In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.970218172744.26660B-100000 at icarus.cc.uic.edu>,
"Veronica I. Arreola" <varreo1 at uic.edu> wrote:
>Let's get on to something bigger...
>>How do you all feel about grad students getting an empahsis in
>women's/feminist/gender studies that focused on women in science? Do you
>think that being knowledgable in our (aka women in science) history is
>important enough for women to be "certified" (lack of better word) in the
>>Many times we have discussed women in science courses, but who teaches
>these? Scientists who know little about feminist theory or women who know
>tons on feminist theory but know very little about how science and how it
>feels to be a women scienctist?
>There was a subject offered by the uni where I did my undergraduate degree
called "Women and Technology", or something like that. It was taught in the
History and Philosophy of Science Dept, by a woman with a PhD in History and
Philosophy of Science. So I guess you could say she had a mixture of
scientific and feminist knowledge. She also taught a course on Darwinism,
which I took, and there was a component of feminist teaching in that too, as
in my course on biotechnology ethics, "Issues in the Modern Life Sciences". I
was really lucky to be at a uni with an HPS Department, as it gave me a better
perspective about science. I think the unit on Western models of science
practice should be compulsory!
As to whether it's enough to be knowledgable in the history of women in
science to be able to teach it (I think that was the question), that really
depends on the individual. A number of people in any field lecture without a
PhD, but that's becoming less common these days and I can't see this field
being any different.