Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Use of Innovation Arguments for Getting Gender Research into STEM

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender Studies and the New Academic Governance

Abstract

Recent international top-down initiatives invoke the integration of sex and gender into the governance of all fields of science and technology, from funding to research and development to publication policies, and to the assessment of the impact of scientific knowledge and technical products in society. But how can these initiatives be assessed relative to the call for a new governance of science and technology by inter-disciplinary research? The Gendered Innovations project is a main resource for these governmental actions. This article elaborates on contents and concepts of ‘gendered innovations’ in relation to the findings and scope of knowledge available from feminist science and technology studies. It contrasts the separation of sex and gender in this project with current changes in dialogue between feminist science and technology studies, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields that can guide transdisciplinary exchange and the acknowledgement of research for sex/gender interactions and intersectional categories. Finally, the strategic invocation of innovation is questioned and the article offers approaches to include feminist epistemologies and postcolonial perspectives in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

STEM stands for Science (including Biomedicine), Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ainsworth, Claire. 2015. Sex Redefined. Nature 518 (7539): 288−291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1978. The Life of the Mind. Part I Thinking. New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham, London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bath, Corinna. 2007. “Discover Gender” in Forschung und Technologieentwicklung? Soziale Technik 17 (4): 3−5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bührer, Susanne, and Martina Schraudner. 2006. Wie können Gender-Aspekte in Forschungsvorhaben erkannt und bewertet werden? Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buitendijk, Simone, and Katrien Maes. 2015. Gendered Research and Innovation: Integrating Sex and Gender Analysis into the Research Process. Leuven: LERU. http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/advice-papers/. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, Larry. 2014. Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain. Cerebrum, 1 April 2014. eCollection. http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_%E2%89%A0_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/. Accessed: December 12, 2016.

  • Cahill, Larry. Ed. 2017. An Issue Whose Time Has Come: Sex/Gender Influences on Nervous System Function. Special Issue. Journal of Neuroscience Research 95 (1–2): 1–791. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23934. Accessed: December 12, 2016.

  • Clayton, Janine A., and Francis S. Collins. 2014. NIH to Balance Sex in Cell and Animal Studies. Nature 509 (7500): 282−282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cregan, Kate. 2006. The Sociology of the Body. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhawan, Nikita. 2014. Affirmative Sabotage of the Master’s Tools: The Paradox of Postcolonial Enlightenment. In Decolonizing Enlightenment, ed. by Nikita Dhawan, 19−78. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolphijn, Rick, and Iris van der Tuin. 2012. New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies. Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2009. Toolkit. Gender in EU-funded Research. Brussels: European Commission. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/toolkit-gender-in-eu-funded-researchpbKINA24840/. Accessed: December 12, 2016.

  • European Commission. 2013. Gendered Innovations. How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research. Brussels: European Commission. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/2012.4808_Gendered%20Innovations_web2.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • European Union. 2015. European Research Area (ERA) Roadmap 2015–2020. Brussels: European Union/European Research Area and Innovation Committee. https://era.gv.at/object/document/1845. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the Body. Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2003. The Problem with Sex/Gender and Nature/Nurture. In Debating Biology: Sociological Reflections on Health, Medicine and Society, ed. by Simon J. Williams, Lynda Birke and Gillian A. Bendelow, 123–132. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, Cordelia, Daphna Joel, Rebecca Jordan-Young, Anelis Kaiser and Gina Rippon. 2014. Why Males ≠ Corvettes, Females ≠ Volvos, and Scientific Criticism ≠ Ideology: A Response to “Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain”. Cerebrum, 15 December 2014. eCollection. http://dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Reaction_to_%E2%80%9CEqual_%E2%89%A0_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain%E2%80%9D/#. Accessed: December 12, 2016.

  • Gender-Net. 2013. Promoting Gender Equality in Research Institutions and Integration of the Gender Dimension in Research Contents. http://www.gender-net.eu. Accessed: December 12, 2016.

  • Hackett, Edward J., Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch and Judy Wajcman. 2007. The Handbook of Science Technology Studies. 3rd Edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575−599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Sandra. Ed. 2011. The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hark, Sabine. 1998. Disziplinäre Quergänge. (Un)Möglichkeiten transdisziplinärer Frauenund Geschlechterforschung. Potsdamer Studien zur Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung 2 (2): 7−22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joel, Daphna, Zohar Berman, Ido Tavoc, Nadav Wexle, Olga Gabe, Yaniv Stein, Nisan Shefi, Jared Poole, Sebastian Urchse, Daniel S. Margulies, Franziskus Lieme, Jürgen Hänggi, Lutz Jäncke and Yaniv Assa. 2015. Sex Beyond the Genitalia: The Human Brain Mosaic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (50): doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509654112.

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1995. Origin, History, and Politics of the Subject Called “Gender and Science” – A First Person Account. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch, 80−94. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinge, Ineke, and Mineke Bosch. 2005. Transforming Research Methodologies in EU Life Sciences and Biomedicine. Gender-Sensitive Ways of Doing Research. State of the Art. European Journal of Women’s Studies 12 (3): 377−395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinge, Ineke, and Claudia Wiesemann. Eds. 2010. Sex and Gender in Biomedicine: Theories, Methodologies, Results. Göttingen: University Press Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, Gudrun-Axeli. 1998. Beziehungssinn und Unterscheidungsvermögen. Potsdamer Studien zur Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung 2 (2): 42−53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, Nancy. 2012. Methods for the Scientific Study of Discrimination and Health: From Societal Injustice to Embodied Inequality – An Ecosocial Approach. American Journal of Public Health 102 (5): 936−945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • League of European Research Universities (n.d.). http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/about-leru. Accessed: December 08, 2016.

  • Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorde, Audre. 1984. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches, by Audre Lorde, 110−113. New York: Crossing Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, Catherine. 2005. New Modes of Governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Margaret M., Arthur P. Arnold, Gregory F. Ball, Jeffrey D. Blaustein and Geert J. De Vries. 2012. Sex Differences in the Brain: The Not So Inconvenient Truth. Journal of Neuroscience 32 (7): 2241−2247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature. Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, Frank, Diana MacCullum, Abid Mehmood and Abdelillah Hamdouch. Eds. 2013. The International Handbook on Social Innovation. Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature. 2015. Why Interdisciplinary Research Matters. Scientists Must Work Together to Save the World. Special Issue. Nature 525 (7569): 289−418. http://www.nature.com/news/why-interdisciplinary-research-matters-1.18370. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • NeuroGenderings. 2014. The NeuroGenderings Network. https://neurogenderings.wordpress.com/. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2016. Sex and Gender. How Being Male or Female Can Affect Your Health. NIH News in Health. Online May 2016. https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/may2016/feature1. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • Picard, Mary, and Sarah Gillingham. 2012. WEIMI. Women’s Empowerment Impact Measurement Initiative Guidance. http://gendertoolkit.care.org/weimi/introduction.aspx. Accessed: December 12, 2016.

  • Prager, Eric M. 2017. Addressing Sex as a Biological Variable. Journal of Neuroscience Research 95 (1): 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippon, Gina, Rebecca Jordan-Young, Anelis Kaiser and Cordelia Fine. 2014. Recommendations for Sex/Gender Neuroimaging Research: Key Principles and Implications for Research Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00650.

  • Rothbard, Murray N. 2015 [1959]. Science, Technology, and Government. Auburn/Alabama: Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, Londa. 1989. The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, Londa. Ed. 2014. Women and Gender in Science and Technology. Vol. I–IV. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, Londa, Ineke Klinge, Hye-Young Paik, Ines Sánchez de Madariaga, Martina Schraudner and Marcia Stefanick. Eds. 2016a. Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment. https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

  • Schiebinger, Londa, Seth S. Leopold and Virginia M. Miller. 2016b. Editorial Policies for Sex and Gender Analysis. The Lancet 388 (10062): 2841–2842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, Sigrid. 2016. Science. In Gender: Sources, Perspectives, and Methodologies, ed. by Renée C. Hoogland, 347−362. Farmington Hills: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, Sigrid. 2017. Die Un/Verfügbarkeit von BrainBodies-in-TechnoCultures: Feministisch materialistische Auseinandersetzungen mit Brain-Computer-Interfaces. In Verantwortung und Un/Verfügbarkeit. Impulse und Zugänge eines (neo)materialistischen Feminismus, ed. by Corinna Bath, Hanna Meißner, Stephan Trinkaus and Susanne Völker, 207−223. Münster: Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, Sigrid, and Nina Degele. 2010. Embodying – ein dynamischer Ansatz für Körper und Geschlecht in Bewegung. In Gendered Bodies in Motion, ed. by Nina Degele, Sigrid Schmitz, Marion Mangelsdorf and Elke Gramespacher, 13–36. Leverkusen: Budrich UniPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, Sigrid, and Grit Höppner. 2014. Feminist Neuroscience: A Critical Review of Contemporary Brain Research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00546.

  • Singh, Sarah, and Ineke Klinge. 2015. Mining for Method. A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Methodological Contributions of Feminist Science Scholars for Biomedicine and Public Health Research. Freiburger Zeitschrift für GeschlechterStudien 21 (2): 15−31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, Gayatri Chakraworty. 2012. An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wizemann, Thereza M., and Mary-Lou Pardue. Eds. 2001. Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter? Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences. Washington/DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemp, Elisabeth, Elke Gramespacher and Londa Schiebinger. 2015. Harnessing the Creative Power of Sex and Gender Analysis for Discovery and Innovation. Londa Schiebinger Meets Elisabeth Zemp and Elke Gramespacher. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechter-Studien 21 (2): 115−125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zentrum für Anthropologie und Gender Studies (ZAG). 2016. Vernetzung von Gender-Perspektiven in den Natur- und Technikwissenschaften. http://www.genderingmint.uni-freiburg.de/index.php. Accessed: September 17, 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Ruth Schmitz for fruitful discussions and for her English-language editorial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Germany

    Sigrid Schmitz

Authors
  1. Sigrid Schmitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrid Schmitz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ruhr-Universität Bochum , Bochum, Germany

    Heike Kahlert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmitz, S. (2018). On the Use of Innovation Arguments for Getting Gender Research into STEM. In: Kahlert, H. (eds) Gender Studies and the New Academic Governance. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19853-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19853-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-19852-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-19853-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation