Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The purpose of this investigation was to explicate the role of the nature of science in decision making on science and technology based issues and to delineate factors and reasoning associated with these types of decisions. Twenty-one volunteer participants purposively selected from the faculty of geographically diverse universities completed an open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interview designed to assess their decision making on science and technology based issues. Participants were subsequently placed in one of two groups based upon their divergent views of the nature of science as assessed by a second open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interview. Profiles of each group's decision making were then constructed, based on participants' previous responses to the decision making questionnaire and follow-up interviews. Finally, the two groups' decisions, decision influencing factors, and decision making strategies were compared. No differences were found between the decisions of the two groups, despite their disparate views of the nature of science. Participants in both groups based their decisions primarily on personal values, morals/ethics, and social concerns. While all participants considered scientific evidence in their decision making, most did not require absolute "proof," even though many participants held absolute conceptions of the nature of science. Overall, the nature of science did not figure prominently in either group's decisions. These findings contrast with basic assumptions of current science education reform efforts and call for a re-examination of the goals of nature of science instruction. Developing better decision making skills-even on science and technology based issues-may involve other factors, including more value-based instruction and attention to intellectual/moral development.

Decision Making and Adaptation Processes to Climate Change

“…It is under these characteristics and with these theoretical elements in which different organizations, either implicitly or explicitly, face their different needs to confront evolution or change processes, where the simple availability of scientific and technical information is not always enough to make good decisions (Bell and Lederman, 2003;Pidgeon and Fischhoff, 2011). Now, we shall review how climate change appears as a new relevant element within this context, with its own characteristics, difficulties and challenges.…”

Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education

“…Some of the students comprising this group were able to recognize data without the ability to describe its use or significance, whereas others could not even distinguish among data, unfounded opinions, and predictions. Bell and Lederman (2003) have examined the reasoning patterns of university professors representing various fields (including science educators, science philosophers, and research scientists) on SSI and found similar reasoning patterns among these groups, including emphases on personal philosophy and commitments over reasoning based on scientific evidence. Although the participants of this study held varied views of the NOS, their decision-making strategies and actual decisions on science and technology-based issues yielded no discernable patterns unique to particular NOS views.…”

The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science

“…The three socioscientific scenarios were sourced from a set of four scenarios, and associated questions developed by Bell and Lederman (2003). The Decision Making Questionnaire ''DMQ'' was designed to obtain information about participants' reasoning in a variety of socioscientific contexts, and the scenarios were contextually linked to relevant scientific concepts addressed in the course.…”

“…Previous research has indicated that participants possess both general epistemologies of knowledge, and specific scientific epistemologies. Bell and Lederman (2003) proposed that the decisions made by participants in their study on a selection of socioscientific issues may have reflected their general epistemologies of knowledge, rather than their specific scientific epistemologies. In this study, Tom and Sarah possessed relatively stronger background scientific knowledge than Rachel, Monica, and David.…”