Relevance and relational responsibility in justice‐oriented science education research

Abstract

In this article, we critically examine what a commitment to equity, diversity, and social justice in science and science education means for our research practices and methods. Using a blend of critical cross-cultural and feminist lenses, we explore relationships of power in our research, specifically in terms of knowledge production, representation, and positionality. We also consider our ethical obligations and relational responsibilities as researchers in terms of caring and solidarity. We argue that relevance should be measured as a function of the transformative impact of the research enterprise. We also argue that to do this, researchers need to examine and expose their own positioning and positionality. We propose a variety of strategies, drawn from our work and from that of many others, which illustrate how to build and sustain more caring, ethical, responsive, and responsible relationships with research participants.

On the need for expanded guidance in navigating ethical learning research at science museums

“…They are both constraining and insufficient, for instance, in their inability to consider the agency of research participants who are simultaneously co‐researchers, colleagues, and museum employees and in their inattention to risks that may arise in the process of such research. Instead of providing guidance on how to care for and relate to each other in a spirit of reciprocity (see, for example, Tolbert et al, ), they micromanage details (e.g., the wording of questions) that are not at the core of our research. Thus, we are not asking for more specific rules, but for more room for asking questions and receiving guidance on axiological and ontological grounds.…”

“…We do so in multiple ways so as to honor differing perspectives, expectations, and positionalities (see also Olitsky, , on the importance of negotiating productive conflict, cultural differences, and fostering respect and mutual learning in a school‐university research partnership). Ethics here are relational, cultural, and contextual (Brickhouse, ; Tobin, ; Tolbert et al, ). Like Tolbert et al (), (public) university‐based science education researchers working in school contexts, we are “reframing our ethical obligations and relational responsibilities in terms of caring and solidarity” (p. 797), which includes, as they do, posing questions for continuing reflection.…”

“…Ethics here are relational, cultural, and contextual (Brickhouse, ; Tobin, ; Tolbert et al, ). Like Tolbert et al (), (public) university‐based science education researchers working in school contexts, we are “reframing our ethical obligations and relational responsibilities in terms of caring and solidarity” (p. 797), which includes, as they do, posing questions for continuing reflection.…”

“…Indeed, Rahm () asserted that “more attention needs to be paid to the what and how of research, and the kinds of research methodologies and research questions that drive the field” (p. 402). Similarly, Tolbert, Schindel, and Rodriguez () “encourage a more expansive consideration of scholarly work that can allow researchers to ethically explore the complex research questions and creative projects that socially and politically engaged researchers should pursue” (p. 800), noting that participatory, collective contributions to knowledge production are less common in science education research than in other fields. Research methodologies that are attenuated and flexible to emergent understandings of science learning have great potential for moving informal science education forward.…”

“…As Brickhouse () wrote, “Research articles describe and defend theoretical and methodological positions, but the ethical dimensions of the research itself are rarely discussed” (p. 93). While she was writing about classroom‐based science education research nearly 20 years ago, her words apply today to both formal and informal science education, a notable exception being Tolbert et al ().…”