Finnish parents’ science capital and its association with sociodemographic issues

ABSTRACT

Science capital consists of science-related cultural and social capital and science-related behaviours and practices. This study aims to clarify the core dimensions of science capital among Finnish parents through consideration of how parents’ educational degree, profession, age and residential area are associated with their science capital. To test this, a survey was conducted with a sample of 740 parents in Finland aged 26 to 69 years. Exploratory factor analysis was used to explore the science capital dimensions and confirmatory factor analysis supported the final seven-factor model. Differences in parents’ responses, including by sociodemographic background, were measured using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The core dimension of cultural capital focuses on the valuing of science in society. Behaviour and practices consist of everyday and informal learning in community spaces, and social capital is strongly linked to future affinity and science identity. Parents’ residential areas and educational degrees seem to have the largest effects on different dimensions. However, a parent’s level of education, profession or residential area do not seem to affect their engagement in everyday science activities with their children. These results provide support to discuss inequalities among families, and ways to increase family science capital.

KEYWORDS:

• Science capital
• Finnish parents
• Science education

Although there is an increasing need for science-qualified and – literate individuals in the labour market, children’s motivation and self-efficacy in science has dropped (Ofek-Geva et al., 2022). This phenomenon is widely recognised in many countries, and, as Perera (2014) reminds us, an enormous gap in science results persists. Furthermore, suggestions have been made that learning goals should be broadened to move away from a content focus to one that develops students’ interest in science and builds a science-related identity (Bell et al., 2009). Despite ongoing inequalities in science, particularly relating to gender equity, parenting styles and socioeconomic statuses (Archer, DeWitt, et al., 2013; Ikonen et al., 2018; Liu & Schunn, 2020; Ugwuanyi et al., 2020), everyone should be equally able to choose science as their career (Archer, DeWitt, et al., 2015). A crucial factor that has been shown to improve science achievement and science equity across society is the development of mechanisms for increasing family science capital (Archer, DeWitt, et al., 2012, Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013). Science capital is the sum of the science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences and resources that families build up through their everyday life activities. Understanding families’ science capital is essential, and in Finland, it requires more research that focuses on parents.

To support family-based science capital research, it has been observed across many cultures that it is not only schools and teachers that effectively enhance science learning through guidance and participation, but also parents (Jones et al., 2021; Sha et al., 2016). Parents play an important role in fostering positive attitudes towards science and shaping children’s science engagement, motivation and attainment (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Harackiewicz et al., 2012) through everyday activities at home (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Junge et al., 2021; Zhang & Tang, 2017). Examples of such activities can include parent – child discussions of school learning outcomes, using science kits or going for nature walks (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015; Tamir, 1991). These practices eventually build children’s competence, and they start to value science as a cultural practice (Crowley et al., 2001).

Likewise, parents’ attitudes affect children’s science performance (Sun et al., 2012) and involvement in science activities (Perera, 2014). In fact, parents’ attitudes towards science (Chakraverty & Tai, 2013; Simpson & Oliver, 1990), parents’ beliefs about science (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2003) and parents’ involvement in science learning (Ofek-Geva et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2012) can positively influence children’s early interest and self-efficacy in science learning. An early interest in science tends to expand participation in science hobbies and involvement in science careers (Pattison & Dierking, 2019). In fact, DeWitt et al. (2013) observed that students whose parents have more positive views towards science tend to have higher educational science aspirations.

According to the ASPIRES study project (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013), most young people report liking school science in the UK, yet only a few children aspire to a career in science. This persists, regardless of their having a positive vision about science careers, being interested in school science or describing that their parents also value science (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013). In Finland, according to PISA international assessment results, all measured areas in science have been decreasing since 2006 (Ahonen, 2021). The difference between girls’ and boys’ science achievement is the largest in OECD countries, and performance has dropped significantly (Leino et al., 2019). International research recognises various reasons why children do not choose science streams; lack of budget and guidance, beliefs that science is difficult, lack of role models in science and stereotypical views of science and scientists have all been recognised (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013; Kier et al., 2014; Lavonen et al., 2008; Scholes & Stahl, 2022; White & Harrison, 2012).

Parents’ roles in science education should also receive attention; parents’ educational attitudes and beliefs impact children’s school performance, motivation and attitudes (Marchant et al., 2001; Ofek-Geva et al., 2022). Children’s reflection of parents’ beliefs is impacted by their home environment and parent – child relationships (Gonzalez-Pienda et al., 2002; Kewalramani & Phillipson, 2020; Marchant et al., 2001), and a strong connection predicts the internalised educational values of the family (Asakawa & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). There are various ways in which parents can make educational choices, for example, by supporting their children in choosing science courses or by decreasing a child’s interest by forcing them to study a certain subject, such as science (Halim et al., 2018). In many studies, parents’ advice concerning career choices is seen as useful (Ikonen et al., 2017; Nugent et al., 2015; Sahin et al., 2014). To increase the overall scientific literacy of the population, both widening participation in STEM and further research on science capital are essential. As science capital has been recognised as culturally and societally situated (Kontkanen et al., 2023), large-scale research on family science capital is needed; however, there have not yet been any large-scale studies conducted in Finland that focus on parents’ viewpoints. The objective of this study was to examine Finnish parents’ science capital and explore how parents’ backgrounds are associated with their science capital. The study has both national and international relevance, as the quantitative measures we have employed may increase our understanding of parents’ science capital and enable practical outcomes for developing STEM education and public understanding of science. Ideally, this will provide new information that will contribute to the development of science capital in Finland.

