No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Social Constructionist Arguments in Harding's Science and Social Inequality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2020
Abstract
Harding's aim in Science and Social Inequality is to integrate the insights generated by diverse critiques of conventional ideals of truth, value freedom, and unity in science, and to chart a way forward for the sciences and for science studies. Wylie assesses this synthesis as a genre of social constructionist argument and illustrates its implications for questions of epistemic warrant with reference to transformative research on gender-based discrimination in the workplace environment.
- Type
- Symposium Sandra Harding's Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2008 by Hypatia, Inc.
References
Baert, Patrick. 2005. Philosophy of the social sciences: Towards pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chilly Collective. 1995. Breaking anonymity: The chilly climate for women faculty. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharyn. 2003. Beyond epistemology: A pragmatist approach to feminist science studies. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1983. Why has the sex/gender system become visible only now?. In Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill B.Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2006. Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra, ed. 1987. Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
MIT, Committee on Women Faculty in the School of Science. 1999. A study of the status of women faculty in science at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter 11.Google Scholar
Nader, Laura. 1996. Introduction: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge. In Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge, ed. Nader, Laura. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. 2006. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. 2007. ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383.Google Scholar
Reskin, Barbara F. 2003. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. American Sociological Review 68: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia R., ed. 1992. Gender, interaction, and inequality. New York: Springer‐ Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnert, Gerhard, and Holton, Gerald. 1995. Who succeeds in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Claude M. 1998. Stereotyping and its threat are real. American Psychologist 53: 680–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, Lawrence H. 2005. Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversity in the Science and Engineering Workforce. Cambridge: Harvard University, Office of the President.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2003 Why standpoint matters. In Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology, ed. Figueroa, Robert and Harding, Sandra. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Xie, Yu, and Shauman, Kimberlee A. 2003. Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar