Beatrice Willis

Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With Science

Low participation rates in the study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) post-16 are a matter of international concern. Existing evidence suggests children’s science aspirations are largely formed within the critical 10 to 14 age period. This article reports on survey data from over 9,000 elementary school children in England (age 10/11) and qualitative data from 160 semi-structured interviews (92 children aged 10/11 and 78 parents), collected as part of an ongoing 5-year longitudinal study in the United Kingdom tracking children from 10 to 14. Drawing on the conceptual framework of Bourdieu, the article explores how the interplay of family habitus and capital can make science aspirations more “thinkable” for some (notably middle-class) children than others. It is argued that while family habitus is not deterministic (there is no straightforward alignment between family habitus, capital, and a child’s science aspirations), social inequalities in the distribution of capital and differentially classed family habitus combine to produce uneven (classed, racialized) patterns in children’s science aspirations and potential future participation.

‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations 1

Internationally, there is widespread concern about the need to increase participation in the sciences (particularly the physical sciences), especially among girls/women. This paper draws on data from a five-year, longitudinal study of 10–14-year-old children’s science aspirations and career choice to explore the reasons why, even from a young age, many girls may see science aspirations as ‘not for me’. We discuss data from phase one – a survey of over 9000 primary school children (aged 10/11) and interviews with 92 children and 78 parents, focusing in particular on those girls who did not hold science aspirations. Using a feminist poststructuralist analytic lens, we argue that science aspirations are largely ‘unthinkable’ for these girls because they do not fit with either their constructions of desirable/intelligible femininity nor with their sense of themselves as learners/students. We argue that an underpinning construction of science careers as ‘clever’/‘brainy’, ‘not nurturing’ and ‘geeky’ sits in opposition to the girls’ self-identifications as ‘normal’, ‘girly’, ‘caring’ and ‘active’. Moreover, we suggest that this lack of fit is exacerbated by social inequalities, which render science aspirations potentially less thinkable for working-class girls in particular. The paper concludes with a discussion of potential implications for increasing women’s greater participation in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics).