However, there seems to be more going on within that snippet than "We will study glacier change impacts with particular sensitivity to women's views." Some of those other things do appear pertinant to the subject of the OP at Quillette.

For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.)

Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term).

From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.