Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study aimed to explore how early childhood teachers engage science process skills for teaching science concepts in early childhood settings. Social constructivist theory was employed as the guiding framework for this study. Four Grade R teachers were purposefully selected and engaged through qualitative research methods. Data generation was informed by semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis. Thematic data analysis was used to unpack the aim of the study. Results reveal that the low engagement of science process skills by participants was strongly influenced by their limited knowledge of content and science process skills when teaching the concepts. This finding implies that the training of early childhood teachers needs to improve and be supported with continuous development programs. This finding may inform teacher training programs and curriculum development efforts geared toward improving science education in the crucial early years of a child’s academic journey.

Research in young children’s ideas, representations, and pre-conceptions about the natural and technical world has a long history. Most of the studies in the field have used individual, semi-structured interviews as a methodological technique to generate and collect empirical data. However, less is known about how tracing procedures can come in line and be incorporated into everyday educational reality in early childhood settings in a way that reflects young children’s interests and needs. The present study uses dramatic play to trace young children’s thinking in science and advance their science learning experiences. The study focuses on a science concept young children are familiar with in everyday life though has not been thoroughly studied in the literature yet: thermal insulation. Empirical data from 6 preschoolers in Greece are presented. Qualitative data were collected through recordings of children’s dialogues, children’s drawings, field notes from the early childhood teachers, and photographs. The findings revealed that during their dramatic play children a) developed basic argumentation to express their thinking about the phenomenon; b) related the phenomenon with the thermal condition and changes in temperature; c) identified materials and objects with insulating properties and distinguish them from others with non-insulating properties, and d) came to the conclusion that the use of amplified insulation materials can lead to better insulation results. The outcomes of the study add to the research methodology in early childhood science education and inform practice providing a pedagogical framework that balances between play-based pedagogies and advanced learning outcomes in science for young learners.

Social scientists, political scientists and philosophers debate key concepts such as democracy, power and autonomy. Contested concepts like these pose questions: Are terms such as “democracy” hopelessly ambiguous? How can two theorists defend alternative accounts of democracy without talking past each other? How can we understand debates in which theorists disagree about what democracy is? This paper first discusses the popular strategy to answer these questions by appealing to Rawls’s distinction between concepts and conceptions. According to this approach, defenders of rival conceptions of, e.g. justice can disagree without talking past each other because they share the concept of justice. It is argued that this idea is attractive but limited in application and that it fails to do justice to the dynamic and normative aspects of concept formation. Reflective equilibrium is then suggested as an alternative approach. It replaces the static contrast between a conceptual ‘core’ and competing conceptions by a dynamic perspective of concept formation as a partly normative undertaking: pre-theoretic language use and commitments can provide a shared starting point for developing alternative accounts which yield different concepts of, e.g. justice. This perspective provides a new understanding of how it is possible that different theorists defend rival accounts of, e.g. justice, without talking past each other.

Concept formation has recently become a widely discussed topic in philosophy under the headings of “conceptual engineering”, “conceptual ethics”, and “ameliorative analysis”. Much of this work has been inspired either by the method of explication or by ameliorative projects. In the former case, concept formation is usually seen as a tool of the sciences, of formal disciplines, and of philosophy. In the latter case, concept formation is seen as a tool in the service of social progress. While recent philosophical discussions on concept formation have addressed natural sciences such as physics as well as various life sciences, so far there is only little direct engagement with the social sciences. To address this shortcoming is important because many debates about socially relevant concepts such as power, gender, democracy, risk , justice , or rationality , may best be understood as engaging in conceptual engineering. This topical collection addresses the nature and structure of concept formation in the natural, the life, and the social sciences alike, both as a process taking place within science and as an activity that aims at a broader impact in society. This helps to understand how concept formation proceeds not only in the natural sciences but also in disciplines such as psychology, cognitive science, political science, sociology and economics.

This paper applies conceptual engineering to deal with four objections that have been levelled against operationalism in psychology. These objections are: (i) operationalism leads to harmful proliferation of concepts, (ii) operationalism goes handin-hand with untenable antirealism, (iii) operationalism leads to arbitrariness in scientific concept formation, and (iv) operationalism is incompatible with the usual conception of scientific measurement. Relying on a formulation of three principles of conceptual engineering, I will argue that there is a useful form of operationalism that does not fall prey to these four objections.

Against the orthodox view of the Nash equilibrium as “the embodiment of the idea that economic agents are rational” (Aumann, 1985, p 43), some theorists have proposed ‘non-classical’ concepts of rationality in games, arguing that rational agents should be capable of improving upon inefficient equilibrium outcomes. This paper considers some implications of these proposals for economic theory, by focusing on institutional design. I argue that revisionist concepts of rationality conflict with the constraint that institutions should be designed to be incentive-compatible, that is, that they should implement social goals in equilibrium. To resolve this conflict, proponents of revisionist concepts face a choice between three options: (1) reject incentive compatibility as a general constraint, (2) deny that individuals interacting through the designed institutions are rational, or (3) accept that their concepts do not cover institutional design. I critically discuss these options and I argue that a more inclusive concept of rationality, e.g. the one provided by Robert Sugden’s version of team reasoning, holds the most promise for the non-classical project, yielding a novel argument for incentive compatibility as a general constraint.

Our aim in this paper is to employ conceptual negotiation to inform a method of rethinking defective food concepts, that is concepts that fail to suitably represent a certain food-related domain or that offer representations that run counter to the interests of their users. We begin by sorting out four dimensions of a food concept: (i) the data upon which it rests and the methodology by which those data are gathered; (ii) the ontology that sustains it; (iii) the social acts that serve to negotiate and establish the concept; (iv) and the aims and values that it fosters. We then discuss the conditions that make a food concept defective, pointing out four types of defects—fragility, polarization, incoherence, and schizophrenia—which we illustrate by means of two specific examples: local food and healthy food.

This paper draws on the notion of “objects of research” in psychology as clusters of phenomena (Feest in Philos Sci 84:1165–1176, 2017) to analyze the productive role of folk psychological concepts—and the operational definitions that arise from them—in the development of concepts in scientific psychology. Using the case study of similarity, I discuss the role of the folk psychological concept in the regimentation of different measures of similarity judgments. I propose that by giving rise to operational definitions that lead to experimental dissociation on the one hand, and by providing the concept with unity on the other hand, the folk psychological concept generates a productive tension that facilitates empirical and theoretical development of the scientific concept.

Measurement realism, the view that measurement targets quantitative attributes and that not all attributes are quantitative, has come under attack both from metrologists and philosophers. In this paper, I take a close look at two influential arguments against measurement realism: the argument from obsolescence and the argument from coordination. I concede that these arguments do challenge the epistemological position traditionally taken by measurement realists, but argue that the metaphysical core of measurement realism survives the challenge posed by these arguments. This metaphysical core is vital to maintaining a clear and ambitious standard for successful measurement.

The kinds of real or natural kinds that support explanation and prediction in the social sciences are difficult to identify and track because they change through time, intersect with one another, and they do not always exhibit their properties when one encounters them. As a result, conceptual practices directed at these kinds will often refer in ways that are partial, equivocal, or redundant. To improve this epistemic situation, it is important to employ open-ended classificatory concepts, to understand when different research programs are tracking the same real kind, and to maintain an ongoing commitment to interact causally with real kinds to focus reference on those kinds. A tempting view of these non-idealized epistemic conditions should be avoided: that they signal an ontological structure of the social world so plentiful that it would permit ameliorated (norm-driven, conceptually engineered) classificatory schemes to achieve their normative aims regardless of whether they defer (in ways to be described) to real-kind classificatory schemes. To ground these discussions, the essay appeals to an overlooked convergence in the systematic naturalistic frameworks of Richard Boyd and Ruth Millikan.