The contradictions in science education peer review and possibilities for change

Research in Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 269-280

  Tobin, Kenneth ^a   Roth, Wolff Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Contradictions; Metalogue; Peer review; Research standards; Weak boundaries

Indexed keywords

EID: 3342924539     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1016038414389     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
2. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
3. Bateson, G. & Bateson, M. C. (1987). Angels fear: Towards an epistemology of the sacred. Toronto: Bantam Books.
4. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press.
5. Il'enkov, E. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays in its history and theory (Transl. by H. Campbell Creighton). Moscow: Progress.
6. Lee, S. H. & Roth, W.-M. (2000). Autobiography and the paradox of change: (Dis)locating ourselves in the process. Research in Science Education, 30, 57-73.
7. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.