This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 17 December 2014, At: 22:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Studies in Science EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20

Under the Noble Flag of‘Developing Scientific andTechnological Literacy’Masakata Ogawa aa Ibaraki University , JapanPublished online: 26 Mar 2008.

To cite this article: Masakata Ogawa (1998) Under the Noble Flag of ‘DevelopingScientific and Technological Literacy’, Studies in Science Education, 31:1, 102-111,DOI: 10.1080/03057269808560116

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560116

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

102 Masakata Ogawa (Forum)

Under the Noble Flag of 'Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy'

MASAKATA OGAWA Ibaraki University, Japan

INTRODUCTION

The document clearly declares that the CCBS 'began its deliberations under the guiding conviction that science and science-based knowledge and technology are the driving engines for change in modern society.' Yes, I do agree with the CCBS's guiding conviction. However, I do not accept the tacit conviction that these engines of change should or can continue to be autonomous, even if, as the document states, 'we live in a world dominated by science and science-based technology.' The acceptability of these driving engines for change should be deliberated by the general public in the country concerned. An attentive public needs to pursue types of wisdom, not science-based knowledge, to manage modern science and technology. In this sense, we need to preserve 'Epistemological Diversity' in our world just as our planet needs 'Biological Diversity.' An attentive public, as well as the scientific community, should keep this point in mind when discussing the relationship between science and society, in general, and between science and education, in particular.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy 103

GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (THE JAPANESE CASE)

Scientists have expressed serious concerns about scientific and technological literacy among the general public for a long time. For example, the science education reform movement in the 1960s was guided by a group of concerned scientists (though the reform was not so successful; Duschl, 1985). Recently, projects by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Science have dedicated themselves to science education reform in the USA. In this sense, the proposals of the ICSU are not so new to science educators. In scientist-led movements, the scientific community often decides what scientific and technological literacy is needed by the general public, based on the assumption that scientists and the general public share the same stance toward science and technology, in principle. According to scientists, literacy is primarily, for example: the ability to understand science and technology just as scientists do, to think just as scientists think, to have sympathy for and to appreciate science and technology, and to support the promotion of scientific and technological activities: in other words, literacy for science and technology. The general public has been treated only as passive targets of such movements, not as active stakeholders in the reform process.

However, the situation has been changing, as scientific and technological literacy development becomes one of the major policies of government. For example, Japan has recently decided to take a step toward promoting science and technology as her survival strategy. One of the symbolic facts is that the Science and Technology Basic Law (15 November 1995, Legislation No. 130) was passed unanimously in the National Diet. The bill was compiled and presented not by the Government, but by a group of Diet members from all the Parties (except the Japanese Communist Party). Interestingly, there was specific pressure toward the establishment of the law from certain major economic organizations, but not from academic organizations. The process implies that an attentive public has now become active in the development of scientific and technological literacy. The Science and Technology Basic Law, in Article 19 of Chapter 5 (Promotion of Learning on Science and Technology), reads as follows:

The nation should implement necessary policy measures to promote the learning of Science and Technology in school and social education, to enlighten the people in Science and Technology and to disseminate knowledge on Science and Technology, so that all Japanese people including the young can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

104 Masakata Ogawa (Forum)

deepen their understanding of and interest in Science and Technology with every opportunity.'

Article 19, the Science and Technology Basic Plan (Cabinet Decision, 2 July 1996), formulated to promote science and technology for the next decade, clearly seeks 'to acquire public understanding and interest as to the meaning, role, achievement, ripple effects, and development of science and technology.' One section of 'Promotion of Learning About Science and Technology, and Formation of a National Consensus' reads:

'The government will strive to: foster talented people who are creative and independent and who have dreams and the passion for science and technology, and to create an environment in which the public can feel close to, and have an interest in, science and technology. Based on the Basic Guidelines for Securing science and technology-oriented Personnel, the government will intensify the publication and education of science and technology by; enhancing science and technology education at elementary and secondary school, and holding various workshops for young people....

It is extremely regrettable that science and technology is believed to be difficult to understand and far from the public today, in light of the growing expectation on the role and future of science and technology....

Therefore, it is important to gain the public's deep and broad understanding for the promotion of science and technology with full respect towards harmony with humans, society, and nature. The government will implement measures to enhance public understanding and interest by, for example, providing relevant information and promoting public debates. It is also very important for researchers to provide easy-to-understand information on science and technology...'

The tacit conviction found in these phrases are quite similar to that of the ICSU document. At least superficially, the Japanese Government as the representative of Japanese general public seems to be able to join in the programmes proposed by the ICSU.

The policies stated in the Plan are now being implemented at an unbelievable rate, receiving up to a 10% budget increase every year. The slogans 'Promotion of Science and Technology' and 'Japan as a country of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy 105

Science and Technology' seem to sound comfortable both to the general public and to statesmen. If the ICSU document, therefore, were distributed among the Japanese, it would be welcomed by most sectors of, for example, scientists, engineers, and statesmen. The spirit of Science and Technology policy in Japan illustrated above resonates with the ICSU document.

In Japan, at least, the general public and scientific community are formally going to join in the tough battle of developing scientific and technological literacy of Japanese people. I do not think that the situation is unique to the Japanese context alone. The same may be true and may have already happened among other industrialised societies. Thus, it can be said that we are in the new stage of science education policy making. The general public along with science professionals are beginning to come together under the noble flag of 'Scientific and Technological Literacy Development.'

DIFFERENT TYPES OF STANCES TOWARDS SCIENCE

Ideally, science education policy should be made through deliberative discussion among the general public (stakeholders in the success of science education) with sufficient information provided from relevant sources. However, it seems to me probable that, especially in Japan, the initiative will be taken by the scientific community; or more precisely, that the general public will expect the scientific community to take initiatives, because scientists are the 'specialists.' Few members of the general public are aware that specialists of science and technology are not necessarily the specialists of the education of science and technology. Criticisms of the 1960s education movement guided by scientific experts are still valid (Duschl, 1985).

When considering science education policy making, the conventional first stage is to ensure equal representation among members of the general public by classifying the stakeholders according to their professional roles, for instance, as scientists, science educators, school administrators, parents, etc. However, this kind of classification does not consider the diversity of views held by stakeholders within each group: for example, all science educators do not have the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, science and technology. The same is true for other stakeholders. Thus, it would be wise for us to look for a different classification scheme, one that describes people by their respective stances towards science.

My suggestion is to establish three mutually independent dimensions to describe individual's views concerning science: (1) science literacy versus science illiteracy (whether or not they understand science); (2) pro-science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

106 Masakata Ogawa (Forum)

versus anti-science (whether or not they support science); and (3) pro-scientism versus anti-scientism (whether or not they believe uncritically in science); in short, knowledge, attitude and faith. This last dimension is explained in more detail by providing a specific meaning for 'scientism' and then discussing some relevant issues.

SCIENTISM

'Scientism' is a popular term among certain science educators, but consensus on the definition is elusive. For example, Cobern (1994, p.585) writes, Though recognizing the tentative nature of all scientific knowledge, scientism imbues scientific knowledge with a Laplacian certainty denied all other disciplines, thus giving science an a priori status in the intellectual world.' John Ziman (1980) writes as follows:

'(Scientism) reinforces, without question or comment, the widespread sentiment that science should be the only authority for belief and the only criterion for action... The trouble with scientism is that it takes as given an attitude 'for' science, without deeper analysis. This attitude provokes naive forms of antiscientism which are equally sterile. The very questions that are to be answered in the attempt to formulate satisfactory opinions about the role, value, use, etc., of science have already been begged.' (p.33)

Habermas (1974) uses a rather simple definition of scientism: 'science's belief in itself: that is, the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one form of possible knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science' (p.4). I prefer a simple definition of scientism because what I want to discuss is the stance among stakeholders towards science in general terms, and not precisely what science is (the nature of science, social or cultural contexts of science, scientific ways of thinking, scientific knowledge, etc.). For that purpose, it is enough to define scientism is an ideology that identifies valid knowledge only with science. Scientism, is clearly found at the core of the ICSU document, as follows.

'The mechanism to reduce the global imbalance of science and technology development, that is, the global gap of well-being, and to increase the social stability of the world, is not easy to design.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy 107

What is the remedy? Knowledge is the common treasure of humankind.' (My emphasis)

Thus, the meaning of each word, pro-scientism and anti-scientism is clear. The former means a positive commitment to scientism, while the latter means a negative commitment to scientism.

ISSUES ACCOMPANIED BY SCIENTISM

Scientism in science education contexts expresses itself unconsciously by compelling learners (1) to believe in science, and (2) to apply or use science in life-world settings. I have argued against this manifestation of scientism (Ogawa, 1995; 1996; 1997a; 1997b). On the first point, I have proposed the need to distinguish 'understanding science' from 'believing in science.' This means that in my three-dimensional theoretical framework, the first dimension (science literary versus science illiteracy) should be distinguished from the third (pro-scientism versus anti-scientism).

