ŗ«¹śĀćĪč

First Steps

Rethinking science capital

This week for Dr. Anila Asgharā€™s MA/PhD Seminar in Math and Science Education course we read ā€˜ā€œScience Capitalā€: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts.ā€™ (Archer et al., 2015). Archer and her colleagues propose the idea of ā€œscience capital,ā€ similar to the Bourdieusian concept of cultural capital, as a theoretical lens to explain why students participate in science and envision themselves in science-related careers.Ģż

Wearing my parent hat, when I read this paper I initially gave myself a smug, self-congratulatory pat on the back for bestowing upon my two children loads of science capital, which Archer et al. refer to as ā€œan important contemporary form of capitalā€ because society considers scientific knowledge and careers in science to be high-status. My husband and I both have graduate degrees in science and work in science-related fields. We engage our children in science-related practices like watching Bill Nye videos, reading books about tapeworms, and visiting places like science centers, aquariums and the. We bought them a robot that can be programmed with our cell phones!Ģż We send them to a nature-based alternative public school!

Then I started to consider my alternate identity as a secondary science teacher, and guilt started to replace satisfaction. Guilt for using my parental science capital to reproduce unequal relations of privilege within society. Guilt that I teach at a private school where all students have access to qualified science teachers, as well as important resources like high-tech lab equipment, guest speakers, science conferences and workshops. Guilt that I work in a system that, for organizational and institutional reasons, streams students into science and non-science paths earlier and earlier, denying some groups access to certain forms of science knowledge. Reading this paper has raised some very important questions for me.

Itā€™s clear that the amassing of science capital begins at a very early age, so what can I do as a secondary science teacher? How do we reach and engage students who possess less science capital? How can we legitimize all science engagement, not just that which falls into a narrow definition? How do we get students to develop their science identity, even if they donā€™t fit the stereotypical definition of a ā€˜science person?ā€™ Does this definition need to be changed? How can we give the same opportunities to all students, not just students who possess a strong ā€˜science identity?ā€™ Do all of our students have the requisite science knowledge necessary to make them scientifically literate, and active, informed citizens? How can I create ā€˜cracks and fissuresā€™ Ć  la Carlone, Johnson and Scott (2015), where students can do science without cultural or institutional constraints? I donā€™t have answers to all of these questions, but just thinking about them is a first step.

References

Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). ā€œScience capitalā€: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts.ĢżJournal of Research in Science Teaching,Ģż52(7), 922-948.

Carlone, H. B., Johnson, A., & Scott, C. M. (2015). Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class.ĢżJournal of Research in Science Teaching,Ģż52(4), 474-488.

Ģż

Back to top