Minority ethnic students and science participation: a qualitative mapping of achievement, aspiration, interest and capital

In the UK, the ‘leaky pipeline’ metaphor has been used to describe the relationship between ethnicity and science participation. Fewer minority ethnic students continue with science in post-compulsory education, and little is known about the ways in which they participate and identify with science, particularly in the secondary school context. Drawing on an exploratory study of 46 interviews and 22 h of classroom observations with British students (aged 11–14) from Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian and Chinese ethnic backgrounds, this paper identified five ‘types’ of science participation among minority ethnic students. The five types of science participation emerged from an analysis of students’ science achievement, science aspiration, science interest and science capital. The characteristics of the five types are as follows: Science adverse students have no aspirations towards science and lacked interest, achievement and capital in science. Science intrinsic students have high science aspirations, interest and capital but low science attainment. Students who are science intermediate have some aspirations, interest and capital in science, with average science grades. Science extrinsic students achieve highly in science, have some science capital but lacked science aspirations and/or interest. Science prominent students are high science achievers with science aspirations, high levels of interest and capital in science. The findings highlight that minority ethnic students participate in science in diverse ways. Policy implications are suggested for each type as this paper provides empirical evidence to counter against public (and even some academic) discourses of minority ethnic students as a homogeneous group

Lighting the fuse: Cultivating the masculine physics habitus – a case study of Victor aged 10-18

This chapter presents a longitudinal case study analysis of Victor, a young man who was interviewed from the ages of 10–19, together with his mother, Sam, and who went on to study for a degree in astrophysics. We apply a Bourdieusian conceptual lens to the data, to explore how interactions of capital, habitus and field combine to possibilise Victor and his trajectory to being/becoming a physicist. We also identify specific alignments of his habitus and capital with dominant notions of masculinity and ‘cleverness’ that are demanded and normalised within physics and which, we argue, are key to the reproduction of the elite nature of physics

Going, Going, Gone: A Feminist Bourdieusian Analysis of Young Women's Trajectories in, Through and Out of Physics, Age 10–19

This chapter draws on longitudinal interview data collected from seven young woman in England who were tracked from age 10–19 and who had all expressed an aspiration at age 16 to study Advanced level (A level) physics. Applying a feminist Bourdieusian conceptual lens, we explore their trajectories in, through and out of physics: from Danielle, who is denied entry to A level physics; to Victoria and Thalia, who are debarred from the course before completion; to Davina, Kate and Mienie, who complete the A level but who choose not to pursue the subject further; and finally Hannah, who goes on to study physics at university. Attention is drawn to the pedagogic work conducted by the field of physics, notably the cultivation of habitus and hexis through the bodies, minds and identities of the young women, and its stringent gate-keeping practices, which ensure the reproduction of the elite status of the field and the simultaneous disadvantaging of women

How can teaching make a difference to students’ interest in science? Including Bourdieuan field analysis

In this article we respond to the discussion by Alexandra Schindel Dimick regarding how the taste analysis presented in our feature article can be expanded within a Bourdieuan framework. Here we acknowledge the significance of field theory to introduce wider reflexivity on the kind of taste that is constituted in the science classroom, while we at the same time emphasize the importance of differentiating between how taste is reproduced versus how it is changed through teaching. The contribution of our methodology is mainly to offer the possibility to empirically analyze changes in this taste, and how teaching can make a difference in regard to students’ home backgrounds. However, our last two steps of our taste analysis include asking questions about how the taste developing in the classroom relates more widely in society. Schindel Dimick shows how these two steps can be productively expanded by a wider societal field analysis.</p