2.4: Feminist Empiricism

Until relatively recently the dominant viewpoint was that scientific endeavors are best suited for the male viewpoint. In fact, science was generally considered to be an inherently masculine venture, and that women were not capable of being rational, neutral, and objective, the necessary attributes of being a good scientist (McNeal 1994). Unfortunately, gender discrimination in science is still a common problem (Casad et al. 2021; Schwerter and Ilg 2021; Stewart-Williams and Halsey 2021; Bird and Rhoton 2021).

The twentieth century did show some advancement with influential women in science, but the progress has been slow even in the best circumstances. Marie Curie, an early researcher into radiation, won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1903 and the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1911 (see Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\)). She is the only person to win the Nobel prize twice in two different fields and was the first woman awarded the prize. The prizes were recognition for her work in isolating radium and polonium, two unknown elements at the time. At first the committee had intended to only honor her husband and another scientist, but after complaints from committee members and her husband, Marie's name was added to the nomination. Even with these achievements the French Academy of Sciences failed to elect her as a member in 1911. By 2012 only 43 women had been awarded Nobel prizes out of 862 awards (Van de Sande and Byvelds 2015).

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): Marie Curie (1867–1934) was a physicist and chemist who conducted pioneering research on radioactivity (public domain image).

The discovery in 1953 of the double helix structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) by James Watson and Francis Crick has been heralded on one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science and gave rise to modern molecular biology. This discovery, and the medical advances that have followed, have fundamentally changed the modern world. In 1968 Watson published their account of the discovery in their book The Double Helix. The publication of the book was not without controversy, as Crick was unhappy with his portrayal in the book. This was not the only controversy, however. Another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, is given scant acknowledgement in the book, even though she provided crucial evidence on the structure (Klug 1968). This lack of acknowledgement is often attributed to attitudes about gender in science that were common at the time.

While scientific inquiry is intended to gain knowledge without bias, gender identity can have a fundamental effect on how the scientific method is applied in practice. Feminist empiricism shares many characteristics with empiricism, in that it is an epistemology that values knowledge based on experience. However, in the feminist approach the experience is based on a female perspective. This is a recognition of the interaction of evidence and objectivity with moral and political values. The researcher is not an isolated individual but is part of a political community. Feminist empiricists use what is known as a naturalist epistemology, an approach to empiricism that encourages disruption, multiple approaches to the evaluation of knowledge, and radicalism (Hundleby 2011).

Traditional epistemology relies on individualism and the idea that to achieve true knowledge one must free themselves from the influences of society. That is, knowledge can only be obtained by a separate individual who rejects the notion that social factors have a role in the production of knowledge. Feminist empiricism, however, is based on the belief that social factors are not only relevant to, but are also important to knowledge (Letherby 2003; Nelson 2010). Indeed, feminist epistemologists believe that detachment from the subject matter to be a neutral observer is neither possible nor desirable. It is held in this empirical philosophy that emotions are important to and can enrich an investigation (Letherby 2003). Those using the traditional empirical method assume that they are neutral and objective. Hence, they cannot acknowledge the social factors that can influence their research (Van de Sande and Byvelds 2015).

To eliminate the bias associated with the sexism in science, it has been suggested that the context of discovery bears as much importance as the context of justification. The context of discovery corresponds to such things as the research hypothesis, theoretical framework, and the method of analysis used in the experiment. The context of justification refers to what evidence is used to assess a theory.

Helen Longino developed what is known as conceptualized feminist empiricism. Longino was frustrated by the fact that the traditional philosophy of science does not acknowledge the relationship between social values and scientific inquiry (Longino 1990). Acknowledging and reconciling social values with the objectivity of science, Longino suggests that background beliefs are biased and that better background beliefs, based on a community that includes feminist voices, will produce better scientific investigation. This transformation is based on a philosophy of science that includes communities of individuals working together on scientific inquiry and that in the end the community has the final say on scientific evidence. This is based on the idea that knowledge can be secured through social interaction (Longino 2018). This philosophy is ultimately empirical and parsimonious in nature in that Longino believes that knowledge is obtained through scientific investigation, and that scientific philosophy should also rely on criteria such as truth, accuracy, simplicity, and predictability.

Lynn Hankinson-Nelson developed a similar scientific philosophy known as naturalized feminist empiricism. Naturalized feminist empiricism starts with the basic principles of empiricism with the view that science must be understood within its political, social, and cultural context. However, this philosophy goes even further; there is a belief that the theoretical framework from which hypotheses are formulated is important and dependent on the social context. That is, the same observations can result in different conclusions depending on the social context of the underlying theory. Inherent in this idea is that observation is shaped by history and culture, and this should be accounted for in scientific investigations (Nelson 2010).

Sandra Harding developed a system of feminist philosophy that essentially proposes that science will only achieve its goals if gender plays an essential role. Indeed, her development goes beyond gender, advocating for a multicultural approach to science. This is based on the idea that those with different gender identities have differing relationships to the world around them and that science can become distorted by the linked meanings of objectivity and gender (Harding 1994; Harding 1998). The implementation of this philosophy is based on the development of strong objectivity, which removes the distortion and bias in science by ensuring a multicultural community of scientists.

The feminist perspective on empiricism is controversial and is not widely accepted outside the human and social sciences (Curd et al. 2014). Some modern philosophers argue that there is no evidence of bias in the standard approach to empiricism and that the necessity for a systematic change in the scientific method has not been substantially proven. Some of these arguments are circular and biased in themselves, sort of saying that it seems like science works so science must work. Of course, the bias is that we may not know if science can be better without acknowledging some of the issues raised in this section. It seems there can be little risk in inviting a diverse community of scientists to work together within whatever scientific philosophy is the basis for scientific inquiry. Whether there will be a long-term shift in scientific inquiry is still very much up to debate.