Zambezia (1999), XXVI (i).CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OFWESTERN SCIENCE VISA-VIS SCIENTIFIC LITERACY INNON-WESTERN DEVELOPING COUNTRIESOVERSON SHUMBADepartment of Teacher Education, University of ZimbabweAbstractScience and technology have often been yoked to social and economicdevelopment of many countries in the world, including the less developedones. In these the heavy injection of scarce resources to support scienceeducation programmes, has, disappointingly, raised only a little the level ofscientific literacy among students and their communities; science educationprogrammes do not appear to produce long-lasting scientific and technologicalliteracy. This article articulates the problems of acquiring scientific literacyin non-Western contexts. Socicxultural studies collectively find that a people'slocally and culturally acquired thought and belief system cannot be simplysupplanted by Western scientific rationality leading to 'progress \ neither isit necessarily desirable for that to happen. For there to be meaningfuladoption of scientific values and habits, there is a need for science educationin developing countries to concern itself with the critical interrogation of therationality of Western science relative to locally held world views.DOMINANCE AND NAIVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RATIONALITY OFSCIENCETHIS ARTICLE IS an attempt to portray the need for science education indeveloping countries to concern itself with the understanding and criticalinterrogation of the rationality of Western science relative to locally heldworld views. Anne Griffin (1997, 3) talks about a vision of human andsocial progress critically linked to science and further, of rationality as'centrally construed as the development and application of scientificprinciples'. However, she finds that this rationality has becomeinstrumental rationality for its neglect of self-reflectiveness and for itssetting aside of value considerations, and is therefore problematic. Birch(1988, 12) sees the modern world view driven by science and technologyas mechanistic, materialistic, and 'deficient as a total world view and hasleft us with a dilemma about ethics and values and purposes'. Appleyard(1993, 23, cited in Midgley, 1997, 78) describes science's 'corrosive andrestless refusal to coexist' with other cultural thoughts and values withwhich it competes. Unfortunately, not appreciating the rationality ofscience and especially its differences with that of the adopting culture,5556 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEless developed countries have been gullible in accepting science and itsassumed role in development and modernisation. For example, Midgley(1997, 71) cites the words of Pandit Nehru (1960) when he addressed theIndian National Institute of Science: 'It is science alone that can solve theproblems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, ofsuperstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resourcesrunning to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people'.Science alone and its rationality is thus assumed to be good for allcountries seeking to develop or to modernise, and such countries shouldabandon tradition and custom (and assumably the rationality on whichthey are based). Harvey Williams (1994, 516) even makes the problematicassumption that 'a major goal of science education must be to dispelnotions of magic and teleology as unscientific'. Cobern (1994) suggeststhat this view is based on a culture deficit theory where traditionalcultures are not only seen as different but are tacitly assumed to be lessrationale than modern Western culture. Unfortunately, unwittinglyaccepting this culture deficit theory, many assume that transfer andadoption of Western scientific knowledge and technologies should producethe desired effect of 'modernising' these cultures. The value judgementimplicit in this view is that Westernised scientific rationality is inherentlygood, and that people ought to abandon native cultural beliefs to embraceit. Assuming that the business of science education is to supplant ratherthan supplement cultural thought and belief patterns demonstrates aserious negation as well as under-valuation of cultural thought. And thisunder-valuation of local knowledge and thought may be what has been sowrong with science education in the developing non-Western countriesso far. In fact, a survey of the literature reveals how closely sciencecurricula in Africa and other developing countries are modelled closelyon those in the West (Lewin, 1990; Ogawa, 1986; Ogunniyi, 1988). Thisunfortunately is not seen as problematic and no meaningful attempts tocontextualise the curricula are made. For example, arguments about thenature of the world in science materials and literature on science educationare mostly presented from the vantage point of the scientific world view;the only rationality presented is that of science without making a cleardistinction between it and traditional ways of viewing the world (Cobern,1993; 1994; Ogawa, 1986; Ogunniyi, 1988). As a consequence, many studentsin developing countries have not developed a bias towards a scientificinterpretation of the world.Against such assumptions Swift (1992, 16) concludes that the bulk ofthe evidence appears to be that traditional beliefs (and the rationality onwhich they are premised) 'are an enduring component of indigenousknowledge and thought processes that the science and technologyeducator must work with, in Africa and elsewhere in the developingO. SHUMBA 57world'. Yakubu (1994, 344) conjectures that 'the scientific educationgiven in the developing countries has not succeeded in instilling thescientific spirit in the educated: 'the indigenous "common-sense"knowledge is so deeply rooted that it appears difficult to change'.Overall, the development of science and technological literacy indeveloping countries is problematic; it is complicated by the adoptionand modelling of the curriculum on the erroneous grounds of the culturedeficit model. This article portrays the need for science education indeveloping countries to concern itself with the understanding and criticalinterrogation of the rationality of Western science relative to locally heldworld views. In an attempt to clarify the basis for this thesis, we firstsurvey the science education literature relating to achievement andattainment of scientific literacy in some less developed countries. Second,a detailed review of socio-cultural studies and their implications forscience education is given. The literature has been taken from manydifferent contexts: this is not to suggest that societies are the same,rather the nature of the broad problems dealt with are comparable and insome cases even similar.SUCCESS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIESThe International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement (IEA) assessments pointed to the poor performance inscience of students in developing countries when compared to theircounterparts in the developed countries; the 1984 assessment of juniorsecondary students showed that the bottom 20% of students in thedeveloping countries including Nigeria, the Philippines, Zimbabwe, andothers were 'scientifically illiterate'; they consistently scored at the bottomof 23 nations surveyed on the literacy measures applied (Postlethwaite,1991). In Zimbabwe, of nearly 120 000 candidates taking the compulsoryCore Science examinations in 1990, only 20% achieved a pass of GCEgrade C or better (Shumba, 1992, 28). Surveys of science teachers inZimbabwe (Shumba, 1995a) and in Nigeria (Cobern, 1989) showed thatthey associated science with the production of useful technology and theimprovement of human welfare: they failed to recognise curiosity andhuman creativity as the fundamental driving force in the advancement ofscience. Teachers in the Zimbabwean sample viewed science in anauthoritarian manner as an unchanging body of knowledge amassed viathe application of a determinate scientific method: they had a textbookview of science as a body of knowledge and immutable laws. In anotherstudy, primary school, junior secondary, and high school students valuedscience from only a materialistic standpoint in so far as it led to theproduction of useful technology (Shumba, 1993).58 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEEvidence also exists to suggest that African students do notnecessarily utilise what they learn in science education in real-life (Morris,1983; Yakubu, 1994, 344). Morris (1983, 23) observes that students gothrough the ordeal of memorising what is necessary to pass tests andexaminations after which they return to the security of their traditionalbeliefs. Odhiambo (1968, 40) found that African students learned sciencein ways which contradicted approaches suggested in science curricula'simply because what is presented to them as science is so alien to theirordinary circumstances and life'. Consequently, science teaching has'only resulted in his (Africans) learning facts, procedures and techniques,but he has not yet become imbued with the spirit of science, with ascientific way of looking at nature, and with a scientific manner ofapproaching new problems' (Odhiambo, 1968, 43). Jahoda, as cited inSwift (1992,15), found evidence of persistence of traditional superstitiousbeliefs among Ghanaian undergraduates, 'the beliefs existing in a state ofcognitive co-existence with Western science education, but emergingmore under stress'. Recently, I interviewed teachers who were enrolledfor a degree programme in science (Shumba, 1995b). A Biology teacherremarked 'I don't see how science can interfere with my belief, I still havemy beliefs. . . So I still have my beliefs, they are there, science is theretoo'. Using the same sample of teachers, Shumba (1999, in press), foundthat the science teachers were themselves not strong traditionalists butmaintained a fairly traditional posture with regards to aspects of traditionalauthority, religion, view of nature, and social change. They showed amuch stronger shift from tradition with regard to sex roles, causality, andproblem solving. An American professor found that Nigerian sciencestudents were distressed by the tentative nature of the scientificenterprise; 'there was a tendency to embrace, even tongue-in-cheek,information having a superstitious base, but at least a definite answer, inpreference to wrestling with several scientific alternatives' (Shrigley,1983, 427). A comparative study of teachers in Botswana, Indonesia,Japan, Nigeria, and the Philippines found that irrespective of their (non-Western) cultural background, the teachers held views distinct from thescience they teach, and they exhibited a form of collateral thinkingwhereby 'an individual accepts or uses both mechanistic andanthropomorphic explanations depending on the context in questionand without exhibiting any sign of cognitive dissonance' (Ogunniyi, et al,1995, 817). In the sixties, Odhiambo (1968, 45) made a claim that 'anAfrican must find a connecting link between the principles of naturalscience and the basic assumptions of his world-view, or he is lost'.Prophet (1990) working in Botswana observed discontinuity between thecommon view of reality and the scientific view among students.O. SHUMBA 59These findings together do not suggest that Africans or people inother developing countries cannot understand or appreciate science andtechnology. Rather the suggestion is that the spontaneous application ofthe scientific spirit learnt through Western forms of education is lacking(Yakubu, 1994, 344). In this regard, Yakubu conjectured that 'there seemssomething which inhibits the spontaneous application of scientific ideasto problem situations. The inhibition is very likely to be the deep-seatedindigenous and cultural behaviour patterns acquired before Westerneducation was received'. The points arising from the review so far raise apossibility that science and technology literacy, the umbrella goal ofscience education, is not being achieved in non-Western developingcountries, particularly those in Africa. The explanation of the limitedsuccess of science education seems to lie in the difference betweenindigenous thought and belief and world view promoted in science.Odhiambo (1968, 42) raised the need for 'the recognition that there arecertain cultural ideas in the African situation which may well impingedirectly on the ease with which an African child can appreciate science'.More recently, Cobern (1993; 1994), Ogawa (1986), Ogunniyi (1988), andSwift (1992) raised the issue of the need to relate science more closely tothe learner's societal or cultural environment. The assumption of diametricopposition of traditional rationality and scientific rationality, premisedon the culture deficit theory (Cobern, 1994) should be challenged.TRADITIONAL RATIONALITY COMPARED TO WESTERN SCIENTIFICRATIONALITYThe fact that traditional rationality and scientific rationality are differentbut not necessarily diametrically opposed has been explored for decades(Bourdillon, 1990; Horton, 1971; Odhiambo, 1968; Yakubu, 1994). Thesedifferences, often quite subtle, should be the subject of analysis andcritical discourse in science education. For example, Odhiambo (1968,45) claims 'the irrelevance of cause and effect and the irrelevance of theneed for hypotheses for advancing our knowledge of nature is perhapsthe most serious gap between the African's world-view and Westernscience'. The issue raised hinges on the potential problems of theintercourse between traditional culture and Western science; betweentraditional rationality and scientific rationality. Horton (1971) arguedthat cognitively, cultures do not differ in terms of their primary theorywhich involves the world of common-sense observation and experience.At this level of theoretical development and explanation, the reasoningpattern is largely cosmological and the things on which explanation isbased, for example gods, spirits, and ancestors, are not subject toexperimentation. Horton (1982) emphasising continuity between African60 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEtraditional thinking and Western modernism suggests that primary theoryentities and processes are more directly observed or experienced and donot differ from culture to culture but their causal vision is limited. On theother hand, Horton proposes a secondary theory to which societies andcultures eventually develop; in secondary theory, interpretations orexplanations are based on intangible entities and it establishesrelationships between ideas. Relative to primary theory, secondary theoryis at a higher level and Western scientific thought has considerablydeveloped to it. Secondary theory being more ideational is more 'hidden'but is directly dependent on analogies of everyday experiences of primarytheory for causal explanations. Horton (1982, 232) conjectures that'explanations couched in terms of secondary theory are only completewhen their implications for the world as described by primary theory havebeen set out'. Secondary theory appears to be 'enslaved' to primarytheory without replacing it; without distorting Horton's thinking, is itpossible that the modernity, in the developing countries, supposed to berepresented by science (secondary theory) can build on traditionalthought (primary theory) without replacing it?A significant point is that, in the primary theoretical system whichwould be predominant in a traditional culture, causality is based onhuman volition (i.e., the personalised and subjective idiom) rather thanin that of the material world. In his modified thesis, Horton (1982, 224)dropped the closed-open predicament assumption and suggested thattraditional thinkingdespite its conservatism, such thinking has an essentially 'open'character. Second, it tends to produce and sustain a single over-archingtheoretical framework rather than a multiplicity of such frameworks.However, this change in traditional thinking does not arise on thebasis of criticism, rather, it seeks assimilation and continuity; it does notlend as much weight to critical self-analysis and self-refutation; it doesnot actively or persistently seek to refute or falsify existing knowledge.On the other hand, Bourdillon (1990, 226) observes that:the ideal of science to criticise its ideas, and the acceptance that itstheories may be wrong is in striking contrast to religious systems thatdismiss alternative views, or at least dismiss an attempt to criticallyassess the symptom itself; but we cannot make too much of this distinctionbecause people in even the most simple societies are usually open to newideas. What is largely true is that in traditionally religious systems,knowledge is assumed to come largely from the past and wisdom to liewith elders, whereas in the scientific system, the past is constantlysuperseded and has no authority of its own (emphasis added).Horton (1982, 239) sees this as cognitive traditionalism whereknowledge or the accepted theory has been handed down from theO. SHUMBA 61'ancients' and where all members of the community 'share a single over-arching framework of secondary theoretical assumptions, and carry outintellectual innovation within that framework', i.e., are engaged in a'consesual' mode of theorising. On the other hand, he sees modernism interms of a progressivistic and dynamic concept of knowledge where abody of theory is in process of gradual change and improvement andwhere rival school of thinkers engage in competitive modes of theorising,promoting mutually incompatible frameworks of secondary theoreticalassumptions (p. 239). There is a willingness to try out radical newtheoretical ideas but any cognitive defects in these new ideas is monitoredcritically in terms of consistency and empirical adequacy. The differencebetween traditional thinking and scientific thinking thus lies on the levelof theory on which they are predominantly engaging; traditional thinkingdoes not go much beyond primary theoretical analysis while scientificthinking functions at both the primary and secondary theory levels anddeliberately seeks to develop the latter. While Horton's argumentationdoes not equate traditional thought to Western science, the implicationis that the traditional African thought is not completely devoid of scientificnotions, and of rationality; in any case 'rational thinking is the sine quanon in the survival of any society' (Emereole, 1998, 68). Emereole (1998)found that illiterate Batswana adults held both valid and culturallyinfluenced scientific notions about common practices and phenomena.The gap between the aims and values of science and technology andindigenous culture is therefore not as wide as it has been made to besince both cultures are engaged in explaining and controlling theenvironment. Only a clear gap exists in that science uses a systematicexperimental technique which is absent in indigenous thought and practice(Yakubu, 1994, 344). Yakubu notes that while indigenous thought andpractice is rational and pragmatic, it has in-built 'blocks of falsifiability'which makes it non-tentative and unaware of its limitations. Yakubu(1994, 343) says this is problematic since 'even though people have beenwell educated in science, when they are faced with problems and thediscarding of old ideas and the construction of new and better ones, theyfind it difficult to give the old ones up'.This apparent resilience to change is not unique to traditionalcommunities or cultures; in fact scientists and their professionalcommunities are, relatively speaking, quite conservative. For example,Kuhn (1970) described the development of science as happening throughperiods of normal science when there is among the science communitycommitment and consensus on conceptual, theoretical, instrumental,and methodological fundamentals and hence continuation of a particularresearch tradition. However, scientific revolutions occur when too muchevidence (or anomalies) has accumulated against some fundamental62 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEassumptions and a new paradigm emerges. Bourdillon (1990, 227) notesthat radical revolutions entail casting off old frames of reference anddeveloping new ways of thinking but 'elderly scientists try to maintainthe old framework'. Kuhn (1970, 24) finds that normal science is itselfconservative and that 'no part of the aim of normal science is to call forthnew sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are notseen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, andthey are often intolerant of those invented by others" and further, 'inscience... novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested with resistance,against a background provided by expectation. Initially, only theanticipated and usual are experienced even under circumstances whereanomaly is later to be observed' (Kuhn, 1970, 64). Activities of normalscience do not aim to produce major novelties; relatively speaking, theactivities in traditional communities remain stable similar to the periodsof normal science. The gist of the matter is whether or not the differencesand/or similarities in the rationality of traditional and scientific thinkingshould be the subject of critical analysis and reflection in scienceeducation. Science education, particularly in Africa, should seek to bringboth the scientific way of thinking and traditional rationality intomeaningful conflation. This should happen deliberately, consciously, andreflectively; a contextualised science curriculum and pedagogy is needed.CONTEXTUALISED SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGYThe importance of culture vis-a-vis learning is articulated by Saljao (1991,180) who finds that cognitive phenomena are related to culture; it is nottenable to assume that perception, attention, memory, reasoning andother similar processes are unaffected by culture. Saljao says culture is'what allows us to perceive the world as meaningful and coherent and atthe same time it operates as a constraint on our understandings andactivities' (p. 180). Culture in this regard serves as a filter through whichwe perceive the world and render it intelligible. Saljao (1991, 184) alsomakes the point that 'human experiences are inescapably cultural innature, learning and growth take place within cultural boundaries'. Stanleyand Brickhouse (1994) and Turner and Ingle (1981) find problematic theuniversalistic assumption of science education which supposes thatscience is the same throughout the world and thus its content andmethods can be transferred to Third World countries withoutconsideration of their cultural milieu. Concomitant with this universalistassumption is the questionable viewpoint of 'Western science embodiedin school curricula usurps traditional belief systems and attempts tochange practice' (Turner and Ingle, 1981, 360). The problem currentlyanalysed is that science education cannot afford to pretend to be acculturalO. SHUMBA 63since it produces effects on the societal system in which it is introduced.For example, when a society is traditional and its belief system is foundedon mythology, such a society is expected to adjust and accommodate the'stress' through either social disintegration due to the overpoweringeffect of the stress, or through acceptance of the challenge in an idealisedform which will be less powerful than it can be, or through assimilationand coexistence of old and new ideas. The latter, assimilation, is anevolutionary thinking process whereby new ideas are pondered, comparedto existing beliefs, and find a place among existing beliefs. Ogunniyi(1988, 8) suggested that for the scientific world view to succeed intraditional societies, the aim of science education 'should not be tosupplant or denigrate a traditional culture but to help people meet modernchallenges'. On pedagogy, Lewin (1990,17) concludes that 'if the purposeof teaching science is partly to hasten the development of a gessellsschaftgrounded in the rationality of scientific thinking, it may require anapproach that not simply confronts and dismisses beliefs that are widelyshared'. It is therefore imperative to deal with contradictions introducedin teachers moving towards teaching methods that stress enquiry andthe challenging of traditional beliefs in communities where none of thesethings is the normal conduct of affairs. For example, Prophet's (1990)study in Botswana found that values instilled in the home were infundamental disagreement with the spirit of inquiry and criticalquestioning to be developed in science education; he finds that 'aninnovative and critical attitude is actively discouraged and this is probablyreflected in the passive, accepting atmosphere observed in the classroom.Learning is unreflective and by rote' (Prophet, 1990, 20). Rakow andBermudez (1993, 672) indicate that traditional families emphasiseconformity and solidarity resulting in individuals in that culture tendingto respond to 'adult and family expectations rather than to self-directedgoals. Consequently, their locus of control is external as they pursue theopinion of others to validate their own experiences'.Kay (1975) provided an interesting case study of Kenya where heobserved that educational changes competed for allegiance with long-standing traditions. For example, he notes an attempt to introduce achild-centred curriculum there. The Kenyan pupils especially from ruralareas had been socialised to learn by listening to story telling, by directobservation but not participation, and were socialised to work co-operatively. At an early age, the children were taught values and attitudesrelated to collectivism and submission which were the antithesis of'spontaneity, self-reliance and individualism being advocated in schools'(Kay, 1975, 188). The authority of age and respect of older persons was awell ingrained virtue and personal decision making were not a part of thecultural baggage. Teachers themselves tasked with implementing the64 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCE'progressive curriculum' carried the same values and failed to putthemselves on equal footing with their pupils and therefore remainedstern authorities in their classrooms. As in many African countries, Kenyawas very intent upon preserving its traditional heritage and culture.Similarly, Cobern (1994, 6) notes that 'the advancement of science andscience education often competes with national interest in maintainingthe integrity of traditional culture'.These observations have direct implications for curriculum andpedagogy where both pupils and teachers are of a culture which,undergoing significant changes, persists in cherishing certain traditionsand actions. Unfortunately, as Kay (1975) noted, the curriculum designprocess does not recognise these types of problems, let alone find effectiveways of dealing with them. There is an increasing number of criticalvoices calling for the science curriculum to be modelled through theAfrican thought system (Cobern, 1994; Ogawa, 1986; Ogunniyi, 1988).Jegede and Okebukola (1991, 45) recommend that the curriculum andinstruction for learners of non-Western society must begin with, andreflect, the world views they already possess. Prophet (1990, 21) envisagesa new science education which is a synthesis of the 'esteem for therichness of African cultural values and humanistic traditions combinedwith the knowledge, values and attitudes needed to understand andcontrol the world of today'. Ogawa (1986) proposes that science educationshould make students aware of their traditional culture as distinct fromscience as culture which has a different view of man and nature and adifferent way of thinking. Further, it should exemplify conflicts betweenscientific and traditional ways of thinking in everyday life. Failing to takeseriously the issue of cultural thought vis-a-vis scientific thinking, Westernscience is transferring to developing countries without its essence andconsequently does little to improve the overall human capacity there.Ogawa (1986, 115) noted that the greatest concern in considering theaims of science education is 'how we can bring science as a culture intotheir traditional or fundamental culture. ... to compare the traditionaland the scientific view of man and nature and ways of thinking, and toclarify similarities and differences between them'. A serious re-valuationof traditional culture in science education and its influence in acquiringscientific literacy is required. Otherwise, the possibility of uncriticalacceptance or even rejection poses a serious challenge; scientism andthe assumption of virtuosity should be dispelled.DISPELLING SCIENTISM AND THE ASSUMPTION OF VIRTUOSITYEfforts to develop scientific and technological literacy in developingcountries also flounders through lack of critical reflection and analysis ofO. SHUMBA 65the nature of science itself. There is docile acceptance of the value ofscience and technology especially as they are construed to have a link to'progress and development' and therefore are virtuous. In many developingcountries, this attitude and belief is subjectively strengthened by theunnecessary dichotomy: choose traditional values or choose Westernisedvalues as practised in the past (and currently) in science education.There is always the attendant danger of replacing traditional world viewswith the new dogma of unquestioned science. Skolomowski (1974, 53)criticised the mechanistic, materialistic, exploitive, and elitist conceptionsof progress at the expense of 'other concepts of progress, of a metaphysicaland religious variety' as an illusion. Similarly, Ogunniyi (1988) suggeststhat while the achievements of science are for all to see, progress linkedonly to the rationality and empiricism of science makes the appreciationof science and technology in developing countries a little moreproblematic. In his analysis, Skolomowski (1974, 60) concludes that 'theprogress of science and progress in general are two different things' andthat 'the metaphysics of progress is based on an exploitive and parasiticform of philosophy. Progress has been a cover-up for Western man'sfollies in manipulating the external world' (p. 77). While we have accruedbenefits and advantages such as better medical care, better livingstandards, and better and more efficient communication services, theWestern form of progress has disrupted ways of life of other cultureswithout significant gains in Western standards of living, depleted naturalresources, and caused ecological imbalances; it has created ways of lifein which 'we have disengaged the individual from the variety of interactionswith nature and other people in which he was engaging in former ways oflife' (Skolomowski, 1974, 78). The question for science educators is whetherthey can afford to have the dichotomy: choose Westernised values ortraditional values which for a long time has been the obvious choice ofcolonists and cultural imperialists. In many developing countries scienceteachers acknowledge the value of science but admittedly they have notabandoned their traditional beliefs and values in order to embrace it (seeOgunniyi, et al, 1995; Shumba, 1995b; 1999, in press). If anything theteachers demonstrate a balance of traditional values and scientificthinking.This balance of tradition and change is laudable. Loss of traditionmeans the loss of cultural cohesion because scientific thinking for all itspower to explain physical phenomena, is incapable of providing a unifyingview of life; while science and technological advancements areappreciated, science fails as a unifying metaphysic (William W. Cobern,personal communication, 6 April 1995). Further, science and technologyhelped to create a plethora of modern ailments that can be traced toanxiety, stress, pointlessness, and pollution. Science and technology66 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEcannot guarantee social cohesion like tradition does; people influencedby Western values are disconnected from one another and from theirenvironment and social alienation is a serious and perhaps even a fatalisticproblem. On the same issues, Michael O'Loughlin (personalcommunication, 6 April, 1995) provides a useful critique noting thatindigenous culture is resilient and conservative in order to maintainitself. Not all of Western science is virtuous as commonly noted aboutenvironmental despoliation and deforestation, displacement of nativeagricultural practices and dietary habits, etc. O'Loughlin suggests thatthe issue for science education should be 'less of an attempt to displaceone mind-set and replace it with a more "scientific" one but rather tobring them both into conversation in some critical ways'. This raises apossibility that, traditional cultures are not monolithic and totally closedrelative to scientific rationality, rather the resistance to the tenets of theWesternised world view embodied in science could perhaps suggest thattraditional culture may be open to other possibilities such asconceptualising emancipatory, environmentally and socially consciousscientific inquiry.Boulding (1970) suggested that in some sense the scientific subculturecould serve to disorganise society rather than move it towards progress.Some of the virtues are in stark contradiction to values held withintraditional cultures, for example, veracity and curiosity. As he says folkproverbs show that curiosity killed the cat; on the other hand, 'thescientific subculture, and the technological "super-culture" it hasproduced, is not and probably cannot be a complete culture' (Boulding,1970, 17). What Boulding then proposes is thatwhat we have to think of, therefore, is much more of a symbiosisbetween the scientific subculture and the other subcultures with whichit interacts, rather than any sort of conquest of the other cultures by akind of universal church or culture of science (Ibid).It is our problem as science educators to create this symbiosis and toassess 'the impact of the various subcultures on each other, particularlyin regard to their value systems' (Boulding, Ibid). Appleyard et al (1993,52) also express scepticism on the virtuous nature of science by stating thatscience is not an innocent commodity which can be employed as aconvenience by people wishing to partake only of the West's materialpower. Rather it is spiritually corrosive, burning away ancient authorityand traditions. Science which pretends to be all-knowing, cannot coexistwith alternative belief systems.They further critique science and the scientific method for beingsimply inadequate for coping with the soul of man, which requiresexplanations and guides for living they cannot offer. Appleyard and hisO. SHUMBA 67colleagues also feel that an entirely scientific society cannot work, 'thoughfull of rationality and discovery, it fails to shed any light on the distressingphrase 'the reason to live' (p. 55). Mundangepfupfu (1988, 49) criticisesscience because it 'cannot inform us about the reality of beliefs aboutmorals, values, art, magic, etc'., and therefore portrays science as one ofmany limited and fallible forms of knowledge by stating 'science operatesonly within a notion of reality restricted to the physical universe and,therefore, cannot explain any other reality or tell us if there is or not sucha reality' .GENDER, EQUITY, AND ANTIPATHY TOWARDS SCIENCEThis article would be incomplete without also looking at the problem ofgender, equity, and antipathy towards science vis-avis the girl child. Inparticular the masculine image embodied in the scientific world-view andsocialisation practices in the traditional culture should not be left asunproblematic. As explained in earlier sections, philosophers, historiansand sociologists have raised questions concerning science as beingobjective, rational, individualistic, unemotional, and value free, and fordepicting the scientific enterprise as a male domain. This image of sciencepartially arises consequent of its development predominantly from amale Eurocentric perspective (Roychoudhury, Tippins, and Nichols, 1995,898). This portrayal of science carries with it both gender and ethnicbiases and stereotypes. Roychoudhury et al note that '(scientific)knowledge is socially situated, and in a gender-stratified society,differentiated male and female roles will render different perspectives forthe generation of knowledge' (p. 898). Drawing on tenets of feministstandpoint theory, they suggest that examples and applications used inscience teaching are masculine and classroom interactions sanction maledominance, and at the deeper epistemological level, the nature of theknowledge that is accepted as scientific embodies a masculine world-view. In their critique, they find that in science, 'women's experienceshave been neglected as the progenitor of knowledge claims, makingscience partial, incomplete, and weak' (Ibid). This partial percept ofscience often is carried through in science education dominated usuallyby males. Women are often under-represented in the print and pictures incurricular materials such as books, workbooks, and audio visual materials;however, these resources consume as much as 90% of a student's learningtime: this carries the implicit message that in society and in sciencewomen are less important. The linguistic bias asserts the terms he andman as representative of all people (Bullock, 1997, 1022).In Zimbabwe, Marira (1991) found that some textbooks used in primaryschools carried sexist language which favoured boys over girls 81% of68 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEthe time. The third person was translated to 'he' about 42.6% of the timecompared to the third person being translated to 'she' 2.1% of the time.Women were more likely in the texts to be presented in domestic choressuch as cooking and sewing while males were shown to be in technicaloccupations such as construction. In science, this masculine image canlead girls to have less confidence than boys in their ability to succeed inscience, even if they perform as well as boys (Meece and Jones, 1996,401). Additionally, curricular materials together with the masculine andpositive image of science they carry reinforce and perpetuate sex-roleand other cultural stereotypes for both girls and boys. For example, inZimbabwe, gender biases and stereotypes are deeply ingrained in thetraditional culture arising from this emphasis on sex role differentiation(Aschwanden, 1982; Bourdillon, 1987; Bozongwana, 1983). Dorsey (1992,373) notes that in the patriarchal society of Zimbabwe, 'the systemoperates to enhance the position of men and relegates women to asubordinate position where it is more difficult for them to compete onequal terms'. Shumba (1997) traced the under-representation of womenin education and training and in science and technology related careersto the predominant culture which conserves vast areas of traditionalismwith regard to gender socialisation. Gordon (1995) found that secondaryschool girls gender typed occupations in a way that mirrored societalexpectations and beliefs about the role of women. They perceivedprofessions such as nurse, secretary or typist, dress maker, and libraryservice as being 'better' for women, and they perceived school subjectslike science, building studies and metalwork as masculine, difficult, andunsuitable for females.Sex role differentiation and gender typing also appears to influencegirls to prefer certain sciences and not others. For example, in one studyquoted in Weinburgh's (1995) meta-analysis, girls had more positiveattitudes to biological sciences than to the physical sciences; on theother hand girls who take up the physical sciences perform as well astheir male counterparts (Shumba, 1997). In Africa, early childhood trainingmay make females feel that the biological sciences are more acceptableareas of interest to them. For example, in Nigeria, (Jegede and Okebukola,1992, 643) found that in traditional socialisation boys are allowed toundertake activities which can promote better perception of science as acareer opportunity; 'they are allowed to climb trees, set traps, go fishing,dismantle mechanical objects, probe valleys, caves and hills, chasebutterflies, build models, and explore the environment' while girls, on theother hand, are prevented from engaging in risk-prone activities andexploring the environment in the same vigorous manner.In feminist theory, the different social experiences of men and womengive them different ways of looking at life and interpreting events, andO. SHUMBA 69therefore different standpoints. In addition to attitudes, girls and womenmay have a different way of learning rooted in their role in culture(Roychoudhury, etal., 1995,897). The mechanistic and scientistic portrayalof the nature of science as objective, individualistic, unemotional, andvalue free makes the feeling of personal bonding with the subject andcontext unacceptable; yet it is thought that females prefer this personalbonding and exhibit emotional and connected ways of knowing that ariseout of their real life experiences within society (Roychoudhury, et al.,1995, 899). Relational values such as cooperation, working with people,and helping others are imminent in society and are more appealing towomen in science. Women's learning preferences and styles would seemto be better supported in a culture providing a supportive interactiveenvironment; such an environment favours co-operation and collaborationrather than the detached, unemotional, masculine, competitive, andindividualistic environment often promoted in science. The relationalvalues are promoted vigorously in most traditional cultures, and thereforesuch cultures have something to offer in terms of frameworks fordeveloping appropriate pedagogical cultures and environments, not onlyfor gender sensitivity but for equity in general. Kuiper (1998, 21) assertsthat 'science is not a culturally independent phenomena; it comes with away of viewing the world and with certain values attributed to the kind ofknowledge it deals with'. The explicit values and the implicit images ofthe nature of science should be subject to critical discourse uis-a-vissocialisation practices in the home and in schools or else scienceeducation will persistently fail to cater fully for pupils from differentcultures and of different sexes and ethnicity. What is needed, therefore,is a search for curriculum and pedagogy that are culture sensitive; thissearch will not succeed without the critical interrogation of the basicrationality of science, which should include also feminist voices andcritiques.MULTI-CULTURAL SCIENCE EDUCATIONStanley and Brickhouse (1994, 392) suggest that a universalist conceptionof science is problematic because it creates the absurd impression thatscientists can know 'the truth' about the world and second, 'it rationalisesthe destruction of knowledge systems deemed inferior by Westernstandards'. Echoing this sentiment, Hodson (1993; 1994) suggests forscience education a multi-cultural perspective that thrives on comparativeanalysis of science in various cultures. For example, he cites evidence(Smolicz and Nunan, 1975; Sardar, 1989) that in the Western model of thecurriculum, the image of a scientist is one of the self-assured,technologically powerful manipulator and controller, while Islamic70 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEscientists stress the need for humility, respect for what is studied, andrecognition of the limitations of science. Among the Maori there isappropriate respect and recognition of the spirituality of land forms suchas sea, mountains, and forests. In Africa, maintaining harmoniousrelationships between people and the natural world is vital. Understandingthe cultures of people where science has been introduced is surely partof the business of science education. In fact, dealing with the issue ofculture is supported if one looks to the social constructivist theory oflearning (Mathews, 1992). According to this theory, learning is aninterpretative process, greatly influenced by prior knowledge andexperience (Posner and Strike, 1982). In the learning process, the learnerconstructs knowledge, not simply receives it passively (Cobern, 1993).Posner and Strike (1982) emphasise that conceptual change, i.e., learning,depends on currently existing prior knowledge and experience in learningnew material. Cobern (1994) views learning as involving negotiation andinterpretation, both processes that are influenced by prior knowledgeand experience. The key point, in our argument, is that prior knowledgeand experience obtain from cultural experience and socialisation andtherefore for effective learning of science and its values to occur, culturallyacquired experiences and knowledge cannot (or rather should not) beignored. For these reasons it is pertinentfor science educators to understand the fundamental, culturally basedbeliefs about the world that students bring to class, and how thesebeliefs are supported by students' cultures; because, science educationis successful only to the extent that science can find a niche in thecognitive and social-cultural milieu of students (Cobern, 1994, 11).It seems, then, that such sensitivity and sentiments for scienceeducation have relevance to attaining the goal of critical scientific andtechnological literacy. Mundangepfupfu (1988, 3) castigates historical(and current) practice which accepts the antithesis between scientificand traditional beliefs 'without considering the conceptual differences ofworld views' when it comes to teaching science to students who mighthave a magico-traditional conception of the world. The persistence inscience education of notions such as those expressed by the likes ofWilliams (1994, 516), who says that 'a major goal of science educationmust be to dispel notions of magic and teleology as unscientific', is surelydetrimental and indeed disfigures any attempts to present a truthful,holistic, and meaningful rendition of the whole human experience. Reformis critically needed to alter science materials and science educationliterature that are mostly presented from the vantage point of the scientificworld-view. As Mundangepfupfu (1988, 3) notes, 'this bias towards ascientific interpretation of the world is arbitrary and construes (reality)as scientific reality' and yet as a way of viewing the world, scientificO. SHUMBA 71beliefs have strengths and weaknesses like other world-views.Mundangepfupfu (1988, 4) posits that if science teaching in Africa is to besuccessful, it must involve a wider conception of legitimate knowledgewhereby science is a way of knowing one aspect of reality and that otherworld-views present alternative ways of knowing the world. This rationaleis clearly supported in the literature (Cobern, 1993; Ogawa, 1986; Ogunniyi,1988).Clearly, it is not the business of science education to make studentsreject their traditional beliefs and thinking and accept scientific beliefsand knowledge unquestioningly. Mundangepfupfu (1988, 86) rejects thisassumption saying 'There is nothing to say that the eradication of otherbeliefs will lead to a better understanding of science. Furthermore, sciencecannot account for all phenomena in nature and it is unclear why it isbetter to have one world-view rather than many'. On a similar point,Stanley and Brickhouse (1994,395) find that the modern science frameworkis quite powerful when applied in certain situations but 'Western scientificframeworks cannot provide a vantage point beyond other frameworkswhereby we could judge, once and for all, what we can know'. Theytherefore see advantage in multiple perspectives rather than the currentmonological-science-is-best perspective concluding that 'humaninterpretation aimed at the realisation of new knowledge requires thedialogue of multiple perspectives (frameworks)' (p. 395). Stanley andBrickhouse (1994, 396) suggest that students need to become competentin scientific discourse:They also need to understand that this is only one particular way,among many, of thinking about the natural world. Put another way, webelieve that teaching a universalistic conception of science ismiseducative and could potentially lead to repeating the negativeconsequences of a universalist view. . . they can also learn that theform of contemporary science is not universal, inevitable, orunchangeable. This kind of understanding is needed to encourage criticalthinking.On the same issue, Hodson (1994, 521), argues that the overarchinggoal of Science for All should be critical scientific and technologicalliteracy, and to achieve this goal it is necessary both to personaliselearning and to politicise science education and 'thus my views are rootedvery firmly in the notion of critical thinking and socio-political action onmatters that relate to scientific, technological, and environmental issues'.CONCLUSIONThis article has argued the limitations of the scientific world-view depictedin adopted curricula as the only world-view. It sought to dispel the dogma72 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEof unquestioned science by demonstrating the need for criticalinterrogation of Western science relative to indigenous thought and beliefof adopting cultures. It is not the business of science education indeveloping countries or indeed elsewhere, to bring about loss of tradition.Culture is not an obstacle to overcome as Williams (1994) assumes; it isnot an obstacle to science or other forms of thought, belief or knowledge.There is no evidence that loss of tradition is a necessary condition for theadoption of scientific views and values. Aspects of thinking, valuing andbelieving arising from one's indigenous culture and arising in the pursuitand study of science should be subjected to critical discourse with thehope that science and tradition can be brought into conflation. Wright(1982, 374) rejects the 'superficial study of science, attached to anauthoritarian pedagogy' in favour of a more 'open' form of science andpedagogy which conveys that 'there are probabilities rather thancertainties, degrees of confidence rather than absolute laws' which mayhave the positive spill-over effect into other areas of experience. In somecountries there are earnest attempts to understand the conceptual natureof traditional thought and belief in creating innovative approaches thatseek to influence students' understanding of science and to inculcate inthem the scientific world-view. However, these well intentioned effortswill come to naught if reflective inquiry and analysis, and comparison ofscience and culture does not deliberately occur: for equity and forposterity, critical discourse should include also feminist voices andstandpoints.ReferencesAppleyard, B., Marty, M., Boorstin, and Anees, M. A. (1993) 'Progress offaith, retreat of reason?', New Perspectives Quarterly, X, 52-55.Aschwanden, H. (1982) Symbols of Life: An Analysis of the Consciousness ofthe Karanga (Gweru, Mambo Press).Birch, C. (1988) 'Eight fallacies of the modern world and five axioms for apost-modern world view', Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, XXXII,12-30.Bourdillon, M. F. C. (1987) The Shona Peoples (Gweru, Mambo Press).Š (1990) Religion and Society: A Text for Africa (Gweru, Mambo Press).Bozongwana, W. (1983) Ndebele Religions and Customs ("Gweru, MamboPress).Boulding, K. E. (1970) 'The scientific revelation', Bulletin of the AtomicScientists, XXVI, 13-18.Bullock, L. D. (1997) 'Efficacy of gender and ethnic equity in scienceeducation curriculum for pre-service teachers', Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, XXXIV, (x), 1019-1038.Cobern, W.W. (1989) 'A comparative analysis of NOSS profiles on Nigerianand Americana pre-service secondary science teachers', Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, XXVI, 533-541.O. SHUMBA 73Š (Jan., 1993) 'A Co-operative Research Group for the Study of Cultureand Science Education in Developing Countries', Paper presented atthe UNESCO International Conference on Science Education inDeveloping Countries, Jerusalem, Israel.