Scholars, Private Lives of

Barbara Louis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Thilo Neidhofer, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Linz, Austria
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract
Private lives of scholars have received some attention by researchers, which is reected in a still modest but growing body of
literature. Traditionally biographies of great men have provided insights into the personal lives of protagonists predominantly as background information for their professional enterprises. Feminist historiography pointed out the interrelatedness
of private and professional spheres as well as the productive roles of women in scientic collaboration. This article will
discuss collaborative couples and antinepotism rules in academia as two rather well-researched areas and point out avenues
for further research, also taking cues from the history of the natural sciences.

Private lives of scholars in the social and behavioral sciences is

an understudied topic and remains wide open for research.
Until recently authors typically focused on one person, usually
a man, and concentrated their accounts on the protagonists
work. Biographies of great men frequently portrayed the female
partners, if mentioned at all, as secondary, for instance in their
roles of caring and supporting wives or assistants. Although
literature on collaborative couples in the sciences is widely
available, many of these books can be categorized as popular
science accounts. While such works often pose claims of historical accuracy, they use the private lives, especially the marriages
and partnerships, as a literary tool to thrill readers, and in doing
so, often reproduce outdated views on gender relations. For
instance, they point out the asymmetry between the man as
creative and active and the woman as supportive and assisting,
or they emphasize distinct spheres of action for men in the
public and women in the private realm.
Historians of science, however, have shown that private and
professional spheres are inseparable, and furthermore that
domestic arrangements are part of the culture of science
(Schiebinger, 1999, p. 188). Historians have also come to
understand science both as a social practice and a collaborative
effort. As a consequence, research has expanded from focusing
on the lone genius or the big man of science to include women,
assistants, family members, and lay persons. It sought to identify the actors involved and to appraise their contributions to
the production of knowledge and to the scientic enterprise
more generally. As historians have conceptualized gender as
a social construct and historical category and originally focused
mostly on women, feminist historiography was initially dedicated to including women in historical accounts and restoring
them to their deserved historical place. Taken to the extreme,
however, one-sided approaches risked to create accounts of
great women (Eckstein, 1996; Chiu, 2008). Thus, gender has
been increasingly conceptualized as an analytical tool to
explore the relational character of the concept and the
ways in which meanings of gender are constructed, which
results in attempts to consider both genders equally (Scott,
1986, 2010).
Much of the work on private lives of scholars refers to
natural scientists. While traditional biographies of big men of
science used details of private events and everyday life of

34

scientists to round out narratives of their professional lives,

historians have recently cast a more analytical and productive
glance at the intersection of private and professional lives. As
Donald Opitz pointed out, explorations of the private realm
as a site of knowledge production informing scientic
endeavors have led to new interpretations of the work of scientists such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and
Louis Pasteur by revealing the psychological, personal, and
social inuences on their scientic work (Opitz in Lykknes
et al., 2012, p. 249). This is linked to an understanding of
science as a social and cultural activity and an interest in the
dynamics of scientic practice rather than a focus on the
successful outcomes only. This article surveys work on two
aspects of private lives of scholars that have received attention
by historians: rst, familial arrangements and collaborative
couples and, second, antinepotism rules in academia and their
consequences. While the focus is on the social and behavioral
sciences, examples from other disciplines serve as models for
future research.

Familial Arrangements and Collaborative Couples

The roles of family members, particularly wives, in scientic
activities were at the center of historians attention, as they
started to investigate the roles and activities of various actors
in scientic collaboration. A long-standing perception based
predominantly on published records and a historiography
focused on big men of science held that, if wives were involved
in their husbands work at all, they served as secretaries or assistants, or provided a comfortable and undisturbed atmosphere
for his scientic work. As historians of science such as Sally
Gregory Kohlstedt and Margaret Rossiter explored the ways in
which women were involved in scientic work, they revealed
that women played more manifold and substantial roles in
the production, communication, and application of scientic
knowledge than previous literature had suggested (Kohlstedt,
1999; Rossiter, 1982, 1995, 2012). The range of capacities in
which women were involved in scientic pursuits include,
but are not limited to, researcher, research assistant, coauthor,
editor, discussion partner, critic, typewriter, secretary, manager,
fund-raiser, public relations organizer, and all the tasks

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03005-1

Scholars, Private Lives of

connected to running a household, taking care of the family,

and being a friend and romantic partner. While this research
focused on the natural sciences, some social and behavioral
scientists were included. About the same time, social
scientists started to uncover womens spheres of action in and
contributions to their own disciplines (Deegan, 1991; Laslett
and Thorne, 1997; Silverberg, 1998).
In order to interrogate systematically the intersection of
private and professional lives, scientic couples became
a productive unit of analysis that allowed the exploration of
scientic collaboration by taking seriously the contributions
of both partners in their joint endeavors. The seminal publication Creative Couples in the Sciences, edited by Pycior et al.
(1996), probed cross-gender collaboration for different
variants of collaboration and aimed at restoring women to
the historical record, while neglecting, as Opitz et al. have
argued, to explore how collaboration or, in its own case,
degrees of collaboration might be historicized and
explained as products of partners agency within particular,
local contexts (Opitz et al. in Lykknes et al., 2012, p. 3).
The recent follow-up book For Better or for Worse? (Lykknes
et al., 2012) expanded the questions and analytical angles of
Creative Couples. As it can serve as a model for how to
approach familial collaboration in the social and behavioral
sciences and for private lives of scholars more generally, it
offers strategies for further research by covering a wide range
of disciplines, geographical locations, time periods, and
actors, and by exploring a variety of modes of collaboration
between couples. The contributions in this book ask how the
meanings of gender roles were negotiated in relation to each
other and how these meanings change over time and vary
according to historical context. Such inquiry focuses less on
the outcomes and assessments of contributions, and more on
processes by exploring the dynamics, negotiations, and
representations of collaboration.
In For Better or for Worse? Per Wisselgren explored three
social science couples in Sweden at the turn of the twentieth
century within the context of academization of the social
sciences and found different types of collaboration that he situated within action spaces at the intersection of social
reform and social sciences (Wisselgren in Lykknes et al.,
2012, p. 196). With the husbands holding academic posts,
Wisselgren found that the wives contributed to their work
in varying capacities and intensity, but also worked independently on projects of their own. As opposed to the limited
wives-as-assistant model, he identied three ideal types of
spousal collaboration. First, the two roles model describes
a mode of collaboration in which family and other kinds of
work can be combined, with the family having priority.
Second, in the in the shadow of type, the wives interests
are subordinate to the ones of their husbands. While wives
made signicant contributions to the husbands work, they
remained largely unacknowledged. Finally, the separate
worlds model describes an arrangement in which the
spouses pursue their own interests independently from each
other (Wisselgren in Lykknes et al., 2012, p. 209).
Wisselgrens analysis broadens the scope of understanding
spousal collaboration and the context in which modern
social sciences unfolded. It can serve as an example of
the manifold avenues open for future research to shed light

35

on the understudied but rewarding topic of private lives of

scholars. His research also cautions not to anachronistically
accept the boundaries of present-day disciplines or
academia more generally as a frame for analysis. Showing
how particularly the women were active in social
movements outside the academic realm and collaborated
on what is now understood as the husbands work suggests
that a wider angle on scholarly activity has the potential to
provide more comprehensive and nuanced insights not only
into personal lives, but into the creation and application of
knowledge.
Eileen Yeos analysis of the Webbs, the Bosanquets, and the
Branfords, three social science couples in Great Britain at the
turn of the twentieth century also delineates different models
of intellectual collaboration and married life (Yeo in Lykknes
et al., 2012). This examination of the gendered division of
labor in these marriages exemplies diverse arrangements
ranging from a traditional constellation with the man doing
intellectual social science work and the woman being more
practically and social-action oriented to reversed gender
roles. The husbands involvement in household issues also
varied. These examples highlight not only the different
possible arrangements of spousal collaboration and private
life, which call for more research. They also accentuate the
importance of careful attention to the historical context that
conditions the options available to the couples, for example,
regarding contemporary gender roles and expectations but
also regarding institutional structures of social science and
practice. Furthermore, as the professionalization of the
social sciences in Great Britain with more extra-academic
opportunities followed a different path than in the US
where social science strove for academization and rigid
objectivity in the early twentieth century, this context needs
to be taken into account in order to detect possible spheres
or action and congurations of professional and private
lives. Moreover, these examples point to cross-country
comparisons and transnational approaches as fruitful modes
of analysis.
By and large the heterosexual married couple is the unit of
analysis of scientic couples collaboration. In his study of the
British socialist, philosopher, and activist Edward Carpenter,
Opitz transcended this common unit to explore the modes
of collaboration of a homosexual couple. This analysis of an
alternative to the normative heterosexual married couple
and their social science and activism reveals that the practice
and meaning of collaboration are historically contingent and
need to be carefully historicized within their social, cultural,
and political contexts. In his example, therefore, Opitz suggested the term cooperative comradeship to describe the
mode of Carpenters domestic partnership and collaboration
with his partner George Merrill (Opitz in Lykknes et al.,
2012, p. 246). Following Opitz lead to include same-sex
collaboration in various domestic arrangements suggests
a variety of new research that not only expands the core
unit of analysis but through intersections with other
historiographical themes could add new perspectives on the
lives and work of social and behavioral scientists. Even
though same-sex partnerships are often mentioned in
passing, systematic explorations of the partners living and
collaboration arrangements are pending. For example, the

36

Scholars, Private Lives of

sociologist Jessie Taft and her partner of 50 years, Virginia

Robinson, substantially shaped the social work program at
the University of Pennsylvania, but their lives and work
have not been systematically studied from a couples
perspective. Furthermore, relationships do not necessarily
have to be lifelong commitments in order to be signicant.
They can be temporary or change character over time, as
exemplied by Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict, whose
personal and work relationship also invites further research.
While collaborative couples in the same discipline or closely
related elds are prevalent in literature, cross-disciplinary
couples may reveal different dynamics of living arrangements
and collaboration. The focus on same-disciplinary
collaboration is plausible and reects both reality and
scholarly interest. On the one hand, many partners met as
students, or students and teachers, or colleagues in the same
department or eld. On the other hand, researchers who are
interested in a particular discipline are perhaps more prone
to select couples from this area (Handler, 2004).
Looking across disciplinary boundaries, however, will very
likely prove productive, since research at the intersection of
disciplines can open a vantage point for studying crossfertilization of different elds, of different disciplinary
cultures, as well as their interactions. As historians of science
have been interested in ideas and methods circulating and
passing through various disciplines, being appropriated,
modied, and put to use in new ways, a look at crossdisciplinary collaboration may also help to shed light on
such dynamics. The lives and work of Louis Guttman, an
American mathematician and sociologist, and his wife,
Austrian-born geneticist Ruth Halpern, serve as a case in
point (Wurzinger, 2002). After World War II, the Guttmans
moved to Israel, where Louis established the Israel Institute
of Applied Social Research. While Ruth continued her work
in genetics, cancer research, and psychology, she also served
as the senior scientist at her husbands institute. Both applied
Facet Theory to their own research specialties, a concept
whose development is commonly attributed to Louis. Their
marriage and collaboration provides an opportunity to
explore further their personal and professional roles as they
pursued their own separate careers, but also collaborated,
and shared a family life including three children. Coming
from the US and Europe, respectively, and building their
careers in Israel, this example promises an exceptionally rich
and complex constellation to study, not only because of their
different disciplinary, social and cultural backgrounds, but
also because they did so in unfamiliar terrain, which
potentially requires more intense and explicit reexion and
negotiations than the native society where role expectations
and social and professional arrangements are clearer.
Modifying the units of analysis can lead to innovative new
research. After the solitary individual of the past, after looking
at couples, schools, and laboratory groups, more recently new
modes of communication, telecommuting, and increased
mobility of scholars has transformed collaboration. As Nancy
G. Slack pointed out, these changes are altering both private
and professional lives and are leading to more exibility in
collaboration of scholars in research networks without being
at the same place physically. Current-day technology and
mobility also open up new ways of organizing the balance

between family and professional lives. Moreover, gender

roles in society have been changing, leading to more
egalitarian division of household responsibilities among
couples than in the past and potentially resulting in new
congurations of lives and careers for both men and women
(Slack in Lykknes et al., 2012).
But even further back in history, a wider angle on collaboration yields new and productive insights. Deborah Coen (2007)
has shown in her study of the extended Exner family in n-desicle Vienna how private life, politics, and science intersected
and, in fact, exerted strong mutual inuence. Coen detailed
how the activities in the Exners semiprivate annual summer
retreat in the countryside substantially inuenced their scientic thinking, which manifested itself in their works in elds
such as physics, meteorology, and ethology. While an extensive
scientic dynasty like the Exners is rare, scientic families, even
on a smaller scale, do invite further analysis. The Odum family
comes to mind, with Howard W. Odum, a distinguished sociologist, and his sons Howard T. and Eugene Odum, who
became two of the most eminent American ecologists of the
twentieth century. The sons were lifelong collaborators and
were at least motivated by their fathers sociological framework
and social activism, which begs the question of intergenerational transmission of (social) scientic thought, culture, and
collaboration.
In a recent study of the Swedish social scientists Alva and
Gunnar Myrdal, Thomas Etzemller (2010) explored the
profound entanglements and interdependencies of the Myrdals private and professional lives. In their capacity as social
engineers in Sweden they understood their own personal
lives as a role model for the modern, social democratic
society in whose reform they were involved. In their private
lives, which they publicly displayed, they attempted to
demonstrate rationality, equality, and control of emotions,
which they envisioned as the main pillars of the reformed
Swedish society. The negotiations and conicts between the
spouses about equality, collaboration, and the tension
between individual liberty and dedication to the shared lives
and work reected the ambivalence of the larger process of
modernization in society. This study of the Myrdals stands
out as a model for exploring the intersection of the private
and professional lives and inspires future research along
similar lines.
As in the past most scholars came from educated upper and
middle-class backgrounds, access to universities for larger
parts of the population and policies like afrmative action in
the United States, as well as efforts to increase the number of
women and members of minorities in higher education have
started to change the demographics of the social and
behavioral sciences. This development opens up an entire
new universe of experiences from different social and
cultural vantage points to explore how family life is
organized and how personal and professional lives are
negotiated, and to study further how scholarly work is
negotiated, practiced, and presented. In the mid-twentieth
century, however, as large numbers of women graduated
from universities and sought employment at colleges and
universities, hiring policies guided by antinepotism rules
profoundly affected their lives and careers as the next section
explores.

Scholars, Private Lives of

Antinepotism Rules and Their Consequences

Initially implemented to base academic appointments and
advancement on merit rather than on personal relationships,
antinepotism regulations led to large-scale discrimination of
women in particular. Instead of holding full-edged faculty
positions as appropriate for their training and experience,
many highly educated women found themselves relegated to
low-rank, often unstable positions with little prestige and
small salaries. These disadvantages predominantly affected
the women themselves, but also bore consequences for their
families. A lower total family income is the obvious
consequence, but the womens positions were often
temporary, geographically scattered, time-consuming, and
scheduled at inconvenient times. In addition to exploring the
effects of antinepotism rules on womens careers, more
research is needed on the consequences for the couples
relationships, for family life including children, for these
families social lives and networks. How did inferior and
time-consuming jobs affect the fathers involvement in family
life? What were the reactions of the husbands, who succeeded
professionally at the cost of their wives careers while, at the
same time, they valued their wives academic skills?
Cases of stalled or diverted careers because of antinepotism
rules in the United States are increasingly well documented,
even though this documentation and analysis remains far
from exhaustive. One prominent example is the psychologist
Else Frenkel-Brunswik, who is best known for her
coauthorship of The Authoriatian Personality. Since her
husband Egon Brunswik was a faculty member at the
Department of Psychology at Berkeley, she could not obtain
a tenured position at the same institution. Instead, the
Universitys Institute of Child Welfare became her
institutional home, where she was hired as a research
associate. In addition to maintaining a productive research
agenda, she taught courses at the Department of Psychology,
but without being accepted into the faculty. At the University
of Kansas, the renowned psychologist Beatrice Wright was
barred from teaching, because her husband was a faculty
member. Her textbook on disability, however, was used in
the classes she was not allowed to teach. Not least because of
Wrights case, the University of Kansas reversed its policy and
Wright could obtain a faculty position eventually (Rossiter,
1995, p. 141). The sociologist Caroline Baer Rose is another
prominent example of the effects of antinepotism rules on
women in academia. She was married to Arnold Rose,
a sociologist at the University of Minnesota. Before they
moved to Minnesota in 1952, both had worked on the
research and the manuscript of Myrdals An American
Dilemma. Even though the Roses collaborated throughout
their marriage and coauthored several books and articles,
Arnolds position prevented Caroline from becoming
a faculty member at the Department of Sociology. Thus, she
held a temporary position in a small college, worked on high
school curricula, taught correspondence courses, and found
other ways of employment at the University. She was only
able to join the faculty and become full professor after
Arnold died in 1968 (Howery in Deegan, 1991).
These antinepotism regulations, even though they were
applied in varying severity at different institutions, locked out

37

highly qualied women particularly from the most prestigious

universities. A study by John Parrish, a professor of labor
economics at the University of Illinois, analyzing faculty
numbers by eld and sex at the 20 leading universities in the
United States in 1960 illustrates the gender-segregation at the
top ranks of academia. In psychology 5 out of 184 full
professors (or 2.72%) were women (for the total including
lower ranks, i.e., assistant professors and above, 30 out of
416 faculty members were women, which is 7.21%). In
sociology, all of 2 women could be found among a total of
108 full professors, which equals 1.85% (the total faculty was
259, out of whom 12 were women, which translates into
4.63%). The situation in economics was similar: The total of
205 full professors included 4 women, or 1.95% (including
lower ranks: 16 out of 435, i.e., 3.68%). One woman held
a full professorship in anthropology vis--vis 46 men
(2.17%), whereas the total faculty of 94 included 3 women,
i.e., 3.19%. Political science had 2 full female professors out
of 161 (1.24%) as opposed to 6 out of 336 (1.79%)
including assistant professors and above. Finally, there was
no woman among 44 full professors in geography, whereas
one woman could be found in the total faculty sample of 97
(1.03%). (Parrish cited in Rossiter, 1995, p. 128ff.)
The women affected by antinepotism regulations turned to
various strategies to deal with this discrimination. As one
popular strategy, they took on assignments in different university departments (if allowed) or lower-rank colleges in the
region. In doing so, they were at least able to work in the
eld in which they were interested and trained. Some tried to
accumulate so many outside accolades that pressured
university administrations to hire or advance them, as it was
eventually the case with Beatrice Wright at the University of
Kansas. Yet another strategy was not to marry at all during
their active time as professionals, as did the archeologists
Madeline Kneberg and Thomas Lewis (Rossiter, 1995, p. 125).
Antinepotism rules did not entirely seal off women from
positions in higher education, however. Particularly lowerrank and public colleges and universities, as well as newly
founded institutions tended to interpret the antinepotism
rules more generously than long-standing top-tier
universities. For example, both the sociologists Lewis and
Rose Coser were offered professorships by the State
University of New York Stony Brook, while Luther and Jessie
Bernard, also sociologists, were hired by Pennsylvania
State University.
By the early 1970s, more and more American universities
started to loosen or reverse their antinepotism rules, not least
because these rules conicted with afrmative action policies.
While there are indications that nepotism restrictions continue
to exist at some colleges and universities, albeit in a more covert
manner, it is the term dual career couples that currently
garners attention. Academic couples still often fail in their
attempt to nd appropriate positions for both partners in the
same institution or even geographical region, and it is still
mostly the women who cannot attain their professional goals.
A recent project in Germany explored the internal and external
conditions of the lives and work of academics that continue to
adversely affect womens employment (Rusconi and Solga,
2011). While this project focused on the current situation, it
can serve as a repository of themes to pursue relevant questions

38

Scholars, Private Lives of

in historical research on private lives of scholars in the social

and behavioral sciences.
More systematic study of the intended and unintended
consequences of university hiring policies and practices for
the women and their spouses and families has the potential
to illuminate the intersection of the personal and the professional. As research has focused on North America and more
recently Germany, an international comparative perspective
also seems worthwhile, as does a transnational one particularly looking at the international migrants in academia.
Furthermore, research has focused on academics who, despite
having faced discrimination and setbacks, were determined
and tenacious enough to stay in or distinguish themselves
outside academia. This viewpoint is a variant of the winners
perspective which restricts the subjects under investigation to
those individuals who were eventually successful. If sources
permit, in order to gain a better understanding of the processes
and dynamics involved, future projects should include the
lives and careers of persons who got discouraged or had no
other opportunity than leave academia for different career
paths.

Conclusion
As the body of literature on the private lives of scholars is
modest but growing, a variety of emerging avenues for research
hold the promise for multifaceted new insights into the history
of the social and behavioral sciences and the experiences of
scholars. Historical research depends on sources, however,
and the lack of material particularly covering the personal
realm is often an inhibiting factor for research. In many cases
the extant papers equal the published record, which often
went through a selective process that weeded out material
that was not published or did not lead directly to publications.
For the big men of science, records about their private lives,
their wives and their shared lives and work are usually scant,
and the same is true for the few famous female social and
behavioral scientists. Margaret Mead stands out as an exception, since her papers also contain material on her husbands.
However, researchers can take their cue from womens history,
which has demonstrated how historical narratives can be revisited and revised both by reinterpreting archival material and by
consulting previously neglected sources. Additionally, unconventional sources may provide starting points for further
research. For instance, the protagonist in Philip Roths campus
novel The Human Stain, is modeled after Melvin Tumin,
professor of sociology at Princeton University (Flood, 2012).
While nding and presenting new material and case studies
is certainly important, it is desirable for further analysis to

move toward comparative, transnational, longitudinal, and

comprehensive analyses. Investigating various perspectives of
private lives of scholars in the context of different cultures,
disciplines, historical contextualization, and discourses will
signicantly enrich the historiography of the social and behavioral sciences and their practitioners.

Bibliography
Biagioli, M., 1993. Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Browne, J., 1996. Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Browne, J., 2002. Charles Darwin: The Power of Place. Princeton, NJ.
Chiu, C.S., 2008. Women in the Shadows. Lang, New York, NY.
Coen, D.R., 2007. Vienna in the Age of Uncertainty. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Deegan, M.J. (Ed.), 1991. Women in Sociology: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook.
Greenwood Press, New York, NY.
Eckstein, V. (Ed.), 1996. Kultfrauen, second ed. Bollmann, Mannheim.
Etzemller, T., 2010. Die Romantik der Rationalitt. Transcript-Verl, Bielefeld.
Flood, A., 2012. Philip Roths Complaint to Wikipedia. The Guardian. http://www.
theguardian.com/books/2012/sep/11/philip-roth-wikipedia.
Flsing, U., 1999. Geniale Beziehungen. Beck, Mnchen.
Geison, G.L., 1995. The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Handler, R. (Ed.), 2004. Signicant Others: Interpersonal and Professional Commitments in Anthropology. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Kohlstedt, S.G. (Ed.), 1999. History of Women in the Sciences: Readings from Isis.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Laslett, B., Thorne, B. (Eds.), 1997. Feminist Sociology: Life Histories of a Movement.
Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Lykknes, A., Opitz, D., Tiggelen, B.van (Eds.), 2012. For Better or for Worse?
Collaborative Couples in the Sciences. Birkhuser, Basel.
Pycior, H.M., Helena, M., Slack, N.G., Abir-Am, P.G. (Eds.), 1996. Creative Couples in
the Sciences. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Rossiter, M.W., 1982. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to
1940. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Rossiter, M.W., 1995. Women Scientists in America: Before Afrmative Action
19401972. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Rossiter, M.W., 2012. Women Scientists in America: Forging a New World since
1972. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Rusconi, A., Solga, H. (Eds.), 2011. Gemeinsam Karriere machen: Die Verechtung
von Berufskarrieren und Familie in Akademikerpartnerschaften. Budrich, Opladen.
Schiebinger, L.L., 1999. Has Feminism Changed Science? Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Scott, J.W., 1986. Gender: a useful category of historical analysis. The American
Historical Review 91, 10531075.
Scott, J.W., 2010. Gender: still a useful category of analysis? Diogenes 57, 714.
Shortland, M., Yeo, R. (Eds.), 1996. Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientic
Biography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Silverberg, H. (Ed.), 1998. Gender and American Social Science: The Formative Years.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Westfall, R.S., 1980. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wurzinger, C., 2002. Ruth Guttman, geb. Halpern. In: Keintzel, B., Korotin, I. (Eds.),
Wissenschafterinnen in und aus sterreich: Leben Werk Wirken. Bhlau, Wien,
pp. 270273.