This document summarizes a presentation given by Dr. Rachel Morgain on International Women's Day about gender equity in astronomy. It discusses research showing implicit biases that associate science with masculinity. It also analyzes the naming of exoplanets, finding most were named for male mythical or historical figures from European traditions. Two exceptions are planets in the Thai Crocodile constellation named for sisters in a folktale. The single female historical figure honored was Hypatia, an influential astronomer and philosopher murdered in 415 AD. The document concludes by summarizing research on gender depictions of scientist characters in the long-running TV series Doctor Who.

1. 1
Starry Tales of Women, Men
and Crocodiles
Celebrating International Women’s Day
with stories from the stars
HelixNebulaImagecredit:NASA
Dr Rachel Morgain, Science in Australia Gender Equity Project
Presented at the Australian Academy of Science in celebration of International Women’s Day, March 8th
2016
As many of you know, astronomy has been in the news quite a bit in recent months, and not for
good reasons, but for the terrible revelations of harassment coming out of the US.
Today, in celebration of International Women’s Day, I’m going to be taking what I hope is a more
light-hearted, but no less serious, look at gender equity in astronomy, by looking at the starry tales
we tell, and in particular our stories of gender in the stars.
This is based on several pieces of research I have been involved in around telling gendered stories in
science.
The first part of this talk is drawn from research I am developing for a collection of essays on
“Gender, Science and Wonder” called “Gendering the Cosmos: The Poetics and Pragmatics of
Astronomy.”
But I am going to finish with some light-hearted tales from Doctor Who, based on some research I
have done with my co-author, Dr Lindy Orthia (Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness
of Science, Australian National University), called “The Gendered Culture of Scientific Competence”
which has just come out last week in the journal Sex Roles.
But first of all, to set the scene…

2. 2
Gender ratios in Natural and Physical Sciences (2011 data)
Bell and Yates (2015) Women in the Science Research Workforce
Men
Women
Many of you here will be familiar with this graph, the scissors graph. This one is drawn from the
recent report of Sharon Bell and Lyn Yates (2015: 13), showing gender disparity at different levels of
scientific advancement in Australia in 2011, although data drawn from any one of the last 20 years
shows a very similar picture. [Note, axis labels have been corrected from the original report].
It shows that, while undergraduate and postgraduate students now outnumber men in the physical
and mathematical sciences, we see what is called the ‘post-doctoral tipping-point’, where men
outnumber women, growing to a substantial gap at the highest levels. And this of course represents
as well a huge loss of scientific potential.
As you can imagine, this is the bread and butter of our work in SAGE, and we identify from the
research a whole raft of interlinked factors that give rise to this situation. So we look at everything
from institutional factors around support for family formation and how institutions deal with career
breaks, to questions of unconscious bias that has been shown to pervade recruitment and
promotion decision-making.
But I want to take a somewhat different approach today, to look instead at those more elusive issues
of culture, and the ideas and patterns that pervade our unconscious understandings and
expectations of science. And in particular, those pervasive cultural stereotypes that implicitly
associate science with maleness, and scientists with masculinity.
In particular, in my own research, I’ve been interested in looking at more culturally contextual ways
of understanding implicit stereotyping, in the stories that are told about science and within science
that perpetuate these associations.

3. 3
Harvard Implicit Association Test –
Male with Science / Female with Liberal Arts
Implicit association tests
There is a wealth of research demonstrating that there are strong cultural associations between
maleness and science that affect how many people think at an unconscious level.
Implicit association tests are designed to provide a measure of how much our unconscious minds
tend to stereotypically associate one thing with another, such as science with maleness.
This graph shows the distribution of results from hundreds of thousands of web respondents over six
years on the Harvard Implicit Association Test – showing the very high proportion of respondents
(almost three quarters) who implicitly associate maleness with science and femaleness with liberal
arts, shown in purple.
This is a very common finding across many such measures. And while 18 % of respondents were
neutral, only 10% were more likely to associate science with femaleness.
For young female science students, this can create a strong sense of dissonance with their majors,
affecting both their performance and their choice to pursue careers.

4. 4
Cheryan, Sapna. “Understanding the Paradox in Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender
Gaps Remain While Others Do Not?” Sex Roles 66, no. 3–4 (October 7, 2011): 184–90.
“Current stereotypes about the people and the
work involved in math-related careers may be
barriers to effective recruitment of women.”
Sapna Cheryan, looking at the fact that women in the US now outperform their male counterparts in
maths studies but still don’t pursue maths-related careers, notes that:
“Current stereotypes about the people and the work involved in math-related careers may be
barriers to effective recruitment of women.” (Cheryan 2011: 185)
So stereotypes make a big difference to the kinds of careers people are willing to choose. In fact, the
implicit association folks have found, implicit stereotypes linking male and science are more
predictive of a student’s major (STEM or non-STEM) than even than scholastic aptitude measured in
terms of math performance (Smyth et al. 2009).
Other pieces of research have examined the interactions of girls and young women with
stereotypical and non-stereotypical situations and role models, with a view to understanding how
this impacts their identification with science and career aspirations.
One group of researchers found that when women are exposed to stereotypical computer science
set ups that imply particularly masculine forms of ‘geeky scientist’ and reinforce stereotyped ideas
about scientists being isolated, socially awkward, and technology obsessed (posters of Star Wars,
Video games, scientists who wear t-shirts saying “I code therefore I am”), they found a consistent
pattern of discouraging girls from computer science (Cheryan et al 2009; Cheryan et al 2012).
Young, Danielle M., Laurie A. Rudman, Helen M. Buettner, and Meghan C. McLean. “The
Influence of Female Role Models on Women’s Implicit Science Cognitions.” Psychology of
Women Quarterly 37, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 283–92.
“For women, viewing a female professor as a role
model was linked to increased implicit sense of
science identity and decreased implicit science
stereotyping.”

5. 5
But this is something that can be changed, and the reverse is also true. For example, research by
Young et al. on women students with female professors found that:
“For women, viewing a female professor as a role model [i.e. both seeing her as effective and
identifying with her personally] was linked to increased implicit sense of science identity and
decreased implicit science stereotyping.” (Young et al. 2013: 289)
In fact, women students in this study who strongly identified with a female professor were generally
fit into that rare category of people, that 10 per cent, who implicitly associate science with
femaleness rather than with maleness.
There has been a wealth of research of this kind on role modelling, showing that having women as
role models, particularly if girls and young women can relate to them and see them as realistic role
models for themselves, can have a substantial effect both on these women’s identification of with
science and on their aspirations for a career in STEMM.
In my research, I’m interested in taking a slightly different angle on these kinds of questions, looking
not so much at living role models, but at the scientific stories themselves, and the ways in which they
do or don’t give women the sense that they belong in science.
International Astronomical Union – naming of ExoWorlds
One of the things I have been looking at is the recent
exercise, run last year by the International Astronomical
Union, on naming of ExoWorlds. In the last several
decades, astronomers have identified over 1000 planets
outside of our solar system.
The IAU decided that it was time to give names to 20 of
these planetary systems and their associated stars
(where these were not already named).
This was run as an internet poll, where any club or non-
profit organisation from around the world with access to
the internet and reasonable command of English could
put forward a naming proposal, based on a few simple
guidelines, for one of these planets or planetary
systems.
Members of the public were then able to vote for their
favourite names for each of the systems.
Ostensibly, this system is democratic, although of course
it privileges those in wealthy countries with English-
speaking traditions and a strong level of internet access.
So there were large voting blocks from India, the US and Europe, but not so much from East Asia,
South America, the Middle East or Africa, and this as we can see is reflected in many of the names.
But the results also reflect the cultural legacies and unconscious biases that inform collective
decision-making on a massive scale. And we see this strongly reflected in the patterns we see.

6. 6
Exoworlds genders
0
5
10
15
20
25
M F N
p=0.007
In my preliminary analysis, I’ve gone through the confirmed names, and where these are historical or
mythical figures with readily identifiable genders, I have assigned these a gender. This graph shows
the gender distribution, male (blue) female (red). The neutral category is for things like place names.
As you can see, there is a huge disparity between genders in the final attribution, and the p-value for
a chi-squared test assuming an expected division of 50:50 confirms this as highly significant.
Exoworlds by cultural region
European
Euro-American
Asian
Semitic
American
And here is the distribution of these ExoWorlds by the cultural region from where these names were
drawn. Here, we can see the dominance of European cultural traditions over all others, with almost
three-quarters coming from European and Euro-American contexts (many of them Latin and Greek).
In fact, many people nominating from non-Western countries, such as Japan, nominated names from
European traditions, particularly Latin and Greek. And I would suggest that this is both because of
the associations widely made between science and European history, and the legacy of the fact that
many of the star systems and stars associated with these new worlds have Latin or Greek names.

7. 7
Exoworlds mythical and historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Mythical Historical
M
F
N
p=0.04p=n.s.
One of the things that is very interesting in the ExoWorld naming exercise is the notable difference
between the mythical and historical naming of stars and planets.
Many of the female names were in fact drawn from mythical stories, particularly those from non-
Western contexts.
And so when we separate these out, we find only a slight, non-significant bias towards male
characters in these mythical stories. This is especially true of the mythical figures drawn from non-
Western traditions.
By comparison, only one of the 12 historical figures among the ExoWorlds was female.
But it’s not just about the demographics in the sky. As on Earth, the actual stories matter as well.
Just as the work of some early feminist historians of science (and other fields!) has been to draw out
the stories of women from amidst the seemingly overwhelming dominance of men, and just as
telling stories of women and gender minorities is central to understanding the story of science as a
whole today, it is useful to uncover some of the stories behind these numbers.

8. 8
Chalawan, Taphao Thong and Taphao Kaew
So now we turn finally to the promised crocodiles. The first story I want to draw out is the story of
Chalawan, Taphao Thong and Taphao Kaew.
This is a story from Thai tradition, in which Lord Chalawan is a mythical crocodile king from Thai
folktale, who kidnaps one of two sisters Taphao Thong, and is witnessed by her younger sister
Taphao Kaew. Lord Chalawan keeps her among his wives, until she is rescued by a male hero (Krai
Thong), who marries the two sisters.
The Thai Astronomical Society put forward this nomination, explaining that the constellation in
question – described on the IAU website by the Latin designation Ursa Major – is known as the
Crocodile stars in Thai.
So on the one hand, here are two of these ExoWorlds named for female figures in folklore. Notably,
the nominators chose not to put forward the name of the male hero for one of these two planets.
On the other hand, what we can see here is a pattern repeated among a number of these successful
nominations in these star systems, whereby the central figure, the star, is given the name of a male
figure, while a female name or names are attributed to the associated planet(s). It is perhaps
understandable why this was the case in this situation, but it is notable that a similar pattern is also
repeated across many of the nominations.
I certainly admit that I don’t know the complexities of how this story is told or understood in Thai
tradition, but in the rendition of this story given as part of the nomination, the two sisters are
described in a passive role rather than standing as active central figures in their own right.

9. 9
Hypatia
The second is the story I want to tell is of the single female historical figure represented among these
ExoWorlds. The nomination of Hypatia was put forward by the Hypatia Student Society in the Physics
Faculty of the Complutense University of Madrid, which describes its aims of promoting cultural,
political and scientific education with the aim of “reducing the scientific illiteracy of the capital and
fighting for human rights from a scientific perspective.” (Hypatia 2015)
Hypatia herself was a famous Greek astronomer, mathematician, and philosopher, and was head of
the Neo-Platonic school at Alexandria in the early 5th century. She taught Pagans and Christians
alike, and was a respected scholar who drew students to her school from many places in the years
she taught. Embroiled in a period of political turmoil in the city, and central to a movement
supporting a more moderate political and Christian leadership for the city, she was brutally
murdered and dragged through the streets by a Christian mob in the year 415. Whether she was
targeted primarily for her Pagan religion and her political involvement, or also for her gender, is
unclear. Many Christian scholars later condemned the murder of this moderate and religiously
tolerant scholar (Watts 2006: 186-203). But the language of the Bishop of Nikiu, writing three
centuries later, suggests it could be read that way:
And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named
Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and
she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city honored
her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending
church as had been his custom. But he went once under circumstances of danger. And he not
only did this, but he drew many believers to her, and he himself received the unbelievers at
his house (John, Bishop of Nikiu, Chronicle 84.87-103).
So the story is a sad one. But it is also a heroic one, a story of a capable, influential scholar who was
also an active political leader. Just as the presence of relatable, scientific women in universities can
act as role models for aspiring scientists, I would suggest that such stories told in the stars could do
the same.

10. 10
Doctor Who
I now want to turn to some other kinds of stories that well tell – the stories that our culture tells
about science and about scientists.
And this material is drawn from research I co-authored with Dr Lindy Orthia from the Centre for the
Public Awareness of Science, on science stereotypes in the science-fiction series Doctor Who.
This has just come out in the journal Sex Roles, and looks at the way incidental scientist characters –
those who appear in only one story-line – are depicted over the first fifty years of the show.
As far as popular fiction goes, Doctor Who offers quite a good litmus test for understanding cultural
ideas about science. It has screened since the 1960s, with only a hiatus in the 1990s. And it has had
many, many authors, directors, script editors, producers and show runners over that time,
highlighting a diversity of perspectives that offer us a kind of cultural read on popular ideas – and
unconscious stereotypes – around science.
And of course it is focused on science, so it has consistently featured numerous scientist characters
throughout its duration.
We performed both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of these scientist characters, comparing
across genders on measures of scientific competence – things like whether they were shown doing
science on screen, or were accorded a scientific title like “Doctor” or “Professor” rather than “Miss”
or “Mister”, or whether they were attributed a specialist field like physicist or medical doctor.
What we found in the quantitative analysis surprised us, in that other than their sheer numbers –
there were many more male than female scientists over all the decades up until the most recent one
– there were actually very few measurable differences in the depiction of men and women scientists
over the course of the show.
This is in contrast to arguments made about science stereotyping in other literature, and we
attribute this in large part to the ideological commitment of many of the shows writers, producers,
directors and so on, to consciously depicting women as effective scientists.
But in working through this quantitative analysis, this also highlighted an intriguing trend – a
tendency to depict some very woefully incompetent scientists through troubling gender stereotypes.
These were not scientists who were mad or bad, not ones misguided by hubris or the thirst for
power. These were scientists whose science was just simply hopeless.
Taking an example from the story The Dominators (1969), showing scientists from the planet Dulkis -
The back story is that this planet was once ravaged by nuclear war and periodically sends a team of
scientists to the irradiated badlands to monitor the effects and levels of radiation. When our story
begins, unbeknownst to these Dulcian scientists, a couple of radiation miners have come from
another planet and sucked up all the radiation in this area. So when the scientists investigate, they
find none.

11. 11
Here is an exchange from that investigating team:
Student Teel: It doesn’t seem logical somehow, sir. We all know that there’s been a steady
uniform decrease in radiation during the past 172 years. Now suddenly it’s all disappeared.
Educator Balan: Well it has happened. Therefore it is a fact. We now know that the effects
of an atomic explosion last for 172 years.
Student Teel: But why sir?
Educator Balan: Oh, I daresay our atomic experts could provide a reason. But it seems
pointless to spend time searching for reasons to prove facts. A fact is a truth!
I think you can see from this how hopeless their science is meant to be. This lack of scientific
credibility is a consistent theme throughout the story, despite their kind natures and peaceful
society. The Dulcians, though mixed in gender composition and led by men, have a strange gendered
appearance. The men wear pleated dresses, have soft features and gentle mannerisms.
They are counterposed to the Dominators, whose masculine features are so exaggerated as to be
ridiculous – big shoulders, heavyset brows, dark hair, square jaws, rugged features. The Dominators
are evil, but they are also scientifically competent, something which seems to be implicitly associated
with rugged masculinity.
And in fact this is a theme we see developed across multiple stories. This is another example from
the same era, in the climate change dystopia of The Ice Warriors (1967). The incompetent scientist
Clent has soft features, is balding, paunchy and fair, and walks with a walking stick. His scientific
prowess is sharply counterposed to that of the the effective scientist Penley, who is also bearded
with dark hair and rugged features.
So what we started to find is this repeated pattern whereby scientific incompetence was being
marked with less masculine or more effeminised features and mannerisms in male scientists.
And lest you think this is confined to the 1960s, another failed scientist from the recent series,
Hobbes, whose dogmatic insistence that the planet Midnight is uninhabited nearly gets them all
killed, shows a marked lack of scientific discernment that is also associated with his unmasculine
cowardice, when another male character asks him “What sort of a man are you?”
I’ve focused here on incompetent male scientists. The incompetent women (along with many of
these men) tell another, more complex kind of story, about the implicit associations of failed science
with matriarchal dominance and social traits such as pacifism that are culturally coded as feminism.
And so what this reveals, we suggest, is a still widespread cultural association of failed science, of
failed efficacy, with a lack of masculinity.
And perhaps because of the overt commitment among many of Doctor Who’s creators to depicting
gender equity in science, and these consistent attempts to present positive and effective female
scientist role models throughout the show, this has perhaps led to these examples of scientific
incompetence being consistently displaced onto these kinds of effeminised male characters, and
onto effeminised social regimes.

12. 12
And in the absence of this kind of ideological commitment, femininity in women seems to be also
judged to be a marker of lack of scientific credibility. Another recent piece of research called “But
you don’t look like a scientist!” (Banchefsky et al. 2016) shows that when people were shown photos
of scientist women and men chosen at random, women who were viewed as more feminine were
also judged as less likely to be scientists.
This I think really complements the work we have done, highlighting the enduring pervasiveness of
these cultural stereotypes that continue to link effective science to masculinity, and to traits
culturally coded as masculine, such as competitiveness and rugged individualism.
And this has powerful implications, we would suggest, not only for women in STEMM careers, but for
gender minorities and for men who don’t easily fit into normative masculine stereotypes.
Conclusion
The point I want to make here is that, when we are looking at gender equity in science, it is
important to look beyond just the institutional and structural factors – the lack of support around
career breaks or flexible work practices, the presence of women on panels or leadership bodies.
These things are certainly important, and there is a lot of work to be done, undoubtedly, around
these issues.
But we also need to turn our attention to the cultural issues, and those more unconscious cultural
assumptions we carry about gender and science that continue to shape expectations and
experiences around who fits, and who doesn’t.
It matters what kind of stories we tell, both in science, and about science. Paying attention to these
stories, listening to what they reflect about our assumptions, and perhaps thinking about how we
could tell them differently, and to what different kinds of stories we could choose to tell, is going to
be important if we are to make a difference for the experiences of women in STEMM, and to
improve not only how we might achieve gender equity and inclusion, but how we could do better
science.

13. 13
References
Banchefsky, Sarah, Jacob Westfall, Bernadette Park, and Charles M. Judd. “But You Don’t Look Like A Scientist!:
Women Scientists with Feminine Appearance Are Deemed Less Likely to Be Scientists.” Sex Roles,
February 5, 2016, 1–15.
Bell, Sharon, and Lyn Yates. “Women in the Science Research Workforce: Identifying and Sustaining the
Diversity Advantage.” Melbourne: L.H. Martin Institute, University of Melbourne, September 2015.
Cheryan, Sapna. “Understanding the Paradox in Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender Gaps Remain
While Others Do Not?” Sex Roles 66, no. 3–4 (October 7, 2011): 184–90.
Cheryan, Sapna, Benjamin J. Drury, and Marissa Vichayapai. “Enduring Influence of Stereotypical Computer
Science Role Models on Women’s Academic Aspirations.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 37, no. 1
(March 1, 2013): 72–79.
Cheryan, Sapna, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, and Claude M. Steele. “Ambient Belonging: How
Stereotypical Cues Impact Gender Participation in Computer Science.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 97, no. 6 (2009): 1045–60.
Hypatia, ‘About us’, International Astronomical Union website. https://directory.iau.org/directory/849, 2015.
John, Bishop of Nikiu. “Chronicle” Text and Translation Society President: Professor F.C. Burkitt. Tertullian.org,
1916.
Orthia, Lindy A., and Rachel Morgain. “The Gendered Culture of Scientific Competence: A Study of Scientist
Characters in Doctor Who 1963–2013.” Sex Roles, March 2, 2016, 1–16.
Smyth, Frederick L., Anthony G. Greenwald, and Brian A. Nosek. “Implicit Gender-Science Stereotype
Outperforms Math Scholastic Aptitude in Identifying Science Majors.” Unpublished Manuscript, 2009.
Accessed March 8, 2016. http://www.projectimplicit.net/papers.html.
Watts, Edward Jay. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria. University of California Press, 2006.
Young, Danielle M., Laurie A. Rudman, Helen M. Buettner, and Meghan C. McLean. “The Influence of Female
Role Models on Women’s Implicit Science Cognitions.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 37, no. 3
(September 1, 2013): 283–92.