Hazel Dorrington and John Trushell

University of East London

Contact

Primary PGCE Trainees’ Perceptions of Scientists

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-WattUniversity, Edinburgh, 3-6 September 2008

Introduction

Even before the term ‘scientist’ was coined by William Whewell in 1833 (Swade, 1996: 41), public perceptions of these ‘natural philosophers’ were polysemous: through the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century, perceptions of scientists — while “invariably male” — were many and varied:

“diabolical madmen, distinguished professors, harmless eccentrics, learned buffoons, and fashionable dilettantes were shown — often in conflict with authority or disputing among themselves — as naturalists in the field, physical scientists in laboratories, and as alchemists” (Gough, 2007: 3).

These perceptions ranged across a continuum from mad scientists — a stereotype established by Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), a “fable of uncontrolled reason” (Belton, 1996: 247) — to scientists as saviour-heroes, evoking “images of bearded dedication, white coats, retort stands and glass flasks” with “service to humanity [shining] in their eyes” and depicted in “stiff poses frozen in the moment of greatness for posterity to revere (Swade, 1996: 34). These perceptions endured into the twentieth century until the 1950s — that nuclear ‘Age of Anxiety’ — when there was a decline in “public confidence that scientists fully understood and controlled the consequences of their experiments” (Longhurst, 1989: 196) and when the scientist was perceived as “at best Brecht’s Galileo, swallowing his conscience in order to survive, at worst Doctor Strangelove” (Belton, 1996, 259).

Contemporary popular perceptions of scientists do not conform to a simple stereotype but a complex of possible stereotypes (Locke, 2005: 40):

“the material out of which scientists are constructed constitutes a set of ambivalent resources, which may well have been added to over time, although this does not mean older materials have been altogether abandoned” (ibid.: 43).

However, one perceived aspect of the scientist has proved resilient: whether madmen or saviour-hero, the scientist has remained explicitly masculine. More particularly, the most common image “vividly embedded in the collective mind” is that:

“He looks permanently electrified, hair standing on end. He is always middle-aged, always white and always, always preoccupied about his experiments, without regard to their consequences on the humanity beyond his messy laboratory” (Claudio, 2000: 78).

This masculinity in particular seems anachronistic in contemporary societies that are striving for gender equality and in which gendered perceptions allegedly have prevented girls and women from pursuing studies and careers in science.

Researching Perceptions of Scientists

Contemporary concern with pupils’ perceptions of scientists began with a study (Chambers, 1983) that asked 4807 primary school pupils — between kindergarten and grade 5 — to draw a picture of a scientist. The findings demonstrated that the pupils held a stereotypical image of a scientist — male, balding, bearded and wearing a laboratory coat — and that this stereotypical image became more prevalent with age. Many of these aspects of the stereotype have endured, but particularly the perception of the scientist as male (e.g. see O’Maoldomhnaigh & Hunt, 1988; Barman et al 1997; Buldu 2006). A recent study of 9 year-olds and 14 year-olds in six European countries (Rodari, 2007) — Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania — produced 1,102 drawings: only 272 drawings depicted women scientists and, of these 272 drawings, a mere 60 pictures of women scientists were drawn by boys.

Buldu (2006) has observed that teachers are implicated in the perpetuation of stereotypical representations of scientists:

“Teachers at the early childhood level and at elementary grades – perhaps more than at any other instructional level – play a vital role in creating children’s perceptions about science and scientists” (Buldu, 2006).

These stereotypical representations of scientists may have persisted through teacher-training and into teachers’ work in classrooms. Matthews (1996) studied 34 PGCE trainee teachers: 20% of the trainees drew two male scientists, 73% drew one male and one female scientist while only 6% drew two female scientists. Matthews concluded that the trainees ‘have positive images of men and women as scientists’ (Matthews, 1996). However, only one black scientist was drawn by the trainee teachers in Matthews’ study which suggests that some features of the stereotypical image of a scientist found in children’s drawings exists in the drawings of trainee teachers.

