Social justice and out‐of‐school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, science clubs and maker spaces

We cannot take access to equitable out-of-school science learning for granted. Data compiled in 2012 show that between a fifth (22% in Brazil) and half (52% in China and the United States) of people in China, Japan, South Korea, India, Malaysia, the United States, the European Union, and Brazil visited zoos, aquaria, and science museums (National Science Foundation, 2012). But research suggests participation in out-of-school science learning is far from equitable and is marked by advantage, not least the social axes of age, social class, and ethnicity (Dawson, 2014a, 2014b; National Science Foundation, 2012; OECD, 2012). For instance, in the UK data suggest that the two-thirds of the population who took part in out-of-school science learning activities1 in the previous year were more affluent (upper and middle classes) and from the White ethnic majority (Ipsos MORI, 2014). If we believe that out-of-school science learning provides valuable educational, cultural, social and political opportunities, then we must take questions of equity seriously. Ideas from social justice can help us understand how equity issues are woven through out-of-school science learning practices. In this paper, I outline how social justice theories, in combination with the concepts of infrastructure access, literacies and community acceptance, can be used to think about equity in out-of-school science learning. I apply these ideas to out-of-school science learning via television, science clubs and maker spaces, looking at research as well as illustrative examples to see how equity challenges are being addressed in practice. I argue that out-of-school science learning practices can be understood on a spectrum from weak to strong models of social justice. Thinking about social justice as a spectrum helps us think through what equitable out-of-school science learning practices might involve, both to analyze existing practices and, importantly, to imagine new, more inclusive ones. Out-of-school science learning is a broad term, used to describe quite different activities, participants, aims, and practices. It can mean enjoying science festivals, watching science documentaries, pursing science-related hobbies as well as activities focused on engineering, mathematics, or technology (see, e.g., Bonney et al., 2009; Dingwall & Aldridge, 2006; Kaiser, Durant, Levenson, Wiehe, & Linett, 2013). In this paper, I focus primarily on the contrasting worlds of television and science clubs as out-of-school science learning contexts2. I use “science” as an umbrella term for science, technology, engineering, or mathematics related subjects. However, I add a caveat to how I use the term out-of-school. Because “out-of-school” invokes the idea of school, there can be a tendency to focus on youth as participants and activities that are for, by, or with youth. But of course adults may not consider their television watching an “out-of-school” activity. Thus, I note here that I keep both adults and youth in mind when writing about equity and out-of-school science learning. Many discussions of equity and out-of-school learning have presented equity issues primarily in terms of access and barriers to access (Charlton et al., 2010; Dawson, 2014c; Institute of Physics, 2014). The danger here is of framing equity in out-of-school science learning as a kind of crusade (Dawson, 2014c). That is, exposing more people to science is de facto a good thing, whether they want it or not, an assumption Lee and Buxton describe as assimilationist (2010). While science certainly has many benefits, such perspectives belie the potential for damage caused by science and science learning practices that have been called out as colonialist, racist, misogynistic, heteronormative, or otherwise oppressive (see, for example, Cassidy, Lock, & Voss, 2016; Harding, 2008; Medin & Bang, 2014; Pollock & Subramaniam, 2016). How then can we think about equity in ways that goes beyond assimilation in science and science learning? In what follows I outline two theories of social justice and build on them to show how the concepts of infrastructure access, literacies, and community acceptance can be used to understand equity along a spectrum of weak to strong socially just practice. Social justice theorists have long been concerned with how resources might be distributed most equally (redistributive social justice), and, more recently, most equitably (relational social justice). In the first model, justice is about equality of access and distribution between social groups; everybody being able to do, enjoy or use the same amounts of the same things (Rawls, 1971). The second model, in contrast, emphasizes the value of recognizing difference. That is, recognizing, respecting, and valuing that people differ and taking their differences into account, rather than treating everyone's needs as the same (Young, 1990). Of course, redistributive and relational models of social justice need not sit in opposition to each other. Indeed, as Fraser (2003) has argued, combining both models of social justice provides us with a powerful tool for thinking about and addressing issues of inclusion/exclusion. Such an approach requires a commitment to exploring beyond issues of access and participation (weak inclusion) to include questions of knowledge, representation, power, and cultural change (strong inclusion). For instance, if we apply these ideas to scientific practice, scholars have argued that it is not enough to recruit more ethnically diverse scientists, more female scientists, or more scientists from working class backgrounds, without simultaneously changing the culture and content of scientific knowledge (Harding, 2008; Longino, 1990; Schiebinger, 2007). Without both pieces of the puzzle, science practices will struggle to become more inclusive. The combination of redistributive and relational social justice is the basis I use for framing equity and inclusion in out-of-school science learning using the concepts of infrastructure access, literacies, and community acceptance along a spectrum (Dawson, 2014a; Grabill, 1998; Porter, 1998). These three concepts serve as lenses, or levels of analysis, for understanding what might change and can be understood in weak and strong forms. Weak infrastructure access is about the extent to which people are able to access a field and the institutions, resources, or practices within it (drawing only on redistributive social justice). Examples of activities based on weak infrastructure access include the many “women into science” programs much criticized by scholars for attempting to change women rather than changing practices and cultures within the scientific community to welcome, respect, and represent women (Phipps, 2008; Schiebinger, 2007). In contrast, strong infrastructure access encompasses both physical access and the extent to which people have power to shape those spaces and activities to fit their needs, drawing on both redistributive and relational social justice. The concept of literacies highlights the multiple, often hidden, literacies required to be able to participate in out-of-school science learning practices (Dawson, 2014a). For instance, in monolingual science clubs you may need to know the actual language used, a degree of scientific literacy as well as practical “know-how” (such as how to use specific tools) in order to be able to learn science. A weak reading of this concept focuses on surfacing the literacies that facilitate access to out-of-school science learning, and supporting participants to develop the literacies they need (in other words, to change themselves). In contrast, the strong interpretation of literacies involves critical literacy and thinking about power (Delpit, 1988). For instance, whose selves, knowledges, languages, and ways of being are recognized, represented, and welcomed in out-of-school science learning practices and how might these be resisted or opened up? This stronger form of social justice has implications for changes in practice, institutions, and policies, rather than only changing participants. Finally, community acceptance can also be employed in a dual sense. First, to think about how existing stakeholders, or “insiders”, involved in out-of-school science learning welcome new participants and change their practices to do so (Porter, 1998). Second, to understand the views, experiences, and expectations of marginalized groups about whether opportunities seem relevant and valuable. Importantly, it makes space for participants to reject as well as be excluded from science learning practices (Dawson, 2014a, 2014b). As above, considering both “insiders” and “outsiders” constitutes a stronger version of community acceptance than focusing only on one or the other. Thinking about infrastructure access, literacies, and community acceptance as conceptual lenses or levels of analysis is helpful because they highlight the multifaceted nature of equity issues and the cumulative effect of addressing multiple issues. In using these concepts on a spectrum of weak to strong forms of social justice, I do not mean to imply that weaker versions of equity are not important, often they are fundamental; however, they are rarely sufficient. Instead, thinking about social justice as a spectrum helps to foreground multiple perspectives and the importance of both redistributive and relational social justice in thinking through equity in out-of-school science learning. Research shows that television remains a key form of engagement with science for many people and can represent a significant site for science learning (Dhingra, 2006; Miller, Augenbraun, Schulhof, & Kimmel, 2006). For instance, a survey in the UK found that 59% of adults saw television as their primary source of scientific information (Ipsos MORI, 2014). Examining equity concerns about science on television however, raises several questions. In what follows, I briefly explore equity issues in terms of professional attitudes, content, and representation and, finally, what audiences make of science television using the concepts of infrastructure access, literacies and community acceptance. Research suggests that, for science television, professional infrastructure access and “insider” community acceptance are limited two key ways, first in terms of who can access a television career and second in terms of audiences. Within the television industry in the UK, for instance, equity issues have been translated into goals around diversifying the workforce. As a result, the industry regularly reproduces documents (or diversity charters) about goals for equitable practice (see for example BBC, 2016; Channel 4, 2015). Even if more inclusive recruitment practices are enacted as a result of these charters, this tactic remains at best a weak form of infrastructure access, one focused on training diverse staff rather than changing exclusive work practices. As such, the relational aspects of social justice are eclipsed by the redistributive. At worst, such documents may work to obscure the lack of change in practice (cf. Ahmed, 2012). For instance, television production is a notoriously difficult career pathway for people who are not White, male, or relatively wealthy (Dent, 2016; Oakley & O'Brien, 2016). Research on who makes television therefore calls into question the extent to which even weak professional infrastructure access is enacted, which suggests “insider” community acceptance of new, more diverse colleagues is limited. Audiences for science television are framed in similarly limited ways within the industry. In research with science television producers the market logic of viewing figures governed how equity and inclusion were framed (Dawson, Seakins, Archer, Calabrese Barton, & Dierking, 2015). Indeed, using viewing figures as the only important measure of participation reinforced the view that television is first and foremost a business (Florensa, Hochadel, & Tabernero, 2014). Viewing figures were understood as the key measure of success for science television producers and their commissioners. Higher viewing figures were assumed to include more people who might be considered underserved or disadvantaged, thus negating any need to tailor content or production processes to be more inclusive, a very weak form of infrastructure access (Dawson et al., 2015). If we look at television content, or how science stories and people on television are represented, research on gender illustrates important equity issues. Studies of how youth identified with scientists when watching television revealed that, as might be expected, boys tended to identify with male scientists while girls tended to identify with female scientists (Steinke, Applegate, Lapinski, Ryan, & Long, 2012). Placed alongside other research on children's science television, this finding takes on a more unsettling implication. Research on young people's viewing habits found White male scientists were significantly overrepresented in children's programs about science, technology, mathematics, and engineering, across factual, drama, and cartoon shows (Whitelegg, Holliman, Carr, Scanlon, & Hodgson, 2008). Indeed, looking beyond children's television, research suggests that people are represented in television science stories in ways that reproduce structural inequalities such as gender, class and ethnicity (among others) (Chimba & Kitzinger, 2010; Fisher & Cottingham, 2016; Flicker, 2003). As such the representation of science on television follows normative structures about science narratives as White, male dominated stories (McNeil, 2007). The content of science television can therefore be considered as following a weak form of critical literacy in terms of limited representation, respect for difference, and relational social justice. In contrast, a stronger approach to literacies and social justice involves representing and valuing a more pluralistic view of what science is and how people are involved with science. To this end, some interesting examples of equitable practice can be drawn on in science television programs that have sought to change how science stories are told (cf. Paulsen, 2013). Although such initiatives are usually aimed at youth rather than adults, in explicitly centering equity concerns in their content they disrupt conventional narratives about who can do science. Take, for example, the SciGirls television show developed in the United States (PBS, 2017). The multiplatform program aims specifically at creating female friendly content, representing girls and women from a range of ethnic backgrounds exploring science on television, online, and through educational outreach workshops. The project takes a strong approach to literacy issues through the development of Spanish language episodes as well as addressing critical literacy through content that reflects on power in science (Knight-Williams, Williams, Teel, Willaims, Hernandez, Negrete & Rahbari, 2016). Projects such as SciGirls are interesting in equity terms since in actively supporting girls to pursue science they disrupt the normative practices of science on television. Turning finally to audiences suggests further equity challenges. While watching television may be easier than going to a museum, purposefully watching science on television may not be a common practice in most households (Bennett et al., 2009; Ipsos MORI, 2014). For instance, longitudinal research with families in the UK showed that watching science television was opportunistic and rarely used to actively support everyday science learning, especially among working class families (Archer et al., 2012). Indeed, decades of research on television and communication theory suggest that audiences reconstruct the meaning of the programs they watch (Morley, 2006; Skeggs & Wood, 2011). Thus, in addition to issues of weak infrastructure access, questions of literacies and audience community acceptance are raised in thinking about science television as an out-of-school science learning context. Notably, that we cannot assume that watching television leads to learning about science. For instance, what degree of scientific literacy is needed to turn watching an episode of “Crime Scene Investigation” into a science learning opportunity? Furthermore, doing so requires that those watching science on television see the content as relevant and interesting enough to wish to do so (community acceptance). Exploring how and where weak and strong forms of literacy and audience community acceptance are enacted would provide valuable insights about how science television is used (or in out-of-school science learning. and community clubs represent out-of-school science learning where people participate often long of television, science clubs are often woven into people's through and television, clubs have different for and activities since the between producers and participants is much the of science clubs from that of television, in this I first explore equity issues in youth science equity in a specific of science the maker or Research suggests that science clubs can be spaces for youth to their knowledge and practices to science issues relevant to and their & 2010; National Research 2015). The provide a example of working a strong of equitable practice in a community youth by the Science the use in to science clubs for youth from ethnic Importantly, the with community are based and work with youth to the and activities of each thus a strong approach to infrastructure The are then on the to help literacy issues about not what to do in the science & 2014). While the and resources to a from the power in some work with youth and their families to develop relevant and These practices support strong community acceptance in both forms et al., 2014). Studies also suggest that creating clubs based on a strong version of social justice that youth with and through science is far from For example, of three different science clubs (in and the United States) found youth to identify with science or see science as part of their and In two other focused on supporting and science learning in science the involved science was to their & 2014). Notably, the clubs these employed a strong version of social justice. beyond youth through the such that youth were to the and of activities, with to structural inequalities and youth. Indeed, a of how in science youth clubs understood and addressed equity issues found that those involved in community and were the most of equitable practices and most able to provide examples and of what this (Dawson et al., 2015). That is, “insider” community acceptance, as well as infrastructure access and literacies in a strong Thus, it is that community acceptance on the part of youth was limited even in youth science clubs that took a strong approach to social justice. their in these out-of-school science learning youth participants to see within science. Turning to science clubs and community groups with participants shows to these out-of-school science learning science clubs are the of As a result, participants are usually very and about their of 2011). equity issues these Take, for example, maker or These science based on a of spaces where people to with or otherwise technology and pursue have been criticized as spaces of White, male in only & 2016). In and people from ethnic backgrounds have their & 2016; 2014). Such clubs to provide spaces for women people from ethnic backgrounds through support and explicitly valuing their and these into the clubs 2014). For instance, a in is for by combining alongside the important that whether participation is & 2016). in the in explicitly to the of women to and with industry & 2016). In one these clubs take a strong approach to social justice. take structural inequalities into and practices to support strong forms of infrastructure access in terms of access and power critical literacy issues that support the of a more diverse of or is, however, a significant between in on the one and support for or people otherwise excluded from other on the other as in the et al., 2014; & 2016; 2014). out-of-school science learning marked by whether based on gender, or of selves, challenges to social justice. Thus, while infrastructure access, literacies, and community acceptance in clubs may be questions about how equity is understood and The involved in learning specifically to one or have of course been much (cf. 2014). Thus, I note here only that it is to science clubs for people from ethnic backgrounds where their and practices can be and that in thinking about social justice we must also question the extent to which a of inclusive out-of-school science learning clubs can and the more field of practice of maker spaces of practices in the of science and Thus, for both adults and while science clubs to provide significant opportunities for social justice, they by structural inequalities in ways that seem to can we learn from the and This raises both and issues for participants, and in how to understand and work with social justice in out-of-school science learning The analysis presented here suggests equity issues a significant for out-of-school science learning. While science television, science clubs and maker spaces may be an important site for some youth or adults to enjoy and with science, normative social structures about who can do science and to strong forms of social justice and inclusive practice. both redistributive and relational social justice to equity in out-of-school science learning using the concepts of infrastructure access, literacies and community acceptance as conceptual lenses on a spectrum from weak to strong highlights how and cumulative equity issues however, the here can be used to understand what it is that might make one more equitable than in terms of weak or strong social justice. That is, and can use this to think about how we can multiple, and issues to develop more inclusive out-of-school science learning practices. Notably, in both television, science clubs and maker spaces people have the of more equitable even if such are the rather than the of equitable practice are important because a key in equity in out-of-school science learning is in the need for social and For instance, thinking about out-of-school science learning more equitable thinking about inclusion in the of science and on this within and across out-of-school science learning science more and, if we are to be science and technology is mean with equitable practice, helps us to this because as is not a It is being for the to make a change in this the value of such as SciGirls or in their to and normative social structures around who can and who cannot take part in out-of-school science learning, or science more I wish to for help with the on and Seakins, Archer, Calabrese and for their insights into equity concepts to out-of-school science learning in Science project which the for of this This research by a from the and Social Research