Skip to main content
Log in

Précis of Objectivity and diversity: another logic of scientific research

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Calhoun, C., Warner, M., & Van Antwerpen, J. (2007). Varieties of secularism in a secular age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R., & Collins, H. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P., & Stump, D. (1996). The disunity of science. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, W. H. (1996). Navigation in the Western Carolines: A traditional science. In L. Nader (Ed.), Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Strong objectivity and socially situated knowledge. In S. Harding (Ed.), Whose science? Whose knowledge?. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (Ed.). (1993). The “Racial” economy of science: Toward a democratic future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (Ed.). (2011). The postcolonial science and technology studies reader. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollinger, D. (1996). Science, jews, and secular culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, M. (1988). The cultural meanings of the scientific revolution. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, J. R., & Pellegrini, A. (Eds.). (2008). Secularisms. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2005). Designs on nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Tersity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific pluralism. Minn: Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levey, G. B., & Modood, T. (Eds.). (2009). Secularism, religion and multicultural citizenship. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendieta, E., & VanAntwerpen, J. (Eds.). (2011). The power of religion in the public sphere. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhlhausler, P. (2001). Ecolinguistics, linguistic diversity, ecological diversity. In L. Maffi (Ed.), On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padovani, F., Richardson, A., & Tsou, J. Y. (Eds.). (2015). Objectivity in science: New perspectives from science and technology studies. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. (1991). Value-free science? Purity and power in modern knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisch, G. A. (2005). How the cold war transformed philosophy of science: To the icy slopes of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A. W. (2006). The many unities of science: Politics, semantics, and ontology. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, K. (2008). Feminisms and secularisms. In J. R. Jakobsen & A. Pellegrini (Eds.), Secularisms. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. (1996). Science for the west, myth for the rest? In L. Nader (Ed.), Naked Science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selin, H. (2007). Encyclopedia of the history of science, technology and medicine in non-western cultures (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visvanathan, N., et al. (Eds.). (2011). The women, gender, and development reader (2nd ed.). New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Harding.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harding, S. Précis of Objectivity and diversity: another logic of scientific research . Philos Stud 174, 1801–1806 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0835-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0835-8

Keywords

Navigation