The ‘liberal’ feminist perspective on science problematises the presence of fewer women than men in science and believes that increasing their number would qualify as social change. On the other hand, ‘radical’ critics of modern science argue that science has been deeply involved in the creation, strengthening and subversion of gender inequalities. The liberal strand is much more amenable to direct interventions and aligns well with current educational reforms. But the fundamental questions about science and science education that are raised by the radical strand not just evade agreement, but they also do not lead easily to direct educational implications. In this article, I show that an engagement with these perspectives offers us a chance to reflect on our society, on the place of science in it, and on the role of science education in mediating between science and society. This reflection further encourages us to rethink and reorganise science and science education so that they are more mindful of the gender and other kinds of power dynamics in our society.
AchuthanA. (2017). Feminism and science: Present-day notes for a feminist standpoint epistemology. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 147–174). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
2.
BakerP.ShulmanB.TobinE. (2001). Difficult crossings: Stories from building two-way streets. In MayberryM.SubramaniamB.WeaselL. H. (Eds.), Feminist science studies: A new generation (1st ed., pp. 157–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BalV. (2005). Women scientists in India: Nowhere near the glass ceiling. Current Science, 88(6), 872–878.
4.
BansalD. (2018). Teaching feminist appraisals of history, philosophy, and content of science. In LadageS.NarvekarS. (Eds.), epiSTEME 7: International Conference to review research on science, technology and mathematics education: Proceedings (pp. 1–8). Goa: CinnamonTeal Publishing.
5.
BartschI. (Reviewer) (1999). Sandra Harding. Is science multicultural? Post-colonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies [Review of the book]. In Hypatia, 14(1), 132–135.
6.
BrickhouseN. W. (1998). Feminism(s) and science education. In FraserB. J.TobinK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part Two (1st ed., pp. 1067–1081). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7.
BrotmanJ. S.MooreF. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.
8.
BugA. (2003). Has feminism changed physics?Signs, 28(3), 881–899.
9.
CarloneH. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.
10.
ChadhaG.KrishnaS.TripathiU. (2017). ‘Blue flower mentoring’: Interview with Vidita Vaidya. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 72–92). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
FehrC. (2004). Feminism and science: Mechanism without reductionism. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 136–156.
13.
GilesW.LeachP.McGinnisJ. R.TippinsD. J. (2002). Gender. In WallaceJ.LoudenW. (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 59–72). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
14.
GopalM. (2017). Traditional knowledge and feminist dilemmas: Experience of the midwives of the barber caste in south Tamil Nadu. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 23–45). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
15.
GuptaN.SharmaA. K. (2002). Women academic scientists in India. Social Studies of Science, 32(5–6), 901–915.
16.
GuptaN.KemelgorC.FuchsS.EtzkowitzH. (2005). Triple burden on women in science: A cross-cultural analysis. Current Science, 89(8), 1382–1385.
17.
HammondsE.SubramaniamB. (2003). A conversation on feminist science studies. Signs, 28(3), 923–944.
18.
HarawayD. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
HardingS. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
20.
HardingS. (1989). How the women’s movement benefits science: Two views. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(3), 271–283.
21.
HardingS. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
KelkarM. (2017). Journeying through an ‘alien terrain’: Feminist research methodology and local knowledge on soil management. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 46–71). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
23.
KellerE. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
KinsmanS. (2001). Life, sex, and cells. In MayberryM.SubramaniamB.WeaselL. H. (Eds.), Feminist science studies: A new generation (1st ed., pp. 193–203). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
KoertgeN. (1980). Methodology, ideology and feminist critiques of science. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 2, pp. 346–359). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.
26.
KohlstedtS. G.LonginoH. (1997). The women, gender, and science question: What do research on women in science and research on gender and science have to do with each other?Osiris, 12, 3–15.
27.
KrishnaS. (2017). Introduction: Understanding gender and science in India: Institutions and beyond. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. xi–xxxii). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
28.
KulkarniS. (2015). Women water professionals in the Maharashtra water bureaucracy. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 153–184). Kolkata: Stree.
29.
KurupA. (2017). Gender, science and technology education in India. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 278–298). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
30.
LonginoH. E. (1987). Can there be a feminist science?Hypatia, 2(3), 51–64.
31.
LonginoH. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32.
MahadevanK. (2017). Contextual empiricism and local community: Postcolonial reflections on Longino. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1–22). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
33.
MartinE. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. Signs, 16(3), 485–501.
34.
MatthewsM. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London, UK: Routledge.
35.
MayberryM. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 443–459.
36.
MayberryM.ReesM. N. (1997). Feminist pedagogy, interdisciplinary praxis, and science education. NWSA Journal, 9(1), 57–75.
37.
MenardH. W. (1971). Science: Growth and change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
OsborneJ.SimonS.CollinsS. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
40.
PyciorH. M. (1993). Reaping the benefits of collaboration while avoiding its pitfalls: Marie Curie’s rise to scientific prominence. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 301–323.
41.
RamdasS. R. (2015). Women, livestock and rural livelihoods: Challenges for veterinary scientists. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 185–210). Kolkata: Stree.
42.
RaoS. (2017). Learning to belong as an Indian physicist. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(17), 45–51.
43.
RaveendranA.ChunawalaS. (2015). Reproducing values: A feminist critique of a higher secondary biology textbook chapter on reproductive health. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 22(2), 194–218.
44.
RavindranK. S. (2015). Integrating gender into the curricula of health professionals: Experiences and reflections. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 235–256). Kolkata: Stree.
SchiebingerL. (1991). The mind has no sex? Women in the origins of modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
SchiebingerL. (1993). Nature’s body: Gender in the making of modern science. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
48.
SchiebingerL. (2003). Feminism inside the sciences: Introduction. Signs, 28(3), 859–866.
49.
ShahC.ChadhaG. (2011). Teaching feminist science studies in India: An experiment. In ChunawalaS.KharatmalM. (Eds.), epiSTEME 4: International conference to review research on science, technology, and mathematics education, Mumbai, India, January 5–9, 2011: Proceedings (pp. 69–74). New Delhi: Macmillan.
50.
ShahC.VellankiV. (2015). Feminism and science: Teaching and learning ‘science in the making’. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 12(1), 126–133.
51.
ShivaV. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women.
52.
SubrahmanyanL. (1998). Women scientists in the third world: The Indian experience. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
53.
SubramaniamB. (2009). Moored metamorphoses: A retrospective essay on feminist science studies. Signs, 34(4), 951–980.
54.
SubramanianJ. (2017). Mathematics to mathematics education: A telling trajectory. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(17), 52–60.
55.
SwaminathanM. (2015). Bridging the gap between natural sciences and gender studies: Notes on a pedagogical experiment. In KrishnaS.ChadhaG. (Eds.), Feminists and science: Critiques and changing perspectives in India (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 211–234). Kolkata: Stree.
56.
WylieA.OkruhlikK.Thielen-WilsonL.MortonS. (1989). Feminist critiques of science: The epistemological and methodological literature. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(3), 379–388.
