Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking Gender Politics in Laboratories and Neuroscience Research: The Case of Spatial Abilities in Math Performance

  • Published:
Medicine Studies

Abstract

What does it mean to practice socially responsible science on controversial issues? In a fresh turn focussing on the neuroscientists’ responsibility in producing knowledge about politically charged subjects, Chalfin et al. (Am J Bioethics 8(1):1–2, 2008) caution neuroscientists to be careful about how they present their findings lest their results be used to support unfounded biases, social stereotypes and prejudices. Weisberg et al. (J Cogn Neurosci 20(3):470–477, 2008) discuss the allure of neuroscience explanations and demonstrate how laypersons easily accept dubious claims as long as (even non-relevant) neuroscientific descriptions are provided. Fine (2010) exposes the use of scientific evidence in propagating outdated gender myths by popular writers and discusses the infiltration of these prejudices into popular belief, folk culture and lifestyle. This paper discusses ways in which the ‘neuroscience of gender difference’ itself inadvertently contributes to normalising socially constructed theories about sex difference in cognitive performance. This unpremeditated effect has evident implications on the structuring of society because gender relations cut across social, political and economic boundaries. We present a theoretical reflection of factors that could interact with the scientists’ attempted objective evaluation of the subject, the methods and some principle problems, and we engage a science studies approach as our methodological tool. Our object of critique is drawn from the research on spatial abilities that articulate the dissention pertaining to sex differences in intellectual capacity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender. Newyork: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broca, P. 1861. Sur le volume et la forme du cerveau suivant les individus et suivant les races. Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 2:139–207, 301–321, 441–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London: Routledge Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, L. 2006. Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 477–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalfin, M.C., E.R. Murphy, and K.A. Karkazis. 2008. Women’s neuroethics? Why sex matters for neuroethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, S., S.K. Nagel, and J. Slaby. 2009. Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. Biosocieties 4: 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.M., and Y. Hong. 2008. Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity 7: 34–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corston, R., and A.M. Colman. 1996. Gender and social facilitation effects on computer competence and attitudes towards computers. Journal of Educational and Computing Research 14: 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar-Nimrod, I., and S.J. Heine. 2006. Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science 314: 435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, S., Schmitz, S. 2006. Geschlechterforschung und naturwissenschaften: Einführung in ein komplexes wechselspiel. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.

  • Einstein, G. 2011. Situated neuroscience: Elucidating a biology of diversity. In Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science, ed. R. Bluhm, H. Maibom, and A.J. Jacobson. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: New York Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, J., I. Spence, and J. Pratt. 2007. Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science 18(10): 850–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. 2010. Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences. Thriplow, Cambridge, UK: Icon Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., K.L. Leonard, and J.A. List. 2009. Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica, Econometric Society 77(5): 1637–1664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., M. Niederle, and A. Rustichini. 2003. Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1049–1074.

  • Greary, D.C. 1999. Sex differences in mathematical abilities: Commentary on the math-fact retrieval hypothesis. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24: 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., F. Monte, P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2008. Culture, gender, and math. Science 320: 1164–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. Routledge.

  • Hausen, K. 1994. Die “Frauenfrage” war schon immer eine “Männerfrage”. Überlegungen zum historischen Ort von Familie in der Moderne. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Gesprächskreis Geschichte. Heft 7, Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

  • Held, V. 2006. Reason, gender and moral theory. ETHICS history, theory and contemporary issues, 679–694. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Inzlicht, M., and T. Ben-Zeev. 2000. A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science 11: 365–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joel, D. 2011. Male or female? Brains are intersex. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience 5: Article 57.

  • Jordan-Young, R.M. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, A. 2009. Feminismus, Geschlechterforschung und die neurowissenschaft. Feministisches Institut Hamburg. http://www.feministisches-institut.de/neurowissenschaft-2/ Accessed July 25th 2010.

  • Kaiser, A., S. Haller, S. Schmitz, and C. Nitsch. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain research reviews 61: 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karafyllis, N.C., Ulshöfer, G. 2008. Sexualized Brains: Scientific Modeling of Emotional Intelligence from a Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Bradford Book, MIT press, Cambridge.

  • Kimura, D. 2002. Sex, sexual orientation and sex hormones influence human cognitive function. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 6: 259–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, C., 2001. Naked sex in exile. On the paradox of the “Sex Question” in Feminism and in Science. Women Science and Technology, A reader in Feminist Science Studies, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York.

  • Lenroot, R. K., and Giedd, J. N. 2010. Sex differences in the adolescent brain. Brain Coginition 72(1): 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, M.G. 1979. Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulleting September 86(5): 889–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M.C., C.M. Steele, and J.J. Gross. 2007. A signalling threat; how situational cues Affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science 18: 879–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M., et al. 2006. Mental rotation test performance in four cross-cultural samples (n = 3367): overall sex differences and the role of academic program in performance. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 42(7): 1005–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, L., Sonya, R., Lyndon, S., and Garth, N.S. 1985. Mental rotation of representations of two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology 39(1): 100–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaiser-Pohl, C., and W. Lehmann. 2002. Girls’ spatial abilities: Charting the contributions of experiences and attitudes in different academic groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, L. 1993. Nature’s Body. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, S. 2006a. Jägerinnen und Sammler. Evolutionsgeschichten zur Menschwerdung. In Geschlechterforschung und naturwissenschaften: Einführung in ein komplexes wechselspiel, ed. Ebeling and Schmitz, 189–210. VS Verlag.

  • Schmitz, S. 2006b. Frauen-und Männergehirne. Mythos oder Wirklichkeit? In Geschlechterforschung und naturwissenschaften. Einführung in ein komplexes wechselspiel, ed. S. Ebeling and S. Schmitz, 211–234. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

  • Schöning, S., et al. 2010. Neuroimaging differences in spatial cognition between men and male-to-female transsexuals before and during hormone therapy. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 7(5): 1858–1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R.N., and J. Metzler. 1971. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171(972): 701–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, I., and M. Eals. 1992. Sex differences in spatial abilities: evolutionary theory and data. In The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culrure, ed. Barkow L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, 487–503. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spelke, E.S. 2005. Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist 60(9): 950–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S.L. 1979. Sex Differences and the Dichotomization of the Brain: Methods, Limits and Problems in Research on Consciousness. Genes and Gender II. eds. Hubbard Ruth, Marian Lowe, Gordian Press, New York.

  • Steele, C.M. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African-Americans. American Psychologist 52: 613–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vugt, M., D. De Cremer, and D.P. Janssen. 2007. Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science 18(1): 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderberg, S.G., and A.R. Kuse. 1978. Mental Rotations, a group test of three dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills 47: 599–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., et al. 2007. Gender difference in neural response to psychological stress. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2(3): 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, S., F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, and J.R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(3): 470–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollstoncraft, M. 1792. A vindication of the rights of men; a vindication of the rights of woman; an historical and moral view of the French revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was completed by support from the Fondation Brocher Visiting researcher fellowship, the Schlumberger Foundation Faculty For the Future fellowship, and the German Research Foundation (DFG) who provided a platform for analysis through the Graduate School for Gender Studies ‘Gender as a category of knowledge’, Humboldt University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the History of Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Emily Ngubia Kuria & Volker Hess

  2. Graduate School of Gender Studies, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Emily Ngubia Kuria & Volker Hess

Authors
  1. Emily Ngubia Kuria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Volker Hess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Ngubia Kuria.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuria, E.N., Hess, V. Rethinking Gender Politics in Laboratories and Neuroscience Research: The Case of Spatial Abilities in Math Performance. Medicine Studies 3, 117–123 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-011-0068-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-011-0068-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation