#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Bourdieu, networks, and movements: Using the concepts of habitus, field and capital to understand a network analysis of gender differences in undergraduate physics


Autoři: Steven Martin Turnbull aff001;  Kirsten Locke aff001;  Frédérique Vanholsbeeck aff003;  Dion R. J. O’Neale aff002
Působiště autorů: Critical Studies in Education, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand aff001;  Te Pūnaha Matatini, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand aff002;  Department of Physics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand aff003;  The Dodd-Walls Centre, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222357

Souhrn

Current trends suggest that significant gender disparities exist within Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education at university, with female students being underrepresented in physics, but more equally represented in life sciences (e.g., biology, medicine). To understand these trends, it is important to consider the context in which students make decisions about which university courses to enrol in. The current study seeks to investigate gender differences in STEM through a unique approach that combines network analysis of student enrollment data with an interpretive lens based on the sociological theory of Pierre Bourdieu. We generate a network of courses taken by around 9000 undergraduate physics students (from 2009 to 2014) to quantify Bourdieu’s concept of field. We identify the fields in which physics students participate by constructing a weighted co-enrollment network and finding communities within it. We then use odds ratios to report gender differences in transverse movements between different academic fields, and non-parametric tests to assess gender differences in vertical movements (changes in students’ achievement rankings within a field). Odds ratios comparing the likelihood of progression from one field to another indicate that female students were more likely to make transverse movements into life science fields. We also found that university physics did a poor job in attracting high achieving students, and especially high achieving female students. Of the students who did choose to study physics at university, low and middle achieving female high school students were more likely to decrease their relative rank in their first year compared to their male counterparts. Low achieving female students were also less likely to continue with physics after their first year compared to their male counterparts. Results and implications are discussed in the context of Bourdieu’s theory, and previous research. We argue that in order to remove constraints on female students’ study choices, the field of physics needs to provide a culture in which all students feel like they belong.

Klíčová slova:

Physical sciences – Engineering and technology – Social sciences – Sociology – People and places – Population groupings – Computer and information sciences – Network analysis – Physics – Education – Schools – Educational status – Science policy – Universities – Science education – Undergraduates – Mathematical physics


Zdroje

1. Abraham J, Barker K. Exploring Gender Difference in Motivation, Engagement and Enrolment Behaviour of Senior Secondary Physics Students in New South Wales. Research in Science Education. 2014;45(1):59–73. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9413-2

2. Stevanovic B. Girls in Science and Technology in Secondary and Post-Secondary Education: The Case of France. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2013;35(4):541–558. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2013.791229

3. Smith E. Women into Science and Engineering? Gendered Participation in Higher Education STEM Subjects. British Educational Research Journal. 2011;37(6):993–1014. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2010.515019

4. Mullis I, Martin M, Foy P, Hooper M. TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College; 2016.

5. National Science Foundation. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: Field of degree: Women; 2017. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-women/.

6. Cunningham BC, Hoyer KM, Sparks D. Gender Differences in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Interest, Credits Earned, and NAEP Performance in the 12th Grade. Stats in Brief. NCES 2015-075. National Center for Education Statistics. 2015.

7. Kost-Smith LE, Pollock SJ, Finkelstein ND. Gender Disparities in Second-Semester College Physics: The Incremental Effects of a ‘Smog of Bias’. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research. 2010;6(2):1–17.

8. Heilbronner NN. The STEM Pathway for Women: What Has Changed? Gifted Child Quarterly. 2012;57(1):39–55. doi: 10.1177/0016986212460085

9. Sophia Huyer; Westholm G. Gender indicators in science, engineering and technology: an information toolkit. UNESCO; 2007.

10. Institute of Physics. It’s Different For Girls: The Influence of Schools. London, United Kingdom: Institute of Physics; 2012.

11. Institute of Physics. Closing Doors: Exploring gender and subject choice in schools. London, United Kingdom: Institute of Physics; 2013.

12. Education Counts. Secondary subject roll by learning year level & subject name—1 july 2015; 2016. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/student-numbers/subject-enrollment.

13. Kennedy JP, Lyons T, Quinn F. The Continuing Decline of Science and Mathematics Enrolments in Australian High Schools. Teaching Science. 2014;60(2):34–46.

14. Semela T. Who is Joining Physics and Why? Factors Influencing the Choice of Physics among Ethiopian University Students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2010;5(3):319–340.

15. Kelly AM. Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 2016;12(2):020116. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020116

16. Hofer SI, Stern E. Underachievement in Physics: When Intelligent Girls Fail. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016;51:119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.006

17. Ellis J, Fosdick BK, Rasmussen C. Women 1.5 Times More Likely to Leave STEM Pipeline after Calculus Compared to Men: Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157447

18. Marshman EM, Kalender ZY, Nokes-Malach T, Schunn C, Singh C. Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm? Physical Review Physics Education Research. 2018;14(2):020123. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020123

19. Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, Jiang L. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143(1):1.

20. Brewe E, Sawtelle V. Editorial: Focused Collection: Gender in Physics. Physical Review Physics Educucation Research. 2016;12(2):1–4.

21. Blickenstaff JC. Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter? Gender and Education. 2005;17(4):369–386. doi: 10.1080/09540250500145072

22. Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge; 1984.

23. De Nooy W. Fields and networks: correspondence analysis and social network analysis in the framework of field theory. Poetics. 2003;31(5):305–327. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00035-4

24. Bottero W, Crossley N. Worlds, fields and networks: Becker, Bourdieu and the structures of social relations. Cultural sociology. 2011;5(1):99–119. doi: 10.1177/1749975510389726

25. Bourdieu P, Waquant L. The Practice of Reflexive Sociology; 1992. Available from: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carlos/607/readings/bourdieu2.pdf.

26. Schiebinger L. Has Feminism Changed Science?. vol. 4 of 10. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001.

27. Cannady MA, Greenwald E, Harris KN. Problematizing the STEM Pipeline Metaphor: Is the STEM Pipeline Metaphor Serving Our Students and the STEM Workforce? Science Education. 2014;98(3):443–460. doi: 10.1002/sce.21108

28. Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Sriram N, Lindner NM, Devos T, Ayala A, et al. National Differences in Gender-Science Stereotypes Predict National Sex Differences in Science and Math Achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(26):10593–10597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106

29. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With Science. American Educational Research Journal. 2012;49(5):881–908. doi: 10.3102/0002831211433290

30. Archer L, Dewitt J, Willis B. Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: Masculinity, capital, and power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2014;51(1):1–30. doi: 10.1002/tea.21122

31. Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Seakins A, Wong B. ‘Science Capital’: A Conceptual, Methodological, and Empirical Argument for Extending Bourdieusian Notions of Capital Beyond the Arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2015;52(7):922–948. doi: 10.1002/tea.21227

32. Reay D. ‘It’s all becoming a habitus’: beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2004;25(4):431–444. doi: 10.1080/0142569042000236934

33. Smith A. Of the Nature, Accumulation and Employment of Stock. In: Soares SM, editor. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. MetaLibri Digital; 1887. p. 214–220. Available from: https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf.

34. Bourdieu P. The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson J, editor. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Connecticut, US: Greenwood Publishing Group; 1986. p. 47–58.

35. Hilgers M, Mangez E. Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Social Fields. Bourdieu’s theory of social fields: Concepts and applications. 2014; p. 1.

36. Education Counts. Secondary Subject Roll by Learning Year Level & Subject Name—1 July 2015. Wellington, New Zealand: EducationCounts, Ministry of Education; 2016. Available from: https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/student-numbers/subject-enrolment.

37. Bray B, Timewell E. Women in Science: A 2011 Snapshot. Christchurch, New Zealand: Association for Women in the Sciences (AWIS); 2011. Available from: http://www.awis.org.nz/news-and-events/publications/women-in-science-snapshot-statistics/.

38. Kelly A. The Construction of Masculine Science. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 1985;6(2):133–154. doi: 10.1080/0142569850060201

39. Ivie R, Tesfaye CL, Czujko R, Chu R. The Global Survey of Physicists: A Collaborative Effort Illuminates the Situation of Women in Physics. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics Publishing; 2013. p. 53–61.

40. Ost B. The Role of Peers and Grades in Determining Major Persistence in the Sciences. Economics of Education Review. 2010;29(6):923–934. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.011

41. Brown CS, Leaper C. Latina and European American Girls’ Experiences with Academic Sexism and their Self-Concepts in Mathematics and Science During Adolescence. Sex Roles. 2010;63(11):860–870. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9856-5

42. Hazari Z, Sonnert G, Sadler PM, Shanahan MC. Connecting High School Physics Experiences, Outcome Expectations, Physics Identity, and Physics Career Choice: A Gender Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010; p. 978–1003.

43. Hazari Z, Sadler PM, Sonnert G. The Science Identity of College Students: Exploring the Intersection of Gender, Race, and Ethnicity. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2013;42(5):82–91.

44. Hazari Z, Brewe E, Goertzen RM, Hodapp T. The Importance of High School Physics Teachers for Female Student’s Physics Identity and Persistence. The Physics Teacher. 2017;55(2):96–99. doi: 10.1119/1.4974122

45. Litzler E, Samuelson CC, Lorah JA. Breaking it down: Engineering student STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher Education. 2014;55(8):810–832. doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9333-z

46. Concannon JP, Barrow LH. A cross-sectional study of engineering students’ self-efficacy by gender, ethnicity, year, and transfer status. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2009;18(2):163–172. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9141-3

47. Sharma MD, Bewes J. Self-Monitoring: Confidence, Academic Achievement and Gender Differences in Physics. Journal of Learning Design. 2011;4(3):1–13. doi: 10.5204/jld.v4i3.76

48. Kurtz-Costes B, Rowley SJ, Harris-Britt A, Woods TA. Gender Stereotypes about Mathematics and Science and Self-Perceptions of Ability in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2008;54(3):386–409. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0001

49. Sawtelle V, Brewe E, Kramer LH. Exploring the Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Retention in Introductory Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2012;49(9):1096–1121. doi: 10.1002/tea.21050

50. Nash R. Bourdieu, ‘Habitus’, and Educational Research: Is It All Worth the Candle? British Journal of Sociology of Education. 1999;20(2):175–187. doi: 10.1080/01425699995399

51. Dimaggio P. Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status cutlure participation on the grades of U.S. high school students. American Sociological Review. 1982;47(2):189–201. doi: 10.2307/2094962

52. Archer L, Osborne J, DeWitt J. ASPIRES: Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–14. London: King’s College. 2013.

53. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus how families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal. 2012;49(5):881–908. doi: 10.3102/0002831211433290

54. Ong M. Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social problems. 2005;52(4):593–617. doi: 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.593

55. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(41):16474–16479. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109

56. Potvin G, Hazari Z. Student Evaluations of Physics Teachers: On the Stability and Persistence of Gender Bias. Physics Review Physics Education Research. 2016;12(2). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020107

57. Banchefsky S, Westfall J, Park B, Judd CM. But You Don’t Look Like A Scientist!: Women Scientists with Feminine Appearance are Deemed Less Likely to be Scientists. Sex Roles. 2016;75(3-4):95–109. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1

58. Buccheri G, Gürber NA, Brühwiler C. The Impact of Gender on Interest in Science Topics and the Choice of Scientific and Technical Vocations. International Journal of Science Education. 2011;33(1):159–178. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518643

59. Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI. Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests. Psychological Bulletin. 2009;135(6):859–884. doi: 10.1037/a0017364

60. Bøe MV, Henriksen EK. Love It or Leave It: Norwegian Students’ Motivations and Expectations for Postcompulsory Physics. Science Education. 2013;97(4):550–573. doi: 10.1002/sce.21068

61. Baram-Tsabari A, Yarden A. Quantifying the Gender Gap in Science Interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2010;9(3):523–550. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7

62. Kjærnsli M, Lie S. Students’ Preference for Science Careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education. 2011;33(1):121–144. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518642

63. Bottia MC, Stearns E, Mickelson RA, Moller S, Parker AD. The Relationships among High School STEM Learning Experiences and Students’ Intent to Declare and Declaration of a STEM Major in College. Teachers College Record. 2015;117(3):1–46.

64. Sadler PM, Sonnert G, Hazari Z, Tai R. Stability and Volatility of STEM Career Interest in High School: A Gender Study. Science Education. 2012;96(3):411–427. doi: 10.1002/sce.21007

65. Black L, Hernandez-Martinez P. Re-thinking science capital: The role of ‘capital’ and ‘identity’ in mediating students’ engagement with mathematically demanding programmes at university. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications. 2016;35(3):131–143. doi: 10.1093/teamat/hrw016

66. University of Auckland. What is a GPE Grade Point Equivalent?; 2016. https://uoa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3867/.

67. White HC, Boorman SA, Breiger RL. Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American journal of sociology. 1976;81(4):730–780. doi: 10.1086/226141

68. Balassa B. Trade Liberalisation and Revealed Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School. 1965;33(2):99–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x

69. Balland PA. Economic Geography in R: Introduction to the EconGeo package; 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2962146 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2962146.

70. Edler D, Rosvall M. The MapEquation software package; 2017.

71. Csardi G, Nepusz T, et al. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems. 2006;1695(5):1–9.

72. Field A, Miles J, Field Z. Discovering statistics using R. Sage publications; 2012.

73. Erceg-Hurn DM, Mirosevich VM. Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist. 2008;63(7):591. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591

74. McGraw KO, Wong S. A common language effect size statistic. Psychological bulletin. 1992;111(2):361. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.361

75. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in psychology. 2013;4:863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

76. Kerby DS. The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching nonparametric correlation. Comprehensive Psychology. 2014;3:11–IT. doi: 10.2466/11.IT.3.1

77. Wong B. Identifying with Science: A case study of two 13-year-old high achieving working class British Asian girls. International Journal of Science Education. 2012;34(1):43–65. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.551671

78. Claussen S, Osborne J. Bourdieu’s Notion of Cultural Capital and its Implications for the Science Curriculum. Science Education. 2013;97(1):58–79. doi: 10.1002/sce.21040

79. Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Seakins A, Wong B. ‘Science capital’: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2015;52(7):922–948. doi: 10.1002/tea.21227

80. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 2013;21(1):171–194. doi: 10.1080/14681366.2012.748676

81. Else-Quest NM, Mineo CC, Higgins A. Math and Science Attitudes and Achievement at the Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2013;37(3):293–309. doi: 10.1177/0361684313480694

82. Sheldrake R, Mujtaba T, Reiss MJ. Students’ Intentions to Study Non-Compulsory Mathematics: the Importance of How Good You Think You Are. British Educational Research Journal. 2015;41(3):462–488. doi: 10.1002/berj.3150

83. LaCosse J, Sekaquaptewa D, Bennett J. STEM Stereotypic Attribution Bias Among Women in an Unwelcoming Science Setting. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2016;40(3):378–397. doi: 10.1177/0361684316630965

84. DeWitt J, Archer L, Osborne J. Science-related Aspirations Across the Primary Secondary Divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. International Journal of Science Education. 2014;36(0):1609–1629. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.871659

85. Master A, Cheryan S, Meltzoff AN. Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016;108(3):424. doi: 10.1037/edu0000061

86. Equality Challenge Unit. Athena SWAN Charter; 2018. http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/.

87. European Commission. Horizon 2020—Promoting Gender Equality in Research and Innovation; 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/promoting-gender-equality-research-and-innovation.


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 9
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz
nový kurz
Autori: MUDr. Tomáš Ürge, PhD.

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#