I came across this article that started as follows:
Ask a child to draw a scientist, and research says they will often draw the typical stereotype of a “mad scientist” – an older, usually white, man, with wild hair, wearing a lab coat and goggles. This mental image perpetuates myths about who can and can’t work in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) careers. The reality is that anyone can be a scientist or support the work of scientific institutions, regardless of age, gender, race, personality, or even perceived predisposition.
The article goes on to make the case as to why the stereotype is flawed and. that anyone can do science. That people from any demographic can do science is undoubtedly true. The article also suggests that the stereotype that only older white men are scientists may discourage people from other categories from going into science. That is also plausible. The problem I have is with the idea that because children, when asked to draw a scientist, draw an older white man, is an indicator that they actually believe that only such people can do science..
I do not think that inference is valid. This is because the children have been specifically asked to draw a scientist and they have to figure out how to do that unambiguously. This forces them to draw a stereotype, even if they do not believe the stereotype, precisely because an older white man is a stereotype of a scientist. If they drew a young person and/or a woman and/or a person of color, what would make that represent a scientist, unless they added a label on them saying the figure was a scientist? The only reason to deviate from the stereotype is if you are specifically trying to make the point that anyone can be a scientist. But can we expect a young child to indulge in such a sophisticated sociological calculation and make a political point through a drawing?
If I were playing a game like Pictionary and had to draw a scientist, I would face the same problem as the children of how to depict one. I might well end up drawing someone similar to the way the children did, an Einstein-like figure, because that is instantaneously recognizable. Even the white coat and goggles are stereotypical, though not as harmful. I have been a scientist all my life and have never worn such a coat or goggles. I doubt that even Einstein, the person universally recognized as a scientist, wore a white coat and goggles even at the patent office where he worked, although he did do some experiments while there. But I may have added those accessories to my Einstein figure, just to drive home the idea that it was a scientist.
Perhaps a better measure of whether children have stereotypes of who can be a scientist is to show them an array of images of diverse people and ask them which of them could be scientists. If they tend to only pick older white men, then that would be a better indicator of the negative influence of the stereotype.
“Does this really show what it purports to show?” -- welcome to psychology research.
Given that most children’s experience of “scientists” probably comes from cartoons I don’t find this terribly surprising.
Does this really show what it purports to show?
At be very least we would need to get our hands on the original Child Development article to even make a guess.
I have been a scientist all my life and have never worn such a coat …
Then you should at least have appropriated one on your way out of the obstetrics ward.
“can we expect a young child to indulge in such a sophisticated sociological calculation and make a political point”
The worst of the Left certainly expect that sort of thing all the time.
@ 1 Holms
Lol. Like a creationist mocking “evolutionists”. Stereotype threat is in fact a well documented phenomenon. It can be shown that a gender or ethnic group will do less well at a task or test if they are told in advance that their gender or ethnic group typically perform poorly. So we know prevailing stereotypes have a feedback effect.
I hear Dunning-Kruger has been debunked, but clearly the phenomenon of clueless people with no experience at all thinking they know better than people whose entire career is devoted to a particular field remains, eh Holms.
@ 2 jrkrideau
Here you go.
Holms, feel free to offer us your erudite rebuttal, we could all use a laugh.
[OT]
Silentbob:
Nah, not really.
(Its popular conception, sure)
This video’s ancient now, but I remember it as one of the best things I’ve seen on stereotyping:
At a skeptic’s conference, someone asks a question about the lack of women in STEM. D J Grothe cluelessly assumes it is a question about genetic differences, and then Neil Tyson fields the question, suggesting that before we ask about genetic differences, we have to consider societal bias.
I expect this will be old news to Mano, but for white people like Grothe (or myself) Tyson’s response is profound.
P.S. To Tyson’s right is Dawkins, to his left Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s widow. I’m not sure Dawkins learned anything. 😉
P.P.S. Holms, the study of stuff like this requires psychology. Much as you might sneer, it’s an actual science.
#5 Silentbob, “I hear Dunning-Kruger has been debunked”
🙂
That was your take-away from PZ’s post on the matter?
Oops I think I forgot to cue up the video at #7. Soz.
Hopefully that’s better. I wasn’t really asking people to watch an hour long video. It’s just a bit at the end.
@ 8 Holms
Mate, the reference to D-K was tongue-in-cheek and totally peripheral but if you want to fight about it:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real
Anyway, I’m not really invested in whether your cluelessness is D-K or not. As a wise pig once said, “The floot floot did a boom boom on the jim jam”. (“It is what it is.”)
By the way, if I’m annoying people by embedding videos it’s not me! I’m just putting links and WordPress is doing it, I swear! X-D
[Gotta wrap in in an anchor tag on this platform, Silentbob, else it embeds]
Peripheral… yet still inaccurate.
@ 5 Silentbob
Did you have to? Now I at least had to skim it!
Seems about what one would expect. I have not kept up with the meta-analysis literature so I really am not sure of some of the analyses but i do not see anything that looks unlikely.
@ 1 Holms
I have not read but there is a new study out suggesting the evidence for Stereotype threat may not be as strong as we thought.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-02693-001