Page 225 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

16 Educating-Within-Place: Care, Citizen Science, and EcoJustice 199

Moving on to briefly summarize the works of Theobald (1997), Bowers (2006),
Gruenewald (2003), Greenwood (2008), foremost thinkers of PBE, and Nespor
(2008), who provides a thorough sociopolitical critique of PBE, we build upon the
developing argument that the field of practice is theoretically formative. To further
elaborate theory around PBE, an additional entry point, one informed by a branch
of philosophy premised upon humanity’s relationship with the world is desirable
and necessary. The philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology brings to the fore a
missing ontological dimension through its relationship with place. Furthermore,
educating-within-place is what occurs between the discrete categories of place and
1
being prior to their factical differentiation (conceptual categorization) . Hermeneutic
phenomenology and the conceptual framework of educating-within-place expand
PBE theory by considering the ontological realm in addition to the natural and
cultural realms. PBE theory that considers natural, cultural, and ontological realms
is more reflective of the phenomenon that exists between humans, their cultures,
and their natural environments.
PBE is a developing field of practice that aims to ground learning in local phe-
nomena and students’ lived experiences (Smith 2002). More recently, Gruenewald
(2003) states that, “place-based educators advocate for a pedagogy that relates
directly to student experience of the world, and that improves the quality of life for
people and communities” (p. 7). The emphasis within the former definition is on
“grounding learning in local phenomena” and “student experience of the world,”
although what constitutes local phenomena remains unclear. In the latter, notice the
shift toward “pedagogy directed toward student experience of the world” and
“improving the quality for people and community.” Over time, definitions have
broadened to include social and political features and have moved from learning to
teaching. To a degree, this reflects changing place-meanings. Recall early concep-
tions of place-as-land, and more recent definitions expanding this notion of place-
as-community, and Nespor’s (2008) criticisms of these place conceptions and their
limiting effect on PBE theory, namely the notion of place as an ideal, dichotomized
through binary distinctions. PBE theory is more complex than these conceptions of
place lend themselves to. Place-as-difference considers the complexities of power
enacted through class, gender, and race. Nespor adds:
These kinds of networks and circuits [class, gender and race] organize education in relation
to place and produce places in different forms. The careful, comparative analyses needed
to tease out how the different strategies work and what kinds of “places” they presuppose
and create is missing in PBE theory, however, and it does not seem likely to emerge as long
as that theory stays wrapped around standard dichotomies and moralizing definitions of
place. (p. 482)
To summarize, along with more sophisticated definitions of place, there have come
more complex definitions of PBE. The evolutionary tendency has equated place
with land, community, and difference; accordingly, PBE initially focused upon

1 For a detailed description of how the concept educating-within-place was conceived see D. D.
Karrow (2003).