TY - CHAP
T1 - What are mathematical cultures?
AU - Larvor, Brendan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - In this paper, I will argue for two claims. First, there is no commonly agreed, unproblematic conception of culture for students of mathematical practices to use. Rather, there are many imperfect candidates. One reason for this diversity is there is a tension between the material and ideal aspects of culture that different conceptions manage in different ways. Second, normativity is unavoidable, even in those studies that attempt to use resolutely descriptive, value-neutral conceptions of culture. This is because our interest as researchers into mathematical practices is in the study of successful mathematical practices (or, in the case of mathematical education, practices that ought to be successful). I first distinguish normative conceptions of culture from descriptive or scientific conceptions. Having suggested that this distinction is in general unstable, I then consider the special case of mathematics. I take a cursory overview of the field of study of mathematical cultures, and suggest that it is less well developed than the number of books and conferences with the word ‘culture’ in their titles might suggest. Finally, I turn to two theorists of culture whose models have gained some traction in mathematics education: Gert Hofstede and Alan Bishop. Analysis of these two models corroborates (in so far as two instances can) the general claims of this paper that there is no escaping normativity in this field, and that there is no unproblematic conception of culture available for students of mathematical practices to use.
AB - In this paper, I will argue for two claims. First, there is no commonly agreed, unproblematic conception of culture for students of mathematical practices to use. Rather, there are many imperfect candidates. One reason for this diversity is there is a tension between the material and ideal aspects of culture that different conceptions manage in different ways. Second, normativity is unavoidable, even in those studies that attempt to use resolutely descriptive, value-neutral conceptions of culture. This is because our interest as researchers into mathematical practices is in the study of successful mathematical practices (or, in the case of mathematical education, practices that ought to be successful). I first distinguish normative conceptions of culture from descriptive or scientific conceptions. Having suggested that this distinction is in general unstable, I then consider the special case of mathematics. I take a cursory overview of the field of study of mathematical cultures, and suggest that it is less well developed than the number of books and conferences with the word ‘culture’ in their titles might suggest. Finally, I turn to two theorists of culture whose models have gained some traction in mathematics education: Gert Hofstede and Alan Bishop. Analysis of these two models corroborates (in so far as two instances can) the general claims of this paper that there is no escaping normativity in this field, and that there is no unproblematic conception of culture available for students of mathematical practices to use.
KW - Cultural approach
KW - Epistemic practice
KW - Mathematical practice
KW - Mathematics education
KW - Mathematics education research
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85060656678
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-31502-7_1
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-31502-7_1
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85060656678
T3 - Trends in the History of Science
SP - 1
EP - 22
BT - Trends in the History of Science
PB - Springer Singapore
ER -