ANÁLISIS INTERNO FUNCIONAL DE LA EMPRESA

Overall, I describe my methodology as an empirical, feminist philosophy of science. Regarding my empirical approach, I use case studies that draw on historical and sociological methods to guide my inquiry, engage participants, and evidence my claims. To gather primary sources, I conducted archival research and in-depth open-ended interviews. I also use historical and

24

sociological methods of analysis, such as developing narratives, assessing existing

historiographies, and qualitative data analysis. I leave more detailed discussion of these methods for individual chapters, but I will discuss my overarching methodology here.

Case studies are particularly useful for philosophy of science when a case is understood as a historical episode of something more abstract, that is, “a concrete instantiation of the general concepts (the characters, the setting, the type of events to be expected, etc.), and each episode also contributes to the articulation of the general concepts” (Chang 2011, p. 111). Accordingly, as Hasok Chang suggests, by integrating HPS, philosophers can generate abstract ideas,

demonstrate their cogency, and evidence their broad applicability. With my series of historical case studies, I explore abstract issues in epistemology and ethics like biomedical mechanisms, value-laden knowledge, epistemic injustice, patriarchy, informed consent, and ignorance.

Grounded in a historical understanding, I can deliberate whether existing philosophical accounts are scientifically applicable and socially appropriate and, if not, develop more attuned

alternatives.

Interdisciplinary research such as HPS is a superior means for identifying and solving real-world problems (rather than more disciplinary ones). Henik Thorén contends that

interdisciplinarity is essentially an enterprise of “problem transfer,” particularly given the penchant of philosophy for normativity:

On the assumption that philosophy of science is a normative project and that such a project is cut-off from facts about science by the is/ought dichotomy this connection becomes admittedly limited. But at least one tie always remains, namely that philosophy of science needs science as a source of problems. These problems are not necessarily problems that scientists think they have, or are interested in, but nonetheless arise out of their practices. (Thorén 2015, p. 156, my emphasis)

Likewise, in this project, I use empirical methods to identify challenges in regulatory science and to determine which issues deserve focus. For instance, one of the primary benefits of my initial

25

interviews on the morning-after pill was Susan Wood’s suggestion that I investigate the pregnancy label revision (part III).

And yet, some processes of interest in regulatory science are not accessible via historic archives, particularly those without a paper trail. Whereas academics publish their views, regulatory agencies operate within the “oral culture of Washington,” so many key interactions and negotiations are unrecorded (Smith 1992, p. 205). This form of decision-making renders many reports reflective of the final negotiation but uninformative of the “black box” of internal deliberation, even with the increased transparency of government, e.g., the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA). Furthermore, the FOIA system is notoriously difficult to use—

particularly during the longest government shutdown in US history (see Zaveri et al. 2019).

Accordingly, in addition to integrating philosophy with history, I have also drawn on sociology for empirical methods. Several philosophers of science have found that qualitative methods of collection and analysis are useful for investigating scientists in real-world contexts of practice (e.g., Osbeck and Nersessian 2015). In-depth interviews that are also grounded in

history are particularly helpful for understanding “the nature of scientific knowledge” in so far as it is “the tangled web of individual and group dynamics that define its growth” (Keller 1983, p.

xii). Evelyn Fox Keller, for instance, used interviews with biologist Barbara McClintock to understand not only her scientific contribution but also her tenuous place within the scientific community. Likewise, I have utilized qualitative interviews and analysis to better understand the internal dynamics of regulatory science behind the process of drug labeling.

In addition to my empirical methodology, I take a feminist approach toward this project for my critical and normative framework. Feminist empiricism is an approach within feminist philosophy of science that takes both empirical success and cognitive values to be necessary for

26

justifying claims. Furthermore, it holds the aims of science relative to social context, admitting a diversity of societal values particularly feminism and egalitarianism (Crasnow 2013; Intemann 2010). Following Longino, I take an approach to be feminist when it is critical toward

elucidating gender and its effects and normative toward ending oppression:

What makes feminists feminist is the desire to dismantle (eliminate, end) the oppression and subordination of women. This requires identification of the mechanisms and

institutions of gender. The cognitive goal of feminist researchers therefore, is to reveal the operations of gender by making visible both the activities of those gendered female and the processes whereby they are made invisible, and by identifying the symbolic and institutional mechanisms whereby female gendered agents are subordinated. (Longino 2008, p. 77)

My research questions correspond with these qualities: questions 1 and 2 critically illuminate gender and expose injustice while question 3 aims to eliminate sexist values. Because not all injustice is the same, I understanding oppressions broadly and intersectionally, accounting for the dynamics between sex, gender, race, and class (Collins and Bilge 2016; A. Y. Davis 1983).

It will become more apparent in the chapters how a feminist approach accomplishes these critical and normative goals. First, it promotes certain political and pragmatic foci as the subject of philosophical examination, such as how mechanistic knowledge functions as a political tool and how ethical ideals are misused in practice. Furthermore, feminism supplies a normative framework for analyzing and evaluating how knowledge is produced and used, such as how women are systematically kept ignorant and how knowledge can shape women toward oppressive gender norms.