Abstract
This article is a philosophical analysis of van Eijck and Roth’s (2007) claim that science and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) should be recalibrated because they are incommensurate, particular to the local contexts in which they are practical. In this view, science maintains an incommensurate status as if it is a “fundamental” basis for the relative comparison of other cultural knowledges, which reduces traditional knowledge to a status of in relation to the prioritized (higher)-status of natural sciences. van Eijck and Roth reject epistemological Truth as a way of thinking about sciences in science education. Rather they adopt a utilitarian perspective of cultural-historical activity theory to demonstrate when traditional knowledge is considered science and when it is not considered science, for the purposes of evaluating what should be included in U.S. science education curricula. There are several challenges for evaluating what should be included in science education when traditional knowledges and sciences are considered in light of a utilitarian analysis. Science as diverse, either practically local or theoretically abstract, is highly uncertain, which provides opportunities for multiple perspectives to enlarge and protect the natural sciences from exclusivity. In this response to van Eijck and Roth, we make the case for considering dialectical relationships between science and TEK in order to ensure cultural diversity in science education, as a paradigm. We also emphasize the need to (re)dissolve the hierarchies and dualisms that may emerge when science is elevated in status in comparison with other knowledges. We conclude with a modification to van Eijck and Roth’s perspective by recommending a guiding principle of cultural diversity in science education as a way to make curriculum choices. We envision this principle can be applied when evaluating science curricula worldwide.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For van Eijck and Roth, ‘location’ is a relationship between a social human praxis and environments. In other words, location means the sociocultural and physical geography. Examples include a school group of children and adults engaged in a specific watershed, or a group of scientists who are forecasting the impacts of climate change in Los Angeles.
The term “cultural” is very difficult to reduce to a single definition. In this paper, we interpret culture(s) as representative of a larger view of individuals-in-relation-to-Others (i.e., others are defined as humans, nonhumans, and Earth) (Thayer-Bacon 2003).
The use of the term “singular plural” is not clearly described by the authors. However, we interpret this conceptualization associated with cultural-historical activity theory to indicate that individuals cannot be separated from the larger human praxis or ecosystems. We elaborate van Eijck and Roth’s notions of singular plural with Thayer-Bacon’s (2000) ‘individuals-in-relation-to-others’ which is a better description of how we live in relation, without deemphasizing or ignoring the significance of ecosocial knowledges and activity. Also see Warren (2001) for a both/and logic as a way of dealing with ambiguities, which comprise diverse and complex human-nonhuman and physical ecological relations.
References
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. New York: Vintage Books.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barnhardt, R., Tippins, D. J., & Brandt, C. B. (2008). FORUM: Locations of possibilities in tertiary science education: Responding to the voices of Navajo women. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3, 721–730.
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), 93–107.
Brandt, C. B. (2008). Discursive geographies in science: Space, identity, and scientific discourse among indigenous women in higher education. Cultural Studies in Education, 3, 703–720.
Brayboy, B. M. J., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). How might native science inform “informal science learning”? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 731–750.
Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education. Durango: Kivaki Press.
Chalmers, A. F. (1976). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
Code, L. (2006). Ecological thinking: The politics of epistemic location. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Deloria, V. (1997). Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Penguin Books.
El-Hani, C. N., & de Ferreira Bandeira, F. P. S. (2008). Valuing indigenous knowledge: To call it “science” will not help. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 751–779.
Fleer, M. (2008). A cultural-historical reading of “Culturally Sensitive Schooling”: Thinking beyond a constructivist view of science learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 781–786.
Glasson, G. E., Frykholm, J. A., Mhango, N. A., & Phiri, A. D. (2006). Understanding the Earth systems of Malawi: Ecological sustainability, culture, and place-based education. Science Education, 90, 660–680.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Keane, M. (2008). Science education and worldview. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 587–621.
McKinley, B., Brayboy, J., & Castagno, A. (2008a). How might Native science inform “informal science learning?” Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 731–750.
McKinley, B., Brayboy, J., & Castagno, A. (2008b). Indigenous knowledges and native science as partners: A rejoinder. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 787–791.
Merchant, C. (2001). The death of nature. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. J. Warren, & J. Clark (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 322–342). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mgbeoji, I. (2006). Global piracy: Patents, plants, and indigenous knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mueller, M. P. (2009). Educational reflections on the “ecological crisis”: Ecojustice, environmentalism, and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031–1055.
Mueller, M. P., & Bentley, M. L. (2009). Environmental and science education in “developing nations”: A Ghanaian approach to renewing and revitalizing the local community and ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(4), 53–64.
National Science Foundation. (2003). Intellectual imperatives in ethnobiology: NSF biocomplexity workshop report. St Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden.
Nichols, S., Tippins, D. J., Morano, L., Bilbao, P., & Barcenal, T. (2006). Creating community-based science education research: Narratives from a Filipino buranguay. In G. Spindler & L. Hammond (Eds.), Innovation in educational ethnography: Theory, methods and results (pp. 345–377). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryan, A. (2008). Indigenous knowledge in the science curriculum: Avoiding neo-colonialism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 663–702.
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of knowledge and nature. Boston: South End Press.
Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking: Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2003). Relational (e)pistemologies. New York: Peter Lang.
Tilgner, P. J. (2005, January). There is no word for science: Teaching science at a tribal institution. Paper presented at the annual international meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Colorado Springs, CO.
van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2007). Keeping the local local: Recalibrating the status of science and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in education. Science Education, 91, 926–947.
Warren, K. J. (2001). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. J. Warren, & J. Clark (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 322–342). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Williams, S. (2001). Surviving galeras. London: Little, Brown and Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mueller, M.P., Tippins, D.J. van Eijck and Roth’s utilitarian science education: why the recalibration of science and traditional ecological knowledge invokes multiple perspectives to protect science education from being exclusive. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 5, 993–1007 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9236-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9236-z