Science & Education

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 1089–1110 | Cite as

Feminist philosophy of science: ‘standpoint’ and knowledge

  • Sharon CrasnowEmail author
Original Paper


Feminist philosophy of science has been criticized on several counts. On the one hand, it is claimed that it results in relativism of the worst sort since the political commitment to feminism is prima facie incompatible with scientific objectivity. On the other hand, when critics acknowledge that there may be some value in work that feminists have done, they comment that there is nothing particularly feminist about their accounts. I argue that both criticisms can be addressed through a better understanding of the current work in feminist epistemology. I offer an examination of standpoint theory as an illustration. Harding and Wylie have suggested ways in which the objectivity question can be addressed. These two accounts together with a third approach, ‘model-based objectivity’, indicate there is a clear sense in which we can understand how a standpoint theory both contributes to a better understanding of scientific knowledge and can provide a feminist epistemology.


Feminist epistemology Feminist philosophy of science Standpoint theory Objectivity Relativism Models 


  1. Bailer-Jones DM (2002a) Scientists’ thoughts on scientific models. Perspectives on Science 10(3):275–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailer-Jones DM (2002b) Models, metaphors, and analogies. In: Machamer P, Silberstein M (eds) Blackwell guide to philosophy of science. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 108–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailer-Jones DM (2003) When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17(1):59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Clough S (2003) Beyond epistemology: a pragmatist approach to feminist science studies. Rowen and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman I (2004) The payoff from women’s rights. Foreign Affairs 83(i3):80Google Scholar
  7. Collins PH (1986) Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social Problems 33(special theory issue):S14–S32 (reprinted in Harding 2004)Google Scholar
  8. Crasnow SL (2000) How natural can ontology be? Philosophy of Science 67(1):114–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daston L, Galison PL (1992) The image of objectivity. Representations 40(special issue: seeing science):81–128Google Scholar
  10. DeVault ML (1999) Liberating method: feminism and social research. Temple University Press, Philadephia, PAGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas H (2004) The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138(3):453–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giere RN (2004) How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science 71:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glymour C (1980) Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacking I (2000) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Haraway DJ (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding SG (1986) The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Harding SG (1997) Comment on Hekman’s “truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: whose standpoint needs the regimes of truth and reality? Signs 22(21):382–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harding SG (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding SG (1992) Rethinking standpoint epistemology. In: Alcoff L, Potter E (eds) Feminist epistemologies. Routledge, New York (Reprinted in Harding 2004)Google Scholar
  20. Harding SG (ed) (2004) The feminist standpoint theory reader. Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Hekman SJ (1997) Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs 22(21):341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hesse-Biber SN, Yaiser ML (eds) (2003) Feminist perspectives on social research. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Howes EV (2002) Connecting girls and science: constructivism, feminism, and science education reform. Teachers College Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Janack M (2002) Dilemmas of objectivity. Social Epistemology 16(3):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitcher PS (2001) Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Koertge N (1980) Methodology, ideology and feminist critiques of Science. Philosophy of Science 2:346–359Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn TS (1977) The essential tension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  28. Lacey H (1999) Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewontin RC (2002) The politics of science. The New York Review of Books 49(8):28–32Google Scholar
  30. Longino HE (1987) Can there be a feminist science? Hypatia 2(3):51–64Google Scholar
  31. Longino HE (1990) Science as social knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Longino HE (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  33. Lloyd EA (1995) Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese 104:351–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Machamer PK, Wolters G (2004) Science, values, and objectivity. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  35. Morrison MC (1999) Models as autonomous agents. In: Morgan MS, Morrison MC (eds) Models as mediators. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Narayan U (1989) The project of feminist epistemology. In: Jaggar AM, Bordo SR (eds) Gender/Body/Knowledge: feminist reconstructions of being and knowing, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinnick CL (2005) The failed feminist challenge to “fundamental epistemology”. Science and Education 14(2):103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reinharz S (1992) Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  39. Rorty R (1979) Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Rouse J (1996) Feminism and the social construction of scientific knowledge. In: Nelson LH, Nelson J (eds) Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Scheper-Hughes N (1992) Death without weeping: the violence of everyday life in Brazil. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. Schultz TP (2002) Why governments should invest more to educate girls. World Development 30(2):207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Solomon M (2001) Social empiricism. MIT Press (Bradford Books), Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Fraassen BC (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Fraassen BC (2002) The empirical stance. Yale University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  46. Wylie A (1992) Reasoning about ourselves: feminist methodology in the social sciences. In: Harvey ED, Okruhlik K (eds) Women and reason. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  47. Wylie A (1998) Feminism and social science. In: Craig E (ed) Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Wylie A (2004) Why standpoint matters. In: Harding S (ed) The feminist standpoint reader. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Arts, Humanities, and World LanguagesRiverside Community CollegeNorcoUSA

Personalised recommendations