Challenging the Hegemony of Western Scientism in Science Teacher Education

In 2017, in putting together our application to the Publications Committee for the positions of Co-Editors in Chief, we (Melville, Verma, and Campbell) set out the key priorities that we wanted to pursue if granted the stewardship of the Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE). Building on the influential work of our predecessors, Judy and Norm Lederman, we stated that we wanted to extend the global reach of the journal and increase the impact of non-North American science teacher education scholars within the science education literature.

Now we are the Co-Editors of the journal, and as we enter the final 17 months of our five-year appointment, we can report on our progress in pursuing this key priority. Since 2019, the number of submissions from authors at institutions outside of the United States has increased from 50.9% (116 submissions), to 55.6% (142 submissions) in 2020, and 59.3% (143 submissions) in 2021. If we used this as a valid metric for extending the global reach of JSTE, we could claim to have been successful. Such a claim would be hollow, however, for even as the international reach of the journal has increased as depicted by the number of submissions to JSTE, we have become increasingly troubled by the naivete of our original priority. This feeling was initially based on the acceptance rates that we were seeing for submissions from outside the United States. At the time of writing, 14.7% of the 2019 submissions, 18.3% of the 2020 submissions, and 12.6% of the 2021 submissions have been published, or are still in process. All these percentages are below the acceptance rates for the journal, which has averaged 30.1% over the past three years. Certainly, language continues to be a barrier for some submissions, and we continue to work with the Publications Committee to address this. Over time, however, we also came to believe that other forces were in play—forces that we initially struggled to identify. What we have too slowly come to realize is that simply extending the “global reach” of the journal does not equate to the opening of opportunities to learn from other visions of science teacher education that can, and do, develop and prosper in other cultures. More importantly, we now understand that “If science spaces continue to operate through dominant cultural norms and values, merely providing access to materials or opportunities to participate in science will not make the kind of changes we seek” (Kayumova & Dou, 2022, p. 17). While we thought we understood what we wanted to achieve, and we acted with the most noble of intentions, we have to admit that we have fundamentally failed to challenge the hegemony of scientism in relation to science teacher education and our goal of more inclusive international voices being heard in our field.

In this editorial, we are defining scientism as “the idealization of science and the scientific method” (Gasparatou, 2017, p. 800). This idealization privileges positivist thinking in the Western tradition of knowing, with the result that “other ways of knowing and doing science are less valued or not viewed as legitimate science” (Chen & Mensah, 2022, p. 389). Further, according to Haack (2007) “[s]scientism is an exaggerated kind of deference towards science, an excessive readiness to accept as authoritative any claim made by the sciences, and to dismiss every kind of criticism of science or its practitioners as anti-scientific prejudice” (p. 47). For science teacher education, one danger of scientism is that it limits students everywhere to an impoverished view of science education (Gasparatou, 2017; Kind & Osborne, 2017). A second danger is that scientism can, and historically has, validated what “good” science teaching and learning involves (Melville & Bartley, 2013). For us as journal editors, the third danger of scientism is that we are yet to clearly break the nexus between journal publication and the expectation that any presentation of science teacher education research is expected to conform to, or be assimilated by, normative Western educational research practices. Stigler and Hiebert (2018) remind us that “The cultural routines of teaching, because they are cultural routines, often operate outside of our awareness, and are multiply determined” (p. 52). Consequently, there exist multiple ways to frame “good” science teaching and learning that are contextualized within cultures (Baptista & Molina-Andrade, 2021; Chen & Mensah, 2022). For science teacher educators whose first language is not English, an expectation from the journal that they communicate plural versions of “good” science teaching contextualized within their culture remains, at best, extremely challenging. And for us as editors, increasingly problematic.

This editorial, then, is both a mea culpa and a call to recognize and challenge the hegemony of Western scientism in the science education literature.

In the following text, we would like to briefly consider issues around the globalization of science, the rise and impact of scientism and how we propose the journal can respond in a way that respects, recognizes, and promotes the rich diversity, and multiplicities, of science teacher education that we see around us.

The globalization of science

In 1543 Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and a foundation stone was laid for the myth of science as a predominantly Western construct. We are using the word “myth” here in the same sense as McComas (1996), being:

… typically defined as traditional views, fables, legends or stories. … the explanatory role of myths most likely accounts for their development, spread and persistence. However, when fact and fiction blur, myths lose their entertainment value and serve only to block full understanding. (p. 10)

In critiquing the myth, Poskett (2022) has chronicled how the development of Western science is intimately related to key moments in global history and the growing connections that have increasingly tied nations together. These connections “brought different people and scientific cultures together, sometimes by choice, often by force” (p. 356). One enduring legacy of this ongoing process of globalization has been that Western science is perceived, by many, as “inextricably entangled with colonialism, especially British imperialism” (Roy, 2018). Another legacy is the impact of globalization, as an economic model, in concert with science and technology, “challenging people to move into global societies and, at the same time, to preserve their diverse identities” (Baptista & Molina-Andrade, 2021). Against such powerful economic imperatives, local forms of knowing are often devalued, deligitimized, or erased, resulting in the perpetuation of discriminatory relationships (Cobern & Loving, 2001).

For many others, including those of us encultured into, and benefiting from, the myth, the perception of the impact of science is more benign, with societies and scientific advancement engaged in steady march toward knowledge, understanding, and progress for all. As the position statement on the nature of science of the National Science Teachers Association (2020) states:

Contributions to science can be made and have been made by people the world over. As a consequence, science does not occur in a vacuum. It affects society and cultures, and it is affected by the society and culture within which it occurs (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; Showalter, 1974).

While this recognition may be welcome, it remains that the myth of Western science continues to minimize the contributions from people of color, women, Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized groups (Chen & Mensah, 2022; Kayumova & Dou, 2022; Mensah & Jackson, 2018). Understanding our capacity as journal editors to challenge the myth was a catalyst behind inviting our colleagues Alberto J. Rodriguez, Sheron Mark and Christina Restrepo Nazar to be the guest editors for the Exposing and Dismantling Systemic Racism in Science Education special issue earlier this year (Journal of Science Teacher Education, Volume 33, Issue 2, 2022).

One point we would stress here is that, regardless of the view of the impact of the globalization of science one takes, we all need to be vigilant against those, such as religious fundamentalists and extreme nationalists, who would seek to delegitimize science in order to advance their own interests. Refusing vaccinations in order to express allegiance to a particular ideology, and climate change denialism are two of the more recent, and deadly, manifestations of these movements. While Western science has created, and sustained, inequalities both within and across societies, the development and teaching of a critical form of science literacy opens opportunities to educate “literate individuals [who] are deeply aware of our interdependence and the need to work together to protect our shared planet” (Rodriguez et al., 2022, p. 125). Such an aim provides a sense of purpose and hope for the future. Recognizing this, however, is only part of the issue here: we also need to recognize the risks to science and science education that can accrue through “the transmogrification of science as scientism in the public square” (Cobern & Loving, 2001, p. 63).

The rise of scientism

Science, as a human construct, has evolved from early speculations about the natural world, through natural philosophy, to the contemporary professionalized status it currently enjoys and was initially promoted by men such as William Whewell (1794–1866). Over the course of that evolution, Western science and Western culture have become increasingly intertwined and interdependent. Science has become a predominant way of knowing in Western societies:

There has been, on the one hand, a disintegrating effect on traditional values and forms of representation, and, on the other hand, a progressive integration into the dominant culture … of the scientific mentality - the values, content of knowledge and patterns of action which underlie scientific practice and are formed by it (Ladriere, 1977, p. 12, as cited in Cobern & Loving, 2001, p. 53).

As a consequence, Western science is firmly entrenched as a way of understanding in Western culture, characterized by its “own language, values, contexts of origin, and applicability that differ from other ways of knowing the world, such as traditional communities” (Baptista & Molina-Andrade, 2021). The power and prestige that Western science has accrued to itself has become idealized to value skepticism toward the value of socioscientific reasoning and a strong desire for objectivity (Ferkany & Kendig, 2021; Harding, 1995). As a culture of power (Calabrese Barton & Yang, 2000), scientism contends that only Western science can provide a valid route to absolute knowledge about the physical world (Baptista & Molina-Andrade, 2021; Stenmark, 2018). It is important to note, however, that “scientism is not a necessary presupposition of science” (Billingsley et al., 2021, p. 363).

The great danger of scientism is that it has established a cultural hegemony by dominating the “public square as if all other discourses were of lesser value” (Cobern & Loving, 2001, p. 62). Western science may be the basis for the school science curriculum across the globe, but the privilege that scientism provides to Western science is “in relation to other ways of knowing” (Baptista & Molina-Andrade, 2021), leaving the curriculum decontextualized for many students and limiting opportunities for engaging with science. Consequently, if this hegemony is not challenged, it will “continue to normalize deficits and educational hierarchies, re‐producing racialized Others throughout research and education” (Kayumova & Dou, 2022, p. 2). It is this same, too long unrecognized, hegemony that has stultified our efforts to open opportunities for other visions of science education to make their ways into the pages of the journal.

Recognition and action

We, and we suspect the overwhelming majority of our readers, have been well educated in the knowledge, traditions, language and practices of Western science and, consequently accept scientism, to a greater or lesser extent, either consciously or subconsciously. Our education biographies have often seen us reproduce and secure “the prestige and power of science; it is an education not only in science, but also for science” (Carlone, 2003, p. 310). We are not hostages to our experiences however, and we have come to see beyond the myth toward a fuller (if still incomplete) understanding of what science, and science education, are. That said, the power of scientism is often just below the surface, ready to reassert itself in our lives.

In looking to extend the “global reach” of the journal, we saw ourselves as capable of respecting different views of science and not imposing the cultural hegemony of scientism. We were wrong. We now know that, while our motivation was (at least superficially) honorable “we have not abandoned our basic commitment to the idea of a single all-encompassing reality” (Law, 2015, p. 127) of Western science. That it has taken us many years to reach this point of challenging this commitment is a reflection of the depth to which we had become immersed in scientism. Law (2015) describes the challenges we have been experiencing in confronting scientism as one of coming to grips with the ontological differences that become visible when we start to consider Western science from different perspectives and with diverse ways of knowing.

Kind and Osborne (2017) have made the argument that “there is no single form of reasoning in the sciences [and that] each of the sciences invokes different styles of reasoning and different ontic entities” (p. 9). Considering these different entities, or realities, according to Law (2015, p. 128), “opens up a whole field of intellectual inquiry that is at the same time a field of political intervention.” Similarly, Kind and Osborne (2017) argue that considering what different forms of reasoning offer “is a cultural argument for the value of an education in the sciences—a long overdue riposte to the dominant, neo-liberal, economic imperative” (p. 10). Thus, given that scientism is a power of culture, as we noted above, to actively support challenges to its hegemony is clearly a political act. This is one that we believe needs to be taken; but what does that look like for a journal?

Any challenge to the hegemony of scientism in the publication of research into science teacher education must be a collaborative effort, will need to be sustained over a number of years, possibly decades, and most importantly, will require each of us to consider our own sense of agency in making the changes that need to be made.

The agency of an individual is “the capacity to change a context, with people acting in such a way as to affect their immediate settings through resources that are culturally, socially, historically developed” (Hökkä et al., 2012, p. 85). As science educators, we often connect our lives to our disciplines and vice versa (Helms, 1998). This can, or could be, seen as a stumbling block to action, but we can all renegotiate our identities in relation to scientism. While we all identify with scientism to some extent, as Dunn (1997) states “to be constituted in discourse is not to be determined by discourse, if determination is taken to mean the impossibility of agency” (p. 695). For those looking to be part of the work of the journal, be it as an editor, associate editor, or member of the Editorial Review Board, a willingness to undertake this agentic journey would be vital.

Such a journey, however, should not be undertaken alone—and this is where editors have a strategic role. To date the professional learning sessions that we have undertaken have been largely technical. We have worked with our Associate Editors in the use of the Editorial Manager system, and worked with both reviewers and potential reviewers in identifying what a “good” review looks like. These are all valuable, but they are also fall far short of the collaborative conversations needed to “confront and transform social and structural aspects” (Chen & Mensah, 2022, p. 391) of the work of the journal, and take the necessary action to recognize and learn about the science teacher education realities and plural onto-epistemological assumptions of our colleagues across the globe. We see this as only the precursor for additional discussions and negotiations that will be needed as the editorial team (Co-Editors in Chiefs, Managing Editor, Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board Members) engages the larger science teacher education community through venues like international and regional conferences or online workshops in proposing or identifying, trying out, and refining journal reviewing commitments and designs for evaluating and legitimating more expansive versions of knowledge production to inform how we think about, and undertake, the practice of science teacher education. Further, this work would need to extend into collaborative conversations with our readers (e.g., practicing science teacher educators, science education policymakers, science educators). Among other things, these conversations would introduce the global science teacher education onto-epistemological realities and assumptions beyond those of Western science historically featured in JSTE to help the editorial team and readership recognize, and break free from, a belief in scientism that positions the methods, practices, and assumptions of Western science as the universal way of being, and knowing, in the “one world world” (Law, 2015). In the end, we aspire to be inclusive and committed to liberating pluralism in how we think about science teaching and learning, as well as how we undertake, and communicate, science teacher education research as a more diverse, plural, and globally representative collective of those interested in science teacher education.

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to our colleague Maurice Cheng of Waikato University in New Zealand for the early conversations that guided the writing of this editorial.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).