Akinlabi Hubbard
Course: ED7701
The article chosen for this critique is Multiculturalism, Universalism, and Science Education:
In Search of Common Ground by Harvey Siegel (2002). The purpose of this critique is to assess
the article in terms of how it depicts the connection and perceived misconceptions between
universalism and multiculturalism and how this information can be applied to a science
classroom setting of diverse learners. The critique will point out the philosophical viewpoints
more aspects than previously thought. The critique will also examine how Siegel treats student
diversity as it applies to science education with the above philosophical concepts in mind.
Discussion of Diversity
The concept of diversity is referenced and explained several times in this article as it relates to
Western Modern Science (or WMS)’s view of science education and scientific thought in
general. Siegel seems to point out in his article that there are more shared aspects between WMS
and “local” or multicultural scientific views despite several attempts by opponents to state the
contrary. Siegel first draws attention and to this when describing the concept of universalism.
Following an elaborate description of the parallels and contrasts between universalism and
realism, Siegel (2002) points out that while science is mediated by “local” schemes, it can be
ultimately delivered to the world. He goes on to refute the denial of the link between culture and
“aspects of culture do influence science,” (as stated from Matthews 1994, p.182). He goes on to
describe that universalists do recognize cultural and other social factors that influence science;
they also acknowledge that such factors influence science on a deep level where the actual
research and scientific theory is concerned. While different cultural perspectives do affect how
an experiment might be conducted, there exists an agreement among these perspectives
regarding the overall scientific concept, says Siegel (2002). Continuing his explanation of what
universalism is, Siegel points out the knowledge of the natural world. Ultimately, the goal of
scientific inquiry is to provide knowledge that is theoretical, testable, predictive, revealing, and
explanatory. (Siegel 2002, p.808) He states that the pursuit of such knowledge has led to a
devaluing of other cultural perspectives, particularly those relying on natural observation and
insight. (Siegel 2002, p.808) While he acknowledges this misconception, Siegel goes on to state
that WMS does often provide a means of looking beyond natural observation. (Siegel 2002,
p.808-809) He defends this view by ultimately stating that WMS provides a way to explain
scientific phenomena that is not limited to sensory data such as cultural observations. Siegel
next describes cultural diversity when he defends his statement that WMS is scientifically
superior to “ethnic science.” He first applauds the successes of these ethnic sciences and their
advances. He also states that WMS is “far from perfect.” (Siegel 2008, p.809) He even
advocates the combination of WMS with local sciences to produce a more intricate
understanding of the natural world. It is this type of deep understanding that Siegel states is
Siegel further explains that the embracing of multiculturalism within science education stems
from a universal need to respect students as persons. (Siegel 2002, p.810) He states that while
others identify this as a strictly moral ideal which could hinder scientific advancement, such
morals are indeed as universal in principle as any accepted scientific theory or law. Siegel
reinforces that for a concept such as multiculturalism to be universal is not equivalent to total
acceptance or agreement. The parallel that Siegel identifies between multiculturalism and
universal scientific thought is that consensus is not required for either principle to be help
universally true. The difference lies in how advocates of either principle will defend their views.
Scientific advocates rely almost solely on scientific thought and principle. Advocates for
multiculturalism will be more inclined to take a moral stance on their beliefs. In either case,
Siegel maintains that it is important to keep a universally applied approach to reduce or prevent
In response to the question of whether such defenses of multiculturalism or WMS are selfish
in nature, Siegel poses a question of his own: is such self-serving advocacy necessarily a bad
thing? The answer could be yes, but only if the safeguards against bias are not in place when
defending or advocating one’s views. In the case of advocating WMS, such bias on the part of
the advocates could very well lead to a cultural or “local” group feeling mistreated or maligned
against for their scientific beliefs. Siegel also poses one last, unanswered question: of the
imposition of WMS onto other cultures does indeed constitute cultural maltreatment, why is this
a bad thing? The reason this question is unanswered, according to Siegel, is because doing so
would invite bias and reject the universal approach needed to fairly defend either
multiculturalism or WMS.
Analysis of Philosophies
The article speaks mainly from an idealistic point of view, with some significant touches on
realism and indicates a clear distinction between the two. When Siegel first starts out in his
discussion, he provides a lengthy but clear explanation of what universalism is not and is,
known to man, he is giving an idealistic treatment to this concept. He includes some principles
of realism as well, particularly when he distinguishes that realism need only be moderate rather
than strong. (Siegel 2002, p. 804 and p. 808) This distinction of realism is implied again as
Siegel explains that cultural scientific views and practices may differ from WMS but ultimately
concern the same phenomena and are therefore universally tied to WMS. (Siegel 2002, p.813-
814) Similarly in explaining that the natural world is knowable, Siegel uses characteristics
associated with realism (theories that are testable predictive, revealing, and explanatory). He
continues to express support for the sensory data that can be supplied by cultural or local
observational knowledge. When he begins to describe WMS, the tone makes a smooth transition
into an idealist state of mind. Siegel expresses that WMS provides evidence of scientific
phenomena that could otherwise be unexplainable based on sensory or observational data alone.
He alludes to the idealist view of a beyond physical or metaphysical state of knowing. He also
explains why a combination or blend of idealist and realist views is necessary to reach students
The article is mainly directed at teachers of the science curriculum and possibly at
practitioners of scientific theory, thought, and research. As such, the targeted educational setting
would be any science classroom. Siegel is defending against the view that WMS does not take
student cultures and values besides Western views into account. (Siegel 2002, p. 814) In the
course of this defense, Siegel implies that by applying WMS to issues, problems, and phenomena
that affect other non-western cultures, there is a universal degree of respct given to those
particular cultures. He points out also that while WMS is criticized for an alleged lack of interest
in views of other cultures, “local” cultures tend not to be totally interested in scientific
occurrences that do not directly affect them. At this point, Siegel states what he has implied
throughout his article; that there is a strong need for science education to find ways of eliciting
cross-cultural interest into different aspects of science. According to Siegel, the best way to
initiate this is to integrate principles of WMS as part of a given culture. In this respect, an
their way of life but rather enhancing it. It is here that Siegel and his opponents arrive at a
consensus that the WMS should be used to show students the different cultural views that
The overall purpose of this article was to show that, despite a series of misconceptions,
oppositions, and perceived biases, universalism and multiculturalism have more aspects in
common than are acknowledged by advocates of either side. While Siegel admits over-criticism
of opposing views and over-zealous defense of his own views, he does succeed in recognizing
several of the parallels and connections between universalism, WMS, and multiculturalism. The
article also calls attention to a perceived schism between WMS and the various cultural sciences.
This article would best serve any instructor of science curriculum especially those with a diverse
student body. The recommendation here would be to adhere to the universal scientific principles
but to teach them in ways that allow exposure to different cultural view of science.
References: