MIT Kota Banjar

"Mengatasi Permasalahan-permasalahan di Kota Banjar dengan Ilmu dan Teknologi"

Mengaplikasaikan Ilmu dan Teknologi untuk Kesejahteraan dan Kemaslahatan Masyarakat

Fokus 2 Tahun Kedepan

1. Akses Internet yang Murah dan Mudah untuk Pendidikan, Pemerintahan dan Masyarakat guna terciptanya "Knowledge Based Society"

2. Analisis Kebijakan Pembangunan yang berlandaskan Lingkungan Hidup

Tim Penyusun:

Agus Haeruman (UGM)
Arif Nurahman (UPI)
Angga Fuja Widiana (UPI)
Ade Akhyar N (UNSOED)
Bambang Achdiyat (UPI)
Dian Hadiana (IT Telkom)
Anton Timur J. (ITB)
Riki (UI)
Ginanjar fahrul M. (ITB)
Sandy Socrates (ITB)
Ridwan Firdaus (UN. Jakarta)
Rizkiyana Putra M. (UPI)
Deden Anugrah. (UPI)
Christian Suhindar (MARANATHA)

Pembina:

1. Bpk. Madyani Y. A., Ph.D. (UI, MIT & SITA)
2. Bpk. Taufik Hidayat, M.Sc., Ph.D. (Tokyo University & Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia)
3. Bpk. Yusuf Kurniawan, S.Pd. (SMKN 1 Ciamis)
4. Bpk. Endang Jaenudin, S.Pd. (SMAN 1 Banjar)
5. Arif Nurhasan, S.T. (Telkom)
6. Adi Setiadi, S.T. (PLN)

Science, Technology, Society and Environment Education

From Wikipedia

Science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education, originates from the science technology and society (STS) movement in science education. This is an outlook onyou are my amazment science education that emphasizes the teaching of scientific and technological developments in their cultural, economic, social and political contexts. In this view of science education, students are encouraged to engage in issues pertaining to the impact of science on everyday life and make responsible decisions about how to address such issues (Solomon, 1993 and Aikenhead, 1994).

1 Historical context

2 STSE education

Historical context

Science technology and society (STS)

The STS movement has a long history in science education reform, and embraces a wide range of theories about the intersection between science, technology and society (Solomon and Aikenhead, 1994; Pedretti 1997). Over the last twenty years, the work of Peter Fensham, the noted Australian science educator, is considered to have heavily contributed to reforms in science education. Fensham's efforts included giving greater prominence to STS in the school science curriculum (Aikenhead, 2003). The key aim behind these efforts was to ensure the development of a broad-based science curriculum, embedded in the socio-political and cultural contexts in which it was formulated. From Fensham's point of view, this meant that students would engage with different viewpoints on issues concerning the impact of science and technology on everyday life. They would also understand the relevance of scientific discoveries, rather than just concentrate on learning scientific facts and theories that seemed distant from their realities (Fensham, 1985 & 1988.

However, although the wheels of change in science education had been set in motion during the late 1970s, it was not until the 1980s that STS perspectives began to gain a serious footing in science curricula, in largely Western contexts (Gaskell, 1982). This occurred at a time when issues such as, animal testing, environmental pollution and the growing impact of technological innovation on social infrastructure, were beginning to raise ethical, moral, economic and political dilemmas (Fensham, 1988 and Osborne, 2000). There were also concerns among communities of researchers, educators and governments pertaining to the general public's lack of understanding about the interface between science and society (Bodmer, 1985; Durant et al. 1989 and Millar 1996). In addition, alarmed by the poor state of scientific literacy among school students, science educators began to grapple with the quandary of how to prepare students to be informed and active citizens, as well as the scientists, medics and engineers of the future (e.g. Osborne, 2000 and Aikenhead, 2003). Hence, STS advocates called for reforms in science education that would equip students to understand scientific developments in their cultural, economic, political and social contexts. This was considered important in making science accessible and meaningful to all students -- and, most significantly, engaging them in real world issues (Fensham, 1985; Solomon, 1993; Aikenhead, 1994 and Hodson 1998).

Goals of STS

The key goals of STS are:

An interdisciplinary HI approach to science education, where there is a seamless integration of economic, ethical, social and political aspects of scientific and technological developments in the science curriculum.

Engaging students in examining a variety of real world issues and grounding scientific knowledge in such realities. In today's world, such issues might include the impact on society of: global warming, genetic engineering, animal testing, deforestation practices, nuclear testing and environmental legislations, such as the EU Waste Legislation or the Kyoto Protocol.

Enabling students to formulate a critical understanding of the interface between science, society and technology.

Developing students’ capacities and confidence to make informed decisions, and to take responsible action to address issues arising from the impact of science on their daily lives.

Scope and emphasis

Over the last two decades, STS curricula have taken a variety of forms. These emphasize a particular aspect of STS according to the socio-political environment in which they are formulated, as well as the particular views of curriculum developers on STS education and what is considered valid knowledge in a science curriculum (Solomon & Aikenhead 1994 and Aikenhead, 2003). For example, in Canada and Israel, STS goals directed towards understanding environmental issues were given greater emphasis. Hence, the addition of “E” to STS, producing STSE and STES respectively. Whereas, in Belgium, goals focusing on ethics were given greater prominence in STS education, and resulted in the publication of the journal Science Technologies Ethique Societé, (Aikenhead, 2003). However, for the most part, STS curricula are bound by an overarching curriculum framework. This reflects the three curriculum content areas for STS education described by Hodson (1998):

Learning science and technology: acquiring and developing conceptual and theoretical knowledge in science and technology, and gaining a familiarity with a range of technologies.

Learning about science and technology: developing an understanding of the nature and methods of science and technology, an awareness of the complex interactions among science, technology, society and environment, and a sensitivity to the personal, social and ethical implications of particular technologies.

Doing science and technology: engaging in and developing expertise in scientific inquiry and problem solving; developing confidence and competence in tackling a wide range of “real world” technological tasks.

STSE education

There is no uniform definition for STSE education. As mentioned before, STSE is a form of STS education, but places greater emphasis on the environmental consequences of scientific and technological developments. In STSE curricula, scientific developments are explored from a variety of economic, environmental, ethical, moral, social and political (Kumar and Chubin, 2000 & Pedretti, 2005) perspectives.

At best, STSE education can be loosely defined as a movement that attempts to bring about an understanding of the interface between science, society, technology and the environment. A key goal of STSE is to help students realize the significance of scientific developments in their daily lives and foster a voice of active citizenship (Pedretti & Forbes, 2000).

Improving scientific literacy

Over the last two decades, STSE education has taken a prominent position in the science curricula of different parts of the world, such as Australia, Europe, the UK and USA (Kumar & Chubin, 2000). In Canada, the inclusion of STSE perspectives in science education has largely come about as a consequence of the Common Framework of science learning outcomes, Pan Canadian Protocol for collaboration on School Curriculum (1997)[1]. This document highlights a need to develop scientific literacy in conjunction with understanding the interrelationships between science, technology, and environment. According to Osborne (2000) & Hodson (2003), scientific literacy can be perceived in four different ways:

· Cultural: Developing the capacity to read about and understand issues pertaining to science and technology in the media.

· Utilitarian: Having the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are essential for a career as scientist, engineer or technician.

· Democratic: Broadening knowledge and understanding of science to include the interface between science, technology and society.

· Economic: Formulating knowledge and skills that are essential to the economic growth and effective competition within the global market place.

Rationale and goals

In the context of STSE education, the goals of teaching and learning are largely directed towards engendering cultural and democratic notions of scientific literacy. Here, advocates of STSE education argue that in order to broaden students understanding of science, and better prepare them for active and responsible citizenship in the future, the scope of science education needs to go beyond learning about scientific theories, facts and technical skills. Therefore, the fundamental aim of STSE education is to equip students to understand and situate scientific and technological developments in their cultural, environmental, economic, political and social contexts (Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994; Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Pedretti 1997 & 2005). For example, rather than learning about the facts and theories of weather patterns, students can explore them in the context of issues such as global warming. They can also debate the environmental, social, enconomic and political consequences of relevant legislation, such as the Kyoto Protocol. This is thought to provide a richer, more meaningful and relevant canvas against which scientific theories and phenomena relating to weather patterns can be explored (Pedretti et al. 2005).

