Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:46:51.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Promise of Feminist Reflexivities: Developing Donna Haraway's Project for Feminist Science Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Kirsten Campbell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores models of reflexive feminist science studies through the work of Donna Haraway. The paper argues that Haraway provides an important account of science studies that is both feminist and constructivist. However, her concepts of “situated knowledges” and “diffraction” need further development to be adequate models of feminist science studies. To develop this constructivist and feminist project requires a collective research program that engages with feminist reflexivity as a practice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 19 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Feminist Science Studies , Winter 2004 , pp. 162 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Allen, Carolyn, and Howard, Judith, eds. 2000. Provoking feminisms. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Alpers, Svetlana. 1982. Art history and its exclusions. In Feminism and art history, ed. Broude, Norma and Garrard, Mary. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Alpers, Svetlana. 1983. The art of describing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.Google Scholar
Amann, Klaus, and Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1990. The fixation of (visual) evidence. In Representation in scientific practice, ed. Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ashmore, Malcolm. 1989. The reflexive thesis. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bar On, Bat‐Ami. 1993. Marginality and epistemic privilege. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 1999. Response to Dick Pels. Theory, Culture and Society 16(1): 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? ed. Law, John. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1992. The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In Cultural studies, ed. Grossberg, LawrenceNelson, Cary, and Treichler, Paula. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest%20witness@second‐millennium.femaleman©‐meets‐oncomouse™: Feminism and technoscience. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? whose knowledge! Thinking from women's lives. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N. 1983. The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality: Feminist Perspectives on epistemology, eds. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merill. Dordecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic culture: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1988. The politics of explanation. In Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge, ed. Woolgar, Steve. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Trans. Porter, Catherine. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2000. When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Law, John, and Hassard, John, eds. 1999. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1997. Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume LXXI: 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton, N. J. and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen, and Doell, Ruth. 1996. Body, bias, behaviour: A comparative analysis of reasoning in two areas of biological science. In Feminism and science, ed. Keller, Evelyn Fox and Longino, Helen. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lykke, Nina. 1996. Between monsters, goddesses and cyborgs: Feminist confrontations with science. In Between monsters, goddesses and cyborgs: Feminist confrontations with science, medicine and cyberspace, ed. Braidotti, Rosi and Lykke, Nina. London and Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Zed.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1993. Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge, U. K. and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 2000. Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture and Society 17(3): 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael, and Woolgar, Steve. 1990a. Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science. In Representation in scientific practice, ed. Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael, and Woolgar, Steve 1990b. Preface. In Representation in scientific practice, ed. Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael, and Woolgar, Steve eds. 1990c. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Michael, Mike. 2000. Reconnecting culture, technology and nature: From society to heterogeneity. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mulkay, Michael. 1985. The word and the world: Explorations in the form of sociological analysis. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Pels, Dick. 2000. Reflexivity: One step up. Theory, Culture and Society 17(3): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Andrew, ed. 1994. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Prins, Baukje. 1995. The ethics of hybrid subjects: Feminist constructivism according to Donna Haraway. Science, Technology and Human Values 20(3): 352–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Hilary. 1994. Love, power and knowledge: Towards a feminist transformation of the sciences. Cambridge, U. K.: Polity.Google Scholar
Sandoval, Chela. n.d. Yours in struggle: Women respond to racism, a report on the National Women's Studies Association. Oakland: Centre for Third World Organizing.Google Scholar
Tanesini, Alessandra. 1999. An introduction to feminist epistemologies. Oxford and Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wajcman, Judy. 2000. Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Studies of Science 30(3): 447015064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. 1975. Sociobiology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve ed., 1988a. Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve, 1988b. Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge, ed. Woolgar, Steve. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve, 1989. The ideology of representation and the role of the agent. In Dismantling truth: Reality in the postmodern world, ed. Lawson, Hilary and Appignanesi, Lisa. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve, 1993. Science: The very idea. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Woolgar, Steve, and Ashmore, Malcolm. 1988. The next step: An introduction to the reflexive project. In Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge, ed. Woolgar, Steve. London: Sage.Google Scholar