The textbooks are wrong—or at the very least they are biased. Though science is supposed to be objective it is still influenced by cultural norms: just look at the way it is taught.
A recent report by UNESCO found that despite attempts across the world to provide more gender balance in school textbooks, women were under-represented or absent even in high-income countries such as Australia. The depictions also relied on traditional gender stereotypes such as men as doctors and women as nurses.
Another analysis of secondary school textbooks from Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Bangladesh found in 2018 that while representation of women was around 32 per cent, they were still shown to be subservient, with women presented in domestic roles four times more than their male counterparts. In Pakistani textbooks, no man was presented in a domestic role. In these countries, patriarchal customs and social norms continue to affect gender roles, and women remain poorly represented in economic as well as political spheres. Women are also depicted in more passive roles, while men appear active and dynamic. Men are given more than twice as many extroversion characteristics such as “responsible,” “sensible,” “visionary,” “legendary,” while for women the most common characteristics included: “messy,” “depressed,” “kind,” “compassionate.” The observed regional difference in these textbooks is consistent with the economic status of women in these countries. A study with Chinese textbooks in 2002 had shown all scientists as men. Recently, East China University Press offered two versions of a mathematics textbook for boys and girls, using different colours. Boys were seen to be playing games, while girls were buying fruits and vegetables in the market.
In the UK, a survey of key stage 3 science textbooks shows that these books continue to reinforce a masculine domination, with very few women role models are shown (only Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie) and no contemporary women scientists. The textbooks show an overall male bias of 92 per cent. Images of men account for more than twice the number of images of women in the lab. Male-gendered words were used five times more than female-gendered words, and the percentage ratio for male and female images in both physics and chemistry textbooks is around 64 per cent and 63 per cent respectively. Strikingly, in physics, which has traditionally the lowest uptake by women at A-level from the three sciences, only 14 per cent of the gendered words used were feminine.
The bias is not only about gender. A 2021 analysis of representation of diverse skin tones in photographs from the fifth edition of Total Burn Care, which is commonly used for training, found that only 14 per cent of the 2,500 images in the book showed people with darker skin colour. Only one person out of these was a female care provider. Another analysis in 2020 from four prominent dermatology textbooks using a Fitzpatrick skin test also shows an underrepresentation of darker skin colours across different burn types compared to national averages.
This isn’t just about equal representation—it is a healthcare issue. Doctors need to be trained to recognise dermatological disorders in patients of colour. As a 2020 study shows, medical students are better able to identify dermatologic diseases in lighter skinned patients (for example, 50 per cent likely, as opposed to 15 per cent for darker skinned patients, to recognise squamous cell carcinoma).
Reproductive and anatomical descriptions in biology and medicine textbooks are wrought with gendered descriptions. Men are treated as the norm in most anatomy and biology textbooks, with women’s sexuality either not represented at all or reduced to stereotypes. Researchers from medical school at University of Wollongong found that in over 600 images from 17 major anatomy textbooks women’s bodies—when they appeared at all—were shown as white, thin and toned. This establishes bodies that do not fit this norm as abnormal, and gives inadequate information about caring for them.
The language used in scientific discourse not only reflects gender imbalances but perpetuates them. When language is rooted in male pronouns or masculine generics, it can result in a man being considered as an exemplar of a category. Gender stereotypes affect not only how women are perceived in professional domains, but also their performance, due to stereotype threat—when the fear of conforming to negative stereotypes about their social group harms a person’s ability to focus on their work. Research suggests that gendered language is associated with gender inequality (although causal effects can be difficult to prove empirically as languages are embedded in cultures). Studies have shown that countries where gendered languages are spoken tend to have more sexist attitudes, greater gender division of household labour and less equal education. Use of gender-neutral pronouns, meanwhile, generates more positive attitudes toward women. The data from 2015 and 2018 in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that average gender gap in mathematics achievements in countries whose languages are gendered is 6.15, whereas the average gender gap in mathematics achievements in countries whose languages are genderless or gender neutral is only 1.90. When women were addressed in the masculine, the time and effort they spent on a mathematics test decreased and there was a stronger sense that “maths and science are for men.”
Bias is deeply pervasive and ingrained. But if we can tackle these imbalances in language and terminology, and reduce asymmetry in language by using gender-unmarked forms such as police officer (as opposed to policeman), it can mobilise change at a broader societal level, reducing stereotyping and discrimination. We can break the perception-self cycle, where our view of our own selves is shaped by how others see us, and reduce the stereotype threat that in turn reinforces societal and systemic inequalities.
