[Textbook-l] Textbooks (response to Jimbo's WikiEN-l post)

[Daniel Mayer]

Jimbo wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>> The reason why our encyclopedias 
>> have to be NPOV is because our 
>> audience is a general one. The 
>> reason why our textbooks have to 
>> be DPOV is because our audience is 
>> very focused (the biology student,
>> for example) and we need to bring 
>> that student through the material
>> in a logical and efficient way.
>
>Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss 
>NPOV in this context.  Consider:
>
>1.  Within various disciplines there 
> are legitimate and ongoing disputes 
> of which students should be made aware.

Yes, exactly. But our current NPOV policy states that
we should include all major viewpoints in a neutral
manor (notice the lack of focus). This makes perfect
sense in an general focus encyclopedia but doesn't
make much sense in a textbook. I was planning all
along to take the NPOV text and make some minor
qualifications in reference to the scope under which
the new policy (DPOV) would operate.

>2.  If "outside" views are likely to 
> be encountered by students, then students 
> should be made aware of them, including 
> the weakness in their arguments.

It depends on the focus of the particular course you
are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't
spend too much time defending the underlying premise
that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution).
There is a great deal of material to get through and
therefore the arguments of creationism needn't be
given much space or much credibility in such a
textbook. However, if we can figure out how to
organize chapters into modules then we can potentially
create a very wide-foccused (and huge) textbook
reference edition on all aspects of biology (including
many counter-arguments to evolution and alternate
interpretations of other aspects). That way
instructors would be able to assemble textbooks from
these modules into a variety of different
configurations with each having a different emphasis
(there would have to be a core set of modules that
would form the foundation and framework of the
textbook though). 

>> Same thing is true for a section of a 
>> medical textbook on abortion ; we leave 
>> out most of the history and the different 
>> political views on the subject and just 
>> talk about the procedure itself and maybe
>> have a single paragraph at the end sating 
>> something about access to the procedure 
>> and that risks doctors face when they 
>> choose to specialize in this area.
>
>Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's 
>just restricting topical focus.  Here's how 
>to tell -- an article which describes the 
>procedure neutrally (and in medical detail, 
>say) could be agreed upon by all reasonable 
>people, regardless of their political or 
>ethical views on the matter.

Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical
focus; that was my point. It reads in part "A general
purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized
knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To
whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should
steer clear of taking any particular stance other than
the stance of the neutral point of view." Simply
replacing "encyclopedia" with "textbook" will not do
for a textbook editing policy. If NPOV (as written)
were applied to the evolution chapter of the above
biology textbook example then we would have to present
creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the
viewpoints of biologists. This is not acceptable when
trying to explain evolution in a biology textbook
because no serious biologist gives any credence to
anti-evolution ideas. But NPOV can and should be
applied to the major viewpoints that exist from within
the biological sciences. There could still be optional
modules that deal with the viewpoints of society as a
whole - the larger debate (so that the same textbook
could be used in a class that deals with those types
of issues). The core modules need to be very specific
in focus, though. Otherwise students won't know what
to think (yes, part of education is indoctrination
into the POV of a discipline).

So yes, we can write about the current understanding
of what evolution is and how it is theorized to
operate but we cannot mix that with creationism
viewpoints in the same module. So a modified NPOV
("DPOV") would need to operate in a compartmentalized
fashion; within a core module it operates from within
the context of whatever discipline the textbook is
being written for; but in an optional module it can
operate with a wider focus (although most optional
modules are going to be more detailed treatments of
certain topics raised in a core module). In short, the
goals of what each module needs to do need to be
focused. That requires restricting NPOV to that
context.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com