Science and Cultural Process:
Lorie Hammond, Associate Professor
California State University at Sacramento
and
Carol Brandt, Doctoral Candidate
University of New Mexico
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this article is to define, through discussion and example, the notion of an Ôanthropological approachÕ to science education research, as well as to advocate the potential contribution of such an approach to several research domains and to questions of access and equity. While many science education researchers in the last fifteen years have done work which one might describe as Ôanthropological,Õ these writers come from a variety of camps and may or may not think of themselves principally in this light. We hope that the value of this article lies in opening a dialogue about what an ÔanthropologicalÕ approach to science research might be, as well as about how such an approach might redefine the role which science education research, and science itself, plays in the lives of teachers, students and communities which it affects.
What elements define an ÔanthropologicalÕ approach to science education research, and distinguish it from any other? This article emerges from the field of Anthropology of Education. As science education researchers, our main concern is not with the anthropology of science, but rather with how an ÔanthropologicalÕ focus on culture and cultural process can illuminate the process of teaching and learning in science. Since science has traditionally attempted to be objective and Ôa-cultural,Õ a cultural look at science teaching and learning has important epistemological implications that can be addressed through research. Furthermore, since a cultural approach to science posits that science learning is a cultural as well as a cognitive activity, then pedagogical questions of who teaches science, how it is taught, and what ends it serves take on new meanings that can also be addressed through research. Finally, an anthropological approach to science education has methodological implications for researchers who use ethnographic techniques as a way both to conduct qualitative explorations about teaching and learning in science, and, in some cases, to create a narrative place for the voices of community members and students generally left out of the academic discourse of science.
This paper reviews a variety of research articles that address, in various ways and degrees, epistemological, pedagogical, and methodological explorations that might be termed Ôanthropological.Õ One purpose of this review is to connect a large body of research focused on culture and science, to tease out the elements that might define this research as Ôanthropological,Õ and to explore a few of the issues which this research challenges and illuminates. A second and equally important purpose is to showcase culturally oriented research as an approach that can be used to forward equity in science education research, and through celebrating multiple perspectives, to challenge the hegemonic role that Western science plays in a rapidly globalizing world.
Definitions of terms
Before outlining our criteria for choosing articles to be reviewed, it is important to create some working definitions, for the purpose of this paper, for widely used terms which are defined in different ways in different settings. The first of these is Ôanthropological,Õ which we use to refer to the lens, developed in cultural anthropology, on human cultural process and on human ideas and activities as cultural in nature. As stated above, our goal is not to create an anthropological study of science. We are researchers in science and education, not in anthropology. Rather, our goal is to build upon the approaches and methods developed in the field of anthropology of education, a field that focuses on how cultural process affects the teaching and learning of science or any other subject. WebsterÕs definition of culture, Ôto grow (micro-organisms) in a specially prepared mediumÕ (Webster, 1979: 444), is strangely relevant, in that the focus of anthropology of education, and hence of science education, is upon the process of enculturation into science, rather than on the definition of the culture of science itself. Of course, epistemological assumptions about the nature of science affect this process, and are hence considered, but with an emphasis on how they affect pedagogy in science and its effects on students and communities.
A
second and central term is Ôculture,Õ a word whose definition is highly
disputed in many fields.
Spindler (1982, 2004), who is widely considered the grandfather of
Anthropology of Education, defines culture as Ôpatterns for living, acquired
through socialization and enculturation, and passed on and modified by each generation.Õ
Schooling is seen as cultural transmission, and any ÔmaterialÕ learned is a
cultural artifact chosen to create meaning within a cultural system, taught
through a pedagogical approach also inlaid with cultural meaning. From this perspective, there are no
Ôa-culturalÕ bodies of knowledge, and certainly no Ôa-culturalÕ schools.
A
third term requiring definition is Ôethnography.Õ While Webster (1979: 628) defines this term as Ôa branch of
anthropology which deals descriptively with specific cultures,Õ we use this
term principally to refer to the complex of qualitative research methods that
enable ÔdescriptiveÕ research, and hence create an Ôethnographic approachÕ to
science education research. Such an
approach generally focuses on rich description of cultural processes, gleaned
through extensive and triangulated data collection including some mix of
observation, interview, and examination of artifacts. Ethnographic approaches require extensive time in the field,
generally spent in Ôparticipant observation,Õ and create challenges to science
educators, who generally lack the time and resources associated with
anthropological research. Hence,
ÔethnographicÕ science research often narrows its scope to the examination of
bounded cultural settings, such as those in a classroom or school garden, and
employs specific ethnographic methods, such as collecting narratives, creating
case studies, memory banking, and the like (Arellano et al., 2001; Nichols & Tippins, in press), which are
adapted from the work of anthropologists.
Another
semantic problem that is approached differently by different writers and can
lead to confusion is the definition of places and positions in the world
today. While some would refer to
the ÔdevelopingÕ world, we reject this term because it defines a one-way
trajectory of development toward ÔmodernÕ solutions. We have chosen to use the term Ôfirst worldÕ to refer to
high technology societies associated with European cultural influences (from
which Western science evolved), and Ôthird worldÕ to refer to countries with
less technology and with non-Western traditions. The terms ÔfirstÕ and ÔthirdÕ world, which evolved in
response to the now defunct Cold War, are themselves problematic, since the
ÔthirdÕ world is marked not only by separate traditions, but also by a history
of colonization. They are, however, the best terms we could find. The authors use the term Ôfourth worldÕ
to refer to indigenous, minority cultures within Ôthird worldÕ countries, which
have been less subject to colonization but are currently in danger of cultural
and linguistic extinction, since they occupy few power positions in even Ôthird
worldÕ countries. Another term
used by some researchers is ÔFirst NationsÕ people. This refers to indigenous peoples in first world countries,
such as Canada, where the term emerged (Aikenhead, 1997).
Outlining areas of research to consider
As
stated above, the three major areas of science education research affected by
an anthropological approach are epistemology, pedagogy, and methodology. Each
will be discussed briefly here, in an attempt to define the boundaries for
research to be reviewed.
Generally, researchers concerned with an ÔanthropologicalÕ approach to
science education focus on one or on some combination of these three research
domains.
Epistomology: Erickson, a well-known
anthropologist of education, comments:
The subject matter of science involves culturally
learned presuppositions of ontology and epistemology that developed in Western
Europe over the past three hundred years.
These presuppositions may or may not be shared by the teacher and the
students. (Erickson, 1986:117)
As an anthropologist, Erickson observes that science
evolved in the cultural setting of Western Europe in a specific time
period. This being the case,
bodies of scientific knowledge are based on assumptions that may not be
universal. This creates questions
about what happens when this body of knowledge encounters other bodies of
knowledge about the physical world, which evolved through other
traditions. Is there a way to
negotiate between such bodies of knowledge? This raises both epistemological and practical research
questions. As Erickson points out,
the worldview upon which Western science is based may or may not be shared by teachers
and students of today, who come from a variety of backgrounds.
Are teachers and researchers aware of the cultural
nature of the science they teach? Aikenhead and Otsuji (2000) surveyed 59
teachers in Saskatchewan, Canada, many of whom work with aboriginal students,
and 310 science teacher leaders in Japan.
They concluded that few teachers in either country view the enterprise
of science or science teaching as a cultural phenomenon. This is not surprising, since most
science education research has also approached cognition in science as an
internal developmental process, occurring in an individual, rather than as a
socio-cultural process, occurring in an historical context.
Cobern (1996) calls attention to the predominance of
research in science education aimed at achieving conceptual change in studentsÕ
understanding of science. Cobern
asserts that this research oversimplifies the ways in which people think and
learn, and assumes that they will follow Western, Piagetian notions of
development. ÔScience needs to be
joined with the other school disciplines in the common goal of developing
student world-views of which science is one articulated componentÕ (Cobern,
1996: 580).
Cobern points out that studies on conceptual change
are based on:
Éthe
constructivist notion that all learning is a process of personal construction
and that students, given an opportunity, will construct a scientifically
orthodox conception of physical phenomena if they see that the scientific conception is superior
to their pre-instruction conception.
(Cobern, 1996: 581).
Cobern
is critical of this approach because it assumes the superiority of one
conception over another, and provides no vehicles for processing relativist
perspectives. In addition, the
assumption that an individual learns alone, through participation in
experiences that stimulate an internal developmental process, contradicts
socio-cultural views of learning (Hansen, 1979), in which individuals are seen
to learn in and through social contexts.
ÔSocial constructivismÕ has developed as an extension of the
constructivist notion of teaching and learning. This approach posits that learning occurs in a social
context, both because of its socio-historical origins, and because of the way
in which teachers and students construct knowledge dialogically. In this approach, it is theoretically
possible to negotiate multicultural knowledge perspectives through
dialogue. How to do so becomes the
subject of pedagogical research.
Pedagogy:
The pedagogy of teaching science also involves
presuppositions about what is proper in social relations between leaders and
followers, experts and novices.
These presuppositions also may not be shared by the teacher and the
studentsÉ (Erickson, 1986: 117)
One way in which culture affects pedagogy is through
language and communication style.
As Heath (1983) and others pointed out in discussions of educating
students from different cultural groups within Western society (Boggs et
al., 1985; Philips, 1983), differences in
language, dialect, and communication patterns can affect studentsÕ ability to
learn in a variety of complex ways.
Erickson points out that when students, their communities, and their
teachers differ from each other in beliefs, social expectations, or language,
then communication involves border crossing and may induce resistance. Teachers may or may not be aware of
adaptations needed to enable their students and their studentsÕ families to
cross the border into their way of thinking, and students and/or parents may or
may not choose to do so.
Erickson suggests that:
É all teaching can be seen as involving intercultural
communication of one sort of another.
The teacher can be seen as a translator and as an intercultural
broker. It is the teacherÕs
responsibility to operate in such a bridging role on behalf of all students,
regardless of the range of cultural diversity among students in a given
classroom. That role of bridging,
or intercultural mediation, is a complex one. It is currently only beginning to be understood. In that complexity appears to lie the
roots of equity in pedagogy. This
seems as true for the teaching of science as it does for teaching in other
subject fields. (Erickson, 1986: 123)
Unfortunately, researchers have often been often
divided into camps, one of which studies constructivist learning, often with an
eye to individual development, the other of which studies the cultural context
of learning, often without consideration of how individuals learn
differentially within that context.
Lately, the thinking of critical theorists, concerned with the Ôsocial
reproductionÕ of knowledge (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977), and of
constructivists, concerned with how individuals make meaning of their
environments, has been combined into new notions of how cultural processes
occur in learning environments.
Levinson and Holland, in describing the Ôcultural production of the
educated person,Õ defines these cultural processes as follows.
Through
the production of cultural forms, created within the structural constraints of
sites such as schools, subjectivities form and agency developsÉ For while the
educated person is culturally produced
in definite sites, the educated person also culturally produces cultural forms. (emphasis in the original) (Levinson
and Holland, 1996: 14.)
The work of Levinson, Foley, and Holland (1996)
provides a window on how individual actions and socio-cultural forces interact
in education, including science education.
Methodology:
Most
science education research has been quantitative, following the experimental
model familiar to scientists.
However, since experimental approaches are central to the culture of
science itself, many socio-cultural researchers of science education explore
other research techniques that enable them to uncover the Ôhidden agendasÕ upon
which scientific research is based.
Cultural anthropology evolved as a field devoted to
understanding the Ôother,Õ initially defined as a bounded group living
Ôsomewhere else.Õ The research
tools that evolved for understanding and transmitting the culture of exotic
groups of people include a rich set of ethnographic strategies for accurately
and systematically describing cultural patterns that were observed. In the latter part of the twentieth
century, ÔothersÕ within first world countries became the focus for some
researchers, due to a concern for equity, prompted by the Civil Rights
movement, and an interest in new immigrant populations. The study of anthropology Ôat homeÕ began
to emerge, and was in some cases focused on the familiar institution of the
school. The challenge of studying
schools is the opposite of that faced by anthropologists who attempt to
understand exotic places by Ômaking the strange familiar.Õ The challenge is that of Ômaking the
familiar strange,Õ in order to see cultural patterns that are not initially
visible in an institution as familiar as schools. (Spindler & Spindler,
2000) Through considering the
Ôhidden agendasÕ of these institutions, it becomes possible to see how
disenfranchised groups, such as girls, immigrants, and underrepresented
minorities, might experience them. Whereas a quantitative researcher might
focus on concepts which a student knows before and after a science experience,
a qualitative researcher will focus on what goes on during the teaching process
itself, thus opening the Ôblack boxÕ of the classroom and observing how
learning is transmitted, transformed, and/or resisted by individual
participants.
For some researchers, qualitative methodologies can
themselves become tools for equity and change. Through tools such as narratives, interviews, collaborative
case studies, and the like, participantsÕ voices can become heard in new
ways. In some cases, those who
would have been the ÔsubjectsÕ in prior research can collaborate in the
research process itself. In other
cases, qualitative researchers explore new technologies, such as photography
and video, to gather data and to express the richness of classroom interaction
and the integrity of traditional environments.
The
significance of an ÔanthropologicalÕ approach to science education
As stated earlier, this article has goals that extend
beyond the definition of a new field.
Its purpose is to illustrate how anthropological research, occurring in
very different international settings, has the potential to influence science
education as a tool for equity, social and environmental justice, and
counter-hegemony. This is
significant because education has become the primary definer of success and
access to power in the modern world, hence what is taught, by whom, to whom,
and for what purpose has become a question of paramount importance to
researchers in any educational field.
Around
the world, modern schools are central to the social and cultural shaping of the
youngÉ Institutions of mass
schooling often remove children from their families and local communities,
encouraging mastery of knowledges and disciplines that have currency and
ideological grounding in wider spheresÉ
Schools have served to inculcate the skills, subjectivities, and
disciplines that undergird the modern nation-state. No matter how the knowledgeable person is locally defined,
regardless of the skills and sensibilities that count as indicators of ÔwisdomÕ
and intelligence in the home and immediate locale, schools interject an
education mission of extra-local proportionsÉ School knowledges and disciplines may, while offering
certain freedoms and opportunities, at the same time further draw students into
dominant projects of nationalism and capitalist labor formation, or bind them
even more tightly to systems of class, gender, and race inequality. (Levinson & Holland, 1996: 1)
From suburban youth in the United States, to
villagers in the third or fourth world, the education of the individual is
inextricably linked to larger social orders: family, place, and community; the
now multi-national state and its economy; and the work places defined by these
entities. Children born into
villages in third and fourth worlds, whose
parents learned through apprenticeship and oral stories rather than through
schooling, now attend schools that employ international World Bank
curricula. Those who succeed in
these schools may enter world-class universities, where they will be educated
in English, and in Western science and other disciplines. Simultaneously, suburban youth in the
first world are experiencing an increasingly demanding regimen of standards and
tests, which cause them to compete with each other and with their international
counterparts for a limited number of desirable educational and career
positions. Minority students,
immigrants, girls, and students of various classes also experience this
competition and the sorting which it facilitates, in ways that ultimately determine
the opportunities they will have as adults. In short, twenty-first century schools, like the societies
they mirror, are defined by dynamic and international forces. Science, along with mathematics and
technology, is a major definer and gatekeeper in this process. Hence, science education has become
inextricably bound to a variety of global forces that are interconnected,
political and economic, and rapidly evolving.
How does this complex, internationalizing situation
affect the role of science education research? For the past forty years, beginning with the Civil
Rights movement worldwide, many science education researchers, along with other
educators, have been studying issues of equity. In science education research, there has been an effort to
create science opportunities that meet the needs of all students, rather than
simply to create a scientific elite (American Association for the Advancement
of Science, 1989, 1993; UNESCO 1983). Yet the movement toward Ôscience for allÕ has been strongly
criticized by some researchers who suggest that providing the same opportunity
for all students can lead to stratification and failure, rather than access and
success, on the part of some populations (Barton, 2001; Lee & Fradd,
1998). What kinds of research are
most effective in sorting out science education approaches that work in the
complex realities defined by country, class, gender, race, and other
intersecting factors? It is clear
that we need research that not only sets standards and measures outcomes, but
also opens the Ôblack boxÕ of what happens inside of schools and classrooms
during the teaching process itself.
In addition, we need research that can manage several levels of inquiry
at once: that can look not only at the students in a classroom, but
simultaneously include their families, their communities, their environments,
and even the larger socio-historical context in which they are situated. We suggest that one type of research
that can effectively address this situation is an anthropological approach to
science education, since it provides both lenses for focusing on the cultural
processes upon which our epistemologies and pedagogies are based, and
qualitative methodologies for describing complex cultural situations.
What
research fits an Ôanthropological approachÕ to science education?
In writing this article, we faced the daunting task
of deciding what kinds of work in the field of science education might be
considered Ôanthropological.Õ
After reviewing a variety of articles that self-defined themselves in
this way, and considering conventions in Anthropology of Education, as found in
the Anthropology of Education Quarterly,
we came up with guidelines for demarcating the body of literature that might
qualify as anthropology of science education over the past ten years
(1993-2003). It is important to
note that while all of the authors discussed herein would consider themselves
socio-cultural in their approach, few have defined themselves as participating
in an anthropological approach to science education research, since this approach
has not been previously demarcated.
Research articles and books were chosen as examples of an
anthropological approach to science education if they fulfilled at least three
of the criteria listed below. In
reviewing these works, emphasis was given to works that exemplified nearly all
of the criteria.
1)
The research uses
ethnographic data collection methods, defined as follows:
a)
It employs inductive
methods and is not experimental
b)
It uses interviewing or
documentation of dialogue among participants
c)
It uses participant
observation or observations
d)
It involves extensive
contact with participants
2)
Narratives of or
dialogues among key participants are included and thick description of context
is developed.
3)
Emphasis is on
understanding the culture of the science classroom: cognitive processes are
situated within the context of school and classroom culture.
4)
The research offers a
detailed discussion of the social and cultural context of the study, and often
of its economic, political, and/or historical context, and does not stop at the
classroom walls.
5)
The research includes
some discussion of how race, ethnicity, gender, economic status, and language
contribute to cultural processes of learning; and/or how diversity (or lack
thereof) is important to understanding the socio-cultural structure of the
classroom.
6)
The position of the
researcher is revealed and his/her role in
interpreting or representing the data is offered (i.e., the stance is
reflective).
7)
The research is
holistic in nature. It gives the
reader a broad view of the people, context, and cultures that are involved in
the social reproduction of an educational system and of knowledge within that
system.
Research
Survey Taxonomy
In writing this article, we attempted to survey a
variety of research sources, including books and articles, and to use as much
international work as possible. As
active members of the National Association for Research on Science Education,
and of the Equity Committee of this organization, we began by looking at the
work of presenters we had encountered there. We then reviewed ten years of articles in two major science
education journals: the Journal of Research in Science Education (JRST) and Science Education, looking for articles which met the cultural
criteria listed above. We also
considered ten years of the Anthropology of Education Quarterly (AEQ), looking for articles that related to science
or mathematics education. Finally,
and importantly, we reviewed the six years of articles from the
International Journal of Science Education (IJSE)
that we could access (1997-2003).
While we had trouble accessing as many international journals as we
would have preferred, we placed special attention on international articles
that appeared in all of the above journals. In addition, we did an extensive Internet search for work
related to science and culture.
This search yielded many of the sources listed as ÔotherÕ on the chart
below. Most were international.
Through the journal review, three categories of
articles which fit the above criteria emerged: 1) articles which deal with the
culture of science in schools, 2) articles which deal with the impact of
science education on disenfranchised groups ÔwithinÕ American or Ôfirst worldÕ
societies, such as minorities, women, or working class youths, and 3) articles
which deal with international and indigenous issues as they affect science
education outside of the first world and among indigenous people in any
country. These three categories
provide the structure of our discussion and frame our presentation of
ethnographic studies in science education. The following table sums up the numbers of articles found in
each journal that met the criteria mentioned above.
Taxonomy of Anthropological Articles by Journal
(1993-2003)
Type of Article |
JRST |
Science Ed |
AEQ |
IJSE |
Other sources |
I. Culture of science/ In schools |
15 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
II. Science and
disenfranchised groups within first world society (women, minorities,
immigrants, working classÉ) |
14 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
III. International/post
colonial issues in third world countries and/or indigenous issues with
Western science |
4 |
4 |
2 |
9 |
13 |
Total articles per
journal |
33 |
15 |
8 |
10 |
22 |
I. STUDIES IN THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE
EDUCATION
Education
today faces the perennial challenge of improving the quality of teaching and
learning in schoolsÉYet most educational innovations have failed when used in
ÔeverydayÕ classrooms. One reason
for this pattern of failure is that context and cognition are not being
considered together in developing, researching, disseminating, or using
educational innovations.
Mainstream educational developers and researchers, using positivist
lenses, have primarily focused on cognitive issues, what Erickson (1986) has
called Ôtaught cognitive learning,Õ and have largely ignored context. They have had cognition without
context. Educational
anthropologists, using interpretivist lenses, generally operating outside the
mainstream, have focused primarily on the contexts of education, and usually
have not addressed Ôtaught cognitive learning.Õ They have had context without cognition. This historical separation of context
and cognition has been a contributing factor to the less than successful
approaches to educational innovation.
(Jacob, 1997: 3)
A central goal of an anthropological approach to
science education is to eliminate the separation between cognition and context
in educational research. This is a
major shift in thinking. To
reposition cognitive science knowledge and knowledge acquisition within a
socio-historical context is a huge task, given the self-conscious history of
science as an a-cultural field.
Yet not to do so, in the politicized, multi-cultural, and
internationalized contexts in which science is taught and practiced, is to
ignore the forest in order to study the trees. On the other hand, as Jacob states, it is not enough to
focus on the context of science education and to forget the importance of
science as a rigorous and systematic field of study. The purpose of this section is to look at the various
approaches and theories that researchers attempting to consider the
relationship between culture and context in science classrooms have developed.
Before we begin, it is important to note that great
inconsistencies exist between the culture of science in classroom settings and
that of science in the Ôreal world,Õ where scientists assume roles as different
as basic researchers in labs, oil drilling engineers, or physicians, to name
but a few. While the constructivist
movement in science teaching presents a case for teaching science Ôas it is
done by scientists,Õ school science creates an idealized and over-simplified
view of scientific work, usually consisting of a formulaic Ôscientific methodÕ
through which students solve problems.
This idealized view supports the notion of cognition out of context, as
if scientists work separate from societal pressures, forwarding ÔtheoriesÕ of
how the world works with no connection to or responsibility for their
application. To define the culture
of science is a task beyond the confines of this paper. However, to understand its complex and
varied nature, in and out of school, is important in considering the culture of
the science classroom, as it is or might become.
In this section, as in those that follow, we have two
goals. The first is to survey work
that has been done in the last ten years in a particular area. The second is to showcase work that
provides examples, either theoretically or methodologically or both, that might
guide others who would attempt to study culture and context in classrooms.
Using
qualitative research techniques to study life in schools
Some ethnographic research in science classrooms has
grown out of the Ôteacher beliefÕ research agenda, which, due to its focus on
how teachers think and feel about their work, has naturally carried researchers
into qualitative methodologies. Examples of such research are Helms
(1998), who looks qualitatively at high school science teachersÕ identity and
sense of self, and Squire et al. (2003)
who considers the way in which teachersÕ beliefs and goals, local constraints,
and studentsÕ goals affected four teachersÕ use of an on-line science
curriculum. In these pieces of
research, ethnographic techniques enable researchers interested in school
reform to examine in detail the contexts in which it occurs, and hence to
appreciate how complex it is to accomplish change. The anthropological nature of their work is defined by the
extensive use of qualitative methodologies, which enable the reader to see into
the classroom, and experience what goes on.
Some studies extend this type of ethnographic work
beyond the classroom into the general culture of the school. In Munby et al. (2000), the researchers consider how a reform-minded
ninth grade science teacher is constrained by school culture. Similarly Vesilind & Jones (1998)
look critically at science within the culture of school reform, where it is
commonly assumed that Ôteacher leadersÕ will bring reforms to the rest of their
school community. These authors provide
an in-depth window into what it really means to expect teachers to ÔleadÕ their
colleagues. Their research
includes descriptions of innovations which two teacher leaders employed at
their schools, such as involving parent volunteers in the science program,
creating science kits, giving public science events, and working within
administrative notions of reform.
The power of using ethnographic techniques, such as observation and
interview, is exemplified in this article, in that one can see Ôclose upÕ how
reforms become textured in local settings. ÔFor teachers to lead each other is a goal different from
most management models of leadership,Õ the authors state (Vesilind & Jones,
1998: 774). This article produces
a close-grained portrait of teacher-led reform that researchers who advocate
Ôdistributed leadershipÕ in science reform need to understand. Science
education researchers have, like other educational researchers, long attempted
to improve teaching in schools.
Cultural studies contribute a greater understanding of the complex ways
in which institutions resist change, an understanding long held by
anthropologists.
For both Piburn & Baker (1993) and Bruce et
al. (1997), ethnographic methods are employed
as assessment tools. Piburn &
Baker gather rich data concerning young childrenÕs attitudes toward science by
interviewing kindergarten through second grade students. Similarly, Bruce et al. demonstrate that an evaluation study of a large,
federally funded project was enriched through the use of ethnographic
techniques such as observations, interviews, and surveys.
One way to analyze the culture of science teaching is
to study how people are initiated into the institution. Abell & Roth (1994) describe the
way in which a student teacher who is enthusiastic about science counters
anti-science trends in her school and becomes a change agent while still a
novice in the field. Rodriguez
(1998) uses a variety of ethnographic techniques - video, observations,
participant observation, field notes, interviews, and dialogue - to examine
resistance among pre-service science teachers. The stance taken by Rodriguez is both ethnographic and
critical and is part of a reform agenda, which he has named ÔSocio-Transformative
Constructivism (STC).Õ His reform combines a social justice political
perspective with the pedagogy of constructivism. In this study, he analyzes how mainstream pre-service
teachers resist this reform agenda, in an effort to understand and overcome the
challenges inherent in creating equity-oriented teachers.
Two
other reformers who assume a critical ethnographic stance toward science
education are Costa (1993, 1995) and Hayes & Deyhle (2001). Costa applies categories developed by
anthropologists Phelan et al. (1991) to
analyze patterns in secondary school student adjustment between similar or
differing worlds of home and school.
Through a series of case studies, Costa provides rich descriptions of
how studentsÕ positionings in relation to school science correspond to the
similarities or differences between the worlds of family and those of
school. CostaÕs research is based
on rich description, but is augmented by its implications for both local
practice and broader policy concerns.
Hayes & Deyhle observe Ômicro-level, moment to
moment interactionsÕ (2001: 241) in four, fifth, and sixth grade classrooms in
each of two schools, one with affluent, the other with low socioeconomic
populations of students. Their ethnographic research contradicts common
assumptions concerning both types of schools. Hayes & Deyhle found that teachers in affluent schools
did not follow the constructivist teaching practices most advocated in science
education research, due to their preoccupation with educating students in
academic skills in order to pass standardized tests. Simultaneously, they found that teachers in low-income
schools were more concerned in engaging their students through relevant
curricula, but less concerned about test results. The authors challenge their audience to consider whether the
relevant, but less ÔacademicÕ curricula in the low-income schools were a good
choice, since they increased engagement with science, or a bad thing, since
they might perpetuate the social reproduction of poor academic achievement
within low-income groups. This study
is an effective demonstration of ethnographyÕs ability to observe Ôwhat isÕ in
contrast to Ôwhat is supposed to be.Õ
It also reintroduces the theme of how difficult it is to balance context
and cognition in teaching science.
The high-income schoolÕs emphasis on cognition created a disembodied,
non-constructivist curriculum, but accomplished the goal of transmitting
cognitive information. In
contrast, the low-income school accomplished the short-term goal of active
student engagement, while ignoring long-term test results.
All of the above research is anthropological due to
its ethnographic methodology. It
should be noted, however, that this methodology in itself carries researchers
into arenas of school critique and reform. Opening the Ôblack boxÕ of daily life in schools and
classrooms generally reveals Ôhidden agendasÕ which illustrate why traditional
interventions to improve schools are difficult to achieve and to sustain.
Practice
theory and other theoretical approaches
Qualitative research on classroom cultures, as an
emerging field, has drawn on a variety of theoretical frameworks. For example, Moje (1995) uses
sociolinguistic analysis while Van Sickle & Spector (1996) use a symbolic
interactionist framework. One
particularly promising theoretical base for studying the culture of schools is
Ôpractice theoryÕ (Lave, 1993).
Eisenhart (1995, 1996, 2000) is a well-recognized anthropologist of
education who has applied this approach to science education. This approach attempts Ôto consider together
the insights of constructivists and sociologists of scienceÕ(Eisenhart, 2000:
43). Generally, Eisenhart argues,
Ôconstructivists view science as a socially and experientially produced set of
ideas about how the natural world works.Õ
In
contrast, sociologists of science, along with some feminists and
anthropologists of science view science as a set of historically and
politically compelled ideasÉ As such, science is neither a fixed body of
knowledge nor an empirically tested set of good ideas but a ÔtechnologyÕ that
tends to advance the interests of the historically powerfulÉ (Eisenhart, 2000:
44)
EisenhartÕs
practice theory Ôfocuses on the ways in which individuals and groups fashion
(the social constructivist part) and are fashioned by (the sociology of science
part) social, political, and cultural discourses and practices.Õ (2000:
44) EisenhartÕs work uses
ethnographic techniques to describe both contexts within science education and
science workplaces, and individual
stories experienced by players within these worlds. She then illustrates how individual histories, attitudes,
and identities of participants can enable them to rewrite what appear to be
pre-determined stories. Eisenhart
states that: ÔUntil recently, few educational anthropologists have given
serious consideration to conceptualizing how individualsÉ inventively
contribute to cultural continuity or changeÕ (1995: 3). An ethnography of two individuals
working in the same non-profit environmental organization is used to elucidate
how each crafted his/her own story as a result of the previous experience they
brought to the situation, their motivation, their orientation, and a complex of
other factors. Through practice
theory, Eisenhart argues that each individual within a culture of science
creates his/her own story within its boundaries.
They
are neither simply soaking up, like a fax, what is presented to them, nor are
they simply playing whatever tunes comes to them for the pure enjoyment of it,
like a jazz player. The stories they
use are mediational devices that enable certain kinds of newcomer experiences
and disable others; they affect how the newcomers are treated by others, and
they anticipate the kinds of identities available to them within the
organization. (1995: 20)
Several other researchers, like Eisenhart, use
Ôpractice theoryÕ to describe how individuals and cultural contexts interact in
a variety of science settings.
Carlone (2003) looks at how students and teachers define achievement in
an innovative physics curriculum at a high school, and concludes that meanings
within the classroom are shaped by meanings outside the classroom. Buxton (2001) analyzes the culture of
science in a lab at a research university, and questions how accurately our
portrayal of the culture of science in classrooms matches ÔrealÕ science as it
occurs in the laboratory. Finally, Hepburn & Gaskell (1998) compare subject
communities teaching high school science, and suggest that teachersÕ approaches
are an outgrowth of the communities of practice from which they emerged.
We argue
that practice theory provides an important advance in creating an
anthropological approach to science education research. This theory challenges
the boundaries of traditional ethnography, in a manner parallel to current work
in the field of anthropology, by focusing not only on cultural context, but
also on specific and variable ways in which culture acts itself out through
individuals, and is changed by them.
By looking at individual adaptations to and of cultural structures,
practice theory illustrates how individuals achieve agency even in structured
contexts, without losing sight of the complex of factors that determine these
contexts. ÔPractice theory
explores how individual and group cultures are formed in practice, within and
against larger societal forces and structures. These social structures provide
the (tacitly understood) frameworks that govern the functioning of social
institutions, including schools and other educational settingsÉÕ (Buxton,
2001:389).
Tobin et al.
(1996, 1997), Roth (1995, 1997), and Roth et al. (2002) also cite Lave (1993), and her emphasis on practice as a
starting point to research culture in science. However, Roth and Tobin theorize
teaching and learning in science by focusing on the dynamics among the
participants, tools, rules, and context in which the individual (or social
group) is embedded, and how they each mediate human activity. In their use of
Ôactivity theoryÕ (LeontÕev, 1978), Tobin and Roth focus on the co-generative cognitive
processes that are involved at the micro-level of student-teacher interactions:
tasks, gestures, conversation, and movement. Tobin and Roth use extensive
ethnographic methods in their research, and unlike other ethnographers,
typically include interventions to launch reform initiatives in
classrooms. There are many
parallels among the work of Tobin, Roth, and Eisenhart, since each researcher
attempts to merge critical theory with ethnographic description. A key difference is that EisenhartÕs
Ôpractice theoryÕ emphasizes the agency of the individual in redefining a set
social sphere, whereas Tobin and Roth focus on
the dialectical tensions between a personÕs power to act (agency), and the
human, material, and symbolic structures that mediate agency (Sewell, 1992). In
contexts such as poor urban high schools, access to resources, cultural
capital, divisions of labor, and institutional barriers act themselves out in
complex, moment-to-moment settings.
The evolution of practice and activity theories in
science education parallels similar trends toward merging critical theory with
participant observation in educational anthropology in general. The anthology The Cultural
Production of the Educated Person, edited by
Levinson, Foley & Holland (1996) provides many examples of this approach in
the teaching and learning of various subjects. It is important for researchers who take an anthropological
approach to science education to note the theoretical advances in critical
anthropology, which enable researchers not only to describe what they see, but
also to frame it in larger socio-historical and economic realities. Both practice and activity theories
recognize the forces that mediate against equity and change, but use detailed
ethnographic techniques to tease out the ways in which individuals and groups
can resist these forces to create liberated ÔlifespacesÕ within complex
societies. Their work sets the
stage for our next section, which focuses on science education for
disenfranchised groups within modern societies.
II. OUTSIDERS WITHIN:
USING ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO RESEARCH WITH WOMEN, MINORITIES,
IMMIGRANTS, WORKING CLASS, AND OTHER DISENFRANCHISED STUDENTS
If practice theorists and other researchers of social interaction have helped us to see how science
operates as a culture within classrooms, they have also set the stage for
researchers whose focus is on how science education operates in classrooms with
learners different from the mainstream and, in most cases, from their teachers. Such classrooms are an obvious focus of
an anthropological approach to science education, since the classrooms
themselves are cross-cultural experiences. In these classrooms, questions about the universality of
accepted science pedagogy and curricula are raised, and a variety of
adaptations proposed.
If education is about expanding upon the knowledge of
life world experiences that learners bring to situations, then a universal
image of science education is not possible. Science education must be contextualized and must be linked
to the life world experiences of learners. (Kyle, 2001: xvi)
The importance of this statement cannot be
overemphasized. An overarching
theme, which runs through studies in science education with various minority
groups and is expanded in section III in our discussion of international
science education, is that
Ôscience for allÕ does not mean the same standardized treatment of science
education in all settings. Whereas
mainstream reform agendas in the later 1990Õs and early 2000Õs have focused on
standardization and improvement of test scores on standardized tests,
anthropological research tends to focus on the local, on community Ôfunds of
knowledgeÕ (Moll et al., 1992), and on
links between science and social and environmental justice.
This section deals with anthropological approaches to
science education research that focus on disenfranchised groups, which we are
calling the Ôoutsiders within.Õ
One might ask ÔWhy outsiders?Õ
Western science as an academic institution emerged from a European
philosophical tradition, and until the advent of the 20th century
was the almost sole domain of white males in powerful positions in first world
countries. Despite an increase in
diversity among participants in scientific research and teaching, science as a
privileged and exclusive practice defines the context from which individuals
and groups might feel alienated by various degrees of separation. ÔWithinÕ refers to the
positioning of these groups within first world countries. In our next and final section, we will
deal with research settings outside these countries, or in indigenous positions
in any country.
Since anthropology has historically dealt with
cross-cultural situations, the increasingly cross-cultural nature of life in
first world countries, due to immigration and other factors, has caused many
anthropologists to focus their attention on their own cities and
hinterlands. Much of the work in
anthropology of education (Heath, 1983; Philips, 1983; Boggs et al., 1985) has focused on how diverse groups experience
school. HeathÕs seminal book, Ways
With Words, is at the forefront of a number of
works that explore how linguistic, class, and cultural factors from studentsÕ
homes affect their abilities to learn.
These studies argue for a ÔrelevantÕ curriculum that employs both
language patterns and content linked to studentsÕ home experience.
In
science education research, qualitative and ethnographic methodologies, such as
case studies and narratives, are becoming increasingly common in journals such
as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST), which traditionally published quantitative,
experimental studies. One factor
may be a growing concern on the part of researchers with how increasingly
diverse populations relate their own lives to
science. This concern has led to
both to the inclusion of more qualitative, ethnographic methods, and to a shift
in research goals from cognitive development alone to more consideration of the
context in which cognition occurs, a recurring theme in this paper.
Many
researchers have looked at girls and science, with an emphasis on the
experience of minority girls.
Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz (2000), for example, present narrative
research about how African American young women relate to science. Similarly, Parsons (1997) contrasts how
African American high school girls view African American and White scientists,
whereas Seiler (2001) critically analyzes the culture within a group of African
American students in an inner city high school science lunch group. In all of these cases, the advantage of
an anthropological approach to research, which focuses on individuals within a
cultural process, is that it enables researchers and their readers to enter ÔlifeworldsÕ that may be foreign to
their own, and to see how diverse students construct their notions of science.
Angela Calabrese Barton, an important researcher in
advocating science education for disenfranchised groups, co-edited with Kenneth
Tobin a special three issue volume of JRST
devoted to urban science which was published in October through December,
2001. These issues include many
articles which are not only ÔurbanÕ but also ÔanthropologicalÕ in their
commitment to rich, ethnographic description and to an understanding of cross
cultural processes. In another piece,
ÔLearning from Miguel,Õ Barton & Yang (2000) provides a rich
narrative description of a Puerto Rican homeless father in New York City, who
is known in his neighborhood as a herpetologist, yet has never had access to
school science. Barton illustrates
how school science seemed to have little to do with MiguelÕs deep interest in
the natural world.
He (Miguel) was drawn to a way of explaining the
world around him that went beyond books.
The world- the turtles, rats, snakes, and other creatures he studies-
was real life. However, the
science to which Miguel referred was always outside of schools, always a part
of his own research into the world around himÉ When he met with his counselor
at the beginning of his freshman year to discuss his high school curriculum,
his counselor steered him toward the vocational track ÔNone of my teachers ever
suggested college, let least careers in the sciences to me or any of my
classmatesÕÉ In retrospect, Miguel
believed these actions on the part of his teachers and his counselors only
reinforced his belief that school science and scientific careers were not
realistic options for youth Ôfrom the hoodÕ. (Barton & Yang, 2000:879)
In Teaching Science in Diverse Settings (2001), Barton & Osborne create a theoretical
position and share the research of colleagues concerned with finding effective
ways to teach science to disenfranchised learners. While much of the work in this book is ethnographic, BartonÕs
work uses descriptive narrative as a steppingstone for critical analysis of
both access to and the purposes served by science in contemporary society.
(Marginalized discourses) are brought together
because they combine a questioning of the foundational canons composing science
as a discipline and science education as a practice with an understanding that
the intersections of race, class, and gender, and other forms of identity
labeling, frame access to knowledge and power. (Barton & Osborne, 2001: 1)
Science
for All Americans, produced by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science in 1989, has served as a guideline
for mainstream equity in science reform in the United States. Barton and Osborne challenge three
assumptions central to this document: 1) that schools are historically meritocratic,
as opposed to reproductive of traditional race/ethnicity, class, and gender
inequalities; 2) that minorities and women operate at a deficit, and need to
gain important knowledge which is held by white, middle class males; and 3)
that students will choose to adopt mainstream values and hierarchies when
informed of their value. They
argue that in order to create meaningful science education for marginalized
students, it is necessary to rethink these foundational assumptions and to
entertain the notion that one standardized approach to science education does
not fit all. They then ask whether
differences in perspective and knowledge base, which emerge from cultural
differences, are Ôsomething to be fixed or changed,Õ or are Ôfundamentally at
the root of the democratic process in our society?Õ (Barton & Osborne,
2001: 26) If difference is to be
celebrated and built upon, then science education reform can be described as
follows.
It does not mean remaking those children into our own
images. It involves remaking
schooling and science in their often multiple images. (Barton & Osborne,
2001: 13)
The notion of contextualizing and modifying science
education in local settings to meet the needs of specific populations is a
major departure from the standards-based notion of educational equity that is
current in the United States. If
specific populations need specific interventions, then much research is needed
to discern the type of instruction appropriate to these students or
groups. This requires ethnographic
techniques, often applied not only by researchers, but also by practitioners,
parents, community members, and students, who must understand the cultural
processes occurring in their settings before they can engage in improving them. For many critical or action
researchers, ethnographic description is not an end in itself, but is rather a
first step in action research focused on making science education better. The work of Gilbert & Yerrick below
is a case in point.
Socio-Transformative Constructivism (STC)
Gilbert & Yerrick (2001) used ethnographic
techniques including observation, focus groups, and interviews to gather the
story of life in a lower track earth science courses a working class community
in the rural/suburban South. Their
research enables us to see lower track students through the eyes of their
teacher, the teacher through the eyes of his students, and the institution of
the school through the eyes of sensitive researchers. These perspectives corroborate to create a picture of a self-perpetuating
system, in which Ôthe quality of science instruction was subverted through a
process of negotiation between students and teachers in the context of low
expectations and the school cultureÕ (Gilbert & Yerrick, 2001: 574).
Although tracking was instrumental in the creation of a limited learning
environment, the authors point out that Ôsimply detracking schools will not
bring positive results inasmuch as the artifacts and beliefs that keep such
structures in place are still manifestÕ (Gilbert & Yerrick, 2001: 574). It
is striking to note that these artifacts and beliefs are held not only by
administrators and teachers, but also by the students themselves. By bringing us into the world of the
lower track classroom, the authors effectively communicate the complex web of
factors that create and recreate marginalized learning environments for some
students within a school that provides success for others.
Neither Gilbert nor Yerrick were content to remain
descriptive ethnographers chronicling educational experiences that did not
work. Both transformed themselves
into action researchers, determined to create a better experience for working
class youths. Yerrick accepted the challenge of teaching a parallel earth
science course himself the next semester, and Gilbert (2002) applied RodriguezÕ
reform program, Socio-Transformative Constructivism (STC), to a similar
setting. STC is a socio-cultural
approach to constructivist science teaching reform which applies four related
elements, themselves highly cultural, to the teaching process. These elements are 1) dialogic
conversation, 2) authentic activity, 3) meta-cognition, and 4)
reflexivity. Gilbert worked with a
high school teacher in a diverse, low income, desert community in the
Southwestern United States, to create and teach a health and wellness class as
a science elective. This class was designed to relate to health issues in
studentsÕ lives and to empower students through the reflective processes that
make up STC. He concluded that
these strategies worked to engage and empower students, and that the STC
approach was able to counteract the cycle of failure which he observed with
similar populations in previous research.
Ethnography and action research in Hawaii
ChinnÕs
work with Asian American women and Native Americans in Hawaii follows a similar
pattern to GilbertÕs (2002), in that she engages in both ethnographic dialogue
and action research. Chinn (2002)
uses narrative methodology to explore the perspective of Chinese and Japanese
Asian American women in Hawaii, often stereotyped as Ômodel minorities,Õ in the
process of becoming scientists and engineers. Chinn focuses on the competing cultural narratives that
emerge when these women describe their lives through in-depth interviews. Chinn identifies traditional Confucian
beliefs, which encourage women to be compliant and subservient to men, as a
narrative which makes it difficult for Asian women to compete with men in
individualistic, competitive science fields. Chinn asserts that Ôcontradictory ideologies interfered with
the construction of unitary self-identitiesÕ for these women (Chinn, 2002: 316). Chinn,
like Gilbert, demonstrates through her interviews with Asian women that
dialogue can be transformative in assisting students in negotiating complex
identities, and initiated reforms in which teachers 1) learn about the cultural
conflicts their studentsÕ experience, and 2) learn to dialogue with them about
these conflicts.
Whether
or not they realize it, teachers who shape the social worlds of students are
cultural guides to the students and parents who enter their domains É However, teachers familiar only with
mainstream values and ideologies must be sensitized to their critical role as
cultural guides to students and families from nonmainstream cultures. The
narratives in this and earlier studies reveal that women modified their
understandings of social phenomena as they reflected on past events in
different social spheresÉ (Chinn, 2002: 318)
Incorporating
community Ôfunds of knowledgeÕ (Moll et al., 1992)
In
addition to working with Asian Hawaiians, Chinn (2003) initiated an in-depth
professional development project that focuses on informing teachers about
traditional Hawaiian knowledge about the physical world and developing science curricula
that incorporate this knowledge. Teachers spend five days in a field-based,
cultural-science immersion led by Native Hawaiian teachers, and set in a Native
Hawaiian village. ChinnÕs project
provides a model of using two forms of accommodation to assist Native Hawaiians
in science: 1) the recognition
that teachers must provide cultural dialogue for students caught between
worlds, and must learn about studentsÕ worlds as a first step in doing this
effectively, and 2) the incorporation, through teachers as curriculum
developers, of Native Hawaiian knowledge into science curricula as a way to
honor its status and make science more relevant for Native Hawaiian students in
k-12 schools.
