Selfies at the science museum: exploring girls’ identity performances in a science learning space

ABSTRACT

Science education has a seemingly intractable gender problem and remains largely the reserve of White, middle-class men and boys, especially in the physical sciences. In this paper, taking an intersectional approach to Butler’s idea of identity as performance, we explore the affordances and limitations of a specific science learning space (a science museum) for girls. We discuss four types of performance, one based on ‘good’ behaviour, one combining masculinity and ‘race’/ethnicity, one of silence and one based on being ‘cool’. We focus on the experiences of 25 girls aged 12-13, from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, from two inner-city, state-run, co-educational London schools, in the UK. We argue that the museum space put girls in a difficult position for both learning science and enacting the identities they were invested in. We conclude by reflecting on the implications for science learning spaces that disrupt rather than reproduce social inequalities.

KEYWORDS:

• Identities
• intersectionality
• Femininities
• science and Technology
• informal learning

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Toni Dancu, Marianne Achiam and Anna Danielsson for their support on aspects of this paper, and Christopher Whitby for his support in data collection. This study was part of the Enterprising Science project, a 5-year research and development project conducted in partnership with University College London, King’s College London and the Science Museum Group, funded by BP.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Emily Dawson’s research explores how some science education practices across the formal and informal education sectors (i.e. from schools, to museums, to watching TV at home) set certain kinds of people up to be successful when they engage with science, while other people are set up to fail.

Louise Archer’s research focuses on educational identities and inequalities, particularly in relation to gender, ethnicity and social class. She has previously undertaken studies on topics such as British Muslim students’ identities and educational experiences and more recently research on inequalities in science participation.

Amy Seakins’ research examines public engagement with science practices, with a focus on supporting practitioner development and evaluation. Her previous projects have explored participation in science in museums, schools and universities in terms of pedagogy and equity.

Spela Godec’s research explores how gender, social class and ethnicity shape girls’ engagement with science in formal and informal contexts, with an emphasis on equity, access and learning.

Jennifer DeWitt’s research and evaluation interests include learning and engagement in early years, families and school groups in informal science environments, including the implications of work on science capital in these settings.

Heather King’s research interests focus on the pedagogy of museum and out-of-school educators, and the practice of, and policy support for, environmental education in England.

Ada Mau’s research focuses on issues and discourses of identities, ‘race’, gender, social class and social justice in education. They also include heritage language learning, multilingualism, migration, social and cultural policy, informal learning, and youth cultures.

Effrosyni Nomikou’s research explores museums practices, from numismatics and curatorial practices to understanding visitor experiences. She has previously undertaken research on science participation in schools and museums, with a focus on equity and access.

Notes

1 We use the term science throughout this paper and define it broadly as science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). While we agree there are significant differences between the subjects corralled together under this umbrella, a broad definition of science was necessary given the research site, which included a wide range of topics.

2 During the project Coleville School went into what are called ‘special measures’ in the UK. This happens when Ofsted, the governmental body that audits schools, decides that a school is not providing adequate support for students’ education. We mention this only to show that while schools were selected for a degree of social disadvantage, these disadvantages seemed to worsen for certain students during the life of the project (2012–2017).

3 We use the demographic descriptions that students provided us with, for instance, if a student described themselves as British Nigerian, Black British or female we use those words. We also use the term racialised minorities when describing the students as a group in terms of their ethnicity, not least because of the range of different backgrounds across the three classes. We describe students in class terms based on data they provided about their families, such as parental occupations and qualifications.

4 Six researchers took part in each visit, five women and one man.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by BP.