Historical looks at women in science highlight women in lab coats. The women scientists who did field work--conservation biologists, ecologists, geologists--are often left out of the story told. The modern dilemma of how to increase the number of professional women scientists also focuses on women in traditionally lab-based sciences. I find this lack of attention to women field scientists problematic for two reasons.
1. Work done in the field is often the foundation, the backbone of what is able to be achieved in a laboratory. The important work done by women field scientists has historically received little attention. While the struggles that women have faced in laboratory settings are well documented, the issues women face in the field are unique and, in my mind, deserve recognition.
2. In recent years there have been great efforts to understand why women are underrepresented in the sciences and how to encourage more young women to go into scientific fields. If women are a minority in laboratory settings, they are even more scarce in the field. Perhaps by ignoring the subset of women scientists who are not lab-based, we are missing some of the subtleties of why women are a minority in the sciences. Further, greater attention to women field scientists could provide key insights into how to increase the number of women scientists at large.
This semester, I will be working with Professor Deborah Coen of the Barnard History Department to explore the history of women field scientists. I want to uncover what has been historically documented about women field scientists but also, and more importantly, where fuller documentation is necessary. I will be using this blog to discuss the readings that Professor Coen and I think will enable us to explore this fragmented history. I hope that by sharing what I am learning and thinking on this blog, readers can both learn with me and provide feedback, ideas, and possible new directions. This is a project in progress for me, and I want you to help me move it along!
Hey Marissa,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a fascinating topic and I can't wait for more info on your blog. We had our diversity lecture at Lamont last week (all about women in the earth sciences). Afterward, someone asked a group of us (grad students), "Do you think women should be required to have assistants/accompaniment when they're doing field work?" I was furious at the statement. I've been doing field work alone for 3 years now in a place where I don't speak the language and it's been an invaluable experience for me. But there are highly publicized examples of women being killed, which raises the question of vulnerability. (See: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6243761) Not that women are more prone to accidents or injury (as is the stereotype), but that we are seen as weak and easy targets for attack. I'm curious what you think about this? How do you feel about it? Do you think this is one of things that has held women field geologists back?
We eventually settled on the fact that nobody should do field work alone (from a safety point of view) and that's how a university or company should implement the rule. Which leads me to another question. One of the great draws to field work for a lot of people is being alone in the field. Working and thinking by yourself and getting a feel for the land. Coming across your own obstacles and working through them without help. You can only depend on yourself, and that's such a powerful feeling. How do we reconcile safety and "a changing world" with our (men's and women's) need for solitary experiences that come along with field work?
Can't wait to read more!
Meg Reitz
Wow, what a great idea! Adding this to my Google Reader for sure.
ReplyDeleteI bet, though, that if you asked children or random people on the street to name women scientists, lab scientist Marie Curie would of course be #1, but I would expect field scientist Jane Goodall would be #2. My guess would be #3 Rosalind Franklin, and then Dian Fossey (mostly because of the movie), Barabara McClintock, Sally Ride, and Mae Jemison would be some of the top answers. So there are definitely field scientists in what I imagine to be the most famous female scientists (is going in to outer space considered field work??).
Interesting thing for you to look at might be the degree to which women scientists were specifically prohibited from fieldwork (e.g., thinking of Marie Tharp and women not being allowed on research ships).
Hi Meg,
ReplyDeleteIt's actually really interesting that you brought up the issue of safety in the field because it is definitely that something that comes up in the history of women doing field science. Historians often argue that the field has historically been more open to women scientists than the laboratory because the traditional roles of gender tend to blur in the field. On the other hand, the sort of heroic athleticism associated with the field sciences has also definitely prohibited women's progress in the sciences. Especially in the early history of professional field sciences, field work was often thought to negatively impact fertility and reproductive health and therefore not thought of as "safe" for women.
I think that as traditional gender roles have broken down and women have entered the professional sciences more frequently, the issue of safety has grown as an argument to explain why less women enter fields like geology than, say, lab-based biology. The media likely has a large role in perpetuating the view of field work as unsafe, especially for women. Stories like the young woman in Colorado, although incredibly sad, are also relatively rare. Yet we only hear about dangerous and unsafe experiences in the field and never about the multitude of very successful field experiences that women have.
Personally, I would have been just as furious as you were when that question was asked at the diversity lecture. In my opinion, there are no inherent dangers to field work for women today that are not also there for men. Depending on the location, field work can be dangerous for both men and women; this should be the driving factor in deciding whether field work should be done alone, not gender concerns.
The question of solitary field work, regardless of gender, is a difficult one. I haven't done field work on my own yet, so it's hard for me to comment on the merits of working alone. In some of the historical reading I have been doing, men that have gone into the field have relied heavily on the relationships they form with people local to their field site in order to ensure their safety. Perhaps in this "changing world," establishing strong connections with the people living in our near one's field work is still the best way to make the field a safe place to be alone.
I will be spending two out of five days out in the field alone over spring break, and I will definitely post on the (brief) experience when I get back!
Hey Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI wonder why there seems to be a disproportionate number of famous women field scientists, when in actuality many more women scientists are primarily lab-based? It might have to do with the heroic rhetoric that surrounds field work; these women put themselves in strenuous and sometimes dangerous surroundings in the name of science. As I mentioned in response to Meg's comment, this heroic rhetoric has often been used as a reason to keep women out of the field sciences. Less strict gender roles in twentieth century likely changed the way field work was viewed as heroic.
As I get into more detailed research about particular women in the field sciences, I hope to look into the specific challenges they faced. It is interesting to think about how the history of women being prohibited from entering the field is documented. My guess is that it is probably largely undocumented, because men did not see it as an injustice and scientists tend to write about the science they did do, not the work they were not able to. The degree to which women have been prohibited from fieldwork is definitely something I want to look into more!