Hammond
(2001) also created a school-community garden project and field house with Iu
Mienh families in a California urban school as part of an action research
project aimed at empowering minority families by incorporating their community
Ôfunds of knowledgeÕ into the school curriculum. This project was part of a science centered school reform as part of the
Bilingual Integrated Science Curriculum Project (called BICOMP) that had the goal of creating relevant science
curricula for language minority students.
The Iu Mienh, who are members of a Southeast Asian hill tribe displaced
from Laos by the aftermath of the War in Vietnam, are subsistence
horticulturists who have no traditional secular written language or previous
experience with school. In the
context of an urban school, their knowledge was considered irrelevant, and
parent involvement impossible due to language and literacy barriers. BICOMP enabled parents and grandparents
to share their funds of knowledge about horticulture through creating a
heritage garden and field house at the school site, in which science themes
could be explored in the context of a Southeast Asian garden.
In
this research, anthropological techniques are applied at several levels. First, the project involves co-research
with parents and elders to record ethno-botanical practices in community books
for use with school children.
Second, teachers and researchers reflect on the cultural dialogue
necessary to build a science curriculum that integrates Iu Mienh funds of
knowledge with state science standards. Third, student teachers and teachers
are involved in activities through which they learn strategies and challenges
for working with language minority populations and build and test curricula
appropriate to this cultural setting.
In
this time of outcome-based education, one might question what can be gained
from creating a traditional Southeast Asian garden at an urban school, given
that immigrant students must learn English and adapt to life in the modern
world of the United States. Yet we
argue that this garden provides a transformative function for displaced refugee
families, a function which extends science education into domains of cultural
preservation and reconciliation and bonds them in unique ways to their school.
The key elements in such situations are that the
generally disempowered members É
are able to re-define that situation on their cultural terms, if only
within a bounded space. It was our
hope that the Mienh house would become such a space, and for a few magic hours
and days, it did. At the end of
one day, Kao and Yao (Southeast Asian student teachers) stood by the house,
looking on the verdant Mienh demonstration garden, which now had knee high rice
and waist high corn. Yao said:
ÔThis is how a house should be.
This house makes you feel good.Õ
Everything visible from the door of the house looked like a Lao village:
a pattern of garden plots, well-tended and green. It was hard to believe that the freeway droned in the
background, only fifty feet away, and that a small colony of homeless people
lived in the ravine beneath it. A
visitor suggested that one could pretend the freeway was a distant
waterfall. (Hammond, 2001: 992)
Hammond and her team of teachers, parents, and
children co-invented a ÔhybridÕ science curriculum in the intercultural space
of the Mienh garden and field house.
This space made it possible for Mienh parents and children to access
experiences in Western science. It
also enabled Western teachers and children to step into another world, learn
Mienh gardening skills, and participate in a cultural exchange in which another
body of knowledge was valued. By
teaching science as an ÔexchangeÕ between two or more bodies of knowledge
rather than as assimilation process to Western science alone, this project gave
a voice to Mienh families whose knowledge was previously disempowered.
Lessons learned from studies about disenfranchised learners and science
While
science education research with minority and disenfranchised groups is by
definition local and specific, it has general implications that challenge
conventional epistemological, pedagogical, and methodological
perspectives.
From
an epistemological perspective, the incorporation of knowledge about the
natural world from both Western and non-mainstream sources reinforces Barton
& OsborneÕs (critical) perspective that Ôscience is a social activity and
involves understanding how human values and characteristics shape scientific
knowledge and understandingÕ (2001: 21).
Although the process of science must remain rigorous, and be as
objective as possible, science must also be recognized as a cultural act
reflective of the context in which it evolves. This understanding is not acknowledged in national or
international science standards, which treat scientific theories as ÔfactsÕ
that need to be memorized, or even in constructivist reform agendas, which
generally assume that students do inquiry in order to ÔcorrectÕ their
misconceptions and come to universal understandings (Cobern, 1996).
Pedagogically,
researchers are challenged by the notion that science should be taught in ways
that engage local populations, including minorities, working class youth,
women, and others not traditionally successful in science. This implies that Ôscience for allÕ
should not be a process of making diverse children fit our images, but of
Ômaking schooling and science in their multiple imagesÕ (Barton & Osborne,
2001: 13).
Methodologically,
the diversity of populations in schools in virtually every country necessitates
an understanding of cultural process, since teachers and researchers now
experience different cultures on a daily basis in ways similar to
anthropologists in the field.
Ethnographic techniques can enable researchers to see how students and
teachers can unknowingly conspire to make learning impossible, as in the case
of Yerrick & GilbertÕs working class youth; to understand how studentsÕ
cultural expectations of themselves might be discrepant with the culture of
science, as in the case of ChinnÕs Asian women; and to find ways of
incorporating traditional knowledge about the natural world into science
teaching, as in the case of ChinnÕs Native Hawaiians and HammondÕs Iu Mienh
families. For most researchers
concerned with equity, however, ethnography is only the first step in creating
change. A second and essential
step is the design and testing of action research reforms that enable minority
or disenfranchised populations to gain agency and power within science
education contexts.
III.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO SCIENCE EDUCATION RESEARCH IN INTERNATIONAL AND
INDIGENOUS SETTINGS
A research story from South Africa
Here in the Midlands of KwaZulu Natai, South Africa,
we are sitting beside the car in front of a High School we are working
with. Before us is a deep valley
and green hills with sunlight slanting through the morning mist. Tiny huts, some round, some square, are
dotted on the slopes, the smoke of morning fires wafting upwards into the
haze. Beyond the valley are
private White-owned farms, but the land here belongs to Zulu Tribal
Authorities, and villagers live and build on it by arrangement with the
Chief. In the distance, small boys
follow cattle down to the streams, and muffled drum beats sound dimly. Goats lie in the middle of the dirt
road next to us and young girls walk past carrying firewood on their
heads. Just down the hill, some
other girls are filling plastic containers at a water pump. Behind us the school is a rectangular
block of concrete, surrounded by a high fence and a locked gate, through there
is little in the school to stealÉ From the classroom nearest us, we can hear
the children responding in unison to their teacher, chanting a definition she
sees as important. We canÕt make
out the words, but the music and rhythm are familiar. (Keane & Malcolm, 2003: 4)
Keane & Malcolm, in their science teacher
education work in South Africa, ask the question: Ôrelevant science education,
but relevant to what?Õ (2003: 4). What meaning do familiar canons have in the
context described above? How are
the roles of researcher and science educator changed in this context, which is
situated simultaneously in colonialism, tradition, poverty, and environmental
concerns? What is the purpose of
the curriculum, and whom does science serve? In third world contexts, a plethora of questions face science
educators. The role of
anthropology, seen as the art and practice of cross-cultural exploration, can
be a tool for addressing these challenges.
Keane
& Malcolm assume an ethnographic approach, and begin their work by
exploring the communityÕs sense of the current curriculum and of what they
would like science education to be.
The community was adamant that science education in
the current system offered little of value for them and their children. The curriculum needed to be strongly
connected to the community and vice versa. Indeed, the science curriculum should be embedded in a
community development project, whereby students learned as a part of community
development and contributed to it.
The curriculum (should be) life itself, and the learning that occurred a
part of life within the community. (Keane & Malcolm, 2003: 6)
The researchers began to explore what this would
mean. They gave grade 10 students
cameras, and asked them to take pictures of Ôscience in my life.Õ Students took pictures of farming,
animals, fixing TVÕs and cars, their community, and the beauty of
cabbages. They saw science and
relevance everywhere. However,
these youths did not see broader contradictions which interviews with adults
revealed: the tension between
Ôconnectedness and isolation, optimism and hopelessness, participation and
authority, equality and hierarchy, traditional and modern, young and old, local
and immigrant- that work between people and within peopleÕ (2003: 8). Keane
& Malcolm pondered what to do, and decided that two things were needed to
create a balanced science curriculum. The first was to explore useful science
knowledge and skills that meet immediate community needs. The second was to Ôto expose, explore
and maybe explode some of the beliefs, tensions, structures, habits, ideas and
ideals (including our own) that simmer in the community and within individuals,
and seem to limit personal and social development.Õ However, they also noted that such a critical and dialogic
curriculum would be out of step with traditional schooling and with the
existing skills of the teachers, and might even be unpopular with those parents
who expect schools to teach from textbooks and prepare students for
examinations.
The
story told by Keane & Malcolm (2003) introduces elements found in many
researchersÕ work in science education in the third world and/or with
indigenous peoples. These issues
include:
1)
differing worldviews:
the gap between school knowledge, as defined by Western canons, and both
traditional worldviews and the technologies and skills relevant to solving
pressing community problems;
2)
social and
environmental justice: the
abstract nature of school science as information acquisition in the face of
poverty, inequality, and pressing environmental problems such as clean water or
lack of food;
3)
agency and power: the
question of who should determine the curriculum, and for what purpose, which
exists in all settings but is made more evident in third world settings;
4)
the role of the researcher, who is often
transformed from educator and ethnographer to community developer and activist.
In
this section, we shall discuss how a variety of researchers have dealt with
these questions. This research
will be discussed in relation to our ongoing themes of epistemology, pedagogy,
and methodology.
Epistomology and science in the third world
The
inevitable meeting between Western (colonial and post-colonial) and non-Western
(Eastern and traditional) ways of thinking in third world settings leads to
epistemological questions about the nature of science. For Ogawa (1995), science itself needs
to be reconceptualized in a relativistic perspective. He claims that Ôscience for allÕ is always Western science
for all, rather than one of several approaches to science. To remedy this situation, he proposes
an approach that he calls Ômultiscience.Õ
This approach defines science
as a rational explanation of the physical world, which is Ôrelative to the
community of scientists who produced its knowledgeÕ (Ogawa, 1995: 585). Such an
approach has been created within every society. Whereas Western science is one
approach, which is situated in the community that created it, indigenous
science is another approach, which exists in multiple forms. ÔIndigenous science is held by a specific
cultural group, not by a specific individualÕ (1995: 585). Ogawa argues that
each cultureÕs approach to science carries with it not only a body of
information, but a particular process, or definition of rationalism. At the same time, individuals experience
Ôpersonal science,Õ which is their own particular worldview, affected by their
own indigenous background, religion, level of development, and many other
factors. These three types of
science - Western, indigenous, and personal - together constitute a Ômultiscience
perspective.Õ
Ogawa
states that Western modern science is not the same as an indigenous science for
which Westerners have a particular affinity, Ôbut a theoretically materialistic
science, which is, so to speak, a kind of game open to anybody who will obey
its rulesÕ (1995: 589). This game is foreign to everyone,
including Westerners, who have their own ÔindigenousÕ and personal experiences
as do members of any other group.
Western science must be learned, and it can be learned by anyone who
wants to play.
OgawaÕs
notion of ÔmultiscienceÕ provides important perspective, yet raises new
questions. If ÔWestern modern
scienceÕ is a game open to all, separate from any culture, then how did it
evolve? What is its relationship
to Western culture? And if every
system of local knowledge has a Ôparticular process, or definition of
rationalismÕ within it, then what is the relationship between this process and
the ÔgameÕ of Western science?
Ogawa implies that the two, or multiple, systems co-exist side by
side. Is this a dilemma for
individuals who espouse both systems, and Ôlive in two worlds?Õ Can
discrepancies between these systems be resolved, and if so, how?
George
(1999, 2001) studied traditional practices and beliefs about health and
marine-related activities in the daily lives of a village in Trinidad and
Tobago. George participated in
village life over a five-year period and constructed
a textured description of how villagers view self, other, classification,
relationship, causality, space and time. From her data, she drew the
conclusion that while similarities exist between traditional wisdom and Western
science, each knowledge tradition assumes a different approach. In general, Ô(Western) science seeks to
recognize a set of intrinsic, automatic, neurological, and physiological
mechanisms, (while) the traditional system proposes a voluntarily managed set
of physical behaviors and dietary prescriptions, guided by knowledgeÕ (George,
1999: 92). This difference seems to fit OgawaÕs view of indigenous and personal
versus Western science. George
argues that students in Trinidad and Tobago are Ôliving in two worlds,Õ much
like minority students Costa (1995) describes in the United States.
Waldrip
& Taylor (1999) use interview and case study methodologies to study the
worldviews of village elders and high school students in a developing South
Pacific island, which they call Kantri.
Two important points frame this research. The first is that it is common for people to juggle more than
one worldview, even among ÔmodernÕ educated people. Waldrip & Taylor describe a colleague who states that he
believes in evolution at work and creationism at church. This perspective matches OgawaÕs view
that Western science is only one of many modes in which people think. Waldrip & TaylorÕs second point is
that science education research concerned with conceptual change, such as the
work of Gilbert, Watts, & Osborne (1982), argues that exploring studentsÕ
prior knowledge is central to teaching science. In indigenous contexts, this means exploring
traditional community knowledge as well as studentsÕ personal knowledge.
If
traditional forms of knowledge are respected along-side Western science, as
parts of a complex Ômultiscience,Õ then what is the power relationship between
these two forms of knowledge, and how are they passed on? In the past, traditional knowledge was
passed from elders to children through daily life and storytelling, without
need for formal schooling.
However, as children all over the world begin to attend schools, they
learn Western science there and have little time to learn from elders. In many cases, they are even physically
separated from their villages while they go to school. The problem of language and cultural
loss among such children is particularly intense when they come from fourth
world tribal groups who speak an oral language that is not represented in
school. In such a case, Thomson
(2003) suggests that children learn about everybody but themselves, while
traditional bodies of knowledge about the physical world, along with their
language and culture, die with their elders.
To
remedy this problem, Thomson engaged in a community study of snakes in KenyaÕs
Rift Valley, which is Ôwell known by scientists for its fauna, flora and
notable as the cradle for human originsÕ (Thomson, 2003: 92). It is his
suggestion that science educators Ôbecome active participants with regard to
real global concerns for extinctions: cultural, language and biologicalÕ (2003:
112). Thomson suggests that educators in third world countries not only help
their students to learn Western science, but actively work to record and
preserve local knowledge and to integrate it into science curricula. He also suggests that local knowledge
be preserved through local language, which is itself endangered. Such a process involves collaborative
research with local people, including tribal elders, who are traditional
keepers of this knowledge.
Another
perspective is provided by Turnbull (1997), who suggests that we need to
ÔdecentreÕ Western science so that it becomes another set of ÔlocalÕ practices
like any other. This view differs
from OgawaÕs notion of science as an a-cultural Ôgame,Õ and suggests that Western
science and other systems of knowledge be mediated and negotiated as
socio-historically created artifacts and processes. Turnbull argues that: ÔScience in the general sense of
systematic knowledge was never uniquely Western, having its origins in a wide
variety of cultures including Islam, India, and ChinaÕ (Turnbull. 1997: 552).
If one accepts that several systems of science have developed, then Turnbull
suggests that two positions can be assumed. The first is an ÔimperialistÕ position, which asserts that
Western science is superior in its rationality and methodology. According to this position, Ôany
non-Western knowledge can only achieve full status É by being absorbed into the
Western canon, otherwise it must remain mere tradition or beliefÕ (1997: 552).
A second position is a ÔlocalistÕ position, in which multiple knowledge
systems, all considered local, might learn to coexist.
Turnbull
suggests that in order to make this happen, we need to rethink what knowledge
is. Rather than treating it as a
fixed representation, we need to
look at knowledge as performative. For knowledge to develop, Turnbull
argues, requires a space in which
people, skills, local understandings, and resources are gathered to create
it. Turnbull describes several
historical examples, including the building of Chartres Cathedral and the
Polynesian colonization of the Pacific, in which a body of knowledge grew and
prospered in a particular space.
In the present situation, when globalization is causing human cultural
knowledge of science and other subjects to come together, Turnbull suggests
that we need to create Ôtertiary spacesÕ in which two bodies of knowledge,
which collide in a given setting, can negotiate and create a new and
unprecedented Ôperformance.Õ
The future for local knowledge traditions isÉ
dependent on the creation of a third spaceÉ in which local knowledge traditions
can be reframed, decentred and the social organization of trust can be
negotiatedÉ KnowledgeÉ will tend towards universal homogenous information at
the expense of local knowledge traditionsÉ (unless) it is recognized as both
representational and performativeÉ There is a future for other knowledge
traditions because, as the myth of science and progress collapses, so we become
more aware that diversity is the key to survival. (Turnbull, 1997: 561)
Can TurnbullÕs Ôthird spaceÕ be created through
alternative pedagogies that encourage performative knowledge creation? Zembylas (2002), building on TurnbullÕs
approach, describes the development of science education in Cyprus as an
ongoing story of struggle between local and colonial, turned global
forces. He states:
One clear lesson that can be learnedÉ is the need to
create spaces in which the local can be performed together with the global.
(Zembylas, 2002: 516)
Operationalizing ÔmultiscienceÕ and other
cross-cultural exchanges of knowledge
How have researchers created pedagogies that reflect
the relativistic approaches to science described above? Ogawa suggests that courses of study be created which enable dialogue
between the indigenous and personal perspectives on issues studied and the
Western perspectives on the same topics.
Brandt (2004) created such an ethnobotany class at the University of New
Mexico, in which students studied a nearby community, and received lectures and
guided tours from local residents, as well as from university scientists. Brandt describes how ethnobotany, the
study of plants used in human cultures for food, medicine, and material
culture, is one way for students to explore the epistemology of Western science
and traditional ecological knowledge. In this course, she encourages students
to ask: What counts as Ôscience?Õ Whose knowledge is valued? What knowledge can
sustain our communities? Anthropological in its approach, this course might be
said to define a Ômultiscience perspectiveÕ in that students gain a perspective
from the combined understandings of personal, indigenous, and Western science.
Aikenhead
(1996, 1997, 2000) suggests that when indigenous worldviews conflict with the
assumptions of Western science, that science education be modified to
accommodate these views, and, in particular, that teachers must understand
First Nation studentsÕ experience with science as a kind of Ôborder crossingÕ
which must be acknowledged, understood, and assisted. Aikenhead, who has done
extensive work with First Nations people in Canada, proposes a cross-cultural
approach to teaching science and technology (Science Technology and Society
[STS]) which is:
1) founded on empirical studies in educational
anthropology
2) directed by the goals of the First Nations people
themselves
3) illuminated by a reconceptualization of science
teaching as cultural transmission
4) guided by a cross-cultural STS science and technology
curriculum, and
grounded in various types of content knowledge
(common sense, technology, and science) for the purpose of practical action
such as economic development, environmental responsibility and cultural
survival. (1999: 217)
George
comes to a similar conclusion, based on her work in Seablast, Trinidad.
I join with Aikenhead (1996) and Cobern (1996) in
advocating that education in science should be viewed as a process of crossing
the boundary between the subculture of the students and the subculture of
scienceÉ For example, if it is discovered that students in Seablast use their
personal experiences extensively in their explanations, then one of the aids
that should be provided is an extensive description of the differences between
how they argue and how scientists argueÉ
Implicit in these recommendations is the notion that science teachers in
contexts such as Seablast would need to be equipped, through preservice and
in-service programs, to present science to their students in this way. (George,
1999: 94)
Practical science vs. theoretical science
In
addition to considerations of world view, an important theme which continually
emerges in relation to third world or indigenous science pedagogy is that of
practical, day to day knowledge, which can help people to solve problems,
versus school science knowledge, which is often abstract and lacking in
applications. Masingila (1994)
concluded from her in-depth ethnography of the mathematics used by carpet
layers, that different mathematical skills were needed for problem solving in context
than those taught in school. Her
work debunks the premise that school teaches a basic set of de-contextualized
skills which can easily be applied in practical situations. Whereas MasingilaÕs work occurred in
the United States, the issue which she addresses is even more relevant in third
world settings, where day to day problems of public health, nutrition, and the
like are pervasive, yet science education addresses standardized, abstract
concepts rather than connecting science to the solution of these problems. Whereas many third world educators
believe that the function of schooling is to provide opportunities beyond the
village, the reality for most students is that they will return to the village
after they complete school, as Waldrip & Taylor document in the case of
Kantri (1999).
Because of the
limited employment prospects on the island, most students would resume village
life on completion of high schoolÉ We were disappointed to learn, however, that
schooling currently disconnects young people from their own cultural beliefs
and practices, and attempts to enculturate them into a largely irrelevant
Western school viewÉ Generally
speaking, the village elders and high school students did not perceive the
school view as useful for improving the knowledge and skills for survival in
the village. School science was
regarded as providing methods of agriculture that were either inferior to or no
better than traditional agricultural practices. (Waldrip & Taylor, 1999:
301)
Waldrip & Taylor intend to conduct further
research on villagerÕs funds of knowledge so that school science might be
Ôadapted so that the power of Western science can be harnessed in their
interestsÕ (1999: 302). Similarly,
in the Northern Territory of Australia, government involvement in creating
curricula that combine Aboriginal and Western science is well under way. In a paper presented at the
Australasian Science Education Research Association in 2000, Michie &
Linkson describe a new handbook, ÔIntercultural understandings in teaching
science: A handbook for teachers,Õ which includes both understanding of
indigenous knowledge and ways to teach in an intercultural fashion, combining
Western with indigenous science.
Central to this work is Ôthe belief that Indigenous students could learn
in both domains and hold both as valid worldviewsÕ (Michie & Linkson, 2000: 2). The authors describe a
shift in perspective in the Northern Territory, from thinking of the inclusion
of Aboriginal ideas as a means to an end, with outcomes measured in Western
science only, to creating an ÔArrente curriculum whose learning outcomes arise
from both Western and indigenous knowledge systemsÕ (Michie & Linkson,
2000: 2).
Re-evaluating the purposes of pedagogy in
situations of poverty or war
When science education occurs in extreme situations
of poverty or even war, the question of how what is studied relates to students
lives takes on great importance. Zahur, Barton, & Upadhay explore the
question: ÔWhat should be the purpose of science education for children of the
very poor class in a caste-oriented developing country such as Pakistan?Õ
(2002: 899). Through a case study of Haleema (pseudonym), a teacher educator
and reformer, these researchers suggest that among children who are unlikely to
go beyond elementary school, science education must take on a new emancipatory
role.
Science education must help children in poverty to
gain voice and space in the current social and political climate. Science education must also provide a
path to enhancing the quality of life for both the children in school and the
communities where they live.
(Zahur, Barton, & Upadhyay, 2002: 899)
The research done by this international team of
science educators is striking in its emphasis on issues of social justice. ÔPakistanÕs social structure and
economy have been supported by socioeconomic and gender caste systemsÕ (2002:
900). Lahore, the city where they do their research, presents an acute contrast
of wealth and poverty. In
addition, the local culture asserts that womenÕs contribution is in the home,
and that the limited resources available for schooling should go to boys. Currently, science education in Lahore
uses the British school system syllabus, testing is done through British-style
end-of-course exams, and science is treated as a body of knowledge to be memorized. This approach precludes the use of
local, relevant curricula and ignores an exploration of access and equity
issues for girls.
Haleema argues that schools are failing poor children
in Pakistan, and that Ôthe primary goal of urban science education ought to
shift from the acquisition of the state curriculum to empowerment (individual
and community) and social changeÕ (Zahur, Barton & Upadhyay, 2002: 906).
She argues that education should focus on issues in childrenÕs lives, such as
water and air quality, as well as creating gardens where people can grow food,
beautify the community, and study science. Central to HaleemaÕs argument is that children in poverty
need to use science as a way to gain agency in their lives.
[It is important to create a] sense of accepting
children as agents of change for future and accept their right to get education
and try out their competencies and contribute to the society, as well as to
empower students to have a sense of belonging and readiness to contribute to their
surroundings, parents and brothers and sisters. (Zahur, Barton & Upadhyay,
2002: 911)
Bajracharya
& Brouwer (1997) study science education in the impoverished country of
Nepal. The schools they study
cannot afford even basic equipment such as microscopes and balances, and
teachers generally feel compelled to use a lecture method of teaching. As in Pakistan, school fails to address
peopleÕs basic needs.
Most of the problems of Nepal are very basic in
nature, such as poor sanitary conditions, the lack of healthy drinking water,
acute shortages of energy, a lack of transportation, and a lack of adequate
healthy food. However, education
in general, and science education in particular, seem to have remained indifferent
to these problems; they neither reflected these problems in their curriculum
content nor provided a way to address them in other forms. (Bajracharya &
Brouwer, 1997: 430)
The rationale for this gap between local perspectives
and science investigations is that spiritually-oriented traditional views are
dismissed by science educators.
Nepalese people are influenced by stories of Ramayana, Mahabharata, and
Swasthani as well as Buddhist writings.
Many of these stories engender respect for the environment, and might
provide a perfect point of dialogue between Western science and traditional
culture. Bajracharya &
Brouwer argue that these stories, which are generally dismissed as ÔmythsÕ by
scientists, add a dimension of spirituality and beauty to the discussion of
science themes.
The task of a science teacher in Nepal, as well as in
the world at large, is never to reduce a natural object such as the rainbow to
an object Ôin the dull catalogue of common things, where science clips an
angelÕs wings and conquers all mysteries by rule and lineÕ (John Keats) but to
retain the sense of wonder and mystery that these objects possess. (1997: 433)
Perrier
& Nsengiyumva (2003) describe a science inquiry program in Rwanda
instituted informally in an orphanage for survivors of war and violence as a
kind of therapy. The researchers,
a psychologist and a science educator, noted that children who were otherwise
passive became engaged with engineering challenges. One child commented: Ô I just want to make things, Ô
(Perrier & Nsengiyumva, 2003:1120) which struck the researchers as
significant because these children Ôare in the process of rebuilding their
whole internal psychological structureÕ
(2003: 1120). The researchers
described the children as moving from a state of not being able to play, to one
of being able to play.
The most spectacular observation during the pilot
sequence is the joy experienced by some participantsÉ That such positive
experiences are possible during the practice of active science is an indication
that these activities can indeed provide a therapy in some cases, and at least
some sense of re-establishing an internal locus of control. This also leads to the conjecture that
the personal experience of joy is a driving factor in the natural resolution of
conflicts associated with the learning process. (Perrier & Nsengiyumva, 2003: 1124)
While the pedagogical
solutions described above are as diverse as the settings in they occur, all of
them integrate the teaching of local traditions and/or the addressing of local
needs. They also present ways in
which science education, led by inspired teachers and researchers, can become
truly meaningful, expressive and even joyful in the most challenging of
circumstances, and suggest that the justifications for particular pedagogies
might go far beyond the teaching of cognitive skills.
Creating new methodologies for science education
research in the third world
In
the Philippines, where Nichols & Tippins (2003, in press) have done
extensive work with a team of Filipino colleagues (Arellano, Morano, Bilbao,
& Barcenal, 2001) to explore appropriate ways to educate science teachers
to work in the village culture of Casay.
This research team has focused in part on methodologies, all highly
ethnographic, which enable groups of researchers and teachers in the field to
explore the complex contradictions between traditional and Western scientific
beliefs, abstract knowledge and everyday skills, and questions of power,
colonialism, and globalization which affect all third world settings. Several useful qualitative approaches
to research have resulted from these explorations.
The
Filipino-American research team explored the notion of Ôcaselets,Õ a diminutive
form of case study that can be written not only by researchers but also by
teachers and student teachers. The
subject of these caselets is situations that occur in the context of science
education and evoke contradictions between traditional and Western
knowledge. For example, a student
teacher asked to teach sex education may be concerned how this curriculum will
be received in a traditional village.
Caselets are not only treated as data for researchers. They are reviewed by co-researchers and
teachers, who respond in writing, and thus create an ongoing dialogue about how
to negotiate conflictive cultural situations.
This
research team has also explored photo essays as ways to express dilemmas in
science education. For example, a
teacher photographed three locations, all visible in the same photo, which
represent alternative ways to get health care in her village. These locations are the Western
medicine clinic, the herbal remedy garden, and the Catholic Church, where
people pray for good health. As in
other research we have mentioned, the research team noted that people are able
to use all three resources without apparent contradiction, stating that they
did so Ôjust in case.Õ
Currently,
Nichols et al. (2003, in press) have
been using a tool called ÔMemory Banking,Õ which was invented by an
agricultural anthropologist named Nazarea (1998) for native seed
preservation. Memory banking
honors traditional knowledge by creating taxonomies of what people know about a
certain procedure in daily life, such as shell fishing. These taxonomies emerge from interviews
with a variety of people, and are charted under categories such as
Ôenvironment, health, economic, religious, political, and socio-culturalÕ
issues. From these taxonomies
emerge broader themes, such as ÔplaceÕ or Ôout of balance.Õ In considering Ôplace,Õ residents of
Casay describe the spiritual and physical connections they feel to their
land. In Ôout of balance,Õ they
note that a variety of species of shellfish or plants are decreasing in
comparison to the past. This
enables villagers and science educators to consider the causes of this in-balance,
and what can be done. Spiritual,
cultural, economic, political and scientific perspectives enter this process.
The
work of Nichols, Tippins, Arellano, Morano, Bilbao, & Barcenal, done in
conjunction with a larger team of teachers, student teachers, and community
members, is an attempt to Ôde-colonizeÕ science education in a variety of
ways. First, research is done as a
narrative, collaborative process that involves Western scientists, Filipino
science educators, and local teachers and citizens working together. Second, local issues and reflections on
issues are taken as first steps in understanding what should be studied.
Third, methodologies are developed to express
community life, through a variety of narrative, photographic, and memory banking
techniques. And fourth, science
education is taken beyond Ôcommunity relevantÕ and into the realm of community
centered, ultimately becoming one part in the process through which a community
can address its problems and come to understandings about the physical world in
which it lives. We feel that in
work like that of Tippins, Nichols and their Filipino colleagues, methodologies
which emerged from anthropology play an important role in expressing the richness
of local knowledge, and in redefining power relationships between researchers,
teachers, and communities.
Lessons learned from science education research in the third and fourth worlds
Doing
science education research in the third and fourth worlds challenges basic
assumptions about epistemology, pedagogy, and methodology in profound
ways. While questions of science
relativity and whose science we should study are relevant in minority settings
in first world countries, they become magnified and multiplied in third world
settings that are characterized by polyvocality, where colonial, post-colonial,
traditional, and indigenous voices blend.
In addition to contesting the nature of science, third and fourth world
settings also challenge pedagogical purposes. Questions of relevance, while important in any setting,
become dramatic when basic material needs for food, clean water, and safe
environments dominate everyday life.
In these settings, does science serve as a vehicle which to move an
elite students beyond their communities, or a tool to address the problems the
community faces, or both? Is it
the role of science to preserve traditional knowledge of natural world, and
traditional languages, or to participate in destroying heritage through
replacing traditional knowledge with ÔglobalÕ perspectives and local languages
with international ones? What role
does the researcher play in balancing the potentially contradictory directions
which science education might take?
There are no simple or easy answers. What is clear, however, is that the issues which are
important in the first world, such as the cultural nature of science; access
and equity; multiple perspectives; and the relationship between context and
cognition, are clarified by being considered in the context of third and fourth
world challenges. To know the
ÔotherÕ may lead us to understand ourselves.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Central to an anthropological approach to science education is the notion that science is a cultural activity, which developed as a subset of Western culture and is socio-historically situated. This contradicts positivist interpretations, in which science is seen as rational and culturally neutral. As a human endeavor, science education is communicated through cultural transmission, through a complex process that cannot be reduced solely to cognitive strategies. Even for Western children in first world societies, science is not a natural activity, but is specific and technical, and must be formally learned; children are officially socialized into the process of scientific inquiry through educational systems. As with other forms of knowledge, individuals differ in their relationships to scientific knowledge, which can compete with spiritual views, ethnic identity, folk culture, or personal beliefs.
Some reformers have challenged the nature and boundaries of science itself. Ogawa and others have suggested that science should be seen as not only Western science, but also as Ômultiscience,Õ which would encompass indigenous understandings of the natural world, as well as personal ways that people envision science. Turnbull has suggested that science be redefined as performative rather than representational, and that it should include a Ôthird spaceÕ in which multiple perspectives can be negotiated. Others such as Aikenhead have focused on Ôborder crossingsÕ between various cultures of science, and on how individuals integrate seemingly contradictory perspectives in order to reconcile multiple realities.
Whereas science has been traditionally the domain of white males, the barriers that it presents to ÔothersÕ- be they females, minorities, or indigenous peoples- have become a major research focus. Much research has looked at different ways to overcome these barriers, generally through altering science pedagogy in order to deconstruct, and hence make accessible, the hidden agendas which define the culture of science.
For some researchers, science is viewed as a culture of power and privilege that is tied to dominant, mostly Western, political, environmental, and economic agendas. In this light, the question of who is served by science education is crucially connected to access to and control of knowledge, resources, and power. Some researchers, concerned with these issues, would refocus science education away from the learning of traditional canons, and toward community knowledge or empowerment and/or the remediation of social and environmental injustices.
For some researchers, the power of an anthropological
approach to science education is in method as much as in substance. Ethnographic methods that developed in
anthropology have proved useful in seeing through insiderÕs eyes, a skill which
was not the strong point of traditional quantitative research, which tended to
view subjects from a distance.
Observation, interviews, video-taping, socio-linguistic analysis,
narrative research, case studies, and other methodologies which emerged from
ethnography enable kinds of research not previously considered in science
education. In the process of
applying these tools, some researchers are transformed into members of teams,
co-researching, reflecting, and becoming engaged with the communities they
would study. Action research
involves not only researchers, but also a range of stakeholders (teachers,
local officials, parents, and students) in solving problems, using ethnographic
techniques to evaluate conditions in their own communities.
Although an anthropological approach to science
education is no panacea, and raises many questions, we suggest that it is an
important and natural outgrowth of an increasingly interconnected world. The intercultural encounters that were
once the privilege of a few anthropologists or adventurers, traveling in remote
lands, have become normal occurrences in modern cities and hinterlands, in
first and third world countries alike.
Whereas this is cause for celebration, it is also cause for concern, in
that science can no longer be separated from the massive globalization process
that it facilitates. Equity issues
in science education now extend beyond access to schooling into an assessment
of the impact of modern society on its environment and on indigenous
people. The research reviewed in
this article has implications that go beyond the improvement of science teaching
and learning in classrooms.
An anthropological approach to science education illustrates the deep
commitment of many contemporary researchers to transforming science into a tool
that can give agency to all people, including those who are indigenous or
disenfranchised, and that can enable them both to preserve their funds of
knowledge, and to improve the lives of their communities.
REFERENCES
ABELL, S. K. & ROTH, M. (1994). Constructing science teaching in the elementary school: The socialization of a science enthusiast teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 77-90.
AIKENHEAD, G.S. & OTSUJI, H. (2000). Japanese and Canadian science teachersÕ views on science and culture. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 277-299.
AIKENHEAD, G.S. (2000) Renegotiating the culture of school science. 245-264, In Improving science education: The contribution of research. Millar, R., Leach, J., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
AIKENHEAD, G.S. (1997). Toward
a First Nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81(2), 217-238.
AIKENHEAD, G.S. (1996). Science
Education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27: 1-52.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, D. C.: AAAS Press
ARELLANO, E.L., BARCENAL, B.L., BILBAO, P.P., CASTELLANO, M.A., NICHOLS, S., & TIPPINS. D.J. (2001). Case-based pedagogy as a context for collaborative inquiry in the Philippines. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 502-528.
BAJRACHARYA, H. & BROUWER, W. (1997). A narrative approach to science teaching in Nepal. International Journal of Science Education, 19 (4), 429-446.
BARTON, A.C. & OSBORNE, M.D. (Eds.) (2001). Teaching science in diverse settings: marginalized discourses and classroom practice. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
BARTON, A.C. & YANG, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871-889.
BOGGS, S.T., GEGEO, K., & MCMILLEN, G. (1985). Speaking, relating and listening: A study of Hawaiian children at home and school. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.
BORDIEU, P. & PASSERON, J.C. (1977). Reproduction: In education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.
BRANDT, C.B. (2004). A
thirst for justice in the arid southwest: The role of epistemology and place in
higher education. Educational Studies, 36(1).
BRICKHOUSE, N.W., LOWERY, P., & SCHULTZ, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441-4.
BRUCE, B.C., BRUCE, S.P., CONRAD, R.L., & HUANG, H.J. (1997). University science students as curriculum
planners, teachers, and role models in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 69-88.
BUXTON, C.A. (2001). Modeling
science teaching on science practice? Painting a more accurate picture through
an ethnographic lab study. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 387-407.
CARLONE, H.B. (2003).
Innovative science within and against a culture of Ôachievement.Õ Science
Education, 87(3), 307-328.
CHINN, P.W. (2002). Asian and
Pacific Islander women scientists and engineers: A narrative exploration of
model minority, gender, and racial stereotypes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 302-323.
CHINN, P.W. (2003). A Hawaiian sense of place: Science
curricula incorporating Hawaiian ways of knowing. Presentation at the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching (NARST) conference, April, 2003, Philadelphia, PA.
COBERN, W.W.(1996).
Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80(5), 579-610.
COSTA, V.B. (1993). School science as a rite of passage: A new frame for familiar problems. Journal of Research in Science Education, 30(7), 649-668.
COSTA, V.B. (1995). When science is Ôanother worldÕ: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79(3), 313-333.
DELPIT, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural
conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
EISENHART, M. (2000). Boundaries and selves in the making of Ôscience.Õ Research in science education, 30(1), 43-55.
EISENHART, M. (1996). The production of biologists at school and work: Making scientists, conservationists, or flowery bone-heads? 169-186. In B.A. Levinson, D.E. Foley, & D.C. Holland, (Eds.). The Cultural Production of the Educated Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
EISENHART, M. (1995). The fax, the jazz player, and the self-story teller: How do people organize culture? Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26 (1), 3-26.
ERICKSON, F. (1986). ÔCulture difference and science education.Õ The Urban Review, 18 (2), 117-124.
GEORGE, J. (2001) Culture and science education: A look from
the developing world. Bioscience
Productions, Inc.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/george.html
GEORGE, J. (1999). World
view analysis of knowledge in a rural village: Implications for science
education. Science Education, 83(1), 77-95.
GILBERT, A. & YERRICK, R. (2001). Same school, separate worlds: A sociocultural study of identity,
resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Education, 38(5), 574-598.
GILBERT, A. (2002). How transformative is
sociotransformative constructivism?
Utilizing critical ethnography to investigate a discourse of
transformation. Presented in the
multimedia symposium at the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching Annual Conference, New Orleans, 2002.
GILBERT, J.K., WATTS, D.M., &
OSBORNE, R. (1982). StudentsÕ
conceptions of ideas in mechanics.
Physics
Education, 17, 62-66.
HAMMOND, L. (2001). Notes from
California: an anthropological approach to urban science education for language
minority families. Journal of Research in Science Education, 38(9), 983-999.
HANSEN, J. F. (1979). Sociocultural Perspectives on Human Learning:
Foundations of Educational Anthropology.
Prospect
Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
HAYES, M.T. & DEYHLE, D.
(2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science
curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85(3), 239-262.
HEATH, S.G. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
HELMS, J.V. (1998). Science - and me: Subject matter and
identity in secondary school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811-834.
HEPBURN, G. & GASKELL, J. P. (1998). Teaching a new science and technology course: A
sociocultural perspective. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 777-789.
JACOB, E. (1997). Context and cognition: Implications for educational innovators and anthropologists. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 28 (1), 3-21.
KEANE, M. & MALCOLM, C. (2003). Relevant science education, but relevant to what? Labtalk, Science TeachersÕ Association of Victoria, Australia, 47 (2), 4-9.
KYLE, W.C., JR. (2001). Toward a political philosophy of science education. In Teaching Science in diverse settings: marginalized discourse and classroom practice, xi-xix. Barton, A.C. & Osborne, M.D., (Eds.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
LAVE, J. (1993). The
practice of learning. In Chaiklin,
S. & Lave, J., (Eds.), 30-32. Understanding practice: Perspectives
on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
LEE, O. & FRADD, S. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.
LEONTÕEV, A.N. (1978). Activity,
consciousness and personality. Englewood
Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.
LEVINSON, B. & HOLLAND, D. (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: An introduction. In The cultural production of an educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice, B.A. Levinson, D.E. Foley, & D.C. Holland (Eds.). 1-54. Albany: State University of New York Press.
LEVINSON, B., FOLEY, D., & HOLLAND, D. (Eds.) (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
MASINGILA, J. O. (1994). Mathematics practice in carpet laying. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(4), 430-462.
MICHIE, M. & LINKSON, M. (2000). Providing teacher support materials for curriculum developments incorporating intercultural understandings of science education. Paper presented at the 31st annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Fremantle, WA, 29 June- 1 July, 2000.
MOJE, E B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349-371.
MOLL, L.C., AMANTI, C., NEFF, D., & GONZALEZ, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge in teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
MUNBY, H., CUNNINGHAM, M., & LOCK, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to
developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84(2), 193-211.
NAZAREA, V. (1998). Cultural memory and biodiversity. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.
NICHOLS, S., TIPPINS, D., MORANO,
L., BILBAO, P., & BARCENAL, T. (2003, in press) Cultivating community-based
science education through the use of ÔMemory Banking.Õ Presented at the AESA Conference,
November 2004, in Mexico City.
OGAWA, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience
perspective. Science Education, 79 (5), 583-593.
PARSONS, E. C. (1997). Black high school femalesÕ images of the scientist: Expressions of culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 745-768.
PERRIER, F. & NSENGIYUMVA, J.B. (2003). Active science
as a contribution to the trauma recovery process: Preliminary indications with
orphans from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1111-1128.
PHELAN, P., DAVIDSON, A., &
CAO, H. (1991). StudentsÕ multiple
worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22, 224-250.
PHILIPS, S.U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman, Inc.
PIBURN, M.D. & BAKER, D.R. (1993). If I were a teacherÉQualitative study of attitude toward science. Science Education, 77(4), 393-406.
RODRIGUEZ, A.J.
(1998). Strategies for
counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to
teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 589-622.
ROTH, W.-M. (1997).
Interactional structures during a grade 4-5 open-design engineering unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3),
273-302.
ROTH, W.-M. (1995). Inventors, copycats, and everyone else: The emergence
of shared resources and practices as defining aspects of classroom community. Science
Education, 79(5), 475-502.
ROTH, W.-M., TOBIN, K., ZIMMERMAN, A., BRYANT, N., & DAVIS, C.
(2002). Lessons on and from the dihybrid cross: An activity – theoretical
study of learning in coteaching. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253-282.
SEILER, G. (2001). Reversing
the standard direction: Science emerging from the lives of
African American students. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1000-1014.
SEWELL, W.H. (1992). A theory of
structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of
Sociology, 98, 1-29.
SPINDLER, G. (1982). Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
SPINDLER, G. (2004). Interview in person. Davis, California.
SPINDLER, G. D. & SPINDLER, L. (2000) Fifty years of anthropology and education: 1950-2000. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
SQUIRE, K.D., MAKINSTER, J.D., BARNETT, M., LEUHMANN, A.L., &
BARAB, S.L. (2003). Designed
curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468-489.
THOMSON, N. (2003).
Science education researchers as orthographers: Documenting Keiyo (Kenya)
knowledge, learning and narratives about snakes. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (1),
89-115.
TOBIN, K., MCROBBIE, C., & ANDERSON, D. (1997). Dialectical constraints to the discursive practices
of a high school physics community. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 491-507.
TOBIN, K., MCROBBIE, C. & ANDERSON, D. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted
science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223-241.
TURNBULL, D.
(1997). Reframing science and
other local knowledge traditions. Futures, 29 (6) 551-562.
UNESCO.
(1983). Science for all. Bangkok: UNESCO Office for Education in Asia and Pacific.
VAN SICKLE, M. & SPECTOR, B. (1996). Caring relationships in science classrooms: A symbolic interaction study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 433-453.
VESILIND, E. M. & JONES, M. G. (1998). Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and school
culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 757-775.
WALDRIP, B. G. & TAYLOR, P. C. (1999). Permeability of studentsÕ worldviews to their school views
in a non-Western developing country.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (3), 289-303.
WEBSTER, N. with McKechnie, J. L. et al (Eds.) (1979) WebsterÕs New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the
English Language, Unabridged. Second Edition. Cleveland, Ohio: Simon and
Schuster.
ZAHUR, R., BARTON, A.C., & UPADHYAY, B.R. (2002). Science education
for empowerment and social change: A case study of a teacher educator in urban
Pakistan. International
Journal of Science Education, 24 (9), 899-917.
ZEMBYLAS, M. (2002). The global, the local, and the science curriculum:
A struggle for balance in Cyprus. International
Journal of Science Education, 24 (5), 499-519.