A belief in science, scientific attitudes, and scientific ways of thinking is, I think, deeply rooted in the western value system, and is well shared among Western traditional cultures. As a non-Western science educator, I have great difficulty deciphering the real and tacit meanings and implications among the concepts: understanding, knowing, and belief in the Western philosophical tradition. Some aspects of the differences are explained, for example, by Cobern (1994), but honestly speaking, I cannot decipher the differences clearly. There are possible relevant relationships among them as well as concepts themselves in various cultural traditions. For example, if my interpretation is correct, the expression 'belief in science' in Western tradition implicitly involves the nuance that one believes in science without understanding science just as in the Western usage, 'belief in God.' Such a nuance is not always shared among people other than Westerners. Thus, Ogawa (1997b) argues:

'We can be allowed to have an option to take a stance that 'I can understand what western modern science world really is, but cannot believe in it!!' My position is that whether one can believe in science and scientific worldview or not should be determined, not by the value within western modern science, but by the value within the daily life world of the people concerned.' (p.9)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

108 Masakata Ogawa (Forum)

Findings in science studies (for example, Richards, 1983; Duschl, 1994) clearly indicate that science is a kind of human endeavour among other endeavours, and thus the discourses in science are not the absolute truth but relative to other endeavours. The scientific worldview is only one kind of worldview, which is commonly produced and held by the workers named 'scientists.' Believing in science or a scientific worldview as the only true worldview is an ideology I call 'scientism.'

On the second point, for example, the ICSU document writes, 'To build capacity in science is to enable nations and regions to make use of science and technology for the well being and culture of their citizens.' This is a typical example of 'scientism.' My proposal is to distinguish 'understanding science' from 'applying or using science to life-world settings' (Ogawa, 1997b). We should be aware of the relation between understanding the theoretical world produced by scientists and applying such understanding to the life-world in order to change it. It is a popular understanding that in the Western philosophical tradition, the scientific worldview and its applicability to the life-world are so closely linked as to be inseparable. Thus, in most discussions on science, especially among Westerners, the inseparability is presupposed, that is, tacitly held. I argue, however, that they should be separated from each other, because the idea of this inseparability comes only from the Western traditional value system, which is an important factor of scientism. How to cope with, or manage, science should be determined by a kind of wisdom that is deeply linked to a value system pervading the life-world setting.

A FRAMEWORK FOR IDENTIFYING DIFFERENT TYPES OF STANCES TOWARDS SCIENCE

Let me return to the three-dimensional framework. Combining the three mutually independent dimensions yields eight types of theoretical stances towards science (Figure 1). However, since combining the two stances of anti-science and pro-scientism seem to be illogical or meaningless in this context, these combinations will be omitted. Thus, we can distinguish six types of theoretical stances, each of which has its own label. Short explanations will be helpful for the readers.

The first type is called 'Science-Believers.' Science-Believers understand science well enough and also accept science uncritically. Furthermore, they identify science as knowledge and believe in science itself. This type is thought to be popular among scientists and science educators, but as mentioned above, some members of these groups may not be Science-Believers (see the second

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy 109

type). Of course we can also find Science-Believers among the general public. The total number of Science-Believers in modern society seems to be still quite small, I suppose. When Science-Believers join in the science education policy making process, nobody doubts that they will seek to foster the perspective of Science-Believers.

Figure 1. A Framework for Identifying Different Types of Theoretical Stances towards Science

Science-Literate

Science-Illiterate

Pro-Science

Anti-Science

Pro-Science

Anti-Science

Pro-Scientism

Science-Believers

Science-Fanaticists

Anti-Scientism

Science-Contextualists

Authentic-Antiscientists

Science-Vigilants

Neo-Antiscientists

The second type is Science-Contextualists. While Science-Contexualists also understand and admire science itself, they are sceptical about the truthfulness or objectivity of science. They try to understand science within a broader spectrum of knowledge and/or value systems. Science-Contextualists can serve as scientists if they obey the rules within the scientific community. The same is true for science educators. The number of Science-Contextualists in a non-Western society seem to be greater than that of Science-Believers, but I think Science-Contextualists in this society are still small in number. They are also distributed in many sectors of the society. In the science education policy­making process, they will argue that science should be set in various contexts, and that learners should be allowed to take their own stance toward science autonomously.

The third type is Authentic-Antiscientists. Authentic-Antiscientists are those who understand science to the same extent as the former two types do, but have negative attitudes towards science. They refuse to believe in science. The total number of Authentic-Antiscientists will be the least among all six stances, I suppose. It is difficult to anticipate their voice towards science education policy.

The fourth is Science-Fanaticists. Science-Fanaticists, though they have little precise understanding of science, enthusiastically admire science with a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

110 Masakata Ogawa (Forum)

kind of romanticism. In the ICSU document, we can find the following sentence, which clearly indicates an intention to foster Science-Fanaticists.

'(In addition,) the committee felt that enabling countries to participate fully in generating and applying the results of scientific research and development requires a citizenry that is willing to support such activities with optimism and enthusiasm...' (My emphasis)

I think that the number of Science-Fanaticists is the greatest among the six stances, and is still growing. In science education policy-making, they can sometimes serve as one of the most enthusiastic advocates of fostering Science-Believers.

The fifth is Science-Vigilants. Science-Vigilants are more prudent toward science than Science-Fanaticists. Despite their science illiteracy, Science-Vigilants hold a positive sentiment towards science, but never want to be the slaves of science. This type may be a small minority. Their preference in the policy making process seems to be difficult to estimate, because no simple consequence will be obtained logically.

The last type of theoretical stance is the Neo-Antiscientists. Neo-Antiscientists have neither a full understanding of science nor a positive attitude towards science, and are apt to reject every aspect of science. They always say 'no' towards science without any deliberation. This is why they are called Neo-Antiscientists. Significant numbers of people in industrialised societies can be classified into this category. Their voices in the policy making process are also difficult to predict.

Thus, we can distinguish six types of stances towards science among the general public and may be among scientific professionals and even science educators.

A COMPLICATED SITUATION

The scientific community's slogan, promotion of science and technology education or public understanding of science and technology, seems to be shared with the general public in industrialized societies in these days. However, as described above, scientific professionals as well as the general public consist of members with different types of stances towards science. It is quite natural to estimate that by the slogan, each of the types can dream different dreams, that is, different images of 'public understanding of science and technology' or of 'science and technology literacy,' because the messages

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy 111

in a document like the ICSU Document can be interpreted differently among readers. If people with such different types of stances towards science come together under the same noble flag, 'Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy', they must face inevitable discrepancies in the concrete procedures and methodologies in the implementation processes of the programme, notably, in the ICSU case, in two core programme areas of 'Primary School Science Education' and 'Global Effort to Improve the Public Understanding of Science'. Among science educators, no consensus on how to address the slogan will be expected, because they also consist of members with different types of stances towards science. Unfortunately, it seems to me that science educators get lost under the noble flag of 'Developing Scientific and Technological Literacy', flying in the following wind of general public's full support. Science educators are now asked to rethink deliberately some fundamental issues on science education, and establish a new rationale for developing scientific and technological literacy, which fits to respective contemporary socio-cultural contexts. Science educators should take responsibility for and initiatives on the development of scientific and technological literacy development, not follow after scientific communities.

REFERENCES

COBERN, W.W. (1994) 'Point: believe, understanding, and the teaching of evolution', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 583-590.

DUSCHL, R.A. (1985) 'Science education and philosophy of science twenty-five years of mutually exclusive development,' School Science and Mathematics, 85, 541-553.

DUSCHL, R.A. (1994) 'Research on the history and philosophy of science'. In Gabel, D.L. (Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, New York, Macmillan Publishing.

HABERMAS, J. (1974) Knowledge and human interests, (2nd edition), translated by J.J. Shapiro, London: Heinemann. (German original: Erkenntnis und Interesse, (1968), Suhrkamp Verlag.)

OGAWA, M. (1995) 'Science education in a multiscience perspective', Science Education, 79, 583-593.

OGAWA, M. (1996) 'Four-eyed fish: The ideal for non-western graduates of western science education graduate programs', Science Education, 80, 107-110.

OGAWA, M. (1997a) 'What is the wisdom for non-westerner to cope with science?' In Ogawa, M. (Ed.), Effects of traditional cosmology on science education: Report of an international scientific research program (Joint Research), Mito, Japan: Ibaraki University.

OGAWA, M. (1997b) 'Socio-culturally relevant STS education'. In Proceedings of binational conference on STS science education, Taipei, Taiwan: Taiwan National Normal University, pp.1-12.

RICHARDS, S. (1983) Philosophy and sociology of science: An introduction, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

ZIMAN, J. (1980) Teaching and learning about science and society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

22 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014