Skip to main content

Analyze

California, USA

Misria

In this poster, we share preliminary reflections on the ways in which hermeneutic injustice emerges and operates within educational settings and interactions. Hermeneutic injustice is a type of epistemic injustice that occurs when someone’s experiences are not well understood by themselves or by others, either due to unavailability of known concepts or due to systemic barriers that produce non-knowing (Fricker 2007). In 2021, we entered into a collaborative project to design a high school curriculum on environmental injustice and climate change for California’s K-12 students. Although the project convenors aspired to support the diversity of California’s K-12 student population through representational inclusivity across the program participant, they reproduced essentialized notions of what it means to be an “included subject”. In our first inperson meetings, activities intended to invite difference in the curriculum writing and design community were encountered by participants as an opportunity to point to the margins of that community. Who was in the room and who was not? Initial counts excluded some writers whose identity was not readily apparent by race, ethnicity, or age. Some individuals who, to their consternation, were assumed to be white, revealed themselves as people of color. The project chose the “storyline model” of curriculum design to bring coherence across the teams. The model was developed by science educators to promote student agency and active learning. Lessons start with an anchoring phenomenon, which should hook students and produce enough questions to sustain inquiry cycles that culminate in consensus making. As a result, each grade-level unit of our curriculum was intended to focus on a single environmental phenomenon, like wildfire. However, informed by Gregory Bateson’s theory of learning, we sought to foreground complexity by recursively analyzing environmental injustice through case study analysis of many hazards, injustices, and places. It took multiple meetings over several months to arrive at an articulation of environmental injustice as our central phenomenon that recognizes the compounding impacts of both climate change and toxic pollution. It also required restructuring the working relationships between the project's administrative arm, the curriculum consultants, and the writing team. The image we include is a photograph of an exercise done together with another HS team as we were tasked to clarify the aims and goals of our imagined lessons. As is evidenced in the photograph, each writing team found it difficult to articulate learning outcomes as a series of checklists, or goals, separate from skill-development that represented the dynamic need for curriculum capable of examining climate change and the environmental justice needs for California’s students.

Tebbe, Margaret, Tanio, Nadine, and Srigyan, Prerna. 2023.  "Reflections on Hermeneutical Injustice in K-12 Curriculum Development." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawaii, Nov 8-11.

pece_annotation_1524541863

christopher.vi…

In the future, I do believe that industrial development and sustainable development are compatible because there is a possibililty of a new source of green energy that is not fossil fuel that can aid both developments. However, currently I do not believe that it is possible to have industrial and sustainable development together with the current resources that we have. Fossil fuels are too harmful for the environment while implementation of green energy in industry is too costly and will not yield the same amount of productivity. Once there is a source that is as powerful and easy to implement, such as fossil fuel, becomes apparent, or companies/officials find an efficient way to implement green energy into industry, then industrial and sustainable development will become compatible.

pece_annotation_1524542738

christopher.vi…

Yes and no. Communities should be able to do something about their air quality in their area but within the state's command. For example, states should have a state regulation on air quality and be able to enforce that regulation. However, individual communities should be able to do what they want to meet that state regulation on air quality. With this, communities still have the freedom to do something about their air quality while the state maintains its power

pece_annotation_1524542933

christopher.vi…

To help the government with air pollution, people can try to use their cars less. This can be done through walking, biking, or carpooling to their destinations. This will help lessen the usage of fossil fuels that decrease the air quality. Although this may not seem like much, if more and more people begin to do this, eventually the results will begin to show

pece_annotation_1524698132

Dhruv.Patel

The EPA has a large impact to help minimize the hazard. one of the few things that they are doing is provinding the "critical science to develop and implement outdoor air regulations under the Clean Air Act and puts new tools and information in the hands of air quality managers and regulators to protect the air we breathe." also, the EPa designated areas that meet and dont meet the the standards for the PM standards and ozone standards. 

pece_annotation_1524707051

Botamina

Air pollution is a huge issue nowadays, and it has a side effect on people's health as well. Air pollution divided into different type of pollution (Climate Change, Toxic Pollutants,  Protecting the Stratospheric Ozone Layer, etc). Each one of this hase a negative effects on public health. First Climate Change,  it is expected to lead to more intense hurricanes and storms, heavier and more frequent flooding, increased drought and that lead to death or injuries. Second Toxic Pollutants, it basically causes cancer, "EPA’s most recent national assessment of inhalation risks from air toxics12 estimated that the whole nation experiences lifetime cancer risks above ten in a million, and that almost 14 million people in more than 60 urban locations have lifetime cancer risks greater than 100 in a million." (EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency, para 41).