Education and employers taskforce seminar 16 November 2011

1. Young People’s Career Aspirations Prof. Louise Archer, King’s College London Education and employers taskforceseminar 16 November 2011

2. Assumed to ‘matter’ (e.g. ‘raising aspirations’) • But require careful treatment • Complex, multiple, shifting • Not predictive but are socially indicative • Aspirations as socially embedded • Study of aspirations can illuminate inequalities Why study aspirations?

3. Age 10-14 as ‘critical period’ for forming views of science and science aspirations • Importance of science aspirations for predicting future participation (Tai et al 2006) Example: children’s science aspirations

4. 5 year, longitudinal ESRC funded project, part of TISME • Mixed methods • 3 tracking phases • Y6: age 10/11 • Y8: age 12/13 • Y9: age 13/14 • Phase 1 Survey • 9,319 Y6 pupils, 279 primary schools, England • Phase 1 interviews • 170 interviews (92 children, 78 parents, 11 schools) • Intervention methodology

5. Complex relationship between enjoyment, achievement, engagement and participation Complexity of aspirations

6. Phase 1 survey: 10/11 year old children liking, valuing & ‘doing’ does not equal ‘being’

7. From 9,000+ survey responses: • Majority are ‘interested, but ...’ • 648 ‘disinterested in science’ (no gender difference) • 251 ‘science keen’ (63% boys, 37% girls) • ‘Science keen’ are predominantly middle-class, white and/or South Asian (esp. among girls) Science aspirations age 10/11

8. Parental attitudes, experiences of school science, self-concept in science (explains 50.5% variance in aspirations) • Personal interests, aptitudes and dispositions – shaped by/ formed within social context • Capital (social, cultural and economic) • Family habitus • Social and cultural discourses / popular stereotypes of professions What shapes aspirations?

9. Economic • Social • Cultural • ‘Science capital’: science-related qualifications, knowledge, interest/ appreciation, understanding (literacy) and contacts 1. Capital (resources)

10. Scientist, Science Teacher, Doctor • “I don’t know. I’m into science, but I don’t think I’d ever become a science teacher, well you know science, scientist” (Hedgehog, White UK boy) GENERAL Lack of knowledge of careers in/ from science

11. Link between family science capital and child science aspirations – socially uneven spread • Disproportionate middle-class possession of science capital • Capital as important for growth and nurturing of science aspirations (visible/ practical/ valuing) Uneven spread of ‘Science capital’

12. Middle-class better at generating capital and compensating where lack of science capital • Absent/ peripheral in many w/c and ME families “They never talk about science” (Jack, Black African boy) “I don’t think that any of us are really that…sciencey” (Robyn, white mother) 2. Interaction of family habitus and Science capital

13. Differential use of knowledge across families / social class • ‘Hot’ and ‘cold’ knowledge Family habitus and capital

14. Cultural arts-science divide • Tom (Carver Boys’ School, high achiever, enjoys science, thinks his teachers are excellent): “I just can’t really picture myself being a scientist”. • Terri (Tom’s mother): ‘We know more arts people than science people’. • Links with wider societal discourses in England around ‘specialisation’ 3. Social and cultural discourses

15. Arts- Science Divide

16. The crude and the complex • “My dad, especially, he thinks Science is cool cos he used to study Science .... [but] most scientists wear glasses and I don’t want to wear glasses and they’re a bit brainy and I don’t want to be brainy” (Victoria2, white Eastern European girl) • Meritocracy discourses and views of science as closed (‘anyone can do science’ does not translate into personal choices to study science) Complexity of stereotypes

17. Science as linked to ‘cleverness’ • E.g. Over 81% survey strongly/ agree that ‘scientists are brainy’ • All science keen girls and boys are high achievers Science as ‘other’: only for the clever

18. Science as ‘other’: for boys

19. Science popularly recognised as masculine/ for boys (parents and children) • Science as a difficult identity for girls – requires ‘balancing’ or accepting ‘squareness’ • “I just think its quite nice that she’s normal as well” (Elizabeth, mother of Hailey) • Science as ‘unthinkable’ for many working-class and some ME girls • “Its not very girly …. Its not a very sexy job, its not glamorous’ (Ella, mother) • “I don’t know if a lab coat would suit her” (SallyAnn, mother) Science as ‘other’: for boys

20. Interweaves with cultural stereotypes around science and academic achievement • Pragmatic engagement among some South Asian families • Wong (2011) teachers’ views of science as ‘virtually impossible’ for Black Caribbean students (“virtually every single one of them will drop out of science... Even if they’re good at it, they won’t be interested in it”) • Confluence of inequalities in capital and stereotypical discourses to make science ‘unthinkable’ for particular groups Science as ‘other’: for whites and asians

21. Complexity of relationship between aspirations and enjoyment, engagement and achievement • Aspirations as social constructs – not just personal cognitions • Families as important in development/ growing of aspirations • Not just ‘raising’: aspirations need to be ‘thinkable’ for children (conceivable and achievable) – structured by social inequalities • Broaden and deepen children’s and families’ (science) capital (including awareness of careers in/from science) • Challenge dominant social discourses (e.g. Arts/science divide/ specialisation) • Challenge perceived cultures of ‘exclusivity’ around certain careers (as only for the few; as white, male, middle-class, ...) • Ensure new knowledge is delivered in appropriate formats/ ways • Study of aspirations can generate concrete recommendations Key messages