New England Workshop on Science and Social Change
The New England Workshop on Science and Social Change (NewSSC) organizes innovative, interaction-intensive workshops designed to facilitate discussion, teaching innovation, and longer-term collaboration among faculty and graduate students who teach and write about interactions between scientific developments and social change.
Premises of NewSSC
- 1. Wider discussion of science and technology can influence science, society, science education, and citizen activism in constructive ways.
- 2. Academic meetings are more fruitful when they allow participants to connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical, political, and personal aspects of the issue at hand.
- 3. Scholars who have a repertoire of process or participation skills are more comfortable and productive in organized and informal collaborative processes, and are more likely to see new opportunities, take initiative, and experiment with the models they have been introduced to.
- 4. Workshop costs can be kept low if participants expect the workshops to be generative and restorative and are prepared, therefore, to attend without full underwriting of expenses or honoraria. To the extent that this premise is born out, participants will be able to envisage more opportunities for cross-disciplinary meetings and subsequent collaborations (see premise 3).
Specific objectives of NewSSC
The choice of topics, which address emerging issues of social significance, is complemented by the innovative, interaction-intensive character of the workshops. The topics and the process together are designed to:
- a) Stimulate new interdisciplinary projects and collaborations among STS scholars, scientists, science educators, and concerned citizens.
- b) Develop participants' skills and interest in engaging constructively beyond their current disciplinary and academic boundaries and contributing to wider discussion of the topics of the workshops.
Upcoming NewSSC-affiliated Workshops
Spring 2006, "Ecological restoration as social reconstruction," April 20-23
Fall 2006, "What can we do? -- Moving debates over genetic determinism and interactionism in new directions," September*
Spring 2007, "Collaborative generation of environmental knowledge and inquiry," April*
[*dates & topics provisional]
Location: Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), Woods Hole MA, USA
Organizer: Peter J. Taylor, University of Massachusetts Boston, Programs in Science, Technology and Values and Critical and Creative Thinking.
Costs, Arrangements, Application Process
Sections to follow
Background and Rationale of the Workshops
Organization and design of the workshops
Evaluation of Workshops
Themes of Future and Past Workshops (with links to materials from past 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. 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 focuses on engagement with current scientists and the education of future scientists and scientifically engaged citizens, but may 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 NewSSC (and 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 more structured activities have been complemented by opportunities for individual reflection, acknowledgement of tentative insights, and unplanned developments. The small size, intensive interaction, and evolve-as-we-go format of the workshops have been designed to catalyze collaborations and networks among the participants, in recognition of the fact that we need not only ideas and tools, but also continuing support and inspiration as we weave new approaches into our work.
"Fruitfulness" refers to two dimensions of the first premise. Discussions of science and technology are more likely to have wider influence if a) the workshop topics concern emerging issues of social significance and b) the participants go on to pursue more diverse engagements that take them beyond their current disciplinary and academic boundaries. The third premise of the proposed workshops is that scholars who have a repertoire of process or participation skills are more comfortable and productive in organized and informal collaborative processes, and are more likely to see new opportunities, take initiative, and experiment with the models they have been introduced to. The resulting "engagements" (Taylor 2004) are not meant to be grand or to perpetuate the activist-scholarly STS divide. They might range from attempting to inject critical commentary and social interpretation into scientific forums or writing for a popular audience to participating in support groups for individuals with abnormal genetic conditions. Indeed, the workshops aim to be open ended about the engagements they stimulate and are not focused on intervention into some specific issue for policy-making.
The final premise is that workshop costs can be kept low if participants expect the workshops to be generative and restorative and are prepared, therefore, to attend without full underwriting of expenses or honoraria. To the extent that this premise is born out, participants will be able to envisage more opportunities for cross-disciplinary meetings and subsequent collaborations (see the third premise).
Organization and Design of the Workshops
The organization and design of the proposed workshops is summarized below. This is based closely on the initual NewSSC workshop in May 2004, which is described in detail in the evaluation of that workshop. Workshop evaluations will lead to adjustments over time, e.g., making the research community-building goal of the workshop series more explicit to the participants.
Logistics: The workshops will be held during the spring at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, which has the appropriate facilities, accommodation, and setting for the workshop. UMass Boston will provide support in the form of hosting the website, a van for transporting participants to and from Woods Hole, and grant administration.
Participants: In addition to the facilitator, evaluator, P.I./organizer, and a graduate assistant, 8-10 other participants will be chosen by the organizer from applications. Applications will be solicited by notices in the newsletters and listservs of STS societies and by direct contact with people recommended by "veterans" of previous workshops and by others. The goal is to continue to attract both younger and more experienced scholars while expanding the mixture of disciplines so as to include more scientists and science educators.
Pre-workshop development of the workshop community will be based on telephone conversations, on pre-circulated papers and profiles (deposited on the workshop website), and on use of the workshop listserv.
The schedule for the workshop will be sketched out in advance by the facilitator and organizer. During the workshop this 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 to allow people to identify their personal goals, 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. Participants who haven't proposed a session in advance might invent one during the workshop. In any case, everyone will get an opportunity to expose their work as the workshop develops. This could include more conventional presentations of participants' work, but, if the pre-workshop community building is effective, there should be less need for this.
Time for individual writing and library research
Time for reflection, and for one-on-one discussions, including, during 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." Facilitator leads participants in a go around, in which they state: 1. Something that is stable/ solid/ clear for them; 2. something they're pleased at having sorted out; 3. something they need to chew on more); formative (during the process) evaluations; and workshop closing with multi-audience evaluation.
Multi-faceted summative (after the fact) evaluation to develop the workshop from one year to the next. Ideally, summative evaluations have four potential audiences and goals:
i) Workshop organizer and facilitator -- to guide them in continuing to develop the workshop in this and future workshops
ii) Potential future participants -- to guide them in choosing to participate, and knowing what to expect
iii) Current participants -- to allow them to take stock of how to get the most from workshops in the future
iv) External colleagues and funders -- to make decisions about support to give to proposals for future workshops.
All these goals will be addressed by a narrative evaluation that the participant-evaluator completes after a post-workshop debriefing with the facilitator and organizer. (The many activities taking stock during the workshop also serve i) and iii) and should increase the chances of the workshop realizing its premises.) In addition, a 6-month check-in with participants will take note of any new contributions to wider discussion of the topics of the workshops in ways that may "influence science, society, science education, and citizen activism" (premise 1). Large, direct impacts are not expected, but the check-in will assess whether participants are engaging in "organized and informal collaborative processes, and... [have begun to] see new opportunities, take initiative, and experiment with the models they have been introduced to" (premise 3).
Themes of Future and Past Workshops
The choice of topics that address emerging issues of social significance has been made with a view to stimulating new interdisciplinary projects and collaborations among STS scholars, scientists, science educators, and concerned citizens. The overlap among the workshop topics is deliberate so as to attract some repeat participants and keep themes gestating from one workshop to the next.
Spring 2006 Workshop (provisional), "What can we do? -- Moving debates over genetic determinism and interactionism in new directions"
Everyone knows that genes and environment interact; that we are a combination of nature and nurture. But what do people do with this knowledge in this "Age of DNA"? Some authors portray the environment's role as primarily a trigger for actions that are genetically programmed (Ridley 2003) or claim that scientists have now shown that genes contribute a greater share of the interactive mix than people used to think (Pinker 2002). Genetic research is still widely promoted as the way to expose the important, root causes of behavior and disease and as the best route to effective therapeutic technologies. And the media continues to give significant coverage to scientific claims that inborn traits determine what is possible for individuals and render egalitarian social policies and actions unjustified or ineffective (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994). At the same time, there has been a long tradition of critical commentary on claims about genetic inheritance as an explanation for social inequalities. Notable contributions have been made by biologists, STS scholars, and other researchers (e.g., Devlin et al. 1997, Gould 1981, Lewontin et al. 1984, Young 1985). The impact of such commentary is evident when researchers interested in genetic contributions to behavior and behavioral differences now routinely disavow the idea of genetic determinism and stress their commitment to an interactionist perspective (Parens 2004).
This workshop attempts to stretch this tradition of critical commentary by playing around with the question: "What can we do in light of what scientists know about genes and environment in the development of individual lives?" The deliberate ambiguity of the question-what we can do will vary depending on who "we" are, which "scientists'" knowledge we follow, and whether "we" take responsibility for maintaining or changing the status quo-and its emphasis on action invites the workshop participants to move debates over genetic determinism and interactionism in new directions. To this end, participants will likely bring more attention to educational studies, developmental psychology, and epidemiology than has been the case in STS to date.
Spring 2004, "Complexities of environment and development in the Age of DNA"
Spring 2005, "How complexities of the social environment shape the ways that society makes use of knowledge about 'genetic' conditions"
Related workshops organized through the Critical and Creative Thinking Program at UMass Boston
- "Changing Life Working Group" -- monthly meetings in Spring 1999 allowing participants "to share insights, experience, experiments, struggles, and plans about influencing science and environmental education, popularization, and citizen activism." This initiative evolved in a series of summer workshops.
- "Science-In-Society, Society-In-Science" -- a one-day event in July 1999 (see evaluation )
- "New Directions in Science Education and Society" -- three 2-day workshops offered through UMB Continuing Education in July 2000
- "Helping each other to foster critical thinking about biology and society" and "...about environment, science, and society" -- intensive weekend workshops for college-level educators in July 2000 and 2001, respectively
- Pre-conference workshop on "Teaching History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology" before the July 2001 meetings of the International Society for History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology.
- Education for Sustainability Curriculum development workshops at UMB, Spring 2003
AAAS (1997). Blueprints for Reform. http://project2061.aaas.org/products/bluepol/ blpframe.html.
Devlin, B., D. P. Resnick and S. E. Fienberg (Eds.) (1997). Intelligence, Genes and Success: Scientists Respond to the Bell Curve. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
Gross, P. R. and N. Levitt (1994). Higher Superstition : the Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gilbert, S. F. (1997). "Bodies of Knowledge: Biology and the Intercultural University," in P. J. Taylor, S. E. Halfon and P. E. Edwards (Eds.), Changing Life: Genomes-Ecologies-Bodies-Commodities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 36-55.
Hagen, J., D. Allchin and F. Singer (1996). Doing Biology. New York: Harper Collins.
Herrnstein, R. J. and C. Murray (1994). The Bell Curve : Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
Jungck, J. (Ed.) (1997). The BioQUEST Library, Volume IV. New York: Academic Press. (See also http://bioquest.org)
Lewontin, R. C., S. Rose and L. J. Kamin (1984). Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature. New York: Pantheon.
McNeal, A. P. and C. D'Avanzo (Eds.) (1997). Student-active Science: Models of Innovation in College Science Teaching. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.
Montgomery, S. L. (1994). Minds for the Making: The Role of Science in American Education, 1750-1990. New York: Guilford Press.
Parens, E. (2004). "Genetic differences and human identities: On why talking about behavioral genetics is important and difficult." Hastings Center Report (January-February): S1-S36.
Paul, D. (1995) Controlling human heredity, 1865 to the present. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.
-------(1997) "The history of newborn phenylketonuria screening in the U.S.," Appendix 5 in N. A. Holtzman and M. S. Watson (Eds.), Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States. Washington, DC: NIH-DOE Working Group on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genome Research, 137-159.
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking.
Ridley, M. (2003). Nature Via Nurture : Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human. London: Fourth Estate.
Taylor, P. (1997) "Teaching Philosophy," http://www.faculty.umb.edu/peter_taylor/ goalsoverview.html
--------(1998) "Natural Selection: A heavy hand in biological and social thought," Science as Culture, 7 (1), 5-32.
--------(2003) "Non-standard lessons from the "tragedy of the commons"," in M. Maniates (Ed.), Encountering Global Environmental Politics: Teaching, Learning, and Empowering Knowledge. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield, 87-105.
-------- (2004). "What can we do? -- Moving debates over genetic determinism in new directions." Science as Culture 13(3): 331-355.
Young, R. M. (1985). Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Last update 11 August 05