In the absence of real-life role models, children may construct an understanding of the role of women in science based largely on images of women scientists they see in the media. This study assesses the images used in the portrayal of a female astronomer in the film, Contact. The themes used as a framework for the analysis were early encouragement in science, professional status, professional reputation, professional relationships, and impact of personal relationships on career goals. The film's portrayal of a woman scientist is discussed in light of empirical data and anecdotal reports on the actual experiences of women scientists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, D.
, and R. Leary. 1995. Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching32 (1): 3-27.
2.
Bem, S. L.1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review88 (4): 354-364.
3.
Bem, S. L.1983. Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society8 (4): 598-616.
4.
Bem, S. L.
1993. The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Bem, S. L.
, and E. Lenney. 1976. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology33 (1): 48-54.
6.
Bielby, W. T.
1991. Sex differences in careers: Is science a special case? In The outer circle: Women in the scientific community, edited by H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole, and J. T. Bruer, 171-187. New York: Norton.
7.
Chambers, D. W.1983. Stereotypic images of the scientists: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education67:255-265.
8.
Cole, J.
1979. Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Free Press.
9.
Cole, J.
, and H. Zuckerman. 1991. Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. In The outer circle: Women in the scientific community, edited by H. Zuckerman, J. R. Cole, and J. T. Bruer, 157-170. New York: Norton.
10.
Comstock, G.
, and H. Paik. 1991. Television and the American child. New York: Academic Press.
11.
Contact, 1998. 162 mins. Burbank, CA: Warner Brothers.
12.
Elena, A.1997. Skirts in the lab: Madame Curie and the image of the woman scientist in the feature film. Public Understanding of Science6:269-278.
13.
Erwin, L.
, and P. Maurutto. 1998. Beyond access: Considering gender deficits in science education. Gender and Education10 (1): 52-69.
14.
Evans, M. A.
, M. Whigham, and M. C. Wang. 1995. The effect of role model project upon the attitudes of ninth-grade science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching32 (2): 195-204.
15.
Film Box Office Database
. September 11, 1998. Film database. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://boxofficeguru.com/c2.htm
16.
Hanson, S. L.
1996. Lost talent: Women in the sciences. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
17.
Hoffner, C.1996. Children's wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media40:389-402.
18.
Humphreys, S. M.
1982. Effectiveness of science career conferences. In Women and minorities in science: Strategies for increasing participation, edited by S. M. Humphreys, 165-186. Boulder, CO: Westview.
19.
Kahle, J. B.
, and M. K. Lakes. 1983. The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching20:131-140.
20.
Kahle, J. B.
, L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, and D. Riley. 1993. Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist28:379-404.
21.
Kelly, A.
, and B. Small. 1986. Sex stereotypes and attitudes to science among eleven-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology56:158-168.
22.
LaFollette, M. C.
1981. Wizards, villains, and other scientists: The science content of television for children. Report prepared for Action for Children's Television, Newton, MA.
23.
LaFollette, M. C.1988. Eyes on the stars: Images of women scientists in popular magazines. Science, Technology, & Human Values13 (3&4): 262-275.
24.
LaFollette, M. C.
1990. Making science our own: Public images of science 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Leslie, L. L.
, G. T. McClure, and R. L. Oaxaca. 1998. Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. Journal of Higher Education69 (3): 239-276.
26.
Maoldomhnaigh, M. O.
, and A. Hunt. 1988. Some factors affecting the image of the scientist drawn by older primary school pupils. Research in Science and Technological Education6 (2): 159-166.
27.
Mason, C. L.
, and J. B. Kahle. 1988. Student attitudes toward science and science-related careers: A program designed to promote a stimulating gender-free learning environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching26 (1): 25-39.
28.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.web.mit.edu/fnl/women/Fnlwomen.htm
29.
Maytas, M. L.
1985. Obstacles and constraints on women in science: Preparation and participation in the scientific community. In Women in science: A report from the field, edited by J. B. Kahle, 77-101. Philadelphia: Falmer.
30.
Mead, M.
, and R. Metraux. 1957. Image of the scientist among high-school students. Science126:384-390.
31.
Morse, M.
1995. Women changing science: Voices from a field in transition. New York: Insight Books.
32.
National Center for Education Statistics
. 1997. Integrated post secondary education data systems. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
33.
National Science Foundation
. 1996. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1996. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation [World Wide Web]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96311/start.htm.
34.
National Science Foundation
. 1999. Science and engineering degrees: 1966-1996 [Early Release Tables]. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/srs99408/start.htm
35.
Nelkin, D.
1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
36.
Pattatucci, A. M.
1998. Women in science: Meeting career challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rayman, P.
, and B. Brett. 1993. Pathways for women in the sciences. Wellesley, MA: Center for Research on Women.
39.
Schmidt, B. M.
, and R. M. Nixon. 1996. Improving girls' attitudes towards science. Public Understanding of Science5:255-268.
40.
Scripts on the Net. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.rosebud.com. br/scr_0. htm#C
41.
Sonnert, G.
1995. Who succeeds in science? The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
42.
Steinke, J.1997. A portrait of a woman as a scientist: Breaking down barriers created by genderrole stereotypes. Public Understanding of Science6:409-428.
43.
Steinke, J.
, and M. Long. 1996. A lab of her own? Portrayals of female characters on children's educational science programs. Science Communication18 (2): 91-115.
44.
Tuchman, G.
1981. The symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media. In The manufacture of news, edited by S. Cohen and J. Young, 169-185. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45.
U.S. Department of Education
. 1997. Findings from the Condition of Education 1997: Women in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97982.html
46.
U.S. Department of Labor
. 1996. Employment and earnings. Washington, DC: Department of Labor.
47.
Vandervoort, F. S.
1985. Women's role in professional scientific organizations: Participation and recognition. In Women in science: A report from the field, edited by J. B. Kahle, 124-147. Philadelphia: Falmer.
48.
Vockell, E. L.
, and S. Lobonc. 1981. Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching18:209-219.
49.
Wareing, C.1990. A survey of antecedents of attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching27:371-386.
50.
Yentsch, C. M.
, and C. J. Sindermann. 1992. The woman scientist: Meeting the challenges for a successful career. New York: Plenum.
