ABSTRACT
Science participation occupies a distinctive and prominent position within international policy discourse. Governments and policy-makers across Western developed nations are highly concerned that more needs to be done to improve – to increase and widen – participation in post-compulsory Science, Technology, EngineeringandMathematics(STEM)atalllevels(e.g.ACOLA,2013;AdlerNissen et al., 2012; CBI, 2012; HM Treasury, 2011; House of Lords, 2012; Perkins,2013;USPresident’sCouncilofAdvisorsonScienceandTechnology, 20101). This is particularly the case for the physical sciences, where participation rates remain below desired levels and the profile of a ‘typical’ graduate remains White,maleandmiddleclass(e.g.AAUW,2010;Smith,2010a,2010b,2011). It is a point of ongoing puzzlement and frustration that these patterns persist and that the figures largely appear to be resistant to the decades of interventions that have been undertaken to try to broaden the profile of those pursuing science at university and beyond. For instance, in the UK, initiatives aimed at increasing and/or widening the profile of STEM graduates appear to have had little lasting impact on higher education participation rates (Smith, 2010a; Smith and Gorard, 2011; see also Royal Society, 2008a, 2008b). Yet, internationally considerable energy and resource continues to be invested in improving STEM participation via a myriad of local and high-profile national programmes, coalitions and campaigns (e.g. Change the Equation in theUS,2 the ‘Your Life’ campaign in the UK,3 and the Australian government’s allocation of $54.0 million in the 2012-13 Budget for the four year ‘Mathematics and science-increasing participation in schools and universities’ programme).4 In short, the question of how we might improve STEM participation remains a key national and international policy concern – although, as we discuss next, there are different,
competing rationales given for why STEM participation needs to be urgently addressed.
