Masculine Image of Science and Technology: Setting the Own House in order
for Proxy Human Right of Gender Equity
-Lalit Kishore
Introduction
One of the banes of the educational practices and structures of the subject matters of various scientific disciplines is that they make both knowledge and learners fragmented. The methods and structures of science and social rearing of children and technology instruction have drawn a lot of flake from well-meaning educators, social scientists and feminists.
Davies (1988) says that the male children receive more attention since they are noisier and more demanding. Often misdeeds of boys are ignored by using the phrases like ‘boys will be boys’, thereby, providing a social acceptance of boys as ‘aggressive’, ‘competitive’ and hence ‘superior’ to girls. Of course, boys and girls, men and women are different – not superior or inferior – just different.
According to Okeke (1986), it needs to be understood that initial experiences mould an individual’s values, aspirations, emotions and interests and attitudes on the basis of what is offered by parents and other members of the family. And, these are subtly and unconsciously transferred to their children. Very often, the early childhood activities among children are made sex-differentiated. Boys are given the mechanical toys, construction and building kits, motors, cars, guns so that they can engage themselves in combats aggression and competition. On the other hand, girls are given baby dolls, kitchen sets, sewing kits and non-mechanical toys so that they could be docile, compliant and caring. Playing with toys reinforces the sex-differentiated activities. And, it is the beginning of gender inequity leading to the first unconscious assault on the human rights.
Schools too encourage competition and sex-stereotyping, of science, technology and mathematics. The instructional practices of delivering lectures and presentations of science and mathematics in abstract ways continues, despite the research which holds that as a group of human beings, both boys and girls have equal cognitive potentials that can be fostered through peer-group learning exposures.
The way science and mathematics knowledge is structured and delivered in early schooling, it has a gender bias. A study of 19 countries by Comber and Keeves (1973) revealed that there was a significantly better performance of boys over girls in science, mathematics and technology. There are also school-based experiments drawing stregth from the feminist pedagogy in which science and mathematics teaching has been done in an emotionally charged learning environment based upon the techniques of collaborative and cooperative learning (non-competitive and supportive learning practices). These experiments have shown that girls too can perform equally well in science, mathematics and technology if the curricular practices are feminized.
Staberg (1996) believes that social construction of science, technology and mathematics (STM) is masculine. The under-representation of women in science and technology is due to masculinization of these subjects. In fact, girls and women reject science and technology studies because of the ways it is presented. The very delivery system of STM instruction leads to gendering of the subjects. This gender inequity in science and technology is a subtle assault on women’s rights.
The Problem
Since socialization of children and their school education is crucial for their development as individuals by respecting and offering gender equity, it was essential to know the perceptions of available with scholarly science educators and social sciences educators in this respect.
Methodology
A focus group was held for one hour in which two science educators and two social science educators, with more than ten years of teaching to prospective teachers and research experience in education, participated. Their contributions in the discussion were converted into abstracted core ideas to reach a conclusion that could be further verified at theoretical and experimental levels. The focus group was done to enhance the in-house understanding of the issues of human rights, science and technology and teaching methods.
Main Perceptions of the Focus Group
The following core ideas got presented in focus group discussion:
• Growth in science and technology as well as the spread of its products is much faster than the development of social values like respect for human rights, which every generation has to learn afresh, And, learning is a deliberate activity and a slow process. There is a mismatch between scientific and social developments which leads to violation of human rights and many times awaringly.
• Science and technology are primarily based on objectivity and productivity, while the issues of social values and human rights are subjective. Scientists and technologists hardly dwell on the issues of social implications of their discoveries and researches.
• Violators of human rights use the products of science and technology in a much faster and planned ways than the mainstream consumers in the society already inflicted with social and gender inequities.
• Protection of human rights depends on equitable share and ethical use of the outcomes of science and technology.
• We perhaps do not have a socially responsible science and technology. We get into a trap of its share objectivity and imperialism. Researches in education and sociology have provided that diversity among human beings needs to be respected and there exist better ways of attracting women to science and technology courses which we need to understand and use. The contribution of feminist pedagogy can be a great value to revamp science, technology and mathematics instruction.
• Science thinks that denial of human rights to others is a matter of brain pathology – it is a mental disorder due to certain organic factors which can be corrected by finding and employing genetic engineering techniques. Science and technology often shirk the socio-ethical responsibilities of the proper use of science. At the most, for its own sake, it takes up certain conventional activities like popularization of science among laymen.
• To a large extent, our social upbringing and education in the formative years is to become socially adjusted to the vagaries of the society. The other day, I came across a proposition of a social analyst called Laing who holds that our upbringing and education is making us half-crazed creatures, more or less adjusted to a mad world, and we call such a person ‘normal’. Competition and use of products of science and technology as teaching aids are impinching on the personal human touch in education. Due to this, even faulty learning by children is seen as a psychopathology to be treated by science and technology and it is no more a matter of nurturance. Dr. Radhakrishan, our late President, had warned us many years ago that it needs to be understood that sciences supply us the tools of material development but the guidance for their ethical use does not come from them.
• There is enough research evidence in soft science like learning and pedagogy that the use of cooperative and collaborative learning techniques for science and technology are equally good for boys and girls. On the other hand, stress on competition and over use of scientific aids like computers and projection devices depersonalize learning and reflects a gender bias in favour of boys.
Conclusion
The scientific community and educators need to work collaboratively for gender equity both in educational institutions and employment arena related to science and technology with a soft persuasive and cooperative instructional approach for the protection of human rights within their own helms first.
References
1. Comber, L.C. & Keeves, J.P. (1973). Science education in ninteen countries. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiskienl.
2. Davies, B. (1988). Gender, equity and early childhood, Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
3. Okeke, A.C. (1986). Attracting women into science-based occupations: Problems and prospects. In Making science, technology and mathematics education relevant, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Comments