The childhood traits and conditions of 21 eminent American women scientists were compared with those of 235 eminent women in other fields. As girls, those who became eminent scientists were much more like, rather than different form, other girls who became eminent. All girls were, for example, precocious and hard working. In early life, however, young scientists did exhibit several distinguishing traits from girls who became eminent in other fields. They were more concentrated on science and engaged in scientific activities; they were also more bookish and scholarly. Many lived in rural areas and were allowed or encouraged to pursue nature study, reading, and writing. Case studies of two women scientists exemplify early traits and opportunities that distinguish girls who became eminent women scientists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of University Women ( 1992). How schools short-change girls. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Benbow, P.C., & Stanley, J.C. (1984). Gender and the science major: A study of mathematically precocious youth. In Steinkamp, M.W. & Maeher, M.L. Advances in motivation and achievement, 2, 165-195.
3.
Brooks, P. (1972). The house of life: Rachel Carson at work; with selections from her writings published and unpublished. Boston: Houghton, Milflin.
4.
Carson, R. (1915). A battle in the clouds. St. Nicholas Magazine.Carson, R. (1919). A message to the front . St. Nicholas Magazine.
5.
Carson, R. (1919). A famous sea fight. St. Nicholas Magazine. Carson, R. (1941). Under the sea wind: A naturalist picture of ocean life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
6.
Carson, R. (1951). The sea around us. New York : Oxford University Press.
7.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
Carson, R. (1965). The sense of wonder. New York : Oxford University Press.
9.
Catell, J.M. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular- Science Monthly, February, 359-377.
10.
Clark, H.L. (1887). Birds of Amherst and vicinity: including nearly the whole county of Hampshire, Massachusetts. Amherst, Mass.J.E. Williams.
11.
Cox, C.M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses, Vol. II. Genetic Studies of Genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
Freeman, M. (1995). Always, Rachel. The letters of Rachel Carson and DorothyFreeman. Boston: Beacon Press.
13.
Gartner, C.B. (1983). RachelCarson. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing.
14.
Goertzel, V. & Goertzel, M.G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
15.
Goertzel, M.G., Goertzel, V. & Goertzel, T.G. (1978). 300 eminent personalities . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Goff, A.C. (1946). Women can be engineers. Youngstown, Ohio.
17.
Guernsey, L. (1860). Jenny and the birds. Philadelphia : American Sunday School Union.
18.
Hoffman, L.R., Maier, N.R.F. (1966). Social factors influencing problem solving in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 382-390.
19.
Kass-Simon, G. & Farnes, P. (Eds.). (1990). Women in science: Righting the record. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Linn, M.C., & Hyde, J.S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18 (8), 17-19, 22-27.
20.
Maier, N.R.F., & Casselman, G.C. (1971). Problem-solving ability as a factor in selection of major in college study: Comparison of the processes of "idea-getting" and "making essential distinction" in male and females. Psychological Reports, 28, 503-514.
21.
Malone, M. & Flemming, L. (1983). The relationship of student characteristics and student performance as viewed by meta-analysis research. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 219-244.
22.
Merton, R. (1969). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
23.
Milton, G.A. (1957). The effects of sex-role identification upon problem solving skills. Jonrnal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology , 55, 219-244.
24.
Nice, M.M. (1924). The birds of Oklahoma. Norman . University of Oklahoma Press.
25.
Nice, M.M. (1933). The theory of territorialism and its development . Fifty Years of of Progress of American Ornithology 1883-1933.
26.
Nice, M.M. (1933). Zur naturgeschichte des singammers. Journal fur Ornithologie.
27.
Nice, M.M. (1964). Studies in the life history of the song sparrow . New York: Dover Publications.
28.
Nice, M.M. (1967). The watcher at the nest. New York: Dover Publications.
29.
Nice, M.M. (1979). Research is a passion with me. Ontario, Canada: Amethyst Communication, Inc.
30.
Ogilivie, M.B. (1991). Women in Science: Antiquity through the nineteenth century. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
31.
Roe, A. ( 1951a). A psychological study of eminent biologists. Psychological Monograph, 65, (331), 1-68.
32.
Roe, A. ( 1951b). A psychological study of eminent physical scientists. GeneticPsychological Monograph, 43, 121-235.
33.
Rossiter, M.W. (1974). Women scientists in America before 1920. American Scientist, 62, 312-323.
34.
Rossiter, M.W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23, 325-341.
35.
Shaw, E.L., & Doan, R.L. (1990). An investigation of the differences in attitude and achievement between male and female second and fifth grade science students . ED 319 614.
36.
Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A. & Ward, VS (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
37.
Sicherman, B., & Green, C.H. (Eds.). (1980). Notable American women . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
38.
Simonton, D.K. (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we predict leadership in the White House?Journal of Personality , 49, 306-323.
39.
Simonton, D.K. (1983). Dramatic greatness and content: A quantitative study of eighty-one Athenian and Shakspearean plays. Empirical Study of the Arts, 1, 109-123.
40.
Simonton, D.K. (1984). Scientific eminence historical and contemporary: A measurement assessment. Scientometrics, 6, 169-182.
41.
Simonton, D.K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age. The career of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development , 21, 241-254.
42.
Simonton, D.K. (1988). Scientific genius. Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press.
43.
Simonton, D.K. (1990). Psychology, science, and history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
Suchner, R., & Barringon, B. (1980). Men's and women's attitudes and information about science, health and energy. National Science Foundation Paper (grant number SED-79-17259).
45.
Steinkamp, M., & Maeher, M. (1984). Gender differences in motivational orientations toward achievement in school science: A
46.
quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal , 21, 39-59.
47.
Strykowski, B.F. & Walberg, H.J. (1983). Psychological traits and childhood environments of eminent writers. Roeper Review: A Journal on GiftedEducation , 6, (2), 102-105.
48.
Trautman, M.B. (1977). In Memoriam: Margaret Morse Nice. The Auk, 94.
49.
Walberg, H.J. & Stariha, W. (1992). Productive human capital: Learning, creativity, and eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 323-340.
50.
Walberg, H.J., Tsai, S.L., Weinstein, T., Gabriel, C.L., Rasher, S.P., Rosecrans, R., Rovai, E., Ide, J., Trujillo, M., and Yukosavich, P. (1981). Childhood traits and environmental conditions of highly eminent adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 103-107.
51.
Wallace,T. & Walberg, H.J. (1987). Personality traits and childhood environments of eminent essayists. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 65-69.
52.
Wright, M.O. (1895). Bird-craft. New York: Macmillian.
53.
Yost, E. (1943). American Women of Science. Philadelphia and New York: Frederick A. Stokes.
