CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Rigor/Us: Building Boundaries and Disciplining Diversity with Standards of Merit
Tác giả
Riley D.
Năm xuất bản
2017
Source title
Engineering Studies
Số trích dẫn
95
DOI
10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
Rigor is the aspirational quality academics apply to disciplinary standards of quality. Rigor's particular role in engineering created conditions for its transfer and adaptation in the recently emergent discipline of engineering education research. ‘Rigorous engineering education research’ and the related ‘evidence-based’ research and practice movement in STEM education have resulted in a proliferation of boundary drawing exercises that mimic those in engineering disciplines, shaping the development of new knowledge and ‘improved’ practice in engineering education. Rigor accomplishes dirty deeds, however, serving three primary ends across engineering, engineering education, and engineering education research: disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege. Understanding how rigor reproduces inequality, we cannot reinvent it but rather must relinquish it, looking to alternative conceptualizations for evaluating knowledge, welcoming diverse ways of knowing, doing, and being, and moving from compliance to engagement, from rigor to vigor. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Từ khóa
engineering education; Feminist theory; liberal education
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barnes D.S., The Great Stink of Paris and the Nineteenth-Century Struggle Against Filth and Germs, (2006); Beddoes K., Methodology Discourses as Boundary Work in the Construction of Engineering Education, Social Studies of Science, 44, 2, pp. 293-312, (2014); Bertrand M., Mullainathan S., Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, American Economic Review, 94, pp. 991-1013, (2004); Biesta G., Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research, Educational Theory, 57, 1, pp. 1-22, (2007); Boal A., Theatre of the Oppressed, (1985); Borsook P., Memoirs of a Token, Wired_Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace, pp. 24-41, (1996); Bower J., For the Love of Learning; Bridle S., What is Enlightenment 16Catholic New Times; Catalano G., Baillie C.; Daly M., Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, (1978); Daly S.R., Adams R.S., Bodner G.M., What Does It Mean to Design? A Qualitative Investigation of Design Professionals’ Experiences, Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 2, pp. 187-219, (2012); Daly M., Caputi J., Webster’s First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language, (1987); Delio M., Slide Rule Still Rules; Dewey J., The Sources of a Science Education, (1929); Downey G.L., What is Engineering Studies For? Dominant Practices and Scalable Scholarship, Engineering Studies, 1, 1, pp. 55-76, (2009); Downey G.L., Lucena J.C., Engineering Selves: Hiring in to a Contested Field of Education, Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies, pp. 117-141, (1997); Eisner E., The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, (1985); Faulkner W., ‘Nuts and Bolts and People’: Gender Troubled Engineering Identities, Social Studies of Science, 37, 3, pp. 331-356, (2007); Foor C.E., Walden S.E., ‘Imaginary Engineering’ or ‘Re-imagined Engineering’: Negotiating Gendered Identities in the Borderland of a College of Engineering, NWSA Journal, 21, 2, pp. 41-65, (2009); Foor C.E., Walden S.E., Trytten D.A., ‘I Wish that I Belonged More in this Whole Engineering Group:’ Achieving Individual Diversity, Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 2, pp. 103-116, (2007); Fortun M., Bernstein H.J., Muddling Through: Pursuing Science and Truths in the 21st Century, (1998); Foucault M., ‘Truth and Power’ (A. Fontant and P. Pasquino, Interviewers), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, pp. 131-133, (1980); Froyd J.E., Lohmann J.R., Chronological and Ontological Development of Engineering Education as a Field of Scientific Inquiry, Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, pp. 3-26; Goldin C., Rouse C., Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians, American Economic Review, 90, 4, pp. 715-741, (2000); Hacker S., Pleasure, Power & Technology: Some Tales of Gender, Engineering, and the Cooperative Workplace, (1989); Haraway D., The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others, Cultural Studies, pp. 295-337, (1992); Harding S., The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, (2004); Harding S., Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues, (2006); Jesiek B.K., Newswander L.K., Borrego M., Engineering Education Research: Discipline, Community, or Field?, Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 1, pp. 39-52, (2009); Koro-Ljungberg M., Douglas E.P., State of Qualitative Research in Engineering Education: Meta-analysis of JEE Articles, 2005–2006, Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 2, pp. 163-175, (2008); Lather P., Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts Toward a Double(d) Science, (2007); Longino H.E., Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, (1990); Margolis J., Fisher A., Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing, (2002); Markham E., Outwitted [1913], Poems of Edwin Markham, (1950); Mitcham C., A Philosophical Inadequacy of Engineering, The Monist, 92, 3, pp. 339-356, (2009); Nagamachi M., Kansei Engineering in Consumer Product Design, Ergonomics in Design, 10, 2, pp. 5-10, (2002); Pawley A.L.; Porter R., Marginalized Practices, The Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-Century Science, pp. 495-497, (2003); “rigor, n.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989
Nơi xuất bản
Routledge
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus