Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Scientific Representation and Science Learning
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2282-8071
2014 (English)In: Open Review of Educational Research, E-ISSN 2326-5507, Vol. 1, no 1, 211-231 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this article I examine three examples of philosophical theories of scientific representation with the aim of assessing which of these is a good candidate for a philosophical theory of scientific representation in science learning. The three candidate theories are Giere's intentional approach, Suárez's inferential approach and Lynch and Woolgar's sociological approach. In order to assess which theory is more promising, I will compare the three candidate theories to two aspects of scientific representation in science learning that emerge from empirical research on science learning. I label these aspects as the intentional and normative character of scientific representation in science learning. As I argue, whereas the other competing accounts of scientific representation can only capture one of the two aspects highlighted in this article, the inferential conception has the capacity to capture them both in a coherent way. Thus, I conclude that the inferential conception seems to be a fruitful philosophical theory of scientific representation in science learning.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 1, no 1, 211-231 p.
Keyword [en]
science learning, scientific representation, inferential conception, disciplinary norms
National Category
Learning Philosophy
Research subject
Education
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-140202DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2014.989900OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-140202DiVA: diva2:1078661
Available from: 2017-03-06 Created: 2017-03-06 Last updated: 2017-03-15Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. A Field of Veiled Continuities: Studies in the Methodology and Theory of Educational Research
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A Field of Veiled Continuities: Studies in the Methodology and Theory of Educational Research
2017 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Empirical educational research enjoys a methodological and theoretical debate that is characterized by a number of unresolved and lively debated controversies. This compilation thesis is an attempt to contribute to this debate using the toolbox of philosophy of science.

The thesis consists of an introductory chapter and four essays. In the introductory chapter I identify three methodological and theoretical controversies that are discussed within the field of educational research. These are: 1) the controversy concerning the scientific status of educational research; 2) the controversy between cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning; and, 3) the controversy between realist and constructionist interpretations of theories of learning.

I provide in the essays a critical assessment of the claims behind each of these controversies, and argue for an alternative reconstruction of these issues.

In Essay I, I criticize a view about the interpretation of human action, labeled in the text as interpretivism. This view posits a sharp separation between the natural and social sciences, to the effect that the methods of the latter cannot be applied to the former. The first controversy seems to rest on this position. As I argue, the arguments in support of interpretivism are contradicted by actual research practice. I conclude that the interpretivistic claims lack support and that the general separation claim appears as problematic.

A further debate has fueled the first controversy, that is, the supposed distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods. In Essay II, I argue against this distinction. More specifically, I discuss the concept of empirical support in the context of qualitative methods (for short, qualitative support). I provide arguments that although there are two specific and non-trivial properties of qualitative support, there is no methodological separation between quantitative and qualitative methods concerning empirical support.

Considered together, the first two essays indicate two points of methodological continuity between educational research and other scientific practices (such as the natural sciences). I therefore conclude that the controversy concerning the scientific status of educational research rests in large part on unjustified claims.

Essay III focuses on the second controversy. In this article I argue that Suárez’ inferential approach to the concept of scientific representation can be used as an account of scientific representation in learning, regardless of whether learning is understood as a cognitive or social phenomenon.

The third controversy is discussed in Essay IV. Here, I discuss some ontological aspects of the framework of the actor-network theory. Reflecting on the use of this framework in the research field of Networked Learning, I argue that the assumption of an ontology of relations provides the solution for two puzzles about the ontology of networks. The relevance of my argument for the third controversy is that it suggests a point of connection between constructionist and realist interpretations of the ontology of learning.

The last two essays suggest two points of continuities between theoretical frameworks that have been and still are argued to be incompatible.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Department of Education, Stockholm University, 2017. 75 p.
Series
Doktorsavhandlingar från Institutionen för pedagogik och didaktik, 49
Keyword
Methodology of Educational Research, Educational Theory, Educational Philosohy, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Causal Explanations of Actions, Qualtative Methods, Scientific Representation, Learning, Actor Network Theory, Ontic Structural Realism
National Category
Pedagogy
Research subject
Education
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-140475 (URN)978-91-7649-732-6 (ISBN)978-91-7649-733-3 (ISBN)
Public defence
2017-05-05, De Geersalen, Geovetenskapens hus, Svante Arrhenius väg 14, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

At the time of the doctoral defense, the following paper was unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript.

Available from: 2017-04-10 Created: 2017-03-09 Last updated: 2017-03-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Matta, Corrado
By organisation
Department of Education
LearningPhilosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 42 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf