Jesse Bazzul

As a science teacher educator, manifestos are usually something I have students write. Manifestos are bold forms of expression that help earnest people formulate a focussed or principled stance on important issues. This special issue has provided an opportunity to write a short manifesto of my own; and it is good practice to do the things you want your students to do. In times of increasing environmental and social precarity, science and science education can no longer deny the moral and ethical imperative to be relevant to the survival of both human and nonhuman life. What follows is a manifesto that addresses some of what science education needs to grapple with in times of right-wing populism, pandemic, poll ion, and poli ical need. I s no in ended o be a platform, because science education needs many manifestos of desire and intent. The best this manifesto can do is encourage teachers and students to write more inspiring ones. The language of manifestos is highly variable, but generally it take things like declaration and affect more seriously, and leaves the important tasks of elaboration and consensus for another day. This manifesto has been organized into eight parts that together maintain that science, education, environment, and politics are necessarily entangled, such that the time where one could pretend that the sciences are separate from, and/or superior to, everything else has passed. Second, that boundaries separating things like disciplines, different species, and different ways of knowing the world are proving to be more arbitrary and less useful than ever.

This article insists that solidarity with nonhumans is not only a funda- mental aspect of symbiotic existence, but a key aspect of resistance to global imperialism. Whilst Indigenous communities have long nurtured and maintained a rich symbiosis and solidarity with nonhumans, mod- ern western thought and social theory must seriously expand its collect- ive concepts, if it wants to remain relevant for life in the ruins of pandemics, pollution, and production. Drawing from the work of eco- logical philosopher Timothy Morton and speculative realisms, this article draws attention to the ‘spectral’ or inexhaustible quality of things that is often masked by capitalism and anthropocentrism. The trajectory of this article is dependent on the inspiring ontological creativity of Hardt and Negri’s Empire, specifically how it has provided a rich context for the lacunae of politics and education. Social theory movements, such as (neo)marxisms and poststructuralisms, may very well be viable... if they include nonhumans. The idea that solidarity is a fundamental aspect of reality means that students and teachers acting in the com- mon interest are not just politically conscious, but more in-tune with our entirely codependent world(s).

This paper outlines a theoretical context for research into ‘the subject of ethics’ in terms of how students come to see themselves as self-reflective actors. I maintain that the ‘subject of ethics’, or ethical subjectivity, has been overlooked as a necessary aspect of creating politically transformative spaces in education. At the heart of egalitarian politics lies a fundamental tension between the equality of voices (or ways of being) and the notion that one way of being or one voice may be deemed more legitimate than another; which in turn puts the equality of beings into question. Building from Michel Foucault’s work regarding ethics and subjectivity, I suggest that a ‘subject of ethics’ can be viewed, in part, as a series of relations of self that form the horizon upon which a subject comes to work on themselves relative to moral codes and power relations. Ethical relations of self can be a useful concept for those interested in educational research that furthers social and ecological justice. In the conclusion of this paper I also discuss the limitations of locating ethics entirely within a constituted human subject.

Drawing primarily from Roland Barthes’ Mythologies (1972a), I argue that Barthes’ semiological and ideological descriptions of myth can be useful tools to confront what is given as natural, commonsensical, or depoliticized in education. Through confrontation and critique, educators can effectively become ‘mythologists’. After giving a synopsis of the essay ‘Myth Today’, where Barthes lays out his theoretical semiology for myth, I argue that educators can engage in myth(ologist) writing to disrupt taken-for-granted cultural practices. In the last section, I present four pieces of creative non-fiction (‘The Dean’s Speech’, ‘International School’, ‘False Debates in Science Education (FOS versus NOS)’, and ‘The Rubric’) as examples of myth(ologist) writing used to disrupt taken-for-granted (depoliticized) aspects of education.

This article describes how biology textbooks can work to discursively constitute a particular kind of “ethical subjectivity.” Not only do textbooks constrain the possibilities for thought and action regarding ethical issues, they also require a certain kind of “subject” to partake in ethical exercises and questions. This study looks at how ethical questions/exercises found in four Ontario textbooks require students and teachers to think and act along specific lines. These include making ethical decisions within a legal–juridical frame; deciding what kinds of research should be publically funded; optimizing personal and population health; and regulation through policy and legislation. While engaging ethical issues in these ways is useful, educators should also question the kinds of (ethical) subjectivities that are partially constituted by discourses of science education. If science education is going to address twenty-first century problems such as climate change and social inequality, educators need to address how the possibilities for ethical engagement afforded to students work to constitute specific kinds of “ethical actors.”

This article emphasises the importance of creative thought for environmental education through a discussion of the ontologically rich work of Anna Tsing, Timothy Morton and John Peters. The recent turn toward ontology in the humanities and social sciences has consequently led to diverse theories about 'how things are', and some of these concepts might assist justice-oriented environmental educators in raising ecological awareness in a time of crisis. Using assemblages, media and hyperobjects as concepts to (re)imagine the the world(s) of the Anthropocene, this article promotes a practice of ontic-play, a constantly changing engagement with ontological thought. To think through ecological crisis means moving towards philosophy as creation or art. In other words, engaging thought from the future.

As newcomers in the field of science education research we discuss our perspectives on critical scholarship in the academy. Using the metalogue approach we explore our perceptions of science education, our experiences of the barriers to critical science education research, our analyses of why these barriers exist, and imaginings about how these barriers could be removed. In this paper, metalogue provides us with a way to retain our individual voices, thoughts and ideas, yet challenge our preconceived notions about finding a critical space in science education. Through an interaction with each other's thoughts and past experiences we outline some aspects of the field of science education as we see it; for example, we discuss why the field may be seen as rigid as well as the contexts that surround possibilities for interdisciplinary, critical, social justice research. We conclude that a larger, multi-vocal discussion is necessary to locate the possibilities for critical, social justice oriented science education.

This article provides a metacommentary on the special issue on nature of science (NOS). The issue is composed of senior scholars discussing Hodson and Wong’s (2017, this issue) critique of the consensus view of nature of science, which on a basic level states that there are agreed-upon aspects of science that can be taught in K–12 schools. Each author summarizes the salient points concerning the consensus view and offers constructive suggestions about what science is, how it works, and what is relevant when teaching NOS. Rather than summarize Hodson and Wong’s critique or comment on whether the “consensus view”of NOS is helpful, I discuss the tension between orthodoxy and plurality and how this tension plays out in NOS discussions. All authors in the issue make suggestions that open NOS teaching and learning and science education
to a diversity of contexts, knowledges, and practices. It is this movement
toward plurality, away from orthodoxy, that is worthy of more attention.

This theoretical article draws from the political thought of Jacques Ranciere to trouble some taken-for-granted conceptions of citizenship education. Ranciere’s notion of politics and dissensus `
(as opposed to consensus) can lay the groundwork for a version of citizenship that challenges what is deemed sensible, visible, who is counted in communities and on what grounds. This version of
citizenship, based on politics and dissensus, disrupts the taken-for-granted social order and seeks to establish equality for those who are what Ranciere calls “the part of no part.” In science, math,
and technology education this means rethinking how we approach social and political issues and civic identities, where consensus seeking and nonactivist choices for students prevail. I conclude
the article by outlining examples of science education research that work to “redraw the lines” of the social (the social being the stakes of the political); in particular, the Idle No More movement,
which is at the forefront of both scientific and political activism in the geographic space known as Canada.

This article explores ethico/political/ontological orientations made possible by an exploration of sex/gender and sexuality. Drawing from materialist theorists such as Karen Barad, Gilles Deleuze, and Felix Guattari, we employ the concept of assemblages to tease out the reality that our shared world is always already in a state of queer becoming. We employ Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of assemblages in the form of diagrams to illustrate that sex/gender and sexuality are phenomena that emerge from complex material and discursive entities—which are simultaneously biological/cultural, individual/collective, non-human/human. The implication of this article for environmental education is twofold: (1) Sex/gender and sexuality can be central to understanding how materialist and ontological considerations are vital to a politically engaged environmental education and (2) diagramming assemblages can help students and teachers map and imagine potential becomings, areas for critical engagement and political action, and new ecologically and socially just futures.

In this paper, we explore how Jacques Rancière's (The ignorant schoolmaster: five lessons in intellectual emancipation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1991) notions of radical equality and dissensus reveal horizons for activism and sociopolitical engagement in science education theory, research, and practice. Drawing on Rochelle Gutiérrez' (J Res Math Educ 44(1):37–68, 2013a. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037; J Urban Math Educ 6(2):7–19, b) ''sociopolitical turn'' for mathematics education, we identify how the field of science education can/is turning from more traditional notions of equity, achievement and access toward issues of systemic oppression, identity and power. Building on the conversation initiated by Lorraine Otoide who draws from French philosopher Jacques Rancière to experiment with a pedagogy of radical equality, we posit that a sociopolitical turn in science education is not only imminent, but necessary to meet twenty-first century crises.

This Springer brief encapsulates a line of research that looks at how students are positioned as ethical actors/decision makers in biology education by science policy, curriculum, and classroom resources. Its basis comes from a textbook study that examined how biology texts work to constitute subjectivities related to neoliberalism and global capitalism, sex/gender and sexuality, and ethics. The study found that textbook discourses set limits on a) the types of ethical concerns represented b) the modes of ethical engagement c) the dispositions necessary to engage in ethical action or decision-making. Policy reform, regulation, and personal lifestyle choices were the primary ways students could approach ethical decision-making or action. While these approaches are useful, they are likely not sufficient for dealing with major twenty first century problems such as climate change and social inequality, along with new ethical dimensions introduced by biotechnologies and genomic research. This research brief sets a context for how discourses of science education policy and curricula work to shape a ‘subject of ethics’, that is how students come to see themselves as participants in issues of ethical concern. Drawing from a structural-poststructural philosophical approach, Science and Technology Studies, educational research, and a methodology based on discourse analysis and ethnography, this book's overall goal is to assist with research into subjectivity, ethics, politics, policy, and socioscientific issues in science education.

Research that explores ethics can help educational communities engage twenty-first century crises and work toward ecologically and socially just forms of life. Integral to this research is an engagement with social theory, which helps educators imagine our shared worlds differently. In this paper I present two theoretical-methodological directions for educational research that centres ethics: Ethics and (human) subjectivity; and Ethics-in-assemblage. While both approaches might be seen as commensurable, they can also be seen as quite divergent. Using Michel Foucault's later work on subjectivity and ethics, as well as recent work in Anthropology, I present a methodological direction for research into ethical subjectivity, how students come to see themselves as self-reflective ethical actors. Relevant here is the tension between ethics and politics, individual and collective modes of being, as both are crucial to both struggles for justice on a damaged planet. The second direction involves a sociomaterialist approach that employs Deleuze and Guattari's concept of 'assemblage' as well as Karen Barad's notion 'entangled responsibility' to show that ethics can also be seen to co-emerge with/in phenomena that exceed human relations. In short, exploring ethics through educational research means simultaneously examining ethics as subjectivity and ethics as co-emergent larger assemblages/phenomena.

Viewing science education as a site of biopolitical engagement—intervention into forces that seek to define, control, and exploit life (biopower)—requires that science educators ask after how individuals and populations are governed by technologies of power. In this paper, I argue that microanalyses, the analysis of everyday practices and discourses, are integral to biopolitical engagement, are needed to examine practices that constitute subjectivities and maintain oppressive social conditions. As an example of a microanalysis I will discuss how repetitive close-ended lab/assessment tasks, as well as discourses surrounding careers in science, can work to constitute students as depoliticized, self-investing subjects of human capital. I also explore the relationship between science education, (bio)labor and its relation to biopolitics, which remains an underdeveloped area of science education. This paper, part of my doctoral work, began to take shape in 2011, shortly after the 2008 economic crisis achieved a tiny breached in the thick neoliberal stupor of everyday (educational) life.

Nature, as a creative ontology, and the ethico-political possibilities inherent within have been seemingly occluded in the field of science education. By Thinking with Nature (TwN), we return to the ontological dimensions of practice and research methodology in science education. Drawing on new material feminisms, educators are invited to follow the contours of minor concepts with/in Nature. Thinking with Gilles Deleuze and Karen Barad, our theoretical tinkering follows the contours of minority within Nature, as opposed to the passive observation of brute matter, to illuminate concepts of possibility hidden in plain sight: holobionts and lightning. By following Nature’s inherent queerness, becoming-minor, TwN provokes an enactment of ethico-political response-ability in research on science education. Above all else, this paper should be read, not as a prescription, but a provocation for TwN and following the contours of minor(ity) concepts.