Parents’ science capital 

Capital has the capacity and tendency to produce benefits in society, and it is impossible to function in the world unless one has capital in all of its forms (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu (1986) identified three forms of capital: economic capital, which is related to money and financial resources; cultural capital, which is equivalent to educational degrees and qualifications; and social capital, which consists of social networks and class status. Bourdieu’s theory (1986) reflects that different forms of capital are reproduced over generations, which highlights the significance of parents’ roles in learning processes, as received capital can be passed on to the next generation. Understanding the role of generational reproduction can help to better direct its influence on children. Going beyond Bourdieusian forms of capital, Archer, Dawson, et al. (2015) proposed that science-related resources should be equally considered essential forms of capital, as they can produce social and cultural advantages or disadvantages. Some researchers (Bauer et al., 2007) have described science capital as knowledge about science and how science works, and some (Chen et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2020) have instead emphasised cultural and social forms of capital. More recently, Archer, Dawson, et al. (2015) have emphasised the meanings of science-related practices, attitudes and behaviours. In response to the goal of offering equal opportunities for children to pursue good coping skills, good societal status, and access to education despite their parents’ background (Eskelinen et al., 2020), this study was developed to examine the importance of parents’ science capital and its role in empowering children to make science-related decisions.

The theoretical model of science capital follows Archer, Dawson, et al.’s (2015) definition of science capital. The design connects science-related cultural capital, which consists of factors such as scientific literacy, scientific-related dispositions and symbolic knowledge about the transferability of science in the labour market. The second dimension of science-related behaviour and practices focuses on consumption of science-related media, informal science learning, use of community spaces and science-related everyday activities. The third recognised area is science-related social capital, in which social relations, such as knowing someone who works in science, talking to others about science, future science affinity and science identity, are discussed. 

Science-related cultural capital 

Scientific literacy

Science literacy describes the ability of an individual to understand how science works (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015) and to use evidence and data to evaluate the quality of information and arguments (Dragoş & Mih, 2015). Science literacy is associated with finding solutions to complicated social and environmental issues across the world (OECD, 2020).  

Scientific-related dispositions

Science-related dispositions and preferences refer to the value placed on science in society (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015). Hidi and Harackiewicz (2000) found that parents who have positive attitudes towards science motivate their children to improve their own science-related achievements. Specifically, children whose parents hold favourable beliefs towards science can have advanced science achievements despite coming from diverse or more prosperous backgrounds (Perera, 2014). It is therefore crucial to understand how families’ attitudes can impact children’s science interests, performance and persistence (Dabney et al., 2013). 

Symbolic knowledge of the transferability of science in the labour market

This dimension refers to knowledge about science degrees that can be used for personal advantage (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015). Bourdieu and Passeron (1979) highlight that people have unequal levels of knowledge about courses and the careers they lead to. Appadurai (2004) emphasised the importance of socioeconomic status in this dimension, noting that more privileged people research the future more realistically and share their knowledge with one another more consistently.

Science-related behaviour and practices 

Consumption of science-related media

The culture of science can be promoted via media, including television, magazines and books (Cavas et al., 2011; Venville et al., 2013). The use of media to learn about science will eventually lead to more scientific discussions at home and to an increased interest in science (Halim et al., 2018). This dimension explores the extent to which parents absorb science-related media, such as television, radio, podcasts and blogs.  

Informal science learning

This dimension includes designed spaces, such as museums, zoos, national parks etc. The role of informal science settings in the development of STEM-related interests needs to be acknowledged (Dabney et al., 2012). Informal science learning consists of science-related activities outside of the formal education system and includes activities such as visiting science centres, science museums or after-school clubs (Fenichel & Schweingruber, 2010; McGuire et al., 2020). Informal learning supports the development of interest, experience, skills and attitudes (Archer et al., 2012; Ayar, 2015; Mills & Katzman, 2015; Nugent et al., 2016; Sahin et al., 2014).  

Community spaces

This component includes participation in after-school science clubs. Parents have a significant role in providing opportunities for their children to participate in after-school science learning, such as in science clubs (Vartiainen & Aksela, 2019). After-school clubs and the experiences of ambassadors from science-related fields visiting schools and giving career talks have been shown to increase students’ interest in studying science and aspiring to a science career (Straw & Macleod, 2015). Science clubs may have far-reaching results. As Corin et al. (2018) noted, adults’ science-related hobbies were often hobbies that they first enjoyed during their youth.

Everyday context

Families and children can engage with science in many ways in their everyday lives, but some activities may be valued more than others; for example, conducting science experiments can be seen as being more scientific than cooking (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015). Hango (2007) showed that, in Britain, poor parents were able to scale down the impact of economic disadvantage on their children’s education by expanding the frequency of doing everyday things together with their children. With this component, we seek to explore whether Finnish parents conduct experiments and use science kits at home, fix or build things at home, code computers or go on nature walks together with their children.

Science-related social capital 

Knowing someone who works in a scientific job

Connections between a science-related career and science aspirations and attitudes have been recognised. For instance, fathers who work in specific fields increase the likelihood that their sons will make similar career choices (Dryler, 1998; Keski-Petäjä & Witting, 2016). In addition, having a family member who works in a science-related job is more likely to increase a child’s aspirations for a science-related career (Archer et al., 2012). Mothers’ technological occupations have been shown to increase children’s positive attitudes towards studying technology. Likewise, relations between degree and science attitudes have been shown; however, in the area of technology, fathers’ educational degree does not seem to impact children’s attitudes towards technology (Ardies et al., 2015).

Talking to others about science

This component seeks to capture how much and to whom parents talk about science in their daily lives. Studies have shown that when talking about science interests, people observe the listener’s verbal and nonverbal feedback (Pasupathi & Rich, 2005) and that positive social recognition by the listener predicts higher interest in the topic (Thoman et al., 2012). Parents who talk about science at home can provide an advantage for their children at school (Lyons, 2006).   

Science identity and future science affinity

We wanted to explore the extent to which parents recognise themselves as being scientific or are recognised by others as being scientific and how much a person desires to study science or aspire to a job in a scientific field. Science identity consists of recognition, competence and performance. Recognition means that a person is recognised as a science person; competence is a person’s knowledge of science content and practices, and performance includes demonstrating competence to other members of the community (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Science identity and positive attitude are key components in a person’s persistence and choice to continue with their science education (DeWitt et al., 2013; Trujillo & Tanner, 2014).   

Science capital is associated with sociodemographic variables

Parents’ education and occupation relate to the development of children’s interest in science (Dabney et al., 2013). In fact, Starr et al. (2022) have shown that parents who do not have a post-secondary education are less likely to provide science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) support for their children. In addition, parents with a higher socioeconomic status (SES) have more equal attitudes and guidance for their children for a variety of degrees and jobs (Hardie, 2015). Science is highly transferable since science qualifications have a high exchange value in the labour market; however, many children and their parents fail to recognise this fact (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013), and it appears that only families with high levels of science capital are able to expand their science resources and knowledge in a strategic manner (Archer et al., 2012; Archer, DeWitt, et al., 2015). In addition to education and occupation, age and residential area may have an impact on science capital. In addition, it seems that young adults show more interest in scientific discoveries and technology development than older adults, whereas older adults think science is not as important in their daily lives (Eurobarometer, 2021). Concerning residential areas, a study conducted in London (Brook, 2016) highlights that access and attendance of facilities, such as museums and galleries, are influenced not only by education and ethnicity, but by residential area as well. Improved access to museums and galleries and to public transport may increase attendance at such facilities (Brook, 2016).

Finland is a society with a high level of equal opportunities where parents’ socioeconomic status is less of a determining factor on children’s future learning outcomes (Peltola et al., 2023). However, differences in family background, such as education, occupation and income level, are central factors in inequality (Eskelinen et al., 2020) and may influence the composition of science capital, even in Finland, where education and career choices are often inherited from parents (Keski-Petäjä & Witting, 2016; Nori et al., 2021; Saari et al., 2020). The influence of parents’ career choices on children’s career choices has been observed, and some parents’ careers are more clearly passed on to their children than others (Kivinen et al., 2012). Although men currently make up the majority of the STEM-related workforce in Finland, Keski-Petäjä and Witting (2016) highlighted that a mother having a degree in science or ICT significantly increases the likelihood of their daughter(s) choosing a similar career. Regarding age, adults aged 26 to 35 are most interested in science-related topics in Finland (Sciencebarometer, 2019), and older people have less positive attitudes towards science than younger people do (Kaakinen et al., 2023). In addition, residential area is relatively strongly connected to science-related interest and trust, and adults living in larger cities show more interest and trust (Sciencebarometer, 2019); however, the tendency for adults in larger cities to have a higher educational level may affect this finding (Sciencebarometer, 2019). Understanding the influence of parents’ backgrounds on science capital may therefore provide valuable knowledge about how to increase a family’s science capital.

This study surveys Finnish parents’ science capital, and the objective is achieved through the following research questions:

1. What are the core dimensions of Finnish parents’ science capital?

2. How are parents’ education, profession, age and residential area associated with different dimensions of science capital?

Materials and methods

Participants

Finnish parents (N = 835) responded to our online survey prior to the end of April 2022. The respondents’ ages in the final sample (N = 740) fell between 26 and 69 years old. Of the respondents, 13.6% were under 35, 62.4% were 35–46, 21.5% were 46–55 and 2.0% were over 55. In all, 573 participants identified as female, 133 as male, 7 as ‘other’ and 22 as ‘rather not say’. The highest level of education reported by the participants is seen in Table 1, and the majority (69.5%) of the participants reported having an academic (Bachelor’s or Master’s) degree. The parents were asked to report their postal code, which enabled us to divide them into five different residential areas: South Finland (51.4%), West Finland (12.7%), North Finland (4.5%), Mid Finland (10.3%) and East Finland (20.3%).

Table 1. Sample description.

Age	Counts	% of Total	Degree	Counts	% of Total
Under 35	101	13.6%	PhD or licentiate	91	12.3%
35–45	462	62.4%	Academic degree	514	69.5%
46–55	159	21.5%	Vocational degree	90	12.2%
Over 56	15	2.1%	No degree	44	5.9%
N/A	3	0.4%	N/A	1	0.1%
Profession	Counts	% of Total	Language	Counts	% of Total
Work in science-related field	156	21.5%	Finnish	682	92.8%
Study for an academic degree	81	11.2%	Swedish	23	3.1%
Work in science-related field and study for an academic degree	28	3.9%	Russian	4	0.5%
Neither	461	63.5%	Other	26	3.5%
Gender	Counts	% of Total	Residential area	Counts	% of Total
Female	573	78.0%	South Finland	380	51.5%
Male	133	18.1%	West Finland	94	12.7%
Other	7	1.0%	North Finland	33	4.5%
Rather not say	22	3.0%	Mid Finland	76	10.3%
			East Finland	150	20.3%
			N/A	5	0.7%

For the respondents who reported their occupation, 21.1% worked in a science-related field, 10.9% studied for an academic degree, 3.8% worked in a science-related field while studying for an academic degree and 62.3% did not work in science or study for an academic degree. The impact of ethnicity on parents’ science capital was not discussed in this study because of the sample’s lack of variance regarding this variable.

Parents’ science capital survey

The survey was adapted from the Student Science Capital Survey developed by Archer, Dawson, et al. (2015), the Finnish Science Capital Population survey developed by the FINSCI research group (Kaakinen et al., 2023) and the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). Archer’s survey included 47 questions and was designed to be used with adolescents; we modified these questions to be more appropriate for adult respondents. The design adopted in the initial version of the survey had a solid theoretical base, thus increasing the validity of the current survey. The Finnish National Core Curriculum (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014) was used for a section concerning the significance of science education (Question 39). Importantly, the English term science is firmly linked with STEM subjects, whereas the Finnish term tiede (science) also refers to other disciplines; we selected the Finnish all-inclusive concept of science throughout the survey and asked the respondents to consider science as comprehensively as possible. To further support validity, the existing instrument of the the Fostering Finnish Science Capital (FINSCI) population survey was deployed in the development of questions for our survey (Kaakinen et al., 2023). The FINSCI population survey included six different scales; in our survey, only the science capital scale and background questions were used, and these were modified to target parents of primary school children instead of all adults, which was the case in the original survey. The survey consisted of background questions and 22 science capital questions categorised into different forms of science capital, including cultural capital, social capital and behaviours and practices. The background information included questions about residential area, gender, age, education, home language, perceived minority group status, occupation, child’s age and income level. In this study, we focus on finding interactions between science capital and educational degree, occupation, age and residential area. Most of the items were formatted as Likert scale items on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’; however, in a few cases, 6 or 8 points were used. In addition, the survey used open-ended questions. The questions and items were attentively translated into Finnish and then translated back into English to review their original counterparts as closely as possible. 

The survey was first piloted in May 2021 via the research group’s networks. Nine parents completed the online survey and were interviewed afterwards to evaluate whether the questions were understandable and interpretable in the way the research group intended. The survey was then edited based on the comments and piloted again in October 2021 by 12 new parents. The final version was revised based on the pilot; repeating items were deleted, the language in some items was simplified to make it easier for respondents to understand and the order of the questions was changed. The responses were multiplied, and the data were tested using SPSS. Component analysis and measures of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) were conducted on the pilot data to confirm validity and to perform final refining of the items and scales. The survey was translated into English, Swedish and Russian by professional translators.

The responses were collected in various public places around Finland and on social media between November 2021 and April 2022. The respondents were able to participate in the survey at the Finnish Science Centre Heureka in Southern Finland and in three different places in Eastern Finland: a public library, an art garden and a shopping centre. In these places, participants were able to complete the survey on the research assistant’s iPad or they were given a QR code that would enable them to respond using their own device. The survey link was also published on social media via the research group’s Facebook page. In addition, parents whose children participated in the classroom interventions organised by the research group were able to respond to the online questionnaire via a link on Wilma, the parents’ communication platform. In addition, some other primary school principals were contacted, and they shared the link to the parents’ science capital questionnaire via Wilma, the parents’ communication platform. 

If the participants did not agree to the consent statement of the study, the responses were deleted from the data. Additionally, respondents who completed the background information but not the science capital questions and respondents who reported not having children were cleaned from the data. Missing values for all variables were replaced with ‘N/A’.  

Data analysis

We conducted three statistical analyses – exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The data were analysed in Jamovi (version 2.3.12.0-macos.dmg). We conducted an EFA to determine the core dimensions of parents’ science capital and to investigate the underlying structure of the variables, since EFA is used when the factorial structure of the measuring instruments and the construct validity of the measurement tool are unknown (Henson & Roberts, 2006). To determine whether the sample was appropriate for conducting EFA, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests were conducted. A KMO index above .60 is used to determine whether the sample was appropriate for factor analysis (Shrestha, 2021) and the minimum residuals and oblimin rotation were used in the EFA. We then conducted CFA to test the validity of the factor structure. The reliability and internal consistency of each factor was checked using Cronbach’s alpha of .50. Separate ANOVA tests were used to explain the association between the forms of science capital and parents’ educational degree, profession, age and residential area.

Results

Core dimensions of Finnish parents’ science capital 

As a first research question, the core dimensions of parents’ science capital were clarified. For the EFA, 62 items were included in the analyses. Items were considered meaningful if they had factor loadings greater than .32. Several items loaded onto multiple factors or did not significantly load onto any of the factors. These 37 items were removed from further analysis. The high KMO index (.809) and significant Bartlett’s test sphericity (χ² = 5189, p < .001) showed the correlation matrix to be suitable for the EFA. The seven-factor model was suggested by the scree plot. As shown in Table 2, the items selected had loadings > .36, and the model explained 46.88% of the total variance.

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis of core dimensions of science capital (N = 740).

Item	Factor loadings
	Factor
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
I read scientific publications	0.740
I look for scientific information on the Internet (e.g. YouTube, science websites)	0.718
I read science books and/or journals	0.671
I look at something related to science on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok)	0.566
We do arts and crafts together		0.773
We fix or build things together		0.770
We go for walks in nature, parks or garden		0.567
We conduct science experiments or use scientific test sets (e.g. crystal growing, magic dough, chemical tests, microscope)		0.492
My child likes participating in camps and excursions			0.770
My child likes participating in clubs in different fields			0.678
My child likes participating in scouting			0.605
My child likes watching scientific shows and listening to them			0.504
It is important that young people understand science				0.736
Young people’s interest in science is essential for the future				0.655
It is important to study science, even if you don’t want to work in science				0.589
The scientific information that I learned at school has been useful in my daily life				0.477
I have encouraged my child/children to continue exploring science in the future					0.821
I have explained to my child/children that science is useful in their future					0.656
My child/children know(s) a lot about science					0.570
I visit museums with my children						0.873
I visit art exhibitions with my children						0.654
I visit science centres with my children						0.453
People like me work in scientific fields							0.606
People often perceive me as a researcher							0.435
I am aware of professions in different disciplines							0.368

In summary, factor 1 (a = .714) included items related to the use of science media. Items that loaded onto factor 2 (a = .769) were all related to doing science-related things in an everyday context and factor 3 (a = .727) included items related to community spaces. Factor 4 (a = .737) consisted of items related to valuing science in society. Items on factor 5 (a = .754) were related to future science affinity. Factor 6 (a = .750) included items related to visiting informal science learning places, and items that loaded on factor 7 (a = .561) were related to science identity.

Next, we conducted a CFA to test the fit of the seven-factor model suggested by the EFA. The model fit indices indicated a tolerable fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999): CFI = .917, TLI = .902, SRMR = .050, RMSEA = 0.047, 90%CI for RMSEA = [.043,.051]. One item from the sixth factor (‘I visit science centres with my children’) had low standardised loading, so it was dropped from the subsequent analyses. The modification indices suggested further improvements; thus, the residual covariance items were allowed to correlate. Two other items (‘I look at something related to science on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok)’ and ‘People often perceive me as a researcher’) were dropped from the final model due to their low standardised loadings. With these modifications, the model was a good fit for the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999): CFI = .967, TLI = .959, SRMR = .042, RMSEA = .0324, 90%CI for RMSEA = [.0266,.0381]. The model estimates of the final model are presented in Table 3. We then calculated the Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension. Cronbach’s alphas for the factors ranged from 0.516 to 0.769, all within an acceptable range (Bonett & Wright, 2015).

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis model estimates.

Factor	Item	Estimate	SE	Z	p	Stand. Estimate
Factor 1	I read scientific publications	0.857	0.0440	19.5	<.001	0.718
	I look for scientific information on the Internet (e.g. YouTube, science websites)	0.785	0.0437	18.0	<.001	0.668
	I read science books and/or journals	0.940	0.0437	21.5	<.001	0.786
Factor 2	We do arts and crafts together	0.869	0.0436	19.9	<.001	0.727
	We fix or build things together	0.949	0.0439	21.6	<.001	0.779
	We go for walks in nature, parks or garden	0.513	0.0332	15.4	<.001	0.586
	We conduct science experiments or use scientific test sets (e.g. crystal growing, magic dough, chemical tests, microscope)	0.788	0.0494	16.0	<.001	0.589
Factor 3	My child likes participating in camps and excursions	0.717	0.0363	19.7	<.001	0.744
	My child likes participating in clubs in different fields	0.643	0.0338	19.0	<.001	0.718
	My child likes participating in scouting	0.615	0.0415	14.8	<.001	0.572
	My child likes watching scientific shows and listening to them	0.467	0.0333	14.0	<.001	0.534
Factor 4	It is important that young people understand science	0.370	0.0200	18.5	<.001	0.727
	Young people’s interest in science is essential for the future	0.417	0.0227	18.4	<.001	0.710
	It is important to study science, even if you don’t want to work in science	0.431	0.0327	13.2	<.001	0.557
	The scientific information that I learned at school has been useful in my daily life	0.439	0.0314	14.0	<.001	0.553
Factor 5	I have encouraged my child/children to continue exploring science in the future	0.772	0.0341	22.7	<.001	0.835
	I have explained my child/children that science is useful in their future	0.740	0.0370	20.0	<.001	0.739
	My child/children know a lot about science	0.504	0.0362	13.9	<.001	0.519
Factor 6	I visit museums with my children	0.512	0.0358	14.3	<.001	0.896
	I visit art exhibitions with my children	0.412	0.0329	12.5	<.001	0.642
Factor 7	People like me work in scientific fields	0.639	0.0475	13.5	<.001	0.611
	I am aware of professions in different disciplines	0.621	0.0450	13.8	<.001	0.638

The remaining seven factors were then turned into mean scores. Cultural capital was formed from one factor; unlike in the theoretical framework (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015), our research findings do not form a factor for scientific literacy and symbolic knowledge of the transferability of science in the labour market. Behaviour and practices were separated into four factors as predicted; however, social capital formed two factors. For items considering social relations, our analyses did not result in a factor for knowing someone who works in a science job and talking to others about science. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations of the final model, are summarised in Table 4. The second research question focuses on the association of parents’ educational degree, profession, age and residential area with cultural capital, behaviour and practices and social capital.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the items included in the final model.

Form of capital	Dimension	Item	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Cultural capital	The valuing of science in society  (factor 4)	It is important that young people understand science	739	4.73	.51	1	5
		Young people’s interest in science is essential for the future	740	4.65	.59	1	5
		It is important to study science, even if you don’t want to work in science	740	4.38	.78	1	5
		The scientific information that I learned at school has been useful in my daily life	740	4.33	.80	1	5
Behaviour and practices	Use of science media  (factor 1)	I read scientific publications	736	2.24	1.20	1	5
		I look for scientific information on the Internet (e.g. YouTube, science websites)	734	2.76	1.18	1	5
		I read science books and/or journals	737	2.48	1.20	1	5
	Informal science learning  (factor 6)	I visit museums with my children*	739	1.71	.57	1	3
		I visit art exhibitions with my children*	737	2.02	.64	1	3
	Community spaces  (factor 3)	My child likes participating in camps and excursions**	730	2.15	.96	1	4
		My child likes participating in clubs in different fields**	728	2.32	.90	1	4
		My child likes participating in scouting**	703	2.96	1.08	1	4
		My child likes watching scientific shows and listening to them**	727	2.34	.89	1	4
	Everyday context  (factor 2)	We do arts and crafts together	735	4.52	1.20	1	6
		We fix or build things together	734	4.25	1.22	1	6
		We go for walks in nature, parks or garden	732	5.24	.88	1	6
		We conduct science experiments or use scientific test sets (e.g. crystal growing, magic dough, chemical tests, microscope)	734	3.20	1.34	1	6
Social capital	Future science affinity  (factor 5)	I have encouraged my child/children to continue exploring science in the future	735	3.85	0.93	1	5
		I have explained my child/children that science is useful in their future	732	3.97	1.00	1	5
		My child/children know a lot about science	733	3.36	1.00	1	5
	Science identity  (factor 7)	People like me work in scientific fields	734	3.55	1.05	1	5
		I am aware of professions in different disciplines	738	3.84	0.974	1	5

*1 = regularly – 3 = never. **1 = very much – 4 = very little.

Comparison between sociodemographic variables and parent’s science capital dimensions

To respond to the second research question, we measured group differences with selected sociodemographic variables. ANOVA tests were used to research differences between education, profession, age and residential area. The differences among different sociodemographic variations are also considered and discussed. The latter variables were selected based on the recognised differences in previous research (e.g. Kontkanen et al., 2023).

Association between sociodemographic information and cultural capital 

We investigated group variances in cultural capital via ANOVA. As shown in Table 5, parents’ educational degrees and residential areas have positive associations with the cultural capital dimension but the effect is small. Regarding parents’ educational background and the level of valuing science in society, parents with a doctoral degree or an academic degree differ from parents with a vocational degree. Additionally, differences between families living in South and East Finland and West and East Finland are significant; however, parents’ professions and age are not associated with valuing science in society.

Table 5. Differences between sociodemographic variables and cultural capital.

Form of capital	Dimension	Group	F	p	η²p
Cultural capital	The valuing of science in society	Educational degree	13.1	<.001	.051*
		Profession	1.74	0.158	.007
		Age	0.497	0.778	.003
		Residential area	5.70	<.001	.037*

*small effect, **moderate effect, ***large effect 

Association between sociodemographic information and science-related behaviours and practices

We explored group variance in science-related behaviours and practices via ANOVA. Table 6 shows that the use of science media is associated with different group variables. Regarding educational degree, parents with a doctoral degree differ from parents with all the other degrees, and parents with an academic degree differ from parents with a vocational degree in that they use more science media; regarding profession, parents working in science, studying for a science degree or working in the field yet studying use more science media than parents who do not work in science; regarding age, no positive association is found; lastly, regarding residential area, parents from East Finland use the least amount of science media compared to parents from South, West and Mid Finland.

Table 6. Differences between sociodemographic variables and behaviour and practices.

Form of capital	Dimension	Group	F	p	η²p
Behaviour and practices	Use of science media	Educational degree	33.5	<.001	.120**
		Profession	58.3	<.001	.195***
		Age	0.754	0.583	.005
		Residential area	5.89	<.001	.039*
	Informal science learning	Educational degree	13.0	<.001	.051*
		Profession	5.23	0.001	.021*
		Age	5.07	<.001	.033*
		Residential area	13.1	<.001	.082**
	Community spaces	Educational degree	1.77	0.151	.007
		Profession	2.10	0.099	.009
		Age	3.24	0.007	.022*
		Residential area	2.82	0.016	.019*
	Everyday context	Educational degree	1.21	0.307	.005
		Profession	1.23	0.298	.005
		Age	6.08	<.001	.040*
		Residential area	0.731	0.600	.005

*small effect, **moderate effect, ***large effect  

All sociodemographic variables predict the use of informal science learning places. Parents with doctorates and academic degrees use informal science learning places more often than parents with a vocational degree or no degree. Similarly, parents working in science differ from parents not working in or studying science. Parents’ age indicates that older parents use informal science learning places more often than younger parents. Residential area indicates a moderate effect on the use of informal science learning places. Parents from South Finland reported using such places regularly or sometimes, whereas parents from East Finland reported using informal learning places only regularly. Families living in West, Mid or North Finland were more equal in terms of visiting regularly or sometimes.

Regarding the use of community spaces, our results show some correlation with the background variables, but none of the practical effects are significant. Finally, parents’ educational degrees, professions and residential areas are not associated with everyday context. Parents’ age positively correlates with doing science-related activities with their children in everyday life, indicating that younger parents engage in such activities more often.

Association between sociodemographic information and social capital

As shown in Table 7, future science affinity is positively associated with educational degree, profession and residential area. Parents with a vocational degree reported having the lowest future science affinity (Mean = 3.34), and parents with a doctoral degree (Mean = 3.97) differed from parents with other educational backgrounds; they reported having the most support for their children’s future science aspirations. Likewise, parents with an academic degree or no degree reported having a higher science identity than parents with a vocational degree. Regarding parents’ profession, parents working in science (Mean = 3.87) and parents who study science (Mean = 4.02) reported having a higher future science affinity than parents not working in science (Mean = 3.63). Parents’ age is not associated with future science affinity.

Table 7. Differences between sociodemographic variables and social capital.

Form of capital	Dimension	Group	F	p	η²p
Social capital	Future science affinity	Educational degree	10.5	<.001	.041*
		Profession	8.03	<.001	.032*
		Age	1.83	0.106	.012*
		Residential area	3.43	0.005	.023*
	Science identity	Educational degree	36.9	<.001	.131**
		Profession	14.8	<.001	.058**
		Age	2.91	0.013	.019*
		Residential area	6.62	<.001	.043*

*small effect, **moderate effect, ***large effect

All sociodemographic variables predicted science identity. Parents with doctorates and academic degrees showed a higher science identity than parents with a vocational or no degree. Likewise, parents working in a science-related field or studying for an academic degree demonstrated a higher science identity than parents not working or studying in science fields. However, the effect of age and residential area was small. Only parents under 35 differ from parents aged between 46 and 55, and parents living in East Finland showed lower science identity than parents living in South, West and Mid Finland.

Discussion

In this paper, we aim to present the core dimensions of Finnish parents’ science capital. Through our data, we found dimensions from each science capital form (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015) and identified the sociodemographic factors linked to these core dimensions (Table 8). Parents’ cultural capital is formed from one dimension, the valuing of science in society, and cultural capital emphasises the societal significance of science and personal attitudes towards science. The second form of science capital consists of behaviours and practices, including using science media, the role of science in informal learning, community spaces and science in everyday contexts. These dimensions strongly refer to the use of science and scientific information in families’ everyday life. Social capital consists of two dimensions: future science affinity and science identity. All of the latter science capital forms and dimensions follow Archer, Dawson, et al.’s (2015) science capital model; however, our analysis did not create factors for scientific literacy, knowledge of transferability of science, science attitude, knowing someone who works in a science job or talking to others about science.

Table 8. Summary of the core dimensions and sociodemographic issues.

Form of capital	Dimensions	Sociodemographic issues
Cultural capital	Scientific related dispositions	Parents with higher educational degree show higher level of valuing science in society. Parents’ profession and age are not associated with valuing science in society.
Behaviour and practices	Consumption of science-related media	Parents with higher educational degree use more science-related media than parents with lower educational degree. Parents working in the science field or studying science use more science media than parents not working in science.
	Informal science learning Community spaces	Families’ residential area is one predictor of access to informal science learning. Parents’ age indicates that older parents use informal science learning places more often compared to younger parents, whereas younger parents’ do science activities with their children more often.
	Everyday context	Educational degree, profession or residential area does not affect Finnish parents’ engagement in everyday science activities with their children.
Social capital	Future science affinity	Parents’ educational degree, profession and residential area have small effects on social capital dimension. Parents’ age is not associated with future science affinity.
	Science identity	Parents with higher educational degrees and science-related professions show higher levels of science identity.

We suggest that our findings demonstrate the high cultural value that Finnish society places on science. The data suggest that the majority of the respondents value science in society, reflecting the general attitudes towards science in Finland (Sciencebarometer, 2019). However, our data did not involve a factor for scientific literacy or knowledge about the transferability of science in the labour market, as has been done in previous studies (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015). This might be a methodological challenge relating to inconsistencies in parents’ responses to the survey items or due to uneven awareness about courses and the careers science skills may lead to (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1979). In addition, an uneven/unbalanced gender rate may affect the factor structure. The respondents may have had less knowledge about science-related occupations, as the majority of the respondents were female, who do not often work in STEM fields (Keski-Petäjä & Witting, 2016). There is also evidence of differences in scientific literacy skills between genders (Leino et al., 2019); thus, the factor structure might look different if fathers responded to our survey more frequently. However, this might only be evident in a Finnish context. On the other hand, this reflects the urge shown by academically educated mothers to support nationally important development and research in Finland. In sum, to balance gender paced inequality in science capital, women should become more aware of the transferability of science and eventually to become more motivated to work in STEM fields.

Despite comprising a factor in our study, our results indicate that Finnish parents’ science capital does not consist significantly of science-related media. On average, media sources, such as publications, books and the internet, are used to look for scientific information less than four hours a month. This result shows that science-media is not used regularly. According to Halim et al. (2018) media has significant role in promoting interest in science. Thus, we need to secure that everyone has access and possibilities to utilise science-related media sources.

In turn, Finnish parents support the development of science-related interests and attitudes through participation in everyday activities and the utilisation of informal science learning places. Building on the existing evidence of Crowley et al. (2001), parents’ competence is passed on to their children through everyday activities, which increases children’s valuing of science in society. This finding emphasises the importance of parents’ roles in creating family science capital (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013). In our study, Finnish parents reported that their children would very much like to use community spaces, including participating in different camps and clubs and watching scientific shows. In order to increase science career aspirations among children, the use of community spaces, such as science clubs, would counter the stereotypical views of science and scientists (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013; Lavonen et al., 2008; Scholes & Stahl, 2022; Straw & Macleod, 2015). Although we have documented parents’ reported interest in community spaces, future research is needed that focuses on the number of children who participate in clubs and camps, as well as the reasons that prevent such participation.

Parents’ attitudes and encouragement of their children’s future science affinity emerged in the results in the area of social capital. Finnish parents encourage their children to engage with science and emphasise that science is useful for their future. According to previous studies (Ikonen et al., 2017; Ofek-Geva et al., 2022), parents’ educational attitudes and career advice are one way to impact children’s science-related decisions and parents’ science identity appears to be linked to recognition and competence (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Parents in this study recognise themselves as being scientific and are aware of scientific practices, especially within different science-related professions. Finnish parents’ social capital as captured through our survey reflects their science persistence (DeWitt et al., 2013). In light of the results, the identified dimensions reinforce the view that Finnish parents have some cultural and social capital and that parents play a role in supporting family science capital. In sum, promoting children's science interest, achievements and aspirations, we need to consider parents’ science identity.

The second research question focused on the sociodemographic variables associated with parents’ science capital dimensions. We specifically examined whether parents’ educational degree, profession, age and residential area were associated with science capital dimensions. We found that parents’ educational degrees and residential areas predict cultural capital; the second form of capital (behaviour and practices) varies between all four background variables; and social capital is affected by a parent’s educational degree, profession and residential area. In other words, parents’ educational degrees and professions show similar predictions; parents’ age only predicts science-related behaviour and practices, and their residential area predicts all forms of science capital. These results are in line with a recent large-scale study (Sciencebarometer, 2022) that suggested education as a major differentiating variable.

As for the effect of educational degree, parents with higher degrees had higher scientific-related dispositions, used more science media, visited more informal learning places, had higher future science affinity for their children and had higher science identity than parents with lower educational degrees. Reflecting previous studies (Archer, DeWitt, et al., 2013; Liu & Schunn, 2020; Ugwuanyi et al., 2020) on how science is not accessible to all because of gender and socioeconomic differences, our results demonstrate that, for well-educated parents, science learning spaces are accessible. No effect of educational degree was observed on the use of community spaces or science-related activities in an everyday context. Despite the education level, parents are committed to easy access science activities, and this should be recognised internationally in science policy. Our findings contrast with Starr et al.’s (2022) study, which showed that parents who have not completed higher levels of education are less likely to provide STEM support for their children. A possible explanation for this difference may be that in this study, only 16.8% of the Finnish respondents were not academically educated.

Regarding profession, the parents who worked in science fields or studied science disciplines used more science media, visited informal learning places more regularly, had higher future science affinity for their children and had a higher level of science identity than parents not working or studying science. However, parents’ profession did not predict scientific-related dispositions, use of community spaces or everyday context. Our results reflect previous studies that have indicated that education and career choices are inherited from parents (Gubler et al., 2017; Keski-Petäjä & Witting, 2016; Nori et al., 2021; Saari et al., 2020) and it is, therefore, not surprising that educational degree and profession both predict parents having a higher future science affinity for their children. To decrease the role of parents’ professional background in promoting children's science capital, it is important that media resources and informal visits are considered in formal education.

Regarding the differences between parents’ science capital dimensions and age, the results indicate practical significance in informal science learning, use of community spaces and everyday context. More specifically, our data indicate that parents’ age does not predict scientific dispositions or future science affinity. This contrasts with previous research (Eurobarometer, 2021) that showed a relationship between age and attitudes towards science. Furthermore, our results indicate that older parents use informal learning places more often but do fewer science activities with their children compared to younger parents. One explanation may be that older parents have older children who are more capable of understanding science-related issues during their informal learning visits and are therefore taken to these learning places more often, whereas younger parents may have younger children who benefit more from activities done together at home. It is also likely that older parents’ socioeconomic status is better established and enables more contributions to informal science learning. However, this raises an important aspect for future research regarding science-related behaviour and practices; children’s ages should be considered in addition to parents’ ages.

Finally, residential areas predict all forms of science capital. Parents living in East Finland had lower scientific-related dispositions, used less science media, visited fewer informal learning places, used fewer community spaces, had lower future science affinity for their children and had lower science identity. As the majority of our respondents had an academic degree and were from South Finland, these findings are in line with Sciencebarometer (2019), indicating that people living in bigger cities show more interest in science, which can be explained by their higher educational level. Furthermore, reflecting the findings of Brook (2016), we assume that in sparsely populated Finland, families’ residential area is one predictor of access to science; not having museums and science centres near your living area prevents use. No effect of families’ residential areas was observed on participation in everyday contexts or recognising the importance of science-related activities at home (Junge et al., 2021; Zhang & Tang, 2017).

Exploring science capital in Finland involves ongoing work and needs development. Although science capital is considered an important form of cultural and social capital (Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015) and parents’ roles in children’s science-related decisions are recognised (Ikonen et al., 2017; Ofek-Geva et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2012; Zhang & Tang, 2017), there is a lack of science capital research in Finland, especially research that considers the points of view of parents. Our study shows that the inequalities in the formation of Finnish parents’ science capital relate mainly to parents’ level of education and their residential area. We suggest that, by understanding the forms of science capital and the variables influencing its reproduction in a family context, unequal levels of interest and aspirations in science among children may be addressed. Considering this phenomenon internationally, this study provides deeper understanding of cultural and social variables related in formation of science capital. However, given that Finland is a rather small welfare society and that more than 90% of the respondents were of Finnish origin, the science capital dimensions among parents might look different in another country’s context. Our study was unable to demonstrate the distribution of science capital in different social groups more broadly.

Our survey instrument was comprehensive and measured all areas of the science capital model; however, the length of the survey may have prevented some respondents from participating. We benefited from pilot testing the survey twice before the data gathering, and all of the questions were revised based on the pilot group’s recommendations and comments. We were able to gather data from various physical places and online platforms to reach diverse groups of parents; however, it was mostly highly educated mothers who participated. The methodological solutions of this study followed previous research implemented in the UK for adolescents (e.g. Archer, Dawson, et al., 2015). Previous international research conducted in the field of science capital was applied in this study to determine Finnish parents’ perspectives in order to better understand the family-based factors of science capital. However, some differences were also recognised that need more research. Our survey instrument included items concerning knowing someone who works in a science job and talking to others about science. We were not able to compose EFA due to the continuous measure types of the items. An imminent challenge will be refining and testing the survey instrument so that all the core dimensions can be measured and analysed in the future. Previous research indicates that socioeconomic status (SES) has a great impact on science capital dimensions (Appadurai, 2004; Hango, 2007; Perera, 2014); however, this study did not measure whether economic status had an impact on Finnish parents’ science capital dimensions – – we only focused on education, profession, age and residential area. In addition, this study did not measure gender differences, as female respondents were over-represented. The residential area of South Finland and academically educated female respondents were highly represented in this study; thus, this created some limitations in the results. Despite these limitations, we agree that there is a strong argument for more research to be conducted on family science capital to tackle the unequal distribution of science in society (Archer, Osborne, et al., 2013; Liu & Schunn, 2020; Ugwuanyi et al., 2020). To generalise the results, unbiased large-scale sampling should be conducted.

Conclusion

The theoretical focus of this study is on understanding parents’ roles as citizens and in children’s science attainment and future aspirations. The role of parents’ science capital and its relation to children should be acknowledged. With this study, we want to create awareness of how different forms of capital might be noticed and supported to decrease the social inequality in societies. In addition, our results are valuable for parents wanting to increase family science capital and to achieve a deeper understanding of how to support family capital growth (such as participation in after-school clubs, everyday activities, talking about science with others or use of science-related media). Through our attempts to explore Finnish parents’ science capital, we wish to help different stakeholders who work with parents intending to develop their practices nationally and internationally. Especially when developing science-related activities in informal learning places, the residential distribution should be evaluated carefully. In addition, these places should attract families despite parents’ professional competence. Although, it can be challenging to influence families directly. Educators and schools can support parents in this ongoing work in ways that have a greater effect, such as increasing the number of after-school science clubs or providing information about science-related media sources. Although actions have been taken to make science accessible to everyone, understanding the impact of children’s residential areas is an important area of further research. In addition, there is a need to study science capital in different cultures, as this study reveals differences from previous studies in relation to the core dimensions and sociodemographic variables. Our study offers useful information for educators and researchers who are interested in children’s science achievement, engagement and interest. Finally, this research is a step towards stimulating children’s interest in science earlier in the elementary grades to increase scientific literacy and aspirations towards and participation in STEM careers.

Acknowledgements

We thank the FINSCI project members for their contribution.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This project received strategic research funding from the Finnish Academy under grant agreement no. 335233.