Collaborative Tensions and the Formation of Critical STS Communities in Pedagogical Development

Personal Reflexive Statement

I am passionate about critical, interdisciplinary research and teaching that advances social justice at the intersection of sociology, science and technology studies and global health. My background especially my work on infectious diseases and risk in Africa has shaped my understanding of critical pedagogy as a political and ethical act of challenging inequalities. I teach with the aim of creating spaces where students critically engage with the material and see their learning as a means of social change. I am part of the critical STS community at Virginia Tech because I want to be in conversation with educators who bring different perspectives on how to get students to think about social justice. The tensions within our network reflect those different perspectives and the different ways we approach critical pedagogy. For me these tensions are generative and make me think about how critical pedagogy can be practiced in ways that account for the different experiences and disciplines within the community. This paper came out of those conversations, about why tensions are necessary for critical STS communities and how they shape critical STS pedagogy.

Introduction

Critical Science and Technology Studies (STS) communities are essential to critical STS pedagogy. These communities generate, compare, and critique ideas on pedagogies and practices for transmitting STS knowledge. Like any group formation critical STS communities are laden with tensions emanating from the convergence of diverse perspectives, ideas, and ways of making and doing (Downey and Zuiderent-Jerak 2021). While destructive and disruptive, these tensions also serve as creative forces, generating new ideas and perspectives that challenge conventional assumptions.

Critical STS pedagogy is more than a theoretical lens. It is a political and ethical commitment to challenging dominant paradigms that reinforce social hierarchies, inequalities, and injustices. Rooted in critical theory, this approach emphasizes how science and technology are intertwined with social, political, and economic systems, challenging the notion that they are neutral or purely progressive forces (York and Conley 2019). As Giroux (2004) argues, education is a form of political intervention that can create possibilities for social transformation by challenging dominant power structures and expanding democratic relations. Critical STS pedagogy, therefore, centers the role of education in challenging systemic oppression and injustice. It seeks to equip students with the tools to critically analyze the intersections of science, technology, and society while engaging in transformative action (Downey 2008, 2021; York 2018). This pedagogical approach fosters reflexivity, critical consciousness, and the pursuit of social change, aligning with Freirean ideals of education as a tool for liberation (Freire 2000) and hooks’ notion of teaching as engaged, holistic, and justice-oriented practice (hooks 1994). Within the Virginia Tech (VT) critical STS community, these commitments shape the collective effort to make the classroom a site of political education, social transformation, and critical inquiry. It also shapes discussions on teaching practices that empower students to challenge the status quo and promote social change. This paper examines the collaborative tensions that emerged in the formation and evolution of the critical STS community at VT. Collaborative tension refers to the conflicts, differences of perspective, and challenges that arise when diverse individuals work together toward a common goal. These tensions are not merely obstacles but necessary drivers of change. From the perspective of Hegelian dialectics, they emerge from contradictions in ideas and perspectives that stimulate new thinking. Simultaneously, these tensions are grounded in material realities which are shaped by participants’ social positions, institutional contexts, and lived experiences. In critical pedagogy, such tensions are crucial because they provoke reflection, unsettle dominant assumptions, and foster the critical discourse necessary for advancing social justice within the community.

In this study, I draw on the critical pedagogical frameworks of Freire (2000) and hooks (1994, 2010), while acknowledging that critical pedagogy is a diverse and evolving field that includes Black feminist, Indigenous, Latin American and postcolonial strands, each emphasizing different dimensions of power, knowledge, and resistance in educational practice. hooks emphasizes that engaged pedagogy is not just about transmitting knowledge but about creating spaces for dialogue, reflexivity, and mutual learning. Critical STS communities serve as platforms for such discourse, where tensions arising from diverse perspectives become generative sites of knowledge production. hooks’ concept of discussion-based learning, which foregrounds the co-creation of knowledge through critical engagement, provides a framework for understanding how collaborative tensions can enhance both pedagogy and practice. Freire’s concept of praxis and hooks’ engaged pedagogy underscores the importance of linking theory and action through dialogue and reflexivity, which is central to understanding the productive potential of collaborative tensions. This paper combines theoretical reflection with empirical exploration to examine collaborative tensions in critical STS communities. Drawing on interactions with group members and open-ended questionnaire responses, this study serves as a small-scale pilot aimed at identifying themes for future research into collaborative tensions. It discusses the formation of the critical STS community at VT and the development of collaborative and pedagogical tensions within the community. Based on these I raise probing questions as the discipline (STS) develops critical STS communities and pedagogies that reflect Freire’s notion of praxis in education.

Critical STS Pedagogy and the Building of Critical STS Community

In recent years, Science and Technology Studies (STS) has experienced an intellectual shift engendered by incorporating critical pedagogical practices in STS pedagogical sites. York and Conley (2019) note these practices share the fundamental elements of Freire’s (2000) critical pedagogy which emphasizes the political and social dimensions of education and knowledge production. As a field, STS is concerned not only with what is taught but also how it is taught. Rather than treat students as passive recipients of knowledge, critical STS pedagogy fosters classrooms where educators and learners collectively interrogate the systems of power that shape science, technology, and society. This approach goes beyond mere participation ¹ to confront the material and epistemic violences that structure who gets to know, speak, and act. As York and Conley (2019; Conley et al. 2024) argue, these pedagogical shifts are foundational to transforming the classroom into a site of political struggle, mutual learning, and social critique. Thus, STS classrooms become sites of reflexive intervention, where knowledge is co-created with marginalized groups ² in resistance to capitalist, racist, patriarchal, and technocratic logics, including dominant media narratives and knowledge production practices (York and Conley 2019).

Traditional pedagogical models adopt a banking approach that deposits pre-approved knowledge into passive students (Freire 2000). This generates a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student, reinforces consumer sensibilities, and renders students docile citizens. In contrast, critical STS pedagogy demands participatory and critical-thinking-based approach to education, where teachers and students collaboratively generate knowledge by interrogating the power structures that shape education (Shor 2012). This model echoes Freire’s co-intentional education, where “teachers and students (leadership and people), co-intent on reality, are both Subjects . . . in the task of re-creating that knowledge” through shared reflection and action (Freire 2000:69). Similarly, hooks (1994) argues that “Any classroom that employs a holistic model of learning will also be a place where teachers grow, and are empowered by the process. [But] That empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks” (p. 21). For both scholars, the classroom is a site of political transformation grounded in lived experience, dialogue, and shared risk. Conley et al. (2024) extend this framing by characterizing critical STS pedagogy as an approach that actively engages power, fosters reflexivity, and centers students as whole persons navigating institutional constraints.

Drawing on this foundation, critical STS pedagogy encourages critical reflection on the assumptions underlying technological progress, market logics, and innovation (York 2018) while questioning power relations and dominant narratives. It centers a collective political commitment to dismantling hierarchies of race, class, gender, and epistemic authority. However, translating these ideals into pedagogical practice rarely occurs seamlessly; tensions emerge over teaching strategies, institutional expectations, and differing interpretations of critical STS pedagogy. Yet the ethos of critical STS pedagogy extends beyond theory into situated practices. In Latin America, the Seed Schools exemplify sociotechnical dissent through participatory and community-rooted approaches to social and epistemic transformation (Vidal and Moore 2022). Drawing on pedagogies dating back to the 1930s, these schools bring together campesinas/os—“peasant farmers,” academics, and NGOs to co-produce knowledge and challenge colonial and technocratic models of expertise. Their participatory model reflects Freire’s and hooks’ vision of dialogic education rooted in lived experience and mutual construction of knowledge.

As a nascent subfield in STS, York and Conley (2019) advocate for a collective critique and a reassessment of STS pedagogical techniques and assumptions. They argue that teachers, through collective reflection, can re-examine their roles as active participants in the production of knowledge, conceptualizing the classroom as a space where existing conditions are scrutinized, and possible futures explored. This reflexive practice creates an ecosystem where power, politics, and pedagogy are continually examined, thus enriching the overall teaching and learning experience (York and Conley 2019). It also births critical STS communities—a convergence of teachers who, through collective reflection, critique their pedagogical paradigms and pave the way for innovative participatory approaches. The formation of these communities shifts the focus toward educators encouraging them to cultivate a reflexive outlook toward their teaching practices (Freire 2018). Consequently, these communities act as catalysts for transformative education, nurturing a collective ethos of continual learning and critical engagement.

However, the formation of critical STS communities often entails the emergence of collaborative tensions. Though potentially disruptive, these tensions are welcome and expected as they challenge conventional assumptions and birth new perspectives and ideas. They introduce a crucial layer of dynamism and contestation to STS pedagogical practices promoting critical thinking and facilitating reflexivity aligning with Freire’s participatory approach to knowledge creation (Freire 2000). It also resonates with hook’s (1994) discussion-based learning framework where dialogue transcends information exchange to foster mutual engagement and critical discourse enabling individuals to challenge assumptions and co-create knowledge. Critical STS communities facilitate participatory and transformative learning through these collaborative tensions, echoing hook’s emphasis on engaged pedagogy which empowers teachers and students to examine power structures critically.

Through critical STS pedagogy, members of these communities engage in transformative action, challenging dominant ideologies and promoting socially just outcomes. This moves educators from mere knowledge transmitters to transformative actors in a network of critical thought and action. By critically examining the intersections of science, technology, and society, critical STS communities foster a consciousness that extends beyond the classroom. Through the promotion of critical thinking, problem-solving, and social awareness, critical STS pedagogy supports the formation and evolution of these communities, creating spaces for collective inquiry and change. While shaped by local histories, institutions, and constraints, these pedagogical communities are not isolated. They resonate with broader global efforts to reimagine education as a site of epistemic justice and political transformation.

While this paper centers on the VT critical STS network, it forms part of the broader conversation about engaged pedagogical communities within STS that seek to transform knowledge production through collective praxis. Across diverse contexts, such communities have developed reflexive, justice-oriented approaches that link pedagogy with political struggle. In Latin American, for instance, STS scholars have articulated reflexive and historically situated pedagogical approaches to confront colonial legacies and promote epistemic justice through localized knowledge production (Kreimer and Vessuri 2018). Indigenous and anti-colonial STS pedagogies similarly emphasize community engagement, reciprocity, and epistemic humility, situating knowledge production as a site of resistance and transformation (Medina 2013; TallBear 2014). Although the VT network does not explicitly adopt these frameworks, it shares with them a commitment to reflexivity, collaborative learning and justice-oriented pedagogy.

Methods

An open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix A) was distributed to seven members of VT’s critical STS community, identified based on their active or longstanding involvement with the group prior to its current reorganization. Due to the community’s fluid and informal nature, determining the group’s exact size was difficult. Of the seven contacted, five responded—four faculty members and one graduate student.

The questionnaire explored members’ length of involvement, level of participation, types of tensions experienced, and how these tensions have evolved. The open-ended questionnaire format allowed participants to express their nuanced thoughts, providing rich qualitative data on areas of conflict and collaboration (Creswell and Creswell 2018). This approach was well-suited for capturing the fluid dynamics of a community where structured responses might not have reflected the complexity of participants’ experiences.

I analyzed the responses inductively, noting recurring ideas, tensions, and patterns across participants’ reflections. While some ideas were clearly articulated, others emerged through tone, emphasis, or omission. This approach allowed for a layered understanding of how participants made sense of their experiences in the network. I also drew on my own experience as a member of the VT critical STS network. My reflections from planning meetings, collaborative teaching efforts, workshops, and informal conversations helped contextualize the pedagogical and collaborative dynamics captured in the data. While the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings, the study offers valuable preliminary insights into the dynamics of collaborative tensions in a critical STS community.

The Formation of a Critical STS Community at Virginia Tech

The current iteration of the VT critical STS pedagogy group began in the Fall of 2021, following a critical STS workshop held at James Madison University. The group emerged from VT participants’ desire for a safe space to discuss and reflect on the broader significance of education and the practice of liberatory pedagogy. While this iteration is relatively recent, VT STS has a longer history of pedagogical engagement dating back to the early 2000s, when faculty members such as Gary Downey and Saul Halfon convened informal lunch meetings with graduate teaching assistants to discuss their teaching and pedagogical practices. Today, the critical STS community at Virginia Tech (VT) is a fluid network of individuals committed to ongoing conversations about critical STS pedagogy. It comprises a convener whose role of gathering people through critical pedagogies activities (such as talks and meetings) serves as the bedrock of the network. It is not a formal community with clear leadership and organizational roles but defined by participants’ shifting interests, and availability. With an average membership duration of one semester to seven years, the network’s composition is ever-changing yet driven by a core group of approximately 8 to 10 committed individuals, with an extended email list of about 30 members who participate in events intermittently. Workshops and teaching-focused events typically draw 10 to 15 participants depending on timing and topic. This elasticity reflects the network’s open and inciting structure, which allows members to engage at different levels of intensity over time.

The VT STS network consists of faculty and graduate students whose research interests span gender and technology, medicine and society, global health, queer studies, and the politics of health. This diversity is reflected in their teaching and research, which covers areas such as feminist energy systems, risk governance in Africa, and global health. The group’s diversity in gender (three identifying as female and two male), race (Asian, Black, White, and Hispanic), research interests, and pedagogical orientations enrich its discussions on critical STS pedagogy and social justice. While the network does not include natural or physical scientists, the pedagogical tensions that emerge often mirror but do not fully embody all the classic divides ³ found in the STS pedagogical literature. These tensions are implicitly embedded in the teaching and research agendas of several members. Yet the network is shaped by meaningful differences that require members to navigate overlapping but divergent critical traditions in their shared pedagogical work.

Participants in the network fall into three categories: active participants, co-organizers, and “lurkers” (as described by a participant). The diversity in member categories contributes to the network’s richness and fosters what its members describe as “open,” “welcoming,” “critically reflexive,” and “nascent” environment (i.e., one characterized by an evolving identity, with shifting membership, and ongoing negotiation of its pedagogical priorities and collaborative practices). As a participant explained, “lurkers” are embraced without judgment, indicating those who prefer passive participation by attending talks and meetings without active involvement. On the other end of the spectrum, active participants have gone as far as co-organizing events, contributing to conference panels, and facilitating workshops.

This network of individuals is united in its overarching goal of creating an intellectual space where critical pedagogies and practices are openly discussed with a consensus on enhancing the pedagogical practices of faculty and graduate student instructors. This goal aligns with Freire’s critical pedagogy which emphasizes reflective teaching (Freire 2000). As education becomes commodified and conservative ideas gain influence (Giroux 2010a, 2010b), the formation of critical pedagogical communities like the VT critical STS network offers a space for reflexive pedagogies and practices aimed at transformative education.

While most members have limited knowledge of the network’s origins, some noted that it has become more visible recently. “It has become more visible or at least been talked about more,” a participant noted. This increased visibility, particularly through public-facing events and conference participation, coexists with fluctuating internal participation. Specifically, while the networks presence may be growing outwardly, its internal activity has experienced periodic lulls as members balance other professional and personal demands. From an initial burst of momentum in 2021 that led to several workshops, the network organized a panel at the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) Conference in 2022. Since then, however, the sustained engagement has become more difficult. “Physically or virtually meeting up became more challenging for many of us. [We] were pulled in new and more directions . . .,” a member explained. This uneven participation does not signal decline but rather reflects the precarity and overextension that are commonplace in the academy.

Despite these challenges, the network continues to evolve. In the past year, its reach has expanded to include four colleagues from other North American institutions, who, along with four core members from VT, are co-editing a thematic collection on critical STS pedagogy for the journal Science, Technology, & Human Values. The network’s fluid nature—its capacity to grow, adapt, and evolve—serves as both a challenge and an asset, reflecting the complex dynamics of teaching and learning, as York and Conley (2019) note. Although the fluid nature has allowed for creative engagement, it has also introduced tensions around commitment, continuity, and visibility. The informal nature of the group while generative, complicates sustained participation and the development of shared pedagogical priorities. Even as the network undergoes periodic ebbs and flows, its foundational ethos of critical, reflexive pedagogy and practice remains intact. The challenges arising from these fluid dynamics are not considered detriments but are instead actively addressed and transformed into avenues for collective growth.

Although this fluid network defies what a critical STS community ought to be, it still serves the purpose of its existence. The members, driven by the commitment to reflexive pedagogy and practices, participate in various activities organized by the convener. This active participation births tensions which is evident in the divergent perspectives on critical STS pedagogy, practices, and logistical challenges in the network. However, the network’s unique character raises questions about the ideal structure of critical STS communities: Would a centralized structure or a fluid network serve its purpose?

Pedagogical Tensions

While the network’s informal, fluid nature has fostered an open and collaborative environment, it has also sparked debates over what constitutes critical STS pedagogy and how it should be implemented in the classroom. These debates reveal that collaborative tensions are not incidental but intrinsic to the network’s pedagogical project. In my experience of the network, these tensions are often subtle rather than overtly confrontational. They arise not from antagonism but from divergent commitments, teaching philosophies, and structural positions. It is through these frictions that the network grapples with what it means to teach critically and collectively, recognizing tension as a necessary condition for reflexive and justice-oriented pedagogy.

The diversity of pedagogical orientations within the network has led to key tensions around what constitutes critical STS pedagogy. First, for some, the primary goal is productivity, with an emphasis on structured, measurable outcomes and content mastery, while others advocate for liberatory practices that prioritize critical consciousness and empowering students to challenge dominant paradigms. These divergent perspectives have generated discussions on specific teaching practices, such as whether participatory methods like group projects and student-led discussions should replace traditional lectures and exams. A network member reflected, “I often feel torn between encouraging student-led inquiry and ensuring that they gain a firm grasp of the foundational material.” Another emphasized, “I see my role as creating a space where students can question the material, even if it means diverging from the syllabus.”

Second, these reflections highlight the pedagogical and productive tensions within the network, as members grapple with fostering critical thinking and cultivating politically engaged classrooms while also meeting institutional expectations for content delivery and assessment. These conversations reflect a commitment to co-creating knowledge, not as an abstract gesture of epistemic equality, but as a political practice of building solidarity against systems of oppression (e.g., racism, capitalism, patriarchy) within and beyond the classroom. As Freire (2000) writes, “Dialogue is the encounter between [people], mediated by the world, in order to name the world” (p. 88). Thus, conversations within the network are collaborative and reflective efforts grounded in a shared reality and political intent to critically perceive the world and transform it. Co-creation, in this context, arises through active negotiations among educators committed to disrupting dominant frameworks while working within their own institutional constraints and social positionalities. The network’s pedagogical dialogues therefore reflect what Freire (2000) calls praxis—“reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (p. 51). These negotiations manifest in the pedagogical choices members make in their classrooms and collaborations, where tensions between critical commitments and institutional demands continue to shape how critical STS is taught and lived.

Third, while members endorse the idea of teaching for freedom, the nuances of its implementation differ. For some, teaching becomes an intervention in dominant worldviews, transforming the classroom into a site of resistance; for others, it means interrogating how the very structures of evaluation and legitimacy shape what counts as critical knowledge. These pedagogical differences continue to shape ongoing debates within the network as members collectively reflect on how best to align their teaching practices with their philosophical commitments. These conversations have also prompted members to articulate more clearly what teaching for freedom means for them.

I think most of us teach for freedom but what that freedom looks like might be different, one participant reflected. I am personally interested in teaching for freedom as this relates to healthcare practice, another group member is interested in critical teaching as it relates to democracy, another group member is concerned about how her desires impact her teaching for critical awareness.

By encouraging such conversations, the network has fostered a deeper mutual understanding that accommodates plural, rather than unified, approaches to critical pedagogy, which resonates with Andreotti’s (2006, 2011) notion of resisting universal frameworks of critical engagement in favor of contextually situated, postcolonial approaches. These diverse perspectives resonate with hooks’ (1994, 2010) concept of engaged pedagogy, which connects theory and praxis. As the network embraces collaborative tensions, participants are challenged to rethink assumptions and engage in critical, transformative actions. These pedagogical tensions reflect hooks’ vision of creating educational spaces that foster critical consciousness and social change.

Despite the tensions surrounding specific teaching practices, these critical conversations mirror Freire’s (2000) concept of “critical consciousness,” where the network collectively reflects on its role in creating more equitable and liberating educational practices. It speaks to Freire’s critical pedagogy as fundamental to critical STS pedagogy and essential to forming critical STS communities. However, a notable observation in the network’s members’ account is the absence of a robust conversation on critical STS pedagogical practices within the network. Freire argues that transformative education requires not only critical reflection but also transformative action, which may take different forms depending on the specific context and needs. His concept of praxis emphasizes the continuous and concurrent integration of critical thought and transformative action (Freire 1972, 2000). More so, STS has a longstanding critique of science and technology and attempts to integrate STS perspectives into the classroom to generate a critical understanding of the social and cultural implications of science, technology, and medicine among students (Knopes 2019).

In the VT network, these diverse perspectives also extend beyond the classroom, engaging with broader political and social struggles. For example, in my course Medical Dilemmas and Human Experience, one of the topics students critically examine is the structural inequities that underpin reproductive health, particularly through discussions on abortion and contraception. The concept of reproductive justice, which centers the rights and autonomy of marginalized communities, is explored alongside the framework of Abolition Medicine. This approach critiques the historical and ongoing injustices embedded in American medicine and situates these issues within a broader struggle for racial and reproductive equity. Through student-led discussions and critical analysis, I encourage students to uncover the often hidden or ignored inequities surrounding abortion and contraception. This pedagogical approach directly connects classroom learning to the larger political context, encouraging students to think beyond traditional medical ethics and engage with real-world injustices. In this way, the classroom becomes a space where critical STS pedagogy does more than foster critical thinking. It actively participates in political struggles, as Darder (2017) emphasizes, by equipping students with the tools to challenge and transform oppressive structures.

Bridging the gap between reflection and practice is essential for critical STS communities to effect meaningful change. In this way, the classroom becomes a space not only for reflection but also for concrete action, where critical STS pedagogy moves beyond theory and into practice. Given their reflexive outlook and goal of catalyzing transformative education, these communities must move beyond theoretical discourse to develop pedagogical practices that align with their philosophical commitments. Pedagogy lies at the core of these efforts, calling for educational interactions that facilitate transformative learning, inspiring change and fostering a critical consciousness in both students and educators (Gaztambide-Fernández and Mature 2014). Such relationships are cultivated through activities that awaken social awareness and engage tensions as sites for growth and innovation. Therefore, critical STS communities must become hubs for translating reflection into practice, embracing tensions as opportunities for innovation. However, this ambitious goal is not without its difficulties, as members of the VT network reflect on the practical challenges of aligning philosophical ideals with concrete classroom implementation. Network members stated that there is a prevailing sentiment that the pedagogical tensions are more philosophical than practical. A member noted, “I do not get the sense that there are large rifts in pedagogical philosophies within the group. Rather, I think there might be rifts in how those philosophies are implemented.” This observation suggests that while there may be differing perspectives on critical STS pedagogy, there is a shared commitment to teaching for freedom and fostering critical consciousness. The network recognizes the complexities and debates inherent in critical pedagogy but remains united in its aim to create an intellectual space where these discussions can occur, allowing pedagogical approaches to be continuously refined and enhanced.

These complexities extend to how pedagogical philosophies interact with student experiences and institutional constraints leading to tension in classroom practice. On one hand, students’ engagement with these diverse pedagogies generates tensions, influenced by factors such as instructor job security, race, gender, and the alignment of course content with university priorities. These tensions surfaced most clearly during the network’s organized workshops and collaborative planning meetings. In preparation for a panel at 4S, some members reflected on the tensions between institutional expectations for productivity and the liberatory goals of critical pedagogy. A member raised the concern that pedagogical discomfort, which is essential to critical STS pedagogy, is not equally bearable across instructors, “if critical STS pedagogy is sometimes less comfortable for students than other pedagogies, who can most readily engage in these ways, and when, and how, and which costs are differentially distributed?” These reflections reveal how positionality mediates the enactment of critical pedagogy and point to structural asymmetries within and beyond the university that shape whose pedagogical risks are likely to be sanctioned or punished. Rather than being explicitly combative, these moments of tension emerged as layered, relational, and generative, prompting deeper conversations about how to practice solidarity and care while engaging discomfort as a pedagogical tool. On the other hand, there is a divergence between feminist and postcolonial STS pedagogical practices and more mainstream approaches in STS. A member notes, “I think that there is also . . . tension between critical STS pedagogy as a form of making and doing and thinking of this pedagogy as arising from feminist and postcolonial STS pedagogical practices.” This tension often revolves around achieving critical consciousness rather than adhering to specific educational paradigms. This complex interaction between pedagogical philosophies, institutional factors, and student experiences echoes Freire’s acknowledgment of power and politics in education (Freire 2000).

Another moment that exemplified pedagogical tensions occurred during a panel discussion organized by the VT critical STS network at the 2023 Gender, Bodies, and Technology (GBT) conference in Blacksburg, titled, Teaching under the Abortion Bans: A Pedagogical Conversation with Alison Kafer. In her presentation, Kafer shared how, despite the legislative restrictions in Texas, she continued to include reproductive health resources in her course syllabi. This act of care and resistance resonated with several VT critical STS network members on the panel and in the audience, prompting a lively discussion about the limits and possibilities of such practices. Participants reflected on the ways race, gender, and academic rank, whether tenured, untenured, adjunct, or contract-based, shaped who can safely include such resources in their teaching, and at what cost. The discussion extended beyond individual ethics to the structural constraints imposed by university policies and legal risks. While many attendees expressed shared commitments to critical pedagogy and student care, it became clear that their ability to enact these values was not evenly distributed. This echoes Darder’s (2015) argument that critical pedagogy must attend to how power and marginalization shape classroom practices, particularly when educators occupy structurally vulnerable positions. Although the discussions did not resolve the disparities, they prompted a collective recognition of the uneven distribution of pedagogical risks. This moment highlighted how pedagogical tensions are not only philosophical but institutional, political, and an active struggle in the lives of educators navigating politicized terrains. It echoes hooks’ (1994) emphasis on teaching from the margins, where pedagogy is shaped not only by content but by the positionalities of educators. It also aligns with Freire’s (2000) recognition that challenging power structures especially from the margins comes with greater institutional and personal risks, and that naming injustice requires confronting the inequal burdens educators carry within institutions. The tensions raised during the panel revealed how pedagogical courage and vulnerability are inseparable from power and precarity.

Considering these tensions, the pressing question is: How do divergent pedagogical frameworks shape critical STS communities in achieving their stated goal of developing strategies for critical consciousness and praxis? Furthermore, how do critical STS communities transition from reflection to transformative action, as stipulated by Freire’s concept of praxis and as expressed by York and Conley’s (2019) emphasis on critical STS communities being catalysts for transformative education?

Embracing Collaborative Tensions

Members of VT’s critical STS network have adopted strategies to navigate collaborative tensions. In addressing the tension of being a productive network, members took strategic steps to set and achieve mutual goals, notably the decision to participate in a 4S Panel. This public engagement showcased the network’s intellectual contributions and provided a framework for addressing the productivity related tensions. Concurrently, these efforts sparked dialogues among members about where differences emerge, enriching their understanding of the tensions they experience.

The group has leveraged asynchronous tools like Google Documents to navigate scheduling constraints and draft research proposals and abstracts amidst collaborative tension. These tools became unexpectedly generative as it offered a convenient space for members to float complex ideas, negotiate disagreements, and revisit drafts with care and deliberation. While this approach has yielded significant accomplishments, such as the invitation to lead a workshop at the 2023 Gender, Bodies, and Technology conference, it has also presented some challenges. The most significant is coordinating real-time discussions, a limitation inherent to asynchronous modes of interaction. Rather than merely acknowledging these challenges, the network has implemented creative strategies to overcome them, such as inviting external facilitators for shared discussions and ensuring that collaboration remains both ongoing and focused.

The network has deliberately discussed and identified strategies to work through these tensions, some of which were initially dismissed or considered impossible. A shared realization has been that discussing tensions can transform them from being obstacles into catalysts for growth. A participant shared,

We’ve had some productive conversations about specific scenarios in which these differences emerged! And sometimes, we’ve recognized that strategies were possible that hadn’t felt possible, or we’ve told one another – I don’t think I could do that.

These dialogues opened new strategies that were previously thought not possible. These discussions enabled members to voice limitations and uncertainties, such as hesitations around teaching for discomfort, and created a space where shared reflection itself became pedagogical. In this sense, the group did not simply tolerate tension but cultivated it as a resource for rethinking pedagogical commitments and practices. The collaborations between committed members and those who endorse critical pedagogy have become more frequent and meaningful. Despite efforts to address tensions, some differences still exist. These differences (prioritizing critical STS and pedagogical work) have resulted in varying levels of participation in the group’s ongoing discussions. Therefore, the tensions are not just unresolved differences but are being actively addressed. An illustrative example of how collaborative tensions generated productive outcomes is the development of an advanced version of the course Medical Dilemmas and Human Experience II by me and two members of the VT critical STS network. While we shared commitments to the course’s critical orientation, that is, emphasizing analysis, argumentation, and engagement with medical dilemmas through theory and context, disagreements emerged around the grading approach. One member strongly advocated for contract grading to decenter hierarchical assessment and focus on learning; I preferred a more structured rubric to ensure clarity and accountability in student evaluation; the third remained neutral. Rather than allowing this disagreement to stall the process, we agreed to develop the course collaboratively while leaving the grading scheme flexible, to be determined by the instructor. Although this difference in grading philosophy created tension, it did not stall the development of the course. Instead, it prompted a series of productive discussions about pedagogical values, assignments, and the meaning of accountability, freedom, and structure in a critical classroom. This resolution not only preserved momentum but also highlighted how the network’s collaborative ethos accommodates divergent pedagogical styles without compromising collective goals. The successful approval of the course and its continued evolution reflect how collaborative tensions, when acknowledged and managed constructively, can produce innovative teaching strategies. The journey of the VT network demonstrates that tensions are not simply conflicts to be resolved but can be harnessed for collective development. As the group continues to work through collaborative tensions, it also lays the groundwork for a more resilient, adaptive, and insightful community.

The collaborative tensions within the VT critical STS network encompass both ideological differences and practical challenges. These tensions, particularly pedagogical differences, resonate with the reflexive practice of critical STS pedagogy (York and Conley 2019). While they can hinder collaboration, they also serve as catalysts for critical reflection and dialogue that are essential to the network’s mission. Thus, while there is tension, it is suffused with the promise of productive discomfort and growth. These dynamics raise important questions: What would a thriving critical STS community look like? How should success be measured—through pedagogical engagement or other metrics?

Overall, the formation of critical STS communities is central to critical STS pedagogy and the pursuit of transformative education, one which awakens students’ sensibilities to conscientização—“learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (Freire 2000:35). Although nascent, critical STS communities may not conform to conventional structures yet remain effective in achieving its goals. Driven by the principles of critical STS pedagogy, these communities embody pedagogical care and collaborative efforts toward social justice (Rondini 2020), which within this network reflects a broad range of perspectives. Some members focus on environmental justice and the politics of extractive industries, while others examine how health inequalities intersect with race, gender, and migration. This diversity reflects the broader landscape of social justice where gender, class, race, and environmental issues intersect shaping the group’s political commitments.

While the formation and functioning of critical STS communities generate tensions, these tensions engender crucial perspectives on critical STS pedagogy and practices and innovative strategies for collaboration. These dynamics are part of the emergence of critical STS communities, which is in sync with the ever-present need to seek novel strategies for activating STS knowledge in the classroom (Downey and Zuiderent-Jerak 2021).

Conclusion

The study highlights the potential of collaborative tensions to foster critical reflection and transformative action within critical STS pedagogy. Rather than view them as disruptions, it recognizes collaborative tensions as generative forces that are central to the formation and evolution of critical STS communities. These tensions are productive not because they are resolved, but because they compel strategies such as flexible collaboration, mutual compromise, and ongoing dialogue. In this way, collaborative tensions are not simply a symptom of difference but catalysts for pedagogical and political clarity. These tensions shed light on the ongoing work of aligning pedagogy with politics and then practice with principle. The emergence of critical STS communities illustrates that pedagogy is an evolving process that extends beyond the classroom, encompassing the lived experiences of educators as reflexive, transformative actors (Strong 2023). These communities represent the collective efforts of educators striving for social justice and using education as a tool for liberation (Rondini 2020), while also embodying a forward-thinking pedagogy, where reflexive practices trigger creative approaches to activism and social justice.

Drawing from hooks’ (1994, 2010) engaged pedagogy, the study reaffirms how discussion-based learning and praxis provide a vital framework for understanding how collaborative tensions can drive growth. By centering dialogue and mutual learning, critical STS communities align with hooks’ vision of education as a practice of freedom, where discourse challenges dominant paradigms and promotes social justice. Rather than obstacles, the findings highlight collaborative tensions as powerful forces for innovation within the field. Importantly the study also emphasizes the need for future research to focus on the relational and structural tensions that shape critical STS communities, not as problems to be resolved but as conditions that make critical praxis possible. While the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings, this study offers valuable preliminary insights into the dynamics of collaborative tensions within the Virginia Tech critical STS community. Future research with a larger, more representative sample is needed to explore these themes more fully.