Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stereotypical Attributes of Scientists and Engineers in Jokes

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies on integrated STEM education and the integration of engineering practices into the instruction of science have called for the need to better understand the similarities, differences and interrelations between science and engineering, as well the naïve views often associated with them. The current study contributes to this scholarly work through a systematic examination of the ways in which scientists and engineers are stereotypically described in jokes. An iterative content analysis of 68 different jokes about scientists and engineers was conducted, complemented by quantitative analysis of variants on these jokes (N = 1022), which examined the distribution of stereotypical attributes found across protagonists’ (N = 1449) identities, and the distribution of the professional identity of the protagonists (scientist, engineer, other) across gender. The analysis yielded three thematic clusters of stereotypical attributes: (1) approach to tasks, problems and challenges, (2) awareness of, dealing with, and causing errors and imprecision, and (3) personality and social positioning. While the findings highlight some similarities between the stereotypical descriptions of scientists and engineers in jokes, each cluster has categories that capture specific differences between the stereotypical attributes associated with scientists as compared to engineers. In addition, an underlying perception of engineering as a masculine occupation emerged. The implications for science and STEM education are discussed.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student Iinquiry, Historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antink-Meyer, A., & Meyer, D. Z. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in ccience and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 625–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attardo, S., & Chabanne, J. C. (1992). Jokes as a text type. International Journal of Humor Research, 5(1/2), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, S., Purzer, S., Nourian, S., Chao, J., Xie, C., Tutwiler, M. S., & Goldstein, M. H. (2017). Bridging the design-science gap with tools: Science learning and design behaviors in a simulated environment for engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1049–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and american youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief 01–11. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523766.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2022.

  • Berube, M. S. (2001). Webster’s II New College Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1997). The dialogic unconscious: Psychoanalysis, discursive psychology and the nature of repression. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London.

  • Bowd, A. D. (2004). Stereotypes of elderly persons in narrative jokes. Research on Aging, 25(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 656–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, S. H., Jamison, A., Mitcham, C., Didier, C., Meganck, M., & Newberry, B. (2015). Engineering identities, epistemologies and values: engineering education and practice in context. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 21 (Vol. 2). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16172-3

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Earlbam Associates (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00544941

  • Cross, N. (1993). Social and design methodology: A review. Research in Engineering Design, 5, 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, B., & Cohen, J. E. (1992). Absolute Zero Gravity. Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction.

  • Goran, M. (1986). A Treasury of Science Jokes. Lincoln-Herndon Press, Inc.

  • Harendza, S., & Pyra, M. (2017). Just fun or a prejudice? Physician stereotypes in common jokes and their attribution to medical specialties by undergraduate medical students. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, B., & Bell, R. (2018). Teaching the nature of engineering in K-12 science education: A Delphi Study (Fundamental). In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings (pp. 1–40). ASEE Conferences. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28927

  • Hazari, Z., Brewe, E., Goertzen, R. M., & Hodapp, T. (2017). The importance of high school physics teachers for female students’ physics identity and persistence. The Physics Teacher, 55(2), 96–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapon, S., & Erduran, S. (2021). Crossing boundaries – Examining and problematizing interdisciplinarity in science education. In O. Levrini, G. Tasquier, T. Amin, L. Branchetti, & M. Levin (Eds.), Engaging with Contemporary Challenges through Science Education Research: Selected papers from the ESERA 2019 Conference (pp. 265–276). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

  • Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about “misconceptions”: Preservice secondary science teachers’ views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96(5), 927–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorre, C. (Writter), Prady, B., Writter, Cendrowski, M. (Director). (2009, January 12) The killer robot instability (Season 2, Episode 12) [TV series episode]. In Lorre, C. (Executive Producer) (Eds.). The Big Bang Theory. Chuck Lorre Productions; Warner Bros. Television.

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., Borko, H., & Tobin, K. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 631–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moshfeghyeganeh, S., & Hazari, Z. (2021). Effect of culture on women physicists’ career choice: A comparison of Muslim majority countries and the West. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(1), 010114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, B. (2013). Preparing high school students for the interdisciplinary nature of modern biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 144–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naukkarinen, J. K., & Bairoh, S. (2020). STEM: A help or a hinderance in attracting more girls to engineering? Journal of Engineering Education, 109(2), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radder, H. (2009). Science, Technology and the science-technology relationship. In Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 65–91). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50007-0

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schvartzer, M., Elazar, M., & Kapon, S. (2021). Guiding physics teachers by following in Galileo’s footsteps. Science & Education, 30, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00160-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsybulsky, D., Dodick, J., & Camhi, J. (2018). The effect of field trips to university research labs on Israeli high school students’ NOS understanding. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1247–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valleriani, M. (2010). Galileo Engineer (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, no. 269). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yus, F. (2013). An inference-centered analysis of jokes, pp 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.231.05yus

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the members of the Meaningful Disciplinary-Based Learning in Physics Education Group at the Faculty of Education in Science and Technology at the Technion, for their feedback and help with different phases of the analysis, and to Inbal Stone for her help in the coding of gender. We also thank Dr. Dina Tsybulsky for thoughtful discussions and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Lior Keren & Shulamit Kapon

Authors
  1. Lior Keren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shulamit Kapon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shulamit Kapon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors confirm that they have no conflict of interest or competing interest regrading this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keren, L., Kapon, S. Stereotypical Attributes of Scientists and Engineers in Jokes. Sci & Educ 32, 617–634 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00364-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00364-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation