I am sure many of you have seen Science: It’s A Girl’s Thing, produced by the European Commission in order to encourage young girls into science. The negative reaction to this video has been covered by The Telegraph. Many have described it as degrading and patronizing, and that it sexualizes science. However, a majority of those making these claims are not the target audience for this video. As a researcher, I find it very uncomfortable to assume how young people will react to certain things: we need to ask them. So I did!
I devised a small, non-academic, questionnaire about the video, which was given out at the end of a Stagecoach performing arts club session. The group consisted of 38 girls, aged between 9 and 13 (with an average of 10.8). 11 of these girls had parents who worked in a scientific job. The group was asked about their perceptions of science careers before and after watching the video. The results are surprising but also very insightful into the mindset of this age group. Before I go on to present these results, I want to emphasize that the results of this study are not indicative of every child in Europe but instead suggest that these trends and results are something we need to explore further.
Before Viewing
- 13 out of 38 girls stated that they enjoy science lessons at school.
- 11 out of 38 girls stated that they want a career in science. Only 2 of these girls had parents in scientific occupations.
After Viewing
- 30 out of 38 girls had positive comments about the video.
- 25 out of 38 girls said that the video made them motivated to look into science as a career. This is an increase of 14 girls: from 29% to 66%!
Interestingly, the girls were generally positive about the video: it’s difficult to argue with the numbers.
25 out of 38 girls said that the video made them motivated to look into science as a career. This is an increase of 14 girls: from 29% to 66%!
The girls were free to write down their comments. The next sections will expand upon the numbers given above.
Feelings about Science
Before watching the clip, participants were asked to state if they were interested in having a career in science and, if so, what they wanted to do. If they weren’t interested, they were asked to give their reasons.
- Participants who were interested in science careers said that they wanted to be doctors, nurses, a medical engineer, and a science TV presenter, and that they wanted to find a cure for cancer, find cures to illnesses, or, in one case, have a career using Bunsen burners (!). A wide range of careers was mentioned.
- Participants who were not interested in science careers said it was because “it was boring”, “it was for nerds”, “I like drawing”, “I am scared of explosions”, and “I don’t want to dissect frogs”. The ‘boring’ reason was the most common reason for not wanting a career in science.
Feelings about the Video
After watching the clip, participants gave feedback as to how they felt about the video.
- Participants who gave positive comments wrote comments such as: “I thought it was cool”, “it was lively”, “I learnt a lot”, “I enjoyed the music”, “it was artistic”, “it was girly”, “it made science for me”, and “it appealed to me”. The phrases for this signified that the girls felt it was important that the video appealed to them and felt they could relate to it. They enjoyed the music and thought the clip was girly and lively, and this drew them in and kept their interest.
- Participants who gave negative comments wrote comments such as: “It is not real science, what does make up have to do with science?” , “its [sic] too girly for me” , “there was maths in the video and I find maths difficult”, and “I don’t want a science career”. The negative comments were just as interesting as these reinforced that they did not think that make-up was part of science. I felt that this video may not have reached these participants in the same way as the more positive participants. Participants also mentioned that they did not think it was real science, and it would be interesting to understand their perceptions and experiences of science.
Participants were also asked if the video made them want to research further into science careers. Again there were positive and negative comments:
- Participants who gave positive comments: “I didn’t realise it was for me”, “It looked like they had fun doing the science”, “It was made for my age group”, “We like experimenting with make-up and that’s how it got my attention”, “I am going to show it to my friends”, “It gave me a different perspective to science”, “Something which is more for my age group”, “I liked the video because it had make up in it and I like trying make up”, “It makes science better”, “It made me want to go on the website after to see what else there is to do in science other than medicine”, “I want to be a make-up artist but that is difficult to get into so chemistry looks like it might be interesting”, “I know that making beauty products they need to make sure that they don’t harm people with the wrong chemicals”, “I like the idea of using science to help people feel nice about themselves”, and “It has made me interested in learning about how make up is made using my science skills”. These comments were interesting, the girls did not hold back!
- Participants who gave negative comments said the following: “I enjoyed the video but I was more interested in the other videos [on the EU site]. But I wouldn’t find the other ones without the make up one”, “Because it is wrong, make up isn’t scientific”, “It is tested on animals”, “I find maths hard and maths was in the video”, “I don’t see the point of it”, “I think its helped made me think about other options in science”, “I like the hot man”, and “I don’t want to have a science career”.
Other Comments
Participants were asked to provide other comments about the video. They said:
- I enjoyed watching video! My mum said we can go on the website at home.
- I want to learn how lipstick is made. I didn’t know it was made with science skills.
- We are going on the main website after stage coach.
- I liked learning about a different side to science than what we do at school.
- I like biology so my mum said we could see what other things they have.
- I am going to look at the website when I go home to see more videos.
- I am deciding whether to do triple science so it was good to learn more about it.
The girls wrote about visiting the EU website afterwards, which has other videos about women in scientific careers.
Conclusions
As a community we need to accept that what appeals to us may not appeal to young teenage girls. If this video appealed to ‘grownups’ it would not be doing its job.
The results of this informal study are interesting: they oppose the majority of the views of the ‘grownups’! From a kid’s point of view, it seems like the video acted as a bridge for further research. It was important that they could identify with the video, and from the comments it would appear that they did.
This video is not going to change the world: it’s one of many factors that could influence career decision making. However, this study demonstrates that it has enthused a significant number of girls into thinking about science careers in a positive way. While the context of the participants (from a local theatre group) may affect these results, one message is clear: as a community we need to accept that what appeals to us may not appeal to young teenage girls. If this video appealed to ‘grownups’ it would not be doing its job.
I showed this to my 8 year old daughter who is already growing up with two parents who are science orientated, access to a LOT of computers and a periodic-table shower curtain!
. She said it made her feel like she might like to be a scientist more. She wanted to be Cheryl Cole not so long ago and, most recently, a historian (thank you Horrible Histories!).
Culture has changed over the past twenty years. For me, as a 16 year old, I think I would have felt quite alienated by this video. As someone who was definitely not in with the ‘cool’ crowd in school, I would have seen the glamorous representation in this video unattainable – it’s hard enough being smart, let alone trying to be gorgeous and confident as well. On the other hand, not everyone is the same and it may well have attracted the attention of my more glamorous friends. Today, there is obviously a greater interest in celebrity and glamour, but it would be very wrong to assume that’s all girls are interested in.
Most of the people who feel affronted by the video, and I might even go so far as to include myself in that category, have already been persuaded that science is a good way to go. I’ve always loved astronomy and, let’s face it, that is, in part, due to the visual appeal of the subject. Science: It’s a Girl Thing is a very visually appealing campaign.
If it attracts the attention of some girls who may not have previously have considered a career in science, then that HAS to be a good thing, as long as those girls then move forward with genuine passion and enthusiasm for their chosen subject.
Hi! Thank you so much for your positive comments. I think you are right – if it acts as a bridge to getting girls interested in science then it is a good thing.
I just feel strongly that we need to ask the target audience before making assumptions about what the target audience will respond to.
Nice! V cool that you did this piece of work, and thanks for sharing the results. Any thoughts on how this relates to that study we briefly touched upon via twitter? (I don’t have the link offhand, hopefully you know the one I mean)
Hi Clare! The study you are talking about is: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/06/overtly-feminine-scientists-al.html
The study is interesting and gives insight about how girls perceive scientists. The study only showed three images of female role models who did science and all three of these were well dressed etc. It would have been interesting to see what the girls would have said if they were also given images of girls who were the opposite to the other girls.
I also ask the question.. are the girls rejecting science or are they rejecting the image they were given?
Not entirely convinced by the interpretation of results here. Many of the “positive” comments are arguably indicative of a void in engagement for a particular demongraphic, and perhaps not necessarily indicative that this video is the best way to fill that void.
For example: “I didn’t realise it was for me”, “It looked like they had fun doing the science”, “It was made for my age group”. All those comments could be addressed by investment in direct engagement, where real women in science visit young people and talk to them about what they do.
I wonder how far the cost of this video could alternatively go in supporting real engagement (e.g. the excellent online “I’m A Scientist” project in the UK), and which is more effective in achieving the kinds of outcomes being discussed here.
Alex; The people who made this video made it clear it was part of a bigger initiative.
Reena; I’m proud to know you. In retrospect it’s embarassing that so many people had evidence-light opinions.
Replace “girl” with “black” or “gay”, and use similarly hackneyed stereotypes of those labels in the video, and then ask youself if it is ok “because it is part of a bigger initiative”?
Try to think what elements that videos must contain to make it racist or anti-gay. Certainly not a hip clothing-style, a selfconscious, ambitious attitude and the choice of a career in science. Framing the girls in the video as sexy, is a sexist way of thinking!
Hi Alex, interesting comments! The teaser acted as a bridge to draw people in. So there are now 25 girls – because of that video who went home look at science careers. I think thats a good result! Best wishes!
So, in a nutshell — it’s fine to reinforce stereotypes, provided the target group respond in some way positively?
Not sure I buy that.
It’s a lead-in to the rest of the site, which has lots of more realistic videos http://science-girl-thing.eu/#overlay=profile/ilaria-capua
The responses reported above imply that it does encourage some girls to find out more.
If you disagree, come up with an experiment to test your theory.
Sorry, that wasn’t a very relevant reply, was it?
I’m confused about what stereotype the video reinforces. It seems to be deliberately challenging the stereotype of science girls being dorky, unfashionable and boring, albeit in a very simple way.
Umm – isn’t this obvious? The stereotype it’s reinforcing is that all girls love makeup, dresses, dancing around giggling and posing coyly for men.
Maybe if they’d shown a range of girls… a sporty one, a fashion one, a geeky one, a fun and zany one etc then it would be more appropriate. But to cliche “girls” as interested only in makeup and fashion is a HORRIBLE STEREOTYPE.
Thanks for the clarification, I was thinking about stereotypes of scientists not girls. Of course, at the moment the best role-model science-minded children have is probably Twilight Sparkle.
I guess, in the event that you live somewhere where you can only watch My Little Ponies. Kids tv is full of science loving characters, even before you get to the actual kids science shows like Blast Lab, Scope, Totally Wild etc.
Hi, I don’t know what stereotypes you mean. If you think of a thirteen year old girl geek she does not look like the girls that video.
So that video is actually going against the stereotype you suggest.
Best Wishes!
Access to the raw data from this mini-survey would be interesting.
I’d venture to pose that this type of advertising in fact *discourages* the minority of geeky science interested girls in the group.
Obviously you ‘can please everyone all of the time’ but perhaps there’s something to be said for supporting people who are interested in science _at the same time_ as appealing to a broader audience, rather than alienating them.
I’d venture that math and science are a refuge for a certain demographic, and by popularizing iconography that shows ‘prom queen’ science girls, you’re discouraging some people from getting involved; even if there is a sort term surge in interest by the broader majority of people (until they find out that, actually, science really isn’t like that).
Hi Dee, happy to put up the raw data if you would like. As part of my PhD work I talked to degree level computer science female students about what the geek stereotype meant to them. The majority of the responses were that they were not worried about the stereotypes or the images as they enjoyed the science. I would like to think that if these girls looked beyond the video to the other parts of the site then that would work for them. its important to remember that the video is NOT an isolated thing, hopefully teachers, parents and carers can also act as guides in the career process.
Pingback: Science: it’s a girl thing (seriously, the girls love it) | Finding things out
I’d like to point out that the sample used for this is also a bit biased. In my experience of kids performing arts clubs, they are predominantly the kind of girl that matches the exact stereotype depicted in the video… the “girly girls” who want to be actresses and models. I’d like to see the same quiz asked of a girls soccer team, of girls in scouts, girls who do Nippers etc.
Then I think might have an idea of what girls think.
Hi, I understand what you are saying. THe aim of this was just to gauge what I could in the short time I had available. It would be lovely to do a larger study with a larger range of girls but I need a budget. I am happy for you to have access to the data and questionnaire if you wish to carry out a similar study?
Pingback: Science: It’s a PEOPLE thing. | Neurotic Physiology
Interesting mini-research! It’s true that the backlash was from adults, a lot who are probably already in or associated with science and such careers.
Some comments:
“We like experimenting with make-up and that’s how it got my attention”, “I am going to show it to my friends”, “I know that making beauty products they need to make sure that they don’t harm people with the wrong chemicals”: From the comments from this sample group, it seems most who became interested in science after watching the video are interested in its application in the cosmetics industry. With all the make up that was in that video, I’m not surprised! Has it inspired interest in other branches of science?
“It looked like they had fun doing the science”: the closest the video comes to the girls doing anything sciencey is having the one girl write equations on a board and, if I’m generous, putting on safety goggles. While I agree that the video might attract some girls to take a greater interest in science, the true test would be if they would carry it through to taking science in high school/studying it at university/making a career out of it if it didn’t meet the unrealistic expectations the video had left them with.
“The girls wrote about visiting the EU website afterwards, which has other videos about women in scientific careers.”: I’d like to see what the girls had to say about the “Have you met…” videos, etc. Did this change their opinions about science? Increase/decrease their interest? How did they feel about the messages in the teaser video and how these related to the rest of the campaign?
interesting comment about sample bias. id happily see more stuff, but im at least surprised that it had any positive effect on anyone. so there’s a bonus.
i think alot of people are surprised!
In response to all the Twits saying “you’re not the target audience – this proves they were right” … well, it doesn’t. Apart from a small and biased sample size, we can evaluate the campaign with a quick thought experiment: what would the Spice Girls think?
Assuming the campaign was designed to sell science to ALL girls, not just the hyper-feminine ones, we’d need to look at a cross section of girls. If we pretend that the Spice Girls represent a variety of girl types and consider how they’d view the campaign, we might find this:
Posh Spice – LOVED IT!
Sporty Spice – HATED IT
Scary Spice – HATED IT
Ginger Spice – Meh
Baby Spice – Meh
Capturing the attention of a small proportion of girls at the expense of some and the ambivalence of others isn’t a successful campaign.
Solution – remake the ad using “Spice Scientists.” While still far from a great science ad, it would still be stacks better than the original.
Hi, you make a good point… please can you point me to a study with a larger sample size which asks people about this specific youtube clip? Its all we have at the moment.
Many young girls are drawn to glossy fashion ads as bees are to honey – but that does not mean that the campaign is good in terms of the affect it has on young girls. And the European Commission should know better than to reinforce unhealthy, appearance orientated stereotypes. As many wrongly assume, the issue is NOT about whether or not girls interested in make-up can or can not be interested in science – of course they can! I have tons of geeky female friends with whom I discuss both evolutionary theories and fashion advice with during lunch brakes in the lab. My thoughts, when seeing the video and the lipstick in the logo, was that it’s a typical case of “killing us softly”. It’s the message it delivers to young girls, saying that “women should know that appearance is everything – if you’re not beautiful you’re unsuccessful and boring and most definitely not a real girl”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTlmho_RovY)…. The European Commission should be ashamed!
Hi! i think from the small study i conducted, i felt that they related the make-up to the science rather than appearance. The EC wrote a report with regards to their motivation which might shed some light: http://science-girl-thing.eu/files/about/about-science-girl-thing-en.pdf
The video is sexist and demeaning. That in your statistically insignificant sample it played well is irrelevant. The video is exploitative and reenforces negative & sexist stereotypes.
Then it is doing its job! Its not meant to appeal to you
It is not doing it’s job. Peer reviewed scientific research suggests that the “girlification” of science (by gender stereotypes) has a net negative effect. Also, reenforcing stereotypes and using sexist, demeaning and exploitative imagery is ethically wrong, whether it works or not.
In addition, the advert has been condemned by the expert panel that advised the EC on this campaign, who have said that the PR firm ignored their advice and recommendations.
Hi Jon, please can you post a link to the research you reference here. I’m trying to compile literature on this subject.
Right on, brother or sister Jon.
Citation Required.
What’s the use of an ad attracting girls to a false depiction of science? This is probably a short lived interest.
The use is that it might get girls to consider a career in science. Its not meant to revolutionise their thinking but simply engage enough for them to do some research into careers.
Don’t see stereotypes. See an intelligent made marketing videoclip, diffferent style of girls in a shiny version of what girls look like (nowadays in Amsterdam, Berlin, Manchester, Zaragossa), including the way ‘soccer-girls’ look when they’re not on the field, scouting-girls when they’re not in uniforms
.
It’s amazing that so many people gave comments here. Normally I point out things to improve on research – there are not criticism.
1) Try to quantitise comments into numerical data. Those who have positive feeling, rate them in the scale of 0 to 5. Some educational journals with related topics can be statistically focused.
2) It appears all participants have extrinsic motivation/interests rather than intrisinc. Those with extrinsic motivation/interest may not necessarily stay interested for a long time. A challenge is how to convert to intrisinc, and how to prolong and maintain girls’ long-term interests in Science.
There are papers using similar approaches. So what’s your next plan?
http://www.d.umn.edu/~bmunson/Courses/EdSe4255/GirlsInPhysics.pdf
http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2176/reading/AERA_07_Rapunsel_Plass_etal.pdf
Hi! Thanks for your feedback! i think things like improving self-efficacy and self perception cannot be done through a video, these need to be done face to face with parents and teachers…. we should chat when i am in the lab next!
I could definitely see being able to reproduce these results with this age group- especially when you have them in a group. I’d say that’s the result of advertising and other media that has taught them to identify with this kind of imagery. It’s hard to say whether or not adding a drop to the already overflowing negative-body-image bucket is worthwhile if it makes an impact on the way girls view scientific careers.
My main complaint about the video is that it misses the age mark it was apparently designed for- the background notes say it was designed for 15-17 year olds, since girls under 15 are statistically just as interested in science as boys. I think by the age of 15 most girls would either recognize that this video is pretty condescending (we assume the most important thing in your life right now is makeup!) or ignore it as one more image of attractive women doing things on TV.
Well….I am a 20 year old and a student of Science and I do not really think this video is as offending as it is being made out to be. We have to take into consideration the age group it is being targeted at !!!
I think it is merely trying to show Science as being a glamorous profession and too much is being read into what it actually means …….I am sharing this on my wall and am eagerly waiting for the reaction it evokes from my female (and male)friends .
After all, there can be glamorous geeks too !!!!:D Or is it really an oxymoron ???!!!!
I think not….:)
Shreya
This is a very small study, and not terribly scientific. It also misses the point. No one is arguing that the video isn’t “appealing”, in the same way no one argues that cover models aren’t “appealing”. If the video were selling young girls something other than science – socks, recycling, toothpicks – they would have found these things appealing as well. The question is – why?
The argument that this video sends a positive message to, at the very least, the particular subset of girls represented here, would be valid if this subset (pretty girls who like makeup and wear fashionable clothes) weren’t the standard that all girls are expected by their peers, and pop-culture, to live up to. The myth (‘the Beauty Myth’ in fact, the same one Naomi Wolf wrote about in the eighties) is that anything done by girls who fit this mould is considered legitimate, but ONLY by virtue of the fact that they fit that particular mould. As Naomi Wolf put it, talking about the role models presented to girls in traditional children’s stories, “A girl learns that stories happen to ‘beautiful’ women, whether they are interesting or not. And, interesting or not, stories do not happen to women who are not ‘beautiful.’”
The video isn’t suggesting that these girls are appealing role-models because they’re interested in science. It suggests that science is appealing because pretty girls are doing it. It feeds into girls’ pre-existing, and already carefully constructed, desire to be appealing to men (a fifteen year old girl in five inch heels? In a lab?).
Making science appealing to young girls by sexualizing it targets the symptom of a problem it simultaneously reinforces.
Exactly
Fully agree with Jo Mc Kenna. And what a waste of public money.
Have to agree with this.
This. Thank you.
This is the most balanced argument against the video so far. Could you expand on this line of reasoning a little? In the Wolf model, how does a woman break out of this “carefully constructed, desire to be appealing to men”? How do you convince people to break out of that mould that has served so well up until now?
Your identification of stories is an important one; it is also worth of noting that in a lot of stories, the villain is a scientist (witch/wizard/some other elemental magician) and the hero is a brute who fights their way to victory (spy movies are the epitome of this dichotomy). How do the scientific community convince popular culture that the hero can save the day through science not violence? Or is it impossible because the populous have no interest in a scientist winning? Is it the chicken or the egg?
Thank you for doing some research and sharing the results. However in some respects the results are irrelevant.
Firstly the teaser video repulsed and offended older female scientists. Any campaign to get more young people interested in science is going to need role models and this campaign destroyed the support from female scientists and I suspect female science teachers.
Secondly, how are the team behind the campaign intending to get large numbers of girls to view the excellent videos behind the teaser? Are girls who are not interested in science spending their time on YouTube searching for “female scientists”? I doubt it. They will need to rely on teachers to show the videos and they’ve just turned off that channel with the teaser. And to add to the problem I can’t imagine many teachers showing videos to just half their class. What are the boys expected to do?
“What are the boys expected to do?”
Look over their microscopes at the girls in 5″ heels?
Some of them might like it now, but when they leave school for the workplace, they will realise what a pile of nonsense this video is. I think this video is laughable, and I would have thought it was laughable in my teens.
I had good self-esteem as a teenager, good enough to know that just because some idiots think that you’re uncool and unfeminine because you’re into science, doesn’t mean it’s true or that it matters. I consider myself feminine in that I like nice dresses and the like, but I’ve always hated this giggly, pink, dumb femininity that sprawled around in teen magazines (hence why I bought about 3 of them when I was in my early teens, and never went back). If I’d seen this video as a teen, I would have thought ‘…..and what’s this got to do with science’. I would have been more impressed with seeing a young girl at school, being teased for liking science, then her graduating from university, saving lives, and then picking up a prize in front of a smiling audience of hundreds of people.
So you want future science girls to be like you. You actually just said you “hate” something other people like. I know some very smart girls who love that giggly, pink, dumb feminity that sprawls around in teen magazines. I’m a bit shocked at the bias against people who enjoy pop-culture. You were going to get into science no matter what, your tastes are irrelivant to this debate unless you would have been put off by a mesage that science was for anybody.
Just because you’re lucky enough to be tough enough to stay interested despite a negative image, doesn’t mean that image isn’t alienating many potential scientists who are not as secure in their identities as teens.
I think the idea posted earlier of a ‘spice girls’ approach would be ideal. Push the idea that Scientists & Engineers don’t support the same football team as each other, wear the same styles or like the same TV shows. The only defining things we have in common is that we’re smart, curious and good at figuring stuff out.
Personally, I was doomed to STEM from the moment I got anywhere near it. It brings me huge joy every day that I get to be involved in things I’m so passionate about, but our culture has changed. We need more engineers & scientists than those who’ll do it no matter what. We need to encourage every able-brained person into the sector, regardless of details such as their (dis)liking of pink, gender and other stuff irrelevant to the actual ability to do good work.
In all of this debate Reena is a bit of a science hero. Everybody else has argued feelings, and anecotes and she’s gone out and collected some actual data. It has been suggested that her sample was small or biased, but the reason you can suggest that is because she’s clearly stated the parameters of the experiement.
I don’t care if people *think* the results would be different with a larger or differently selected group. Clearly most “right thinking” people are arguing from a scary cultural bias. That ain’t very science-personish.
Ultimately the complaint seems to be that people are offended by the video on behalf of teenage girls.
“There is no such thing as offensive material, only offended people”
I don’t think you read my response, or all of the responses. Why are you getting so riled up by alternative points of view? “Clearly most “right thinking” people are arguing from a scary cultural bias”? How is this clear?
You are not a girl, have never been a teenage girl, this ad is in no way targeted at you. You argue that everyone elses point of view is based on bias without knowing anything about their background.
You say that everyone opposed to this ad is talking about their “feelings” (which isn’t true), but then go on to dismiss other people’s opinions on the basis that you “don’t care”. Is it “science-personish” to dismiss evidence, or reasoned argument, or any point of view really, on the basis that you, personally, “don’t care”?
Hi Reena, We’re Immie & Freya (mentioned in Curt’s article). We LOVE that you were open enough to do this survey with the girls and, of course, it makes us feel better that our responses were pretty typical of teen girls. We’re a bit older than the girls you surveyed, so we understand that in a few years when we’re working scientists, we will be more focussed on being seen as professional and serious scientists. But right now, we need to smash those stereotypes that stop girls getting interested in science. Note how many mentioned maths – it’s this that really keeps girls out of engineering and physics. We need degrees with slightly different content to accommodate this. Thank you for doing the survey, we loved reading the results!
The problem is that this video is a pure lie, that gives an untrue and misleading view of science. The fact that more girls would consider a science career after having seen this video, just means that many of these girls will actually be very disappointed when they will discover that science has nothing to do with any of the things portrayed in this video.
It is a pure lie but, so are photoshopped images of Julia Roberts on an Estee Lauder poster. When I bought their face cream a couple of months ago, although the image may have enticed me over to the counter in some part, I knew full well I was buying into a fantasy and what the reality of my skin the next morning would be. It’s buying into a fantasy, isn’t it? I doubt girls would spend several years studying only then to be disappointed once they start their chosen career.
The video is awful, though and, as you say, there was no real science in it.
Immie & Freya: “Note how many mentioned maths – it’s this that really keeps girls out of engineering and physics. We need degrees with slightly different content to accommodate this.” Errrrr, no. Maths underpins science and engineering – you can’t do away with it in order to give people some watered-down useless degree.
These girls you are hearing from are probably buying into the stereotype “girls hate/are bad at maths”, possibly because they have been indoctrinated by the same popular culture that tell them they would be “nerds” if they like science and maths, which then becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy. I would far rather that we smashed the stereotype that girls should be giggly-pinky-killer-heel-wearing sex bombs, rather than the one that says science is hard. Science *is* hard. It is also interesting, engrossing, rewarding and utterly captivating.
We only have to look around us to see that it’s rare that girls excel at maths. There are some and these shine exceptionally brightly, but not nearly enough. We recently heard a female maths prof at Sydney Uni speak and boy, did she wow us! Education internationally has tried all sorts of tactics to improve girls ability at maths – we struggle with it ourselves after initially excelling. If science and engineering are to attract more creative minds, male or female, those are often – not always – found outside the ranks of the maths genius. With science and engineering offering such a wide ranges of jobs, surely there’s scope for degrees that are more ‘management or communication’ postions. We know many engineers who say they never use more than basic engineering maths now as the calculations are done with software. We recently spoke with someone very senior and respected at an Engineering dept of a university, and he said that Engineering needs two things (1) more sociably able, lateral & creative thinkers and less ‘maths nerds’ and (2) more women! It sounds to us that by tweaking the course, both could be attained.
I appreciate what you are saying and don’t doubt your personal experience, Immie and Freya, but I can’t relate to it at all. I think (having grown up in an Asian country where there is pretty much 50-50% parity of the genders in science/engineering subjects), that this “women are rare in maths” trope is completely cultural. I am sure if you google the “Larry Summers” debacle from a few years ago that you can find plenty of research to support my argument. And I am sorry but I don’t want to walk on a bridge built by these engineers who rely on software and can only do “basic maths”. I am sure there is scope for people to go into communications or management positions, but I prefer to have people in these positions who actually understand what it is they are communicating and managing at a non-superficial level. There are too many managers these days anyway, and not enough people who can actually do the doing, and create things.
I think Hiranya has a point re: modifying courses.
The Larry Summers debacle was really about the progression of women once they are already in a career. We know that the leaky pipeline exists and that is largely due to physiological differences and societal pressures/expectations. So there is a cultural element.
‘Hard’ science and academia in general are not always compatible with raising a family or being in a partnership. It is often women with children who end up going into management/policy/communication roles because it is more flexible. Progression within a science-based career or academia, at least at a good rate, usually depends on mobility (working location, attending conferences etc.) and the ability to put in long hours, either in the workplace or at home. When combining school runs, breastfeeding, pregnancy, being woken multiple times per night, child care and the running of a home, that can be a significant challenge.
But, coming back on topic, I don’t think those pressures are what excludes girls from careers in science in the first place.
The point is the video could have been “selling” anything else than science, and the survey result would have shown probably been the same! Try imagine the same advert with “Law”, “Finance”, whatever, don’t you think that the girls would have to also been attracted by the looks, music, clothes and coolness and all those science-irrelevant things that the video is using to attract girls?
This is quite interesting. Can I just ask though, was there any associated discussion with watching the video or writing the comments? There seems to be a product manufacture and testing theme which the video didn’t use (although it perhaps could have done to great effect).
I wondered this too. Reena: can you explain how much discussion there was around the video between the girls and adults (I got the impression their parents were there too).
Hi to all,
Role models can make the change.. I realized that, let me explain..
I’m working in IT 30 years now. Last few years I was unable to find a job. The last company I worked for is not in business, bankrupted. When I see a problem I always try to find solution for it. So I began to look around that what can I do for this company with the vision of IT.. I found out a document about Cloud Computing while searching internet. After reading many documents and understanding what is it, I saw it is a solution. But in Turkey we did not have any knowledge about it and there were no such a services at that time. So I began lightning with CloudCamp and with the webtv program I prepared http://bit.ly/RollOutCloud.
Then, I delivered a selective course named, cloud101-an introduction to cloud computing at one of our university.
At first day of the class I introduce myself and the next one I asked from students to introduce themselves. They did. One girl said; “I’m attending your class with my nice. I have nothing to do with IT. I’m cooking and photographing what I cooked and she does programming for our website, we are publishing my photos over there”.. and she was studying IT major. I manage to show them how to build Eucalyptus cloud at lab. She attended almost all of my classes, labs too. After the labs I told to class, whoever prepares a presentation about what we did in the labs would get extra points. Only two of my students did that. and one of it was that girl. And I saw that she did some search and prepared very nice presentation to show that she learned about Cloud Computing. I was very happy to see that, and still proud of it.
We recently made a film designed to encourage women into engineering – and we didn’t use any pink! It would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts, comparisions, etc…
You would never convince a group of young girls to watch the whole video and you certainly wouldn’t get them excited in the same way, I don’t think. It’s a great video for an older audience or a “younger, but more mature audience” that is already interested in science. Telling people there is SUPPORT for good women engineers is not the same target or goal as getting young people excited about BEING interested in science. This is great to keep women in the pipeline but not to attract school girls. Just my thoughts. (Not fast enough, flashy enough or with the right generation of music.
)
We agree with comment of Alby – it just doesn’t appeal to our age group. Got to be flashy and get info across in short amount of time.
Pingback: Wissenschaft – ein Traum in Pink?
I cannot believe this isn’t a parody.
The outfits? Very unlikely to be appropriate workplace attire in any scientific or engineering workplace, unless the women are in were in sales and not required to wear steel-capped shoes, lab coats and other personal protective equipment. Walking around and posing in sexy outfits and heels and sunnies is NOT working in science.
The leering looks from both the man and the women? A sexual harrassment lawsuit waiting to happen. It suggests that it’s OK for men to judge their female colleagues based on their physical appearance, and that it’s OK for women to encourange this behaviour. It’s demeaning to the rest of us women who are not physically attractive, do not wear heels, and have been fighting for years to be judged for the work we actually do.
If this ad is truly aimed at pre-teen and teenage girls, then it’s just as guily of sexualising a younger generation as a provocative ad for a clothing line. Sure, it might get attention, but at what cost? Do we really want to tell young women that the only way they can get ahead in science is to be sexy? Really? This is not only incredibly sad, it’s incredibly disturbing.
I agree with you 100%.
So many comments about ‘workplace appropriate clothing’..it’s just a clip to promote interest, they’re not advocating that anyone would dress like that in a lab. Seriously…too much concrete thinking going on here. OK, so the video wasn’t in the best taste, but science is all about experimentation and analysis of results…so let’s hope their next effort will be closer to the mark.
“too much concrete thinking going on here”? The work this blog post is based on is calling itself “scientific analysis”, the most concrete of concrete thinking there is. It was conducted and reported by a woman who claims a host of expertise (with credentials listed, published works, etc.) related to her thesis. A thesis which by many equally expert opinions is way off the mark. This isn’t a discussion on someone’s couch at a party.
I don’t understand how a girl being girly is sexist? Should all ads be metro sexual to avoid pigeonholing girls as being girls? I know some girls are not into makeup and the like, but similarly all boys are not into sports and monster trucks. That does not mean that the differences aren’t still there. For as long as we have 2 genders, boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Targeting girls by showing girly things seems appropriate to me. I mean, what’s wrong with girls acting like girls? Should they have tried to target the LBGT community? Should they have shown girls on bikes and climbing out of big rigs, playing with frogs and hot wheels? Should they have them wearing camouflage and spitting while throwing a football to each other? Showing girls being girly is not so much a stereotype, it just shows that there are two genders, boys and girls, and most girls, to my knowledge, act like girls. How are girls offended by an ad showing that girls like makeup and the color pink? Last I remember, they do.
Reena: thanks for this. It’s interesting work and despite the criticism above it is the only serious attempt to study the reaction of girls to this video so far. It’s a small study and the conclusions that can be drawn are limited, but it does make for interesting reading.
I don’t doubt that some of the response was positive. However, what concerns me are remarks like “It looked like they had fun doing the science”. The problem is that the video features neither female scientists or science. To sell science to young women using a video like this is disingenuous; it infers that science is all make-up and giggling and flirting with rudiculously handsome men with microscopes (has anyone got anyone THAT good-looking in their lab? no, thought not).
Here at ScienceGrrl we thought it was a missed opportunity to highlight the diversity of women active within STEM, and simply replaced one stereotype (science is male, beardy, anti-social, serious and old) with another (science is female, overtly sexual in heavy make-up, short skirts and heels, fun-loving and fashion-forward). Here at ScienceGrrl, we think using imagery of real role models doing science and having a great time in the process is not only more realistic but actually more exciting and attractive than some pretty illusion that looks like a cosmetics advert. Hence why our 2013 calendar shows a wide variety of women doing a range of science in partnership with their male colleagues – we want to show that science is for everyone.
Just what kind of ‘science’ were you all wanting them to do in their limited time for the ad? Not much true science you can do in a few seconds. And what extra point would it have made if there was a real equation and someone shattering a cold balloon or something? It was geared toward girls so they put pink and make up in it, two things they have nothing to do with boys. I think everything is being way overblown. It’s a short ad with limited time to try to make a point. I seriously doubt anyone on here would have done any better. I’ve noticed in the comments that nobody has offered up their own idea of what would make a good ad. It’s easy to critize, much harder to actually do the work. If it wasn’t ‘girly’, it would be missing it’s mark on what it’s trying to accomplish.
Want to see a science “campaign” that connects with young people, girls included?
NASA Johnson Style! (Gangnam parody.)
Compare and contrast the different portrayal of girls in science between this and the original teaser clip. NASA… doing it right.