Research in Science Education 31: 337355, 2001.

2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Integrating Western and Aboriginal Sciences:

Cross-Cultural Science Teaching1

Glen Aikenhead
University of Saskatchewan
Abstract

The article addresses issues of social power and privilege experienced by Aboriginal students in
science classrooms. First, I present a rationale for a cross-cultural science education dedicated to
all students making personal meaning out of their science classrooms. Then I describe a practical
research and development project, Rekindling Traditions: Cross-Cultural Science & Technology
Units, that modestly illustrates cross-cultural science teaching for years 611, in which Western
and Aboriginal sciences are integrated. This integration is discussed in terms of the Rekindling
Traditions units, including the assessment of students.

Key Words: Aboriginal, border crossing, integrated and science education

Towards a Cross-Cultural Science Education

In 1975, Smolicz and Nunan called for the demythologising of school science in
response to school science conveying an ideology that exalted Western science over
all other ways of knowing. This ideology assumed that science was purely objective,
solely empirical, immaculately rational, and thus, singularly truth confirming. Since
1975, other scholars have delineated myths associated with the validity and author-
ity of Western science, myths that comprise an ideology now called scientism
(Nadeau & Dsautels, 1984; Ogawa, 1998; Ziman, 1984). Scientism is scientific
fundamentalism (science is the only valid way of knowing).
Of particular interest to science educators is the finding that science teachers tend
to harbour a strong allegiance to values associated with scientism, for instance,
science is: non-humanistic, objective, purely rational and empirical, universal, im-
personal, socially sterile, and unencumbered by the vulgarity of human bias, dogma,
judgments, or cultural values (Aikenhead, 1985; Brickhouse, 1990; Gallagher, 1991;
Gaskell, 1992). Scientism seems to penetrate students minds, like a hidden cur-
riculum, when students learn to think like a scientist and take on other habits
of the mind; goals emphasised in recent reform documents (AAAS, 1989; Millar
& Osborne, 1998; NRC, 1996). These science curricula attempt to enculturate all
students into the value system of Western science.
338 GLEN AIKENHEAD

Enculturation is not a problem for a small minority of students whose worldviews

resonate with the scientific worldview conveyed most frequently in school science
(Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998). These Potential Scientists want to think like scien-
tists (Costa, 1995). They embrace enculturation into Western science (Aikenhead,
1996; Hawkins & Pea, 1987). Enculturation is not a problem for Potential Scientists.
For the vast majority of students, however, enculturation into Western science is
experienced as an attempt at assimilation into a foreign culture. Because students
generally reject assimilation into the culture of Western science (Aikenhead, 1996),
they tend to become alienated from Western science in spite of it being a major
global influence on their lives. Alienation reduces their effectiveness at legitimate
peripheral participation in community matters related to science and technology
(Roth & McGinn, 1997). As adults, alienated students will not possess the cultural
capital to participate effectively in Western society.
The problem of alienation is more acute for Aboriginal students whose world-
views, identities, and mother tongues create an even wider cultural gap between
themselves and school science (Cajete, 1986, 1999; Christie, 1991; Fleer, 1997;
Harris, 1978; Linkson, 1998; McKinley, McPherson Waiti, & Bell, 1992; Snively,
1990; Sutherland, 1998). For centuries, attempts to assimilate Aboriginal peoples
into Western societies (i.e., colonisation) have had disastrous consequences (Battiste,
2000; Churchill, 1999; Hodson, 1998; MacIvor, 1995; McTaggert, 1991; Roberts
& Wills, 1998). Any further attempt to assimilate Aboriginal students into Western
science continues this colonisation and raises issues of social power and privilege in
the science classroom.
A socio-cognitive model of teaching and learning was proposed by OLoughlin
(1992) to clarify social power and privilege in science classrooms. Based on the so-
cial cognitive work of Delpit (1988), Lave (1988), and Wertsch (1991), OLoughlin
persuasively claimed:

To the extent that schooling negates the subjective, socioculturally constituted voices that students develop
from their lived experience ... and to the extent that teachers insist that dialogue can only occur on their
terms, schooling becomes an instrument of power that serves to perpetuate the social class and racial
inequities that are already inherent in society. (p. 816)

OLoughlins model for equity science education is an alternative to the conven-

tional, assimilative, authoritative discourse that transmits scientific knowledge and
values to students. OLoughlin focused on dialogical meaning making in the con-
text of social power, thereby sharing the transformative goals of critical pedagogy
(Freire, 1970):

Dialogical meaning making occurs when the learner is influenced by the text, but is also allowed the space
to play an active role in developing a personally constructed understanding of the authors or teachers
message through a process of dialogic interchange. (OLoughlin, 1992, p. 813)

The discourse of instruction OLoughlin proposed involves more than the conven-
tional literacy for comprehension (reading the lines in science textbooks to infer
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 339

comprehension, usually to pass exams and acquire credentials). His discourse of

instruction is more than literacy for critical thinking (reading between the lines to
infer hidden assumptions, alternatives, and changes of meaning). For OLoughlin
one learns to participate in the culture of power, while simultaneously learning
how to reflect critically on the power relations of which they are a part (p. 807,
italics in the original). His discourse of instruction is more like van der Plaats (1995)
reading between the lines of privileged discourse to infer what ontology has been
culturally constructed by that discourse and to understand that ontology in terms of
its relationship to ones own culturally determined ontology. This type of literacy
is very much needed by many Aboriginal students (Cajete, 1999; MacIvor, 1995;
McKinley, 1996).
Although OLoughlins (1992) socio-cognitive model of meaning making addresses
social power and privilege in the classroom, it does not explicitly treat meaning
making from a cultural perspective. This, I argue, is a severe limitation of the model.
A cultural perspective on science education is founded on several assumptions
listed but not fleshed out here: (1) Western science is a cultural entity itself, one
of many subcultures of Euro-American society; (2) people live and coexist within
many subcultures identified by, for example, language, ethnicity, gender, social class,
occupation, religion and geographic location; (3) people move from one subculture
to another, a process called cultural border crossing; (4) peoples core cultural
identities may be at odds with the culture of Western science to varying degrees; (5)
science classrooms are subcultures of the school culture; (6) most students experi-
ence a change in culture when moving from their life-worlds into the world of school
science; therefore, (7) learning science is a cross-cultural event for these students;
(8) students are more successful if they receive help negotiating their cultural border
crossings; and (9) this help can come from a teacher (a culture broker) who identifies
the cultural borders to be crossed, who guides students back and forth across those
borders, who gets students to make sense out of cultural conflicts that might arise, and
who motivates students by drawing upon the impact Western science and technology
have on the students life-worlds. The assumptions posited here are described in de-
tail in Aikenhead (1996, 1997, 1998), Aikenhead and Jegede (1999), and Jegede and
Aikenhead (1999). These assumptions underlie a cross-cultural approach to science
teaching; two-way learning (Fleer, 1997) or both-ways education (McTaggert,
1991).
A cultural approach to teaching and learning engages students in cultural negotia-
tions (Christie, 1991, 1997; Stairs, 1993/94). Negotiation occurs in a context where
learning science is experienced as coming to knowing, a phrase borrowed from
Aboriginal educators (Ermine, 1998; Peat, 1994). Coming to knowing is reflected
in participatory learning: If the living, experiencing being is an intimate partici-
pant in the activities of the world to which it belongs, then knowledge is a mode
of participation (Dewey, 1916, p. 393). The world in which most Aboriginal stu-
dents participate is not a world of Western science, but another world increasingly
influenced by Western science and technology.
Coming to knowing engages Aboriginal students in their own cultural negotiations
among several sciences found within their school science. Four such sciences were
340 GLEN AIKENHEAD

identified by Ogawa (1995). First, students reflect on their own understanding of the
physical and biological world. Second, students come to know the Aboriginal com-
monsense understanding held by their community. Third, students may encounter
ways of knowing of another culture, including other Aboriginal peoples. Fourth,
students are introduced to the norms, beliefs, values and conventions of Western
science the culture of Western science. Negotiating among these four sciences in
school science is known as multi-science education (Ogawa, 1995). Cross-cultural
science teaching facilitates these negotiations. Coming to knowing is about devel-
oping cultural identity and self-esteem (Cajete, 1999; McKinley, 1998; McKinley,
McPherson Waiti, & Bell, 1992; Ritchie & Butler, 1990).
As mentioned above, a cultural approach to science education recognises that
learning Western science for most Aboriginal students is a cross-cultural event. Stu-
dents move from their everyday cultures associated with home to the culture of
Western science (Aikenhead, 1996, 1997, 1998; Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991).
These transitions, or border crossings (to use Girouxs (1992) metaphor), are smooth
for Potential Scientists, are manageable for Other Smart Kids, but are most of-
ten hazardous or impossible for everyone else (Costa, 1995). Success at learning
the knowledge of nature of another culture depends, in part, on how smoothly one
crosses cultural borders. Too often students (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike)
are left to manage border crossings on their own (Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991).
Most students require assistance from a teacher, similar to a tourist in a foreign land
requiring the help of a tour guide. In short, a science teacher needs to play the role
of a tour-guide culture broker (Aikenhead, 1997).
Such a culture broker understands that Western science has its own culture because
scientists generally work within an identifiable set of cultural attributes: an ordered
system of meanings and symbols, in terms of which social interaction takes place
(a definition by cultural anthropologist (Geertz, 1973, p. 5)). More specifically, the
scientific community generally has its own language, beliefs, values, conventions,
expectations, and technology. These attributes define a culture (Aikenhead, 1996).
For Western science, these attributes are identified as Western because of the fact
that the culture of Western science evolved within Euro-American cultural settings
(Pickering, 1992; Rashed, 1997; Roberts, 1998). The culture of Western science
today exists within many nations, wherever Western science takes place.
A culture-brokering science teacher makes border crossings explicit for Aborig-
inal students by acknowledging students personal preconceptions and Aboriginal
worldviews that have a purpose in, or connection to, students everyday culture.
A culture broker identifies the culture in which students personal ideas are con-
textualised, and then introduces another cultural point of view, that is, the culture
of Western science, in the context of Aboriginal knowledge. At the same time, a
culture broker must let students know what culture he/she is talking in at any given
moment (e.g., Aboriginal science or Western science), because as teachers talk they
can unconsciously switch between cultures, much to the confusion of many students
(Aikenhead, 1997, 2000b; Linkson, 1998).
To facilitate students border crossings, teachers and students both need to be
flexible and playful, and to feel at ease in the less familiar culture (Lugones, 1987).
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 341

This will be accomplished differently in different classrooms. As OLoughlin (1992)

argued, it has a lot to do with the social environment of the science classroom, the
social interactions between a teacher and students, and the social interactions among
students themselves. Thus, a teacher who engages in culture brokering should pro-
mote discourse (Cobern & Aikenhead, 1998; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, &
Scott, 1994) so students are provided with opportunities to engage in the following
three types of activity: (1) students should have opportunities for talking within their
own life-world cultural framework without sanctions for being unscientific; (2)
students should have opportunities for being immersed in either their everyday Abo-
riginal culture or the culture of Western science as students engage in some activity
(e.g., problem solving or decision making in an authentic or simulated event); and
(3), students should be consciously aware of which culture they are participating in
at any given moment.
Effective culture brokers substantiate and build on the validity of students person-
ally and culturally constructed ways of knowing (Michie, Anlezark, & Uibo, 1998;
Pomeroy, 1994). Sometimes bridges can be built in various ways between cultures
(Cajete, 1999; McKinley, 1998), other times ideas from one culture can be seen as
fitting within the ideas from another culture. Whenever apparent conflict between
cultures arises, it is dealt with openly and with respect.
For Aboriginal students especially, it would be helpful if a culture broker were to
address Western sciences social, political, military, colonial, and economic roles in
history (Hodson, 1998; Linkson, 1998; McKinley, McPherson Waiti, & Bell, 1992).
Smooth border crossings cannot occur if a student feels that he or she is associating
with the enemy (Cobern, 1996). By acknowledging Western sciences historical
roles in the colonisation of Aboriginals, a teacher can address Aboriginal students
conflicting feelings toward the culture of Western science, thus making a student
feel more at ease with learning and with appropriating that subcultures content
without accepting its values and ideologies. In short, a culture-brokering science
teacher identifies the coloniser and the colonised, and teaches the science of each
culture (Aikenhead, 1997; Snively & Corsiglia, 2001). This key aspect of cross-
cultural science education acknowledges the issues of social power and privilege
in the science classroom.

Cross-Cultural Science Education as Praxis: Rekindling Traditions

What does cross-cultural science teaching for Aboriginal students look like in a
classroom? We were not sure ourselves, so we initiated a research and development
project, Rekindling Traditions, to explore this new territory. A collaborative team
of six science teachers from across northern Saskatchewan, Canada, and myself as
facilitator (plus technical personnel, Elders, and other people in the teachers local
community) developed instructional strategies and units of study to support teachers
wishing to become culture brokers in years 611 science classrooms (Aikenhead,
342 GLEN AIKENHEAD

2000a). Two of the teachers were Aboriginal. All teachers had a personal interest in
developing their cross-cultural teaching skills further.
Our work was initially based on recommendations found in the literature for teach-
ing school science to Aboriginal students (Allen & Crawley, 1998; Baker, 1996; Ca-
jete, 1986; Ganambarr, 1982; Harris, 1978; Kawagley, 1995; Linkson, 1998; MacIvor,
1995; McKinley, McPherson Waiti, & Bell, 1992; Michie, Anlezark, & Uibo, 1998;
Ritchie & Kane, 1990; Snively, 1995). For example, we consistently sought the wis-
dom of one Elder, although different Elders have helped the team at different times.
One product of our research and development project was six cross-cultural science
and technology units (described below). We also produced a Teacher Guide plus
a document that describes our interactions with the community, Stories from the
Field. Funding came from a variety of sources and was sufficient to support the
project for two calendar years (19992000). Teachers received a modicum of release
time for research and writing in their community (nine days) and for attending six,
two-day, work meetings. As the project evolved, the focus of each meeting changed
from identifying themes to editing units to planning in-service workshops. Interest-
ingly, progress was achieved only when the teachers interacted face to face, or when
I interacted with them personally in their communities.
An important feature of our Rekindling Traditions project was the communitys
involvement in helping decide what is worth learning in school science. An Aborigi-
nal way of knowing, defined by the community itself, formed the foundation for each
unit. Elders and other knowledgeable people in the community taught local content
to students and their teacher, who in turn recorded this knowledge appropriately. The
process taught students the proper protocol for gaining access to their communitys
knowledge and wisdom, and it taught them to value and respect their Aboriginal her-
itage. The process also meant that teachers learned Aboriginal knowledge, thereby
modelling for their students life-long learning.
It is anticipated that other teachers will print out a Rekindling Traditions unit from
our CD or web site (Aikenhead, 2000a) and take it to some people in their community
who know the topic well. The teacher will then ask, How could we modify this unit
so it fits our community? These local advisory people become a major resource for
modifying the unit (or developing a new one) to make it suit the unique culture of
the community. These local advisory people will also interact with students in the
school or on a field trip.
A communitys Aboriginal knowledge has a respected place in our Rekindling
Traditions units. Some students discovered that they already possessed some of this
Aboriginal knowledge because it had been taught at home, but it was not highly val-
ued as legitimate knowledge for school. On the other hand, other students learned this
Aboriginal knowledge for the first time in their science course. Aboriginal knowl-
edge was given voice in the classroom in the dialogic sense of voice described by
OLoughlin (1992) as involving both the speaker and the listener in mutual respect.
Each of our units validated the ways of knowing students bring to school by ground-
ing the curriculum in their voices and lives (p. 814). A dialogic voice means that a
teacher learns from students and from people in the community. Teachers modelled
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 343

for their students successful border crossing between their own life-world and the
culture of the community. In this context, students Aboriginal identity had a legit-
imate place in classroom instruction. Cultural negotiation could occur. Coming to
knowing had a legitimate place. The discourse of power no longer resided with the
teacher. Power was more evenly shared.

Integration of Western and Aboriginal Sciences

A Rekindling Traditions unit brings Western science into the students worldview
rather than insisting that students construct a worldview of a Western scientist. In
other words, we try to avoid teaching science in an assimilative way. All the same,
students are expected to see the world through the eyes of a Western scientist just as
we would expect students to understand another persons point of view, similar to an
anthropologist learning about a foreign culture (Aikenhead, 1997).
Although each unit integrates Western and Aboriginal sciences differently, the
units share common patterns of integration. For instance, each unit deals with a
theme significant to the community. These themes are suggested by the units titles:
1. Snowshoes (in Michif or Cree Y dialect: Asmak)
2. Natures Hidden Gifts (Cree Y dialect: Iyiniw Maskikiy)
3. The Night Sky (Dne S dialect: Tthn)
4. Survival in Our Land (Cree Y dialect: Kipimcihowininaw ta Kitasknahk)
5. Wild Rice (Algonquin or Cree Y dialect: Mnomin)
6. Trapping (Dne S dialect: Its usi Thlai)
The variety of local languages spoken across northern Saskatchewan reflects the
diversity of Aboriginal cultures found in those communities. (Within each Aboriginal
nation there are distinctive tribes, similar to the tribes iwi within the Maori
nation.) Teachers have not been successful when they have tried to use materials
developed in other Aboriginal communities, for example, materials published by Na-
tive Americans in the USA (Aikenhead & Huntley, 1999). To be successful, materials
must speak to the unique culture of the individual community.
Another common pattern of integration is an Aboriginal framework established at
the beginning of each unit. A framework reflects local knowledge. In a later lesson,
Western science and technology from the Saskatchewan science curriculum will be
introduced to students as useful knowledge from another culture. The introductory
Aboriginal content takes the form of practical action relevant to a community, for
example, going on a snowshoe hike, finding indigenous plants that heal, listening
to an Elder, interviewing people in the community, or assisting in a local wild rice
harvest. An introductory framework seems to be most successful when each student
feels a direct connection to Mother Earth. A physical, emotional, mental, and spiri-
tual connection helps ensure respect for the communitys Aboriginal knowledge and
begins to nurture students coming to knowing.
It is challenging, yet crucial, not to distort local knowledge by making it conform
to Western epistemology endemic to school culture. Inadvertent assimilation will
344 GLEN AIKENHEAD

take place in a science classroom if the local knowledge is taken out of its epistemic
context. Disrespect can occur, for instance, if the teacher ignores the unifying spiri-
tuality that pervades Aboriginal epistemology (Ermine, 1995). Spirituality, whether
pre-contact Traditional, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Fundamentalist Christian, has
epistemic force for most Aboriginal students even though it is purposefully absent
from science classrooms where an adherence to a Cartesian duality is the cultural
convention. It is not the case that the communitys spirituality is integrated into West-
ern science in our units, but it is the case that the communitys spirituality is given
voice in the context of Aboriginal knowledge taught in our units. Although content
from both cultures is studied for the purpose of understanding it, students are not
expected to believe or to personally adopt that content. The culture-brokering teacher
simply identifies spirituality in Aboriginal knowledge and identifies its absence in
Western science.
Whenever possible, our units point out to students instances of Aboriginal science
being distorted by a Western worldview. For example, the cyclic appearance of 13
full moons a year oriented Aboriginal peoples to key natural events of the year.
There was no need to be more precise because within Aboriginal cultures, accurate
observers of Mother Earth gave a tribe precise information on natural events. The 13
moons were only a secondary organisation of yearly events. In the unit The Night Sky,
we point out an instance of inadvertent assimilation when the topic Aboriginal cal-
endars arises. English/Cree dictionaries, for instance, distort Aboriginal knowledge
by forcing the 13 moons into 12 months. Very few documents provide the names
of all 13 moons. (Appendix A of The Night Sky does.) Instead, only 12 moons are
mentioned, paired with the 12 months of Western cultures. In short, an Aboriginal
worldview is forced to conform to a Euro-Canadian point of view. Aboriginal and
Western knowledge is bridged (integrated) in The Night Sky by using this example
of local knowledge being distorted to fit a Western point of view. Students produce
a 13-moon calendar for the year they are presently in (it changes from year to year).
They can see with their own eyes how the two different systems (13 moons versus 12
months) co-exist side by side but cannot easily be translated from one to the other,
as dictionaries and other documents pretend to do. This exercise sensitises students
to the problem of taking information from one knowledge system and placing it into
another knowledge system, out of context.
Another source of conflict arises during the integration of Western and Aboriginal
sciences when we translate from one language to another. With the aid of a dictio-
nary or knowledgeable friend, we can translate an English word into, for instance,
a Cree word. But we must be mindful that the thing we are actually referring to
can change dramatically from one context to the next. For example, in both Western
and Aboriginal sciences, people rely on observations. The process to observe in
English might be translated into wapahtam in Cree (Y dialect). But wapahtam
signifies two things not conveyed by the English verb to observe. First, wapahtam
suggests only one of five senses (sight) is being used. English is full of words (super-
ordinates such as to observe) that abstract general categories from more specific
ones (observing generalises seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and feeling). The Cree
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 345

language abstracts ideas quite differently, often through the use of complex verb
forms. Secondly, there is an unstated assumption with wapahtam that the person
doing the observing and the thing being observed are related in some way. There is
no objective distancing in Aboriginal sciences wapahtam as there is in the Western
scientific to observe. Therefore, a fundamental relationship changes between to
observe and wapahtam, a change not readily apparent on the surface. Each verb is
embedded in cultural meanings that differ dramatically. Therefore, strictly speaking
there is no accurate translation of to observe.
Another example of what gets lost in translation is illustrated when we identity an
animal as a wolf. In the culture of Western science one asks, What is a wolf?
Canis lupis. The convention in the culture of Western science is to categorise
animals according to a Linnean worldview. As our unit Trapping points out, this
worldview is useless in the context of survival based on trapping. For trappers, the
relevant knowledge is not Linnean classification, but instead, animal behaviour. (An-
imal behaviour has no significance to a Linnean worldview.) Knowledge of a wolfs
behaviour is embedded in many stories and legends about mahihkan (wolf in Cree).
In some Aboriginal cultures, the important question to ask is, Who is mahihkan?
This is clearly a different question from the one posed by Western science (How is a
wolf classified?). Only superficially does Canis lupis translate into mahihkan. For
an Aboriginal student familiar with mahihkan, the myriad of images and concepts
associated with the word mahihkan is very different from the images and concepts
science teachers want students to associate with Canis lupis. Crossing the culture
border between Western science and Aboriginal science involves more than simple
translation. A culture brokering teacher must be sensitive to the culturally embedded
meanings of words in both cultures (e.g., Canis lupis and mahihkan).
The Aboriginal introduction to each Rekindling Traditions unit constitutes a frame-
work for the whole unit. Throughout the unit, students will return to this familiar
framework as needed. The actual time to establish an Aboriginal framework could
be as short as 45 minutes or as long as several days.
Another aspect of integration common to all the units deals with values. Both
scientific and Aboriginal values are made explicit in our units. Each lesson plan
specifies either a scientific value (e.g., power and domination over nature) or an Abo-
riginal value (e.g., harmony with nature) to be conveyed by the lesson. In some cases
where both cultures are compared within one lesson, both types of values are iden-
tified. Values are particularly salient in Aboriginal cultures (Cajete, 1999; Christie,
1991; Roberts & Wills, 1998). The introduction to a Rekindling Traditions unit clar-
ifies key values that Elders expect students to learn. This practice is then extended
to the clarification of values that underlie Western science when scientific content is
studied later in the unit. Key scientific values become the topic of discussion where
they can be critiqued. This tends to circumvent an indoctrination into Western values
endemic to assimilative science teaching. Students can learn to identify vestiges of
scientism in their textbooks (reading between the lines of privileged discourse; (van
der Plaat, 1995) and in the conversations of their everyday lives. As the ontology
of the Western coloniser becomes more apparent (e.g., the mathematical idealisation
346 GLEN AIKENHEAD

of the physical world), students are more free to appropriate Western knowledge
and technique without embracing Western ways of valuing nature. (See Ogawas
(1996) four-eyed fish metaphor for a Japanese description of such appropriation,
and Krugly-Smolska (1994) for other cultures.) This appropriation has been called
autonomous acculturation (Aikenhead, 1997).
Each value system (Western scientific or Aboriginal) orients a student differently
toward nature (Ermine, 1995; McKinley, 1996). The motivation for developing knowl-
edge about nature is fundamentally different in the two cultures. While Western
science values revealing natures mysteries for the purpose of gaining knowledge
for the sake of knowledge and material growth, Aboriginal science strives for liv-
ing with natures mysteries for the purpose of survival (Aikenhead, 1997; Bindon,
1988; Roberts, Norman, Minhinnick, Wihongi, & Kirkwood, 1995; Simonelli, 1994;
Snively & Corsiglia, 2001). Students social power and privilege in the classroom
increase when students sense a genuine respect for their Aboriginal values (Cajete,
1999).
Having established an Aboriginal framework and having identified key values as
contexts for integration, the next mode of integration in a Rekindling Traditions
unit is a border crossing event into Western science, consciously switching values,
language conventions, conceptualisations, assumptions about nature, and ways of
knowing. As a culture broker, the teacher clearly identifies the border to be crossed,
guides students across that border, and helps students negotiate cultural conflicts that
might arise (Aikenhead, 1997).
This border crossing event, and other attributes of a Rekindling Traditions unit
(described above), can be illustrated by the unit Wild Rice. To begin the unit, local
rice harvesters come into the class to talk about their work and to connect students
with the local culture. The rice harvesters convey the value the communitys knowl-
edge can be very useful and important. In the following lesson, the teacher follows
this up with a systematic overview of the unit that reinforces ideas introduced by
the rice harvesters. Next the class studies the local stories that advise where one
should plant wild rice. The class goes to a nearby potential site and plants some
seeds. A personal connection to Mother Earth is achieved. The value conveyed here is
respect for traditional knowledge. Border crossing into Western science is initiated
in a lesson that follows, called The Habitat: Western Science Stories about Zizania
palustris. Biology content is introduced in accordance with the curriculum expec-
tations for the grade being taught. The scientific values underlying these lessons are,
for example, a naming system should be universal (it should work anywhere on the
planet), math can make observing more precise, more observations increase our
confidence in a result, and efficiency improves production. The Western science
content (e.g., concepts of habitat, niche, competition, pH, electro negativity, percent
germination) enhances and enriches the local knowledge by broadening students
perspectives, while at the same time, not requiring students to replace their com-
munitys knowledge with scientific knowledge. The differing underlying values of
the two knowledge systems suggest to students different assumptions about nature.
The unit Wild Rice continues with a field trip to a nearby wild rice stand, followed
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 347

by water analysis studies and lessons on the science and technology of harvesting
and of industrial processing. A personal or multimedia tour of a processing plant
is included. The unit ends with a study of the nutritional value of foods in which
students eat their investigations.
At any moment during any lesson within a Rekindling Traditions unit, students
should be able to state which culture they are speaking in (Western science or Abo-
riginal or local common sense). For instance, students are expected to use the phrase
Zizania palustris or mnomin or wild rice, depending upon which one is
appropriate to the context of a discussion. By convention, scientists say Zizania
palustris when they speak Western science, and so should the students when they
speak Western science. Cross-cultural teaching in a multi-science classroom makes
this explicit. Some teachers use two different black boards one for Aboriginal
science, another for Western science. One board is used to record ideas expressed
in the discourse of the communitys Aboriginal knowledge, while the other board is
used to express the culture of Western science. By switching from one board to the
other (cultural border crossing), students consciously switch language conventions
and conceptualisations. It is up to the teacher to assess the quality of students learn-
ing associated with each board, but both have a place in the assessment (discussed
below). This cross-cultural teaching helps students gain access to Western science
without losing sight of their cultural identity.
Another feature of integrating Western and Aboriginal sciences often emerges
when a teacher directly compares the two sciences. Sometimes Western science
can powerfully clarify one small aspect of Aboriginal science. For instance in the
Snowshoes and Trapping units, the technologies are originally studied from historical
and cultural perspectives of the local community. Then the class takes a closer, in-
depth, Western scientific look at the pressure exerted by snowshoes on snow and
by traps on animals. By understanding the scientific stories about force, pressure,
and energy, students learn to predict more accurately the effects of variations in the
technology. While the Western science concepts do not improve students know-
how for snowshoeing or trapping, the concepts clarify one small aspect of the overall
topic. Western science does not replace Aboriginal science, it enriches a small aspect
of it.
As various topics in Western science are studied, additional, relevant, Aboriginal
content is introduced. This is easy to do because the unit already has a framework
for that content. The Aboriginal content is not just tacked on for the sake of creating
interest. It frames the unit in a way that nurtures the enculturation of Aboriginal stu-
dents into their communitys culture (Casebolt, 1972; McKinley, McPherson Waiti,
& Bell, 1992), not the enculturation into Western science (AAAS, 1989; Millar &
Osborne, 1998; NRC, 1996).
The discourse embraced by people engaged in Aboriginal knowledge is very dif-
ferent from the discourse of Western scientists. Both discourses have a function in a
Rekindling Traditions unit. As students bring their communitys Aboriginal knowl-
edge and values into the classroom, new power relationships replace the conven-
tional coloniser-colonised hierarchy. Students are encouraged to share their coming
to knowing with their teacher in a dialogic manner.
348 GLEN AIKENHEAD

Assessment

Nelson-Barber, Trumbull and Shaw (1996) have mapped out the assessment of
student achievement found in cross-cultural science teaching. They offer guidance
and specific recommendations for developing a culturally responsive assessment
system, beginning with the recommendation to treat linguistic and cultural diversity
as strengths. Teachers in the Rekindling Traditions project found ways for students
to express important skills and ideas they learned in their community. The teachers
assessment system rewarded students for doing so. Our units provided ample oppor-
tunity to learn community knowledge because the communitys knowledge framed
each unit. For instance, some students were given class credit for what they did with
people in the community (e.g., living on a trap line). Anecdotal notes were written by
the people they worked with, indicating what the students had done. As well, extra
credit was sometimes given to students if they wrote some of the classroom content
in both English and Cree (or Michif or Dne).
An example of student assessment from the Navajo (Din) Nation demonstrated
the fruitfulness of portfolio assessment (Nelson-Barber, Trumbull, & Shaw, 1996).
Portfolios were shown to promote student autonomy and they reflected the cultural
context of learning, not just the process and product of learning. Thus, coming to
knowing is nurtured by portfolio assessment. Other kinds of culturally responsive
assessment techniques can be designed rationally (Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber,
1999; Solano-Flores, Jovanovic, Shavelson, & Bachman, 1999).
The efficacy of student self-assessment (Black & Aiken, 1996) lends credence to
negotiating with Aboriginal students on how school science will be assessed. Without
such a negotiation, the balance of social power and privilege reverts back to the
coloniser-colonised hierarchy.

Summary

The integration of Western and Aboriginal sciences within our Rekindling Tra-
ditions units does not follow any particular mode of integration described in the
literature (Beane, 1997; Brownlie, 1991). At different times a unit will use multi-
disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and multicultural approaches to instruction.
In 1992, McKinley and her colleagues argued against a type of integration they
called bicultural science education, an approach supported by Ritchie and Butler
(1990) and Ritchie and Kane (1990). Bicultural science teaching included Aborig-
inal examples and contexts to make Western science more relevant to Aboriginal
students, but the approach apparently did not establish an Aboriginal framework
for instruction. Instead, this bicultural approach maintained the science curriculums
Western framework as a basis for instruction, though it attempted to increase the self-
esteem of Aboriginal students by placing value on their culture. As an alternative to
bicultural science education, McKinley and her colleagues (1992) proposed a type of
integration they called bilingual education where instruction was in Maori and the
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 349

curriculum was entirely grounded within a framework of Te Ao Maori, a Maori

worldview (McKinley, 1996). McKinley (1996, pp. 161162) delineated various
school structures that exist in Aotearoa-New Zealand for Maori education: main-
stream schools, bilingual units or schools, immersion units or schools, and kura kau-
papa Maori (Maori-based schools teaching through the medium of Maori). Bilingual
science education encourages kura kaupapa n Maori as an alternative education
system.
Our cross-cultural science and technology units lie somewhere between this bi-
cultural and bilingual education. The units were developed in bilingual (Eng-
lish/Aboriginal) Saskatchewan government schools, not in schools run by Aboriginal
governments located on reservations. We feel confident that the units addressed the
needs of students because our units were developed in collaboration with key com-
munity people by teachers very familiar with the community. The bilingual approach
to integration described by McKinley et al. (1992) and elaborated by McKinley
(1996) represents the ideal case for Canadian Aboriginal science education, particu-
larly for Aboriginal schools on reservations.
Culturally sensitive Rekindling Traditions units were designed to help Aboriginal
students feel that their science courses were a natural part of their lives. Students
participated in those units in ways that were culturally meaningful. The units gave
students access to Western science and technology without requiring them to adopt
the worldview endemic to Western science, and without requiring them to change
their own cultural identity. However, for those students who have a natural gift or
talent for Western science, a Rekindling Traditions unit lays the foundation and
encouragement for further study in science and engineering. In the future, these
graduates can play a critical role in strengthening the resource management, health
care, and economic development of their Aboriginal community (MacIvor, 1995;
McKinley, McPherson Waiti, & Bell, 1992).
For other students, the units identify two important cultures: the culture of their
Aboriginal community, and the culture of Western science and technology. In the
everyday world, both influence students personal cultural identities. The Rekindling
Traditions units help students feel at ease in both cultures and help students move
back and forth between the two cultures. Fleer (1997, p. 17) concluded, Moving
between world views creates high level thinkers. Most students have a chance to
master and critique aspects of Western science without losing something valuable
from their own cultural way of knowing. By achieving smoother border crossings
between those two cultures, students are expected to become better citizens in a
society enriched by cultural differences. This is an essence of cross-cultural teaching.
Our cross-cultural science and technology units encourage a change in the power
relationships between a teacher and his/her Aboriginal students in ways that promote
mutual respect, coming to knowing, community involvement, life-long learning, and
the ethic of harmony with Mother Earth.
In our cross-cultural approach, Aboriginal knowledge and languages are treated as
an asset in the science classroom, rather than adopting a deficit model (i.e., an Abo-
riginal background puts a student at a disadvantage in school science). We recognise
350 GLEN AIKENHEAD

the advantages that accrue to Aboriginal students who can see the world from two
different perspectives (Aboriginal and Western), and who can choose the one that
better fulfills their goals at any given moment. The flexibility to move back and
forth between cultures is a definite asset in society today. Some educators call this
flexibility empowerment, others call it walking on two different paths. It can occur
when cross-cultural science instruction creates a change in the relationships of social
power and privilege in the science classroom.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to the six teachers, Gloria Belcourt, Morris Brizinski, David Gold,
Keith Lemaigre, Shaun Nagy, and Earl Stobbe, whose creativity and commitment to
teaching were stellar. The Rekindling Traditions project was made possible through
the support and funding from the Cameco Access Program for Engineering and Sci-
ence (CAPES), the Stirling McDowell Foundation (Saskatchewan Teachers Federa-
tion), Northern Lights School Division, le--la-Crosse School Division, Saskatche-
wan Education (Northern Division), and the Colleges of Education and Engineering,
University of Saskatchewan.

Note

1. Based on a paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Education

Research Association, New Orleans, April 26, 2000.

Correspondence: Glen Aikenhead, College of Education,

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 0X1 Canada
E-mail: glen.aikenhead@usask.ca

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project

2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science.
Science Education, 69, 453475.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of
science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 152.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a First Nations cross-cultural science and technol-
ogy curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217238.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Many students cross cultural borders to learn science:
Implications for teaching. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(4), 912.
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 351

Aikenhead, G. S. (2000a). Rekindling traditions: Cross-cultural science & technol-

ogy units project. http://capes.usask.ca/ccstu.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2000b). Renegotiating the culture of school science. In R. Millar,
J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of
research (pp. 245264). Birmingham, UK: Open University Press.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Huntley, B. (1999). Teachers views on Aboriginal stu-
dents learning western and Aboriginal science. Canadian Journal for Native
Education, 23, 159175.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cog-
nitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 269287.
Allen, J. A., & Crawley, F. E. (1998). Voices from the bridge: Worldview conflicts
of Kickapoo students of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,
111132.
Baker, D. (1996). Does indigenous science really exist? Australian Science Teach-
ers Journal, 42(1), 1820.
Battiste, M. (Ed.). (2000). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver, BC:
University of British Columbia Press.
Beane, J. S. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bindon, P. R. (1988). Science in Aboriginal Australia. The Australian Science
Teachers Journal, 34(2), 1621.
Black, P., & Aiken, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science,
mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge for OECD.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their
relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 5262.
Brownlie, F. (1991). Curriculum integration: A challenge of the year 2000. The Best
of Teaching, 2(1), 1821.
Cajete, G. A. (1986). Science: A Native American perspective. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, International College, Los Angeles, CA.
Cajete, G. A. (1999). Igniting the sparkle: An indigenous science education model.
Skyand, NC: Kivaki Press.
Casebolt, R. L. (1972). Learning and education at Zuni: A plan for developing
culturally relevant education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Northern Colorado, Bolder, CO.
Christie, M. J. (1991). Aboriginal science for the ecologically sustainable future.
Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37(1), 2631.
Christie, M. J. (1997). Notes on ethnoscience and knowledge production: Learning
from Australian indigenous scientists. Science Teachers Association of the NT
Journal, 16, 712.
Churchill, W. (1999). Struggle for the land: A native north American resistance to
genocide, ecocide, and colonisation. Winnipeg, Canada: Arbeiter Ring Publish-
ing.
Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science educa-
tion. Science Education, 80, 579610.
352 GLEN AIKENHEAD

Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In

B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education
(pp. 3952). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is another world: Relationships between worlds
of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79, 313333.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
peoples children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280298.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York: Macmillan.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing
scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 512.
Ermine, W. J. (1995). Aboriginal epistemology. In M. Battiste, & J. Barman (Eds.),
First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds (pp. 101112). Vancouver,
Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
Ermine, W. (1998). Pedagogy from the ethos: An interview with Elder Ermine on
language. In L. A. Stiffarm (Ed.), As we see ... Aboriginal pedagogy (pp. 928).
Saskatoon, Canada: University of Saskatchewan Extension Press.
Fleer, M. (1997). Science, technology and culture: Supporting multiple world views
in curriculum design. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(3), 1318.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers
knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75,
121133.
Ganambarr, M. (1982). Thinking about writing an Aboriginal science curriculum.
Aboriginal Child at School, 10(5), 3842.
Gaskell, P. J. (1992). Authentic science and school science. International Journal of
Science Education, 14, 265272.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education.
New York: Routledge.
Harris, J. W. (1978). Aboriginal science, Western science and the problem of
conceptual interference. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 24(3), 6167.
Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and
scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 291307.
Hodson, D. (1998). Towards a curriculum framework for multicultural science and
technology education. In D. Hodson (Ed.), Science and technology education and
ethnicity: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective (pp. 1120). Wellington, New
Zealand: The Royal Society of New Zealand.
Jegede, O. (1995). Collateral learning and the eco-cultural paradigm in science and
mathematics education in Africa. Studies in Science Education, 25, 97137.
Jegede, O. J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implica-
tions for science teaching. Research in Science and Technology Education, 17,
4566.
Kawagley, O. (1995). A Yupiaq worldview. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 353

Krugly-Smolska, E. (1994). An examination of some difficulties in integrating west-

ern science into societies with an indigenous scientific tradition. Interchange, 25,
325334.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday
life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Linkson, M. (1998). Cultural and political issues in writing a unit of western science
appropriate for primary aged Indigenous students living in remote areas of the
Northern Territory. Science Teachers Association of the NT Journal, 18, 90100.
Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, world-travelling, and loving perception. Hypa-
tia, 2(2), 319.
MacIvor, M. (1995). Redefining science education for Aboriginal students. In M.
Battiste, & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle
unfolds (pp. 7398). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
McKinley, E. (1996). Towards an indigenous science curriculum. Research in
Science Education, 26, 155167.
McKinley, E. (1998). Science curricula and cultural diversity: Are we doing enough
for the aspirations of Maori? In D. Hodson (Ed.), Science and technology
education and ethnicity: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective (pp. 4858).
Wellington, New Zealand: The Royal Society of New Zealand.
McKinley, E., McPherson Waiti, P., & Bell, B. (1992). Language, culture and science
education. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 579595.
McTaggert, R. (1991). Western institutional impediments to Australian Aboriginal
education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 297325.
Michie, M., Anlezark, J., & Uibo, D. (1998). Beyond bush tucker: Implement-
ing Indigenous perspectives through the science curriculum. Science Teachers
Association of the NT Journal, 18, 101110.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the
future. London: Kings College, School of Education.
Nadeau, R., & Dsautels, J. (1984). Epistemology and the teaching of science.
Ottawa, Canada: Science Council of Canada.
Nelson-Barber, S., Trumbull, E., & Shaw, J. M. (1996, August). Sociocultural com-
petency in mathematics and science pedagogy: A focus on assessment. Paper
presented to the 8th Symposium of the International Organisation for Science
and Technology Education, Edmonton, Canada.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multi-science perspective. Science
Education, 79, 583593.
Ogawa, M. (1996). Four-eyed fish: The ideal for non-western graduates of western
science education graduate programs. Science Education, 80, 107110.
Ogawa. M. (1998). Under the noble flag of developing scientific and technological
literacy. Studies in Science Education, 31, 102111.
OLoughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian construc-
tivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 29, 791820.
354 GLEN AIKENHEAD

Peat, D. (1994). Lighting the seventh fire. New York: Carol Publishing Group.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Cao, H. (1991). Students multiple worlds: Negotiating
the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 22, 224250.
Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pomeroy, D. (1994). Science education and cultural diversity: Mapping the field.
Studies in Science Education, 24, 49-73.
Rashed, R. (1997). Science as a western phenomenon. In H. Selin (Ed.), Encyclopae-
dia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures
(pp. 884890). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ritchie, S., & Butler, J. (1990). Aboriginal studies and the science curriculum: Af-
fective outcomes from a curriculum intervention. Research in Science Education,
20, 249354.
Ritchie, S., & Kane, J. (1990). Implementing Aboriginal content in the science
program: A case study. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 8891.
Roberts, M. (1998). Indigenous knowledge and Western science: Perspectives from
the Pacific. In D. Hodson (Ed.), Science and technology education and ethnicity:
An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective (pp. 5975). Wellington, New Zealand:
The Royal Society of New Zealand.
Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D., & Kirkwood, C. (1995).
Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspective on conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology,
2, 720.
Roberts, M., & Wills, P. R. (1998). Understanding Maori epistemology: A scien-
tific perspective. In H. Wautischer (Ed.), Tribal epistemologies: Essay in the
philosophy of anthropology. Sydney, NSW: Ashgate.
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Deinstitutionalising school science: Impli-
cations of a strong view of situated cognition. Research in Science Education, 27,
497513.
Simonelli, R. (1994). Sustainable science: A look at science through historic eyes
and through the eyes of indigenous peoples. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society, 14, 112.
Smolicz, J. J., & Nunan, E. E. (1975). The philosophical and sociological founda-
tions of science education: The demythologising of school science. Studies in
Science Education, 2, 101143.
Snively, G. (1990). Traditional Native Indian beliefs, cultural values, and science
instruction. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 17, 4459.
Snively, G. (1995). Bridging traditional science and western science in the multicul-
tural classroom. In G. Snively, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Thinking globally about
mathematics and science education (pp. 124). Vancouver, Canada: Centre for
the Study of Curriculum & Instruction, University of British Columbia.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for
science education. Science Education, 84, 634.
 CROSS-CULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHING 355

Solano-Flores, G., Jovanovic, J., Shavelson, R.J., & Bachman, M. (1999). On

the development and evaluation of a shell for generating science performance
assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 293315.
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, N. (1999, March). Developing culturally re-
sponsive science assessment. A workshop paper presented to the annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Stairs, A. (1993/94). The cultural negotiation of Indigenous education: Between
microethnography and model-building. Peabody Journal of Education, 69, 154
171.
Sutherland, D. L. (1998). Aboriginal students perception of the nature of science:
The influence of culture, language and gender. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
van der Plaat, M. (1995). Beyond technique: Issues in evaluating for empowerment.
Evaluation, 1, 8196.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social
aspects of science and technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.