Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Girls lose interest in science by age 9, and researchers have attributed this finding to misrepresentations of female scientists in the media. While television, film, the Internet, textbooks, and biographies have been analyzed for such representations, this study examines the extent to which females and minorities are portrayed over time in science sections of a popular children’s magazine, Highlights for Children. Results indicate that, while males and Whites have outnumbered females and minorities in depictions of science, Highlights has consistently exceeded the number of females and minorities actually employed in scientific fields.

Keywords

mass media gender and science media portrayal of science women in science children’s media race

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Women. (2015). Solving the equation: The variable for women’s success in engineering and computing. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/

Archer

DeWitt

Osborne

Dillon

Willis

Wong

(2010). “Doing” science versus “Being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617-639.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Briscoe

A. M.

(1984). Desegregating science. In Hays

(Ed.), TV, science, and kids: Teaching our children to question (pp. 13-16). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Carli

L. L.

Alawa

Lee

Zhao

Kim

(2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645

Chambers

D. W.

(1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67, 255-265.

Davidson

(2013, April 1). Yvonne Brill and the beef-stroganoff illusion. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/yvonne-brill-and-the-beef-stroganoff-illusion

Del Giudice

. (2014, November 8). Why it’s crucial to get more women into science. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141107-gender-studies-women-scientific-research-feminist/

Dewey

(1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. London, England. Allen & Unwin.

10.

Diekman

A. B.

(2015). Scientists beyond stereotypes: The importance of communal opportunities in science. Retrieved from http://www.ascb.org/scientists-beyond-stereotypes/

11.

Diekman

A. B.

Brown

E. R.

Johnston

A. M.

Clark

E. K.

(2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057.

12.

Drabman

R. S.

Robertson

S. J.

Patterson

J. N.

Jarvie

G. J.

Hammer

Cordua

(1981). Children’s perception of media-portrayed sex roles. Sex Roles, 7, 379-389.

13.

Fara

(2013). Weird sisters? Nature, 495, 43-44.

14.

Fort

D. C.

Varney

H. L.

(1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly White, and mostly benevolent. Science & Children, 26(8), 8-13.

15.

Furbay

J. H.

(1952). What airplanes mean to us. Highlights for Children, February, 21.

16.

Helmenstine

A. M.

(2014). The difference between hard and soft science. Retrieved from http://chemistry.about.com/b/2014/02/14/difference-between-hard-science-and-soft-science.htm

17.

Greider

(2014). The Highlights way: Inspiring children to think, feel, connect, and respect. Columbus, OH: Print Matters.

18.

Kahle

J. B.

(1985). Women in science: A report from the field. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

19.

Kahle

J. B.

Matyas

M. L.

Cho

H. H.

(1985). An assessment of the impact of science experience on the career choices of male and female biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 385-394.

20.

Kahn

(1978). She cooks, she cleans, she wins the Nobel Prize. Family Health, 10, 24-27.

21.

Kaufman

(2008). Revealing nature’s wonders. Highlights for Children, August, 22-23.

22.

Kelly

(1987). Science for girls? Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

23.

Krippendorff

(2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Lacy

Riffe

Randle

(1998). Sample size in multi-year content analysis of monthly consumer magazines. Journalism & Communication Quarterly, 75, 408-417.

25.

LaFollette

M. C.

(1988). Eyes on the stars: Images of women scientists in popular magazines. Science, Technology & Human Values, 13, 262-275.

26.

Mares

M. L.

Cantor

Steinbach

J. B.

(1999). Using television to foster children’s interest in science. Science Communication, 20, 283-297.

27.

Martin

(1982). Devoted to science: The story of Marie Curie. Highlights for Children, February, 28-29.

28.

Mayer

A. B.

(1973). Daniel Hale Williams—Courageous surgeon. Highlights for Children, March, 32-33.

29.

McArthur

(1998). Report: The portrayal of women in science books for junior readers. Science Communication, 20, 247-261.

30.

McIntosh

(2014). Representations of females scientists in The Big Bang Theory. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 42, 195-204.

31.

Mettler

J. J.

Jr. (1981, June/July). Becoming a veterinarian. Highlights for Children, pp. 32-33.

32.

Moreau

M. P.

Mendick

(2012). Discourses of women scientists in online media: Towards new gender regimes? International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 4, 4-23.

33.

National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf00327/

34.

National Science Foundation. (2002). National Center for Science and Engineering statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/s4190/start.htm

35.

National Science Foundation. (2007). Back to school: Five myths about girls and science. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109939

36.

National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf

37.

Nelkin

(1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

38.

Our mission and values. (2015). Highlights for Children. Retrieved from https://www.highlights.com/about-us/company-values

39.

Rawson

C. H.

McCool

M. A.

(2014). Just like all the other humans? Analyzing images of scientists in children’s trade books. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 10-18.

40.

Rosser

S. V.

Potter

(1990). Sexism in textbooks. In Rosser

S. V.

(Ed.), Female-friendly science: Applying women’s studies methods and theories to attract students (pp. 73-91). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

41.

Samuels

L. S.

(1999). Girls can succeed in science! Antidotes for science phobia in boys and girls. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

42.

Steinke

(2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27-63.

43.

Steinke

Long

(1996). A lab of her own? Portrayals of female characters on children’s educational science programs. Science Communication, 18, 91-115.

44.

Swan

(1998). Social learning from Saturday morning cartoons. In Swan

Meskill

DeMaio

(Eds.), Social learning from broadcast television (pp. 87-112). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

45.

theguardian.com. (2011, July 22). Why more women should consider a career in science. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/careers/women-science-careers

46.

Van Evra

(1998). Television and child development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gender and Race Representations of Scientists in Highlights for Children

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References