色盲科学?:对科学研究中种族多样性重要性的认识

Kellie Owens
{"title":"色盲科学?:对科学研究中种族多样性重要性的认识","authors":"Kellie Owens","doi":"10.4245/SPONGE.V8I1.20893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A large body of scientific careers literature explores the experiences of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields and why they exit the academic pipeline at various stages. These studies commonly address how to improve racial diversity in science but provide little discussion of why that diversity is important for science research. Feminist science studies scholars, on the other hand, have theorized about the importance of diversity in knowledge production for decades but provide little empirical work on how to address current disparities. My research bridges these literatures by examining how diversity programs in the sciences justify their continued funding, and how these justifications map onto contemporary theories of knowledge production. Do diversity program directors seek to increase diversity in science because of political motives, like equality and justice for racial minorities, or because they believe that racially diverse workforces will produce better science? Based on interviews with federally-funded diversity program directors at universities and archival data from these programs, I find that program directors’ responses can be classified into three categories: diversity is important politically, diversity is important pragmatically, and diversity is important epistemically. About half of the respondents found diversity to be important for the content of scientific knowledge. I argue that studying diversity in scientific knowledge production is different than studying the impacts of diversity in other fields due to current conceptions of scientific objectivity. Scholarship on scientific knowledge production can help diversity program directors and science careers scholars better articulate the need for diversity programming in STEM fields.","PeriodicalId":29732,"journal":{"name":"Spontaneous Generations-Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Colorblind Science?: Perceptions of the Importance of Racial Diversity in Science Research\",\"authors\":\"Kellie Owens\",\"doi\":\"10.4245/SPONGE.V8I1.20893\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A large body of scientific careers literature explores the experiences of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields and why they exit the academic pipeline at various stages. These studies commonly address how to improve racial diversity in science but provide little discussion of why that diversity is important for science research. Feminist science studies scholars, on the other hand, have theorized about the importance of diversity in knowledge production for decades but provide little empirical work on how to address current disparities. My research bridges these literatures by examining how diversity programs in the sciences justify their continued funding, and how these justifications map onto contemporary theories of knowledge production. Do diversity program directors seek to increase diversity in science because of political motives, like equality and justice for racial minorities, or because they believe that racially diverse workforces will produce better science? Based on interviews with federally-funded diversity program directors at universities and archival data from these programs, I find that program directors’ responses can be classified into three categories: diversity is important politically, diversity is important pragmatically, and diversity is important epistemically. About half of the respondents found diversity to be important for the content of scientific knowledge. I argue that studying diversity in scientific knowledge production is different than studying the impacts of diversity in other fields due to current conceptions of scientific objectivity. Scholarship on scientific knowledge production can help diversity program directors and science careers scholars better articulate the need for diversity programming in STEM fields.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spontaneous Generations-Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spontaneous Generations-Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4245/SPONGE.V8I1.20893\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spontaneous Generations-Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4245/SPONGE.V8I1.20893","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

大量的科学职业文献探讨了STEM领域中代表性不足的少数群体的经历,以及他们在不同阶段退出学术渠道的原因。这些研究通常涉及如何提高科学中的种族多样性,但很少讨论为什么这种多样性对科学研究很重要。另一方面,女权主义科学研究学者几十年来一直在理论上阐述多样性在知识生产中的重要性,但在如何解决当前的差距问题上却没有提供多少实证工作。我的研究通过考察科学多样性项目如何证明其持续资助的合理性,以及这些合理性如何映射到当代知识生产理论,从而将这些文献联系起来。多元化项目主管寻求增加科学领域的多样性,是出于政治动机,比如少数民族的平等和正义,还是因为他们相信种族多元化的劳动力会产生更好的科学?根据对联邦资助的大学多样性项目主任的采访和这些项目的档案数据,我发现项目主任的回答可以分为三类:多样性在政治上很重要,多样性在实用主义上很重要,多样性在认识论上很重要。大约一半的受访者认为多样性对科学知识的内容很重要。我认为,由于目前科学客观性的概念,研究科学知识生产中的多样性与研究多样性在其他领域的影响是不同的。科学知识生产方面的奖学金可以帮助多样性项目主管和科学职业学者更好地阐明STEM领域对多样性编程的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Colorblind Science?: Perceptions of the Importance of Racial Diversity in Science Research
A large body of scientific careers literature explores the experiences of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields and why they exit the academic pipeline at various stages. These studies commonly address how to improve racial diversity in science but provide little discussion of why that diversity is important for science research. Feminist science studies scholars, on the other hand, have theorized about the importance of diversity in knowledge production for decades but provide little empirical work on how to address current disparities. My research bridges these literatures by examining how diversity programs in the sciences justify their continued funding, and how these justifications map onto contemporary theories of knowledge production. Do diversity program directors seek to increase diversity in science because of political motives, like equality and justice for racial minorities, or because they believe that racially diverse workforces will produce better science? Based on interviews with federally-funded diversity program directors at universities and archival data from these programs, I find that program directors’ responses can be classified into three categories: diversity is important politically, diversity is important pragmatically, and diversity is important epistemically. About half of the respondents found diversity to be important for the content of scientific knowledge. I argue that studying diversity in scientific knowledge production is different than studying the impacts of diversity in other fields due to current conceptions of scientific objectivity. Scholarship on scientific knowledge production can help diversity program directors and science careers scholars better articulate the need for diversity programming in STEM fields.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Realism and Antirealism ---At Last? Tolstoy’s argument: realism and the history of science Douglas A. Vakoch and Matthew F. Dowd. The Drake Equation: Estimating the Prevalence of Extraterrestrial Life through the Ages The Relevance of Evidence from the History of Science in the Contemporary Realism/Anti-realism Debate Four Challenges to Epistemic Scientific Realism—and the Socratic Alternative.
×
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