This paper sets out an argument and approach for moving beyond a primarily arts-based conceptualization of cultural capital, as has been the tendency within Bourdieusian approaches to date. We advance the notion that, in contemporary society, scientific forms of cultural and social capital can command a high symbolic and exchange value.

It is widely agreed that there is a need to increase and widen science participation. Informal science learning environments (ISLEs), such as science museums, may provide valuable spaces within which to engage visitors -yet the visitor profile of science museums remains narrow. This paper seeks to understand the experiences of socially disadvantaged families within such spaces.Using a Bourdieusian analytic lens, we analyse qualitative data from a small study conducted with 10 parents and 10 children from an urban school who visited a large science museum. Data includes pre-and post-interviews, audio recordings and visit fieldnotes. We characterised families' experiences as falling into three discourses, as 'disorientating', 'fun' or 'meaningful' visits. Analysis identifies how the families' experiences, and the likelihood of deriving science learning from the visit, were shaped through interactions of habitus and capital. Implications for improving equity and inclusion within ISLEs are discussed.

Science education has a seemingly intractable gender problem and remains largely the reserve of White, middle-class men and boys, especially in the physical sciences. In this paper, taking an intersectional approach to Butler's idea of identity as performance, we explore the affordances and limitations of a specific science learning space (a science museum) for girls. We discuss four types of performance, one based on 'good' behaviour, one combining masculinity and 'race'/ethnicity, one of silence and one based on being 'cool'. We focus on the experiences of 25 girls aged 12-13, from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, from two inner-city, state-run, co-educational London schools, in the UK. We argue that the museum space put girls in a difficult position for both learning science and enacting the identities they were invested in.We conclude by reflecting on the implications for science learning spaces that disrupt rather than reproduce social inequalities.

In this paper, we take the view that school classrooms are spaces that are constituted by complex power struggles (for voice, authenticity, and recognition), involving multiple layers of resistance and contestation between the “institution,” teachers and students, which can have profound implications for students’ science identity and participation. In particular, we ask what are the celebrated identity performances within science classes, how are these re/produced and/or contested, and by whom? Analyzing data from 9 months of observations of science classes with nine teachers and c. 200 students aged 11–15 from six London schools and 13 discussion groups with 59 students, we identify three dominant celebrated identity performances (“tick box” learning, behavioral compliance, and muscular intellect) and discuss the complex ways in which these are promulgated both institutionally and interpersonally by teachers and students, drawing out the implications for students’ performances of science. The paper concludes with reflections on the equity implications for science education policy and practice.

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

Student engagement with science is a long-standing, central interest within science education research. In this article, we examine student engagement with science using a Bourdiusian lens, placing a particular emphasis on the notion of field. Over the course of one academic year, we collected data in an inner London secondary science classroom through lesson observations, interviews and discussion groups with students, and interviews with the teacher. We argue that applying Bourdieusian theory can help better understand differential patterns of student engagement by directing attention to the alignment between students' habitus and capital, and the field. Student behaviours that did not meet the requirements of the wider field were not recognised and valued as constituting engagement. Even when the 'rules of the game' of the science classroom were understood by the students, the tensions they experienced within the field made engaging with science impossible and undesirable. We discuss how a greater focus on the field can be useful for planning future interventions aimed at making science education more equitable.

This paper discusses an attempt at a Bourdieusian-inspired form of praxis, developed and implemented in collaboration with nine London teachers, aimed at developing a socially-just approach to engaging students with science. Data are discussed from nine months of classroom observations of nine secondary science classes from six inner London schools (c.200 students, aged 11-15), interviews and workshop data from the nine teachers and 13 discussion groups conducted with 59 students. The approach resulted in some noticeable changes in practice, which were perceived by teachers and students to improve student engagement, cultivate a range of science-related dispositions and promote wider student participation and 'voice' in classes. Issues, limitations and possibilities for sociology of education theory and practice are discussed.

We hoped that our paper might prompt further thought and discussion and we welcome dialogue around the idea of science capital. 1 As we discuss, the paper sets out "our initial attempts" at developing the concept and "a first iteration" of a quantitative instrument to "measure" science capital-we do not claim to have yet worked through all the intricacies and implications (or potential!) of the concept.We found the response a mixed bag. We were somewhat disappointed and frustrated by some basic misunderstanding of our arguments-notably the "straw doll" accusation that we are espousing a "push toward science capital as distinct from cultural capital" and a supposed "reification of science" (allegations that we strongly refute, below). However, there were some potentially interesting ideas around field that we are exploring in our ongoing research. Misunderstandings?We do not-as the response suggests-propose science capital as a "separate concept," i.e., as an extra sort of capital that is "distinct" from cultural capital. Indeed, we go to pains in this paper and elsewhere (e.g., Archer et al., 2012) to explain that . . . "science capital" is not a separate "type" of capital but rather a conceptual device for collating various types of [ . . . ] capital that specifically relate to science [emphasis added]