Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T00:57:05.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Gender Is a Relevant Factor in the Social Epistemology of Scientific Inquiry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Kristina Rolin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, feminist philosophy of science has been subjected to criticism. The debate has focused on the implications of the underdetermination thesis for accounts of the role of social values in scientific reasoning. My aim here is to offer a different approach. I suggest that feminist philosophers of science contribute to our understanding of science by (1) producing gender-sensitive analyses of the social dimensions of scientific inquiry and (2) examining the relevance of these analyses for normative issues in philosophy of science.

Type
Is Methodology Gendered—and Should it be?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 880 - 891
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I am grateful to Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Janet Kourany, Martin Kusch, Erika Mattila, K. Brad Wray, and Alison Wylie for helpful suggestions.

References

Committee on Women Faculty in the School of Science at MIT (1999), “A Study of the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT”, A Study of the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT 11(4): 1–17, http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.pdf.Google Scholar
Creager, Angela N. H., Lunbeck, Elizabeth, and Schiebinger, Londa (eds.) (2001), Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fedigan, Linda Marie (2001), “The Paradox of Feminist Primatology: The Goddess’s Discipline?”, in Creager et al. 2001, 46–72.Google Scholar
Ferber, Marianne A. (1986), “Citations: Are They an Objective Measure of Scholarly Merit?” Signs 11(2): 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferber, Marianne A. (1988), “Citations and Networking”, Citations and Networking 2(1): 82–89.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Scott F., and Rader, Karen A. (2001), “Revisiting Women, Gender, and Feminism in Developmental Biology”, in Creager et al. 2001, 73–97.Google Scholar
Haack, Susan (1996), “Science as Social? Yes and No”, in Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack (eds.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra (1986), The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John (1985), “Epistemic Dependence”, Epistemic Dependence 82(7): 335–349.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John (1991), “The Role of Trust in Knowledge”, The Role of Trust in Knowledge 88(12): 693–708.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn F. (1985), Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn F. (1997), “Developmental Biology as a Feminist Cause?”, Developmental Biology as a Feminist Cause? 12:16–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Keller, Evelyn F. (2001), “Making a Difference: Feminist Movement and Feminist Critiques of Science”, in Creager et al. 2001, 98–109.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1990), “The Division of Cognitive Labor”, The Division of Cognitive Labor 87(1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1992), “Authority, Deference, and the Role of Individual Reasoning in Science”, in McMullin, Ernan (ed.), The Social Dimensions of Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koertge, Noretta (2000), “‘New Age’ Philosophies of Science: Constructivism, Feminism, and Postmodernism”, ‘New Age’ Philosophies of Science: Constructivism, Feminism, and Postmodernism 51:667–683.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott (1992), “Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity”, Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity 71(1): 159–178.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (2002), The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, Robert A. (1997), “Medicine and Science as Masculine ‘Fields of Honor’”, Medicine and Science as Masculine ‘Fields of Honor’ 12:60–79.Google Scholar
Pinnick, Cassandra (1994), “Feminist Epistemology: Implications for Philosophy of Science”, Feminist Epistemology: Implications for Philosophy of Science 61:646–657.Google Scholar
Pinnick, Cassandra (2000), “Veritistic Epistemology and Feminist Epistemology: A-rational Epistemics?”, Veritistic Epistemology and Feminist Epistemology: A-rational Epistemics? 14(4): 281–291.Google Scholar
Rolin, Kristina (1999), “Can Gender Ideologies Influence the Practice of the Physical Sciences?” Perspectives on Science 7(4): 510–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, Kristina (2002a), “Gender and Trust in Science”, Gender and Trust in Science 17(4): 95–118.Google Scholar
Rolin, Kristina (2002b), “Is ‘Science as Social’ a Feminist Insight?”, Is ‘Science as Social’ a Feminist Insight? 16(3): 233–249.Google Scholar
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1982), Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1993), “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science”, Social Studies of Science 23(2): 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, Margaret W. (1995), Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 1940–1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa (1989), The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa (1999), Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven (1994): A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam (1992), “Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning”, Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning 59(3): 439–455.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam (2001), Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnert, Gerhard, and Holton, Gerald (1995), Gender Differences in Science Careers: The Project Access Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Steinpreis, Rhea E., Anders, Katie A., and Ritzke, Dawn (1999), “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study”, The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study 41:509–528.Google Scholar
Traweek, Sharon (1988), Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wennerås, Christine, and Wold, Agnes (1997), “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review”, Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review 387 (May 22): 341–343.Google ScholarPubMed
Wray, K. Brad. (2001), “Evaluating Scientists”, paper presented at the conference on “Value Free Science: An Ideal or Illusion?”, at the University of Alabama, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison (1996), “The Constitution of Archeological Evidence: Gender Politics and Science”, in Galison, Peter and Stump, David J. (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 311–343.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison (2001), “Doing Social Science as a Feminist: The Engendering of Archeology”, in Creager et al. 2001, 23–45.Google Scholar