- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- There is a dominant discourse in which “grown-up” science is constructed in masculine terms: as “dangerous,” risky and potentially unpredictable.
- 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.
- “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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”