Abstract
This chapter draws on longitudinal interview data collected from seven young woman in England who were tracked from age 10–19 and who had all expressed an aspiration at age 16 to study Advanced level (A level) physics. Applying a feminist Bourdieusian conceptual lens, we explore their trajectories in, through and out of physics: from Danielle, who is denied entry to A level physics; to Victoria and Thalia, who are debarred from the course before completion; to Davina, Kate and Mienie, who complete the A level but who choose not to pursue the subject further; and finally Hannah, who goes on to study physics at university. Attention is drawn to the pedagogic work conducted by the field of physics, notably the cultivation of habitus and hexis through the bodies, minds and identities of the young women, and its stringent gate-keeping practices, which ensure the reproduction of the elite status of the field and the simultaneous disadvantaging of women.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Advanced Level / A level examinations are the ‘gold standard’ post-compulsory academic qualifications that are studied over 2 years with final examinations taken at age 18. A levels are the most usual qualifications that provide entry to university degree courses.
References
Adkins, L. (2002). Reflexivity and the politics of qualitative research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues in international practice. London: Sage.
Adkins, L. (2004). Introduction: Feminism, Bourdieu and after. The Sociological Review, 52, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00521.x.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). ‘Doing’ science versus ‘Being’ a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old Schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012a). Science aspirations and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Education Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012b). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194.
Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). The ‘exceptional’ physics/ engineering girl: A sociological analysis of longitudinal data from girls aged 10-16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 88–126.
Archer, L., Moote, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Learning that physics is “not for me”: pedagogic work and the cultivation of habitus among Advanced Level physics students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1707679.
Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.
Baxter, A., & Britton, C. (2001). Risk, identity and change: Becoming a mature student. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11, 87–102.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London/New York: Sage.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999a). Scattered remarks. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 334–340.
Bourdieu, P. (1999b). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Oxford: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, B., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education. London: Society and Culture.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Calabrese Barton, A., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2006). Engaging girls in science. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The sage handbook of gender and education (pp. 221–235). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.
Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 392–414.
Danielsson, A. T. (2012). Exploring woman university physics students “doing gender” and “doing physics”. Gender and Education, 24(1), 25–39.
Darke, K., Clewell, B., & Sevo, R. (2002). Meeting the challenge: The impact of the National Science Foundation’s Program for Women and Girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 285–303.
Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement. London: Routledge.
Francis, B., Archer, L., Moote, J., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). Femininity, science, and the denigration of the girly girl. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(8), 1097–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1253455.
Gonsalves, A. (2014). “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 9, 503–521.
Harding, S. (1998). Women, science, and society. Science, 281(5383), 1599–1600.
Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888.
Haworth, C. M. A., Dale, P., & Plomin, R. (2008). A twin study into the genetic and environmental influences on academic performance in science in nine-year-old boys and girls. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1003–1025.
Jenkins, R. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu: Revised Edition. London: Routledge.
Lawler, S. (2004). Rules of engagement: Habitus, power and resistance. The Sociological Review, 52, 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00527.x.
McNay, L. (1999). Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327699016001007.
McRobbie, A. (2004). Post-Feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 4(3), 255–264.
Moi, T. (1991). Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture. New Literary History, 22(4), 1017–1049.
Moi, T. (1999). What is a woman? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2013). What sort of girl wants to study physics after the age of 16? Findings from a large-scale UK survey. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2979–2998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.681076.
Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research on the participation of girls in physics. London: Institute of Physics.
Ong, M. (2005). Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social Problems, 52, 593–617.
Puwar, N. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender and bodies out of place. Oxford: Berg.
Raelin, J. A., Bailey, M. B., Hamann, J., Pendleton, L. K., Reisberg, R., & Whitman, D. L. (2014). The gendered effect of cooperative education, contextual support, and self-efficacy on undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4), 599–624.
Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’? Working-class students in elite universities. Sociology, 43(6), 1103–1121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509345700.
Saltelli, A., & Funtowics, S. (2017). What is science’s crisis really about. Futures, 91, 5–11.
Skeggs, B. (2004). Exchange, value and affect: Bourdieu and “the self”. In L. Adkins & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 75–89). Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, E. (2010a). Do we need more scientists? A long-term view of patterns of participation in UK undergraduate science programmes. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 281–298.
Smith, E. (2010b). Is there a crisis in school science education in the UK? Educational Review, 62(2), 189–202.
Smith, E. (2011). Women into science and engineering? Gendered participation in higher education STEM subjects. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 993–1014.
Smithers, A., Robinson, P., & Gatsby. (2009). Physics participation and policies: Lessons from abroad. London: Carmichael Press.
The Royal Society. (2008, February). A higher decree of concern. Policy Document.
Thomson, D. (2015). Is A-level physics too hard (and media studies too easy)? Education Data Lab. Published online on 20th October 2015. Accessed 06/06/2018 at < https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2015/10/is-a-level-physics-too-hard-and-media-studies-too-easy/>
Tracy, C. (2016a). The problem of inter-subject comparability. Institute of Physics. Published online on 17 February 2016. Accessed 06/06/2018 at < http://www.iopblog.org/the-problem-of-inter-subject-comparability/>
Tracy, C. (2016b). Do students choose subjects based on how hard they are graded? Institute of Physics. Published online on 19 April 2016. Accessed 06/06/2018 at < http://www.iopblog.org/the-effects-of-grading-on-choice/>
Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary–secondary school transition. Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra, A.C.T.
Wong, B. (2016). The ‘crisis’ in science participation. In Science Education, Career Aspirations and Minority Ethnic Students. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Archer, L., MacLeod, E., Moote, J. (2020). Going, Going, Gone: A Feminist Bourdieusian Analysis of Young Women’s Trajectories in, Through and Out of Physics, Age 10–19. In: Gonsalves, A.J., Danielsson, A.T. (eds) Physics Education and Gender. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41933-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41933-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41932-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41933-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)