Abstract
An object-based activity—science and culture story box—was designed, developed, and used to explore young people’s views about cultural knowledge and scientific knowledge. In informal education spaces (e.g., museums and science centers), culture is often presented via representations of easily observable features of ethnicity such as music or dress. The development and application of knowledge in culturally diverse communities can be difficult to visualize and is rarely presented. Instead, Western science often dominates as the authoritative, valid, systematic, and useful way of thinking. Conversations about science and culture can create a platform for meaningful dialogue and valuing of a variety of cultures and different funds of knowledge. Using an informal science education lens, we interrogated young people’s views about different knowledge systems. Six cohorts of Western Australian young people (twelve to sixteen years old; N = 171) participated in the study. The activity involved groups of three to four young people assigning seventeen photographs of objects and or processes (e.g., medicine, lightning, etc.) onto a Venn diagram of scientific knowledge, cultural knowledge, or both. Photographs were taken of the forty-four resulting Venn diagrams showing association of items with knowledge domain. This was quantified to show the number of times an item was associated with scientific knowledge, cultural knowledge, or both. Group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis of discussions and associations of items to knowledge domain revealed intriguing themes and perspectives. Young people in this study associated technology with electronic devices and scientific knowledge but not with cultural knowledge. Young people expressed views that culture was old and basic and science was new and progressive. Other impressions expressed were that cultures do not “do” science and that skin color determines culture. No clear or consistent conception emerged of Australian culture. These young people’s perspectives are discussed within the context of meaningful intercultural understanding in multicultural societies. This activity was developed as a research tool for use with young people in a multicultural society to examine views of different funds of knowledge. We propose further development and directed use of the story box in informal education spaces as a process to stimulate conversations that might enhance intercultural understanding and appreciation of multiple ways of knowing.
Keywords
Introduction
By integrating frameworks from museum studies, cultural anthropology, and informal education, we construct an argument for using science and technology as a launch pad for inspiring intercultural understanding. In this study, we used photographic representations of objects, processes, and events to illuminate young people’s views of scientific and cultural knowledge. This research contributes to a critical understanding in the identification of biases and beliefs that constrain meaningful cultural discourse.
We begin this article by describing the multicultural context of Australia where this study was undertaken. This is followed by discussion of the role of informal spaces such as museums in promoting intercultural understanding. We then argue for educational spaces portraying the connection between science and culture. This rationalization is made difficult by the contentious academic debate about the definition of culture. We note that as there is not a scholarly consensus on the definition of culture and there are contested views about how young people mentally navigate between everyday life and school science (Aikenhead 1996; Gondwe and Longnecker 2015), then young people may have biased conceptions of science and culture. These arguments provided impetus for the development of a science and culture story box activity to investigate young people’s views about scientific and cultural knowledge.
Multiculturalism in Australia
Australia is an excellent country in which to investigate views of culture in a multicultural society because Australian society is culturally diverse. One-quarter of Australia’s 22 million people were born overseas, more than 260 different languages are spoken, and more than 270 ancestries are recognized (Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2013). By definition, a multicultural society is composed of many different cultures; however, this does not necessarily mean that different ethnic groups within multicultural societies interact with each other in a mutually respectful and informed manner (Ozturgut 2011). Shortcomings of multiculturalism occur when multiculturalism does not combat social inequality but instead promotes notions of participation of “cultural others” that is limited to essentialist and decorative activities such as song, dance, music, food, and leisure (Ozturgut 2011). Intercultural understanding, on the other hand, is the ability to reflect critically on the value of one’s own and other cultures, languages, and beliefs and in doing so, be able to respectfully participate and engage with people from different cultures in a variety of contexts (de Leo 2010). The benefits of diversity and improving young people’s intercultural capabilities include intellectual growth, improved academic skills, and enhanced cultural engagement (Gurin et al. 2002).
Intercultural understanding is important for all facets of society. However, making cultural connections is uncommon in science education in and outside of classrooms, compared to other areas such as visual arts and humanities. There are benefits and limitations to using science as a lens to motivate intercultural understanding. To begin with, science is generally recognized in society as useful and important. Additionally, increased calls for developing young people as global citizens and the movement toward globalization of science education (DeBoer 2011) and incorporation of indigenous perspectives in the Australian national science curriculum (Austin and Hickey 2011) mirror the ideals of intercultural understanding. Therefore, science can provide a suitable frame in which to engender the principles of intercultural understanding. Science’s authority, applicability, value, and use in the pursuit of knowledge provides an opportunity for young people to learn about ways of thinking and knowledge production within different cultures (Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007). Furthermore, by understanding how knowledge about the natural world is developed and used in culturally different societies, commonalties can be found and shared that support intercultural understanding and learning in other areas such as religion, history, or politics.
Representations of Science and Culture in Informal Spaces
Museums have an important and prestigious role in educating the public (Conn 2006). Their purpose is to collect, document, conserve, understand, and explain time, place, environment, and people. Public historian Steve Conn (2006, 507) writes, “museums still speak to most people with voices of authority and legitimacy. Trading on that legitimacy to make us all more literate scientific citizens might well be the greatest function science museums could serve.”
Museums display objects and artifacts. Choice of objects for display involve various factors. The object may be an important historical artifact or represent a significant scientific finding or an interesting or important place, group, or time. Objects are displayed to encourage visitors to consider different perspectives or to evoke reactions like wonder, realization, personal connection, or puzzlement. It is commonplace for exhibitions to be developed based on the tacit knowledge of curators and design teams (Laherto 2013). Curators identify objects and then work backward to connect them to an overarching area of disciplinary knowledge for an exhibition (Knutson 2011). In the past, this has led to indiscriminate presentations of indigenous objects which anthropologist Julie Cruikshank (1995), in her ethnographic work with Native American communities, criticized as fixed, ahistorical, apathetic representations which lacked subjectivity, and ignored the political and social histories, environmental and economical challenges in which the knowledge was produced. Similarly, a 1982 exhibition “Science in India” at London’s Science Museum gave rise to debate and controversy about how to represent Indian science and technology (Sen 2012). Sen (2012) described the British curators’ desire to represent poverty and appropriate technology through a bullock cart while the Indian organizers wanted to showcase progress through a display of their satellite program. This disagreement echoed debates in which Indians said international exhibits were misrepresenting India through displays of tokenistic material culture.
To address these tokenistic representations, the concept of museums as contact zones was developed in the 1990s to shift the dominance of museum staff as authoritative experts to museums as spaces inclusive of and giving voice to diverse communities (Pratt 1991; Clifford 1997). An example of museums as contact zones is Srinivasan and colleagues’ work with the Zuni, a North American tribe in which descriptions of museum objects in Cambridge University’s Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology catalog were compared with descriptions given by the Zuni from whom the objects originate (Srinivasan et al. 2010). They found the catalog descriptions were divorced from meaningful representation and were instead metadata written for the purpose of “object as specimen” rather than “object as embedded…acting within a larger, dynamic cultural, and discursive system” (Srinivasan et al. 2010, 35). Objects should be considered carriers of knowledge that have emerged from a local context (Trofanenko 2006). Srinivasan et al. (2010) posit that objects and their curatorial labels should function as powerful vehicles for sharing knowledge and multiple perspectives, especially if they are presented in light of their relevance to their community of origin. However, not all museums have taken on the contact zone perspective. For example, some museums are still being criticized for essentializing indigenous identities mainly as art (Trofanenko 2006) while science museums are only beginning to embrace juxtaposing indigenous perspectives alongside Western science.
A report by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (LSIE) found limited studies on the impact of artifacts on promoting cultural connections, encouraging understanding of local and global issues, and supporting a sense of identity (Semmel 2010). An Internet search on Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Association of Science and Technology Centres (ASTC), European Network of Science Centres and Museums (ECSITE), and Asia Pacific Network of Science and Technology Centres (ASPAC) websites did not reveal any exhibits whose goal was making connections between scientific and cultural knowledge or promoting intercultural understanding of their connections. This search (albeit not exhaustive) indicates that exhibits that combine science and culture are not commonplace, despite opportunities for science and culture exhibits to promote border crossing between the subcultures of science and indigenous knowledge (Aikenhead 1996). Imiloa Astronomy Centre in Hawaii is one of the most comprehensively developed science centers that juxtaposes indigenous knowledge with Western scientific knowledge. The Museum of Science and Technology in Islam in Saudi Arabia and their popular touring Sultans of Science exhibit presents Muslim scholars’ scientific and technological breakthroughs that contributed to modern science. The Gravity Discovery Centre north of Perth, Western Australia (which was the venue for some of the research reported here), has a Cosmology Gallery in which different cultural narratives of the creation of the universe are depicted in artistic representations. Despite some of these developments in scientific and cultural representations, there is no common strategy in which objects which represent multiple ways of knowing can be displayed and interrogated by visitors. Furthermore, appropriate cultural representations and their connection to science are hampered by an elusive definition of culture.
Definitions of Culture
There is debate about the definitions of culture in psychology, anthropology, education, and museum studies (Baldwin, Faulkner, and Hecht 2006). In psychology, a common conceptualization of culture is a system of beliefs, values, and norms that influence behavior (Shweder 1990). In cultural psychology, culture is generally understood as a set of practices that are enacted through participants’ engagement with their local community (Shweder 1990). The classic anthropology perspective of culture—similar to the cultural psychology definition—views culture as characteristic practices or ways of life within a social group which are passed down from one generation to the next (Eisenhart 2001). In these commonly accepted definitions, there are multiple cultures stemming from different societal groups with no overlap between cultures. Each culture is distinct; for example, Muslim culture is different from Aboriginal culture. This perception is reflected in cataloging and categorizing of cultural artifacts in museums according to geographic origin, for example, Western African artifacts or Native American artifacts (Srinivasan et al. 2010).
Science educator Gale Seiler (2013) highlights two limitations of the popular classic definition of culture. The pluralizable discontinuous view of culture creates an expectation of difference between cultures and posits homogeneity within each culture. This view promotes stereotypical fixed views. Understanding culture in this way leads to token strategies that essentialize cultures based on characteristics such as skin color and language (Gutierrez and Rogoff 2003). This is further reiterated by cultural education scholars Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti (2013, 10) who put forward funds of knowledge as historically accumulated skills, ideas, practices within communities, refraining from using the term culture “because the term culture is loaded with expectations of group norms and often-static ideas of how people view the world and behave in it.”
Seiler (2013) advances culture as a metaphorical construct. She draws on two perspectives, namely, from Sewell (1999) whose view is of culture as more permeable, loosely bounded, and variable, and from Eisenhart (2001) whose standpoint is culture as locally produced, complex, and constantly contested, where young people enact culture through merging different meanings, discourses, and materials. The shift in this conceptualization as presented by Seiler is from culture as an entity to culture as production where people acquire and use cultural resources. Culture as a metaphorical construct provides a useful approach in which to foster intercultural science understanding. Gaining greater knowledge about people’s views of culture, their biases, and assumptions is an important step in understanding the relationships between the constructs of science and culture.
Theoretical Framework and Design Considerations for the Story Box Activity
It is challenging to assess understanding in informal environments especially if examining sociocultural perspectives of non-Western cultures (Kisiel and Anderson 2010). Fienberg and Leinhardt (2002) provide insights in their study, which is one of several studies through the Museum Learning Collaborative, looking at how learning occurs in a museum. The Museum Learning Collaborative takes a sociocultural perspective on learning. They consider that conversations allow group members to share and build on each other’s knowledge and understanding. They consider that three elements interact during conversation, namely, visitors’ identities, the structure of the learning environment, and the extent of explanatory engagement. Conversations reflect visitors’ identity and mediate understanding. Visitors seek to make meaning not only around the content or objects that are provided but also based on their membership in a particular group and what they value. The Museum and Learning Collaborative considers conversational elaboration an outcome of learning in museums. They describe four levels of engagement—(1) listing: simple identification through phase or features of an object without any expansion; (2) analysis: interpretation of features of the object; (3) synthesis: integration of multiple ideas from various sources of information, for example, from home, school, and so on, in order to validate an idea; (4) explanation: combines analysis and synthesis to help another group member understand the what, why, or how of a particular object.
Our study, similar to the Museums Learning Collaborative, was premised on social constructivism (Vygotsky 1978), a theoretical framework which posits that groups construct knowledge through social processes. We focused on conversations as important drivers of constructing knowledge because conversations illustrate socialization. In addition to social constructivism, practice theory reinforced our theoretical framework.
