By studying Scientific Inquiry and Analysis, we can engage with and answer questions about the natural and physical world using scientific practices including collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data.

Perspectives

When your father is a high school biology teacher, you are pretty much expected to participate in middle and secondary school science fairs. Your experiments are of a bit higher quality than your peers. You have actual hypotheses and research methods. You do literature reviews. You learn how to write an abstract.

But, as a child or young adult, it is difficult to fully comprehend the benefits of this kind of practice. It can seem burdensome to follow certain protocols, to make sure all the conditions of an experiment are thought through, to repeat tests over and over again. It is not until years later, when you find yourself using principles of the scientific method to narrow down the causes and treatment of an illness or when you question the validity of the methods used in popular science claims, that you realize how the skills you learned apply to everyday life.

Concepts to Consider

Studying Scientific Inquiry and Analysis is about more than memorizing the periodic table or being able to identify parts of a cell. As Ros Roberts (2001, p. 113) tells us, “science education should be more than just […] the ‘things’ that scientists know and have found out. It should enable [students] to ‘think like scientists’ and understand ‘the nature of science’.” Bruce Alberts (2022, p. 154-155) defines Scientific Inquiry and Analysis as helping to develop people “who investigate the world as scientists do [and who routinely solve their everyday problems as scientists do], using experiment, logic and evidence.” In other words, Scientific Inquiry and Analysis goes beyond content knowledge, although that is important as well, and trains a person to apply a scientific lens to the world. And, as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine “Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future” (2021) avows, Scientific Inquiry and Analysis is “essential for all people navigating the world, not just for scientists and other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professionals” (see also Marincola, 2006). These skills are not only for professionals working in specific fields. We can all benefit.

In 2011, the National Science Teaching Association adopted the “Quality Science Education and 21st-Century Skills” position statement. They note in that statement that “science education can offer a rich context for developing many 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and information literacy especially when instruction addresses the nature of science and promotes use of science practices,” all of which “not only contribute to the development of a well-prepared workforce of the future but also give individuals life skills that help them succeed” (see Information Literacy in chapter 4.1 and Critical Thinking in 5.10).  The American Chemical Society produced their own “Science Education Policy” position statement in 2023, asserting, “Science literacy and expertise are essential to the function of modern society. Understanding concepts and processes of science, including chemistry, help to make sense of and to address the complex challenges encountered every day” and promotes a desire to “prepar[e] current and future learners with scientific knowledge and skills to contribute to society and to address global health, environmental, and economic challenges.” These are ambitious goals that elevate the significance of engaging in Scientific Inquiry and Analysis. 

In an article arguing that every college student needs to take science courses, Chad Orzel (2015) highlights that, beyond that it tells us literally what physically makes up a human, science is part of what makes us human in that scientific inquiry is an essential aspect of the human experience and that scientific thinking is a part of our everyday activities. He also notes that, no matter how we personally feel about science, it will be a part of our future lives and affect us in a “deep and profound way.” Thus, we might want to be familiar with Scientific Inquiry and Analysis to meet those issues.

At the same time that we consider all of these benefits of Scientific Inquiry and Analysis, we do need to remember that science can simply be exciting to study!

Scientific Inquiry and Analysis and Good, Necessary Trouble

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized in many ways the necessity of Scientific Inquiry and Analysis. From understanding how the virus was transmitted to choosing ways to protect ourselves, “know the science” became almost a daily mantra. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine “Call to Action for Science Education” states that scientific thinking helps “people to address complex challenges [and] rein in life-threatening problems such as those wrought by a global pandemic.” If we learned anything from COVID-19, it was that we can need new areas of knowledge and skills at any given time.

The science of masking, in particular, took center stage. The science on masks falls into various phases. In the first phase, right before and after the pandemic was declared, when everyone and everything was in chaos, masks were advised, but they were scarce, particularly hospital-grade ones. At this time, with hospitals filling up and infection rates and the number of deaths skyrocketing, it was strongly encouraged to save masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare personnel. Research was focused on building on already existing studies of masks on other diseases like tuberculosis and influenza. Joseph M.Courtney and Ad Bax (2021) posited that masks, in addition to their traditional function of preventing spread of disease, also could contribute to the build-up of humidity, which can delay and/or reduce lower respiratory tract infections.

In the second phase, non-healthcare personnel were encouraged to use any face covering available: non-surgical masks, bandanas, any cloth over the nose and mouth (see Howard, et. al., 2021). There was a surge in people making their own masks, both with and without filters. In April 2021, research on states with mask mandates versus ones without revealed that “high adherence to mask wearing could be a key factor in reducing the spread of COVID-19” (Fischer, et. al., 2021). The science at this time began to indicate that SARS-CoV-2 was spread through large droplets that settled and stayed on surfaces, indicating that close contact was more concerning than airborne transmission.

In the third phase, in May 2021, scientists discovered that SARS-CoV-2 actually could indeed linger in the air and spread through airborne transmission. This realization indicated that it could be inhaled more than six feet away, which meant that advice on “close contact” needed to be reevaluated. There was then a focus on masks with respirators for those who worked in close proximity to a lot of other people, especially in an enclosed environment without good ventilation. There was more of a focus on N95s or KN95s, which seal to the face, as opposed to surgical masks. N95s and KN95 were now more accessible to all people and not only healthcare workers, meaning that homemade masks or the like were no longer advised. Research by Jeremy Howard, et. al. (2021), also suggested a focus on “mask wearing by infectious people (‘source control’) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as healthcare workers.” Prior to this type of study, the focus was more on the healthy not being infected, rather the already infected spreading the disease to others.

In convincing research, Jason Abaluck, et. al., conducted a “large, cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh involving hundreds of thousands of people” that also studied the effect of public interventions on mask-wearing compliance and published in late 2021 that increased mask usage “reduced symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, demonstrating that promoting community mask-wearing can improve public health.” Other studies support these conclusions (see Tufekci, 2023).

Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of controversy over masks and their efficacy. There have been protests against mask mandates, violent incidents when people have refused to wear masks in situations prescribed by law or common sense, and, even still ongoing, altercations between individuals who hold conflicting beliefs about mask-wearing. These situations indicate how science, particularly misinformation and disinformation about science, intersects with civic and social issues (see Information Literacy in chapter 4.1 and Civic Learning in 5.1). Some have pointed to the evolving guidance on masking as evidence that science is, if not wrong, at least unreliable, yet this view misunderstands the scientific process and would benefit from knowledge of how science works, with hypotheses, experiments, more experiments, and taking new information into consideration as it becomes available, especially in a rapidly-changing health crisis (see Piper, 2023; Oliver, Ungrin, & Joe Vipond, 2023).

Discussion 5.9

• If you have already taken a course with a primary focus on Scientific Inquiry and Analysis, think about what you were asked to do and what you learned. If you have not already taken a Scientific Inquiry and Analysis course, think about the types of courses you could take.
• In what ways did or might the idea(s) or example(s) discussed above apply in such a course?
• What other ideas or examples would you add to the discussion?