Science is a continuous, bi-directional process that relates empirical facts to theoretical formulations. The modern scientific method was first described by Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) shortly after the end of the Renaissance (1450–1600) in The Advancement of Learning. The goal of the scientific method is to develop theories, derived from empirical evidence, that explain phenomena and allow for the prediction and control of the external world. Valuable theories explain a broad, rather than narrow, range of facts. A theory must be refutable: that is, be able to be shown to be incorrect. The scientific method valorises objectivity, replicability, logical thought, linear thinking and empirical evidence. It is assumed that the scientific method operates in the absence of emotion and rejects intuitive means of knowing. All scientific knowledge is tentative in that at some future point, someone may put forward data or theoretical formulations that require the reinterpretation or revision of generally accepted beliefs (Kuhn 1962).
Since its development, the scientific method has been remarkably effective in transforming the way we examine and interact with our physical world. One of the greatest scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727), illustrated the power of science in two incredibly productive years when he began revolutionary advances in mathematics, physics, optics and astronomy. His Prindpia, considered the most important scientific book ever produced, presented laws that applied to falling objects on earth as well as the motion of the planets and comets. These principles are essential to understanding applications ranging from the firing of cannon balls to the orbits of rockets in space. Working in a different domain, Gregor Johann Mendell (1822–84) examined how traits are passed from one generation to the next. Although he was unable to explain the mechanism of genetic transmission, his identification of dominant and recessive traits could be seen as the basis for current research on cloning and genetic testing. Modern medical miracles such as heart transplants and life-saving drugs like antibiotics have been made possible by the exercise of the scientific method.
Although the methodologies of different branches of science might vary, depending on the phenomenon under consideration, it is typically assumed there is one unitary method of performing science. The scientific method is thought to reflect an objective means of analysis that operates independently of values or personal bias. Despite the unequivocal successes of science, this conventional view of science has been challenged on a number of fronts, notably by feminist-based scholars (e.g. Keller 1985; Schiebinger 1999), who have argued that science actually reflects a masculine bias as a means of collecting knowledge. Rather than being completely objective and value-free, the scientific method, as typically defined, reflects hegemonic masculinity and the subordination of femininity. The masculine bias in science is expressed in its sexist language, masculinist structure and methodologies, and androcentric epistemology (Letts 2001).
There is a correspondence between stereotypical masculine traits and the definition of the scientific method. Masculinity is associated with competitiveness, dominance hierarchies and logical, as opposed to emotionally driven, thought. The scientific method can be seen as the valuation of the same attributes.
An important part of the scientific method is that theories are in direct competition with each other for dominance. A theory is defined as dominant when it better explains empirical evidence. The scientific method can be seen in this light as a process where theories are pitted against each other until a dominant theory emerges. In other words, science is performed under the assumption that there is an inherent competition among theories, just as a defining feature of masculinity is competitiveness among males.
Another important characteristic of science is that theories are developed and evaluated in an objective manner devoid of emotion. An essential component of hegemonic masculinity is the valuing of emotional control. Thus, just as masculinity is performed without emotion, it is assumed that scientific truth will be obtained without reference to emotionality. In reality, emotional and non-objective criteria do enter the process of science. For example, it is difficult to publish articles that contain findings that contradict dominant paradigms or go against the tide of popular opinion. Kuhn (1962) argued that paradigm shifts occur when proponents of outmoded theories die out and leave room for a new generation to propose alternative interpretations. Basic science is a theory-based enterprise where the goal is to develop a better understanding of the world without necessarily having a clear application in mind. In contrast, applied science is problem-focused. Science occupies a favoured position in Western cultures because it serves as a basis for problemsolving. For example, engineering can be seen as the application of principles involving physics, chemistry and biology. The ability of basic scientific discoveries to have far-reaching practical applications corresponds to taskoriented masculine values that focus on problem-solving.
Scientists often look for differences. What makes one metal stronger than another? Why are some stars brighter than others? Why do some people get sick and die whereas others can weather an illness and recover quickly? A kind of scientific decision-making known as null hypothesis significance testing is based on the quest for differences. Though subject to extensive criticism (e.g. Howson and Urbach 1989), null hypothesis significance testing is the cornerstone of research in most of the social sciences. This approach uses statistical methods to determine whether an observed difference reflects the operation of random chance or the influence of real factors. When applied to gender, null hypothesis significance testing addresses whether an observed difference, such as different scores on a questionnaire, represents a real difference between men and women, such as a different level of intelligence.
The reproductive differences between males and females are assumed to correspond with personality and character differences. There is a huge body of research on what is known as sex (or sometimes gender) differences. In 1974, Maccoby and Jacklin published The Psychology of Sex Differences that reviewed the findings of over 1,400 studies. The search for gender differences includes topics as diverse as religious beliefs, intellectual abilities, temperament, motor skills, mental health and dysfunction, and emotionality. Despite the common-sense belief that men and women should greatly differ, research has shown that there are relatively few reliable differences between men and women. Even when differences exist, they tend to be rather small in magnitude. In other words, there tends to be greater variation of individuals around their gender’s group mean than there is between the means of men and women. Rather than focus on gender differences, Connell (2002) has noted that researchers should redefine their field of inquiry as gender similarity research.
Although gender differences in intellectual ability are nonexistent (Halpern and LaMay 2000), small differences in mathematical ability favour men (Hyde et al. 1990). However, the magnitude of these differences does not explain the gender gap in science and mathematics education that privileges men over women (Greenfield 1996). Although women receive 55 per cent of both bachelor’s and master’s degrees, this ratio is reversed in engineering, mathematics and the natural sciences. One explanation for this pattern is that boys tend to be more confident than girls in their ability to perform in mathematics and science (Ma and Kishor 1997).
Differences in the rates at which men and women enter the fields of science and mathematics reflect societal factors. Right from birth, boys and girls are socialised differently, with boys being treated more roughly and at a relatively early age being encouraged to distance themselves from their emotions. Boys are more likely than girls to play with tools and building kits. Gender stereotypes that involve activity and achievement orientation tend to encourage boys to become more active in science, whereas stereotypes about girls as emotional and intuitive tend to demote the importance of science and emphasise nurturing components. As boys get older, they tend to attribute success in science and mathematics to internal attributes such as ability and failure to external factors such as bad luck. In contrast, as girls get older, they tend to attribute success in mathematics and science to good luck and failure to a lack of ability. Parents and teachers also encourage boys to pursue careers in science and mathematics to a greater degree than girls.
The exclusion of women from a science and mathematics curriculum reflects the operation of many large-scale social processes, such as stereotypes, roles, parental expectations, mass media and the influence of peers. It is difficult to produce lasting change on these social institutions. Moreover, there is evidence that the influence of these factors may operate in a complex and subtle fashion. For example, Felson and Trudeau (1991) failed to find evidence that level of parental encouragement was associated with females’ difficulties with mathematics, suggesting that parental socialisation of females is more difficult to model than typically believed. In keeping with this argument, Smith (1992) reported that the female disadvantage in science achievement is stronger for females living outside a nuclear family, a fmding he explained in terms of separated mothers becoming role models for more conventional feminine roles.
One area where improvement might occur more readily is through the influence of elementary and secondary school teachers (Tindall and Hamil 2004). During their training, teachers can be made aware of these gender disparities. Moreover, they can use a variety of tools to minimise bias in their classrooms and promote more egalitarian models of science education for boys and girls.
One technique would be to establish norms that promote greater levels of verbal classroom participation among girls. Because girls tend to raise their hand before speaking, whereas boys are more likely to shout out answers, girls should be encouraged to speak out, even without being formally recognised by the teacher. Another technique is to make classroom participation mandatory rather than voluntary.
Another means of encouraging girls to become more interested in science is to promote a conceptualisation of science more consistent with how girls and women approach learning. Rather than always emphasise the principles of rational analysis and logic that are assumed to form the basis of the scientific method, teachers could also point out how science also includes processes related to cooperation and communication. In the modern research world, the image of the lone scientist in the laboratory has been replaced by the concept of teams of scientists working collaboratively on large projects they would be unable to solve individually. The process of science would cease if research fmdings were not disseminated through public venues such as conferences, journals and electronic media.
By promoting supportive environments that build confidence, teachers could help girls could become more comfortable about their potential abilities in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering. Another way to help girls recognise their potential is to provide girls with positive role models. Women scientists and engineers who visit the class as a point of contact could show girls that women can succeed in those fields. It is important to note that these examples could also help boys understand that the girls in class may also have potential as scientists. If a teacher is female, she can also serve as a role model for students. An important caution when using role models is that to be effective as a change agent, the role model has to be appealing to the target. Thus, role models that are closer in age to the students and who have upbeat and outgoing personalities would be most likely to be effective influence agents.
Another approach for creating a less biased representation of gender in the sciences would be to promote policies that encourage boys and men to enter careers typically associated with women. One place where bias exists is in nursing. Although becoming a nurse requires an extensive background in science, especially biology and chemistry, it is a field dominated by women. The failure of the nursing profession to recruit men has contributed to the significant shortage of skilled nurses and can be explained, in part, by the disadvantage in nurses’ salaries in comparison to the salaries of other health care professionals.
References and further reading
ConneU, R. (2002) Gender, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Felson, R.B. and Trudeau, L. (1991) ‘Gender differences in mathematics performance’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 54:113–26.
Greenfield, T.A. (1996) ‘Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33:901–34.
