Chemical Education Today
Letters The Inquiry Wheel, an Alternative to the Scientific Method The recent report by William Robinson (1) discusses the presentation of “an alternative to the scientific method” as reported by Harwood and coworkers. I concur with Robinson that Harwood’s work provides significant insight into the ways scientists describe their work on a daily basis. However, before it is classed as a description of the scientific method, I think it is important to indicate three problems in that original study and its reference to the literature. The three problems stem from a common source: the need to contextualize scientific inquiry within a full view of the process and premises of science. Therefore, while Harwood and coworkers have presented valuable data and a reasonable interpretation of laboratory work, they have not answered the question of how this work relates to science and the methods of science in a larger sense. The first problem is the complete absence of any connection to a proper understanding of hypothesis. Harwood and coworkers do well to document that hypothesis is often poorly discussed in textbooks and in the classroom. At the very least, hypothesis is commonly confused with prediction. But Harwood and coworkers, in their decision to organize inquiry around questions, lose hypothesis somewhere along the way. They write “What is considered more valuable than stating a hypothesis is deriving good questions.” This begs the question: where are the questions derived from, if not from a hypothesis? The second problem relates to theory. Harwood and coworkers do well to refute a common textbook error: that inquiry results in a theory in a linear fashion. But that theories do not come from scientific inquiry in this way does not mean that theories are unimportant. The data that Harwood and coworkers have published suggest that inquiry never results in anything but an answer to a question. Indeed, one of their conclusions is that “The process of conducting an inquiry investigation involves forming questions, reviewing the literature, articulating an expectation, designing and conducting the study, interpreting and reflecting on the results, and communicating the findings.” As with hypothesis, the neglect of theory as a category by Harwood and coworkers suggests there is no overall project, no overall goal, no overall result to the scientific method. There is some sense that both hypothesis and theory may be present in the “defining the problem” stage of inquiry. But they write, “Scientists define a problem based on their observations and their understanding of the literature.” Except for the ill-defined role of “the literature”, however, there is no sense that any larger conceptual structure, like a hypothesis or theory, plays any role whatsoever. The third problem relates to the social context of science. The inquiry wheel has one place where the external world seems to impact inquiry: through the combined interaction of the “scientific community” and “society” on “communicating the findings”. This recreates a view of science done in isolation from external factors. This view is highly problematic. The only external factor that they document is 682
Journal of Chemical Education
•
when critique by the scientific community prompts investigators to pose new questions. Society, outside of the peer review process, is present only as a group that needs to be spoken to, not listened to. This isolationist viewpoint contrasts dramatically with the work of sociologists of science and science studies scholars over the last 30 years, who time and again document how social factors influence scientist’s decisions, ranging from what instruments are available for use to the actual language used to describe their work. As I suggested, Harwood’s work is well done and potentially quite valuable. But it only represents inquiry in a day-to-day sense. Inquiry in a larger sense involves the formation and testing of hypothesis, the use of theory to guide experiment, and the interpretation of data, and also reflects the influences of culture and society. A proper view of “the scientific method”, therefore, includes Harwood’s findings as a component, not the entire story. Literature Cited 1. Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 791. Donald J. Wink Department of Chemistry University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL 60607-7061
[email protected] The author replies: 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).
Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Chemical Education Today
Letters 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
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
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 1. 2. 3. 4.
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. 5. Allchin, D. Science & Education 2003, 12, 315–329. 6. McComas, W. F. School Science and Mathematics 1996, 96 (1), 10–15. William S. Harwood Department of Curriculum and Instruction Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405
[email protected] Vol. 82 No. 5 May 2005
•
Journal of Chemical Education
683
