Reconciling Differences: Historical Considerations to Ongoing Tensions between Science Education and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy

• In Event: Achieving Culturally Sustaining Science Education: Looking Back and Moving Forward

Abstract

Objectives
The pervading discourse around the relationship between Science Education (SE) and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies (CSP) depicts them as incompatible. That is, some in education argue that for SE to be more equitable, it needs to expand (Mutegi, 2011), potentially beyond what some might consider “scientific.” Conversely, others see any expansion past its traditional boundaries as an obstacle to developing an appreciation of the discipline and continuing to feed future scientists and technical workers into the science “pipeline” (Rudolph, 2019). We will show that these two narratives are oversimplified and create a false, either/or binary. The dichotomy pitting rigor against equity makes it hard to see a both/and reality where SE and CSP can work together to provide more equitable, just science education.

Theoretical Perspectives
In this conceptual paper, we use the metaphor of a committed relationship to help us consider the tensions and possibilities between SE and CSP. This aligns with Stuart Hall’s (1996) argument that effective metaphors aim to transform society ideologically and pragmatically. Thus, our metaphor of two individuals in therapy working on their relationship illuminates the ideological and pragmatic implications of the two perspectives and their possible combined futures.

Modes of Inquiry and Sources
Through the historiography of SE and CP’s educational approaches across the 20th century into the present, and exploration of future implications (Olesko, 2014; Westberg, 2025), we consider their journeys before meeting, why they came together, and how their relationship became strained. We draw on secondary scholarship across various schools of thought (e.g., history of science, science studies, Black Studies, and Indigenous Studies) throughout.

Substantiated Conclusions
Our analysis offers key insights into SE and CSP’s history that provide considerations for a mutually constructive path forward:
● The tension between SE and CSP has progressed in ways that seem irreconcilable as understandings of equity in education have expanded, garnering a deeper commitment to all students beyond what SE has historically provided.
● “Pluralism without hierarchy” (Asante, 2013) provides a promising pathway for SE to reduce the boundaries that decenters dominant perspectives to welcome an expansive, inclusive version of science education that recognizes and values multiple ways of sensemaking without devaluing “Western” science.
● A pluralistic approach faces many practical and institutional hurdles. We advocate for researchers to work in solidarity with teachers (Philip et al., 2016) and for other stakeholders to work collaboratively towards systemic transformation.

Significance
This paper explores the historical context and epistemological underpinnings that shape contemporary possibilities and divisions regarding the contentious relationship between SE and CSP. Our approach provides practical considerations for teachers and researchers on both sides of this tension to work towards a unified approach based on mutual understanding and respect.

Authors

• Lindsay Wells, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Curtis O'Dwyer, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Leema G. Berland, University of Wisconsin - Madison