Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Gendered education in a gendered world: looking beyond cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science

Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Young people in countries considered to be at the forefront of gender equity still tend to choose very traditional science subjects and careers. This is particularly the case in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects (STEM), which are largely male dominated. This article uses feminist critiques of science and science education to explore the underlying gendered assumptions of a research project aiming to contribute to improving recruitment, retention and gender equity patterns in STEM educations and careers. Much research has been carried out to understand this gender gap phenomenon as well as to suggest measures to reduce its occurrence. A significant portion of this research has focused on detecting the typical “female” and “male” interest in science and has consequently suggested that adjustments be made to science education to cater for these interests. This article argues that adjusting science subjects to match perceived typical girls’ and boys’ interests risks being ineffective, as it contributes to the imposition of stereotyped gender identity formation thereby also imposing the gender differences that these adjustments were intended to overcome. This article also argues that different ways of addressing gender issues in science education themselves reflects different notions of gender and science. Thus in order to reduce gender inequities in science these implicit notions of gender and science have to be made explicit. The article begins with an overview of the current situation regarding gender equity in some so- called gender equal countries. We then present three perspectives from feminist critiques of science on how gender can be seen to impact on science and science education. Thereafter we analyze recommendations from a contemporary research project to explore which of these perspectives is most prevalent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AAUW. (2010). Why so few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington: American Association of University Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, R. (Ed.). (1986). Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47, 37–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chetcuti, D. (2009). Identifying a gender-inclusive pedagogy from Maltese teachers’ personal practical knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, M. A., & Finkel, E. (2001). Wommen (still) need not apply. In M. Lederman & I. Bartsch (Eds.), The gender and science reader. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2009). She figures. Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science on gender equality science. Brussels: European Commision Science and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society and neurosexism create difference. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2000). Science. In L. Code (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of feminist theories. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Associations Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2003). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In C. R. McCann & S-K. Kim (Eds.), Feminist theory reader. Local and global perspectives (pp. 391–403). (Original work published in 1988).

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Who’s science, who’s knowledge, thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1992). How the women’s movement benefits science: Two views. In G. Kirkup & L. S. Keller (Eds.), Inventing women. Science, technology and gender (pp. 57–72). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, R., Tyson, L. D. & Zahidi, S. (2010). The global gender gap report, World Economic Forum, https://members.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2010.pdf. Retrieved January 27, 2011.

  • Helseth, H. (2010). Generasjon sex [Generation sex]. Oslo: Manifest.

  • Holter, Ø. G., Svare, H., & Egeland, C. (2009). Gender equality and quality of life. A Norwegian Perspective. Oslo: The Nordic Gender Institute (NIKK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howes, E. V. (2002). Connecting girls and scienceConstructivism, feminism, and education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1987). Feminism and science. In S. Harding & J. F. O’Barr (Eds.), Sex and scientific inquiry (pp. 233–246). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V., & Roe, A. (2007). Tid for tunge løft. Norske elevers kompetanse i naturfag lesing og matematikk i PISA 2006. [Time for heavy lifting. Norwegian students’ competence in science, reading, and mathematics in PISA 2006]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

  • Kjærnsli, M., & Roe, A. (2010). PISA 2009—sentrale funn. In M. Kjærnsli & A. Roe (Eds.), På rett spor - Norske elevers kompetanse i lesing, matematikk og naturfag i PISA 2009 (pp. 13–30). [On the right track. Norwegian pupils competences in reading, mathematics and science in PISA 2009] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

  • Løken, M., Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). Who’s that girl? Why girls choose sciencein their own words. Paper presented at the XIV IOSTE Symposium, Socio-cultural and Human Values in Science and Technology Education, 13–18 June 2010, Bled, Slovenia.

  • McPherson, K. (2000). First-wave/second-wave feminism. In L. Code (2000) (Ed.), Encylopedia of feminist theories (pp. 208–210). London: Routledge.

  • Miller, P., Slavinski-Blessing, J., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Research and Higher Education. (2006). Et felles løft for realfagene. Strategi for styrking av realfagene 20062009 [Strategy for strengthening science subjects 2006–2009]: Kunnskapsdepartementet [Ministry of Research and Higher Education].

  • Ministry of Research and Higher Education. (2010). Tilbud og etterspørsel etter høyere utdannet arbeidskraft fram mot 2020 (Supply and demand for higher educated workers until 2020): Kunnskapsdepartementet [Ministry of research and higher education].

  • Nash, K. (2000). Equality and difference. In L. Code (Ed.), Encylopedia of feminist theories (pp. 174–176). London: Routledge.

  • Onstad, T., & Grønmo, L. S. (2009). Kjønnsforskjeller, faglig selvtillit og holdninger til matematikk og naturfag. In L. S. Grønmo & T. Onstad (Eds.), TIMMS 2007: Tegn til bedring? [TIMSS 2007: Signs of improvement?]: Unipub forlag.

  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, A. (2008). Women in science, engineering and technology, three decades of UK initiatives: Trentham Books Limited.

  • Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female friendly science. Applying women’s studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. (1975). In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. New York: Monthly Review Press.

  • Rustad, L. M. (1996). Posisjonering versus gudetriks: Et feministisk epistemologi prosjekt. [Positioning versus God trick: A feminist epistemology project]. Skriftserie Senter for Kvinneforskning, 4. Trondheim: NTNU.

  • Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden. Norwegian youth’s orientation towards scienceSeen as signs of late modern identities. Doctoral Thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.

  • Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., Sjaastad, J., Jensen, F., & Løken, M. (2010). Vilje-con-valg: Valg og bortvalg av realfag i høyere utdanning [Choosing—or not choosing—STEM higher education in Norway] KIMEN, 2010(2).

  • Shiva, V. (2001). Democratizing biology. Reinventing biology from a feminist, ecological and Third World perspective. In M. Lederman & I. Bartsch (Eds.), The gender and science reader (pp. 447–465). New York and London: Routledge.

  • Sinnes, A. T. (2006). Three approaches to gender equity in science education. Nordic Studies in Science Education (Nordina), 2, 1–06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2000). Interesting all children in “Science for all”. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 165–186). Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S., & Imsen, G. (1988). Gender and science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 218–248). East Sussex: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staberg, E. M. (1994). Gender and Science in the Swedish compulsory school. Gender and Education, 6, 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, H., Duit, R., & Benke, G. (2000). Do boys and girls understand physics differently? Physics Education, 35, 417–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Støren, L. A., Waagene, E., Arnesen, C. Å., & Hovdhaugen, E. (2010). Likestilling er jo ikke lenger det helt store. Likestillingsarbeid i skolen 2009-2010 [Gender equality is no longer the big issue] (No. 15). Oslo: NIFU STEP (Norsk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning).

  • Tong, R. (2000). Cultural feminism. In L. Code (Ed.), Encylopedia of feminist theories (pp. 113–115). London: Routledge.

  • UK Resource Centre for Women in SET. (2007). Statistics on women in SET (available on request). Bradford: UK Resource Centre for Women in SET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, N. (2010). Living dolls. The return of sexism (1st ed.). London: Virago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalewski, M. (2000). Feminism after postmodernism. Theorising through practice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid T. Sinnes.

Additional information

Lead editors: K. Scantlebury and A. Hussenius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sinnes, A.T., Løken, M. Gendered education in a gendered world: looking beyond cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 9, 343–364 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9433-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9433-z

Keywords

Navigation