Perceptions of scientists

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From the results in Table 7 I assume that learners who agree that science and technology can solve nearly all problems in the world often also seem to agree with other statements related to unconditional trust towards science and technology.

5.2.3 Perceptions of scientists

During the interviews learners often said scientists when talking about science and science when talking about scientists. This indicates in my opinion that these two factors could be highly related. The items in the ROSE questionnaire involving scientists did not for example have a section of its own. Instead the items were divided between section F ‘My science classroom’ and G ‘My opinion about science and technology’. In this chapter I will look at the instances when scientists came up in the discussion during the interviews and select items from section F and G involving scientists for further analysis.

During the interviews the definition of the term scientist did not seem to encourage the willingness to engage in science related issues. The term seemed to have an unattractive meaning in the minds of most learners interviewed. When learners were asked if they knew a scientist personally they did not think so at first. Soon the ‘smart one’, Ari, realized what I was aiming at and told us his sister was a doctor. Then one of the girls, Ósk, asked the golden question: ‘Are doctors’ scientists?’ And straight afterwards Jón also put a question mark as to whether engineers were scientists? This repeatedly happened during the interviews, and although learners could well accept that doctors could be called scientists it was not considered to be the appropriate thing to call a doctor.

Kristján: Do you know any scientists personally?

Maja: Personally? How so?

Kristján: Is there anyone in your near family or your next door neighbor?

Maja: No... (hesitating) Kristján: Any of you?

Ari: My sister is a doctor Maja: Is that science?

Kristján: That is a good question?

Jón: An engineer ehhh? (Jón did not perceive engineers as scientists).

Kristján: Are they scientists engineers, doctors?

Ósk: I know at least two then!

When asked to define what image of a scientist they had the description the learners gave was quite clear. The scientist was male, in a white coat, middle-aged, strange looking, and all knowing, distracted and a bit geeky. This result is in agreement with the findings of McDuffie (2001) reviewed in Chapter 2.3 which reveal that the

teacher’s stereotypes are the same as their learners on most significant characteristics.

Kristján: Anything else you can say that defines scientists in appearance and behavior?

Yes, ok, Kolla is drawing a man with glasses and strange and curly hair.

Kolla: Ok (finished drawing the picture) Íris: A bit, you know, geeky

Kristján: But how do they behave are they social?

Íris: The calm type, not very social

Kolla: Yes, I think they are social, I just think their a bit different.

Árni: Within a group of nerds Íris: Yes within a group of nerds

The majority of the learners in the interviews wanted to engage in the medical

profession after their studies. Not surprisingly the learners had a hard time associating the geeky image of the scientist with the image they had of doctors. When asked what was fascinating about the medical profession the issue of helping others frequently came up. It seemed as if the medical profession was seen as a meaningful line of work that was socially acceptable to express a willingness to engage in.

In a follow-up question I asked one group to explain to me the difference in the help we get from doctors and from scientists. The group said that we receive direct help from the doctors but indirect help from the scientist. In the same group it was pointed out that scientists worked at making things more related to increasing comfort and an easier life but not always necessary. The importance of public recognition seemed to be of great importance and fits well with the definition of attainment value discussed in the previous chapters.

Kristján: What is the difference in that between doctors and scientists?

Results

Kristján: Indirect help from the scientists?

Ósk: That is more a sort of comfort

Ari: That is maybe something that you do not necessarily need

Maja: You might not know who made the technology but you know who the doctor was

There were five items that were specifically aimed at learner perceptions of scientists in the ROSE questionnaire, two in section F and three in section G. I have chosen to look at them in relation to each other in a separate table of means (see Table 8).

Table 8 Means in descending order of agreement with statements about scientists from section F and G of the ROSE questionnaire.

Perception of scientists Mean

(1-4)

Std.

Dev.

G13. Scientists follow the scientific method that always leads them to correct answers 2,27 0,95 F16. I would like to get a job in technology 2,16 1,10 G15. Scientists are neutral and objective 2,05 0,91 F14. I would like to become a scientist 1,80 1,04 G14. We should always trust what scientists have to say 1,67 0,81

All of the means were lower than the 4 point scale midpoint of 2.5 indicating general disagreement with the statements. The response to the three items (G13, G15 and G14) that directly relates to learner perceptions of scientists shows that Icelandic learners do not have unconditional trust towards scientists (see Table 8). As can be seen in the chapter about learner perceptions of science and technology the majority of learners in Iceland realizes the importance of science and technology for society.

Furthermore, they have high beliefs towards science and technology. But that does not mean that learners trust science and technology unconditionally or in this case

scientists. Of all the 58 ROSE items in sections B F and G of the ROSE questionnaire item G14 ‘We should always trust what scientists have to say’ had the lowest mean of all or 1.67; the distribution can be seen in more detail in Figure 12.

agree lo agree

lo disagree disagree

G14. We should always trust what scientists have to say 60,0%

Figure 12 Percentage of boys and girls disagreeing-agreeing to the given item. Learners disagree that they should always trust what scientists have to say.

I interpret this as positive as it adds on to the general wish that learners should be able to critically reflect on what scientists have to say. Previously I mentioned that the interviews indicated that learner perceptions of science and technology and scientists was related in some way. When comparing Figure 12 with Figure 11 on page 58 it can be seen that learners disagree to a greater extent with item G14 (involving trusting scientists) than G8 (involving trusting science). After analyzing the interviews I suspect that this difference is caused by the more narrow definition that the term scientist has in the minds of learners. To put it in simple terms, the scientist is more related to an uninspiring technological dimension of science while the definition of science and technology seems fuzzier and can be related to a wider field of interest.

The second lowest mean of all the items under consideration in this research was found in item F14 ‘I would like to become a scientist’ with a mean of 1.80. The distribution of the answers can be seen in Figure 13. The trend was similar between the boys and girls although more girls tended to disagree more strongly.

agree lo agree

lo disagree disagree

F14. I would like to become a scientist 60,0%

Figure 13 Percentage of boys and girls disagreeing-agreeing the given item. Learners

Results

Item F14 ‘I would like to become a scientist’ correlated to a number of items but the strongest positive correlation was to F15 ‘I would like to have as much science as possible at school’ with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.6. Correlations like these are always hard to interpret as is explained in Chapter 4.3.1. If I assume that learners generally believe that those who engage actively in science are going to become scientists this could have a negative effect for learner willingness to engage in science related issues. I choose to interpret these results as an argument for the need for parents, peers and teachers to show caution in their interaction with learners that choose to engage in science. The lack of such caution can in my opinion lead to some learners being labeled as geeks for engaging in science.