Diversity in Education
Diversity in Education
  • Overview
  • K-12 Integration, Desegregation, and Segregation Archive
  • K-16 STEM Archive
  • Browse
    • By Method of Analysis
    • By Unit of Analysis
    • By Data Type
    • By Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation
    • By Keyword
    • By Methodology
    • By Region
    • By Research
    • By Scholarship
    • By Sample Type
  • Help
  • Contact Us

Filter

  • Sort by

  • Filtered Search Term

  • Archive

  • Keywords

  • Research Designs

  • Analysis Methods

  • Researchers

2010 - "Doing" Science Versus "Being" a Scientist: Examining 10/11-Year-Old School Children’s Constructions of Science Through the Lens of Identity

Attribution: Archer, Louise, Dewitt, Jennifer, Osborne, Jonathan, Willis, Beatrice, & Wong, Billy
Researchers: Beatrice WillisBilly WongJennifer DewittJonathan OsborneLouise Archer
University Affiliation: King's College London; Stanford University School of Education
Email: Louise.archer@kcl.ac.uk
Research Question:
In this study, the authors attempt to (a) understand what are the formative influences on student career aspirations between the ages of 10 and 14 and (b) attempt to foster and maximize the interest of this cohort of young people, particularly girls, in STEM-related careers.
Published: Yes
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: Science Education
Journal Entry: Vol. 94. Pp. 617-639
Year: 2010
Findings:
  1. Their data largely echoed what is known from the existing literature, namely that student interest in science at age 10 tends to be relatively high with little gender difference.
  2. Children’s attachment to “doing” science was framed within a discourse that the authors termed “danger vs. safety,” in which “real” science is constructed as “dangerous” (and exciting) and is placed in tension with school science (particularly elementary school science) due to the latter’s concern with “safety.”
  3. More boys than girls spent time discussing the “dangerous” nature of science, which was juxtaposed with the restraints they felt were imposed by their schools in terms of “safety.”
  4. There is a dominant discourse in which “grown-up” science is constructed in masculine terms: as “dangerous,” risky and potentially unpredictable.
  5. Many students talked about performing their own “experiments” at home. However, there were some distinctly classed and gendered patterns. Boys tended to engage in more “naughty” home experiments which aligned with a more masculine concept of science. While children described the “being good” out-of-school science activities as fun, there is a discernibly different feel to the form of their engagement, as compared to the “naughty” experiments.
  6. “Being good” experiments reflected a greater use of “cold” (formal, official) knowledge. This form of knowledge is more common among middle class students. These practices are likely to translate into cultural and educational capital.
  7. Middle-class parents are more likely to utilize their cultural capital to generate opportunities for structured learning at home, such as buying books, science sets, and resources and seeking additional information from schools to enable them to support their children to do “proper” experiments at home.
  8. The notion of there being a “science person” was reinforced by several discussion groups’ references to other children in their schools or year groups who were known to be “good at science” or interested in science. This is suggesting that science is already operating here as a marked identity.
  9. Children often identified “science people” with “boffin” or “egghead” identities. Unsurprisingly, this image was not seen as an attractive or desirable identity by many students, especially not girls who wanted to look “beautiful” instead.
  10. The authors found evidence of some boys making their own active investments in reproducing and policing the boundary of science (arguing that it is or should be a male preserve). This is encapsulated in which a group of boys suggested that girls are not “naturally” into science because “fashion and science don’t mix.”
Scholarship Types: Journal Article Reporting Empirical ResearchKeywords: AspirationsGenderIdentityRaceScienceRegions: EnglandMethodologies: QualitativeResearch Designs: Focus groupsAnalysis Methods: Analysis of data Sampling Frame:10-11 Year Olds
Sampling Types: Non-Random - PurposiveAnalysis Units: StudentData Types: Qualitative-Cross Sectional
Data Description:
  • The authors approach to exploring students’ engagement with science is grounded in notions of identity- an understanding that sees the lack of interest in school science as a product of the mismatch between popular representations of science, the manner in which it is taught, and the aspirations, ideals, and developing identities of young adolescents. Their theoretical approach draws on feminist post-structuralist, critical sociological, and postcolonial theorizations of identities and inequalities of gender, social class, and ethnicity. Hence the authors suggest that children’s interest and engagement with science will be shaped by their social structural locations and the specifically classed and racialized masculine/feminine identities that they see as desirable and constitutive of the self.
  • Students were sampled from four schools. Participating schools were in relation to the criteria of attaining at least one affluent, independent school, at least one urban multi-ethnic school, and at least one small and one large state primary in the London area. Consent forms were issued to parents’ of children in Year 6 at each school, and discussion groups were conducted with the 42 students who returned consent forms. These discussions were conducted with single-sex groups in two schools, where numbers allowed, and as mixed-sex groups in the other two schools. All the pupils in the discussion groups were largely representative of the ethnic and socioeconomic profile of their respective school populations.
  • The goal was not necessarily to produce data that can be generalized to larger populations, but rather to explore the range of attitudes, values, and beliefs that are held, and the strength of feeling and reasons underpinning these views and beliefs.
  • For the purpose of the discussion groups, a set of questions was developed that formed a loose structure for exploring these young students’ views (discussion areas included: students’ views on science, scientists, and their school science classes; out-of-school interests and leisure pursuits; aspirations for the future (and influences on aspirations). Students were assured of the confidentiality of the data, and each group lasted for approximately 1 hour. The discussion groups were conducted by the second author (a White American woman) and were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed.
  • In line with the study’s conceptual approach outlined earlier, data were analyzed discursively using a Foucauldian analysis of discourse approach. This approach involves looking for the resources and repertoires that are employed within participants’ talk and which are drawn on in (and are constitutive of) their identity constructions. These are then analyzed as practices of power (and are interrogated to the extent that they are both constitutive of and constituted by/within particular regimes of power).
  • Transcripts were initially broadly coded according to each of the main discussion topic areas and the content of these was then sub-coded thematically. These coded themes were then subjected to a more theoretically informed analysis (to identify practices of power and gendered, classed, and racialized discourses and identity practices/resources) to unpick the constructive elements (and the wider discourses that are evoked) within respondents’ talk.
  • Their analysis of the role of identity within children’s constructions of science is broken down into two major themes, namely “doing science” and “being a scientist.” The importance of this conceptual distinction is that it explains these young students’ ability to both reportedly enjoy science (most did) and to yet not want to continue with science in their future careers- to “become” a scientist (most did not).
Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:Factors Related to STEM Readiness
Archives: K-16 STEM Abstracts
Skip to toolbar
  • Log In