Deliberation can wait: How civic litigation makes inquiry critical

IF 2.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Social Education Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/00933104.2021.1933665
M. Hlavacik, Daniel G. Krutka
{"title":"Deliberation can wait: How civic litigation makes inquiry critical","authors":"M. Hlavacik, Daniel G. Krutka","doi":"10.1080/00933104.2021.1933665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Scholars of citizenship education have long regarded deliberation as the default framework for democratic discussion in the classroom and beyond. Turning to the history and theory of rhetoric, we question why the deliberative model of the Athenian assembly has been developed for social studies pedagogy without including the litigative discourse of the Athenian courts. In response, we offer civic litigation, a discursive framework that recasts public controversies from a pro vs. con to an accusation vs. defense format. By examining the role of civic litigation in a historical case study from the 1960s Black civil rights movement, along with three inquiry-based lessons concerning contemporary controversies, we argue that civic litigation plays a crucial role in the effort to make inquiry-based instruction critical when it addresses issues of injustice.","PeriodicalId":46808,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Social Education","volume":"49 1","pages":"418 - 448"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00933104.2021.1933665","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Social Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2021.1933665","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

ABSTRACT Scholars of citizenship education have long regarded deliberation as the default framework for democratic discussion in the classroom and beyond. Turning to the history and theory of rhetoric, we question why the deliberative model of the Athenian assembly has been developed for social studies pedagogy without including the litigative discourse of the Athenian courts. In response, we offer civic litigation, a discursive framework that recasts public controversies from a pro vs. con to an accusation vs. defense format. By examining the role of civic litigation in a historical case study from the 1960s Black civil rights movement, along with three inquiry-based lessons concerning contemporary controversies, we argue that civic litigation plays a crucial role in the effort to make inquiry-based instruction critical when it addresses issues of injustice.
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
审议可以等待:公民诉讼如何使调查变得至关重要
长期以来,研究公民教育的学者们一直认为,审议是课堂内外民主讨论的默认框架。转向修辞学的历史和理论,我们质疑为什么雅典议会的审议模式已经发展为社会研究教学法,而不包括雅典法院的诉讼话语。作为回应,我们提供民事诉讼,这是一个话语框架,将公共争议从赞成与反对转变为指控与辩护的形式。通过在20世纪60年代黑人民权运动的历史案例研究中考察公民诉讼的作用,以及关于当代争议的三个基于探究的课程,我们认为公民诉讼在使基于探究的教学在解决不公正问题时发挥关键作用。
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
Theory and Research in Social Education
Theory and Research in Social Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
30.80%
发文量
36
期刊最新文献
The Nakba in Israeli history education: Ethical judgments in an ongoing conflict Pulling back the curtain: A practical, approachable, and pragmatic new book on teaching history through inquiry Resources for practice: Claiming space for relationships in the classroom Getting critical with compelling questions: Shifts in elementary teacher candidates’ curriculum planning from inquiry to critical inquiry “They created segregation with the economy”: Using AI for a student-driven inquiry into redlining in the social studies classroom
×
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