摆脱中立的外衣:使科学更具包容性和公正性的反思性实践指南

IF 2.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Ecosphere Pub Date : 2025-04-13 DOI:10.1002/ecs2.70168
Rapichan Phurisamban, Erika Luna, Harold N. Eyster, Stephen Chignell, Michele Koppes
{"title":"摆脱中立的外衣:使科学更具包容性和公正性的反思性实践指南","authors":"Rapichan Phurisamban,&nbsp;Erika Luna,&nbsp;Harold N. Eyster,&nbsp;Stephen Chignell,&nbsp;Michele Koppes","doi":"10.1002/ecs2.70168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The environmental sciences community cannot meaningfully address the compounding ecological and societal crises of our time without also addressing <i>epistemic</i> oppression—the persistent, systemic exclusion that dismisses or erases certain forms of expertise in knowledge production and scientific practices. Epistemic oppression is justified by the inaccurate assumption that scientific knowledge is neutral, value-free, and objective. This assumption persists because science practices omit information about who we are and how we come to know the world in our work. It operates through the construction of knowledge hierarchies at three levels: (1) privileging particular worldviews of individual scientists, (2) privileging certain academic disciplines, and (3) privileging Eurocentric knowledge systems. To limit epistemic harms, we need to acknowledge that the sciences are inherently <i>relational</i> (i.e., emerge out of relationships among scientists and what we study) and <i>situated</i> (i.e., dependent on the social context surrounding knowledge production). By recognizing and reflecting on assumptions of neutrality, we can transform the scientific community toward fostering greater inclusion and acceptance of diverse worldviews, theories of knowledge, and methodologies to simultaneously address today's wicked problems and advance true diversity, equity, and belonging. Moving from concepts to practice, we outline several reflexive strategies and offer examples and guiding questions to acknowledge our standpoints in scientific research. By embracing reflexivity in our practices, including making our positionality in our work explicit, the environmental sciences can become more inclusive and effective at addressing the compounding crises of this era.</p>","PeriodicalId":48930,"journal":{"name":"Ecosphere","volume":"16 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecs2.70168","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just\",\"authors\":\"Rapichan Phurisamban,&nbsp;Erika Luna,&nbsp;Harold N. Eyster,&nbsp;Stephen Chignell,&nbsp;Michele Koppes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ecs2.70168\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The environmental sciences community cannot meaningfully address the compounding ecological and societal crises of our time without also addressing <i>epistemic</i> oppression—the persistent, systemic exclusion that dismisses or erases certain forms of expertise in knowledge production and scientific practices. Epistemic oppression is justified by the inaccurate assumption that scientific knowledge is neutral, value-free, and objective. This assumption persists because science practices omit information about who we are and how we come to know the world in our work. It operates through the construction of knowledge hierarchies at three levels: (1) privileging particular worldviews of individual scientists, (2) privileging certain academic disciplines, and (3) privileging Eurocentric knowledge systems. To limit epistemic harms, we need to acknowledge that the sciences are inherently <i>relational</i> (i.e., emerge out of relationships among scientists and what we study) and <i>situated</i> (i.e., dependent on the social context surrounding knowledge production). By recognizing and reflecting on assumptions of neutrality, we can transform the scientific community toward fostering greater inclusion and acceptance of diverse worldviews, theories of knowledge, and methodologies to simultaneously address today's wicked problems and advance true diversity, equity, and belonging. Moving from concepts to practice, we outline several reflexive strategies and offer examples and guiding questions to acknowledge our standpoints in scientific research. By embracing reflexivity in our practices, including making our positionality in our work explicit, the environmental sciences can become more inclusive and effective at addressing the compounding crises of this era.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecosphere\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecs2.70168\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecosphere\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.70168\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosphere","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.70168","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果不同时解决认识压迫问题,环境科学界就无法有意义地应对我们这个时代不断加剧的生态和社会危机--认识压迫是一种持续的、系统性的排斥,它否定或抹杀了知识生产和科学实践中某些形式的专业知识。科学知识是中立的、无价值的和客观的,这种不准确的假设为认识压迫提供了理由。这种假设之所以持续存在,是因为科学实践忽略了关于我们是谁以及我们如何在工作中认识世界的信息。它通过在三个层面构建知识等级来运作:(1) 给科学家个人的特定世界观赋予特权,(2) 给某些学科赋予特权,(3) 给以欧洲为中心的知识体系赋予特权。为了限制认识论上的伤害,我们需要承认科学本质上是关系性的(即产生于科学家与我们所研究的事物之间的关系)和情景性的(即依赖于知识生产的社会环境)。通过认识和反思中立性假设,我们可以改变科学界,促进对不同世界观、知识理论和方法论的包容和接受,从而同时解决当今的棘手问题,推进真正的多样性、公平性和归属感。从概念到实践,我们概述了几种反思性策略,并提供了实例和指导性问题,以确认我们在科学研究中的立场。通过在实践中接受反思性,包括明确我们在工作中的立场,环境科学可以变得更具包容性,更有效地应对这个时代不断加剧的危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just

Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just

The environmental sciences community cannot meaningfully address the compounding ecological and societal crises of our time without also addressing epistemic oppression—the persistent, systemic exclusion that dismisses or erases certain forms of expertise in knowledge production and scientific practices. Epistemic oppression is justified by the inaccurate assumption that scientific knowledge is neutral, value-free, and objective. This assumption persists because science practices omit information about who we are and how we come to know the world in our work. It operates through the construction of knowledge hierarchies at three levels: (1) privileging particular worldviews of individual scientists, (2) privileging certain academic disciplines, and (3) privileging Eurocentric knowledge systems. To limit epistemic harms, we need to acknowledge that the sciences are inherently relational (i.e., emerge out of relationships among scientists and what we study) and situated (i.e., dependent on the social context surrounding knowledge production). By recognizing and reflecting on assumptions of neutrality, we can transform the scientific community toward fostering greater inclusion and acceptance of diverse worldviews, theories of knowledge, and methodologies to simultaneously address today's wicked problems and advance true diversity, equity, and belonging. Moving from concepts to practice, we outline several reflexive strategies and offer examples and guiding questions to acknowledge our standpoints in scientific research. By embracing reflexivity in our practices, including making our positionality in our work explicit, the environmental sciences can become more inclusive and effective at addressing the compounding crises of this era.

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
Ecosphere
Ecosphere ECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
378
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of Ecosphere is as broad as the science of ecology itself. The journal welcomes submissions from all sub-disciplines of ecological science, as well as interdisciplinary studies relating to ecology. The journal''s goal is to provide a rapid-publication, online-only, open-access alternative to ESA''s other journals, while maintaining the rigorous standards of peer review for which ESA publications are renowned.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信