In an era defined by rapid technological advancement and an ever-expanding knowledge economy, the landscape of STEM education is undergoing a profound transformation. Traditionally viewed as a static and compartmentalized domain, STEM learning structures are now being critically re-evaluated through the lens of dynamic interactions between various educational providers. At the forefront of this intellectual shift is the insightful study by Archer, Freedman, Nag Chowdhuri, and their colleagues, who have embarked on an ambitious conceptual journey from the established notion of STEM learning ecosystems to a more fluid and market-oriented understanding of STEM education.
The paper provocatively challenges the prevalent metaphor of ‘ecosystems’—a term that has long captured the interdependent relationships among formal institutions, informal learning environments, and industry partners in STEM education. While ecosystems emphasize interconnectedness and shared growth, the authors argue that this framing overlooks the nuanced, competitive, and transactional realities emerging within the educational landscape. By proposing the concept of “STEM learning markets,” they invite stakeholders to reconsider the distribution of resources, power asymmetries, and motivations that shape contemporary STEM learning provision.
This paradigm shift is significant because it acknowledges the growing influence of market logics in education, where choice, competition, and consumer demand increasingly dictate the availability and quality of learning opportunities. Unlike ecosystems, which evoke harmony and mutual benefit, markets foreground issues of access, equity, and commodification. As formal institutions such as schools and universities navigate partnerships and overlaps with informal providers—ranging from science museums and coding bootcamps to online platforms—their interplay becomes less about symbiosis and more about negotiation and strategic positioning.
Central to the authors’ argument is the recognition that formal and informal STEM learning are not naturally or inherently complementary sectors but are instead interwoven within complex relational frameworks shaped by institutional goals, funding mechanisms, and learner expectations. This perspective compels educators, policymakers, and researchers to critically assess how power dynamics influence who benefits from STEM education and who remains marginalized. In so doing, it uncovers hidden barriers embedded within current provision models that may hinder inclusive access to STEM opportunities.
Moreover, the marketplace analogy offers a compelling framework to understand the multiplicity of actors involved in STEM learning provision, each bringing distinctive resources, expertise, and agendas. For instance, nonprofit organizations may emphasize mission-driven engagement and outreach, whereas private companies might prioritize product-market fit and brand visibility. Governments and educational authorities often find themselves negotiating the tensions between public good imperatives and economic competitiveness. The resulting interplay is far from harmonious, calling for nuanced governance mechanisms and accountability structures to align diverse stakeholder interests.
Importantly, the study highlights that framing STEM education as a market does not advocate for unregulated privatization or consumerism. Rather, it foregrounds the need for critical awareness about the consequences of market logics and calls for deliberate policymaking that can harness the benefits of flexible learning modalities without exacerbating disparities. This balance is especially crucial as informal learning spaces rapidly evolve through digital technologies, expanding the marketplace while simultaneously risking a fracturing of coherent STEM education pathways.
From a theoretical standpoint, Archer and colleagues draw on interdisciplinary approaches, integrating insights from education sociology, market studies, and learning sciences to craft their conceptual model. This multidisciplinary synthesis enriches the discourse by moving beyond simplistic binaries of formal/informal and public/private sectors, instead presenting a textured analysis of how learning provision unfolds in practice. Their framework allows for a granular examination of factors such as reputation economies, certification values, and the role of narratives in shaping learner engagement within diverse STEM contexts.
The conceptual reframing also has profound implications for research methodologies in STEM education. It encourages scholars to adopt mixed methods approaches capable of capturing the transactional nature of learning interactions, provider strategies, and learner experiences across settings. Tracking how learners navigate multiple STEM provision options requires attention to temporal dimensions and spatial dynamics, as opportunities may be dispersed, unevenly distributed, or temporally bounded. Market-based thinking prompts new questions about learner agency and the strategic use of informal spaces as “commercially” influenced environments.
On a practical level, the model invites educational leaders to rethink collaboration strategies, resource allocation, and impact measurement within STEM provision networks. Recognizing the competitive elements at play suggests that fostering genuine partnerships calls for transparent communication, shared goals, and equitable governance that go beyond surface-level coordination. It challenges providers to consider how their offerings are positioned within a broader market and how they can co-create value with learners and communities.
Further complicating the picture is the role of technology in reshaping STEM markets. Digital platforms have lowered traditional barriers to entry, enabling new providers to emerge while disrupting established ones. This democratization introduces both opportunities and risks: it broadens access but may also introduce information asymmetries and quality concerns. Market conceptualization sensitizes us to issues of consumer protection, branding, and the reputational capital of informal STEM providers in virtual and physical realms.
In light of increasing global attention to workforce development and STEM equity, the market metaphor also sheds light on policy tensions. Governments seek to stimulate participation and skill acquisition to compete in a knowledge economy, but must guard against deepening systemic inequities due to uneven market access. Accordingly, policy interventions need to be attuned to how subsidies, accreditation, and regulatory frameworks can shape the configurations of STEM learning markets, mitigating detrimental effects of commodification while promoting innovation.
The paper’s contribution is timely, given the accelerating demand for STEM competencies across industries and the growing diversity of learner pathways. As education systems globally grapple with how best to integrate informal STEM learning with formal curricula, understanding the market dynamics at play becomes indispensable. By foregrounding the transactional and relational complexity of STEM provision, Archer and colleagues provide a robust analytical tool that can guide future research, policy, and practice toward more equitable and effective STEM learning.
Ultimately, this reimagining from ecosystems to markets marks a paradigm shift with profound consequences. It encourages us to interrogate the assumptions underpinning STEM education narratives, scrutinize the structural forces driving provision, and consider the implications for learners who navigate increasingly complex educational terrains. Far from merely academic, this critical conceptualization beckons stakeholders to actively shape STEM infrastructures that respond to contemporary realities while striving to uphold principles of inclusion, quality, and societal benefit.
As the STEM education landscape continues to evolve, embracing nuanced frameworks like the market metaphor will be vital for fostering sustainable innovation and widening participation. Archer, Freedman, Nag Chowdhuri, and their team have laid the groundwork for this intellectual and practical endeavor, opening new avenues for inquiry and action in the pursuit of vibrant, responsive, and just STEM learning environments.
Subject of Research:
Critical conceptualization of the relationships between formal and informal STEM learning provision, shifting from the metaphor of ecosystems to that of learning markets.
Article Title:
From STEM learning ecosystems to STEM learning markets: critically conceptualising relationships between formal and informal STEM learning provision.
Article References:
Archer, L., Freedman, E., Nag Chowdhuri, M. et al. From STEM learning ecosystems to STEM learning markets: critically conceptualising relationships between formal and informal STEM learning provision. IJ STEM Ed 12, 22 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00544-4
Image Credits: AI Generated