Practice theory focuses on the idea that people are not only influenced by their social structure, but influence their social structure as well (Eisenhart 2001). It analyzes the dynamic relationships between established structures of culture and people (with diverse intentions, motivations, and identities). Practice theory considers micro- (personal) and macro- (group) factors of behavior. It combines theories of cultural production, situated learning, and networks of power (Eisenhart 2001). A unified theory of practice does not exist, but practice theory is still a useful theoretical frame to analyze how certain subject positions are either esteemed or sidelined in a particular setting and the conditions which create such standpoints (Holland et al. 2001). Through practice theory, researchers can connect local standpoints to larger sociohistorical cultural meanings. Larger societal structures establish cultural norms that constrain individuality and encourage people to conform to societal ideals (Eisenhart 2001). Individual actions reveal something about societal norms and shared meanings. Most individuals will behave in ways that align with shared cultural meanings. They can “be identified, not by individual statements of belief, but by patterns in the ways participants act in classrooms, label their own efforts, and describe themselves to others” (Eisenhart 2001, 217). Practice theory provides a research lens in which power relations can be studied so that dominant systems can be challenged and dismantled. In Carlone and Johnson’s (2012, 165) longitudinal study of Latino children, they use practice theory to unpack “ways local practices produce group-level meanings of ‘science’ and ‘science person’ that align with and/or contest larger socio-historical meanings.” The use of objects to stimulate conversations that explore young people’s views about scientific and cultural knowledge in an informal setting was premised on our theoretical framework and a number of design considerations for the story box activity. Photographs were used instead of initially proposed physical objects; this allowed for a variety of items to be used that would have been difficult to source or represent (e.g., an Aztec calendar and images depicting lightning). In selecting images, we attempted to include a range of objects, using criteria such as interestingness (e.g., running shoes), familiarity (e.g., iPhone), unfamiliarity (e.g., retina of zebra fish), different cultural contexts (e.g., winnowing basket from Malawi), and ease of association (e.g., beaker). There are some images that were expected to almost guarantee only scientific knowledge association like the beaker and others that could solicit mixed responses like the guitar, soccer ball, and medicine (see Table 1).
Items Used in the Science and Culture Story Box.
Note: GPS = global positioning system.
Methods
Participants
Six cohorts (171 young people, twelve to sixteen years old) participated in this study (Table 2). The cohorts were selected based on purposive sampling of schools in Western Australia.
Description of Cohorts.
Note: GPFF = Graham Polly Farmer Foundation.
Data Collection
The science and culture story box activity was designed to study young people’s views about scientific knowledge and cultural knowledge through the photographic representation of objects, events, and processes. The activity was conducted at two sites: an informal science center, the Gravity Discovery Centre, and during a group excursion to The University of Western Australia. The science and culture story box activity involved participants working in small groups of three to four and placing photographs that represented objects, processes, or events within a two-set Venn diagram. The sets were scientific knowledge or cultural knowledge and the intersection represented both. Each group was provided with an envelope containing seventeen images depicting events or objects (see Table 1). All groups were provided an identical set of images. Participants were asked specifically to “look at the image and reach a group consensus on whether what was depicted in the image represented something they associate with scientific knowledge or cultural knowledge or both.” Care was taken to use this terminology in all instances so that participants could loosely interpret “associate” and come to different meanings and understanding of the events and objects represented in the images. Two randomly selected groups in each cohort had their group discussion audio recorded.
When participants had completed the group task, photographs were taken of their completed set allocation for data analysis. Following this, the facilitator (first author) initiated a fifteen-minute discussion with the entire cohort which was audio recorded. For each image, the facilitator probed by asking questions such as “Why do you say that?” “Do you agree?” “Are there any other ways to look at this?”
Data Analysis
Three sources of data were used to assess young people’s views about scientific and cultural knowledge, namely, photographs of the Venn diagrams showing placement of items into cultural, scientific knowledge, or both (n = 44); audio recordings of two group discussions per cohort relating to decisions about those placements (n = 12); and the entire cohort’s discussion at the end of the activity (n = 6). The photographs of Venn diagrams were used to count how many groups placed which item in which set. A χ2 test of association was performed to test whether there was a relationship between the item and the domain (scientific knowledge, cultural knowledge, or both) it was assigned to; for example, was there an association between wedding dress and cultural knowledge?
All audio recordings of group and entire cohort discussions were transcribed and analyzed. Thematic analysis was undertaken at a latent level to interrogate underlying assumptions and conceptualizations (Braun and Clarke 2006). Themes were generated from codes to capture and label the discussion data. Using social constructivist and practice theory analytic approaches, themes emerged from the data that related to the research question (Yin 2003). Validity was reinforced through reflexive practice, continually checking, critically questioning, and using theoretical frameworks to interpret findings. A lack of shared culture between researcher and participant can hinder analysis (Tinker and Armstrong 2008). However, in our research, we believe researchers’ limited familiarity with the experiences of respondents allowed more critical analysis of respondent assumptions.
Coding labels such as progressive, technology, historic, and electronics were put forward, applied, tested, reviewed, and revised. Transcript data were analyzed for similarities, differences, and patterns until data saturation was reached with no new themes emerging from further coding. Emerging themes either found relationships among groups or were rare but interesting insights that were then analyzed in the context of our theoretical framework (Braun and Clarke 2006).
Findings
Associations with knowledge domains were determined by placement of photographs on the Venn diagrams and discussions of the cohorts of young people. These revealed views that are discussed under the headings of four key themes: Technology is electronics and is only scientific, not cultural; Culture is old and outdated; science is new and progressive; Cultures do not do science; and Australia is mixed and has no distinctive culture.
These themes are illustrated by verbatim quotes that represent the voices of the participants.
Knowledge Representations
For participants, the beaker and other such images had entirely science connections while the Dreaming painting had mainly cultural connections (Figures 1 and 2). An association between image and domain knowledge was found, χ2(32, N = 748) = 510, p < .001. The beaker was the only image that was classified by all groups as being associated entirely with scientific knowledge (100 percent, n = 44). Images classified predominantly (above 70 percent) as associated with scientific knowledge were global positioning system (GPS; 86 percent, n = 38), iPhone (84 percent, n = 37), and Coartem (82 percent, n = 36). No image was placed by all student groups solely as cultural knowledge, but a few images were predominantly (above 70 percent) classified as cultural knowledge—The Dreaming painting (82 percent, n = 36), winnowing basket (77 percent, n = 34), photo of the hip-hop artist, Tupac (73 percent, n = 32), and Aztec calendar (73 percent, n = 32). The images that had variable responses across all knowledge domains were the hummingbird proverb, Shaman, wedding dress, jeeriji, guitar, soccer ball, and running shoes (Figure 1).
Percentage group associations of images with different knowledge domains.
Example of a group Venn diagram showing image and knowledge domain association, with the scientific knowledge domain on the left, cultural knowledge domain on the right and a central intersection of the two, labelled ‘both’.
Group and Cohort Discussions
Cohorts expressed consistent views that they associated with the different representations of scientific and cultural knowledge. Participants engaged in varying levels of conversational elaboration although the most common was a basic level of listing or analyzing features (Fienberg and Leinhardt 2002).
Technology is electronics and is only scientific not cultural
Images that groups perceived as technology were almost exclusively classified in the scientific knowledge domain. A participant from Magenta 2 cohort (Mgii) explicitly stated “Oi! Put all the technology in scientific.” Similarly, a Brown (B) group member began their categorization using electronics as a theme “First join all the electronics together.” Participants described technology as items that are electronic or require charging.
One Aboriginal participant from the Maroon cohort (Mr) argued how a winnowing basket and a GPS are both technology and that making a basket requires scientific knowledge:
Well not like GPS type knowledge technology but it is still technology cause it has the ability to separate rice if that makes sense. And it kind of started off as technology. It developed in someone’s brain.
Doesn’t it have to have electronics?
What is technology? Explain that to me. What do you understand by that?
Anything that can work.
Something that has the ability to do something else. If that makes sense.
Something that you charge.
So can we put technology into both scientific and cultural knowledge?
Yes.
You put the GPS in scientific knowledge and the basket in cultural knowledge but they are both technology, why?
You can put them both in the both part. Cause the GPS is like the Nikes that everyone uses them every day but yet they are scientific. But they’re still being developed. In the next couple of years we are going to have a better GPS, better sneakers, better rice differentiation whatever it is called. Everything is just going to keep on developing and different cultures are going to make them and going to make them better.
So if this was electric in some way would you then put this in scientific knowledge?
Yes.
I would put that in scientific knowledge anyway.
You would… why?
Because … scientific knowledge does not have to be like technology as in GPS technology; it still can be used as in like that.
As in an early invention.
It still is going to separate the water from the rice which is still science so it’s both; it’s cultural and science.
These views were relatively unique among participants and Mr1 struggled to articulate to the rest of cohort why a winnowing basket and tools made by indigenous communities could be considered scientific knowledge. He attempted to explain that tools developed by scientists and other cultures can be further developed and improved upon. This participant used the fourth level of engagement, explanation: he strived to combine different interpretations while the rest of group simply listed and identified features without elaborating.
Two other participants provided an appropriate definition of technology yet did not conceptualize technology as a non-Western-scientific endeavor. This suggests that participants perceived technology in the scientific sense as being electronic but technology in the cultural sense was more primitive and outdated as suggested by the phrase “early invention.” Participants in another cohort conceptualized man-made things, for example, mobile phone and shoes as science because “they are created” but nature such as plants as cultural because “they are not man-made.” Very few of the participants made a case for images of electronic items belong only in cultural knowledge.
Culture is old and outdated; science is new and progressive
A recurring theme expressed by participants was that cultural knowledge is old and outdated while science is new, modern and “making things better.” At the end of the activity, a participant from Brown cohort was asked to summarize their impression of the cohort’s agreement and discussion.
It’s pretty much that fully cultural things are things that are way back or come from way back and the scientific things are things that come from now-ish but the “both” [middle domain] is pretty much things we found in the past and we brought forward and maybe made it futuristic and improved it somehow.
A Caucasian male participant provided the abovementioned concluding statement. In this context, it is unclear what the pronoun “we” may refer to; it could be “people today” (in general), or “scientists,” or “Australians.” Using “we” suggests that he belongs to that group so it could be implied that it is “people of today.”
The theme of science improving on cultural knowledge was also highlighted in discussions with Aboriginal participants from Maroon cohort. When agreeing with science improving on cultural knowledge, one Aboriginal participant also suggested that science had misappropriated from cultural knowledge.
History. It’s kind of like how different cultures have been around for certain amount of times, when scientists have come along they have just leeched off the cultures and developed all this really cool stuff that takes multiple people’s brains.
The distinction between science as new and culture as old also extended to labeling of the items that were represented. A Magenta 1 (Mgi) participant during discussions on running shoes (Nikes) made a distinction between shoes and sandals; sandals were cultural knowledge—primitive and basic—running shoes (Nikes) were footwear science.
Shoes aren’t cultural knowledge. Sandals are cultural knowledge.
Footwear. It’s classed as footwear.
Think of it this way footwear science, communication science,
Communication science—smoke signals that’s cultural
It’s iPhone. How can it go in cultural?
It’s iPhone, it’s not cultural.
Common comments relating to the progress of science supported young people’s views of science as new and modern and culture as old and outdated. Terms like “futuristic,” “improving,” and “making things better” were often used when discussing science while “way back,” “ages ago,” “back before,” “history,” and “in the past” were used with culture.
Cultures do not do science
Some groups verbally expressed their difficulty in conceptualizing connections of scientific knowledge and cultural knowledge when discussing placement of the Aboriginal Dreamtime image. Participants from Maroon cohort recognized that The Dreamtime painting depicted sun, moon, and constellations but related astronomy only to Western scientists like Galileo.
The Moon in this.
It’s a yellow Sun.
No that’s more like Pluto.
How did they know about comets?
Astronomy.
So that fits in the middle.
But that’s only cultural, that’s not scientific. That is definitely cultural.
It’s more cultural. It’s Aboriginal Dreamtime.
And the Sun has a face.
Galileo; that’s science. It’s [Dreamtime painting] Aboriginal.
Conflicting views about cultural groups having a scientific understanding were also expressed when a Magenta group was discussing jeeriji/zamia or bushtucker.
What about this thing, this dead tree?
That’s eating.
No that’s like bushtucker. You know bush food.
Bushtucker. That is scientific, how do you know what to eat and what not to eat?
No.
Fine [said in a resigned tone]. Put [it] in cultural.
Some groups critically explored connections between knowledge in scientific and cultural domains when discussing placement of the Aztec calendar, Zuni proverb, and the medicine. In these discussions, some participants recognized that scientific understanding and observational skills were required in order to produce such objects or understanding. For example, a Maroon participant discussed how calendars have scientific and cultural connections based on a detailed study of the environment over time.
Because it [Aztec calendar] is from the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and the Earth rotating around itself which is one day and then around the Sun which is one year. And the different seasons from the different ways the solar system is set. I looked at it from a scientific point of view where you look at what happens, not will this look nice.
Participants distinguished between medicine developing from cultural practices as roots and in the tablet form as science; this further reiterates the dichotomy of old and basic culture versus new and improving, science.
They got stuff from plants and the ground even and they crushed it all together with sticks and rocks to make medicine but science is pills.
Participants associated skin color with culture. For example, that black people are cultural.
Did Tupac sing cultural music?
Yeah. He is a black man. So I am quite sure he is cultural. He is holding a crucifix as well so clearly it is cultural.
Australia is mixed and has no distinctive culture
Groups commonly identified Aboriginal culture as Australian culture but were ambiguous about what else constitutes Australian culture.
Which cultures?
Australians?
Australia is not a culture.
Australia is not a culture?
Aboriginal is the only culture.
If we exclude for a moment Aboriginal culture in Australia, does Australia have a culture?
No.
Why do you say no?
Well because like ages ago. Like I don’t know how long ago we were all like immigrants from like anywhere.
No we have many cultures like multicultures but no Australian culture.
We don’t have food or Australian clothes.
Discussion
In this study, young people (multicultural groups of Australians) perceived cultural knowledge as outdated and originating from disparate ethnic groups while scientific knowledge was related to modernity, progress, improvement, and technology. This is similar to findings in our other research where youth used the words “history” and “ancient” to describe cultural knowledge and “intelligence” and “genius” to describe scientific knowledge (Gondwe and Longnecker 2015). For young people in this study, technology was mainly associated with scientific knowledge and only in very few discussions was technology related to cultural knowledge. This is consistent with public historian Steven Conn’s (2006, 502) comment “Nowhere has the connection between science and progress been illustrated more emphatically than in displays of technology.… In science museums, technology is always good and functions as the central actor in human progress.” This resonates with discussions by informal science educators (Rennie 2014) that museums present science as product not process, authoritative, fixed, and devoid of controversy. This presents a challenge to museums that display indigenous technology in exhibits which are often fashioned on historical events. In her study of visitors’ perceptions of the Indigenous Australians exhibition at the Australian Museum in Sydney, Bouman (2006) found visitors perceived indigenous practices as out of date. She similarly found visitors spoke of the exhibition in past tense despite the exhibit’s stated objective to present contemporary Aboriginal society.
In this study, technology, electronics, and progress were attributes that were esteemed in group discussions about scientific knowledge while cultural knowledge was characterized as basic historic knowledge and related to ethnicity or skin color. Practice theory provides a useful lens with which to analyze these young people’s beliefs. These youths’ views likely originate from a sociohistorical dominance that valorizes scientific knowledge and trivializes cultural knowledge in school curricula, mass media, and informal education spaces. The tension between scientific knowledge as modern and cultural knowledge as primitive creates negative perceptions and devalues cultural knowledge, setting scientific knowledge as the gold standard against which other knowledge systems are evaluated. The danger of this is perpetuation of a Western worldview as dominant and superior and the maintenance of biases and stereotypical essentialist depictions which hinder equity and social justice (Sen 2012). This can occur in multicultural societies where the dominant community fails to meaningfully engage with “cultural others,” holding on to a static and stereotypical view of diverse cultures without recognizing their contributions to broader understanding of the world. This was a problem for the previously mentioned “Science in India” exhibition at the Science Museum, London, where the Indian organizers wanted a progressive representation of India through its rocket and satellite program, while the British curators opted for clichéd images such as a bullock cart depicting a stereotypical, poverty stricken India (Sen 2012).
A compelling finding in this study was an Aboriginal student’s comment on scientists “leeching” from Aboriginal knowledge. The last decade has seen increased demands for the protection of indigenous knowledge systems, particularly in relation to medicine and development by the pharmaceutical industry (Recht 2009). Indigenous knowledge is also informing areas such as ethnoveterinary and environmental management. For example, Bininj/Mungguy traditional ecological knowledge on burning mudja (native grass) is supporting natural resource management and research in Kakadu National Park in Australia (Russell-Smith et al. 1997). Publicizing past and present Aboriginal contributions to science can help broaden attitudes about cultural knowledge, decrease perceptions of science misappropriating indigenous knowledge, and potentially lead to respectful collaboration in discovery and use of knowledge.
Displays of objects in informal spaces that portray indigenous contributions to science should encourage visitors to consider who created the object, what its function is, what problem it aimed to solve and how it was created. These critical questions are not limited to representations of technology but also to cultural knowledge such as the Zuni proverb or narrative interpretations of lightning. Visitors should understand the potential power of artifacts and cultural interpretations to solve problems, to promote human thinking and action, and to support general application in different contexts. In this way, communities can be seen as actors having agency and not passive static entities. By asking critical questions, assessing, interrogating, challenging, and negotiating different interpretations, intercultural understanding can be realized (Cruikshank 1995; Trofanenko 2006).
This meaningful line of questioning aligns with a Watson-Verran and Turnbull (1995) recommendation, following their work with the Yolngu Aboriginal community in northern Australia, to investigate and present the ways in which knowledge is produced, located, shared, and continues to evolve. It resonates with Srinivasan et al.’s (2010) reframing of objects not simply as end products but as having their own stories and social existence. Through working with the Zuni, a North American tribe, they found interpretation that incorporates narratives and stories gives objects a shared and situated cultural meaning that improves understanding of the original community (Srinivasan et al. 2010).
Objects do not speak for themselves nor are they displayed in isolation; they exist in spaces interacting with visitors’ culturally specific identity and knowledge. Visitor identity and concomitantly their group affiliation, values, and knowledge are reflected during conversations (Fienberg and Leinhardt 2002). In our study, young people’s discussions reflected different background knowledge and attitudes. This led to ambiguous knowledge system associations for the wedding dress, guitar, and soccer ball. Narratives about these objects could have encouraged young people to critically consider who created the objects, for what purpose and how. Future research could further examine visitor responses to different types of narrative interpretations.
It was rare to observe sophisticated approaches by young people in this study when they were identifying, analyzing, or characterizing the images presented. In terms of conversational elaboration, participants predominately used level 1—listing (what is it?), level 2—analysis (what is it like?), and to lesser extent level 3—synthesis (how does it compare to other objects?). Rarely was the high order critical analysis level 4—explaining (why?) demonstrated (Leinhardt, Crowley, and Knutson 2002; Fienberg and Leinhardt 2002).
Objects can stimulate discussion about existing knowledge and understanding that can open the door for new knowledge to be integrated. In her review that explores how science stories are communicated in exhibits, Rennie (2013) asserts that exhibitions that promote learning must engage visitors and encourage dialogue. Narratives about objects offer a useful approach in which to present historical and social contexts and stimulate conversation. Narratives go beyond describing simple physical features but illustrate the uses of the object and the lived experiences in which the object was embedded; this helps people make sense of the object. Narratives in informal spaces have been found to be powerful in encouraging meaning making and promoting understanding of difficult concepts (Stocklmayer, Rennie, and Gilbert 2010). It was beyond the scope of this study to ask participants to share stories about objects that exist in the science and culture interface in their or other cultures. This is something that would be interesting to explore in future studies.
This study looked at participant views of Australian Aboriginal and multicultural representations. Often Aboriginal themes are separated from issues of multiculturalism (Curthoys, 2000). In this study, they were combined under the umbrella of cultural diversity as separating them could reinforce notions of otherness and ethnic divisions between Aboriginal people, white Australians, and cultural others. Young people in our study often referred to “cultures” as a set of people, with skin color as a feature attributed with “cultures” (e.g., Tupac and black people). This suggests that the young people in this study, who represented more than thirty ethnicities, nonetheless subscribed to the pluralistic stereotypic definition of culture which uses token strategies to essentialize culture based on skin color (Seiler 2013).
A strong national identity facilitates social cohesion and eases adaptation in times of hardship (Moran 2011). The challenge in multicultural societies is to uphold a national identity that is representative and inclusive of migrants, that is adaptable to change and recognizes and respects indigenous people. Intercultural understanding starts from valuing one’s own culture. In this study, young Australian’s identification of their own cultural identities was limited, as demonstrated by explicit mentions of the absence of a distinct Australian culture. In a study of youth beliefs about what it means to be Australian, diversity was recognized as one of the characteristics of Australia (Purdie and Wilss 2007). Interestingly, the Purdie and Wilss study also found that scientific and intellectual endeavors were absent from conceptions of an Australian identity. National identity in Australia is a problematic subject and is often framed as being incompatible with or in opposition to multiculturalism (Moran 2011). Museums as authoritative institutions have a crucial role to play in fostering respectful discussions of national identity.
Conclusion
We began by arguing that representing connections between scientific and cultural knowledge can provide a platform in which intercultural understanding can be inspired in multicultural contexts. Based on our findings, scientific and cultural knowledge representations in informal spaces should portray current and past cultural knowledge practices that include the development of technology. Representations should also demonstrate how knowledge adapts, evolves, and is influenced by a number of factors and how scientific and cultural knowledge overlap and contribute to and learn from each other. These representations should be spread across diverse and overlapping cultures in disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, natural resource management, medicine, architecture, and social activities (Onwu and Mosimege 2004) and should be respectful of spiritual connections. Narratives about objects in informal spaces provide a pathway for inspiring intercultural understanding. The desired outcome is people as global citizens who acknowledge and value their own and other cultures.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage grant (LP100100640).