Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 343–364 | Cite as

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

  • Astrid T. SinnesEmail author
  • Marianne Løken


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.


Gender Recruitment Feminist Critique Science 


  1. AAUW. (2010). Why so few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Washington: American Association of University Women.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bleier, R. (Ed.). (1986). Feminist approaches to science. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chetcuti, D. (2009). Identifying a gender-inclusive pedagogy from Maltese teachers’ personal practical knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. EU. (2009). She figures. Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science on gender equality science. Brussels: European Commision Science and Society.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society and neurosexism create difference. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  10. Franklin, S. (2000). Science. In L. Code (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of feminist theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Associations Books.Google Scholar
  14. 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).Google Scholar
  15. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Harding, S. (1991). Who’s science, who’s knowledge, thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hausman, R., Tyson, L. D. & Zahidi, S. (2010). The global gender gap report, World Economic Forum, Retrieved January 27, 2011.
  21. Helseth, H. (2010). Generasjon sex [Generation sex]. Oslo: Manifest.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Howes, E. V. (2002). Connecting girls and scienceConstructivism, feminism, and education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. McPherson, K. (2000). First-wave/second-wave feminism. In L. Code (2000) (Ed.), Encylopedia of feminist theories (pp. 208–210). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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].Google Scholar
  32. 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].Google Scholar
  33. Nash, K. (2000). Equality and difference. In L. Code (Ed.), Encylopedia of feminist theories (pp. 174–176). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phipps, A. (2008). Women in science, engineering and technology, three decades of UK initiatives: Trentham Books Limited.Google Scholar
  37. Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female friendly science. Applying women’s studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rubin, G. (1975). In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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).Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Sinnes, A. T. (2006). Three approaches to gender equity in science education. Nordic Studies in Science Education (Nordina), 2, 1–06.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Staberg, E. M. (1994). Gender and Science in the Swedish compulsory school. Gender and Education, 6, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stadler, H., Duit, R., & Benke, G. (2000). Do boys and girls understand physics differently? Physics Education, 35, 417–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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).Google Scholar
  49. Tong, R. (2000). Cultural feminism. In L. Code (Ed.), Encylopedia of feminist theories (pp. 113–115). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Walter, N. (2010). Living dolls. The return of sexism (1st ed.). London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Zalewski, M. (2000). Feminism after postmodernism. Theorising through practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section for Learning and Teacher EducationNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  2. 2.The Faculty of Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations