. Future opportunities include developing new projects (new questions, engage new audiences, test new approaches), enhance current PPSR projects (e.g., go from contributory to collaborative or co-created), add PPSR elements to other types of ISE projects, and enhance research/evaluation of PPSR projects. Two final recommendations are that projects should do a better job of articulating learning goals/outcomes at the beginning, and that comprehensive evaluation methods should be developed.

Comments: This committee report offers a current assessment of PPSR projects and synthesizes recommendations for future research. Scientific literacy remains a basic individual measure in this framework, even with the emphasis on participatory interaction (in contrast to social constructivist approach.) While the assumption is that PPSR projects do affect understanding of science, there are large challenges to assessing this, even at an individual level; part of the problem is that this type of assessment is often added post hoc.

Links to: Roth & Lee (conceptualize sci. literacy in PPSR as a communal property, not individual); Friedman at al. (framework for evaluating PPSR projects)

Categories
exam readings public participation in science research methods/philosophy science communication

Exam reading: Scientific literacy as collective praxis

Is scientific literacy something that we should be able to assess in individuals? Or is it something that emerges as part of community activity? Traditional evaluations of science literacy are based on the former, but there’s a trend to see science literacy as an emergent property of social interaction (at least in non-professional contexts.) Here’s a summary of one paper on the topic:

Wolff-Michael Roth and Stuart Lee. “Scientific literacy as collective praxis.” Public Understanding of Science 11 (2002): 33-56. Print.

Summary: The authors rethink science literacy as a collective, action-based process, not everyday knowledge; they foreground the social and material aspects to learning (complex knowledge is a product of interaction among people and situated in space and social activities.) Their three propositions: sci. lit. is a property of collective activity; science isn’t a “normative framework for rationality” (people can draw on other approaches for decision-making); and effective learning activities have a community purpose (rather than learning as the primary goal.) They feel that “citizen thinking” (not pure science) is most effective at addressing specific local problems; this includes politics, aesthetics, philosophy, etc. Their research centers on a community group trying to improve a watershed. Group members from different activity systems (e.g., scientists, activists, farmers) represented the situation differently and contributed different understandings; the authors see “scientific literacy” as the more-complete knowledge of the situation generated by the interaction of these different understandings. Key conclusions: science literacy can arise through conversation- making known something that wasn’t known before- the collective understanding of the situation then influences individuals’ understanding. Learning is lifelong and situation-based.

Comments: Seems to apply more to science in everyday life, rather than professional science- so an alternative framework for the effects of citizen science projects. Part of their rationale for distributed nature of literacy is the division of labor and ability to consult experts in modern society. Social construction of learning: learning and agency are social; individual learning/agency are reflections of the social setting. Advocate definition of science as a creative activity “tempered by honesty in the face of experimental evidence.”

Links to: Shamos (key place of experts in public understanding of science-though he doesn’t define this as science literacy)

Categories
exam readings pedagogy research methods/philosophy science studies

Exam reading: “The myth of scientific literacy”

Morris Shamos’ “Myth of Scientific Literacy” starts off with some grim estimates on the state of scientific literacy in the U.S.: maybe 5-7% of Americans are scientifically literate- able to not only understand science terminology and know some basic facts, but also understand how the scientific process works. While this book was published in 1995, the situation hasn’t changed much.

Summary: Shamos claims that U.S. educational policy (in many iterations) has been trying to increase general science literacy and increase numbers of science-career students, and failing at both. Science is difficult because it requires a non-commonsense mode of thought; deductive/syllogistic thinking (commonsense) can lead to correct conclusions from incorrect assumptions, and science rests on a combination of deduction, induction, quantitative reasoning, and experimentation. Through the history of science education, there has been debate over what to teach and why; Shamos suggests three levels of sci. literacy: cultural (understand some terminology), functional (know some facts), and “true” literacy (understand scientific process). “Science” education generally is focused on technology or natural history studies (not sci. process)- which would be OK for “science awareness,” but also need to add an understanding of the use of experts to assist in making societal decisions. Broad-based sci. literacy is hampered by several factors: mathematical illiteracy, lack of social incentives, science can be boring & hard to learn, and disparagement by public intellectuals (and others.) He especially cautions against movements to discredit rationalism as the best basis with which to relate nature to society through science.

Comments: On use of experts: failing to create a truly sci. literate citizenry (which Shamos suggests is impossible), he suggests a system of public science experts who help make decisions in a transparent way (with citizen watchdog groups.) Overall, wide-ranging discussion of science education, philosophy of science, and possible future models for science education (also incorporating adult ed, though he focuses on formal ed.)

Links to: Pellegrini (models of citizen-scientist expert interactions); Holton (“anti-science” forces)

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy science studies

Exam reading: “Science and anti-science”

In contrast to yesterday’s reading, Gerald Holton’s “Science and Anti-Science” falls on the opposite side of the empiricist-subjectivist spectrum. It’s a collection of essays written during different periods, and a fair amount of knowledge of the philosophy of science is assumed (particularly in the first two essays.)

Summary: A collection of essays on philosophy of science, beginning with the rise of positivism in the early 20th cen. and the work of Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle. Positivism is based on rejecting metaphysics and hierarchy, in favor of relying on empirically-derived data; explanations should be purely descriptive (not religious, metaphysical, mechanistic.) Three main concepts: no supernatural protectors, so need to help ourselves; we have the capability to improve life for individuals and society; and in order we act we need knowledge- the sci. method is the best way to get knowledge, so science is one of the most valuable tools to improve life. While positivism was the basis of modernism, the increasing importance of relativity and probability theory introduced some philosophical elements to science; these were resisted by some researchers. Holton discusses rhetoric of scientific papers: reliance on demonstration; dual rhetorics of assertion (of one’s own ideas) and appropriation or rejection (of others’ ideas) in communication; describes sci. papers as a dialogue between multiple actors (e.g., author & previous researchers). He defines three types of scientific praxis: Newtonian (“basic”/seeking omniscience), Baconian (“applied”/seeking omnipotence), and Jeffersonian (combined mode of basic research addressing a specific social problem/seeking to improve human life through understanding). Discusses differences between cyclical and linear models of human progress and how these apply to science (e.g., “science carries seeds of own destruction” vs. asymptotically approaching ultimate knowledge.) Final essay discusses “anti-science”: scientism (e.g., Social Darwinism), pseudoscience, superstition (New Age), misguided science (Lysenkoism). Anti-science is a complete worldview, not just an incomplete understanding of scientific worldview. Reasons for acceptance include sci. illiteracy, concerns with technology and global stewardship, and skepticism of authority. Advocates “new humanism” of rationality, acceptance of uncertainty & pluralism, Jeffersonian model of science; discusses ways to counter “traditionalists” and “postmodernists.”

Comments: Holton’s “postmodernism” involves extreme social constructionism; many postmodernist scholars would be moderately happy with his Jeffersonian model of science (though the insistence on science as the best way of knowing about the world would not be popular.) Illustrates use of rhetoric both within science and as a means to foster a scientific worldview and counter “anti-science” in the public sphere.

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy science communication science studies

Exam reading: “Crafting science”

Here’s the thing. In philosophy, there is a spectrum of belief about the “reality” of the observable world. This ranges from extreme empiricism (we can only know that which we can measure with our senses, therefore science is the only way to know the world) to extreme postmodern relativism (all perception is subjective, therefore scientific observations are only as accurate as religious or philosophical notions about the world).

Debate among adherents of both philosophies (as well as those who fall somewhere in between) has occasionally been bitter (and has crept into the political realm.) I fall closer to the empirical end of the scale, though I do believe that there is room for discussion of social construction around scientific models and science as an institution.

Joan Fujimura’s “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation'” comes from a decided social constructionist perspective (for example, a footnote at the beginning assures the reader that she does not consider “facts” to “represent reality.”) That said, she does present an interesting way of looking at they ways in which scientific concepts are transferred among different fields (though I suspect my watered down view of the role of social negotiation in science would seem inadequate to her.) Here is my summary:

Summary: From a social constructionist perspective, scientific knowledge is produced not by consensus or by referring to objective nature, but by negotiation and argument. Fujimura combines Latour’s “boundary objects” with Star & Griesner’s focus on collective negotiation in constructing scientific “facts.” Fujimura suggests that “standardized packages” of both technologies and a theory (i.e., several related boundary objects) facilitate cooperative work by acting as interfaces between different social worlds. The packages allow cross-communication (via “translation”) and cooperation between disciplines, while still letting disciplines maintain the integrity of their viewpoints. Such packages are more rigid than just single boundary objects, because the different parts co-define one another. She uses the example of oncogenes as a recent conceptual framework for cancer research to illustrate how this process works. In this case, boundary objects include concepts (e.g., gene, cancer), databases (which create a standard language), and sequences (DNA & protein). The primary theory is “translated”/mapped onto existing problems in different fields, e.g., links retroviruses (virology) to oncogenes (genetics), then oncogene proteins to proto-oncogenes (developmental & evolutionary biology.) When used together, shared theories and standard tools can ensure “fact stabilization.”

Comments: Provides a framework for how ideas are communicated across disciplines or among interest groups. Can this be used in a less-extreme constructionist setting? If people can argue about multiple perceptions of a thing, then that suggests that there really is a “thing” out there to argue about (in other words, I believe in reality.)

Links to: Hellsten & Nehrlich (metaphors in sci. comm); Bucchi (metaphors for communication between disciplines)

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy science communication

Exam readings: Research into public understanding of science

In my final post of material from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, I’ll include info from two chapters on research on public understanding of science. First, Martin Bauer on public survey research:

Summary: Bauer discusses the history of research into PUoS, and outlines three eras of research paradigms. From the 1960s-80s, focus was on “science literacy:” basic literacy and civic competence (facts & methods, appreciation, rejecting superstition). Research assumed a public deficit & measured knowledge and attitudes. Critiques centered around lack of emphasis on trust issues; definition of “superstition;” is literacy a continuum or threshold level; and focus on facts/process rather than knowledge in context. During the mid-80s-mid 90s, “PUoS:” foregrounded public attitude deficit and assumed more knowledge would lead to more positive attitudes toward science. Research was based on one of two assumptions: “rationalist” (people need knowledge and training & will evaluate sci. issues rationally) or “realist” (people decide emotionally, so market-based research.) Critiques: relationships among interest, attitude, and knowledge not clear; and positive attitudes are not correlated with knowledge. From the mid-90s to the present, focus has been on “science in society:” the public’s lack of trust in scientific experts. This research focuses on science as a single sector of society, assumed that decline in public trust leads to a skeptical but informed public, urges more public policy involvement, and generally takes an interventionist stance. Critique of this research paradigm centers on time-consuming nature of focus groups and ethnographies; the creation of a new professional class of evaluators; and suggests a need to return to PUoS measures anyway to see if focus groups actually have any effect on participants.

Comments: Bauer frames these three research paradigms as discourses surrounding research, not as complete shifts in research methods (e.g., old methods still have relevance.) Though field as a whole has shifted, different methods are probably still useful in certain circumstances. An alternative PUoS “successor” is “public participation in science,” which aims to include people directly in research, rather than focus on P.R./trust issues.

Links to: Cornell Lab papers (public participation, as alternative to trust-focused research)

And last,  Federico Neresini and Giuseppe Pellegrini on evaluating communication efforts:

Summary: The authors lay out what seems to be a common-sense approach to evaluating results of research efforts, including the need to clearly state objectives at the outset and evaluate on that basis, usefulness of both quantitative and qualitative methods, and the need to plan for evaluation. They acknowledge that when evaluation becomes structured and formal, there is a political aspect to it. Another thing to do is match methods to the communication model you’re operating under (e.g., deficit model-evaluate public; dialogue model-evaluate all actors in dialogue.) They cover different types of evaluation during project phases (assessing ability to complete objectives, formative eval., summative eval.) For communication, the idea is to establish the extent and nature of change in the audience (or audience + communicators + other actors in discussion.) Changes can occur in knowledge, attitude, mental models, and behavior; different methods are appropriate to measure different types of change. They discuss experimental design issues: problems of correlation vs. cause/effect relationships, pre/post survey biasing of participants, deference to interviewers, and short-term vs. long-term effects.

Comments: Evaluation of communication results is apparently a controversial subject in this field (according to the authors), but their discussion of methods and things to be aware of seems reasonable to me. Fair review of this type of material.

Categories
exam readings information representation politics research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Intermediation and its malcontents”

My last core reading- and an appropriate one to end on. Robert Jensen’s “Intermediation and its Malcontents” is about the importance of (not-for-profit) publishers in the academic publication ecosystem. It’s appropriate because it provides me a segue into the material on my next reading list, which is about the public communication of science. One of the big PUoS issues is: how much intermediation should there be between scientists and the public about scientific issues? And one of the key services that Jensen claims that publishers provide is intermediation.

Now, Jensen’s paper is about humanities publishing, but some of the ideas are the same in scientific fields. And while he’s obviously trying to argue the case that publishing houses (like his) provide essential services as intermediaries, there’s a wide range of opinion on the proper place of intermediation in science communication. But more on that later…

Summary: Jensen focuses on the value that’s added to academic publishing by publishers (small-run non-profit presses), mainly: validation, coordination, authority, and promotion. When adding e-publishing to a press, things to consider are cost-sharing (for editing & staff to be cost-effective, he claims you need to be running at least 6-8 journals), the need to choose an appropriate platform, and planning to track electronic copies and paper inventories. Jensen feels that traditional print-based models of writing are best for many scholarly works, and this is unlikely to change. He discusses several cost-recovery models: subscription, print on demand, timed access, free archives/pay for new issues, and free new issues/pay for archive access. He advocates a “sustainable” scholarly publication infrastructure it intermediate between scholars and the public. As support, he outlines several ways in which publishers add value in a less-intermediated world: specialists are efficient, they can tailor works for specific audiences, and vetted material is better than non-vetted. He suggests that close interaction between academic groups interested in e-publishing is vital. These include librarians, techies, publishers, departments, and individual scholars.

Comments: Claims that volunteerism for e-journals is reaching its limit- not sure how this claim has held up. Gives long anecdote about the effects of the fall of Communism on Czech presses as a cautionary tale to compare to the e-publishing “revolution”- this is more of a metaphor than a direct parallel, but many of his concerns are probably justified re: radical changes without a plan. Almost as an aside, he ends with a discussion of the stifling nature of current copyright law, and urges non-profit publishers to stop siding with for-profits in lobbying efforts.

Links to: Bolter (decline of authority in online publishing); Liu (similar tone of justification for humanities disciplines in a digital world); Lessig (copyright wars)

Categories
exam readings information representation research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Digital History”

Only two more readings to go on my core list! I suspect I’m not going to be as long-winded in my summaries when I move on to the next two lists, but we’ll see… These last few readings are all online texts. I will confess- I really dislike reading long works online. I don’t really have time to cite and elucidate why, but I don’t like doing it. Maybe that’s a topic for an actual post, when I have time.

Ever wanted to start your own amateur history website? (Memories of the Cape Coral Burrowing Owls? People who went to that one Phish concert that changed their lives? Those who mourn Geocities?) In “Digital History,” Cohen and Rosenzweig tell you how. I can see how this would be a very good resource for those wanting to start research or archival websites, and certainly not just for history:

Summary: The authors believe that electronic technologies can enhance historical work in several ways; this book is essentially a how-to manual for those wanting to start an online project. For example, large storage capacity allows us to expand the criteria for preservation of works (though extreme ephemerality of storage media & systems may mean that the possibility of preserving everything won’t be practical.) Online archives and sites expand access both to researchers and the public, sites can facilitate community participation (e.g., a community archive of the history of Town X), and database structures allow many different types of information to be linked & presented simultaneously. Some of the problems with online works include issues of quality and authenticity, durability, readability, corporate control of the medium, and the possibility that websites foster passivity in users (“interactivity” often boils down to “click through out TV-show tie-in site and then click here to buy”.) They offer suggestions for dealing with most of these issues. One of the main things they address is long-term preservation and archiving, the importance of using at least comment tags and update records, though preferably professional archive standards, and finding a permanent home for the site. They also address the importance of finding a good scope for the project, attracting visitors, and encouraging repeat visits. Another important issue is copyright- they advocate a Creative Commons approach (limited copyright on your work), and documenting attempts to secure rights if you’re not using public domain works.

Comments: A few chapters on technical considerations that I’m eliding, e.g., database vs. XML, digitization & data loss, design for usability by typical (i.e., commercial) WWW standards can oversimplify presentation. Considering archival issues is obviously a crucial issue for not just historians, though obviously they have a strong interest in this.

Links to: Lessig (Byzantine copyright laws); Burnard et al. (XML); McGann (example of online archive)

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Digital libraries”

Howard Besser’s take on “The Past, Present, and Future of Digital Libraries.” Online here.

Summary: Besser discusses both the history and functions of digital libraries. At a minimum, traditional libraries provide access to source material, contextualization, and commentary; digital tools add coordination of multiple archives and facilitation of text analysis and searching to this list. There are four core components that the traditional library provides: a physical space, mission to serve the underserved, a location for continuous education, and a guarantee of public access to collections. Within these components, there are several features that Besser characterizes as part of the traditional ethics of library practice: stewardship, stability, public service, information privacy, equal access, and providing a diversity of information. Digital libraries began as just collections, but are now moving into adding other traditional library services like curation. Besser believes that to be “true” libraries, digital libraries will need to incorporate these ethical standards into their missions as well (key digital issues are connectivity among collections, access/usability, and protecting privacy concerns.) While he has a large focus on traditional library ethics, Besser also discusses the importance of standards for interfaces, best practices, user authentication, and metadata (which he divides into descriptive, discovery/search, structural/navigation, administrative, version identification, and longevity types).

Comments: Good summary of issues, and provides an ethical perspective on the movement to online archiving.

Links to: Cohen & Rosenberg (archiving & preservation issues); Jensen (publishing perspective); Burnard, et al. (TEI/standards)