Advertisement

Feminist Theories Informing Mathematical Practice

  • Linda McGuireEmail author
Living reference work entry
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter will examine how key themes and questions from feminist theory can inform and enhance a deeper understanding of mathematics and its practices. A critical examination of ideas sourced in Women and Gender Studies reveals sites of connection between the human history of mathematical thinking and well-known frameworks from feminist theory created to provide structures for analyzing complicated social issues. How can these interdisciplinary intersections be explored and understood? Can they help provide the support needed to codify initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM disciplines, in general, and mathematics, in particular?

The opening section serves to provide background and context for this line of inquiry, especially as linked to continuing efforts by educational institutions to pose and address questions of inclusion within the discipline of mathematics, specifically, and STEM, more broadly. Subsequent portions of the chapter will identify, survey, and discuss specific connections between feminist theory and the study of mathematics. These explorations suggest ways to consider the climate in which mathematics is done and its relation to identity, authority, power, and the body in society.

Themes considered include, but are not limited to, the implications and ramifications of gender essentialism, the influence of science and technology studies, how power moves through academic structures, how gender influences the identification and prioritization of “truths,” and representation and performance as modes for analyzing history and practice.

Keywords

Feminist theory Pedagogy Gender Inclusion Situated knowledge Science/technology studies 

References

  1. Acker J (2006) Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gend Soc 20(4):441–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alker S, Davidson R (2012) Smart girls: the uncanny daughters of arcadia and proof. In: Sklar JK, Sklar E (eds) Mathematics in popular culture: essays on appearances in film, fiction, games, television and other media, McFarland and company, Jefferson, pp 172–186Google Scholar
  3. American Association of University Women (AAUW) (2010) Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. https://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
  4. American Association of University Women (AAUW) (2015) Solving the equation: the variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. https://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
  5. Aronowitz S (1988) Science as power: discourse and ideology in modern society. University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttv7tb. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  6. Artiles A, Kozleski EB, Dorn S, Christensen C (2006) Learning in inclusive education research: re-mediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda. Rev Res Educ 30:65–108. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001065. Accessed 1 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM) (2019). https://awm-math.org/about/history/. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
  8. Bannier B (2017) Women learning mathematics: a qualitative study. J Adv Educ Res 2(1):19–26MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Bart M (ed) (2016) Diversity and inclusion in the college classroom. Faculty Focus. Magna Publications, Madison, Wisconsin. http://www.facultyfocus.com/free-reports/diversity-and-inclusion-in-the-college-classroom/. Accessed 5 Aug 2019
  10. Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, Tarule JM (1986) Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell LA (2010) Storytelling for social justice: connecting narrative and the arts in antiracist teaching. Routledge/Taylor & Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blackburn H (2017) The status of women in stem in higher education: a review of the literature 2007–2017. Sci Technol Libr 36(3):235–273. RoutledgeMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boaler J (2008) Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed ability approach. Br Educ Res J 34(2):167–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boaler J (2018) Changing mathematical relationships and mindsets: how all students can succeed in mathematics learning. Presentation: Project NExT Lecture on Teaching and Learning, Joint Meetings of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, January 2018Google Scholar
  15. Boaler J, Staples M (2008) Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: the case of Railside school. Teach Coll Rec 110(3):608–645Google Scholar
