Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 231–245 | Cite as

Towards Diffractive Transdisciplinarity: Integrating Gender Knowledge into the Practice of Neuroscientific Research

Original Paper

Abstract

The current neurosciences contribute to the construction of gender/sex to a high degree. Moreover, the subject of gender/sex differences in cognitive abilities attracts an immense public interest. At the same time, the entanglement of gender and science has been shown in many theoretical and empirical analyses. Although the body of literature is very extensive and differentiated with regards to the dimensions of ‘neuroscience of gender’ and ‘gender in neuroscience’, the feeding back of these findings into the field of neuroscience remains a desideratum. Especially, the question of how gender knowledge, i.e. insights from feminist theory on gender/sex and from gender and science studies on knowledge production, may be integrated and applied within the neurosciences has been strongly neglected. Presumably due to their epistemic culture and epistemological presuppositions, these critical engagements are conceived as externalist by critical scholars and neuroscientists alike. In this context, the question arises of how substantiated gender knowledge may be accounted for in neuroscientific research practice? The article outlines methodological considerations for a critical research agenda in the cognitive neurosciences. I present thoughts on how insights and expertise from gender and science studies can be taken into account in the neuroscientific practice of knowledge production. Starting from the assumption that changes in neuroscientific research practices are possible, my aim is to point out possibilities of integrating gender knowledge into the neurosciences.

Keywords

Neuroscience Knowledge production Gender/sex Feminist theory Diffractive methodology Neuroethics Research practice 

References

  1. 1.
    Cahill, L. 2006. Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7(6): 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaiser, A., S. Haller, S. Schmitz, and C. Nitsch. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews 61: 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sommer, I.E.C., A. Aleman, A. Bouma, and R.S. Kahn. 2004. Do women really have more bilateral language representation than men? A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies. Brain 127(8): 1845–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallentin, M. 2009. Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain and Language 108(3): 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jordan, K. 2010. The brain between sex and gender: Women and men from a neuroscientific perspective. In Gender and sex in biomedicine: Theories, methodologies, results, ed. I. Klinge and C. Wiesemann, 79–99. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fine, C. 2008. Will working mothers’ brains explode? The popular new genre of neurosexism. Neuroethics 1: 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DesAutels, P. 2010. Sex differences and neuroethics. Philosophical Psychology 23(1): 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hüsing, B. 2008. Technology assessment of neuroimaging: Sex and gender perspectives. In Sexualized brains: Scientific modeling of emotional intelligence from a cultural perspective, ed. N.C. Karafyllis and G. Ulshöfer, 103–116. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller, E.F. 1995. Origin, history, and politics of the subject called ‘gender and science’—A first person account. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 80–95. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jordan-Young, R.M. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Star, S.L. 1979. Sex differences and the dichotomization of the brain: Methods, limits, and problems in research on consciousness. In Genes and gender: Pitfalls in research on sex and gender, ed. R. Hubbard and M. Lowe, 113–130. New York: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bleier, R. 1991. Gender ideology and the brain: Sex differences research. In Women and men: New perspectives on gender differences, ed. M.T. Notman and C.C. Nadelson, 63–73. Washington: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmitz, S. 2002. Hirnforschung und Geschlecht: Eine kritische Analyse im Rahmen der Genderforschung in den Naturwissenschaften. In Gender Studies: Denkachsen und Perspektiven der Geschlechterforschung, ed. I. Bauer and J. Neissl, 109–126. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmitz, S. 2010. Sex, gender, and the brain—Biological determinism versus socio-cultural constructivism. In Gender and sex in biomedicine: Theories, methodologies, results, ed. I. Klinge and C. Wiesemann, 57–76. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hegarty, P. 1997. Materializing the hypothalamus: A performative account of the ‘gay brain’. Feminism & Psychology 7(3): 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karafyllis, N.C., and G. Ulshöfer (ed.). 2008. Sexualized brains: Scientific modeling of emotional intelligence from a cultural perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nikoleyczik, K. 2004. NormKörper: ‘Geschlecht’ und ‘Rasse’ in biomedizinischen Bildern. In Grenzgänge: Genderforschung in Informatik und Naturwissenschaften, ed. S. Schmitz and B. Schinzel, 133–148. Königstein: Ulrike Helmer Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schinzel, B. 2006. The body in medical imaging between reality and construction. Poiesis & Praxis 4(3): 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nikoleyczik, K. 2010. Zur Re-Produktion von Differenz in der neurowissenschaftlichen Bildgebung. In Epistemologie und Differenz: Zur Reproduktion in den Wissenschaften, ed. B.Bock von Wülfingen and U. Frietsch, 171–186. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson, E.A. 1998. Neural geographies: Feminism and the microstructure of cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson, E.A. 2004. Psychosomatic: Feminism and the neurological body. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fullagar, S. 2009. Negotiating the neurochemical self: Anti-depressant consumption in women’s recovery from depression. Health 13(4): 389–406.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beaulieu, A. 2000. The brain at the end of the rainbow: The promises of brain scans in the research field and in the media. In Wild science: Reading feminism, medicine, and the media, ed. J. Marchessault and K. Sawchuk, 39–52. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palm, K. 2004. Gender—eine unbekannte Kategorie in den Naturwissenschaften? In Gender Studies: Wissenschaftstheorien und Gesellschaftskritik, ed. T. Frey Steffen, C. Rosenthal, and A. Väth, 97–109. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palm, K. 2004. Was bringt die Genderforschung eigentlich den Naturwissenschaften? In Grenzgänge: Genderforschung in Informatik und Naturwissenschaften, ed. S. Schmitz and B. Schinzel, 50–64. Königstein: Ulrike Helmer Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaiser, A., E. Kuenzli, D. Zappatore, and C. Nitsch. 2007. On females’ lateral and males’ bilateral activation during language production: A fMRI study. International Journal of Psychophysiology 63: 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roy, D., N.L. Angelini, H. Fujieda, G.M. Brown, and D.D. Belsham. 2001. Cyclical regulation of GnRH gene expression in GT1-7 GnRH-secreting neurons by melatonin. Endocrinology 142: 4711–4720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roy, D., and D.D. Belsham. 2002. Melatonin receptor activation regulates gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) gene expression and secretion in GT1-7 GnRH neurons: Signal transduction mechanisms. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277: 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roy, D. 2004. Feminist theory in science: Working toward a practical transformation. Hypatia 19(1): 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Knorr-Cetina, K.D. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haig, D. 2004. The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior 33: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krieger, N. 2003. Genders, sexes, and health: What are the connections—and why does it matter? International Journal of Epidemiology 32(4): 652–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Germon, J. 2009. Gender—A genealogy of an idea. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ceci, S., and W. Williams (ed.). 2000. Nature/nurture debate: The essential readings. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. 2003. The problem with sex/gender and nature/nurture. In Debating biology, ed. S.J. Williams, L. Birke, and G.A. Bendelow, 123–132. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lippa, R.A. 2005. Gender, nature, and nurture. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    West, C., and D.H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1(2): 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3): 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alaimo, S., and S. Hekman. 2008. Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    van der Tuin, I. 2009. On second- and third-wave feminist epistemology. Australian Feminist Studies 24(59): 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lettow, S. 2010. Bio-technosciences in philosophy: Challenges and perspectives for gender studies in philosophy. Diogenes 225: 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Haraway, D.J. 1997. Modest_witness@second_millennium. FemaleMan©_meets_oncomouse™: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rheinberger, H.-J. 1997. Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Deuber-Mankowsky, A. 2008. Eine Frage des Wissens: Gender als epistemisches Ding. In Gender Goes Life: Die Lebenswissenschaften als Herausforderung für die Gender Studies, ed. M.L. Angerer and C. König, 137–162. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Huber, C. 2009. Interdependence of theoretical concepts and neuroimaging data. Poiesis & Praxis 6(3–4): 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Snow, C.P. 1993. The two cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roepstorff, A. 2002. Transforming subjects into objectivity—An “ethnography of knowledge” in a brain imaging laboratory. FOLK—Journal of the Danish Ethnographic Society 44: 145–170.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jack, A.I., and A. Roepstorff. 2002. Introspection and cognitive brain mapping: from stimulus-response to script-report. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(8): 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Clénin, D., and B. Pieper. 2009. Aufschreiben, was sowieso schon da ist: Von der Sprachlosigkeit zum Sprachvermögen. feldenkrais zeit—Journal für somatisches Lernen 10: 15–19.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pieper, B., and D. Clénin. 2010. Verkörperte Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmung sozialen Handelns: Eine leiborientierte praktisch-theoretische Forschungsperspektive. In Die Körperlichkeit sozialen Handelns: Soziale Ordnung jenseits von Normen und Institutionen, ed. F. Böhle and M. Weihrich, 261–298. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Greber, E. 2005. Theoretische Grundüberlegungen zur Wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung und –forschung unter der Perspektive der Geschlechterdifferenz. In Gendered Academia: Wissenschaft und Geschlechterdifferenz 1890–1945, ed. M. Kauko, S. Mieszkowski, and A. Tischel, 11–40. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Parvizi, J. 2009. Corticocentric myopia: Old bias in new cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(8): 354–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schiebinger, L. 2008. Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Feldenkrais, M. 1972. Awareness through movement. San Francisco: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kueffer, C., G. Hadorn, G. Bammer, L. Kerkhoff, and C. Pohl. 2007. Towards a publication culture in transdisciplinary research. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 16(1): 22–26.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Loibl, M.C. 2005. Spannungen in Forschungsteams: Hintergründe und Methoden zum konstruktiven Abbau von Konflikten in inter- und transdisziplinären Projekten. Heidelberg: Verlag für Systemische Forschung im Carl-Auer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weingart, P., and N. Stehr. 2000. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thompson-Klein, J., W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R.W. Scholz, and M. Welti (ed.). 2001. Transdisciplinarity—joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bergmann, M. 2003. Indikatoren für eine diskursive Evaluation transdisziplinärer Forschung. Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis 12(1): 65–75.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Defila, R., A. Di Giulio, and M. Scheuermann. 2006. Forschungsverbundmanagement: Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Monteiro, M., and E. Keating. 2009. Managing misunderstandings: The role of language in interdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Science Communication 31(1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shulman, B. 1996. What if we changed our axioms? A feminist inquiry into the foundations of mathematics. Configurations 4(3): 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kerr, E.A. 1998. Toward a feminist natural science: Linking theory and practice. Women’s Studies International Forum 21(1): 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Barad, K. 2000. Reconceiving scientific literacy as agential literacy, or learning how to intra-act responsibly within the world. In Doing culture + science, ed. R. Reid and S. Traweek, 221–258. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mayberry, M., B. Subramaniam, and L.H. Weasel (eds.). 2001. Feminist science studies: A new generation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Klinge, I., and M. Bosch. 2005. Transforming research methodologies in EU life sciences and biomedicine. European Journal of Women’s Studies 12(3): 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Roy, D. 2008. Should feminists clone? And if so, how? Notes from an implicated modest witness. Australian Feminist Studies 23(56): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gilbert, S.F., and A. Fausto-Sterling. 2003. Educating for social responsibility: Changing the syllabus of developmental biology. International Journal of Developmental Biology 47(2–3): 237–244.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schmitz, S., and K. Nikoleyczik. 2009. Interdisciplinary and gender-sensitive teaching: Didactical concepts and technical support. International Journal of Innovation in Education 1(1): 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Steinbach, J., and B. Jansen-Schulz (ed.). 2009. Gender im Experiment-Gender in Experience: Ein Best-Practice-Handbuch zur Integration von Genderaspekten in naturwissenschaftliche und technische Lehre. Berlin: Universitätsverlag TU Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Gender in Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations