↓ Skip to main content

The Marine Biological Laboratory (Woods Hole) and the Scientific Advancement of Women in the Early 20th Century: The Example of Mary Jane Hogue (1883–1962)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
The Marine Biological Laboratory (Woods Hole) and the Scientific Advancement of Women in the Early 20th Century: The Example of Mary Jane Hogue (1883–1962)
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10739-014-9384-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven J. Zottoli, Ernst-August Seyfarth

Abstract

The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, MA provided opportunities for women to conduct research in the late 19th and early 20th century at a time when many barriers existed to their pursuit of a scientific career. One woman who benefited from the welcoming environment at the MBL was Mary Jane Hogue. Her remarkable career as an experimental biologist spanned over 55 years. Hogue was born into a Quaker family in 1883 and received her undergraduate degree from Goucher College. She went to Germany to obtain an advanced degree, and her research at the University of Würzburg with Theodor Boveri resulted in her Ph.D. (1909). Although her research interests included experimental embryology, and the use of tissue culture to study a variety of cell types, she is considered foremost a protozoologist. Her extraordinary demonstration of chromidia (multiple fission) in the life history of a new species of Flabellula associated with diseased oyster beds is as important as it is ignored. We discuss Hogue's career path and her science to highlight the importance of an informal network of teachers, research advisors, and other women scientists at the MBL all of whom contributed to her success as a woman scientist.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Librarian 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 2 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 22%
Environmental Science 1 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,865,450
of 24,796,678 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#427
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,002
of 236,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,678 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.