Androcentrism and the Great Man Narrative in Psychology Textbooks: The Case of Ivan Pavlov.
Androcentrism is pervasive in psychology's textbooks. Gray (1977) first reported on the extensive male-centered bias and invisibility of women in undergraduate textbooks. Seeking more evidence of bias, Denmark (1983) reviewed introductory psychology textbooks from 1979-1982 and found that women were not equally represented in content. Denmark urged us to consider the role of women in psychology, name those women who were important, and discuss their accomplishments. These conclusions were echoed by Percival (1984) in her assessment of introductory psychology textbooks. Into the 1990s, gender-biases decreased in introductory and abnormal psychology textbooks as more women were portrayed, but women were still characterized in stereotypical and negative ways (Bender Peterson & Kroner, 1992; Marecek, 1993). So for over 40 years, it's been acknowledged psychology's textbooks are gender-biased, and given sensitivity to current values about gender equality the standard should be very high for contemporary works, but this paper will show that authors, editors, and publishers still create content that excludes women or represents women negatively.
An easy way to address this bias is to include contemporary women psychologists in our textbooks, but we also need to attend to female pioneers in early psychology's history. Historicizing women in psychology might encounter several problems. For one thing, some of the early history of psychology happened in other countries and languages. If we are to achieve a truly global perspective on the history of psychology (Brock, 2006), it is necessary to fully document the psychology histories of other nations, to reach beyond our borders to write a history of our global world, not just the West (Berg, 2013). Yet, developing an accurate global history of psychology is filled with obstacles, both practical and ideological. Practical obstacles include uncovering and gaining access to archives and histories, obtaining translations, and interpreting these histories in local cultural and historical context. Ideological barriers also influence the documentation and interpretation of historical events, and American individualism and androcentrism are especially potent in American psychology.
Given the above, placing women into the history of psychology means countering ideological and hermeneutic concerns related to the great man narrative in history. Histories of psychology are commonly infused with stories about great men, an idea developed by the 19th century writer Thomas Carlyle (1888), who asserted that heroes shape history (Ball, 2012). These histories typically focus on one famous psychologist and describe their discoveries, ideas, and life. This emphasis on one person, common in histories of psychology, is an expression of individualism, a focus on the individual as the agentic center of action (Cushman, 1990), and the accomplishments of a person rather than a collective (Sampson, 1997). Of course, great man stories can be countered by historians looking at the social, cultural, and historical context of those famous psychologists (Ball, 2012), including the scientific collective in which they worked. The counternarrative would be: heroes don't make history; heroes have a place in history among peers, collaborators, community, and society.
Histories of women from other countries promise to be particularly difficult. Suchland (2011) cautioned that women of the former "second world," (as opposed to first or third worlds), like those in Russia, have been ignored by recent transnational feminist scholarship from the global North. Extending this analysis to psychology makes sense: women psychologists from the first world are much better known than second or third world women. Suchland contends that the erasure of non-Western women is likely because they are problematic subjects of transnational or intersectional feminism. Russian women, for example, have been erroneously constructed as white, ethnically homogenous, and not post-colonial. Moreover, in contrast to women of other nations who were openly exploited and oppressed by their governments or culture, the Soviet government legislated gender parity (at least officially). Admittedly, Soviet women were oppressed by their gender in many ways (e.g., domestic violence), but the state supported gender equality in work and education.
This all makes Russian women complex and a difficult topic for contemporary feminism. The goals of this paper are twofold. First, this paper will present a feminist critique of androcentric great man narrative of Ivan Pavlov in American and Russian psychology undergraduate textbooks. The second goal is to present a counter-narrative describing the major role women and others played in Pavlov's research labs.
"We, the Factory"
The life and work of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, the famous Russian physiologist and one of the founders of modern psychology, illustrates the above issues. Contemporary psychology tells an androcentric great man story about Pavlov: it ignores the role of women in the production of psychological knowledge and overemphasizes the role of Pavlov himself, resulting in an inaccurate and biased history. The popular story is that Pavlov was researching the physiology of digestion in dogs and discovered phenomena related to learning, eventually founding the science of classical conditioning. His contributions to science and the psychology of behaviorism--pairing buzzers with food and making dogs salivate to the buzzers alone--and his 1904 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine are oft-repeated.
From histories of Pavlov (e.g., Todes, 2014), we know a few more details about his research operations. Pavlov's laboratories were famous and highly attractive placements for students in medicine and physiology, and with state-offered incentives, he had many mentees and collaborators eager to work with him. The Ministry of Internal Affairs provided grants to physicians to improve themselves at the Military-Medical Academy, a university medical school, university clinic, or hospital in proximity to a university for a period of 6 months to 2 years, and paid them their regular salary, along with a doctorate and a salary bonus if they finished (Todes, 2002a). Students were drawn almost entirely from the diverse middle social stratum known in Russia as the raznochintsy. At the time, there were quotas limiting Jewish enrollment in high school and higher education, but Jewish doctors with service to the state were entitled to the same rank as non-Jews and were not prohibited from practicing in Saint Petersburg or Moscow. This made an appointment in Pavlov's lab even more attractive for Jews, and a disproportionate number of Pavlov's students were Jewish (Todes, 2002a). Previous scholars have characterized his students as mostly male military doctors affiliated with the Military-Medical Academy, and civilian physicians from Saint Petersburg or the surrounding provinces, between 25 and 35 years old (Babkin, 1949; Todes, 2002a).
Noted Pavlov historian Todes (2002) suggested that from the years 1891 to 1904 about 100 praktikanty (temporary assistants), had been employed in his lab including about 10 assistants (pomoshchniky) and attendants (sluzhashchie). Another estimate is that before 1905 there were only a few researchers working in Pavlov's lab; by 1930, there were 40 (Windholz, 1990). Or counting another way, from 1897 to 1936, there were at least 146 graduate students and staff who worked under Pavlov (Windholz, 1990). Historians may disagree on the specifics, but one thing is clear: Pavlov was not the only one doing research in his name.
Countering the great man narrative, Todes (2002a) used the notion of a "factory" to reinforce the idea that the work in Pavlov's laboratories was a collective effort. Todes described how the praktikanty conducted thousands of experiments in Pavlov's laboratory, painstakingly collecting, recording, measuring, and analyzing the dogs' secretory reactions to various exciters during experimental trials that often continued for eight to ten hours at a time. Pavlov did not conduct the majority of the experiments, yet he always discussed the results of each experiment with the student who performed it (Babkin, 1949). Perhaps this was an indication of what Todes (2002a) called Pavlov's laboratory glasnost, openly discussing experiments, and proudly acknowledging that his research was conducted almost entirely by praktikanty. Pavlov even credited "We, the laboratory" for discoveries, making his lab sound like a collective (Todes, 2002a: 103). Indeed, it was so much a collective effort that students were forbidden from writing their own interpretations of their experiments (Todes, 2003). Babkin (1949) quoted Pavlov as saying "... I speak collectively, mentioning no authors, when I discuss ideas and opinions... it is a joint work and the result of the general laboratory atmosphere, to which each one gives something and which is imbibed by all" (Pavlov, 1897, as cited by Babkin, 1949: 116-7). As further evidence of this, in the English translation of his collected works, Pavlov, the figurehead of the factory, gave credit to so few researchers by name that the American translators added footnotes identifying the specific contributions of others (Pavlov et al., 1928). As factory head, Pavlov was an original "big science" pioneer who promoted the idea that he spoke for all.
Women Scientists in Pavlov's Lab
One antidote to the great man narrative is to tell stories about the women involved in Pavlov's research collective. Unfortunately, and as is often the case, women's work has been ignored or downplayed and their careers oversimplified. While historians agree women were involved, they do not agree on how many women were involved, in what manner, and what impact they had. It started with Pavlov (et al., 1928) who mentioned only five of his female colleagues by name for their contributions to the factory (Maria Yerofeyeva, Maria Petrova, Anna Pavlova, Maria Bezbokaya, and Natalia Shenger-Krestovnikova); the translators for the English edition added two footnotes to mark Nadezhda Kasherininova and Yevgenia Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem's additional contributions that were mentioned and not credited. So, by Pavlov's account, seven women contributed to his science. Kvasov and Fedorova-Grot's (1967) excellent, but uncontroversial, (1) compendium outlines the careers of Pavlov's doctoral students, 23 of whom were women (or 16% of the 146 dissertations supervised by Pavlov). Later, Windholz (1989) reported that 20 women had completed their dissertation research with Pavlov, but named only three of the first cohort: Kasherininova, Shenger-Krestovnikova, and Petrova. Windholz concluded that these women illustrated the three career paths Russia women took: doctors, scientists, or a combination of both. For instance, Kasherininova returned to medical practice and 10 years later was killed by typhus. Shrenger-Krestovnikova practiced ophthalmetry and intermittent research. Petrova, the researcher, published over 200 papers. Todes' (2014) biography of Pavlov sought to explore women's impact on Pavlov by telling stories centered on the women Pavlov was romantically attached to (his wife Seraphina and his mistress Maria Petrova), and in a chapter "Women Co-Workers and the Physiology of Emotion," reviewing the science of four women: Voskoboinikova-Grangstrem, Kasherininova, Yerofeyeva, and Bezbokaya. Thus, in English scholarship, of the 23 women who did doctoral research with Pavlov, we know the names of seven. Unfortunately, there were many more women involved in Pavlov's lab research, they had widely diverse careers, and their lives were influenced by social and historical changes in ways not articulated by current scholarship.
Characterizations of Pavlov's Work in Undergraduate Textbooks
Those who teach introductory psychology or history of psychology know there is very little on the women who worked with Pavlov in textbooks. In a convenience sample of 24 American introductory psychology textbooks published between 2005 and 2015, every single source mentioned Pavlov, and most had two entries, one in the first chapter, along with other psychology founders, and then in the chapter on learning (Baron & Kalsher, 2005; Bernstein et al., 2006; Carlson et al., 2010; Ciccarelli & White, 2009; Coon & Mitterer, 2014; Davis & Palladino, 2010; Feist & Rosenberg, 2010; Feldman, 2009, 2010; Gazzaniga, Heatherton, & Halpern, 2011; Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008; Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2010; Kalat, 2014; Kowalski & Westen, 2009; Lahey, 2009; Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Meyers, 2012; Morris & Maisto, 2009; Nevid, 2015; Passer & Smith, 2009; Plotnik & Kououmdjian, 2014; Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner, 2011; Wade & Tavris, 2008; Weiten, 2010).
Reviewing these textbooks, problems with psychology's historical treatment of Pavlov were evident. Many textbooks mistakenly stated that Pavlov used a "bell" and not a buzzer, (2) some even used the image of a hand bell in illustrations (e.g., Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2010), while others relied on the catchy-but-incorrect headline "Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?" (Coon & Mitterer, 2014: 235). More importantly, these textbooks typically characterized Pavlov as a solo hands-on researcher. For instance, Lilienfeld et al. (2015: 238) wrote: "Pavlov placed dogs in a harness and inserted a collection tube into their salivary glands to study their digestive responses to meat powder," implying that Pavlov did this himself. In fact, the surgery to implant the fistula was pioneered by Yekaterina Shumova-Simonovskaya, and she--along with hundreds of assistants--would have completed the surgical preparations and tested the dogs thousands of times, and then discussed the results with Pavlov. Yet, only a few textbooks mentioned that he had "associates," "technicians," or "collaborators"; none mentioned the curious fact that some of those colleagues were women.
American history of psychology textbooks were typically more complete in their treatment of Pavlov. A review of a convenience sample of 14 textbooks (Benjamin, 2009; Brennan, 2003; Fancher & Rutherford, 2012; Goodwin, 2015; Greenwood, 2009, 2015; Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014; Hothersall, 2004; King, Viney, & Woody, 2013; Lawson, Graham, & Baker, 2016; Leahey, 2001; Pickren & Rutherford, 2010; Robinson, 1995; Schultz & Schultz, 2016), published from 1995 to 2016, revealed that most mentioned the experiments that made Pavlov famous were not conducted with his own hands. Some tell the story of how Pavlov's wife Serafina encouraged him to accept women in his lab. Three textbooks very briefly mentioned only one of his collaborators. For example, Greenwood (2009) briefly reviewed Natalia Shrenger-Krestovnikova's work on experimental neurosis, but this was removed from the 2nd edition (Greenwood, 2015). Hergenhahn and Henley (2014) referred to Stefan Wolfsohn, a German who worked in Pavlov's lab in 1897. One other text, Goodwin (2015), included Pavlov's student Anton Snarksky's work.
Two textbooks provided better coverage. Hothersall (2004) reviewed Georgy S. Ovsianitsky's dissertation, the student work of P.K. Denisov and L.A. Orbely, and Pavlov's female collaborators Kasherininova, Shenger-Krestovnikova, and Petrova. The other text was Lawson and colleagues (2016). They emphasized globalization in the history of psychology, and their chapter on psychology in Russia is the most complete source available in an undergraduate history of psychology text. It placed Pavlov's work in historical and cultural context, spoke about Pavlov's contemporaries--Ivan Sechenov and Konstantin Kornilov--and described other labs in Russia such as Vladimir Bekhterev's lab in Kazan, Georgy Chelpanov's lab in Kiev, and Nikolai Lange's lab in Odessa. Lawson and colleagues even reviewed Lev Vygotsky and his student Blyuma Zeigarnik. But no mention of Pavlov's collaborators, female or male. Overall, the coverage given to Pavlov's collaborators, especially women, was inconsistent and incomplete. Only three of Pavlov's female collaborators were named in the above sources.
Omitting women collaborators from Pavlov's story in our textbooks is curious because primary historical accounts of Pavlov's lab do not usually make these mistakes (e.g., Boakes, 1984). Moreover, many introductory and history textbooks feature a picture of Pavlov (Figure 1), a dog in a harness, and several colleagues including two women--Maria Petrova and Maria Yerofeyeva--who had been in the lab 18 and 19 years by the time of the photo in 1912 (Todes, 2002b). One "Psychology of Women" textbook observes that the women were actually cropped out of the picture in many textbooks (Crawford, 2018). If the picture is not cropped, it is rarely captioned, and none of the textbooks mention any of the collaborators by name. Astute students ask professors: who are those women, and why are they there, right beside Pavlov, in the early 1900s? Or as Herzenberg (2001: 843) asked the editors of Nature magazine featuring this photo: why they hadn't identified the women in the picture?: "The existence of these women left on the cutting-room floor has been, like so many others, excised from history. Women scientists deserve better treatment today."
A convenience sample of 16 Russian introductory psychology and history of psychology textbooks suggest a few differences, but also some key similarities with the American treatment of Pavlov. In terms of the Russian introductory textbooks, all of them not only mentioned Pavlov, but several could not overstate his impact on Russian psychology or more generally Russian science, some comparing him to Aristotle and Descartes. They connected Pavlov to his predecessors such as Sechenov, but also to his American followers like Watson and Skinner. In general, much of the history centered on individual men and their discoveries, such as Sechenov who was characterized as working things out for himself. Yet Pavlov was characterized as creating a "scientific collective," an "international school" (e.g., Martinkovskaya, 2004: 483, or Maklakov, 2018: 82), in which Pavlov was a "commander of an army of researchers" (e.g., Yaroshevskiy, 1996: 195-198). Early Soviet psychologists referred to "Pavlov's School," or "Pavlov and his colleagues" (e.g., Asratayan, 1953). For example, a picture from Kreps (1967) depicts Pavlov in 1893 with his praktikanty class, 15 male military doctors with the Military Medicine Academy, and the pioneering surgeon Yekaterina Shumova-Simanovskaya, the first woman to work in Pavlov's lab. Modern textbooks also referred to Pavlov's "many students," and that "He, together with a squad of dear colleagues" conducted research (Yaroshevskiy, 1996: 195). An English-language history of Russian psychology referred to "Pavlov's School," Pavlov's "student assistants," and characterized Pavlov as a pioneer of "big science" (Joravsky, 1989: 390). Indeed, Joravsky's is the only textbook, English or Russian, that accurately credits Pavlov's assistants (and not Pavlov) with coining the term "conditioned reflex" and the innovative fistula surgery. Joravsky (1989) estimated the size of the student class to be a "few hundred"; two other sources repeated the idea that he had 300 students (Martinkovskaya, 2004; Petrovsky, 1996).
Even acknowledging his assistants and colleagues, a few Russian textbooks repeated the error of the Americans characterizing Pavlov as the active researcher. For instance, Malashkina (2002: 389) wrote: "Pavlov himself conducted experiments..." (see also Zhdan, 1990). A number referred to his male colleagues and followers, but there was not a single mention of any of his female collaborators or students by name (e.g., Cheldishova, 2008; Joravsky, 1989; Yaroshevskiy, 1996). Even an old classic textbook, Rubinstein (1946) described a few of the recent studies by Pavlov's lab conducted by his doctoral students, but does not name them. Many of the textbooks were basic black text and white background with few or little pictures. One text, Maklakov (2018) was an American-style undergraduate textbook with pictures and vignettes. It reprinted the classic photo of Pavlov and his collaborators mentioned earlier, the one with the women cropped out of the photo. Although Sosnovsky (2011) lists famous Russian psychologists, and some are women, none were Pavlov's colleagues or students. It makes sense that later women researchers who worked predominately in physiology might not be cited in psychology textbooks. Yet Shenger-Krestovnikova's experimental neurosis study was reviewed in a recent book published in Russia on behaviorism (Zhukov, 2018), something most psychology textbooks, English and Russian, ignore. In contrast, none of the 16 Russian psychology textbooks reviewed recognized any of Pavlov's female doctoral students or research.
One difference between the American and Russian textbooks was that Russians elaborated on Pavlov's research more so than any American text, including long entries on his theory of temperaments studied into the 1950s (e.g., Rogov, 2000), his work on the "what's that?" reflex, as well as other dimensions of his work not widely known outside of Russia such as the phases of sleep, the freedom instinct, and reflexive will (e.g. Druzhinin, 2001; Pervushina, 1996; Stupnitsky, Scherbakova, & Stepanov, 2013; Usnadze, 2004). Overall, contemporary Russian psychology glorifies Pavlov, but deemphasizes his overly materialist and rigorously experimental psychology, favoring a more theoretical and psychological science.
Russian and American Women in Science
There is a broader question underlying the discovery of women working in Pavlov's lab: how could they have made such advances in science when American women had not? In 19th century America, on most university campuses like at Columbia and Harvard, women were prohibited from taking university classes, especially lab sciences like medicine and physiology. There were a few exceptions. Edward B. Titchener supervised women Ph.D.'s at Cornell University, a private school that admitted women students eligible for fellowships (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986). Indeed, Titchener supervised the first Ph.D. in psychology given to a woman--Margaret Floy Washburn in 1894--and half of the first dozen of his students were women, with 19 women out of 56 in total (Evans, 1991). Yet, women elsewhere in America encountered obstacles. For example, in 1906, American women psychologists recognized by the book American Men of Science were getting into some graduate schools, but there were often delays up to 18 years between their bachelor and doctorate degrees, where all but a few women taught at women's colleges and public schools (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986). These early women psychologists were often older than their male peers, experienced career delays and interruptions, suffered slow academic advancement as the "woman's place" in academia became teaching at undergraduate institutions, and were unlikely to achieve high status in the profession. This was all true, especially if she was married (in fact, one woman even left her job before marriage). Furumoto and Scarborough described three career paths for early women psychologists in America: no career beyond doctorate, continuous careers restricted to teaching at small women's colleges, and interrupted careers.
By comparison, Russian psychology, which was mostly medical and physiological in the late 19th century, the situation was very different. As far back as the late 1850s, Russian universities were closed to women, but by the early 1860s, women could audit courses at Saint Petersburg University and at the Medical-Surgical Academy. Eventually backlash against this openness spawned a decree banning women from higher education. So Russian women interested in an education went abroad, to the Universities of Zurich, Bern, Geneva, Lausanne, and Naples (Creese & Creese, 2015). The Women's Medical Institute, the sole provider of medical training to Russian women, was also closed in 1881, only to re-open in 1897 after educational reforms. At first, graduates were only allowed to practice medicine in the women's and children's clinics, and had to go abroad for doctorates. By 1904, women were given full freedom to pursue medical degrees and practices, and complete doctoral dissertations (Selivanov & Sorokina, 1978). Three members of the first graduating class of the Women's Medical Institute applied to Pavlov's lab for doctoral training.
Western readers may find it unusual that so many Russian women came to work with Pavlov, or had an interest in a medical career before suffrage in 1917. Yet, a combination of events in the 19th century led Russian women to become the majority of physicians in post-revolutionary Russia, a situation that continues today. Tuve (1979) argued this was due to a Russian feminist reform movement in the late 1800s that celebrated the right of women to attend school and work, along with a populist and nihilist interest in serving poor rural peasants. Many young women felt obligated to practice medicine at rural zemstva (local district council) outposts, and they fit into the stereotype of the babka, a local village Russian woman healer, so villagers accepted them (Tuve, 1979). McDermid and Hillyar (1998) assert that women doctors made sense in pre-revolutionary Russia: their personal experience with reproduction led them naturally to careers like midwife, doctor, and wet-nurse; medicine was not a high-status career in 19th century Russia, open to both Jews and women; and since their practice was restricted to children and women only, they would work for less pay.
Geopolitical events played a role as well. In the second half of the 19th century, as pro-education reforms gave rise to socialized medicine and with epidemics and war, Russia went through a revolution in the treatment of disease (Barr & Schmid, 1996; Friedan, 1981). As the Crimean and Russo-Japanese Wars led to heavy casualties among men, women came to play a major role as battlefield nurses (Tuve, 1979). In 1913, just before World War I, 10% of Russia's physicians were women, compared with 5.6% in the U.S. in 1900 (Field, 1967). Then, the 1917 Bolshevik revolution gave women the vote and decreed gender parity in work and education, and with the goal of gender equality, opened admissions to higher education for women (Clements, 2012). After World War II, the demographic problem in Russia was severe: in 1946, there were only 59.1 males for every 100 females in the ages 35 to 59; accordingly, by the 1950s the majority of Russian physicians were women and Russian women accounted for 36% of all scientists (Lapidus, 1978). In comparison, female doctors in the United States in the 1950s were rare (Boulis & Jacobs, 2008). Even though a short supply of Russian men necessitated the wide-spread training of women in medicine, the top positions --administration, chief researchers, specialists, health ministers--were held by men, and only 5% of the Academy of Medical Sciences were women (Field, 1967; Lapidus, 1978).
Todes (2014) described Pavlov as initially not wanting women in his laboratory because of a disagreement with his first female laboratory assistant Yekaterina Shumova-Simanovskaya. However, he needed more workers, and he tried three graduates from the Women's Medical Institute, and found them to be better than many men (Todes, 2014). Pavlov eventually implemented a yearly quota of female admissions, likely starting the earliest affirmative action for women scientists in the history of psychology. In this sense, Pavlov's support of Russian women in science is consistent with early Russian feminism, seeking the goal of eliminating barriers to women's education. This is remarkable considering women were largely banned from other scientific labs across Russia, as well as the United States, and most had to go to Europe to be trained in lab research.
The Workers of Pavlov's Institute of Physiology
The number and scope of female workers at Pavlov's factory have been under-reported. The archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (http://db.ranar.spb.ru/ru/list/id/33/) has employment records for Pavlov's Institute of Physiology from 1893 to 1954, documenting that 866 people worked there. In addition to scientific research staff and assistants, the Institute housed a daycare and school, presumably for the staff's children, as many institutions set up daycare to facilitate women's employment after the revolution (Lapidus, 1979). There were mechanics, locksmiths, caretakers, watchmen, electricians, engineers, accountants, and so on. Remarkably, Pavlov's lab was the only experimental lab in the history of psychology to have had its own air defense squadron, defending the Institute from air raids during World War II. Even more astonishing, out of a crew of 866 staff and research scientists, 394 (or 46%) were women. Of these, 310 held jobs throughout the Institute, with most assisting researchers, but a few were heads and chiefs of several departments (Table 1). There were over 41 women graduate students, 61 laboratory assistants, 20 preparers, and of course more general work titles such as 27 workers and 21 senior laboratory workers. Women were even employed in the kennels to support the dogs used in research. Despite gender parity in scientific positions (noted below), there were gender disparities in these supplementary roles. None of the 15 "air defense soldiers" (e.g., the zenitchik) at the Institute were women, yet women were involved in these efforts elsewhere. And 34 men were employed as "driver" or "chauffeur," but not a single woman held these positions in over 60 years of operation.
Women were not a small minority in Pavlov's Institute: in fact, they held a majority of all the scientific and research positions. According to the archives of the Russian Academy of Science for Pavlov's Institute of Physiology, 84 women held research positions, compared with 81 men in equivalent positions. The women researchers who contributed to research at the Institute are named in Table 2. Some of these women had completed their praktika with Pavlov, and this early strong cohort grew after Pavlov's death, well into the late 1930s, as support for equality at work became entrenched in post-revolutionary Russia, and war took men out of the workforce. Some women worked for decades (e.g., Savelyeva, Dushechkina, Levitskaya, Verzhbinskaya, Hudorozheva, Tetyaeva, Itina, Makarova, and Bekenblit). This list includes Zlata Nezhdanova, one of Pavlov's doctoral students, and Vera Pavlova, Pavlov's daughter, who was only on the payroll for two years, but volunteered in the Institute's labs for much of her career.
A few biographical details and scientific accomplishments of the 23 women that completed doctoral research with Pavlov are available in Kvasov and Fedorova-Grot (1967). Additional details about this cohort were collected through the online archives of the Institute, historical primary sources, blogs, and published memoirs. (3) Table 3 summarizes the lives and careers of the women who completed their doctoral research in Pavlov's lab in chronological order. (4) The first dissertation was completed by Shumova-Simanovskaya in 1896. Most stayed in the lab for their two praktika years, but several--Shumova-Simonovskaya, Golovina, Speranskaya, Grigorovich, Yakovleva, Strogaya, Yaroslavtseva, Nezhdanova, and Vera Pavlova--stayed longer, some for decades. Yakovleva, for instance, started her research in 1923 and completed it in 1956, 33 years later, well after Pavlov had died. Petrova started as a praktikantka in 1912, but as Pavlov's favorite and eventual mistress, she worked at various departments in Pavlov's Institute, until 1948, when she left to be Director of the Institute of Physiology.
Among the scientists, women were almost a majority in the lab, but who were these women and what impact did they have on science? Pavlov's reputation drew women from all over Europe and the Russian Empire, predominately from Saint Petersburg (8) but also from Kiev (Ukraine), Vilno, Latvia, Saratov, and Tiflis (modern day Tiblisi, Georgia). Others were from the Russian provinces of Prodol, Kursk, Kerson, Poltava, Yenisey, Olonets, and Tver. The archives of the Institute do not give birthplaces for 22 of the 84 women scientists who worked there, but for those that were listed, the birth places are as follows: Saint Petersburg (19), Belarus (5), Moscow (3), Ukraine (3), and Poland (2). The others were from Bern (Switzerland), various provinces of Smolensk, Bryansk, Tiblisi (2), Dagestan, Estonia, Georgia (2), Kazan (2), and the remainder from other provinces and cities across Russia. Six of the 84 women scientists (Table 1) had names that were not ethnically Russian, so they were probably Jewish women, perhaps with German ancestry, from Belarus, Odessa, and elsewhere in Ukraine (e.g., Ferhman, Kaplan, Leibson, Greenberg, Shapiro, Spielberg).
The doctoral students were born mostly into families of some privilege: some were the daughters of various military executives like admirals and generals (3) and a doctor, but also those with less social status like priests (2), clerks (2), teachers (4), and an engineer. Vera Pavlova's father was Ivan Pavlov, so that must have conferred some advantage. Bezbokaya was the only one known to be from a working-class background.
Of the 23 doctoral candidates, only four travelled abroad for their studies and practice. Since women were not allowed in medical school until 1897, Shumova-Simanovskaya studied at the University of Zurich, and the medical faculty of Bern University in Switzerland where she graduated in 1876 with a Doctor of Medicine degree. Bezbokaya, from Kiev, enrolled in medical school at Lausanne University and graduated in 1905. She practiced medicine in Paris for a while before returning to Russia. Grigorovich, also from Kiev, studied first in P. F. Lesgaft Higher Courses in Saint Petersburg until 1907, and then she left for a year abroad, 1908-9, to study physiology in Paris. Yakovleva graduated with honors from the Women's Medical Institute in 1912 and then spent a year in Paris studying skin diseases. After the 1917 revolution, none of Pavlov's female doctoral students left the USSR for work or study.
Although marriage was an important issue for American women psychologists of the day (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986), it was less so for Russian physiologists, although we cannot be sure. Using a compound name, or a "maiden" name (devich'ya familiya) as evidence of marriage, only eight women were married. Those marriages we do know about seemed to be with men of high status. Shumova-Simanovskaya married Nikolai P. Simanovsky, an otolaryngologist and good friend of Ivan Pavlov. Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem married Professor E. A. Gangstrem. After an early failed marriage, Rait-Kovalyova married Captain Nikolai P. Kovalev, an officer serving in the Crimea region. Only three of the women in the personnel records of the Institute (Table 1) had compound names, and one of them was Shenger-Krestovnikova, and her husband is unknown. Nothing is known about the other two women or their husbands. Lastly, two women changed their name after marriage without adding their maiden name. The personnel records indicated that Zlata Nezhdanova's maiden name was Skovoroda-Zachynyaeva so she may have been married, but nothing else is known. Zinaida Pigareva's maiden name was Chegodaeva; this is known because employment records indicate that she married and changed her name.
It cannot be argued that these women had a minimal impact on science. The women who completed their dissertations in Pavlov's lab contributed to fundamental research on basic physiology (e.g., Shumova-Simanovskaya and Speranskaya), the psychology of conditioning (e.g., Belits, Bezbokaya, Chebotaryova, Degtiaryova, Feokritova, Grigorovich, Kasherininova, Nezhdanova, A. Pavlova, V. Pavlova, Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem, and Yerofeyeva), and higher-order nervous functioning (e.g., Golovina, Petrova, Shenger-Krestovnikova, Yakovleva, and Yaroslavtseva). Shumova-Simanovskaya worked on a variety of topics unrelated to psychology: chemical distributions in, and effects on, the body, Grave's disease, the synthesis of salicylic acid and a "grainy pepsin." It was her surgical expertise that devised the esophagotomy surgery to measure saliva which led to Pavlov's Nobel Prize. For those working in higher-order studies, Shenger-Krestovnikova is best known for discovering the phenomenon of experimental neurosis in dogs.
Many had long award-winning careers in medicine or research. Those who went into clinical work found positions in the clinic of the Women's Medical Institute, or children's, women's, and gynecological clinics like at Peter and Paul Hospital, largely because they were initially restricted to those places of employment, but eventually all worked elsewhere. For example, as noted earlier, Shrenger-Krestovnikova worked mostly in ophthalmetry. Several were award-winning scientists respected by the Soviet scientific establishment. Petrova received the Stalin Award for Research in 1945. Chebotaryova, Speranskaya, and Vera Pavlova all received the Order of Lenin. Strogaya was a research fellow at the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Physiology. Yet, only six of the doctoral student cohort were research scientists exclusively. Nine moved between research and clinical practice, while four became academics for part of their careers. A few had unique career paths. Kasherininova was a teacher, a clinician, and a military doctor. Chebotaryova held both clinical and research positions, partly as a doctor for the Red Cross (Strogaya also), but most of her career was as a doctor for the Russian Railways. Four held medical positions in the military. One of Pavlov's promising researchers, Rita Rait-Kovalyova, left medicine to become a famous translator of Western literature. After years of working in Pavlov's labs, Vera Pavlova curated a museum dedicated to her father in her later years.
Previous scholarship on women who worked in Pavlov's labs failed to anticipate such a wide range of career paths. It also fell short in its accounting of historical context on their lives as women and their careers. Political repression of the 1930s and World War II were significant factors in many of Pavlov's students' lives, as they either provided war-time medicine, became involved in political resistance, or simply perished because of the war. For instance, Bezbokaya, a Jew, perished during the Nazi occupation of Kiev, and Belits died during the siege of Leningrad during WWII. Two stories are even more dramatic. Degtiaryova, a practicing medical doctor who studied the conditioned reflex early in her career, was arrested for participation in an "illegal organization," a religious group, and was later proclaimed to be a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church. Grigorovich was a victim of the Stalin terror purges, convicted of counter-revolutionary activity and espionage, and executed. Others moved their lives and work because of war: Shenger-Krestovnikova evacuated to Kazan in 1941 for safety, and returned to Saint Petersburg in 1944, only to die in 1947. Another way in which outside forces shaped the lives of women who worked and studied with Pavlov was disease. Since many were practicing doctors, several of these women also worked on the various epidemics in the Soviet Union. Two even succumbed to the diseases they were helping to counter: Kasherininova died of typhus while working on contagious diseases, and Stukova perished from tuberculosis.
Discussion and Conclusion
A review of American and Russian undergraduate psychology textbooks suggested an androcentric bias illustrated by a lack of consideration for women scientists from Pavlov's Institute. Even though secondary historical sources almost always mentioned his female collaborators, most American and Russian undergraduate textbooks reviewed did not. Moreover, textbooks often mistakenly followed a great man narrative suggesting Pavlov was often doing his famous research himself; this paper demonstrates Pavlov was a "big science" pioneer, relying of the work of hundreds of scientists and technicians, most of whom were women.
Few scholars know much about the women who worked in Pavlov's labs. Until this report, only seven of the 394 women who worked in Pavlov's Institute were named in English scholarship, and Russian scholarship revealed little more. Additionally, the few English sources that mentioned women who worked in Pavlov's labs got the story wrong and ignored the gender politics involved. Even Russian textbooks largely ignored the women who contributed to Pavlov's science. In contrast to American women psychologists who had more interrupted career paths, sometimes because of marriage, were kept out of lab research, and often did not secure teaching positions (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986), Russian women were far more successful in Pavlov's labs, becoming the majority of scientific staff, representing almost half of the workforce overall. They even experienced more success outside the labs becoming noted doctors, with careers that oscillated between science in good times and medical practice in response to wars and epidemics. War and political repression played a significant role in many of these women's lives, as some were even persecuted, evacuated out of Leningrad (Saint Petersburg), and even arrested, executed, or martyred. Due to war, there were simply more women in Russia, thus more women scientists than men. Unlike their American peers, Russian women did not have to delay their careers nor were their careers hindered by marriage.
Perhaps even more interesting than the fact that Pavlov has been incorrectly portrayed in undergraduate and history psychology textbooks are the reasons why. Why do so few textbooks on Pavlov mention his female collaborators, show pictures of them without their names, or totally omit them from historical accounts? There are several possibilities. In this case, the barriers to a more accurate global history of psychology are both practical and ideological. The fact that there were discrepancies between historical accounts of Pavlov and textbooks specifically designed for undergraduate education suggest the two different genres have different goals. Textbooks are designed to inform and socialize students into a discipline, whereas historical studies aim to be completely accurate and sophisticated. The authors, editors, and publishers involved may also have varying styles of approaching material. Those managing historical accounts may be more sensitive to issues around gender and representation; those working on mass-market textbooks might be looking for readability and appeal.
Some may claim that introductory textbooks might ignore many interesting and important issues like androcentrism in the interests of brevity and clarity. It is not the case, though, that brevity and clarity, especially in introductory textbooks, should be valued over sensitivity to issues of gender, even more so when pedagogically important. Textbooks have been shown to be gender-biased for over four decades, yet they continue to present gender-biased content. Both introductory and history students of psychology are capable of understanding androcentrism, and editors drop and add content with every new edition so less gender-biased content could be easily replaced. Yet, as reviewers of the high-school textbook market have observed, androcentrism appears to be a widespread--and almost universal--aspect of the educational textbook publishing world (Blumberg, 2008), a world where bias against women is often part of the corporate culture.
It may be that American psychologists have not been that interested in Russian women in science. It has been observed elsewhere, that Americans have been more likely to appropriate, than reference, Soviet psychology insights like activity theory, and not until recently (Rey, 2014). Yet, even a modern report like Rey's (2014) review of Soviet psychology from 1930 to 1960 fails to mention any female psychologists, or even the words "women," "female," or "gender." Some historians have maintained that English-language psychology textbooks often ignore significant historical contributions from non-American psychology, perhaps due to a general ethnocentrism in the history of psychology, or even the result of American psychology's colonization of the psychology of other countries (Aleksandrova-Howell, Abramson, & Craig, 2012). This seems reasonable given the mounting criticism levelled against the history of psychology for being overly American and Western, and insensitive to developments in other countries. In the context of Russia specifically, Aleksandrova-Howell and colleagues' analysis points to additional factors such as lacking good translations of Russian work, problems with non-standard translations of Russian names, and a lack of available Russian sources in the English-speaking world because most Russian journals are not indexed in international databases. This may be true, but it was a little surprising to see that most of these women have not even been recognized as pioneering scientists of worth in contemporary Russian textbooks, likely reflecting contemporary Russian androcentrism towards women's contributions to science. Future research should better document the life and work of women documented here, perhaps through the Russian Academy of Sciences archive in Saint Petersburg.
The collective nature of Pavlov's factory points to a further explanation for why American undergraduate psychology textbooks often don't acknowledge the praktikantka. Telling the story of the collectivist spirit of Pavlov's lab is something that American audiences might not appreciate or even understand, as it works against the common notion of the "great man," and the individualistic thrust of many historical accounts in the West, the dominant history narrative of individualism in Western psychology. Collectivistic stories, like that of Pavlov's factory, do not fit into American histories of psychology.
Part of the ideological barrier in this case is embedded in Russian cultural attitudes which have changed greatly over the years (e.g., Clement, 2012) and certainly across Pavlov's lifetime. Russian society in the late 1800s and early 1900s was progressive, ideals such as equality were highly valued among progressive intelligencia, so Pavlov could have Jews and women working in his lab. After the Bolshevik revolution, laws made life more equal for women, yet under Lenin and Stalin, and for the next 60 years, the gender climate swung hard to the traditional and conservative, as gender-based freedoms were restricted, a return to patriarchal norms (Clement, 2012). Similarly, during the post-Bolshevik revolution period a collectivist spirit was valorized, but after the fall of the USSR, collectivism was demonized and a new Russian individualism was born, where the state provided little but its citizens still needed much and longed for a hero's help, perhaps making it receptive to the great man narrative. In terms of gender, the 1930s celebrated the "new Soviet woman," and expectations for women merged into a double shift: they were to be both domestic goddess and emancipated worker. There was to be no return to Bolshevik feminism, in fact, women entering male-dominated professions were met with hostility, and negative stereotypes about women persisted (Clement, 2012). In these later decades under Lenin, Stalin, and beyond, a backlash against gender equality occurred, and traditional gender beliefs were glorified, and sexist discriminatory beliefs about women pervaded home and work. Even with state-sponsored work and education equality, as this paper has shown, Russian women of science have been ignored. Russia had been through a revolution, and laws were passed regulating gender equality, but resistance to Bolshevik ideals was strong; patriarchy, sexism, gender stereotypes, part of the structural background of Russia, lived on (Clement, 2012).
It is possible that part of the lack of Russian history in Western psychology has to do with shifting national interests of Russia and the West. The early 1900s were a time of global cross-fertilization of science (e.g., Krementsov & Solomon, 2001), with Pavlov entertaining visitors from the West and visiting America several times himself. This openness quickly closed during Soviet times, especially after two world wars, such that interchanges between American and Russian scientists were greatly reduced (e.g., Dunn, 1945; Richmond, 2014), if not viewed as treasonous. By the Cold War, there was open resistance to collaboration with the enemy. Western scholarship was hidden in inaccessible archives for Russian scholars, and Russian science was rarely published in journals available in the West. Things changed once again, in the last two decades of the 20th century, as scientists from Russia and the USA collaborated on many high-profile projects like the International Space Station, as well as throughout academic science (e.g., Wilson & Markusova, 2004). This openness may have already ended with what news outlets have recently called a "new Cold War" (Klare, 2018).
Furumoto and Scarborough (1986: 42), speaking about women in early American psychology, concluded: "Acknowledging the early women's presence and their experience is a first step toward placing women in the history of psychology. Integrating women into that history is necessary if we are to achieve a more complete understanding of psychology's past." Yet, it appears that the situation Denmark observed in 1983, that textbooks in psychology simply do not represent women's role in science accurately, continues. More so even for second or third world women. Perhaps it is not surprising, as Suchland (2011) asserted, that Russian women are often unsympathetic subjects of contemporary intersectional analyses if they are constructed as all-White ethnically-homogenous women, and in the case of Soviet women distinctively not postcolonial, somewhat equal in class and gender (for the state supported gender and class equality), with long successful careers. Moreover, since many were involved as doctors for the Soviet's military, they were complicit in the horrors perpetrated in early Russian wars, making them even more difficult heroes.
Ultimately, Pavlov's collectivistic approach to science is a challenge to Western individualism, as was his hiring quota for women in his lab antithetical to androcentrism. Textbooks have mischaracterized Pavlov not necessarily because of a lack of sources or "bad translations." Rather, despite having sources on Pavlov for years, undergraduate histories are often expedient and deploy the great man approach to history, ignoring the extensive collaborations that produced the work he is known for. The case of Ivan Pavlov illustrates that the challenges of a global history of psychology are real, but not insurmountable. If the history of psychology needs to be global, then we should expand our scholarship of psychology outside of America, replace simple stories with more sophisticated narratives. Historians need to especially overcome androcentrism, individualism, and the cultural values that impair the creation of a less-biased history of psychology and the women who contributed to it, the world over.
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Mariya Bobrova and Alexandra Novitskaya provided valuable guidance and translations for this project.
1. For instance, Kvasov and Fedorova-Grot (1967) stated that Lidia S. Grigorovich, a noted scientist and Pavlov collaborator, simply stopped working in 1937. However, a contemporary memorial webpage dedicated to victims of the Stalin terror purges says she was charged with counter-revolutionary activity and espionage (i.e., accused of being an enemy of the people) and executed by firing squad in November 1937. Kvasov and Fedorova-Grot would have omitted these facts to avoid controversy with the Soviet censors.
2. Although it is commonly reported that Pavlov conditioned his dogs to a bell, Pavlov never used a bell in conditioning experiments--he used a buzzer. Confusion originated with the English translation of Pavlov's lectures which clearly used the word "bell" (Pavlov et al., 1928: 312) to describe one of the stimuli used, a point repeated in Tully's (2003a) study of Pavlov's dogs. In the Russian version, Pavlov used "zvonok," which is a doorbell device common in Russia at the time, best described as a buzzer, and not a bell with a clapper (which would be a "kolokolchek") (Black, 2003; Thomas, 1997; Tully, 2003a, 2003b).
3. The physical archives of Pavlov's Institute of Physiology are in the library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg. After several meetings and emails with local officials an in-person visit could not be arranged, and on-line requests for information were never acknowledged.
4. Biographies of these researchers are available from the author.
Aleksandrova-Howell, M., Abramson, C.I., & Craig, D.P.A. (2012). "Coverage of Russian Psychological Contributions in American Psychology Textbooks," International Journal of Psychology 47(1): 76-87.
Asratayan, E.A. (1953). I. P. Pavlov: His Life and Work. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Babkin, B.P. (1949). Pavlov: A Biography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ball, L.C. (2012). "Genius without the 'Great Man': New Possibilities for the Historian of Psychology," History of Psychology 15(1): 72-83.
Baron, R.A., & Kalsher, M.J. (2005). Psychology: From Science to Practice. New York: Pearson.
Barr, D.A., & Schmid, R. (1996). "Medical Education in the Former Soviet Union," Academic Medicine 71(2): 141-145.
Bender Peterson, S., & Kroner, T. (1992). "Gender Biases in Textbooks for Introductory Psychology and Human Development," Psychology of Women Quarterly 16(1): 17-36.
Benjamin, L.T. (2009). A History of Psychology: Original Sources and Contemporary Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Berg, M. (2013). Writing the History of the Global. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bernstein, D.A., Penner, L.A., Clarke-Stewart, A., & Roy, E.J. (2006). Psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Black, S.L. (2003). "Pavlov's Dogs: For Whom the Bell Rarely Tolled," Current Biology 13(11): R426.
Blumberg, R.L. (2008). "The Invisible Obstacle to Educational Equality: Gender Bias in Textbooks," Prospects 38(3): 345-361. doi:10.1007/s11125-009-9086-1
Boakes, R. (1984). From Darwinism to Behaviourism: Psychology and the Minds of Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boulis, A.K., & Jacobs, J.A. (2008). The Changing Face of Medicine: Women Doctors and the Evolution of Health Care in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Brennan, J.F. (2003). History and Systems of Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brock, A.C. (ed.) (2006). Internationalizing the History of Psychology. New York: New York University Press.
Burman, J.T. (2012). "Jean Piaget: Images of a Life and His Factory," History of Psychology 15(3): 283-288.
Carlson, N.R., Miller, H., Heth, C.D., Donahoe, J.W., & Martin, G.N. (2010). Psychology: The Science of Behavior. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Carlyle, T. (1888). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. New York, NY: Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother.
Cheldishova, N.B. (2008). Obschaya psikhologia: Kurs Lektsii [General Psychology: Lectures]. Saratov: Ai Pi Er Media.
Ciccarelli, S.K., & White, J.N. (2009). Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Clements, B.E. (2012). A History of Women in Russia: From Earliest Times to the Present. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Coon, D., & Mitterer, J.O. (2014). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Crawford, M. (2018). Transformations: Women, Gender, & Psychology. 3nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Creese, M.R.S., & Creese, T.M. (2015). Ladies in the Laboratory IV: Imperial Russia's Women in Science, 1800-1900. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cushman, P. (1990). "Why the Self Is Empty: Toward a Historically Situated Psychology," American Psychologist 45(5): 599-611.
Davis, S.F., & Palladino, J.J. (2010). Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Denmark, F.L. (1983). "Integrating the Psychology of Women into Introductory Psychology," in C.J. Scheirer & A.M. Rogers (eds.), The G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 37-61.
Druzhinin, V.N. (ed.) (2001). Psikhologia: Uchebnik dlya gumanitarnykh vuzov [Psychology: A Textbook for Liberal Arts Colleges]. St. Petersburg: Piter.
Dunn, L.C. (1945). "Scientific Interchange between the United States and Soviet Russia," Science 101(2617): 200-201.
Evans, R. (1991). "E.B. Titchener on Scientific Psychology and Technology," in G.A. Kimble, M. Wertheimer, & C.L. White (eds.), Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology. Washington, DC: Psychology Press, 89-104.
Fancher, R.E., & Rutherford, A. (2012). Pioneers of Psychology: A History. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Feist, G.J., & Rosenberg, E.L. (2010). Psychology: Making Connections. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Feldman, R.S. (2009). Understanding Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Feldman, R.S. (2010). Psychology and Your Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Field, M.G. (1967). Soviet Socialized Medicine. New York: Free Press.
Friedan, N.M. (1981). Russian Physicians in an Era of Reform and Revolution, 1856-1905. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (1986). "Placing Women in the History of Psychology: The First American Women Psychologists," American Psychologist 41(1): 35-42.
Gazzaniga, M., Heatherton, T., & Halpern, D. (2011). Psychological Science. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Gerrig, R.J., & Zimbardo, P.G. (2008). Psychology and Life. New York: Pearson/Allyn Bacon.
Gonzalez Rey, F.L. (2014). "Advancing Further the History of Soviet Psychology: Moving forward from Dominant Representations in Western and Soviet Psychology," History of Psychology 17(1): 60-78.
Goodwin, C.J. (2015). A History of Modern Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gray, V.A. (1977). "The Image of Women in Psychology Textbooks," Canadian Psychological Review 18(1): 46-55.
Greenwood, J.D. (2009). A Conceptual History of Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greenwood, J.D. (2015). A Conceptual History of Psychology: Exploring the Tangled Web. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hergenhahn, B.R., & Henley, T.B. (2014). An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Herzenberg, C.L. (2001). "Dogs Won More Fame than Female Colleagues," Nature 414: 843.
Hockenbury, D.H., & Hockenbury, S.E. (2010). Psychology. New York: Worth.
Hothersall, D. (2004). History of Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Joravsky, D. (1989). Russian Psychology: A Critical History. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Kalat, J.W. (2014). Introduction to Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.
King, D.B., Viney, W., & Woody, W.D. (2013). A History of Psychology: Ideas and Context. New York: Routledge.
Klare, M.T. (2018). "The New Cold War Is Here--And Now 3 Major Powers Are Involved," The Nation, April 2.
Kowalski, R., & Westen, D. (2009). Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Krementsov, N., & Solomon, S.G. (2001). "Giving and Taking across Borders: The Rockefeller Foundation and Russia, 1919-1928," Minerva 39: 265-298. doi:10. 1023/A:1017909113410
Kreps, E. M. (1967). I. P. Pavlov v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov [Pavlov as Remembered by His Contemporaries]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Kvasov, D.G., & Fedorova-Grot, A.K. (1967). Fiziologicheskaia shkola I.P. Pavlov [The Physiological School of I.P. Pavlov]. Oxford, UK: Nauka.
Lahey, B.B. (2009). Psychology: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lapidus, G.W. (1978). Women in Soviet Society: Equality, Development, and Social Change. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lawson, R.B., Graham, J.E., & Baker, K.M. (2016). A History of Psychology: Globalization, Ideas, and Applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leahey, T.H. (2001). A History of Modern Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., & Woolf, N.J., Jamieson, G., Marks, A., & Slaughter, V. (2015). Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. New York: Pearson.
Maklakov, A. G. (2018). Obschaya psikhologiia [General Psychology]. St. Petersburg: Piter.
Malashkina, M. M. (2002). Populyarnaya istoria psikhologii [Popular History of Psychology]. Moscow: Veche.
Marecek, J. (1993). "Disappearances, Silences, and Anxious Rhetoric: Gender in Abnormal Psychology Textbooks," Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 13(2): 114-123.
Martinskovskaya, T.D. (2004). Istoria psikhologii [History of Psychology]. Moscow: Academa.
McDermid, J., & Hillyar, A. (1998). Women and Work in Russia 1880-1930: A Study in Continuity through Change. New York: Routledge.
Meyers, D.G. (2012). Psychology in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Worth.
Morris, C.G., & Maisto, A.A. (2009). Psychology: The Core. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nevid, J.S. (2015). Essentials of Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Stamford, CT: Cengage.
Passer, M.W., & Smith, R.E. (2009). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pavlov, I.P., Gantt, W. H., Volborth, G., & Cannon, W.B. (1928). Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-five Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behavior) of Animals. Vol. 1. New York: International.
Percival, E. (1984). "Sex Bias in Introductory Psychology Textbooks: Five Years Later," Canadian Psychology 25(1): 35-42.
Petrovsky, A.V. (ed.) (1996). Vvedeniye v psikhologiyu [Introduction to Psychology]. Moscow: Akademia.
Pervushina, O.N. (1996). Obschaya psikhologia [General Psychology]. Novosibirsk: Nauchno--Uchebny Tsentr psikhologii NGU (Novosibirsk State University Scientific--Educational Psychology Center).
Pickren, W.E., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A History of Modern Psychology in Context. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Plotnik, R., & Kououmdjian, H. (2014). Introduction to Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.
Richmond, Y. (2010). Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Robinson, D.N. (1995). An Intellectual History of Psychology. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Rogov, E.I. (2000). Obschaya psikhologia: Kurs lektsii [General Psychology: Lectures]. Moscow: Vlados.
Rubinstein, C.L. (2002/1946). Osnovy obschei psikhologii [Foundations of General Psychology]. St. Petersburg: Peter.
Sampson, E.E. (1977). "Psychology and the American Ideal," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(11): 767-782.
Schacter, D.L., Gilbert, D.T., & Wegner, D.M. (2011). Introducing Psychology. New York: Worth.
Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (2016). A History of Modern Psychology. Belmont, CA: Cengage.
Selivanov, V.I., & Sorokina, V.N. (1978). "First Theses of Women Physicians, Graduates of Petersburg Medical Institute for Women," Sovetskaia Meditsina 9: 150-156.
Sosnovsky, B.A. (ed.). (2011). Psikhologia [Psychology]. Moscow: Urait.
Stupnitsky, V.P., Scherbakova, O.I, & Stepanov, V.E. (2013). Psikhologia [Psychology]. Moscow: Dashkov i Co.
Suchland, J. (2011). "Is Postsocialism Transnational?," Signs 36(4): 837-862.
Thomas, R. (1997). "Correcting Some Pavloviana Regarding 'Pavlov's Bell' and Pavlov's 'Mugging,'" American Journal of Psychology 110(1): 115-125.
Todes, D.P. (1995). "Pavlov and the Bolsheviks," History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 17(3): 379-418.
Todes, D.P. (2002a). Pavlov's Physiology Factory: Experimentation, Interpretation, Laboratory Enterprise. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Todes, D.P. (2002b). "Opportunities for Women in Science (Russia, 1912)," Nature 416: 262.
Todes, D.P. (2003). "From Lone Investigator to Laboratory Chief: Ivan Pavlov's Research Notebooks as a Reflection of His Managerial and Interpretive Style," in R.L. Holmes, J. Reen, & H. Rheinberger (eds.), Reworking the Bench: Research Notebooks in the History of Science. Secaucus, NJ: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 203-219.
Todes, D.P. (2014). Ivan Pavlov: A Russian Life in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tully, T. (2003a). "Pavlov's Dogs," Current Biology 13(4): R117-119.
Tully, T. (2003b). "Reply: The Myth of a Myth," Current Biology 13(11): R426.
Tuve, J.E. (1979). "The First Russian Women Physiologists," Journal of the American Medical Women's Association 34: 5-11.
Usnadze, D.N. (2004). Obschaya psikhologia [General Psychology]. Moscow: Smysl.
Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2008). Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Weiten, W. (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wilson, C.S., & Markusova, V.A. (2004). "Changes in the Scientific Output of Russia from 1980 to 2000, as Reflected in the Science Citation Index, in Relation to National Politico--Economic Changes," Scientometrics 59(3): 345-389.
Windholz, G. (1989). "Three Researchers in Pavlov's Laboratories," NWSA Journal 1(3): 491-496.
Windholz, G. (1990). "Pavlov and the Pavlovians in the Laboratory," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 26(1): 64-74.
Yaroshevskiy, M.G. (1996). Istoria psikhologii ot antichnosti do serediny XX v [History of Psychology: From Antiquity to Mid-20th Century]. Moscow: Akademia.
Zhdan, A.N. (1990). Istoria psikhologii ot antichnosti do nashykh dnei [History of Psychology from Antiquity to Our Time]. Moscow: Moscow University Press.
Zhukov, D.A. (2018). Stoi, kto vedet? [Stop, Who's Leading?: Biology of Humans and Other Animals]. Moscow: Alpina-Nonfiction.
Darryl B. Hill
College of Staten Island and The Graduate Center, City University of New York, NY, USA
How to cite: Hill, Darryl B. (2019). "Androcentrism and the Great Man Narrative in Psychology Textbooks: The Case of Ivan Pavlov," Journal of Research in Gender Studies 9(1): 9-37. doi:10.22381/JRGS9120191
Received 28 May 2018 * Received in revised form 6 August 2018
Accepted 7 August 2018 * Available online 27 August 2018
Table 1 Scientist positions held by women of the Institute of Physiology (1893-1954) Years Name Position 1950 Elena Sergeyevna Akimova Junior Researcher 1943-50 Nina Alexandrovna Aladjalova Junior Researcher 1941-5 Zinovya Alexandrovna Andreeva Senior Researcher 1944-52 Anna Alexeevna Arapovoa Senior Researcher 1941-50 Tatiana Vyacheslavovna Senior Researcher Aristovskaya 1934 Zoya Ivanovna Barbashova Senior Researcher UNK Nina Vladimirovna Bekauri Researcher 1929-48 Zosia Mikhailovna Bekenblit Senior Researcher 1933 Vera Nikolaevna Borsuk Researcher 1945-50 Evgenia Abramovna Bychenkova Junior Researcher UNK Evdokia Alexandrovna Cheharina Junior Researcher 1948-51 Rima Alexandrovna Cherkashina Junior Researcher 1946-7 Knarik Tadzhatovna Chmshkyan Junior Researcher 1946-50 Giffet Muhomedovna Daudova Senior Research Fellow 1943-48 Natalia Sergyeevna Demanovskaya Junior Researcher 1944-51 Viktoria Sergyeevna Deryabina Senior Researcher 1936-50 Olga Yakovlevna Dushechkina Junior Researcher 1942 Kanel Semenovna Ester Senior Researcher UNK Alisa Adolfovna Ferhman Junior Researcher 1941-50 Elena Yakovlevna Gaiman Senior Research Fellow 1937-51 Lyudmila Borisovna Gakkel Senior Researcher 1942-4 Tatiana Ginetsinskaya Junior Researcher 1940-1 Natalya Filippovna Senior Researcher Stozhkova-Goldfarb 1939-48 Mirra Iosifovna Golydanskaya Laboratory Assistant & Junior Researcher 1942 Galina Petrovna Gorbunova Junior Researcher 1942 Fanny Veniaminovna Greenberg Senior Researcher 1953 Lyudmila Mikhailovna Grigoryeva Graduate Student & Senior Laboratory Assistant 1938-50 Shogogat Avedikovna Hidrogluyan Medical Doctor 1918-35 Antonina Tikhonovna Hudorozheva Researcher 1943-4 Irina Dmitrievna Hotyanitseva Junior Researcher 1919-38 Nina Azarevna Itina Senior Researcher 1946-50 Agnes Karlovna Ivanyan Junior Researcher & Research Associate 1942-50 Anna Efimovna Kaplan Junior Researcher 1936-7 Alexandra Ivanovna Khankevich Graduate Student & Junior Research Fellow 1939 Lidia Filippovna Kolomytseva Junior Researcher UNK Tatyana Vadimovna Kovsharova Researcher UNK Nadezhda Efimovna Kovaleva Junior Researcher 1949-50 Vera Yuriovna Krivskaya Junior Researcher 1948-50 Valerya Alexandrovna Lebedeva Research Associate 1937-50 Rebekah Solomonovna Leibson Junior Researcher 1936-52 Ekaterina Sergyreevna Levitskaya Junior Researcher 1943-50 Natalia Naumovna Lifshitz Senior Researcher 1942-5 Nina Georgievna Lutovinova Junior Researcher 1943-50 Rosa Grigoryevna Lyudkovskaya Junior Researcher 1938-50 Regina Mikhailovna Maiman Senior Researcher UNK Evdokia Veniaminovna Malyesheva Junior Research Fellow 1921-46 Anna Pavlovna Makarova Senior Researcher UNK Kira Valentinovna Maslovskaya Junior Researcher 1937-50 Olga Andreyeevna Mikhaleva Senior Researcher UNK Alexandra Alexandrovna Senior Researcher Mikhelson 1937 Nadezhda Isaevna Mikhelson Researcher 1935-53 Evgenia Andreevna Moiseeva Senior Researcher 1939-41 Ekaterina Nikolayevna Junior Researcher & Senicheva-Molchanova Researcher 1946-50 Alexandra Fedorovna Murchakova Junior Researcher 1931-52 Zlata Alexandrovna Nezhdanova Researcher 1949-50 Vera Ivanovna Pavlova Junior Research Fellow 1945-50 Dora Isidorovna Pesquera Senior Researcher 1939-48 Maria Kapitonovna Petrova Senior Researcher 1936-54 Zinaida Dmitrievna Pigareva Senior Researcher UNK Nina Alexandrovna Raspopova Senior Researcher 1930-6 Antonina Ivanovna Ryakhovskaya Graduate Student & Scientific Technical Office 1942 Natalia Vladamirovna Sadikova Senior Researcher 1918-36 Zoya Nikolaevna Savelyeva Junior Researcher UNK Berta Ilinichna Shapiro Junior Researcher 1944 Natalia Rudolfovna Medical Doctor Shenger-Krestovnikova UNK Nina Sergeevna Shulgina Junior Researcher UNK Galina Fedorovna Sinenko Junior Researcher UNK Pauline Iosifovna Spielberg Senior Researcher 1940-54 Evgenia Mikailovna Sosuntsova Junior Researcher 1941-53 Elena Vladimirovna Stoganova Junior Researcher 1945-50 Elena Vladimirovna Terentyeva Junior Researcher 1916-36 Maria Borisovna Tetyaeva Researcher & Senior Researcher 1946-54 Natalia Nikoleayevna Traugott Senior Researcher 1949-52 Anastasia Dmitrieevna Troynikova Research Associate 1946-50 Elena Naumovna Tsatskis Junior Researcher 1943-50 Irina Nikolaevna Verkhovskaya Senior Researcher 1930-48 Valentina Mikhailovna Vesyolkina Senior Researcher 1947-50 Nadezhda Petrovna Vasilyeva Junior Researcher 1929-37 Nina Abramovna Verzhbinskaya Researcher 1942 Vera Alexandrovna Volzhskaya Junior Researcher 1919-37 Celia Lubovna Yankovskaya Researcher 1942-52 Anna Mikhailovna Zimkina Senior Researcher 1932-50 Bronya Abramovna Zuber Senior Researcher UNK Ekaterina Alexandrovna Senior Researcher Yakovleva Table 2 Non-scientist positions held by women, in alphabetical order, in the Institute of Physiology, 1893-1954 10 Accountants 2 Assistants 1 Building Manager 1 Camera Technician 5 Cashiers 1 Chief Inspector of Personnel 1 Chief Librarian 23 Cleaners 6 Clerks 1 Comptroller/Accounting Supervisor 1 Courier 1 Daycare Cook 1 Daycare Nurse 1 Doctoral Student 1 Draftsman-Constructor 1 Executive Manager in Charge 6 Firefighters 41 Graduate Students 1 Head of the Kennel 1 Head of the Kindergarten 1 Head of Warehouse 1 Heating Attendant 7 Internship Candidates 14 Kennel Workers 1 Kindergarten Nurse 4 Kindergarten Teacher 3 Kindergarten Workers 2 Head Laboratory Office 61 Laboratory Assistants 2 Librarians 1 Maintenance Worker 2 Supply Managers 2 Plasterers 20 Preparers 1 Quality Control 2 Science and Technology Officers 5 Secretaries 21 Senior Laboratory Assistant 1 Senior Staff Inspector 3 Senior Workers 1 Storekeeper 1 Telephone Operator 1 Timekeeper 5 Typists 1 Warehouse Manager 2 Watchmen 27 Workers 8 Unknown Table 3 Women who completed dissertations with Pavlov (1896-1953) Name In Lab Dissertation Topic of Research Yekaterina 1884-96 1896 Esophagus operation; Olimpievna Grave's Disease, Shumova-Simanovskaya gastric acid, (1852-1905) intestinal bacteria. [phrase omitted] Yevgenia Yestafievna 1905-06 1906 Temperature as a Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem Conditioning (1880-1957) Variable [phrase omitted] Nadezhda 1906-08 1908 Conditioned salivary Aleksandrovna reflex to mechanical Kasherininova (1870-1920) stimulation of skin [phrase omitted] Maria Nikolayevna 1910-12 1912 Electrical Yerofeyeva (1867-1925) stimulation of skin [phrase omitted] as conditioned stimulus on salivary gland Yulia Pavlovna 1910-12 1912 Time as a Feokritova (1879-1942) conditional stimulus [phrase omitted] on saliva production Olga Mikhailovna 1910-14 1914 Extinction of Chebotaryova (1876-1963) Conditioned Reflex, [phrase omitted] Thyroxine in salivary reflex Maria Yakovlevna 1911-13 1913 Physiology of Bezbokaya (1877-1942?) conditional reflexes [phrase omitted] Maria Mikhailovna 1911-13 1913 Role of Time in Stukova (1868-1922) recovery of [phrase omitted] conditional stimulus Natalia Rudolfovna 1911-14 1914 Conditioning to Shenger-Krestovnikova visual stimuli, (1875-1947) experimental [phrase omitted] neurosis, ophthalmology Vera Alexandrovna 1911-14 1914 Inhibition of Degtiaryova (1867-after conditioned reflex 1931) [phrase omitted] Anna Makarovna 1911-14 1915 Conditioned Pavlova (1880-1946) inhibition and [phrase omitted] irradiation of cortical inhibition, extinction, hypnosis Maria Kapitonovna 1912-14 1914 Cortical stimulation Petrova (1874-1948) and irradiation of [phrase omitted] the brain, bromine, sex hormones Lidia Vasilyevna 1912-14 1914 Extinction of Rozova (1871-after 1934) Conditioned reflexes [phrase omitted] Maria Fyodorovna 1915-17 1917 Trace of conditional Belits (1882-1942) reflex [phrase omitted] Vera Petrovna 1918-24 1924 Physiology of Golovina (1864-1950) conditioning and Bepa extinction [phrase omitted] Yekaterina 1920-24 1924 Regulation of blood Nikolayevna circulation Speranskaya (1899-1979) [phrase omitted] Lidia Semenovna 1923-37 1937 Inhibition in Grigorovich (1877/9-1937) conditioned [phrase omitted] reflexes, cortical stimulation. Vera Viatcheslavovna 1923-53 1956 Skin diseases, Yakovleva (1889-1959) blood parasites, Bepa [phrase omitted] higher nervous activity, experimental neurosis, condition with complex stimuli Raisa Yakovlevna 1925-26 1926 Influence of Rait Kovalyova unconditioned (Chernomordik) reflexes on (1898-1988) conditioned reflexes [phrase omitted] Yekaterina 1926-36 1936 Nervous system of Zakharievna Strogaya dogs (1874-1962) [phrase omitted] Olga Pavlovna 1927-32 1932 Stimulation of Yaroslavtseva (1899-???) cortex, [phrase omitted] unconditioned reflex. Zlata Aleksandrovna 1931-52 1945 Effect of intervals Nezhdanova (1908-1952) on extinguishing [phrase omitted] conditioned reflexes Vera Ivanovna 1932-53 1953 Trace of conditional Pavlova (1890-1964) reflex [phrase omitted] Name Family Location Travel Marriage Abroad Yekaterina St. Petersburg Yes Yes Olimpievna Shumova-Simanovskaya (1852-1905) [phrase omitted] Yevgenia Yestafievna St. Petersburg No Yes Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem (1880-1957) [phrase omitted] Nadezhda St. Petersburg No UNK Aleksandrovna Kasherininova (1870-1920) [phrase omitted] Maria Nikolayevna Prodol Province No UNK Yerofeyeva (1867-1925) [phrase omitted] Yulia Pavlovna Saratov No UNK Feokritova (1879-1942) [phrase omitted] Olga Mikhailovna Kursk Province No UNK Chebotaryova (1876-1963) [phrase omitted] Maria Yakovlevna Kiev Provincial Lausanne UNK Bezbokaya (1877-1942?) Village, Ukraine University [phrase omitted] Maria Mikhailovna Kherson Province No UNK Stukova (1868-1922) [phrase omitted] Natalia Rudolfovna Tiflis No UNK Shenger-Krestovnikova (1875-1947) [phrase omitted] Vera Alexandrovna Poltava Province No UNK Degtiaryova (1867-after 1931) Bepa [phrase omitted] Anna Makarovna Yenisey Province No UNK Pavlova (1880-1946) [phrase omitted] Maria Kapitonovna Tiflis No No Petrova (1874-1948) [phrase omitted] Lidia Vasilyevna Olonets Province No UNK Rozova (1871-after 1934) [phrase omitted] Maria Fyodorovna Kiev No UNK Belits (1882-1942) [phrase omitted] Vera Petrovna Tver Province No UNK Golovina (1864-1950) Bepa [phrase omitted] Yekaterina St. Petersburg No UNK Nikolayevna Speranskaya (1899-1979) [phrase omitted] Lidia Semenovna Vilno Paris UNK Grigorovich (1877/9-1937) [phrase omitted] Vera Viatcheslavovna Latvia Yes UNK Yakovleva (1889-1959) Bepa [phrase omitted] Raisa Yakovlevna Kherson Province No Yes Rait Kovalyova (Chernomordik) (1898-1988) [phrase omitted] Yekaterina St. Petersburg No UNK Zakharievna Strogaya (1874-1962) [phrase omitted] Olga Pavlovna St. Petersburg No UNK Yaroslavtseva (1899-???) [phrase omitted] Zlata Aleksandrovna St. Petersburg No UNK Nezhdanova (1908-1952) [phrase omitted] Vera Ivanovna St. Petersburg No No Pavlova (1890-1964) [phrase omitted] Name Father's Career Path Arrest Occupation Yekaterina UNK Doctor, No Olimpievna Scientist Shumova-Simanovskaya (1852-1905) [phrase omitted] Yevgenia Yestafievna Upper Class Doctor No Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem (1880-1957) [phrase omitted] Nadezhda Military Teacher, No Aleksandrovna Executive Clinician, Kasherininova (1870-1920) Military [phrase omitted] Doctor Maria Nikolayevna Military Scientist No Yerofeyeva (1867-1925) Executive [phrase omitted] Yulia Pavlovna Upper Class Scientist, Feokritova (1879-1942) Doctor [phrase omitted] Olga Mikhailovna Teacher Scientist, No Chebotaryova (1876-1963) Doctor, Red [phrase omitted] Cross Doctor, Railways Doctor Maria Yakovlevna Commoner Military and No Bezbokaya (1877-1942?) Civilian Doctor [phrase omitted] Maria Mikhailovna Military Doctor, Military No Stukova (1868-1922) Executive Doctor, Teacher [phrase omitted] Natalia Rudolfovna Teacher Scientist, No Shenger-Krestovnikova Ophthalmologist, (1875-1947) Teacher, [phrase omitted] Scientist Vera Alexandrovna UNK Doctor Membership Degtiaryova (1867-after in an 1931) Bepa illegal [phrase omitted] monarchist organization Anna Makarovna UNK Clinical, No Pavlova (1880-1946) Teacher, [phrase omitted] Scientist Maria Kapitonovna Priest Scientist No Petrova (1874-1948) [phrase omitted] Lidia Vasilyevna Military Scientist, No Rozova (1871-after 1934) Priest Doctor, [phrase omitted] Military Doctor Maria Fyodorovna UNK Doctor No Belits (1882-1942) [phrase omitted] Vera Petrovna Clerk Psychiatric No Golovina (1864-1950) Medicine Bepa [phrase omitted] Yekaterina Engineer Pathologist, No Nikolayevna Scientist, Speranskaya (1899-1979) Professor [phrase omitted] Lidia Semenovna Teacher Scientist Counter Grigorovich (1877/9-1937) Revolutionary [phrase omitted] Activity and Espionage Vera Viatcheslavovna Clerk Scientist, No Yakovleva (1889-1959) Medical Bepa [phrase omitted] Practitioner, Doctor, Scientist Raisa Yakovlevna Doctor Scientist, No Rait Kovalyova Writer, (Chernomordik) Translator (1898-1988) [phrase omitted] Yekaterina UNK Red Cross No Zakharievna Strogaya Doctor, (1874-1962) Pathologist, [phrase omitted] Teacher, Scientist Olga Pavlovna UNK Scientist No Yaroslavtseva (1899-???) [phrase omitted] Zlata Aleksandrovna Teacher Scientist No Nezhdanova (1908-1952) [phrase omitted] Vera Ivanovna I.P. Pavlov Scientist No Pavlova (1890-1964) [phrase omitted] Name Death Yekaterina Stroke Olimpievna Shumova-Simanovskaya (1852-1905) [phrase omitted] Yevgenia Yestafievna Cancer Voskoboinikova-Gangstrem (1880-1957) [phrase omitted] Nadezhda Typhus Aleksandrovna Kasherininova (1870-1920) [phrase omitted] Maria Nikolayevna Typhus and Stroke Yerofeyeva (1867-1925) [phrase omitted] Yulia Pavlovna Blood Disorder Feokritova (1879-1942) [phrase omitted] Olga Mikhailovna UNK Chebotaryova (1876-1963) [phrase omitted] Maria Yakovlevna Nazi Occupation of Kiev Bezbokaya (1877-1942?) [phrase omitted] Maria Mikhailovna Tubercolosis Stukova (1868-1922) [phrase omitted] Natalia Rudolfovna UNK Shenger-Krestovnikova (1875-1947) [phrase omitted] Vera Alexandrovna UNK Degtiaryova (1867-after 1931) Bepa [phrase omitted] Anna Makarovna UNK Pavlova (1880-1946) [phrase omitted] Maria Kapitonovna UNK Petrova (1874-1948) [phrase omitted] Lidia Vasilyevna UNK Rozova (1871-after 1934) [phrase omitted] Maria Fyodorovna The Siege of Leningrad Belits (1882-1942) [phrase omitted] Vera Petrovna Natural Causes Golovina (1864-1950) Bepa [phrase omitted] Yekaterina UNK Nikolayevna Speranskaya (1899-1979) [phrase omitted] Lidia Semenovna Execution by Firing Squad Grigorovich (1877/9-1937) [phrase omitted] Vera Viatcheslavovna Brain Illness Yakovleva (1889-1959) Bepa [phrase omitted] Raisa Yakovlevna UNK Rait Kovalyova (Chernomordik) (1898-1988) [phrase omitted] Yekaterina UNK Zakharievna Strogaya (1874-1962) [phrase omitted] Olga Pavlovna UNK Yaroslavtseva (1899-???) [phrase omitted] Zlata Aleksandrovna Cancer Nezhdanova (1908-1952) [phrase omitted] Vera Ivanovna UNK Pavlova (1890-1964) [phrase omitted]
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Hill, Darryl B.|
|Publication:||Journal of Research in Gender Studies|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2019|
|Previous Article:||GENDER STUDIES IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SPANISH JOURNALS INDEXED IN THE JOURNAL CITATION...|
|Next Article:||The Gendered Nature of Employment and Insecure Employment in Northern Ireland: A Story of Continuity and Change.|