Women are underrepresented in all occupations dealing with science, mathematics or engineering and it is an open question whether this situation is desirable or not. We still have a gender-specific and subsequently a gender-hierarchic division of the labour-market. The woman maintains the household and cares for children and family, the man earns the money in his job in the cruel world. This pattern has not changed very much with the growth of employment of women. As the report on professional instruction of the German Ministry of Education (BMBW) states: Most girls still concentrate their choice of professions on a too small variety of occupations which are moreover typical female. "In 1988 more than half of the girls starting a vocational training have chosen among not more than 10 professions, such as hairdresser, doctor´s assistant or saleswomen. The fraction of girls who have chosen a profession in science or engineering (excluding medicine) still remains under 5 percent." As a consequence, nothing is changing in the gender-specific partitioning of the labour-market, implying worse earnings and career opportunities for women and stabilising the lower prestige of the professions chosen by them.
In school the beginning of the state is that girls show much less interest in science, particularly in physics and chemistry, than boys, and the more they grow up the more their interest in science decreases. As a consequence very few girls chose advanced courses in science and technology.
This means that the majority of women do not participate in our western technical and scientific culture and that they are often pushed to deal with our scientific and technically driven environment in a more magic and mystical manner rather than with rational understanding. They miss the scientific literacy which allows them to introduce their interests and points of view in the democratic process of decision making on the future trends of technical development. I think we cannot afford to exclude half of the people from the science culture - and even more than half because there are also many boys we do not reach through science instruction. I hope you will agree to our feminist slogan: "wasting women power is really foolish".
Apart from this, it may be possible that these women will make remarkable contributions to the advancement of science and technology. No, I do not share the hope of some left politicians and scientists that women are more able to reflect and draw better conclusions from the feminist criticism of science or that, in view of the ecological problems, women would treat nature more healingly and with more responsability. Nevertheless - as we will all have to suffer from the ecological desaster, we all (every man and every woman) must have the right and the opportunity to decide on the best use of our natural resources. It is the ignorance of power to burden the consequences of one´s actions to those who are not able to defend themselves.
What then is the role of school and especially of physics instruction in this dilemma? Let us have a short look at a typical classroom situation. Sixteen, seventeen year-old boys and girls, Mary and Kathleen, Mark and Mike are doing experiments in electricity in small groups. Let us listen to some aspects of their communication.
Kathleen is attaching a wire to a socket with a screw-driver. Mark watches impatiently, Kathleen pulls the fastened wire - it is still loose. "Women and technology" Mark comments sighing, and as Kathleen is trying again to fasten the wire, Mark demands: Give it to me, just admit you are unable to do it the right way. Look at how you are holding the screw-driver.
A few minutes later, the group is installing an ammeter in an electric circuit. Mary opens the circuit for inserting the ammeter - Mark doesn't agree, takes the ammeter and connects it in parallel with the bulb. Short circuit - the teacher is asked to find the mistake - Mary has her triumph: "I told you before, I was right, I am not as stupid as you always seem to believe". Going on to the next problem creating a circuit with bulbs in parallel and in series at the same time, Mary shouts: "I don´t know how to do it, I don´t understand the task!"
Mike and Mark begin to connect wires and bulbs. Kathleen tries to stop them and asks the boys: "Please, can you explain what you are going to do?" - "Wait and see!" - After they have finished they try out the circuit. One bulb doesn't glow, it is bridged. "Oh, why doesn´t it burn?" Mike and Mark are helpless. Mary, looking at the arrangement, has an idea: "You must take off these two wires. Mark and Mike don´t understand her idea. Kathleen wants to do it, but Mark doesn't let her. Don't touch my circuit! He is probing here and there and explores if there is good electric contact. Meanwhile Mike is looking for help, and as the teacher is just coming, he asks him. The teacher points to the bridging wires and lets the group find out what´s wrong with them. When the kids are alone again Mary complains: We had the right idea, why did you contact the teacher?
In the following session Mary consults the teacher: How do we connect the voltmeter - this way or the other way round - where is the positive pole? Being very careful Mary wanted to be sure not to ruin the instrument. The teacher hadn´t really grasped her problem and called Mark: Show the girls how to use the instrument. Mark then behaves very much like the boss and organizes the following experiments leaving the girls no chance of handling the equipment when they wanted to change the arrangement for the next experiment. The girls were resigned to the passive role of note takers, wrote down the measurement data, the numbers the voltmeter needle pointed at, and sketched the corresponding circuit diagrams.
