What a scientist looks like: Portraying gender in the scientific media

Facets

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 754-763

  Loverock, Becky ^a   Hart, Miranda M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Gender bias; Media; Science magazines; STEM; Stereotypes

Indexed keywords

EID: 85057296825     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23711671     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/facets-2017-0110     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bain O, and Cummings W. 2000. Academe’s glass ceiling: societal, professional-organizational, and institutional barriers to the career advancement of academic women. The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International Education Society, 44: 493–514. DOI: 10.1086/ 447631
2. Bandura A. 1971. Social learning theory. General Learning Press, New York City, New York. 46 p.
3. Bian L, Leslie S-J, and Cimpian A. 2017. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355: 389–391. PMID: 28126816 DOI: 10.1126/science. aah6524
4. Bower AB. 2001. Highly attractive models in advertising and the women who loathe them: the implications of negative affect for spokesperson effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 30(3): 51–63. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2001.10673645
5. Breithaupt H. 2001. Losing them is not an option. As society cannot afford to lose them and the investment in their education, the question is, what to do about it? European Molecular Biology Reports, 2: 651–655. PMID: 11493589 DOI: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve167
6. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva L, Leimu R, and Lortie CJ. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23: 4–6. PMID: 17963996 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
7. Ceci SJ, and Williams WM. 2011. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108: 3157–3162. PMID: 21300892 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108
8. Chimba M, and Kitzinger J. 2010. Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: an analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19: 609–624. PMID: 21553601 DOI: 10.1177/0963662508098580
9. Coleborn J. 2014. Mind the gender gap. Clinical Pharmacist, 6(8): 186. DOI: 10.1211/CP.2014.20066743
10. R Core Team. 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Available from r-project.org/.
11. Crook J. 2004. On covert communication in advertising. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 715–738. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00039-0
12. González D, Mateau A, Pons E, and Domiguez M. 2017. Women scientists as decor: the image of scientists in Spanish press pictures. Science Communication, 39: 535–547. DOI: 10.1177/ 1075547017719074
13. Goulden M, Frasch K, and Mason MA. 2009. Patching America’s leaky pipeline in the sciences. Berkley Center on Health, Economic & Family Security. Open file 2009–18. Berkeley Law, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California [online]: Available from americanprogress. org/issues/women/reports/2009/11/10/6979/staying-competitive/.
14. Hango D. 2013. Gender differences in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and computer science (STEM) programs at university. Insights on Canadian Society, Catalogue no. 75-006-X. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario [online]: Available from 150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/ 2013001/article/11874-eng.htm.
15. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, and Sugimoto CR. 2013. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504: 211–213. DOI: 10.1038/504211a
16. Lerback J, and Hanson B. 2015. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541(7638): 455–457. PMID: 28128272 DOI: 10.1038/541455a
17. Mendick H, and Moreau MP. 2013. New media, old images: constructing online representations of women and men in science, engineering and technology. Gender and Education, 25: 325–339. DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2012.740447
18. Miller DI, Eagly AH, and Linn MC. 2015. Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107: 631–644. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000005
19. Moss-Racusin AC, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, and Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109: 16474–16479. PMID: 22988126 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109
20. Murphy MC, Steele CM, and Gross JJ. 2007. Signaling threat: how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18: 879–885. PMID: 17894605 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
21. Panayiotou G, and Papageorgiou M. 2007. Depressed mood: the role of negative thoughts, self-consciousness, and sex role stereotypes. International Journal of Psychology, 42: 289–296. DOI: 10.1080/00207590701318389
22. Reuben E, Sapienza P, and Zingales L. 2014. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111: 4403–4408. PMID: 24616490 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1314788111
23. Sanchez DT, and Crocker J. 2005. How investment in gender ideals affects well-being: the role of external contingencies of self-worth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29: 63–77. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1471-6402.2005.00169.x
24. Sardelis S, and Drew JA. 2016. Not “pulling up the ladder”: Women who organize conference symposia provide greater opportunities for women to speak at conservation conferences. PLoS ONE, 11: e0160015. PMID: 27467580 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160015
25. Schuster C, and Martiny SE. 2017. Not feeling good in STEM: effects of stereotype activation and anticipated affect on women’s career aspirations. Sex Roles, 76: 40–55. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-016-0665-3
26. Sheltzer JM, and Smith JC. 2014. Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111: 10107–10112. PMID: 24982167 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1403334111
27. Surawicz CM. 2016. Women in leadership: why so few and what to do about it. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13: 1433–1437. PMID: 28341310 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.026
28. Tregenza T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17(8): 349–350. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02545-4
29. Wilson EB. 1927. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22: 209–212. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953
30. Young DM, Rudman LA, Buettner HM, and McLean MC. 2013. The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37: 283–292. DOI: 10.1177/ 0361684313482109