By Bronwyn Bevan - July 2018
PAPER CITATION
Philip, T., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526-532. doi:10.1002/sce.21286
WHY IT MATTERS TO YOU
- Frontline educators and science communicators can better align their program designs and evaluations with clearly defined equity goals for participants.
- Organizational and program leaders can use clearer definitions of equity to form partnerships, hire staff, seek funding, and prioritize programs.
- Professional development leaders or science communication trainers can place equity at the center of staff trainings by clearly defining how distinct equity goals may require different kinds of preparation.
What is the Issue?
Increasingly informal science educators and leaders emphasize the role that their programs and organizations can play in expanding and supporting equity in STEM education. Although we use words like equity, inclusion, and broadening participation in many settings, we seldom take the time to clearly define our vision for equity, and what specifically we mean when we design programs to support it. This brief summarizes a paper by Philip and Azevedo that describes four different approaches to defining equity in informal STEM education.
Things to Consider
Although equity is a common term in informal STEM education, people seldom clearly define what they mean by it. Philip and Azevedo argue that unless we clearly, and critically, define our terms, goals, and intended outcomes, efforts to achieve equity will mostly succeed in preserving the status quo. For example, they note that the influential Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) volume argues for equity on the basis of (a) needing to expand the workforce; (b) ensuring equal treatment for all; and (c) addressing past social injustices. As Philip and Azevedo note, these ways of arguing for equity are color-blind and apolitical, assuming for example that social injustices are things of the past. But, they argue, science and science education have historically been deeply racialized and tied to histories of oppression of people of color. The visions describe above seek to include marginalized communities in STEM as we know it, but they do not seek to fundamentally reshape persistent structural inequities in science, as a field, or in society where science is used.
The authors describe four different ways that equity has been defined in the research literature on informal STEM education. No one of these approaches is right or wrong, and sometimes programs may address multiple conceptions of equity, but conceptual clarity about which approach we take is essential for aligning program design and evaluation:
1. Out-of-school science as a bridge to school-based science learning. This approach focuses on developing young people’s interests, including career interests, helping them see the relevance of science to their lives, and making connections to school science. They provide access to “the culture of power.” Click here to see an example of a successful program that prepares young people for success at school science and career pathways.
2. Out-of-school science offers more authentic and expansive forms of learning in comparison to most school-based science. These programs position informal science as more authentic, and are meant to increase student interest, capacity, and pursuit of ongoing STEM experiences, academics, and careers. They develop students’ identities as “science doers.” Click here to see an example of programs that engage young people in science in ways not directly tied to school science curricula or career pathways, but rather to interest and identity development, in which skills and understanding may be embedded.
3. Out-of-school science can change what is valued in school-based learning and professional contexts. This approach involves recognizing how communities use science in everyday contexts. They change how we define science, as well as how everyday science knowledge and skills can be leveraged in the classroom. Click here to see an example of a program that taps into everyday and community uses of science and engineering in ways that can be leveraged for deepening engagement with STEM.
4. Out-of-school science in justice movements offers new possibilities to understand the relationship between science, equity, and justice. This approach involves community organizing and social movements, positioning STEM, not as the ends but the means for achieving social justice goals. Click here to see an example of an approach where science is positioned as a means towards a greater social purpose (in this case engaging Ute communities as collaborators to foster community-wide understanding and stewardship of local land and ecologies).
The authors note that the first two approaches–-which emphasize access to the dominant ways that science is pursued–-may not (but sometimes do!) adequately explore how science is entangled “in (re)producing inequities and injustices through tools used for surveillance, control, and militarism that inordinately affect people of color.” They note that the third approach may “romanticize” the amount of change that schools and science itself will undergo to truly reflect and incorporate everyday science into the curriculum. The fourth approach, they write, can open up new possibilities for social transformation, but may not affect students’ school science performance.
Recommended Actions You Can Take
- Hold staff conversations to explore how your programs or organization defines equity. Which one of the four approaches described above is most meaningful to your organization and community?
- Conduct program audits to document your program goals, strategies, and outcomes in relationship to the four approaches described above. Are the outcomes described above (e.g. on-ramping learners to success in science academic and career pathways, “democratizing” science education by recognizing its everyday uses, or supporting social transformation) the ones your organization is best positioned to support?
