Changing the Face of Science

To view the photo-rich magazine version, click here.

Originally appears in the Winter 2020 issue.

By Kyle Walsh

The question is simple: “What does a scientist look like?” In a perfect world, the answer should be, “Anyone can be a scientist; they can look like you or me.” Why is it, then, that research shows most people think that scientists are eccentric old white men with disheveled hair and lab coats? This stereotypical image (and misconception) has the power to dramatically influence attitudes toward science, often deterring young people from pursuing a science career and forming their own science identity.

The first composite scientist image
The first visual imagery of scientists can be traced back to the late eighteenth century when artists and authors were creating images of mythic beings, mad scientists, and alchemists who dabbled in sorcery or black magic. While those images have faded with time, their impact has not. To understand this issue, researchers have been studying the perception of the scientist image for decades and have noted several stereotypes.
Mead and Metraux surveyed 35,000 high school students across the country and asked them to complete open-ended prompts about what came to mind when they heard the word scientist and what kind of scientist they would like to be. After analyzing the results, the authors used the student responses to create the first composite image of a scientist:
“The scientist is an elderly man who wears a white coat, glasses and works in a laboratory. He is surrounded by equipment: test tubes, beakers, Bunsen burners, flasks, and bottles, and always scribbling notes in a small notebook. The man is so involved in his work that he doesn’t know what is going on in the outside world. He has no other interests and neglects his body for his mind. He can only talk, eat, breathe, and sleep science in hopes of making a great discovery.”1

Draw-A-Scientist Test
Decades later, social scientist David Chambers introduced the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) in hopes that drawings could provide better insight into what perceptions students had of scientists. Using his method, teachers are to give students a blank sheet of paper and ask them to “Draw a picture of a scientist.” Then, the pictures are analyzed for seven key indicators that depict the standard image of a scientist: lab coat, eyeglasses, facial hair, symbols of research, symbols of knowledge, technology, and relevant captions such as “Eureka!”

Before publishing his 1983 study, Chambers surveyed drawings from 186 elementary school classrooms throughout the United States and Canada, and, with the help of graduate students, analyzed each drawing for the indicators. Each drawing was ranked 1–7 depending on how many indicators were present. It was determined that the stereotypical indicators started to appear in the second grade, with lab coats and lab equipment appearing in many pictures. By third- and fourth-grade, most students drew at least three indicators, and by fifth-grade, some photos contained all seven.

Overwhelmingly, one observation stood out among others: nearly all the scientist drawings were of men. Out of 4,807 drawings, only 28 — less than 1% — showed a female scientist, and all of those drawings were drawn by female students.2 This insight suggested that students had much to learn about scientists, and it was crucial to close the information gap between their perceptions of scientists and the reality.

Hindering our science identity
The stereotypes conveyed to people about science and the scientist image can intentionally and unintentionally influence one’s sense of belonging in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Understanding what people think of scientists offers insights into how young people and adults choose their science identity. Identity is the extent by which we define ourselves as a certain “type of person,” with science identity being whether or not we see ourselves as scientists.3

Growing up, our parents and teachers are some of our greatest influencers, and they can directly or indirectly pass on their own stereotypes and perceptions. For example, if parents and teachers do not appear confident or interested in science, then there is a strong chance that students will feel they are also not skilled at science and that it isn’t a subject worth pursuing.4 Results from a 2014 study using DAST found that 60% of drawings from science teacher candidates contained scientists wearing glasses, while 80% contained men wearing lab coats.5 How then, can we expect young students to overcome these stereotypes when the very people responsible for shaping their minds already have biased mindsets?

Role models and possible selves
The answer may be as simple as providing students with opportunities to meet actual scientists at a younger age. Most students do not get to interact and meet science professionals until they start their undergraduate degrees, and by that time, the scientist stereotypes are often deeply imbedded in the subconscious. However, by shedding light on the diversity within the scientific community, students can begin to make connections with actual scientists.

Researchers in Oregon introduced a residency program inviting working scientists from Oregon State University to come into elementary school classrooms to talk with students and even teach a lesson of their choosing. Students were asked to draw pictures of scientists before and after each visit to see if there were any correlations between scientist presence and the presence of stereotypical drawings. Pre-visit drawings fit the trend of a male scientist working alone in his indoor laboratory. However, post-visit drawings had a much more diversified touch. There were almost as many female scientists drawn as there were men, and the overall presence of stereotypical indicators per drawing had decreased, indicating the students had a much broader perspective. Some students even left notes about how they felt like scientists were normal people, with one female student commenting, “I used to think they were just people that wore white coats and said things you would never understand.”6

In cases where actual scientists cannot make it to the classroom, more engaging and enlightening assignments can serve as stereotype disrupters. Implemented in a community college Human Biology course, Scientist Spotlight assignments (See Appendices A & B for example activities) each provide students with a resource about the scientist’s research, generally a journal article, and a resource about their personal history such as an interview, podcast, or TED Talk. Students are then asked to write a brief reflection about the materials they have just engaged with, making sure to note what information was interesting, confusing, and what the resources told them about the types of people who conduct science.

Students noted that the combination of resources and content helped them make connections with actual scientists and also helped humanize them and showcase the diversity within the scientific community. Students provided a wide variety of feedback in response to the spotlight assignments with comments noting that they “can look at scientists with a new perspective,” “appreciate the humble beginnings of their stories,” and that “… your race, background and sex don’t matter — it’s all about your passion and love for knowledge.”7

The idea that students can make connections with scientists through a variety of platforms gives students the opportunity to create their own science identity. After experiencing diverse examples of people engaged in science, students can hopefully see themselves reflected. Instead of telling students they need to be more like someone else, they can forge their own paths and science identities, knowing that someone of a similar background is already a scientist whom they can relate to.

A science makeover
There is still much work to be done in diminishing the stereotypes plaguing the scientist image. We have to examine the roles popular media, the educational system, and culture can play. Decades of research demonstrates that science and scientists are portrayed through a very narrow lens, making it crucial to find new ways to gauge perceptions and help provide more meaningful resources through which students can connect with science professionals.

Drawing may not be the best way to gain insights. For instance, some researchers note that while drawing is supposed to be the “window into the mind,” the DAST is completely dependent on the participants artistic ability.8 Some drawings’ details are, for instance, too difficult to decipher to properly analyze, suggesting the need for alternatives to the DAST.9

The use of visual-based methods may provide better insights and help students discover their science identities. Using images as an assessment tool is not a nascent methodology, and has deep roots in psychology, sociology, and anthropology.10 Visual data offers insights that go beyond words. Photo surveys in particular help open lines of communication between researchers and participants because they are participatory in nature and make expressing ideas, values, and perspectives easier than verbal or written communication.11

Visual methodologies also allow participants to better reflect on an experience through photo elicitation. Photo elicitation is a research method that uses photos to generate discussion during interviews.12 It is a widely-used method in social science research because it invokes memories and emotions that help people connect with an experience. The parts of our brain that process images are much older than the parts that process verbal information, so photo elicitation can unlock information stored in deeper parts of our subconscious.10 Photography and other visuals are often used in healthcare to assist patients in describing pain and to help doctors better understand the intricacies of mental health and illnesses. Imagery can alleviate the pressure of trying to verbally communicate such complex issues and can also have therapeutic values.13

If these alternatives methods are applied to research surrounding scientist stereotypes, we may get a much deeper understanding of when stereotypes form, why they form, and how we can develop ways to combat them. As we progressively close the information gap between theory and practice, we can continue to inspire the future generations of STEM students and professionals, showing them that the faces of science are just as diverse as the field itself. With perseverance, we may eventually get to a point where more kids think, “Hey, maybe I can be a scientist!”

Kyle Walsh is the Outreach Coordinator at the Electric City Aquarium and Reptile Den in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He recently earned his Master’s Degree from Miami University and studies the impact of the scientist image and science identity. He is a self-proclaimed science hype man and loves traveling and learning in new environments.

Endnotes:

1. Mead, M. and Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the Scientist among High-School Students: A Pilot Study. Science, 126 (3270), pp.384-390.
2. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education,67 (2), 255-265.
3. Gee, J.P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Rev Res Educ 25, 99–125.
4. Zielinski, S. (2016, September 15). Adults can sabotage a student’s path in science or math. Retrieved from https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/parents-teachers-students-children-STEM-attitudes-science
5. McCarthy, D. (2014). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of scientists: images and attributes. Educational Review , 67(4), pp.389-413.
6. Flick, L. (1990). Scientist in Residence Program Improving Children’s Image of Science and Scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 90(3), pp.204-214.
7. Schinske, J. N., Perkins, H., Snyder, A., & Wyer, M. (2016). Scientist Spotlight Homework Assignments Shift Students’ Stereotypes of Scientists and Enhance Science Identity in a Diverse Introductory Science Class. CBE—Life Sciences Education,15 (3). doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0002.
8. Matthews, B., & Davies, D. (1999). Changing children’s images of scientists: Can teachers makes a difference? School Science Review, 80 (293): 79-85.
9. Schibeci, R. (2006) Student images of scientists: What are they? Do they matter? Teaching Science, 52 (2). pp. 12-16.
10. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies , 17 (1), 13-26.doi: 10.1080/14725860220137345.
11. Vieira, R. D., & Antunes, P. (2014). Using photo-surveys to inform participatory urban planning processes: Lessons from practice. Land Use Policy, 38, 497-508.doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.012.
12. Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 547–570. doi: 10.1177/1468794109343625.
13. Balmer, C., Griffiths, F., & Dunn, J. (2015). A review of the issues and challenges involved in using participant-produced photographs in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71, 1726–1737.