Criticisms and contradictions of ethnomathematics

Abstract

This article aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the epistemology and philosophy of ethnomathematics, and to debate its educational implications. It begins by identifying in recent literature two categories of criticism of ethnomathematics: epistemological, related with the way ethnomathematics positions itself in terms of mathematical knowledge; and pedagogical, related to the way ethnomathematical ideas are implicated in formal education. After a description of both of these categories, the pedagogical implications of ethnomathematics are considered by means of confronting the criticisms of recent research in the field. Ethnomathematics research conceives its pedagogical implications in different ways, some of them contradictory. Such contradictions are related with the societal role of school, with the idea that we can "transfer" knowledge from one setting to another and the tendency to reduce ethnomathematics to a ready-to-apply "tool" for the school-learning of mathematics. The author discusses the first two criticisms in the light of recent research concerned with the social and political dimensions of mathematics education. Concerning the latter, a typical case of an ethnomathematical research study looking at bringing local knowledge into school in the name of promoting diversity is analyzed. It is the author's contention that ethnomathematical research runs the risk of conveying an idea of culture where the Other is squeezed from its otherness. The article concludes by arguing that a deeper theoretical discussion is needed in the majority of the research currently done in ethnomathematics so that well-intentioned actions do not end up having a result opposite to their aims.

Indigenous teachers’ experiences of the implementation of culture-based mathematics activities in Sámi school

“…The teachers considered that the pupils would have better pre-conditions for their future studies if they used national teaching materials with the same concepts and content as they would need later in their further education. The teachers' consideration is equivalent to Pais (2011). Similar to other studies (Meaney 2001;Hirvonen 2004;Balto 2008;Johansson 2009), the present study detected a conflict between Indigenous teachers' wish to give the pupils an education equal to the teaching in the national school and culture-based teaching, that is, there was a conflict between preparing the pupils for education in the national school and providing them with specific Sámi culture-based knowledge.…”

“…And according to D'Ambrosio (2006) the ethnomathematical research field has clear implications for teaching, but Vithal and Skovsmose (1997) and Pais (2011) brought forward a critique of D'Ambrosio and the ethnomathematical research field. Pais (2011) criticised ethnomathematics both according to both epistemological and pedagogical issues.…”

Learners in Transition Between Contexts

“…These conditions enable practitioners to be able to discuss their ideas as mathematics. Similarly, Pais (2011) suggested that although learners may engage in a range of activities, it is not until these activities are recognized that they become mathematics. However, labelling of traditional activities as mathematics runs the risk that they are seen as having no intrinsic value, except as examples of a Western knowledge system (Roberts, 1997).…”

“…Nonetheless, according to Pais (2011), the zampoña was not from the culture of the learners and there is little evidence that cultural considerations in which the zampoña was embedded were discussed in any detail. Thus, there was a risk of trivializing the culture of the activity and this could result in a narrowing of horizons in respect to out-of school contexts.…”

Dificultades Metodológicas en la Investigación sobre Pensamiento Matemático Indígena y su Paradójica Educación Matemática

“…con otras concepciones simbólicas, políticas o sociales que le son indivisibles. Teniendo en cuenta las principales críticas al Programa Etnomatemática, (MILLROY, 1992;DOWLING, 1993;VITHAL;SKOVSMOSE, 1997;ROWLANDS;CARSON, 2002;DOMITE;PAIS, 2009;PAIS, 2011PAIS, , 2013KNIJNIK et al, 2012), existen algunas posibles explicaciones a la anterior pregunta:…”