young people’s career aspirations prof. louise archer, king’s college london

Young People’s Career AspirationsProf. Louise Archer, King’s College London

• Assumed to ‘matter’ (e.g. ‘raising aspirations’)

• But require careful treatment• Complex, multiple, shifting• Not predictive but are socially indicative• Aspirations as socially embedded• Study of aspirations can illuminate

inequalities

• Age 10-14 as ‘critical period’ for forming views of science and science aspirations

• Importance of science aspirations for predicting future participation (Tai et al 2006)

• 5 year, longitudinal ESRC funded project, part of TISME

• Mixed methods• 3 tracking phases

• Y6: age 10/11• Y8: age 12/13• Y9: age 13/14

• Phase 1 Survey• 9,319 Y6 pupils, 279 primary schools, England

• Phase 1 interviews• 170 interviews (92 children, 78 parents, 11 schools)

• Intervention

• Complex relationship between enjoyment, achievement, engagement and participation

Phase 1 survey: 10/11 year old children

• From 9,000+ survey responses:• Majority are ‘interested, but ...’• 648 ‘disinterested in science’ (no gender

difference)• 251 ‘science keen’ (63% boys, 37% girls)• ‘Science keen’ are predominantly middle-

class, white and/or South Asian (esp. among girls)

• Parental attitudes, experiences of school science, self-concept in science (explains 50.5% variance in aspirations)

• Personal interests, aptitudes and dispositions – shaped by/ formed within social context• Capital (social, cultural and economic)• Family habitus• Social and cultural discourses / popular

stereotypes of professions

• Economic• Social• Cultural

• ‘Science capital’: science-related qualifications, knowledge, interest/ appreciation, understanding (literacy) and contacts

• Scientist, Science Teacher, Doctor• “I don’t know. I’m into science, but I don’t think I’d

ever become a science teacher, well you know science, scientist” (Hedgehog, White UK boy)

• Link between family science capital and child science aspirations – socially uneven spread

• Disproportionate middle-class possession of science capital

• Capital as important for growth and nurturing of science aspirations (visible/ practical/ valuing)

• Middle-class better at generating capital and compensating where lack of science capital

• Absent/ peripheral in many w/c and ME families“They never talk about science” (Jack, Black African boy)“I don’t think that any of us are really that…sciencey” (Robyn,

white mother)

• Differential use of knowledge across families / social class

• ‘Hot’ and ‘cold’ knowledge

• Cultural arts-science divide • Tom (Carver Boys’ School, high achiever,

enjoys science, thinks his teachers are excellent): “I just can’t really picture myself being a scientist”.

• Terri (Tom’s mother): ‘We know more arts people than science people’.

• Links with wider societal discourses in England around ‘specialisation’

Arts- Science DivideArts- Science Divide

• The crude and the complex• “My dad, especially, he thinks Science is

cool cos he used to study Science .... [but] most scientists wear glasses and I don’t want to wear glasses and they’re a bit brainy and I don’t want to be brainy” (Victoria2, white Eastern European girl)

• Meritocracy discourses and views of science as closed (‘anyone can do science’ does not translate into personal choices to study science)

• Science as linked to ‘cleverness’• E.g. Over 81% survey strongly/ agree that

‘scientists are brainy’

• All science keen girls and boys are high achievers

• Science popularly recognised as masculine/ for boys (parents and children)

• Science as a difficult identity for girls – requires ‘balancing’ or accepting ‘squareness’• “I just think its quite nice that she’s normal as

well” (Elizabeth, mother of Hailey)• Science as ‘unthinkable’ for many working-

class and some ME girls• “Its not very girly …. Its not a very sexy job, its

not glamorous’ (Ella, mother)• “I don’t know if a lab coat would suit her”

(SallyAnn, mother)

• Interweaves with cultural stereotypes around science and academic achievement

• Pragmatic engagement among some South Asian families

• Wong (2011) teachers’ views of science as ‘virtually impossible’ for Black Caribbean students (“virtually every single one of them will drop out of science... Even if they’re good at it, they won’t be interested in it”)

• Confluence of inequalities in capital and stereotypical discourses to make science ‘unthinkable’ for particular groups

• Complexity of relationship between aspirations and enjoyment, engagement and achievement

• Aspirations as social constructs – not just personal cognitions• Families as important in development/ growing of aspirations• Not just ‘raising’: aspirations need to be ‘thinkable’ for

children (conceivable and achievable) – structured by social inequalities

• Broaden and deepen children’s and families’ (science) capital (including awareness of careers in/from science)

• Challenge dominant social discourses (e.g. Arts/science divide/ specialisation)

• Challenge perceived cultures of ‘exclusivity’ around certain careers (as only for the few; as white, male, middle-class, ...)

• Ensure new knowledge is delivered in appropriate formats/ ways

• Study of aspirations can generate concrete recommendations