Diversity Is an Asset to Science Not a Threat

• Published date: 23 September 2022
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.13169/intecritdivestud.4.2.0096
• Pages: 96-113
• Date: 23 September 2022
• Author: Margaret A. L. Blackie
• Subject Matter: critical realism,diversity,decoloniality,science,Bernstein

International Journal of CRITICAL DIVERSITY STUDIES 4.2 December 2021

Diversity Is an Asset to Science

Not a Threat

Margaret A. L. Blackie

Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning, Rhodes University

ABSTRACT

In this paper, Critical Realism is used as a theoretical framework to show that

diversity is an asset to science not a threat. Critical Realism situates the reliabil-

ity and reproducibility of science in the realm of the real and thus relocates the

notion of “objectivity” from the person of the scientist to the process of science. This

means that it no longer necessary to attempt to minimise the person of the scientist

in pursuit of rigorous knowledge. The implication is that diversity both in terms

of intellectual training (within limits) and in terms of being multicultural, gender,

sexuality, multilingual, is revealed to be an asset. This is because the construc-

tion of knowledge draws on personal experience and having people with divergent

experience interrogating the same problem is more likely to provide a reliable,

reproducible solution. In the latter parts of the paper, the implications for teaching

are described. In addition, it is demonstrated that this argument can be extended

into different knowledge areas.

KEYWORDS

critical realism, diversity, decoloniality, science, Bernstein

Introduction

The question of the nature of transformation in higher education institutions in South

Africa has been high on the agenda since the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall protests

of 2015/2016 (Fataar, 2019). Keet and Swartz (2015) developed a “proposed transformation

barometer” which clusters areas of concern into three themes: governance; equity and

redress; and transforming the academic project. The focus of this paper is to explore the

nature of transforming the academic project within a STEM environment.

This paper arises from my own interest in the decolonisation conversation in South

African higher education. I conduct research in both synthetic chemistry and in higher edu-

cation. Like many natural scientists, when the protests began, I presumed that decolonisation

was primarily a concern of the social sciences and humanities. But the furore that arose after

the #ScienceMustFall video went viral piqued my interest (Adendorff & Blackie, 2020).

DOI:10.13169/INTECRIT DIVESTUD.4.2.0096

DIVERSITy IS aN aSSET TO SCIENCE NOT a ThREaT 97

International Journal of CRITICAL DIVERSITY STUDIES 4.2 December 2021

This particular video was a short clip from a larger conversation in which a student called for

abandoning Newton’s Laws amongst other things. The student’s comments themselves should

probably not be taken too literally. They were made in the heat of the debate by a social sci-

ence student. Nonetheless, there was a very strong reaction from a small number of academic

scientists. Most noteworthy was Professor Tim Crowe from the University of Cape Town

whose primary position was that science is objective and thus there is no conversation to be

had around the decolonisation of science (Cameron, 2016).

This claim that science is objective is strongly correlated with a claim that science is

socially neutral. From this position, the call for decolonisation of science education is at best

irrelevant and at worst a potential threat to good science (Adendorff & Blackie, 2022). Any

attempt to argue that decolonisation is a social good and therefore must be taken seriously

will not gain much traction—to argue for the development of a social good in a field which

proclaims itself to be socially neutral is doomed to failure. However, if one can show that the

knowledge project of science will be benefited by diversity and transformation, then the

desired social good can be achieved as a happy by-product. Thus the desired end of trans-

formation (Keet & Swartz 2015) can be achieved with the buy-in of the community which

we desire to impact. It is the purpose of this paper to provide the intellectual foundation for

the position that diversity is in fact advantageous for the knowledge project of science

itself.This builds on previous work wherein we show that “knower blindness” is a major

issue in STEM education (Adendorff & Blackie, 2022). This has, in fact, been a hallmark of

both science and philosophy in the Western educational tradition (Grosfoguel, 2007). The

key insight of this paper is the recognition that this “knower blindness” is a weakness in the

intellectual tradition not a strength.

In this paper I will show that the way in which one thinks about knowledge matters. The

notion that science is objective indicates a conflation of epistemology and ontology, and

“knower blindness”—a blindness to the significance of the community of who hold and dis-

seminate the knowledge. Knowledge is a social product. Through the use of Critical Realism,

I will show that the logical conclusion of a realist approach to knowledge is that diversity is

an asset to the advancement of knowledge. Drawing on Bernstein (2000, 2003), I then show

that the shift to the recognition of the importance of diversity among practising scientists

has an impact on how one approaches teaching and learning spaces. As a chemist, my own

primary interest is to make this visible for STEM subjects and so illustrate the significance

to STEM fields most explicitly. However I also show how this is potentially more widely

applicable to all fields.

Approach

The method used for this paper follows the first part of the process described by Bhaskar for

the advancement of understanding existing social structures: RRREIC—Resolution;

Redescription; Retrodiction; Elimination; Identification and Correction (Robert Isaksen,

2016). Resolution refers to the identification of some causes of the current situation. In this

paper, this requires some consideration of the way in which science is understood. The

insight provided by previous work (Adendorff & Blackie, 2020; Blackie & Adendorff, 2022)

on the notion of “knower blindness” in science is taken to be a causal factor. Redescription