Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identity Matching to Scientists: Differences that Make a Difference?

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students' images of science and scientists are generally assumed to influence their related subject choices and aspirations for tertiary education within science and technology. Several research studies have shown that many young people hold rather stereotypical images of scientists, making it hard for them to see themselves as future scientists. Adolescents' educational choices are important aspects of their identity work, and recent theories link individual choice to the perceived match between self and prototypical persons associated with that choice. In the present study, we have investigated images of scientists among the segment of the upper secondary school students (20 % of the cohort) from which future Danish scientists are recruited. Their images were rather realistic, only including vague and predominantly positive stereotypical ideas. With a particular Science-and-Me (SAM) interview methodology, we inquired into the match between self- and prototypical-scientists (N = 30). We found high perceived similarity within a core of epistemological characteristics, while dissimilarities typically related to a social domain. However, combining interview data with survey data, we found no significant statistical relation between prototype match and aspirations for tertiary education within science and technology. Importantly, the SAM dialogue revealed how students negotiate perceived differences, and we identified four negotiation patterns that all tend to reduce the impact of mismatches on educational aspirations. Our study raises questions about methodological issues concerning the traditional use of self-to-prototype matching as an explanatory model of educational choice.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Together, their contributions to tertiary 2012 uptakes were Physics = 89 %, Biology = 86 %, Master of Engineering = 87 %, Math = 79 %. While STEM uptakes are dominated by the larger general upper secondary school system, the technical upper secondary school contributes 40 % to some Engineering programs.

  2. Distribution: <5 differences = 10 %; 5–10 differences = 23 %; 10–15 differences = 60 %; >15 differences = 7 %

  3. Simply defined as: number of similarities/total number of traits selected by the student

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: views on science-technology-society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buldu, M. (2006). Young children's perceptions of scientists: a preliminary study. Educational Research, 48, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 3–52). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of scientist: the draw-a-scientist-test. Science Education, 67, 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egelund, N. (2007). PISA 2006 - danske unge i en international sammenligning (Title in English: PISA 2006 - Danish youth in an international comparison study). København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer. (2008). Young People and Science - Analytical Report (No. 239). Bruxelles.

  • Eurobarometer. (2010). Science and Technology—Report (No. 340). Bruxelles.

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1977). Perceptions of the normality of scientists among junior high school students. Search, 8, 240–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self—dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomillion, C. S. (2008). Racial identity development & perceptions of scientists of Black college students in science and non-science majors. Dissertation, North Carolina State University.

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive dissonance - progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, R. A., & Burton, G. M. (1995). What do students think scientists look like? School Science and Mathematics, 95, 371–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, U. (2005). Fitting into the stereotype: how gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, U., Rau, M., & Hannover, B. (2006). What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 761–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, U., & Taconis, R. (2012). Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student's self-image correlates with choosing science at school. Research in Science Education, 42, 1049–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren, P., & Bar, V. (2009). Perception of the image of scientist by Israeli student teachers from two distinct communities in Israel: Arab and Jews. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 5, 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogh, L. B. & Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students’ attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 281–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogh, L. B., and Andersen, H. M. (2012). “Actually, I may be clever enough to do it”. Using identity as a lens to investigate students’ trajectories towards science and university. Research in Science Education, 43, 711–731.

  • Lee, J. D. (1998). Which kids can "become" scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losh, S. C., Wilke, R., & Pop, M. (2008). Some methodological issues with "draw a scientist test" among young children. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 773–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. research report to the Australian Science Teachers Association. Australia: University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high-school students. Science, 126, 384–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, R., Park, S., Peker, D., & Suh, J. (2013). Students' images of scientists and doing science: an international comparison study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 9, 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedenthal, P. M., Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1985). Prototype matching: a strategy for social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 575–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSF. (2002). Science and engineering indicators - 2002. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies. Global Science Forum. Policy Report OECD. OECD Science Forum. Series OECD Global Science Forum Reports.

  • Schibeci, R. A. (1986). Images of science and scientists and science education. Science Education, 70, 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1976). The phenomenology of the social world. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2000). Science and scientists: the SAS-study. Cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on pupils' interests, experiences and perceptions Acta Didactica. Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symnington, D., & Spurling, H. (1990). The "draw a scientist test": interpreting the data. Research in Science and Technological Education, 8, 75–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taconis, R., & Kessels, U. (2009). How choosing science depends on students' individual fit to 'science culture'. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1115–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthley, J. S. (1992). Is science persistence a matter of values. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziehe, T. (2004). Øer af intensitet i et hav af rutine (Title in English: Islands of intensity on a sea of routine - new articles on youth, education, and culture). Copenhagen: Politisk Revy.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Science Education, Aarhus University, Building 1110, C.F. Moellers Alle 8, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Hanne Moeller Andersen, Lars Brian Krogh & Eva Lykkegaard

Authors
  1. Hanne Moeller Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lars Brian Krogh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Lykkegaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanne Moeller Andersen.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Science-and-Me—traits included in pick-list

  1. 1.

    Aim at personal development

  2. 2.

    Attractive (sexual)

  3. 3.

    Autonomy (self-regulated and independent)

  4. 4.

    Critical towards one's own/other peoples' work

  5. 5.

    Collaborative

  6. 6.

    Curious

  7. 7.

    Decision-maker (in one's personal life)

  8. 8.

    Empathy

  9. 9.

    Ethical behavior (work related)

  10. 10.

    Family person

  11. 11.

    Hard working

  12. 12.

    Healthy

  13. 13.

    Individualist

  14. 14.

    Interesting

  15. 15.

    Inventive

  16. 16.

    Knowledgeable and literate

  17. 17.

    Leadership

  18. 18.

    Logic and analytic

  19. 19.

    Narrow minded

  20. 20.

    Objective

  21. 21.

    Powerful

  22. 22.

    Politically involved

  23. 23.

    Run by attitudes and values

  24. 24.

    Systematic

  25. 25.

    Sense of fairness

  26. 26.

    Socially competent

  27. 27.

    Targeted

  28. 28.

    Wish to understand the world

  29. 29.

    Wish to discover the world

  30. 30.

    Wish to gain new knowledge

  31. 31.

    Wish to solve the world's problems

  32. 32.

    Well spoken

  33. 33.

    Well dressed

  34. 34.

    Wish to do good for other people

  35. 35.

    Want to be recognized

  36. 36.

    Want to earn a lot of money

  37. 37.

    Odd/peculiar

Appendix 2: Survey questions

Images of science and scientists

  1. 1.

    Only men are studying and working within science and technology

  2. 2.

    Doing research within science and technology, you usually collaborate with other researchers, sometimes in research teams

  3. 3.

    There is not much room for creativity within science—it is just following rules and procedures

  4. 4.

    Within science and technology, new challenges keep appearing, so researchers will constantly have to develop

  5. 5.

    Scientific researchers work within laboratories with little sense of how their research is being used

  6. 6.

    Employees within science and technology work much more than 40 h a week

  7. 7.

    Typically, scientific researchers themselves decide what to research

  8. 8.

    Progress within science and technology most often improves the living conditions of people

  9. 9.

    Science is important in order to understand the world

  10. 10.

    Progress within science and technology usually enhances the economy of society

  11. 11.

    Scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge that you can trust

  12. 12.

    You must be a little odd/peculiar to work within science and technology

Utility value of school science

  1. 1.

    In science and mathematics, I learn many things useful for my future education and career

  2. 2.

    Knowledge about science and mathematics is useful in many ways in an out-of-school context

Aspirations and knowledge about tertiary studies

  1. 1.

    I know very well what it is like to be a university student

  2. 2.

    I know about the admission requirements for different university studies

  3. 3.

    I have insights into different science education options at university level

  4. 4.

    I think I will go for an education at university

  5. 5.

    I think I will go for an education within the field of science and technology

  6. 6.

    I know a lot about which jobs a science education can lead to

  7. 7.

    What kind of future job and education are you aiming at? What are your considerations? (Free text writing)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersen, H.M., Krogh, L.B. & Lykkegaard, E. Identity Matching to Scientists: Differences that Make a Difference?. Res Sci Educ 44, 439–460 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9391-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9391-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation