For Module 3 we examined race and racisms by focusing on underlying assumptions, practices, and models of genetic and social science research. For the discussion board assignment, we will combine different examples to analyze different (often unintentional or implicit) ways that scientific research might reinforce existing racial hierarchies as well as explore concrete proposals to challenge them through changing research practices, transforming institutional and legal guidelines for research, and following alternative research paradigms.
INSTRUCTIONS
Step 1 (40 points). Respond to the following prompt by discussing main arguments and specific examples from the assigned media from Module 3. Word count for your post is open-ended but should aim for 250-400 words (think creatively and try to connect ideas!) but should meet basic criteria. Please review additional instructions and tips below to ensure you receive full points.
PROMPT: A research institute on campus has asked you to contribute to a new initiative that aims to identify implicit biases or racial inequities of research involving historically underrepresented groups and to propose alternatives. Discuss specific examples analyzed by researchers in other contexts that might help identify some potential “blind spots” in the assumptions or practices of their own institute and consider its broader implications (in shaping social relations, education, public policy, etc.). Then, draw from proposals or initiatives others have put for forth to outline some concrete steps the institute could take in efforts to avoid them.
BASIC CRITERIA
To receive full points, you must fully incorporate at least one of the assigned readings and at least one of the assigned media from Module 3.
Note: the podcast interview with Angela Saini and the website and resource list about the “Model Minority” are considered assigned media. You are also more than welcome to substitute assigned media with any of the news stories or links provided in the supplement materials from modules tab or lecture slides and/or outside examples of your own).
Your response should address two key elements of the prompt:
1) Identify potential “blind spots” (i.e. assumptions, practices, dominant models) in research by discussing specific argument(s) scholars have made in other contexts (in other words, summarizing Reardon and Tallbear’s argument about genetic scientists at ASU or Mirandé’s argument about Immigrant Group Models in sociology to explain how this could also occur – if even unintentionally occur in the institute).
2) Outline some concrete steps that could be taken to avoid such “blind spots” (in other words, discuss any of the alternatives we discussed in the readings or supplementary materials) and then generalize to think about how the institute might incorporate a similar protocol, paradigm, initiative, etc. to transform research practices. What are some different objectives driving the research? What, by extension, are some different outputs/outcomes of the research project? Who benefits (and who decides)?
TIP: Keep your imagined audience in mind! The “research institute” is interested in learning about new approaches to research but has never heard of ideas such as “Anti-Racist Racism” “Whiteness as Property” or “Chicano Sociology.” So, fully incorporating the materials implies: Introducing the scholar(s)/speakers and summarizing their work as well as discussing specific examples to show specifically how assumptions, practices, models of other researchers might produce or maintain racial inequalities. Similarly, be detailed and specific when discussing alternative proposals. In sum, be creative and connect ideas, but do so in a way that also demonstrates your thoughtful engagement with the assigned materials.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|