2015
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21227
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

17
447
3
48

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 445 publications
(515 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
17
447
3
48
Order By: Relevance
“…As reported in Table 1, boys and girls had similar perceptions of the social relevance of science (pooled mean = 0.36). This is consistent with other studies that have examined young people's views of the relevance of science [32][33][34][35]38] and underscores the fact that the focus of our study is not about whether girls have a deficit in a STEM-specific resource (as evidenced by a lower mean, for example), but rather whether or not girls' expectations to pursue STEM are more strongly shaped by their perceptions of the social relevance of science.…”
Section: Perceptions Of the Social Relevance Of Sciencesupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As reported in Table 1, boys and girls had similar perceptions of the social relevance of science (pooled mean = 0.36). This is consistent with other studies that have examined young people's views of the relevance of science [32][33][34][35]38] and underscores the fact that the focus of our study is not about whether girls have a deficit in a STEM-specific resource (as evidenced by a lower mean, for example), but rather whether or not girls' expectations to pursue STEM are more strongly shaped by their perceptions of the social relevance of science.…”
Section: Perceptions Of the Social Relevance Of Sciencesupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In more recent years, educational researchers have again called attention to this issue, arguing that 'school science' too often treats science fields as varied collections of abstract historical discoveries and intangible phenomenon, asking students to memorize decontextualized facts and concepts that result in their becoming bored and disinterested [31,32]. Current educational reforms are working to change this [20] and although limited in scope, there is empirical evidence that students who view science as socially relevant are more likely to remain engaged with the content and express interest in continuing to study science [19,31,[33][34][35], and that curriculum that directly emphasizes the broad applications and benefits of science for human life can indeed be effective in promoting all students' positive views [36].…”
Section: The Role Of Social Relevance In Increasing Stem Interest Formentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1986), to develop a theorisation of 'science capital' (e.g. Archer et al, 2015), as a way of conceptually collating science-related forms of cultural and social capital, but particularly those forms which have the potential to influence a young person's science identity and prospective science participation. In this respect, we do not see science capital as a separate type of capital -rather we use it as a lens for 'zooming in' on particular science-related configurations of capital that might help us identify the factors promoting, or constraining, science participation between students who, otherwise, appear to share a similar social location.…”
Section: How Capital Influences Student Science Participationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To do so, we conducted a linear regression (backward stepwise), utilising the same dependent variable used in the initial creation of our science capital measure (detailed in Archer et al, 2015), a composite comprised of five items reflecting intentions for future participation in science (primarily science-related aspirations) and science identity iv . In creating this outcome measure, we took science-related aspirations (3 items) as consistent with intentions to participate in science in the future, as well as indicative of science identity (in that individuals who hold science-related aspirations often identify with science or see it as 'for them').…”
Section: Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subjects which are seen as lower status, even if they are associated with STEM, such as Design and Technology, and students perceived to be lower achieving, are not catered for within STEM priorities. Contemporary research is moving towards exploring ways to improve science capital as a way of achieving greater equity of participation (Archer, Dawson, DeWitt, Seakins, & Wong, 2015). The way in which STEM policy was enacted was not compatible with ideals of science education for all and social justice and this should be addressed and changes made if STEM continues to be a driver in education policy in the future.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%