Reading the article about Exposure to fumonisins and the occurrence of neural tube defects(NTDS) at the border, what are the theoretical arguments the authors make that relate to their findings? WHat are the limitations of their research? In maquilapolis, the women in the film also talked about the NTDs, and they attributed the cause to be the contaminants from the plant that had been abandoned and never cleaned up. Activists in Cameron County (where we are going) insist that they are caused by
toxins from the maquis in Matamoros. Are these 3 arguments (including the fumonisins) mutually exclusive? Why or why not?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Struggles, Connections and Outcomes
Today, Dr. Marquez discussed the strategies employed by small environmental justice groups in the Southwest. In his lecture, he gave us a schematic view of their fights, the actors involved and outcomes. Tomorrow's lectures and videos continue in this theme, and will deal heavily with the question of organizing and campaigns. So, for tonight let's think on a macro-level about these issues--particularly how they are reflected in the Williamson article assigned for tomorrow.
In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and what were their tactics? Did some actors behave in unexpected ways? What type of relationship existed between institutions in the United States and the worker's struggles in Mexico? Considering the complexity of William's story, and the article's negative tone, were their successes? What were they?
Great work everyone!
In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and what were their tactics? Did some actors behave in unexpected ways? What type of relationship existed between institutions in the United States and the worker's struggles in Mexico? Considering the complexity of William's story, and the article's negative tone, were their successes? What were they?
Great work everyone!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Selection Criteria and the Construction of Meaning
Tomorrow's response question repeats a similar question from last year, asking you to think critically about methodology and how criteria shape implications of research.
In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.
Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.
How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) How do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields, what does it mean for the study of environmental justice if the bar for admission is set high? What does it mean if the bar is set too low?
P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.
In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.
Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.
How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) How do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields, what does it mean for the study of environmental justice if the bar for admission is set high? What does it mean if the bar is set too low?
P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.
Monday, June 2, 2008
June 3rd, Agency and Choice in Identity
In one of tomorrow’s readings, Pablo Vila provides an in-depth discussion of the vicissitudes of identity at the border. The question for tonight revolves around one issue we would like to stress this summer: that of agency and the power each individual has to answer the challenges of life under difficult circumstances.
What is your perspective on the types of identity constructions Vila documents in his article? Did you find some of the positions taken by his interviewees shocking? Is there a way we can consider some of the positions people take on identity—even those we might find unsavory—as choices that people make to respond to conditions they face? If so, explore this avenue and take this question to a deeper level. How do these responses involve the construction, employment and meeting of narratives? If not, please defend why you believe the question of choice is not pertinent, and provide a critique of Vila’s argument.
What is your perspective on the types of identity constructions Vila documents in his article? Did you find some of the positions taken by his interviewees shocking? Is there a way we can consider some of the positions people take on identity—even those we might find unsavory—as choices that people make to respond to conditions they face? If so, explore this avenue and take this question to a deeper level. How do these responses involve the construction, employment and meeting of narratives? If not, please defend why you believe the question of choice is not pertinent, and provide a critique of Vila’s argument.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
June 2nd Blog Question
Chapter 1 from "From the Ground Up" describes several different tributaries of the environmental justice movement. Briefly, what were they and what did they each contribute? What did they have in common?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)