Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Understanding Student Participation and Choice in Science and Technology Education pp 277–295Cite as

When Research Challenges Gender Stereotypes: Exploring Narratives of Girls’ Educational Choices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter explores how narratives written by girls who have chosen to study subjects where they are strongly underrepresented, such as technology, engineering, mathematics and physics, challenge common perceptions about girls and/in science. Developing a gender-critical narrative approach, I explore whether communicating broad generalizations based on sex/gender differences stands the risk of losing important nuances that again might lead to the cementation of gender stereotypes.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a historical review of girls and science, see for example Brotman and Moore (2008).

  2. 2.

    I will mainly use the term “girl” throughout the text. The category ranges from early childhood to young women in higher education and young women generally in society, the latter constituting the context for this chapter.

  3. 3.

    See discussion of the concept “socio-cultural” in James Wertsch’s book, Voices of the Mind: A sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action (1991), where he also includes the historical dimension in socio-cultural.

  4. 4.

    Such tacit or implicit knowledge can be seen in relation to what Svein Sjøberg (2000a), calls the “body-language” of science, which is a metaphor to “describe the often hidden and implicit messages about the nature of science (as well as scientists as persons), aspects relating to the perceived values, norms and ideologies of science”.

  5. 5.

    See Chap. 4 in this book, for a more detailed conceptualization of gender in third wave feminism.

  6. 6.

    But I also sympathize with theories which move beyond postmodernism and post-structuralism in the sense that they theorize gender as historical-socio-cultural and / or semiotic-discursively constructed, while also emphasizing agency of materiality (artifacts, technology, body, clothes, time, text, etc.) See for example Lykke (2012) and Barad (2007).

  7. 7.

    Norms exist in the form stereotypical perceptions about girls’ educational choices, cultural barriers at school, in research communities, in the world of academia, in the world of work and in ‘society-at-large’. Such discourses can be reproduced without resistance, if we take knowledge for granted.

  8. 8.

    For more information about the project, see: naturfagsenteret.no (in English). http://www.naturfagsenteret.no/c1515605/prosjekt/vis.html?tid=1519446

  9. 9.

    This is consistent with postmodern philosophy that does not believe there exists an entity that provides a stable inner core. But we are, according to a postmodern mindset popularly said, different people at different times and in different situations, what Gilles Deluze calls a nomadic subject – a term Braidotti (1994) borrows from Deluze.

  10. 10.

    See Quinn and Lyons (2011) for a critical look at students’ perceptions of school science and science careers, which is most relevant for the discussion in this chapter.

  11. 11.

    May be translated as “innovation camp” or “entrepreneurship camp”.

  12. 12.

    The Norwegian research project Lily has served as a pilot to the IRIS project. See Sinnes & Løken (2012) for a more detailed analysis of gendered assumptions in the Lily report.

  13. 13.

    See also Chap. 18 which describes how traditional male STEM students, more than females, tend to “rely on pre-established roles, which in the case of science and technology are easily available and provide them with reassurance.”

  14. 14.

    See Karen Barad (2007) for a discussion of the concept of intra-activity.

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Boarder crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleeker, M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 37–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1996). Symbolsk makt (Norwegian edition). Oslo: Pax Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (1998). Feminism(s) and science education. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1067–1082). New York: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.

    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(5), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotman, S. J., & Moore, M. F. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetcuti, D. (2009). Identifying a gender-inclusive pedagogy from Maltese teachers’ personal practical knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C., & Lightfoot, C. (2004). Narrative analysis. Studying the development of individuals in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsson, A. (2009). Doing physics – Doing gender. An exploration of physics students’ identity constitution in the context of laboratory work. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography: Vol. 17. Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., & Meece, J. L. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender. The real science behind sex differences. London: Icon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullestad, M. (1996). Hverdagsfilosofer. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 295–337). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (2001). Comments and reply comments on Walby’s “Against Epistemological Chasms; The Science Question in Feminism Revisited”. Can democratic values and interests every play a rationally justifiable role in the evaluation of scientific work? Signs, 26(2), 511–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasse, C. (2002). Gender diversity in play with physics: The problem of premises for participation in activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(4), 250–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Horsdal, M. (2012). Telling lives: Exploring dimensions of narratives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, L. (2004). Key writings. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, A. (2005). Narrativ teori og metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J., & Dunne, M. (1996). Revealing assumptions: Problematising research on gender and mathematics and science education. Gender Science and Mathematics, 2, 53–63.

    Article  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykke, N. (2012). Feminist studies. A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T., Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. National Centre of Science, ICT and mathematics education for rural and regional Australia. (SiMERR Australia), University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meece, J. L., Bower Glienke, B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., Slavinski-Blessing, J., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Østerberg, D. (2003). Sosiologiens nøkkelbegreper. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag as.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2011). High school students’ perceptions of school science and science careers: A critical look at a critical issue. Science Education International, 22(4), 225–238 (special issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction – Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Runstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in the science curriculum (pp. 165–248). Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., Sjaastad, J., Jensen, F., & Løken, M. (2010). Vilje-con-valg: Valg og bortvalg av realfag i høyere utdanning. Kimen (2/2010): Naturfagsenteret.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M.-C. (2008). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnes, A. T. (2006). Three approaches to gender equity in science education. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1, 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnes, A., & Løken, M. (2012). Gendered education in a gendered world: looking beyond cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9433-z.

  • Sjaastad, J. (2011). Sources of inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people’s choice of science in higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2000a). Kjønn og naturvitenskapens “kroppsspråk”. Nordisk Pedagogikk, 2, 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Solsvik, A. (2004). Likeverd i barneoppdragelsen. In I. Frønes & T. S. Wetlesen (Eds.), Dialog, selv og samfunn (pp. 61–86). Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solvang, P. (2006). Problematisering, utdefinering eller omfavnelse. Om normaliteten. In J.-K. Breivik & E. Thomas Hylland (Eds.), Normalitet (pp. s. 167–185). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staberg, E. M. (1994). Gender and science in the Swedish compulsory school. Gender and Education, 6(1), 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 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. London/Sydney/Singapore: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Centre for Science Education, University of Oslo, 1106, Blindern, N-0317, Oslo, Norway

    Marianne Løken

Authors
  1. Marianne Løken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Løken .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Ellen Karoline Henriksen

  2. Department of Education and Professional Studies, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

    Justin Dillon

  3. School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Jim Ryder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Løken, M. (2015). When Research Challenges Gender Stereotypes: Exploring Narratives of Girls’ Educational Choices. In: Henriksen, E., Dillon, J., Ryder, J. (eds) Understanding Student Participation and Choice in Science and Technology Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation