Group items tagged

ResIST is a multinational collaborative research partnership that seeks to explore the role that science and technology in increasing inequalities but also the ways in which science and technology can address these same inequities. The research teams from Germany, Malta, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Turkey, the UK and the US are engaged in 5 separate but coordinated research endeavors. ResIST provides a nice template for how transnational knowledge building might work.

A theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology, popularized the theory in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations. He said diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.

Doing good things better is Brian's latest book. He is prolific and in this book he describes the discipline of daily writing that he used to write this book (and previous work) -- and that he leads his students to use. The principles of daily writing are given in brief at http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/DailyWriting.html. Looking at Brian's website of writing, you will find material on activism, especially around developments in science and technology, but not only this.

So a couple of these annotated resources are seeming to point to the need for compelling and clear stories and communication. That would be interesting to follow up. And not just the dissemination of ideas, but the support for dialogue and deliberation.

Just found this too and wonder if there might be further work to look into. http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/marketing-communication/storytelling-and-social-change

In this editorial from the October 2010 volume of "Science," Bruce Alberts suggests a system of STEM (science, technology, mathematics, and engineering) merit badges for children ages 5-18 to earn awards in schools. He compares this system both to the system used by the Boy and Girl Scouts, and to the system of AP (Advanced Placement) courses currently used in high schools today. It is suggested that this will help students maintain the curiosity they feel towards science in the early years into their high school careers, by when children have often lost interest.

I've recently come to the term STEAM which ads "art" into the traditional STEM equation. I also found this link while doing this quick research - http://ilandsymposium.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/art-science-activism-and-bicycles/. This combined with Rhoda's post about Digital Storytelling makes me wonder what role creativity (from stories to visualizations) play in this equation.

Not being familiar at all with STEM, I am interested in seeing what connections might be found with further inquiry into how stories and the way they are shared can have an effect on positive change, education and personal connections to issues that often seem too big.

The goals for the 5th Living Knowledge conference are: "What innovation is needed to guide research towards public concerns? How can civil society fully participate in the co-creation of knowledge? The 5th Living Knowledge Conference will focus on getting more insight into processes, and develop specific policy recommendations that resonate with public concerns and articulated research needs." On the site we see "PERARES (Public Engagement with Research And Research Engagement with Society) project aims to strengthen the interaction between researchers and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and citizens in Europe." We also see a description of science shops: "small entities that carry out scientific research in a wide range of disciplines - usually free of charge and - on behalf of citizens and local civil society." All these things would be worth looking further into to understand what guidelines people use or recommend for engaging others in scientific & technological change. In brief, they seem very sympatico to the idea of Case 4 of the course (http://ppol749.wikispaces.umb.edu/PBLEngagementCase).

So this seems to be the other theme emerging, how you work with individuals / the public / citizens in shaping scientific research and the dialogue around it.

I haven't had time to read this fully, but it would seem finding ways to help groups of individuals work to come to decisions regarding science and technology change in a way that can expose and understand a complex situation. This bit seems relevant: "Disputes between experts provoke major difficulties for decision-making and policy implementation in the case of such public confrontations, which, more often than not, are vociferous, protracted, rancorous and unresolved. Traditionally, the neutral, disinterested and objective expert has been promoted -- not least by scientists themselves -- as the rational and authoritative arbiter of public disputes over scientific or technical issues." Published in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995), pp. 506-526, plus references, with minor changes due to sub-editing. Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards 1.

"This article... was written by GRAIN and the Pesticides Eco-Alternatives Centre (PEAC) in China to raise Chinese farmers' awareness about the broad historical context of industrial agriculture, and how it paved the way for the introduction of modern varieties of crops and agricultural technologies."

After Felicia's post about farmer suicides in India related to the use of GMO cotton seeds, I thought some might be interested in a more upbeat article about efforts to raise farmer's awareness about industrialized agriculture, etc.

Founded in 1971, Friends of the Earth is an international organization representing over 77 grassroots environmental groups. The organization is mentioned several times through Dickson's book and has been involved in questioning key scientific developments and their potentially harmful effects on human life and the planet. These technologies include nuclear, genetics, carbon emissions and even nanotechnology. They appear to work primarily through direct action and awareness campaigns.

My sense of Yamana is that it works mostly as a clearinghouse of exchange of innovative approaches. The second unSummit coming up in a few weeks has no schedule of papers, but facilitates discussions that evolve over the 2 days. I think one would have to experience this to understand how it works. I had planned to do so this time, but decided I was too far behind on following up on previous connections. Here are Yamana's guidelines: "We feel the current culture of science creates an invisible cost in loss of productivity, slower rates of discovery, and 'wasting assets,' including human capital. We are committed to having enough conversations with the people that can make a difference, including (and perhaps especially) within our own scientific communities. We will transform what is possible both for people who are currently working in the field of science and for those that are interested in studying to become scientists. We will impact the experience of learning science, the experience of teaching science and the experience of doing science. We include conversations across the whole gamut of what affects desired outcomes, from salaries, to healthcare, to personal leave, to the work environment, to the conversations being had about science, to how science is funded, commercialized, and shared. By acting as a clearinghouse for issues and concerns, as well as a catalyst for potential solutions, we are connecting the passionate voices in science with one another to create a shared vision for the future."

I've been thinking about this alot lately. How do you make cultural change? How do you shift conventional wisdom? How do you create new practices and ways of doing, especially if the dominant "narrative" and system of "incentives" don't support change? Do you shift one relationship at a time? Or is larger change possible? What are the spaces for going against the grain?

This piece talks about activism that hampers scientific research, innovation and industries that are related to things suc as "pesticides, food additives, chemicals in general, pharmaceuticals, nuclear power, and biotechnology." The article states that the scientific illiteracy of the general public makes it easy for activists to generate support for increased regulation and dampening of efforts in these areas. How do you help communities assess scientific information? How do you help them look at not only the research, but the context of the research? How should informed decisions about potentially harmful technologies and processes be handled? How do you support and engage in honest and open dialogue and debate about complex and unknown outcomes?

This is a compilation of resources for teaching kids about the environment. It contains links aimed a kids of all different ages, organized by the following topics... * Global Warming * Energy * Air * Oceans * Water * Wildlands * Wildlife * Health * Environmental Justice * U.S. Law & Policy * Nuclear * Smart Growth * Recycling * International Issues * Green Living

look what i found...npr is awesome! remember i told you about the Nature Deficit Disorder braodcast on BBC.. Lisa Bingham Book Review: What are we Escaping From?: Richard Louv Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books, 2005. 334 pp Bulletin of Science, Technology &