Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain

Out-of-school settings promise to broaden participation in science to groups that are often left out of school-based opportunities (National Research Council [NRC], 2009). Increasing such involvement is premised on the notion that science is intricately tied to “the social, material, and personal well-being” of individuals, groups, and nations (NRC, 2009)—indicators and aspirations that are deeply linkedwith understandings of equity, justice, and democracy. We observe, however, that the very conception of equity in the field is a moving target, shifting widely in meaning across contexts and research perspectives—a fact that points both to conceptual and theoretical imprecisions and the politically contested nature of the term. The diverse meanings of equity and their associated implications are reflected in the influential Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) framework (NRC, 2012), which identifies three common usages of the term. The first definition of equity appeals to “socially enlightened self-interest” and argues that investments must bemade in science and engineering education for “underrepresented groups” since “traditional populations” can no longer fully meet the need for skilled STEM labor in the United States (pp. 278). Such a notion of equity views the inclusion of underrepresented groups purely through its instrumental value ofmaintaining U.S. scientific, technological, military, and economic dominance. Thus, it hinders the possibility of authentically diversifying and changing relationships of power in science and society. The document also offers a second conceptualization of equity as “fairness” and “equal treatment of all” (pp. 278). This framing, typical of “colorblind” approaches to race, risks reinscribing inequities when it fails to address the historical, social, political, and economic contexts that have differentially afforded or limited opportunities and resources to various groups (Bonilla-Silva, 2001, 2003; Gutiérrez & Jaramillo, 2006). Finally, the report highlights a characterization of equity as “an expression of social justice [that] calls to remedy the injustices visited on entire groups of American society that in the past have been underserved by their schools and have thereby suffered severely limited prospects of high-prestige careers in science and engineering” (NRC, 2012, pp. 278). The language of social justice is notably invoked in this usage, but injustices are squarely relegated to the past. In addition, the agency of groupswho committed such injustices, aswell as their accruedmaterial and symbolic resources (Lipsitz, 1998; Spring, 2013), are erased through conspicuously passive language. While the NGSS framework considers multiple meanings of equity, it is noteworthy that each of these definitions arguably preserves the status quo in substantial ways: they simply diversify the actors in certain privileged segments of an otherwise enduringly inequitable and unjust society. As a consensus document, we recognize the need for these frameworks to speak to a broad audience while minimizing overt political stances. This “middle of the road” approach, however, further contributes to dehistoricized and depoliticizedmeanings of equity.