Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T22:57:12.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of Standpoint Theory in Feminist Science Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Janet A. Kourany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium on Standpoint Theory
Information
Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , Fall 2009 , pp. 209 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 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

Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics 23 (2): 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, Louise. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, Louise and Witt, Charlotte. Boulder: Westview, pp. 185–225.Google Scholar
Antony, Louise. 1995. Sisters, please, I'd rather do it myself: A defense of individualism in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics 23 (2): 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Biology and Gender Study Group. 1988. The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. Hypatia 3 (1): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleier, Ruth. 1984. Sex and gender. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, Ruth. 1988. Science and the construction of meanings in the neurosciences. In Feminism within the science and health care professions: Overcoming resistance, ed. Rosser, Sue. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 1998. Illusions of paradox: A feminist epistemology naturalized. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 2001. The bias paradox in feminist epistemology. In Engendering rationalities, ed. Tuana, Nancy and Morgen, Sandra. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, pp. 195–217.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W. 2003. Has feminism changed archaeology? Signs 28 (3): 867–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creager, Angela N., Lunbeck, Elizabeth, and Schiebinger, Londa, eds. 2001. Feminism in twentieth‐century science, technology, and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Eichler, Margrit. 1988. Nonsexist research methods: A practical guide. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 1985. Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Peter, and Buechel, Carmen. 2006. Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology 10 (4): 377–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. 1986. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Pergamon, pp. 119–46.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth. 1979. Have only men evolved? In Women look at biology looking at women, ed. Hubbard, Ruth, Henifin, Mary Sue, and Fried, Barbara. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company, pp. 7–36.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. A feeling for the organism, San Francisco. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of science after feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladner, Joyce. 1971. Tomorrow's tomorrow: The black woman. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1994. In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist 77 (4): 472–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1995. Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese 104 (3): 383–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1997. Cognitive and non‐cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Hankinson Lynn and Nelson, Jack. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Sue, ed. 1988. Good science: Can it ever be gender free? Women's Studies International Forum 11 (1): 13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Sue, ed. 1990. Female‐friendly science: Applying women's studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Rosser, Sue, ed. 1994. Women's health—Missing from U.S. medicine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 1999. Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Dorothy. 1974. Women's perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry 44 (1): 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social empiricism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, Elizabeth. 2005. The science of gender and science—Steven Pinker vs. Elizabeth Spelke: A debate. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html (accessed April 26, 2009).Google Scholar
Women's health research. 1995. Science 269: 765–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison, and Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 2007. Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from feminist science studies scholarship. In Value‐free science? Ideals and illusions, ed. Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison. New York: Oxford, pp. 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar