Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science Education

Indigenous science relates to both the science knowledge of long-resident, usually oral culture peoples, as well as the science knowledge of all peoples who as participants in culture are affected by the worldview and relativist interests of their home communities. This article explores aspects of multicultural science and pedagogy and describes a rich and well-documented branch of indigenous science known to biologists and ecologists as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Although TEK has been generally inaccessible, educators can now use a burgeoning science-based TEK literature that documents numerous examples of time-proven, ecologically relevant, and cost effective indigenous science. Disputes regarding the universality of the standard scientific account are of critical importance for science educators because the definition of science is a de facto “gatekeeping” device for determining what can be included in a school science curriculum and what cannot. WhenWestern modern science (WMS) is defined as universal it does displace revelation-based knowledge (i.e., creation science); however, it also displaces pragmatic local indigenous knowledge that does not conform with formal aspects of the “standard account.” Thus, in most science classrooms around the globe, Western modern science has been taught at the expense of indigenous knowledge. However, because WMS has been implicated in many of the world’s ecological disasters, and because the traditional wisdom component of TEK is particularly rich in time-tested approaches that foster sustainability and environmental integrity, it is possible that the universalist “gatekeeper” can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive. This paper describes many examples from Canada and around the world of indigenous people’s contributions to science, environmental understanding, and sustainability. The authors argue the view that Western or modern science is just one of many sciences that need to be addressed in the science classroom. We conclude by presenting instructional strategies that can help all science learners negotiate border crossings between Western modern science and indigenous science. 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 85:6–34, 2001. Correspondence to: William W. Cobern; e-mail: [email protected] DISCOVERING INDIGENOUS SCIENCE 7 SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT BATCH short standard long Top of RH Base of RH Top of text Base of text INTRODUCTION One of the intense philosophical debates in education literature focuses on the inclusion of multicultural science in mainstream science education, as evidenced by the number of papers submitted to this and other science education journals. For some, multicultural science is seen as important because it can function as a pedagogical stepping stone— especially for multicultural students of science (Atwater & Riley, 1993; Hodson, 1993; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994). Certain other science educators who champion modern Western science as the last and greatest of the sciences tend to dismiss multicultural science as faddish or heretical (Good, 1995a, 1995b; Gross & Levitt, 1994; Matthews, 1994; Slezak, 1994; Wolpert, 1993). Suspending consideration of the intrinsic importance of multicultural science Ogawa (1995) stresses that all science students must work through both individual and indigenous science understandings in the course of constructing their knowledge of modern Western science. Ogawa proposes that every culture has its own science and refers to the science in a given culture as its “indigenous science” (Ogawa, 1995, p. 585). Westerners freely acknowledge the existence of indigenous art, music, literature, drama, and political and economic systems in indigenous cultures, but somehow fail to apprehend and appreciate indigenous science. Elkana writes: “Comparative studies of art, religion, ethics, and politics abound; however, there is no discipline called comparative science” (Elkana, 1981, p. 2). Thus, in many educational settings where Western modern science is taught, it is taught at the expense of indigenous science, which may precipitate charges of epistemological hegemony and cultural imperialism. It would seem that the dispute over how science is to be taught in the classroom turns on how the concepts “science” and “universality” are to be defined. The debate rages over the nature of reality and knowledge, definitions of science, and the so-called universalist vs. relativist positions. Sometimes the debate appears to be at least as culture-centric as it is rational. Replying to a Stanley and Brickhouse (1994) suggestion to include examples of multicultural science in the curriculum, Good (1995a) challenged opponents to be specific with their “few well-chosen examples of sciences from other cultures”: What are these few well-chosen examples that should be included in our school science curriculum? Additionally, it would be very nice to learn how these examples of neglected “science” should change our understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, and so on. Just what contributions will this neglected science make in modern science’s understanding of nature? (p. 335) As one example of how far the universalist vs. relativist debate can be pushed, the authors have learned that Richard Dawkins is fond of saying: “there are no relativists at 30,000 feet.” No doubt that without an airplane of conventional description, a person at 30,000 feet is in serious trouble, but when universalists take off and land on vulcanized rubber tires they make use of a material and process reportedly discovered and refined by indigenous Peruvians (Weatherford, 1988, 1991). Without multicultural science contributions enabling airplanes to land and take off, there would be neither airplanes, nor for that matter, universalists at 30,000 feet. While science educators have been fighting epistemological battles that could effectively limit or expand the scope and purview of science education, events on the ground appear to have overtaken us—working scientists have themselves been involved in wide ranging exploration and reform. Especially during the last 25 years, biologists, ecologists, botanists, geologists, climatologists, astronomers, agriculturists, pharmacologists, and related work8 SNIVELY AND CORSIGLIA SCE (WILEJ) LEFT BATCH short standard long Top of RH Base of RH Top of text Base of text ing scientists have labored to develop approaches that are improving our ability to understand and mitigate the impact of human activity upon the environment. By extending their enquiry into the timeless traditional knowledge and wisdom of long-resident, oral peoples, these scientists have in effect moved the borders of scientific inquiry and formalized a branch of biological and ecological science that has become known as the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which can be thought of as either the knowledge itself, or as documented ethno-science enriched with analysis and explication provided by natural science specialists. The interested reader can find numerous detailed examples of TEK (Andrews, 1988; Berkes, 1988, 1993; Berkes & Mackenzie, 1978, Inglis, 1993; Warren, 1997; Williams & Baines, 1993). Additionally, the present bibliography provides the reader with a number of specific examples of TEK in Canada and worldwide. Thus, we face four related questions: First, is science an exclusive invention of Europeans, or have scientific ways of thinking and viable bodies of science knowledge also emerged in other cultures? Second, if WMS is taken to be universal, what is the status of the vast quantities of local knowledge that it subsumes, incorporates, and claims to legitimize? Third, what is the proper role of science educators as leaders in the process of refining and clarifying the current definitions of WMS? And fourth, when viable bodies of useful scientific knowledge emerge in other cultures, how can science educators develop programs that enable all students to cross cultural borders—in this instance, between the culture of Western modern science and the cultures of long-resident indigenous peoples? Because TEK is being used by scientists to solve important biological and ecological problems and because problems of sustainability are pervasive and of very high interest to students and others, it becomes increasingly important for science educators to introduce students to the perspectives of both WMS and TEK. The availability and varied nature of TEK examples will be useful to proponents of multicultural science (Aikenhead, 1995, 1996; Atwater & Riley, 1993; Bowers, 1993a, 1993b; Hodson, 1993; Ogawa, 1989, 1995; Smith, 1982, 1995; Snively, 1990, 1995; Wright, 1992). In this article, we argue the view that since Aboriginal cultures have made significant contributions to science, then surely there are different ways of arriving at legitimate knowledge. Without knowledge, there can be no science. Thus, the definition of “science” should be broadened, thereby including TEK as science. The intention is not to demean WMS, but instead to point out a body of scientific literature that provides great potential for enhancing our ability to develop more relevant science education programs. TERMINOLOGY: WESTERN MODERN SCIENCE, INDIGENOUS SCIENCE, AND TEK Since the phrases “Western modern science,” “indigenous science,” and “traditional ecological knowledge” all have multiple meanings it will be useful to linger briefly with definitions. For clarity, we shall distinguish between “Western modern science” which is the most dominant science in the world and “indigenous science” which interprets how the world works from a particular cultural perspective. This paper focuses on a subset of indigenous science referred to as “traditional ecological knowledge,” which is both the science of long-resident oral peoples and a biological sciences label for the growing literature which records and explores that knowledge.