Advertisement

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

Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 19)

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Adkins, L. (2002). Reflexivity and the politics of qualitative research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues in international practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Adkins, L. (2004). Introduction: Feminism, Bourdieu and after. The Sociological Review, 52, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00521.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). ‘Doing’ science versus ‘Being’ a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old Schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012a). Science aspirations and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Education Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012b). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). The ‘exceptional’ physics/ engineering girl: A sociological analysis of longitudinal data from girls aged 10-16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 88–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Archer, L., Moote, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Learning that physics is “not for me”: pedagogic work and the cultivation of habitus among Advanced Level physics students. Journal of the Learning Sciences,  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1707679.
  9. Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baxter, A., & Britton, C. (2001). Risk, identity and change: Becoming a mature student. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London/New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1999a). Scattered remarks. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bourdieu, P. (1999b). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, B., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education. London: Society and Culture.Google Scholar
  20. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Calabrese Barton, A., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2006). Engaging girls in science. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The sage handbook of gender and education (pp. 221–235). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Danielsson, A. T. (2012). Exploring woman university physics students “doing gender” and “doing physics”. Gender and Education, 24(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Darke, K., Clewell, B., & Sevo, R. (2002). Meeting the challenge: The impact of the National Science Foundation’s Program for Women and Girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Francis, B., Archer, L., Moote, J., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). Femininity, science, and the denigration of the girly girl. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(8), 1097–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1253455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gonsalves, A. (2014). “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 9, 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (1998). Women, science, and society. Science, 281(5383), 1599–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haworth, C. M. A., Dale, P., & Plomin, R. (2008). A twin study into the genetic and environmental influences on academic performance in science in nine-year-old boys and girls. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1003–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenkins, R. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu: Revised Edition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawler, S. (2004). Rules of engagement: Habitus, power and resistance. The Sociological Review, 52, 110–128.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00527.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McNay, L. (1999). Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1), 95–117.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026327699016001007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McRobbie, A. (2004). Post-Feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 4(3), 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moi, T. (1991). Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture. New Literary History, 22(4), 1017–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moi, T. (1999). What is a woman? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2013). What sort of girl wants to study physics after the age of 16? Findings from a large-scale UK survey. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2979–2998.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.681076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research on the participation of girls in physics. London: Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  40. Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social Problems, 52, 593–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puwar, N. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender and bodies out of place. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  42. Raelin, J. A., Bailey, M. B., Hamann, J., Pendleton, L. K., Reisberg, R., & Whitman, D. L. (2014). The gendered effect of cooperative education, contextual support, and self-efficacy on undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 599–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’? Working-class students in elite universities. Sociology, 43(6), 1103–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509345700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saltelli, A., & Funtowics, S. (2017). What is science’s crisis really about. Futures, 91, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skeggs, B. (2004). Exchange, value and affect: Bourdieu and “the self”. In L. Adkins & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 75–89). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, E. (2010a). Do we need more scientists? A long-term view of patterns of participation in UK undergraduate science programmes. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, E. (2010b). Is there a crisis in school science education in the UK? Educational Review, 62(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, E. (2011). Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 993–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smithers, A., Robinson, P., & Gatsby. (2009). Physics participation and policies: Lessons from abroad. London: Carmichael Press.Google Scholar
  50. The Royal Society. (2008, February). A higher decree of concern. Policy Document.Google Scholar
  51. Thomson, D. (2015). Is A-level physics too hard (and media studies too easy)? Education Data Lab. Published online on 20th October 2015. Accessed 06/06/2018 at < https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2015/10/is-a-level-physics-too-hard-and-media-studies-too-easy/>
  52. Tracy, C. (2016a). The problem of inter-subject comparability. Institute of Physics. Published online on 17 February 2016. Accessed 06/06/2018 at < http://www.iopblog.org/the-problem-of-inter-subject-comparability/>
  53. Tracy, C. (2016b). Do students choose subjects based on how hard they are graded? Institute of Physics. Published online on 19 April 2016. Accessed 06/06/2018 at < http://www.iopblog.org/the-effects-of-grading-on-choice/>
  54. Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary–secondary school transition. Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra, A.C.T.Google Scholar
  55. Wong, B. (2016). The ‘crisis’ in science participation. In Science Education, Career Aspirations and Minority Ethnic Students. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCL Institute of EducationLondonUK

Personalised recommendations