Sue V. Rosser

Teaching techniques to attract women to science: Applications of feminist theories and methodologies

Synopsis In order to increase the number of feminist scientists, we need more women in science. During the last decade, a growing body of research has explored possible factors which may deter young women from majoring in science, leading to a loss of increased employment opportunities and better paying careers for them and a valuable source of talent needed by our increasingly scientific and technological society. In this paper methods and approaches based on an examination of the ways in which feminists have suggested that women may approach science differently from men are explored to ascertain means to attract women to science. The likelihood that scientists are now more willing to entertain alternative, including feminist, approaches to teaching is increased by the predicted shortage of scientists in the 1990s.

Controversies in Breast Cancer Research

The cover article “Advances in Breast Cancer Research” of a recent Harvard Women’s Health Watch exemplifies why much of breast cancer research remains controversial. Although the article begins, “In the last few months, breast cancer research appears to have undergone a climatic shift,” its content becomes restricted to two drugs for prevention (tamoxifen and raloxifene) and two for treatment (paclitaxel and Herceptin) of the disease (Robb-Nicholson 1998a). By reporting on drugs with side effects, such as increased risk of uterine cancer and blood clots, and with relatively small effects in preventing and treating the disease in certain high risk groups, this article typifies the biomedical approach to illness that characterizes breast cancer research.

Are there feminist methodologies appropriate for the natural sciences and do they make a difference

Abstract Examination of the questions raised about feminist methodologies for the natural sciences reveals that answers are complex and dependent upon the feminist theory from which the methodology springs. The jumble of descriptors for feminist methodology — rejects dualisms, is based on womens experience, shortens the distance between observer and object of study, rejects unicausal, hierarchical approaches, unites application with problem — seem contradictory when portrayed as feminist methodology. They become much more understandable when viewed as a lumping together of possible methodological implications for science resulting from different feminist theories. Radical feminism, and particularly lesbian separatism, suggest strong reasons why we are not able to see the results of a feminist methodology. As long as oppression of women and patriarchy continue, it is unlikely that the effects of feminist methodologies derived from the feminist theories that challenge the status quo will be felt.

Good science: Can it ever be gender free?

Abstract A controversy has recently arisen in feminist circles: the idea that a feminist science can be developed is countered by the claim that good science is really gender neutral. Some feminists in science who have made critiques of traditional scientific approaches and theories in the area of animal behavior, the neurosciences, and endocrinology have suggested that “good” science is gender-free. This suggestion supports a false dichotomy between nature and nurture and implies that scientific theories and approaches are not affected by the values, beliefs, and biases of the scientist and society. Until our society is gender neutral (and neutral with respect to class, race, and sexual preference) it is impossible to assume that science is not affected by the gender, class, race, and sexual preference of the scientists and that it might not be necessary to develop a feminist science.

Women and ICT: global issues and actions

Integration of women as full partners and leaders in the development of ICT and inclusion of womens concerns in ICT design varies among countries and within different organizations and populations in a particular country. Women interact with ICT as members of the ICT workforce, as users of information technology, and as designers of ICT. Where a particular group may be with regard to each of these interactions and how ICT curriculum can facilitate these interactions may be understood by using a five stage model, including the following phases: 1) Absence of women from ICT not noted; 2) Women added on to existing ICT structures and designs; 3) Womens concerns and approaches seen as a problem, anomaly, or deviant from the norms of ICT; 4) Focus on women as workers, users, and designers in ICT; 5) Full inclusion of women in all aspects of ICT. The model can also be used to devise actions to move to the next stage of including women in ICT.

An overview of women's health in the U.S. since the mid-1960 s

Womens health became intertwined with the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. The process and history of the interactions among physicians, feminists, health care consumers, activists, and politicians have brought womens health into the foreground of health research and curricular agendas in several ways. It identified major gaps in research and practice and initiated a critique of the current health care system at all levels; it originated from, and remains connected with, the non-medical community; it is interdisciplinary and requires interdisciplinary teams for research and clinical practice, as well as collaboration with colleagues in non-medical academic fields; it developed new curriculum focused on womens health; it emphasizes race, class, sexual orientation, and other diversities among women. The continuing presence of activists and feminist scholars will insure that health and science include womens needs to provide better health for all.

Eco-feminism: Lessons for feminism from ecology

Abstract For almost two decades feminists have successfully used the lens of gender to critique the extent to which androcentric bias has distorted the theory and practice of science. More recently ecofeminists have extended this critique to ecology, recognizing male domination and exploitation of both women and the environment. In this paper I pose the question in the other direction, to explore what the science of ecology in its theories, methods, and practice might contribute to the critique of feminism. In their fusion as ecofiminism both theories can intertwine and complement to form a strong framework for praxis.

Possible Implications of Feminist Theories for the Study of Evolution

The past twenty-five years have witnessed unprecedented growth and fundamental theoretical changes in both feminism and the study of evolutionary biology. Fueled by the second wave of the feminist movement, the first academic women’s studies program was founded in 1970 at San Diego State University (National Women’s Studies Association, 1990). Since that time, over 621 similar programs (NWSA, 1990) have been established at colleges and universities throughout the United States, resulting in what the Chronicle of Higher Education described as one of the most influential phenomena in twentieth-century higher education (McMillen, 1987). Feminist scholars have elaborated a variety of theories useful for explaining data within specific disciplines and within the interdisciplinary field of women’s studies.

Building Two-Way Streets to Implement -Policies that Work for Gender and Science

In Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering, Londa Schiebinger (2008) gives a succinct and insightful analysis of three levels at which policies in federal agencies have impacted gender and science: (1) research support to increase the participation of women in science; (2) transformation of the structures of institutions to make them more accessible and friendly to women scientists; and (3) reconceptualization of research to include women and gender in its focus and analysis of results. She points out that most agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have done quite well at level 1, and that NIH and some of the international agencies, such as the European Union (EU) have begun to focus on level 3, with explicit policies requiring gender and sex differences in focus and analyses (Schiebinger, 2008). In contrast, NSF has done little with level 3, but has begun, particularly through its ADVANCE initiative to work on level 2. Building two-way streets that allow cross-talk and sharing of policies between NSF and NIH might permit each to learn from the other about policies that work for gender and science in the area in which each has done pioneering work. Here, I will provide a brief history of womens programs at NSF, which documents the shift in NSF policies over time from a focus on level 1 to level 2.

Twenty-Five Years of NWSA: Have We Built the Two-Way Streets Between Women's Studies and Women in Science and Technology?

A survey conducted in 1988 of the annual meetings of the National Womens Studies Association (NWSA) from 1979 to 1986 documented the percentage of individual papers and entire sessions in the conferences focused on science, technology, or health. The twenty-fifth anniversary of NWSA becomes an appropriate time to update these percentages and review the past, current, and future impacts of the two-way street of science and technology on NWSA and of NWSA on the broader scientific and technology communities. This review becomes especially timely since in 2001, for the first time in public and print, the presidents of the most prestigious research universities suggested that science and engineering might need to change to accommodate women. Because transformation of the academy signals the hallmark of Womens Studies, NWSA and womens studies faculty must play a critical role in the institutional changes required.