Examining Interpretive Studies of Science: A Meta-ethnography

Abstract

AbstractThis paper aims to examine the interpretive studies of science. Meta-ethnography was employed along with some enhancement strategies supporting case collection, analysis, and synthesis. The study seeks to answer an overarching research question, What are the descriptions of scientific practice as portrayed by ethnographic studies of science? Three ethnographies of science were selected and analyzed. The results were organized along three elements: (1) overview of the ethnographic studies, (2) key descriptors, and (3) synthesis. It was found that the three interpretive studies of science had two converging themes: material culture and discursive activity. Each interpretive study revealed its distinct aspects of scientific practice. It was concluded that the material culture is the primary actant that shapes scientists' further activities, credibility and transformation of the community itself. The discursive activities inherent in scientific communities are a salient agency of doing scientific practice and the construction of scientific knowledge. Additionally, this paper highlights how the professional scientific laboratory is a system of literary inscription, the production of images, and reproduction of culture. This research into interpretive studies of science is to enrich our understanding of scientific practice and inform the potential audience to reconsider the practice of school science and its social structure.Keywords: Meta-ethnography * studies * Scientific practice * educationDifferent fields of study examine science and its enterprise differently. Philosophers develop philosophical understandings of science in regard to the justification, methodology, and content (Hoyningen-Huene, 2006; Knorr-Cetina, 2001; Sismondo, 2010), whereas historians draw attention to scientific content and theories, and the development of historical artifacts (e.g., instruments) and ideas (Knorr-Cetina, 1995; Vinck, 2010). History and philosophy of science enrich our understanding of science along with a focus on experiments, but not on laboratories, which are natural sites for knowledge generation (Guggenheim, 2012; Knorr-Cetina, 2001). Sociologists have been interested in exploring the whole process of knowledge generation, the social structure of science, and the norms of scientific practice. Ethnographic studies have been conducted in many science-laboratory contexts (Duschl, 2008; Knorr-Cetina, 1995; Vinck, 2010).Ethnographic studies in science are a means for further understanding the cultural portrait of professional science communities and examining the commonalities and differences of scientific practice that shed light on the common characteristics of scientific communities. In this paper, we draw on three exemplary ethnographic studies in the account of sociology of science: (1) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Latour & Woolgar, 1986), (2) Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists (Traweek, 1988), and (3) Art and Artifact in Science (Lynch, 1985). To guide our investigation, we pose the overarching research question, What are the descriptions of scientific practice as portrayed by ethnographic studies of science? To answer this question, we analytically examine and document the concepts the authors used to represent and interpret the scientific practice and knowledge generation process. Next we make a synthesis of our documentation of the concepts the authors used. This investigation allows us to narrow the gap between school and professional science practice. This gap emerged from the misrepresentations of scientific work, or the way scientists perform their inquiries to conceptualize natural phenomena and a lack of understanding of the various dimensions of scientific practice.Our purpose is not to criticize ethnographies of science within the context of any philosophical perspectives (e.g., relativism, realism, and logical positivism), but instead, to present the commonalities and differences among the three ethnographic studies, identify the distinct characteristics of scientific communities, and then portray a more holistic picture of how science is accomplished in order to translate them for use in understanding scientific practice in the science classroom. …