The cultural production of 'science' and 'scientist' in high school physics: Girls' access, participation, and resistance

For over three decades, the gender gap in science and science education has received attention from teachers, policy makers, and scholars of various disciplines. During this time, feminist scholars have posited many reasons why the gender gap in science and science education exists. Early feminist discourse focused on girls' "deficits," while more recent work has begun to consider the problems with science and school science in the quest for a more gender inclusive science. Specifically, feminist scholars advocate a transformation of both how students learn science and the science curriculum that students are expected to learn.;This study was designed to examine more deeply this call for a changed science curriculum and its implications for girls' participation, interest, and scientist identities. If we reinvisioned ways to "do" science, "learn" science, and "be a scientist" in school science, would girls come to see science as something interesting and worth pursuing further? This question framed my ethnographic investigation.;I examined the culturally produced meanings of "science" and "scientist" in two high school physics classrooms (one traditional and one non-traditional class framed around real-world themes), how these meanings reproduced and contested larger sociohistorical (and prototypical) meanings of science and scientist, and how girls participated within and against these meanings. The results complicate the assumption that a classroom that enacts a non-traditional curriculum is "better" for girls. This study explained how each classroom challenged sociohistorical legacies of school science in various "spaces of possibility" and how prototypical meanings pushed the potential of these spaces to the margins. Girls in the traditional physics class generally embraced prototypical meanings because they could easily access "good student" identities. Girls in the non-traditional class, though attracted to alternative practices, struggled with the conflicting promoted student identities that did not allow them easy access to "good student" identities. In neither class were girls' perceptions of what it meant to do science and be a scientist challenged. And, in neither class did girls connect to a legitimate scientist identity. These findings leave unanswered the question of whether changes in pedagogy and curriculum alone will produce more gender fair school science.