Scientific Communication and the Nature of Science

Science and Education

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2067-2086

  Nielsen, Kristian H ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881372461     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-012-9475-3     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers' views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
4. Abelson, P. H. (1980). Scientific communication. Science, 209(4452), 60-62.
5. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.
6. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
7. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). A historical perspective on science and its "others". Isis, 100(2), 359-368.
8. Biagioli, M., & Galison, P. (Eds.). (2003). Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science. New York: Routledge.
9. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in history and philosophy of science, 30A(1), 81-112.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19-47.
11. Brown, C. (2003). The changing face of scientific discourse: Analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 926-938.
12. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). London: Routledge.
13. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57-73). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
14. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15. de Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
16. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court.
17. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 1-37). Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.
18. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Galison, P. (2003). The collective author. In M. Biagioli & P. Galison (Eds.), Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (pp. 325-355). New York: Routledge.
20. Galison, P., & Hevly, B. W. (Eds.). (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
21. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
22. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. J. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Goldacre, B. (2009). Peer review is flawed but the best we've got. The Guardian. http://www. guardian. co. uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre. Assessed April 30, 2012.
24. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting [Article]. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
25. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.
26. Gross, A. G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
28. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190-212.
30. Gunnarsdottir, K. (2005). Scientific journal publications: On the role of electronic preprint exchange in the distribution of scientific literature. Social Studies of Science, 35(4), 549-579.
31. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
32. Halliday, M. A. K. (1979). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
33. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum.
34. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1996). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
35. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693-708.
36. Harnad, S. (1997). Learned inquiry and the net: The role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright. Antiquity, 71(274), 1042-1048.
37. Harnad, S. (1998). Learned inquiry and the net: The role of peer review, peer commentary and copyright. Learned Publishing, 11(4), 283-292.
38. Hirschauer, S. (2010). Editorial judgments: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), 71-103.
39. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
41. Keith, W., & Rehg, W. (2008). Argumentation in science: The cross-fertilization of argumentation theory and science studies. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 211-239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-442). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
43. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
45. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, (2nd ed.), enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46. Kusch, M. (2002). Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
47. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Latour, B. (1999a). For David Bloor... and beyond: A reply to David Bloor's 'Anti-Latour'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30A(1), 113-129.
49. Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Latour, B. (2008). A textbook case revisited: Knowledge as a mode of existence. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 83-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
53. Lavarnd. (2011). LavaRnd. http://www. lavarnd. org/. Assessed April 30, 2012.
54. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
56. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Standford University Press.
57. Luhmann, N. (2002). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
58. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
59. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.
60. McComas, W. F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
61. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (2007). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635-689). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
64. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
65. Pinch, T. (2010). On making infrastructure visible: Putting the non-humans to rights. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 77-89.
66. Radder, H. (Ed.). (2010). The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
67. RAND Corporation. (1955). A million random digits with 100, 000 normal deviates. New York: The Free Press, Collier-MacMillan.
68. Secord, J. A. (2004). Knowledge in transit. Isis, 95(4), 654-672.
69. Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481-520.
70. Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 289-321.
71. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
72. Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73. Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
74. Topham, J., Daum, A. W., O'Connor, R., Pandora, K., & Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). Focus: Historicizing "popular science". Isis, 100(2), 310-368.
75. Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
76. Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411-425.