多样性还是非殖民化?寻找拆除“主人家”的工具

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Muminah Arshad, Rachel S Dada, C. Elliott, Iweta Kalinowska, Mehre Y. Khan, R. Lipinski, Varun Vassanth, Jotepreet Bhandal, Monica de Quinto Schneider, Ines Georgis, Fiona Shilston
{"title":"多样性还是非殖民化?寻找拆除“主人家”的工具","authors":"Muminah Arshad, Rachel S Dada, C. Elliott, Iweta Kalinowska, Mehre Y. Khan, R. Lipinski, Varun Vassanth, Jotepreet Bhandal, Monica de Quinto Schneider, Ines Georgis, Fiona Shilston","doi":"10.14324/LRE.19.1.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWithin the literature on decolonizing the curriculum, a clear distinction is frequently made between diversity and decolonization. While decolonization entails dismantling colonial forms of knowledge, including practices that racialize and categorize, diversity is a policy discourse that advocates for adding different sorts of people to reading lists and the staff and student body. As a team of staff and students, we are committed to decolonization, but we are also aware that within our discipline of political science, calls for diversity are more likely to be understood and accepted. We therefore bid for, and obtained, funding to conduct a quantitative review of our department’s reading lists in order to assess the range not only of authors, but also of topics and ideas. We found that male White authors wrote the majority of the readings, with women of colour authoring just 2.5 per cent of works on our curriculum. Our reading lists also featured disappointingly little theoretical diversity, with very little coverage of feminist, critical race or queer theory approaches, for example. We therefore used the standard methodologies and approaches of our discipline in order to point towards the silences and gaps that a decolonizing approach would seek to remedy. In this article, we explain our approach and findings. The project has been educational in the best sense and has disrupted hierarchical relationships between staff and students. It has helped us think more deeply about how data and research inform, and sometimes limit, change, as well as how the process of learning about how knowledge, including reading lists, is generated can support decolonization in itself.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversity or decolonization? Searching for the tools to dismantle the ‘master’s house’\",\"authors\":\"Muminah Arshad, Rachel S Dada, C. Elliott, Iweta Kalinowska, Mehre Y. Khan, R. Lipinski, Varun Vassanth, Jotepreet Bhandal, Monica de Quinto Schneider, Ines Georgis, Fiona Shilston\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/LRE.19.1.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nWithin the literature on decolonizing the curriculum, a clear distinction is frequently made between diversity and decolonization. While decolonization entails dismantling colonial forms of knowledge, including practices that racialize and categorize, diversity is a policy discourse that advocates for adding different sorts of people to reading lists and the staff and student body. As a team of staff and students, we are committed to decolonization, but we are also aware that within our discipline of political science, calls for diversity are more likely to be understood and accepted. We therefore bid for, and obtained, funding to conduct a quantitative review of our department’s reading lists in order to assess the range not only of authors, but also of topics and ideas. We found that male White authors wrote the majority of the readings, with women of colour authoring just 2.5 per cent of works on our curriculum. Our reading lists also featured disappointingly little theoretical diversity, with very little coverage of feminist, critical race or queer theory approaches, for example. We therefore used the standard methodologies and approaches of our discipline in order to point towards the silences and gaps that a decolonizing approach would seek to remedy. In this article, we explain our approach and findings. The project has been educational in the best sense and has disrupted hierarchical relationships between staff and students. It has helped us think more deeply about how data and research inform, and sometimes limit, change, as well as how the process of learning about how knowledge, including reading lists, is generated can support decolonization in itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"London Review of Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"London Review of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.19.1.19\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.19.1.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在关于课程非殖民化的文献中,经常明确区分多样性和非殖民化。虽然非殖民化需要废除殖民形式的知识,包括种族化和分类的做法,但多样性是一种政策话语,主张将不同类型的人加入阅读名单以及教职员工和学生群体。作为一个由工作人员和学生组成的团队,我们致力于非殖民化,但我们也意识到,在我们的政治学学科中,对多样性的呼吁更有可能被理解和接受。因此,我们申请并获得了资金,对我们系的阅读清单进行定量审查,以便不仅评估作者的范围,还评估主题和想法的范围。我们发现,白人男性作家撰写了大部分阅读材料,而有色人种女性仅创作了我们课程中2.5%的作品。令人失望的是,我们的阅读清单上几乎没有理论多样性,例如,很少涉及女权主义、批判性种族或酷儿理论方法。因此,我们使用了我们学科的标准方法和方法,以指出非殖民化方法将寻求弥补的沉默和差距。在这篇文章中,我们将解释我们的方法和发现。该项目从最好的意义上讲是教育性的,打破了教职员工和学生之间的等级关系。它帮助我们更深入地思考数据和研究如何影响、有时限制变化,以及学习包括阅读清单在内的知识是如何产生的过程如何支持非殖民化本身。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diversity or decolonization? Searching for the tools to dismantle the ‘master’s house’
Within the literature on decolonizing the curriculum, a clear distinction is frequently made between diversity and decolonization. While decolonization entails dismantling colonial forms of knowledge, including practices that racialize and categorize, diversity is a policy discourse that advocates for adding different sorts of people to reading lists and the staff and student body. As a team of staff and students, we are committed to decolonization, but we are also aware that within our discipline of political science, calls for diversity are more likely to be understood and accepted. We therefore bid for, and obtained, funding to conduct a quantitative review of our department’s reading lists in order to assess the range not only of authors, but also of topics and ideas. We found that male White authors wrote the majority of the readings, with women of colour authoring just 2.5 per cent of works on our curriculum. Our reading lists also featured disappointingly little theoretical diversity, with very little coverage of feminist, critical race or queer theory approaches, for example. We therefore used the standard methodologies and approaches of our discipline in order to point towards the silences and gaps that a decolonizing approach would seek to remedy. In this article, we explain our approach and findings. The project has been educational in the best sense and has disrupted hierarchical relationships between staff and students. It has helped us think more deeply about how data and research inform, and sometimes limit, change, as well as how the process of learning about how knowledge, including reading lists, is generated can support decolonization in itself.
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
London Review of Education
London Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
39
审稿时长
48 weeks
期刊介绍: London Review of Education (LRE), an international peer-reviewed journal, aims to promote and disseminate high-quality analyses of important issues in contemporary education. As well as matters of public goals and policies, these issues include those of pedagogy, curriculum, organisation, resources, and institutional effectiveness. LRE wishes to report on these issues at all levels and in all types of education, and in national and transnational contexts. LRE wishes to show linkages between research and educational policy and practice, and to show how educational policy and practice are connected to other areas of social and economic policy.
×
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