This scene, is it a normal one? Or rather an extreme one? Did the teacher deal with the situation in a right way? Did he give enough support to both, the boys and the girls? Let´s see what researchers found out about such classroom-situations, about interests and feelings of boys and girls.
Regarding the achievement of boys and girls in science and even in physics - at least in terms of tests and reports - there is no significant difference. This cannot explain the low number of choices of advanced science courses and the scientific and technological fields of occupation by girls. But there is a difference in interest for science and technology, especially in physics. My following remarks refer in the first place to physics and physics instruction as we here have the clearest examples of the tendencies we find in science and science instruction in general.
As several studies, and particularly that of Lore Hoffmann (1985) , show interest in physics is progressively decreasing for boys and girls with increasing age, however for girls much more significantly. Girls' diminishing interest in physics correlates closely to the growing acceptance of their gender role.
Lack of interest for physics can, however, not be generalised for all subjects of physics, there are topics girls find attractive - but, what a pity, they are rarely found in our physics courses as they are not part of the established physics teaching curriculum.
With regard to their studies Hoffmann and Häussler (1990) mention the following aspects suitable for promoting girls' interest in physics.
Girls are interested in natural phenomena, like weather, rainbow or the eclipse of the moon. They are interested if physics are presented in a biological or medical context. To some extent they like optics and astronomy.
There has been a long and continuing discussion on how to integrate these aspects in ordinary physics instruction but this claim has been realised only sporadically. The authors of the University of Michigan Study (1983ff) came to the conclusion that "certain students, among them especially women, would respond better to science if scientific knowledge were more closely and explicitly linked to important societal issues". Already the studies of students' interests indicate that girls and their background of experience are not of great weight in school, and that there is no demand on boys to engage in fields of special girls' interests. On the contrary, they have developed effective strategies to reject such requests: boring, uninteresting, womanish, no physics, nothing new or exciting, banal, tyring - so that the teacher, having already enough trouble with the boys' discipline, will not insist on their participation.
This tendency that girls have to adapt themselves to the boys' curriculum originated in the history of schooling because for hundreds of years it was a purely boys´ institution - this tendency characterises not only physics courses but all subjects of school instruction and can be substantiated, for example, by the analysis of current school books although authors and publishers are trying hard to make them more girl friendly.
Classroom analyses confirm my statement with regard to topics and selection of examples but beyond this, they showed a lot of interaction patterns commonly used in classrooms discriminating against girls in a very subtle manner.
To put it right, first of all parents play a central role in the creation of sex-differentiated values and self-perceptions. These effects are not necessarily intentional, parents are often unaware of things they are doing which discourage their daughters from studying math, physics and science. Consequently, their gender-role stereotyped behaviors and expectations are often immune to modification based on their childrens' actual talents and performance. Such socializing effects of parents' behaviors and beliefs are, for example, to give technical toys to boys, dolls to girls. Girls are asked to help mother doing the housework, boys are asked to assist father doing craftswork and other technical tasks in house and garden. Boys are encouraged using tools such as hammer, saw, file or electric drill, girls are warned not to hurt themselves. Early interests and talents for math, physics and science are noticed more likely by parents of boys than by parents of girls. Parents, mothers and fathers, think it is more important for sons than for daughters to take advanced courses in math and science, especially in physics. Parents think that math is more difficult for daughters than for sons and that girls have to work harder than boys to get the same learning results in school. Parents are less likely to encourage girls to take advanced math courses.
This means when children are entering school, and also in the following years, girls have less opportunity to practice in technical and scientific fields than boys, and their science knowledge acquired in school has a much smaller basis of experience. So, when teachers rely on equal processing for boys and girls, boys have the better chance.
Beyond this students bring with them sex-differentiated beliefs and self-perceptions as well as gender-role specific behaviors, learnt from parents, other family members, friends, peers or TV.
Here is a list of such gender-specific beliefs, held by the girls and boys themselves as well as gender-specific behaviors shown by girls and boys.
How do teachers react to those beliefs and behaviors. The pity is that teachers are rarely aware of them, and even if they were the demands inherent in teaching and supervising a large number of children at a time results in teachers usually being more reactive than proactive in their interactions with students. Consequently, teachers often unintentionally reinforce the gender-role related beliefs the children bring with them to the classroom. Jacquelynne S. Eccles (1989), one of the researchers in the Michigan study, states: "Although teachers could be a powerful force for change they typically are too reactive and too overwhelmed with the day-to-day realities of their class-rooms to have much of an impact on most childrens' gender-role stereotyped self-perceptions and values." But before we could hope for change from the teachers' side, let's have a look on their beliefs and behaviors in physics classrooms.
This compilation is from a variety of empirical studies made in Germany and some other countries that accounted for girls' unequal access or entry to certain scientific disciplines in higher education but cannot fully explain the observed phenomena. In particular they cannot explain why some girls are successful in science, or why inter-institutional and interdisciplinary differences are sometimes so great. Why do girls from similar schools and social backgrounds, with similar temperaments, enrol consistently more highly in some institutions than others and in some scientific disciplines more than others?
However, I think the problem has even deeper roots, namely in natural science itself and the image of science we continuously propagate. If we believe feminist critics of natural science one has to characterize these sciences as a patriarchal enterprise which induces women's exclusion by its constitution, and which stabilizes, legalizes, and ever and ever reproduces domination of men over women. Natural science itself has to be considered to be the cause of the social and personal behaviour stated above. Eileen M. Byrne (1993) says:
This perception proves to be one of the greatest barriers to adolescent girls who want to be seen as 'normally feminine' while pursuing secondary or tertiary study.
According to feminist critics of natural science the metaphor of nature being a female is the starting point of the prevailing image of natural science. "Natural science is still made by men for men, a male phenomenon in our culture - and those women who are present in this field are allowed just to join in - anything else is not left for them in research or teaching for the time being" (E. Hickel 1993). That means women have to adapt themselves to the norms valid in science - or they have to get out.
Natural science in the way it is practised is one of the great pillars of patriarchal domination. It is only in the fields of military and church that androcentristic behaviour, thinking and acting, i.e. thinking and acting fixed on men and on masculine ideals is as crucial as in natural science and technology. Francis Bacon developed the language from which subsequent generations of scientists extracted a (more) consistent metaphor of lawful sexual domination. "Francis Bacon wrote his fundamental work on modern natural science in England in the beginning of the 17th century. This work is full of analogies on the way how to treat nature as well as women. He took up the equation to be traced back to Aristoteles of women being the mere material part of nature, while men, on the other hand, represent the mental part of nature. This equation of man and mind, woman and matter, showed far-reaching consequences. Francis Bacon was not only a philosopher - in which role he published the epistemology of this new experimental science - but he was also a politician, and in his function as British chancellor in the beginning of the 17th century he was simultaneously main organizer of witch-trials in England. Obviously, Bacon was well prepared to argue against women who had the audacity to claim more mental share of the society than the purely material part.
As Carolyn Merchant (1980) showed in many wordings of Bacon's philosophical work, he argues man has to treat nature in the same way as a woman: one had to torment nature / or woman (witch) until the woman (witch) would say the truth - to penetrate into her innermost corners in order to get hold of her secrets."
Evelyn Fox Keller shows Bacon's position in a somewhat more differentiated way and explains his intention to encourage young scientists to practice analytical and experimental science, a way to deal with nature which at that time was really a taboo because it was considered as a forbidden infiltration in the secrets of God's Creation.
Below, a few citations from Bacon's work on philosophy of nature.
Let us have a look at a number of citations showing to what large extent the metaphor of nature being a woman is used in Bacon's works:
"Let us establish a chaste and lawful marriage between Mind and Nature".
"My dear, dear boy, what I plan for you is to unite you with things themselves in a chaste, holy and legals wedlock. And from this association you will secrue an increase beyond all the hopes and prayers of ordinary marriages, to wit, a blessed race of Heroes and Supermen"
"I am come in very truth leading to you Nature with all her children to bind her to your service and make her your slave".
"I invite all such to join themselves, as true sons of knowledge, with me, that passing by the outer courts of nature, which numbers have trodden, we may find a way at length into her inner chambers".
"For you have but to follow and as it were hound nature in her wanderings, and you will be able, when you like, to lead and drive her afterwards to the same place again".
"merely exert a gentle guidance over nature's course; they have the power to conquer and subdue her, to shake her to her foundations"
"the nature of things betrays itself more readily under the vexations of art than in its natural freedom"
"my only earthly wish, namely is to stretch the deplorable narrow limits of man's dominion over the universe to their promised bounds"
Even if Evelyn Fox Keller also develops the nuances in Bacon's work showing a more respectful approach to nature she ends as well with the conclusion: "Francis Bacon himself was in may ways a transitional figure bewteen hermetic and mechanist views; but his attitude toward gender and sexuality, expressed in his vision of science as a "Masculine Birth of Time" that will issue in a "blessed race of Heroes and Supermen" - a force that can "hound", "conquer" and "subdue Nature", "shake her to her foundations," "storm and occupy her castles and strongholds" - retrospectively marks him as a kinsman of the later Fellows of the Royal Society." However, she sees degradation and suppression of women and nature to be put in practice only by the following generations of scientists. "They embraced the patriarchal imagery of Baconian science and rejected the more participatory and erotic language of the alchimists." "Thomas Sprat explains for example the wit that is founded on the arts of mens' hands is masculine and durable" "Joseph Glanvill adds the function of science is to discover "the ways of captivating nature, and making her subserve our purposes" As the "mechanical philosophers" expressed it: "The goal of the new science is the establishment of the "Empire of Man over Nature".
"Biomedicine in France and Great Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth century carried on this tradition of gender symbols in describing nature: "... Actions in science and medicine were linked with gender metaphors describing nature definitely as a woman which has to be revealed, undressed, and to be penetrated by a male science" (Jordanova 1980, p. 45). ... Jordanova concludes in her study that biomedicine enforced cultural association of nature with passive, objectivated femininity and of culture with active objectivating masculinity. This metaphoric of nature and scientific research - conspicuously gender-oriented - is not only a historical remainder, the same dichotomies and metaphors may be found in modern literature on science. No wonder, Harding asks, that women are no enthusiastic auditorium for such interpretations?
This equating of nature with femininity and science with masculinity resulting from Bacon's metaphor, and the wall raised between the two domains is the classical pattern of conceptual dichotomisation. It is even characterised by Merchant and Jordanova as main feature of scientific ideology and practice. Masculinity-determined dichotomies to be traced back further than the modern age, which are part of the general heritage of our latin world thinking and which characterize the whole western philosophy, lead to judgments in which qualities attributed to men always are considered to be of higher rank and social reputation than the qualities attributed to femininity, to women. Examples for such dichotomic conceptual couples are:
| rational | emotional |
| objective | subjective |
| culture | nature |
| public | private |
| active | passive |
| mind | matter |
| hard | soft |
| natural | science |
According to Fee insisting on these masculinity-determined dichotomies is of crucial importance for maintaining the faith in objectivity of science in a four ways:
This self-conception of science shown in its masculine image understandably produces difficulties for women intending to work as scientists and prevents many women from getting involved in such project. Evelyn Fox Keller said in an interview in Bremen: "In the sixties it was a difficult project to be woman and physicist at the same time. It was a contradiction. It was painful." Sandra Harding asks in her book "The Science Question in Feminism": "Is a female scientist a contradiction in itself?" And she comes to realize that mere reforms in science can by no means solve the problems of equality. A revolutionary change in gender relations and in the relations between science and society will be necessary to eliminate the contradiction of being a female scientist. This task seems so overwhelming that one tends to resign - or to develop a long-term perspective?
Donna Haraway (1995) shows with her term of the "re-construction of nature" a way which at least shows perspectives, and she shows with seriousness that also the term nature is a creation of human mind influenced by culture.Using the example of primatology she shows in what way female (field) researchers changed the meaning of what is female or male behaviour by their observations and interpretations of apes' action and how the female perspective helped to move the boundary concerning the question what is to be defined as human or animal. This implies also taking up again the question of what is nature. She shows how the primatology has been used and can be used to tell a new history of our origin other than our Christian Creation story on the origin and destination of man and woman. All these subjects are highly topical controvercies in science and politics, which have been raised anew by women and which also in future will require women to intervene.
I think if we succeed in making clear to our boys and girls in schools how also in natural science fundamental questions of human life are raised and answered and if we manage to say honestly that the subjective point of view of the scientist is always present, this might be an encouragement for girls to deal with natural science, which means to reconstruct how science comes to statements on fundamental questions of our human and social existence.Topics quite relevant to the present can thus be handled. The problem of defining the moment of the beginning of human life in pregnancy raised in connection with the debates in the domain of reproduction medicine - and carried on to the question what life is - in the domain of genetic engineering - or, somewhat further the question of human mind which is modelled by means of computers, and which in science fiction stories and movies creates all sorts of artificial (monster)-human beings.
The analysis of such debates and their transformation into practicable teaching will certainly be a great piece of work, but such teaching would well meet the demand of female students for the integration of philosophy and history of science has been proved in many empirical studies.
Moreover we can also get advices for changes from those classes and their teachers, where girls were relatively successful in learning science and from related research studies. Casserly (1980) and Kahle (1984) as well as Eccles, Mac Iver & Lange (1986) have looked on classrooms where students showed few sex differences in their attitude towards math and science and where boys' and girls' achievement in physics were the same.
Summarizing you can say it is crucial to avoid a male working and class atmosphere and rather to foster a democratic way of behaviour giving room for mutual acceptance, emotional human relations and multiple approaches to natural sciences.
On the other hand, as we are all researchers we should as a matter of routine look at differences between girls and boys in our studies, which does not happen normally. Supposedly you will find no differences in ability but probably in the way girls and boys deal with the subjects of natural science. I question if no differences are to be found in students' alternative frameworks when they are related to boys and girls, but in all these research studies you scarcely find he and she. So it should be introduced in our research field to look at gender as a category to be taken in consideration in the particular circumstances as it is the state of art in social sciences.
AG Naturwissenschaften sozial, (1992). Mädchen, Naturwissenschaften und Technik - neue Aspekte eines alten Problems. In: Naturwissenschaftlich-technische Bildung - für Mädchen keine Chance? A. Kremer (Hrsg.) 1. Aufl. - Reihe Soznat / Kritisches Forum Naturwissenschaft und Schule, 1992
Berghahn, S. u.a. (Hrsg.) (1984). Wider die Natur? Frauen in Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Berlin, 1984
Brämer, R. (1981). Die typische Naturwissenschaftlerin - ein intelligentes Schreckgespenst? Einsichten in männliche Ansichten. In: Wechselwirkung, 1981, 91
Brehmer, I. (Hrsg.) (1982). Sexismus in der Schule. Der heimliche Lehrplan der Frauendiskriminierung. Beltz, Weinheimd/Basel, 1982
Byrne, E.M. (1993). Women and science: The snark syndrome. London/Washington: Falmer Press.
Casserly, P.L. (1980). An assessment of factors affecting female participation in advanced placement programs in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. In: Fox, L.H., Brody, L. & Tobin, D. (Eds.): Women and the mathematical mystique. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, 1988, 138 - 163
Craig, J. & Harding, J. (Eds.) (1985). Girls and Science and Technology (GASAT). 3 Conference Report, Theme III: Women, Society, Science and Technology. Kings College, London, 1985
Dick, A. & Faulstich-Wieland, H. (1988). Mädchenbildung und Neue Technologien. Der hessische Modellversuch. In:LOG IN, 1988, 8 (1), 20 - 24
Easlea, B. (1980). Witch hunting, magic and the new philosophy. Brighton: Harester Press.
Eccles, J., MacIver, D. & Lange, L. (1986). Classroom practices and motivation to study math. Symposium paper, AERA, San Francisco, 1986
Eccles, J.S. (1987a). Gender roles and achievement. In:Reinisch, J., Rosenblum, L.A. & Sanders, S.A. (Eds.). Masculinity and femininity, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987
Eccles, J.S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In:Crawford, M. & Gentry, M. (Eds.)Gender and thought: Psychological Perspectives. Springer, New York / Berlin / Heidelberg..., 1989
Eccles, J.S. (1985a). Sex differences in achievement patterns. In: Sonderegger, T. (Ed.=. Nebraska Symposium of Motivation, Vol. 32. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. (Michigan Study)
Eccles, J.S., Adler, T.F. & Meece, J.L.(1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43. (Michigan Study)
Eccles-Parsons, J. (1984). Sex differences in math participation. In: Maehr, M.L. & Steinkamp, M.W. (Eds.). Women in science. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984 (Michigan Study)
Eccles-Parsons, J., Adler, T.F. & Kaczala, C.M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. In: Child Development, 1982, 53, 310 - 321. (Michigan Study)
Eccles-Parsons, J., Kaczala, C.M. & Meece, J.L. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs. Classroom influences. Child development, 53, 322-339. (Michigan Study)
Eccles. J. & Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In: Wilkinson, L.C. & Marrett, C. (Eds.). Gender influences in classroom interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1985
Enders-Dragässer, U. Fuchs, C. et al. (1988). Interaktionen und Beziehungsstrukturen in der Schule. Eine Untersuchung des Feministischen Interdisziplinären Forschungsinstituts an Hessischen Schulen im Auftrag des Hessischen Instituts für Bildungsplanung und Schulentwicklung. Frankfurt/Wiesbaden, 1988
Faulstich-Wieland, H. (1986). Neue Technologien - eine Chance für Jungen und Mädchen? In: Die deutsche Schule1986, 78 (4), 437 - 445
Faulstich-Wieland, H. (1992). Eine Frage der Inhalte? Geschlechterspezifische Zugangsweisen zu Themen des naturwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts. In: Naturwissenschaftlich-technische Bildung - für Mädchen keine Chance? A. Kremer (Hrsg.) 1. Aufl. - Reihe Soznat / Kritisches Forum Naturwissenschaft und Schule, 1992
Faulstich-Wieland, H. u.a. (1984). Erfolgreich in der Schule - diskriminiert im Beruf: Geschlechtsspezifische Ungleichheiten bei der Berufseinmündung. In: Rolff, H.G. u.a. (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung Bd. 3. Weinheim, 1984, 117 - 143
Flaake, K. (1991). Auf eigene Fähigkeiten vertrauen, statt sich "liebevoll" zurückzunehmen. Weibliche Adoleszenz und die Bedeutung einer geschlechtsbewußten Pädagogik. In: Päd Extra, 1991, 9, 20 - 25
Gardner, P.L. (1985). Students' interest in science and technology: An international overview. In:Lehrke, M., Hoffmann, L. & Gardner, P.L. (Eds.). Interests in science and technology education. 12th IPN Symposium, Kiel, IPN 1985
Hanna, G. & Kuendiger, E. (1986). Differences in mathematical achievement levels and in attitudes for girls and boys in twenty countries. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, 1986
Haraway, D. (1995). Die Neuerfindung der Natur. Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen. Frankfurt: Campus.
Haraway, D. (1995). Primatologie ist Politik mit anderen Mitteln. In: Orland, B., Scheich, E. (Hrsg.). Das Geschlecht der Natur. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,136-202.
Harding, S., (1990). Feministische Wissenschaftstheorie. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und sozialem Geschlecht. Hamburg: Argument.
Häußler, P. (1987). Measuring students' interest in physics - design and results of a cross-sectional study in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: European Journal of Science Education1987, 9, 79 - 92
Häußler, P. & Hoffmann, L. (1990). Wie Physikunterricht auch für Mädchen interessant werden kann. In: Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht, Physik 11990, 1, 12 - 18
Hickel, E. (1992). Ansätze feministischer Naturwissenschaft: Die Auflösung der Widersprüche? In: Kremer, A., Stäudel, L., Zolg, M. (Hrsg.). Naturwissenschaftlich-technische Bildung - Für Mädchen keine Chance?
Hickel, Erika (1992). Ansätze feministischer Naturwissenschaft - Die Auflösung der Widersprüche? In: Naturwissenschaftlich-technische Bildung - für Mädchen keine Chance? A. Kremer (Hrsg.) 1. Aufl. - Reihe Soznat / Kritisches Forum Naturwissenschaft und Schule, 1992
Hoffmann, L. (1985). Differences in the subjective conditions of interests in physics and technology for boys and girls. In: Girls and Science and Technology. The third international GASAT conference. Supplementary contributions.Chelsea College, London, 1985, 70 - 78
Hoffmann, L. (1990). Mädchen und Physik - ein aktuelles, ein drängendes Thema. In: Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht, Physik 1. 1990, 1, 4 - 11
Horstkemper, M. (1989). Jungen und Mädchen in der Schule - Formale Gleichheit und unterschwellige Benachteiligung. In: Hamburg macht Schule, 1989, 5, 4 - 8
Hubbard, R. (1979). Have only men evolved. In: R. Hubbard, M. Henifin & B. Fried (Eds.): Biological Woman: The Convenient Myth. Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman.
Janshen, D., Rudolph, H. et al (Hrsg.) (1987). Ingenieurinnen. Frauen für die Zukunft. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1987
Jardanova, L.J. (1980). Natural facts: A historical perspective on science and sexuality. In: MacCormack, C. & Strathern, M. (Eds.). Nature, culture and gender. Cambridge: University Press.
Jones, G. (1989). Gender bias in classroom interactions. In: Contemporary Education, 1989, 60, 216 - 222
Jones, M.G. (1989). Gender issues in teacher education. In: Journal of Teacher Education1989, 49, 33 - 38
Kahle, J. (1984). Girl-friendly science. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences, New York, 1984
Kahle, J. (1984).Girl-friendly science. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences. New York, 1984
Kahle, J.B. & Lakes, M.K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1983, 20, 131 - 140
Keller, E.F. (1986). Liebe, Macht und Erkenntnis. Männliche und weibliche Wissenschaft? Hauser, München/Wien, 1986
Keller, E.F. (1936). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Keller, E.F. (1995). Geschlecht und Wissenschaft. Eine Standortbestimmung. In: : Orland, B., Scheich, E. (Hrsg.). Das Geschlecht der Natur. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 64-91.
Keller, E.F., (1986). Liebe, Macht und Erkenntnis. Männliche und weibliche Wissenschaft? München/Wien: Hanser
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature. San Francisco. (Deutsch: Der Tod der Natur. München 1987.
Michigan Study (see: Eccles)
Morse, L.W. & Handley, H.M. (1985). Listening to adolescents: Gender differences in science classroom interaction. In: Wilkerson, L.C. & Marrett, C.B. (Eds.)Gender influences in classroom interactionAcademic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985, 37 - 56
Ormerod, M.B. (1981). Factors differentially affecting the science subject preferences choices and attitudes of girls and boys. In: Kelly, A. (Ed.): The missing half. University Press, Manchester, 1981
Schiersmann, Ch. (1987). Zugangsweisen von Mädchen und Frauen zu den neuen Technologien - Eine Bilanz vorliegender Untersuchungsergebnisse. In: Institut Frau und Gesellschaft: Frauenforschung 1 + 2, 1987
Schildkamp-Kündiger, E. (1982). An international review of gender and mathematics. In: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmen EducationColumbus, 1982
Spear, M.G. (1984). Sex bias in science teacher ratings of work and pupil characteristics. In: European Journal Science Education, 1984, 6, 369 - 377
Sprat, T. (1667). The history of the Royal Societa of London for the improving of natural knowledge. I.J. Cope & H.W. Jones (Eds.). London: Routledge 1966.
Stage, E.K., Kreinberg, N., Eccles, J. & Becker, J.R. oh.J. Increasing the participation and achievement of girls and women in mathematics, science, and engineering. Under review for publication in Klein, S.S. (Ed.). Achieving Sex Equity through Education. Baltimore, MD, oh. J.
Taber, K.S. (1991). Girl-friendly physics in the national curriculum. In: Physics Education, U.K., 1991, 26
Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender related differences in science activities. In: Science Education, 1987, 71, 91 - 103
Weinbach, Irmgard (1988). Das Verhältnis von Mädchen zu naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern - Abriß der Forschungssistuation. In: Empirische Pädagogik, Zeitschrift zu Theorie und Praxis erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung, 1988, 2 (2), 105 - 125
Wienekamp, H., Jansen, W. u.a. (1988). Ist unbewußtes Lehrerverhalten eine Ursache für die stärkere Unbeliebtheit des Chemieunterrichts bei Mädchen? In: Giesche, S. & Sachse, D. (Hrsg.). Frauen verändern Lernen. Dokumentation der 6. Fachtagung der AG Frauen und Schule. Kiel, 1988, 15 - 21