Abstract
This article examines contemporary representations of female and male scientists in The New York Times with a particular emphasis on stereotypes related to gender and science as a profession. The selected series of profiles is approximately proportional in its representation of women in science and generally gives a rounded and diverse picture of their subjects. Traditionally ‘masculine’ characteristics (e.g. individual drive and brilliance) as well as ‘feminine’ communal skills (e.g. collaboration, communication and teamwork) are attributed to both male and female scientists. Nevertheless, textual and image analyses reveal that some differences remain in the treatment of male and female subjects, particularly in the unequal focus on combining family and career. This research identifies progress in media representations of scientists in comparison to previous studies. However, there is still room for improvement, especially in the representation of scientists from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
1. Introduction
Most people know few, if any, scientists personally. Indeed, a 2013 survey found that only 30% of Americans can name a living scientist and the names of seven men and one woman accounted for two thirds of all responses (Research America, 2013). In the absence of personal experience, news and entertainment media are common sources of information about scientists and the scientific process. Popular accounts of science, including both fictional and non-fictional representations, are many but they are not always varied. This may contribute to the persistence across age levels, grade levels and decades of the stereotypical image of an older bearded man wearing a lab coat and glasses (Finson, 2002). These representations can affect not only public perception of, and trust in, scientists – for example, scientists on television often being presented as amoral, insensitive and obsessive (Schibeci, 1986) – but also the diversity and career progression of current and future generations of scientists.
Women and girls face multiple obstacles to training, recruitment, retention and promotion in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Kitzinger et al., 2008a). Gender role stereotypes are one of the barriers to girls and young women choosing to study science (Steinke, 1997). For example, exposure to stereotypical computer scientists reduces women’s sense of belonging and has an instant and lasting negative effect on their interest in computer science (Cheryan et al., 2013). Young children associate high intellectual ability with men more than women and this deters girls from activities described as for the ‘really, really smart’, including some branches of science (Bian et al., 2017: 389). The aim of this study is to examine how one newspaper column, Profiles in Science in The New York Times, portrays scientists to determine if there is a stereotypical portrayal of female scientists in a prominent publication which may contribute to the misrepresentation of STEM professionals.
Gender, media and science
Gender stereotypes can influence the ways in which women negotiate their careers. In addition to maintaining their scientific output, female scientists must develop strategies to cope with their token status (Haas et al., 2016), expectations to appear as the attractive face of the discipline (Chimba and Kitzinger, 2010) and the apparent contradiction between being a ‘real’ woman and a ‘real’ scientist (Kitzinger et al., 2008a).
Media portrayals of male and female scientists may reflect cultural views and/or contemporary demographics but they also have the capacity to influence stereotypes by providing diverse, alternative role models. Real-life role models have been shown to have a positive effect on students’ views of scientists and women in science (Lockwood, 2006; Smith and Erb, 1986; Young et al., 2013). However, in the absence of real-life role models, it is likely that the media will be the main source of information for understanding female scientists and science as a profession. A positive example of this is the character of Ellie Arroway in the film Contact who transitions from ‘model woman scientist’ to ‘woman scientist role model’ as she encourages a child to find his own answers to scientific questions (Steinke, 1999: 133).
In contrast, unappealing images of female scientists – as old maids, evil plotters or lonely heroines (Flicker, 2003) – may contribute to negative views of science and scientists among young women and girls. Indeed, the marginalisation and sexualisation of female scientists in film ‘contributes to the myth of women’s incompetence and experience of social discrimination’ (Flicker, 2003: 317).
Science as a ‘masculine’ profession
Science has typically been considered the ‘activity of lonely geniuses whose success reflects their combination of inspiration and dedication to their work’ (Nelkin, 1995: 17). Newspaper and magazine profiles of male scientists have tended to portray them as absentminded, socially distant and uninterested in domestic and everyday life while representations on film have centred on asexual types such as the foolish virtuoso, impersonal scientist, alchemist, hero and adventurer (Haynes, 1994; LaFollette, 1988; Nelkin, 1995). Scientific research was seen to be a ‘masculine’ domain requiring intellectual objectivity, physical strength and emotional detachment (LaFollette, 1988). A focus on discomfort and physical demands implied that science was too demanding for the ‘weaker sex’ (LaFollette, 1988).
The media often reflects and reinforces this view of science as a masculine pursuit in its use of experts. A survey of UK newspapers revealed that five men were quoted as scientific experts, or profiled, for every one woman (Kitzinger et al., 2008a). In the Australian media, only 26% of expert sources in science and technology were women (Women’s Leadership Institute Australia (WLIA), 2016). Even in progressive countries such as Finland with high levels of gender equality, experts in the media were predominantly male (Niemi and Pitkänen, 2017). This appears to be partly related to journalistic practices rather than simply being a matter of women’s relative reluctance to take on a public role. Similarly, in Switzerland, the media contacted women for expert commentary less often than men irrespective of position, age or faculty (Von Roten, 2011).
Representation of female scientists in the media
Whereas male scientists were lovingly excused from domestic obligations – keeping their minds free from the clutter of ‘detail debris’ (LaFollette, 1988: 268) – portrayals of female scientists in the first half of the twentieth century emphasised their participation in ‘normal’ activities such as cooking and sewing. Female scientists were not just exceptional scientists, they were also exceptional women. Importantly, this focus on the domestic sphere downplayed the women’s scientific expertise and reinforced the idea that even successful female scientists found more fulfilment in marriage and motherhood than in their intellectual endeavours (LaFollette, 1988).
Magazine profiles of women scientists highlighted their roles as wives and mothers and praised them for exceling in both professional and domestic spheres. The winner of the 1963 Nobel Prize for physics, Maria Mayer, was admired for being a ‘graceful union of science and femininity’ (Nelkin, 1995: 18). She was a ‘brilliant scientist’ and ‘the faculty’s most elegant hostess’ all while raising ‘perfectly darling’ children (Nelkin, 1995: 18). Rosalyn Yalow, winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize for medicine, was described as ‘a wonderwoman, remarkable, able to do everything’ while also being a ‘happily married, rather conventional wife and mother’ (Nelkin, 1995: 18). Reinforcing the notion of female scientists as exceptional implicitly justifies their presence in a male-dominated field (Shachar, 2000).
Female scientists were indeed atypical in some respects; in the mid-1950s, less than 10% of science and engineering doctorates in the United States were awarded to women (LaFollette, 1988). Men were described as ‘ordinary’ scientists, indispensable to basic research processes, while women were either ‘subordinate assistants’ or ‘superscientists’ (LaFollette, 1988: 270–271). The promotion of this ‘masculine’ version of everyday science contrasted with the myth of women as ‘glamorous but rare stars in the drama of science’ (LaFollette, 1988: 271).
If there was tension in balancing the personal with the professional, it was depicted as a uniquely female problem (Shachar, 2000). Articles focusing on the negative aspects of a scientific career gave the impression that ‘to be a woman scientist required extraordinarily hard work and sacrifices’ (LaFollette, 1988: 265). This can also be seen in twentieth-century stereotypes of women scientists in fiction films where femininity and success could not co-exist (Flicker, 2003). Far from being superscientists, these women either lacked the qualities necessary to be ‘proper’ women or they lacked the masculine traits needed to succeed in science.
The changing face of science?
Today, around half of science and engineering doctorates are awarded to women in Australia, the United States and Europe, although the most senior positions in science remain male-dominated (European Commission, 2016; National Science Foundation, 2016, 2017). Contemporary science is becoming more diverse and there has been a large increase in international collaborations (Wagner et al., 2017). The history of science, too, is being revisited and the contributions of women and scientists from minority groups and non-traditional backgrounds are being celebrated (see, for example, Ackmann’s (2004) The Mercury 13, Shetterly’s (2016) Hidden Figures and Sobel’s (2016) The Glass Universe). In this context, the stereotype of the lone (White male) genius appears sorely outdated.
The question then becomes whether representations in the media have shifted to reflect this new reality. Women’s increased participation in public life does not necessarily lead to greater visibility in the media (Niemi and Pitkänen, 2017); however, awareness of bias may stimulate cultural change. Kitzinger et al. (2008a) and Niemi and Pitkänen (2017) both discussed their studies of the biased selection of experts with the media, which in some cases prompted a review of journalistic practices.
There is other evidence of positive change in media representations of scientists. A study of news images of scientists from The New York Times from 2000 to 2010 found that they accurately reflected the current gender (but not race) distribution of scientists (Kim et al., 2016). This study also found that scientists were portrayed as expert professionals; however, this framing was not specifically investigated in the context of gender. A 1995 television series Discovering Women was also notable for the way it challenged stereotypes of female scientists. The show provided positive role models by portraying women who were experts in their fields and successfully balancing their professional and personal lives (Steinke, 1997).
In light of these changes to both science and the media’s portrayal of scientists, the aim of this study was to examine recent representations of female and male scientists in the news media with a particular emphasis on stereotypes related to gender and science as a profession. While this research makes the distinction between male and female scientists, it is important to note that not everyone identifies with these binary categories. It is also important to acknowledge that other stereotypes, for example, related to class and race, may influence the representation and success of people working in STEM fields. However, the focus of this study was gender due to the relatively small number of profiles available and the desire to compare these results with previous studies focusing on gender.
We examined the ‘Profiles in Science’ columns in The Science Times section of The New York Times. This section has been the basis of previous studies of gender and science and is considered important, reliable and influential in science journalism (Clark and Illman, 2006; Kim et al., 2016; Shachar, 2000). More specifically, the research questions were as follows:
Is gender diversity in science accurately reflected in recent profiles of scientists published in The New York Times?
How do gender stereotypes influence the portrayal of female and male scientists?
In what ways are the stereotypes of science as a masculine profession perpetuated or challenged?
2. Methods
We analysed press coverage of scientists in The New York Times ‘Profiles in Science’; articles which are occasional, in-depth (2000–3000 words) profiles of one or two scientists. The length of the article and consistency of format allowed both quantitative and qualitative analyses. ‘Profiles in Science’ replaced the previous column ‘Scientist at Work’ and was first published on 14 June 2011. The most recent column was published on 20 March 2018. We accessed the full text of 24 articles, published between these dates, using the global news database Factiva. We accessed a further four profiles as well as the images accompanying all 28 profiles on The New York Times website (www.nytimes.com, date last accessed 19 June 2018). Images included at least one portrait of the subject (or occasionally a video interview) as well as other images illustrating their research.
For each profile, we recorded the headline, name and gender of the journalist as well as the name, gender and field of expertise of the scientist(s) featured. Where mentioned, we recorded the scientist’s age, relationship status and parenthood status to identify potential differences in the ways male and female scientists were described. Although the sample size in this study is small, this basic quantitation allowed a tentative answer to the question of whether women scientists are still underrepresented in the media. This quantitation also allowed direct comparison with previous studies of profiles and images in the science section of The New York Times, The Science Times (Kim et al., 2016; Shachar, 2000).
We extended this research to include a qualitative analysis of themes, including references to physical appearance, hobbies, observed characteristics, childhood and an early interest in science. Specific attention was given to these themes because previous studies highlighted the ways in which women’s minority status, physical appearance or domestic capacities are emphasised at least as much as their scientific achievements (LaFollette, 1988; Nelkin, 1995; Shachar, 2000). Scientists are stereotypically considered brilliant, independent and agentic, all traits commonly associated with men (Bian et al., 2017; Carli et al., 2016). In contrast, there is less overlap between traits typically associated with women and those associated with scientists; women are considered kinder, more helpful and communal than men (Carli et al., 2016). Analysis of these traits thus allowed comparison of general gender and science stereotypes with specific representations of real scientists. Thematic analysis such as this can help identify patterns in representation and the particular version of reality being normalised. This analysis also allowed comparison with the previous analyses of stereotypes of gender and scientists discussed above. Based on the dominant themes arising from the literature, five thematic categories were used in this analysis: being a woman in science, family and domestic duties, physical appearance and attractiveness, individual drive and brilliance, teamwork and interpersonal skills.
To complement the thematic analysis of the profiles’ written content, we analysed the photographs of the scientists that accompanied the article. We used a coding approach, described by Kim et al. (2016), to analyse the visual framing and the extent to which this emphasised the subject’s expertise or professionalism. Differences in how professional male and female scientists appear in these images could either reinforce or undermine gender stereotypes as well as how these scientists are portrayed in the text.
In line with Kim et al. (2016), place was coded as laboratory, office, other work-related place including the field or other/undeterminable. Clothing was coded as professional, formal, casual or undeterminable. Title was coded as presence or absence of doctor, professional title or role, other title or no title. Titles were identified from photograph cutlines.
3. Results
Summary of profiles analysed
A total of 28 ‘Profiles in Science’, summarised in Table 1, have been published since the column began in 2011. The maximum number of profiles published in 1 year was seven and the number of articles appears to be decreasing with only one profile published in the preceding year (Figure 1).
‘Profiles in Science’ articles in The New York Times from June 2011 to June 2018.
Number of ‘Profiles in Science’ articles published in The New York Times from 2011 to 2017.
Overall, 18 male and 12 female scientists were interviewed as two of the 28 articles profiled couples (Table 1). The majority of profiles of female scientists were written by female journalists and the majority of profiles of male scientists were written by male journalists (63% and 74%, respectively). Twenty-four of the scientists profiled were citizens of the United States although four of them were born outside the United States. Five scientists spoke English as a second language and only two scientists were non-White. The profiles were skewed towards older scientists with only four scientists under the age of 50. The median age of the female scientists was 58 while the median age of the male scientists was 64. Most scientists (26 of 30) were working in the biological sciences with a further bias towards neuroscience/psychology and medicine/psychiatry/pharmaceuticals (nine scientists in each category).
Gender stereotypes and representations of scientists
This analysis focused on several themes related to stereotypes of gender, scientists and the specific discussion of the experiences of women in science.
Being a woman in science
Two-thirds of women’s profiles explicitly discuss issues relating to gender and being a woman in science. Some comments tended to emphasise the exceptional status of these women in terms of being in the minority – ‘trying to break into a field long unwelcoming to women’ (Gillis, 2015: para. 1) or being ‘one of 8 in a class of 80’ (Zuger, 2012: para. 8). Other profiles emphasise the women’s outstanding scientific achievements. Neuroscientist Brenda Milner’s prominence, for example, ‘long ago transcended gender’ (Carey, 2017: para. 4). While this can be read as a very positive reflection on her contributions to science, the implicit assumption is still that women must prove themselves, that they are women first and scientists second.
Likewise, it is only the female subjects of these profiles that discuss any tension between having a family and having a career in science. Dr Marcia Angell is clearly able to hold her own in a professional setting; she was the ‘only woman in a roomful of men, and firmly in control of the show’ (Zuger, 2012: para. 32). However, Dr Angell was also fired when she became pregnant and spoke out about the ‘grim and highly responsible series of trade-offs’ most women in medicine were forced to make in the early 1980s (Zuger, 2012: para. 31).
Nobel Prize winning biologist Elizabeth Blackburn discusses in detail the types of choices she had to make when forging her early career (Grady, 2013). She recalls making a major career change – taking a job closer to home – to better balance the demands of work and family. Dr Blackburn also describes the extra pressure she felt to prove herself and how she kept her research very focused to better establish her credentials and be taken seriously by her male colleagues. While Dr Blackburn is now senior enough that she no longer feels afraid of being marginalised, this highlights some of the additional difficulties women may face during their scientific careers.
Family and domestic duties
Compared to profiles of male scientists, profiles of female scientists were more likely to include references to relationship status (92% for females vs 63% for males) and parenthood status (67% vs 32%), including one female scientist, Susan Desmond-Hellman, who did not feel she ‘needed to have the experience of babies’ (Grady, 2011: para. 37).
That said, the tension between personal and professional demands is still presented as largely a female problem. Five women talk of combining motherhood and science while the fact that Peter Neumann was a ‘single father with three young children’ is only mentioned in passing (Markoff, 2012: para. 11). Two female scientists and one male scientist are known for their cooking while another male scientist loves to cook but ‘just does not have time’ (Kolata, 2012: para. 55). In contrast, Jennifer Doudna claims that having a ‘great partner’ who shares the chores is the secret to her success (Pollack, 2015: para. 48).
Professor of psychology Elizabeth Spelke is portrayed as a modern-day wonderwoman who has developed a towering scientific reputation while also supplementing her children’s education and baking their birthday cakes from scratch (Angier, 2012). However, compared to profiles from previous decades, there is increased focus on her science compared to her personal life. She ‘has passionately combined science and motherhood’ (Angier, 2012: para. 38), finding fulfilment in both. She does not appear to see gender as intrinsically limiting to the careers of women in science. As part of a public debate with fellow psychologist Steven Pinker and then president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, she ‘zestily’ argued against innate gender differences in mathematical ability being responsible for women’s lack of representation in the physical sciences (Angier, 2012: para. 34).
Indeed, rather than unconsciously conforming to traditional gender roles, Dr Spelke claims she works hard to balance work and family in response to the realisation that her mother gave up her study of piano once she had a child (Angier, 2012). Nevertheless, Dr Spelke had to adapt her work to fit the demands of family. She took her children to the lab or had meetings at home and the whole family travelled with her. Similarly, Dr Doudna’s son walks to his parents’ (adjacent) offices after school and waits there until they are ready to go home (Pollack, 2015). A short paragraph describing Dr Doudna as a ‘role model for women in science’ contains only the information that she has a son and a partner who shares the domestic duties (Pollack, 2015: para. 48). While the preceding paragraphs clearly state the contribution she has made to science, this paragraph suggests that the main reason for her being a role model is the fact that she has combined career and family.
As discussed in the previous section, Dr Elizabeth Blackburn also notes the compromises and strategic decisions she had to make as a woman in science. She openly discusses the impact of gender and family on her career including moving to the United States with her fiancé to allow him to take up a position at Yale as well as the appeal of America’s ‘burgeoning women’s movement’ (Grady, 2013: para. 13). In contrast, Brenda Milner is ‘impatient with those who expect her to be a social activist’ with colleagues describing science as her first priority in her lab and her life (Carey, 2017: para. 4).
Physical appearance and attractiveness
Female scientists were more likely to be described in terms of physical appearance than their male counterparts (67% and 37% of profiles, respectively). While descriptions of all the scientists tended to be brief, the language used was often gendered. Male scientists are ‘trim and agile’ or ‘athletic’ and have ‘piercing eyes’ and greying beards (Broad, 2012: para. 11; McNeil, 2014: para. 29; Markoff, 2012: para. 12; Glaser, 2016; Overbye, 2014). Female scientists are petite or tall, slim or trim and two are further described as having ‘blond hair and blue eyes’ or a ‘headful of corkscrew blond curls’ (Angier, 2012; Grady, 2011; Pennar, 2012; Pollack, 2015: para. 1; Zuger, 2011: para. 42, 2012). The men are described as smartly and professionally dressed in blue shirt, tan pants and loafers or well-tailored suits (Broad, 2014; Carey, 2014). In contrast, the female scientists are described as either glamorous or youthful: Marcia Angell is ‘slim, cool and elegant’ as if in a fashion magazine (Zuger, 2012: para. 32); Brenda Milner is ‘resplendent in a black satin dress and gold floral pin’ (Carey, 2017: para. 5) and Elizabeth Spelke dresses casually in ‘corduroy jumper or cardigan and slacks’ and ‘parts her long hair down the middle, like a college student’ (Angier, 2012: para. 5).
Nevertheless, descriptions of physical appearance are only a minor part of these long form profiles. Physical appearance is sometimes used to highlight the ways in which the subject does not conform to stereotype but the focus remains on the subject’s scientific expertise and career trajectory. Some scientists are stylish or good-looking while Nora Volkow, with her ‘headful of corkscrew blond curls and her lush Mexican accent’, contradicts the stereotype of ‘subdued government scientist’ (Zuger, 2011: para. 42). Importantly, this is only a minor point in the general discussion of her work as the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Zuger, 2011).
Individual brilliance and drive
While many of the ‘Profiles in Science’ columns emphasise the drive and intelligence of the subjects, they do so for both male and female scientists. Richard Dawkins is a ‘profoundly original thinker’ (Powell, 2011: para. 5) while Elizabeth Spelke is ‘absolutely brilliant’ (Angier, 2012: para. 32). Michael Dickinson ‘counts a MacArthur “genius” award among his honours’ (Gorman, 2013b: para. 7) while Jennifer Doudna is ‘among the 100 most influential people in the world’ (Pollack, 2015: para. 47). Married couple and Nobel Prize winners Edvard and May-Britt Moser show a ‘combination of furious curiosity and unwavering determination’ and both ‘intensely burn’ for science (Gorman, 2013a: para. 7, 35). Some of the female scientists are also described as physically strong and competitive: Linda Fried has a black belt in akido (Pennar, 2012); Laura Esserman was an assertive member of her rowing crew (Haffner, 2015) and Susan Desmond-Hellman is a ‘skier and gung-ho mountain biker’ (Grady, 2011: para. 20).
Similarly, both male and female scientists are portrayed as heroic adventurers. Timothy Ziemer is a ‘malaria fighter’ (McNeil, 2014: para. 35) and helicopter pilot ‘straight out of Apocalypse Now’ while Nora Volkow is a ‘general in the drug war’ (Zuger, 2011: title). Long-term colleagues and late-life romantic partners Arnold Relman and Marcia Angell are described as ‘old crusaders’ and ‘first responders’ in the ‘battle for the soul of American medicine’ (Zuger, 2012: para. 1, 7). Naomi Oreskes is a ‘living legend’, ‘throwing herself into a messy public arena’ in defence of climate science (Gillis, 2015: para. 6, 8). In describing herself, she says, ‘Most people would think it’s a bad thing to be a lightning rod, and I cannot say I enjoy it. But remember, the whole purpose of a lightning rod is to keep people safe’ (Gillis, 2015: para. 48).
Teamwork and interpersonal skills
Communal traits such as teamwork, communication, kindness and interpersonal skills have not traditionally been associated with the scientific pursuit, yet these are all recurrent themes in the ‘Profiles in Science’. Eric Lander is described by a colleague as ‘the sun’ because when ‘the sun shines on you, you feel like you can do anything’ (Kolata, 2012: para. 41, 43). Geoffrey Marcy is a ‘gracious team member, generous with credit and going out of his way to make younger astronomers feel valued’ (Overbye, 2014: para. 75). Timothy Ziemer ‘works for the team’ (Broad, 2014: para. 39) and James Simons is a ‘very good people manager’ (McNeil, 2014: para. 7). In a similar vein, Linda Fried is praised for her ‘years of mentoring’ and ‘ceaseless advocacy for young doctors and researchers, especially women’ (Pennar, 2012: para. 18). Dr Laura Esserman is known to spend hours with a patient and sings to them as they undergo anaesthesia (Haffner, 2015). Hopi Heoskstra gives ‘one of the best seminars’, is a ‘master at being able to put together a team’ and she received tenure at Harvard at the age of 37 (Gorman, 2013c: para. 27, 33).
Several scientists, both male and female, also reveal a strong social conscience. For example, Linda Fried credits her training in akido with giving her the ‘tools to help her lead ethically and effectively’ and collaborated with a social activist to set up a volunteer programme to train tutors to help disadvantaged students (Pennar, 2012: para. 19). Michel Sidibé wants to be ‘a voice for those without one’ (McNeil, 2012: para. 38) and Elizabeth Blackburn speaks of ‘the importance of serving people kindly as well as one can’ (Grady, 2013: para. 8).
Visual framing of scientists
The image analysis comprised 71 images of individual scientists, including stills from 15 video interviews and three photographs of couples. The majority of images with identifiable locations showed the scientists in laboratories, offices or other work-related places (43% for males, 67% for females; Table 2). Most images also showed scientists in professional or formal clothing (53% of males, 71% of females). However, more women than men were shown in professional clothing (33% and 6%, respectively) and women were also more likely to be shown in work-related places other than the laboratory or office. There were 46 images with professional titles in captions with no major differences in their use associated with the images of male and female scientists.
Visual framing of scientists in ‘Profiles in Science’ column of The New York Times.
A total of 71 images were analysed for Place and Clothing; 69 image captions for Title.
4. Discussion
Profiles of scientists in The New York Times published between 2011 and 2018 show progress from equivalent profiles published in 1996 and 1997 (Shachar, 2000). Female scientists were somewhat overrepresented in the current selection of ‘Profiles in Science’; 41% of the profiles featured a female scientists while women make up 28% of the scientific workforce in the United States (National Science Foundation, 2017). This may be due in part to the focus on biological sciences, which have a greater proportion of women than physical and mathematical sciences (National Science Foundation, 2017). These profiles also offer greater representation than in UK and Australian media where women make up only 17% and 26% of experts quoted, respectively (Kitzinger et al., 2008a; WLIA, 2016). Ethnic diversity, in contrast, was not well represented. Non-White scientists occupy one-third of science jobs in the United States whereas only two profiles (7%) featured non-White scientists. This is consistent with a previous analysis of images of scientists in the science section of The New York Times (Kim et al., 2016).
Future work could consider how these representations are influenced by journalistic or editorial practices. For example, there is notably greater representation of women scientists in this snapshot of old media (41%) compared to the online platform YouTube, where women host just 8% of the sampled STEM-related channels (Amarasekara and Grant, 2018). It will be interesting to investigate how subjects are selected for newspaper profiles, compared to greater self-selection for online media, and whether the gender or nationality of the journalist affects the gender or nationality of the chosen subject. Finally, a journalist’s gender may influence the types of questions asked of male or female scientists, although the small sample size in this study did not allow us to answer this question.
Most profiles mention partners and family as well as influences and interests outside of science. As such, many role models emerge from these stories of scientists, including both men and women, combining the personal and the professional. There seems to be a general trend towards showing a more personal side to both male and female scientists. This is a positive step towards counteracting the stereotype of the socially isolated scientist. However, some differences remain in the treatment of male and female subjects. There is still unequal focus on combining family and career in the profiles of female scientists, consistent with earlier analysis (Shachar, 2000), but this problem is common to women across most professions.
Notions of high achieving women ‘having it all’ still appear. Dr Spelke is presented as both superscientist and superwoman (LaFollette, 1988; Nelkin, 1995). However, the Profiles analysed here also illustrate how the media can draw attention to the challenges faced by women in science, if not all professional women who may work in male-dominated fields. These different perspectives provided in the profiles of Dr Milner and Dr Blackburn perhaps reflect the two strategies women may use to cope with their token role (Haas et al., 2016); Dr Milner effectively denies discrimination while Dr Blackburn highlights the differences gender has made in her career. As LaFollette (1988) noted, being a woman scientist still requires extraordinarily hard work. In addition to their scientific output, women must negotiate family and domestic responsibilities as well as a potentially hostile or sceptical environment. This appears to still be portrayed in media, certainly within the sample analysed here.
Physical appearance is discussed to a limited extent, generally when the subject conforms to the stereotype of bearded, bespectacled scientist or to traditional notions of attractiveness such as having an athletic or slim figure, blond hair and blue eyes. While attractiveness can be read into some of the descriptions, the scientists are not sexualised in the way that media stars Laura Grant or Brian Cox have been (Attenborough, 2011). Age may be a factor in this lack of sexualisation given that only one scientist is under the age of 40 but it is positive to note that the main narrative of the profiles centres on the subjects’ intellectual questions and contributions to policy and knowledge. The scientists are portrayed as ‘human’ rather than ‘sexy’ faces of the discipline.
The ‘masculine’ characteristics of individual drive and brilliance are still emphasised but they are attributed to both male and female scientists. Science is generally thought to require ‘inspiration and dedication’ (Nelkin, 1995: 17) and successful scientists are seen as highly agentic, intelligent, persistent and competitive (Carli et al., 2016). The association of agency with both scientists and men (rather than women) may lead to men being perceived to have more of the qualities necessary to be successful scientists (Carli et al., 2016). This is consistent with previously identified stereotypes of the male scientist as hero and adventurer (Haynes, 1994). Highlighting the ‘masculine’, agentic traits of the female scientists in these sample profiles could be seen to justify their success in science. However, in combination with the observed emphasis on communal traits in both male and female scientists (as discussed in the following section), this could also be construed as a broadening of the qualities associated with success in science.
Many profiles also highlight scientists of both genders who are known for their ‘feminine’ communal skills such as collaboration, communication and teamwork. This may reflect the changing practice of science, with the increasing importance of collaborations (Wagner et al., 2017), as well as the questioning of gender norms both within and outside science. This is a positive step for broader participation in science as previous research has suggested that exposure to descriptions of a communal scientist increased women’s attraction to careers in STEM (Diekman et al., 2010). Attributing these skills to male scientists as well could contribute to a greater perception of science being collaborative and collegiate.
While Kim et al. (2016) analysed the images of scientists in The New York Times, the focus was on race not gender across the whole ‘Science’ section. This analysis, on the contrary, is specific to the images of scientists accompanying the profiles and separated the subjects by gender. Similar to the previous study, male and female scientists were found to be generally portrayed as professionals. There was in fact little difference in the visual framing of male and female scientists.
This is one study of one column within one paper; therefore, the findings here are far from conclusive. Future work could consider how other sources in news or entertainment media do or do not reflect this changing face of science, especially within different geographic regions. The influence of social media and online platforms such as YouTube is of particular interest for giving scientists the opportunity to directly represent themselves to the public. While women in science now appear to be more accurately represented, there is still room for improvement in the representation of scientists from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Greater visibility and celebration of the diversity of scientists and the scientific enterprise may help to increase future participation in science of women and people from minority backgrounds. The media does, and will continue to, have an active role in portraying what a scientist looks like to society and to potential future scientists.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
