Women in physics: unnecessary, injurious and out of place?

FEB 01, 1980

Despite eight years of affirmative action more changes are necessary to create an atmosphere where women are equally accepted in the field of physics.

DOI: 10.1063/1.2913937

Vera Kistiakowsky

The subtitle for this article is taken from a Strindberg essay written at the end of the 19th century opposing the appointment of the mathematician, Sonia Kovalevsky, to a professorship at the University of Stockholm, in which he attempts to prove “as decidedly as that two and two make four, what a monstrosity is a woman who is a professor of mathematics, and how unnecessary, injurious and out of place she is”. It is certainly a much more extreme statement than anything likely to be voiced publicly today but it does vividly and tersely encapsulate many of the opinions that have been expressed to me in much more veiled and discursive form over the last ten years. Largely because of these continuing though muted attitudes I have accepted an invitation to write this article for PHYSICS TODAY. I will very briefly sketch the history of women’s participation in physics as a background to the current situation and then discuss some statistical information about women physicists in the recent past and present in the United States. It will come as no surprise that the percentage of physicists who are women is small and that their employment patterns are different from those of men. I will discuss the possible reasons for this situation. Finally, I will comment briefly on recent changes and what expectations one may have for the future.

References

1. H. J. Mozans, Women in Science, Appleton (1913);
reissued by MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1974).
2. G. Sarton, A History of Science, Harvard U. Cambridge, Mass. (1952).
3. L. M. Osen, Women in Mathematics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1974).
4. E. T. James, Notable American Women 1607–1950, Harvard U., Cambridge, Mass. (1974).
5. F. Rudolph, The American College and University, Knopf, New York (1962).
6. M. W. Rossiter, American Scientist 62, 312 (1974).
7. APS Comm. Women in Physics, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II, 17, 740 (1972).
8. D. M. Gilford, P. D. Syverson, “Summary Report [Year] Doctorate Recipients from US Universities,” Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1972 through 1978).
9. D. M. Gilford, J. Snyder, Women and Minority PhD’s in the late 1970’s: A Data Book, Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1977).
10. B. D. Maxfield, N. C. Ahern, A. W. Spisak, Science, Engineering, and Humanities Doctorates in the United States. 1977 profile, Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1978).
11. B. D. Maxfield, N. C. Ahern, A. W. Spisak, Employment Status of PhD Scientists and Engineers. 1973 and 1975, Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1976).
12. M. E. Law, J. Wittels, R. Clark, P. Jorgenson, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 21, 888 (1976).https://doi.org/BAPSA6
13. L. Tiger, New York Times Magazine, 25 October 1970, page 35.
14. E. E. Maccoby, C. N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford U., Stanford, Cal. (1974).
15. A. Kelly, Phys. Bull. 30, 108 (1979).https://doi.org/PHSBB4
16. M. J. Oates, S. Williamson, Signs, 795 (Summer, 1978).
17. M. E. Tidball, V. Kistiakowsky, Science 193, 646 (1976).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
18. S. Tobias, Overcoming Math Anxiety, Norton, New York (1978).
19. C. E. Max, “Opportunities for Women in Physics,” U. California Rad. Lab. Report UCRL‐80943 (1978).
20. J. Dash, A Life of One’s Own, Harper and Row, New York (1973).
21. L. R. Harmon, High School Ability Patterns, Nat, Acad. of Sci. (1965).
22. G. F. Schilling, M. K. Hunt, “Women in Science and Technology: US/USSR Comparisons,” Rand Paper Series P‐239, Santa Monica, Cal. (1974).
23. W. M. Mandel, Soviet Women, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y. (1975).
24. J. A. Centra, Women, Men and the Doctorate, Educ. Testing Serv., Princeton, N.J. (1974).
25. J. R. Cole, S. Cole, Social Stratification in Science, U. Chicago, Chicago, Ill. (1973).
26. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
27. H. Zuckerman, Scientific Elite, Free Press, New York (1978).

More about the Authors

Vera Kistiakowsky. MIT.