Introduction

The concepts of Bildung, subalternity, and physics- and engineering education intersect and interact with one another in several ways. Recruitment to science education is skewed by both gender (Barton, Tan and Rivet 2008), class, and minority positions (Weinburgh 2003). There is, however, no reason to believe the potentiality of skills is similarly skewed (Napp and Breda 2022). Engaging a wider array of students in science and technology might thus be an important contribution to recruitment, but it will also create an opportunity for personal development for students who today miss out.

This study employs a definition of Bildung making an educated person able to operate in the everyday world and language, the world of politics (Hellesnes 1992). A central part of the concept of Bildung is educating citizens, i.e., encouraging and enabling students to take their knowledge into society and be engaged, active participators in society, not only skilled professionals. At the same time, a central characteristic of subaltern groups is that their voices are not heard in society (Spivak 1988). This position can be both in society as a whole or in a subsection, e.g., the scientific society (Phillips and Burbules 2000). If subaltern groups thus can be recruited into a Bildung-oriented education, their subalternness can over time be challenged as a core feature of Bildung is to engage students in society, and the groups can be included as equals within both society and the epistemic community of science (Phillips and Burbules 2000). Inclusion and recruitment are in close interconnectedness here as recruited students not included will leave, and an inclusive study program will recruit a wider array of students. We can see tendencies of skewed recruitment being reinforced up the academic career ladder (American Physical Society 2019).

A challenge in creating a Bildung-oriented science education is that the sciences or even the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, here not used to describe an integrated teaching approach but merely as a term to group these adjacent disciplines) too often are discussed as one (Pleasants, Clough, Olson and Miller 2019). There are, however, important internal differences, and comparing physics and engineering can shed a light on some of these. While physics and engineering are both typically regarded as “hard” science, they notably differ on the scale of pure vs. applied (Biglan 1973). This may influence recruitment, motivation, and potential for a Bildung-oriented education among the before-mentioned student groups.

This paper presents a survey of 104 first-year physics students and 624 first-year bachelor engineering students using thematic analysis of open text answers based on data collected during lectures via an anonymous digital student response system. The survey will examine students’ motivations for their choice of education to evaluate possible paths for a Bildung-oriented education. In addition, the students’ backgrounds are mapped within categories of gender, minority language, and parents’ education, which are considered subaltern positions within engineering and physics education.

As this paper will show, the social background—class structure—differs significantly between the physics- and bachelor engineering students, as do their motivations. These data along with documentation from previous research showing working-class students’ predisposition toward STEM disciplines facilitate the possibility of sketching possible paths toward Bildung for these students that at the same time can lift subaltern groups and make their voices heard.

The relations between Bildung, science, and subalternity

There are several theoretical tensions between the terms in the above heading. We will go on to discuss these after having defined the different terms and discussed the images of the fields in question.

The image of scientists and engineers

Previous research on science education suggests that students’ image of prospective fields is important for their motivation to enter said field of study (Regan and DeWitt 2015, p. 75).

A traditional trope of scientists has been “the absent-minded professor, a socially isolated man (almost always a man) who was completely absorbed in his work.” (Weitekamp 2015), but there are distinct differences between fields. A Japanese study from 2020 asked respondents for keywords associated with different STEM disciplines. While keywords in, e.g., engineering were associated with objects and tools (rocket, robot, tool, development) physics was represented only by theoretical fields and phenomena and a few historical physicists (Galileo, Newton, Einstein). No other fields had persons as keywords (Ikkatai, Inoue, Minamizaki, Kano, McKay and Yokoyama 2021). The image of physics is thus not only confirmed as male-dominated but as a “male lone genius”- and a theoretically oriented field. More general images of “scientists,” e.g., from the “Draw a Scientist” (DAST) test, have typically given a male in white laboratory coats and an experimental laboratory setting (Steinke, Lapinski, Crocker, Zietsman-Thomas, Williams, Evergreen and Kuchibhotla 2007).

The engineer is thus seen as a practical developer of concrete objects, the physicist as a lone theoretical genius. The physics laboratory is invisible. The generic “scientist” presents oneself somewhat in-between, doing practical work, but laboratory work in a laboratory coat in a more controlled environment than the engineer.

Some of these stereotypes contain a core of truth like the theoretical/applied divide, but they nonetheless make invisible the variety of practices within the different fields and will influence the composition of student groups, and shape their motivation (Schreiner and Sjøberg 2007). This can also exclude certain student groups and contribute to a position of subalternity.

Bildung

There is no consensus definition of the term Bildung. Indeed, there have been claims that it is impossible to define (Horkheimer, Schmidt and Noerr 1987, p. 409). Many connect the term with the tradition of classical Bildung from Wilhelm von Humboldt, but this is only one of several traditions connected to the term (Sjöström, Frerichs, Zuin and Eilks 2017), and attempts have been made in making overarching definitions and descriptions of the term, like Wolfgang Klafki’s idea of categorial Bildung, uniting material (focusing on contents/curriculum) and formal (focusing on the process within the individual) theories of Bildung (Klafki 2001, p. 193).

In this paper, we will use a definition of Bildung which comes from Jon Hellesnes (1992). Hellesnes describes Bildung as a process of making an educated person able to operate within the “the everyday world” and the “everyday language,” as opposed to the separation of science into its own world and language, which Hellesnes describes as leading to scientism, the splitting up of the world into distinct scientific areas with little interdisciplinary communication, and also naïveté (Hellesnes 1992, p. 84). The world and the language we use to describe it are intimately connected in Hellesnes’ description of Bildung, and it is through language we can take knowledge back into the everyday world.

As Hellesnes points out: “If we miss the categories of everyday language, we miss the political categories. Politics is essentially linked to the everyday world. Political activity is always concrete. Political consciousness means a watchful, reasoned, practice” (Hellesnes 1992, p. 83). Hellesnes’ definition is useful as it connects to a commonality within many traditions of Bildung, describing it as a process enabling you to become a citizen—an active participant in (political) society, and not simply a vocational practitioner of a craft. This is something also found in, e.g., both the German tradition of classical Bildung (Klafki 2016) and the Anglo-American tradition of liberal education (Adler 1952, p. 57). Hellesnes is however in stark contrast to concepts of Bildung as self-cultivation and inward-looking retreating from the world (Reichenbach 2014), while at the same time connecting Bildung to praxis and not simply theory (Hellesnes 1992, p. 82). Both are relevant to discussions of the role of natural science and technology in Bildung.

Subalternity

The term subalternity stems from Antonio Gramsci and represents being in a disadvantaged position within a social hierarchy (Liguori 2015). Originally translated as “subordinate” (Gramsci, Buttigieg, and Green 2021, p. xxvi) it has developed into a separate term also in international scholarship, prominently used, i.e., in postcolonial studies (Gramsci, Buttigieg, and Green 2021, p. xxiv) but also within science education research (Archer, Nomikou, Mau, King, Godec, DeWitt and Dawson 2019). Critique has however been put forward against inaccurate use, diverging from the term’s non-economist and non-determinist, but materialist core (Maltese 2017).

This paper will examine class, gender, and language minority as subaltern positions within science and technology education. In dividing populations into social classes, one can use profession (Langsæther 2021), economy (Williams and Boushey 2010), or educational level (Hansen and Strømme 2014). As this study is about education, we will use education and define students with no parents with any higher education as “working class.” Traditionally, the father’s education has been used for social positioning), but in line with an increasing female influx in higher education, both parents have been included in the classification in this paper. Gender will be self-reported, and “minorities” will be any student without any parent with Norwegian as a first language, as speaking a minority language at home is at the core of many discussions on minority education (Maluch, Kempert, Neumann and Stanat 2015).

Seeing, subalternity and Bildung-oriented education within different subjects in connection can thus help us answer the research questions:

1. How do first-year students’ reported motives for choice of education relate to elements of Bildung in university engineering and physics education, respectively?

2. How can these motives be interpreted in light of the students’ positioning within different subaltern groups?

Both whether Bildung relates to subaltern groups and whether science is relevant to Bildung are contested questions.

Science, technology, and Bildung

It is a common prejudice that technology and natural science, incorporating engineering and physics, have little to contribute in the area of Bildung. (Schwanitz 1999, p. 482). With the chosen definition of Bildung in mind, there are however several connections between these fields and Bildung.

Bildung in physics can be connected to the concept of scientific literacy. Jesper Sjöström and Ingo Eilks (2018), building on previous work, show how two defined elements of scientific literacy can be connected to the Bildung tradition. One is directed toward “critical scientific literacy”/“knowing-in-action,” incorporating, i.e., dialogical emancipation and praxis-oriented global citizenship, and the other is “socio-political action” based on scientific knowledge. Further development of these concepts is ongoing (Valladares 2021).

Several aspects of the nature, history, and philosophy of science also show interconnectedness with society (Hottecke and Silva 2011, p. 299), and both epistemic values and social, cultural, and political values of science (Dagher and Erduran 2014, p. 48) can contribute to Bildung. While social, cultural, and political values of science explicitly show how science connects to society, epistemic values can be utilized also within society once this connection has been made. A recent study, however, suggests non-science majors have a better understanding of the nature of science concepts than science majors (Akgun and Kaya 2020).

Parallel arguments can be made for engineering. With an understanding of engineering as converging elements from science, technology, and mathematics (Quinn, Reid and Gardner 2020), elements from, e.g., nature of science are relevant also for connecting engineering to Bildung, as its influence from culture and the needs of society can create a particularly strong connection to Bildung for engineering (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey and Leifer 2005). Many elements from science, technology, and society studies (STS) will also show the close interconnectedness of engineering and society, (Pedretti and Nazir 2015) e.g., when socio-technical phenomena intersect with moral values (Hansen and Olson 1996).

Subalternity in science and technology

If we wish to make both Bildung and science and technology accessible to more people, we need to reach out to groups that are currently less involved in the subjects.

Within science and technology in general, and physics- and engineering in particular, the categories of gender, ethnicity, and class are, as we will see, commonly discussed subaltern positions. In particular, physics is seen as a white and male-dominated elite field of research (Eaton, Saunders, Jacobson and West 2020).

There is quite a bit of research on gender and science both in Scandinavia and internationally, notably around the ROSE project, with one key finding being girls in richer countries are more negative to STEM disciplines than boys (Sjøberg and Schreiner 2010). Physics has also been seen as a particularly masculine field within the sciences (Götschel 2014; Scantlebury 2014, p. 196). The Lily (Schreiner, Henriksen, Sjaastad Jensen and Løken 2010) and IRIS projects (Henriksen, Dillon, and Ryder 2015), drawing on Judith Butler’s ideas of performativity, that gender is something we perform, rather than are (Butler 2006, p. 183), have suggested that the perceived masculinity of science can be off-putting to some female potential science students (Regan and DeWitt 2015). A solution is expanding the available identities for students to include traditional “female” identities (Henriksen, Dillon, and Pellegrini 2015, p. 373). The Lily Project has however also been criticized for cementing gender roles in its attempt to widen the image of science, thus going against its aim of making science more diverse (Sinnes and Løken 2014, p. 359).

To my knowledge, there is little data on minorities in STEM disciplines in a Norwegian context. Internationally, however, we, e.g., in the US, find that minorities are severely underrepresented in physics (13% at the Bachelor level compared to 39% of the entire college-age population) and the representation decreases to 5% at the faculty level (American Physical Society, 2019). As a reason for this underrepresentation, Archer, Dewitt and Osborne (2015) suggest the “being/doing divide” stemming from “sociohistoric dominant discourses that align science and scientists with white, middle‐class masculinity” as particularly important. To overcome such underrepresentation, Elizabeth McKinley and Mark Gan (2014, p. 295) suggest tapping into “funds of knowledge” (González and Moll 2002) in family, community, etc., that are useful to them, to connect science to their world. This is reminiscent of what Paulo Freire suggests with his problem-posing concept of education in his seminal book on the pedagogy of the oppressed (Freire, Ramos and Macedo 2000, p. 79), and in line with James Coleman and Thomas Hoffers (1987) discovery of the positive effect of community on education also for underprivileged students.

Within education in general, there is some recent research on minorities in Scandinavia. Children of immigrants have been closing the academic gap to peers with native backgrounds, despite parents often having working-class jobs, being overrepresented in some professional studies with a scientific basis like pharmaceutical studies, dentistry, and engineering (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2018, p. 32). This has caused some researchers to evoke the idea of an “immigrant drive” (Reisel, Hermansen and Kindt 2019, p. 863). One class-based explanation of this drive is that the experience of social degradation after migration creates a drive to restore the family’s social status via children’s educational success (Kindt 2017).

On the question of social class in Norway, elite educations within the STEM disciplines have strong tendencies toward intergenerational reproduction (Hjellbrekke and Korsnes 2014, p. 64). At the same time, previous research has shown that children from working-class families tend to choose STEM disciplines (Werfhorst 2001, p. 46).

On more overarching questions on subalternity, Gayatri Spivak has posited a challenge when it comes to including subaltern groups, which would also apply to including them in the epistemic communities of physics and engineering. Spivak holds that one reason, the “subaltern cannot speak,” is that local elites end up speaking on their behalf. However, educated middle-class intellectuals from subaltern nations do not necessarily have the same interests and perspectives as the population at large (Spivak 1988). In a similar discussion, Gramsci however sees groups of émigré elites as retaining “sentimental and historical links with its own people,” and thus being able to represent them (Gramsci, Hoare and Nowell-Smith 1971, p. 19). These comments are of course situated, but they both purport their comments have a more general application, although Spivak probably more so than Gramsci.

The subalternness discussed in this paper is along lines both of ethnicity and class, in addition to gender, but they are within the frame of specific areas within an educational system. The general question of the representativity of these students concerning subaltern groups can nevertheless be discussed and in extension the question of enabling the subaltern to speak. When the goal of a Bildung-oriented education is to engage students in society, it intersects with a central problem in subalternness: if one can be successful in creating a Bildung-oriented education for subaltern groups, this would precisely have the effect of allowing them to generate discourse and thus to speak in Spivak’s sense.

Culture in science

The predominant epistemological idea within science and technology is one of postpositivism in the tradition of, e.g., Karl Popper with a core idea of protecting science from the influence of nonepistemic values (Phillips and Burbules 2000, p. 60). This can create “a culture of no culture” (Traweek 1988, p. 162).

Postpositivist thought recognizes that non-objectivity and influence by nonepistemic values are unavoidable, but these are minimized, and science is protected by its organization as a communal activity with internal criticism, peer review, etc. (Phillips and Burbules 2000, p. 40; Traweek 1988, p. 125), in line with the updated Merton norms of modern science—CUDOS (communism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality, skepticism) (Ziman 2000, p. 31).

The question that remains, and a notable challenge from critical theory, is how to protect science from the influence of a cultural bias encompassing most of or large parts of the scientific community. The scientific community is not a nonepistemically representative subset of the world’s population, and correctives and perspectives of subaltern groups that could have corrected such biases will thus often not be heard. As Cathrine Hasse (2009, p. 110) points out, such biases exist, science as culture is, e.g., imbedded in a wider national/western context.

The response to this could be to “incorporate [subaltern groups] as full members of the epistemic community” (Phillips and Burbules 2000, p. 61); however, this is not a straightforward task and can hardly be seen to have been accomplished (Spivak 1988). Politically this thus remains a challenge for those promoting postpositivism as a tool for social change (Andreski 1972, p. 90), and scientifically it is a challenge for creating a science (more) independent of dominant nonepistemic discourses (i.e., hegemonies).

These ideas and challenges are common for all fields in science and technology, but there are also cultural differences between physics and engineering, notably around the value put on utility, which is a core value in engineering (Christensen 2006), but not necessarily so in physics. This also interconnects with questions of social class and Bildung.

Bildung and technical skills

A common critique of the classic concept of Bildung is that it was elitist (Gonon 2017, p. 260). Historically an idea of Bildung, like education itself, at least in any formalized kind, was reserved for the few. In more recent times, Bildung-oriented traditions centered around knowledge of canonical texts (i.e., “great books”) put students from, e.g., a working-class background at a definite disadvantage, even if there was an ambition of making a liberal education program for all (Adler 1982). In these traditions, Bildung was seen in contrast to vocational education (Adler 1952, p. 57). Bildung and “usefulness” are seen as contrasts.

The concept of Bildung we apply from Hellesnes however builds on other traditions and will give different results. Theorists like Freire and Gramsci dismiss a thinking/doing divide. Gramsci’s ideas on education were Bildung-oriented (Gramsci, Hoare and Nowell-Smith 1971, p. 40); however, he rejected the sharp distinction between academic and vocational education (Pagano 2017). For Gramsci, praxis was the central element of education, and in his society, technical skills were an important part of this praxis (Gramsci, Hoare and Nowell-Smith 1971, p. 10). This parallels Hellesnes’ view of Bildung. Similarly, Freire’s descriptions of "formulating the problems of humans in relation to existence" (Freire, Ramos and Macedo 2000, p. 51), go into the discussion on Bildung vs. usefulness, with their problem-based approach. Both Freire and Gramsci also had the same problematization of society as a whole at the core of their educational thinking as Hellesnes (Hellesnes 1992, p. 80).

Scandinavian traditions of Bildung also point in a similar direction as Gramsci and Freire on the subject of praxis and theory (Thavenius 1995, p. 11). For Norwegian folk-bilders, working for popular enlightenment in the 1800s, it was exactly the practical applications that made the natural sciences a popular arena for Bildung (Roos 2017, p. 197).

This perspective on usefulness and Bildung has implications for Bildung, class, and science education. Despite Norway’s reputation as an egalitarian society, the class reproduction within the educational system is large (Hansen and Uvaag 2021, p. 74). When going into higher education, students with lower socioeconomic status nevertheless tend to choose STEM subjects (Hansen 1995, p. 151). This is because working-class culture values skills that are directly useful, and knowledge that seems more objective (Helland 2006, p. 35). There is however an apparent contradiction between STEM being a preferred educational path for working-class students, and the high social reproduction also within the STEM disciplines (Hjellbrekke and Korsnes 2014, p. 64).

Methodological framework, data collection, and method of analysis

Within an overarching postpositivist framework, a thematic analysis is employed to examine the motivations of physics and engineering students, with particular attention to those from subaltern groups.

Overarching methodological framework

Using qualitative approaches that border on the quantitative, it seems reasonable to interpret the data within a broad postpositivist framework as outlined by Phillips and Burbules (2000). For research into university-level physics education to have any impact, it must make factual claims beyond case studies of individual student(s). A nonfoundational framework that emphasizes the need for warranted claims in the tradition of Popper (Phillips and Burbules 2000, p. 38), and dismisses the strongest skepticism of evidence within the sociology of knowledge (Phillips and Burbules 2000, p. 41) thus seems fruitful. There are however interesting discussions to be had in examining Bildung and STEM fields with subaltern groups, as presented in subchapter 2.3 which necessitates the involvement of perspectives on subalternness from critical theory.

In presenting the methodology and the project in more in detail, we should have these tensions in mind.

Data collection

The data in this project have been collected by the author via open questions in an online questionnaire through an anonymous student response system (iLike) which allows students to reply in open text answers. Data have been collected in September and October 2020 (around the middle of the first term) from first-year physics and bachelor engineering students, in a compulsory first-year class of mechanics and “Introduction to the engineering profession,” respectively. The data were collected during a physical lecture for physics students with some students following online and via a mix of three online lectures and one physical lecture for different groups of engineering students. For the engineering classes, the survey was done at the start of the first lecture the author held. The author was not involved in teaching the physics class.

The sample consists of all the students who participated in the lectures. A total of N = 728 students participated, 104 physics students, and 624 engineering students. The response rate on the central question we will be analyzing here was 0.89 among the physics students and 0.79 among the engineering students.

The students were asked “Why have you chosen a physics education?” and “Why have you chosen an engineering education?” respectively. The students were then asked to identify the education level of their parent with the longest education, their gender, and whether at least one of their parents had Norwegian as their primary language, to be able to categorize the students along gender, class, and (linguistic) minority backgrounds, and view their answers in light of these backgrounds.

Regarding ethical considerations, the software used does not store any data that can identify individual respondents. The author is a physicist by education but has mainly taught engineering students for the past 15 years and thus is relatively well acquainted with (and situated in) both areas of study. He is not a part of any of the subaltern groups discussed but is less far removed from the “working class” group than the others. In discussing subaltern groups care must thus be taken, e.g., not to reproduce stereotypes or end up “speaking on behalf of” subaltern groups. The motivation provided to the students for participating was twofold: participating in a research project and contributing to developing education.

Thematic analysis

The data from this survey are qualitative. The length of responses varies from a single cue word to a few short sentences. In analyzing the data, I have used thematic analysis as discussed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (2006), searching for themes or patterns within the data, and organizing and interpreting these patterns.

A theme should be capturing something important about students’ motivations and be recurring in a sense that makes it meaningful to consider it patterned. The analysis describes the data set as a whole, but also provides more detailed and nuanced descriptions of themes of particular interest. These are themes shedding light on differences between different groups (i.e., physics/engineering, gender, minority, class).

The analysis is theoretical in the sense that it makes use of the well-established categories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is connected to the joy you get from a task in itself and is related to interest (Weber 2003). Extrinsic motivation is often connected to some form of external reward (e.g., financial) (Sansone and Tang 2021). Studies within different fields have shown that while intrinsic motivation is positively correlated with better quality work and better performance, a focus on extrinsic rewards may in some cases even be counterproductive, if not sufficiently internalized (Ryan and Deci 2020). In the context of Bildung, a process which also entails personal development, internal motivation may be even more important.

The analysis is also theoretical in the sense that it looks for patterns within specific subaltern groups, while continuously searching inductively within this framework, and a majority of categories are a result of this inductive search. This is further discussed in Sect. "Categorized themes".

Possible themes are disclosed expanded and evaluated by readings and re-readings of the individual student responses where common topics are singled out for themes.

Composition of the student group

We can see the composition of the student group in Table 1, keeping in mind that all students have not answered all questions. The number of physics students is much smaller than the number of engineering students, so the results for all students are very close to that of engineering students.

Table 1 Composition of the respondents along study program (physics/engineering) and three subaltern groups
Full size table

The group of engineering students consists of a wide variety of mutually exclusive engineering study programs (Construction, Computer, Electrical, Renewable, Mechanical, Ship design, Material technology, Logistics, Chemical, and Geomatics). The physics students come from three study programs: a traditional bachelor of physics program, an applied physics and mathematics program, and a science teacher education program, comprising 0.27, 0.68, and 0.05 of the participating physics students, respectively.

In discussing groups that can be considered subaltern within a science education context, I will use the following terms for simplicity: “Female” will simply be the students that have responded female on the question of gender. “Minority” will be students that have responded “no” on the question of whether at least one of their parents has Norwegian as their first language. “Working-class” will be students that have responded either lower secondary or upper secondary as the highest education any one of their parents has.

In analyzing the group of minorities, we must note that all though none of their parents have Norwegian as their first language, they may have very different backgrounds. If the composition of the sample follows national statistics, most will be immigrants or children of immigrants. They could however be part of Norway’s indigenous population or national minorities, or from Scandinavian countries with languages similar to Norwegian.

In comparing the composition of the student groups, we see that the main difference between physics and engineering students lies in social class, where, e.g., more than twice as many engineering students as physics students have parents without higher education. To strengthen this point, the data also show that more than twice as many physics students as engineering students have parents with PhDs.

Another notable connection is how working-class background is overrepresented within the minority group (and vice versa). Many students thus fall within combinations of subaltern positions, which can make an intersectional approach necessary, see, e.g., Sandra Jones (2003).

Categorized themes

In the thematic analysis, the theoretical categories intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are used as overarching themes as they are established categories within research on motivation. As this is connected to the categorization, we present related theory here, and not in the theory section of the paper.

We have separated the category of intrinsic motivation into a category for interest in and enjoyment of the subjects the students are studying, and another for interest in and (perceived) enjoyment from the job/the profession they envision themselves moving into after their education. In addition, we have the category “Intrinsic altruistic” which describes different motivations for contributing to society (helping with the climate crisis, developing technology to improve society, etc.)

In categorizing Extrinsic motivations, external consequences of both the education and possible job are included, like status, salary, but also a secure job, "many possibilities", just getting an education or influences from external actors like family.

In categorizing “Previous education,” all references to previous education as motivation have been included. Notably experiences of mastering these topics in upper secondary education, but also viewing, i.e., engineering as a natural next step after a vocational education.

In categorizing “Challenge/difficulty,” both explicit references to the subjects being perceived as difficult as motivational, but also more general ideas of wanting to “challenge” oneself, are included.

In categorizing Creating, both references to "creating", "developing", "building", "forming" and some slightly more general references to creativity and shaping are included. Theoretically, these can be connected back to Karl Groos’ “the joy in being a cause” (Groos 1901, p. 385) with subsequent research into motivation connecting the joy of creating to modern work life (Graeber 2018, p. 83). There naturally is some overlap between this category, and the "practical", but both the more general references, and the development of, e.g., computer programs that are not considered as "practical" in a more physical sense, create a difference. On the other hand, in the "practical" theme some references to the education and/or profession that is more practically oriented will not be included in the "creating" category.

In categorizing usefulness, both explicit references to "usefulness" and descriptions of "problem-solving" have been included.

In the theme "future," references to the education being future-oriented are notable, but other references to the future are also included.

In categorizing the theme "practical," both explicit references to practical work and references to creating/developing concrete "things" have been included.

Subalternity and motivation in physics and engineering

This section will give an overview of the results of the thematic analysis.

Results of thematic analysis

Table 2 gives the proportion of different student groups who have volunteered motivations that can be identified with the different coded themes. Note that many students will have disclosed several different motivations, and also that the themes themselves are not exclusive. Notably, the themes of “Useful” and “Create, Develop Build” will have a large overlap. Most of the themes fit into an overarching category of intrinsic motivation, with the obvious exception of “extrinsic,” and a partial exception for “future” where some responses are hard to place within an extrinsic/intrinsic dichotomy.

Table 2 Results from thematic analysis on students’ motivation for studying physics/engineering
Full size table

Notable characteristics of the different groups

In Table 2, we have in addition to all students, physics students, engineering students, and the subaltern groups included the groups “Male” and “Hi ed parents” (students with a parent with a Master or Ph.D.) as a way to contrast the Female and working-class groups.

Looking at the physics students the most notable characteristic is their strong intrinsic motivation for the subject of physics. 90% of physics students express such motivation, and this dominates to such an extent that other motivations are rare. The intrinsic motivation confirms previous research on Norwegian physics students (Bungum, Hauge and Rødseth 2012).

If we look behind this category of intrinsic motivation for the subject for physics students, we can however find one notable sub-theme. While most students only stress their interest in the subject, not specifying what this interest stems from, for those who do, one theme is very dominant. 25% of all physics students in one way or another mention getting to understand “how the world works” as a motivation for studying physics. There are several examples of this form of motivation from physicists be it “the pleasure of finding things out” (Feynman and Robbins 1999), “joys of discovery” (Van Dusen 2014), or even “address[ing] “the great unanswered question[s] of [ones] time”” (Silverman 2015). Engineering students (much rarer) mentions of understanding, on the other hand, relate to understanding the workings of technological objects, not the fundamental workings of the world.

Engineering students on the other hand have a much higher intrinsic motivation connected to both their future jobs and society. Seeing the Practical/useful/create themes together in, e.g., an idea that creating something practical is useful, they form a central aspect of the motivation for 30% of engineering students, which is on the same level as the intrinsic job motivation and their total extrinsic motivations.

Physics students interestingly both mentioned previous experiences of mastering physics from upper secondary school as a motivation, but some also mention the fact that physics is difficult as a motivational factor. This is in line with previous research on this group, suggesting a combination of the sensation of mastering a (difficult) subject being motivating and the identity of exclusivity within physics students as a group (Angell, Guttersrud, Henriksen and Isnes 2004). Engineering students rather than using words like "difficult" and "demanding" talk about being "challenged" which can tap into the same motivation but is relative to their position and does not have the same elite connotations. Many engineering students promote their apprenticeship certificate as, e.g., electrician or carpenter and describe an engineering education as a natural next steppingstone. This is particularly prominent among working-class students, who twice as often (20%) mention their own experiences from previous education or work life as a motivational factor for studies.

Females in this sample constitute a large minority (30–38%). They particularly separate themselves from males with a larger tendency to an altruistic motivation (21.2 vs. 13.9%) and a lower motivation to create/develop/build (12.8 vs. 18%).

From the results, we see that the motivation of minority students mostly does not differ considerably from the average. The biggest discrepancy is on the topic of something being challenging or difficult as a motivational factor. Here, minority students are overrepresented (9.3% vs. 5.8%).

Paths to Bildung

This section will discuss how we can utilize the analysis of students’ motivations to envision paths to a Bildung-oriented education for the different student groups. The data cannot create recipes for a Bildung-oriented education on its own, but it can show which paths can be in line with the students’ preexisting motivations.

Physicist vs. engineer

Initially, we can see the image of the “physicist” and the “engineer” presented in the introduction reflected in the students’ motivations. The physics students have a theoretical interest in the subject itself which is in line with previous research on Norwegian physics students (Bungum, Hauge and Rødseth 2012), while the engineering students to a much larger extent are motivated by their profession and doing/making practical things.

The data show a notable difference in class background between physics and engineering students. This indicates that the solution to the contradiction discussed in chapter 2.2, between STEM disciplines being more attractive for working-class students, and the large social reproduction in elite STEM educations may lie in the fact that working-class students opt for exactly these shorter bachelor engineering programs which are not included in the statistics of elite reproduction (Hjellbrekke and Korsnes 2014, p. 68). However, this tendency might still represent a lost potential for recruitment into higher education, and lost opportunities for individuals.

Within an understanding of Bildung as connecting a discipline to the rest of society, the intrinsic altruistic theme stands out as an indication of students having a clear motivation for doing just that and is similar to the “Social good motivation” previously found common among engineering students (Kolmos, Mejlgaard, Haase and Holgaard 2013). We can see that while 19% of engineering students have this motivation, only 2% of physics students do. Initially, this suggests a better prospect of teaching Bildung-related content to engineering students.

The different directions of the intrinsic motivations of engineering- and physics students suggest different paths must be taken to engage these groups in a Bildung-oriented education. If engineers are motivated by something akin to “the joy in being a cause” (Groos 1901), one could argue physicists rather being motivated by “the pleasure of finding things out” (Feynman and Robbins 1999).

Research on public committees in Norway has shown how the participation of engineers has dwindled in recent decades, while economists dominate (Hesstvedt 2018). In a technology-driven society, arguably we need a multitude of perspectives in the public conversation, with engineers being central participants. Previous research has posed the question of whether engineers’ interest in building things could be expanded to an interest in contributing to building society and thus to interest in Bildung (Kjelsberg and Kahrs 2020). One similar question could be whether physics students could have their curiosity about how the world works, expanded beyond the fundamentals of nature and into society. If so, this could create a path to Bildung for physics students.

There is historical precedence for physicists engaging in society that is in line with the points discussed in chapter 2.1, where the field intersects with society, or when society inserts itself into physics. Physicists were central in the formation of both the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (Gottfried 1999), and during and after the second world war, particularly the threat of nuclear weapons engaged some of the world’s most renowned physicists such as Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, and Franck.

This theoretical and historical background suggests that a way to expand physicists students’ pleasure of finding out “how the world works” and engage them in a Bildung-oriented education, is to connect the education to the aspects of the nature, history, and philosophy of science that connect science to society (Hottecke and Silva 2011, p. 299), and aspects of science as a social-institutional system, as illustrated in the Family Resemblance Approach to the nature of science (Dagher and Erduran 2014, p. 28). One could move toward this goal along different paths. One way is to include elements of the history of physics that show its connection to society in physics courses (Jardim, Guerra and Schiffer 2021). Another is to connect courses in philosophy of science, science ethics, science, and society, etc., that are part of many physics education programs, more directly to physics to show this interconnectedness. Jesper Sjöström has envisioned similar strategies in more detail for chemistry (Sjöström 2013).

For engineering students, dipping into their already existing motivations for contributing to society, including promoting the image of the engineer as a builder of society, can similarly create a path to Bildung.

Bildung for subaltern groups

This section will discuss whether the data can suggest particular paths to Bildung for the three predefined subaltern groups.

Gender

For female students, their increased altruistic motivations (21% vs. 13% for males) fit with traditional gender stereotypes (Emran, Spektor-levy, Paz-Tal and Ben-Zvi-Assaraf 2020), and this can easily be seen in connection with their similarly higher tendency to emphasize the future orientation of their education (11% vs. 6%), within, e.g., solving the climate crisis. Similarly, the lower score compared to male students on the “create develop build” theme which from the data largely stems from an interest in building concrete objects fits with traditional gender stereotypes (e.g., “boys with their toys”).

The diversity in available study programs, particularly in engineering, is quite large, from renewable energy to mechanical engineering to computer engineering to mention a few. It could seem that this diversity is enough to allow the performance of a certain variety of gender roles, including some with both traditionally male and female values. This can help increase gender parity and create a sense of belonging for more students (Eren 2021). How the situation is within the individual study program, however, this study cannot tell us.

The idea of developing an object seems to be gendered opposite to the idea of developing society, where the latter is a possible key to engaging students in a Bildung-oriented education. Bridging this gap between building objects and contributing to society would be an important step toward engaging more male students in Bildung-oriented aspects of their education. Although female students can be considered in a subaltern position in both physics and engineering, it, in general, seems they are better positioned than male students to be engaged in a Bildung-oriented education having more of a societal motivation, to begin with.

Language minorities

For minorities, their promotion of challenge/difficulty as motivation could be seen to fit with the minority work ethic trope of “working twice as hard to get half as far,” known from particularly US discourse (DeSante 2013). However, we are only talking about 5 students, so we cannot draw definite conclusions.

This interpretation is however also in line with previous research on immigrant-origin students in Norway. A recent meta-study found these students highly motivated for school, typically spending more time on school work and reporting higher ambitions regarding higher education relative to comparable native majority peers (Reisel, Hermansen and Kindt 2019).

Keeping in mind that one of the most prominent characteristics of our group of minority students is its large working-class composition, strategies that can include working-class students in a Bildung-oriented education should also benefit minority students.

Class

Working-class students’ overrepresentation in mentioning educational background as a motivational factor can have several causes. Firstly, getting relatively less input around education at home, the experiences in school become increasingly important for working-class students. Secondly, many working-class students start with vocational education, as they only later discover motivation for higher education.

If one, in addition, is successful in establishing a Bildung-oriented engineering education, where students see themselves as active participants in society—citizens and engineers—it may be a modern parallel to the Scandinavian folk-Bildung traditions utilizing the usefulness of natural science to promote Bildung (Roos 2017). A remaining question is whether this will influence their class and not just themselves as individuals. In the case of the working-class students, we meet here, we are not talking about Spivak’s “elite speaking on behalf of” the subaltern class (Spivak 1988). These students are themselves from a working-class background. One could however argue that they are neither Gramsci’s “most active, energetic, enterprising and disciplined members” never “breaking its sentimental and historical links with its own people,” in this case, social class (Gramsci, Hoare and Nowell-Smith 1971, p. 19). Being first-generation academics, the students are no “local elite,” but neither have we any guarantee that they will not break “sentimental and historical links” with their background. They may well be in a process of upward social mobility, looking back only in varying degrees. Being conducted at only one point in time, this study cannot conclude on such an issue. Previous research and literary contributions however suggest that moving upward socially through education entails a process of negotiation with one’s identity and adjusting one’s sense of self where some aspects of one’s old self are lost, while others remain (Ambjörnsson 1997). This can seem similar to a process of Bildung, but that would depend on what kind of changes students are going through.

The path to higher education from vocational education programs and/or work into engineering education seems particularly important for the recruitment of working-class students. Although this is not a formalized educational path in Norway, adaptations like pre-courses exist. To recruit more working-class students into higher education, keeping the path from vocational upper secondary education to engineering open is important. It seems to fill a role similar to bridge programs that link higher education to secondary education (Petty 2014). As the access to higher education and subsequently more prestigious jobs also represents an upward social movement, it is reasonable to assume that some aspects of subalternness may be given a voice, while others will be silenced in the process. The degree to which a break is created with the students’ community, will also depend on the engagement of the community in their education (Coleman and Hoffer 1987). Previous research gives mixed results for first-generation engineering students’ identities and family support (Verdín and Godwin 2015). This study suggests that working-class engineering students see an engineering degree as a natural next step. Given the discussed respect for science and technology-based on its usefulness and the concrete nature of engineering, this educational choice seems to be considered acceptable, understandable, and desirable in the communities these students come from. It is also a manageable upward social movement, moving the students from the working class to the professional upper-middle class in the Bourdieu-inspired Oslo Register Data Class Scheme (Hansen, Flemmen and Andersen 2009, p. 10). Although a successful engineering student will be able to build on the bachelor’s degree with a Master’s degree (and from there onto a Ph.D.), this will be an incremental path.

An expectation of some degree of community support will improve working-class students’ likelihood of succeeding with their educational goals (Amani and Lorri 2018, p. 195) as well as the probability that their education will not create a break with their background. With a Bildung-oriented engineering education, these students could potentially fill a role similar to Gramsci’s organic intellectual, helping to create internal awareness of the economic, social, and political role of the social group they represent (Gramsci, Hoare and Nowell-Smith 1971, p. 5).

For physics students, the social leap will be longer, and fewer attempt it. None of the 8 working-class physics students connect their motivations to their background, which increases the likelihood that their upward mobility will create a break with their background. The fewer connections to Bildung in the students’ replies form an additional barrier against similarly using a physics education. Communicating a more realistic image of physics as a highly collaborative field with practical laboratory work, breaking with the “lone theoretical genius” stereotype, might change this situation.

Conclusion

While a large proportion of engineering students already have a motivation that can be considered Bildung-oriented and connected to the engineer as an active participant in building a better future, physics students’ motivations are more exclusively connected to the interest in the topic of (pure) physics. A large proportion however has curiousness about how the world works as a motivational factor and utilizing this along with elements of the nature and history of science that connect physics with society, a path toward a Bildung-oriented physics education can also be envisioned.

While minority students seem to have a motivation for hard work, and female students lean more heavily toward Bildung-oriented altruism as motivation, the form of subalternness that most prominently stands out from the data is social class. There is a distinct difference in class composition (measured by parents’ education) between engineering and physics students. Working-class students make out more than twice as large a proportion of engineering students. For recruiting working-class students into higher education, and subsequently into a Bildung-oriented education, the path from vocational upper secondary to engineering education seems particularly important.

If this is combined with an engineering education that promotes the connections between engineering and society, e.g., the engineer as a builder of society, this can help to develop “organic intellectuals” in Gramscian terms thus contributing to giving a voice to groups that are underrepresented in today’s public discourse.

Limitations

Although the response rate among the students was good, only students who attended lectures were sampled. This means this is a study of active students. On average, these will most likely be more motivated for their education than students not participating in a lecture. The study also does not separate individual engineering study programs. In addition, some subsamples are small, notably minority language students, with an N = 54.