An Uneasy Peace: How STEM Progressive, Traditionalist, and Bridging Faculty Understand Campus Conflicts over Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Free Expression

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Minerva Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1007/s11024-023-09517-9
Steven Brint, Megan Webb, Benjamin Fields
{"title":"An Uneasy Peace: How STEM Progressive, Traditionalist, and Bridging Faculty Understand Campus Conflicts over Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Free Expression","authors":"Steven Brint, Megan Webb, Benjamin Fields","doi":"10.1007/s11024-023-09517-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years an uneasy peace has descended in U.S. academe between those who feel research universities have done too little to advance the representation of minority groups and women and those who feel that the administrative policies developed to improve representation can and sometimes do come into conflict with core intellectual commitments of universities. Using quantitative and qualitative evidence from interviews with 47 natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics faculty members at a U.S. research university, the paper examines the background characteristics of three sets of protagonists - academic progressives, academic traditionalists, and those whose views bridge the divide - and the way respondents discussed and justified their viewpoints. The paper draws on the theory of strategic action fields to illuminate the structure and dynamics of the conflict and suggests modifications to the theory that would improve its explanatory power for this case.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"211 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09517-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years an uneasy peace has descended in U.S. academe between those who feel research universities have done too little to advance the representation of minority groups and women and those who feel that the administrative policies developed to improve representation can and sometimes do come into conflict with core intellectual commitments of universities. Using quantitative and qualitative evidence from interviews with 47 natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics faculty members at a U.S. research university, the paper examines the background characteristics of three sets of protagonists - academic progressives, academic traditionalists, and those whose views bridge the divide - and the way respondents discussed and justified their viewpoints. The paper draws on the theory of strategic action fields to illuminate the structure and dynamics of the conflict and suggests modifications to the theory that would improve its explanatory power for this case.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不稳定的和平:STEM 进步派、传统派和桥梁派教师如何理解校园中有关多样性、反种族主义和自由表达的冲突
近年来,美国学术界出现了一种令人不安的和平局面:有人认为研究型大学在提高少数族裔群体和女性的代表性方面做得太少,也有人认为为提高代表性而制定的行政政策可能而且有时确实与大学的核心理念承诺相冲突。通过对美国一所研究型大学的 47 名自然科学、工程学和数学教师进行访谈,本文利用定量和定性证据,研究了三类主角--学术进步主义者、学术传统主义者和那些观点弥合分歧者--的背景特征,以及受访者讨论和证明其观点的方式。论文借鉴了战略行动领域理论来阐明冲突的结构和动态,并提出了对该理论的修改建议,以提高其对这一案例的解释力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
期刊最新文献
The EUropeanisation of Research Infrastructure Policy Between Delivery and Luck: Projectification of Academic Careers and Conflicting Notions of Worth at the Postdoc Level Benchmarking and the Technicization of Academic Discourse: The Case of the EU at-Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion Composite Indicator Strategic Bureaucracy: The Convergence of Bureaucratic and Strategic Management Logics in the Organizational Restructuring of Universities The Therapeutic University
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1