Author Topic: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.  (Read 77643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Beamin

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: us
  • If you think my Boobs are big you should see my ba
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #700 on: November 30, 2018, 06:43:21 pm »
Unintended consequences of highlighting problems of female in STEM:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11305

I can think of at least one parallel example. About 10 years ago, atheist communities, primarily online blog/forum based ones, started seeing the injection of far left wing and feminist politics into atheist conversations. These were also largely American. From the constant rumour mongering about creepy male attendees, and a few higher profile disproven allegations of "harrassment" sexual or otherwise, one of the unintended consequences was a reduction in female attendance at the main American conventions (where the stated goal was to increase female attendance). The cynical part of me think that overall female participation is never the goal, simply consolidation of power amongst women of a far left feminist disposition.

I used to be big into the atheist community, and yep, it was essentially destroyed by the SJW driven "Atheism+" movement.


Those Atheism+ people made it seem exactly like a church you would go to meetings they would decide opinions for all the atheists in the world charge dues just like a church. Atheism isn't a group of people its the left overs that don't belong. Turning them into a group just makes them another religion. Plus I'm atheist and I don't agree with 90%  of stuff they said. I don't want them to succeed and when I tell people I'm atheist they automatically think I'm part of that group with its SJW BS. Same with anika sarkasian speaking out for trans people. She doesn't represent us and I certainly don't want to be associated with her. She thinks that because we get prejudice and discrimination that she can speak for us. She can't and you CAN see superman's butt in the video she posted: its black shiny and round.


I was reading the comments from the bottom and scrolling up, came upon this on and was like "Spot on! That exactly how I feel", scroll up more and it was my post. Did I mention some times I forget things, also just so you are aware I forget things. And remind me a bit later so I don't forget to tell you about my memory. There was something else I wanted to say but forgot.

Seriously females working in STEM is still a thing? I thought it was just an internet meme that would have been forgotten about by now. Or we can make this tread all about trans people ! again. But seriously because of this thread I have found other "Transwomen" and me feel not so alone.
Max characters: 300; characters remaining: 191
Images in your signature must be no greater than 500x25 pixels
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1097
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #701 on: November 30, 2018, 08:57:13 pm »
Or we can make this tread all about trans people ! again. But seriously because of this thread I have found other "Transwomen" and me feel not so alone.
How about this for a recap:

You be you. It does not and should not affect how you are perceived as a colleague or a coworker. Most engineers and scientists nowadays don't think of colleagues in terms of "who" they are, but in terms of what they do.  If you do good work, and help the team, you are a good colleague, appreciated coworker.  Your gender or sex and other such features are your private matter, and is not a factor.

Some people, like myself, dislike the direction of requiring specific language or terms, like custom pronouns, to be used. For me, it is just that I do not usually perceive such details at all: I see things and actions and events, not social details. I've already told the story of working for a gay couple as a teenager, and only realizing afterwards they were a couple -- didn't even realize it when they got a puppy together, just wondered about the logistics of it for a bit. I don't mind, it's absolutely fine by me. I like it when people are happy. But, if I am *required* to observe such details, I'm in big trouble, and will fail.

Quotas and group-based identity politics are offensive, because they mean that individual skill is no longer the key factor, but group membership is.  Efforts to remove existing biases against comparing individuals fairly are commendable and perfectly acceptable; it is just that balance cannot be achieved by treating individuals based on their group membership. It is like trying to solve a problem by adding another application of the same problem on top.

All this means that you or others being trans should not make you feel alone, because it does not set you apart from other engineers and scientists.  You are one of "us" because of what you do, and who you are otherwise is just your own added spice.

If I've spoken out of turn or someone disagrees, do point it out. But I do believe the underlying idea is the common shared one.
 
The following users thanked this post: Dave, george.b, Beamin

Offline DimitriP

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1052
  • Country: us
  • "Best practices" are best not practiced.© Dimitri
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #702 on: December 01, 2018, 09:42:34 am »
Quote
group-based identity politics are offensive,

 it works  e v e r y  t i m e and people are still falling for it.

Everyone wants to belong to their own "special group" not looking past the short term "comfort" this special solidarity provides.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

...and people are still falling for it...
   If three 100  Ohm resistors are connected in parallel, and in series with a 200 Ohm resistor, how many resistors do you have? 
 
The following users thanked this post: cdev

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1967
  • Country: pl
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 06:35:52 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9516
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #704 on: December 06, 2018, 10:38:53 pm »
Perhaps he should focus on banning bad design, Apple is very rapidly losing the polish and attention to detail that made them worth paying a premium for. The iPhone X despite its stratospheric price tag has that ridiculous unsightly notch in the display, no physical home button and no headphone jack. iOS 7 transformed the beautiful, polished and consistent UI into an ugly, inconsistent amateurish mess that later versions have still not fully corrected. The OS is buggy, I can no longer rely on reminders because frequently they just fail to show on the lock screen for inexplicable reasons. I cannot move to the latest version because it dropped support for 32 bit apps, which make up about half the apps I use. I occasionally get warnings that these older apps will slow down my phone, however they work just fine and cause no discernible slowdown. iTunes, Apple Music and Podcasts apps all coexist for reasons I cannot fathom. On the computer side they have not released a new Mac Pro in *years*, the Macbook Pro I have for work is nicely built but it's a piss-poor design. RAM and SSD are soldered to the motherboard, it ditches the Magsafe jack which was one of the more compelling features of earlier Macbooks, the only ports it has are USB-C so I have to use dongles to plug anything in. The keyboard is noisy, the touchpad is absurdly huge and gets in the way, the touch bar is a mostly useless gimmick that doesn't work as well as real keys. The battery life is not great, they've uselessly fixated on extreme thin-ness at the expense of functionality, give me a few more mm of thickness and a bigger battery any day, at some point making a laptop thinner doesn't solve anything and just makes it more awkward to carry. Calling it a "Pro" machine is a joke, there's nothing Pro about a completely non-upgradeable computer that sacrifices numerous useful features to achieve a more fashionable appearance. If they continue the current trajectory the iPhone I have will be my last.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4754
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #705 on: December 07, 2018, 10:45:02 am »
The problem is vendor lock-in. By design they make it incredibly difficult to leave the ecosystem.
 

Offline Beamin

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: us
  • If you think my Boobs are big you should see my ba
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #706 on: December 07, 2018, 02:35:05 pm »


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/03/apple-ceo-tim-cook-banning-hate-division-is-right-thing-to-do/

https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CAI%253D&search_query=tim+cook+speech


Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.
Max characters: 300; characters remaining: 191
Images in your signature must be no greater than 500x25 pixels
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4704
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #707 on: December 07, 2018, 03:45:30 pm »
Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.
Whilst this is true, in this case they are pointing out, just as Tim Cook's own words clearly say, that the people at the other extreme can be every bit as authoritarian and out to lunch as they are.
 
The following users thanked this post: Dave, james_s

Online Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3531
  • Country: ca
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #708 on: December 07, 2018, 04:18:54 pm »
Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.

Judging on your tone your shit is not any cleaner, just smeared on the opposite side of the fence.
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 
The following users thanked this post: Dave, GeorgeOfTheJungle, nugglix, james_s, kizmit99

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9516
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #709 on: December 07, 2018, 05:47:57 pm »
Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.
Whilst this is true, in this case they are pointing out, just as Tim Cook's own words clearly say, that the people at the other extreme can be every bit as authoritarian and out to lunch as they are.

While I don't want to drag up politics, I've long observed something which I only recently learned has a name, "horseshoe theory", which speculates that the far left and the far right are actually much closer to each other than they are to the center. I see it as a bit like the poles of a magnet, quite literally polar opposites and yet their behavior is virtually indistinguishable from one another.

The only real difference I see is that the right tends to be clustered further toward the edge while the left has a much more even spread, the right of center moderate is an endangered species, at least in the USA. The groups at the edges are too busy arguing and blaming each other to get anything useful done.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, george.b

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9584
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #710 on: December 07, 2018, 07:49:43 pm »
While I don't want to drag up politics, I've long observed something which I only recently learned has a name, "horseshoe theory", which speculates that the far left and the far right are actually much closer to each other than they are to the center. I see it as a bit like the poles of a magnet, quite literally polar opposites and yet their behavior is virtually indistinguishable from one another.

The reason is that at the extremes the prevailing philosophy is: "I am right and everyone must do what I want".

In the center the prevailing philosophy is closer to: "I would like to look at the evidence to understand the issues better and then make balanced decisions."

The center is harder to sell as people have to think more and that is hard work.
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, Howardlong, tooki, doobedoobedo

Offline DimitriP

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1052
  • Country: us
  • "Best practices" are best not practiced.© Dimitri
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #711 on: December 08, 2018, 12:04:11 pm »
Quote
The groups at the edges are too busy arguing and blaming each other to get anything useful done.

Quote
The center is harder to sell as people have to think more and that is hard work.


After 42, the above two are the next best answers to  life the universe and everything!
   If three 100  Ohm resistors are connected in parallel, and in series with a 200 Ohm resistor, how many resistors do you have? 
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1097
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #712 on: December 09, 2018, 09:38:48 am »
Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.
Exclusion based on opinion is the primary way you are indoctrinated to shun those with different opinions and keep to your control group.  I hate it; it is evil.  I was quite upset when you wrote that answer, especially so soon after I told you *this* is one of the places where people are not being shunned or excluded: your next step, basically, was to shun.

It is not about who you listen to.  It is about who you *believe*, and who you *do not* listen to.

If you look at scientific inquiry, "peer" does not mean someone that agrees with you, but someone that has the knowledge and capability to construct a coherent argument. A well constructed opposing viewpoint and argument is most fruitful. You do not evaluate your peers' arguments based on their world view, but based on the merits of their arguments; and their evidence and claims based on their past reliability.  A large fraction of peer-reviewed papers are later found to be incomplete or erroneous.  What makes you think that single-source news are even more reliable?

I do not trust any authority to give me the full story.  I trust many to give their own viewpoint.  I know many reporters, especially in Finland, self-censor things that might be seen as counter to their political views, which means they cannot be trusted even to give their full opinion, only the thoroughly filtered, useless, dogmatic one.

When I want to know what is really happening in the world, I need to trawl through a spectrum of media, all the way from left-wing to right-wing, from Infowars to The Young Turks, and see what their emphasis is, and try and construct the most likely picture supported by the claimed evidence.  I don't believe any single one of them, although I consider some sources to be more plausible than others (depending on the subject matter, of course).

If I were to exclude any single source because I think their political views are despicable, I would just deliberately blind myself from part of the truth.  I think that is just silly for an adult.  If it is part of your modus operandi, you can be sure that your view of the world is basically programmed by those you believe.  It is not a good thing.

"horseshoe theory"
It is a ring, not a horseshoe.  I really don't see that much difference between national socialists and antipha, for example. To me, it's like the difference between Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians.  Some details do differ, and they claim they are horribly important, but at the core, their actions, methods, and results are the same.

Note that the "center" of the ring is empty.  "Moderation" is a bad approach, because rather than evaluating things, it means you should give in a little to everybody, just so you can reach a stalemate. There is no feedback in there, and it relies on everybody being roughly equally distributed in the crazy scale. A much better approach is multi-point "balance", where you can move some of the points used for the balance as people want, and observe the results, while keeping everything more or less balanced.  Unfortunately, you need long-term commitment, accurate statistics (so no tweaking to make yourself look good), and hard analytical work (so most politicians are out), and to allow multiple contradictory viewpoints to simultaneously exist, to do that.
 
The following users thanked this post: doobedoobedo

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #713 on: December 15, 2018, 08:26:13 pm »
Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.
Whilst this is true, in this case they are pointing out, just as Tim Cook's own words clearly say, that the people at the other extreme can be every bit as authoritarian and out to lunch as they are.

While I don't want to drag up politics, I've long observed something which I only recently learned has a name, "horseshoe theory", which speculates that the far left and the far right are actually much closer to each other than they are to the center. I see it as a bit like the poles of a magnet, quite literally polar opposites and yet their behavior is virtually indistinguishable from one another.

The only real difference I see is that the right tends to be clustered further toward the edge while the left has a much more even spread, the right of center moderate is an endangered species, at least in the USA. The groups at the edges are too busy arguing and blaming each other to get anything useful done.
These days it's my impression that most political scientists agree that there are several other relevant "dimensions" to politics than the classic left-right. Many suggest an authoritarian-libertarian dimension for example and along that dimension many far right and far left groups cluster in the same (authoritarian) end. The differences between left and right economic policies might still be large and real though.

This is a fun example: https://www.politicalcompass.org/
 

Online james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9516
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #714 on: December 15, 2018, 10:31:37 pm »
That's an interesting site I had come across some time in the past. Curiously I end up almost exactly right smack in the center of the chart, although I can't help but think that there are not enough questions asked to get a really good picture and a lot of them could really use a "slightly agree", "slightly disagree" or "it depends" option.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #715 on: December 16, 2018, 12:25:47 am »
Yes, I agree. I think it's mainly designed to make you reflect over the idea of other political dimensions than the one we are used to, it's probably not intended to be an accurate test.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4754
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #716 on: December 22, 2018, 11:51:43 am »
On a more light hearted note, there are a couple of parody accounts on Twitter that have come to my attention recently. I have to admit that at first I thought they might be real, and if you read the comments, I'm not the only one.







« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 11:53:33 am by Howardlong »
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, Nominal Animal

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29892
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #717 on: January 05, 2019, 05:00:47 am »
This one might take the cake  :wtf:

"Disrupting and Displacing Methodologies in STEM Education: from Engineering to Tinkering with Theory for Eco-Social Justice"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42330-018-0020-5

They lost me after the first paragraph

Quote
Why disrupting and displacing methodologies in STEM education matters
It has been argued many times over the course of decades and across diverse paradigms that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education practices-as-usual (re)produce systems of dominance: be it patriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, able-ism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism, and/or others. Thankfully, there are many who are doing the critical and creative work of (re)opening STEM education to the possibility of eco-social justice to-come through a plurality of productive approaches, orientations, and stances: anti-oppressive, anti-racist and critical race-based, decolonizing and de/colonizing, queer, Indigenous, gender-equitable, post-colonial, community-based and participatory, critical place-based, inter-species, and many more. Further, there are many examples taking richly critical and complicit stances to work within and against logics of exclusion. Yet, in doing so, many of these engagements are oft depoliticized and atheoretical practices of inclusion in ways that continue othering those formerly excluded, albeit differently. As readers of the field, we note the ways in which efforts often center around questions of curriculum and pedagogy; as they should, these are central and major nodes within STEM education. How coming-to-know-nature, coming-to-know-number, and coming-to-know-technology are conceptualized and enacted matters deeply: in terms of the curricular destinations and the pedagogical pathways that might allow such learning, as well as for whom. For example, as Megan Bang and Ananda Marin (2015) remind, the curricular inclusion of Indigenous perspectives is differentially problematic if we cannot also attend to the taken-for-granted and naturalized epistemological, ontological, and axiological commitments and enactments of what we are including perspectives into. As Bang and Marin (2015) state, if science education continues to “focus on ‘settled’ phenomena as well as ‘settled’ perspectives and relations to phenomena” (p. 531), which rely on and reinforce recursive whiteness and settler privilege while simultaneously dismissing, diminishing, and denying Indigenous ways-of-living-with-nature, presence, and futurities, it will remain but a tokenistic inclusion which serves to distract from the more unsettling demands of this work and is often primarily an effort to reconceptualize and recenter the subject of dominance. Again, how curriculum, pedagogy, and its central nodes are conceptualized matters.

Similarly, methodology is also1 an important site in which the movements of power occur, differentially (re)producing articulations of dominance. While these often manifest in much more subtle ways, we argue that it remains important to ask ourselves how the diverse methodologies we employ in and through our research practices as scholars of STEM education contribute or work to maintain and privilege the prevailing trajectory of STEM education. To this end, highlighting the ways in which the disciplines discipline what counts as knowledge and, more to the point, knowledge production processes, Linda Tuhiwei Smith and colleagues (2016) ask, “are methodologies simply new technologies of cultural assimilation?” (p. 133). For Smith and colleagues (2016), attending to methodology is to address lingering colonial referents which lurk within our methodological constellation of concepts (e.g., voice, identity, data, and reflexivity). To engage in critical goals yet engage in “conventional” methodologies, whose taken-for-grantedness does not and cannot identify which conventions inform them, sends a subtle yet insidious message: that alternative perspectives need to be validated in and through the norms of dominance in order to “count.”2 There is a need to actively de-center these taken-for-granted notions and to pull through alternative and multiple ways of assembling theory, practice, and ethics. However, disrupting and displacing methodologies is not strictly a call for methodological pluralism, a means of “losing the way — as losing any sense that just one ‘way’ could ever be prefixed and privileged by the definite article” (Gough 2006, p. 640, emphasis ours). It is also a call for “disrupting the hegemonic ways of seeing and how this relates to subjects making themselves dominant” (McKinley 2001, p. 76). We do not suggest that the critical and creative reworking of methodology is (wholly) a panacea to this poison. Nonetheless, there is purpose in critically engaging with the work of disrupting and displacing methodology: it is to at least dare to fail in new ways.

From Research Design to De/Signing Research: From Engineering to Tinkering with Theory
Still relevant today, Liz McKinley (2001) questions the ways in which dominance operated in STEM education through calling out how it responds to difference: as a form of “masking power with innocence.” Primarily, McKinley (2001) sheds light on how a lack of knowledge (or a positional stance of “not knowing”) often serves to (re)produce the norms of power; in turn, “we need to challenge the mask of innocence and ask ourselves how relations of domination and subordination regulate encounters in classrooms.” (p. 76). While she speaks of and to pedagogy and curriculum, it offers a useful lens to discuss STEM research methodologies.

The theoretical landscape of educational research methodologies is shifting: the space of “innocence” resulting from a lack of knowledge is not what it was 20 years ago.3 Across diverse educational spaces, there are increasing calls to engage in and momentum around practices of disrupting and displacing methodologies: the last decade being particularly momentous along these lines (e.g., special issues in journals such as Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, Educational Studies, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education). There are now multiple productive exemplars which critically engage methodological processes to disrupt and displace restrictive norms which linger and lurk with/in educational research and its concepts which left unchecked (re)articulate forms of oppressive power. The space of “innocence” which serves to mask methodological power is perhaps no longer tenable for not addressing taken-for-granted referents to system which (re)produce dominance, inequity, and foreclose the space of responsibility towards one another across lines of difference and power.

Because methodologies (even critical ones) often traffic in Majoritarian articulations, even when we work against them in critical STEM education, we argue that research can and should take a different approach from its very beginning: at the stage of research design. Elsewhere (Higgins et al. 2017), the notion of de/sign is offered to differ and defer that which design comes to signify: design as pre-existing, design as separate or separable from other aspects of research, and design as a means to achieve and justify the ends. Designing research in STEM education has intermittently been and must continue working towards being more than grabbing a “best fit” of the methodological rack or tailoring it to fit: resisting what Gayatri Spivak refers to as the “rage for unity” (Spivak 1976, p. xvi) which comes to mask the ways in which all methodologies consist of loosely assembled partial, situated, and relational meanings. De/sign is a “means of working within, against, and beyond the tailoring of research” (Higgins et al. 2017, p. 36). Further, de/sign is (a) accounting for and being accountable to that which conventional methodologies always already signify; (b) engaging in the creative and critical work of resignifying methodologies. This is why, in the call for papers, we asked the following: “What would it mean to engage in the work of de/signing research which critically disrupts and displaces methodologies in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (STEM) education for eco-social justice?”

In further considering the relationship between design and de/sign, we frame the exploration of the invited question with the dichotomous and relevant metaphors of engineering and tinkering: thinking specifically with Jacques Derrida’s (1976) (mis)reading of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ “La pensée sauvage” in which he both separates and blurs the distinctiveness between the two practices’ metaphoricity. Research design can often prescriptively and prohibitively act as a signifier that sutures over the signified processes of designing and doing research. Similarly, engineering is the movement from the ends to the means, whereby the engineer makes appropriate selections from “the discourses of formal logic, and the pure sciences” (Spivak 1976, p. xix), picking concepts, categories, and constructs already purposed for their process (e.g., research as “best fit” and “best practices”). Consequently, “design” is often employed and understood as a method that exists a priori, instruments that support (rather than produce) research, that also includes and encompasses all of its conceptual apparatus: be it “objectivity,” “cultural neutrality,” “validity,” or other. Because of the aforementioned ways that such constructs and categories often implicitly (re)produce systems of power, this special issue is a call to tinker with/in, rather than engineer, research and educational practices in STEM education.

In contrast to engineering, “the bricoleur [tinkerer] makes do with things that were meant perhaps for other ends” (Spivak 1976, p. xix). Tinkering reverses the ends/means hierarchy by privileging the means over the ends or the process over the product, even if this entails the very possibility of not achieving the specified goals. As Derrida (1976) argues, the ends (i.e., knowledge, truth) and the means of knowledge production (i.e., methodology) never come to coincide. The goal of (fully) achieving knowledge is not only empirically impossible, as Lévi-Strauss posited, but also theoretically so. Thus, for Derrida (1976), “the engineer should always be a sort of bricoleur [tinkerer]” (p. 139) while coming to recognize the very limitation of bricolage:
The only weakness of bricolage [tinkering]—but, seen as a weakness is it not irremediable?—is a total inability to justify itself in its own discourse. The already-there-ness of instruments and of concepts cannot be undone or re-invented (pp. 138–139).

Just as the goals of engineering never come to be, Derrida cautions against treating the tinkerer’s tools as if they themselves always were. Instead, he invites consideration of the tools themselves as the productive enactments of tinkerings past and to-come.

There is always a need for “simultaneously troubling and using the concepts [and conceptual lines] we think we cannot think without … , keeping [them] as both limit and resource” (Lather 2007, p. 167–168). Lastly, because engineering/bricolage is always already a porous binary, this invites a critical consideration of bricolage vis-à-vis its ends, or what it produces: “all [tinkerings] are not equally worthwhile. Bricolage [tinkering] criticizes itself” (Derrida 1976, p. 139). However, because “methodological fabric is also a fabrication—a performative and non-separable enactment of the interconnected space between theory, practice, and ethics” (Higgins et al. 2017, p. 17)—methodological design is always already open to deconstruction, politics, and re (con)figuration.

This special issue collects the work of STEM education scholars doing the work of tinkering with theory,4 whether it be interrogating theories intended for STEM, or using theories unintended for that context to enact research in STEM education for social and ecological justice. The manuscripts herein are lived, engaged, and critically rich scholarship that tinkers within, against, and beyond these disciplinary spaces across the various stages of research and/as educational practice: design, delivery, analysis, and dissemination.

Tinkering with Theory: An Overview of Collected Papers
The papers herein are organized in two arcs. First, there are papers which tinker within and against STEM research methodologies by utilizing tools and techniques intended for within STEM, but refusing to use them in intended ways. Secondly, there are those working within and beyond STEM research methodologies by utilizing tools and techniques not intended for use within STEM education. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, since materials, techniques, and concepts “intended” for STEM use is a matter of positionality, sociohistorical location, and context.

Utilizing tools and techniques intended for STEM education, but refusing this intention
Sara Giordano suggests that tinkering has become associated with and overcoded by masculinist desires within spaces of synthetic biology education. Thinking with decolonial scholar Maria Lugones and feminist science studies scholar Deboleena Roy to both use and trouble tinkering, Giordano engages in the play of resignification that tinkering invites: towards a more just (rather than just more) bio-hacking education practice. Nikki Rotas’ contribution “puts to work” (Lather 2007) Baradian notions of diffraction in her work with children (ages 10–12) in an afterschool robotics club. Rotas’ goal is to engender an understanding of design that can resist or escape rigid disciplinary pathways of both experience and design through cyborg embodiments of vision with wearable technologies. Can learning lead to and from alternate ontological and epistemologies that emerge from engagement with multiple assemblages and apparatuses? This is more or less, what Maria Wallace, Marc Higgins, and Jesse Bazzul emphasize in their attempt to dislodge the majoritarian concept of “nature” through a minor inquiry which traces the contours of Nature, honoring its inherent and ever-emerging local, differentiating, and queer potential. If education is to participate in finding new forms of collective existence, it will need to explore conceptions of nature that are more relational and contingent; conceptions bent on honoring and nurturing difference. Along similar yet different lines, Liz Defreitas and Nathalie Sinclair tinker within the all-too-subtle mathematical space of probability which comes to co-constitute cognitive psychology. Resignifying the relation between classical probability’s “either/or” and learners whose inability to perceive and formalize mathematical abstraction, Defreitas and Sinclair tinker with the “both/and” of quantum probability to invite consideration of superposition and indeterminacy in ways-of-knowing-Number (e.g., shape) as a potential differential gift.

Utilizing tools and techniques not intended for STEM education
The special issue also introduces tools, techniques, concepts and methodologies typically not employed in STEM education research. Michelle Wooten’s cartographic introduces, among other things, an ontological landscape to the field of science education, such that new relationships and intensities can be realized (instead of rejected as they often are by mainstream science education). Wooten’s work demonstrates, albeit subtly, a dissatisfaction with the lack of coherence that exists between science educators pursuing already established research regimes, and those that would venture to different spaces; and accordingly, cartography provides a tool for putting this work (all) in relation. Differently attending to representation, Shakhnoza Kayumova, Wenbo Zhang, and Kate Scantlebury’s tinker with graphic comic image-text juxtapositions to bring about new relationships with data, continue along the lines of ontological exploration in terms of finding a plurality of ways to “connect” with, and embody relationships to, data and analysis. These authors set out to seriously question how unexamined methods of research can maintain hierarchies and hegemonic power relationships, and what this questioning might mean for doing equity work in science education. Last, but not least, Stacia Cedillo’s critical essay introduces how a BlackCrit analytics of anti-blackness are useful approaches for showing how the US-Based corporate STEM movement, and Modern Western Science in general, is entangled with anti-black constructs, motives, and institutional arrangements. Importantly, Cedillo’s working with BlackCrit reveals that even spaces that are deemed “open” which allow students to bring diverse ways-of-knowing-in-being, specifically open inquiry, are not immune to and from enactments of anti-Blackness; inviting a shift in the conversation from accessibility to directly addressing the central role that STEM plays in (re)producing individual and systemic racism.

A critical commentary by Annette and Noel Gough concludes the issue by doing three things. First, the commentary puts the special issue into relation with further relevant scholarship (e.g., critical science studies). Second, it gives readers assurance that the ethos for this special issue is not particularly new, and thus depicts a sustained “multi-generational” concern with theory and method/ology that continue to linger in educational research (including STEM fields). Third, it provides several areas for further exploration for interested educators and researchers.

Without further delay, we invite readers to take the time to sit with the topics, ideas, and tools that offer potential connections to research and practice, and to perhaps take a small step towards doing something differently. We can honestly say that exposure to the “disruptive diversity” in this special issue has provoked many little changes in us over the past year and half, and more than anything, we hope the spirit of the issue carries forward in multiple ways for the sake of the ecologies of relationships within which we live: their human, other-than-, and more-than-human beings with which we co-exist. Lastly, we echo the Goughs’ commentary in stating that this work is neither new nor anywhere near done. For this work to refuse, resist, and resignify the field or STEM, as well as for it to be exemplary rather than extraneous, requires plurality and critical mass, as well as creative acts of perception and practice: again, STEM education needs methodological disruption and displacement for the possibly of justice to-come.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29892
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #718 on: January 05, 2019, 05:03:11 am »
On a more light hearted note, there are a couple of parody accounts on Twitter that have come to my attention recently. I have to admit that at first I thought they might be real, and if you read the comments, I'm not the only one.

 :phew:
I was reading these from the bottom up and of course entertained the idea for a minute that these might be real...
 

Offline nardev

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: ba
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #719 on: January 05, 2019, 08:41:02 am »
Interesting clips by Jordan Peterson regarding the "issue".



 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2581
  • Country: es
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #720 on: January 05, 2019, 10:47:42 am »
Quote
group-based identity politics are offensive,

 it works  e v e r y  t i m e and people are still falling for it.

Everyone wants to belong to their own "special group" not looking past the short term "comfort" this special solidarity provides.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

...and people are still falling for it...
It is human nature, probably general animal nature. And leaders in general and specially politicians use it to their advantage. And people fall for it because it is in our nature.  If you look at most social movements their cause is generally more against something than for something. Against another group and their culture and ideas. It is much, much easier to unite a group in opposition to something than in support of something. You can see it in every culture and in every country.

Politicians will take any minor thing, build it up into a big thing which defines the group and then proclaim themselves leaders who will resolve the issue, which, of course, is never resolved because that would put them out of business.

In one country they would be persecuting counterrevolutionaries while in another country they would be persecuting communists with the same zeal. Meanwhile life went on in spite of all this but many people were forced to take sides and proclaim their support to the policy du jour or else risk being accused of practicing witchcraft and supporting the enemy.

Quote
Henry Louis Mencken (1880 – 1956)

the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
People cannot help themselves. They just have to go to the lure without thinking for a moment.
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4754
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #721 on: January 05, 2019, 12:16:44 pm »
On a more light hearted note, there are a couple of parody accounts on Twitter that have come to my attention recently. I have to admit that at first I thought they might be real, and if you read the comments, I'm not the only one.

 :phew:
I was reading these from the bottom up and of course entertained the idea for a minute that these might be real...

Whoever the author(s) of these accounts are, they frequently have me laughing out loud, precisely because you just know what’s being said will mean people take them seriously, on all sides, who then reply, which of course generates even more LOLs.

The reason one of the accounts came to my attention was that it was banned briefly, which caused a storm and inevitable Streisand effect. It seems that not even Twitter could figure out that it was a parody and satirical account. This is precisely why banning often has the opposite of the desired effect.

The McGrath one is definitely worth following for daily LOLs.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 12:19:09 pm by Howardlong »
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4704
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #722 on: January 05, 2019, 04:16:48 pm »
The McGrath one is definitely worth following for daily LOLs.
I like the message that "Parody accounts are violence".  :)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 08:27:47 pm by coppice »
 

Offline soldar

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2581
  • Country: es
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #723 on: January 05, 2019, 05:20:50 pm »
I like the message that "Parody accounts are violence.  :)
Reminds me of some years ago when "how many X does it take to change a lightbulb?" jokes were in vogue...

- How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

- That's not funny!

;)
All my posts are made with 100% recycled electrons and bare traces of grey matter.
 

Offline Beamin

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1409
  • Country: us
  • If you think my Boobs are big you should see my ba
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #724 on: January 05, 2019, 06:34:37 pm »
Why are you watching breitbart? I thought everyone knew by now that they are just right wing white supremist trash. Like alex jones. Low information propaganda for people of weak mind who can't think for themselves. I'll pass.

Judging on your tone your shit is not any cleaner, just smeared on the opposite side of the fence.


Are you talking about my choice to get news from NPR? I don't think you can say NPR is at the opposite side of the spectrum, I'm making an assumption based on the fact that many right wingers tend to only comprehend the world as black and white; because having more then two choices means that they can't use their simple/lazy right/wrong way of thinking. When right wingers are shown left wing propaganda and factual news that accurately exposes real wrongdoings of their party, with no political bias; they tend to lump both together, when us free thinkers will clearly see the difference. i.e. defending a child predator/molester/monster like Ray Moore, or denying the fact the Exxon-mobile admits that anthropomorphic climate change is real.. Lazy way of thinking.

Soon Nancy Pelosi will be busting heads and taking names.    :palm:
Max characters: 300; characters remaining: 191
Images in your signature must be no greater than 500x25 pixels
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf