Subsistence peoples with distinct cultures confronting challenges that threaten their future. Both are politically marginalized indigenous peoples within the dominant governments of their territories. Both find it difficult to control wildlife within their territories, and when they migrate across geographic borders into other jurisdictions. The need to regulate wildlife must be balanced with traditional cultural values and practical realities.
As a result of colonization and loss of culture in indigenous tribes across the world, there is a dire need to document and share the Traditional Ecological Knowledge that Native tribes have practiced for thousands of years. The philosophy and principals that make up the majority of Indigenous spirituality is an interconnectedness with the land, plants and animals (Barnhart 2005). This deep understanding of relationship and reciprocity can teach all of us a lesson about living with the natural world. Using Native Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge to document traditional medicinal
Language and culture loss is a growing problem among native tribes in the United States, largely due to globalization and western ideals. Culture loss ensures the loss of connection to the land. Documenting cultural practices that involve components of and relationship to the land, such as water, makes the importance of the relationship between the people and land more apparent. Mongolia and regions of Montana share many similarities, environmentally and with indigenous people’s practices. Therefore, Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous sciences were utilized. This research works
Mongolia’s Darhad Valley and regions of Montana can be considered bioregions. A bioregion “encompasses landscapes, natural processes and human elements as equal parts of a whole” (BioRegions.org). Indigenous people live within both regions, and they respectively consider holistic interactions between landscapes, natural processes and humans. Both are faced with change related to developmental pursuits and globalism. Understanding and documenting language and mode of expression is an important way for community members to recognize the value of place and tradition, and how these things are
Many people believe that both public policy and personal action would improve with better access to “reliable knowledge about the natural world” (that thing that we often call science). Many of those people participate in science education and science communication. And yet, both as areas of practice and as objects of academic inquiry, science education and science communication have until recently remained remarkably distinct. Why, and what resources do the articles in this special issue of JRST give us for bringing together both the fields of practice and the fields of inquiry?
The fields of science education and science communication share the overarching goal of helping non-experts and non-members of the professional science community develop knowledge of the content and processes of scientific research. However, the specific audiences, methods, and aims employed in the two fields have evolved quite differently and as a result, the two fields rarely share findings and theory. Despite this lack of crosstalk, one theoretical construct—framing—has shown substantial analytic power for researchers in both fields. Specifically, both fields have productively made use of
Recent decades have seen an increasing emphasis on linking the content and aims of science teaching to what the average citizen requires in order to participate effectively in contemporary society, one that is heavily dependent on science and technology. However, despite attempts to define what a scientific education for citizenship should ideally involve, a comprehensive set of key aspects has yet to be clearly established. With this in mind, the present study sought to determine empirically the extent of any consensus in Spain regarding the principal aspects of scientific competence that
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Angel Blanco-LopezEnrique Espana-RamosFrancisco Jose Gonzalez-GarciaAntonio Joaquin Franco-Mariscal
In the 1920s, John Dewey and Walter Lippmann both wrote important books examining whether the public was capable of playing a constructive role in policy, particularly when specialized knowledge was involved. This essay uses the Lippmann–Dewey debate to identify new challenges for science education and to explore the relationship between science education and science communication. It argues that science education can help foster democracy in ways that embody Habermas' ideal of the public sphere, but only if we as a field pay more attention to (1) the non-scientific frames and narratives that
In some senses, both science education and science communication share common goals. Both seek to educate, entertain and engage the public with and about science. Somewhat surprisingly, given their common goals, they have evolved as disparate academic fields where each pays little attention to the other.1 The purpose of this special issue, therefore, is an attempt some form of rapprochement—to contribute to building a better awareness of what each has to contribute to the other and the value of the scholarship conducted in both fields.
Keystone Connect Network is a proposed regional broadband network whose purpose is to increase educational opportunities and generate business growth. The backbone of this plan is the Pennsylvania Research and Education Network's (PennREN), a next generation high-speed internet network, managed by KINBER, which educational institutions can use to train their students and create new learning opportunities; and business can create new products and connect with their customers.
The informal STEM education (ISE) field is a landscape that includes a variety of institutions beyond schools, including museums, science centers, zoos, youth and adult organizations, documentary film producers—and public libraries (J. H. Falk, Randol, and Dierking 2012). Libraries across the country have been reimagining their community role and leveraging their resources and public trust to strengthen communnity-based learning and foster critical thinking, problem solving, and engagement in STEM.
This paper argues that for citizens to be engaged with science they need to be able to share analytical techniques as well as the results of analyses. The category of "brand" which condenses the instrumental with the symbolic is both powerful in its uses and familiar to laypeople. The paper shows briefly how the categories of penicillin, biotechnology and applied science can be analysed in this way. It suggests that historians apply such an approach to the historiography of such new categories as synthetic biology and that this might be useful to curators of such topics in museums.