Page 442 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

35 Australian Torres Strait Islander Students 417

that theory and research are mutually implicated. We view agency and structure as
a dialectic, in that structure influences human action, and humans actively change
the social structures they inhabit (Jenkins 2002). Bourdieu’s (1986) field theory
reconciles objectivism and subjectivism as a dialectical relation between agency
and structure. We have employed his concepts of habitus, cultural capital and
cultural field as a means for attempting to understand the potential cultural conflict
experienced by indigenous students learning non-indigenous science. We will
discuss the terms as we unfold our study narrative, however we present a formula
(Bourdieu 1984, p. 101) that provides a useful heuristic for summarising (but not
analysing) the major concepts at work. (Habitus × Capital) + Field = Practice,
where (Habitus × Capital) informs the concept of agency, the idea that individuals
are equipped with the ability to understand and control their own actions, regardless
of the circumstances of their lives. The notion of agency is central to our discussion
of the negotiation of language and culture in the science classroom.

The Authors’ Social Trajectories

As habitus is central to our theoretical frame, it would only be proper to start with
a brief introduction to “us,” Philemon and Hilary. Habitus refers to a set of disposi-
tions created through a conjuncture of structure and personal history and includes
a person’s (multiple) understanding(s) of the world. We are both science educators,
both immigrants to Australia, researching with a group of Australian indigenous
adolescents whose culture(s) we can respect but not expect to fully understand.
Philemon is a black, non-indigenous Australian who grew up in rural Zimbabwe in
southern Africa and taught mathematics and physics in rural and urban schools in
Zimbabwe. He immigrated to Australia in 2002 where he moved to Gordonvale and
to Djarragun College, the school where this study takes place. Philemon still thinks
in his first language, Shona. The English(es) Philemon acquired – his secondary
education was conducted in southern African version of English, he has always
taught in dialects of English and he wrote his Ph.D. in a version of Standard
Australian English – has not replaced the different logic employed in thinking in his
home language, Shona. Since cultural capital is associated with culturally authorised
attributes and skills and, importantly, includes forms of language, Philemon has
managed to acquire different forms of language and cultural capital as he negotiated
the fields of his home and schooling. As a researcher, Philemon continually switches
between different language and knowledge systems, making him an expert field
negotiator, which allows profound personal insights into Bourdieu’s concept of
cultural fields as sites of struggle over particular forms of capital (Mahar et al. 1990).
Hilary is a white, non indigenous Australian who grew up in California (United
States), immigrated to Australia with her family as a teenager, and thinks wholly in
English, though she still has trouble spelling Standard Australian English. She spent
several years teaching in secondary schools before completing a Ph.D. and subse-
quently teaching science education and environmental education at tertiary level.