, Volume 177, Issue 3, pp 337–362 | Cite as

Feminist philosophy of science: history, contributions, and challenges

  • Sarah S. RichardsonEmail author


Feminist philosophy of science has led to improvements in the practices and products of scientific knowledge-making, and in this way it exemplifies socially relevant philosophy of science. It has also yielded important insights and original research questions for philosophy. Feminist scholarship on science thus presents a worthy thought-model for considering how we might build a more socially relevant philosophy of science—the question posed by the editors of this special issue. In this analysis of the history, contributions, and challenges faced by feminist philosophy of science, I argue that engaged case study work and interdisciplinarity have been central to the success of feminist philosophy of science in producing socially relevant scholarship, and that its future lies in the continued development of robust and dynamic philosophical frameworks for modeling social values in science. Feminist philosophers of science, however, have often encountered marginalization and persistent misunderstandings, challenges that must be addressed within the institutional and intellectual culture of American philosophy.


Sexual Selection Gender Bias Gender Ideology Feminist Scholarship Feminist Critique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barad K. (1998) Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In: Biagioli M. (eds) The science studies reader. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Barad K. M. (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Berta P., Hawkins J. R. et al (1990) Genetic evidence equating SRY and the testis-determining factor. Nature 348(6300): 448–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleier R. (1984) Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleier R. (1986) Feminist approaches to science. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Boxer M. J. (1998) When women ask the questions: Creating women’s studies in America. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  7. Carranza J. (2009) Defining sexual selection as sex-dependent selection. Animal Behaviour 77: 749–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock T. H. (2009) Sexual selection in females. Animal Behaviour 77: 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creager A. N. H., Lunbeck E. et al (2001) Feminism in twentieth-century science, technology, and medicine. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Dall S. R. X., McNamara J. M. et al (2006) Debating sexual selection and mating strategies. Science 312(5774): 689–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daston, L. (1991). Baconian facts, academic civility, and the prehistory of objectivity. In A. Megill (Ed.), Annals of scholarship (Vol. 8). New York: Annals of Scholarship.Google Scholar
  12. DuPlessis R. B., Snitow A. B. (1998) The feminist memoir project: Voices from women’s liberation. Three Rivers Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Fausto-Sterling A. (1985) Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr C. (2010) What’s in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific communities. In: Grasswick H. (eds) Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science: Power in knowledge. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Gannett, L. (2004). The biological reification of race. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2), 323–345.Google Scholar
  16. Gowaty, P. A. (2003). Sexual natures: How feminism changed evolutionary biology. Signs, 28(3), 901–921.Google Scholar
  17. Graves J. A. (1998) Evolution of the mammalian Y chromosome and sex-determining genes. The Journal of Experimental Zoology 281(5): 472–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graves J. A. (2000) Human Y chromosome, sex determination, and spermatogenesis—a feminist view. Biology of Reproduction 63: 667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graves, J. A. (2002). Sex, genes and chromosomes: A feminist view. Women in Science Network Journal, 59.Google Scholar
  20. Gross P. R., Levitt N. (1994) Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  21. Haraway D. J. (1989) Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Haraway D. J. (1991) Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding S. (1993) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity’?. In: Alcoff L., Potter E. (eds) Feminist epistemologies. Routledge, New York, pp 49–82Google Scholar
  24. Harding S. (1998) Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Harding S. G. (1986) The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  26. Harding S. G., Hintikka M. B. (1983) Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. D. Reidel, Hingham, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Haslanger S. (2000) Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be?. Noûs 34(1): 31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haslanger S. (2008) Changing the ideology and culture of philosophy: Not by reason (alone). Hypatia 23(2): 210–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howe F. (2000) The politics of women’s studies: Testimony from thirty founding mothers. Feminist Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobs, P. A., Brunton M. et al (1965) Aggressive behavior, mental sub-normality and the XYY male. Nature 208(5017): 1351–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jarvik L. F., Klodin V. et al (1973) Human aggression and the extra Y chromosome. Fact or fantasy?. The American Psychologist 28(8): 674–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordanova L. J. (1989) Sexual visions: Images of gender in science and medicine between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  33. Jost A., Gonse-Danysz P. et al (1953) [Studies on physiology of fetal hypophysis in rabbits and its relation to testicular function]. Journal de Physiologie 45(1): 134–136Google Scholar
  34. Just W., Rau W. et al (1995) Absence of Sry in species of the vole Ellobius. Nature Genetics 11(2): 117–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller E. F. (1985) Reflections on gender and science. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  36. Keller E. F. (1992) Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender, and science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller E. F., Longino H. E. (1996) Feminism and science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, NYGoogle Scholar
  38. Kitcher, P. (2002a). Reply to Helen Longino. Philosophy of Science, 69, 569–572.Google Scholar
  39. Kitcher P. (2002b) The third way: Reflections on Helen Longino’s the fate of knowledge. Philosophy of Science 59: 549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kohlstedt, S. G., & Longino, H. E. (1997). The women, gender, and science question: What do research on women in science and research on gender and science have to do with each other? Osiris, 12, 3–15 (Special Issue: Women, Gender, and Science: New Directions).Google Scholar
  41. Koopman P., Gubbay J. et al (1991) Male development of chromosomally female mice transgenic for Sry. Nature 351(6322): 117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lederman M., Bartsch I. (2001) The gender and science reader. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Lloyd E. (1996) Science and anti-science: Objectivity and its real enemies. In: Nelson L. H., Nelson J. (eds) Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. Lloyd E. A. (2005) The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. Lloyd G. (1993) The man of reason: Male and female in western philosophy. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Longino H. (1992) Subjects, power, knowledge: Prescriptivism and descriptivism in feminist philosophy of science. In: Alcoff L., Potter E. (eds) Feminist epistemologies. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Longino H. (1996) Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In: Nelson J., Nelson L. H. (eds) Feminism and philosophy of science. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  48. Longino H., Doell R. (1983) Body, bias, and behavior: A comparative analysis of reasoning in two areas of biological science. Signs 9(2): 206–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Longino H. E. (1990) Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  50. Longino H. E. (2002a) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  51. Longino H. E. (2002b) Reply to Philip Kitcher. Philosophy of Science 69: 573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Longino H. E. (2002c) Science and the common good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth, and Democracy. Philosophy of Science 69: 560–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Longino H. E., Hammonds E. (1990) Conflicts and tensions in the feminist study of gender and science. In: Hirsch M., Keller E. F. (eds) Conflicts in feminism. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Lowe M., Hubbard R. (1983) Woman’s nature: Rationalizations of inequality. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Lunbeck E. (1994) The psychiatric persuasion: Knowledge, gender, and power in modern America. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  56. Mandelbaum D. R. (1981) Work, marriage, and motherhood: The career persistence of female physicians. Praeger, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  57. Margolis J., Fisher A. (2002) Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayberry M., Subramaniam B. et al (2001) Feminist science studies: A new generation. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. McClung C. E. (1902) The accessory chromosome: Sex determinant?. Biological Bulletin 3(1/2): 43–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McDermott P. (1994) Politics and scholarship: Feminist academic journals and the production of knowledge. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  61. McElreavey, K., Vilain E. et al (1993) A regulatory cascade hypothesis for mammalian sex determination: SRY represses a negative regulator of male development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90(8): 3368–3372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Merchant C. (1980) The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. Harper & Row, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  63. Millstein, R. (forthcoming). Differentiating natural selection, sexual selection, and social selection. Metascience.Google Scholar
  64. Nelson L. H., Nelson J. (1996) Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  65. Novick P. (1988) That noble dream: The “objectivity question” and the American historical profession. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  66. Page D. C., Lahn B. T. (1997) Functional coherence of the human Y chromosome. Science 278: 675–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Poovey, M. (1986). Scenes of an indelicate character: The medical “treatment” of Victorian women. Representations, 14, 137–168.Google Scholar
  68. Richardson S. (2008) When gender criticism becomes standard scientific practice: The case of sex determination genetics. In: Schiebinger L. (eds) Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp 22–42Google Scholar
  69. Rolin K. (2002) Gender and trust in science. Hypatia 17(4): 95–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosser S. (1987) Feminist scholarship in the sciences: Where are we now and when can we expect a theoretical breakthrough?. Hypatia 2(3): 5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rossiter M. W. (1982) Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  72. Roughgarden J. (2004) Evolution’s rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  73. Roughgarden J. (2009) The genial gene: Deconstructing Darwinian selfishness. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  74. Roughgarden, J., & Akcay, E. (2009). Do we need a sexual selection 2.0? Animal Behaviour. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.006.
  75. Roughgarden J., Oishi M. et al (2006) Reproductive social behavior: Cooperative games to replace sexual selection. Science 311(5763): 965–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Russett C. E. (1989) Sexual science: The Victorian construction of womanhood. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  77. Said E. (1996) Representations of the intellectual: The 1993 Reith lectures. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Schiebinger L. L. (1989) The mind has no sex?: Women in the origins of modern science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  79. Schiebinger L. L. (1993) Nature’s body: Gender in the making of modern science. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  80. Schiebinger L. L. (1999) Has feminism changed science?. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  81. Schiebinger L. L. (2008) Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  82. Searle, J. R. (1993) Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus, 122(4), 55–83.Google Scholar
  83. Smith-Rosenberg C., Rosenberg C. (1973) The female animal: Medical and biological views of woman and her role in nineteenth-century America. The Journal of American History 60(2): 332–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Special Issue: Women, Science, and Society (1978). Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. C. R. Stimpson and J. Burstyn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Vol. 4, p. 1.Google Scholar
  85. Special Issue: Feminism and Science, I (1987). Hypatia. N. Tuana. Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Vol. 2, p. 3.Google Scholar
  86. Special Issue: Feminism and Science, II (1988). Hypatia. N. Tuana. Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Vol. 3, p. 1.Google Scholar
  87. Special Issue: Feminism and Science: In Memory of Ruth Bleier (1989). Women’s Studies International Forum. S. Rosser. New York: Pergamon, Vol. 12, no. 3.Google Scholar
  88. Special Issue: Feminism and Science. (1995). Synthese. L. H. Nelson. Kluwer. Vol. 104, No. 3.Google Scholar
  89. Special Issue: Women, Gender, and Science: New Directions (1997). Osiris. S. G. Kohlstedt and H. E. Longino. Chicago: University of Chicago, Vol. 12.Google Scholar
  90. Special Issue: Gender and Science: New Issues (2003). Signs: journal of women in culture and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Vol. 28, p. 3.Google Scholar
  91. Special Issue: Feminist Science Studies (2004). Hypatia. L. H. Nelson and A. Wylie. Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Vol. 19, p. 1.Google Scholar
  92. Stanton D. C., Stewart A. J. (1995) Feminisms in the academy. University Press of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  93. Stevens N. M. (1905) Studies in spermatogenesis with especial reference to the accessory chromosome. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  94. Tanner, N., & Zilhman, A. (1976). Women in evolution part I: Innovation and selection in human origins. Signs, 1, 558–608.Google Scholar
  95. Traweek S. (1988) Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  96. Tuana N. (1989) Feminism and science. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  97. Tuana, N., & Sullivan, S. (2007). Race and epistemologies of ignorance. SUNY series on philosophy and race. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  98. Vilain, E. (2004). Expert interview transcript. Rediscovering biology: Molecular to global perspectives. Electronic media, Oregon Public Broadcasting and Scholar
  99. Wallen K., Lloyd E. A. (2008a) Clitoral variability compared with penile variability supports nonadaptation of female orgasm. Evolution and Development 10(1): 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wallen K., Lloyd E. A. (2008b) Inappropriate comparisons and the weakness of cryptic choice. Evolution and Development 10(4): 398–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wilson E. B. (1905a) Studies on chromosomes I. The behavior of the idiochromosomes in Hemiptera. Journal of Experimental Zoology 2(3): 371–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wilson E. B. (1905b) Studies on chromosomes II. The paired microchromosomes, idiochromosomes and heterotropic chromosomes in Hemiptera. Journal of Experimental Zoology 2(4): 507–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Witkin H. A., Goodenough D. R. et al (1977) XYY men: Are they criminally aggressive?. Sciences (New York) 17(6): 10–13Google Scholar
  104. Witkin H. A., Mednick S. A. et al (1976) Criminality in XYY and XXY men. Science 193(4253): 547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wylie, A., Okruhlik, K., et al. (1990). Philosophical feminism: A bibliographic guide to critiques of science. Resources for feminist research. Documentation sur la recherche féministe, 19(2).Google Scholar
  106. Zanish-Belcher T. (1998) Still unheard by the mainstream: Locating serial articles on women in science. In: Gerhard K. H. (eds) Women’s studies serials: A quarter-century of development. Haworth Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations