Sarah Bowdich Lee (1791-1856) and Pioneering Perspectives on Natural History

This first book-length appraisal of the pioneering perspectives of Sarah Bowdich Lee (1791–1856) on natural history in the first half of the nineteenth century pivotally highlights the intercultural, interdisciplinary and multi-genre reach of her work. The fact that she undertook it independently and transnationally over three decadeschallenges approaches to women, gender and national nineteenth-century scientific endeavour that have defined women at work in the period by their secondary roles (to more famous men in science) that also delimit their contributions and discoveries(as domestic). By focusing on how Sarah undertook her science despite the many bars to women in its fields, this study also promotes one woman’s blueprint for non-conformist independent work and, in consequence, an alternative paradigm for the ‘leaky pipeline’ model still informing women’s careers in STEM(M) today.

History from below uncovers overlooked protagonists contributing to (inter)national endeavour often against considerable odds. Mrs T. Edward Bowdich then Mrs R. Lee (1791–1856) is indicative. When women allegedly cannot participate in early nineteenth-century scientific exploration, discovery and publication, Sarah’s multiple specialist contributions to French and British natural history have attracted no book-length study. This first appraisal of Sarah’s unbroken production of discipline-changing scientific work over three decades – in modern ichthyology, in historical geography of West Africa and in the next-generational dissemination of expert scientific knowledge – does more than fill this gap. The book also pivotally investigates the intercultural, interdisciplinary and multi-genre reach of Sarah’s pioneering perspectives and contributions, and how she could achieve her work independently in her own name(s) over three decades. Sarah’s larger significance is then to provide a very different narrative for women at work in expert nineteenth-century natural history-making. By everywhere challenging the secondary, minor and domestic frames for women’s contributions of the period, the pioneering perspectives of Sarah’s story also provide alternative paradigms to the ‘leaky-pipeline’ modelstill informing women’s careers and work in STEM(M) today.