Frameworks for Studying Women and Gender 251of women and gender. First, we take up research and scholar-
ship on women and gender. Next, we consider the contribu-
tions of feminist clinicians and clinical researchers. In both
domains, efforts have been two-pronged. On the one hand,
they involve critiques of conventional constructs, research
methods, and practices. On the other hand, they involve the
development of new forms of scholarship and practice that
incorporate feminist insights and feminist values. In the third
section, we describe some of the organizations, activities, and
projects that have sustained and advanced the field.
Our review covers only English-language work. It is cen-
tered on the United States but includes developments in
Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand as
well. We focus on broad themes and not every individual
contribution to the field is mentioned.
FRAMEWORKS FOR STUDYING WOMEN
AND GENDER
Criticisms of psychology’s treatment of women and people
of color have been voiced intermittently throughout the his-
tory of psychology. As early as 1876, Mary Putnam Jacobi, a
physician, challenged the then-popular notion that hormonal
changes associated with the menstrual cycle handicapped
women mentally and physically. Jacobi pointed out that re-
search on the limitations of women was rarely conducted by
women themselves but rather by men, who often attributed
sex differences to nature (Sherif, 1979). In effect, Jacobi
argued that psychological knowledge is socially situated, that
is, that interpretations of data reflect the perspectives and
interests of the researcher.
The First Wave (c. 1876–1920)
Only a small cohort of American women held higher degrees
in psychology in the early years of the twentieth century.
Some women in this cohort questioned prevailing beliefs
about innate sex differences in personality and ability. For
instance, Helen Thompson Woolley conducted the first labo-
ratory study of sex differences in mental traits, developing
innovative measures in the process. Woolley stressed the
overall similarity of the sexes, critiqued biases in earlier re-
search, and discussed possible environmental determinants
of observed differences. Indeed, she argued that the experi-
mental method was of little use for studying sex differences
because it was not possible to find male and female research
subjects with equivalent social training and experiences. As
we noted earlier, Woolley did not mince her words in assess-
ing psychology’s claims about women and sex differences.
Inspired by Woolley’s work, Leta Stetter Hollingworth of-
fered a rebuttal of the variability hypothesis, the belief that
males were the more variable sex and thus responsible for the
evolutionary progress of the human species (Hollingworth,
1914, 1916). Hollingworth argued against the claim that
women’s genetic makeup made them less likely than men to
be highly creative or intelligent (Shields, 1975). Woolley and
Hollingworth pioneered the use of empirical research to chal-
lenge assertions about women’s natural limitations. The re-
search and theory they developed was necessarily reactive
rather than proactive. That is, they worked to refute claims
about female inferiority that they themselves did not origi-
nate. Because their ability and their very right to do research
and develop theory were in doubt, they were able to gain
credibility only insofar as they addressed the questions posed
by the psychological establishment.
Few women of this era gained access to positions at re-
search universities or funds for research, and few were able
to train graduate students who might have spread their ideas
or continued in their footsteps (Rosenberg, 1982). By the
1920s, there was no longer an active women’s movement
to lend political support to their ideas. Therefore, first-
wave feminism had no lasting impact on psychology. Most
of the “foremothers” of feminist psychology remained un-
known until second-wave feminist psychologists reclaimed
the early history of women in psychology (Bernstein &
Russo, 1974).
Opportunities for women remained limited during the in-
terwar years (Morawski & Agronick, 1991). Women were
channeled into applied fields, especially those connected
with children. Women in academia often held adjunct status
or unstable research positions. An important response to
women’s secondary status in psychology was the founding of
the National Council of Women Psychologists in 1941,
which we describe later.
An even greater resistance to women in the professions
marked the decades following World War II. This resis-
tance was part of the broad cultural pressure on women to
have large families and to engage in full-time homemaking.
The number of women professionals declined during the
1940s and 1950s. Indeed, many social critics and mental
health professionals pressed women into domestic roles by a
variety of dubious pronouncements issued under the guise of
science. For example, they blamed mothers for a variety of
psychological disorders, behavior problems, and social ills in
their children (Caplan & Hall-MacCorquodale, 1985). They
extolled marriage, motherhood, and subordination to men’s
interests as criteria of maturity and fulfillment for women.
Nonetheless, there were resisters like Karen Horney, Clara
Thompson, and Georgene Seward.