{"title":"国内领域的观察、实验还是自主?1790–1830年英国女性熟悉的科学写作","authors":"Eleanor Peters","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines three female writers who chose to affiliate their educational scientific works with the ‘domestic sphere’: Priscilla Wakefield, Jane Marcet and Maria Edgeworth. It shows that within what is now broadly categorized as ‘familiar science’, differing motivations for writing, publishing and reading existed. Between 1790 and 1830 many educationalists claimed that the best way for children to learn was for them to exercise their memory on things encountered in everyday life. Religious allegiances, attitudes towards female science education and the utility of science in the home help to explain why these writers chose to introduce their readers to the illimitable world of science by setting their books in the seemingly restrictive domestic sphere. Furthermore, this paper argues that three different authors envisioned subtly different domestic spheres as settings for their work. Rather than there being a single homogeneous domestic sphere in which women and children received their education, and about which such authors wrote, there existed a multiplicity of domestic spheres depicted across the genre of educational science texts.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observation, experiment or autonomy in the domestic sphere? Women's familiar science writing in Britain, 1790–1830\",\"authors\":\"Eleanor Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines three female writers who chose to affiliate their educational scientific works with the ‘domestic sphere’: Priscilla Wakefield, Jane Marcet and Maria Edgeworth. It shows that within what is now broadly categorized as ‘familiar science’, differing motivations for writing, publishing and reading existed. Between 1790 and 1830 many educationalists claimed that the best way for children to learn was for them to exercise their memory on things encountered in everyday life. Religious allegiances, attitudes towards female science education and the utility of science in the home help to explain why these writers chose to introduce their readers to the illimitable world of science by setting their books in the seemingly restrictive domestic sphere. Furthermore, this paper argues that three different authors envisioned subtly different domestic spheres as settings for their work. Rather than there being a single homogeneous domestic sphere in which women and children received their education, and about which such authors wrote, there existed a multiplicity of domestic spheres depicted across the genre of educational science texts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Observation, experiment or autonomy in the domestic sphere? Women's familiar science writing in Britain, 1790–1830
This paper examines three female writers who chose to affiliate their educational scientific works with the ‘domestic sphere’: Priscilla Wakefield, Jane Marcet and Maria Edgeworth. It shows that within what is now broadly categorized as ‘familiar science’, differing motivations for writing, publishing and reading existed. Between 1790 and 1830 many educationalists claimed that the best way for children to learn was for them to exercise their memory on things encountered in everyday life. Religious allegiances, attitudes towards female science education and the utility of science in the home help to explain why these writers chose to introduce their readers to the illimitable world of science by setting their books in the seemingly restrictive domestic sphere. Furthermore, this paper argues that three different authors envisioned subtly different domestic spheres as settings for their work. Rather than there being a single homogeneous domestic sphere in which women and children received their education, and about which such authors wrote, there existed a multiplicity of domestic spheres depicted across the genre of educational science texts.
期刊介绍:
Notes and Records is an international journal which publishes original research in the history of science, technology and medicine.
In addition to publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all areas of the history of science, technology and medicine, Notes and Records welcomes other forms of contribution including: research notes elucidating recent archival discoveries (in the collections of the Royal Society and elsewhere); news of research projects and online and other resources of interest to historians; essay reviews, on material relating primarily to the history of the Royal Society; and recollections or autobiographical accounts written by Fellows and others recording important moments in science from the recent past.