Advertisement

Elite British Female Physicists: Social Mobility and Identity Negotiations

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

Abstract

This chapter presents narrative accounts of the strategies and tactics used by successful women in physics. The cross-case analysis of these academic women’s trajectories demonstrates the salience of three significant experiences, and concurrent identity negotiations that facilitated their persistence in physics: (1) reliance on the self, (2) social support networks, and (3) the construction of a working class hero identity. This work presents suggestions for recruitment and retention of women in physics.

References

  1. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Balancing acts: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, L., Osborne, J., DeWitt, J., Dillon, J., Wong, B., & Willis, B. (2013). ASPIRES Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–14. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/aspires/ASPIRES-final-report- December-2013.pdf.
  3. Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2016). The “exceptional” physics girl: A sociological analysis of multimethod data from young women aged 10–16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation. American Educational Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216678379.
  4. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2008). Girls’ biology, boys’ physics: Evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), 75–92. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02635140701847538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, R. (2015). Challenges and coping strategies in leavening an ultra-orthodox community. Qualitative Social Work, 14(5), 670–686.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325014565147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)37:5<441::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1993). Imitation and gender insubordination. In I. H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 307–320). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women = scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645.
  10. Carlone, H. B., Webb, A. W., Archer, L., & Taylor, M. (2015b). What kind of boy does science? A critical perspective on the science trajectories of four scientifically talented boys. Science Education, 99(3), 438–464.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Danielsson, A. T. (2012). Exploring woman university physics students ‘doing gender’ and ‘doing physics’. Gender and Education, 24(1), 25–39. Retrieved from http://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2108/doi/abs/10.1080/09540253.2011.565040#.VMdzvVqZbww.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danielsson, A. T. (2014). In the physics class: University physics students’ enactment of class and gender in the context of laboratory work. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 477–494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9421-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Boise, S. (2016). Post-Bourdieusian moments and methods in music sociology: Toward a critical, practice-based approach. Cultural Sociology, 10(2), 178–194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975516628309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2014). Science-related aspirations across the primary- secondary divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.871659.
  17. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Department for Education and Skills. (2007). Gender and education: The evidence on pupils in England. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00389-2007BKT-EN.pdf.
  19. Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693–717.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212451904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Everyday Sexism Project. (2017). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from https://everydaysexism.com/
  21. Francis, B. (2012). Gender monoglossia, gender heteroglossia: The potential of Bakhtin’s work for re-conceptualising gender. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.639174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuller, C. (2018). The existential self: Challenging and renegotiating gender identity through higher education in England. Gender and Education, 30(1), 92–104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1241380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. BDJ, 204(6), 291–295.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gonsalves, A. J. (2014). “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 503–521.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9447-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonsalves, A., Rahm, J., & Carvalho, A. (2013). “We could think of things that could be science”: Girls’ re-figuring of science in an out-of-school-time club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1068–1097.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Götschel, H. (2013). No space for girliness in physics: Understanding and overcoming the masculinity of physics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 531–537.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9479-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Harnois, G., & Gabriel, P. (2000). Mental health and work: Impact, issues and good practice. Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mental_health
  29. Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Introductory university physics performance : The influence of high school physics preparation. Gender and Education, 91(6), 847–876.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2016). Data collection|HESA. Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/collection
  31. Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 275–290.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250120063562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, A., Brown, J., Carlone, H., & Cuevas, A. K. (2011). Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: A multiracial feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 339–366.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kantaria, P. (2012). It’s different for girls: The influence of schools A report looking at data from the National Pupil Database comparing boys’ and girls’ choices of science A-levels and the influence of their GCSE schools on these choices. Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/file_58196.pdf
  34. Lancaster, K. (2016). Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: Conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1–11. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1123555
  35. Lock, R. M., Hazari, Z., & Potvin, G. (2012). Physics career intentions: The effect of physics identity, math identity, and gender. In Physics education research conference (pp. 262–265). American Institute of Physics.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789702.
  36. Lucey, H., Melody, J., & Walkerdine, V. (2003). Uneasy hybrids: Psychosocial aspects of becoming educationally successful for working-class young women. Gender and Education, 15(3), 285–299.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250303865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller-Friedmann, J., Childs, A., & Hillier, J. (2018). Approaching gender equity in academic chemistry: Lessons learned from successful female chemists in the UK. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 24–41.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00252H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593–10597.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phipps, A., & Young, I. (2015). Neoliberalisation and “lad cultures” in higher education. Sociology, 49(2), 305–322.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514542120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadler, P. M., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Tai, R. H., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Dabney, K. P. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455.
  41. Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96(2), 234–264.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sinnes, A. (2006). Three approaches to gender equity in science education. NorDiNa, 2(1), 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stentiford, L. J. (2018). “You can tell which ones are the laddy lads”: Young women’s accounts of the engineering classroom at a high-performing English university. Journal of Gender Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2018.1423957.
  44. Stewart, M. (1998). Gender issues in physics education. Educational Research, 40(3), 283–293.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188980400302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Venville, G., Rennie, L., Hanbury, C., & Longnecker, N. (2013). Scientists reflect on why they chose to study science. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2207–2233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9352-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations