Why a Deficit Approach to Informal STEM Education Hurts Learners
Deficit thinking is a way of viewing learners, from a lens of what they are lacking. This type of thinking is usually subconscious and informed by the social and cultural contexts of our society. In this article, we’ll explore who deficit thinking impacts the most, how deficit thinking plays out in formal and informal education, and how we - as educators and evaluators - can avoid it in order to impart greater equity and justice in our work.
What is deficit thinking?
“Deficit thinking holds students from historically oppressed populations responsible for the challenges and inequalities that they face” (Patton Davis & Museus, 2019).
Deficit thinking is viewed slightly differently by scholars but tends to fall into one of three categories (according to Patton Davis & Museus, 2019):
“A blame the victim way of thinking that attributes students’ failures to their individual, family, or community traits”
A “blame the victim” view “characterized by discussion of ‘unfavorable conditions,’ ‘the existence of environmental’ challenges, or racial disparities in educational outcomes”
Not explicitly defined
As you can see, deficit thinking sometimes works to blame the individual students, families, or communities and sometimes focuses on more systemic issues and systems of oppression.
In fact, Patton Davis & Museus (2019) conducted a literature review of 44 publications on deficit thinking and found that four central themes emerged in how researchers conceptualize the term:
“A blame the victim orientation”
“A grounding in larger complex systems of oppression”
“A pervasive and often implicit nature”
“Effects that reinforce hegemonic systems”
“In addition to having roots in classist and racist ideologies, deficit thinking is anchored in meritocracy and colorblindness. Indeed, deficit thinking is inextricably intertwined with meritocratic ideologies, which suggest that everyone has an equal chance to succeed within existing sociopolitical structures” (Patton Davis & Museus, 2019).
Just think about standardized testing or the educational focus on “grit” which assumes students can succeed if they just muster enough personal grit (ignoring, of course, what larger systems of oppression they might be facing). And deficit thinking is not reserved for only formal education. You can absolutely see its influence in the out-of-school and informal learning spaces as well. As noted by Baldridge (2014), afterschool community-based programs are often cited as “institutions that ‘save’ and ‘fix’ students who are ‘broken’ and ‘at risk.’”
“This deficit framing disregards the assets that Black and minoritized youth bring to educational spaces, thus ignoring their agency – and thereby limiting the ways they are imagined, engaged, and educated” (Baldridge, 2014).
From my time teaching and managing programs in the informal learning space, I’ve definitely seen deficit thinking at play in the way that words were chosen. At that time, words like “at risk” and “disadvantaged” were commonplace.
Is deficit-thinking the same as the deficit-model?
Sort of. Rather than make assumptions about groups of people based on their race or ethnicity, as deficit-thinking can do, the deficit model assumes that - due to a deficit (like scientific knowledge and literacy) - people are ill-equipped to make good choices.
The deficit model in science communication has historically “attributed public skepticism and hostility toward science to a lack of information, and held that the transfer of information to increase science literacy would encourage science-based decision-making by an informed citizenry (Dickson 2005)” (Nadkarni et al., 2019).
In other words, it used to be thought that people didn’t care about science simply because they didn't know about it. But that’s not true. Research shows that one’s culture, beliefs, values, and attitudes heavily impact your understanding of and engagement with science, rather than scientific understanding (Nadkarni et al., 2019).
What can we as educators and evaluators do to avoid deficit-thinking?
Asset-based, strengths-based, culturally responsive, and equitable approaches are a great start. Patton Davis & Museus (2019) suggest three ways in which scholars and activists can advance anti-deficit perspectives and discourses in education:
“Critiquing deficit thinking that is embedded within existing discourses, systems, institutions, and environments.”
“Centering the voices of the historically oppressed communities in research, policy, and practice to humanize these populations.”
“Utilize knowledge from historically oppressed populations to generate new frameworks and ways of understanding core social and educational processes.”
And it carries over to evaluation too. At Improved Insights, we practice participatory and culturally responsive evaluation, with a strengths-based lens. Why? Because only focusing on what isn’t working demotivates your staff, obscures your “wins” and paints an incomplete picture of your impacts. Using a strength-based approach is not only more effective, it's more equitable too.
Here are some things that evaluators can do:
Avoid only focusing on content learning and administering test-like surveys or pre/post tests
Advocate for other markers of achievement - beyond test scores to showcase the broader advancements in youth development (e.g., social, emotional, and cultural)
See the whole person in the youth being served - not just their academic outputs
Consider the systems at play behind who shows up to your programs and who doesn’t, rather than just collecting demographic data
Include communities in the co-creation of programs and evaluations
Allow for alternative ways of knowing
References:
Baldridge, B. J. (2014). Relocating the deficit: Reimagining Black youth in Neoliberal times. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 440-472.
Nadkarni, N. M., Weber, C. Q., Goldman, S. V., Schatz, D. L., Allen, S., Menlove, R. (2019). Beyond the deficit model: The ambassador approach to public engagement. BioScience, 69(4), 305-313.
Patton Davis, L. & Museus, S. (2019). What is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and implications for scholarly research. Currents, 1(1), 117-130.
If you enjoyed this post, follow along with Improved Insights by signing up for our monthly newsletter. Subscribers get first access to our blog posts, as well as Improved Insights updates and our 60-Second Suggestions. Join us!