Kinship by service to science: about the life of the academic community (conversation between Natalia Pushkareva and Nadezhda Orlova)

The dialogue between two representatives of the contemporary academic community addresses a wide range of issues related to the role of women in science, the functioning of the scientific community from a gender perspective, historical memory, and the personal experiences of scholars. A central theme is gender asymmetry in academia: it is noted that research by women is cited less frequently, and female scholars remain overshadowed by male names even in feminized humanities disciplines. Examples of overlooked scholars - Olga Sreznevskaya, Klavdiya Florovskaya, Evlaliya Kazanovich - illustrate the systemic neglect of women’s contributions, known only to a narrow circle of specialists. The interlocutors emphasize that the reputation of one’s academic mentor can significantly influence access to social mobility mechanisms within the scientific field. They stress the necessity of integrating women’s names into academic curricula and scholarly works to overcome entrenched stereotypes. Both the interlocutors agree on the importance of restoring the cultural memory of “scientific handmaidens” of the past, highlighting that scientific progress relies not only on major discoveries but also on routine labor, often overlooked. The discussion touches on balancing scientific careers with family responsibilities: the interlocutors observe that female doctoral candidates more frequently have one child, while raising multiple children requires substantial financial support. They note the need to reinterpret the role of fatherhood to balance parental duties. Cultural traditions are also addressed: it is emphasized that in Russia, women predominantly bear responsibility for elderly care, further limiting their time for scientific work. Special attention is given to Igor Semyonovich Kon (1928-2011), a leading scholar in Russian humanities, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, and Academician of the Russian Academy of Education. In the professional lives of the interlocutors, Kon played a significant role as a colleague, mentor, and informal teacher, exemplifying academic integrity, diligence, and ethical conduct. His role in fostering their professional collaboration is underscored. The dialogue concludes by addressing the patriotism of academic representatives: by faithfully serving science, knowledge, and ideals, scholars simultaneously serve their students, their people, and their homeland. The conversation reflects not only academic debates but also personal experiences, demonstrating how scientific courage, ethics, and the continuity of ideas form the foundation for re-evaluating women’s contributions to science.