Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Week 4
SCIE 403
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Education | Knowledge deficit. Public Understanding of Science (PUS) |
| Public Understanding of Science (PUS) | Efforts to educate the public as response to public misinformation. Usually one way flow of communication. Rarely reflexive about scientific knowledge (assumes scientific sufficiency, public deficiency) |
| PUS continued | Role of scientists: talking, didactic, 'science on top'. Expert scientist sender to message to non-expert publics receiver. No need for translation or discussion. Reach out and increase spread beyond white boys. |
| PUS background | Late 1950s was start of "space race", who can get to the moon first. Cold war- one capitalism and one communism. Wanted to weaponize space, US and former Soviet Union. Sputnik first satellite, not US, so US concerned they were behind. |
| Knowledge deficit model assumptions | Science communication is a linear one-way process. Publics are ignorant, passive or hostile to science. Communication is concerned solely with the transfer of knowledge. Knowledge is transferable without transformation or translation |
| Public engagement with Science and Technology (PEST) | Efforts to engage through listening to public values and concerns. Two-way flow of communication. More reflection about limitations of knowledge. Role of scientists: listening, interactive, 'Science on tap'. Less about spreading news. |
| Which was more challenging for scientists and why? PEST or PUS? | Public engagement with science and technology because they now need to be open to external critiques. Expert and non-expert public both shape message and policy agenda. |
| Co-development/Co-production | Working with communities to set research agendas and approaches. Includes citizens as scientists (citizen science) |
| Co-development goals | A collaborative process of jointly designing a research pathway and its resultant intervention to reach a common goal. Goal is to have researchers working closely with those affected by research to ensure a wide range of perspectives are integrated. |
| Two definitions of what came at the same time? | Citizen science: citizen science as a method and citizen science as scientific citizenship |
| Citizen science as method | enlists the public in collecting large quantities of data across an array of habitats and locations over long spans of time. Rick Bonney. Ornithologists: bird observing. Also recording the weather over long period of time. |
| Citizen science as method examples | ameteurs collect data to participate in annual bird counts. Audubon, iNaturalist, eBird, zooniverse, globe observer, fold it, outbreaks near me. |
| Levels of citizen science | 1. (lowest) Crowdsourcing. 2. 'Distributed Intelligence. 3. 'Participatory science' 4. 'Extreme' |
| Level 1 of citizen science (lowest) | 'Crowdsourcing'. Citizens as sensors. |
| Level 2 of citizen science | 'Distributed Intelligence'. Citizens as basic interpreters. |
| Level 3 of citizen science | 'Participatory science'. Participation in problem definition and data collection |
| Level 4 of citizen science | 'Extreme'. May or not involve scientists. Participatory science-problem definition, data collection, and analysis |
| Citizen science as scientific citizenship | Developing concepts of scientific citizenship which foregrounds the necessity of opening up science and science policy processes to the public. Alan Irwin. Sociologist. Everyone has right to participate in science, even critique it even if not trained in |
| Citizen science as scientific citizenship examples | Not only scientists participate in these controversies. Women and their bodies, genetic research public conversation, evidence for democracy, Shut down STEM-Black lives matter, climate justice |
| Indigenous science | Time tested, systematic knowledge system developed by indigenous peoples. Includes multiple systems of knowledge about natural and social worlds. Foundational concepts: Bridging, braiding, weaving |
| Bridging | fostering awareness and respect |
| Braiding | Bringing together different ways of knowing |
| Weaving | Inclusion of Indigenous methodologies and worldviews. Pathway of reconciliation. |
| Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action | Calls for educations systems to confront histories and practices of settler colonialism. Canadian specific. Recommendation 62-65 |
| European Colonialism | 1492: Columbus 'discovery' and expansion of European powers. 1700 and 1850: Europe represented itself as better than other regions (west and the rest). West: hard working rationale, productive, scientific. East: lazy, emotional, unproductive |
| European colonialism examples | ideas came from elsewhere but were claimed by Europeans (like the printing press). White man story, western standards for evidence. |
| Western exceptionalism and triumphalism | Assumption that western science and technology is best. Link western science with modernity. Assumption that people of European decent uniquely responsible for humanity's best intellectual, political, ethical, and economic achievements |
| Western exceptionalism and triumphalism continued | Tunnel of time: Europeans trace ideas to ancient Greece while ignoring contributions from other regions. Idea of European roots for science and technology emerged in 19th century to justify European imperialism. Turned world into lab for science |
| Settler colonialism | colonialism based on appropriation of Indigenous life and land. Settlers come with intent to live and occupy. Shapes law, policy, education, beliefs, and relations with land and nature. Settler perspectives and worldviews count as knowledge and research |
| Examples of settler colonialism | United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Isreal |
| Doctrine of Discovery (1400-2023) | Legal and religious concept used for centuries to justify Christian colonial conquest. Intersected with science: European powers used racial hierarchies to justify exploitation and genocide of indigenous people |
| Doctrine of Discovery Continued | Indigenous peoples believed to be sub-human, and their lands declared as 'terra nullius'. Truth and reconciliation commission (2014) called for repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery. |
| Canada as settler colonial state | Canada became a nation state in 1867. 3 legal systems: English (common law), French (civil law), Indigenous law. British North America Act (1867). Section 91-gave jurisdiction to federal government for control over "Indians and Lands reserved for Indians" |
| Treaties | Formal, binding agreement between nations. Sharing of land. Promises made verbally, not reflected in written documents |
| Treaty examples | Treaties of Peace and Neutrality (1701-1760)-secure peaceful relations and alliances between European and First Nations. Peace and Friendship Treaties (1725-1779)-mostly in Maritimes. Upper Canada Land Surrenders (1764-1923). Ontario, transfer of land |
| Numbered treaties (1871-1921) | 11 treaties, secured land for railway and agriculture. 70 recognized treaties in Canada |
| Ontology | Way of being |
| Positionality | Social position that influences ways of knowing and being |
| Moving beyond ontological (worldview) supremacy: Indigenous insights and a recovery guide for settler-colonial scientists | pursuit of 'objective' science often leads biologists to ignore social/political contexts of their projects Scientists often 'extract' Indigenous knowledge in exploitative ways. Academy often incompatible with Indigenous cultures and politics |
| Settler-colonial fallacies in science | Performative protocols, sovereignty ignorance, urgency culture, white fragility, settler-colonial blinders, western superiority, columbising knowledges, neocolonial reinforcement |
Created by:
user-1996284