Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Commonly-cited criteria for the assessment of hypotheses, research projects, and theories include empirical adequacy, simplicity, conservatism, explanatory power, generality of scope, fecundity, reproducibility, and interconnectedness with other going theories. The list of criteria for good scientific practice typically includes objectivity (though what objectivity comes to is much disputed), respect for evidence, open mindedness, and tentativeness. Feminist scientists and science scholars have of late proposed additional and, in some cases, alternative criteria (e.g., Biology and Gender Study Group 1989, Bleier 1984, Fausto-Sterling 1985, Haraway 1978, Keller 1983 and 1985, Longino 1994, and Nelson 1990). We here consider the nature and rationale of some of these proposed criteria, focusing on several articulated by Helen Longino. A research program in neuroendocrinology investigating a hormonal basis for alleged sex-differentiated lateralization and feminist critiques of this research serve as our case study.
We are grateful to Peter Machamer, Elizabeth Potter, Phyllis Rooney, and the audience at the symposium, “Feminist Perspectives on the Special Sciences”, for instructive criticisms of an earlier version of this paper.