The author replies to Wink.
Don Wink raises some excellent issues regarding our initial model for the process of scientific inquiry, the Inquiry Wheel, as reported on by William Robinson (1). However, it appears that Wink is confusing our discussion of how science is done (the process of scientific inquiry) with the broader issue of what science is (the nature of science). Fundamentally, Wink is asking for a new paper that puts this new model into context and addresses the connections between this model of how science is done (the process of scientific inquiry) and what science is (the nature of science). A paper describing the development of a new model from its initial conception as the Inquiry Wheel to its current version as the Activity Model is in preparation. Versions of the model have been tested against a description of an authentic inquiry from Inquiry and the National Standards (2) and as a means to evaluate inquiry-based laboratory assignments (3).
In the meantime, Wink identifies some areas that often result in confusion for students and teachers of science. I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify how the Inquiry Wheel (and the current “Activity Model” version) address these items. Wink correctly indicates the confusion that is common between “hypothesis” and “prediction” (4). The activity scientists engage in is “articulating an expectation”. Articulating an expectation includes the formation of hypotheses or predictions or even the expectation that a new instrument or technique will be a means for better understanding the natural world. Such is the case for exploratory research undertaken by Galileo with his telescope or Malpighi with his microscope (5).
Let’s imagine a synthetic organic chemist who has identified a target compound that is important as an anti-cancer agent. She considers her knowledge and experience in synthesis and examines the literature (the activity, “investigating the known”) and may engage in several other activities (called stages in the Inquiry Wheel). She works out a synthetic pathway she believes will be successful. That is, she “articulates an expectation”. It really cannot be said that she made a hypothesis, and the closest she comes to a prediction is that she “predicts” that if her scheme is followed, the target compound will be synthesized. Nevertheless, she has a clear outcome in mind and her expectation is central in the design of her study—in this example, carrying out the series of steps in the synthesis, purification, and characterization of the target compound.
Wink’s second issue assumes that theories and laws are the products of science. This is embedded in common understandings regarding the nature of science (6), but is not directly related to doing science. Let’s return to the case above. The chemist is successful in making her target compound. Has she created a theory? Has she worked out a new law? No. Her ability to craft a synthesis is certainly grounded in models, laws, and theories regarding molecules and their reactivity. It could be viewed that her synthesis provides additional validation of these models, laws, and theories. However, she may not have generated any new theory or revision of theory, but she has succeeded in accomplishing good science.
In general, scientists need to “reflect on their findings” to identify how their results fit or challenge current thinking in their field. This is the activity where the scientist makes meaning from the particular study and determines if current models, laws, or theories are confirmed, refined, or refuted.
Wink’s final area of concern is his feeling that our model does not explicitly identify how social issues influence the work of scientists. This is an active area of study for sociologists of science. Our model for the process of scientific inquiry provides a framework for such study. Social issues can affect the “questions” scientists choose to ask, as well as how they “define the problem” and “communicate”. Communication occurs through conversations with peers in a research laboratory and between research groups, both formally (such as at a presentation at an ACS meeting) and informally through email and phone conversation. But communication is also a two-way discussion between scientists and society. For many scientists the link between their work and perceived needs of society is very strong and for others the perceived link is weaker.
Our model can provide one framework in which to explore how social issues impact the choices scientists make with regard to their inquiries. It may be that another model of the process of, say, socio-scientific inquiry may be needed. Multiple models of the process of scientific inquiry that each address different contexts or research needs are consistent with scientists’ use of models, especially chemists'. In general chemistry, for example, we teach three different models for acids and bases and expect our students to use the one that is most appropriate for their needs.
It is also important to recognize that models are mutable. They are subject to refinement based on new data. Thus, our initial model of the Inquiry Wheel has been refined to become the Activity Model. So far, academic research scientists from a number of institutions have indicated that the refined Activity Model describes what they do. If any of the readers feel that this is not the case for them, I would very much appreciate it if they could provide me with a specific example from their own research experience that will clarify the issue or area of concern.
Literature Cited
- Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 791.
- Harwood, W. S. The Science Teacher 2004, January, 44–46.
- Harwood, W. S. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 2004, 33 (7), 29–33.
- McPherson, G. R. The American Biology Teacher 2001, 63 (4), 242–245.
- Allchin, D. Science & Education 2003, 12, 315–329.
- McComas, W. F. School Science and Mathematics 1996, 96 (1), 10–15.
|
Citation
Always in the