Sex Roles

, Volume 75, Issue 3–4, pp 79–94 | Cite as

The Gendered Culture of Scientific Competence: A Study of Scientist Characters in Doctor Who 1963–2013

  • Lindy A. OrthiaEmail author
  • Rachel Morgain
Original Article


The present study examines the relationship between gender and scientific competence in fictional representations of scientists in the British science fiction television program Doctor Who. Previous studies of fictional scientists have argued that women are often depicted as less scientifically capable than men, but these have largely taken a simple demographic approach or focused exclusively on female scientist characters. By examining both male and female scientists (n = 222) depicted over the first 50 years of Doctor Who, our study shows that, although male scientists significantly outnumbered female scientists in all but the most recent decade, both genders have consistently been depicted as equally competent in scientific matters. However, an in-depth analysis of several characters depicted as extremely scientifically non-credible found that their behavior, appearance, and relations were universally marked by more subtle violations of gender expectations. Incompetent male scientists were largely depicted as effeminate and lacking in masculinity. In addition, many incompetent male and all incompetent female scientists served regimes that were problematically effeminate, collectivist and pacifist, or male-rejecting and ruled by women. Although Doctor Who avoids overtly treating women and men unequally, strong codes of masculine capability and prowess nevertheless continue to influence representations of scientific competence, pointing to the continued pervasiveness of such associations within wider Western culture. Professionals working to encourage gender-inclusive practices in science should look to subtle discourses about the masculine culture of science in addition to institutional and structural impediments to participation for women and gender minorities.


Science Gender equality Gender variance Masculinities Television Media images Popular culture Content analysis 



Thanks to Emlyn Williams for statistical advice, and two anonymous peer reviewers for their useful suggestions.

Supplementary material

11199_2016_597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (163 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 162 kb)


  1. Amy-Chinn, D. (2008). Rose Tyler: the ethics of care and the limit of agency. Science Fiction Film and Television, 1, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon (2008, December 1). ‘Doctor Who should be a woman’ say female scientists. The Telegraph. Retrieved from
  3. Bacon, F. (1620). Author’s preface. In The new organon: Or true directions concerning the interpretation of nature. Available online at
  4. Bell, S. (2009). Women in science in Australia: Maximising productivity, diversity and innovation. Australia: Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies.Google Scholar
  5. Bevan, V., & Learmonth, M. (2012). ‘I wouldn’t say it’s sexism, except that … It’s all these little subtle things’: Healthcare scientists’ accounts of gender in healthcare science laboratories. Social Studies of Science, 43, 136–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Blackwell, L., & Glover, J. (2008). Women’s scientific employment and family formation: A longitudinal perspective. Gender, Work and Organization, 15, 579–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00385.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, H. C. (2016). The ladies of sci-fi: 5 reasons why we need a female doctor in Doctor Who. The Mary Sue. Retrieved from
  9. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.”. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff’s Alpha. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the nature of science from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 234–256. doi: 10.1002/tea.10074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, S., & Thomas, M. D. (Eds.). (2013). Queers dig time lords: A celebration of Doctor Who by the LGBTQ fans who love it. Des Moines: Mad Norwegian Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, J. (1984). Popularity and ideology: A structuralist reading of Dr. Who. In W. D. Rowland Jr. & B. Watkins (Eds.), Interpreting television: Current research perspectives (pp. 165–198). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Flicker, E. (2003). Between brains and breasts — women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 307–318. doi: 10.1177/0963662503123009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flores, G. (2002). Mad scientists, compassionate healers, and greedy egotists: The portrayal of physicians in the movies. Journal of the National Medical Association, 94, 635–658.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregg, P. B. (2004). England looks to the future: The cultural forum model and Doctor Who. Journal of Popular Culture, 37, 648–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haran, J., Chimba, M., Reid, G., & Kitzinger, J. (2008). Screening women in SET: How women in science, engineering and technology are represented in films and on television (Research report series for UKRC No.3). Bradford: UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering & Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Harmes, M. K. (2014). Doctor Who and the art of adaptation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haynes, R. D. (1994). From Faust to Strangelove: Representations of the scientist in western literature. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hesse-Biber, S. (2016). Qualitative or mixed methods research inquiry approaches: Some loose guidelines for publishing in Sex Roles. Sex Roles, 74, 6–9. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0568-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Israel, J. I. (2001). Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity 1650–1750. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, J. K. (2011). Doomsday ecology and empathy for nature: Women scientists in “B” horror movies. Science Communication, 33, 533–555. doi: 10.1177/1075547011417893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, R. A. (2005). How many female scientists do you know?’. Endeavour, 29, 84–88. doi: 10.1016/j.endeavour.2005.03.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kant, I. (1784). An answer to the question: “What is enlightenment?” Retrieved from
  27. Kitzinger, J., Haran, J., Chimba, M., & Boyce, T. (2008). Role models in the media: An exploration of the views and experiences of women in science, engineering and technology (Research report series for UKRC No.1). Bradford: UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering & Technology.Google Scholar
  28. Le Doeuff, M. (2003). The sex of knowing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Lloyd, G. (1984). The man of reason: “Male” and “female” in western philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Long, M., Steinke, J., Applegate, B., Lapinksi, M. K., Johnson, M. J., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Portrayals of male and female scientists in television programs popular among middle school-age children. Science Communication, 32, 356–382. doi: 10.1177/1075547009357779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male–female roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merrick, H. (2010). Science stories, life stories: Engaging the sciences through feminist science fiction. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merrick, H. (2012). Challenging implicit gender bias in science: Positive representations of female scientists in fiction. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 4, 744–769.Google Scholar
  35. Meyers, D. (2004). Feminist perspectives on the self. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2004 edition). Retrieved from
  36. Miller, P. H., Slawinski Blessing, J., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 363–381. doi: 10.1080/09500690500277664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, 109, 16474–16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Nyder. (n.d.). The evolving guide to lesbian/gay/bisexual moments in Doctor Who. Retrieved from
  39. Orthia, L. A. (2010). Enlightenment was the choice: Doctor Who and the democratisation of science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  40. Orthia, L. A. (2011). Antirationalist critique or fifth column of scientism? Challenges from Doctor Who to the mad scientist trope. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 525–542. doi: 10.1177/0963662509355899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Orthia, L. A. (2013). Savages, science, stagism and the naturalized ascendancy of the Not-We in Doctor Who. In L. A. Orthia (Ed.), Doctor Who and race (pp. 269–287). Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  42. Schiebinger, L. (1989). The mind has no sex? Women in the origins of modern science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: a useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91, 1053–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. PNAS, 111, 10107–10112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanish, D., & Myles, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). Chicks unravel time: Women journey through every season of Doctor Who. Des Moines: Mad Norwegian Press.Google Scholar
  46. Steinke, J. (1999). Women scientists role models on screen: a case study of Contact. Science Communication, 21, 111–136. doi: 10.1177/1075547099021002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steinke, J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27–63. doi: 10.1177/1075547005278610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steinke, J., Applegate, B., Lapinski, M., Ryan, L., & Long, M. (2012). Gender differences in adolescents’ wishful identification with scientist characters on television. Science Communication, 34, 163–199. doi: 10.1177/1075547011410250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Théry, I. (2009). Gender: A question of personal identity or a mode of social relations? Paper presented at the Centre M. Bloch, EHESS, Berlin. Retrieved from
  50. Thomas, L. M., & O’Shea, T. (Eds.). (2010). Chicks dig time lords: A celebration of Doctor Who by the women who love it. Des Moines: Mad Norwegian Press.Google Scholar
  51. Thomson, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Thornton, M. (2013). The mirage of merit: Reconstituting the ‘ideal academic.’ Australian Feminist Studies, 28, 127–143.Google Scholar
  53. Tulloch, J., & Alvarado, M. (1983). Doctor Who: The unfolding text. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tulloch, J., & Jenkins, H. (1995). Science fiction audiences: Watching Doctor Who and Star Trek. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Weingart, P., Muhl, C., & Pansegrau, P. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 279–287. doi: 10.1177/0963662503123006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of ScienceThe Australian National UniversityActonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the PacificThe Australian National UniversityActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations