Advertisement

Mutuality of Interaction

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

Abstract

This Chapter discusses the mutuality of interaction or complexity of relationship virtue. An overview of its conditions is provided as well as examples of where this kind of process-oriented science can be found. Of all the theoretical virtues, this is the one that the science of sulphate geoengineering has come closest to fulfilling Yet, it pointed out that there are aspects of this particular virtue not fully taken advantage of as a result of the way geoengineering science is structured.

Keywords

Interaction Mutuality Feminist virtues Feminist science Midwifery Networks Agential Feedback loops 

References

  1. Alaimo, S. (2008). Trans-corporeal feminisms and the ethical space of nature. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, T., et al. (2012). Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, 9.Google Scholar
  3. Appelbaum, P. (2016). Mathematics education as a matter of curriculum. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2012). On touching—The inhuman that therefore I am. differences, 23(3), 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjornerud, M. (1997). Gaia: Gender and scientific representations of the Earth. NWSA Journal, 9(3), 89–106.Google Scholar
  7. Bleier, R. (1986). Introduction. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 15–16). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  8. Bug, A. (2003). Has feminism changed physics? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 881–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cass, L. R., & Pettenger, M. E. (2007). Conclusion: The constructions of climate change. In Kirton et al. (Eds.), The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses (pp. 235–246). New York: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Crasnow, S. (2003). In C. L. Pinnick, N. Koertge, & R. F. Almeder (Eds.), Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science (pp. 130–141). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dimen, M. (1989). Power, sexuality and intimacy. In A. Jaggar & S. Bordo (Eds.), Gender/Body/Knowledge. Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing (pp. 34–51). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  12. GCRP. (2009). Climate literacy: The essential principles of climate science. Available at: https://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Documents/pdf/ClimateLiteracyPoster-8_5x11_Final4-11LR.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2018.
  13. Gutiérrez, R. (2012). Embracing “Nepantla”: Rethinking knowledge and its use in teaching. REDIMAT-Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 29–56.Google Scholar
  14. Heckman, S. (1990). Gender and knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heyward, C., & Rayner, S. (2013). A curious asymmetry: Social science expertise and geoengineering. Climate Geoengineering Governance Project Working Paper, 7.Google Scholar
  16. Horlick-Jones, T. (2007). On the signature of new technologies: Sociality, materiality and practical reasoning. In R. Flynn & P. Bellaby (Eds.), Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies (pp. 41–65). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horton, J. B. (2015). The emergency framing of solar geoengineering: Time for a different approach. The Anthropocene Review, 2(2), 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC. (2007). Fourth assessment report: Climate change 2007 (AR4). IPCC. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
  19. Irvine, P. J., Ridgwell, A., & Lunt, D. J. (2010). Assessing the regional disparities in geoengineering impacts. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(18), L18702.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044447. Accessed 21 Jan 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, A., et al. (2001). Indirect sulphate aerosol forcing in a climate model with an interactive sulphur cycle. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106(D17), 20293–20310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller, E. F. (1987). Feminism and science. In S. G. Harding & J. F. O’Barr (Eds.), Sex and scientific inquiry (pp. 233–246). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kirton, J. J., et al. (2013). The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses. New York: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kravitz, B., et al. (2016). Geoengineering as a design problem. Earth System Dynamics, 7(2), 469–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuebbeler, M. et al. (2012). Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineering on cirrus clouds. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(23).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053797. Accessed 22 Jan 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lahsen, M. (2002). Brazilian climate epistemers’ multiple epistemes: An exploration of shared meaning, diverse identities and geopolitics in Global Change Science. Harvard University. Global Environmental Assesment Project.Google Scholar
  27. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Longino, H. (1995). Gender, politics and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–54.Google Scholar
  31. Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. R., & Kearnes, M. (2015). Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neimanis, A., & Walker, R. L. (2014). Weathering: Climate change and the “thick time” of transcorporeality. Hypatia, 29(3), 558–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sinclair, N. (2009). Aesthetics as a liberating force in mathematics education? ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(3), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spanier, B. (1995). Im/partial science: Gender ideology in molecular biology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stehr, N., & Von Storch, H. (1995). The social construct of climate and climate change. Climate Research, 5(2), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinhaeuser, K., et al. (2011). Complex networks as a unified framework for descriptive analysis and predictive modeling in climate science. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining, 4(5), 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Subramaniam, B. (2014). Ghost stories for Darwin: The science of variation and the politics of diversity. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tillman, R. (2015). Toward a new materialism: Matter as dynamic. Minding Nature, 8, 1. http://www.humansandnature.org/toward-a-new-materialism-matter-as-dynamic. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  40. Tobias, S. M., & Marston, J. B. (2013). Direct statistical simulation of out-of-equilibrium jets. Physical review letters, 110(10), 104502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tuana, N. (2001). Material locations: An interactionist alternative to realism/social constructivism. In Engendering Rationalities (pp. 221–243). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wehling, P. (2006). The situated materiality of scientific practices: Postconstructivism–a new theoretical perspective in science studies? Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 1(1), 81.Google Scholar
  43. Whitten, B. L. (1996). What physics is fundamental physics? Feminist implications of physicists’ debate over the superconducting supercollider. NWSA Journal, 8(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, J. W., Stephen, T., & Jackson, S. T. (2007). Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(9), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yousefi, B. (1998). Dissecting the ethical scientist: Baha’i and feminist perspectives. MA thesis, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

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