Roth & Lee ethnographically studied activities in and around a small watershed in the Pacific Northwest for three years. These activities included water monitoring, ecological problem solving and environmental policy deliberation, involving diverse groups of people such as local farmers, schoolchildren, experienced environmental activists, paid consultants, university scientists, local area council members, etc. Out of this research, they have generated an account of what they refer to as “scientific literacy.”
When Roth & Lee discuss their definition of “scientific literacy,” they portray a collective phenomenon. Their “scientific literacy” is a contingent, highly contextualized quality that emerges indeterminately and organically through goal-oriented practice and conversation among individuals with diverse skills, concerns and forms of knowledge. Moreover, they describe the role of “science” per se as being analogous to a single fiber within the larger thread of “scientific literacy,” with local knowledges and alternative epistemologies comprising other fibers of equal substance within the thread.
Roth & Lee explicitly reject the standard Miller and Durant models of “scientific literacy.” Instead of measuring individual knowledge of standardized, somewhat arbitrarily determined, static facts or tenets which allegedly indicate the degree to which each individual may usefully participate in public debate on science-related issues, Roth & Lee argue that “scientific literacy” is a dynamic capacity to comprehend and grapple with issues that are contextually relevant to communities, and that individuals can acquire whatever skill or knowledge they need as the need arises from others in the community (or from outside if necessary). Whereas conventional conceptions of scientific literacy appear to suppose a deficit of public knowledge, Roth & Lee implicitly espouse a faith in people’s ability to learn and adapt on-the-fly, given sufficient motivation.
They end their piece with a call to create more opportunities for communities to learn about scientific issues through collaborative problem solving, which they say would extend scientific learning throughout the lifetime and make it more relevant and useful for the individuals and communities involved.
Commentary
Clearly, Roth & Lee want to redefine the term “scientific literacy.” Their ideas are compelling, but they’re so fundamentally different from the standard conception of “scientific literacy” that it seems odd they would even retain that particular coinage. What they describe seems more amenable to a phrase like “practical scientific competence” or “JIT-expertise.” (JIT="Just In Time") Miller himself refers to a “practical scientific literacy.” What do they gain (or lose) by retaining the exact phraseology of “scientific literacy?” Perhaps it allows them to benefit from the currency that this particular collocation enjoys, or perhaps they wish to extinguish its ideology completely by replacing their definition for the old one. Moreover, it’s far from clear that Roth & Lee’s ideas would be an argument against the standard conception of scientific literacy, instead of simply an additional consideration. In other words, even if we accept their argument, don’t all of the old rationales for measuring a standardized set of science-related knowledge on a society-wide scale still remain intact?
No comments:
Post a Comment