Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education: In search of common ground

Abstract

Multiculturalism's proper place in science education has been the subject of considerable controversy in the recent science education literature. It is the theme of a recent symposium in this journal, which raises and treats a wide range of issues with important ramifications for science education. A key issue-and the one on which I focus-is whether (and if so to what extent) a multicultural approach to science education is compatible with a "universalist" conception of science. My main aim is to show that there is actually much more agreement between "universalists" and multicultural "localists" concerning that compatibility than might be apparent at first glance. A second aim is to defend the former from criticisms made in the symposium papers. I first attempt to make clear what "universalism" does, and does not, involve. I then explore the justification of multicultural science education, and suggest both that that justification is moral (rather than epistemological) in nature; and that if science education is indeed obliged to embrace multiculturalism, that obligation must itself be understood to be a culturally transcendent one. Finally, I address several curricular issues treated in the symposium papers. The overall conclusion is that the most defensible conception of science education is one in which it is conceived to be both multicultural and universal.

A Cultural Perspective of Conceptual Change: Re-examining the Goal of Science Education

“…In other words, most scholars in this group actually reiterate the universal idea of Western science, knowingly or unknowingly. This hidden Eurocentricism is quite obvious when Siegel (2002) tried to convince the readers of the compatibilities between multiculturalism in science education and the universal conception of science. He uses a set of criteria including structural, testable, predictive, and explanatory features to set up the superiority of Western science over local alternatives.…”

Between Local Culture and School Science: The Case of Provincial and Urban Students from Eastern Colombia

“…From the science education corner, the culture debate revolves around whether to embrace WMS or local or "ethnic" science as the guiding force of instruction in science classrooms around the world. On the one hand, supporters of a universal perspective about the natural world (e.g., Mathews 1994;Siegel 2002) maintain that whilst recognising other forms of seeing reality, WMS is the only approach that has proven to render testable, predictive and deep explanatory knowledge about nature, and thus the one that should be considered as the essential tool for doing what they term 'good science.' On the contrary, those on the multicultural 'localist' side (Ogawa 1989;Snively and Corsiglia 2000;Stanley and Brickhouse 2000) challenge the univeralist tradition by claiming that although phenomena in nature are expected to occur in a consistent-oriented fashion, their understanding and interpretation are mediated by language, culture, environment features, and events.…”

The armchair at the borders: The “messy” ideas of borders and border epistemologies within multicultural science education scholarship

“…Santos (2007a) and Santos et al (2007) have developed several ideas for theorizing epistemological diversity that arise in the Global South and are, Santos believes, differentiated from the more conventional approaches. There are many writers within multicultural science education who have discussed epistemological diversity in its various forms (see, e.g., Van Eijck & Roth, 2007;Siegel, 2002;Southerland, 2000; and others referenced in Footnote 3). Here, I am not attempting to critique that work, but rather I seek to add Santos's (2007a) unique view to the messy conceptual melting pot.…”