Similarly, Rahm and Charbonneau (1997) studied 49 students enrolled on a teacher certification course and found that the teacher-trainees’ drawings resembled, in terms of stereotypical content, those produced by children: for example, 84% of the students drew male scientists, 58% drew the scientists wearing laboratory coats. Furthermore, McDuffie (2001) investigated the perceptions of scientists held by 550 pre-service and in-service teachers and noted the persistence of a representation of scientists as middle-aged, male, wearing glasses and laboratory coats.McDuffie speculated that:

‘teachers’ stereotypes are the same as their students’ on most significant characteristics… Are teachers unwittingly communicating a biased viewpoint and prompting children to create a distorted image of scientists?’(McDuffie 2001).

Teachers who have stereotypical perceptions of scientists may, consciously or unconsciously, pass these perceptions on to their pupils. However, before stereotypical perceptions of scientists held by teacher-trainees are challenged, we need to determine the extent to which these perceptions are held by teacher-trainees. Once these perceptions are known, these may be challenged, if necessary, in order for more positive and diverse images of scientists to be entertained by teacher-trainees and, in due course, passed on to their pupils.

Methodology

Teacher-trainees on a one year Primary PGCE Programme were each provided with a piece of plain paper and the following instructions:

“Draw two scientists working. You can label your drawing if you wish. You can colour your drawing in if you wish. You will not be given any further instructions.”

Trainees were asked to draw two scientists as it was believed that this would relieve trainees of having to choose between drawing a male or female scientist. O’Maoldomhnaigh and Hunt (1988) found that, when participants were given the opportunity to complete two drawings, this resulted in an increased frequency of drawings of female scientists. Moreover, trainees were given the option of labelling their drawings, thus enabling their ideas to be made more explicit, especially in the context of poor drawing skills.

Trainees worked individually, without discussing their drawings with each other, to minimise potential for them to influence one another in the pictures that were drawn. No time limit was set, but most trainees finished their drawings in around ten minutes.

Drawings were collected from 89 trainees, and these drawings were rated against a checklist of features – comprising 14 items – developed from a checklist devised by Chambers (1983) and supplemented with elements drawn from checklists of studies conducted by Finson et al (1995) and Barman et al (1997). Each drawing was rated by three independent raters who were asked to indicate whether a particular feature was present or absent on a scale of 1-5. The criteria applied were:

●award of a rating of 5 indicated that the feature was definitely present in a drawing, e.g. feature corroborated by a label;

●award of a rating of 4 indicated that the feature was discernibly present;

●award of a rating of 3 indicated that the feature was neither discernibly present nor absent, e.g. age of scientists in a stick-person drawing (see Figure 1);

●award of a rating of 2 indicated that the feature was discernibly absent; and

●award of a rating of 1 indicated that a feature was definitely absent.

A sub-sample of drawings were rated and then discussed by the raters to ensure consistency. The remaining drawings were then rated by each rater independently. The inter-rater reliability calculated for the 14 items was moderately strong, i.e. 0.640. However, inter-rater reliability was adversely affected by two items with lower reliability: ‘Caucasian(s) only’ had an inter-rater reliability of 0.348 and ‘Middle-aged/elderly’ had an inter-rater reliability of 0.359. These features were difficult to discern in many drawings (see Figure 1, an anonymous drawing which was excluded from the study). When these items were excluded, inter-rater reliability achieved 0.687.

Figure 1:Two Scientists in a Stick Person Drawing

The sample was subcategorised, for further analysis, by gender and first degree discipline. Notably, trainees were divided into categories of first degree disciplines derived from Becher (1994) who proposed the following disciplinary groupings:

  • Pure sciences (e.g. physics) - 'hard-pure';
  • Humanities (e.g. history) and pure social sciences (e.g. anthropology) - 'soft-pure';
  • Technologies (e.g. engineering) - 'hard-applied'; and
  • Applied social sciences (e.g. education) - 'soft-applied' (ibid.: 144).

Findings

Data are presented below for the entire sample, 89 participants, and by sub-categories of gender and first degree discipline.

All Respondents

The proportions for all trainees were calculated for the fourteen variables (see Table 1).

Table 1:Proportions for Fourteen Variables for All Trainees

Variable / Proportions (n = 89)
5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Wearing a lab' coat / .42 / .25 / .07 / .20 / .07
Wearing eye glasses / .27 / .30 / .04 / .04 / .34
Facial hair / .03 / .12 / .01 / .07 / .76
Symbols of research / .81 / .08 / .02 / .04 / .04
Symbols of knowledge / .19 / .10 / .06 / .10 / .55
Technology / .06 / .02 / .02 / .06 / .84
Relevant captions / .07 / .19 / .09 / .24 / .42
Male gender only / .17 / .09 / .11 / .09 / .52
Female gender only / .01 / .01 / .07 / .15 / .76
Caucasian(s) only / .01 / .52 / .44 / .02 / .01
Middle-aged/elderly / 0 / .12 / .52 / .33 / .03
Mythic stereotypes / 0 / .01 / .01 / .04 / .93
Secrecy indicators / .01 / 0 / 0 / .03 / .96
Working in lab' / .62 / .26 / .03 / .07 / .02

Consideration of these proportions disclosed the following positive marked tendencies (i.e. rated as 5):

  • a marked tendency for scientists to be depicted with symbols of their research, i.e. instruments and laboratory equipment [.81]; and
  • a marked tendency for scientists to be depicted in a laboratory [.62].

There was also a positive tendency (i.e. rated as 4 and 5) for scientists to be depicted wearing a lab’ coat [.67]. and for scientists to be depicted wearing eye glasses [.57].

Negative marked tendencies (i.e. rated as 1) were also disclosed:

  • for there to be no secrecy indicators [.96];
  • for there to be no invocation of mythic stereotypes, e.g. Frankenstein [.93];
  • for there to be no depiction of technology [.84];
  • for scientists not to be depicted as females only [.76] ;
  • for scientists not to have facial hair [.76];
  • for scientists not to be depicted with symbols of knowledge [.55]; and
  • for scientists not to be depicted as male gender only [.52].

Notably, those items marked by poor inter-rater reliability - ‘Caucasian(s) and ‘Middle-aged/elderly’ – had considerable proportions rated as 3, i.e. indicating that a feature was neither discernibly absent nor present.

Figure 2:Two Scientists – ‘Stereotype Sid’ and ‘Observing Lilly’

The drawing (Figure 2), completed by a female trainee with a ‘soft-applied’ degree, demonstrates awareness of the existence of stereotypical perceptions of the scientist. A number of stereotypical features appear in the depiction of Sid: there are symbols of research — test tube and Bunsen burner — and Sid is wearing a lab’ coat and eye glasses. Lilly, by contrast, appears to be wearing a skirt and t-shirt, rather than a lab’ coat, and there are no symbols of research in her proximity. She, it may be inferred, is not an active participant — ‘Observing Lilly’ — although the caption which reads ‘Looking out to see and thinking what happens’ may imply some engagement in scientific activity.

Sample by Gender

The 89 participants comprised 72 female and 17 male trainees. The proportions were calculated for the variables of the sub-samples of gender (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2:Proportions for Fourteen Variables for Female Trainees

Variable / Proportions (n = 72)
5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Wearing a lab' coat / .44 / .22 / .06 / .21 / .07
Wearing eye glasses / .28 / .31 / .03 / .03 / .36
Facial hair / .04 / .11 / .01 / .06 / .78
Symbols of research / .83 / .07 / .03 / .03 / .04
Symbols of knowledge / .17 / .11 / .07 / .11 / .54
Technology / .07 / .03 / .01 / .03 / .86
Relevant captions / .04 / .18 / .06 / .24 / .49
Male gender only / .13 / .07 / .10 / .13 / .58
Female gender only / .01 / .01 / .08 / .13 / .76
Caucasian(s) only / 0 / .49 / .49 / .01 / .01
Middle-aged/elderly / 0 / .08 / .51 / .36 / .04
Mythic stereotypes / 0 / 0 / .01 / .01 / .97
Secrecy indicators / 0 / 0 / 0 / .03 / .97
Working in lab' / .64 / .25 / .03 / .06 / .03

Table 3:Proportions for Fourteen Variables for Male Trainees

Variable / Proportions (n = 17)
5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Wearing a lab' coat / .29 / .35 / .12 / .18 / .06
Wearing eye glasses / .29 / .29 / .06 / .12 / .24
Facial hair / 0 / .18 / 0 / .12 / .71
Symbols of research / .71 / .12 / 0 / .12 / .06
Symbols of knowledge / .29 / .06 / 0 / .06 / .59
Technology / 0 / 0 / .06 / .18 / .76
Relevant captions / .18 / .24 / .24 / .24 / .12
Male gender only / .35 / .18 / .18 / .06 / .24
Female gender only / 0 / 0 / 0 / .24 / .76
Caucasian(s) only / .06 / .65 / .29 / 0 / 0
Middle-aged/elderly / 0 / .29 / .53 / .18 / 0
Mythic stereotypes / 0 / .06 / 0 / .18 / .76
Secrecy indicators / .06 / 0 / 0 / .06 / .88
Working in lab' / .53 / .29 / .06 / .12 / 0

The positive and negative tendencies apparent for the entire sample (see Table 1) were largely consistent for the sub-samples of gender. Further analysis disclosed common marked tendencies for scientists to be depicted with symbols of their research [Females .83, Males .71]. Common positive tendencies were found for a number of variables, as indicated by the sum of trainees responding positively (i.e. rated as 4 and 5):

  • a tendency for scientists to be depicted working in a laboratory [Female .91, Male. 82];
  • a tendency for scientists to be depicted wearing a lab’ coat [Female .66, Male .64]; and
  • a tendency for scientists to be depicted wear eye glasses [Female .59, Male .58].

Common negative marked tendencies were discerned:

  • for neither scientist to be depicted as female [Female .89, Male 1.0];
  • for there to be no secrecy indicators [Female .97, Male .88];
  • for there to be no mythic stereotypes [Female .97, Male .76];
  • for there to be no depictions of technology [Female .86, Male .76];
  • for there to be no depictions of facial hair [Female .78, Male .71]; and
  • for there to be no depictions of symbols of knowledge [Female .54, Male .59].

However, there was a notable discrepancy between female and male trainees insofar as the larger proportion of female trainees had a tendency not to depict both scientists as male [.71] whereas the larger proportion of male trainees had a tendency to depict both scientists as male [.53].

Figure 3:Two Scientists – ‘Bert’ and ‘Rhonda’

The drawing (see Figure 3), completed by a female trainee with a ‘soft-applied’ degree, depicts one male and one female scientist. The resemblance of the two figures to one another is striking: both are wearing what could be assumed to be a lab’ coat — buttoned up to the neck with a breast pocket containing at least one pen — and both wearing eye glasses although Bert is wearing spectacles while Rhonda appears to be wearing protective goggles. Moreover, both have symbols of research, stands of test tubes which they are observing. However, there are differences: Bert appears to be adding a drop of some substance to one of his three test tubes and has a thought bubble containing a question mark; Rhonda has two smoking test tubes and an open notebook and graph nearby, from which the inference may be drawn that she is responsible for the writing up of the results.

Figure 4:Two Male Scientists

The drawing (see Figure 4), completed by a male trainee with a first ‘soft-pure’ degree appears to depict two male scientists. The two scientists have similar appearances — preoccupied expressions, balding and wearing ties — and are stereotypically wearing eye glasses and attired in lab’ coats. This drawing includes symbols of research, a smoking test tube and a tripod stand, with which the scientists appear to be engaging in an experiment.

Sample by First Degree Disciplines

Categorised by first degree disciplines, the 89 participants comprised 3 hard-pure students, 8 hard-applied students, 36 soft-pure students and 42 soft-applied students. The hard-pure and hard-applied categories were conflated, for analysis, to provide a hard category, and the proportions were calculated for the variables of the sub-samples of first degree discipline.

Table 4:Proportions for Trainees with Hard-Pure/Hard-Applied Degrees

Variable / Proportions (n = 11)
5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Wearing a lab' coat / .36 / .27 / .18 / .18 / 0
Wearing eye glasses / .18 / .36 / .18 / .09 / .18
Facial hair / .09 / .18 / 0 / .09 / .64
Symbols of research / .91 / .09 / 0 / 0 / 0
Symbols of knowledge / .27 / .09 / .09 / 0 / .54
Technology / 0 / 0 / 0 / .18 / .82
Relevant captions / .09 / .27 / .18 / .18 / .27
Male gender only / .18 / .09 / 0 / .18 / .54
Female gender only / 0 / 0 / 0 / .18 / .82
Caucasian(s) only / 0 / .73 / .27 / 0 / 0
Middle-aged/elderly / 0 / .27 / .27 / .45 / 0
Mythic stereotypes / 0 / 0 / 0 / .18 / .82
Secrecy indicators / 0 / 0 / 0 / .09 / .91
Working in lab' / .64 / .27 / .09 / 0 / 0

Table 5:Proportions for Trainees with Soft-Pure Degrees

Variable / Proportions (n = 36)
5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Wearing a lab' coat / .42 / .22 / .03 / .22 / .11
Wearing eye glasses / .25 / .28 / 0 / .03 / .44
Facial hair / .03 / .06 / 0 / .06 / .86
Symbols of research / .78 / .06 / .03 / .08 / .06
Symbols of knowledge / .19 / .11 / .06 / .11 / .53
Technology / .08 / .06 / 0 / .06 / .81
Relevant captions / .03 / .28 / .06 / .25 / .39
Male gender only / .17 / .06 / .19 / .08 / .50
Female gender only / 0 / .03 / .08 / .11 / .78
Caucasian(s) only / 0 / .56 / .39 / .03 / .03
Middle-aged/elderly / 0 / .14 / .39 / .44 / .03
Mythic stereotypes / 0 / .03 / .03 / .03 / .92
Secrecy indicators / .03 / 0 / 0 / .06 / .92
Working in lab' / .61 / .28 / 0 / .06 / .06

Table 6:Proportions for Trainees with Soft-Applied Degrees

Variable / Proportions (n = 42)
5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Wearing a lab' coat / .43 / .26 / .07 / .19 / .05
Wearing eye glasses / .33 / .31 / .02 / .05 / .29
Facial hair / .02 / .17 / .02 / .07 / .71
Symbols of research / .81 / .10 / .02 / .02 / .05
Symbols of knowledge / .17 / .10 / .05 / .12 / .57
Technology / .05 / 0 / .05 / .02 / .88
Relevant captions / .10 / .10 / .10 / .24 / .48
Male gender only / .17 / .10 / .07 / .14 / .52
Female gender only / .02 / 0 / .07 / .17 / .74
Caucasian(s) only / .02 / .43 / .55 / 0 / 0
Middle-aged/elderly / 0 / .07 / .69 / .19 / .05
Mythic stereotypes / 0 / 0 / 0 / .02 / .98
Secrecy indicators / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1.0
Working in lab' / .62 / .24 / .05 / .10 / 0

The positive and negative tendencies apparent for the entire sample (see Table 1) and the sub-samples of gender (see Tables 2 and 3) were largely consistent with the tendencies apparent in the sub-samples by degree discipline (see Tables 4, 5 and 6). Further analysis disclosed common marked tendencies for scientists to be depicted working with the symbols of research [Hard .91, Soft-P’ .78, Soft-A’ .81] in a laboratory [Hard .64, Soft-P’ .61, Soft-A’ .62].

Common positive tendencies were found for a number of variables, as indicated by the sum of trainees responding positively (i.e. rated as 4 and 5):

  • a tendency for scientists to be depicted wearing a lab’ coat [Hard .63, Soft-P’ .64, Soft-A’ .69]; and
  • a tendency for scientists to be depicted wearing eye glasses [Hard .54, Soft-P’ .53, Soft-A’ .64].

Common negative marked tendencies (i.e. rated as 1) were discerned:

  • for there to be no secrecy indicators [Hard .91, Soft-P’ .92, Soft-A’ 1.0];
  • for there to be no mythic stereotypes [Hard .82, Soft-P’ .92, Soft-A’ .98];
  • for there to be no depictions of technology [Hard .82, Soft-P’ .81, Soft-A’ .88];
  • for neither scientist to be depicted as female [Hard .82, Soft-P’ .78, Soft-A’ .74]; and
  • for there to be no depictions of facial hair [Hard .64, Soft-P’ .86, Soft-A’ .71].

Common negative tendencies were found for a number of variables, as indicated by the sum of trainees responding negatively (i.e. rated as 1 and 2):

  • a tendency for scientists not to be depicted with symbols of their knowledge [Hard .54, Soft-P’ .64, Soft-A’ .69]; and
  • a tendency for scientists not to be male only [Hard .72, Soft-P’ .58, Soft-A’ .66].

Figure 5:Two Scientists