Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9285-2
“Actually, I May be Clever Enough to do it”. Using Identity
as a Lens to Investigate Students’ Trajectories Towards
Science and University
Lars Brian Krogh & Hanne Moeller Andersen
Published online: 8 March 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract We have followed a group of students in the potential pipeline for science through
their last years of upper secondary school and in the context of a university mentorship
program. The student group is defined by their choice of Mathematics at A-level which is
mandatory for admission to tertiary STEM education in Denmark. Rich data (repeated
interviews, questionnaires (pre-and post-) and observations) from 14 target students have
been collected. Using Late Modern identity theory as a lens, we have analysed students’
identity narratives in order to establish their trajectories in relation to university in general,
and towards science studies and science careers in particular. We find that the diversity of
students’ educational identity narratives can be characterized and their trajectories understood in terms of a Four Factor Framework comprising: general identity process orientations
(reflecting, committing, exploring), personal values, subject self-concepts and subject interests. In various ways these constructs interact and set the range and direction of the students’
searches for future education and careers. Our longitudinal study suggests that they have
enough permanence to enable us to hypothesize more or less secured paths of individual
students to tertiary science (or other areas of academia).
Keywords Narrative . Recruitment . Science identity . Values
Introduction
In a recent OECD report young peoples’ interest in science and technology in industrialized
countries is described as follows: “Image and motivation surveys show that the perception
of science and technology remains largely positive among young people…there is a sharp
difference between the positive opinion of young people towards S&T and their actual wish
L. B. Krogh (*) : H. M. Andersen
Centre for Science Education, Aarhus University, Building 1110, C.F. Moellers Alle 8, DK-8000 Aarhus
C, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]
H. M. Andersen
e-mail: [email protected]
712
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
to pursue S&T careers” (OECD Global Science Forum 2004). Danish youth is an extreme
example of this ‘Science-is-important-but-I-won’t-be-doing-it’ trend, as evidenced by international comparative studies (Schreiner and Sjøberg 2007; OECD 2007), and a national study
(Ugebrevet mandag morgen 1998). Young Danish people do to some degree value the scientific
enterprize, but only rarely seem to internalize science into their personal value-systems.
Part of this dilemma may be ascribed to inadequate science teaching in primary and
secondary school, since students’ unfavourable experiences in school science may be seen as
having detrimental effects on their willingness to enter various S&T professions. Danish
youth tends to have the most negative attitudes towards school science within the OECDarea, and the Danish girls disagree more with the item “I like school science better than most
other subjects” than any other group in the international ROSE-survey (Schreiner and
Sjøberg 2007). So, school science does not appear to be the perfect breeding ground for
future scientists. However, recent research (Osborne et al. 2009) indicates that the alienation
ascribed to science teaching may be partly due to culturally induced changes in students’
mentalities. Science teaching has definitely not changed for the worse, but it has been unable
to develop fast enough to accommodate the rapid changes in youth social character instigated by macro-structural changes in western societies. Such changes are described by
numerous scholars of Social Science (e.g. Beck 1992; Giddens 1991; Riesman et al. 2001;
Ziehe 1989) as a consequence of the transition from Modernized to Late Modernized (and
postmodern) societies. At the same time this transition has undermined the aura and
authority of teachers and institutions (like school, academic science, ‘truth’). Both trends,
the change in youth mentalities and the deterioration of institutional auras influence students’ responses to science.
Within such a view school science remains an important arena to engage students with
science, but emphasis moves towards what students bring to the science classroom: their
embeddedness in a globalized everyday-culture and particularly their continued identity
construction. Identity no longer is pre-destined by social or cultural context and cannot be
considered an automatic end product of maturation and adolescence. Late Modern adolescents are constantly searching, exploring and constructing themselves, trying to maintain a
coherent narrative of who they are and how they present themselves. Every domain of
everyday life becomes part of this identity construction, where choice of education and job
are vital acts of self-exploration, personal meaning making and self-actualization. In their
on-going reflective struggle ‘Generation Search (Christensen 2002) is bombarded with
media-representations of everything, including images of science and they are guided by a
set of Late Modern value-oriented ‘search patterns’ (Ziehe 1989, p. 19). Culturally shaped
‘search patterns’ and value-orientations of contemporary youth have been studied empirically (Krogh 2006) and they were found to be at odds with traditional practices of science
classrooms (e.g. Krogh 2007). This suggests one mechanism for the cultural pattern of
science alienation, which was revealed by Schreiner in her cross-national study of ROSEmeasures (Schreiner 2006).
So, enculturation into science and eventually entering a science related study or career is a
part of an identity-process, where students’ reflectively and interactively construct themselves, negotiating personal experiences within school science and images of science/
scientists (Christidou 2011). Like many other researchers (see Theoretical background for
details) we feel that studies using an identity lens offer the most complete understanding of
students’ trajectories in relation to science (alienation or recruitment). We very much concur
with Tucker-Raymond et al. when they write: “We believe that by understanding identity
and identity formation, we can come closer to understanding why people make the life-path
choices that they do, especially in relation to the material, social, discursive and institutional
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
713
opportunity and marginalization of certain identities for certain kinds of people” (TuckerRaymond et al. 2007, p. 559)
Within the present study we apply a Late Modern identity lens to the study of a group of
secondary students that is of vital interest from a science enrolment perspective. All students
in this group (comprising 25% of the Danish youth cohort) have chosen Mathematics as an
A-level, which is mandatory for admission to tertiary science education in Denmark.
Plausibly, potential scientists and second tier science students belong to this group. Further,
we follow the students (age 17–19) through their last 2 years of upper secondary school
where considerations about future trajectories are actualized. Finally, the students and our
study are situated within the context of a university mentorship program which offers
students insights and young science role models that might influence their educational
trajectories towards science and academia in general. So, we have a student group of high
relevance for enrolment to science, at a decisive point of identity construction and placed
within a challenging setting. From these premises and using Late Modern identity theory as a
lens this paper addresses the following questions:
1. What characterizes students’ identity narratives in relation to science and academic
education?
2. How can students’ science related trajectories be understood and hypothesized in terms
of a set of identity constructs identified in the narratives?
Theoretical Background
Identity is by no means a simple or unambiguous theoretical concept to enter into the study
of young peoples’ response to science and science education. Important differences in the
conception of the term ‘identity’ relate to the continuity and cohesive power that is ascribed
to people’s identity. From a traditionalist psychological point of view one would speak of
‘core identity’ and trait, while others would speak of identity as being situated, ‘relational’,
‘discursive’ and allowing ‘multiple’ selves. Similarly, important distinctions exist in the
description of how social and structural aspects enter identity and identity formation.
Despite all ambiguities the identity construct already has proven fruitful within science
education research, as evidenced by a sample of important contributions from various
research perspectives (Brickhouse et al. 2000; Brown et al. 2005; Carlone and Johnson
2007; Kozoll and Osborne 2004; Roth 2002; Sfard and Prusak 2005b; Tan and Barton 2008;
Tucker-Raymond et al. 2007). A series of studies has evolved around the notion of (school)
‘science identities’, with an emphasis on students who belong to groups who are historically
underrepresented in science: girls, ethnic minorities and the poor. Most recent studies are
interactionist by nature, which enables good descriptions of situational aspects of identity,
but complicates studies of more enduring identity patterns and long term identity development. For our significantly different student group and longitudinal research we have chosen
yet another theoretical frame.
This paper is based on a Late Modern conception of identity, inspired by a number of
authors (Cote and Levine 2002; Giddens 1991; Sfard and Prusak 2005a). Giddens sees
identity not as a trait, but as a dynamical and self-reflexive narrative constructed by the
individual: “Self-identity, then, is not a set of traits or observable characteristics. It is a
person's own reflexive understanding of their biography” (Giddens 1991, p. 53). He
describes the identity process as a question of keeping “…a particular narrative going.
The individual's biography, if she is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-
714
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
to-day world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in
the external world, and sort them into the ongoing 'story' about the self” (Giddens 1991,
p. 54). Against the tribulations and potential disintegration of Self in Late Modernity
Giddens maintains that “Self-identity has continuity - that is, it cannot easily be completely
changed at will - but that continuity is only a product of the person's reflexive beliefs
about their own biography” (Giddens 1991, p. 53). Several other researchers hold
similar conceptions of identity as a dynamic narrative with some permanencies (e.g.
Cote and Levine (2002); Sfard and Prusak (2005b)), including Tucker-Raymond et al.
who write: “Identities are built over time. And though still dynamic, they are long-term.
More than any one story, we see identities as the accumulations of the daily stories and
positioning that result from our daily interactions with others, and change as we gain
new experiences” (Tucker-Raymond et al. 2007, p. 561). A person’s more or less
entangled identity-narratives establish ‘what kind of person they are’ both to the
individual and others. Holland et al. emphasize this double-sided function of these
narratives: “People tell others who they are, but even more importantly, they tell
themselves and they try to act as though they are who they say they are. These selfunderstandings, especially those with strong emotional resonance for the teller, are what
we refer to as identities” (Holland et al. 1998, p.3). Sfard et al. more or less define
identity as the set of personal narratives (Sfard and Prusak 2005a, p. 44). Cote and
Levine oppose such a conception: “…people can sense that something about them exists
‘beneath’ or ‘outside’ such narratives; that it is they who are the authors of such
‘stories’, and that they can sense themselves as ‘being’ in time and social space” (Cote
and Levine 2002, p. 71).
Cote and Levine have elaborated a Late Modern ‘social psychological synthesis’ of
various identity perspectives from their initial ‘Personality and Social Structure Perspective’.
Here it is assumed that a core level of personality is shaped by day-to-day interactions as
well as contact with social macro-structure. In line with this understanding, they arrive at an
identity model with three interrelated levels: social identity designating the individual’s
perceptions of and engagement with social roles and structure, personal identity as denoting
more concrete aspects of individual experiences rooted in interactions, and ego-identity as
the more subjective sense of continuity. We generally subscribe to such a conception of
identity, because it addresses some of the problems arising from other approaches (e.g.
Carlone et al. 2008). First of all, noting the interrelated nature of identity levels the model
allows us to describe how remote social structure influence identity formation. Next, it
embraces more enduring (habitual) identity aspects along with situated self-presentations,
suggesting that identity narratives tend to be the more ‘enduring’ and more ‘critical’ the
closer they are related to ego-identity. The ego-identity level is also the place where the
selecting and structuring identity ‘author’ might somehow be positioned. As most recent
studies are interactionist by nature they tend to focus on the personal identity level. Our
version of the three-level identity model is indicated in Fig. 1, including identity related
constructs that emerged as important constructs in the present work.
Combining our narrative conception of identity with the three levels, we can say
that social identity is construed through narratives about what kind of person the
student is and how she is acknowledged when she enacts particular social roles
(e.g. ‘good school girl identity’, ‘potential scientist identity’). Similarly, personal
identity is narratives about self-presentations and perceived responses on participation
in local interactions. Finally, ego-identity is narratives about Self-beliefs, personal
motivations and values as guiding principles; which will typically be construed from
interactions, and enactment of social roles.
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
715
Fig. 1 A three level model of identity formation including identity constructs relevant for our study of
students' trajectories towards science and university
The three level framework inspired by Cote and Levine was settled in the initial phase of
our study, but important additions to this framework emerged as part of our effort to
characterize students’ narratives (cf. research question 1).
–
–
–
Values. Most importantly, identities in Late Modernity may still be associated with some kind
of ‘value-gyroscope’ that guides personal decision-making and actions. The most complete
theory and comprehensive research program on personal values have been invented by
Schwartz (1992), who has established (almost) universal aspects of value-content and value
structure. The value orientations held by segments of urban youth in Late Modern societies have
been studied by Krogh (Krogh 2011, 2006) and others (Menezes and Campos 1997) using the
cross-culturally validated instrument Schwartz Value Survey (SVS). Their findings along with
Schwartz’s Value Theory serve as a starting point for understanding of students’ value-oriented
narratives. Value patterns emphasizing aspects of social relations, autonomy, stimulating life
experiences and ‘knowledge performance’ were established as extremely important among
urban upper secondary Danish students (Krogh 2011). They were found to impact school
science preferences. Valuing knowledge performance means that it is important for you to do
well, an emphasis that will guide your actions and educational decisions.
Subject related self-concepts Motivationally, subject self-concepts in science have been
found to have very much the same effect, e.g. they have been established as major determinants
of students’ attitudes towards physics and students’ decisions to enter optional A-level courses
in upper secondary school (Haussler and Hoffmann 2000; Krogh and Thomsen 2005).
Identity Processes: The arrows in Fig. 1 indicate identity processes that we identified for/
through this study. Cote and Levine introduce the notion of identity processes, they
acknowledge reflexivity, but otherwise they devote much of their discussion of ‘identity
formation patterns in late modern society’ (p. 137) to a state-like description in terms of
Identity Status Theory (Marcia 1966). Here, states/statuses of identity formation are described as the results of interplaying phases of exploration and commitment. Inspired by
Grotevant (1987) and in accordance with our more dynamic and Late Modern view of
identity we prefer identity processes over state-like descriptions. As a consequence of this
and of our analytical process (see below) three critical processes emerged as important for
students’ construction of identity narratives and science identities: exploring, committing and
reflecting. Together these processes describe the dynamics of identity exploration, its range
716
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
and how reflectively it will contribute to a person’s identity narratives. As stated by Berman
et al. who share our process-orientation (but still use the term exploration): “Exploration is
thus a process of examination and discovery of who and what one might be, with commitment to an identity being a consolidation of this process” (Berman et al. 2001). Paradoxically, each student might even have pretty stable orientations towards this set of dynamic
processes, a point we will address in relation to our second research question.
This ends the declaration of our theoretical framework, which was developed for our
research purposes and from our data. The framework is social-psychological by nature in
contrast to prevalent interactionist or socio-cultural perspectives on identity (e.g. Brickhouse
et al. 2000; Brown 2004; Carlone and Johnson 2007). However, with Cote and Levine
(2002) we do not consider these descriptions inherently incompatible, but rather as complementary in the sense that self-presentations (discursive, enactive) can extend or be extended
by self-reflections to provide a richer understanding of students’ science identities.
Methodology
Context and Sample
The investigation of emerging science identities has been carried out among upper secondary
school students participating in a 1½year mentorship program at Aarhus University in
Denmark. For the purpose of the present paper the mentorship program is simply a
challenging context.
One hundred mentees were recruited from Mathematics A-level tracks on ten upper
secondary schools. The reason for Math A as criteria for participation is that it is mandatory
for entering STEM studies in Denmark. However, it should be noted that Math A also is
requested for admission to a number of other studies, including Medicine and Health. So, the
student group includes students who already aspire to be scientists, as well as the students
who might realistically be enticed to STEM careers. From a STEM recruitment perspective
this is the most relevant 25% of the Danish cohort! Questionnaire responses from the total
mentee sample have been compared to a control group of non-participating Math A students
(N0275) from the same schools, and no significant differences were found. So, the initial
mentee sample seems to represent the 25% cohort fairly.
For our in-depth investigation of students’ ideas about future education and careers we
selected a subsample of 14 target students. The selection of these students was based on
students’ written applications and a questionnaire answered by the students before entering
the program. We aimed for a diversity sampling with respect to gender, family background,
subject preferences and educational aspirations. However, some minimum of articulation in
students’ written applications was posited. The present paper is based on data from the 14
students, but in stating our case we will be giving particular attention to a subset of five
students who spans the range of identity process orientations and much of the diversity
within the larger group of target students.
Data Collection
It is our aim to describe the development of students’ science identities during the last years
of upper secondary school and how it is influenced by participation in the mentorship
program. Our pool of data for this purpose includes students’ written applications, pre-
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
717
and post-questionnaires, interviews with target students, observations of participants during
university activities, participant evaluations of activities, as well as logs of electronic
communication between mentors and mentees. For this paper the main data sources are
interviews and questionnaires.
The interviews were individual, semi-structured and typically lasted a little less than 1 h.
The interviews were audio-taped and later fully transcribed. Each target student was
interviewed three times during the last years of Upper Secondary School: in the beginning
of 11th grade (August 2008), at the end of 11th grade (May 2009) and at the end of 12th
grade (April 2010) (just before their final exam). The first interview focused on students’
ideas about future career and education and students’ science self-concept and attitudes
towards science, included a dialogue around a simple ‘Scientists And Me’– instrument,
which was designed to elicit the gap between students’ conceptions of scientists and
themselves. Second interview followed threads from the first interview, tracing developments in students’ science self-concepts, perceptions of school sciences, images of academic
science and scientists, reflections on themselves in relation to university and university
studies, and inquiring into mentors as potential role models. The third interview pursued
themes from the previous ones, and ended with students’ reflections on their future lives, in
particular in relation to education and careers.
The pre- and post-questionnaires were identical and consisted of 76 items, with major
parts taken from existing surveys (e.g. attitudinal scales from PISA Science 2006). In this
investigation the following aspects have been emphasized: 1) Ideas about further education,
2) Knowledge about university studies, 3) Conceptions of science and scientists, 4) Selfconcept in relation to science and mathematics and 5) School science experiences.
Analytical Procedures
Our analytical process has been hermeneutical in nature, which will be clear from the
following description of the five steps in our analytical procedure.
First Analytical Step: Constructing a Vignette for Each Target Student
Students’ applications to the program and their responses to the pre-program questionnaire
gave us the first ideas of their personal narratives. Together with the transcripts from first
interviews these sources were the basis of our initial analysis and construction of a vignette
for each target student. Our vignettes are condensed identity narratives describing each
student’s ideas and experiences in relation to science and education and their reflections
on factors having influenced their ideas and educational choices. In the process of condensation certain threads and aspects of students’ narratives have been emphasized while others
have been retained. Consequently, the initial vignettes were member checked with students
and triangulated against observations of students during mentorship activities.
Second Analytical Step: Exploratory Cross Case Analysis Pointing Towards
Relevant Theory
This second analysis was based on vignettes and interview transcriptions. During this
analytical process it became clear that some students were searching and exploring in relation
to future jobs and educations while others to a higher degree were committing to existing ideas.
It also became clear that students differed in their level of reflections in relation to future life, job
and education. This led us to include a revised version of Marcia’s Identity Status Theory
718
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
(Marcia 1966) into our theoretical framework, giving rise to the inclusion of three identityprocesses: exploring, committing and reflecting in our analytical framework, Fig. 1. During this
analytical step we also recognized the importance of students’ subject related self-concept and
personal values for their ideas about future education, consequently values and subject selfconcept were included in the analytical framework.
Third Analytical Step: Systematic Analysis in Terms of Relevant Theory
This analytical step implied a more systematic analysis of data material in terms of our
theoretical framework. The analysis comprized an operationalization of the constructs, and a
formulation of categories for the coding process. During this hermeneutical process the
construct exploring appeared to be multifaceted and it was operationalized into four different
categories: seeking information about future jobs and educations, exploring new arenas by
participating in science clubs, political parties and other activities, enacting different roles
and attending to experiences done by significant others. Our main analytical constructs are
described in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 Analytical framework: Identity processes, theoretical descriptions, operationalizations and examples
of how the different codes have been used
Identity
process
Theoretical description
Operationalization
Examples
- Stories and comments about:
Exploring
Seeking information on
A search for a revised and
careers & future life. (Code:
updated sense of self
Exp. seeking info)
(Marcia 1980) A process of
discovering who and what
one might be (Berman et al.
2001) Seek information
Enacting different roles
about oneself or one’s
(Code: Exp. enacting role)
environment in order to
make a decision about
important life choices
(Berman et al. 2001)
Actively questioning and
Exploring potential new
evaluating a variety of
arenas (Code: Exp. new
values, beliefs, goals and
arenas)
social roles (La Guardia
2009)
Attending to experiences done
by significant others in
relation to identity and life
choices (Code: Exp. others’
experience)
Tom wants to know what it is
like to study sport science
and how much time they
spend practicing different
sports
Tom has had a week of work
experience as an electrician.
Stephanie has experienced
what it is like to be a
occupational therapist by
visiting her aunt at work
Laura has participated in a
Science Summer Camp
Laura has become a member
of a political party
Tom’s sister works as a teacher
in upper secondary school.
Stephanie’s aunt work as an
occupational therapist.
Marcus has always had an
Committing Adhering to a course of action, Expressing certainty, clarity
and confidence (Code: Com. interest in Science
decision, certain values or
ways of being (Marcia 1988) certainty)
Clearly dedicating to a set of Pursuing more enduring
Stephanie has since she was
values, beliefs, goals, and
young wanted to work with
aspirations (always wanted
roles and engaging in the
handicapped children
to, would like to…) (Code:
associated activities to
Com. enduring aspirations)
maintain them (La Guardia
Acknowledging expectations Stephanie has taken extra
2009)
lessons in English to
(should, ought, have to,
must…) (Code: Com.
compensate for her lacking
expectations)
English competences
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
719
Table 1 (continued)
Identity
process
Theoretical description
Operationalization
Reflecting
Self-reflecting (Giddens 1991) Identity processes, changes
and causes (Code: Ref.
Self in relation to social
contexts (Archer 2007) “The identity change)
ability to reflect and
consider who one is in
relation to others is
described as the reflexive
Awareness of self across
self. From a sociological
context (Code: Ref. cross
perspective, the reflexive
context self)
self develops in the
interaction with others
through a process that
includes a person's selfefficacy, self-image, selfAwareness of self in
concept, and self-esteem.”
interaction with others
(Falk and Miller 1998)
(Code: Ref interaction with
others)
Examples
- Stories and comments about:
The mentor project have
changed Flora’s ideas about
being a science student and
made it more probable that
she will choose to study
science
Tom knows that inspiring and
convincing people often
have an influence on his
ideas and choices. Stephanie
knows that helping others is
important for her in many
different contexts
Flora knows that her
interaction with a teacher
influences her engagement
in the subject taught by this
teacher. Laura is searching
for a community of like
minded people
Role of significant others and Flora’s choice of social
science in upper secondary
use of feedback (Code: Ref.
school is clearly influenced
feedback sign others)
by her father’s interests and
attitudes
Laura could easily imagine
Deliberation of potential
herself studying molecular
identities. Reflections on
what it’s like to be a student/ biology or medical
chemistry. The students she
professional in a field and
has met have been very
future choice of education
engaged in their study
(Code: Ref. potential
identities)
Interviews were coded in Atlas.ti 6.0 on the basis of the codes in our analytical
framework presented in Tables 1 and 2. Both authors carried out the coding and critical
elements were discussed and minor disagreements were negotiated. All codes were activated
during the coding process, indicating that they were all relevant for an analysis of students’
emerging science identities. At the end of the coding process each student was characterized
along the four dimensions: 1) What is this student’s orientation towards each of the identity
processes?; 2) What is this student’s subject self-concept in mathematics and science?; 3)
What science related subject interests does the student have?; and 4) What significant
personal values does this student hold? The characterization comprized quantitative measures like how frequent a particular code was used. However, it also relied on holistic
judgment of qualitative content of the coded sequences, e.g. the intensity of statements
within coded fragments. The three first dimensions were evaluated on a scale of one to three
stars; with three stars designating maximum within each category. In the rating of a student’s
identity process orientations three stars were assigned when the interview contained several
substantial examples along with a number of less significant examples; two stars were given
when the interview contained one substantial example or several less significant examples of
720
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
Table 2 Analytical Framework: Personal values, personal interest and Subject Self-Concepts. Theoretical
descriptions and operationalizations and examples of how the different codes have been used
Theoretical Description
Subject interest (Renninger
Personal
2009): “pre-disposition to
values,
re-engage particular disciinterests
plinary content over time
and subject
and the psychological state
selfthat accompanies this
concept
engagement”
Operationalisation Stories and Examples
comments about
Tom found his mentor’s
Expressing interest in a
telling about sport science
subject and explaining why
very interesting. Marcus has
(Code: Per Subject Interest)
a personal interested in
chemistry and physics
Flora finds chemistry easy to
Science self-concept (Britner Talking about Self as being
understand, it comes
more or less competent in
and Pajares 2006) “Science
naturally to her.
subjects/knowledge
Self-Concept is students’
Mathematics is Tom’s
domains. Reference to
perceptions about their scifavourite subject and his
experiences or indicators of
ence ability and their feelmarks have always been
mastery/failure in subjects
ings of self-worth
or domains (Code: Per Self- good
associated with this ability”
Concept and competence)
Laura has always wanted to
Comments expressing
Values (Schwartz 1992):
become more
“Values … refer to desirable personal values, cf. content
knowledgeable, especially
of Schwartz Value Survey
goals and to modes of
she values scientific
(Code: Per Values)
conduct that promote these
knowledge Flora has strong
goals” “Values transcend
specific actions and
family values, the most
situations” but “guide the
important thing in her life is
selection or evaluation of
to have a good family and
behaviour, people, and
kids
events” (Schwartz 1992).
“Values as guiding
principles of my life”
(Schwartz 1992)
an orientation, and one star was assigned when there was only a few and insignificant
examples of this identity process orientation. No stars indicate that no signs of this identity
process could be found in the interview. Students’ subject self-concepts and interests in
relation to mathematics, chemistry, physics and biology were evaluated holistically with
three stars representing High confidence/interest, two stars representing Moderate confidence/interest, and a single star expressing Low confidence/interest. If the subject was not
mentioned in the interview no stars were assigned. Core values were identified from
frequencies and intensities of values in coded interview transcripts.
Fourth and Fifth Analytical Steps: Iterating Step Three with Interview Data from Second
and Third Interviews with the Students. Reviewing Students’ Identity Vignettes
The emphasis of these analytical steps was the development of students’ narratives about
selves and potential selves in relation to science, education and jobs during the last years of
upper secondary school. After each analytical step new information were included in the
vignettes, and changes in a student’s identity process orientation and/or subject self-concept
were included in the characterization of individual students.
The vignettes represent a holistic picture of the students; telling the story about student’s
ideas in relation to science, job and education, and how they have developed during the
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
721
project on a background of personal values, dominant identity processes, subject selfconcept and interest. The vignettes have continuously been reviewed and revised to integrate
new insights contributed to an understanding of students’ emerging science identities and
educational choices.
Results
The result of our investigation will be presented in two sub-sections: In the first section, we
will present Stephanie’s vignette to illustrate the nature of our condensed narratives and to
demonstrate aspects of our analysis. Stephanie’s vignette has been chosen, because it is
multifaceted and unfolds the complexity of students’ emerging science identities and
educational trajectories. Analytically, Stephanie’s vignette is used to indicate aspects of
coding (relevant codes are mentioned in square brackets) and to provide detail regarding
our evaluation of identity process orientations etc. The second section presents our characterization of a subsample of five students whom we have found to span the diversity we have
seen in the larger group of target students. In this section the students are characterized in
terms of personal values, subject self-concept and identity process orientations and the
development of these characteristics are reported. This part is our answer to research
question 1. Finally, our third section explicates how our Four Factor Framework can be
used to hypothesize students’ educational trajectories.
Stephanie’s Vignette
Stephanie presents herself as a very social person; she likes to spend time with friends and
family. She is an active and sporty girl having handball as her main interest, she is an active
player and a trainer for younger girls [Value: social relationship]. Her family means a lot to
her [Value: family value], and she has the most positive memories of her childhood. When
she was a child, both her parents worked part time, and they were often home, when
Stephanie and her siblings returned from school. Having children is a must for Stephanie,
and she wants to give them a childhood just like her own, meaning that she wants a job
where she does not have to work overtime “If my husband has to work many hours and I
also have to do so, then my family would mean more to me (than the job)” [Value: family
values]. She anticipates that such priorities might be a hindrance in relation to some jobs and
career [Reflecting: potential identities]. Stephanie is a helpful person. She is willing to help
friends having difficulties with their homework (especially mathematics), and she also wants
to help friends having problems of a more personal nature. In relation to future job and
career, she expresses an interest in working with children having difficulties, e.g. disabled
children [Value: helpful to others].
In school Stephanie is hard working, she hands in her assignments at time and she is
actively participating in classroom discussions, group work and other classroom activities.
She has high standards for herself as a student “Actually, I’m very critical… to my own
work… when I’m writing an essay or other things, it must be perfect before I hand it in”
[Value: do things properly]. She is quite critical in relation to her own performance, and she
knows that she can always do better. Stephanie’s self-concept in mathematics is high and it
has always been her favourite subject. She also has an interest in other science subjects but
her self-concept is not equally high in these subjects. In contrast, English as a foreign
language has always been a challenge, and in the second year of upper secondary school she
decided to take extra English lessons, which has improved her competences and her self-
722
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
efficacy in English. Her participation in the mentorship program [Exploring: seeking
information] has made her aware of English as a basic pre-requisite for Danish university
students [Reflecting: potential identity]. At the end of the project she no longer perceives
English language a barrier to becoming a university student.
During the years of the investigation Stephanie has considered different ideas about
future job and education. Before the program started she wanted to become a kindergarten
teacher or a physiotherapist working with handicapped children [Value: helpful to others].
Initially she had not seriously thought of going to university, probably because nobody in her
family had a university degree, and she held the idea that university students were extremely
clever and intelligent. But after having been introduced to university studies by her mentor
[Exploring: seeking information], she started considering an education in sport and physical
training at university level.1 She found it tempting to combine her interest and passion for
sport with a university degree [Reflecting: potential identity]. The mentorship program
adjusted her image of university students and at the end of the project she could easily
adhere to the idea of becoming a university student [Reflecting: Potential identity]. But she
had also been seeking some more detailed information about what it was like to work with
handicapped children by visiting an aunt working in this field [Exploring: new arenas].
Stephanie has seriously been thinking about the future, and how she can find the right
balance between an interesting job and a rich family life [Values: family value and challenge]. Reflecting on job and education, she attached more importance to future jobs than the
education in itself. She talked about education as a mean to get a good and meaningful job
[Value: challenge and helpful to others]. She said that she would probably enjoy studying
mathematics and sport science, but she was unsure about what kind of jobs it could lead to
apart from being a teacher which she did not want to become. “It would be three fantastic
years, getting all this new knowledge and do a lot of sport… but it’s a bit difficult… you
could say that sport science would be the perfect study for me, but I don’t know what kind of
job it might lead to… but I know that I would like to work as a physiotherapist…”
[Reflecting: potential identity]. At the end of upper secondary school her main interest
was psychology and she could easily imagine becoming a psychologist helping other people
[Reflecting: potential identity; Value: helpful to others]. But she had not decided which
education to choose, so she planned to take a gap year or two before continuing her
education.
In upper secondary school Stephanie did specialize in science and mathematics because
she had more interest in these subjects than language and history, but she did not consider
herself a science person. There was quite a gap between her self-image and her image of
scientists. Spontaneously she described scientists, as old men with long hair working alone
in a laboratory with things very few people understood and found interesting. But intellectually she knew that scientists could also be young and female, and that not all scientists
were boring and narrow-minded. She found science interesting but she was quite sure that
she did not want to become a scientist, in the interview she says, “I want to work with
people” and “I don’t want to specialize in one thing… like researchers” [Reflecting:
potential identity].
Characterization of Students’ Trajectories
Stephanie’s vignette illustrates the complexity and dynamic of students’ trajectories. Personal interests, subject self-concept, images of science, information about university studies
1
Which was then part of the Faculty of Science at Aarhus University
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
723
and related careers all contribute to the dynamics and her thinking about university and
further education. Stephanie appears to be a very reflective person. In the interviews she
reflected on her relationship with other people and what kind of life she wanted to live and
how her choice of job and education might underpin her ideas about a good and meaningful
life. There are numerous and substantial examples of Stephanie’s reflective approach to life.
Reflecting is surely a key process in the shaping of her identity narrative and her orientation
towards that process is significant (indicated by three stars in Table 3). At the core of her
reflections were future jobs and how potential identities could afford her interests and
personal values. During the program period she is considering careers like physiotherapist,
teacher, psychologist, kindergarten teacher and being an ambulance woman, a broad spectrum of careers but they all emanate from her personal value of wanting to be helpful to
others. Her open-minded stance to options introduced to her and her changing ideas about
education is in accordance with the assignment of one star for committing. Even though she
has no fixed ideas about education, she has not being very explorative in relation to
gathering new information about jobs and educations. Her only act apart from being in the
mentorship program is a visit to a clinic where her aunt worked as an occupational therapist,
for that reason she is assigned only one star for exploration. Stephanie’s self-concept in
mathematics is rather high; she sees mathematics as an easy and interesting subject. Three
Table 3 Characterization of five target students based on a 4-factor framework for analysing students’
trajectories and emerging science identity. Stars were assigned according to the description in the text. In
some cases there was a change in a student’s self-concept which is marked by two sets of stars with an arrow
in-between
Personal values
Stephanie
Flora
Tom
Marcus
Subject Self-Concept
Helpful to others
Mathematics ***
Family values
Physics **
Friendship
Chemistry **
Challenge
Diligent
Biology **
Mathematics ***
Social relationship
Physics *
Performance
Chem ** → ***
Recognition
Biology
Have fun/Excitement
Math *** → **
Challenge
Physics
Social relationship
Chemistry *
Knowledge
Biology
Mathematics ***
Performance
Physics ***
Fascination/Wonder
Chemistry ***
Identity Processes Orientation
Exploring
Committing
Reflecting
*
*
***
*
*
**
**
-
**
-
***
-
**
***
*
Biology
Laura
Knowledge
Mathematics **
Systematic
Physics **
Diligent
Chemistry***
Performance
Biology ***
724
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
stars are assigned for self-concept in mathematics. Her self-concept is not as high in the
sciences. Actually, she achieves fairly high marks in all science subjects, but in her own
perception her science understanding is not so good. Two stars are assigned for self-concept
in biology, chemistry and physics. Stephanie has strong personal values and her vignette
demonstrates how her ideas about a future job and education are heavily influenced by
values like being helpful to others and family values.
Data material from the other target students have gone through the same analytical
procedure as Stephanie’s. These students’ vignettes are equally multifaceted and complex
but students’ trajectories can be characterized using the same set of constructs as in
Stephanie’s case. The resulting characterizations of the target students are summarized in
Table 3 (and additional written detail will be given below). Students’ subject self-concept
and identity process orientations have been evaluated at three different instances, enabling
development to be traced. Development is indicated by arrows in Table 3.
Several points should be noted in relation to the characterizations in Table 3. The
diversity of our sub-sample of target students is reflected in terms of differences in personal
values, identity process orientations and subject self-concepts.
First, notice that our selected subsample more or less spans the full range of identity
process orientations. The characterization of these students also shows that each student has
one or two dominant identity process orientations. Laura and Tom were the more exploring
type of students; they were both actively seeking information about a range of educations.
However, their explorations were qualitatively different. Laura’s explorations were based on
her commitment to chemistry and biology, and her exploration (accessing information,
talking to several mentors, participating in summer schools activities etc.) was restricted to
university studies within these domains. Tom was more flexible having no commitment to
specific jobs or subjects, he engaged enthusiastically with all kinds of new ideas and
opportunities. His exploration tends to be diverse and widespread; 1 day he was seeking
information about being an engineer, half a year later he was exploring what it would be like
to study sport science and the following year he was gathering information about being a
physiotherapist. Toms’ personal values (have fun, challenge and social relationship) seem to be
the most significant factor when it comes to choice of job and education. Flora was yet another
case. She showed no significant orientation towards any of the identity processes, apart from
being quite reflective about her interaction with other people. She was not committing to any
specific subject or job, and she was not exploring any educations apart from those being
presented in the mentorship program. Her thinking about education was primarily influenced by
teachers’ recognition of her competences in mathematics and chemistry. Flora’s personal values
(diligent, performance and recognition) correspond well with our impressions of Flora as a
‘good school girl’ who wants to go to university and have a good career.
A range of different personal values emerged from the analysis of the interviews: where
Stephanie’s choices were based on social and benevolent values (helpful to others, family
values and friendship), the dominant values guiding Marcus’ and Laura’s choices were more
epistemological and performance-oriented (knowledge and performance). Such differences
in personal values lead to different priorities in relation to future education and career. Tom’s
narrative in relation to future job and educations is permeated by values like wanting to have
fun/excitement and challenge, and his ideas about certain jobs as monotonous tend to lead
him away from these jobs e.g. carpenter even though he likes to do this kind of practical
work. On the contrary he thinks that being a teacher, trainer or physiotherapist is more
challenging and less boring, which draws his ideas about education in such directions.
So, we have found that essential aspects of students’ narratives can be characterized and
understood in terms of four social-psychological factors. And importantly these factors seem
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
725
to have considerable stability; one star changes in some students’ subject self-concepts were
identified during the investigation period while changes in students’ identity process orientations were too small to be registered. Their more enduring qualities justify our use of the
term ‘orientations’ for students’ tendencies towards exploring, committing and reflecting.
Hypothesizing Students’ Future Trajectories Towards Academic Education and Science
We have established a Four Factor Framework that can be used to characterize and
understand students’ narratives and trajectories towards science and academic education:
identity process orientations delimit the range of reflective identity exploration, personal
values act as filters in the evaluation of potential identities, and students’ subject selfconcepts enter scrutiny of potential science identities in terms of perceived competences.
Personal subject interest provides a positioning and an affective anchor to a subject domain.
Each factor is indispensable for understanding emerging science identities and educational
trajectories of late modern youth. The unique nature of and the dynamics of individual
students’ trajectories are formed through interactions and subtle balances between these
factors. And importantly, the relative stability of the factors allows us to use them to
hypothesize more or less secured student trajectories towards science. Again, this will be
illustrated with reference to our subsample of students.
Stephanie was an outsider to Academia, having a very demanding image of what it takes
to be a university student but her participation with the mentorship program made her realize
that she might be capable enough to go to university. So, a university science trajectory
became realistic, when her perception of demands was lowered to correspond with her
science related self-concepts. Her reflections about future job and education were continuously trying to balance her personal interests with her personal values, first of all her dreams
about having a good family life and her wish to help others. At the beginning of the project
her job aspirations were in accordance with her personal values, as she considered becoming
a kindergarten teacher or a physiotherapist working with handicapped children. However,
she questioned how interesting and challenging these jobs would be for her in the long run.
A science career was considered seriously for a while, but she saw it as highly time
demanding, which threatened her family values. At the end of upper secondary school she
considered becoming a psychologist in order to help people having psychological problems,
which would seem to merge her interests, values and perceived competences. As a consequence of this we hypothesize that Stephanie will become a university student in psychology
within the next couple of years.
Laura entered the project with high commitment to study science at university, and it was
her intention to study either molecular medicine or molecular biology. In that sense her
trajectory started very close to university and science. She had made targeted exploring,
before the mentorship program, seeking out information on a number of studies. Her main
subject interests were chemistry and biology, and Laura had experienced enough successes
in chemistry and biology (individual tasks and projects) to sustain her self-concept as being
talented within these knowledge domains. So, her subject interests, awareness of science
studies and perceived competence were coherent with a science career. The coherence was
enforced by Laura’s core values: knowledge and being knowledgeable; where she in
particular was aiming at getting more knowledge about chemistry and biology. As a
knowledge-producing institution the Faculty of Science would be a perfect match for a girl
having these personal values. In addition Laura presented herself as a systematic and diligent
person, setting her goals and committing to achieve them. She also ascribed these characteristics to scientists and science students. So, Laura experienced no tension in relation to
726
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
becoming a scientist. During her time in upper secondary school Laura was exploring
different aspects of university science by participating in a science summer camp and
Students’ Science Club. She was looking forward to becoming a university student, wanting
to be with like-minded people sharing her interests and seriousness. During the years of the
mentorship program her ideas about further education moved from molecular medicine/
molecular biology to medical chemistry due to some of the dissemination activities she
experienced at the university. With her targeted but reflective explorations and commitment
we are convinced that she will pursue a direct trajectory into university science.
Like Laura, Marcus was committed to university studies and to science already before the
project started. He has grown up in a university city and going to university was a natural
thing for him and his family. He stated that he had always had an interest in science, and that
he had always obtained high marks without much effort. He emphasized his fascination with
physical phenomena and the use of mathematics in a physical context. Personal subject
interests and perceived talents pointed towards academic science but he had only a vague
idea about different university studies. His personal values are epistemological by nature,
and they seem to be consistent with university science studies. However, his intentions
seemed to verge on premature closure, since he has not been exploring any other possibilities
or information in relation to job and education apart from activities in the mentorship
program. Further, his aspirations seem habitual and pretty un-reflected. Marcus presents
an astonishing low orientation towards self-reflection, and if he is not challenged on his
image of self or science, he will definitely enter university science, probably in physics.
In the beginning of the mentorship program Flora had no specific idea about what she
wanted to study, but she was committed to go to university. She had interest in all school
subjects, but the domains of social science and STEM were ascribed the highest status. Flora
had always had an interest in mathematics, and she considered herself as successful in
mathematics. During the last years of upper secondary school her interest in chemistry and
nano science increased, while her interest in social science declined. The mentorship
program seemed to provide inspiring inputs (nano science), while the school subject helped
build her confidence and subject related self-concepts. Teachers’ recognition was crucial
to Flora; it stimulated her interest, engagement and self-concept. The way she talked
about her interest in mathematics and chemistry were often related to personal success
and teachers’ recognition of her contributions. She was oriented towards performance
goals, and invested a lot of hard work to perform well. Flora’s choice of education will
probably depend on her self-concept and other peoples’ ideas and feedback. Her low
orientation towards exploring suggests that she will not search intensively for alternatives to nano science; which was her study-preference at the end of the project. However,
her low orientation towards committing suggests that alternatives might appear, in
particular if they were supported by significant others. Her trajectory towards science
is probable but not secured.
Tom had a positive orientation towards STEM education and careers, before the mentorship program started he aspired to become an engineer, he had never considered traditional
university studies. His subject interests were primarily within science, mathematics and
technology. He was highly explorative in relation to new areas of interest and he could easily
be inspired by other peoples’ ideas and experiences. With the combination of low orientation
towards committing and a marked exploratory orientation it was not surprising that his ideas
about job and education changed several times during his years in upper secondary school.
After the first meeting with his university mentor (studying sport science and chemistry)
Tom was convinced that studying sport science and mathematics would be a perfect choice
for him. He did not plan to become a researcher but to teach these subjects in upper
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
727
secondary school. But his moderate success in mathematics during the last year of school
turned him away from university studies, and at the end of upper secondary school he was
aspiring to become a physiotherapist or a Primary School teacher. Tom primarily considers
educations and jobs that are exciting, challenging and varied, which are core values in his
perception of the good life. He thinks that a job as a teacher or physiotherapist will meet
these values. However, his low level of commitment and moderate-to-high exploratory
orientation, in combination with his stimulation values make it very difficult to hypothesize
Tom’s future trajectory in relation to job and education. It is not unrealistic that he will end
up pursuing more than one education, realizing that his first education did not lead to the
exciting and challenging job he was aiming for.
These stories illustrate how the unique aspects of individual students’ narratives through
our Framework can be used to hypothesize educational trajectories. We see that for students
like Laura and Marcus, who experience almost no tension between university science and
their subject self-concepts, subject interests and personal values, it will be an easy and
secured choice to become a science student. For a good school girl like Flora the choice of
education is not as easy and natural because she does not hold any specific subject interest
but she knows that she wants to go to university. Students like Stephanie and Tom
experience more tensions. Stephanie experiences the tension because she thinks there is a
conflict between personal interests and values, but probably she will choose to go to
university. Tom experienced the most severe tension because his self-concept in mathematics
and science decreased during the last year of upper secondary school resulting in a more
general lack of self-concept in relation to becoming a university student, so he will probably
not choose to go to university in the near future.
Discussion and Conclusion
We set out to characterize students’ identity narratives in relation to science and academic
education using Late Modern identity theory. To this end we adopted a general socialpsychological model of identity, with three interrelated layers: social identity, personal
identity and ego-identity. A major point here was to establish a broader framework, allowing
also for self-related constructs.
Our analytical framework was developed hermeneutically as part of a process of characterizing students’ narratives. Through a process of constant comparison with students’ narratives
we have arrived at a Four Factor Framework for characterizing and understanding students’
narratives and trajectories: ‘identity process orientations’ (reflecting, exploring, committing),
personal values, subject self-concept and subject interest. Here the first two factors are general
and school-extrinsic, while the last couple are school-intrinsic and subject specific. The
variability introduced by combinations of these four factors has proven sufficient to capture
essential aspects of diversity in students’ narratives and trajectories within our sample.
Identity process orientations emerged through our analysis of first circle interviews,
where we found profound differences in students’ general approach to the domain of future
education and careers. Much difference could be understood if students were characterized
with different tendencies towards reflecting, exploring and committing. Together these
components delimit students’ ‘range of reflective search’ with direct implications for
students’ educational trajectories. The relative enduring nature of identity process orientations has been documented by our longitudinal study where they have been found to be
stable among secondary students over a time-scale of years. The three orientations may be
considered a new contribution to Late Modern identity theory.
728
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
Personal values turned out to be a highly distinctive characteristic of students’ identity
narratives where they seem to filter aspirations and relevancies. Typically, a few stable, core
values were identified in each student’s story, and the value-sets differed from student to
students. Social relationship, recognition, family, knowledge, excitement/challenge were
among the core values we found, and they correspond to different aspects of adolescents’
longing and search for intimacy, security and stimulation in a Late Modern context (Ziehe
1989). Compared to previous research with Schwartz Value Survey in a de-traditionalized
Danish context (Krogh 2006) the only deviation is that Family values seem to be more
important in the present narratives. Generally, both the importance of values and the specific
values we found are consistent with Late Modern theories of youth.
Subject self-concepts and subject interests were significant in all students’ stories, and
students’ self-evaluations were varied and seemingly realistic. Both constructs were generally favourable for science subjects within our sample; most students had one or two subjects
where interest was higher and they perceived themselves as more competent. The interrelated nature of the two constructs was reflected in student stories, where deterioration in selfconcept led to declining subject interest. Our longitudinal study revealed that science selfconcepts were influenced by single, surprisingly negative incidents within science classrooms as well as more continuous critical feedback. Such stories demonstrate that subject
related self-concepts and interests are the most flexible constructs in our characterization of
students’ narratives.
It should be noted that our characterization (and our Four Factor Framework) is exclusively in terms of self-related constructs. As indicated by our choice of a three-level model of
identity this is unintended. Two circumstances may have contributed to that bias: First,
methodologically students’ narratives were construed from a number of sources, but predominantly from interviews. The interviews may have favoured reflections in terms of Selfconstructs, even though students were invited to tell how they saw and presented themselves
in all kinds of interactions (personal identity) and efforts were made to elicit their images of
scientists (a potential social identity). Related to that, our second consideration is that images
of scientists were pretty un-stereotyped within our sample, probably because of all students
having chosen A-level Math in upper secondary school. The image of scientists as rather
ordinary and pretty much like students themselves may have left social identity parts of their
narratives un-energetic or unspoken issue. Still, we find it thought-provoking how powerful
the self-related constructs were in students’ narratives, and our study has reassured us that to
understand students’ educational trajectories one will need a social-psychological understanding of their motives.
The second aim of the present study was to enable understanding and hypothesizing of
students’ educational trajectories in relation to science and Academia. The Four Factor
Framework that was built and empirically grounded through this research holds our answer
to that ambition. It is an important finding that adolescents’ identity narratives and dynamical search processes in relation to future education may largely be understood in terms of
relatively stable self-related constructs. Identity process orientations tend to determine the
general range and reflective use of identity explorations in educational domains, the other
factors can be interpreted as different kinds of filters that guide specific explorations. Values
guide decisions and actions in any direction, and as long as students are in control, they are
attracted to trajectories in accordance with their core values. Subject self-concepts and
interests more specifically guide choice and behaviour in relation to particular science
subjects, and subject self-concept represents some grounding of potential selves against
the realities of the science classroom (indicate what kind of person you can realistically
aspire to be). Simple hypotheses for educational trajectories derive from situations where
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
729
there is no strain in the characterization, e.g. when subject self-concepts and subject interests
are oriented towards science and perceived science studies/careers are reconcilable with
personal values, we hypothesize secured trajectories towards science if students have been
exploring and are aware of the opportunities. In other cases interactions between two or
more factors induce strain in our understanding, just as there will be in the minds of students
placed in such instances. In such cases we can only suggest less secured trajectories.
Personal values and subject interests have been found to conflict and undermine decisions
to pursue science (and academic) careers, as have declining subject self-concept and subject
interest. How instances of strain are resolved may depend on students’ attributional beliefs.
A student with low self-concept in relation to a subject of interest may attribute this to effort
and reason that the tension may be remedied simply by putting more effort into studying the
subject. In such cases educational aspirations may still be in accordance with their interests
and values. However, students who make trait-like attributions will tend to take stock of their
low subject self-concepts and search for new domains with a minimum of interest adjustment and value discordance.
As concluding remarks, we would again emphasize that this work is built on Late Modern
conceptualizations and a sample of students in the potential pipeline for science. This entails
both the limitations and the potential of the study. Our main results are a characterization of
an extremely important student group for enrolment to science and an interpretive Four
Factor Framework. Since our methodology and our particular group of students differ from
most identity studies in science education our achievements are not easily contrasted.
However, with minor modifications we imagine that our Four Factor Framework would
work as well with a broader group of students. For example we anticipate that students with
more barriers to science would make explicit the need for a fifth social identity factor related
to images of scientists. More ambitiously, we would like to see our findings complemented
and integrated with (the few) existing studies in science education that share the ‘personality
and social structure perspective’ while providing a stronger representation of the levels of
personal identity and social identity (Shanahan and Nieswandt 2011).
References
Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Berman, A. M., Schwartz, S. J., Kurtines, W. M., & Berman, S. L. (2001). The process of exploration in
identity formation: The role of style and competence. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 513–528.
Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of
school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 441–458.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499.
Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for
minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 810–834.
Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical
framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802.
Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color:
Science identity as an analytical lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1187–1218.
Carlone, H., Cook, M., Calabrese Barton, A., Wong, J., Sandoval, W., & Brickhouse, N. (2008). Seeing and
supporting identity development in science education. In P. Kirschner, F. Prins, V. Jonker, & G. Kanselaar
(Eds.), ICLS'08 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the
learning sciences - Volume 3 (pp. 214–220). Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Christensen, O. (2002). Changing attitudes of European youth. Young Consumers, 3, 19–32.
730
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students' voices with the
voices of school science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental &
Science Education, 6, 141–159.
Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture - A social psychological synthesis.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1998). The reflexive self: A sociological perspective. Roeper Review, 20, 150–153.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
OECD Global Science Forum (2004). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies. Policy
Report OECD.
Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2,
203–222.
Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison
with students' interests, and impact on students' achievement end self-concept. Science Education, 84,
689–705.
Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Jr., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge,
Massachussetts: Harvard University Press.
Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science
Education, 88, 157–181.
Krogh, L. B. (2006). 'Cultural Border Crossings' within the physics classroom – a cultural perspective on
youth attitudes towards physics. Steno Department for Studies of Science and Science Education (Ph.D
Thesis, In Danish).
Krogh, L. B. (2007). The Ethos of School Science - an analytic framework and the empirical characterization
of values and norms within school physics. In Proceedings of the European Science Educational Research
Association (ESERA), Malmö, Schweden, August 2007.
Krogh, L. B. (2011). New approaches to the study of students' response to science. In I. M. Saleh & M. S.
Khine (Eds.), Attitude research in science education: Classic and contemporary measurements (pp. 45–80).
Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Publishers.
Krogh, L. B., & Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students´ attitudes towards science from a cultural
perspective but with a quantitative methodology: border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 281–302.
La Guardia, J. G. (2009). Developing who I am: A self-determination theory approach to the establishment of
healthy identities. Educational Psychologist, 44, 90–104.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp.
159–187). Toronto: Wiley.
Marcia, J. E. (1988). Common processes underlying ego identity, cognitive/moral development, and individuation. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity integrative approaches (pp. 211–266).
New York: Springer Verlag.
Menezes, I., & Campos, B. (1997). The process of value-meaning construction: A cross-sectional study.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 55–73.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrows world - volume 1 analysis. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Tytler, R. (2009). Attitudes Towards Science - An Update. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California, April 13-17.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/05/84/75/AttitudesTowardScience.pdf .
Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model. Educational
Psychology, 44, 105–118.
Riesman, D., Glazer, N., & Denney, R. (2001). The lonely crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Roth, W. M. (2002). Being and becoming in the classroom. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishers.
Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring af ROSE-garden: Norwegian youth's orientations towards science - seen as
signs of late modern identities. Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.
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). Rotherdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Eksperimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005a). In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Identity that makes a difference: substantial
learning as closing the gap between actual and designated identities (pp. 37–52). Melbourne: PME.
Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:711–731
731
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005b). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a
culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34, 14–22.
Shanahan, M.-C., & Nieswandt, M. (2011). Science student role: Evidence of social structural norms specific
to school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 367–395.
Tan, E., & Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories
of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 43–71.
Tucker-Raymond, E., Varelas, M., Pappas, C., Korzh, A., & Wentland, A. (2007). "They probably aren't
named Rachel": Young children's scientist identities as emergent multimodal narratives. Cultural Studies
of Science Education, 1, 559–592.
Ugebrevet mandag morgen (1998). Hvad kommer livet os ved? Mandag Morgen Strategisk Forum.
Ziehe, T. (1989). Ambivalens og mangfoldighed [Ambivalence and Multiplicity]. København (in Danish):
Politisk Revy.