Content uploaded by David Wade Chambers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Wade Chambers on Feb 14, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Stereotypic Images
of
the
Scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test
*
DAVID WADE CHAMBERS
Social Studies
of
Science, Deakin University, Victoria
321
7,
Australia
Introduction
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries visual and verbal images of the scientist
were many and varied. Caricaturists, cartoonists, artists, and writers produced a diverse
range of stereotypic figures: diabolical madmen, distinguished professors, harmless ec-
centrics, learned buffoons, and fashionable dilettantes. Naturalists in the field among
flora and fauna were often pictured, as were physical scientists in their laboratories
surrounded by vials and beakers. Cartoonists frequently portrayed scientists
in
contro-
versy: disputing among themselves or in conflict with religious authority (Sherwood,
1970).
And, of course, for centuries alchemy and black magic were invoked by cari-
caturists to lampoon the profession of chemistry.
With a few exceptions, these images are now seldom seen. As science has transformed
its organizational structure, improved its general social status, and firmly established
its social authority, a new professional image has emerged in the popular media. This
image, apparently more in keeping with the institutional goals and procedures
of
modern
science, differs in significant ways from earlier stereotypes. The naturalist has been almost
entirely displaced by the laboratory scientist. Reference to alchemy and sorcery has all
but disappeared. Controversy rarely reaches the public arena, though
in
recent years
this element has begun to reappear especially in connection with environmental issues.
In
short, the image has been “cleaned up” and, in a sense, standardized.
*
The research
on
which this article is based was supported by McGill
and
Deakin Universities and the
Smithsonian Institution.
Science Education
67(2):
255-265
(1983)
0
1983 John Wiley
&
Sons,
Inc.
CCC
0036-8326/83/020255-11$02.10
256
CHAMBERS
The first attempt to describe systematically this new standard image was Mead and
Metraux’s study
(
1975, pp.
386,
387)
of its presence in a population of American high
school students. The composite portrait which they drew, based
on
their research, remains
the most succinct and useful description in the literature.
The scientist is
a
man who wears a white coat and works in a laboratory.
He
is elderly
or
middle
aged and wears glasses
. . .
he may wear a beard.
.
.
he
is surrounded by equipment: test tubes,
bunsen burners, flasks and bottles,
a
jungle gym of blown glass tubes and weird machines with
dials
. .
,
he writes neatly in black notebooks
.
,
.
One day he may straighten up and shout:
“I’ve
found
it!
I’ve found it!”.
. .
Through his work people will have new and better products.
. .
he has
to keep dangerous secrets
. . .
his work may be dangerous
. . .
he is always reading a book.
In
its most highly refined form,
the
standard image may be seen
in
printed and televised
advertisements designed to
sell
products or to enhance the prestige of science-related
companies. Indeed, this familiar stereotype is central to advertising symbology as a device
for associating commercial claims with the epistemologically privileged position held
by science: an objective enterprise offering reliable truths and done for the service and
benefit of mankind. Quite naturally, the image constructed by such symbol makers
systematically selects certain visual elements (and eliminates others) historically asso-
ciated with science.
Basalla
(
1976) offers an image which
he calls
“identical” to that of Mead and Metraux.
Moreover, he finds that the essential characteristics
of
the popular stereotype remained
stable throughout the period 1945-1975. He further speculates that the image has
changed little since the beginning of the century, though his
own
research concentrates
on the post-war period.
Basalla’s article explores not only the standard (or “pop”) image, but also the origin
and influence of
a
number of alternative images, such as those of Mary Shelley’s
Frankenstein
and
HAL,
the computer which personifies the scientific intellect
in
Arthur
C.
Clarke and Stanley Kubrick’s
,300/.
Such allegorical figures, historically and culturally
older and more profound than the standard image, are also incomparably richer
in
de-
picting the complexities of mankind’s reaction to science. Frankenstein, Jekyll/Hyde,
Faust, Adam and Eve, and many of the earlier myths and legends speak directly to the
question of natural knowledge and human power
in
relation to good and evil.
The modern sanitized standard image has never fully replaced the older mythic images
of the “man of knowledge,” yet it has achieved a ubiquitous and relatively unambiguous
place
in
the forefront of the twentieth century mind. (A systematic study, by the author,
of the image of the scientist
in
magazines and posters of the People’s Republic of China
showed only
a
few deviations from the western image: far more women and younger
beardless men.)
The standard image, though it has been considered
so,
is not simply a child’s image.
It is the picture inevitably drawn by adults who wish to convey graphically the concept
“scientist.” Every element of the standard image either portrays directly some part of
the scientist’s actual world
or
else may be taken as symbolic of some part
of
that world.
Thus, it should be
no
surprise that, when asked to “draw a scientist,” even scientists
themselves utilize the standard image.
Consider for a moment the symbolic value of each of the key elements
in
the Mead-
Metraux stereotype. Eyeglasses, for example, are associated with eye strain (and thus
STEREOTYPIC
IMAGES
OF SCIENTIST
257
intense observation). Lab coats are associated with dirty work (and thus experimentation
and empirical knowledge), but also with purity (functioning symbolically as priestly white
robes). Beards may be seen as meaning “unshaven” (working long and unusual hours)
or
may represent, as suggested by Mead and Metraux, “deviation from the accepted way
of life” (and indeed the scientific community is set apart enough to be studied as a distinct
subculture);
or,
finally, beards may represent wisdom and possession of knowledge.
How early does this image first make its appearance? At what age do standard and
mythic images begin to penetrate the child’s consciousness? Most image and attitude
studies relating to the scientist have been concerned with college students
or
adolescents
(Mead
&
Metraux, 1957; Beardslee
&
O’Dowd, 1961; Rodriguez, 1975; Gardner, 1975).
A few studies have attempted to identify and even measure attitudes
of
older children
(Lowery, 1967; Krause, 1976).
No
one apparently has demonstrated precisely when these
images initially appear.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to determine at what age children first develop dis-
tinctive images of the scientist.
In
addition, a preliminary attempt was made to clarify
the influence of such population variables as socio-economic class, intelligence, sex, and
Anglophone/Francophone culture
on
the formation of the standard image. We also looked
for specific variations of the stereotype which might indicate the early development
of
social and psychological attitudes toward science and technology. Finally, we explored
the first appearance of some of the mythic images of the scientist.
Methodology: The Draw-a-Scientist-Test
The research took place over a period of
1
1
years
(
1966-1977). At first, a variety of
procedures was tried, but by far
the
most fruitful proved to be what we now call the
Draw-a-Scientist Test (DAST). Mead and Metraux (1957) suggested the idea, but the
procedures outlified below were developed by the present author.
It
is important to note
that the Draw-a-Scientist Test is not merely an extension of the Draw-a-Man
or
the
Draw-a-Person tests which have been used as projective instruments designed to reveal
the drawer’s intelligence or his/her self-image
or
certain emotional states
or
conflicts
(Goodenough 1926; Goodenow, 1977; Harris, 1963).
Procedures
The DAST was administered
in
the classroom by the regular teacher, who, without
any previous discussion whatever, asked the children, working separately, to “draw a
picture
of
a scientist.” As a control, 912 of the children (18.9% of the sample) were asked
to “draw a person” before being asked to “draw a scientist.”
For
the purpose of the investigation, the elements of the “standard image” were de-
termined
in aduance,
and only those listed below were counted as indicating its appearance
or partial appearance. Initially, an attempt was made to label each drawing as “positive
overall”
or
“negative overall,” but this procedure was abandoned as entirely too sub-
jective.
258
CHAMBERS
The principal investigator was aided
in
the collection and interpretation of the drawings
by a total of
8
1
undergraduate students over the course of
1
1
years.
Subjects
The Draw-a-Scientist Test was administered to
4807
children
in
186
classes from
kindergarten to grade five (approximately five to eleven years old). The majority were
from grades two and three. Most of the schools were located
in
Montreal, Quebec
(1
3%
of these children were French-speaking and
87%
were English-speaking. These per-
centages are, by coincidence, approximately the reverse of those
in
the general popula-
tion). Other schools were drawn from the Province of Ontario, the states of Texas,
Oklahoma, Connecticut, New
York,
and Vermont
in
the
U.S.,
and the state of Victoria
in
Australia.
An
attempt was made to classify the schools according to the following
socio-economic categories: (a) clearly upper
to
upper-middle income, (b) mixed
or
middle
income, and (c) clearly lower income. Whenever classification was
in
doubt, the school
was placed
in
the middle category.
Analysis
of Drawings
Based partly on the literature, the following were chosen as indicators of the standard
image of a scientist:
(1)
Lab coat (usually but
not
necessarily white).
(2)
Eyeglasses
(3)
Facial growth of hair (including beards, mustaches,
or
abnormally long sideburns).
(4)
Symbols of research: scientific instruments and laboratory equipment of any kind.
(5)
Symbols
of
knowledge: principally books and filing cabinets.
(6)
Technology: the “products” of science.
(7)
Relevant captions: formulae, taxonomic classification, the “eureka”! syndrome, etc.
Thus, seven types of indicators were chosen. Each drawing was analyzed and given
a score from one to seven to indicate the extent to which the standard image was present.
The appearance
in
a drawing of several indicators of the same type did not influence the
score; that is, two scientists, each with eyeglasses, counted as one indicator. Similarly,
three scientific instruments
on
a table counted as one indicator. The individual scores
were first summed for each school class and then summed and averaged for each grade
level.
In
the control drawings
(in
which the children were asked to “draw a person”) none
of the indicators were drawn with the exception of eyeglasses in
5
cases
(or
ca.
0.5%)
and
facial hair
in
14 cases
(or
ca.
1.5%).
In
interpreting the drawings several components, other than the seven indicators, were
noted and their possible significance considered. These include size of scientific instrument
in
relation to scientist, indications of danger, presence
of
light bulbs, underground lab-
oratories, male/female figures, and elements of mythic stereotypes (such as Frankenstein
creatures and Jekyll/Hyde figures).
STEREOTYPIC
IMAGES
OF
SCIENTIST
259
Results
The
Standard Image
With occasional exceptions, kindergarten and first grade children draw almost none
of the seven indicators (see Table
I).
By the second grade, however, the stereotype has
begun to take root. It was not unusual for a majority of second grade pupils in a class to
incorporate at least two elements of the standard image. Third grade children are even
more likely to include larger numbers of the indicators. By the fifth grade, the majority
in a class are likely to show at least three
or
four types of indicators with a few pictures
exhibiting six
or
seven.
In
a small sample of adults (including some scientists) who were
given the DAST, the average drawing included between four and five of the indica-
tors.
Lab coats, eyeglasses, growth of facial hair, and laboratory equipment began to appear
in the drawings of the youngest children. Instruments and equipment were mostly
chemical, especially in early years, but gradually more sophisticated items such as mi-
croscopes, telescopes and computers appeared. Symbols of “science as process” included
not only research tools, but also the scientist
in
exultant stance shouting “I’ve done it”!
or
“I
made a discovery”!
or
simply
“Wow”! Much less frequently, we found symbols of
Table
I
Standard Image: Frequency and Mean Indicators per Student by Grade
Levela
Mean
Number
of
Indicators
Sample
Size
Indicators
Per
Student
Kindergarten
45
14 .31
First Grade
842 594
.71
Second Grade
1,222 2,291 1.81
mird Grade
1,284 3,123 2.43
Fourth Grade
946
2,883 3.05
Fifth Grade
468
1,524 3.26
a
The data presented in this table, each of the following tables, and the figure, have not
been subjected to final tests of significance and measures of association at this writing. In
a technical paper to follow this article,
the
author plans to describe
the
statistical significance
of the differences in the mean number
of
indicators per student by grade and by socio-
economic status.
In
addition, an analysis
of
the strength
of
the relationship between grade
level and
the
mean
number of indicators per stdent will
be
performed.
A
similar assessment
of
the strength of
the
relationship between socio-economic status and
the
mean indicators
per student will be developed. Last. the technical paper will measure the emergence of the
image
of
a scientist at each grade
level
by examining the data present in Figure
1
of this
article.
260
CHAMBERS
4.0
1.0
/
/
/
2.0
I
IC
/
/
/
/
/
Present
Study
f
J
I
r='
Schibeci
&
Sorenson
(1982)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
Grade
Level
Figure
1.
Standard image:
two
study comparison
of
mean indicators per student by grade
level
science as recorded knowledge-the scientist as record keeper
or
accumulator of
knowledge: writing
in
a notebook, seated at a desk with filing cabinets
(or
shelves of books)
all around,
or
reading some sort
of
report.
In
some drawings, especially those of older
children, a principal symbol of science is technology. Thus, piled around the laboratory,
we may find its products: television sets, a stack
of
telephones, a helicopter
or
missiles
overhead, electric wires, and
in
at least one case a futuristic car parked behind the lab
bench.
Thus, as seen
in
Figure
I,
the average number of indicators per child tends to increase
with
grade level. A recent independent study (Schibeci
&
Sorenson,
1982)
designed to
examine the usefulness and reliability of the DAST, found a similar trend
in
a population
of
463
children
in
grades one to seven. These data seem to show that the standard image
has begun to appear
in
the child's consciousness in the second and third year of schooling;
by the fourth and
fifth
year the image, as a rule, has fully emerged. Some variations
in
this pattern are discussed below.
Population Variables
Attempts were made to draw comparisons on the basis of several population variables,
but
in
the main the details of the standard image were constant.
(1)
Socio-economic differences.
There was a remarkably clear relationship between
the number of indicators found and the socioeconomic classification of the school (see
Table
11).
The standard image was slower to appear
in
lower income schools, and
in
a
few such schools the image was almost totally absent until the fourth
or
fifth grades. At
STEREOTYPIC
IMAGES
OF
SCIENTIST
261
Table
II
Standard image: Comparison
of
Mean Indicators at Each Grade Level
with Socio-Economic Status
of
Schools
GRADES
5th
-
4th
-
3rd
-
2nd
-
1st
-
Upper
Income
1.30 2.27
3.01 4.03 4.10
Mixed/
Income
8
Middle .69 1.89 2.57 3.12
3.46
si
Lower
Income .35 1.41 1.56 2.17 2.89
Total
SamDle
.71
1.81
2.43 3.05 3.26
first, these results may seem somewhat surprising,
if
one assumes that all classes have
access to comic strips and television, the supposed sources of the image; however, the effect
may be explained at least
in
part by the fact that lower income drawings were, in general,
less detailed overall. Our finding is thus also consistent with the hypothesis of
a
correlation
between family income and intelligence as measured by the Draw-a-Man test. Therefore,
valid generalization based on socio-economic data would require tighter and more
consistently applied controls of
I.Q.,
drawing skills, and socio-economic status at each
grade level
in
any further testing. The present study indicates only that such further testing
might prove interesting.
Although no quantitative analysis was attempted, investigators received the impression
that lower income children may have been more likely to draw large instruments
in
relation to the size of the scientist, while the reverse may have been true for upper and
middle income children. A further impression was that upper income children tended
to produce a more detailed and sophisticated array of scientific instruments, suggesting
a better understanding of what science is about and the range of scientific concerns. These
subjective observations might form the basis for further tests, especially at the advanced
grade levels.
(2)
Sex differences.
Only girls drew women scientists. Twenty-eight women scientists
were drawn, all by girls (who constituted 49% of the sample). Girls were less likely
to
associate science with war and more likely to fear accidents
in
connection with research.
(See discussion of alternative images below.)
(3)
Intelligence differences.
The Draw-a-Man test for intelligence, developed by
Florence Goodenough, is, of course, built into the DAST. (Goodenough, 1926; Harris,
1963).
In
spite of doubts about the validity of this measure (see especially Kellogg, 1969),
an effort was made to identify those drawings
in
our
sample which were made by highly
intelligent children. Based
on
this determination, as might be anticipated, high
IQ
children
262
CHAMBERS
tended to produce the standard image at an earlier age
in
those groups tested for intel-
ligence. This result must be related to the fact that nearly one half the children who ex-
hibited higher scores
on
the Draw-a-Man test were from schools
in
the high socio-eco-
nomic class. Because of the small number of
our
pupils that were given the Draw-a-Man
IQ
test, because of uncertainties about the validity of the
IQ
test, and because
in
this study
IQ
tests werc not professionally administered,
no
firm conclusion regarding the impor-
tance of intelligence can be determined from our data.
As
indicated earlier, however,
we believe interesting results might be obtained in future studies whose experimental
design more systematically controlled these factors.
(4)
French/English
differences.
French and English Canadian drawings were very
much alike. There was some indication that French-speaking children were more likely
to draw naturalists, astronauts, and women. The French term used
for
scientist was
“homme de science.” (See discussion of alternative images below.)
Alternative Images
Alternative images, closely related to the mythic stereotypes discussed by Basalla
(1
976),
began to appear at the same time as the standard image (see Table
111).
While
an exceedingly small portion
of
children perceived scientists
in
these alternative ways
(such images occurred
in
3.5%
of the drawings), the significance of mythic images surely
lies
in
their persistence and regularity of occurrence.
In
all geographic locations, it was
common for at least one child in each class to present an alternative stereotype to that
of the standard image. The alternatives included clear representations of the Jekyll/Hyde
and Frankenstein legends, magical portrayals of alchemical laboratories, the frightening
Table
111
Alternative Images:
Frequency
and
Percentage Distributions
by
Grade
Level
Sample Size
Kindergarten
45
First Grade
842
Second Grade
1,222
’Ibird Grade 1,284
Fourth Grade
946
Fifth Grade 468
-
Total
4,807
-
Number
A1
ternat
ive
Images
0
6
41
58
42*
23
-
170
Percent
0
0.7
3.4
4.5
4.4
4.9
-
3.5
*
First
round
only
STEREOTYPIC
IMAGES
OF
SCIENTIST
263
visions of clearly deranged (sometimes labeled “mad”) scientists testing, for example,
new improved versions of the electric chair. Discussions with teachers and the evidence
of the drawings themselves produced
no
indication
of
correlation between the drawing
of alternative images and possible emotional disturbance
in
the child. In all those cases
in
which teachers felt they could identify emotional problems, alternative images (as
discussed above) were not drawn.
It seems probable that alternative images are familiar to a much larger proportion
of
the children than was discovered by the DAST.
In
one fourth grade class, the 24 pupils,
after completing their drawings, were instructed to “draw another scientist.”
In
the first
set of drawings,
no
mythic stereotypes appeared and only one
of
the drawings incorporated
elements of a morally dubious nature. The second set of drawings produced two Frank-
ensteins along with nine pictures that included such clearly dangerous elements as bombs,
poisons, and a scientist with test tube held high exclaiming: “With this
I
destroy the
world”! This may indicate that nearly half the children
in
this class felt a certain ambi-
valence about the social value of science which did not emerge
in
their first drawing. The
result was totally unexpected since the intention of this variation
in
procedure had been
to elicit possible distinctions among scientific specialties. In fact,
no
such distinctions
were clearly found.
It was interesting to discover that
in
a small number (less than
1%)
of
cases
of
both
standard and mythic images, laboratories
in
the drawings were located
in
what were
almost certainly underground chambers. This might be taken as a manifestation
of
what
I.
B. Cohen has called the “basement tradition”
in
the history of chemistry (Cohen, 1950,
p. 73). When Benjamin Siliman discovered,
in
1803, that his new lab at Yale had been
constructed
in
a subterranean room, he commented that the “architect
. .
.
had received
only some vague impressions of chemistry, perhaps a confused and terrific dream of al-
chemy, with its black arts, its explosions, and its weird-like mysteries. He appears,
therefore, to have imagined that the deeper down
in
mother earth the dangerous chemists
could be buried,
so
much the better” (Fulton
&
Thompson, 1969, pp. 33, 34). Such
“confused and terrific dreams” still influence some children who draw basement labs
complete
with
staircases, tiny ground level windows (sometimes barred), and occasionally,
spiders and vampire bats.
Whether upstairs or down, a scientist always works indoors. Conspicuous by his absence
was the naturalist, the explorer, the scientist who studies nature as he
or
she finds it
in
the wilderness. Only seven children out
of
4165 (0.2%)
in
English-speaking schools drew
such pictures. Sixteen out of 642 (2.5%) French-speaking children, and three out of 67
Australians (4.5%) associated the scientist with “nature.”
Some children
in
both the
US.
and Canada seem to associate science directly with
war and armaments. This association was taken for the purposes of this study as a special
case of indicator six above: technology as a symbol of the products of scientific research.
One hundred forty-one boys and four girls (2.9% of the sample) clearly connected science
with guns, bombs,
or
armed missiles. Almost all of these were
in
the third grade
or
higher.
Chemical and biological warfare has evidently not yet penetrated the comic strips since
these subtleties escaped the children, with a few exceptions, such as the fifth grader who
offered the following labels for the drawers of a filing cabinet: NEW GERMS FOR NEW
DISEASES, NEW CHEMICALS FOR NEW POLUSHUN, and appropriately, NEW
HEADS FOR NEW PEOPLE. Very few children (less than
2%)
connected scientists
264 CHAMBERS
with pollution or the environmental crisis, and most of those who did tended to identify
scientists as saviors rather than devils.
Another occasional theme
in
the drawings was the fear of explosions
or
of breaking
fragile equipment. Such concerns ranged from the scientist accidentally dropping a test
tube to the scientist standing amazed with his lab
in
ruins at his feet. One hundred and
ninety-seven children
(4.
I
%),
including
112
girls and
85
boys, presented such pic-
tures.
It is possible to compare the child’s image with certain aspects of the corporate self
image of the scientific community.
For
example, whereas most scientists think of science
as completely open emphasizing the importance of early communication of results, some
children seem to associate science with secrecy and restricted information. Robert Merton
and other sociologists have suggested that scientists place great emphasis
on
the openness
and “communality”
of
the scientific community. They claim that,
in
science, discoveries
are communally owned; secrecy is an anathema, an immoral act, resorted to “only tem-
porarily as ‘a dire necessity’
in
the interest of sheet survival” (Barber,
1952,
p.
91).
These
distinctions seem a trifle overdrawn
in
light of the extensive classified research conducted
in
American universities, to say nothing of military
or
industrial research labs. An editor
of the British journal
New
Scientist
made this comment:
“One
of the serious defects
surrounding science throughout the world is the neurotic degree of secrecy which enve-
lopes
so
much decision-making-even when no considerations of military or national
security are involved” (Dixon,
1976).
Whatever may be the ideals of science, science means secrecy to some children.
In
almost every third to fifth grade class tested, at least one child (and occasionally as many
as four
or
five) drew signs on the doors and walls of the laboratory bearing such messages
as “Keep Out!”, “Private,”
“Do
Not Enter,”
“Go
Away,” and “Top Secret.” The great
majority
of
children do not, of course, draw such labels, but some scientists must feel a
certain amount of discomfort
on
seeing a third grade drawing of a laboratory labelled:
SIKRIT STUFF
FOR
SIKRIT ENVINSHUNS-SIKRIT.
Conclusions
Two major conclusions may be drawn from this study:
(I)
The stereotypic image of the scientist,
which
Mead and Metraux examined
in
high
school students, was also found to appear among students at the grade school level.
(2)
The evidence indicates that the various elements of the stereotype appear with
greater frequency as students advance through the grades.
The strengths and weaknesses of the Draw-a-Scientist Test for identifying and assessing
professional stereotypes
in
young children may be summarized as follows:
(1)
Because DAST does not rely
on
verbal response, it can be utilized at an earlier
age than other attitude measuring
tests.
This factor also enables comparison of different
language groups without significant translation problems.
(2)
Because a large literature now exists
on
the significance
of
human figure drawing
in
children,
it
is possible that interesting correlations may be found between children’s
images
of
scientists and other social and psychological parameters.
(3)
DAST is easier to administer than most tests; however,
a
number of interpretive
difficulties may arise.
STEREOTYPIC
IMAGES
OF
SCIENTIST
265
(4)
DAST
is
probably more useful in identifying than in measuring attitudes.
Therefore, it may ultimately prove more useful
in
the construction of hypotheses than
in the testing of them.
The
author
is
grateful
to
Richard Cillespie,
S.
B.
Hammond,
Letitia
Chambers,
and
Renato Schibeci for
their
very
helpful
comments,
and
to Sandra
L.
Benbrook,
for
assistance
with
statistical
analysis
of
the
data.
References
Arnheim,
R.
Art and oisual perception.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
Ashton, B. G.,
&
Meredith, H. M. The attitudes of sixth-formers to science and scientists,
Sch.
Barber, B.
Science and the social order.
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952.
Basalla, G. Pop science: the depiction of science in popular culture.
In
Science and its public,
G.
Beardslee, D. C.,
&
O’Dowd, D.
D.
The college-student image of the scientist,
Science,
196 1,133,
Cohen,
I.
B.
Some early tools
of
american science.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
Dixon, B.
What is science for?
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976.
Fulton,
J.
F.,
&
Thomson,
E.
H.
Benjamin Silliman.
New York: Greenwood, 1969.
Gardner, H.
Artful scribbles.
New York: Basic Books, 1980.
Gardner, P. L. Attitudes to science:
a
review.
Stud. Sci. Educ.,
1975,
2,
1-41,
Goodenough, F.
L.
Measurement
of
intelligence by drawings.
New York: Harcourt Brace,
Goodenow,
J.
Children’s drawing.
London: Open Books, 1977.
Harris,
D.
B.
Children’s drawings as measures
of
intellectual maturity:
A
reaision and extension
ofthe Goodenough draw-a-man test.
New York: Harcourt Brace, 1963.
Kellogg,
R.
Analyzing children’s art.
Palo Alto: National Press Books, 1969.
Krause,
J.
P.
How children “see” scientists,
Sci. Child.,
1976, 14, 9-10.
Lowery, L. F.
An
experimental investigation into the attitudes
of
fifth grade students toward science,
Mead, M.,
&
Metraux, R. The image
of
the scientist among high school students: a pilot study,
Rodriguez
Sala
de Gomezgil,
M.
L.
Mexican adolescents’ image of the scientist,
Sor. Stud. Sci.,
Schibeci,
R.
A,,
&
Sorensen,
I.
Elementary school children’s perception of scientists, 1982, type-
Sherwood,
M.
Caricatures of science.
New Sci.,
1970,
47,
382-384.
Accepted for publication
21
September
1981
Sci. Rer.,
1969,
51,
I
74.
Holton and
W.
Blanpied (Eds.). Dordrecht, Holland:
D.
Reidel, 1976.
997-1001,
1950.
1926.
Sch. Sci. Math.,
1967,67, 569-579.
Science,
1957, 126, 384-390.
1975,5,355-361.
script.