Critical feminist history of psychology versus sociology of scientific knowledge: Contrasting views of women scientists?

Abstract

With the rise of second-wave feminism, new theoretical perspectives on women scientists began to emerge. By the 1980s and 1990s, 2 contrasting views of women scientists were discernible. Within the former, critical feminist historians rendered more visible and re/placed the lives and achievements of women psychologists within psychology's history, challenged the "add women and stir" approach to the history of women psychologists, and suggested the need to view history through the lens of women's distinct experiences within sexist scientific structures. Within the sociology of scientific knowledge, the contributions and experiences of women scientists remained largely ignored in favor of a meritocratic, universalistic, and objectivist image of science, despite recognition of the importance of social relations in scientific knowledge production. Today, a comparative analysis of developments within psychology and the sociology of scientific knowledge suggests a more nuanced, less dichotomous juxtaposition of views. Alongside critical feminist history of psychology, objectivist views of women scientists have also remained evident within related psychological subdisciplines, and the sociology of scientific knowledge has seen the emergence of feminist studies of science, technology, and society, on the borders of more traditional, objectivist views. This article reflects on some of the assumptions underlying different views of women scientists, past and present, within these (sub)disciplines. More broadly, this article examines the relevance of new developments in feminist theory and neoliberalism in theorizing women's scientific careers, analyzes conceptualizations of gender discrimination and their implications for theory, and considers whether such (sub)disciplinary comparisons remain pertinent to understanding gendered scientific structures. Public Significance StatementThis article speaks to the need to understand sexist discrimination, and other forms of discrimination, in terms of its multiple, varied, and interconnected manifestations. Discrimination, within science and society, can be both overt and covert, and both informal and formal. As such, discrimination can be expressed in individual "choices," as well as in cultural or other structural constraints. Rather than understanding discrimination narrowly, as distinguishable from culture, discrimination must be understood broadly, as pervasive throughout culture and society. Specifically, this article suggests that the insights of critical feminist historians within psychology, as well as new feminist perspectives within the sociology of science, may provide understandings of women scientists that are more inclusive and contextual, that recognize the pervasiveness of sexist discrimination in all its forms, and that view social relations as complex, as indeterminate, and as inextricably linked to both individual subjectivities and broader scientific and societal structures.

What does it mean to say science is gendered?

“…Using the word “science” in a nonspecific way, Febbraro (2020) contrasts two approaches to analyzing women’s underrepresentation in the sciences, one exemplified in a prominent approach to the sociology of science and the other illustrated in the work of critical feminist historians. She argues that some influential sociological and psychological analyses have not penetrated as deeply or fully as critical feminist perspectives have, because (at least until recently) only the latter have challenged fundamental assumptions about the “meritocracy” of scientific institutions and the “universality” of scientific inquiry itself.…”

Gender and socio-intentionality: Why are “things” the way they are?

“…To address questions about the increasing limitations on women's reproductive rights in the United States, the policing of pregnancy, and the reduction of women's rights to their bodies around the world (Cosgrove & Vaswani, 2020), why academia is not a shining beacon for meritocracy (Febbraro, 2020), why the talk of choice is misleading in science and why we need to understand historical trajectories and repetitions (Rutherford, 2020), and why there are gendered communications in interdisciplinary contexts (Osbeck, 2020), the authors draw on feminist theory, philosophy, historiography, political science, and psychoanalysis. Clearly a psychological perspective alone would be insufficient to answer these questions.…”

“…The four articles also demonstrate that analyses of the status of women, gender, and sexism remain relevant to an understanding of how society as well as science and the discipline of psychology operate, and of how power permeates the minds and actions of persons and is enacted in particular contexts. Women can be the “object” of research (Osbeck, 2020), and gender can be a category that constitutes research (Febbraro, 2020; Rutherford, 2020) or a political interest that is expressed in social life (Cosgrove & Vaswani, 2020). Certainly—as the articles instantiate—gendered reality has become more complex since the 1970s.…”

“…As Febbraro (2020) and Rutherford (2020) point out in their articles, one concept that has challenged and complicated the topic of gender (in science) is intersectionality . The two authors have a progressive understanding in mind when they point out that gender oppression is compounded or eased when combined with other social characteristics.…”

“…There is a long history of this movement in politics, academia, and research that has led to many qualifications, differentiations, and diversifications in theory and practice as well as a backlash intended to turn back its achievements. The four articles in this issue attest to the varieties of theorizing women, from grounding lives in the consequences of laws and policies (Cosgrove & Vaswani, 2020) and academia (Febbraro, 2020; Rutherford, 2020), to analyses about the possibility of gendered interdisciplinary research. Any antifeminist backlash itself can be analyzed within feminist theory and the psychological humanities, as reflected in the target articles.…”