Critical Response to Archer et al. (2015) “Science Capital”: A Conceptual, Methodological, and Empirical Argument for Extending Bourdieusian Notions of Capital Beyond the Arts

Archer et al. (2015) propose contributing to science education theory by introducing the concept of “science capital” to supplement influential French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theory. We agree with Archer et al. (2015) that there is considerable potential for more broadly applying Bourdieu’s conceptual apparatus—as indeed he himself applies to education (Bourdieu, 1986), politics (Bourdieu, 1996), and academic life (Bourdieu, 1988). We commend the authors for attending to the role of social inequality in science education and using Bourdieu’s theoretical framework as their primary inspiration. This focus is much needed in the field of science education research, which has too often neglected social class as a variable (e.g., Dawson & Jensen, 2011). The present essay briefly reviews Archer et al.’s arguments, highlighting underdeveloped elements of their analysis. We contend that adding “science capital” to Bourdieu’s existing range of concepts is unnecessary. There is just as good an argument for “sports capital,” “numeracy capital,” and many other domain-specific “capitals” as for “science capital.” Yet, these domainspecific forms of capital do not add anything beyond saying “cultural capital in sports” or “in science education.” Our main concern is that introducing “science capital” may