AMU 1310 Short Essay Gender and Science PDF

Preview

Summary

Comparing R1 and R2 articles ...

Description

This essay on gender and science will be comprised of four main sections. The following paragraph will be on the discussion of main debates of Harding (2004) and Devlin & Bokulich (2015) to be referred as R1 and R2 respectively. The next section, I would analyse gender as a fundamental analytical category in R1. Then, I will apply the gendered perspective used in R1 to R2. The last paragraph I will assess the possible changes to R2. This is based on the application of gendered perspective on this gender-neutral article, R2. Main debates in R1 and R2 Harding (2004) postulates that analysis by feminists on sciences proved that modern sciences are not as gender-neutral and objective as speculated. She argues that the current scientific knowledge is androcentric which is gender biased. Thus, Harding (2004) emphasizes on “feminist standpoint epistemologies” (p. 244) and how it can improve the truth of science. It was stated that feminist science has proved to produce a more gender-neutral approach towards science. This study is important because it could improve the way to approach science which has been gender-biased and making standards of science to be less “sexist” and “androcentric” (p. 243). Devlin & Bokulich (2015) focuses on the importance of paradigm shift in developing mature science. Devlin & Bokulich (2015) highlight the three main themes in Kuhn’s Structure that portrays how science revolved. Normal science epistemology is based on “paradigm” as “disciplinary matrix” (Kuhn 1962 as cited in Devlin & Bokulich 2015). According to Devlin & Bokulich (2015), the fundamental theme of Kuhn’s Structure is the way the theory changes historically and paradigm acts as a crucial part of normal science. They also focus on the third theme that is “concept of incommensurability” so science is not restricted by tradition (Kuhn, 1962 as cited in Devlin & Bokulich, 2015, p.3). This study is important so that knowledge could evolve and not based on any standards.

Gender as a primary analytical category in R1 To further explain the main thesis in R1, Harding’s (2004) arguments are based on gender concepts. The key concept is “epistemological androcentrism” in the field of science (Harding, 2004, p. 243). She talks about how the science practices has always been “sexist” and “androcentric” (p. 243) due to the majority involvement of men in the industry. This deviates from the theoretical concept of knowledge which was supposed to be “value-neutral” and “objective” (p. 241). She argues that good science does not involve emotions in analysing or conducting research that could lead to biases. As the backbone of knowledge of science is to be neutral and free from any gender biases. According to Harding (2004), an ideal way to improve the study of science is to implement “feminist standpoint epistemology” (p. 244). As this method emerges exclusively from social philosophy and thus can give an extensive structure on the epistemology of science. “Rational reconstruction” suggests that research that is feminist has successfully conducted and produce an in-depth analysis in the sciences field (Harding, 2004, p. 244). Feminist commence their research from a “women’s lives” perspective rather than the dominantly structured disciplines created by men (Harding, 2004, p. 244). The frameworks created by men which are male-dominated poses a skewed epistemology. Application of a gendered perspective to R2 The usage of a gendered perspective in R1 to address feminist approach towards science epistemology. A gendered standpoint in R1 posits the feminist methods could add more value to the current science frameworks so that the issues based on women and both men and women are well-addressed. This is done so that a gendered perspective in R1 shed light on the gender inequalities in the science field. As a similar gendered lens is applied to R2, with particular reference to “feminist standpoint epistemology” (Harding, 2004, p. 244). As (Kuhn, 1962 as cited in Devlin & Bokulich, 2015, p. 2-3) states Normal science perpetuates the acceptance of the paradigm as a disciplinary matrix until the scientists practicing normal science confront an anomaly that is, a piece of the puzzle that doesn’t seem to fit into the framework determined by the shared exemplars. If unresolved, an anomaly brings forth a crisis, which leads to the possibility of shifting the problem-solving techniques of normal science and perhaps

evens the destruction of the global paradigm. In the latter case, we have what Kuhn calls a revolution in science, that is, “non-cumulative development episodes” in which the anomalies lead to a crisis and result in the replacement of “an older paradigm in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. This quote focuses on the paradigm shift cycle that developed mature science. By adding a gendered perspective, it addresses that both men and women have to work together in the field of science. As paradigm shift is knowledge, both men and women have their feminine and masculine traits that could improve the epistemology of research in science. This could result in a wholesome epistemology. In addition, by adding a gendered lens, the “incommensurability” (Kuhn,1962 as cited in Devlin & Bokulich 2015, p. 3) of scientific revolution will be achieved. As the word means that science is not to be judged by common standards. By adding a gendered lens, the scientific revolution will be carried out by both men and women standards.

Evaluation of potential changes to R2 The implications of adding a gender perspective is to restore the balance of the skewed epistemologies of science. Besides, it can strengthen the research as gender issues are applied so that the research is done in different perspectives of gender. The paradigm shift which is knowledge will feminist point of view could change for the better. As the paradigm shift may shed light on women’s and gender issues. Thus, focusing on feminist methods balances the present androcentric paradigm shift in field of science. The aspects conducted in science field will be more environmental friendly with the participation of female. As the female is known for their ecofeminism framework which emphasises that female is closer to nature than men. As science is closely related to nature, a feminist point of view might raise awareness globally especially to men (Devlin & Bokulich, 2015). (1028 words)

References Devlin, W. & Bokulich, A. (2015). Introduction. In W. Devlin and A. Bokulich (Eds.). Kuhn’s Structure Of Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On. Boston Studies In The Philosophy And History Of Science, 311, (pp.1-9). Retrieved from https://doiorg.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1007/978-3-319-13383-6_1 Harding, S. (2004). Science and Technology. In P. Essed, D. T. Goldberg and A. Kobayashi (Eds.). A Companion to Gender Studies , (pp. 241-255). Retrieved from http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/subscriber/uid=595/toc node? query=Chapter+16.+Science+and+Technology&widen=1&result_number=2&from=sea rch&id=g9780631221098_chunk_g978063122109817&type=std&fuzzy=0&slop=1...