New Perspectives in Science Education

All since Karen Barad published her renowned Meeting the Universe halfway (Barad 2007), archaeologists have found inspiration in her model of life and science and adapted it to a variety of contexts (e.g. Immonen 2012; Marshall & Alberti 2014; Holmberg & Hjørungdal 2016; Joyce 2021). This paper reflects on why Barad’s material-semiotic model goes so well with archaeology. At least three apparent explanations are suggested. A background to the paper, is that in 2023 my department gives a course on encounters between archaeology and natural sciences, including how Barad’s version of quantum physics has influenced archaeology. So why, First, Archaeology has a long tradition in evaluating how new sciences can be fruitful to archaeological approaches, analyses, and interpretations.; like medicine, osteology, zoology, botanic, geology, chemistry, molecular biology, geography. Second, Archaeology focusses on substances as material and semiotic. Barad’s model takes discussions on material-semiotic qualities to a higher professional level, makes encounters between archaeology and companion disciplines tangible and therefore, operative. Third, Barad’s model is relational, and it is flexible in its construction, and therefore modifiable to other fields. Her model of intra-action encompasses subjects of different character, identities, and position. The model materializes how social and scientific processes are constituted, how they might develop, and how their results might look like. Fourth, The model includes and visualizes the three fundamental aspects of academic work; ontological, epistemological, and ethical.

Keywords:  Archaeology; Quantum physics.