Aspectos Macroeconómicos de la Producción de Alimentos

Many researchers have argued that science should be thought of as its own culture, with it’s own rules, language, and practices – i.e., it’s own Discourses or combinations that are recognized as being a scientist. Aikenhead (1996) discusses how when students enter a science classroom, they are in essence border crossing from one culture (a personal or home culture) to another (the culture of science). Meyer and Crawford (2011) also adopt this analogy, referring to learning science as cross cultural education that is “laden with cultural understandings,

interpretations, and a language of its own” and describing the science classroom as a “borderland of cultural interaction” (p. 531). However, these researchers often privilege the culture of

science over home cultures, viewing home culture as an obstacle to overcome in science class. Aikenhead and Jegede (1999) explain it as, ‘‘whenever pupils enter the world of school science, it soon becomes evident that science too is another culture with which s/he has to interact, bringing with him/her the other baggage of cultures s/he already carries’’ (p. 45).

This section first describes the culture of science, including macro level discourses of what science is and looks like, and the Discourses (combinations of saying, being, and doing) that are privileged by this culture. It then examines how the culture of science intersects with personal and cultural Discourses in ways that create tension and limit scientific identity development as well as ways that could support scientific identity development.

Culture of Science

Although the NRC (1996) states that science is practiced by many cultures, science itself is often presented as not influenced by these cultures and as “culture-less” itself Lemke (1990). For example, the National Science Education Standards define science as a “Science is a way of knowing that is characterized by empirical criteria, logical argument, and skeptical review” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 21), and do not mention any non-objective components of practicing science. Focusing on scientific practices as objective ignores the cultural values and beliefs that have impacted science throughout history as well as presently.

Despite the common perception of science, research has recognized that science can be viewed as distinct culture (e.g., Cobern & Aikenhead, 1996; Maddock, 1981). Aikenhead (1996) describes the culture of science as a well defined system of meanings and symbols that became institutionalized in Europe in the 17th century as a predominantly white, male, middle class system, referred to today as Western Modern Science (WMS). He summarizes the cultural features of WMS as being “mechanistic, materialistic, masculine, reductionistic, mathematically

idealized, pragmatic, empirical, exploitive, elitist, ideological, inquisitive, objective, impersonal, rational, universal, decontextualized, communal, violent, value-free, and embracing

disinterestedness, suspension of belief, and parsimony” (1996, p. 9). Aikenhead argues that the goal of traditional science instruction is cultural assimilation of WMS, which leads to a culture of school science that perpetuates stereotypic images of science as “socially sterile, authoritarian, non-humanistic, positivistic, and absolute truth” (1996, p. 9).

Lemke (1990) also describes the discourse of school science as the view that science is a powerful and specialized way of talking about the world, which he refers to as the “mystique” of science. This mystique includes myths like science is much more complex and difficult than other subjects, science is in conflict with common sense, and scientists are superhuman elites. Lemke argues that these myths are perpetuated through the unwritten rules of science taught in science classrooms. Scientific knowledge is often presented as if there were one right way to know the world, where people disappear as actors. Science then becomes a description of the way the world is as opposed to the views of humans trying to make sense of the world. This discourse is perpetuated in science classrooms through the use of abstract, decontextualized, technical language. Emotion, values, and humor are all left out of scientific language, which is presented as serious and dignified. Another discourse that Lemke identifies is the authoritative and difficult nature of science, conveyed through objective, special truths that are only available to select experts. Students are taught not to trust their common sense ability to figure things out and instead rely on knowledge conveyed through textbooks and other authorities. Like

Aikenhead (1996), Lemke argues that the discourse of school science is defined by white, male, middle class, native English speakers who are committed to the values of middle class culture: emotional control, orderliness, rationalism, achievement, punctuality, and social hierarchy. This

perception of science is so prevalant in society that it can be considered an ideological or macro level discourse that is circulated through school and other educational structures. This discourse serves to influence what combinations of saying, doing, or being, i.e., what Discourses, are recognized as a “scientist” or “science student” in society.

Intersection of Science and Personal/Cultural Identities

Both Lemke (1990) and Aikenhead (1996) argue that the culture of WMS and school science are often foreign to students and conflict with their other subcultures, such as family or peer cultures. Because of this, Aikenhead argues that all students must cross borders when they enter science classrooms. However, it is easier for students who are already familiar with the discourses of WMS and school science (i.e., white, male, middle class students) to make this crossing. Meyer and Crawford (2011) also adopt this analogy, referring to learning science as cross cultural education that is “laden with cultural understandings, interpretations, and a language of its own” and describing the science classroom as a “borderland of cultural interaction” (p. 531).

