Advertisement

Introduction

  • Tina Sikka
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (BRIEFSSOCY)

Abstract

This introduction provides preliminary remarks and clarifications on structure and definitions used throughout the text, followed by a few concise explanations of the theoretical frameworks and a robust justification of methodology and choice of literature. A basic definition of geoengineering is provided as well as a discussion of the feminist frameworks deployed throughout the book including feminist contextual empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and technofeminism.

Keywords

Geoengineering Feminist empiricism Feminist standpoint theory Technofeminism Sociology of science studies 

References

  1. Anderson, E. (1995a). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10(3), 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1995b). Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2014a). The last chance to save the planet? An analysis of the geoengineering advocacy discourse in the public sphere. Environmental Humanities, 3, 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2014b). Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aschauer, A. B. (1999). Tinkering with technological skill: An examination of the gendered uses of technologies. Computers and Composition, 16, 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pint, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Coser, L. (1977). Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  8. Crasnow, S. (2009). Is standpoint theory a resource for feminist epistemology? An introduction. Hypatia, 24(4), 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. (2006). Feminist methodologies and epistemologies. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.), Handbook of 21st century sociology (pp. 36–42). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Fountain, H. (2015a, February 10). Panel urges research on geoengineering as a tool against climate change. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.
  11. Fountain, H. (2015b). Panel urges research on geoengineering as a tool against climate change. New York Times, 10 Feb 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.
  12. Gaard, G. (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gaard, G. (1997). Toward a Queer Ecofeminism. Hypatia, 12(1), 114–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goes, M., Tuana, N., & Keller, K. (2011). The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 719–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harding, S. (1987). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornel University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harding, S. (Ed.). (1993). The ‘racial’ economy of Science: Towards a democratic future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kellert, S. H. (2006). Disciplinary pluralism for science studies. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 215–230). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kourany, J. (2009). The place of standpoint theory in feminist science studies. Hypatia, 24(4), 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor-network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Longino, H. (1994a). In search of feminist epistemology. Monist, 77, 472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Longino, H. (1994b). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135–157). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Longino, H. (2001a). The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press: Princeton.Google Scholar
  25. Longino, H. (2001b). Can there be a feminist science? In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Giesman, H. Öztürk, & M. Wayne (Eds.), Women, science, and technology (pp. 216–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997a). Feminist epistemology as local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997b). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997c). Feminist epistemology as local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–35+37–54.Google Scholar
  29. Longino, et al. (2006a). Introduction: The pluralist stance. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. vi–xxix). Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Longino, H., Kellert, S. H., & Waters, C. K. (2006b). Scientific pluralism. Minnesota studies on the philosophy of science (Vol. XIX). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  31. Luderer, G., et al. (2014). The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: Results from the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic change, 123(3-4), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLaren, D. (2015, March 14). Where’s the justice in geoengineering. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/mar/14/wheres-the-justice-in-geoengineering. Accessed 12 Sept 2016.
  33. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature - Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  34. Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. London: The Zed Press.Google Scholar
  35. Naples, N., & Gurr, B. (2013). Feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Approaches to understanding the social world. In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 14–41). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. NASA. (2016, July 14). Stratospheric aerosol and gas experimentation III-ISS (SAGE III-ISS). http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1004.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
  37. NRC. (2015). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool the earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. Panwar, N. L., et al. (2011). Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(3), 1513–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery over nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Potter, E. (2007). Feminist epistemologies and women’s Lives. In L. M. Alcoff & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to feminist philosophy (pp. 235–253). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Potter, E., & Alcoff, L. (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Quinby, L. (1990). Ecofeminism and the politics of resistance. In I. Diamond & G. Orenstein (Eds.), Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco: Berkeley Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ren21. (2017). Renewables: Global status report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17-8399_GSR_2017_Full_Report_0621_Opt.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018.
  44. Robock, A. (2008a). 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64(2), 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robock, A. (2008b). Whither geoengineering? SCIENCE-NEW YORK THEN WASHINGTON, 320(5880), 1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rostom, E. (2015, February 10). Geoengineering: The bad idea we need to stop climate change. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-10/geoengineering-the-bad-idea-we-need-to-stop-climate-change. Accessed 17 Sept 2016.
  47. Scientific American. (2008). The hidden dangers of geoengineering. Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hidden-dangers-of-geoengineering/. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.
  48. Seymour, J. (2013). Feminist standpoint epistemology – The role of women in climate change policy-making: Are some people’s experiences more valuable than others’ as a foundation for knowledge and generating social change? Pragmatism Tomorrow, 1(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  49. Shiva, V., & Mies, M. (2014). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books Ltd..Google Scholar
  50. Sikka, T. (2013). An analysis of the connection between climate change, technological solutions and potential disaster management: The contribution of geoengineering research. In W. Filho (Ed.), Climate change and disaster risk management (pp. 535–551). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smelik, A. M., & Lykke, N. (Eds.). (2010). Bits of life: Feminism at the intersections of media, bioscience, and technology. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  52. Snyder-Beattie, A. (2015, May 15). Geoengineering is fast and cheap, but not the key to stopping climate change. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/15/geoengineering-climate-change-greenhouse-gases. Accessed 17 Sept 2016.
  53. The Royal Society. (2009, September). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London: Royal Society of London. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/. Accessed 17 Sept 2016.
  54. Tuana, N. (2013). Gendering climate knowledge for justice: Catalyzing a new research agenda. In M. Alston & K. Whittenbury (Eds.), Research, action and policy: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change (pp. 17–31). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Twidell, J., & Weir, T. (2015). Renewable energy resources. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Venkataraman, B. (2016, January 14). We have no way to predict the unintended consequences of geoengineering. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/geoengineering-unintended-consequences-blocking-sun-415449. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.
  57. Vidal, J. (2012a). Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering. The Guardian, 6 February 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  58. Vidal, J. (2012b, February 6) Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.
  59. Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge/Maiden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Community and Society, 10(3), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wajcman, J. (2009). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1–10.Google Scholar
  62. Warren, K. J. (1996). Ecological feminist philosophies: An overview of the issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  63. World Energy Council. (2016). World Energy Resources. World Energy Council. https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Sikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Media and Cultural StudiesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations