Skip to main content
Log in

Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Including the perspectives of scientists about the nature and process of science is important for an authentic and nuanced portrayal of science in science education. The small number of studies that have explored scientists’ worldviews about science has thus far generated contradictory findings, with recent studies claiming that scientists simultaneously hold contradictory sophisticated and naïve views. This article reports on an exploratory study that uses the framework of Bhaskar’s critical realism to elicit and separately analyse academic scientists’ ontological and epistemological views about science in semi-structured interviews. When the views of scientists are analysed through the lens of critical realism, it is clear that it is possible to hold a realist ontological commitment about what knowledge is of, simultaneously with a fallibilist epistemological commitment about knowledge itself. The apparent incongruence of scientists’ so-called naïve and sophisticated views about science is resolved when analysed using a critical realist framework. Critical realism offers a simple and coherent framework for science educators that avoids many of the problems of positivism and social constructivism by finding a middle ground between them. The three pillars of critical realism: ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism and judgmental rationality help to make sense of how socially constructed scientific knowledge can be anchored in an independent reality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Kaidesoja (2009) for a discussion of the relative merits of Bhaskar’s and Bunge’s concept of social emergence, in which he argues that Bunge’s account has greater clarity and consistency.

  2. Thank you to one of the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript who alerted me to the similarities between Giere’s work and Bhaskar’s.

  3. Shaheen and Hatunoglu (2017)

References

  • Al-Amoudi, I., & Wilmott, H. (2011). Where constructionism and critical realism converge: interrogating the domain of epistemological relativism. Organizational Studies, 32(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2014). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ view of NOS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1083–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayir, E., Cakick, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1286–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: The Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1998). General introduction. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: essential readings. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1959). Causality and modern science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Dover reprint, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpi, A., & Egger, E. (2010). The process of science. Conneticut: Visionlearning.

  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: a study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, E. F. (2003). Peirce, fallibilism and the science of mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica, 3(11), 158–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. K. (2002). Explaining society: an introduction to critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggertson, L. (2010). Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(4), 199–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glasson, G. E., & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84, 469–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, R. (2004). Critical realism, post-positivism and the possibility of knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: a teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1740/1969). A treatise of human nature. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaidesoja, T. (2009). Bhaskar and Bunge on social emergence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 39(3), 300–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1787/1896). Critique of pure reason. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S. (2016). Post-truth politics and the social sciences. Environmental Sociology, 3(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco, J. (2017). Environmental science in a post-truth world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S. A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing early childhood research: international perspectives on theory and practice. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(l), 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, J. (1934). On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97(4), 558–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers need to know about models: an overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olssen, M. (1996). Radical constructivism and its failings: anti-realism and individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(3), 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahre, R. (1995). Positivist discourse and social scientific communities: towards an epistemological sociology of science. Social Epistemology, 9(3), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. (2006). Auguste Comte volume 1: an intellectual biography. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 26–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: how science tracks truth. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 468–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Redman, E. H. (2015). The contextual nature of scientists’ views of theories, experimentation, and their coordination. Science & Education, 24, 1079–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaheen, K. & Hatunoglu, G. (2017, June 23). Turkish schools to stop teaching evolution, official says. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/turkish-schools-to-stop-teaching-evolution-official-says. Accessed 27 July 2018.

  • Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: the impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taskin, O. (2014). An exploratory examination of Islamic values in science education: Islamization of science teaching and learning via constructivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 855–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tira, P. (2009). Comparing scientists’ views of science within and across disciplines and levels of expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, Indiana University.

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Key works in radical constructivism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, S. B. (2010). Climate change in the classroom: patterns, motivations, and barriers to instruction among Colorado science teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(5), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zammito, J. H. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes: post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the academic scientists who willingly gave their time to participate in this study. Thank you to Michael Matthews for his helpful comments and encouragement on an earlier version of the paper. Thank you also to Liz Johnson, Tai Peseta and Jan West for their support, guidance and feedback. And finally, thank you to the anonymous reviewers who may not have agreed with each other, but whose comments and suggestions all contributed to the improvements in the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn Yucel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author reports no potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yucel, R. Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism. Sci & Educ 27, 407–433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9983-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9983-x

Navigation