Source for quote: http://stage6option12douglasmacarthur.wikispaces.com/file/view/1986818.pdf

any other sources I should be using?

Thank you all very mutch

So really, what is science? In the words of Leroy Little Bear, science is "the delving into the unknown" for a reason. In line with that, what is history? Well, in some respects, it is delving into what is known and in related fields, uncovering what has yet to be known.

The reason I wanted to define these terms is because people get in the habit of thinking they are not doing science, they are not making history, or they are not conducting research in their daily lives. Part of the reason for this, besides the stereotyping, is that when we think of the average person conducting such things, they are bound to make a mistake. They will somehow let objectivity float away through a lack of training and expertise. And what is more, those who believe the stereotypes contribute to the domination of the generalized notion in Western thought as to how science, history, and research should be - only professions.

#Framework Analysis

In Western thought, that being part of Western culture, these fields are viewed as "objective, value-neutral, and acultural" and "although individual [scholars] may be have biases, the sociology of [these fields] and the associated competition of ideas lead [them] eventually to truth" (Medin & Bang, 2014, p. 3). Yes, the idea is reinforced that there is only one truth, one correct account of how things happen, are told, and recorded. And that this is correct because this is how things are. The reason I am writing this piece today is to challenge that thought. I believe that science, or in this case history, are not always objective, value-neutral, and acultural. Not do I believe there is strictly one true account of how things happen.

A lot of my information is coming from a reference I've already cited twice here, a work by Medin and Bang (2014). The point they argue is the same point I am doing so today and I think they put it better than I could have. Now, they are primarily talking about science, so I've taken the liberty to make some alterations for our considerations:

The practices associated with [history] and [history] education reflect the cultural values and orientations of the practitioners. Thus the answers to [questions about history] depend on who's asking, because the questions asked and the answers sought depend on who's asking, even when all parties adhere to rigorous research methods. We are not claiming that [the study of history] is subjective, rather that [methods used to study history] embody values and perspectives, and these values and perspectives may vary across factors like gender, social class, and culture.

Western thought in this regard tends to focus on the object, the thing being studied. By doing this, is generalizes the object so as to think it exists on along all fields of reality (also assuming that there is one reality). However, if we were to approach the subject of study from an Indigenous viewpoint, we would be examining the relationships between cultural practices and values, the connection to the object. In light of this, the object no longer takes on a definite role, but becomes much more fluid while still remaining cemented in reality. For example, let's take a chair. You might have a chair in your room that you use to sit in. That's what chair's are for, right? Perhaps you use it only for sitting. But let's say I have a chair in my room (I have several right now, actually). I don't use it for sitting, but I use it as additional desk space. In Western thought, the chair has stayed a chair, even if it isn't being used "properly." But from an Indigenous perspective, that chair has become a desk. Or a footrest. Or my cat's bed. The chair is acting in multiple capacities, but the object that we call a "chair" still exists. The focus of my attention regarding the chair is not on the chair itself, but on my relationship to the chair, thus negating a "proper" use of it (Wilson, 2008).

These perspectives, one of generalizing and focus on the object compared to diversifying and focusing on the relationship, spring from values, models, and frameworks within a culture. Western cultures have largely adopted secularism and individualism while Indigenous cultures are more holistic and lean toward collectivism (though, this is another point of discussion on it's own). Thus, we have the birth of materialism and relationality, the two guiding theories in the above analogy. To give a couple more examples, let's consider two other fields: ethnomathematics and philosophy.

###Ethnomathematics

"What the hell is ethnomathematics?" you might be wondering. Pinxten and François (2011) take time to extensively explain that ethnomathematics is simply mathematics, but it is the way in which a culture does mathematics. In their article, they examine how ethnomathematics should be prioritized over what is considered “academic mathematics” (which is ultimately ethnomathematics to begin with) and the implementation of multimathemacy, or the enacting of ethnomathematics in order to understand variety mathematical literacies in education.

They determined that academic mathematics, what is said to be the “real thing,” is what dominates the mathematical educational field (p. 265). This type of mathematics is, in reality, a form of ethnomathematics in that it was developed and established by Western culture utilizing their counting systems and balances just like any other culture has done with their formalized mathematics. Because it professes that there is only one “true” form of mathematics, much like with narratives of science and history, it fits into the values and ideologies existing in Western culture such as individualism, capitalism, and secularism.

###Philosophy

Not too long ago, an article was posted in the New York Times regarding the state of philosophy departments in the United States and how they lack diversification (Garfield & Van Norden, 2016). The point of the article is that the philosophy departments in colleges and universities are branded as the “standard” and, unfortunately, have set the bar for every other culture’s philosophical understanding. Rather than having them named just “philosophy,” they should be recognized what they truly are: ethnophilosophy. Much like with the field of mathematics, each culture influences a subject with their values, beliefs, and customs reflected in their culture, no matter how hard they try to separate them. While not getting into objectivity, neither mathematics nor philosophy are value-neutral (Pinxten & François, 2011).

And yet, the Western understanding is held up as a model for other avenues to be tested against, to see if their abstract notions could be reified into perceived reality, a reality that the West claims to reveal and expand. This is not to say that the West had not produced accurate, factual, and truthful information that other cultures can agree to, for indeed they have. However, their interpretation is not always accurate; their application often falls short; sometimes they are just plain wrong about something.

The domination of philosophy by Western thought has seemingly obscured these pitfalls and, as a result, marginalized minority groups and instilled a fear of change into those who have bought into the idea that diversity is a danger rather than a blessing. Perhaps an eye of colorblindness has been turned to the philosophy departments, nobly claiming (barring how twisted) that race, culture, religion, or nationality has no bearing on the supposed truth. Colorblindness in its own right is also a faulty view of reality (or realities), in my opinion, for it does nothing to correct the oversaturation of Western dominance in the fields of academia that has obviously pushed Indigenous, Eastern, and feminine thoughts to the side. The push back related in the article is evidence of this enough. And when you see your culture as the standard, either knowingly or unknowingly, identifying other cultures becomes easier, for they exist as “Other” cultures.

#The Narrative in History and Embodied Values

This is where this all starts to make sense. Within the education system of the United States, a grand (and false) narrative is still often taught about science in the form of history (thus incriminating the narrative history). Traweek (1996) noted several of these "facts" that we learn in public education:

• Galileo's ideas were rejected by the Vatican because they challenged Catholic religious beliefs of the time and inventing scientific research.

• Francis Bacon developed the idea of a laboratory and codified the procedure for research now called the scientific method.

• Issac Newton invented the idea and the means of using mathematics to analyze experimental data.

• Scientific research is made objective by eliminating all biases and emotions of the researchers.

• Scientific research is neutral with respect to social, political, economic, ethical, and emotional concerns.

The reality is that many of these are false. Addressing the first three, Medin and Bang state, "Galileo did not invent scientific research, Bacon did not establish the scientific method, and Newton was not the first to apply mathematics to observational data" (p. 21). But all of these above claims have a point: they push the "triumph of science" narrative; they promote Western Exceptionalism. These are obviously values for the West, since a narrative of such proportions has been crafted. This is hardly unbiased.

As for the other two, critically thinking about them alone proves them to be untrue. Researchers, whether scientists or historians, do not just leave their culture at the door when they walk into work or crack open a book. Medin and Bang (2014) offer more insight into this with an analogy. "Imagine taking a photograph or drawing a picture (or even writing a story). Doing this reflects a perspective, and it is literally impossible to "take no position"" (p. 28).

They then relate an example of how Western values are instilled in research in the form of ethics. The United States commonly uses animals for research, but there are federal regulations to help protect these animals. However, shortly after World War II, primates were used to study the effects of radiation. "When the government of India discovered that these studies were being done, they banned the export of monkeys to the United States" (p. 29).

Furthermore, values and perspectives are reflected in the questions that researchers ask and the topics they pursue. I am choosing to write about this today because I care about my Indigenous perspective and desire for it to no longer be marginalized. Funding and political opinions also impact science. "The U.S. goal of going to the moon was justified, in part, by the applications generated by needing to develop heat-resistant materials and miniaturized components" (p. 26). In a study related by Medin and Bang (2014), Levin and Chapman (1993) "found that (undergraduates') decisions about treatments for people with AIDS depended on whether they had contracted it from a blood transfusion or through risky behavior" (pp. 29-30). Clearly, if you're a researcher with religious views against sexual immorality, you might tend to focus on abstention, as they conclude.

#What's the Point?

After all this reading, we're now ready to discuss a conclusion. Why bring any of this up? Well, I feel it is necessary because I see too many people, both here and in real life, acting as an advocate of "objectivity" and encouraging (read: demanding) that others act "unbiased." The reality of things is that many of these people are acting in a way that has been endorsed by their culture as well. Subjectivity, biases, values, and beliefs are interwoven into their methods of research and epistemological understandings. The notion that the Western ways of doing things are the default or standard is false - they are simply a reiteration like all other cultures have when it comes to any field. This is not to say that these fields are subjective, but that reality is obscured by having one dominant lens to look through (or realities are wholly ignored).

Research, no matter what field it is being done in, contains the values and perspectives of the culture of the researchers. History has been written by those who recorded it and they recorded from their perspective, of course. From the questions we ask, to the topics we choose, to the results we observe, everything is influenced by our relative distance to the thing in question, our experiences with it, and our cultural values. Specific fields are dominated by one line of thought and this in itself is a demonstration of a biased perspective on said fields. Who is to say that Indigenous philosophy (Native Science!) shouldn't be at the same level as the regular "Philosophy" department at your university? They're both an ethnophilosophy, after all.

The examined frameworks help put things into perspective. When we use one of those frameworks, we are using the values embedded in them. Depending on our approach, we can change the results, even if the results are true.

So what is the answer? Diversity, my dear relatives. If we can allow more views and perspectives to enter the ring and cross examine them through other lenses, I believe it is entirely possible to discern what truth is.

Edit: Grammar. And added a couple sentences. And expanded the conclusion.

References

Attebury, R. I. (2010). Perceptions of a profession: Librarians and stereotypes in online videos.

Ballenger, C., & Rosebery, A. S. (2003). What Counts as Teacher Research? Investigating the Scientific and Mathematical Ideas of Children from Culturally Diverse Backgrounds. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 297-314.

Garfield, J., & Norden, B. (2016). If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is. Nytimes.com.

Levin, I. P., & Chapman, D. P. (1993). Risky decision making and allocation of resources for leukemia and AIDS programs. Health Psychology, 12(2), 110.

Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014). Who's asking?: Native science, Western science, and science education. MIT Press.

Pinxten, R., & François, K. (2011). Politics in an Indian canyon? Some thoughts on the implications of ethnomathematics. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 78(2), 261-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9328-z

Traweek, S. (1996). Unity, dyads, triads, quads, and complexity: Cultural choreographies of science. Social Text, (46/47), 129-139.

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods.