Science is often celebrated as the ultimate meritocracy. But while scientific Truth may be objective, the process of discovery is deeply influenced by who gets to participate in it. For too long, academia and scientific institutions have been shaped predominantly by individuals from privileged backgrounds (Morgan et al., 2022). In this blog post I show how this lack of socioeconomic diversity means that the academy is missing out on valuable insights and perspectives that working-class scientists bring to the table; and why this is a problem.

The journey into science starts in the classroom and science education plays a critical role in determining who sees themselves as a potential scientist. Unfortunately, schools in working-class communities often face systemic underfunding, which limits access to equipment and materials that would enhance scientific learning. These disparities create early barriers to scientific literacy and engagement. When students aren’t exposed to quality science education or role models who look like them, they’re less likely to envision themselves in STEM careers. This isn’t a question of talent but of access. If we want a scientific community that reflects the full diversity of society, we must invest in equitable science education that nurtures curiosity, builds confidence and opens pathways for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

‘If we want a scientific community that reflects the full diversity of society, we must invest in equitable science education that nurtures curiosity, builds confidence and opens pathways for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.’

Working-class individuals often grow up navigating environments where resourcefulness, resilience and practicality are essential for daily survival (Kundu et al., 2024). These aren’t just life skills; they’re scientific assets that can directly benefit research and innovation. Science isn’t just about solving theoretical problems; it’s about making connections, testing solutions and applying knowledge in the real world (Amorim-Maia et al., 2022). Working-class scientists often excel at this, precisely because their lived experience grounds their thinking in practicality.

Moreover, working-class scientists are more likely to ask different kinds of questions. The kind that reflect concerns often overlooked in elite academic circles. The issues that are critical to large portions of the population but underrepresented in traditional research agendas. For instance, how do people in my community meet the target set for electric cars when the lack of parking doesn’t allow households to charge a car safely? Expanding equitable access to science education is essential in cultivating this diversity of perspectives. When students from underrepresented backgrounds are excluded from quality science education, the pipeline of future researchers narrows, and science becomes less reflective of society as a whole. If science only reflects the priorities of the privileged, it fails to serve the society it aims to benefit (Graves et al., 2022).

‘If science only reflects the priorities of the privileged, it fails to serve the society it aims to benefit.’

Diversity of thought is essential for scientific progress (Swartz et al., 2019). Homogeneity can create blind spots, where key questions go unasked and alternative approaches are ignored. Just as a research team with diverse cultural and racial backgrounds can spot different patterns and assumptions, a team that includes scientists from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds brings a broader range of hypotheses, methodologies and interpretations (Swartz et al., 2019). Working-class perspectives can challenge the status quo and disrupt outdated models, leading to more robust, forward-thinking, inclusive and impactful science (Reay, 2018).

Science becomes stronger when it includes a full spectrum of human experience. By making space for working-class voices, we don’t just make science fairer, we make it better. It’s time to value not just the brains in the room, but also the backgrounds that shaped them.

References

Amorim-Maia, A. T., Anguelovski, I., Chu, E., & Connolly, J. (2022). Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity. Urban Climate, 41, 101053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053

Graves, J. L., Kearney, M., Barabino, G., & Malcom, S. (2022). Inequality in science and the case for a new agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10), e2117831119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117831119

Kundu, A., Liu, Y., & Ahn, J. (2024). ‘I Got it from my Mama:’ The influence of working-class parents on young people’s cultural capital for success in school and work. Equity in Education & Society, 3(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/27526461231170233

Morgan, A. C., LaBerge, N., Larremore, D. B., Galesic, M., Brand, J. E., & Clauset, A. (2022). Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(12), 1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4

Reay, D. (2018). Working class educational transitions to university: The limits of success. European Journal of Education, 53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12298

Swartz, T. H., Palermo, A.-G. S., Masur, S. K., & Aberg, J. A. (2019). The science and value of diversity: Closing the gaps in our understanding of inclusion and diversity. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 220 (Suppl 2), S33–S41. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz174