Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T06:56:32.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Reforms, Feminist Interventions, and the Politics of Knowing: An Auto‐ethnography of a Feminist Neuroscientist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Sara Giordano
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist science studies scholars have documented the historical and cultural contingency of scientific knowledge production. It follows that political and social activism has impacted the practice of science today; however, little has been done to examine the current cultures of science in light of feminist critiques and activism. In this article, I argue that, although critiques have changed the cultures of science both directly and indirectly, fundamental epistemological questions have largely been ignored and neutralized through these policy reforms. I provide an auto‐ethnography of my doctoral work in a neuroscience program to a) demonstrate how the culture of science has incorporated critiques into its practices and b) identify how we might use these changes in scientific practices to advance feminist science agendas. I critically analyze three areas in current scientific practice in which I see obstacles and opportunities: 1) research ethics, 2) diversity of research subjects and scientists, and 3) identification of a project's significance for funding. I argue that an understanding of the complicated and changing cultures of science is necessary for future feminist interventions into the sciences that directly challenge science's claim to epistemic authority.

Type
Open Issue Content
Information
Hypatia , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , Fall 2014 , pp. 755 - 773
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Kim D. 2004. Targeting recovery: Priorities of the spinal cord‐injured population. Journal of Neurotrauma 21 (10): 1371–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, Rachel. 2012. Disease politics and medical research funding: Three ways advocacy shapes policy. American Sociological Review 77 (5): 780–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, Vicki. 2005. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. EMBO Report 6 (11): 1014–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, policy, and the value‐free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresser, Rebecca. 1992. Wanted: Single, white male for medical research. The Hastings Center Report 22 (1): 24–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dresser, Rebecca. 1999. Public advocacy and allocation of federal funds for biomedical research. Milbank Quarterly 77 (2): 257–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckman, Anne. 1998. Beyond “The Yentl Syndrome”: Making women visible in post‐1990 women's health discourse. In The visible woman: Imaging technologies, gender, and science, ed. Treichler, Paula, Cartwright, Lisa and Penley, Constance. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Epstein, Steven. 2008. Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 2005. The bare bones of sex: Part 1—Sex and gender. Signs 30 (2): 1491–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Carla. 2011. What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific communities. In Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science, ed. Grasswick, Heidi. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Garland‐Thomson, Rosemarie. 2005. Feminist disability studies: A review essay. Signs 30 (2): 1557–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginorio, Angela B., Marshall, Terry, and Breckenridge, Lisa. 2000. The feminist and the scientist: One and the same. Women's Studies Quarterly 28 (1/2): 271–95.Google Scholar
Giordano, Sara. 2008. On the functional organization of plantarflexion muscles. PhD diss. Emory University.Google Scholar
Giordano, Sara B., Segal, Richard L., and Abelew, Thomas A. 2009. Differences in end‐point force trajectories elicited by electrical stimulation of individual human calf muscles. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 25 (4): 330–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gravlee, Clarence. 2009. How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139 (1): 47–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammonds, Evelynn, and Subramaniam, Banu. 2003. A conversation on feminist science studies. Signs 28 (3): 923–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2001. After absolute neutrality: Expanding “science”. In Feminist science studies: A new generation, ed. Mayberry, Maralee, Subramaniam, Banu and Weasel, Lisa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004. The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heimer, Carol, and Petty, Ju Leigh. 2010. Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6: 601–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, David. 2001. Ethnography and the development of science and technology studies. In Handbook of ethnography, ed. Atkinson, Paul, Coffey, Amanda, Delamont, Sara, Lofland, John and Lofland, Lyn. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth. 1990. The politics of women's biology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2011. Diversity and dissent in science: Does democracy always serve feminist aims? In Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science, ed. Grasswick, Heidi. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Jordan‐Young, Rebecca M. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet. 2010. Philosophy of science after feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, Judith Walzer, and Gordon, Linda. 1988. A decade of feminist critiques in the natural sciences: An address by Ruth Bleier. Signs 14 (1): 182–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen, and Hammonds, Evelynn. 1990. Conflicts and tensions in the feminist study of gender and science. In Conflicts in feminism, ed. Hirsch, Marianne and Fox Keller, Evelyn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lostroh, C. Phoebe. 2001. Sexy science. In Feminist science studies: A new generation, ed. Mayberry, Maralee, Subramaniam, Banu and Weasel, Lisa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meneley, Anne, and Young, Donna Jean. 2005. Auto‐ethnographies: The anthropology of academic practices. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Moran, Jean Marie, and Belcastro, Sarah‐Marie. 2003. Interpretations of feminist philosophy of science by feminist physical scientists. NWSA Journal 15 (1): 20–33.Google Scholar
Rehmann‐Sutter, Christoph. 2010. “It is her problem, not ours”: Contributions of feminist bioethics to the mainstream. In Feminist bioethics: At the center, on the margins, ed. Leach Scully, Jackie, Baldwin‐Ragaven, Laurel and Fitzpatrick, Petya. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Sarah S. 2010. Feminist philosophy of science: History, contributions, and challenges. Synthese 177 (3): 337–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Hilary. 1983. Hand, brain, and heart: A feminist epistemology for the natural sciences. Signs 9 (1): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Sue. 2012. Breaking into the lab: Engineering progress for women in science. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Wolff‐Michael, and Barton, Angela Calabrese. 2004. Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, Deboleena. 2004. Feminist theory in science: Working toward a practical transformation. Hypatia 19 (1): 255–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, Deboleena. 2012. Neuroethics, gender and the response to difference. Neuroethics 5 (3): 217–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 1993. Nature's body: Gender in the making of modern science. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Scully, Jackie Leach, Baldwin‐Ragaven, Laurel, and Fitzpatrick, Petya. 2010. Feminist bioethics: At the center, on the margins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Spanier, Bonnie. 1995. Im/partial science: Gender ideology in molecular biology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Stark, Laura. 2012. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Subramaniam, Banu. 1998. A contradiction in terms (reflections of a feminist scientist). Women's Review of Books 15 (5): 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramaniam, Banu. 2009. Moored metamorphoses: A retrospective essay on feminist science studies. Signs 34 (4): 951–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, James C. 2008. An agenda for public health ethics. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 14 (4): 329–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, Rosemarie. 1997. Feminist approaches to bioethics: Theoretical reflections and practical applications. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2010. Leading with ethics, aiming for policy: New opportunities for philosophy of science. Synthese 177 (3): 471–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, Nina, and Duran, Bonnie (eds.). 2008. Community‐based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wayne, Marta L. 2000. Walking a tightrope: The feminist life of a drosophila biologist. NWSA Journal 12 (3): 139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, Matthew. 2010. A science literacy of love and rage: Identifying science inscription in lives of resistance. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 10 (3): 267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Susan. 1996. Feminism and bioethics: Beyond reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar