Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 527–544 | Cite as

College admissions viewbooks and the grammar of gender, race, and STEM

  • Nana Osei-Kofi
  • Lisette E. Torres
Original Paper

Abstract

Numerous reports on the US economy argue that American higher education institutions must prepare a greater number of workers for employment in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), in order for the US to remain globally competitive. To do so, addressing the underrepresentation of women and people of color who pursue degrees in STEM is viewed as critical. In this study we examine one of the most widespread marketing tools used by institutions of higher education to attract prospective students, the admissions viewbook. Specifically, we provide an analysis of the ways in which gender and race are situated in representations of undergraduate STEM education. Our findings, based on a critical and visual textual analysis of 20 viewbooks, suggest that viewbooks convey strong messages concerning race, gender, and issues of belonging, hierarchy, power, and privilege in STEM.

Keywords

STEM  Gender Race Intersectionality Viewbooks Universities 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We borrow the notion of grammar, in our article title, from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s work on racial grammar (see references). The authors wish to recognize Joyce Lui as a contributor to the early analysis of the data explored in this study.

References

  1. Achieve. (2010). International science benchmarking report - Taking the lead in science education: Forging next-generation science standards. Retrieved from the Next Generation Science Standards website: http://www.nextgenscience.org/international-benchmarking
  2. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrée, M., & Hansson, L. (2014). Recruitment campaigns as a tool for social and cultural reproduction of scientific communities: A case study on how scientists invite young people to science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1985–2008. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.888598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Association of American Universities. (2011). Association of American Universities’ five-year initiative for improving undergraduate STEM education: Discussion draft. Retrieved from http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588
  5. Barbercheck, M. (2001). Mixed messages: Men and women in advertisements in Science. In M. Wyer, D. Geisman, M. Barbercheck, H. Öztürk, & M. Wayne (Eds.), Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (pp. 117–131). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2012). The invisible weight of whiteness: The racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
  8. Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2007). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. doi: 10.1002/tea.20237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chimba, M., & Kitzinger, J. (2010). Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 609–624.Google Scholar
  12. Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  13. Colatrella, C. (2011). Toys and tools in pink: Cultural narratives of gender, science, and technology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Des Jardins, J. (2010). The Madame Curie complex: The hidden history of women in science. New York, NY: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York.Google Scholar
  16. Eijck, M., & Roth, W. (2008). Representations of scientists in Canadian high school and college textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1059–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erba, J., Phillips, L., & Geana, M. V. (2012). Am I in? Influence of viewers’ race and sex on image appeal for higher education advertising. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 2(4), 1–31.Google Scholar
  18. Erickson, S. (2012). Women PhD students in engineering and a nuanced terrain: Avoiding and revealing gender. Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Essed, P., & Goldberg, D. (2002). Race critical theories: Text and context. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Finson, K. D., Beaver, J. B., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test of a checklist for the Draw-a-Scientist Test. School Science and Mathematics, 95(4), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fort, D., & Varney, H. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26(8), 8–13.Google Scholar
  23. Gasman, M. (2011, March 11). Black colleges’ success in STEM [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/black-colleges-success-in-stem/28818
  24. Gates, P. (2012). The Asian renovation of biracial buddy action: Negotiating globalization in the millennial Hollywood cop action film. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 40(2), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guerrero, E. (1993). The Black image in protective custody: Hollywood’s biracial buddy films of the Eighties. In M. Diawara (Ed.), Black American Cinema (pp. 237–246). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, L. E. (2007). Who’s afraid of Marie Curie? The challenges facing women in science and technology. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.Google Scholar
  27. Handelsman, J., Cantor, N., Carnes, M., Denton, D., Fine, E., Grosz, B., et al. (2005). More women in science. Science, 309, 1190–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hartley, M., & Morphew, C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college viewbooks. Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hasse, C., & Trentemøller, S. (2011). Cultural workplace patterns in academia. Science Studies, 24(1), 6–23.Google Scholar
  32. Hite, R., & Yearwood, A. (2001). A content analysis of college and university viewbooks. College & University, 76(3), 17–21.Google Scholar
  33. Holdren, J.P. (2011, January 6). America COMPETES Act keeps America’s leadership on target. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/06/america-competes-act-keeps-americas-leadership-target
