Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:52:49.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Science

Feminist Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2024

Anke Bueter
Anke Bueter
Affiliation:
Aarhus Universitet, Denmark

Summary

Feminist scholars have identified pervasive gender discrimination in science as an institution, as well as gender bias in the very content of many scientific theories. An ameliorative project at heart, feminist philosophy of science has inquired into the social and epistemological roots and consequences of these problems and into their potential solutions. Most feminist philosophers agree on a need for diversity in scientific communities to counter the detrimental effects of gender bias. Diversity could thus serve as a unifying concept for a potential consensus of the field. Yet there are substantial differences in the kinds and roles of diversity envisaged. This element argues that we need diversity, both in terms of social locations and of values, to overcome former biases and blind spots. Diversity as such, however, is insufficient. To reap its epistemic benefits, diversity also needs to be institutionalised in a way that counters various forms of epistemic injustice.
Get access

Keywords

gender bias in sciencescience and valuesfeminist standpoint theorycritical contextual empiricismdiversity
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science
Online ISBN: 9781108956055
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 20 June 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

al-Faruqi, L. L. (1983). Islamic traditions and the feminist movement: Confrontation and cooperation. The Islamic Quarterly, 27(3), 135–39.Google Scholar
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour, 49(3–4), 227–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, E. (1995). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10(3), 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2006). How not to criticise feminist epistemology: A review of Scrutinising Feminist Epistemology. www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/hownotreview.html.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (2020). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/feminism-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Antony, L. (1993). Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalised epistemology. In Antony, L. and Witt, C., eds., A Mind of One’s Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity. Boulder: Westview, pp.110–53. (2nd edition, 2018).Google Scholar
Antony, L. (1995). Sisters, please, I’d rather do it myself: A defense of individualism in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banco, D., Chang, J., Talmor, N., et al. (2022). Sex and race differences in the evaluation and treatment of young adults presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Journal of the American Heart Association, 11(10), e024199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, A. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2(3), 349–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Betz, G. (2013). In defence of the value free ideal. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3, 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. (2013). State of the field: Transient underdetermination and values in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(1), 124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J., & Leuschner, A. (2015). Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: Can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5, 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bivins, R. (2000). Sex cells: Gender and the language of bacterial genetics. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 113–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleier, R. (1984). Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women. Elmsford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bluhm, R. (2020). Neurosexim and our understanding of sex differences in the brain. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 316–27.Google Scholar
Boston Women’s Health Book Collective (1973/1976). Our Bodies, Ourselves: A Book by and for Women (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Botero, M. (2020). Observing primates: Gender, power, and knowledge in primatology. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 275–88.Google Scholar
Bright, L. K. (2018). Du Bois’ democratic defence of the value free ideal. Synthese, 195(5), 2227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, A. (2010). Social objectivity and the problem of local epistemologies. Analyse & Kritik, 32(2), 213–30.Google Scholar
Bueter, A. (2012). Das Wertfreiheitsideal in der sozialen Erkenntnistheorie. Frankfurt: Ontos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, A. (2015). The irreducibility of value-freedom to theory assessment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 49, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, A. (2017). Androcentrism, feminism, and pluralism in medicine. Topoi, 36(3), 521–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, A. (2022). Bias as an epistemic notion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, A., & Jukola, S. (2020). Sex, drugs, and how to deal with criticism: The case of Flibanserin. In LaCaze, A. and Osimani, B., eds., Uncertainty in Pharmacology. Cham: Springer, pp. 451–70.Google Scholar
Burke, M. A., & Eichler, M. (2006). The BIAS FREE framework: A practical tool for identifying and eliminating social biases in health research. Global Forum for Health Research.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. (1998). Illusions of Paradox: A Feminist Epistemology Naturalised. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Carrier, M. (2013). Values and objectivity in science: Value-ladenness, pluralism and the epistemic attitude. Science & Education, 22, 2547–68.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, P., & Werner, R. M. (2021). Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles. JAMA Network Open, 4(7), e2114509–e2114509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ChoGlueck, C. (2022). Still no pill for men? Double standards & demarcating values in biomedical research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 91, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E. (1873/2007). Sex in Education, or: A Fair Chance for Girls. Rockville: Wildside, .Google Scholar
Clough, S. (2003). Beyond Epistemology: A Pragmatist Approach to Feminist Science Studies. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Clough, S. (2004). Having it all: Naturalised normativity in feminist science studies. Hypatia, 19(1), 102–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clune-Taylor, C. (2020). Is sex socially constructed? In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, L. (1991). What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, J. R. (1987). Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. Repr. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Crasnow, S. (2020). Feminist Perspectives on Science, In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/feminist-science/.Google Scholar
De Melo-Martin, I. (2020). The gendered nature of reprogenetic technologies. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 289–99.Google Scholar
Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. (2004). The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese, 138, 453–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreifus, C., ed. (1978). Seising Our Bodies: The Politics of Women’s Health. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. M. (1906/1954). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dworkin, J. D., Linn, K. A., Teich, E. G., et al. (2020). The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature Neuroscience, 23(8), 918–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, B., & English, D. (1978). For Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Experts’ Advice to Women. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Eichler, M. (1988). Non-sexist Research Methods: A Practical Guide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. C. (2022). Values in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2009). How values in scientific discovery and pursuit alter theory appraisal. Philosophy of Science, 76(5), 598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (2007). Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021). She figures 2021 – Gender in research and innovation – Statistics and indicators, Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fedigan, L. M. (1992). Primate Paradigms: Sex Roles and Social Bonds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fedigan, L. M. (1997). Is primatology a feminist science?. In Hager, L. D., ed., Women in Human Evolution. London: Routledge, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
Fehr, C. (2011). What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific communities. In Grasswick, H. E., ed., Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Power in Knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 133–55.Google Scholar
Fehr, C. (2018). Feminist philosophy of biology. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/feminist-philosophy-biology/.Google Scholar
Fernández Pinto, M. (2020). Ignorance, science, and feminism. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 225–35.Google Scholar
Fischer-Homberger, E. (1979). Krankheit Frau und andere Arbeiten zur Medisingeschichte der Frau. Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Fox Keller, E. (1983). A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2017). Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In Kidd, I. J., Medina, J., and Pohlhaus, G. Jr., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. London: Routledge, pp. 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné-Julien, A. (2021). Wrongful medicalization and epistemic injustice in psychiatry: The case of premenstrual dysphoric disorder. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 17(2), 4–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grasswick, H. E. (2004). Individuals-in-communities: The search for a feminist model of epistemic subjects. Hypatia, 19(3), 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasswick, H. E. (2010). Scientific and lay communities: Earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing. Synthese, 177, 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasswick, H. (2017). Epistemic injustice in science. In Kidd, I. J., Medina, J., and Pohlhaus, G. Jr., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. London: Routledge, pp. 313–23.Google Scholar
Grasswick, H. (2018). Feminist social epistemology. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/feminist-social-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Gupta, K., & Rubin, D. A. (2020). Queer Science Studies/Queer Science. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 131–43.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (1993). Epistemological reflections of an old feminist. Reason Papers, 18, 31–43.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (1996). Science as social? – Yes and no. In Nelson, L. H. and Nelson, J., eds., Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, R., Watson, J., Buonasera, T., et al. (2020). Female hunters of the early Americas. Science Advances, 6(45), eabd0310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.Google Scholar
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1984). Out of the Classroom: A Chilly Campus Climate for Women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.Google Scholar
Handelsman, J., Cantor, N., Carnes, M., et al. (2005). More women in science. Science, 309(5738), 1190–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. J. (1989). Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1992a). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and ‘strong objectivity’. Social Research, 59(3), 567–87.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1992b). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity’? The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–70.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S., & Mendoza, B. (2020). Latin America decolonial feminist philosophy of knowledge production. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 104–16.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (2011). Is Longino’s conception of objectivity feminist? Hypatia, 26(2), 333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D. (2023). Revisiting the Nazi Problem. Blog post, https://dhicks.github.io/posts/2023-06-07-nazi-problem.html.Google Scholar
Hill Collins, P. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routlege.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, D. E., & Tarzian, A. J. (2001). The girl who cried pain: A bias against women in the treatment of pain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hookway, C. (2010). Some varieties of epistemic injustice: Reflections on Fricker. Episteme, 7(2), 151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Bleier, R., ed., Feminist Approaches to Science. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 119–46.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (1981/2009). The Woman that Never Evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, R. (1983). Have only men evolved? In Harding, S. and Hintikka, M., eds., Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 45–70.Google Scholar
Hudson, N. (2022). The missed disease? Endometriosis as an example of ‘undone science’. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 14, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hundleby, C. (2020). Thinking outside-in. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. (2005). Feminism, underdetermination, and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1001–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. (2010). 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. (2017). Feminism, values, and the bias paradox: Why value management is not sufficient. In Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D., eds., Current Controversies in Values and Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 130–44.Google Scholar
Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martin, I. (2016). Feminist values, commercial values, and the bias paradox in biomedical research. In Amoretti, M. C. and Vassallo, N., eds., Meta-Philosophical Reflection on Feminist Philosophies of Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, S. (2021). Objectivity in Science. Elements in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. M. (2022). Excerpt from are algorithms value-free? Feminist theoretical virtues in machine learning. In Martin, K., ed., Ethics of Data and Analytics. New York: Auerbach, pp. 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jukola, S. (2021). Commercial interests, agenda setting, and the epistemic trustworthiness of nutrition science. Synthese, 198(Suppl 10), 2629–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, B. (2022). Exclusion of the psychopathologised and hermeneutical ignorance threaten objectivity. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 29(4), 253–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, N. (2000). Science, values, and the value of science. Philosophy of Science, 67 (Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Part II: Symposia Papers), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. (2003). A philosophy of science for the twenty-first century. Philosophy of science, 70(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. (2008). Replacing the ideal of value-free science. In Carrier, M., Howard, D., and Kourany, J., eds., The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. A. (2016). Should some knowledge be forbidden? The case of cognitive differences research. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 779–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2021). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In Kuhn, T. S., ed., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 320–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, D. (2022). The rise of citational justice: How scholars are making references fairer. Nature, 603(7902), 568–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leuschner, A., & Fernández Pinto, M. (2021). How dissent on gender bias in academia affects science and society: Learning from the case of climate change denial. Philosophy of Science, 88(4), 573–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1995a). Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese, 104, 351–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1995b). Feminism as method: What scientists get that philosophers don’t. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The burdens of proof. Biology and Philosophy, 14(2), 211–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. (1984). The Man of Reason: ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in Western Philosophy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Nelson, L. H. and Nelson, J., eds., Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (2008). Values, heuristics, and the politics of knowledge. In Carrier, M., Howard, D., and Kourany, J., eds., The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, pp. 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E., & Doell, R. (1983). Body, bias, and behavior: A comparative analysis of reasoning in two areas of biological science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9(2), 206–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marçal, K. (2021). Mother of Invention: How Good Ideas Get Ignored in an Economy Built for Men. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(3), 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maserejian, N. N., Link, C. L., Lutfey, K. L., Marceau, L. D., McKinlay, J. B. (2009). Disparities in physicians’ interpretations of heart disease symptoms by patient gender: Results of a video vignette factorial experiment. Journal of Women’s Health, 18(10), 1661–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1983). Values in science. In Asquith, P. D. and Nickles, T., eds., PSA 1982 Volume II, Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association: Symposia. East Lansing, 3–28.Google Scholar
Mengel, F., Sauermann, J., & Zölitz, U. (2019). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(2), 535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Meynell, L. (2020). What’s Wrong with (Narrow) Evolutionary Psychology. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 303–15.Google Scholar
Mikkola, M. (2023). Feminist perspectives on sex and gender. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/feminism-gender/.Google Scholar
Mills, C. W. (2007). White ignorance. In Sullivan, S. and Tuana, N., eds., Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance. New York: Suny Press, pp. 11–38.Google Scholar
MIT, Committee on Women Faculty in the School of Science (1999). A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT. The MIT Faculty Newsletter, 11(4).Google Scholar
Möbius, P. J. (1900/1907). Ueber den physiologischen Schwachsinn des Weibes. Halle a. d. S.: Marhold.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H. (2020). Feminist philosophy of biology. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 263–74.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H. (2022). Underdetermination, holism, and feminist philosophy of science. Synthese, 200(1), 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezhat, C., Nezhat, F., & Nezhat, C. H. (2020). Endometriosis: Ancient disease, ancient treatments. In Nezhat, C. H., ed., Endometriosis in Adolescents. Cham: Springer, pp. 13–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NSB (National Science Board, National Science Foundation) (2023). Higher Education in Science and Engineering. Science and Engineering Indicators 2024. NSB-2023-32. Alexandria, VA. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202332/.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2022). On not hating the body. Liberties: A Journal of Culture and Politics, 2(2). https://libertiesjournal.com/articles/on-not-hating-the-body/.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, K. (1994). Gender and the biological sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 24(sup1), 21–42.Google Scholar
Pinnick, C. L. (1994). Feminist epistemology: Implications for philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 61(4), 646–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinnick, C. L., Koertge, N., & Almeder, R. F., eds. (2003). Scrutinising Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Pohlhaus, G. Jr. (2012). Relational knowing and epistemic injustice: Toward a theory of willful hermeneutical ignorance. Hypatia, 27(4), 715–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (2008). Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O (1953). Two dogmas of empiricism. In Quine, W. v. O., From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 20–46.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O. (1975). On empirically equivalent systems of the world. Erkenntnis, 9(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, S. S. (2010). Feminist philosophy of science: History, contributions, and challenges. Synthese, 177, 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, K. (2002). Gender and trust in science. Hypatia, 17(4), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, K. (2006). The bias paradox in feminist standpoint epistemology. Episteme, 3(1-2), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, K. (2017). Can Social Diversity be Best Incorporated into Science by Adopting the Social Value Management Ideal? In Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D., eds., Current Controversies in Values and Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 113–29.Google Scholar
Rooney, P. (1991). Gendered reason: Sex metaphor and conceptions of reason. Hypatia, 6(2), 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, P. (1992). On values in science: Is the epistemic/non-epistemic distinction useful?. In Grasswick, ed., PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1992 no. 1). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press., pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
Rooney, P. (2011). The marginalization of feminist epistemology and what that reveals about epistemology ‘proper’. In Grasswick, H. (ed.), Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, P. (2012). What is distinctive about feminist epistemology at 25. In Crasnow, S. L. and Superson, A. M. (eds.), Out from the Shadows: Analytical Feminist Contributions to Traditional Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, P. (2017). The Borderlands between Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values. In Elliott, K. C. and Steel, D., eds., Current Controversies in Values and Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, D. L. (1979). Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Disease, 32, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samulowitz, A., Gremyr, I., Eriksson, E., & Hensing, G. (2018). ‘Brave men’ and ‘emotional women’: A theory-guided literature review on gender bias in health care and gendered norms towards patients with chronic pain. Pain Research and Management, Article ID 6358624. www.hindawi.com/journals/prm/2018/6358624/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheeman, N. (2001). Epistemology resuscitated: Objectivity as trustworthiness. In: Tuana, N. & Morgen, S. (eds.), Engendering Rationalities. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 23–52.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soble, A. (1995). In defense of Bacon. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 25(2), 192–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, M. (2001). Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, M. (2012). The web of valief: An assessment of feminist radical empiricism. In Crasnow, S. L. and Superson, A. M., eds., Out from the Shadows: Analytical Feminist Contributions to Traditional Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 435–50.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2023). Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Summers, L. (2005). Full transcript: Remarks at the NBER conference on diversity in the science and engineering workforce. The Harvard Crimson (18.02.2005). https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/2/18/full-transcript-president-summers-remarks-at/.Google Scholar
Tasca, C., Rapetti, M., Carta, M. G., & Fadda, B. (2012). Women and hysteria in the history of mental health. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 8, 110–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. (2000). A Natural History of Rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. B. (ed.). (2003). Evolution, Gender, and Rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremain, S. L. (2020). Naturalising and denaturalising impairment and disability in philosophy and feminist philosophy of science. In Crasnow, S. and Intemann, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, Robert (1972). Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. In Campbell, B. (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871–1971. Chicago: Aldine, 136–179.Google Scholar
Tuana, N. (1993). The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious, and Philosophical Conceptions of Woman’s Nature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Tuana, N. (2004). Coming to understand: Orgasm and the epistemology of ignorance. Hypatia, 19(1), 194–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuana, N. (2006). The speculum of ignorance: The women’s health movement and epistemologies of ignorance. Hypatia, 21(3), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urry, C. M. (2008). Are Photons gendered? Women in Physic and Astronomy. In Schiebinger, L. (ed.), Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review 29, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177, 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. PNAS 112(17), 5360–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In Figueroa, R. and Harding, S., eds., Science and other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, pp. 26–48.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2012). Feminist philosophy of science: Standpoint matters. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (Vol. 86, no. 2). Newark: American Philosophical Association, pp. 47–76.Google Scholar
Yap, A. (2016). Feminist radical empiricism, values, and evidence. Hypatia, 31(1), 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Feminist Philosophy of Science
  • Anke Bueter, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
  • Online ISBN: 9781108956055
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Feminist Philosophy of Science
  • Anke Bueter, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
  • Online ISBN: 9781108956055
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Feminist Philosophy of Science
  • Anke Bueter, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
  • Online ISBN: 9781108956055
Available formats
×