Abstract
I investigate the reciprocal relationship between social accounts of knowledge production and efforts to increase the representation of women and some minorities in the academy. In particular, I consider the extent to which feminist social epistemologies such as Helen Longino’s critical contextual empiricism can be employed to argue that it is in researchers’ epistemic interest to take active steps to increase gender diversity. As it stands, critical contextual empiricism does not provide enough resources to succeed at this task. However, considering this view through an employment equity lens highlights areas where such theories need to be further developed. I argue that views such as Longino’s ought to attend to nuances of community structure and cultural features that inhibit critical social interactions, if we are to maximize the epistemic as well as the ethical improvements associated with a social approach to knowing. These developments advance these epistemic theories for their own sake. They also help develop these theories into a tool that can be used by those calling for increased diversity in the academy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this paper I am primarily focusing on gender diversity. By doing so it is not my intention to minimize the epistemological and ethical concerns relating to the underrepresentation of members of other marginalized groups.
- 2.
I refer the reader to the following excellent sources of data on the representation of women and minorities in STEM and the academy more generally, and for summaries of social science research that shed light on the causes of these inequities: West and Curtis (2006), The National Academy of Sciences (2007), Wylie et al. (2007) and Xie and Shauman (2003).
- 3.
See Wylie (this volume) for a similar strategic use and development of standpoint theory.
- 4.
Longino is also sensitive to the fact that people have differences in training and ability that may grant them a cognitively privileged position in communities, but that does not impact the respect that ought to be shared among community members.
- 5.
Solomon and Richardson (2005) and Solomon (2006) also argue that Longino’s conception of ideal epistemic communities is problematic. Solomon and Richardson argue that we lack historical and contemporary cases of scientific practice that meets these ideals; as a result we lack evidence that following them will lead to better science. Solomon (2006) argues that group deliberative processes can be influenced by biasing mechanisms associated with groupthink that are not transparent to members of groups and that her aggregative procedures lead to better epistemic outcomes than rational deliberative procedures such as Longino’s. However see Wylie (2006) for arguments that Solomon’s aggregative procedures as well as Longino’s deliberative procedures are subject to implicit cognitive errors associated with gender schemas. I argue that views such as Longino’s ought to attend to nuances of community dynamics and cultural features that inhibit critical social interactions, if we are to maximize the epistemic as well as the ethical improvements associated with a social approach to knowing.
- 6.
- 7.
Thanks to Heidi Grasswick for making this point.
- 8.
Thanks to Sandy Gahn for suggesting the name ‘diversity development’.
- 9.
I address situational and epistemic diversity in Fehr (2007).
- 10.
Table 6 shows data ranging from 1997 to 2000. Although there is variation among these years, in all cases low numbers of women, isolation and lack of credibility and respect are identified as significant challenges facing women scientists.
References
Altmann, Jeanne. 1974. Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behavior 69: 227–263.
Baez, Benjamin. 2000. Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing agency in the academy. Higher Education 39(3): 363–391.
Bird, Sharon, Jackie Litt, and Yong Wang. 2004. Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “Women’s Work”. National Women’s Studies Association Journal 16(1): 194–206.
Birke, Lynda. 1986. Women, feminism and biology: The feminist challenge. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Butler, Dore, and Florence Geis. 1990. Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(1): 48–59.
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Fehr, Carla. 2007. Are smart men smarter than smart women? The epistemology of ignorance, women and the production of knowledge. In The ‘woman question’ and higher education: Perspectives on gender and knowledge production in America, ed. Ann Mari May, 102–116. Northampton/Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Fidell Linda, S. 1970. Empirical verification of sex discrimination in hiring practices in psychology. American Psychologist 25: 1094–1098.
Fox, Mary Frank. 1991. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In The outer circle: Women in the scientific community, ed. John T. Brue, Jonathan R. Cole, and Harriet Zuckerman, 188–204. New York: W. W. Norton.
Gowaty, Patricia Adair. 2003. Sexual natures: How feminism changed evolutionary biology. Signs 28(3): 901–921.
Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.
Hrdy, Sarah. 1986. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Ruth Bleier, 119–146. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hubbard, Ruth. 1982. Have only men evolved? In Biological woman – the convenient myth: A collection of feminist essays and a comprehensive bibliography, ed. Ruth Hubbard, M.S. Henifin, and B. Fried, 17–46. Cambridge: Schenkman.
Ivie, Rachel and Stacy, Guo. 2006. Women physicists speak again. College Park, MA: Statistical Research Center of the American Institute of Physics.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. A feeling for the organism. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, Helen, and Ruth Doell. 1983. Body, bias and behavior: A comparative analysis of reasoning in two areas of biological science. Signs 9(2): 206–227.
Martin, Emily. 1991. The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs 16(3): 485–501.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1999. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. The MIT Faculty Newsletter 11(4): 1–17.
Monture-Okanee, Patricia. 1995. Surviving the contradictions: Personal notes on academia. In Breaking anonymity: The chilly climate for women faculty, ed. Chilly Collective, 11–28. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
National Association of Sciences. 2007. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. Epistemological communities. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, 121–159. New York: Routledge.
Rosser, Sue. 2004. The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. New York: Routledge.
Solomon, Miriam. 2006. Groupthink versus the wisdom of the crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44: 28–42.
Solomon, Miriam, and Alan Richardson. 2005. A critical context for Longino’s critical contextual empiricism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 211–222.
Sonnert, Gerhard, and Gerald Holton. 1996. Career patterns of men and women in the sciences. American Scientist 84: 63–71.
Steinpreis, Rhea, Katie Anders and Dawn Ritze. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41(7/8): 509–528.
Summers, Lawrence. January 14, 2005. Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science & engineering workforce. In National Board of Economic Research (NBER) conference diversifying the science & engineering workforce: Women, underrepresented minorities, and their S&E careers. Cambridge: Harvard University, The Office of the President. http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php.
The Biology and Gender Study Group. 1989. The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. In Feminism and science, ed. Nancy Tuana, 172–187. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Trix, Frances, and Carolyn Psenka. 2003. Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse and Society 14(2): 191–220.
Valian, Virginia. 1999. Why so slow? The advancement of women. (Cambridge: MIT Press).
West, Martha, and John Curtis. 2006. AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
Wylie, Alison. 2006. Socially naturalized norms of epistemic rationality: Aggregation and deliberation. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44: 43–48.
Wylie, Alison, Janet Jakobsen, and Gisela Fasado. 2007. Women, work and the academy: Strategies for responding to ‘Post-Civil Rights Era’ gender discrimination. NY: Barnard Center for Research on Women.
Xie, Yu, and Kimberlee Shauman. 2003. Women in science: Career progress and outcomes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Heidi Grasswick for generous help with various drafts of this paper and for unflagging professional and personal support. Warm thanks also to Sharon Bird, Sandra Gahn, Margaret Holmgren, Katie Plaisance, Anastasia Prokos, Diane Price-Herndl, Dave Saldana, Kate Padgett Walsh, Brad Wray, Alison Wylie and audiences in the philosophy departments at Duke University, Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0450821. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fehr, C. (2011). What Is in It for Me? The Benefits of Diversity in Scientific Communities. In: Grasswick, H. (eds) Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6834-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6835-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)