| |
Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self,
P. (2003). From girls in their elements to women in science:
Rethinking socialization through memory-work. New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.
160 pp.
$29.95 ISBN 0-8204-4512-6
Reviewed by Shirley Gholston Key
University of Memphis
February 6, 2004
How often do we as science educators hear how females and
elementary teachers say they fear science, they can't do science,
and how they have had so many bad experiences in science
classrooms? Yet, the elementary student is the most naturally
curious student about scientific concepts in natural phenomena.
As educators we try to build bridges between these two groups so
science education can be beneficial and rewarding for both
groups. From Girls in Their Elements to women in Science
by Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., &
Self, P. (2003), is an example of how to use student's personal
science memories to show the value of science and the
non-threatening aspects of science in our personal lives.
From Girls in Their Elements to women in Science makes
all readers appreciate the informal science experiences, which
one participates in throughout their lives. The authors remind
us that we are products of our environments and all activities
influence our lives. Yet, upon first impression one will probably
say many of our experiences just happened and did not have any
lasting impact. The memory work research proves that our
experiences do have impact on our future behaviors and how we
interact with our environment. Scenarios in each chapter are used
to demonstrate this. In the Introduction and nine chapters of
this book, the authors share with us how their science
experiences from their natural play environment influenced their
future and empowered them in the process but they did not
recognize this until they undertook the memory work process.
The Introduction presents the subjects to us and the
theoretical framework, that science is social and can be feminine
and experienced by females. The work enabled the authors to
present science on a personal level of experience through the
many stories, which they shared. The works of Haug (1987),
Vygotsky (1986), and Cataldi (1993) influenced the methods used
to develop and analyze this memory-work.
In Chapter 1, “Nature to Natural Science,” the
characteristics of science were emphasized and the cultural
notion of science and scientists laid the foundations for the
authors’ experiences and their memory-work. The
traditional view of children’s perceptions of science has
and still captures it as the white male dominant discipline.
Children still do not see women and people of color as scientists
and have a hard time defining daily activities as scientific work
(Jarvis, 1996). Views of science have changed over the years but
still include science as disciplines e.g. physics, chemistry,
biology. Others see science as a systematic way of knowing and a
systematic way of explaining as in the scientific methods. By
examining these views, it showed that science is not seen as a
social vehicle. The positivist tradition separates empirical
science from nonscience, and this view has dominated Western
science for at least 100 years. There is a distance associated
with objectivity and empirical science characterizing elite
science as in prestigious laboratories across the country. It
does not characterize the common daily tasks one uses
experimentation to solve or conduct as shown via the tasks of the
authors. They use nonempirical approaches to convey their
relational science. This distance in science is the threatening
aspect of science seen in elementary and elementary preservice
teachers.
Feminist critiques of science notes that science usually
ignores the concerns of women and people of color. The
scientific method, the positivist view, usually reflect the
concern of white middle-class men. There is a contention that
there is a conflict between feminist views in science and the
masculine view. Through the scenarios in the chapters, one is
able to see this conflict. Women’s views of science usually
include the notion that science is everywhere, yet it has nothing
to do with me. Whereas, women do not have the power to name what
counts as science, they do have the power of experiencing
science. For example, the science of women’s kitchens and
gardens (Hubbard, 1988) and the personal science as demonstrated
in the scenarios in the text are different from the formal
science we experience in chemistry and physics classrooms and
laboratories. It took memory work for Kaufman, et al. (2003) to
realize this.
This memory work demonstrated that becoming a scientist in the
traditional sense is a conflict in their identity and much of
what they believe science should be about. There are fewer
females receiving degrees in science and engineering on all
levels than males. There are several reasons for this
assertion: classrooms discourage females, the invisibility of
female representation in curricular materials, the hierarchical
nature of traditional science, and the competitive nature of the
classroom. Their research indicates that mentors play an
important role in helping females to remain in the field and in
obtaining higher degrees at competitive research institutions.
The message that there is a conflict in the female scientists
occur in grades 4-8 subtly and not-so-subtly; later environmental
constraints restrict females from majoring and choosing a science
career. Yet, a few females manage to make it through this narrow
pipeline. I thought at this point that the focus of the book
would use memory work to show how to get more females through
this narrow pipeline or how to use social science to increase
this pool of potential scientists. I had to resign to an
implication in the conclusion of the book.
Yet, examining this conflict from a different angle allowed
the authors to look at traditional vs nontraditional ideas about
where science is pursued. Memory work allowed them to look at
women experiencing science outside of sterile laboratories and in
the natural world around them as children in the natural world.
Using memory work took them back to their childhoods and their
fun activities. Children play spaces became places of informal
science learning and children became scientists.
Chapter Three describes the “methodology “ section
in traditional research. It begins by defining memory and memory
work, the population, subject, and methodology. Memory work is
accepted as the bridge to span the gap between theory and
experience. The subjects were five white, middle class, women.
They noted in this chapter that they were lesbian and
heterosexual women but nothing in the book showed where this made
a major difference in the memory experiences. They lived in
various locale in the United states from the Midwest to New York,
Ohio, Massachusetts, and D.C. This is important in promoting
science for all children and especially elementary students in
impoverished urban schools where science is often neglected.
Originally the group was on the same campus and met weekly
for writing and research sessions. The method used was the
rules established by Haug (1987) and Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, et
al. (1992) which are:
- write one of your earliest memories;
- of a particular episode, or event;
- related to the identified cue;
- in the third person;
- in as much detail as is possible;
- but without interpretations, explanation, or biography.
They adopted an additional rule of being nonjudgmental of
other memories.
Following this, they read memories aloud to the group, asked
questions, clarified details present and missing, and added
needed context. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed.
The criteria for choosing memories were that they generated
extensive discussion and as a result were elaborated by the
rememberer and understood more complexly by the group. The
elements air, water, earth, fire, and tree were used to focus the
group’s relationship to the natural world. Each was viewed
through the young adult and adolescence phases of life. From this
point everything was unique and varied for each individual.
It appeared that memories were stirred and recorded then each
was analyzed for the scientific aspect. The exact procedure was
confusing to me as the reader. Strategies for memory generation
were diverse and many times they were not written until minutes
before the scheduled meetings. An explanation of how memories
were accessed led to the three ways, cognitive recall as a
sequential and logical process of linking the element to the age,
sensory stimulation as Anna tasting dirt, and finally the visual
or imagery stimulation as in Sue’s memory being based on a
picture.
They generated two types of memories, amalgams and events.
Events are linked to a specific point in time and specific
events. Amalgams are between episodic and semantic memories.
Semantic memories hold general knowledge that is built up from
repeated experiences. They still found it hard to break away
from the traditionalist mode of viewing and analyzing the
research to the extent that they reduced the method to a linear
and causal perspective.
Therefore, contrary to Haug (1987) and Crawford, et al.
(1992), they reread all of a person’s memories from early
childhood through adulthood. (Which is probably the way that the
book should have been written) and found emergent themes of
creativity, use of metaphor, family, and power. The themes were
helpful to understanding memory as a concept. Memory in the
traditional research literature is regarded as a social construct
and memory does not exist in the material sense. Memory-work can
only provide another way of thinking about who we are and how we
have been socialized. The discrete memories retrieved through
memory-work were determined by posed questions asked by the other
subjects.
In Chapter Four, Making Sense, brings the subjects and readers
to reality and thus deal more with this conflict of personal
science and the very respected, traditional science. This
chapter demonstrates how making sense is necessary to science.
How the sensuous in their memories provides the observations, the
data, for understanding how the senses meld with the social in
influencing their connections to nature. Another reality was
admitted in this chapter also. They admitted that ordinary
embodied experience, neither necessarily systematic nor abstract,
may hold keys to girls’ development in relation to nature
and perhaps to their interest (or lack of interest) in science.
Integration of the senses was essential in these experiences of
personal science.
Knowledge gained and applied in domestic settings typically is
not considered science but it is considered as personal science
for this memory work. Personal science is believed to begin in
childhood and continues through life. An example of the adult
personal science is demonstrated when a woman’s knowledge
of an almond tree is anchored in memory by the sensation of
taste. This shows that personal science is an interaction or web
of elements. Within that web, girls develop complex
relationships to nature and fruitful approaches to their science
from an early age, as is particularly evident in many of the
memories. The memories suggested a range of social settings
where personal science has taken place and highlighted exchanges
that valued curiosity and observation of nature as well as those
that discourage further exploration of nature.
Chapter Five describes how metaphors associated with the
elements illuminated basic human experiences. For example, fire
represents through metaphor warmth in relationships. They took
the traditional definition of metaphor used in language and
extended it to the personal science experiences. Lakoff and
Johnson (1980) says that metaphor structures the development and
understanding of concepts. Originally Kaufman, et al. (2003),
resisted the concept of metaphors. Some metaphors drew them in
close connection to particular aspects of nature while others
pushed them away. The group found metaphors particularly
productive, not just in identifying metaphors but having the
group develop the practice of using their own metaphors to
understand it. The metaphors were used to express feelings, to
tie two or more experiences together, and used to help provide
insight (e.g. Bell’s tree house memory as a child).
Using and recognizing metaphors helped the subjects to see the
emergent themes/subthemes of fear, efficacy, relationship, and
growth and development. Fear was mostly memories of natural
disasters. Efficacy, as a subtheme, related to being successful
or not and usually was cued by the memory of fire and water.
Science in school presented challenges to their efficacy, which
also represented rituals in many of the memories. Growth as a
metaphor extended to the appearance of hated objects to be
cleaned up year after year by adolescents like planting gardens,
harvesting vegetables, and cultivating the earth.
The fact that personal science is different and distant from
traditional science is also a thread throughout the text. In
summarizing the chapter on metaphors, it was said that “the
results of thinking about metaphor and the distancing of women
and girls from nature is a clearer understanding of the roles
that science in school may play in that distancing”
(p.82). The memory work led them to believe that the traditional
science in schools could still be positive for girls as
Anna’s lecture on the importance of chemistry. What they
did not find to be true was that memories of science in school
would be readily cued by the elements and that these memories
would provide insight into their socialization as apprentice
scientists. They were surprised that they did not find this to
be true. In some instances school science was inviting as in
Rae’s carrot water and Bunsen burner experiences. In other
cases, it interfered with the interest in natural science as in
Bell’s sweaty palms memory.
Chapter Six shares with the readers how memory work created a
new understanding of their relationship to nature. They
discovered how they made new meaning in nature while playing,
solving problems, imagining, exploring, and experimenting. Acts
of play in nature throughout their lives seemed to bring new
values and differing perspectives to everyday life. They realized
that traditional science requires distance from its objects of
study, the natural world, while creativity is thought to be
essential to science and its processes. Memory-work enabled them
to see that creativity in their playing as children reinforced
close connections with nature. They found that there were
creative spaces, that playing is at the heart of human
experiences, and through the memories, that play is more
characteristic of childhood than it is of adulthood. They also
found that not all play resulted in an obviously creative
product.
Major influences in the memories were examined in Chapter
Seven and usually that was a family member. Most of the memories
involved the father as a controller and the mother as an agent of
choice for the subjects. Fathers were prominent in the wet sand
and sandbox memory by Sue, in Cele’s cool clear water
memory, and Anna’s description of smoke. There was the
conflict between enjoyment in the natural world and structure
introduced by fathers in the form of rules and/or orchestration
of events.
Their mothers did the typical “motherly” things
and were not noticed as much as the fathers. Sue found that
while the father exerted control with rules, her mother expressed
control with choice. Inside learning with her mother was
characterized as natural, safe, easy, and fun. With ant farms,
gerbils, and fish, Sue had stated that her early memories were
not “sciencey.” Bell’s mother was a gardener,
which facilitated Bell’s growing rock memory. This act of
gardening was interpreted as a socialization act so Bell did not
view this as science. Cele’s mother and activities
structured for Cele left her with the memories of powerful women
as seen in the campfire memory and the Order of the Arrow.
The results of the memory work and personal science project
can be found in Chapter Eight. The results were measured in
empowerment. The power in the memories was demonstrated and
changed from early to later memories and from having great power
with nature to distancing themselves from nature. They saw power
in the relationships of the women in their lives. They also
gained power as they took on the role of transmitter of their
culture and their values. As a result of examining this work,
they can now offer an opportunity for power to the next
generation.
In the Conclusions on page 130, it states “Power and
apprenticeship are significant in the construction of both our
personal science and professional science. Although some of the
linkages are less direct than we originally envisioned, a number
of interesting considerations emerged in our analysis. For some
of us, control of the elements or the environment was crucial in
the construction of our personal science. This control was
seldom autonomous and often exerted within the context of our
families". This conclusion ties in with Chapter Nine and the
analysis of their power and apprenticeship, which established a
bridge between their personal science as girls and their
professional science as women. On the way to this realization,
they found that in both theoretical and experiential way that
they were part of nature. They engaged in personal science as a
child and revisited these experiences in themes of sensuous,
metaphoric, creative, family, and power.
Some emerging questions arose from this method of research
like: Can the findings be generalized? Are the findings useful?
Are the findings of this study specific to this group? Is this a
valid study? A definite finding was that this type of work is
transformative. Memory-work suggests that one can open up the
data beyond the boundaries of regular discourse, which is not
usually possible within a traditional research paradigm. If one
goal is to stop reproducing aspects of the culture that we
believe are in need of change, then perhaps it is time to seek
other possible stories that can be told about educational
practice. In this case, the researcher would need to join with
educators in conducting memory-work research and to this end,
this work was successful for it did allow for a valid research
paradigm shift.
The book ends with a chapter of pictures, which leave the
reader with a feeling that these memories were very real, for we
can see the elements in the photos. Further documentation of
their work and a final effort to "traditionalize" a
nontraditional format was shown in the Appendix of numbers and
charts.
References
Cataldi, S. (1993). Emotion, depth, and flesh: A study of
sensitive space. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton,
P. (1992). Emotion and gender:
Constructing meaning from memory. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Haug, F. (Ed.). (1987). Female sexualization: A collective
work of memory (Erica Carter,
trans.). Towbridge, Wiltshire, UK: Doteios Ltd.
Hubbard, R. (1988). Science, facts, and feminism.
Hypatia, 3(1), 5-17.
Jarvis, T. (1996). Examining and extending young children's
views of science and
scientists. In Lesley H. Parker, Leonie J. Rennie, &
Barry J. Fraser (eds.), Gender, science and mathematics:
Shortening the shadow (pp.29-40). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live
by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge,
MA: Massachusetts Institute
Technology Press. (Original work published in 1934).
About The Reviewer
Dr. Shirley Gholston Key is an Associate Professor of Science
Education in the College of Education at the University of
Memphis. Her research interests include science education
(cognitive learning in science education, multicultural science
education, preservice science education) and mentoring of the
science professionals.
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment