Género, pluralismo e innovación epistémicamente responsable
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-968Palabras clave:
innovación, responsabilidad epistémica, epistemologías feministas, pluralismo epistémico, géneroResumen
Este artículo examina críticamente el marco de la Investigación e Innovación Responsables (RRI, por sus siglas en inglés) desde una perspectiva feminista y pluralista, señalando sus limitaciones epistémicas y proponiendo su reformulación en clave de innovación epistémicamente responsable. Se argumenta que la RRI, aunque promueve la anticipación de impactos y la participación pública, ha mantenido una concepción tecnocrática de la responsabilidad, sin revisar los supuestos epistemológicos que estructuran la innovación. Innovación responsable, sí, pero responsable con quién, para quién y bajo qué criterios. A partir de las epistemologías feministas y del enfoque del proyecto Gendered Innovations, se sostiene que integrar el análisis de género no solo mejora la equidad, sino que produce conocimientos más robustos y tecnologías más eficaces. El artículo defiende un modelo de innovación epistémicamente responsable basado en el pluralismo epistémico y la responsabilidad epistémica capaz de redistribuir la autoridad epistémica, reconocer saberes marginados e instituir marcos de responsabilidad colectiva. En lugar de limitarse a gestionar riesgos, se propone una innovación orientada a transformar las condiciones estructurales de producción del conocimiento, incorporando voces, cuerpos y valores históricamente excluidos. La RRI, así entendida, no es solo un imperativo ético, sino una estrategia epistemológica para ampliar los márgenes de lo posible en ciencia y tecnología.
Descargas
Citas
Ahmed, Sarah (2006). Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press.
Alsos, Gry Agnete, Ljunggren, Elisabet & Hytti, Ulla (2013). Gender and innovation: State of the art and a research agenda. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 236-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-06-2013-0049.
Bagočiūnė, Laura (2024). Critical Examination of Gender Equality in Responsible Research and Innovation context: A Bibliometric Analysis. Information & Media, 99, 203-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Im.2024.99.11.
Benjamin, Ruha (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bikard, Michaël, Fernandez-Mateo, Isabel & Mogra, Ron (2025). Standing on the Shoulders of (Male) Giants: Gender Inequality and the Technological Impact of Scientific Ideas. Administrative Science Quaterly, 70(3), 695-732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251331957.
Bührer, Susanne & Wroblewski, Angela (2019). The practice and perceptions of RRI —A gender perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, 101717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101717.
Burget, Markus, Bardone, Emanuele & Pedaste, Margus (2017). Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
Carrier, Martin & Irzik, Gürol (2021). Responsible research and innovation: coming to grips with an ambitious concept. Synthese, 198, 4627-4633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02319-1.
Chang, Hasok (2012). Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3932-1.
Clavero, Sara & Galligan, Yvonne (2021). Delivering gender justice in academia through gender equality plans? Normative and practical challenges. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(3), 1115-1132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12658.
Code, Lorraine (1987). Epistemic Responsibiliity. Providence: Brown University Press.
Code, Lorraine (1991). What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Comisión Europea (s/f). Horizonte 2020. Recuperado de: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en.
Comisión Europea (2021a). A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025.
Comisión Europea (2021b). She figures 2021: Gender in research and innovation: statistics and indicators. Recuperado de: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/06090.
Comisión Europea (2025). She figures 2024: gender in research and innovation: statistics and indicators. Recuperado de: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/592260.
Delaney, Niamh, Iagher, Raluca & Tornasi, Zeno (2020). Institutional changes towards responsible research and innovation: achievements in Horizon 2020 and recommendations on the way forward. Recuperado de: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/682661.
Doan, Petra L. (2010). The tyranny of gendered spaces – reflections from beyond the gender dichotomy. Gender, Place & Culture, 17(5), 635-654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2010.503121.
Dupré, John (1981). Natural kinds and biological taxa. The Philosophical Review, 90(1), 66-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2184373.
Epstein, Steven (2009). Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fagerberg, Jan (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. En Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery & Richard R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felt, Ulrike, Barben, Daniel, Irwin, Alan, Joly, Pierre-Benoît, Rip, Arie, Stirling, Andy & Stöckelová, Tereza (2007). Science and governance: Taking European knowledge society seriously. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Recuperado de: https://sts.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_sts/Ueber_uns/pdfs_Felt/taking_european_knowledge_society_seriously.pdf.
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Londres: New Left Books.
Food & Drug Administration (2013). FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA approves new label changes and dosing for zolpidem products and a recommendation to avoid driving the day after using Ambien CR. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Recuperado de: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-approves-new-label-changes-and-dosing-zolpidem-products-and.
Frahm, Nina, Doezema, Tess & Pfotenhauer, Sebastian (2021). Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(1), 174-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921999100.
Fricker, Miranda (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García Dauder, Dau & Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2017). Las mentiras científicas sobre las mujeres. Madrid: Los Libros de La Catarata.
Garcia-Campa, Santiago & Sanahuja, Rosana (2023). Gender Mainstreaming and RRI: The Double Challenge. En Elsa González-Esteban, Ramón A. Feenstra & Luis M. Camarinha-Matos (Eds.), Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (188-202). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33177-0_12.
Gendered Innovations (s/f). Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research. Universidad de Stanford & Comisión Europea. Recuperado de: https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu.
González García, Marta (2015). La medicalización del sexo. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata.
González García, Marta (2023). Ciencia y valores en las políticas del sexo como variable biológica. En Eulalia Pérez Sedeño (Ed.), Cuerpos en rebeldía: Aproximaciones interdisciplinares (19-38). Granada: Editorial Comares.
Hamraie, Aimi (2017). Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haraway, Donna J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Harding, Sandra G. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harding, Sandra G. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Harding, Sandra G. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hendl, Tereza & Jansky, Bianca (2021). Tales of self-empowerment through digital health technologies: a closer look at ‘Femtech.’ Review of Social Economy, 80(1), 29-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.2018027.
Hoagland, Sarah L. (2012). Denying Relationality: Epistemology and Ethics of Ignornace. En S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (95-118). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Imrie, Rob (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873-882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.624250.
Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E. & Waters, C. Kenneth (2006). Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kendig, Catherine (2020). Ontology and values anchor indigenous and grey nomenclatures: A case study in lichen naming practices among the Samí, Sherpa, Scots, and Okanagan. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 84, 101340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101340.
Longino, Helen E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, Helen E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, Helen E. (2006). Theoretical Pluralism and the Scientific Study of Behavior. En Stephen H. Kellert, Helen E. Longino & C. Kenneth Waters (Eds.), Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (102-131). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
López Cerezo, José Antonio & González García, Marta (2013). Encrucijadas sociales de la innovación. Isegoría. Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, 48, 11-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2013.048.01.
Ludwig, David & Weiskopf, Daniel A. (2019). Ethnoontology: Ways of world-building across cultures. Philosophy Compass, 14(9), e12621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12621.
Ludwig, David & Ruphy, Stéphanie (2024). Scientific pluralism. En Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Recuperado de: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/scientific-pluralism/.
Medina, José (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, Sandra D. (2003). Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802683.
Obedin-Maliver, Juno & Makadon, Harvey J. (2016). Transgender men and pregnancy. Obstetric Medicine, 9(1), 4-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1753495X15612658.
OCDE & Eurostat (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th ed.). The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. París: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
Otero-Hermida, Paula & García-Melón, Mónica (2018). Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain. Sustainability, 10(9), 2980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10092980.
Owen, Richard, Bessant, John & Heintz, Maggy (2013). Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.
Owen, Richard & Pansera, Mario (2019). Responsible innovation: process and politics. En René von Schomberg & Jonathan Hankins (2019), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (35-48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718862.
Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2025). Ciencia con valores: hacia una “nueva” filosofía de la ciencia. Isegoría. Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2025.72.1679.
Picardi, Ilenia (2022). Making gendered science: A feminist perspective on the epistemology of innovation based on science and technology studies. En Gry Agnete Alsos, Ulla Hytti, Elisabet Ljunggren & Eileen Drew (Eds.), Research Handbook on Gender and Innovation (167-181). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800377462.00019.
Quijano, Aníbal (2000). Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005.
Robles-Piñeros, Jairo, Ludwig, David, Santos Baptista, Geilsa Costa & Molina-Andrade, Adela (2020). Intercultural science education as a trading zone between traditional and academic knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 84, 101337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101337.
Sánchez de Madariaga, Inés (2013). From Women in Transport to Gender in Transport: Challenging Conceptual Frameworks for Improved Policymaking. Journal of International Affairs, 67(1), 43-65.
Schiebinger, Londa (2008). Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schiebinger, Londa & Klinge, Ineke (2013). Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research. Comisión Europea. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/gendered_innovations.pdf.
Schiebinger, Londa & Schraudner, Martina (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961518.
Stilgoe, Jack, Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
Stilgoe, Jack, Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil (2020). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. En Andrew Maynard & Jack Stilgoe (Eds.), The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering, and Clean Energy (347-359). Londres: Routledge.
Thomas, Jane (2002). Nutrition intervention in ethnic minority groups. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61(4), 559-567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2002195.
Trades Union Congress (2017). Personal protective equipment and women. Recuperado de: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/personal-protective-equipment-and-women.
TRANSFORM (s/f). Transformando la experiencia del paciente a través de la ciencia ciudadana. Recuperado de: https://www.transform-project.eu/transforming-the-patients-experience-through-citizen-science/.
Van Wynsberghe, Axelle, Alonso Raposo, María, Aschberger, Karin, Braun, Robert, Ciuffo, Biagio, Duboz, Amandine, Garus, Ada, Grosso, Mónica, Guimarães Pereira, Ângela, Marques dos Santos, Fabio, Mourtzouchou, Andromachi & Starkbaum, Johannes (2023). Welcome to the toolkit for Responsible Research for Policymaking: R you Ready? Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/412407.
von Schomberg, René (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. En Richard Owen, John Bessant & Maggy Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (51-74). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
von Schomberg, René & Hankins, Jonathan (2019). International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784718862.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Todos los números de CTS y sus artículos individuales están bajo una licencia CC-BY.
Desde 2007, CTS proporciona un acceso libre, abierto y gratuito a todos sus contenidos, incluidos el archivo completo de su edición cuatrimestral y los diferentes productos presentados en su plataforma electrónica. Esta decisión se sustenta en la creencia de que ofrecer un acceso libre a los materiales publicados ayuda a un mayor y mejor intercambio del conocimiento.
A su vez, para el caso de su edición cuatrimestral, la revista permite a los repositorios institucionales y temáticos, así como también a las web personales, el auto-archivo de los artículos en su versión post-print o versión editorial, inmediatamente después de la publicación de la versión definitiva de cada número y bajo la condición de que se incorpore al auto-archivo un enlace a la fuente original.
