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



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.


Gender Stereotype Feminist Theory Dominant Discourse Narrative Approach Narrative Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Boarder crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1996). Symbolsk makt (Norwegian edition). Oslo: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
  8. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Chetcuti, D. (2009). Identifying a gender-inclusive pedagogy from Maltese teachers’ personal practical knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daiute, C., & Lightfoot, C. (2004). Narrative analysis. Studying the development of individuals in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography: Vol. 17. Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender. The real science behind sex differences. London: Icon Books.Google Scholar
  22. Gullestad, M. (1996). Hverdagsfilosofer. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS.Google Scholar
  23. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  25. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Associations Books.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Horsdal, M. (2012). Telling lives: Exploring dimensions of narratives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Irigaray, L. (2004). Key writings. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  35. Johansson, A. (2005). Narrativ teori og metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.Google Scholar
  36. Johnston, J., & Dunne, M. (1996). Revealing assumptions: Problematising research on gender and mathematics and science education. Gender Science and Mathematics, 2, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Lykke, N. (2012). Feminist studies. A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Meece, J. L., Bower Glienke, B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Østerberg, D. (2003). Sosiologiens nøkkelbegreper. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag as.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sinnes, A. T. (2006). Three approaches to gender equity in science education. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1, 72–83.Google Scholar
  51. 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.
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sjøberg, S. (2000a). Kjønn og naturvitenskapens “kroppsspråk”. Nordisk Pedagogikk, 2, 80–89.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. Staberg, E. M. (1994). Gender and science in the Swedish compulsory school. Gender and Education, 6(1), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stadler, H., Duit, R., & Benke, G. (2000). Do boys and girls understand physics differently? Physics Education, 35, 417–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. London/Sydney/Singapore: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Centre for Science EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations