Understanding Scientific Methodology in the Historical and Experimental Sciences via Language Analysis

Abstract

A key focus of current science education reforms involves developing inquirybased learning materials. However, without an understanding of how working scientists actually do science, such learning materials cannot be properly developed. Until now, research on scientific reasoning has focused on cognitive studies of individual scientific fields. However, the question remains as to whether scientists in different fields fundamentally rely on different methodologies. Although many philosophers and historians of science do indeed assert that there is no single monolithic scientific method, this has never been tested empirically. We therefore approach this problem by analyzing patterns of language used by scientists in their published work. Our results demonstrate systematic variation in language use between types of science that are thought to differ in their characteristic methodologies. The features of language use that were found correspond closely to a proposed distinction between Experimental Sciences (e.g., chemistry) and Historical Sciences (e.g., paleontology); thus, different underlying rhetorical and conceptual mechanisms likely operate for scientific reasoning and communication in different contexts.

Tracking the Footprints Puzzle: The problematic persistence of science‐as‐process in teaching the nature and culture of science

“…Dodick et al (2009) conclude that the accumulating evidence and wisdom reflecting variation among styles of science should convince educators to “design more pluralistic curricula” and explore whether this pluralistic approach widens the appeal of science to students. Research ought to examine how to make various subjects inviting, accessible, useful, and authentic for novice learners without resorting to a one‐size‐fits‐all depiction of scientific inquiry that bifurcates content and process (e.g., Oregon's Inquiry Scoring Guide).…”

“…Appreciating variation among these communities precludes achieving a consensus view of the nature of science. Modern views tend to emphasize cultural, cognitive, epistemological, linguistic, methodological, and sociological features characteristic of diverse research enterprises and recognize that experiments often cannot provide answers to the questions that the historical styles of science, for example, ask (Argamon, Dodick, & Chase, 2008; Cleland, 2002; Dodick, Argamon, & Chase, 2009; Dodick & Orion, 2003; Frodeman, 1995; Gould, 1986; Kitcher, 1993; Kitts, 1977; Mayr, 1985; Orion & Ault, 2007; Schumm, 1991).…”

“…A similar conclusion with regard to observations in historical science would seem warranted. Wondering how patterns of discourse along with methodologies might vary from one research community to another, Dodick et al (2009) conducted a linguistic analysis of thousands of scientific articles from a dozen professional journals, finding stylistic differences between experimental and historical sciences and concluding that these stylistic and rhetorical styles corresponded to distinctive methodological approaches. Geologists, for example, reconstruct earth history from the “bottom up” and realize that this history is “deeply and ineluctably contingent and therefore unpredictable even in retrospect” (Rudwick, 2008, p. 560).…”

“…In brief and in regard to method of inquiry, philosophers and science education researchers simply do not agree on a unified nature of science (Alters, 1997; Argamon et al, 2008; Cartwright, 1999; Cleland 2001, 2002; Cooper 2002, 2005; Diamond 2002; Dodick et al, 2009; Feyerabend, 1993; Frodeman 1995; Gould 1986, 1989; Mayr 1985; Rudolph & Stewart 1998). Divides may be recognized between experimental and historical methodologies within science (even though both may hold prominence in the same field) or between pragmatist and realist philosophies of science.…”

The Structure of Scientific Arguments by Secondary Science Teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics

“…Given the centrality of argumentation to science practices and the diversity in scientific practices across science disciplines or communities, it is reasonable to expect some differences in argumentation between different fields of science and in particular between experimental and historical sciences. Dodick et al (2009) analyzed patterns of language used by scientists in 1,605 scientific articles from 12 experimental and historical journals. In language features they found distinctive methodological differences.…”