Search

The ASTROMOVES project captures the career decision-making of astrophysicists and those in adjacent sciences, with particular attention to ‘intersectional’ identities, sex/gender diversity and visible/invisible disabilities. Qualitative interviews were recorded online (due to the Pandemic) and each scientist was assigned an Indigenous Hawaiian pseudonym. This was a subversive move to remind astrophysicists of the enormous debt they owe to the Hawaiian people for the use of their sacred mountain tops. All of the scientists consented to having a Hawaiian name. Seven scientists chose their own pseudonyms, most were Hawaiian place names: Maui, Waikiki, Waiheke, and Holualoa. Two Brazilians likewise chose Indigenous place names: Caramuru and Paraguaçu. The last name chosen was Kū'oko'a. Kū'oko'a is the Hawaiian concept of freedom, of which I was unaware. When questioned by editors, I had to evoke my Oahu birth as my right to use Hawaiian pseudonyms. For my visualizations, I chose to not use the Mercator projection which artificially enlarges Europe, instead I use the Peters projection or equal area map. Thus, Europe is de-emphasized by showing its area relative to the rest of the world. 

Holbrook, Jarita. 2023. "Visualizing Astrophysicists’ Careers." 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, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11

Drawing on a long career as a Black critical health equity researcher, Bowleg quotes Black feminist Audre Lorde in arguing that the “master’s tools”—in order words, conventional theories and methods—"will never dismantle the master’s house”—intersectional structures of oppression from which health inequities are produced. Bowleg elaborates by explaining that conventional theories and methods “valorize almost exclusively individualistic and social cognitive approaches (Cochran & Mays, 1993; Weber & Parra-Medina, 2003); ignore the foundational roots of structural and intersectional inequality (Bowleg, 2012, 2020); center White, Western, cisgender male, middle-class, and heterosexual people and their experiences as normative (Henrich et al., 2010); prioritize amelioration, not transformation (Fox et al., 2009a); and view Black people primarily through the lens of deficit or pathology” (237).

Thus Bowleg offers 10 critical lessons for Black and other health equity researchers of color that she links with system and structural-level strategies. Bowleg also cautions that these lessons are risky and could damage one’s academic career—but that it is exactly this kind of risk that is necessary for change. Among these include: embrace critical perspectives, embrace a critical qualitative stance, learn research paradigms (e.g. positivist paradigm = a master’s tool, must learn to counter), foster community-based partnerships and collaborations, and highlight black communities’ strengths, assets, and acts of resistance. Bowledge also encourages researchers to “tell it like it is”: “Epistemological ignorance is one of the master’s most formidable tools. Epistemologies of ignorance refer to the examination of different types of ignorance and their production, maintenance, and functions (Sullivan & Tuana, 2007)” (239). Here, Bowleg emphasizes the importance of language by discussing how it can alternatively reveal or obscure structures of oppression as well as it shapes the nature of research.