Abstract
This chapter thematises gender and educational choices through a close-reading of three Norwegian women’s stories about choosing physics-related STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) in order to explore how the act of choosing an education may be identified as a sociomaterial practice. Often, people choose a particular educational path because they are interested in a subject. Campaigns to recruit women to the STEM subjects have, therefore, focused on what they believe attracts women to the sciences. In this chapter the authors turn from focusing on gender as a variable for explaining interest in STEM, to examine empirical data concerning women’s educational choices. The interaction between human and material factors also involves embodied experiences, something which gives gender agency. This discussion contributes a greater understanding of the factors that come into play when one chooses a path for education and the ways that educational choices can be influenced through material experiences and practices both in and outside educational institutions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The chapter is based on an article which forms part of a doctoral thesis (Løken 2017). The article is written in Norwegian and was published in NorDiNa in 2018.
References
Adolfsson, L., Benckert, S., & Wiberg, M. (2011). Gapet har minskat: skillnader mellan högoch lågpresterande flickors och pojkars attityder till biologi, fysik och kemi 1995 och 2007. NorDiNa, 7(1), 3–16.
Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (2008). Material feminism. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Almås, R. (1997). Tre generasjoner rekonstruerer sin ungdom. In Frønes (red.) Livsløp – oppvekst, generasjon og sosial endring. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Asberg, C., & Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist technoscience studies. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 17(4), 299–305.
Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10(2), 87–128.
Barad, K. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader. London: Routledge.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham og/London: Duke University Press.
Björkholm, E. (2010). Technology education in elementary school: Boys’and girls´ interests and attitudes. NorDiNa, 6(1), 33–42.
Bøe, M. V. (2012). What’s in it for me? Norwegian students’ choices of post-compulsory science in an expectancy-value perspective. Doktorgradsavhandling, Universitetet i Oslo.
Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Damvad Analytics. (2015). Styringsvirkemidler som påvirker utdanningsvalg. Kunnskapsoppsumering og analyse. Rapport 02/06/15.
Damvad Analytics. (2016). Piger i science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Kortlægning af utfordringer inden for køn, ligestilling og udannelse i Norden. Rapport 18/01/16.
Danielsson, A. T. (2013). Science for whom? Case studies of two male primary school student teachers’construction of themselves as teachers of science. NorDiNa, 9(2), 145–155.
Dauite, C., & Lightfoot, C. (2004). Narrative analysis. Studying the development of individuals in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fox, M. F., Johnson, D. G., & Rosser, S. V. (2006). Women, gender and technology. Urbana/Chicago: Illinois University Press.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Associations Books.
Haraway, D. (2004). Modest_witness@second_millenium. The Haraway reader. New York/London: Routledge.
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.
Hekman, S. (2010). The material of knowledge. Feminist disclosures. Bloomington/Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Henriksen, E., Dillon, J., & Ryder, J. (2015). Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. New York/London: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Holmegaard, H. T., Ulriksen, L. M., & Madsen, L. M. (2014). The process of choosing what to study: A longitudinal study of upper secondary students’ identity work when choosing higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 21–40.
Jensen, F., & Henriksen, E. K. (2015). Short stories of educational choice – In the words of science and technology students. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 135–151). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lagesen, V. (2005). Fra firkanter til rundinger? produksjon av femiistisk teknologipolitikki en kampanje for å rekruttere jenter til datastudier. Kvinneforskning 1.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). Pedagogisk documentation som aktiv agent: Introduktion til intra-aktiv pedagogic. Malmö: Gleerups.
Lie, M. (2003). He, she and IT revisited. New perspectives on gender in the information Society. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Løken, M. (2015). When research challenges gender stereotypes: Exploring narratives of girls’ educational choices. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 277–295). Dordrecht: Springer.
Løken, M. (2017). Skriv ditt valg! Nyskriving av historier om @typiske utdanningsvalg. Doktorgradsavhandling, ph.d., Det matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo.
Løken, M., & Oyselbø Sørensen, S. (2018). Materielle praksiser ogerfaringer “kick back”. En sosiomateriell analyse av beretninger om utdanningsvalg. NorDiNa, 4(4), 366–378.
Løken M. & Serder M. (2018) In-between chapter: Troubling the social – Entanglement, agency, and the body in science education. In Otrel-Cass K., Sillasen M., Orlander A. (red.) Cultural, social, and political perspectives in science education (pp. 133–137). Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15. Springer, Cham. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61191-4_11.
NOU 2012:15. (2015). Politikk for likestilling. Oslo: Departementenes servicesenter.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Regan, E., & De Witt, J. (2015). Attitudes, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment behaviour: An overview of relevant literature. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 63–88). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roehl, T. (2012). Disassembling the classroom – And ethnographic approach to the materiality of education. Ethnography and Education, 7(1), 109–126.
Sandvik, N. (2015). Posthumanistiske perspektiver. In A. M. Otterstad og A. B. Reinertsen (Red.), Metodefestival og øyeblikksrealisme – ekseperimenterende kvalitative forskningspassasjer (pp. 45–62). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction – Two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 231–247). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Serder, M. (2015). Möten med PISA. Kunskapsmätning som samspel mellan elever och provuppgifter i och om naturvetenskap. Malmö: Malmö Høgskola.
Sinnes, A., & Løken, M. (2014). Gendered education in a gendered world: Looking beyond cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(1), 343–364. Springer.
Sjaastad, J. (2011). Sources of inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people’s choice of science in higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1–22.
Solbrække, K. N. (2011). Maskulin (u)orden i norsk sykepleieutdanning. I Leseth, A. og Solbrække, K. N. (red.), Profesjon, Kjønn og Etnisitet. (pp. 35–55). Latvia: Cappelen Damm AS.
Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in rducational practice. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thagaard, T. (1998). Systematikk og innlevelse. En innføring i kvalitativ metode. Fagbokforlaget.
Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Communication & Society, 10(3), 287–298.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Løken, M., Serder, M. (2020). “Significant Matter” in Sociomaterial Analysis of Educational Choices. In: Gonsalves, A.J., Danielsson, A.T. (eds) Physics Education and Gender. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41933-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41933-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41932-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41933-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)