In essence, STSE education aims to develop the following skills and perspectives (Aikenhead, 1994; Pedretti, 1996; Alsop & Hicks, 2001):

· Social responsibility

· Critical thinking and decision making skills

· The ability to formulate sound ethical and moral decisions about issues arising from the impact of science on our daily lives

· Knowledge, skills and confidence, to express opinions and take responsible action to address real world issues in science

Curriculum content

Since STSE education has multiple facets, there are a variety of ways in which it can be approached in the classroom. This offers teachers a degree of flexibility, not only in the incorporation of STSE perspectives into their science teaching, but in integrating other curricular areas such as history, geography, social studies and language arts (Richardson & Blades, 2001). The table below summarizes the different approaches to STSE education described in the literature (Ziman, 1994 & Pedretti, 2005):

Summary table: Curriculum content

Approach	Description	Example
Historical	A way of humanizing science. This approach examines the history of science through concrete examples, and is viewed as way of demonstrating the fallibility of science and scientists.	Learning about inventions or scientific theories through the lives and worlds of famous scientist. Students can research their areas of interest and present them through various activities: e.g. drama-role play, debates or documentaries. Through this kind of exploration, students examine the values, beliefs and attitudes that influenced the work of scientists, their outlook on the world, and how their work has impacted our present circumstances and understanding of science today.
Philosophical	Helps students formulate an understanding of the different outlooks on the nature of science, and how differing viewpoints on the nature and validity of scientific knowledge influence the work of scientists -- demonstrating how society directs and reacts to scientific innovation.	Using historical narratives or stories of scientific discoveries to concretely examine philosophical questions and views about science. For example, “The Double Helix” by James D. Watson is an account of the discovery of DNA. This historical narrative can be used to explore questions such as: “What is science? What kind of research was done to make this discovery? How did this scientific development influence our lives? Can science help us understand everything about our world?” Such an exploration reveals the social and historical context of philosophical debates about the nature of science -- making this kind of inquiry concrete, meaningful and applicable to students’ realities.
Issues-based	This is the most widely applied approach to STSE education. It stimulates an understanding of the science behind issues, and the consequences to society and the environment. A multi-faceted approach to examining issues highlights the complexities of real-life debates. Students also become aware of the various motives for decisions that address environmental issues.	Real life events within the community, at the national or international level, can be examined from political, economic, ethical and social perspectives through presentations, debates, role-play, documentaries and narratives. Real life events might include: the impact of environmental legislations, industrial accidents and the influence of particular scientific or technological innovations on society and the environment.

Opportunities and challenges of STSE education

Although advocates of STSE education keenly emphasize its merits in science education, they also recognize inherent difficulties in its implementation. The opportunities and challenges of STSE education have been articulated by Hughes (2000) and Pedretti & Forbes, (2000), at five different levels, as described below:

Values & beliefs: The goals of STSE education may challenge the values and beliefs of students and teachers -- as well as conventional, culturally entrenched views on scientific and technological developments. Students gain opportunities to engage with, and deeply examine the impact of scientific development on their lives from a critical and informed perspective. This helps to develop students' analytical and problem solving capacities, as well as their ability to make informed choices in their everyday lives.

As they plan and implement STSE education lessons, teachers need to provide a balanced view of the issues being explored. This enables students to formulate their own thoughts, independently explore other opinions and have the confidence to voice their personal viewpoints. Teachers also need to cultivate safe, non-judgmental classroom environments, and must also be careful not to impose their own values and beliefs on students.

Knowledge & understanding: The interdisciplinary nature of STSE education requires teachers to research and gather information from a variety of sources. At the same time, teachers need to develop a sound understanding of issues from various disciplines -- philosophy, history, geography, social studies, politics, economics, environment and science. This is so that students’ knowledge base can be appropriately scaffolded to enable them to effectively engage in discussions, debates and decision-making processes.

This ideal raises difficulties. Most science teachers are specialized in a particular field of science. Lack of time and resources may effect how deeply teachers and students can examine issues from multiple perspectives. Nevertheless, a multi-disciplinary approach to science education enables students to gain a more rounded perspective on the dilemmas, as well as the opportunities, that science presents in our daily lives.

Pedagogic approach: Depending on teacher experience and comfort levels, a variety of pedagogic approaches based on constructivism can be used to stimulate STSE education in the classroom. As illustrated in the table below, the pedagogies used in STSE classrooms need to take students through different levels of understanding to develop their abilities and confidence to critically examine issues and take responsible action.

Teachers are often faced with the challenge of transforming classroom practices from task-oriented approaches to those which focus on developing students' understanding and transferring agency for learning to students (Hughes, 2000). The table below is a compilation of pedagogic approaches for STSE education described in the literature (e.g. Hodson, 1998; Pedretti & Forbes 2000; Richardson & Blades, 2001):

References

Aikenhead, G.S. (2003) STS Education: a rose by any other name. In A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the world of Peter J. Fensham, (ed.) Cross, R.: Routledge Press.
Aikenhead, G.S. (1994) What is STS science teaching? In Solomon, J. & G. Aikenhead (eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives in Reform. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Alsop, S. & Hicks, K. (eds.), (2001) Teaching Science. London: Kogan Page.
Bingle, W. & Gaskell, P. (1994) Science literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2): pp.185-201.
Bodmer, W., F.(1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society
Durant, J.,R., Evans, G.A., Thomas, G.P.(1989)The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, pp.11-14.
Fensham, P.J. (1985) Science for all. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17: pp415-435.
Fensham, P.J. (1988) Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P.J. Fensham(ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science education. New York: Falmer Press pp. 1-26.
Gaskell, J.P. (1982) Science, technology and society: Issues for science teachers. Studies in Science Education, 9, pp.33-36.
Hodson, D. (1998)Teaching and Learning Science: Towards a Personalized Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press
Hodson, D. (2003) Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6): pp.645–670.
Hughes, G. (2000) Marginalization of socio-scientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (5): pp.426-40.
Kumar, D. & Chubin, D.(2000) Science Technology and Society: A sourcebook or research and practice. London: Kluwer Academic.
Miller, R. (1996) Towards as science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77 (280): pp.7018.
Osborne, J. (2000) Science for citizenship. In Good Practice in Science Teaching, (eds.) Monk, M. & Osborne, J.: Open University Press: UK.
Pedretti, E. (1996) Learning about science, technology and society (STS) through an action research project: co-constructing an issues based model for STS education. 'School Science and Mathematics, 96 (8), pp.432-440.
Pedretti, E. (1997) Septic tank crisis: a case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19 (10): pp.1211-30.
Pedretti, E., & Forbes (2000) From curriculum rhetoric to classroom reality, STSE education. Orbit, 31 (3): pp.39-41.
Pedretti, E., Hewitt, J., Bencze, L., Jiwani, A. & van Oostveen, R. (2004) Contexualizing and promoting Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) perspectives through multi-media case methods in science teacher education. In D.B Zandvliet (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC. CD ROM.
Pedretti, E. (2005) STSE education: principles and practices in Aslop S., Bencze L., Pedretti E. (eds.), Analysing Exemplary Science Teaching: theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice, Open University Press, Mc Graw-Hill Education
Richardson, G., & Blades, D. (2001) Social Studies and Science Education: Developing World Citizenship Through Interdisciplinary Partnerships
Solomon, J. (1993) Teaching Science, Technology & Society. Philadelphia, CA: Open University Press.
Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. (eds.) (1994) STS Education: International Perspectives in Reform. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Ziman, J. (1994) The rational of STS education in the approach. In Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. (eds.) (1994). STS Education: International Perspectives in Reform. New York: Teacher’s College Press, pp.21-31.

External links

Websites

Procedural Education - This site provides useful guidelines, resources and lesson plans for STSE education.
Science - A useful website for background information when using the historical approach to STSE. The website contains information about on scientists, their achievements and research interests.
Orange County STS Network - A useful website for information on science and technology issues that could be explored in middle and high school curricula.
Science Sites - A site for teachers and students containing resources for exploring scientific and technological issues.
Science Experiments - An educational website aimed at providing a range of activities to promote science amongst children.
Science Facts - A website that looks at scientific finds related to human interaction, outer space and nature.
Panda - A sister site of the World Wildlife Fund, containing resources for students and teachers on environmental issues.
Canadian Museum of Nature - The Canadian Museum of Nature site provides curriculum based resources and lesson plans that can be adapted for STSE education.

Samples of science curricula

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

The Councils of Ministers of Education, Canada, website is a useful resource for understanding the goals and position of STSE education in Canadian Curricula.

Books

These are examples of books available for information on STS/STSE education, teaching practices in science and issues that may be explored in STS/STSE lessons.

Alsop S., Bencze L., Pedretti E. (eds), (2005). Analysing Exemplary Science Teaching. Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice, Open University Press, Mc Graw-Hill Education
Gailbraith D. (1997). Analyzing Issues: science, technology, & society. Toronto: Trifolium Books. Inc.
Homer-Dixon, T. (2001). The Ingenuity Gap: Can We Solve the Problems of the Future? (pub.) Vintage Canada.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_society_and_environment_education"

Categories: Science education • Environment and society • Environmental education • Environmental science

Science and Technology Studies

From Wikipedia

Sociology

Portal · History

General Aspects

Public sociology · Social research
Social theory · Sociological theory
Sociological practice

Related fields & subfields

Comparative sociology · Criminology
Demography · Social movements
Social psychology · Sociolinguistics
Sociology of: culture · deviance
economics · education · gender
knowledge · law · politics · religion
science · stratification · work

Categories & Lists

Journals · Publications · Topics

This box: view • talk • edit

Technology portal

Science and technology studies (STS) is the study of how social, political, and cultural values affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these in turn affect society, politics, and culture. More than two dozen universities worldwide offer baccalaureate degrees in STS; about half of these also offer doctoral or master's programs.

STS scholars tend to be inspired by one or both of the following^{[citation needed]}:

· The discovery of relationships between scientific and technological innovations and society, from new and revealing perspectives, with the assumption that science and technology are socially embedded.

· Concern over the direction and the risks of science and technology.

For the impacts of science and technology upon society, and vice versa, go to: Technology and society.

1 History

History

STS is a new and expanding subject; for example, in 2005, four major U.S. universities announced new STS programs.^{[citation needed]} Like most interdisciplinary programs, it emerged from the confluence of a variety of disciplines and disciplinary subfields, all of which had developed an interest -- typically, during the 1960s or 1970s-- in viewing science and technology as socially embedded enterprises.

Early developments

The key disciplinary components of STS took shape independently, beginning in the 1960s, and developed in isolation from each other well into the 1980s, although Ludwig Fleck's monograph (1935) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact anticipated many of STS's key themes:

