Looking at mathematics as technology: implications for numeracy

Keiko Yasukawa
University of Technology, Sydney

Abstract
A numeracy education which enables people across different socio-cultural groups to
develop and participate in more numerate discourses is needed. In articulating this need, and
thinking about how such discourses may evolve, the paper will focus on the the pervasiveness
of mathematical models in our socio-political spheres. In analysing the nature of the
presence of mathematics in peoples lives, the paper views mathematics as a form of
technology, and suggests that numeracy ought to be seen as part of a broader critical
technological literacy.

Introduction
It has been said that "structural engineering" is the art of modelling materials we do not
wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we
cannot properly assess in such a way that the public at large has no reason to suspect the
extent of our ignorance.
[The "technical approach" assumes that] experts have a predominant role in decision-
making and citizens are see as consumers who are incapable of exerting ethical or practical
concerns about the environment ... [while the political approach] adopts a critical view of
industrial market society with its growth imperatives and focuses on alternative economic
and social strategies which may involve less exploitative values towards the environment.
When we talk about risks, I give them numbers. They give me sociology. There is NO
discourse.

The first quote appears in a set of guidelines for construction engineers published by the
professional body of Australian engineers (Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1994). The
second appears in an article that contrasts the technical approach with a political approach in
social impact assessments of technological projects (Craig, 1990 cited in Norrie, 1990, p 31).
The third was a statement made by an engineering colleague in a conversation about different
discourses about public risk.

What these quotes suggest is that approaches to thinking about some of the significant
problems which impact on the whole of society are classified as either technical or non-
technical, and that these approaches are incompatible. Assumptions are also made about the
superiority of one over the other, depending of course, on whether the person making that
judgement belongs to the "technical" or the "social/ non-technical" community. There is also
a sense of futility in trying to engage people in a shared discourse across the technical/ non-
technical divide.
An area where the lack of a numerate discourse is noticeable is in public disputes about
health risks associated with technological developments such as cellular phones and high
voltage transmission lines. These disputes may be eventually "resolved" at the legal or policy
levels, but often are not resolved at the socio-cultural and personal levels. The community is
accused of arguing along "emotive" lines; the technologists along reductionist and complex
mathematical lines. Another example is the lack of meaningful dialogue between managers
who concoct quantitative (and often complex) workload and performance measures, and
those whose workplaces are prescribed by these models of "work". Is it not the role of
numeracy educators to be concerned about the absence of discourse between "communities of
mathematical practitioners" from different backgrounds, and to address the gap in our
numeracy education which may be contributing to this.
This paper emerges out of a reflection of my work as a teacher of mathematics in engineering
courses, and of numeracy and numeracy education in adult basic education (ABE) teacher
training programs at a university in Australia. The unusual combination of student groups in
my work has presented me with the challenge of looking at numeracy more broadly than
something which resides in ABE alone, and finding ways of theorising numeracy in ways
which make real links with critical education.
My purpose in this paper is to examine ways in which mathematics "works" in society, and to
consider ways in which discourses can be created around these workings towards inclusive
social actions. I will argue that looking at mathematics as a technology is useful in this
regard, and that therefore numeracy might be viewed as an aspect of technological literacy,
which in turn needs to be conceptualised within the framework of critical education.

How does mathematics work in society?
Skovsmose (1994) talks about mathematics having a "formatting" power. He expands on the
central role played by mathematical models in "giving not only descriptions of phenomena,
but also by giving models for changed behaviour" through technologies, including energy,
social and information technologies (p 55). Davis (1991, p 2) talks about the descriptive,
predictive and prescriptive functions of mathematical models, and how their "ability .. to
provide frameworks of reality and of action, and .. to change what is, is very great". So when
we talk about the social power (and sometimes violence) or what Skovsomse calls the
"formatting power" of mathematics, we are talking about mathematical models, such as
economic models, models of risks, models of work and school performance.
Skovsmose shows how mathematical models underpin technologies, and how those
technologies in turn exercise social and political power in society. I would suggest that
mathematics itself can be viewed as a technology, although it is clearly not associated with an
artefact such as computers are with information technology, solar panels are with power
generation technology, and ticket machines are with transport technology. It is, as Postman
calls, an "invisible technology" (1993). And in its power to create distances between people
with different mathematical experiences, it is as Porter calls, a "technology of distance"
(1995). When we examine the ways in which public safety and risks, welfare support and
access, workplace performance, definitions of "full-time" employment, intelligence levels are
prescribed by "numbers", both of the technological metaphors of mathematics seem
appropriate.

Mathematics as an invisible technology
Mathematical models, as experienced by the community at large is an invisible technology. It
is invisible not only in the actual numbers which the models produce as "solutions", but
invisible in its derivation. Figure 1 shows a model of a mathematical modelling process.
Risks, pay rises, new tax rates, cut-off scores for university entrance are all prescriptions
which mathematical models generate. These models are constructed by people who want an
answer to a problem they see, based on their assumptions, using methods that they deem
appropriate. What the general public sees is typically the answer only. Rarely do they even
see the original question that drove the modelling process. Yet, they become co-opted as
consumers of these model generated solutions.
The publics relationships with mathematical models is akin to the publics relationships with
many other technological developments. Many of us find ourselves in the position of having
to "upgrade" our perfectly functional computers to more powerful, faster and bigger
machines to accommodate the software which will replace the perfectly functional software
that we have been using. We may not have seen or felt any problems with our software or the
computer, but a "solution" to someone elses problem is imposed upon us, and we have little
choice but to upgrade our(?) technology.
There are some mathematical models which produce solutions which the public will reject.
An example of an area in which this occurs is in decisions about personal and environmental
risks. In many of these cases, the community is also ignorant of the mathematics which has
gone into measuring the risk factor of, say, a technological development. The question may
be assumed to be whether or not use of cellular phones causes brain cancer, or whether or not
living under high voltage transmission lines causes leukaemia. But typically, the specific
questions which drive the decision making processes for the different interest groups are
quite different. What is rejected by the community may not really be what they thought they
were rejecting.
The community is typically looking at risk versus no risk; safety versus danger. They are
searching for "answers" which would give them some definitive assurance or a disaster
signal. The technical experts are looking at minimising risks within a complex "systems
framework", not focused on the particular individual incidences, but on statistical information
and subjective probabilities based on their assumptions and knowledge. But within that
systems framework, there is never the possibility of achieving a zero risk solution (unless the
project is brought to a halt altogether). The critical issue here is not whether one approach is
more valid than the other; rather it is the invisibility of the magnitude of differences in
motivation behind the questions being asked by the two groups.
To resolve the conflict between the two groups, it is not sufficient, nor is it appropriate to
focus only on the "solution" that the experts model produce. Ideally, there would be a
process of developing a shared understanding of the question, engaging in a shared process of
modelling the problem - mathematically or otherwise, which includes an agreed set of
assumptions, using a methodology which takes into account information which all parties
grow to accept as relevant to the problem. An answer, or a set of answers thus derived would
not only be better understood by all concerned, but also have shared ownership. So long as
the process of modelling employed by the technical experts are invisible, especially in the
early stages where the question itself is being specified, and assumptions are made, this
shared understanding and ownership (and with it responsibility) of the decisions based on the
models would not be possible.

Mathematics as a technology of distance
How does the technology of mathematics create distances within social groups? It is often
said that the perception of objectivity of mathematics also contributes to the lack of
contestation against mathematically prescribed decisions. Porter puts forth the thesis that
objectivity has "to do with the exclusion of judgement, the struggle against subjectivity. ...
this, more than anything else accounts for the authority of scientific pronouncements in
contemporary political affairs. ... In science, as in political and administrative affairs,
objectivity names a set of strategies for dealing with distance and distrust" (p ix). He presents
a thesis that the high level of discipline in the discourse of (formal) mathematics helps to
make it something that is well suited for communication that "goes beyond the boundaries of
locality and community" (p ix). But where does it go?
The authority of mathematics, based on the perceived objectivity of what "truths" it can
convey, is at one level, a critical part of explaining how mathematics creates a distance (and
in some cases gulfs) between the "haves" and "have nots" of mathematical knowledge. But it
doesnt fully explain how mathematical models work as a technology in the wider
community. More maths will not necessarily enable people to challenge expert claims on risk
and safety, economic policies, or workload formulae. In order to understand this better, it
helps to look at some of the theories of technology.
Kranzberg (1997) illustrates a constructivist view of technology with a set of six "laws"
which he (unashamedly) calls "Kranzbergs Laws". Two of these laws are helpful in
explaining how mathematics can be seen as a technology of distance. They are his -
Third Law: Technology comes in packages big and small. (p 10)
and
Fourth Law: Although technology might be a prime element in many public issues,
nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions. (p 11)
The Third Law seeks to explain how a technological innovation is embedded within complex
systems, which in turn interact with other systems. He presents as an example, the Ford
assembly line. One could view the assembly line as composed of different technological
elements, such as conveyor lines, which are integrated within a comprehensive system (p11).
The assembly line itself can also be seen as an integral part of the "technology" of
manufacturing systems, which exists in particular ways within a larger socio-economic
system. This then leads to his Fourth Law which explains how technological capability is
only one of many factors which determine the ways in which technological infrastructures
and policies are realised in society. These include the nature of the economic systems,
dominant social values, and environmental contexts which determine the location of the
technological system within the society. In terms of how mathematical models are embedded
within a tight and socially non-inclusive system, the following quote about a dominant ethos
in engineering is illustrative -
Systems engineering is a choreographed "dance" between the client and the project team.
The client is the person/organisation who "owns" the project. It is the client that has the need
for the results of the project, who will pay, and who will put the results of the project into
operation. The project team is the technical group that will actually develop the system. The
client knows what they want (or at least would like to think that they do), while the project
team knows how to build it (or at least claims competence in building such systems). Systems
engineering is the process of matching the clients understanding of what is needed with the
technical competency necessary to build a complex system. (Drane & Rizos, 1998, pp 17-18)
What this definition of systems engineering shows is that it is not the lack of mathematical
knowledge which makes technological decisions impenetrable for the general public. It is the
way in which problems/projects are conceived within a client/patron relationship which has
little visible accountability to the society at large. Gilchrist (1995) reveals another example
where an Australian Government bureaus mathematical model of greenhouse gas emissions
led to misguided policy recommendations, because it was not immediately revealed that the
model was funded by major Australian coal producers whose immediate interests clearly
would not have been served by tighter greenhouse policies. While a reasonably sophisticated
level of mathematical knowledge would most likely be needed to decode the workings of the
model, both technical and non-technical details of the model were unavailable for scrutiny.
The public in these cases are therefore distanced firstly and more significantly by the
boundaries of the "system" agreed upon by the technical/economic interest groups, than by
the possible lack of mathematical knowledge. In these cases, "more mathematics" would not
help to penetrate the boundaries set by the patron/client systems.

Penetrating the impenetrable - the role of numeracy education?
[Numeracy] is a social consciousness reflected in ones social practices which bridges the
gap between the world of academic maths and the real world, in all its diversity. The
consciousness enables one to challenge the boundaries and the role of mathematics in social
contexts. For this reason, numeracy is not linked to any level of knowledge in the hierarchy of
academic mathematics; there is a need for numeracy associated with all levels of
mathematical knowledge. Further, being an ingredient in the expansion of social justice, if it
isnt political, its not numeracy and if its not in context, its not numeracy.(Yasukawa &
Johnston, 1994, p 198)

A "noble" definition of numeracy. But how can numeracy education tackle an invisible
technology which excludes and distances the community from decisions and policies which
affect all of us? What does it mean for numeracy education to expand social justice? What
pedagogical frameworks are available to help us find direction in critical numeracy
education?
For some years now, there has been effective "translation" of constructivist learning theories
into effective mathematics pedagogy by applying what has been observed in socio-cultural
studies of mathematics and mathematics education (Lave, 1988; Nunes, et al, 1993;
DAmbrosio, 1995; Walkerdine, 1990). Teaching in contexts relevant to the learner,
celebrating different ways of doing maths, and negotiating the curriculum are some of the
ways in which as teachers, we have tried to make mathematics more meaningful to our
learners. But is there a danger that teaching only in the learners contexts may leave the
maths "trapped" in the learners immediate and personal contexts, and thereby also the
learner? Is there a bigger danger in learners defining their contexts through the maths they
perceive themselves capable (and incapable) of doing?
Many teachers have adopted the approach of teaching "in context". For teachers who work in
the ABE sector, this may mean using contexts such as shopping, utility bills, and social
statistics in their teaching (Helme, 1995). For teaching engineering students, it can mean, as I
have done, engaging students in project work which makes explicit the role of mathematics in
a great variety of engineering processes and systems such as energy demand forecasting,
traffic control, product reliability analysis, and so on (Yasukawa, 1995).
But where in our education system do we educate students who will become engineers,
economists, business managers who respect the ethics and practical concerns of the wider
community? Where do we give students in the non-technical areas the strategies to critique
the technical approach effectively, rather than simply criticise its "narrowness" and
"reductionist approach"? How can we ensure that "critical numeracy" education for the wider
community does not end with "a bit more maths in context", resistance to learning statistics
because "statistics lie", and perhaps a letter to the editor about medias selected use of data?

Numeracy, technological literacy and critical education
The ramifications of decisions based on models can be too broad and far-reaching, both in
terms of decisions based on public policy and private investment, for society not to take an
active role. (Leet and Wallace, 1994, p 243)
If the subject labelled Technology is to be largely focused on practical aspects of designing
and making, then it cannot possibly bear the sole weight of responsibility for enabling
students to make sense of technology. To achieve the latter aim, other subject areas must take
technology seriously. However, an arrangement by which responsibility for practical
capability rested with Technology, and for critical awareness with subjects ... where values
had been driven into exile from out of Technology, would be undesirable. This would tend to
confirm Technology as a ghetto for ingenious, specialist tinkerers, and the Humanities as the
natural home for anti-technologists. (Barnett, 1994, pp 62-63)
[Critical education] must assume an active role in identifying inequalities in society, in
identifying causes for the emergent sociological and ecological crises and in explaining and
outlining ways of dealing with such problems .... [as Giroux states] schools must be defended
as an important public service that educates students to be critical citizens who can think,
challenge, take risks, and believe that their actions will make a difference in the larger
society. (Skovsmose, pp 40-41)
Leet and Wallace advocate that society has a role in developing an ethics of modelling. They
recommend that "the discipline of Applied Ethics be employed to provide the knowledge
upon which we can begin to prescribe ethical behaviour for model builders. ... to sensitize
practitioners to where ethical dilemmas arise in practice, ... and to encourage reflective
decision making in order to arrive at a consensus that satisfies a greater moral good" (pp
243-244). But how can this be realised in a way that is a meaningful and practical part of the
education for model builders and users, rather than an ethical "prescription"?
I have learned from my experience of teaching a subject called Mathematical Modelling to
senior engineering students that there is a great dilemma in saying, on the one hand, "be
aware that your view of reality is not the only view ... dont presuppose that a valid solution
to the problem you wish to investigate is a mathematical one" and on the other, to say that
they must complete a project which meets the subject objectives, one of which is "application
of mathematics in a real world problem". I can teach them "the right line" about ethics in
modelling, but within a program which primarily emphasises technical expertise, it has been
difficult to develop strategies which students can use to turn a social critique of their
technical approach into a change in their own practice of engineering in the community.
There is also a problem, as Barnett points out in having subjects which isolate the critique
from the practice of technology. Society which is divided into a group of tinkerers and
another group of critics can never properly challenge the formatting power of mathematical
or any other technology. What is needed is a technological literacy education which is
strongly grounded in the project of critical education, that is educating those people who as
Girouxs quote by Skovsmose states, can "challenge, take risks, and believe that their actions
can make a difference in society".
In order to challenge, people need to understand what they are challenging. As I have
attempted to describe earlier, the formatting power of mathematics is not determined by
mathematics alone. It is determined by the nature of the "contracts" by and the "systems"
within which models are built, and by the specific questions which drive the modelling
projects. Before people can meaningfully challenge prescriptions delivered by models, they
need to understand what Lemke and others call the "community of practice" (CoP) of these
model builders, that is the "ecology..., meanings and things" with which they deal (1997,
p42). Equally, the model builders would need to develop an understanding of the different
communities of practice who are affected by what they do, and what their "things" prescribe
to them.
In considering a pedagogy for such understandings, we can draw from the theories we
already have about "meaningful" mathematics learning. We have varieties of constructivist
theories, all of which are underpinned by the notion that learners negotiate meanings, and
meanings cannot be imposed by transmission. That is why many of us try to teach in ways
which engage students in hands-on, interactive learning activities. Is it too optimistic to
suggest that meanings can be negotiated across people who identify with different
communities of practice?
Situated cognition theory has used ways of researching mathematical and literacy practices,
ways of understanding peoples practices in relation to their socio-cultural contexts. But
Lemke also suggests that we must "look at networks of interdependencies among practices,
activities and CoPs to understand the dynamics of ecosocial systems" (p49). This, he says, is
because each individual changes through participation in a CoP, and is a member of more
than one CoP at any one time, and through life. Could we not make the research methodology
available to our students, so they may understand not only the CoPs with which they
themselves identify, but also the CoP of other groups in society? Is it not possible that
through that, people of different CoPs can evolve a new CoP in which they all belong, and
which can engage in a common discourse about technologies?
What is a hopeful ingredient for this vision of technological literacy, is the recognition that
every individual identifies with different CoPs at different times. For example, an engineering
student may identify her/himself as an engineer when s/he is tackling a problem about traffic
control technology in say, a Computer Systems Analysis class. But the same student also
experiences aspects of the transport system in her/his everyday life, and most likely without
applying formal analytical methods to negotiate them.
A pre-requisite for a technological literacy program which can educate active citizens is an
educational framework which makes explicit the holistic influence that education has on
individual learners, that is not only the technical/ discipline specific expertise which the
students are expected to develop. It needs to make visible the different communities of
practice which will interact with students in their professional and private lives, and promote
critical reflection on how they can interact effectively in these networks of CoPs for the
greater social good. It needs to engage students in a discourse "within themselves" as
members of different CoPs and challenge them to reconcile their technical approaches and
their needs and issues in their personal lives. We need to build on this reflection and engage
students in discourses with other student groups and wider community groups on real social
issues so that they may evolve a new CoP which represents, respects, and negotiates, rather
than build walls against different interest groups. We can engage students from non-technical
areas in "tinkering" with design projects of their choice, so make visible that even in their
own lives, they use analytic methods to deal with uncertainties and risks. This may be less
visible, but similar to the formal methods used by "professional" risk practitioners. If we as
professional members of society cannot bridge gaps between different CoPs, we have to
ensure that at least our students become agents for developing new practices and discourses.
It is one thing to acknowledge and respect peoples different realities. However, we all
belong to the one planet, and while the "degree" of social injustice and environmental
degradation on the planet may be debatable, social injustice and environmental degradation
are real. We as educators must recognise this, and be actively seeking ways to educate people
who are going to help us move towards a more socially equitable and environmentally
sustainable future. Numeracy for a sustainable society has to be much more than maths in
context, and criticism of other peoples maths. It must ultimately be about building numerate
discourses across different communities of practice. We as numeracy educators need to
extend beyond our traditional communities of numeracy educators, and be active participants
in this project.


References:
Barnett, Michael (1994) "Designing the Future? Technology, Values and
Choice", International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 4 (1) 51-63.
DAmbrosio, Ubiratan (1995) "Multiculturalism and mathematics
education", International Journal of mathematics Education, Science &
technology. 26 (3) 337-346.
Drane, Chris and Chris Rizos (1998) Positioning Systems in Intelligent
Transportation Systems. Artech House, Inc., Boston.
Gilchrist, Gavin (1995) "Cold facts and a load of hot air", Sydney Morning
Herald. Saturday, 12 August, 32.
Helme, Sue (1995) "Maths Embedded in Context: How do students
respond?", Numeracy in Focus. Adult Literacy Information Office, Sydney, 24-32.
Kranzberg, Melvin (1997) "Technology and Kranzbergs Laws", in Reynolds, Terry
s. And Stephen H. Cutcliffe (Eds) Technology and the West. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago. 5-20.
Institution of Engineers, Australia (1990) Guidelines for Successful Engineering
Constructions. Canberra.
Lave, Jean (1988) Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leet, Edith H and William A Wallace (1994) "Societys Role in the Ethics of
Modelling" in William A Wallace (Ed) Ethics in Modelling. Pergamon, London, 242-
245.
Lemke, Jay L (1997) "Cognition, Context, and Learning: A Social Semiotic
Perspective" in Kirshner, David and James A Whitson (Eds) Situated Cognition:
Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ. 37-55.
Norrie, David (1990) "Community Severance by Major Road Projects", in Key
Environmental Issues and Roads: a position paper by the Total Environment Centre
for the Roads and Traffic Authority. Total Environment Centre, Sydney. 19-38.
Nunes, Terezinha et al (1993) Street mathematics and school
mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Porter, Theodore M (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity of Science
and Public Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Postman, Neil (1993) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage
Books, New York.
Skovsmose, Ole (1994) Towards a Philosophy of Critical Mathematics
Education. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Walkerdine, Valerie (1990) "Difference, Cognition, and Mathematics Education", For
the Learning of Mathematics, 10 (3) 51-56.
Yasukawa, Keiko (1995) "Teaching Critical Mathematics", Numeracy in Focus. Adult
Literacy Information Office, Sydney, 38-42.
Yasukawa, Keiko and Betty Johnston (1994) "A Numeracy Manifesto for Engineers,
Primary Teachers, Historians ... A Civil Society - can we call it theory?", Proceedings
of the Australian Bridging mathematics Network Conference. University of Sydney,
Sydney, 191-199.