1

Reflection: Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge

Esme McMullan
Dr. Frances Johnson
March 25, 2022

Introduction:
The construction of scientific knowledge is a complex process that involves many different
aspects of writing. Writing is a social activity; therefore, scientific knowledge construction is, by
extension, as well. Since creating scientific knowledge depends upon the people involved with
and surrounding its construction, it is dynamic, much like how a conversation fluctuates and
shifts in tone, or a piece of writing can be edited again and again before it is fit for publication.
The purpose of this reflection is to reflect upon the change in my views over the course of this
semester on how scientific knowledge is constructed and connected to the social nature of
humanity.

Scientific Knowledge Construction-Discussion:

My growth in understanding of scientific knowledge construction is primarily due to reading the
materials provided to me during this course, which is another example of how writing can
create new ideas and shift attitudes. The order of the works reflected upon within this
reflection are Scientific Writing by Hyland and Salager-Meyer, The Problem of Writing
Knowledge by Bazerman, Popper’s Philosophy of Science, and Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts.

Scientific Writing
The formation, circulation and evolution of scientific knowledge is intrinsically tied to the
process of writing, which is a social activity in and of itself. Therefore, the creation of scientific
knowledge is also a social process, unlike popular portrayals of scientific fields.
Description
In this text, Hyland and Salager-Meyer seek to disrupt and disprove the notion that science is a
solitary field full of individual scientists who work disjointedly and alone on their research.
Instead, they posit that science is like a web that is built out of communication between
scientists, and this communication is what allows scientific knowledge to be constructed.
Writing is the primary conduit for knowledge to be shared between scientists, and eventually
their audience.
Interpretation
I interpreted this reading as a way to set the record straight that yes, science is a social
doctrine, even if most people have not yet opened their minds to this point of view. The reason
behind this is simple; our culture has propagated a certain stereotype of a scientist as a brilliant
but aloof researcher whose scientific discoveries come to fruition through nothing but their
own individual mind and willpower. This picture of science is so pervasive that even though I
wanted to pursue a career in STEM, I had never before considered the possibility of science
being a social field. However, I realized through this reading that the construction of scientific
knowledge is profoundly social at its core; scientists rely on utilizing knowledge collected from
2

prior research papers and other scientists as a base upon which to build their own research. In
my opinion, this is very close to how an actual conversation between two people works, with a
natural flow of information between two parties that enriches each’s perspective. Because of
this, I now understand that the scientific community is a discourse community in which
scientific writing largely serves in place of actual speech.
Outcome
My understanding of the social depth of scientific knowledge and the process by which it is
created is much improved. Having read Scientific Writing and contemplated Hyland and
Salager-Meyer’s perspective on the social aspects of scientific knowledge construction, I have a
new and enhanced outlook on the scientific process. I’ve realized that scientists must
collaborate in order to further their research and knowledge. I will implement my new
understanding as I proceed through college since even completing something like a peer
review, which is essential in the field of science as well as in the classroom, demonstrates the
social nature of knowledge construction.

The Problem of Writing Knowledge

Scientific writing and therefore scientific knowledge creation is a discipline shaped by history,
which is by necessity social, as it is the documentation of how society has changed over time. In
a complex interplay, scientific writing has also shaped history, as it is responsible for many
world-shifting discoveries.
Description
In this text, Bazerman seeks to place scientific knowledge construction within a larger frame of
context, as he claims that a text cannot be understood without first understanding the
academic “world” in which it is meant to fit. These academic worlds, or genres, are social due to
the nature of information sharing within a shared field. The culmination of scientific knowledge
creation is the experimental report.
Interpretation
I interpreted this reading as a way to make the reader aware of the sheer amount of complexity
that surrounds the way that knowledge – primarily scientific – is created. The reason that
scientific knowledge creation is so complex is because knowledge construction isn’t as simple as
just sitting down in front of a computer with an open word document and writing down what
you know. Instead, the creation of scientific knowledge relies on many social contexts: I now
understand that it has been shaped by the writing and rhetorical choices of scientists who have
made discoveries all throughout history. In this way, I have come to realize that scientific
knowledge construction also influences the world around me, as many of the world’s universal
“truths” (although truth is also contextual) are things that I would not be aware of if it weren’t
for scientific discoveries that were first ideas that were codified and circulated through writing
experimental reports; I believe that this is the essence of how scientific knowledge is created
through social means, and thereby changes the way that society operates.
Outcome
My understanding of what it takes to write a scientific report has completely shifted. Having
read Bazerman’s ideas on how genres are a social concept that are created through a shared
discussion between scientists throughout time as well as those who are colleagues presently, I
feel like I have a renewed interest in reading scientific literature. Considering experimental
3

reports as being part of a larger discussion humanizes them somewhat, and I will strive to
improve my own writing so that I can one day contribute to this conversation.

Popper’s Philosophy of Science

There is no such thing as absolute truth in the field of science. Instead of being constructed
from concrete, proven facts, science is a collection of tested theories that have not yet had a
counterexample found that could disprove them. In this way, science is social since it relies on a
community in order to test theories.
Description
In this text, Popper seeks to explain how science isn’t unilaterally true in the way that most
people might think that it is. Instead, scientific knowledge is upheld as generally accurate until
something can be found that disproves it. This is because no matter how much you test
something, no amount of positively correlated results can conclusively prove a scientific theory
to be true; however, one result that is contradictory to the theory’s central idea can prove it to
be false. This forms Popper’s theory of falsifiability, which has remained a central theorem of
scientific knowledge construction ever since.
Interpretation
I interpreted this reading as a way to begin to explain the intricacies of constructing a piece of
scientific knowledge that will likely stand the test of time. While I understand that there is no
guarantee that something like the theory of gravity won’t be disproven tomorrow when
someone throws an apple that falls up instead of down, I now know that the theory of gravity is
a good example of a valid scientific theory since it is falsifiable, which means that a
contradictory theory is able to be imagined. I believe that at the heart of falsifiability, which is
integral to the construction of scientific knowledge, is community; once a scientific theory has
been conjectured and even once it has been accepted as valid, scientists from around the world
continue to test its applications to see if its principles still hold true as new discoveries are
made (or as true as is possible). I have come to realize that testing scientific theories in
accordance with Popper’s philosophy of science is a wide-reaching application of the scientific
discourse community and is therefore another way that scientific knowledge construction is
social at its core.
Outcome
My understanding of falsifiability and the doctrine behind how a scientific theory is generally
able to be considered valid has changed greatly. Having read Popper’s philosophy of science, I
now understand how parts of the of the scientific method are influenced by the social
construction of scientific knowledge, even something like testing scientific theories, which I had
never before considered to be social. I will apply this knowledge at school while performing
experiments since they are essentially a small-scale application of the theory of falsifiability to a
scientific principle and demonstrate the social aspect of scientific knowledge construction since
they require us to use the knowledge of those who came before us.

Kuhn’s Paradigm Shift

Scientific knowledge isn’t static; instead, it’s dynamic and goes through many distinct stages as
new discoveries are made. This process of change in scientific knowledge is called a paradigm
4

shift, and in order for a scientific paradigm to be changed, it relies on scientific communities to
work together.
Description
This text explains Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts, which are revolutions of scientific
knowledge that completely change the content of the normal, accepted set of scientific
standards of the time. There are four stages – normal science, extraordinary research, adoption
of a new paradigm, and aftermath of the scientific revolution – that describe the steps of a
paradigm shift.
Interpretation
I interpreted this text as a way to clarify that scientific knowledge construction isn’t a process
that is cast in stone. I have realized that much like other, “softer” disciplines like history or the
social sciences, natural and physical sciences are malleable and in a state of constant change.
This runs contrary to what I previously believed about scientific knowledge construction; much
like history, science has certain eras that it cycles through – some with more change than
others – and relies upon people in order to discover, define, and ultimately make sense of this
change in a broader context. Therefore, I believe that the dissolution of previous scientific
paradigms and construction of new ones show that scientific knowledge construction is a very
social process since both of these processes rely on scientists being able to look at scientific
discoveries (which are essential in the creation of scientific knowledge) using the current state
of science and its effect on society as a contextual backdrop.
Outcome
Having read about Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts, my understanding of the nature of science
has changed for the better. Instead of thinking of science as something concrete and
unchangeable, I have come to realize that science is malleable, which is largely due to human
influence and the social nature of scientific knowledge construction because a paradigm shift
requires a community of scientists to build upon each other’s discoveries to revolutionize
science. This new understanding of mine is essential because anyone could be the person, or a
part of the group, that finds some new scientific discovery that could shift the paradigm and
forever alter how we see the world. I will approach my studies with new zeal because the idea
of making a real change in the realm of scientific knowledge is very exciting.

Conclusion:
These readings altered my views on the construction of scientific knowledge greatly. Reflecting
upon the growth of my understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed, and how that
construction is ultimately social in nature has given me a new perspective on the scientific field
that I will one day enter. Over the course of this semester, I’ve realized that science is a social
field in which scientists learn from one another and contribute to shared discoveries, as well as
that scientific discoveries must be viewed from the lens of a wider social context in order to be
fully understood. As further evidence that scientific knowledge construction is social, I have also
realized that in the words of an old cliché, it takes a village to ensure that a scientific theory
remains valid, and that scientific knowledge construction is a generational process.
Prior to taking this course, my attitude towards how a scientific discovery goes from an idea to
a reality was uncaring, and even flippant. Now, my curiosity has been piqued and I can’t wait to
5

continue to learn more over the course of my sophomore, junior and senior years at university,
and to implement my newfound knowledge during my career in the years to come.
6

References

Bazerman, C. (2000). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the

Experimental Article in Science. The WAC Clearinghouse. 
https://wac.colostate.edu/books/landmarks/bazerman-shaping/ (Originally Published in
1988 by University of Wisconsin Press)
Hyland, K. & Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific Writing. In Cronin, B. (ed) Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology. Vol 42: 297-338
Wikipedia contributors. (2022, January 22). Paradigm shift. In Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:34, February 18, 2022, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paradigm_shift&oldid=1067239347
Wikipedia contributors. (2022, February 9). Karl Popper. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Retrieved 20:02, February 18, 2022, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Popper&oldid=1070907153