Abstract
Over the past several decades, there has been a trend to argue in support of important multicultural educational reforms using the language of epistemology. The relevant literature, however, extends the meaning of “epistemology” in ways that obscure rather than clarify the valid issues that are at stake, and furthermore, the matters that are the focus of traditional epistemology – which are important in their own right – also tend to be obscured by such a strategy. The discussion opens by identifying four senses in which the term “epistemology” is used; the first of which refers to the traditional branch of philosophy in which normative issues are pursued that pertain to how belief can be distinguished from knowledge; the second is as a term referring to the specific positions that have emerged on such matters within philosophy (e.g., “positivist epistemology,” “non-foundationalist epistemology”). These two usages are overlooked in much of the multicultural epistemology literature. In the third (and non-philosophical) usage, “epistemology” refers to a descriptive account of how people acquire beliefs, and in the fourth usage, it refers to the actual sets of beliefs that different individuals hold. During the discussion, standpoint philosophy and sociology of knowledge are touched upon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In fact, the traditional epistemological analysis has three conditions for claiming that an item is known: The item must be believed, there must be a justification or warrant for it that stands up to scrutiny, and it must actually be true. Mere mortals, of course, cannot actually determine if an item is actually true; instead, we make judgments based on our assessment of the justification or warrant. This is worth emphasizing. The project of normative epistemology is one in which we seek to understand what knowledge is and what it is not, what makes some inquiries successful and some inquiries unsuccessful, and what we even mean by these terms. It does not seek to be the final arbiter of truths. Another way of putting the point is this. Even if all the philosophers of science in the world came to consensus on a theory of scientific knowledge, that epistemological theory would not tell us which scientific theory is warranted and which is not. It would not advance scientific knowledge one iota. That’s what the scientists are for. The same can be said for any field of inquiry. Even if all the philosophers of literature in the world came to consensus on a theory of literary interpretation, that epistemological theory would not tell us which interpretation of a work is warranted and which is not. It would not advance our knowledge or understanding of literature one iota. This is the task of the literary critics and interpreters.
- 2.
Fuller discussions of these and other important sources are contained in Chap. 2 of this volume.
- 3.
In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) and later work, Richard Rorty may be taken to be debating exactly this point; he certainly had little patience for the efforts of traditional epistemologists to generate significant insight in these matters. We will return to Rorty below.
- 4.
To simplify matters, we exclude from our discussion here knowledge of mathematical and logical propositions.
- 5.
This position is developed by Lorraine Code in her classic essay, part of which is reprinted as Chap. 5 in this volume.
References
Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
Appiah, K. A. (1990). ‘But would that still be me?’ Notes on gender, ‘race’, ethnicity, as sources of identity. Journal of Philosophy, 87(10), 493.
Asante, M. K. (1990). Kemet, Afrocentricity and knowledge. Trenton: Africa World Press.
Audi, R. (1998). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Banks, J. (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4–14.
Banks, J. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27(7), 4–17.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bernal, D. D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555–582.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Crouch, M. (1993). A “limited” defense of the genetic fallacy. Metaphilosophy, 24(3), 227–240.
Dewey, J. (1966). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston (Original work published 1938).
Eisner, E. (1998). “The vision thing”: Educational research and AERA in the 21st century—Part 5: A vision for educational research and AERA in the 21st century. Educational Researcher, 27(9), 34.
Harding, S. (1987). Conclusion: Epistemological questions. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 181–190). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harding, S. (1990). Starting thought from women’s lives: Eight resources for maximizing objectivity. Journal of Social Philosophy, 21, 140–149.
Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.
Haslanger, S. (1999). What knowledge is and what it ought to be: Feminist values and normative epistemology. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 459–480.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1962).
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (1993). Feminist standpoint theory and the problems of knowledge. Signs, 19(1), 201–212.
Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472–485.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Manchester: University of Manchester Press. (Original work published 1979).
Lyttle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 64(4), 447–474.
Mills, C. (1988). Alternative epistemologies. Social Theory and Practice, 14(3), 237–263.
Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). (2000a). Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (Ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Phillips, D. C. (2000b). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Scheurich, J., & Young, M. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4–16.
Scheurich, J., & Young, M. (1998). Rejoinder: In the United States of America, in both our souls and our services, we are avoiding white racism. Educational Researcher, 27(9), 27–32.
Woolgar, S. (1993). Science: The very idea. New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levisohn, J.A., Phillips, D.C. (2012). Charting the Reefs: A Map of Multicultural Epistemology. In: Ruitenberg, C., Phillips, D. (eds) Education, Culture and Epistemological Diversity. Contemporary Philosophies and Theories in Education, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2066-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2066-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2065-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2066-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)