Feminist glaciology, gender studies & postmodernism
March 21, 2016 9:29 AM Subscribe
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research is an article co-authored by Mark Carey. “Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change,” Carey wrote. “However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers … remain understudied.” The paper adds, “Most existing glaciological research — and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change — stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses.”
Critics of the paper suggest that the paper is anti-science and displays confirmation bias. They accuse it of having obscurantist, ideology-packed prose which doesn't add to our knowledge. Some compared it to famous Sokal's hoax.
A statement from the University of Oregon released last month said Carey’s aide, Jaclyn Rushing, “found that women’s voices are rarely heard in glacier-related research, a finding that triggered a larger project and led to a paper now online ahead of print by the journal Progress in Human Geography.”
In an interview, Carey said that he "chose the title "feminist glaciology" to provoke discussion about who is producing knowledge about glaciers and what the implications of that existing knowledge are, including whose voices are left out and what types of scientific questions are asked (and which ones might thus be ignored)."
The lead author of the paper, Carey, has written a history of science book on glaciers that appears to be well respected. The book doesn't rely on a feminist framework.
Carey has won an NSF CAREER grant for his work on glaciers. He has received a total of $709,125 in grants from the NSF, according to his curriculum vitae. Fox called the study “widely-ridiculed” and noted that it “cost taxpayers a big chunk of cash.”
Critics of the paper suggest that the paper is anti-science and displays confirmation bias. They accuse it of having obscurantist, ideology-packed prose which doesn't add to our knowledge. Some compared it to famous Sokal's hoax.
A statement from the University of Oregon released last month said Carey’s aide, Jaclyn Rushing, “found that women’s voices are rarely heard in glacier-related research, a finding that triggered a larger project and led to a paper now online ahead of print by the journal Progress in Human Geography.”
In an interview, Carey said that he "chose the title "feminist glaciology" to provoke discussion about who is producing knowledge about glaciers and what the implications of that existing knowledge are, including whose voices are left out and what types of scientific questions are asked (and which ones might thus be ignored)."
The lead author of the paper, Carey, has written a history of science book on glaciers that appears to be well respected. The book doesn't rely on a feminist framework.
Carey has won an NSF CAREER grant for his work on glaciers. He has received a total of $709,125 in grants from the NSF, according to his curriculum vitae. Fox called the study “widely-ridiculed” and noted that it “cost taxpayers a big chunk of cash.”
This post was deleted for the following reason: Heya, looks like the main link here is indeed behind an academic paywall, which unfortunately makes the post kind of a moot point if it's substantially *about* that article and reactions to it. -- cortex
I just quickly read through the full paper, and it seemed good and interesting, though not as deft with the application of feminist or post-colonial scholarship as one might find elsewhere (but that's not a failing of the quality of the application, if that makes sense). It's a theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary paper that critically analyses the social contexts of the production of knowledge, representation, and claims to authority in glaciology. It's not my field at all but the critiques strike me as empirically important in part because the natural sciences have been, obviously, and continue to be applied to military, commercial and state-oriented endeavors with inherent normative positions. As climate change progresses, it will only become more important to keep in mind that ecological discourses are political.
posted by clockzero at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2016
posted by clockzero at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2016
The "critic" here is Jerry Coyne, and listening to him opining abut anything related to the humanities is about as good an idea as asking Sam Harris for his opinions on Islam or racial profiling.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is the main article available to read? It seems paywalled for me, and I think a post where the article isn't available but the article ridiculing it is, isn't going to lead to a very good discussion.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:56 AM on March 21, 2016
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:56 AM on March 21, 2016
I’m so familiar with arguments like these regarding studies of history, race, gender, and sexuality that applying it to ice reads at first as a joke. But, of course, study of absolutely anything is going to be vulnerable to biases. I just wish I could tell what the paper is saying dominant glaciology has actually been getting wrong.
posted by little onion at 9:58 AM on March 21, 2016
posted by little onion at 9:58 AM on March 21, 2016
Bulgaroktonos: "Is the main article available to read? It seems paywalled for me, and I think a post where the article isn't available but the article ridiculing it is, isn't going to lead to a very good discussion."I was able to access it perfectly fine, but for anyone for whom something weird is going on, please feel free to memail me with an email address I can send a PDF of the article to and a promise to not distribute that PDF further. This goes for other research as well, just be sure to include a link to the abstract.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:58 AM on March 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Kraft changes their mac and cheese; doesn't tell... | Grieving the white void Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The paper's use of feminist theories are a bit clunky and awkward, but as a working researcher, I can tell you that the epistemology and history of science are in fact really fucking useful to us and worthwhile to fund.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:48 AM on March 21, 2016 [11 favorites]