Peter Taylor, UMass Boston
Programs in Critical & Creative Thinking, Public Policy, and Science, Technology & Values
peter.taylor@umb.edu; 617-287-7636; http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt
and
Anne Fausto-Sterling, Brown University & Fellow of MIT WomenÕs Studies Program
Biology, Women's Studies, and Science Studies
Anne_Fausto-Sterling@brown.edu; 401-863-2109; http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/f/afs/afs.html
Course wikipage: http://cct.wikispaces.com/GRST
What can we learn about science and technology—and what can we do with that knowledge? Who are ÒweÓ in these questions?—whose knowledge and expertise gets made into public policy, new medicines, topics of cultural and political discourse, science education, and so on? How can expertise and lay knowledge about science and technology be reconciled in a democratic society? How can we make sense of the interactions of living and non-living, humans and non-humans, individual and collectivities in the production of scientific knowledge and technologies?
The course takes these questions as entry points into an ever-growing body of work to which feminist, anti-racist, and other critical analysts and activists have made significant contributions. The course also takes these questions as an invitation to practice challenging the barriers of expertise, gender, race, class, and place that restrict wider access to and understanding of the production of scientific knowledge and technologies. In that spirit, students participate in an innovative, problem-based learning (PBL) approach that allows them to shape their own directions of inquiry and develop their skills as investigators and prospective teachers. At the same time the PBL cases engage studentsÕ critical faculties as they learn about existing analyses of gender, race, and the complexities of science and technology, guided by individualized bibliographies co-constructed with the instrucutors and by the projects of the other students. Students from all fields and levels of preparation are encouraged to join the course.
SECTIONS TO FOLLOW IN SYLLABUS
Overview
Resources I: Key Texts
Requirements
Schedule of Classes
Additional material on Course Wiki, http://cct.wikispaces.com/GRST
Objectives
Theory & Method
Scenarios for Probem-based learning cases
Resources II: Materials suitable for Provocative cases & Reading lists
PBL Guided Tour, including examples of previous studentsÕ work
Overview
Despite the importance of science and technology in society, this realm remains relatively insulated from wider public deliberation. (There are, for example, fields of art and literary criticism, but Òscience criticismÓ is not a widely accepted enterprise.) With the goal of promoting a wider range of engagements in science and technology, this course stimulates interdisciplinary inquiry, pedagogical, conceptual and practical innovation, and epistemological self-consciousness through provocative PBL cases that put into play a variety of resources. These might include: the diverse interests, skills, commitments, and passions of the instructors and the students; annotated bibliographies, syllabi, and review essays—especially material contributed by feminist, anti-racist, and other critical analysts of science and technology; the rich personal and intellectual connections made easier in this internet age; and the instructorsÕ experience in stretching students beyond disciplinary and conceptual boundaries. The course project provides the opportunity for students to develop their own cases for teaching, prepare grant proposals for further inquiry or activist engagement, or construct syllabi around topics in feminist and critical studies of science and technology.
Throughout the semester we navigate between, on one side, our divergent, reticulating explorations of the implications that each of us sees in the cases and, on the other side, a disciplining of these explorations by building audiences and collaborations around individual and shared knowledges and tools. Both aspects of the course process are animated by a profound question of practice: ÒWhat can we do with the knowledge we generate for ourselves and others.Ó Of course, what can we do depends on who ÒweÓ identify with (which field, discipline, research project, social group, level of expertiseÉ). The question also requires us to convince some audience of our knowledge claims and of the value of our questions for further inquiry. To that end students have to address the bodies of substantive knowledge most relevant to their individual inquiries (guided by review essays in anthologies/handbooks, original scientific literature and informants identified by the instructors) and to translate that knowledge into terms digestible by to the rest of us with different levels of expertise around diverse (sometimes divergent) bodies of knowledge.
The PBL approach taken in this course makes the rest of the syllabus look incomplete—it doesnÕt meet conventional expectations of weekly topics and readings, and descriptions of assignments. Browsing the links on the wiki will give some feel for what might lie ahead, but the essence of the course is that we make the road as we travel. Of course, once we have done this once in the Graduate Consortium, we can show future students what happened last time. But even then each offering, each collaboration of students will result in a unique construction.
Hackett, E., O. Amsterdamska, et al., Eds. (2008). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press – required.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Creager, A., E. Lunbeck, et al., Eds. (2001). Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Law, J. and A. Mol, Eds. (2002). Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham, Duke University Press.
A sequence of written assignments (which will average 800 words) and presentations on the PBL cases leading up to a final course project. Options for the course project include piloting PBL cases that students write (with the class serving as their students); a grant proposal (students get a chance to present drafts of grant proposals with the class serving as the jury); or a course syllabus.
Participation requirements included prepared participation, conferences on your assignments and projects, commenting on each otherÕs drafts, and adding an annotated reference to the evolving wiki bibliography each week. (Annotations should convey the articleÕs key points as well as its connection to the studentÕs own inquiries and interests. Examples will be provided.)
More detail about the assignments and expectations will be provided by email and on the course wiki as the course evolves.
Grading: An unconventional assessment system complements the innovative pedagogy. The written assignments are commented on but not graded; students receive the full grade for the assignment after they revise thoughtfully and resubmit in response to comments received on the initial submission. This keeps the focus on interaction around written work and presentations that emerge from participation in the unfolding dynamics of the course. The assessment system also accommodates the contingencies of studentÕs lives by allowing a fraction of assignments to be skipped without penalty.
Written assignments and presentations (2/3 of grade)
(6% for each assignment submitted and revised in response to comments and for each presentation made up to 54% max, i.e., 9 of the 12 completed.)
Participation and contribution to the class process (1/3 of grade)
(1.25 % each item completed, up to 26% max, i.e., 21 of the 28 items)
Prepared participation in class meetings (=13 items)
Annotated reference added to the evolving wiki bibliography (each week except 1 & 13) (=11 items)
Minimum of two in-office or phone conferences on your assignments and projects (= 2 items)
Work with another student commenting on each other's final project report
Assignment checklist kept up to date and submitted in week 11 or 12.
If the points above add up to 80%, the rubric below is used at the end of the course to add points.
For each quality "fulfilled very well" you get 2 additional %points. If you "did an OK job, but there was room for more development/attention," you get 1 %point.
1. A sequence of assignments paced more or less as in syllabus (and revisions timely),
2. often revised thoroughly and with new thinking in response to comments.
3. Project innovative, well planned and carried out with considerable initiative, and
4. indicates that you can extend tools and processes from the course to your specific situation so as to better Òsubvert the barriers of expertise, gender, race, class, and place that restrict wider access to the production of scientific knowledge and technology.Ó
5. Written assignments and project report clear and well structured,
6. with supporting references and detail, and professionally presented.
7. Active, prepared participation and building class as learning community, including
8. probing of other studentsÕ KAQs,
9. leading or participation in student-led activities, and
10. contributions to the evolving annotated bibliography.
Overall course points are converted to letter grades as follows: A > 95%, for A- 87.5-94.5, for B+ is 80-87.4, for B is 72.5-79.5; for B- is 65-72.4; for C+ is 57.5-64.5; and C 50-57.4%.
ACCOMMODATIONS: Sections 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 offer guidelines for curriculum modifications and adaptations for students with documented disabilities. The student must present any adaptation recommendations to the professors within a reasonable period, preferably by the end of the Drop/Add period.
Students are advised to retain a copy of this syllabus in personal files for use when applying for certification, licensure, or transfer credit.
This syllabus is subject to change, but workload expectations will not be increased after the semester starts. (Version 24 Feb '08)
Classes will begin with sharing of highlights of readings and annotations added to the wiki (except weeks 1, 13, and weeks in which there are presentations).
More details about preparation for the classes and the PBL cases will be provided on the course wiki and by email.
Week 1. Introduction
Students identify personal, intellectual, professional interests and introduce themselves: a) in relation to the course title and description; and b) by formulating questions in response to Paper Tiger video, ÒDonna Haraway reads national geographic on primatesÓ (1989).
First look at ÒKAQÓ framework for teasing out diverse inquiries, in this case inquiries based on studentsÕ initial responses to the video.
Preparation for class 2: Read Case 1 (on wiki), ÒWhat can we learn from the Haraway/Paper Tiger video about ways to teach/engage others to interpret the cultural dimensions of science?Ó
Use KAQ to identify questions for further inquiry (Assignment 1).
Week 2. Case 1. Probing each otherÕs KAQs.
Preparation for class 3: Prepare Resource Guides for teaching/engaging others to interpret the cultural dimensions of science (Assignment 2).
Week 3. Case 1 (completed). Presentation of Resource Guides for Teaching/Engaging Others to Interpret the Cultural Dimensions of Science (Presentation=Asmt. 3; Guide = Asmt. 4)
Preparation for class 4: Read Case 2 (on wiki), ÒWe look forward to being convinced that the guidelines will be met,Ó complete initial KAQs, and post on the wiki (using instructions and guidance by peers who have wiki experience) (=Assignment 5).
Week 4. Case 2 (cont.) Probing each otherÕs KAQs & In-class research with coaching by the instructors.
Preparation for class 5: Continue research and prepare work-in-progress presentations.
Week 5. Case 2 (cont.) Presentations on work-in-progress towards next weekÕs visit.
(Preparing work-in-progress presentations, hearing yourself deliver them, and getting feedback usually leads to self-clarification of the overall direction of your project and of your priorities for further work.)
Preparation for class 6: Continue research and prepare presentations to the GCWS Panel.
Week 6. Case 2 (completed.) Presentations to the GCWS Panel with Q&A on process and products (Presentation=Asmt. 6; Product = Asmt. 7)
(15 minutes will be taken at the end to decide as a group what to do for weeks 7-9—whether to take on a case or follow a curriculum sequence developed and presented to the GCWS panel by one of the students. As a backup if nothing emerges instructors will have prepared a case on science studies contributions to debates about race and genomics in biomedicine; see wiki.)
Preparation for class 7: Prepare chosen case or the readings in the curriculum unit.
Weeks 7-9. Case (student-generated or backup) or curriculum unit (incl. Asmts 8 &9, to be arranged)
Weeks 10-12. Presentation of drafts of grant proposals, teaching cases, syllabi, curriculum units (The class will act as a jury to review and ask questions on any grant proposal. Presenters of cases/syllabi/units should use their time slot for a short activity/discussion.) (Presentation =Asmt 10 & Draft report on product = Asmt. 11).
Preparation for classes 10-12: Prepare as requested by the pre-circulated materials from the presenters.
Week 13. Taking stock of course: Where have we come & where do we go from here?
One week after last class. Submission of course projects revised in response to comments on drafts (Asmt. 12).