I started this report on Mary Whiton Calkins. I was fascinated by the strides that she made in the fields of psychology, and how at every corner she was shot down because she was a woman. I went first to the library at PCC only to discover that I could find no reference to her work. So I backed up a step to William James whom Calkins was a student of. I found literally dozens of books on the man and his work, and countless references to his work. Out of the 26 books written about William James, I found only a two-paragraph reference to Mary Calkins. So then I proceeded to look up Josiah Royce whom Mary Calkins also studied under at Harvard, again I found plenty of books about the man and his work and not one single reference to Mary Calkins. This disturbed me. After searching 100 ways to Sunday on the library reference computer, I turned up nothing. I realized then that this report was about to take a very different turn. I decided then to get out the textbook and look !
             up every woman who was referenced in the book as contributing to the founding of psychology. I found reference to 11 different men and only reference to two women, Mary Whiton Calkins and Margaret Floy Washburn. Again, I went to the computer and looked up Margaret Washburn, not surprisingly I found nothing. This left me to conclude one of two things. Either women did not contribute very much to the founding of psychology, or that they just were not credited for their work. Frustrated I left PCC with a new idea for my report. After extensive research on the trusty old Internet, my report turned into the question, Why no women?
             Research into the status of American women psychologists illustrates that women psychologist did exist during psychology's development. Yet browse through any library or textbook on the history of psychology and you discover all great psychological theories and discoveries are credited to men.
             ...