从多样性到尊严

Melanie Loehwing, Byron B Craig
{"title":"从多样性到尊严","authors":"Melanie Loehwing, Byron B Craig","doi":"10.14434/josotl.v21i4.33216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article promotes closer rhetorical analysis of the current trend in higher education to institutionalize equity, inclusion, diversity, and access (EIDA) work without routinely interrogating the orienting terms used in such efforts. It may be easy to mistake the intentions of EIDA work as determining its value, thus discouraging a critical examination of the rhetorical outcomes it produces and the rhetorical effects it invites. We suggest that one insight such analysis could offer is a better account of the rhetorical constraints of the term “diversity.” In this article, we review a range of compelling critiques that have been offered of the limitations of “diversity” as it appears in higher education discourse. We suggest “dignity” as a promising alternative to “diversity” as an alternate orienting term for EIDA work in higher education.","PeriodicalId":93822,"journal":{"name":"The journal of scholarship of teaching and learning : JoSoTL","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Diversity to Dignity\",\"authors\":\"Melanie Loehwing, Byron B Craig\",\"doi\":\"10.14434/josotl.v21i4.33216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article promotes closer rhetorical analysis of the current trend in higher education to institutionalize equity, inclusion, diversity, and access (EIDA) work without routinely interrogating the orienting terms used in such efforts. It may be easy to mistake the intentions of EIDA work as determining its value, thus discouraging a critical examination of the rhetorical outcomes it produces and the rhetorical effects it invites. We suggest that one insight such analysis could offer is a better account of the rhetorical constraints of the term “diversity.” In this article, we review a range of compelling critiques that have been offered of the limitations of “diversity” as it appears in higher education discourse. We suggest “dignity” as a promising alternative to “diversity” as an alternate orienting term for EIDA work in higher education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of scholarship of teaching and learning : JoSoTL\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of scholarship of teaching and learning : JoSoTL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i4.33216\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of scholarship of teaching and learning : JoSoTL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i4.33216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文促进了对高等教育当前趋势的更深入的修辞分析,以使公平、包容、多样性和准入(EIDA)工作制度化,而没有常规地质疑这些工作中使用的定向术语。人们很容易把EIDA作品的意图误解为决定其价值,从而阻碍了对其产生的修辞结果和修辞效果的批判性审查。我们认为,这样的分析可以提供一种见解,即更好地解释“多样性”一词的修辞限制。在本文中,我们回顾了一系列令人信服的批评,这些批评提出了“多样性”在高等教育话语中的局限性。我们建议将“尊严”作为“多样性”的一个有希望的替代词,作为高等教育中EIDA工作的另一个定向术语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Diversity to Dignity
This article promotes closer rhetorical analysis of the current trend in higher education to institutionalize equity, inclusion, diversity, and access (EIDA) work without routinely interrogating the orienting terms used in such efforts. It may be easy to mistake the intentions of EIDA work as determining its value, thus discouraging a critical examination of the rhetorical outcomes it produces and the rhetorical effects it invites. We suggest that one insight such analysis could offer is a better account of the rhetorical constraints of the term “diversity.” In this article, we review a range of compelling critiques that have been offered of the limitations of “diversity” as it appears in higher education discourse. We suggest “dignity” as a promising alternative to “diversity” as an alternate orienting term for EIDA work in higher education.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
48 weeks
×
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