Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 433-447

  Hayes, Bernadette C ^a   Tariq, Vicki N ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038956408     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/306     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. Biennial Series (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972-1998); R. N. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology," Impact of Science on Society 38 (1988): 257-271; J. R. Durant, G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas, "The public understanding of science," Nature 340 (1989): 11-14; G. Evans and J. Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA," British Social Attitude, Special International Report, ed. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989), 105-119; M. Bauer, J. Durant, and G. Evans, "European public perceptions of science," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (1994): 163-186.
2. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. Biennial Series (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972-1998); R. N. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology," Impact of Science on Society 38 (1988): 257-271; J. R. Durant, G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas, "The public understanding of science," Nature 340 (1989): 11-14; G. Evans and J. Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA," British Social Attitude, Special International Report, ed. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989), 105-119; M. Bauer, J. Durant, and G. Evans, "European public perceptions of science," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (1994): 163-186.
3. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. Biennial Series (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972-1998); R. N. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology," Impact of Science on Society 38 (1988): 257-271; J. R. Durant, G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas, "The public understanding of science," Nature 340 (1989): 11-14; G. Evans and J. Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA," British Social Attitude, Special International Report, ed. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989), 105-119; M. Bauer, J. Durant, and G. Evans, "European public perceptions of science," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (1994): 163-186.
4. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. Biennial Series (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972-1998); R. N. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology," Impact of Science on Society 38 (1988): 257-271; J. R. Durant, G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas, "The public understanding of science," Nature 340 (1989): 11-14; G. Evans and J. Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA," British Social Attitude, Special International Report, ed. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989), 105-119; M. Bauer, J. Durant, and G. Evans, "European public perceptions of science," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (1994): 163-186.
5. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. Biennial Series (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972-1998); R. N. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology," Impact of Science on Society 38 (1988): 257-271; J. R. Durant, G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas, "The public understanding of science," Nature 340 (1989): 11-14; G. Evans and J. Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA," British Social Attitude, Special International Report, ed. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, and L. Brook (Aldershot: Gower, 1989), 105-119; M. Bauer, J. Durant, and G. Evans, "European public perceptions of science," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6 (1994): 163-186.
6. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
7. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
8. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
9. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
10. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
11. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
12. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
13. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science;" National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), Chapter 7; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Ziman, "Public understanding of science," Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (1991): 99-105; T. Hoban, E. Woodrum, and R. Czaja, "Public opposition to genetic engineering," Rural Sociology 57 (1992): 476-493; Bauer et al., "European public perceptions of science."
14. Hoban, et al. "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" E. A. Rosa and R. E. Dunlap, "Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (1994): 295-325; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
15. Hoban, et al. "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" E. A. Rosa and R. E. Dunlap, "Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (1994): 295-325; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
16. Hoban, et al. "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" E. A. Rosa and R. E. Dunlap, "Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (1994): 295-325; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
17. R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990); R. E. Dunlap and R. Scarce, "Environmental problems and protection," Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (1991): 651-672; R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup Jr., and A. M. Gallup, "Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey," Environment 35 (1993): 7-15, 33-43.
18. R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990); R. E. Dunlap and R. Scarce, "Environmental problems and protection," Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (1991): 651-672; R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup Jr., and A. M. Gallup, "Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey," Environment 35 (1993): 7-15, 33-43.
19. R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990); R. E. Dunlap and R. Scarce, "Environmental problems and protection," Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (1991): 651-672; R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup Jr., and A. M. Gallup, "Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey," Environment 35 (1993): 7-15, 33-43.
20. Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" S. Witherspoon, "The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality," in British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report, eds. R. Jowell, J. Curtice, L. Brook, D. Ahrendt, and A. Park (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994), 107-139; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-1998.
21. Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" S. Witherspoon, "The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality," in British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report, eds. R. Jowell, J. Curtice, L. Brook, D. Ahrendt, and A. Park (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994), 107-139; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-1998.
22. Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" S. Witherspoon, "The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality," in British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report, eds. R. Jowell, J. Curtice, L. Brook, D. Ahrendt, and A. Park (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994), 107-139; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-1998.
23. Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" S. Witherspoon, "The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality," in British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report, eds. R. Jowell, J. Curtice, L. Brook, D. Ahrendt, and A. Park (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1994), 107-139; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-1998.
24. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-1998.
25. Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Witherspoon, "The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality."
26. Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Witherspoon, "The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality."
27. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-1998.
28. Ibid.
29. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
30. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
31. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
32. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
33. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
34. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
35. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
36. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
37. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
38. C. J. Brody, "Differences in support for nuclear power," Social Forces 63 (1984): 209-228; M. F. Fox and G. Firebaugh, "Confidence in science: the gender gap," Social Science Quarterly 73 (1992): 101-113; S. L. Cutter, J. Tiefenbacher and W. D. Solecki, "Engendered fears: Femininity and technological risk perception," Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6 (1992): 5-22; J. Alper, "The pipeline is leaking women all the way along," Science 260 (1993): 409-411; M. L. Trankina, "Gender differences in attitudes toward science," Psychological Reports 73 (1993): 123-130; L. K. Pifer, "Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research," Society and Animals 4 (1996): 37-52; T. Williams, R. Herman, and M. Kenward, "What do people think of science?" New Scientist 105 (1985): 12-16; Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" J. Glover, J. Fielding, and D. Smeaton, "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Labour Market Trends 104 (1996): 63-67; D. Smeaton, J. Glover, and J. Fielding, "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK," Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 3 (1997): 1-19.
39. Williams et al., "What do people think of science?" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" F. Devine, "Gender segregation in the engineering and science professions: A case of continuity and change," Work, Employment and Society 6 (1992): 557-575; Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK; J. Steinke, "A portrait of a woman as a scientist: breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 409-428.
40. Williams et al., "What do people think of science?" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" F. Devine, "Gender segregation in the engineering and science professions: A case of continuity and change," Work, Employment and Society 6 (1992): 557-575; Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK; J. Steinke, "A portrait of a woman as a scientist: breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 409-428.
41. Williams et al., "What do people think of science?" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" F. Devine, "Gender segregation in the engineering and science professions: A case of continuity and change," Work, Employment and Society 6 (1992): 557-575; Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK; J. Steinke, "A portrait of a woman as a scientist: breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 409-428.
42. Williams et al., "What do people think of science?" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" F. Devine, "Gender segregation in the engineering and science professions: A case of continuity and change," Work, Employment and Society 6 (1992): 557-575; Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK; J. Steinke, "A portrait of a woman as a scientist: breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 409-428.
43. Williams et al., "What do people think of science?" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" F. Devine, "Gender segregation in the engineering and science professions: A case of continuity and change," Work, Employment and Society 6 (1992): 557-575; Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK; J. Steinke, "A portrait of a woman as a scientist: breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes," Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 409-428.
44. Steinke, "A portrait of a woman as a scientist: breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes."
45. Glover et al., "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK."
46. Glover et al., "What happens to women and men with SET degrees?" Smeaton et al., "Recent trends in women's representation in science, engineering and technology (SET) in the UK."
47. Ibid.
48. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. M. Stanworth (ed.), Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine (Oxford: Polity Press, 1987).
52. P. Mohai, "Men, women and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism," Society and Natural Resources 5 (1991): 1-19; P. C. Stern, T. Dietz, and L. Kalof, "Value orientations, gender and environmental concern," Environment and Behaviour 25 (1993): 322-348.
53. P. Mohai, "Men, women and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism," Society and Natural Resources 5 (1991): 1-19; P. C. Stern, T. Dietz, and L. Kalof, "Value orientations, gender and environmental concern," Environment and Behaviour 25 (1993): 322-348.
54. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
55. Ibid.
56. See B. Cooper, A. Kornberg, W. Mishler, eds. The Resurgence of Conservatism in Anglo-American Democracies (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989), for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.
57. Jowell et al., British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report, Appendix 1, pp. 157-169, for further details on the ISSP.
58. Given the underlying ratio-based, or metric, nature of measurement of our dependent variable of interest (a correct knowledge of scientific matters), the use of t-tests may be justified as the appropriate test of significance in this instance. Furthermore, although this statistic was estimated 52 times in all, this does not invalidate our overall conclusions. The arguments in support of this proposition are threefold. First, of the 52 items considered, the vast majority (37 or 71 per cent) demonstrated a statistically significant difference in finding between men and women. Second, even allowing for the probability of a five per cent chance of error, the use of this technique would incorrectly estimate as significant only three items, or just one item per nation. Third, as 32 of these 37 items demonstrated a statistical significance at the 0.01 level or above, the actual chances of error in this instance is reduced even further to just one item overall.
59. Unlike our previous investigation, which was exclusively restricted to a correct knowledge of scientific matters, all responses - those correct, don't know/can't choose, and incorrect - have been included in this analysis. For each individual item, a correct answer was scored 1, with all other responses coded 0. The decision to combine the "incorrect" and "don't know" answers was undertaken for the following three reasons. First, when "incorrect" and "don't know" responses were compared, across all twelve items, the overwhelming majority of respondents made an incorrect response as opposed to opting for the undecided category. For example, whereas, on average, around 81 per cent of respondents fell into the 'incorrect' category, the number of individuals who opted for the "don't know" category never accounted for more than 19 per cent of responses across all twelve items. Second, this relationship held regardless of whether men or women were considered separately. Finally, there were no significant cross-national differences in relation to these findings. Irrespective of whether Great Britain, New Zealand or the two North American nations were considered, both men and women were significantly more likely to manifest an incorrect response than opting for the "don't know" category. After summating the scores for all twelve items and dividing them by their number of component items, this summary index was, then, re-scored to range from 0 to 10. Additional analysis attests to the reasonably good reliability of this index. In other words, irrespective of whether all nations were combined, or men and women were considered separately, or even whether each nation was investigated separately, in all cases, the estimated cronbach's alpha, or reliability coefficient, was 0.56 or above.
60. Unlike our previous investigation, which was exclusively restricted to those who expressed a positive attitude towards science, all responses - both positive and negative, as well as the undecided - have been included in this analysis. Each individual item was scored as follows: 0 = strongly agree; 0.25 = agree; 0.50 = neither agree nor disagree; 0.75 = disagree; and 1.0 = strongly disagree. After summating the scores and dividing them by the number of component items, this summary scale was, then, re-scored to range from 0 (least positive attitude to science) to 10 (most positive attitude to science). Additional analysis attests to the reliability and uni-dimensional nature of this scale. See Appendix, Table A2, for a presentation of these results.
61. Williams et al., "What do people think of science?"
62. 2s were less than 0.5. See W. D. Berry and S. Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice (London: Sage, 1985), pp. 42-43, for an explanation of this method.
63. Although it could be argued that a more realistic presentation of the relationship between knowledge of scientific matters and attitudes towards science is one of reciprocal causation, scientific knowledge is treated as a causally prior determinant of attitudes in this analysis for the following two reasons. First, as previously argued, both research analysts and populist commentators have continually suggested that level of scientific knowledge is a primary distinguishing factor in predicting gender differences in attitudes towards science. Thus, from a theoretical perspective alone, the inclusion of this variable as a prior determinant (or intervening variable) in relation to attitudes must be considered warranted in this instance. Second, contrary to the transitory and often conflicting nature of attitudes on many scientific issues, knowledge of scientific matters is a relatively stable attribute, the origins of which begin early in life, most notably through the educational system.
64. See D. F. Alwin and R. M. Hauser, "The decomposition of effects in path analysis," American Sociological Review 40 (1975): 37-47, for a general review of this method.
65. Alternative analysis that defined religious identification in terms of the following four mutually exclusive categories - Catholic (omitted category of comparison) Protestant, Other, No religious affiliation - demonstrated no substantive differences in terms of the multiple regression results. Irrespective of whether Canada, New Zealand or Great Britain was considered, across all three nations, religious affiliation did not emerge as a significant predictor of attitudes towards science. In the one nation where religious affiliation did emerge as a differential predictor of attitudes - the United States - this effect was exclusively confined to a Protestant-Catholic difference, with Catholics being significantly more likely to hold a more positive view of science than Protestants.
66. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
67. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
68. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
69. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
70. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
71. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
72. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
73. Khan, "Science, scientists and society: public attitudes towards science and technology;" Evans and Durant, "Understanding of science in Britain and the USA;" Durant et al., "The public understanding of science;" Fox and Firebaugh, G., "Confidence in science: the gender gap;" Hoban et al., "Public opposition to genetic engineering;" C. G. Ellison and M. A. Musick, "Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science," Review of Religious Research 36 (1995): 245-262; D. Rioux and J. Barresi, "Experiencing science and religion alone and in conflict," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (1997): 411-428; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators - 1998.
74. Additional analysis at the bivariate level provides further confirmation to these findings. Irrespective of whether Canada, Great Britain or New Zealand was considered, women expressed significantly higher levels of religious belief than men and were more likely to occupy a more disadvantaged position in terms of their educational attainment.