Intellectually gifted but inherently fragile –  society's view of female scientists as experienced  by seismologist Inge Lehmann up to 1930

Lund Jacobsen, Lif

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-13-83-2022

Articles | Volume 13, issue 1

Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 13, 83–92, 2022

https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-13-83-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 13, 83–92, 2022

https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-13-83-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 1

Review article

02 May 2022

Review article | 02 May 2022

Intellectually gifted but inherently fragile – society's view of female scientists as experienced by seismologist Inge Lehmann up to 1930

Lif Lund Jacobsen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 02 May 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Nov 2021)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1: 'Comment on hgss-2021-20', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2021

1. Does the paper address science historical matters within the scope of HGSS? --YES
2. Does the paper present new historic research, new interpretations or new compilations of historic issues or data, or new aspects of the vitae of important geoscientists? -- YES
3. Are the historical methods clearly outlined and the historical sources clearly stated? -- YES
4. Do the authors give proper credit to related and previous work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? -- This could be clearer, what new archival work was undertaken to make this revision?
5. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? -- It could be more descriptive and exciting.
6. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? -- The abstract is rather mundane and repeats materials from Lehmann's Royal Society biographical memoir, It should be more exiting as well
7. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? -- YES
8. Is the language fluent and precise? --- YES
9. Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated? -- NO, but I recommend the author examine the experience of women in science in other nations (beyond Denmark and America) , for example in other Nordic nations, UK, and possibly Germany. For example, here is list of women who received advance training in meteorology before 1930 under N. Shaw and V. Bjerknes Marie Dietsch, D. Phil. mathematical geophysics, 1918, Leipzig (V. Bjerknes) Elen Elaine Austin, BSc. maths and natural sciences, 1918, Cambridge, (N. Shaw) Luise Charlotte Lammert, PhD climatology, 1919, Leipzig (V. Bjerknes) Anne Louise Beck, MS geography, 1922, Berkeley (V. Bjerknes) I like the table showing Danish laws for women's rights, but I also think a short comparative study of women in science would be helpful. Also, the question of perceptions of Inge's fortitude and ability to conduct scientific campaigns in the field, especially in the Arctic which was traditionally seen as a man's domain, could be further explored. Overall, I enjoyed the paper, which emphasized both practical limitations and some discrimination and favoratism.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2021-20-RC1

AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lif Lund Jacobsen, 15 Feb 2022

Q4: Do the authors give proper credit to related and previous work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?

RC1: This could be clearer, what new archival work was undertaken to make this revision?
Reply: The introduction now specifies what new data are included and how it affects the conclusion compared to Jacobsen (2015).
Q5: Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?

RC1: It could be more descriptive and exciting.

Reply: While I believe that the title accurately describes the content of the paper, I agree that it is not very exciting and will try to come up with something better.

Q6: Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?

RC1: The abstract is rather mundane and repeats materials from Lehmann's Royal Society biographical memoir, it should be more exiting as well.
Reply: The reviewers have an excellent point and I have amended the abstract accordingly.
Q9: Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?

RC1: NO, but I recommend the author examine the experience of women in science in other nations (beyond Denmark and America) , for example in other Nordic nations, UK, and possibly Germany. For example, women who received advance training in meteorology before 1930 under N. Shaw and V. Bjerknes. I like the table showing Danish laws for women's rights, but I also think a short comparative study of women in science would be helpful.

Also, the question of perceptions of Inge's fortitude and ability to conduct scientific campaigns in the field, especially in the Arctic which was traditionally seen as a man's domain, could be further explored.
Reply: The response raise an interesting conundrum well known in science studies. If we cannot make general assumptions based on the extraordinary, why study such gifted individuals at all? What is the purpose of biographies of scientists? Quoting Helge Kragh: “On scientific biography and biographies of scientists” in Relocating the History of Science (2015) “One of the advantages of the biographical method is that it stimulates a more integrated and coherent picture of science, if limited to a unique case only, precisely of its focus on the individual scientist.”

By putting Inge Lehmann into a social context, we discover structures in science that might be overlooked in more generalized studies. In Inge Lehmann’s case it is also very difficult to do a comparative study because of her unique status. The problem is not solved by extending the study to female scientists in other nations because of their different cultural backgrounds. As my article documents the experiences for women studying in Cambridge was vastly different from studying in Copenhagen which again was different from studying in Germany or USA, making transnational comparisons highly speculative.

However, I acknowledge the benefit of providing some additional contexts to Inge Lehmann’s experiences and have provided some examples of contemporary female academics educated or working in Denmark.
Artic expeditions and station’s life in the Artic was very much a man´s domain (and possibly still is). Point in fact paleo-climatologist Willi Dansgaard infamously excluded female scientists from his expeditions until the late 1970s.

Inge Lehmann never worked in the Arctic, and she, like most other seismologists at the time of her research, relied on seismograms sent to her. The only time we know she was in Greenland was two weeks around 1934, when she supervised the installation of instruments at SCO after a fire. As a mountaineer, she was physically capable, but as the head of department it was inconvenient for her to be out of reach for long periods of time.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2021-20-AC1

RC2:
'Comment on hgss-2021-20', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Nov 2021

1.) Yes.

2.) Yes, although it remains unclear what new results are presented in contrast to Jacobsen (2015). However, since Jacobsen (2015) was published in Danish, this article in English can reach a broader and more international audience.

3.) Yes.

4.) Yes. I would recommend to make a clearer statement about which new sources are presented and in what way the argument is original.

5.) Yes.

6.) The abstract does not contain the research question. It would be helpful to include the research question (or argument) and the method/sources that are used to answer it.

7.) Yes.

8.) Yes.

9.) The article is well written, in a clear language, and shows a reasonable structure. Although the narrative remains descriptive over most of the main part the story is interesting and relevant. I suggest some more clarification regarding the following issues:

In order to contextualize, I would recommend to include some more information about how Lehmann’s case is not only representative for other women but also how representative it was for Denmark/Danish femal scholars (within and beyond the university, and in a more contextualized form than the otherwise still helpful table 1). This would be helpful for readers who are not familiar with Danish social history.

The originality of the paper could be made stronger by clarifying the questions: Why is this new material really important? Does it tell a new story or does it make a known story more nuanced? The result (Lehmann’s career was typical for a female academic) is not surprising and doesn’t seem very original at first sight. But maybe Lehmann’s case is indeed more interesting than other cases of female academics in other scientific disciplines? The argument that Lehmann succeeded only because seismology was new and less prestigious sounds plausible and really interesting. As a suggestion, this argument could be stronger, more prominent and more elaborated in order to emphasize the relevance and uniqueness of the case.

Also, including some Gender Studies literature (in addition to Rossiter) and referring to the current topics in Gender Studies might help to justify the relevance of Lehmann’s case beyond “just adding another story” of a woman in science. But also without this specific addition, I think it is an interesting paper worth to be published with minor revisions.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2021-20-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lif Lund Jacobsen, 15 Feb 2022
  
  Q2: Does the paper present new historic research, new interpretations or new compilations
  
  RC2: Yes, although it remains unclear what new results are presented in contrast to Jacobsen (2015). However, since Jacobsen (2015) was published in Danish, this article in English can reach a broader and more international audience.
  Reply: The introduction now specifies what new data are included and how it affects the conclusion compared to Jacobsen (2015).
  Q4: Do the authors give proper credit to related and previous work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
  RC2: Yes. I would recommend to make a clearer statement about which new sources are presented and in what way the argument is original.
  
  Reply: Agreed. See reply to Q2.
  Q6: Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
  RC2: The abstract does not contain the research question. It would be helpful to include the research question (or argument) and the method/sources that are used to answer it.
  Reply: The reviewers have an excellent point and I have amended the abstract accordingly.
  Q9: Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
  IRC2: I suggest some more clarification regarding the following issues: In order to contextualize, I would recommend to include some more information about how Lehmann’s case is not only representative for other women but also how representative it was for Denmark/Danish femal scholars (within and beyond the university, and in a more contextualized form than the otherwise still helpful table 1). The originality of the paper could be made stronger by clarifying the questions: Why is this new material really important? Does it tell a new story or does it make a known story more nuanced? Also, including some Gender Studies literature (in addition to Rossiter) and referring to the current topics in Gender Studies might help to justify the relevance of Lehmann’s case beyond “just adding another story” of a woman in science.
  Reply: I have rewritten the introduction and added to the discussion to show why Inge Lehmann’s story is relevant to history of science and to the discussion of women in STEM. See also my reply to RC2.
  Given the profile of HGSS I think a larger discussion of Gender Studies literature and modern perspectives on women in STEM is better published elsewhere. But the reviewer’s point is well taken, and it is a topic I plan to explore further in another publication.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2021-20-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Mar 2022) by Hans Volkert

AR by Lif Lund Jacobsen on behalf of the Authors (10 Mar 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (14 Mar 2022) by Hans Volkert

Dear Lif Jacobsen,

it was with much interest that I read your revised manuscript over the weekend. I am of the opinion that you succeeded well to follow the suggestion of both reviewers and to produce a much more explicit argumentation regarding the difference between Inge Lehmann’s continuing renown and her personal as well as gender induced difficulties up to 1930. I am happy to accept your revised manuscript for publication in HGSS.

During my reading some points occurred to me, which I would like you to consider before you submit the final manuscript to HGSS for technical editing and the subsequent production:

Title: can you avoid the somewhat confusing time period at the end of the title, separated by a comma – perhaps by something like:
“Intellectually …. Inge Lehmann up to 1930“ ?
Line 77: insure -> ensures
Line 114: “inspired HER” (relation? who is meant?)
Line 200: brief -> briefly
Line 376: Darmstadt, Germany
(not CZ; B. Gutenberg was born in Darmstadt and apparently lived there after he had obtained an extraordinary professorship in 1926 in nearby Frankfurt)
After line 674: If your 15 endnotes stay here they should have the heading “Endnotes”.
(However, all are quite short and perhaps better placed as footnote at the bottom of the page with the reference.)
And finally:
An important foundation of the novelty of your article are the recently found pieces of correspondence. Is there any possibility to provide some fitting sample as a fourth figure, also to document Inge’s handwriting (no matter that the text will in Danish); e.g., a piece from the exchange with (later) world famous Niels Bohr about the extraordinarily stupid regulations for private meetings of male and (a single) female students in Cambridge would be both “fun” and a document of serious history. Please see, whether something along this line can be presented to make your account even more lively. (Or are there legal matters, which would provide the publication of a small sample?)

In any case, let me congratulate you for producing a very interesting account of the early academic life of a later renowned and long-living female scientist. And thanks a lot for choosing HGSS as the medium of publication.

With my best regards from the lakes in the south-west of Munich to the shore of Öresund

Hans (Volkert)

Hide

AR by Lif Lund Jacobsen on behalf of the Authors (30 Mar 2022) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The road to success for Danish seismologist Inge Lehmann (1888–1993) – known for her 1936 discovery of the Earth's inner core – was difficult and full of challenges. While she herself refused to accept any notion of gender difference ascribed, society at large was less open-minded. Using newly discovered, unpublished historical documents, this article examines to what degree her gender played a decisive role in her graduate and postgraduate experiences.