  34. Holmlund, C. (2002). Impossible bodies: Femininity and masculinity at the movies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Jordanova, L. (1989). Sexual visions: Images of gender in science and medicine between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kenney, M. (2005). A visual rhetorical study of virtual university’s promotional efforts. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 153–165). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Klassen, M. (2001). Lots of fun, not much work, and no hassles: Marketing images of higher education. Journal of Marketing in Higher Education, 10(2), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korkmaz, H. (2011). The contribution of science stories accompanied by story mapping to students’ images of biological science and scientists. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
  39. LaFollette, M. C. (1988). Eyes on the stars: Images of women scientists in popular magazines. Science, Technology and Human Values, 13(3/4), 262–275.Google Scholar
  40. Laubach, T. A., Crofford, G. D., & Marek, E. A. (2012). Exploring Native American students’ perceptions of scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1769–1794. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.689434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Long, M., Boiarsky, G., & Thayer, G. (2001). Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. McCarthy, R. (2009, October). Beyond smash and crash: Gender-friendly tech ed. The Technology Teacher, 16–21.Google Scholar
  44. Milgram, D. (2011, November). How to recruit women and girls to the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classroom. Technology and Engineering Education, 4–8.Google Scholar
  45. Moreau, M., & Medick, H. (2012). Discourses of women scientists in online media: Towards new gender regimes? International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 4(1), 4–23.Google Scholar
  46. National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching a category 5. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nishime, L. (2005). The mulatto cyborg: Imagining a multiracial future. Cinema Journal, 44(2), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Brien, L., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D., & Hammer, E. (2014). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participations: An intersectional approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology (Advance online publication). doi: 10.1037/a0037944
  51. O’Keeffe, M. (2013). Lieutenant Uhura and the drench hypothesis: Diversity and the representation of STEM careers. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 5(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  52. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oreskes, N. (1996). Objectivity or heroism? On the invisibility of women in science. Osiris, 11, 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Osei-Kofi, N., Torres, L., & Lui, J. (2013). Practices of whiteness: Racialization in college admissions viewbooks. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(3), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paek, H. J., & Shah, H. (2003). Racial ideology, model minorities, and the “not-so-silent-partner”: Stereotyping of Asian Americans in U.S. magazine advertising. Howard Journal of Communications, 14(4), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Painter, J., Tretter, T. R., Jones, M. G., & Kubasko, D. (2006). Pulling back the curtain: Uncovering and changing students’ perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pippert, T. D., Essenburg, L. J., & Matchett, E. J. (2014). We’ve got minorities, yes we do: Visual representations of racial and ethnic diversity in college recruitment materials. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(2), 258–282. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2013.867920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fact_sheet_final.pdf
  59. Primary Research Group. (2007). The survey of college marketing programs, 2007. New York, NY: Author.Google Scholar
  60. Quinn, N. (2010). The cultural analysis of discourse. In W. Luttrell (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transactional practice (pp. 237–257). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Ragan, S., & McMillan, L. (1989). The marketing of the liberal arts: The rhetorical of antithesis. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(6), 682–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ribalow, M. (1998). Swashbucklers and brainy babes? Science, New Series, 284(5423), 2089–2090.Google Scholar
  63. Rogers, R., & Christian, J. (2007). What should I say? A critical race discourse analysis of the construction of race in children’s literature. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(1), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Rossiter, M. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shachar, O. (2000). Spotlighting women scientists in the press: Tokenism in science journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Soldner, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Inkelas, K. K., Garvey, J., & Robbins, C. (2012). Supporting students’ intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: The role of living–learning programs among other social cognitive factors. Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steele, K. (2007). Standing out on paper: Best practices in university viewbooks. Paper presented at the Atlantic Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers, May 23–25, in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.Google Scholar
  70. Steinke, J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27(1), 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stocchetti, M., & Kukkonen, K. (Eds.). (2011). Images in use: Towards the critical analysis of visual communication (Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  72. Summers, M. F., & Hrabowski, F. A, I. I. I. (2006). Preparing minority scientists and engineers. Science, 31, 1870–1871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thacker, L. (2005). College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Torres, L. E. (2008). Fixing the leaky pipe—Increasing recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(10), 554–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Turner, C. (1994). Guest in someone else’s house: Students of color. The Review of Higher Education, 17(4), 350–370.Google Scholar
  76. Urciuoli, B. (2009). Talking/not talking about race: The enregisterments of culture in higher education. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  78. van Dijk, T. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 62–86). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Language, Culture, and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations