Sayce, Susan

University of East Anglia digital repository

IPED: Interdisciplinary perspectives on equality and diversity  	   Vol. 1, Issue 1  Book  Review      Susan  Sayce,  Norwich  Business  School,  University  of  East  Anglia  s.sayce@uea.ac.uk    Motivation-­The  gender  perspective  of  young  people’s  images  of  science,  engineering  and  technology  (SET)  Felizitas  Sagebiel  (editor)  Burdrich  UniPress  Ltd,    Opladen,  Berlin  2013  ISBN  978-­940755-­81-­0  (Paperback)      This  book  is  a  collection  of  edited  papers  from  a  conference  linked  to  a  European  Commission  project  to  promote  positive  images  of  science,  engineering  and  technology  (SET)  in  young  people  utilising  a  gender  perspective  to  help  address  the  shortfall  in  young  women  entering  science  subjects  at  university.  The  first  section  of  two  papers  includes  a  comprehensive  outline  of  the  project  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  different  European  countries  of  individual  and  societal  factors  that  influence  the  image  of  SET  subjects  and  the  effect  this  has  on  gender  occupational  choices  in  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Netherlands,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  The  aim  of  the  project  was  to  better  understand  the  dynamics  of  social  and  individual  causes  that  seem  to  suggest  that  young  people  often  cling  to  outdated  gender  images  of  science  and  science  careers.  While  this  chapter  is  informative  it  is  a  dense  academic  read  but  it  does  help  to  introduce  areas  that  are  explored  in  more  detail  in  part  one  and  two  of  the  book’s  collected  papers.  The  following  chapter  by  Vazquez-­Cupeiro’s  on  the  primary  socialisation  into  gender  roles  also  helps  to  indicate  how  differences  occur  in  how  SET  is  viewed.  Part  one  includes  a  focus  on  gender  images  while  the  role  of  the  media  and  other  influential  actors  is  analysed  in  part  two.  The  third  and  final  collection  of  papers  are  more  about  evaluation  and  describing  interventions  to  help  encourage  more  young  women  to  enter  science  and  engineering.      Sagebiel  argues  that  the  accuracy  of  science  gendered  stereotypes  needs  to  be  challenged  within  the  education  process  and  this  requires  teachers  to  be  gender  aware  at  all  levels  of  education  as  schools’  teaching  can  help  reinforce  or  breakdown  some  elements  of  these  gender  stereotypes.  The  findings  offer  a  range  of  suggestion  to  help  challenge  gender  stereotypes  focusing  on  young  girls  at  primary  level  schools  all  the  way  to  HEI  level.  This  includes  Endepohls-­  Ulpe  and  Ebach’s  chapter  which  explores  how  the  portrayal  of  ideal  engineers  reflects  gender  stereotypes  but  for  engineering  students  this  stereotype  is  more  accurately  closer  to  their  self-­image  than  other  students,  who  have  rejected  engineering  as  a  choice.  The  discussion  does  seem  self-­evident  in  some  aspects,  but  the  claim  for  a  more  modern  feminine  image  of  engineering  is  well-­made  and  balances  Kessels’  previous  discussion  about  the  misfit  between  how  girls  and  young  women  see  themselves  and  how  they  see  science.  Marschalek,  Moser  and  Strasser  address  the  point  that  there  is  an  increasing  demand  for  engineers  and  scientists  through  expanding  SET  to  include  nanotechnologies  a  new  but  growing  area  of  scientific  knowledge  and  careers.    They  advocate  that  rather  than  getting  girls  to  fit  with  science,  science  needs  to  be  more  inclusive  by  focusing  on  its  epistemic  roots.  The  recommendation  is  that  institutions  need  to  consider  how  they  themselves  describe  SET  subjects.     IPED  2 Kessel  offers  two  solutions  to  either  narrow  the  perception  gap  by  altering  girls’  ideas  about  their  own  self-­image.  Or  altering  the  image  of  science  by  assessing  how  the  use  of  masculine  and  feminine  words  reinforce  gender  divisions  and  having  more  female  role  models.  Kessel  seems  to  be  advocating  a  separation  of  girls  and  boys  to  help  facilitate  this.    This  is  a  hotly  contested  area  of  education  and  more  acknowledgement  of  this  debate  would  be  welcome.    Grable,  in  the  next  chapter  picks  up  on  the  second  point  about  scientific  images  by  arguing  that  she  wants  teachers  to  take  more  responsibility  to  help  students  deal  with  uncertainty  in  planning  science  careers  while  schools  could  help  ensure  pupils  are  better  informed  about  SET  subjects,  however  this  seemed  to  lack  detail  about  how  this  should  be  conducted.  A  more  useful  recommendation  Grable  made  was  for  HEI  to  offer  summer  schools  and  internships  and  she  argued  for  more  emotional  support  but  left  the  reader  wanting  to  know  how  this  could  be  offered.  Perhaps  an  area  for  future  research?    Part  two  focuses  on  the  media,  peers  and  schools  influence  within  attitudes  to  science.  Godfroy  outlines  the  influence  of  school  science  education  and  unconscious  stereotyping  which  makes  girls  less  confident  to  study  SET.  Godfroy  claims  that  an  elitist  approach  to  teaching  science  to  girls  is  not  particularly  helpful  in  promoting  greater  engagement  with  girls  while  Langfeldt  and  Griffiths  argue  for  greater  gender  awareness  in  teaching.  Gras-­Velazquez,  Joyce  and  Gras-­Marti  are  disturbed  about  the  lack  of  accurate  information  about  STEM  careers  and  the  lack  of  suitable  female  role  models  despite  highlighting  how  girls  actually  use  ICT  technology  more  within  social  networking  and  for  creative  purposes  than  boys,  but  this  is  not  automatically  transposed  into  career  directions.  I  think  this  is  an  area  that  needs  further  exploration  as  social  media  is  an  area  of  growing  demand  for  workers.      For  me  the  third  part  was  the  most  engaging  section  as  it  was  discussing  outcomes  of  interventions  to  change  gender  attitudes  to  SET,  the  exception  being  the  Becker  section,  which  seemed  to  be  more  related  to  identifying  the  problem,  which  is  the  focus  of  part  one.  The  chapters  in  this  section  built  well  on  each  other  although  I  found  the  chapter  by  Neuhauser-­Metternich  and  Krummacher  about  the  use  of  mentoring  and  video  to  make  changes  in  attitudes  needed  more  development  in  signposting  its  argument.  But  read  in  conjunction  with  Roth’s  chapter  it  led  nicely  into  a  more  detailed  analysis  by  Lammerhirt  and  Leicht-­Scholten  and  Hartjen  and  Leicht-­Scholten  about  the  evaluation  of  interventions  such  as  mentoring  and  collaboration  with  other  partners  in  Germany  to  help  change  attitudes  and  stereotyping  of  young  female  students.    Overall  this  book  gave  me  an  insight  into  the  problem  of  encouraging  more  girls  and  young  women  to  engage  with  SET  subjects  and  ultimately  careers.  It  is  very  much  written  from  a  European  perspective  and  overall  I  think  the  insight  it  generates  would  have  benefited  from  being  reviewed  from  other  international  perspectives  to  balance  the  European  focus.  As  there  are  researchers  tackling  similar  questions  in  countries  such  as  Mauritius  (Naugah  and  Watts  2013)  and  Kenya  (Chetcuti    and  Kioko  2012)  indicating  it  is  a  worldwide  concern.  However,    if  you  are  interested  in  the  future  of  young  women  in  science  and  want  to  address  the  lack  of  recognition  for  women’s  involvement  in  science  from  Ada  Lovelace  onwards  then  this  book  will  add  to  your  knowledge.      On  a  practical  level  if  you  are  a  practitioner  concerned  about  gender  imbalance  in  your  particular  academic  institution  then  this  book  too  would  offer  you  some  insight.  I  would  suggest  that    if  practitioners  are  wanting  to  be  informed  of  outcomes  in  respect   IPED  3 of  gender  attitudes  and  stereotyping  I  would  suggest  reading  the  last  chapter  first  as  it  summarises  these  and  then  part  three  rather  than  wading  through  all  the  papers  interesting  as  they  are.    References    Chetcuti.    DA,  and  Kioko.  B,  (2012)    ‘Girls’  Attitudes  Towards  Science  in  Kenya’,  International  Journal  of  Science  Education  34:10  1571-­1589    Naugah.  J,  and  Watts.  M,  (2013)  ‘Girls  and  science  education  in  Mauritius:  a  study  of  science  class  practices  and  their  effects  on  girls,’  Research  in  Science  and  Technological  Education  31:3  252-­268  Susan  Sayce    Norwich  Business  School,    University  of  East  Anglia,  Norwich  UK.  s.sayce@uea.ac.uk     

Book Review, Sagebiel, F Ed. ‘Motivation-The gender perspective of young people’s images of science, engineering and technology (SET)’ Burdrich UniPress Ltd, Opladen, Berlin 2013:Felizitas Sagebiel (editor) Burdrich UniPress Ltd, Opladen, Berlin 2013 ISBN 978-940755-81-0 (Paperback)

https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/57077/1/Sayce_2015_.pdf

Book Review, Sagebiel, F Ed. ‘Motivation-The gender perspective of young people’s images of science, engineering and technology (SET)’ Burdrich UniPress Ltd, Opladen, Berlin 2013:Felizitas Sagebiel (editor) Burdrich UniPress Ltd, Opladen, Berlin 2013 ISBN 978-940755-81-0 (Paperback)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of East Anglia digital repository