New England Workshop on Science and Social Change

Original prospectus, Fall 2003

The annual New England Workshop on Science and Social Change (NewSSC) is an innovative, interaction-intensive workshop designed to facilitate discussion and longer-term collaboration among college faculty who teach and write about interactions between scientific developments and social change.

Specific objectives of NewSSC are to show that:

Sections to follow

Background and Preparation for the Workshops
Components of the workshop program
Evaluation of Workshop
Related workshops organized through the Critical and Creative Thinking Program at UMass Boston

Background and Premises of the Workshops

Since the early 1980s scientific developments and their potential implications have been made more accessible to the public. The popularization of science through newspaper journalism, television documentaries, and book publishing has flourished. During the same period concerns that K-12 students become more literate in the established bodies of scientific knowledge have led to new initiatives at the national level in science education (AAAS 1997, Montgomery 1994). Many innovations have centered on "student-active learning" (McNeal and D'Avanzo 1997) that fosters learning of concepts by guiding students to (re)discover them for themselves (e.g., Jungck 1997). Some initiatives, however, have adopted a broader social outlook, especially those attempting to integrate science into college-level liberal arts curricula (Gilbert 1997). Texts, courses, and software have appeared that enliven the facts and theories by presenting the historical and social context in which they were established (e.g., Paul 1995, Hagen et al. 1996).

It is fair to say, however, that the potential for studies of science in its social context to inform and be included in science education is relatively undeveloped. I recognize that this is a contentious endeavor-during the 1990s much publicity was given to claims that humanistic and social scientific studies of science and technology contribute to "anti-science" sentiments (e.g., Gross and Leavitt 1994). Nevertheless, against these claims, it should be noted that STS scholars interpreting science in its social context have often formulated perspectives unavailable to, or underdeveloped by, scientists, and, on this basis, made contributions valued by scientists to discussions about scientific and technical developments (e.g., Paul 1997). In this spirit, the initiators of the Human Genome Project reserved a small, but significant fraction of the Project's budget for studies of the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics.

The first premise of the New England Workshop on Science and Social Change is that wider discussion of science and technology can influence science, society, and science education in constructive ways. NewSSC would focus on engagement with current scientists and the education of future scientists and scientifically engaged citizens, but could also address science popularization and citizen activism. Of course, the Boston area is rich in scholarly programs on history and philosophy of science, and has been home to important initiatives in citizen activism around scientific developments (e.g., Science for the People, Union of Concerned Scientists, Committee for Responsible Genetics). An emphasis, however, on bringing science in its social context into discussions with scientists and a wider vision of science education represents a distinctive contribution that NewSSC can make.

For this endeavor examination of science in its social context means more than looking at the applications of science and technology-their positive and negative implications on workplaces and the economy, on health and the environment, and on social interactions and identities. There is also an "upstream" direction-the very problems studied, concepts used, technologies designed, and answers accepted also reflect their social context-from who funds science and technology and whether the public has a voice, to the subtle ways that language and social commitments shape people's thought and creativity. In teaching close examination of concepts and methods within any given area of the life and environmental sciences can stimulate students' inquiries into the diverse social influences shaping that science. Social contextualization can, in turn, suggest alternative lines of scientific investigation. This two-way interaction or "reciprocal animation" between science and social contextualization of science enlarges significantly the sources of ideas about what else could be or could have been in science and in society (Taylor 1997, 1998, 2003). In this spirit, participation will be solicited from scientists as well as from science educators and STS scholars.

The second premise of NewSSC is that academic meetings are more fruitful when they allow participants to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand. In related workshops hosted by the Critical and Creative Thinking Program at UMass Boston participants have been led-or have led each other-through activities that can be adapted to college classrooms and other contexts, allowing them to share insights, experience, experiments, struggles, and plans. The premise was emphasized in the titles of some of these workshops, which began with the phrase "Helping each other to foster..." The small size, intensive interaction, and evolve-as-we-go format of the "Helping each other..." workshops were designed to catalyze collaborations and networks among the participants, in recognition of the fact that we not only need tools, but need continuing support and inspiration as we weave new approaches into our work. These features will be built into the NewSSC.

The third premise of the NewSSC is that participants can be attracted from across the country to four-five day workshops that connect research and teaching along the lines above. They would see this time as a productive warm-up to their summer work, not as another meeting that detracts from research and writing. If this premise is true, workshop costs can be kept low by offering only a subsidy for travel and accommodation, not full underwriting of expenses or honoraria, and having meal costs paid by participants. (Summer workshops at UMass Amherst on teaching composition serve as a "proof of concept" here. The organizer of those workshops, Peter Elbow, was consulted in preparing the NewSSC proposal.)

Components of the workshop program

The program will evolve as the facilitator sees opportunities and consults with workshop organizer and participants. Components that have been effective in previous workshops include:

Autobiographical introductions, centered around how each of us have come to be working on the workshops' theme in some sense and/or have chosen to participate in this workshop. Material emerging in such autobiographical statements and sessions provides more and different context than formal presentations-We know more than we are usually able to say, and opening this to exploration in subsequent conversations and sessions is an important basis for (inter)connecting our work. Hearing what we happen to mention and omit in telling our own story also serves as a source of insight into our present place and direction. Workshop leader will begin, and in doing so provide some context for the workshop.

Activities to bring ideas to the surface and focusing, e.g., Use of Guided Freewriting after the autobiographical introductions: "What the 'Helping Each Other to research and teach about the complexities of..' endeavor looks like to me." Followed by a Go around, in which each person states "One thing I hope to have worked on by the end of the workshop."

Experiential sessions, that is, sessions in which, instead of participants telling us what they have thought or found out, they will lead other participants to experience the issues and directions they are exploring and the tools they use to help others think critically about them. If a participant hasn't proposed a session in advance, they might invent one during the workshop. In any case, everyone will get an opportunity to expose their work as the workshop develops.

Time for individual writing and library research

Time for pairwise and small group discussions on collaborations, including, while on walks around Woods Hole.

Mapping of connections among individual projects

Taking stock, including:
closing activity each day: e.g., Freewriting to reflect on "What is stabilizable and what needs more playing with." PT leads us in a go around, in which each of us states: 1. Something that is stable/ solid/ clear for us; 2. something we're pleased at having sorted out; 3. something we need to chew on more.
workshop closing: e.g., Historical scan and/or activity in which we write and share 5 statements/ themes/questions that we were taking away with us (use carbon paper so it can be typed up and circulated).

Evaluation of Workshop

"Formative" (during the process) and "summative" (after the fact) evaluations have four potential audiences and goals, which will be addressed as part of NewSSC:
The many activities taking stock during the workshop serve i) and iii), but ii) and iv) will be addressed by a narrative evaluation by a participant completed soon after the workshop, followed by a 6 months check-in with participants to assess whether projects and collaborations hatched the workshop are being realized. The participant-evaluator may also design formative and summative evaluation instruments to guide their assessment.
In a small interactive workshop it is not constructive to have the evaluator not participate (the person cannot be a "fly on the wall"). Readers of the resulting evaluations, therefore, will have to take the involvement and investment of the evaluator into account.
Related workshops organized through the Critical and Creative Thinking Program at UMass Boston
Last update 13 July 04