Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:35:23.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminist Scholarship in the Sciences: Where Are We Now and When Can We Expect A Theoretical Breakthrough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Sue V. Rosser
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The work of feminists in science may seem less voluminous and less theoretical than the feminist scholarship in some humanities and social science disciplines. However, the recent burst of scholarship on women and science allows categorization of feminist work into six distinct but related categories: 1) teaching and curriculum transformation in science, 2) history of women in science, 3) current status of women in science, 4) feminist critique of science, 5) feminine science, 6) feminist theory of science. More feminists in science are needed to further explore science and its relationships to women and feminism in order to change traditional science to a feminist science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 2 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Feminism and Science, Part 1 , Fall 1987 , pp. 5 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

American Chemical Society. 1983. Medalists study charts women chemists' role. Chemistry and Engineering (Nov. 15): 53.Google Scholar
Alic, M. 1982. The history of women in science: A women's studies course. Women's Studies International Forum 3(1): 75–81.10.1016/0277-5395(82)90066-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, B. 1981. Women empowering women. Science for the People 13(5): 19–22.Google Scholar
Birke, L. 1986. Women, feminism and biology. The feminist challenge. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A.B. [1875] 1976. The sexes throughout nature. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. Reprint. Westport, CT: Hyperion Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. 1979. Social and political bias in science: An examination of animal studies and their generalizations to human behavior and evolution. In Genes and Gender II, eds. Hubbard, R. and Lowe, M. Staten Island, NY: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Boccaccio, G. [135559] 1963. De Claris Mulieribus. In Concerning famous women, trans. Guarino, Geudo A.New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Broca, P. 1873. Reported in Nature 8: 152.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L. and Dworsky, N. 1980. Sophie Germain: An essay in the history of the theory of elasticity. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calkins, M.W. 1896. Community of ideas of men and women. Psychological Review 3(4): 426–430.10.1037/h0064618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, F. 1981. Woman the gatherer. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
de Pizan, C. [1405] 1982. The book of the city of ladies. Reprint, slightly modified from the translation by Earl Jeffrey Richards. New York: Persea Books.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, B. and English, D. 1979. For her own good: 150 years of the experts advice to women. New York: Doubleday.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elshtain, J.B. 1981. Public man, private woman: Woman in social and political thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, A. 1982. Teaching aids: Focus on women and science. Course closeup: The biology of gender. Women's Studies Quarterly 10(2): 17–19.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, A. 1985. Myths of gender: Biological theories about men and women. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fee, E. 1981. Is feminism a threat to scientific objectivity? International Journal of Women's Studies 4(4): 213–233.Google ScholarPubMed
Fee, E. 1982. A feminist critique of scientific objectivity. Science for the People 14(4): 8.Google Scholar
Fee, E. 1986. Critiques of modern science: The relationship of feminism to other radical epistemologies. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Fennema, E. and Sherman, J. 1977. Sex‐related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal 14: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gornick, V. 1983. Women in science: Portraits from a world in transition. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Haas, V. and Perruci, C. 1984. Women in scientific and engineering professions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Haber, L. 1979. Women pioneers of science. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1978. Animal sociology and a natural economy of the body politic, Part I: A political physiology of dominance; and Animal sociology and a natural economy of the body politic, Part II: The past is the contested zone: Human nature and theories of production and reproduction in primate behavior studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4(1): 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Haven, E.W. 1972. Factors associated with the selection of advanced mathematical courses by girls in high school.Research Bulletin, 72, 12. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Hein, H. 1981. Women and science: Fitting men to think about nature. International Journal of Women's Studies 4(4): 213–233.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. and Lowe, M. 1979. Introduction. In Genes and gender II, eds. Hubbard, R. and Lowe, M.New York: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
Hynes, H.P. 1984. Women working: A field report. Technology Review (Nov./Dec.): 38ff.Google Scholar
Kahle, J.B. 1985. Women in science: A report from the field. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Keller, E. 1982. Feminism and science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 7(3): 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, E. 1983. A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Keller, E. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kien, J. and Cassidy, D. 1984. The history of women in science: A seminar at the University of Regensburg, FRG. Women's Studies International Forum 7(4): 313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koblitz, A.H. 1983. A convergence of lives, Sofia Kovlevskia: Scientist, writer, revolutionary. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leacock, E. 1977. Women in egalitarian societies. In Becoming visible: Women in European history, eds. Bridenthal, R. and Koonz, C.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. 1975. Placing women in history: A 1975 perspective. Feminist Studies 3(1‐2): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R.C., Rose, S., and Kamin, L. 1984. Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Lowe, M. 1978. Sociobiology and sex differences. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4(1): 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, N. and Woodhull, A. 1983. New directions in science education. Science for the People 15(1): 31–36.Google Scholar
MacMillan, C. 1982. Woman, reason and nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, P. 1983. Interactive phases of curricular re‐vision: A feminist perspective. Working paper No. 124, Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA.Google Scholar
Mozans, H.J. 1974. Women in science‐1913. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. 1986. Women and minorities in science and engineering, Report 86‐300.Google Scholar
Opfell, O. 1978. The lady laureates: Women who have won the Nobel prize. New Jersey: Methuen.Google Scholar
Osen, L.M. 1974. Women in mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, G.T.W. 1895. The Psychology of Women. Popular Science Monthly 47: 209–25.Google Scholar
Patterson, E. 1983. Mary Somerville and the cultivation of science 1815‐1840. The Hague: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. 1974. Marie Curie. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
Rosser, S.V. 1982. Androgyny and sociobiology. International Journal of Women's Studies 5(5): 435–444.Google Scholar
Rosser, S.V. 1985. Introductory biology: Approaches to feminist transformations in course content and teaching practice. Journal of Thought, An Interdisciplinary Quarterly 20(3): 205–217.Google Scholar
Rosser, S.V. 1986. Teaching science and health from a feminist perspective: A practical guide. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Rossiter, M.W. 1982. Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sayers, J. 1982. Biological politics. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Sayre, A. 1975. Rosalind Franklin and DNA: A vivid view of what it is like to be a gifted woman in an especially male profession. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schuster, M. and van Dyne, S. 1985. Women's place in the academy: Transforming the liberal arts curriculum. Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. 1980. Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors: Changes in girls and boys, grades 8‐11. Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 476–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Star, S.L. 1979. The politics of right and left: Sex differences in hemispheric brain asymmetry. In Women look at Biology looking at women, eds. Hubbard, R., Henifin, M.S. and Fried, B.Boston: Schenkman.Google Scholar
Tanner, A. 1896. The community of ideas of men and women. Psychological Review 3(5): 548–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson (Woolley), H.B. 1903. The mental traits of sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Watson, J.D. 1969. The double helix. New York: Atheneum Publishers, Mentor Paperback.Google Scholar
Woodhull, A.M., Lowry, N., and Henifin, M.S. 1985. Teaching for change: Feminism and the sciences. Journal of Thought: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly 20(3): 162–173.Google Scholar
Zetkin, C. [1896] 1976. Only with the proletarian woman will socialism be victorious. Reprinted in The Socialist Register. H. Draper and A.G. Lipow, eds. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar