‘STEAM success stories’: refocusing the framework of intersectionality

Rethinking intersectionality

Intersectionality is a key analytic framework (Cooper, 2015) through which STEAM researchers talk about multiple forms of inequity and their operation in under-represented communities. It is a broad sociological framework that has enabled investigation and interpretation of the ways in which multiple interlacing social factors, such as race, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, religion and class, aggregate and create barriers in the pursuit of STEAM education and careers (for example, Archer, 2018; Avraamidou, 2020; Dawson et al., 2020). In our own work (Salehjee and Watts, 2023), we have seen the need to rethink intersectionality and drive it down from the generalities of the sociological to the ethnographies and particularities of the personal. Along with Jennifer Nash (2008), we ask the question, ‘whose intersectionality?’, and stake an interest in exploring the ‘complexity and messiness’ of the lived experiences of multiple identities. Following Phillips (2010), there are various times and places, for example, where a woman might want to be fully immersed in a particular culture, to wear it closely and heavily, while, on other occasions, she might want to move fluidly between quite different cultural groups, and maybe wear her culture loose and light. There are occasions when she might want to be fully engrossed in her culture, revel in its rituals and practices, while, on others, she might enjoy slipping and sliding between cultural expectations, sometimes adopting other cultural norms to blend with a group, sometimes creating hybrid moments of witty duality, of clever cultural crossover. This can all be seen in the three case stories we present here.

Making intersectionality personal in this way is just one part of our rethink. A second part relates to the ethos of failure that accompanies understandings and uses of intersectionality in research. Much of the existing literature on intersectionality focuses on how multiple, intersectional forms of inequality and disadvantage accumulate to create hindrances, obstructions, blocks and barriers for society’s racially minoritised people. This body of literature either completely ignores or simply hints at the existence/perceptions of opportunities, privileges and freedom that some minoritised people in developed countries can experience in their STEAM-based academic and professional lives (Salehjee and Watts, 2023). It is not our intention in any shape or form to minimise the painful struggles, the fraught frustrations or the burning injustices involved in challenging oppressive systems and power structures. We do, though, want to recognise and acknowledge successes where they happen, and we look to illustrate some of these here through the three case studies we present below.

A third issue for us surrounds the ‘so what?’ of intersectionality (Salehjee and Watts, 2023). Our own backgrounds lie both within science and in education, and this engenders an actionable strand in our thinking. The STEAM success stories of our participants provide us with evidence to critique existing pedagogical practices, for example, one-off institutional outreach activities for minoritised women to promote equitable teaching and learning practices. We have outlined, instead, a pedagogy for success wherein we look to diversity as a resource, rather than simply as an endpoint objective, and seek to embed inclusivity in all aspects of teaching and learning. Therefore, our specific research question is: ‘How do minority ethnic women’s diverse cultures highlight the “A” of STEAM, support and transform the wearing of STEAM cultures, and impact on what and how we teach culturally responsive STEAM successfully?’

Three cases: Fatima, Su-Li and Anna-Maria

A pedagogy for success

Our work (Salehjee and Watts, 2023) develops the idea of a pedagogy for success. Our sense of pedagogy is not limited, however, to structured formal teaching strategies, nor informal learning activities. We see no single instructional ‘straight line’ between teacher and taught. Rather, as Gert Biesta (2014) points out, pedagogy is much broader than that, and we enjoy Henri Giroux’s (2004: 61) description, when he says:

Pedagogy is not simply about the social construction of knowledge, values and experiences; it is also a performative practice embodied in the lived interactions among education, audience, texts and institutional formations. Pedagogy, at its best, implies that learning take place across a spectrum of social practice and settings.

Nor do we have a single meaning for success; instead, we see it as coming from within, through self-contentment, internal drive, external service for others and continuous informal learning (Gomez, 2020; Gotian, 2022; Goy et al., 2018). Most certainly, pedagogy plays a vital role in developing successes, in this instance in STEAM education and career choice. For our participants, a pedagogy for success involves a personal drive to achieve happiness and long-lasting contentment, directed at the goal of living a ‘good STEAM life’. This is supported by strong and constructive relationships built with others. This personal drive and relationship building strengthens individual determination to overcome stereotypical norms, cultures and customs. A key ingredient in pedagogy for success is a concern for the flow of knowledge, in particular the sharing, the give and take, and the exchanges of knowledge and experience between participants. Successful learning, in our view, lies not in a singular ‘teacher transmission’ mode, but in the collaborative flow created by learners in action. In our three cases, this flow of knowledge is rarely unidirectional and uni-sourced from within formal educational spaces, and one key to success is the willingness to tackle STEAM study from whichever sources the individuals see as appropriate, for example, learning from family and friends, customers, colleagues, children and media.

The five features we list for pedagogy for success are not original, but we bring them together as a basis, a platform, for promoting success in learning – and generating a sense of success from learning. First, we see the need for a web of relations, the interconnectivity between people and the value this brings to the learning of STEAM in our three case stories above. It is possible to see the relationships between teachers and learners, and between learners and learners, and how these are shaped. From Fatima’s extended connectivity through her master’s course to Anna-Maria’s women’s group, there exists an overall ‘culture’ and ethos within the learning space that enables and respects the sharing of power (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999). It shapes the ways, for example, in which people work and share their learning, and it can create a sense both of individual self-determination and of communal belonging. We see positive relationships, whether at school, university or within other learning communities, as the bedrock for generating an atmosphere of STEAM success.

Second, the learning objectives in each situation have been different, with decisions being made as to what exactly was to be achieved in each setting. There are clear differences, for example, between Su-Li’s teacher-determined objectives for the dragon-making and Anna-Maria’s learner-initiated learning for the cake-baking. Our interest here relates to who exactly sets the goals, and how they are set. There is no doubt that learning objectives are generated against a sense of what exactly counts as success.

Third, we are interested in the flow of knowledge. This involves the directions of the flow and exchange between teachers and learners, and between learners and learners. These are decisions to be made on when to ‘hold in’ and teach, or to devolve responsibility and generate collaboration with and between learners, moving from teacher-telling to exchanging with ‘more-knowledgeable others’ (Nissen, 2006). Our three case stories illustrate opportunities for learners’ voice, for expressions of culture, for responding to feedback, and for telling stories of success. These opportunities arise differently in each of the learning situations. Our participants were asked the extent to which they were able to contribute, as well as to receive, learning and understanding during exchanges of knowledge.

Fourth, the experiential texture asks the questions: What was the learning like for you? How well did it work out? There are sometimes questions about the setting, the organisational details, the resources and materials, the managing of learning engagement, and maximising the opportunities unique to the immediate environment. This might involve moves, for example, from serious work to play learning and back again. Again, the formal or informal context of the situation would impact upon this experiential texture. For example, Fatima’s learning endeavours include formal and informal contexts – horticulture degree, landscapes as places of work and grandparents’ home gardens – which strengthened her learning and artistic ability.

Finally, the evaluative tone relates to self and collective effectiveness and outcomes. This, too, is shaped by the situation, illustrated by all three participants presented in this article. So, there are commonly very clear criteria and expectations allied to evaluation in formal learning situations where accreditation is part of the situation, and this is often framed as formative and summative assessment. On the other hand, commendation, compliments and praise are more likely in informal contexts. Social and collaborative situations might bring approval and applause, as in Su-Li’s dragon dance, while personalised situations are likely to deliver moments of self-satisfaction.

Culturally responsive STEAM and pedagogy for success

Numerous structural and cultural barriers contribute to the under-representation of minoritised participants in STEAM disciplines, and there are calls for ‘cultural transformation’ in STEM-based educational departments (Johnson and Elliott, 2020). Geneva Gay (2018: 36) has described culturally responsive teaching as ‘using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them’. Moreover, Gloria Ladson-Billings (2014) has focused on pedagogy as needing to be culturally relevant pedagogy. Aronson and Laughter (2016: 163) write that, ‘While delineating a difference between teaching and pedagogy, both strands [must] strongly embrace social justice and the classroom as a site for social change.’ Consequently, the intention for STEAM educators has been, of course, to increase diverse and inclusive participation. In practising culturally relevant pedagogy in a classroom, teachers need to be aware of their own cultural beliefs, and those of others, their self-beliefs of knowledge, and their practices to accommodate social relations and interactions in their teachings. Our three stories illustrate some of this participation, both inside and outside of classroom contexts. They also articulate a strong sense of transformation through integrated learning. Importantly, these transformative experiences have privileged the wealth of knowledge and cultural insight which the participants bring with them to these STEAM learning situations. Our stories present ‘success’ in culturally responsive pedagogical actions, not only by including some insights and tasks which promote the knowledge and understanding of minority ethnic cultures, but also in illustrating transformations in ‘wearing’ STEAM culture. We argue that formal STEM education on its own has little to offer for gains in cultural responsiveness. It becomes responsive when individuals wear STEAM culture – at home, in their neighbourhoods, in educational and non-educational institutions, and in workplaces. Moreover, a culturally responsive STEAM pedagogy is no tick-box activity – there is no simple pedagogical toolkit that can develop culturally responsive individuals and society. As we discussed earlier, the ‘personalised’ way that individuals wear their STEAM culture is dependent on their own intersections with social factors, such as heritage, religion, social class and nationality. And the ‘strength’ of these factors will vary over time, and in different contexts and situations.

The personalised wearing of STEAM culture gives flexibility to our pedagogy for success framework. For example, the ‘web of relations’ signals the array of relationships among people possible within STEAM activities and practices. In our stories, this has involved children, students and adults, working largely in low-resourced schools and neighbourhoods, and commonly living in ‘STEAM-disadvantaged’ families. Even while we rethink our intersectionality framework, it is important to articulate the social influences and practices experienced by people, young and old, in developing, for example, their web of relationships, and the ways in which these relationships are established and maintained. The impact of our stories shows that ‘intersecting differences’ among students’ heritage, socio-economic status, gender and religion can be managed through culturally responsive STEAM education. In this sense, educators from varying educational levels, schools, colleges, universities and adult learning institutions, need to be aware of their own web of relations, and recognise intersectional make-up and differences as they work. And beyond the web of relations, learning objectives and modes of evaluation vary from person to person and from situation to situation. Achieving and evaluating these learning objectives needs to centre on the willingness of individuals to embed cultural responsiveness towards socially diverse people with varied STEAM learning needs, and the different ways they satisfy those needs, and practice various actions.

Reshaping the model of knowledge flow for educators then becomes a priority – educators need to accept the innovation and reshaping of a STEAM culture on an ongoing basis, different from traditional forms of knowledge flow. Therefore, including culture in the process of knowledge flow transforms the concept of ‘knowledge transfer’ from Vygotsky’s (1978) ‘more knowledgeable person’ to receiver. The ‘more knowledgeable person(s)’ with respect to culturally responsive STEAM education will not always be established educators – they can often be students and people in everyday life, so learning goes beyond the subject knowledge of STEM orthodoxy to the informal learning and learners of STEAM. Moreover, ‘experiential texture’ cannot be the same for all. The learners’ intention to see their learning outcomes through the lens of cultural responsiveness, coming together to learn and practise STEAM without assuming that any one person is more knowledgeable than others, becomes the norm. So, STEAM’s success in evaluating cultural responsiveness comes from various but interlinking directions: an effective ‘web of relations’ among diverse groups of people, accomplishing ‘learning objectives’ by including people from a variety of cultural backgrounds, success in breaking the traditional barriers to the flow of knowledge, and using a variety of resources and modes of engagement to elevate cultural responsiveness. All of these interlinking routes contribute to successes in completing collaborative projects, challenge the ethos of failure, and look to generate self-satisfaction and happiness at a personal level.

In conclusion, we view intersectionality as the wearing of cultures, and as educators succeeding in practising culturally responsive pedagogy at a personal intersectional level, and being inclusive of all students from varying cultural backgrounds, as well as supporting the development of culturally responsive learners and advocates, including educators themselves and their students – heralding the way forward for STEAM education research and pedagogy.

Research ethics statement

The authors declare that research ethics approval for this article was provided by Brunel University ethics board.

Consent for publication statement

The authors declare that research participants’ informed consent to publication of findings – including photos, videos and any personal or identifiable information – was secured prior to publication.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.