Science studies, a branch of the sociology of scientific knowledge that places scientific controversies in their social context.
History of technology, that examines technology in its social and historical context. Starting in the 1960s, some historians questioned technological determinism, a doctrine that can induce public passivity to technologic and scientific 'natural' development. At the same time, some historians began to develop similarly contextual approaches to the history of medicine.
History and philosophy of science (1960s). After the publication of Thomas Kuhn's well-known The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which attributed changes in scientific theories to changes in underlying intellectual paradigms, programs were founded at the University of California, Berkeley and elsewhere that brought historians of science and philosophers together in unified programs.
Science, technology, and society In the mid- to late-1960s, student and faculty social movements in the U.S., UK, and European universities helped to launch a range of new interdiscplinary fields (such as Women's Studies) that were seen to address relevant topics that the traditional curriculum ignored. One such development was the rise of "science, technology, and society" programs, which are also -- confusingly -- known by the STS acronym. Drawn from a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, history, political science, and sociology, scholars in these programs created undergraduate curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by science and technology. Unlike scholars in science studies, history of technology, or the history and philosophy of science, they were and are more likely to see themselves as activists working for change rather than dispassionate, "ivory tower" researchers^{[citation needed]}. As an example of the activist impulse, feminist scholars in this and other emerging STS areas addressed themselves to the exclusion of women from science and engineering.
Science, engineering, and public policy studies emerged in the 1970s from the same concerns that motivated the founders of the science, technology, and society movement: A sense that science and technology were developing in ways that were increasingly at odds with the public’s best interests. The science, technology, and society movement tried to humanize those who would make tomorrow’s science and technology, but this discipline took a different approach: It would train students with the professional skills needed to become players in science and technology policy. Some programs came to emphasize quantitative methodologies, and most of these were eventually absorbed into systems engineering. Others emphasized sociological and qualitative approaches, and found that their closest kin could be found among scholars in science, technology, and society departments.

During the 1970s and 1980s, leading universities in the U.S., UK, and Europe began drawing these various components together in new, interdisciplinary programs. For example, in the 1970s, Cornell University developed a new program that united science studies and policy-oriented scholars with historians and philosophers of science and technology. Each of these programs developed unique identities due to variation in the components that were drawn together, as well as their location within the various universities. For example, the University of Virginia's STS program united scholars drawn from a variety of fields (with particular strength in the history of technology); however, the program's teaching responsibilities -- it is located within an engineering school and teaches ethics to undergraduate engineering students -- means that all of its faculty share a strong interest in engineering ethics.

The "turn to technology"

A decisive moment in the development of STS was the mid-1980s addition of technology studies to the range of interests reflected in science studies programs. During that decade, two works appeared en seriatim that signaled what Steve Woolgar was to call the “turn to technology”: Social Shaping of Technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985) and The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Bijker, Hughes et al., 1987). MacKenzie and Wajcman primed the pump by collecting a highly readable collection of articles attesting to the influence of society on technological design. In a seminal article, Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker attached all the legitimacy of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge to this development by showing how the sociology of technology could proceed along precisely the theoretical and methodological lines established by the sociology of scientific knowledge. This was the intellectual foundation of the field they called the social construction of technology.

The "turn to technology" helped to cement an already growing awareness of underlying unity among the various emerging STS programs. More recently, there has been an associated turn to materiality, whereby the socio-technical and material co-produce each other. This is especially evident in work in STS analyses of biomedicine (such as Carl May, Nelly Oudshoorn, and Andrew Webster).

Professional associations

The subject has several professional associations:

Founded in 1975, the Society for Social Studies of Science, initially provided scholarly communication facilities -- including a journal (Science, Technology, and Human Values) and annual meetings -- that were mainly attended by science studies scholars, but the society has since grown into the most important professional association of science and technology studies scholars worldwide. The Society for Social Studies of Science members also include government and industry officials concerned with research and development as well as science and technology policy; scientists and engineers who wish to better understand the social embeddedness of their professional practice; and citizens concerned about the impact of science and technology in their lives. Proposals have been made to add the word "technology" to the association's name, thereby reflecting its stature as the leading STS professional society, but there seems to be widespread sentiment that the name is long enough as it is.

In Europe, the European Society for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) was founded in 1981 to stimulate communication, exchange and collaboration in the field of studies of science and technology.

Founded in 1958, the Society for the History of Technology initially attracted members from the history profession who had interests in the contextual history of technology. After the "turn to technology" in the mid-1980s, the society's well-regarded journal (Technology and Culture) and its annual meetings began to attract considerable interest from non-historians with technology studies interests.

Less identified with STS, but also of importance to many STS scholars in the US, are the History of Science Society, the Philosophy of Science Association, and the American Association for the History of Medicine. In addition, there are significant STS-oriented special interest groups within major disciplinary associations, including the American Anthropological Association, the American Political Science Association, and the American Sociological Association.