Š (1994) 'Constructivism and non-western science education research',International Journal of Science Education, 1-16.Dorsey, B. J. (1996) Gender Inequalities in Education in the Southern AfricanRegion: An Analysis of Intervention Strategies (Harare, UNESCO Sub-region Office for Southern Africa).Emereole, H. U. (1998) 'World views portrayed by illiterate Batswanaadults about common practices and phenomena', Journal of theSouthern African Association for Research in Mathematics and ScienceEducation, II, (i), 61-71.Gordon, R. (1995) 'Causes of Girls' Academic Under-achievement: TheInfluence of Teachers' Attitudes and Expectations on the AcademicPerformance of Secondary School Girls' (Harare, Human ResourcesResearch Centre, Occasional Paper Number 8).Griffin, A. (1997) 'Knowledge under attack: Consumption, diversity andthe need for values', in R. Barnett and A. Griffin (eds.), The End ofKnowledge in Higher Education (Wiltshire, Redwood Books), 2-11.Hodson, D. (1993) 'In search of a rationale for multi-cultural scienceeducation', Science Education, LXXVII, 685- 711.Š (1994) 'Response to William's comment', Science Education, LXXVII,521-525.Horton, R. (1971) 'African traditional thought and western science', in M.F. E. Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control: New Directions for theSociology of Education (London, Collier-Macmillan), 208-266.Š (1982) 'Tradition and modernity revisited', in M. Hollis and S. Lukes(eds.), Rationality and Relativism (Oxford, Basil Blackwell PublisherLimited), 201-260.Jegede, O. K. and Okebukola, P. A. (1991) 'The relationship betweenAfrican cosmology and students acquisition of a science processskill', International Journal of Science Education, XIII, 37-47.Š (1992) 'Differences in socio-cultural environment: Perceptionsassociated with gender in science classrooms', Journal of Research inScience Teaching, XXIX, (vii), 637-647.Kay, S. (1975) 'Curriculum innovations and traditional culture: A casehistory of Kenya', Comparative Education, XI, 183-190.Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, Universityof Chicago Press, 2nd edtn).Kuiper, J. (1998) 'Science and culture', Journal of the Southern AfricanAssociation for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, II, (i),21-32.Lewin, K. (1990) 'International perspectives in science education, foodfor thought', Studies in Science Education, XVIII, 1-23.74 CRITICALLY INTERROGATING THE RATIONALITY OF WESTERN SCIENCEMarira, C. (1991) 'Gender issues in Zimbabwe's two main English languagetextbooks in the primary schools', Zimbabwe Journal of EducationalResearch, III, (ii), 108-124.Mathews, M. R. (1992) 'History, philosophy, and science teaching: Thepresent rapprochement', Science and Education, 1, 11-47.Meece, J. L and Jones, M. G. (1996) 'Gender differences in motivation andstrategy use in science: Are girls rote learners?', Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, XXXIII, (iv), 393-406.Midgley, M. (1997) 'Visions of embattled science', in R. Barnett and A.Griffin (eds.), The End of Knowledge in Higher Education (Wiltshire,Redwood Books), 68-83).Morris, R. W. (1983) Science and Technology Education and Development(Paris, UNESCO).Mundangepfupfu, R. M. (1988) 'The Distinction of Magic Š TraditionalFrom Scientific Beliefs in the Teaching of Science in Africa' (Doctoraldissertation, University of Toronto, Canada, Unpubl.).Odhiambo, T. R. (1968) 'Understanding of science: The impact of theAfrican view of nature', in P. G. S. Gilbert and M. N. Lovegrove (eds.),Science Education in Africa (London, Heinemann), 39-46.Ogawa, M. (1986) 'Toward a rationale of science education in non-westernsociety', European Journal of Science Education, VIII, 113-119.Ogunniyi, M. B. (1988) 'Adapting western science to traditional Africanculture', International Journal of Science Education, X, 1-9.Ogunniyi, M. B., Jegede, O. J., Ogawa, M., Yandila, C. D., and Oladele, F. K.(1995) 'Nature of world-view presuppositions among science teachersin Botswana, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, and the Philippines', Journalof Research in Science Teaching, XXXII, 817-832.Postlethwaite, N. T. (1991) 'Achievement in science education in 1984 in23 countries', in T. Husen and J. P. Keeves (eds.), Issues in ScienceEducation: Science Competence in a Social and Ecological Context(Oxford, Pergamon Press), 35-64.Prophet, R. B. (1990) 'Rhetoric and reality in science curriculumdevelopment in Botswana', International Journal of Science EducationXII, 13-23.Rakow, S. J. and Bermudez, A. B. (1993) 'Science is 'ciencia': Meeting theneeds of Hispanic American students', Science Education, LXXVII669-683.Republic of Zimbabwe. (1991) Second Five Year National DevelopmentPlan (Harare, Government Printers).Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D. J. and Nichols, S. E. (1995) 'Gender-inclusivescience teaching: A feminist-constructivist approach', Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, XXXII, (ix), 897-924.Saljao, R. (1991) 'Introduction: Culture and learning', Learning andInstruction, I, 179-185.Shrigley, R. L. (1983) 'The attitude concept and science teaching', ScienceEducation, LXVII, (iv), 425-442.O. SHUMBA 75Shumba, O. (1992) 'Secondary Level Science Education in Zimbabwe: AnAnalysis of Curriculum Structure and Implementation Environment'(Technical Report, Harare, University of Zimbabwe Research Board).Š (1993) 'Attitudes towards science: An exploratory survey of pupilspreparing for national examinations', Zimbabwe Journal of EducationalResearch, V, 62-89.Š (1995a) 'Indigenous Zimbabwean science teachers' understanding ofthe nature of science relative to models of the nature of science andrelative to profiles of teachers in two countries', Zimbabwe Journal ofEducation Research, VII, 115-157.Š (1995b) 'Science teachers' assessment of the interaction of indigenousAfrican culture with science education in Zimbabwe', ZimbabweJournal of Educational Research, VII, 259-300.Š (1997) Participation and Promotion of Equal Access of Girls to ScienceEducation and Technical/Vocational Education in Zimbabwe (Harare,UNESCO Sub-region Office for Southern Africa).Š (1999, in press) 'Relationship between secondary science teachers'orientation to traditional culture and beliefs concerning scienceinstructional ideology', Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Skolomowski, H. (1974) 'The Scientific World View and the Illusions ofProgress' (Paper on Social Research, citation pages missing).Stanley, W. B. and Brickhouse, N. W. (1994) 'Multi-culturism, universalism,and science education', Science Education, LXXVIII, 387-398.Strike, K. A. and Posner, G. J. (1982) 'Conceptual change and scienceteaching', European Journal of Science Education, IV, 231-240.Swift, D. (1992) 'Indigenous knowledge in the service of science andtechnology in developing countries', Studies in Science Education, XX,1-28.Turner, A. D. and Ingle, R. B. (1981) 'Science curricula as cultural misfits',European Journal of Science Education, III, (iv), 357-371.Yakubu, J. M. (1994) 'Integration of indigenous thought and practice withscience and technology: A case study of Ghana', International Journalof Science Education, XVI, 343-360.Weinburgh, M. (1995) 'Gender differences in student attitudes towardscience: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1971 to 1991', Journalof Research in Science Teaching, XXXII, (iv), 387-398.Williams, H. (1994) 'A critique of Hodson's "In search of a rationale formulti-cultural science education". Science Education, LXXVIII, 515-519.Wright, D. H. M. (1982) 'New science for a new era: The Zimbabweanexperience', European Journal of Science Education, IV, 367-375.