  16. Borrego M, Henderson C (2014) Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: a comparison of eight change strategies. J Eng Educ 103(2):220–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Braidotti R (2002) Metamorphoses: towards a materialist theory of becoming. Polity Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Butler J (1988) Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatr J 40:519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Claro S, Dweck CS, Paunesku D (2016) Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(31):8664–8668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clauset A, Arbesman S, Larremore D (2015) Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Sci Adv 1(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cornwall J, Graham-Matheson (eds) (2012) Leading on inclusion: Dilemmas, debates and new perspectives. Routledge/Taylor and Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. DaCosta C (2017) Feministing films: hidden figures. http://feministing.com/2017/01/30/feministing-films-hidden-figures/. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  23. Damarin S (2008) Toward thinking feminism and mathematics together. Signs J Women Cult Soc 34(1):101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dasgupta N, Stout J (2014) Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci 1(1):21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471. Accessed 25 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Derr H (2016) Feminist theatre: what does it do and how does it do it?, Hollywood Theatre Commons, September 14, 2016Google Scholar
  26. Dweck CS (2012) Mindsets and human nature: promoting change in the Middle East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. Am Psychol 67:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dzubinski LM, Diehl A (2018) The problem of gender essentialism and its implications for women in leadership. J Leadersh Stud 12(1):56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eagly AH, Wood W (2011) Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles 64L:758–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elrod S, Kezar A (2016) Increasing student success in STEM: a guide to systematic institutional change. American Association of Colleges and Universities, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Fennema E, Carpenter TP, Jacobs VR, Franke ML, Levi LW (1998) A longitudinal study of gender differences in young children’s mathematical thinking. Educ Res 27(5):6–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027005006. Accessed 1 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Figueiras L, Healy L, Skovsmose O (2016) Difference, inclusion and mathematics education: launching a research agenda. https://doi.org/10.17921/2176-5634.2016v9n3p15-35. Accessed 5 Aug 2019
  32. Flaherty, C (2017) Hidden figures: women’s studies meets mathematics in a new book arguing for a more inclusive cultural notion of numeracy, Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/01/womens-studies-meets-math-new-book-arguing-more-inclusive-cultural-approach-numeracy#.XTynb-HkVVQ.link. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  33. Fouad NA, Chang WH, Wan M, Singh R (2017) Women’s reasons for leaving the engineering field. Front Psychol 8(875). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00875
  34. Fox Keller E (1992) Secrets of life secrets of death: essays on language, gender and science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Fox Keller E, Longino H (eds) (1996) Feminism and science. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Foyn T, Solomon Y, Braathe HJ (2018) Clever girls’ stories: the girl they call a nerd. Educ Stud Math 98(1):77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilbert S, Rader K (2001) Revisiting women, gender, and feminism in developmental biology. In: Creager A, Lunbeck E, Schiebinger L (eds) Feminism in twentieth-century science, technology and medicine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 73–97Google Scholar
  38. Greenwald SJ, Leggett AM, Thomley JE (2015) The association for women in mathematics: how and why it was founded, and why it’s still needed in the 21st century. Math Intell 37(3):11–21MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gupta N (2015) Rethinking the relationship between gender and technology: a study of the Indian example. Work Employ Soc 29(4):661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gutiérrez R (2002) Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: towards a new equity research agenda. Math Think Learn 4(2&3):145–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gutiérrez R (2017) Why mathematics (education) was late to the backlash party: the need for a revolution. J Urban Math Educ 10(2):8–24Google Scholar
  42. Gutiérrez R (2019) Presentation: What’s at stake in rehumanizing mathematics? MAA James R. C. Leitzel lecture, Mathematical Association of America MathFest, Aug 2019Google Scholar
  43. Hall W, Schmader T, Aday A, Inness M, Croft E (2018) Climate control: the relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. J Pers Soc Psychol 115(3):446–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hannum K, Muhly S, Shockley-Zalabak P, White J (2014) Stories from the summit trail: leadership journeys of senior women in higher education. Higher Education Resource Services (HERS), Denver. http://hersnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/StoriesfromtheSummitTrail.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2019
  45. Haraway D (1978a) Animal sociology and a natural economy of the body politic, part 1: a political physiology of dominance. Signs 4:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Haraway D (1978b) Animal sociology and a natural economy of the body politic, part II: the past is the contested zone: human nature and theories of production and reproduction in primate behavior studies. Signs 4:37–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14:575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heinrich A, Lawrence E, Pons M, Taylor D (eds) (2019) Living proof: stories of resilience along the mathematical journey. AMS/MAA: https://www.maa.org/press/ebooks/living-proof-stories-of-resilience-along-the-mathematical-journey-2. Accessed 7 Aug 2019
  49. Hersh R (1991) Mathematics has a front and a back. Synthese 88:127. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00567741. Accessed 3 Aug 2019MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Hersh R (2013) What do we do when we do mathematics? American Mathematical Society, ProvidencezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Hill Collins P (1986) Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of black feminist thought. Soc Probl 33(6):14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hill Collins P, Bilge S (2016) Intersectionality. Polity Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Hottinger SN (2016) Inventing the mathematician: gender, race and our cultural understanding of mathematics. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  54. Hu J (2016) Why are there so few women mathematicians? The Atlantic, November 4, 2016Google Scholar
  55. Hyde JS, Mertz JE (2009) Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(22):8801–8807. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901265106. Accessed 3 Aug 2019zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jacobs JE (2010) Feminist pedagogy and mathematics. In: Sriraman B, English L (eds) Theories of mathematics education. Advances in mathematics education. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  57. Jimenez M, Laverty T, Bombaci S, Wilkins K, Bennet D, Pejchar L (2019) Underrepresented faculty play a disproportionate role in advancing diversity and inclusion. Nat Ecol Evol 3:1030–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jones K, Ante A, Longman K, Remke R (eds) (2018) Perspectives on women’s higher education leadership from around the world, MDPI, Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  59. Kelkar S (2019) Post-truth and the search for objectivity: Political polarization and the remaking of knowledge production. Engaging Sci Tech Soc 5:86–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Klarreich, E (2019) Karen Uhlenbeck, uniter of geometry and analysis, wins abel prize. Quanta. https://www.quantamagazine.org/karen-uhlenbeck-uniter-of-geometry-and-analysis-wins-abel-prize-20190319/. Accessed 4 Aug 2019
  61. Laursen SL, Rasmussen C (2019) I on the prize: inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics. Int J Res Undergrad Math Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6. Accessed 4 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leyva LA (2016) An intersectional analysis of Latin@ college women’s counter-stories in mathematics. J Urban Math Educ 9(2):81–121MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. Leyva LA (2017) Unpacking the male superiority myth and masculinization of mathematics at the intersections: a review of research on gender in mathematics education. J Res Math Educ 48(4):397–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Loury L, Garman D (1993) Affirmative action in higher education. Am Econ Rev 83(2):99–103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117647. Accessed 3 Aug 2019Google Scholar
  65. Luttenberger S, Wimmer S, Paechter M (2018) Spotlight on math anxiety. Psychol Res Behav Manag 11:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Marino P (2005) Dialogue in mathematics: is it important? Math Sch 34(2):26–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30215787. Accessed 5 August 2019Google Scholar
  67. Martin DB (2013) Race, racial projects, and mathematics education. J Res Math Educ 44(1):316–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Martin DB, Gholson M, Leonard J (2011) Mathematics as gatekeeper: power and privilege in the production of knowledge. J Urban Math Educ 3(2):12–24Google Scholar
  69. National Science Board (2018). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  70. National Science Foundation (2017). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/data.cfm. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  71. National Science Foundation (2019). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest/field-of-degree-women. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  72. Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Sriram N, Lindner NM, Devos T, Ayala A, Greenwald AG (2009) National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(26):10593–10597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106. Accessed 3 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nye A (1990) Words of power: a feminist Reading of the history of logic. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Ong M, Wright C, Espinosa L, Orfield G (2011) Inside the double bind: a synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harv Educ Rev 81(2):172–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Oppland-Cordell S (2014) Urban Latina/o undergraduate students’ negotiations of identities and participation in an emerging scholars calculus I workshop. J Urban Math Educ 7(1):19–54Google Scholar
  76. Penner A, Willer R (2019) Men’s overpersistence and the gender gap in science and mathematics. Socius Sociol Res Dyn World 5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023118821836. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
  77. Plumwood V (1993) Feminism and the mastery of nature. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Pollack E (2013) Why are there still so few women in science? The New York Times, October 3, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
  79. Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2014) How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(12):4403–4408. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111. Accessed 5 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Richardson S (2008) When gender criticism becomes standard scientific practice: the case of sex determination genetics. In: Schiebinger L (ed) Gendered innovations in science and engineering. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp 22–42Google Scholar
  81. Richardson S (2010) Feminist philosophy of science: history, contributions, and challenges. Synthese 177(3):337–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Richardson S, Daniels C, Gillman M, Golden J, Kukla R, Kuzawa C, Rich-Edwards (2014) Society: Don't blame the mothers. Nature 512:131–132. Accessed 25 August 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rincón BE, George-Jackson CE (2016) Examining department climate for women in engineering: the role of STEM interventions. J Coll Stud Dev 57(6):742–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rodd M, Bartholomew H (2006) Invisible and special: young women’s experiences as undergraduate mathematics students. Gend Educ 18(1):35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500195093. Accessed 3 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roos H (2019) Inclusion in mathematics education: an ideology, a way of teaching, or both? Educ Stud Math 100:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9854-z. Accessed 1 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rothstein E (1997) The subjective underbelly of hardheaded math. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/20/books/the-subjective-underbelly-of-hardheaded-math.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  87. Saygin PO (2019) Gender bias in standardized tests: evidence from a centralized college admissions system. Empir Econ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01662-z. Accessed 5 Aug 2019
  88. Schafer C (2006) David Auburn’s proof: taming Cinderella. Am Drama 15(1):1–16Google Scholar
  89. Sismondo S (2010) An introduction to science and technology studies, vol 1. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  90. Sklar JK, Sklar ES (2012) Mathematics in popular culture: essays on appearances in film, fiction, games, television and other media. McFarland, JeffersonGoogle Scholar
  91. Smith, I (2017) Intersectional feminism triumphs in ‘hidden figures,’ Cherwell, March 2017. https://cherwell.org/2017/03/30/intersectional-feminism-triumphs-in-hidden-figures/. Accessed 5 Aug 2019
  92. Steele, C (2010) Whistling Vivaldi: and other clues to how stereotypes affect us. 1st ed. Issues of our time. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  93. Steiger K (2013) Family-friendly university policies don’t work as well as they should. The Atlantic, May 31, 2013Google Scholar
  94. Straehler-Pohl H, Fernández S, Gellert U, Figueiras L (2014) School mathematics registers in a context of low academic expectations. Educ Stud Math 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9503-5. Accessed 5 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Su F (2015) Mathematical microaggressions. President’s message, MAA Focus, October/November, 36–37Google Scholar
  96. Sue DW, Capodilupo C, Torino G, Bucceri JM, Holder A, Nadal KL, Esquilin M (2007) Racial microaggressions in everyday life: implications for clinical practice. Am Psychol 62(4):271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Topaz CM, Sen S (2016) Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS One 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161357. Accessed 5 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Treisman U (1992) Studying students studying Calculus: a look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. Coll Math J 23(5):362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tsui L (2007) Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: a review of the research literature. J Negro Educ 76(4):555–581Google Scholar
  100. Valente KG (2010) Giving wings to logic: Mary Everest Boole’s propagation and fulfilment of a legacy. Br J Hist Sci 43(1):49–74MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wajcman J (2009) Feminist theories of technology. Camb J Econ 34(1):143–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057. Accessed 3 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Walton GM, Logel C, Peach JM, Spencer SJ, Zanna MP (2015) Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. J Educ Psychol 107(2):468–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037461. Accessed 1 Aug 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yaftian N (2015) The outlook of mathematicians’ creative processes. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 191(2):2519–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Yong D, Levy R, Lape NK (2015) Why no difference? A controlled flipped classroom study for an introductory differential equations course. PRIMUS 25(9–10):907–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceMuhlenberg CollegeAllentownUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Ken Valente
    • 1
  1. 1.Colgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations