As an end or as a means to an end: positioning empathy in STEM education

Abstract Background The public often perceives STEM disciplines as objective and neutral from human and societal factors. However, recent movements in STEM education have increasingly challenged this value-free assumption, advocating for the integration of empathy into STEM education reform. How STEM education leaders view the role of empathy profoundly influences STEM education policy and curriculum design, yet our knowledge of this remains very limited globally. We interviewed 26 STEM education leaders in Hong Kong—comprising university faculty, secondary and primary school science/STEM teachers, and out-of-school STEM education providers. We develop and employ a novel analytical framework of two-fold orientations in STEM education (utilitarian-oriented and humanist-oriented) to interpret our empirical data. Results Thematic analysis revealed that empathy serves dual roles in STEM education: as a “tool” (utilitarian orientation) and as an “aim” (humanist orientation), with leaders referencing the latter twice more frequently. As a tool, participants identified empathy’s utility for (1) capturing student attention and (2) facilitating problem-solving in design activities, with notable consensus across all panel groups regarding its procedural value. As an aim, participants positioned empathy as (1) a fundamental educational value embodied in the creed for education and value-based pedagogy, (2) an essential component in defining STEM’s disciplinary boundaries, and (3) an ultimate goal focused on social service and transformative outcomes. These views vary according to their professional roles—school-based educators strongly emphasized empathy’s role as an educational value and goal, while university faculty and out-of-school STEM education providers expressed concerns about the potential dilution of disciplinary boundaries. Conclusions While leaders demonstrated consensus regarding empathy’s instrumental role in STEM education, notable disagreements emerged concerning its incorporation as an educational aim, particularly regarding disciplinary boundaries. The pattern of responses suggests that leaders’ professional contexts strongly influence their view of empathy’s role in STEM education. Our two-fold orientation framework provides a more nuanced understanding of how leaders position empathy in STEM education, revealing both tensions and synergies and evoking further discussion regarding the defining characteristics of STEM education. A cohesive collective understanding of empathy’s role remains underway, highlighting the need for enhanced professional dialogue among diverse STEM education stakeholders.