Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:25:36.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asking Different Questions: Feminist Practices for the Natural Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Deboleena Roy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, Roy attempts to develop a semiprescriptive analysis for the natural sciences by examining more closely a skill that many feminist scientists have been reported to possess. Feminist scientists have often been lauded for their ability to “ask different questions.” Drawing from standpoint theory, strong objectivity, situated knowledges, agential realism, and the methodology of the oppressed, the author suggests that this skill can be articulated further into the feminist practice of research agenda choice. Roy illustrates the usefulness of developing such a practice by addressing her own dilemma of conducting in vitro research in a reproductive biology lab.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 134 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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

Asking different questions: Women and science. 1996. Montreal: National Film Board of Canada.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsham, Denise, et al. 1998. Regulation of gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) gene expression by 5α‐dihydrotestosterone in GnRH‐secreting GT1–7 hypothalamic neurons. Endocrinology 139: 1108–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, Kirsten. 2004. The promise of feminist reflexivities: Developing Donna Haraway's project for feminist science studies. Hypatia 19 (1): 162–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 1992. Objectivity and the escape from perspective. Social Studies of Science 22 (4): 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter. 1992. The image of objectivity. Special issue, Representations 40: 81–128.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2004. The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138: 453–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan@_Meets_Oncomouse TM: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna J. 2003. The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1998. Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004a. A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint theory's controversiality. Hypatia 19 (1): 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004b. Introduction: Standpoint theory as a site of political, philosophic, and scientific debate. In The Feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies, ed. Harding, Sandra. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hess, David. 1997. Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth. 1995. 1. Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, Alan. 1995. 1. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen. 1993. Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In Feminist Epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martin, Emily. 1987. 1. Boston: Beacon Press Books.Google ScholarPubMed
Rouse, Joseph. 1996. 1. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 2002. How scientific practices matter: Reclaiming philosophical naturalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roy, Deboleena. 2007. Somatic matters: Becoming molecular in molecular biology. Special issue, Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge 14 (Spring).Google Scholar
Roy, Deboleena, and Belsham, Denise. 2002. Melatonin receptor activation regulates gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) gene expression and secretion in GT1–7 GnRH neurons: Signal transduction mechanisms. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277: 251–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, Deboleena, and Belsham, Deniseet al. 1999. Estrogen directly represses gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) gene expression in estrogen receptor‐α (ER‐α)‐ and ERβ‐expressing GT1–7 GnRH neurons. Endocrinology 140: 5045–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandoval, Chela. 1995. New sciences: Cyborg feminism and the methodology of the oppressed. In The cyborg handbook, ed. Gray, Chris Hables. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandoval, Chela. 2000. 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Sandoval, Chela. 2004. U.S. third‐world feminism: The theory and method of differential oppositional consciousness. In Harding, , Feminist standpoint theory reader.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 1999. Has feminism changed science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2001. Material locations: An interactionist alternative to realism/social constructivism. In Engendering Rationalities, ed. Tuana, Nancy and Morgen, Sandra. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2004. Why standpoint matters. In Harding, , Feminist standpoint theory reader.Google Scholar