Abstract
The public image of scientists significantly influences scientific literacy, science education, professional identity, science communication, and societal attitudes toward public issues. However, there has not been a thorough and detailed review of this topic. This paper presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of 233 high-quality articles examining public perceptions of scientists. The findings indicate that studies emphasize vivid and emotionally engaging characteristics of scientists, reflecting contemporary trends, particularly during the pandemic. Research predominantly targets students across various educational levels, highlighting a gap between science education and science communication, with a reliance on quantitative methods despite the use of visualization tools. Key research limitations include a lack of humanistic perspective, issues with validity and reproducibility, insufficient cultural context analysis, weak causal inferences, and limited integration of artificial intelligence and big data, which impede advancements in science education. The paper concludes with recommendations for developing a more comprehensive conceptual framework to bridge the gaps between science education and communication, as well as their relationship with science teaching, in order to foster a positive public understanding of science.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Given that science, as a public enterprise and foundation of societal advancement, relies profoundly on public trust to flourish (Kossowska et al. 2021; Sonmez et al. 2023), fostering positive attitudes toward scientists has become an increasingly pressing concern within science education and communication (Leavy et al. 2023). The portrayal of scientists plays a crucial role in formal education by encouraging students to identify with scientific pursuits, with the emphasis on scientists as role models and fostering a scientific mindset being key to nurturing the next generation of scientists, promoting diversity in the scientific community, and increasing STEM enrollment (Hunter et al. 2007). Since the classic work of Mead and Metraux (1957), the depiction of scientists has been a key area of study in education, psychology, and other branches of social science (Gilpin & Wright, 1964; Leiserson, 1965). However, scientists are often depicted as intellectually ambitious yet detached and impulsive (Beardslee & O’dowd, 1961), often as malevolent mad scientists or dangerous figures (Haynes, 2003; Weingart et al. 2003), though occasionally as revered and solitary intellectuals (Ryan & Steinke, 2010).
In the contemporary era marked by an overwhelming volume of information, understanding citizens’ perceptions and interactions with scientists has become a focal point in public policy discourse (Algan et al. 2021; Heyerdahl et al. 2023) and even a pivotal element in national competitive strategies. Notable examples include the “Science Integrity Act” promoted by the United States, the “Public Attitudes to Science (PAS)” conducted in the United Kingdom, and China’s recent national movement of “Spirit of Chinese Scientists” (Ren, 2020). The skepticism toward scientists has politicized scientists, particularly those researching global warming and Genetically Modified Food, who are seen as elites manipulating data. With rampant online misinformation, scientists are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy, as surveys reveal a significant trust gap between scientists and the public, which has been further exacerbated by the pandemic (Jiang & Wan, 2023). During the pandemic, science and scientists faced intense scrutiny,with Sitas (2023) highlighting a pronounced decline in trust among 18- to 25-year-olds—particularly those with limited scientific education (Eichengreen et al. 2021). Additionally, there’s also a noticeable decline in youth interest in scientific careers (Struyf et al. 2017), raising concerns about public apathy toward science and its social significance (Scotchmoor et al. 2009).
To facilitate a clearer understanding of academic research on public views of scientists, we drew on several studies (e.g.,Carlson et al. 2011; Pronin, 2008), using the term “see” to summarize how the public—including all individuals (excluding scientists themselves), as well as pupils and students—views and understands scientists. This approach benefits from incorporating a broad range of related concepts with varying attitudinal dimensions, such as image, view, attitude, perception, and trust. we employ a systematic literature review to explore the background and current issues in the public’s perception of scientists, aiming to provide valuable insights for science education, science communication, and public policy.
Background
Public attitude toward science and science education
The public perception of scientists reflect broader attitudes towards science, scientists, and the pursuit of scientific knowledge, a trend that is garnering growing attention (Miller, 2004). Despite the conventional portrayal of science as an arena governed by rationality and universal natural principles, recent research suggests a notable shift: individuals’ views of science are increasingly shaped by political ideologies, with entrenched polarization further intensifying this trend (Gauchat, 2012). This growing complexity has led to a surge in research on scientific attitudes, encompassing various dimensions such as methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks (van Aalderen‐Smeets et al. 2012), and measurement instruments (Kind et al. 2007).
Additionally, several systematic literature reviews have examined this subject. Osborne et al. (2003) conducted a review of the study on scientific attitudes and their influencing factors over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, Pardo and Calvo (2002) conducted a methodological analysis of literature on the scientific attitudes of the European public. Their findings identified notable shortcomings in the content, measurement, and conceptual foundations of commonly used survey instruments. For example, simplified revisions often led to ambiguous interpretations, and questionnaire designs frequently lacked theoretical grounding. Existing measurement tools for scientific attitudes generally fall into four categories: attitudes toward science, scientific attitudes, conceptions of the nature of science, and interest in scientific careers. However, these instruments still demonstrate limitations in their psychometric robustness (Blalock et al. 2008).
Between 1998 and 2017, a group of scholars analyzed the trajectory of science education research, identifying several notable trends. From 1998 to 2002, the field was dominated by empirical studies, with a marked absence of theoretical or commentary articles. Research during this period primarily focused on students’ science learning processes, examined within social, historical, and cultural contexts (Tsai & Lydia Wen, 2005). Between 2003 and 2007, attention shifted toward the participants in science education, particularly exploring the complexities of student learning, with a growing emphasis on argumentation (Lee et al. 2009). The 2008–2012 period saw an expansion of focus beyond traditional science education to include scientific inquiry and STEM education (Lin et al. 2014). Finally, from 2013 to 2017, research increasingly concentrated on issues of inequality in science education, STEM initiatives, and undergraduate research participation (Lin et al. 2019).
Perceptions of, attitude toward, and (dis)trust of scientists
Scholars have long sought to understand how individuals cognitively construct the image of scientists, including the factors that shape stereotypes and their origins. In response, targeted intervention strategies have gradually emerged—for example, the use of role models to reshape public perceptions (Corsbie-Massay & Wheatly, 2022). Research has also shown that public understanding of fundamental scientific concepts is closely linked to their attitudes toward science (Weisberg et al. 2021). Painter et al. (2006) examined students’ perceptions of scientists before and after a week-long nanotechnology education program, highlighting the program’s impact on student attitudes. Some scholars have proposed integrating science literacy instruction to help young children write scientific texts more effectively (Clark et al. 2021). Other interventions—such as diversifying representations of scientists in college classrooms by featuring individuals from marginalized backgrounds—have been shown to foster a greater sense of belonging in STEM fields and reduce harmful stereotypes about underrepresented scientists (Sheffield et al. 2021).
However, some traditional stereotypes of scientists’ images, despite subtle shifts, have persisted for decades or even generations. Finson (2003) succinctly reviewed the literature on students’ perceptions of scientists since Mead and Metraux (1957)’s seminal study, with similar findings confirmed in subsequent decades (Barman, 1999; Farland-Smith, 2009). It is widely believed that scientists are male, while other stereotypes about science and scientists vary. Recent research supports Mead and Metraux (1957)’s findings that conceptualizations of scientists vary by gender (Jones et al. 2000). Non-Caucasian students are more likely to perceive scientists as Caucasian rather than individuals of their own ethnicity (Finson, 2003; Monhardt, 2003). Over the past 30 years, Greek elementary school students have maintained common stereotypes of scientists, with the primary shift being a move from focusing on scientists’ appearance to emphasizing their scientific activities (Emvalotis & Koutsianou, 2018). Similarly, the public image of scientific professions in Greece continues to retain traditional characteristics when compared to historical photographs (Christidou et al. 2019).
The multifaceted image of scientists is portrayed across various media, including movies, textbooks (Dagher & Ford, 2005), and biographies. For example, The Big Bang Theory draws on the stereotypical “mad scientist” trope prevalent in popular culture, yet depicts a more diverse group of scientists in terms of gender, race, and disciplines (Weitekamp, 2017). The film Oppenheimer, centered on J. Robert Oppenheimer—the “father of the atomic bomb”—offers a more nuanced and complex portrayal, highlighting the contradictory nature of scientists (Castelvecchi, 2023). Additionally, science fiction novels serve as a significant source shaping public perceptions, often depicting scientists as saviors of humanity across varying historical contexts and thereby continuously reshaping their image (Frayling, 2013; Haynes, 2016; Hirsch, 1958).
Gaps between public understanding of science and scientists
The authentic image of scientists is intrinsically linked to the evolution of science itself, as scientists are both products and drivers of scientific progress (Frazzetto, 2004). Some researchers, however, use the terms “public attitudes toward science” and “scientific spirit” interchangeably, a practice that has been critically challenged. While research on attitudes toward science benefits from relatively mature methodologies and theoretical frameworks, studies focusing specifically on scientists remain comparatively limited, with a notable lack of systematic reviews. Moreover, some investigations of attitudes toward science also incorporate attitudes toward scientists. Although science as an institution generally enjoys higher public trust than individual scientists, the latter serve a crucial role as intermediaries between science and society (Peters, 2013). The “Humanizing Science” initiative, originally proposed by George Sarton and supported by many scholars, emphasizes analyzing the influence of specific social and political factors on science from historical and archaeological perspectives, particularly focusing on the role of scientists within these contexts (Wylie, 2022).
Science education is not solely the responsibility of schools; direct engagement with scientists can more effectively inspire students’ interest in and understanding of science. As early as 1980s, Erb et al. (1983) emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the image of scientists and the image of science when measuring educational outcomes. They argued that perceptions of scientists (i.e., individuals) are distinct from perceptions of the scientific discipline (i.e., science), noting significant differences in responses between adolescent boys and girls. The correlation patterns among perceptions of scientists, perceptions of science, and preferences for scientific careers suggest that these constructs, while related, are theoretically and empirically distinct. DeWitt et al. (2013) further noted that although positive attitudes toward science can enhance students’ scientific self-concept, the image of scientists does not exert the same influence—an important distinction for science education and career guidance. Public perceptions of scientists can indeed shape attitudes toward science and influence future career choices (Hong & Lin-Siegler, 2012). Therefore, if the goal is to increase students’ interest and participation in scientific careers, understanding their perceptions of scientists may be even more critical than their perceptions of science itself.
Consequently, some research and regional or international surveys have begun to distinguish between scientific attitudes and perceptions of scientists’ images. For instance, Jensen et al. (2021) found that although the UK public largely disapproved of the government’s pandemic response measures, scientists nevertheless retained high public regard—indeed, higher than before the crisis. This illustrates the cultural identity constraints that influence scientists’ roles within national competition. In 2019, Chinese state-led media highlighted the unity and strength demonstrated by Chinese scientists when addressing national interests and adhering to universal academic norms (Zhang, 2019). This sentiment underlies the popular phrase, “Science has no borders, but scientists have their own homeland.” Nadelson et al. (2014) developed the Trust in Science and Scientist Inventory specifically to measure trust in both science and scientists. However, despite recognizing the conceptual distinction between these constructs, existing measurement instruments often fail to differentiate them adequately.
To address the aforementioned gap, this study undertakes a systematic review of existing research on public perceptions of scientists, providing a comprehensive analysis of the field’s research structure and quantitative characteristics. It outlines the overall framework of this area, emphasizing key focal points and recent trends. Based on this foundation, the study aims to explore the following research questions:
Q1: What are the major findings related to the perceptions of scientists? What are the overall trends in the development of the topic?
Q2: What are the existing tools for measuring attitudes towards science, and the analytical tools, etc.?
Q3: What are the limitations of current research on the topic?
Methods
The advantages of SLR lies in its rigor, transparency, clear research questions, comprehensive search strategies, explicit literature criteria, high-quality assessment methods, integrated data analysis, and reliable research outcomes (Gough et al. 2017). Therefore, we employs Systematic Literature Review (Khan et al. 2003) to conduct research and draws on previous research (Lai & Bower, 2019; Lee et al. 2021), implementing data retrieval and screening under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework (Page et al. 2021).
Initial search
Guided by the principle of complementarity in research design, this study adopts both topic-based and title-based retrieval strategies to enhance the comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the literature search (for the details, please see the Appendix 1). In the strategy one, it yielded 849 articles. Through the strategy two, a total of 17 articles were obtained. In total, combining both search strategies yielded 866 articles, providing a comprehensive and diverse array of sources for this research.
Manual screening
After conducting the initial literature search, it is common to encounter documents that appear to be relevant but are actually unrelated to the research topic. Therefore, to ensure that only literature closely related to the research topic is included in the analysis, manual screening is often necessary. This manual screening process involves two stages to efficiently and rigorously select the final literature for analysis. It also ensures quality control over the included literature. The research team has developed the following screening criteria (see Table 1):
According to the screening criteria, we conducted two rounds of screening for the literature retrieved from Strategy One and Strategy Two. Firstly, we utilized the semi-automated systematic review software Rayyan to remove duplicate literature (Ouzzani et al. 2016). In this platform, preliminary screening was conducted by reading titles and abstracts, and it was determined that 414 articles from Strategy One and 847 articles from Strategy Two proceeded to the next stage. Subsequently, we performed in-depth readings of the full texts and conducted a secondary screening based on the literature selection criteria. Finally, 233 articles from Strategy One and 56 articles from Strategy Two were included as sample literature, and duplicate sample literature between the two strategies was removed. Furthermore, to further prevent the omission of key literature, based on the researchers’ understanding of science education and communication, we utilized Google Scholar as a search engine (with the theme related to identity/trust of scientists) to gather additional highly relevant and highly cited literature as supplements. Ultimately, we obtained a total of 233 valid sample articles. The PRISMA process is illustrated in Fig. 1, detailing the literature screening process.
Analytical coding
After completing the manual screening, two authors conducted full-text readings of the remaining 233 articles and collected detailed information in the following five categories: literature metadata (such as publication year, article type, etc.), methodological information, and other research details of the articles.
After designing the coding scheme (for the details, please see the Appendix 2), the two authors conducted back-to-back coding to ensure the reliability of the study. After independently coding, the two authors created two separate Excel documents. By applying two commonly used methods of inter-rater reliability in educational statistics and measurement—Percent Agreement and Cohen’s κ—the consistency between the two coders can be assessed (Belur et al. 2021). According to the formula for average mutual agreement and reliability calculation:
In the above formula, M represents the number of articles on which the two coders agreed, while N refers to the total number of documents (233). K denotes the probability that both raters are measuring the same thing in a person, and \({k}_{e}\) indicates the probability of agreement occurring by chance under ideal conditions. The results show that the K values for all coding categories exceed 90% (see Table 2), and the Cohen’s κ values are greater than 0.7 (Belur et al. 2021). Therefore, the coding framework and results can be considered to demonstrate high reliability.
Results
Bibliometric analysis
Distribution of country(region) and period
A detailed analysis of publication distribution by country is presented in Fig. 2. The 233 articles included in this review originate from 40 countries. The United States leads the field with 93 publications, followed by Turkey (35), the United Kingdom (15), and Canada (9). Together, these four countries account for 152 articles, representing 65% of the total and serving as the primary drivers of research on public perceptions of scientists. In terms of publication timeline, a minor surge occurred in 1998 with six publications, followed by a relatively quiet period until 2012, when more countries began contributing to the field. Since then, the research landscape has expanded significantly. Notably, 158 articles (68% of the total) were published between January 2012 and December 2023, reflecting a period of dynamic and diversified growth in this area.
Distribution of article source
An analysis of journal distribution reveals that the 233 articles are published across 98 journals. Figure 3 highlights the top 20 journals and conferences in terms of publication volume. As shown, the majority of these outlets are concentrated in the fields of education, educational research, and science communication. Representative journals include the International Journal of Science Education, Public Understanding of Science, and Science Communication.
Distribution of authors and institutions
The results show that a significant research group focused on Jocelyn Steinke from University of Connecticut, in the field of scientist image cognition, with a total of 10 publications. Steinke’s research background is in communication and STEM education. The research mainly focuses on the media portrayal of STEM professionals, adolescents’ wishful identification (Steinke et al. 2012) with scientist roles on television, gender differences in science education and career participation, and the effectiveness of media interventions and role models (Steinke, 2017). In the past two years, a prominent research group led by Christidou et al. (2023) from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki introduced Emo-DAST as a novel tool for collecting and analyzing data to understand children’s emotional portrayal of scientists. Researchers from some developing countries have also published relevant findings, such as Sedat Karaçam from Duzce University. Their research expertise covers various fields, including pedagogy, science and children’s education, and science communication. The disciplinary backgrounds of the aforementioned researchers cover various areas, with the majority having significant contributions in the field of science communication, accounting for 33%. Following this, science education constitutes 25% of their focus, while both STEM education and children’s education receive considerable attention, each comprising 17%. Other areas such as curriculum studies make up 8% of their focus.
Distribution of research object
As shown in Fig. 4, the primary focus of relevant research is on students, accounting for a significant 62%, with the majority concentrating on primary school and secondary school students. Following this are investigations from the perspectives of scientists, teachers, and the public, comprising 13%, 11%, and 11%, respectively. A small proportion of studies focus on other groups.
Thematic analysis
The key research topics
Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which allowed themes to emerge organically from the data without imposing predefined categories, we identified four primary themes characterizing research on scientists’ image: stereotypes, cognitive differences, cognitive effects, and influencing factors. The results are presented in Table 3. Literature is predominantly focused on the analysis of stereotypes of scientists (n = 137, 59%), with a primary emphasis on the overall image of scientists. This is followed by investigations into cognitive differences and effects regarding scientists’ image cognition (n = 55, 24%), indicating diverse interpretations by researchers. Additionally, some studies have explored the influence of various factors on scientists’ image cognition (n = 61, 26%).
The first theme concerns stereotype of scientists, which can be categorized into three subdomains: the overall image of scientists, the nature of their work, and their personality traits. Research consistently reveals an underrepresentation of women and culturally marginalized groups in portrayals of scientists (Mitchell & McKinnon, 2019). For example, Christidou and Kouvatas (2013) found that public perceptions of Greek scientists are dominated by the image of male physicists or chemists—often depicted with glasses, beards, and bald heads. Students frequently associate scientists with “mad” or “supernatural” characteristics (Brumovska et al. 2022). Türkmen (2008) similarly observed that scientists are commonly portrayed as older men working in eccentric laboratory settings. However, there has been a gradual shift toward more diverse representations, including scientists dressed in ordinary clothing and smiling—challenging the traditional stereotype of the bearded man in a lab coat.
Many scholars have investigated public perceptions of the nature of scientists’ work. Findings suggest that students often hold a narrow and superficial understanding, primarily shaped by intuitive experiences. Common descriptions include “doing experiments” (especially in chemistry), “conducting research,” or “inventing things” (Ateş et al. 2021; Laubach et al. 2012). Two prevalent misconceptions are that scientists are obsessively devoted to research and typically work alone in laboratories (Finson, 2002).
Research on scientists’ personality traits primarily investigates students’ perceptions of scientists’ personal characteristics. Negative stereotypes often include attributes such as aloofness, dullness, limited interpersonal engagement, and a monotonous professional life (Zahry & Besley, 2021). Subsequent studies have shown that, although stereotypical views of scientists remain pervasive, students’ representations increasingly incorporate positive qualities—such as creativity and enthusiasm—as their exposure to science grows (Gormally & Inghram, 2021). McCarthy (2015) found that nearly half of the students’ drawings depicted female scientists, and that portrayals of scientists’ work environments extended beyond indoor laboratories; notably, over 78% of students associated scientists with smiling and happiness.
The second theme concerns cognitive differences. Students’ negative perceptions of science tend to increase with age (Murphy & Beggs, 2003). In student depictions, scientists are typically portrayed as middle-aged or elderly men, with female scientists underrepresented—an age-related trend that intensifies over time (Baybars, 2020; El Takach & Yacoubian, 2020). Older students also depict scientists in more stereotypical ways (Fung, 2002; Ozel, 2012). Steinke et al. (2012) found that students identify more strongly with scientists of the same gender. Age influences students’ perceptions of scientists in various respects, including the perceived age of scientists, which also varies with local economic and technological development (Losh, 2010). Furthermore, girls are often discouraged from pursuing science due to its perception as a male-dominated field. Addressing this, Jones and Hite (2022) examined K-12 students’ career aspirations and views on science, calling for renewed efforts to foster trust and enthusiasm among young women toward scientific careers—an important step in addressing gender disparities in perceptions of scientists.
Cognitive differences also emerge among student groups from different racial and cultural backgrounds. Students often perceive scientists as white (Reif et al. 2020), though their representations may occasionally include scientists of other races. For instance, African American students’ drawings may depict both white and non-white scientists, while Korean students frequently admire renowned Western figures such as Edison, Einstein, Newton, and Marie Curie (Sumrall, 1995). Nevertheless, minority scientists are rarely portrayed. A comparative study of American and Greek elementary students revealed a preference for young, clean-shaven scientists of European descent (Christidou et al. 2016). Watkins and Shari (2022) challenge the recurring stereotype of scientists as white males, arguing that such portrayals may discourage marginalized students from seeing themselves as future scientists. In China, students generally hold positive views of scientists, with those from economically developed regions demonstrating more favorable and nuanced perceptions of scientists’ emotional traits and personal qualities (Zhang et al. 2023).
Public trust in scientists often correlates with their disciplinary backgrounds (Barman, 1999; Butler et al. 2021; O’Brien, 2013). For instance, Sonmez et al. (2023) demonstrated that natural scientists are more likely to gain public trust than social scientists. Lee (1998) showed that girls exhibit significantly lower levels of interest in science-related disciplines compared to boys, who show a greater affinity for disciplines like engineering and mathematics that are closely aligned with science.
The third theme centers on cognitive effects. Scholars argue that perceptions of scientists can influence public trust in science as well as interest in and pursuit of scientific careers. Archer et al. (2012) contend that children’s stereotypical views of scientists shape their identification with and enthusiasm for science. A limited understanding of scientists’ characteristics often fosters misconceptions such as “science is boring” or “only for smart people.” Narayan et al. (2013) in a cross-national study, found that students who perceive science as dynamic and engaging are more likely to pursue science-related careers.
Research also highlights the positive impact of identity, particularly scientific identity, on various groups. Scientific identity is especially crucial for “quasi”-scientists—individuals aspiring to scientific careers but not yet fully established as scientists. This group notably includes postdoctoral researchers, particularly in STEM fields, who cultivate their scientific identity through intellectual work and by gaining recognition for their achievements from established scientists (Hudson et al. 2018).
The fourth theme concerns antecedent factors influencing public perceptions of scientists, with media and school education identified as primary influences. Media significantly shapes students’ views of scientists, as students often derive their impressions from portrayals in advertisements, films, and comics (Tan et al. 2017). Students primarily form their perceptions of scientists from the portrayal of scientists in various media, including advertisements, movies, and comics (Kossowska et al. 2021). Negative stereotypes—such as “mad scientists” or “lab coat” characters in cartoons and TV—are commonly propagated through these channels. Downs and Smith (2010) found that males are more likely than females to regard video games as realistic sources shaping their image of scientists. Reif et al. (2020) observed that television media reporting tends to inspire greater public trust in scientists compared to emerging online video content. Seidel et al. (2020) developed a video storytelling model involving scientists in narrative production to better engage the public through media platforms. Notably, both exaggeration and understatement of scientists’ images can distort reality. Egelhofer (2023) highlights how politicians exploit social media to spread misinformation, deliberately creating misleading images of scientists.
In formal education, young students’ scientific aspirations are strongly shaped by the science culture presented in schools (DeWitt et al. 2014). For instance, Sharkawy (2012) suggests that sharing stories of scientists from diverse social backgrounds positively influences students’ cognitive and affective attitudes toward scientists. The portrayal of science in schools varies across countries, reflecting national cultures. Yacoubian et al. (2017) found that Lebanese national science textbooks predominantly depict scientists as white European males working independently as rational individuals conducting laboratory experiments.
Furthermore, teachers play a crucial role in shaping students’ perceptions. Science teacher training programs can transform teachers’ beliefs about science (Milford & Tippett, 2013), and these beliefs, along with teachers’ views of scientists, influence their instructional methods and curriculum choices, thereby indirectly affecting students’ perceptions (Ucar, 2012). Adedokun et al. (2012) highlighted disparities in the distribution of science education resources and emphasized the impact of the ZipTrips learning program. This initiative, grounded in robust pedagogical theories and interactive formats, aligns with science curricula and seeks to expand opportunities for rural high school students to engage with science and scientists.
Research methods and measurement tools
We conducted a statistical analysis of research types and found that existing studies primarily comprise meta-analytical reviews, critical and narrative reviews, theoretical and speculative studies, systematic literature reviews, experimental research, mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative research, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
Visual tools are the most commonly used data collection method, accounting for 36.9% of studies. These include pioneering instruments such as the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) developed by Chambers in 1983, the DAST-C checklist by Finson et al. (1995), the Image of Science and Scientist Scale (ISSS) introduced by Krajkovich (1978) and modified versions like the Draw-a-Science Teacher Teaching Checklist (DASTT-C) and the Modified Draw-A-Scientist Test (M-DAST). Drawing offers advantages over other measures by capturing children’s perceptions before language skills fully develop (Chambers, 1983). Visual methods are especially valuable for educators addressing students’ stereotypes of scientists, facilitating targeted intervention and planning. Other common methods include questionnaire surveys (32.2%), interviews or focus groups (25.8%), content analysis (13.7%), pre-post testing (8.2%), observation (5.6%), archival research (4.3%), and historical research (3.0%). Many studies also leverage existing databases to obtain large-scale samples for more robust analyses. As studies often employ multiple methods, research method categories are not mutually exclusive (see Table 4).
Data analysis methods were classified into quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches, as shown in Table 5. Furthermore, quantitative and qualitative techniques were further subdivided into specific categories, detailed in Fig. 6.
Quantitative analysis primarily includes descriptive statistics (n = 67) and inferential methods such as regression analysis (n = 36) and chi-square tests (n = 15). Between-group difference analyses, including t-tests (n = 22) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (n = 28), are also common, alongside less frequent methods like non-parametric tests (n = 6) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (n = 8). In contrast, effect analyses—such as mediation (n = 2) and moderation analyses (n = 1)—are rarely reported. This disparity suggests researchers focus more on identifying factors influencing scientists’ stereotypes, group differences in perceptions, and variable relationships through relatively straightforward methods. Although effect analyses offer valuable insights, their complexity, data demands, and technical challenges limit their widespread application, leading many researchers to favor simpler, more intuitive statistical techniques to address their research questions.
In qualitative analysis, content analysis is the predominant method, employed in 91 articles (77%). Thematic analysis follows, with 19 articles (16%), primarily applied to qualitatively examine students’ drawings of scientists by coding stereotypical features and analyzing accompanying narratives. Narrative analysis (n = 5) and discourse analysis (n = 3) are less commonly used. To investigate measurement approaches for scientists’ images, this paper systematically reviews key tools and representative cases, summarized in Table 6.
Despite controversy (Losh et al. 2008; Reinisch et al. 2017), the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) remains a prominent tool for measuring perceptions of scientists. The DAST-C improves upon the original by identifying 15 standardized stereotypical features, offering a more systematic and consistent evaluation framework that enhances comparability across studies. However, limitations persist: DAST may reinforce existing stereotypes rather than capture diverse conceptions of scientists, and cultural differences can lead to varying student perceptions across regions. Although Interobserver Agreement (IOA) methods, as applied in studies like Çavas et al. (2020), aim to improve scoring reliability, the qualitative nature of drawings renders evaluations vulnerable to subjective bias.
Four widely used questionnaires were selected for further analysis. The Student Views of Science (SVAS), developed by Ohio State University researchers, comprises five subscales including scientific method, anxiety, utility of science, and uncertainty of scientific knowledge (Ucar, 2012). The Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C) features seven subscales and employs a free-response format to elicit participants’ ideas and beliefs about the nature of science (Kiliç et al. 2012). The Mental Images of Scientists Questionnaire (MISQ) examines perceptions of scientists’ roles, emotions, lifestyles, and work characteristics (Zhang et al. 2023). Karaçam et al. (2020) developed three preliminary scales: the Scientist Image Scale (ImSca), the Gender Perception Scale (GenSca), and the Risk Perception Scale (RiskSca).
Interviews and participant observation are commonly employed as complementary methods. O’Brien (2013) conducted face-to-face interviews exploring four dimensions: scientists’ knowledge, national interest services, scientific community consensus, and policy influence. Observational methods typically assess the frequency of student–scientist interactions, students’ discussion performance, and engagement, providing data to evaluate intervention effects on students’ perspectives (Avraamidou, 2013). Qualitative approaches such as discourse analysis, historical research, and archival studies are also prevalent. For example, Günter et al. (2021) analyzed students’ imagined identity trajectories—Straight Biology Path (SBP) and Backpacking Biology Path (BBP)—across six dimensions, including identity construction, gendered discourse, socio-cultural factors, narrative, power dynamics, and inclusivity. Review articles often examine historical documents, letters, diaries, speeches, and news reports to trace the evolution of scientists’ public images and societal understanding of science.
Content testing is frequently integrated with experimental research. Houseal et al. (2014) employed quasi-experimental designs, including pre-test/post-test and non-randomized controlled group methods, utilizing multiple question formats—such as multiple-choice, short-answer, and scales—to assess the impact of the Students, Teachers, and Rangers and Research Scientists (STaRRS) program on students’ scientific knowledge and attitudes. Experimental research further substantiates findings from content testing, enhancing study validity and rigor. Similarly, Adedokun et al. (2012) used content testing as a theoretical foundation and preliminary investigation for subsequent experimental evaluation of the ZipTrips program.
Table 6 summarizes commonly used instruments, each presenting distinct methodological strengths and limitations. Visual tools, such as the DAST, effectively uncover implicit stereotypes, especially among younger populations, but lack capacity to capture complex cognitive constructs. Standardized questionnaires (e.g., SVAS, VNOS-C, MISQ) facilitate broad and structured data collection, yet are susceptible to self-report biases. Qualitative methods, including interviews and discourse analyses, provide rich contextual insights but are resource-intensive and less generalizable. Observational and archival approaches contribute valuable interpretive data but are predominantly descriptive. Therefore, selection of instruments should be carefully aligned with research objectives, target populations, and underlying theoretical frameworks.
Deficiency analysis
We conducted a thorough analysis of the limitations in the 233 papers, revealing four main categories of issues. The most common issue, accounting for 40.77% (95/233) of all literature, is the “insufficient sample size and theoretical perspectives” (see Fig. 7). The designs of these studies often suffer from limitations in participant diversity, necessitating more extensive comparative analyses. Inherent scientific beliefs, religious backgrounds, or educational experiences of participants may influence research outcomes. For instance, Buldu (2006) focuses exclusively on children aged 5–8 in a public school in Turkey, potentially overlooking perspectives from broader age ranges—an issue commonly observed in studies that primarily rely on the DAST method for data collection.
Furthermore, the DAST measurement tool often leaves researchers unable to fully interpret the underlying reasons for image characteristics (n = 40, 17.16%), mainly due to incomplete or ambiguous student responses. In 27.89% of the reviewed literature, issues related to the lack of standardized data collection and analysis procedures were identified, including omission of key predictive features (n = 21), limitations of research instruments (n = 25), and inadequate control of confounding variables (n = 11). Such methodological inconsistencies undermine result comparability and reliability, while also impeding study replication and the verification of findings. Additionally, 9.44% of studies emphasize the insufficient attention given to the role of scientific image research within science education, often failing to explore its pedagogical implications or translate findings into effective teaching practices.
Discussion and conclusions
Discussion
How people “see” scientists—and the implications of such perceptions for science education and communication—is an increasingly important issue within the academic community of science education. The study conducts a comprehensive review of 233 empirical studies concerning the public perception of scientists, with a particular focus on stereotypes, cognitive disparities, influencing factors, research methodologies, measurement tools, and the achievements and limitations of the research. In contrast to investigations into attitudes toward science (Lee et al. 2021), findings from this research suggest that attitudes towards scientists exhibit greater diversity, emotions, and specificity, encompassing views, images, attitudes, trust, perceptions, stereotypes, perceptions, and identity, among other facets. Significantly, from the distribution of literature, it appears that science education is predominantly focused on instilling scientific spirit and critical thinking within formal educational institutions, while outreach efforts aimed at educating the public about science are relatively marginalized within the academic discourse. This also reflects an important issue: there is a significant gap between academic research and practical systems in science communication and science education.
In this study, we adopt the term “see” as a heuristic device to synthesize how the public forms impressions of scientists, drawing on related constructs such as perception, image, attitude, and trust. We acknowledge that these constructs emerge from distinct theoretical traditions—perception from cognitive psychology, attitude from social psychology, image from media and communication studies, and trust from sociology and risk studies—and are typically treated as analytically separate (e.g., Baybars, 2020; Christidou et al. 2023). We use the label “see” not to collapse their theoretical distinctions, but rather to offer an integrative lens through which to examine how the public—understood here primarily as the adult lay population—encounters and interprets scientists in social contexts.“See”, in fact, constitutes an attitudinal act, similar to “thinking about” (Besley, 2014). However, there remains a lack of comprehensive exploration into the conceptual definition and classification of public attitudes (e.g., cognitive, affective, etc.) (Besley et al. 2021; Fiske & Dupree, 2014). Practical research on the impact of various factors on perceptions of scientists’ images still sidelines science education (Besley et al. 2021).
Despite growing interest in science communication and education, research explicitly focused on public perceptions of scientists remains surprisingly limited. Firstly, existing investigations into the portrayal of scientists often fixate excessively on nuances or distinctions across disparate fields (e.g., Adedokun et al. 2012; Reif et al. 2020), resulting in a dearth of an overarching theoretical or conceptual framework (van Aalderen‐Smeets et al. 2012), not alone the paradigm shift. The majority of studies are confined to specific regions or disciplines, with limited cross-disciplinary dialogue or synthesis. For instance, scholars tend to scrutinize purported image disparities within rapidly emerging technologies (e.g., memes, artificial intelligence, etc.) (Fujiwara et al. 2022), thereby engendering numerous ostensibly disparate yet conceptually interconnected bodies of literature, including examinations of media depictions and televised representations, global surveys vis-à-vis specific countries or regions. Secondly, humanistic considerations regarding the portrayal of scientists and science education remain notably inadequate (Clough, 2011; Kruse & Borzo, 2010). As articulated by Sarton (1924) at the outset of this discourse, the absence of humanism remains a pressing concern. Particularly given the pervasive influence of political ideologies and authoritarian regimes on science and scientists (Wang, 2002), researchers ought to attend to how the scientific community, society, and governments shape the public perception of science and scientists. Finally, research on the image of scientists seems inherently disconnected from how to advance science teaching, especially those studies that focus solely on public perceptions and attitudes towards scientists. Some research on the image, attitudes, and cognition of scientists reduces the scientist’s image to a mere dependent variable—treating it as an end rather than a means—and thereby overlooks its potential mediating role in enhancing public understanding of science.
Conclusions
For research on the image of scientists, it is necessary to explore the following aspects in depth. (1) Future research should adopt a more diverse theoretical framework that integrates interdisciplinary perspectives and the epistemology of science while broadening the analytical scope of existing research on the portrayal of scientists to incorporate critical examinations of discursive texts, social phenomena, and the associated disparities and politicization. (2) It should aim for a comprehensive approach or concept to effectively combine science education and science communication. In many ways, science education and science communication have similar objectives. Both aim to educate, entertain, and engage the public with science. However, it’s somewhat surprising that, despite these shared goals, they have developed into separate academic fields that often overlook one another (Baram-Tsabari & Osborne, 2015). It is imperative not only to elucidate the public’s perceptions of scientists but also to explore how scientists perceive the public and discern differences therein. (3) Future studies should expand the use of experimental methodologies in science education, while cautiously adopting traditional and new research methods (Losh et al. 2008; Reinisch et al. 2017). Longitudinal study and neuroimaging can track intervention effects and reveal the neural basis of students’ attitudes toward science. Causal inference methods can also clarify factors influencing students’ interest in science learning and careers. (4) Future researchers should take seriously the distinctions between studies on attitudes toward science and those toward scientists (Cologna, 2025). It is also imperative to rigorously differentiate among various forms of public attitudes—such as attitude, perception, view, opinion, and trust—while clarifying their respective theoretical and practical implications. Building upon these typological distinctions, scholars are encouraged to develop a more integrative and universally applicable analytical framework or theoretical model.
To promote the linkage between images of scientists and science education, we offer two preliminary suggestions for the development and implementation of public perceptions of scientists in formal or informal education: (1) Contextualizing scientist image education within local cultures and values. To enhance its relevance and inclusivity, scientist image education should adapt to diverse sociocultural and ideological contexts. This may include emphasizing emotional education, civic responsibility, and national identity (e.g., national security education), while exploring the cultural heritage, moral character, and civic contributions of scientists (Ren, 2020; Zhang, 2019). A balance should be maintained to avoid politicization or essentialism. (2) Clarifying the positioning and pedagogical use of scientists. Educators should critically examine the roles scientists play in curricula, avoiding uncritical hero-worship, scientism, or the fetishization of science (Allchin, 2003). Guidelines should be established to prevent overreliance on authority and to determine whether the instructional goal is to foster deeper understanding of science, develop critical thinking, or achieve broader educational values.
This systematic literature review also has some limitations that should be acknowledged. On one hand, this study is limited to English-language publications, which means that practices or research related to the spirit or image of scientists in non-native English-speaking countries or regions that may also be advanced in science education and science communication (e.g., Turkey, Japan, Russia) may have been overlooked. Future research should pay attention to non-English-speaking countries or regions. An additional limitation of the study is its failure to examine scientists’ perspectives on the public, science education, and science communication. These factors are crucial as they influence research and practices in these areas, a point supported by (Taylor et al. 2008). To address this, future research could conduct a systematic literature review to explore this supplementary perspective
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Adedokun OA, Hetzel K, Parker LC, Loizzo J, Burgess WD, Paul Robinson J (2012) Using virtual field trips to connect students with university scientists: core elements and evaluation of zipTrips™. J Sci Educ Technol 21:607–618
Algan Y, Cohen D, Davoine E, Foucault M, Stantcheva S (2021) Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: panel evidence from 12 countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118(40):e2108576118
Allchin D (2003) Scientific myth‐conceptions. Sci Educ 87(3):329–351
Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2012) “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Sci Educ 96(6):967–989
Ateş Ö, Ateş AM, Aladağ Y (2021) Perceptions of students and teachers participating in a science festival regarding science and scientists. Res Sci Technol Educ 39(1):109–130
Avraamidou L (2013) Superheroes and supervillains: reconstructing the mad-scientist stereotype in school science. Res Sci Technol Educ 31(1):90–115
Baram-Tsabari A, Osborne J (2015) Bridging science education and science communication research. J Res Sci Teach 52(2):135–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21202
Barman CR (1999) Students’ views about scientists and school science: engaging K-8 teachers in a national study. J Sci Teach Educ 10(1):43–54
Baybars MG (2020) An investigation of secondary school students’ images of a scientist with regard to gender variable in Turkey. Sci Educ Int 31(3):247–254
Beardslee DC, O’dowd DD (1961) The college-student image of the scientist: scientists are seen as intelligent and hard-working but also as uncultured and not interested in people. Science 133(3457):997–1001
Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M (2021) Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. SociolMethods Res 50(2):837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372
Besley JC (2014) What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Sci Public Policy 42(2):201–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu042
Besley JC, Lee NM, Pressgrove G (2021) Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Sci Commun 43(1):3–32
Blalock CL, Lichtenstein MJ, Owen S, Pruski L, Marshall C, Toepperwein M (2008) In pursuit of validity: a comprehensive review of science attitude instruments 1935–2005. Int J Sci Educ 30(7):961–977
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brumovska TJ, Carroll S, Javornicky M, Grenon M (2022) Brainy, crazy, supernatural, clumsy and normal: five profiles of children’s stereotypical and non-stereotypical perceptions of scientists in the draw-a-scientist-test. Int J Educ Res Open 3:100180
Bucchi M (2020) The saints of science? Bodies, ceremonies and the public image of the nobel prize. Historia Scientiarum Second Ser: Int J Hist Sci Soc Jpn 30(1):36–60
Buldu M (2006) Young children’s perceptionsof scientists: a preliminary study. Educ Res 48(1):121–132
Butler M, Farzin S, Fuchs M (2021) PandemIcons? The medical scientist as iconic figure in times of crisis. Configurations 29(4):435–451
Carlson EN, Vazire S, Furr RM (2011) Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them? J Personal Soc Psychol 101(4):831–846
Castelvecchi D (2023) Why Oppenheimer has important lessons for scientists today. Nature 620:16–17
Çavas B, Güney LÖ, Karagöz E, Çavas P (2020) More than playing a toy: the effects of LEGO Mindstorms on the students’ perceptions about scientists. Sci Educ Int 31(1):92–103
Chambers DW (1983) Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Sci Educ 67(2):255–265
Christidou V, Bonoti F, Hatzinikita V (2023) Drawing a scientist: using the Emo-DAST to explore emotional aspects of children’s images of scientists. Res Sci Technol Educ 41(4):1287–1308
Christidou V, Bonoti F, Kontopoulou A (2016) American and Greek children’s visual images of scientists: enduring or fading stereotypes? Sci Educ 25:497–522
Christidou V, Hatzinikita V, Kouvatas A (2019) Public visual images of Greek scientists and science: tracing changes through time. Int J Sci Educ, Part B 9(1):82–99
Christidou V, Kouvatas A (2013) Visual self-images of scientists and science in Greece. Public Underst Sci 22(1):91–109
Clark SK, Lott K, Larese-Casanova M, Taggart AM, Judd E (2021) Leveraging integrated science and disciplinary literacy instruction to teach first graders to write like scientists and to explore their perceptions of scientists. Res Sci Educ 51:1153–1175
Clough MP (2011) The story behind the science: bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Sci Educ 20(7):701–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9310-7
Cologna V, Mede NG, Berger S et al. (2025) Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nat Hum Behav 9(4):713–730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5
Corsbie-Massay CLP, Wheatly MG (2022) The role of media professionals in perpetuating and disrupting stereotypes of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. Front Commun 7:1027502
Dagher ZR, Ford DJ (2005) How are scientists portrayed in children’s science biographies? Sci Educ 14:377–393
DeWitt J, Archer L, Osborne J (2014) Science-related aspirations across the primary–secondary divide: evidence from two surveys in England. Int J Sci Educ 36(10):1609–1629
DeWitt J, Osborne J, Archer L, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B (2013) Young children’s aspirations in science: the unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. Int J Sci Educ 35(6):1037–1063
Downs E, Smith SL (2010) Keeping abreast of hypersexuality: a video game character content analysis. Sex roles 62:721–733
Egelhofer JL (2023) How politicians’ attacks on science communication influence public perceptions of journalists and scientists. Media Commun 11(1):361–373
Eichengreen B, Aksoy CG, Saka O (2021) Revenge of the experts: Will COVID-19 renew or diminish public trust in science? J Public Econ 193:104343
El Takach S, Yacoubian HA (2020) Science teachers’ and their students’ perceptions of science and scientists. Int J Educ Math, Sci Technol 8(1):65–75
Emvalotis A, Koutsianou A (2018) Greek primary school students’ images of scientists and their work: has anything changed? Res Sci Technol Educ 36(1):69–85
Erb TO, Krajkovich JG, Smith JK (1983) Comments on “the development of the image of science and scientists scale. J Res Sci Teach 20(6):589–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200611
Farland-Smith D (2009) How does culture shape students’ perceptions of scientists? Cross-national comparative study of American and Chinese elementary students. J Elem Sci Educ 21(4):23–42
Finson KD (2002) Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. Sch Sci Math 102(7):335–345
Finson KD (2003) Applicability of the DAST-C to the images of scientists drawn by students of different racial groups. J Elem Sci Educ 15(1):15–26
Finson KD, Beaver JB, Cramond BL (1995) Development and field test of a checklist for the Draw-a-Scientist test. Sch Sci Math 95(4):195–205
Fiske ST, Dupree C (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(supplement_4):13593–13597
Frayling, C. (2013). Mad, bad and dangerous?: the scientist and the cinema. Reaktion books
Frazzetto G (2004) The changing identity of the scientist: as science puts on a new face, the identity of its practitioners evolves accordingly. EMBO Rep. 5(1):18–20
Fujiwara Y, Velasco R, Jones LK, Hite R (2022) Competent and cold: a directed content analysis of warmth and competence dimensions to identify and categorise stereotypes of scientists portrayed in meme-based GIFs. Int J Sci Educ 44(4):694–715
Fung YY (2002) A comparative study of primary and secondary school students’ images of scientists. Res Sci Technol Educ 20(2):199–213
Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187
Gilpin R, Wright C (1964) Scientists and the Making of National Policy. Columbia University Press
Gormally, C., & Inghram, R. (2021). Goggles and white lab coats: Students’ perspectives on scientists and the continued need to challenge stereotypes. J Microbiol Biol Educ, 22(1), https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v1122i1121.2273
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews
Günter KP, Gullberg A, Ahnesjö I (2021) “Quite ironic that even I became a natural scientist”: students’ imagined identity trajectories in the Figured World of Higher Education Biology. Sci Educ 105(5):837–854
Haynes R (2003) From alchemy to artificial intelligence: stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Underst Sci 12(3):243–253
Haynes RD (2016) Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Underst Sci 25(1):31–44
Heyerdahl LW, Borzykh Y, Lana B, Volkmann AM, Crusefalk L, Colman E, Tvardik N, Anthierens S, Vray M, Giles-Vernick T (2023) Outsciencing the scientists: a cross-sectional mixed-methods investigation of public trust in scientists in seven European countries. BMJ Public Health, 1(1)
Hirsch W (1958) The image of the scientist in science fiction a content analysis. Am J Sociol 63(5):506–512
Hong H-Y, Lin-Siegler X (2012) How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in physics. J Educ Psychol 104(2):469–484
Houseal AK, Abd-El-Khalick F, Destefano L (2014) Impact of a student–teacher–scientist partnership on students’ and teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices. J Res Sci Teach 51(1):84–115
Hudson TD, Haley KJ, Jaeger AJ, Mitchall A, Dinin A, Dunstan SB (2018) Becoming a legitimate scientist: science identity of postdocs in STEM fields. Rev High Educ 41(4):607–639
Hunter AB, Laursen SL, Seymour E (2007) Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Sci Educ 91(1):36–74
Jensen E, Aaron MJ, Pfleger A, Kennedy EB, Greenwood E (2021) Has the pandemic changed public attitudes about science? https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/03/12/has-the-pandemic-changed-public-attitudes-about-science/
Jiang J, Wan K (2023) Democracy and mass skepticism of science. World Politics 75(4):735–778
Jones LK, Hite RL (2022) Why are girls not becoming scientists? Using circumscription and compromise career development theory to analyze gendered science career aspirations. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(1)
Jones MG, Howe A, Rua MJ (2000) Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Sci Educ 84(2):180–192
Karaçam S, Danışman Ş, Bilir V, Digilli-baran A (2020) A scale development study: Scientist image, gender of the scientist and risks of being scientist. Int J Psychol Educ Stud 7(3):235–256
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med 96(3):118–121
Kiliç GB, Metin D, Yardimci E (2012) Effect of Science Workshop on Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science. Egitim ve Bilim 37(164):57
Kind P, Jones K, Barmby P (2007) Developing attitudes towards science measures. Int J Sci Educ 29(7):871–893
Kossowska M, Szwed P, Czarnek G (2021) Ideology shapes trust in scientists and attitudes towards vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Group Process Intergroup Relat 24(5):720–737
Krajkovich JG (1978) The development of a science attitude instrument and an examination of the relationships among science attitude, field dependence-independence and science achievement. Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, School of Graduate Studies
Kruse J, Borzo S (2010) People behind the science: using historical science stories to teach about scientists and how science works. Sci Child 48(4):51–55
Lai JW, Bower M (2019) How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Comput Educ 133:27–42
Laubach TA, Crofford GD, Marek EA (2012) Exploring Native American students’ perceptions of scientists. Int J Sci Educ 34(11):1769–1794
Leavy A, Hourigan M, Cleary C (2023) From bespectacled, bearded and bald to explosions, potions and vaccines: Irish children’s changing perceptions of scientists and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on those perceptions. Int J Sci Educ 45(14):1214–1239
Lee JD (1998) Which kids can” become” scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychol Q, 199-219
Lee MH, Wu YT, Tsai CC (2009) Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. Int J Sci Educ 31(15):1999–2020
Lee SWY, Luan H, Lee MH, Chang HY, Liang JC, Lee YH, Lin TJ, Wu AH, Chiu YJ, Tsai CC (2021) Measuring epistemologies in science learning and teaching: a systematic review of the literature. Sci Educ 105(5):880–907
Leiserson A (1965) Scientists and the policy process. Am Political Sci Rev 59(2):408–416. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953058
Lin T-C, Lin T-J, Tsai C-C (2014) Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. Int J Sci Educ 36(8):1346–1372
Lin T-J, Lin T-C, Potvin P, Tsai C-C (2019) Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. Int J Sci Educ 41(3):367–387
Losh SC (2010) Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Underst Sci 19(3):372–382
Losh SC, Wilke R, Pop M (2008) Some methodological issues with “Draw a Scientist Tests” among young children. Int J Sci Educ 30(6):773–792
McCarthy D (2015) Teacher candidates’ perceptions of scientists: images and attributes. Educ Rev 67(4):389–413
Mead M, Metraux R (1957) Image of the scientist among high-school students: a pilot study. Science 126(3270):384–390
Milford TM, Tippett CD (2013) Preservice teachers’ images of scientists: Do prior science experiences make a difference? J Sci Teach Educ 24(4):745–762
Miller JD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Underst Sci 13(3):273–294
Mitchell M, McKinnon M (2019) Human’ or ‘objective’ faces of science? Gender stereotypes and the representation of scientists in the media. Public Underst Sci 28(2):177–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801257
Monhardt RM (2003) The image of the scientist through the eyes of Navajo children. J Am Indian Educ, 25-39
Murphy C, Beggs J (2003) Children’s perceptions of school science. Sch Sci Rev 84:109–116
Nadelson L, Jorcyk C, Yang D, Jarratt Smith M, Matson S, Cornell K, Husting V (2014) I just don’t trust them: the development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. Sch Sci Math 114(2):76–86
Narayan R, Park S, Peker D, Suh J (2013) Students’ images of scientists and doing science: An international comparison study. Eurasia J Math, Sci Technol Educ 9(2):115–129
O’Brien TL (2013) Scientific authority in policy contexts: public attitudes about environmental scientists, medical researchers, and economists. Public Underst Sci 22(7):799–816
Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S (2003) Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. Int J Sci Educ 25(9):1049–1079
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:1–10
Ozel M (2012) Children’s images of scientists: does grade level make a difference? Educ Sci: Theory Pract 12(4):3187–3198
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj, 372
Painter J, Jones MG, Tretter TR, Kubasko D (2006) Pulling back the curtain: Uncovering and changing students’ perceptions of scientists. Sch Sci Math 106(4):181–190
Pardo R, Calvo F (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis. Public Underst Sci 11(2):155–195
Peters HP (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(supplement_3):14102–14109
Pronin E (2008) How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science 320(5880):1177–1180
Reif A, Kneisel T, Schäfer M, Taddicken M (2020) Why are scientific experts perceived as trustworthy? Emotional assessment within TV and YouTube videos. Media Commun 8(1):191–205
Reinisch B, Krell M, Hergert S, Gogolin S, Krüger D (2017) Methodical challenges concerning the Draw-A-Scientist Test: a critical view about the assessment and evaluation of learners’ conceptions of scientists. Int J Sci Educ 39(14):1952–1975
Ren F (2020) A reconsideration on telling good stories about Chinese scientists and shaping the exemplary image of scientists amid the anti-pandemic campaign. Cult Sci 3(4):245–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096608321994002
Ryan L, Steinke J (2010) I WANT TO BE LIKE…” Middle School Students’ Identification With Scientists on Television. Sci Scope 34(1):44
Sarton G (1924) The new humanism. Isis 6(1):9–42
Scotchmoor J, Thanukos A, Potter S (2009) Improving the public understanding of science: New initiatives. Am J Bot 96(10):1760–1766
Seidel DK, Morin XK, Staffen M, Ludescher RD, Simon JE, Schofield O (2020). Building a collaborative, university science-in-action video storytelling model that translates science for public engagement and increases scientists’ relatability. Front Communication
Sharkawy A (2012) Exploring the potential of using stories about diverse scientists and reflective activities to enrich primary students’ images of scientists and scientific work. Cult Stud Sci Educ 7:307–340
Sheffield SL, Cook ML, Ricchezza VJ, Rocabado GA, Akiwumi FA (2021) Perceptions of scientists held by US students can be broadened through inclusive classroom interventions. Commun Earth Environ 2(1):83
Sitas A (2023) Science and Scientists in Distress. Soc Res: Int Q 90(1):1–10
Sonmez B, Makarovs K, Allum N (2023) Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics. Plos one 18(7):e0287572
Steinke J (2017) Adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals: Considering the influence of contextual cues. Front Psychol 8:239856
Steinke J, Applegate B, Lapinski M, Ryan L, Long M (2012) Gender differences in adolescents’ wishful identification with scientist characters on television. Sci Commun 34(2):163–199
Struyf A, Boeve-de Pauw J, Van Petegem P (2017) ‘Hard science’: a career option for socially and societally interested students? Grade 12 students’ vocational interest gap explored. Int J Sci Educ 39(17):2304–2320
Sumrall WJ (1995) Reasons for the perceived images of scientists by race and gender of students in grades 1–7. Sch Sci Math 95(2):83–90
Tan A-L, Jocz JA, Zhai J (2017) Spiderman and science: How students’ perceptions of scientists are shaped by popular media. Public Underst Sci 26(5):520–530
Taylor AR, Jones MG, Broadwell B, Oppewal T (2008) Creativity, inquiry, or accountability? Scientists’ and teachers’ perceptions of science education. Sci Educ 92(6):1058–1075
Tsai CC, Lydia Wen M (2005) Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals. Int J Sci Educ 27(1):3–14
Türkmen H (2008) Turkish primary students’ perceptions about scientist and what factors affecting the image of the scientists. Eurasia J Math, Sci Technol Educ 4(1):55–61
Ucar S (2012) How do pre-service science teachers’ views on science, scientists, and science teaching change over time in a science teacher training program? J Sci Educ Technol 21:255–266
Ucar S, Sanalan VA (2011) How has reform in science teacher education programs changed preservice teachers’ views about science? J Sci Educ Technol 20:87–94
van Aalderen-Smeets SI, Walma van der Molen JH, Asma LJ (2012) Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: a new theoretical framework. Sci Educ 96(1):158–182
Wang J (2002) Scientists and the problem of the public in Cold War America, 1945-1960. Osiris 17:323–347
Watkins E, Shari (2022) Critical race theory in science education: moving forward and making critical connections to race through the DAST research. Cult Stud Sci Educ 17(1):169–176
Weingart P, Muhl C, Pansegrau P (2003) Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Underst Sci 12(3):279–287
Weisberg DS, Landrum AR, Hamilton J, Weisberg M (2021) Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. Public Underst Sci 30(2):120–138
Weitekamp MA (2017) The image of scientists in The Big Bang Theory. Phys Today 70(1):40–48
Wylie A (2022) Humanizing science and philosophy of science: George Sarton, contextualist philosophies of science, and the Indigenous/Science project. Can J Philos 52(3):256–278
Yacoubian HA, Al-Khatib L, Mardirossian T (2017) Analysis of the image of scientists portrayed in the Lebanese national science textbooks. Sci Educ 26:513–528
Zahry NR, Besley JC (2021) Can scientists communicate interpersonal warmth? Testing warmth messages in the context of science communication. J Appl Commun Res 49(4):387–405
Zhang Z (2019) Do not underestimate the conscience of scientists. Chinadaily
Zhang Z, Chen Y-C, He G, She H-C, Chen J-C (2023) Thinking and Practicing Like a Scientist?: Examining K-12 Student Mental Images of Scientists through a Large-Scale Survey-Based Study. Asia-Pac Sci Educ 9(1):75–105
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the constructive and insightful comments provided by the three anonymous reviewers, which have significantly improved the quality of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: WW, WZ; data collection: ALL; analysis and interpretation of results: WW, WY; original draft preparation: WW, WY; language service: WW, WY. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, W., Ji, H., Wang, Y. et al. Exploring how the public “see” scientists: A systematic literature review, 1983–2024. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1555 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05869-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05869-7