4.4 Article

Adolescent Boys' Science Aspirations: Masculinity, Capital, and Power

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21122

关键词

science aspirations; boys; masculinity; Bourdieu

资金

  1. ESRC [ES/F025475/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F025475/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is widespread international concern about post-16 participation rates in science, with women's under-representation constituting a particular issue. This paper contributes to these debates through a novel, critical examination of the role of masculinity within boys' negotiations of science aspirations. Drawing on a UK longitudinal study of children's science and career aspirations from age 10 to 14 (including a survey of over 9,000 (Year 6, age 10/11) and 5,600 (Year 8, age 12/13) pupils in England and repeat individual interviews with 92 children (at age 10/11) and 85 (age 12/13), the paper focuses in-depth on repeat interviews with 37 boys. We identify five discursive performances of masculinity, which are related to the boys' (science) aspirations: two are associated with science/related aspirations (termed young professors and cool/footballer scientists) and three characterize boys who aspire otherwise (behaving/achieving boys; popular masculinity boys and laddish boys). Classed patterns across these five discourses are then explored through two cross-cutting phenomena, (1) popular constructions of science as brainy/smart and (2) the uneven social distribution of science capital, explaining how each of these are implicated facilitating middle-class boys' identifications from/with science and dissuading working-class boys' aspirations. We argue that these analyses illuminate an orthodoxy of science careers which maps closely on to current patterns of participation in post-16 science and which impacts powerfully on who can/not conceive of a career in science as being for me. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 1-30, 2014

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据