Since the 1950s, inquiry has been considered an effective strategy to promote students’ science learning. However, the use of inquiry in contemporary science classrooms is minimal, despite its long history and wide recognition elsewhere. Besides, inquiry is commonly confused with discovery learning, which needs minimal level of teacher supervision. The lack of thorough description of how inquiry works in diverse classroom settings is known to be a critical problem. To analyze the complex and dynamic nature of inquiry practices, a comprehensive tool is needed to capture its essence. In this dissertation, I studied inquiry lessons conducted by one high school science teacher of 9th grade students. The inquiry sequence lasted for 10 weeks. Using the Scientific Practices Analysis (SPA)-map and the Mathematics and Science Classroom Observation Profile System (M-SCOPS), elements of inquiry were analyzed from multiple perspectives. The SPA-map analysis, developed as a part of this dissertation, revealed the types of scientific practices in which students were involved. The results from the M-SCOPS provide thorough descriptions of complex inquiry lessons in terms of their content, flow, instructional scaffolding and representational scaffolding. In addition to the detailed descriptions of daily inquiry practices occurring in a dynamic classroom environment, the flow of the lessons in a sequence was analyzed with particular focus on students’ participation in scientific practices. The findings revealed the overall increase of student-directed instructional scaffolding within the inquiry sequence, while no particular pattern was found in representational scaffolding. Depending on the level of cognitive complexity imposed on students, the lessons showed different association patterns between the level of scaffolding and scientific practices. The findings imply that teachers need to provide scaffolding in alignment with learning goals to achieve students’ scientific proficiency.

This dissertation is an attempt to understand the role of instruments in the process of knowledge production in science. I ask: how can we trust scientific instruments and what do we learn about when we use them? The dissertation has four parts. First, I construct a novel account of “epistemic possibility,” the possibility of knowing, that captures the dependency of knowledge on action, and I introduce the notion of “technological possibility,” which depends on the availability of material and conceptual means to bring about a desired state of affairs. I argue that, under certain circumstances, technological possibility is a condition for epistemic possibility. Second, I ask how instruments become reliable. I argue that when the material capacities and conceptual functions of a scientific instrument correspond, the instrument is a reliable component of the process of knowledge production. I then describe how the instrument design process can result in just such a correspondence. Instrument design produces the material device, a functional concept of the device revised in light of experience, a measure of the closeness of fit between material and function, and practices of trust such as calibration routines. ii Third, I ask what we learn from instruments such as those used for experimentation and simulation. I argue that in experiments, instruments function to inform us about the material capacities of the object of investigation, while in simulations, instruments function to inform us about the conceptual model of the object of investigation. Fourth, I put these philosophical distinctions into historical context through a case study of Monte Carlo simulations run on digital electronic computers in the 1940s-70s. I argue that digital electronic computers made the practice of Monte Carlo simulation technologically possible, but that the new method did not meet existing scientific standards. Consequently, Monte Carlo design practices were revised to address the worries of potential practitioners.

This dissertation is an attempt to understand the role of instruments in the process of knowledge production in science. I ask: how can we trust scientific instruments and what do we learn about when we use them? The dissertation has four parts. First, I construct a novel account of “epistemic possibility,” the possibility of knowing, that captures the dependency of knowledge on action, and I introduce the notion of “technological possibility,” which depends on the availability of material and conceptual means to bring about a desired state of affairs. I argue that, under certain circumstances, technological possibility is a condition for epistemic possibility. Second, I ask how instruments become reliable. I argue that when the material capacities and conceptual functions of a scientific instrument correspond, the instrument is a reliable component of the process of knowledge production. I then describe how the instrument design process can result in just such a correspondence. Instrument design produces the material device, a functional concept of the device revised in light of experience, a measure of the closeness of fit between material and function, and practices of trust such as calibration routines. ii Third, I ask what we learn from instruments such as those used for experimentation and simulation. I argue that in experiments, instruments function to inform us about the material capacities of the object of investigation, while in simulations, instruments function to inform us about the conceptual model of the object of investigation. Fourth, I put these philosophical distinctions into historical context through a case study of Monte Carlo simulations run on digital electronic computers in the 1940s-70s. I argue that digital electronic computers made the practice of Monte Carlo simulation technologically possible, but that the new method did not meet existing scientific standards. Consequently, Monte Carlo design practices were revised to address the worries of potential practitioners.

This thesis comprises an empirical case study of scientific data production in oceanography and a philosophical analysis of the relations between newly created scientific data and the natural world. Based on qualitative interviews with researchers, I reconstruct research practices that lead to the ongoing production of digital data related to long-term developments of plankton biodiversity in the oceans. My analysis is centred on four themes: materiality, scientific representing with data, methodological continuity, and the contribution of non-scientists to epistemic processes. These are critically assessed against the background of today’s data-intensive sciences and increased automation and remoteness in oceanographic practices. Sciences of the world’s oceans have by and large been disregarded in philosophical scholarship thus far. My thesis opens this field for philosophical analysis and reveals various conditions and constraints of data practices that are largely uncontrollable by ocean scientists. I argue that the creation of useful scientific data depends on the implementation and preservation of material, methodological, and social continuities. These allow scientists to repeatedly transform visually perceived characteristics of research samples into meaningful scientific data stored in a digital database. In my case study, data are not collected but result from active intervention and subsequent manipulation and processing of newly created material objects. My discussion of scientific representing with data suggests that scientists do not extract or read any intrinsic representational relation between data and a target, but make data gradually more computable and compatible with already existing representations of natural systems. My arguments shed light on the epistemological significance of materiality, on limiting factors of scientific agency, and on an inevitable balance between changing conditions of concrete research settings and long-term consistency of data practices.

This thesis is about the production of knowledge in meteorological research. Meteorology is an interesting case because of its crucial role in defining the climate change problem, but also because of its reliance on simulation modeling, a comparatively little studied scientific practice. The thesis provides an analysis of the central practices of simulation modeling and field experimentation. It draws upon concepts from social world theory, where practice is closely related to work. The thesis also employs the notion of translation, as developed by the actor-network approach, in order to analyse how different practices and entities become associated with each other. Empirical data was collected with interviews and participant observation and most of the fieldwork was conducted at the Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University. The first four chapters are preliminary: Introduction, theory, method and a review of the field and its history (Chapters 1–4). The empirical findings are then presented in four chapters. Chapter 5 presents how meteorological experimentalists organize collaborations by connecting and translating different practices. The use of measuring instruments has an important role in this. In Chapter 6, modeling work is described in detail. The differences between modeling for weather forecasting and for research purposes are analyzed and in particular, the construction of simulation models. It is concluded that this involves a materialization of theoretical models. The next two chapters take their point of departure in intersections where modeling practice meets experimentation. Chapter 7 is focused on model evaluation and I conclude that the comparison of observations and model output is needed to produce reference in simulation modeling and thus, legitimate this practice. The second intersection, discussed in Chapter 8, is the construction of new components of simulation models, so-called parameterizations. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, the analysis in this chapter is also based on research funding applications. It is concluded that climate research is constructed in such a way that parameterizations become potential boundary objects that shape the relationship between experimentalists and modelers. The final chapter discusses the central findings of the thesis. It is structured around different themes within social world theory: subworlds and segmentation, legitimation, arena processes, and intersections. Crucial methodological issues are revisited as well. It is shown how climate modeling shapes meteorological research and the consequences of simulation modeling practice for scientific work more generally are outlined as well. The chapter also includes an extensive discussion of the utility of the concept boundary object.

A partir da análise do modelo de desenvolvimento da ciência proposto por Kuhn em The structure of scientific revolutions (1962) é possível considerar a ciência enquanto prática realizada no interior comunidades científicas. Ainda que tratando de dois tipos de progresso científico: aquele que ocorre por meio da atividade paradigmática e o que acontece por meio das revoluções científicas, Kuhn permanece como modelo de progresso científico centrado especialmente no aspecto cognitivo interno da atividade científica. Porém, ao listar os valores como um dos elementos do paradigma, Kuhn trouxe para a filosofia da ciência a possibilidade do tratamento também dos fatores externos, que estão relacionados ao contexto social no qual a ciência está inserida. Levando adiante essa proposta de interação entre a ciência e os valores, Lacey vincula o conceito de paradigma a sua concepção de estratégia de pesquisa. Orientando-nos pela guinada valorativa empreendida por Lacey, formulamos três características que compõem o progresso valorativo da ciência, que são a consideração da prática científica, a identificação da interação da ciência com os valores e o reconhecimento da estrutura entre meios e fins que subjaz à relação da escolha das estratégias de pesquisa (M1) com os demais momentos logicamente distintos da prática da ciência, incluindo a relação entre a ciência e a tecnologia que é realizada no momento da aplicação científica (M5). Nossa consideração está baseada em grande medida no modelo da interação entre a ciência e os valores, que permite elucidar além da distinção entre os valores pessoais e os sociais, e da distinção entre valores cognitivos e não cognitivos, a articulação dos valores através do discurso, como forma de explicitá-los, permitindo a sua crítica por perspectivas de valor divergentes. Além disso, para exemplificar o enraizamento dos valores nos contextos sociais e institucionais da ciência, analisamos três estudos de casos, da inovação no Brasil, da proibição de uso de animais para o teste de cosméticos no Estado de São Paulo e da aplicação do aconselhamento genético no Centro de Estudos do Genoma Humano e Células-Tronco, dos quais extraímos que a interação entre a ciência, a tecnologia e a sociedade requer o reconhecimento de que os valores orientam as práticas científicas e tecnológicas, bem como a possibilidade de que demandas sociais de legitimidade alterem a relação entre meio (ciência e tecnologia) e finalidades (controle da natureza e inovação) a serem atingidas. / Beginning from the analysis of Thomas Kuhns model of development of science, proposed in The structure of scientific revolutions (1962), it is possible to consider science as a practice held within scientific communities. Although dealing with two different types of scientific progress, i.e., progress by means of paradigmatic activity, and progress by means of scientific revolutions, Kuhn remains within a model of scientific progress centered mainly in the internal cognitive aspect of scientific practice. But, enrolling values among the elements of paradigm, Kuhn brings to the philosophy of science the possibility of treating also the external factors which are related to the social context in which science is inserted. Bringing ahead this proposal of interaction between science and values, Lacey links the concept of paradigms to his conception of research strategy. Guided by Laceys evaluative turn, we formulate three features that compose the evaluative progress of science. There features are to take into account the scientific practice, to identify the interaction between science and values, and to recognize the structure of means and ends that underlies the relation between the choice of the research strategy (M1) and the other logically distinct moments of scientific practice, specially the relation between science and technology which occurs in the stage of scientific application. Our consideration is based mainly on the model of the interaction between science and values. This allows the clarification not only of the distinctions between personal values and social values, and the distinction between cognitive values and non-cognitive values, but also the articulation of values through discourse as a mean of making them explicit, admitting their criticism from divergent evaluative perspectives. Furthermore to exemplify the rooting of values in the social and institutional contexts of science, we analyze three study-cases: that of innovation in Brazil, that of prohibiting the use of animals for the test of cosmetics in the State of São Paulo, and that of genetic advice in the Human Genome and Stem Cells Research Center. From these study-cases we extract that the interaction between science, technology and society requires the recognition that values guide scientific and technological practices, as well as the possibility that social demands of legitimacy change the relation between the means (science and technology) and the ends (control of nature and innovation) to be achieved.

<p>This thesis is an exploration into the socialization of researchers as it takes place in various research practices. Using a lifeworld-perspective, a qualitative interview-study with doctoral students from different academic milieus is conducted. The organizational context of the study is the academic department as it is experienced, apprehended and constructed by the doctoral student.</p><p>The “societal” context is described and discussed in a brief analytical exposé of Swedish science policy in the last decade of the twentieth century. Questioning the political reliance on a systems-perspective, and the shortcomings of system theory for the understanding of research practices in different academic milieus, a lifeworld-theoretical turn is suggested.</p><p>A lifeworld-perspective is formulated in a meta-theoretical discussion focusing on the concepts of <i>practice</i>, <i>time</i> and <i>language</i>. Jürgen Habermas’ critique of phenomenological lifeworld-perspectives is the point of departure and theoretical inputs are derived from the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of scientific knowledge and phenomenological sociology. The solution is found in an integrative model of socialization as continual synchronization of subjective systems of coordinates and socio-cultural networks. Mediating between subjective consciousness and inter-subjective knowledge is language, and this is manifested in concrete practices observed in “real-time”.</p><p>The empirical study reveals some influences of the system on the lifeworld. “Inside” the lifeworld, however, the interviewees mostly use their departments as frames of reference in their descriptions and discussions. A more elaborate exploration of the life-world results in an understanding of socialization in terms of <i>positioning</i>. This concept denotes the ways in which the interviewees describe themselves, their socio-cultural surroundings and themselves in relation to these milieus. At any given moment, positioning can be understood as a “co-construction” of subjective position and socio-cultural milieu. Positioning is thereby the empirical correlate to synchronization, and socialization can be “read off” from the ways in which doctoral students position themselves “here and now”. Problematic, though, is that “doctoral student”, and especially “female doctoral student”, are found to be vague and vulnerable categories with no clear meanings for the socialised nor for the socio-cultural environment. In a more speculative manner, these difficulties of positioning are put in relation to “scientist” as a vague category. If “scientist” cannot be defined, how then can we know what “scientists in the making” are?</p><p>This thesis offers an insight into the plural “realities” of doctoral students in different academic milieus. It offers a lifeworld-perspective on socialization and is thereby relevant for discussions of post-graduate education among scholars as well as among policy makers.</p>

This thesis is an exploration into the socialization of researchers as it takes place in various research practices. Using a lifeworld-perspective, a qualitative interview-study with doctoral students from different academic milieus is conducted. The organizational context of the study is the academic department as it is experienced, apprehended and constructed by the doctoral student. The “societal” context is described and discussed in a brief analytical exposé of Swedish science policy in the last decade of the twentieth century. Questioning the political reliance on a systems-perspective, and the shortcomings of system theory for the understanding of research practices in different academic milieus, a lifeworld-theoretical turn is suggested. A lifeworld-perspective is formulated in a meta-theoretical discussion focusing on the concepts of practice, time and language. Jürgen Habermas’ critique of phenomenological lifeworld-perspectives is the point of departure and theoretical inputs are derived from the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of scientific knowledge and phenomenological sociology. The solution is found in an integrative model of socialization as continual synchronization of subjective systems of coordinates and socio-cultural networks. Mediating between subjective consciousness and inter-subjective knowledge is language, and this is manifested in concrete practices observed in “real-time”. The empirical study reveals some influences of the system on the lifeworld. “Inside” the lifeworld, however, the interviewees mostly use their departments as frames of reference in their descriptions and discussions. A more elaborate exploration of the life-world results in an understanding of socialization in terms of positioning. This concept denotes the ways in which the interviewees describe themselves, their socio-cultural surroundings and themselves in relation to these milieus. At any given moment, positioning can be understood as a “co-construction” of subjective position and socio-cultural milieu. Positioning is thereby the empirical correlate to synchronization, and socialization can be “read off” from the ways in which doctoral students position themselves “here and now”. Problematic, though, is that “doctoral student”, and especially “female doctoral student”, are found to be vague and vulnerable categories with no clear meanings for the socialised nor for the socio-cultural environment. In a more speculative manner, these difficulties of positioning are put in relation to “scientist” as a vague category. If “scientist” cannot be defined, how then can we know what “scientists in the making” are? This thesis offers an insight into the plural “realities” of doctoral students in different academic milieus. It offers a lifeworld-perspective on socialization and is thereby relevant for discussions of post-graduate education among scholars as well as among policy makers.

In this dissertation I used the anthropological and sociocultural perspectives to examine the culture of school science and science communities. I conducted three independent studies. The first study is a meta-ethnography of three well-known case studies published in the literature. I analyzed these studies in order to identify the distinct characteristics of scientific communities and portray a picture of how science is practiced. The meta-ethnographic analysis reveals aspects of scientific practice that are insightful for the science educators and curriculum developers because these aspects are often neglected in school science even though they explain how science is done and accomplished in science communities. In the second study, I conducted an ethnographic research to explore the distinct characteristics of a scientific-engineering community. How the community members worked in collaboration as they conducted their research, how they negotiated and mutually agreed upon as they interacted and communicated with one and another and what they have learned through the process of these interactions were the units of the analyses. Findings reveal that the lead scientists' different working styles in the research center orchestrated learning and research. Ongoing communication and interdisciplinarity initiated collaborative partnerships with other communities and allowed the research groups to generate a shared repertoire to pursue the novelty in the process of knowledge generation. Mentorship was a catalyst for enculturation process, and it was on the trajectory of becoming an engineering university faculty. In the third study, I observed a science classroom over a period of time to explore the socio-cultural aspects of learning. I examined the social practices and the participants' interactions that establish and maintain participation, community, and meaning. In my analysis I investigated the extent to which students' participation and interaction formed a community of practice and fostered learning science. The three studies highlight the distinct characteristics of school science communities and science communities that are of importance for the efforts to better design learning environments. Translating the everyday activities of scientists and engineering researchers into school science communities can help enhance students' science learning experiences and cultivate a more informed understanding of science and engineering.

This thesis is a history of the beginnings of nuclear research and education in India, between 1938 and 1959, through the trajectories of particle accelerator building activities at three institutions: the Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, the Palit Laboratory of Physics, University Science College, Calcutta, later (Saha) Institute of Nuclear Physics, and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay. The two main arguments in this thesis are: First, the beginnings of nuclear research in India were rooted in the "modernist imperative" of the research field. However, post-war organisation of nuclear research came to be inextricably imbricated in processes of state-formation in independent India in a manner such that failure to actively engage with the bureaucratic state implied death of a laboratory project or constraints upon legitimately possible research. Second, state-formation, like the pursuit of nuclear research in India for the period of my study, became about India's participation and claim upon the universal. State-formation was equally a modernist imperative. Powerful sections of the nationalist bourgeoisie in India understood "Science" and the "State" as universals in World History, and India, they were convinced, had to confirm its place in history as an equal among equals. These two arguments combined explain how nuclear research came to be established, transformed, and extended through the gradual assembly of material infrastructure to realistically enable the new country take a capable decision on the nuclear question.