Recent research has shown that minority students and females are often unable or unwilling to cross this border and therefore are excluded from the culture of science. Despite both populations having high interest in science during school, both women and minorities are less likely than white males to pursue science as a career, indicating that because the culture of science is foreign to them, it is difficult to participate in it fully and develop a scientific identity. Archer, Dewitt, and Osborne (2015) demonstrated that Black students and parents in the UK are less likely than white students and parents to consider scientific careers as “thinkable” options, indicating that science identities are not forming for these students. For these students, a figured world of science does not include people who look or act like them as scientists; they are unable

or unwilling to engage in the Discourses that would lead to a scientific identity. Many of the macro level discourses of science described above were found to be influential in parents’ and students’ views of science. Black students and parents had narrow, stereotypical conceptions of scientists as wearing white lab coats and goggles, images that were incompatible with students’ views of themselves. Additionally, Black parents and students were more likely to see science as particularly difficult and only for very intelligent, sometimes geeky, students. Black parents were also more likely to see science as a white, masculine undertaking, describing daughters as “girly girls” who were not as likely to be interested in science. Archer et al. (2015) also point out that Black families have less “science capital” than white families, i.e., they are less likely to have access to scientific activities outside of school.

Using Gee’s framework of Discourse and identity, other research has focused specifically on tensions between the culture of science and science identities and students’ personal or social identities within classrooms. Brown (2004) showed that African American students experienced cultural conflict in science classrooms, recognizing that there was a stigma and cost to engaging in scientific Discourse. Even when students were struggling to acquire scientific content

knowledge, they resisted engaging in scientific Discourses. Students demonstrated resistance to scientific Discourse by withholding knowledge, refusing to participate in activities or discussions in class even when they had valuable, scientific contributions to make. Yerrick and Gilbert (2011) also found tension between scientific and cultural Discourses for lower track, minority students. In this study, the role of the teacher and “implicit science curriculum,” i.e., macro level discourses of science, perpetuating low expectations and little real participation in scientific practices, are cited as reasons for students’ marginalization from science identities.

Recent research has also examined how various Discourses can be used together to enhance students’ learning instead of creating tension. Also using Gee’s framework, Moje, Collazo, Carrillo, and Marx (2001) examined the conflict between teacher and student

Discourses in a science classroom, suggesting students need an opportunity to merge scientific and popular Discourses productively. In later work, Moje et al. (2004) investigated how students use personal funds of knowledge, i.e., personal Discourses, in science. The authors found that while students were using family, community, peer, and popular culture funds of knowledge and Discourses, they were doing so privately and their use was not leveraged in the classroom. The authors suggest that creating hybrid spaces where students are encouraged to access multiple Discourses is necessary to support scientific Discourse use and, therefore, identity development. Using the same framework, Ramnarain and de Beer (2013), examined how participation in a science expo allowed high school students in South Africa to use science and non-science

identities to select topics and work on science projects. For example, a student with an identity of an “activist” chose to do a project on HIV and a student with an identity of “environmentalist” chose a project about water availability. Although all of these studies referenced Gee’s theory of Discourse and identity, the focus was largely on language use, not the other aspects of

Discourses that indicate identities, and no consideration was given to macro level discourses that impact recognition of specific scientific Discourses.

Other research has examined on a micro level how students can merge Discourses or switch between Discourses on a micro level. Kamberelis and Wehunt (2012) call this discursive hybridity, and examined how students appropriated and redeployed various Discourses in a science classroom. Examining two white, male student who described as alienated from the classroom, the authors showed how the students merged popular culture Discourses with

scientific Discourses to gain acceptance into the class. In a similar study, Charteris (2014) examined how students enact hybrid discourses to create identity and agency in science classrooms. In this study of Maori students in New Zealand, the author identified three Discourses that were recognized in the science classroom: the teacher’s science classroom Discourse, participatory Discourse, and teenage counterscript. However, despite the use of Gee’s definition of Discourses as encompassing ALL ways of saying, doing, and being, this study focused primarily on language use. Additionally, although both of these studies are valuable for their focus on micro-level Discourse use, neither focuses explicitly on the role of cultural Discourses.

Areas for Future Research

Considering science as a unique culture, and identifying the macro level discourses that are circulated as part of this culture, demonstrates the conflicts as well as potential that exist when other cultures intersect with the culture of science. This is particularly relevant when considering identity development through practice and recognition. It is obvious from the studies reviewed here that conflict exists between school science Discourse and students’ personal or cultural Discourses. Each study gives clear examples of how student Discourse is not valued in science classrooms, either purposefully (i.e., Yerrick & Gilbert, 2011) or

accidentally (i.e., Moje et al., 2001), leading to students feeling marginalized and alienated from science.

However, even when explicitly using Gee’s definition of Discourse as combinations of saying, doing, and being, the studies presented here focus on Discourse mainly as language. Attention to other forms of Discourse would provide a more complete picture of how students develop and enact identities. Additionally, none of these studies use an explicitly critical view,

or critique of the macro level discourses influence science classrooms, which would help explain why certain Discourses are privileged or disprivileged.

Another interesting gap in this literature is the voice of the student. These studies could be stronger if the participants were allowed to comment on their own words and actions. The studies presented here privilege the researcher’s voice and interpretation of the students’ experiences. A richer picture could be painted if the participants were asked to comment their own experiences and Discourse use in science.