The genius narrative isn’t inspiring – science biographies for children may send a demotivating message

Many ‘inspirational’ science biographies could be conveying demotivating messages to children, new research has found.

Biographical science books are a popular way of sparking children’s interest in science: highlighting diverse role models can help science feel accessible and relatable to all. However, the portrayal of these individuals and their stories can influence the motivational message that children take away from these biographies, in some cases even reinforcing stereotypes.

Building on previous work looking at Stem role models, Jessica Gladstone at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and her team evaluated the implicit messages in 422 bestselling children’s science biographies. The study encompassed 655 individual protagonists across a mix of identities – 59% male versus 41% female, and 76% white to 24% ethnic minority – representing a cross-section of the most popular books currently on the market. They ranked the portrayals of each protagonist’s ability and interest (innate or developed), and the reason for their ultimate success (hard work or talent), combining these factors to determine whether the overall message was inspiring or demotivating.

Scientists’ ability was represented as a fairly even mixture of inherent genius and cultivated skill, with interest overwhelming portrayed as fixed from a young age – a seemingly reasonable depiction of reality on the face of it.

However, notes Gladstone, where these fixed and growth mindset messages are mixed, people tend to focus exclusively on the former, creating the false perception that scientific success often relies on innate talent and lifelong interest. ‘Psychology research demonstrates that when kids hear fixed mindsets about ability, that’s really demotivating for kids who just don’t feel super confident in their abilities,’ she explains. Interest likewise follows the same line of logic, with innate interest from childhood alienating those who do not yet feel a strong connection to science.

The analysis found that women were far more likely to have their success attributed to hard work than talent, even accounting for the additional obstacles female scientists historically faced. This analysis, particularly how they approached barriers to women without over-representing them, was excellent, says Claire Murray, a science communicator. ‘I’m not surprised by these findings but I would say I’m a little bit devastated. It’s not a great message to women. You’re going to have to work a lot harder, you may not be recognised even if you do, and you’re going to face barriers at every stage. It’s not going to make all of our smart, amazing girls feel that they can be scientists.’

Of course, any science biography must accurately represent the protagonist’s life and some famous scientists simply were innately talented or fascinated from birth, says Gladstone. But it’s also about how we frame these individuals and which aspects of their stories we choose to highlight, she adds. ‘There must be a way to acknowledge that these people are very smart but also talk about how they got there in a way that feels more relatable and attainable for most kids.’

That’s not at all to say that these books are bad, she adds, and in particular these stories could be used to begin conversations around what it means to be successful in Stem fields, and normalise the failure which forms an integral part of that.