Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain
Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain
复制标题
日常科学学习和公平：绘制有争议的地形图
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Flávio S. Azevedo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Philip;Flávio S. Azevedo
校外环境有望扩大那些经常被排除在学校机会之外的群体对科学的参与（国家研究理事会[NRC]，2009年）。科学与个人、群体和国家的“社会、物质和个人福祉”（NRC，2009）--与对公平、正义和民主的理解有着深刻联系的指标和愿望--密不可分。然而，我们观察到，在该领域的公平的概念是一个移动的目标，广泛地改变在不同的背景和研究角度的意义，一个事实，既指向概念和理论上的不精确性和政治上有争议的长期性质。公平的不同含义及其相关影响反映在有影响力的下一代科学标准（NGSS）框架（NRC，2012）中，该框架确定了该术语的三种常见用法。公平的第一个定义呼吁“社会开明的自我利益”，并认为必须投资于“代表性不足的群体”的科学和工程教育，因为“传统人口”不再能够完全满足美国对熟练STEM劳动力的需求。278）。这种公平的概念认为，将代表性不足的群体纳入其中，纯粹是因为它具有维持美国科学、技术、军事和经济主导地位的工具价值。因此，它阻碍了科学和社会权力关系真正多样化和变化的可能性。该文件还提出了公平的第二个概念，即“公平”和“平等对待所有人”（第100页）。278）。这种对种族问题采取“色盲”做法的典型框架，如果不能解决历史、社会、政治和经济背景，而这些背景为不同群体提供了不同的机会和资源，或限制了这些机会和资源，就有可能重新造成不平等（Bonilla-Silva，2001年，2003年; Gutiérrez和Jaramillo，2006年）。最后，该报告强调了公平作为“社会正义的一种表达，呼吁纠正过去美国社会整个群体所遭受的不公正，这些群体在过去一直没有得到学校的充分服务，因此在科学和工程领域的高声望职业前景受到严重限制”（NRC，2012，第113页）。278）。在这种用法中，社会正义的语言被明显地引用，但不公正被直接归入过去。此外，犯下这种不公正的群体的代理权，以及他们积累的物质和象征资源（Lipsitz，1998; Spring，2013），通过明显的被动语言被抹去。虽然NGSS框架考虑了公平的多种含义，但值得注意的是，这些定义中的每一个都可以说是在实质上保持了现状：它们只是使一个不公平和不公正的社会中某些特权阶层的行为者多样化。作为一份协商一致文件，我们认识到这些框架需要面向广泛的受众，同时尽量减少公开的政治立场。然而，这种“中间道路”的做法进一步助长了公平的非历史化和非政治化。
Out-of-school settings promise to broaden participation in science to groups that are often left out of school-based opportunities (National Research Council [NRC], 2009). Increasing such involvement is premised on the notion that science is intricately tied to “the social, material, and personal well-being” of individuals, groups, and nations (NRC, 2009)—indicators and aspirations that are deeply linkedwith understandings of equity, justice, and democracy. We observe, however, that the very conception of equity in the field is a moving target, shifting widely in meaning across contexts and research perspectives—a fact that points both to conceptual and theoretical imprecisions and the politically contested nature of the term. The diverse meanings of equity and their associated implications are reflected in the influential Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) framework (NRC, 2012), which identifies three common usages of the term. The first definition of equity appeals to “socially enlightened self-interest” and argues that investments must bemade in science and engineering education for “underrepresented groups” since “traditional populations” can no longer fully meet the need for skilled STEM labor in the United States (pp. 278). Such a notion of equity views the inclusion of underrepresented groups purely through its instrumental value ofmaintaining U.S. scientific, technological, military, and economic dominance. Thus, it hinders the possibility of authentically diversifying and changing relationships of power in science and society. The document also offers a second conceptualization of equity as “fairness” and “equal treatment of all” (pp. 278). This framing, typical of “colorblind” approaches to race, risks reinscribing inequities when it fails to address the historical, social, political, and economic contexts that have differentially afforded or limited opportunities and resources to various groups (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, 2003; Gutiérrez & Jaramillo, 2006). Finally, the report highlights a characterization of equity as “an expression of social justice [that] calls to remedy the injustices visited on entire groups of American society that in the past have been underserved by their schools and have thereby suffered severely limited prospects of high-prestige careers in science and engineering” (NRC, 2012, pp. 278). The language of social justice is notably invoked in this usage, but injustices are squarely relegated to the past. In addition, the agency of groupswho committed such injustices, aswell as their accruedmaterial and symbolic resources (Lipsitz, 1998; Spring, 2013), are erased through conspicuously passive language. While the NGSS framework considers multiple meanings of equity, it is noteworthy that each of these definitions arguably preserves the status quo in substantial ways: they simply diversify the actors in certain privileged segments of an otherwise enduringly inequitable and unjust society. As a consensus document, we recognize the need for these frameworks to speak to a broad audience while minimizing overt political stances. This “middle of the road” approach, however, further contributes to dehistoricized and depoliticizedmeanings of equity.