The aim of feminist critiques of science has been to challenge and dismantle symbolic masculinity in the mainstream, positivist discourse of science that is projected as value-free, objective, context-free and rational, reflecting ‘the truth’ about reality. A large number of these critiques have focused on uncovering androcentric values in scientific theories, raising larger questions on the fact–value dichotomy and pointing out how all fact is essentially value-laden. Our analysis has drawn from this tradition and argues how the science curriculum documents and the NCERT class XII textbook reflect the masculine, positivist discourse of science that upholds the fact–value dichotomy and in doing so communicates mainstream values through the facts that are propounded. In the context of the chapter on reproductive health, we argue that the textbook endorses the patriarchal, reductionist science designed to interfere with the menstrual cycle and technologies that pose risks to the woman’s body. Interviews with three teachers who teach the textbook also reveal that they view the topic as value-laden. The article suggests that textbook writers and teachers reflect on and make explicit the value-frameworks that underpin the ‘facts’ that they communicate to students.
AikenheadG. S. (2005). Research into STS science education. Educación Quimica, 16(3), 384–397.
2.
AppleM. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.
3.
AppleM. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4–11.
4.
ArnoldD. (2013). Nehruvian science and postcolonial India. Isis: An International Review Devoted to the History of Science and its Cultural Influences, 104(2), 360–370.
5.
BazzulJ.SykesH. (2011). The secret identity of a biology textbook: Straight and naturally sexed. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(6), 265–286.
6.
BazzulJ. (2013). How discourses of biology textbooks work to constitute subjectivity: From the Ethical to the Colonial. University of Toronto. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/43477/6/Bazzul_Jesse_T_201311_PhD_Thesis.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2014).
7.
BrotmanJ. S.MooreF. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.
8.
ChadhaG. (2005). Towards an informed science criticism: The debate on science in postcolonial India. In GaneshK.ThakkarU. (Eds), Culture and the making of identity in contemporary India (pp. 247–258). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
9.
ConnellyM. J. (2006). Population control in India: Prologue to the emergency period. Population and Development Review, 32(4), 629–667.
10.
Davson-GalleP. (2002). Science, values and objectivity. Science and Education, 11(2), 191–202.
11.
Forum for Women’s Health (1998). Ethics of contraceptive research: Some issues. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6(2), 49–50.
12.
GhaiA.JohriR. (2008). Prenatal diagnosis: Where do we draw the line?Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15(2), 291–316.
13.
HardingS. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
14.
HodsonD. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
15.
HughesG. (2000). Marginalisation of socioscientific material in science–technology–society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426–440.
16.
KuhnT. (1977). The essential tensions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
KuhnT. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
KumarK. (1992). What is worth teaching. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
19.
LonginoH. E. (1987). Can there be a feminist science?Hypatia, 2(3), 51–64.
20.
ManoramaS.ShahC. (1996). Towards a new perspective on women’s bodies: Learning and unlearning together. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(16–17), 35–38.
21.
MayberryM. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 35(4), 443–459.
22.
NarayananH. (2011). Women’s health, population control and collective action. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(8), 39–48.
23.
NCERT (2005). National Curriculum Framework. New Delhi: NCERT.
24.
NCERT (2006a). National focus group on teaching of science. New Delhi: NCERT.
25.
NCERT (2006b). Biology: Textbook for class XII. New Delhi: NCERT.
26.
NCERT (2006c). Syllabus for secondary and higher secondary levels. New Delhi: NCERT. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/syllabus/vol2/Preliams.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2014).
27.
PutnamH. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
QadeerI. (2009). Social and ethical basis of legislation on surrogacy: Need for debate. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6(1), 28–31.
29.
QadeerI. (2010). New reproductive technologies and health care in neo-liberal India: Essays. New Delhi: Centre for Women’s Development Studies.
30.
RaoM. (2000). Family planning programme paradigm shift in strategy. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(49), 4317–4322.
31.
RaveendranA.ChunawalaS. (2013). Towards an understanding of socioscientific issues as means to achieve critical scientific literacy. In NagarjunaG.JamakhandiA.SamE. (Eds), Proceedings from epi STEME 5: International conference to review research on science, technology and mathematics education (pp. 67–73). India: Cinnamonteal.
32.
RichmondG.HowesE.KurthL.HazelwoodC. (1998). Connections and critique: Feminist pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(8), 897–918.
33.
SenA. (1994). Population: Delusion and reality. New York Review of Books, 41(15), 22September, 62–71.
34.
ShahC. (2009). Regulate technology, not lives: A critique of the draft ART (Regulation) Bill. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 6(1), 32–35.
35.
ShivaV. (2005). Earth democracy/justice, sustainability and peace. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
36.
SnyderV. L.BroadwayF. S. (2004). Queering high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 617–636.
37.
Van KammenJ. (2000). Informed consent in clinical trials. Issues in Medical Ethics, 8(3), 84–86.
38.
VisvanathanS.ParmarC. (2002). A biotechnology story: Notes from India. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(27), 2714–2724.
39.
YoungM. (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier Macmillan Publisher.
