The lonely heroine: portrayal of women scientists in films

ABSTRACT

Popular films can influence the public’s image of women scientists and (re)shape social stereotypes. In this study, we examined how women scientists were portrayed in films in the context of fourth-wave feminism. Twelve characters of women scientists in eight films were analysed using sociological film interpretation across the following categories: occupation, socio-political theme, and time frame. The findings showed that most characters were portrayed as competent, diligent, and typically as experts in their fields. The most prevalent stereotype across the films was the lonely heroine. Overall, the findings suggest an improvement in the representation of women scientists in films and provide a set of implications about how women scientists’ portrayal in films may contribute to addressing gender science stereotypes. Beyond seeing women in scientific fields represented, it is important that their portrayal is positive, diverse, and intersectional and does not reinforce stereotypes of either dominant or overly feminine women.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender science stereotypes
• science and media
• Science Communication
• Gender
• feminism

Introduction

The underrepresentation of women in science and technology is a long-standing phenomenon portrayed in the literature from multiple fields, mainly because it is a common trend across advanced and developing economies (De Kleijn et al., 2020). Data from the U.S. shows that as of 2020, women make up 43,3% of physical scientists, 40,4% of chemists and material scientists, and 25,2% of computer and mathematical sciences employees in the U.S. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). In Latin American countries, like Brazil and Chile, the gender parity in STEM fields is far from being achieved since men are still the majority of researchers in these disciplines (Elsevier, 2017). Over the past five years, the number of women in positions in science has grown by 1,6%, with women making up 30% of all researchers in 2020 (UIS, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015, 2020). However, as data from Africa and Asia are still sparse (Elsevier, 2017), the global statistics may be even lower.

Research data from the EU shows that women are underrepresented as scientists and engineers in STEM fields but are overrepresented as professionals and technicians compared to men (European Commission, 2018). Although gender parity is improving in the EU, it is still happening slowly, as women continue to be underrepresented at one-third of EU researchers (De Kleijn et al., 2020).

Gender parity has proved to be a challenge in STEM fields, as they continue to have an unequal distribution (with men prevailing) compared to other fields of knowledge. The reason for this lies in multiple facets, like socio-cultural and economic issues (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988). On this point, Schiebinger (1999) argues that countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden have integrated increasing the number of women conducting research as part of their national science policies. However, even in these countries, there is still no clarity on how these policies are structured (Schiebinger, 1999).

Taken together, what these data may be indicating is that there is a lack of female role models in STEM fields, as well career barriers (Cech & Blair-Loy, 2019), and a scientific community still guided by masculine values (Schiebinger, 1999), which together perpetuate gender stereotypes.

A possible reason for this division between men and women scientists is attributed to persisting gender science stereotypes associating men with science but not women. A stereotypical depiction of a scientist is a solitary white man surrounded by lab equipment and wearing a lab coat (Carli et al., 2016; Chambers, 1983; Finson, 2002). This person is likely socially displaced, and his most significant interest is in his work (Avraamidou, 2021; Christidou et al., 2016). The characteristics of the successful scientist stereotype were found to be more alike with the traits of a stereotypical man than that of a stereotypical woman (Carli et al., 2016). Carli et al. (2016) measured the association between the stereotypes and found that women were thought to possess fewer traits than necessary to become successful scientists, and the majority of scientific fields were seen as more masculine. Moreover, the intention to start a career in STEM is also more associated with stereotypes associating men with scientists (Miller et al., 2015).

Research shows that these stereotypes could cause a “stereotype threat” (Osborne, 2001). A stereotype threat could cause individuals who do not conform to the stereotype to experience disidentification with science, underperform in scientific fields, and limit their access to those fields (Davies & Spencer, 2005; Osborne, 2001). Steinke (2005) argued that one of the first steps to changing stereotypes might be through the use of role models because children can learn cultural patterns of behavior through repeated observation. As he argued, female role models in STEM positions across different contexts could weaken stereotypes, especially for students experiencing wishful identification with the role model. Some of these role models are portrayed in popular films.

Hence, our purpose in this study was to explore how women scientists were portrayed in popular films in the period of 2013–2020. The selection of this timeframe was intentional as we were interested in exploring how current social movements as part of the fourth wave feminism were reflected (or not) in the films.

Theoretical underpinnings

Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura et al., 1963), films and other media could be an essential medium to analyse when we refer to forms of behavior and their possible relations with stereotypes of scientists. This theory proposes that children learn behavior patterns through continuous observation of models and explains that children can learn specific behaviors through identificatory learning by watching films. The viewers will identify with the media based on their own experiences and perceptions (Faber et al., 1979). This could help the viewers through life tasks, such as selecting an occupation or becoming more independent from their parents. The learned patterns of behavior also reinforce the stereotypes shown in the film through the portrayal of the characters.

Another theory that can explain stereotypes’ influence on adolescents is the possible selves theory (Markus & Nurius, 1986). This theory is based on conceptions of possible selves representing who someone is and whom they could become based on their past, present, and future. These conceptions reflect a person’s personality and influence their behavior and decisions. When faced with an important decision, a person may, for example, imagine themselves in possible scenarios and have the decision-making be led by what their imaginary self might do. These conceptions could motivate behavior to life goals and career ambitions.

Flicker (2003) describes the construction of reality in films as: “Film functions as more than a simple mirror, it also works as social memory and cultural metaphor.” (Flicker, 2003, p. 308). This statement gives rise to the idea that films do not only influence the audience, as stated by social cognitive theory and possible selves theory, but also reflect the society of the period the film was made in.

According to Duarte (2002) and Kaplan (1995), the cinema expresses the cultural conventions of what it means to be female, often resulting in dominant female images that are pleasing to be viewed by a male audience (see, Steinke, 2005). From the representation point of view of what it means to be a scientist, this implies the association of apparent objectivity, dominance, control, and neutrality that are not seen as feminine characteristics (Harding, 2007; Keller, 1987).

The fourth wave of feminism (beginning in December 2012 and ongoing) is defined by its focus on sexual harassment, body shaming, and rape culture (Brunell & Burkett, 2021). The fourth wave is propelled forward by a wish to achieve gender equality and help survivors of sexual harassment. This period has been characterized by prominent feminist movements and calls to action. Examples include #MeToo as a reaction to Weinstein’s sexual abuse cases and the global 2017 Women’s March to support women’s rights. Through social media, the visibility of the movements has become higher and the threshold to participate lower. However, social media has generalized the issues, resulting in a lack of nuance in the statements and a lack of force behind the movement (Brandt & Kizer, 2019). With the rise of these movements, large film industries also made more films with women behind the scenes in prominent positions, such as Wonder Woman 1984 (directed by Patty Jenkins, 2017) and Hidden Figures (co-written by Allison Schroeder, 2016).

Considering these theoretical contexts, we aimed to examine how women scientists are portrayed in popular films released between 2013 and 2020. To do that, we considered the attributes of women scientist characters based on occupation, socio-political theme, and time frame. Also, based on the stereotypes described by Flicker (2003), we examined how the female characters are represented.

Empirical underpinnings

Having female role models is crucial for gender equity in science. For example, when analyzing the trajectories of four women scientists in the nineteenth century, Arnold (1984) showed the importance of having role models and mentors were crucial to awakening the interest of Maria Martin Bachman (1796–1863), Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps (1793–1884), Louisa Allen Gregory (1848–1920) and Florence Bascom (1862–1945) to science, allowing them to contribute to their fields of knowledge significantly. When we talk about having role models for women in science, this also implies portraying women scientists in the media in their plenitude, engaged in the scientific making and motivated by the various science practices. Nevertheless, in movies, it is not uncommon that the representation of women scientists is subordinated to unimpressive roles (Simis et al., 2015), reproducing gender stereotypes and not portraying women as epistemic subjects of knowledge.

Media and popular culture can play a predominant role in constructing models (Steinke, 1999) and for the propagation and reinforcement of gender stereotypes, such as misrepresenting women’s lack of ability and interest to do science. This can be verified, for example, by the fact that girls and boys at school age perform equivalently in STEM fields (see, Makarova et al., 2019). However, as education progresses, the gaps in interest between the genders get deeper (Corbett & Hill, 2015) and are amplified by race and social class. While educational factors (such as teaching strategies and methods, the logic of school relationships, content) can play an essential role in building girls’ identity for science, the weight of this responsibility cannot be placed solely on formal education.

Research studies provided evidence that Western science is associated with commonly referred to as masculine characteristics, such as rationality and objectivity, as opposed to supposedly feminine characteristics such as empathy and intuition (Keller, 1987). While increasing diversity is a critical factor for the quality of scientific knowledge production (Oreskes, 2021), the masculine image of science can be discouraging, particularly for those female students who aspire to be scientists in STEM fields (Avraamidou, 2021). Cheryan et al. (2017) argued that the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields might be associated with gender-biased perceptions explained by factors such as “masculine cultures that signal a lower sense of belonging to women than men, a lack of sufficient early experience (…), and gender gaps in self-efficacy” (Cheryan et al., 2017, p. 5). Furthermore, data from the last decade suggests that although gender parity is increasing in many research fields and different countries, several academic career pitfalls make it difficult for women to succeed compared to men (who often have more citations and more international research partnerships; De Kleijn et al., 2020).

The lack of recognition of women scientists has led to the description of the so-called Matilda effect (Rossiter, 1993). The effect occurs when women scientists are erased from history for their scientific achievements and when men take credit for their work, as in the emblematic cases of Lise Meitner (1878–1968) and Rosalind Franklin (1920–1958). In this regard, Crettaz von Roten (2011) identified that in Switzerland, women scientists are less contacted to speak as experts in the media, regardless of age. Furthermore, Lincoln et al. (2012) analyzed data from awards given by US scientific societies in STEM fields and found implicit gender biases, with women receiving less recognition than their male counterparts.

Historically, the film industry has perpetuated these issues uncritically. Previous research shows that the representations of scientists are significantly different by gender. Most scientists portrayed on movie screens tend to be men, and when women appear on movie screens they are portrayed as less successful than their male counterparts and in a sexualized way (Weingart et al., 2003).

Tudor (1989) analysed almost a thousand films produced between 1931 and 1984. The work identified that it took about 50 years for the films to stop representing scientists as madmen but went through periods in which male scientists were seen as figures who worked for the progress of humanity, being ridiculed or treated as heroes and adventurers. Subsequently, Steinke (1999) identified that one of the prominent representatives of a new type of scientist in film in the late 20th century was the image of the beautiful woman with a brain, represented by Dr Ellie Arroway from the film Contact .

Women scientist characters are harder to be found than male scientist characters as men outnumber women seven to one in STEM career roles, with women making up 17,2% of computer scientists, 11,6% of physical scientists, and 8,9% of engineers in films from 2010 to 2013 (Smith et al., 2014).

Similarly to male scientist characters, female scientist characters are subject to stereotypes, but their stereotypes are specific to female scientists. Flicker (2003) described six stereotypes of women scientist characters: the old maid, the male woman, the naïve expert, the daughter or assistant, the evil plotter, and the lonely heroine. The “old maid” is solely interested in her work and exhibits an old-fashioned style and a loss of professional competence. The “male woman” is a member of a male team and is assertive in that environment despite her scientific competence getting questioned. She also has an unhealthy lifestyle and an emotional approach to science. The “naïve expert” has a brilliant career and because she is naïve she creates difficulty in the storyline by an emotional display. The “daughter” or “assistant” is bound to a male scientist, is socially competent and emotionally assists a male scientist. Finally, the “lonely” heroine is modern and emancipated. She has a strong interest in her research; she has a curious mind and firm belief; she has a male mentor; she is competent but lacks professional recognition.

Further analysis of female characters in STEM professions in films revealed that they were portrayed as professional and independent and emphasized femininity. Steinke (2005) examined 74 films of various genres released from 1991 to 2001 with women in STEM fields as main characters. The author analyzed the cultural representations of scientists and engineers and identified an emphasis on appearance and romance, even though the women were in prominent professional positions.

Steinke and Tavarez (2017), using textual and content analysis, examined the representation of women of STEM fields in American popular movies released from 2002 to 2014. It was identified from the 62 films analyzed that female scientists were often represented as Caucasian and were biologists or astronauts. In addition, these women worked in teams and were either single or in a romantic relationship.

However, the portrayal of women in STEM positions were outnumbered 2 to 1 by the portrayals of men in STEM positions in the films selected to represent female STEM scientists in speaking roles. This ratio was also found in the top 50 highest-grossing films of 2016 (Neville & Anastasio, 2019). Nevertheless, the female characters were more similar to their male counterparts and social media discourse about scientist characters from two films revealed that the female scientist was more believable than the male scientist (Neville & Anastasio, 2019; Simis et al., 2015).

Male scientists do not only appear more than female scientists in films: they are also described as having more agentic abilities than women, such as being independent, decisive, logical, and leader-like (Gálvez et al., 2019). In this study, male pronouns had more association with agentic and cognitive-ability words than female pronouns and this difference remained steady over 50 years of Western-world film. The researchers used computational linguistics techniques to analyze a selection of English-language movies transcripts released from 1967 to 2016. From the sample results of over 11,000 films of all genres (including cartoons), the authors concluded that there is no gender parity in Western cultural productions and that the stereotype of a brilliant scientist is prevalent.

How scientists are represented in films and TV can affect the mental images individuals have of scientists since most people may not ever meet a scientist. In an empirical study on the wishful identification of adolescents, Steinke et al. (2011) analyzed data collected from 370 students of both genders and various ethnicities/races from schools in the Midwestern US. The students watched selected clips from popular programs showing working scientist characters and answered Likert-type questionnaires. The pre-validated questionnaires contained questions about identity, attitudes toward science, attitudes toward women in science, and current and possible academic self-visions. Statistical analyses indicated that the participants showed more wishful identification with characters of the same gender portrayed as dominant, and girls mainly showed more wishful identification with women scientist characters that expressed communal traits.

In a study carried out by Bond (2016), p. 60 girls between 6 and 9 years old from religious schools in Southern California were exposed to short clips from television programs that presented STEM professionals. The study separated the girls into three groups of equal numbers: those who watched clips with stereotypical STEM images, those who watched clips without STEM stereotypes, and a control group who did not watch any clips. In addition, the girls completed previously validated questionnaires before and after watching the clips. The questionnaires were about self-efficacy in science and math, career preferences, and perceptions of scientists. The research indicated that girls showed less interest in pursuing STEM careers after being confronted with gender stereotypes and were reported to be less likely to draw a female scientist when exposed to gender stereotypes clips (Bond, 2016).

Differences between stereotypes were noted in previous research, and there is evidence that exposure to stereotypes can influence self-identification and future behavior. However, how the portrayal of scientists in the media influences the public’s perception of scientists is missing. Before examining this however, it is important to first understand how women scientist characters are portrayed in recent media, particularly with the discussions shaped by the fourth wave of feminism, which is strongly present in social media (Shiva & Nosrat Kharazmi, 2019).

Methods

To analyse the films, we used sociological film analysis, which allows for films to be analysed for their social context and the films’ messages using sociological tools and applying sociological theories. As Flicker (2003) argued, this method allows comparative analysis of film content of a large sample in terms of the films’ social references. This involves understanding the human being as a social creature, subject to the references of the society of the time in which he/she lives for the construction of his/her subjectivity (e.g., social references of gender, status, relationships; Flicker, 2008). Flicker (2003) describes it as the investigation “in terms of their reality content and their positioning in terms of relations of power and authority, problematic themes, peripheral groups, etc.” (p. 309).

We used Internet Movie Database (IMDB) to identify films featuring women STEM scientist characters. First, the films were identified using keywords related to gender and STEM careers: female scientist, female mathematician, female chemist, female physicist, female engineer, female astronaut. These searches resulted in a list of 27 films. The films were then selected based on three criteria: the film (i) is released from 2013 to 2020; (ii) has at least one woman scientist character in the central role, and (iii) science is as integral to the storyline. The first criterion was selected because this time encompasses the beginning of fourth-wave feminism to the analysis time. The second criterion aimed to ensure the character has spoken lines and has a background in STEM fields. The characters also were perceived as female and used she/her as pronouns. For the second and third criteria, the film’s synopses and cast lists were checked to see if the character indeed had a prominent role in the film and if scientific issues featured centrally in the theme.

The highest-grossing film was selected per year from the list that followed these criteria. One exception is the Imitation Game, the second highest-grossing film of 2014 and the seventh highest-grossing film overall. These criteria resulted in a sample of eight films as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Selected films.

Title	Year of release	Description
Gravity	2013	After an accident that leaves her stranded in space, Dr. Ryan Stone needs to find a way home.
Interstellar	2014	With humanity on the brink of extinction, a group of astronauts travels through a wormhole in search of a new planet to call home.
The Imitation Game	2014	Together with his team, Alan Turing attempts to crack the Enigma code during World War II.
Ant-Man	2015	With a suit that allows him to shrink, Scott Lang must steal technology made by his mentor to save the world.
Hidden Figures	2016	In 1961, Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson played vital roles in the space race between Russia and the U.S.
Ant-Man and the Wasp	2018	After the events of Ant-Man (2015), Scott Lang and Hope van Dyne must save Hope’s mother from the quantum realm.
Godzilla II: King of the Monsters	2019	The zoology agency Monarch tries to stop a group of eco-terrorists that wants to wake the Titans.
Underwater	2020	After an earthquake at the bottom of the ocean, a team of researchers tries to get to the surface.

We conducted a sociological film analysis by examining occupation, socio-political theme, and time frame to analyse the characters. The issues were examined using a set of interpretation questions used in prior research (Mikos, 2013; Sutherland & Feltey, 2012) and modified to fit the purpose of this study as illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Interpretation questions that guided the analysis.

Aspect	Questions
Occupation	How does the character fit into the workplace?
	What is their job?
	In what way are they relevant for their work and the people around them?
	Do their goals or their approach to science change throughout the film?
Socio-political theme	How does the character interact with their environment?
	What is the character’s personality?
	How is the character treated by their environment?
	Does the character portray one of Flicker’s stereotypes?
Time frame	What major themes does the film have in terms of gender performance?
	What are the setting and context?
	Are there social conflicts, cultural contradictions, and/or methods of social control?

In this study, characteristics of a character that are not linked to their personality are called attributes and were based on Flicker (2003) descriptions (e.g., naïve expert, lonely heroine, male woman, etc.); characteristics linked to their personality are called traits (e.g., curious, diligent, assertive). After the films were selected, the film was viewed while coding the character’s attributes. Notes were taken during the viewing, detailing crucial moments in the film for the women scientist characters. Finally, a description of the women scientist character was constructed alongside a general description of the storyline and the use of aesthetic tools. The attributes and traits of the characters were coded in vivo (Manning, 2017) based on the attributes of the stereotypes as described by Flicker (2003). An example of the film notes is as follows:

Compared to Ant-Man, Hope is still a diligent worker with a focused and determined mindset. She seems always to keep a cool head. Her goal in this film is to retrieve her mother from the Quantum Realm, and she uses her scientific knowledge to reach that goal. This makes her very interested and enthusiastic about her work and gives the impression that this is her sole interest. This also makes her curious about everything related to the work she and Pym are doing, as seen in the scene with Bill Porter where she vigorously thanks him for discussing a way to find the lab. Hope is still a member of a male team in this film, but, compared to Ant-Man, she is now an equal member of the team with her accomplishments and skills recognized. Pym listens to her ideas, and they work together seamlessly, as is seen in the scene before Janet gives them her location. Hope is still anchored in a relationship with a male scientist, but she is an equal in this film though she is presented as a lonely heroine. The film’s central theme is reconciliation and parenthood. The main storyline is about Hope finding her mother again, and her determination and interest in her work can be seen throughout the film. Throughout the film, Hope is not shown to be more emotional than the other characters. She does have emotional moments, for example, when she saw her mother after she came back from the Quantum Realm or when Scott nearly drowned. Hope does not seem to be portrayed, unlike the male characters. Camera angles and the setting of the scenes are the same for the male characters and do not seem to contribute to the male gaze.

Findings

From the eight films selected and analyzed, 12 female characters were identified, with one of the characters (Hope van Dyne) being present in two films (see, Table 3).

Table 3. Women scientist characters.

Film	Female characters
Gravity (2013)	Ryan Stone
Interstellar (2014)	Amelia Brand; Murphy Cooper
The Imitation Game (2014)	Joan Clarke
Ant-Man (2015)	Hope van Dyne
Hidden Figures (2016)	Katherine Johnson; Dorothy Vaughn; Mary Jackson
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)	Hope van Dyne
Godzilla II: King of the Monsters (2019)	Emma Russell
Underwater (2020)	Norah Price; Emily Haversham

Occupation

How does the character fit into the workplace?

Like Amelia Brand in the film Interstellar , most characters were clearly shown as an expert in their field. They showed this by answering questions, partaking in scientific debates, or missing when they did not participate. One example of the last comment is Emma Russell, one of two people who can operate the machine called Godzilla. A more iconic example is found in Katherine Johnson, who baffles her unsuspecting co-workers with her mathematical skills. The only exceptions are Hope van Dyne (Ant-Man, 2015), who does not explicitly show her skills in the film, and Mary Jackson, who is skilled in her field but shows that she needs support from her mentor in her work.

For example, the other characters were also diligent workers focused on their goals. One exception could be made in the case of Ryan Stone from Gravity because she seemed lost for most of the film. However, one could argue that being an astronaut was not her expertise, and she did work on her task at the beginning of the film with an intense focus.

Two of the characters, Ryan Stone from Gravity and Hope van Dyne from Ant-Man , showed no inclination to familiarize themselves with their team. Stone deflected conversations with her colleague, and van Dyne adopts an aloof attitude towards Scott Lang. Later in the films, their attitudes change, and they talk to their colleagues more, but only after seeing they are on the same side, trying to reach Earth alive and taking down the villain, respectively.

What is their job?

The characters’ jobs were either explicitly stated in the film, derived from their actions and the positions of their colleagues, or derived from the history of the person the character was inspired by if the film was biographical. Some characters were also given two job titles as they showed aspects of both jobs, or their jobs changed over time. This is the case with three characters. One is Mary Jackson, a mathematician from Hidden Figures who later changes her field to engineering; the second is Amelia Brand from Interstellar, who is trained as an astronaut and a biologist; and the third is Ryan Stone from Gravity , who uses her skills as an astronaut throughout the film more than her skills as a scientist. Ryan Stone is also the only character where her job in science is not specified.

The analysis showed that 4 out of 12 characters were mathematicians. In the film they were portrayed as solving mathematical equations or working in an environment reserved for mathematicians. The former applies to all mathematician characters, like Joan Clarke, who solved equations with Alan Turing. An example of the latter is the office of the computers in the film Hidden Figures , where Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Mary Jackson worked. Other jobs included physicist, astronomer, paleobiologist, and biologist.

In what way are they relevant for their work and the people around them?

Seven characters, including Katherine Johnson, were portrayed as having a close relationship with their male mentors. In the film they were portrayed talking about personal goals, the mentors encouraging the mentees [them?], and more personal interactions. An example of the first is Alan Turing, who encourages Joan Clarke to take the job at Bletchley Park. Mr. Zielinski does the same for Mary Jackson when she discusses her dreams of becoming an engineer with him. An example of more personal interactions can be seen in Hope van Dyne in Ant-Man. She is closer to Darren Cross, who sees her as a confidante. This is seen when he invites her to dinner and talks about how he chose his mentor, Hank Pym, poorly.

Two characters are the opposite of this: both Ryan Stone and Emma Russell show no inclination to contact their colleagues and their colleagues make no contact with them. This could be attributed to the fact that both characters are not in their usual environment for most of the film. Ryan Stone is flung into space and Emma Russell works together with a terrorist group that has easy access to her daughter.

Another dominant trait is that the characters are indispensable for the team or treated as equal members. This is evidenced across nine characters. An example of being indispensable is Dorothy Vaughn, who taught herself programming and made the IBM machine, a data processing system, work after an error. The exceptions are Mary Jackson, Emma Russell, and Emily Haversham in Underwater. As mentioned before, Emma Russel has little contact with her colleagues and Mary Jackson’s interactions within the engineering team are mostly limited to Mr. Zielinski. Emily Haversham does have more interactions with her team, but these are all in situations where she cannot show her skills, such as running from Cthulhu, and thus is not shown as indispensable or an equal member in her professional environment.

Do their goals or their approach to science change throughout the film?

For nine out of the 12 characters, their goals do not change throughout the film. The only characters whose goals change in the film are characters that have had a revelation during the film, such as Ryan Stone, who needs to find a way to return to Earth when her shuttle is destroyed; Emma Russell, who realized that the Titan’s goals were not like hers; and Murphy Cooper, who realised her father may not return from space. For Norah Price from Underwater, her approach to science changes. Instead of mechanical engineering being her job, it becomes a tool to survive and reach the surface. This is also the case with Ryan Stone.

Two characters have a goal that is about science. Joan Clarke wants to continue to work in her field, and Mary Jackson’s goal is to become an aeronautical engineer. Nine characters have goals that are related to science. This is to say, the characters have goals and use their scientific skills to attain that goal. An example is Hope van Dyne in Ant-Man and the Wasp. She wants to find her mother, who got lost in the Quantum Realm, and uses her scientific skills to make that possible. This is similar to Murphy Cooper, who uses her skills to solve the Dr. Brand’s unsolved equation and find her father.

Another example is Dorothy Vaughn who wants to be recognized for her work get the benefits of the supervisor position she is already filling. In the end, she gets recognized for her programming skill and becomes the supervisor of the programming group. The only character that does not have a goal related to science is Emily Haversham, who wants to reach the surface to flee from Cthulhu and tell Liam Smith that she loves him.

Socio-political theme

How does the character interact with their environment?

Like Murphy Cooper, most characters were shown to show their skills in collaboration with others from their work environment. Seven out of twelve characters were portrayed as working with other scientists in their field, illustrating their scientific skills, and answering questions about their work. One example is Katherine Johnson, who works with a team to solve a mathematical problem and leads the discussion at the end of the film. In this scene, she displays her scientific skills, answers questions and works with her colleagues. The exceptions are Ryan Stone, Mary Jackson, Emma Russell, Norah Price, and Emily Haversham. While these characters did in some scenes show their skill, it was not done in collaboration with another scientist. An example is Norah Price, who follows the orders from Captain Lucien to hack into control panels, and because she is the only mechanical engineer in their team, she does so alone.

Murphy Cooper also shows that she barely interacts with other scientists except for Dr. Brand. Shutting their environment out and emotions off to do their job is also the case in four other characters. The characters show this by ignoring other characters or having scarcely any interactions with other scientists in the film. An example is Emma Russell, who barely speaks to others when a Titan wakes up and works alone for the rest of the film. Another example is Ryan Stone, who ignores Kowalski when he speaks to her at the film’s beginning.

On the contrary, four characters out of 12 expressed their emotions publicly and were portrayed as adopting an emotional approach to science. This is evident when the characters make decisions that are not led by logic or display emotions concerning their team or goals. Hope van Dyne in Ant-Man and the Wasp shows enthusiasm when she learns something new and gives the impression that it is her sole interest. Emma Russell eventually betrays Alan Jonah and points a gun at him. Amelia Brand chooses to go to another planet because she believes that the man she fell in love with is still there and Emily Haversham expresses distress and fears throughout the film.

What is the characters personality?

The characters’ personalities were coded with traits from Flicker’s stereotypes and were then counted to see the most prominent traits. As shown in Table 4, eleven out of twelve characters were socially competent. This was portrayed through their social interactions with others. As Ryan Stone deflected conversations and spent most of the film alone, she was not counted. Ten women showed that they were emancipated. When a character spoke up and showed confidence in actions that could have been frowned upon in their environment, the characters were counted as emancipated. Nine women were coded as diligent when they showed a focus during their work.

Table 4. Ten most common traits found in characters.

Traits	Number of characters
Socially competent	11
Emancipated	10
Diligent	9
Curious	8
Enthusiastic about work	8
Modern	8
Strong belief	8
Reckless (in taking risks)	7
Assertive in male environment	6

Eight characters were coded as curious, enthusiastic about work, modern, and as having a strong solid. Curious characters asked questions, enthusiastic scientists smiled during their work, modern women dressed fashionably and displayed common or revolutionary beliefs in their environment, and women with a strong belief showed that they fought for their goals and challenged others.

Seven out of twelve characters were shown as reckless in taking risks, and six were assertive in a male environment. For the first trait, the characters performed actions that could be interpreted as dangerous. An example is Mary Jackson talking back to a police officer that pulled her and the other protagonists in Hidden Figures over. The second trait required that the characters performed their actions with surety and spoke up when the situation called for it.

How is the character treated by their environment?

Similarly to Katherine Johnson, ten out of twelve characters were (eventually) treated as equals by their colleagues and were recognized for their accomplishments. The film shows this by the reaction of the characters’ colleagues on their work, their colleagues standing up for them to others, and their colleagues following the characters’ advice. An example of all these criteria is found in the character of Katherine Johnson. First, Mr. Harrison comments on her work respectfully; later, he stands up for her, and afterward, the whole team is seen to follow Katherine’s advice.

Eight out of the 12 characters have a close relationship with their colleagues. These characters worked together with their colleagues to achieve goals, and their colleagues supported the characters on their journey. The exceptions are Murphy Cooper, who is barely shown to work together with another character than Dr. Brand; Hope van Dyne in Ant-Man, whom her father and Scott Lang leave out; Dorothy Vaughn and Emma Russell, who both work alone to achieve their goals.

The scientific competence of five characters is questioned in the film. This is shown mainly by other characters questioning their abilities, being left out, or not being recognized for their accomplishments and abilities. For four out of the five characters, this changes later. The only exception is Mary Jackson. In the films’ epilogue, it is stated that she did achieve a degree in aeronautical engineering, but colleagues’ reactions were not seen. The character who did not get recognized for her achievements or had her scientific competence questioned was Ryan Stone.

Does the character portray stereotypes?

Based on their personality, function, and treatment in the workplace, the characters were sorted into stereotypes. When defining traits and attributes of the stereotypes were not applicable, the characters were classified as not fitting into stereotypes. The character’s stereotype was also prone to change during the film, so some characters were sorted into multiple stereotypes. For example, nine women were portrayed as lonely heroines. This meant that they were the most competent in their area, displayed a strong belief, lacked professional recognition, and had a male mentor. The stereotypes per film character are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Stereotypes per film character.

	Naïve expert	The old maid	Male woman	Evil plotter	The daughter or assistant	Lonely heroine	Does not fit into stereotypes
Ryan Stone	X
Amelia Brand	X		X			X
Murphy Cooper					X
Joan Clarke					X	X
Hope van Dyne (1^st film)					X
Katherine Johnson		X				X
Dorothy Vaughn						X	X
Mary Jackson						X
Hope van Dyne (2^nd film)						X
Emma Russell				X		X
Norah Price						X	X
Emily Haversham						X	X

Three women were portrayed as the daughter or assistant. Specifically, Murphy Cooper, Joan Clarke, and Hope van Dyne in Ant-Man were anchored in a relationship with a male scientist, were socially competent and emotionally assisted the scientist.

In two films, women were portrayed as naïve experts. Ryan Stone and Amelia Brand both had brilliant careers and created difficulty in the storyline by an emotional display. Amelia Brand was portrayed as the “male woman”, meaning she was assertive in a male environment, had her scientific competence questioned, was a male team member, and displayed an emotional approach to science. She was also sorted as the naïve expert and the lonely heroine. Katherine Johnson was sorted as the old maid, meaning she was very interested in her work and had an old-fashioned style. However, Katherine did not display a loss of professional competence, which is why her primary stereotype is the lonely heroine. The only character that was portrayed as the evil plotter is Emma Russell. She cooperated with evil forces and showed a corrupt and egoist attitude towards the other protagonists in the film. She was portrayed as someone with high confidence, which is why she also has the stereotype of a lonely heroine.

Three characters were found not fitting fit into any of the stereotypes. This was primarily due to their accomplishments getting recognized by others and the absence of a male mentor. Dorothy Vaughn, Norah Price, and Emily Haversham all lacked a male mentor, they received professional recognition, and, in the case of the latter two, their competence was never questioned. We could argue that a new stereotype emerged where the character lacked a male mentor, got professional recognition, was the most competent in their area, and expressed high self-confidence.

Time frame

What major themes does the film have in terms of gender performance?

Four out of eight films had themes related to gender. Ant-Man and Ant-Man and the Wasp focus on a parent-daughter relationship and the reconciliation between the two. Both features Hope van Dyne heavily and explore her relationships with her parents. Hidden Figures has themes of racism and sexism shown in the various ways the protagonists are held back in their careers by their colleagues or NASA. The Imitation Game has the theme of doing the unexpected which is seen in Joan Clarke, who keeps working in her field despite the comments urging her to abandon her career and marry.

Two films have themes of perseverance and endurance. Interstellar and Hidden Figures both show this by letting their characters go through difficult situations and achieve their goals after this period. Godzilla: King of the Monsters and Underwater both show social criticism in their films. Godzilla: King of the Monsters shows a theme of the destruction of the planet by humans and the desire to right those wrongs. This is shown in Emma Russell’s resolve to restore the natural order. Underwater shows a theme of greed in capitalism, as their facility drilled too deep and awakened the monsters, but it is also shown in the credits that show news articles stating the company does not want to comment on the accident.

What are the setting and context?

Five out of eight films were set in contemporary societies. This was seen in the social norms and the characters’ environment. In most of these films, the technology was more futuristic. This was shown in Ant-Man, where a particle that can shrink and enlarge objects. In both biographical films, The Imitation Game and Hidden Figures, the setting was in the past. This was seen in the social norms, for example, the racism the protagonists from Hidden Figures faced, the social pressure Joan Clarke feels in The Imitation Game to get married, and the secrecy around Alan Turing’s sexuality. It is also seen in the technology, such as the IBM machine in Hidden Figures and the decoding machine in The Imitation Game.

The only film set in the future is Interstellar. The year mentioned at the film’s beginning is 2067, and a comparison is made to 2014. The Earth’s resources are being depleted and attacked by a nitrogen-breathing organism which causes the characters to want to flee the Earth.

Are there social conflicts, cultural contradictions, and/or methods of social control?

In five films, the women were portrayed as more emotional than the other characters. This was due to various reasons. In Gravity and Interstellar, the characters are placed in stressful situations leading to heightened emotional reactions. Ant-Man and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, displayed the characters as more emotional in their reactions. They were shown crying and are usually the only person to do so in the film. In Hidden Figures, the characters are shown in a way that can be described as a first-person perspective. This makes the characters around them seem more static and allows for the characters’ emotions to paint the scenes.

In three films, there is also a focus on vulnerability. In Gravity, this is shown in the scenes where Ryan Stone panics and the camera is near her face. This gives the impression that the audience is in the helmet with her and is experiencing the same events. In Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Emma Russell cradles her daughter when she first meets Alan Jonah. The camera looks down on her, making her seem smaller than she is. In Underwater, the camera also uses close-ups to indicate panic and vulnerability.

Underwater also has scenes that emphasize the characters’ femininity, such as Norah Price being called a “flat-chested elven creature”. However, both women seem to have significant roles due to their skill sets and are indispensable to the team. The Imitation Game and Ant-Man both contain scenes with a romantic focus. This is seen in close-ups, background music, and the proximity of the characters. Joan Clarke is mainly present in these scenes as she becomes Alan Turing’s fiancée; however, this stops when it is revealed that Alan Turing is homosexual.

Conclusions

The findings of this study show that most of the women characters were portrayed as diligent experts in their fields and were focused on their goals. This is similar to the findings of Steinke and Tavarez (2017), which identified professionals being portrayed more realistically, with a reduction of some stereotypes, such as awkward, antisocial or nerdy women scientists. These findings showcase a positive change in the representation of women scientists in films compared to Steinke (2005), which identified that many of the women in STEM were portrayed stereotypically, focusing on appearance and romance. Most characters also had a close relationship with their mentors and were treated by their team as either indispensable or equal members. Two characters had a goal that was about science (e.g., becoming an aeronautical engineer in the case of Mary Jackson), and nine characters had goals related to science (e.g., Hope van Dyne who uses science to find her mother in Ant-Man and the Wasp)

Many of the characters had a personality that could be described as socially competent, emancipated, diligent workers, curious, enthusiastic about work, modern, having a strong belief, and reckless. The characters more often had a personality that could be seen as competent. This mirrors the results by Long et al. (2010) that suggest that the “smart” scientist stereotype overrules the stereotype of the “dumb” female. Ten characters were treated as peers by their colleagues. This is similar to Neville and Anastasio’s (2019) findings that women were portrayed as equal to their male counterparts. The prevalent stereotype was the lonely heroine – nine of 12 characters. Three women fit the description of the daughter or assistant, and three characters were typed as not truly fitting any of the stereotypes. Future research could examine how these depictions influence girls’ wishful identification with STEM scientists. This could indicate a new women scientist stereotype where the character lacked a male mentor, achieved professional recognition, was most competent in her area, and displayed a strong belief.

Four out of eight films have themes related to gender concerning parent-daughter relationships and sexism concerning the criterion time frame. In five films, the women were portrayed as more emotional than the other characters. This was due to various reasons, such as stressful situations or first-person perspectives, as with Hidden Figures . Contrary to Steinke and Tavarez (2017), the findings of this research displayed that there was not a focus on romantic relationships in the majority of the films. Two films contained scenes with a romantic focus, but the scenes were not connected to film’s central themes.

While the findings suggest an improvement in the representation of women scientists in films, there are important implications associated with how the characters portrayed may contribute to the subjective identification of young women who aspire to be scientists. One reason for this is that beyond seeing women in STEM fields represented, there is a need for that representation to be positive, in a way that the competence of these women does not reinforce stereotypes of dominant and overly feminine women (Betz & Sekaquaptewa, 2012; Fogg-Rogers & Hobbs, 2019; Hoyt & Simon, 2011). Indeed, previous work (e.g., Bond, 2016; Steinke et al., 2011) showed that a student self-identifies according to the gender of scientists: they tend to see themselves in scientist characters of the same gender as their own and who possess personality traits similar to their own.

As argued by Cheryan et al. (2017), efforts to increase women’s participation in STEM fields can benefit from changing male-dominated environments and masculine science cultures by changing stereotypes and exposing women to role models. Since there is a constant reinforcement of stereotypes of people who belong to STEM fields, as well some negative stereotypes about women’s abilities, and an absence of female role models in STEM fields, we understand that several socio-cultural dimensions can drive such change. Thus, the representation of female scientists in the film industry also plays a role in the image building of women STEM scientists.

Children learn patterns of behaviour from media through identificatory learning, and the films could influence their possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) which in turn influences their behaviour and decisions (Bandura et al., 1963). What this means essentially is that children could invent possible selves that are socially competent, emancipated, and diligent workers or fit the description of the lonely heroine. This could later influence their decisions and their behaviour in relation to study and career choices.

Flicker (2003) argued that films reflect society about the period the film was made. This suggests that, based on the findings of this study, society during the fourth wave of feminism had a focus on parent-daughter relationships and sexism and viewed women as people who more readily showed their emotions than people who identify with other genders. In addition, women scientists were also perceived as hard workers who chase their goals and are eventually treated equally in their work environment.

This work presents some limitations. First, the sample was confined to eight films. While they were the highest-grossing films worldwide within the criteria, the results of this study are not representative of all films. For example, B-type movies may present culturally different representations than the mainstream ones (see, Jackson, 2011). Instead, they indicate the recent developments within the film industry concerning women STEM scientist characters. Furthermore, while it was not intended, the films were all based in the UK or the US. Ironically, these countries have good gender parity in STEM fields compared to other countries (Elsevier, 2017), although their cultural productions still express a stereotypical view of science and scientists. Similarly, this study is confined to film and therefore misses many media outlets, such as television programs, books, and social media. Despite these limitations, the study provides sufficient evidence to show that women scientists are still misrepresented in films.

Concluding, film productions can play a prominent role not only in addressing gender science stereotypes but also in enhancing interest in science, STEM-studies and related careers (see Orthia, 2019). Based on the findings produced in this study, we argue that beyond seeing women in scientific fields represented, their portrayal ought to be positive, diverse, and intersectional and not reinforcing stereotypes of either dominant or overly feminine women. Hence, we recommend that future research adopts an intersectionality lens and is directed towards exploring a larger and more diverse sample of films to examine how women scientists are portrayed in films across cultures.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.