Sociological Perspective

Emile Durkheim, 1858-1917

Writing during the turn of the 20th century, French sociologist Emile Durkheim saw education as having the primary purpose of transmitting society’s norms and values to new generations. Durkheim felt that society could only survive if children were socialised into life’s demands, forging social solidarity. Durkheim saw schools as like mini societies – it was here where children learnt to cooperate with others and adhere to a set of rules. Schools were also seen as teaching children the necessary skills for their future occupations. Durkheim’s ideas are often seen as embodying a ‘functionalist’ perspective, where education is seen as functioning to contribute to the smooth-running of society.

Max Weber 1864-1920

German theorist Max Weber wrote less explicitly about education, but his ideas about organizations, bureaucracy, status and leadership have had an influence on sociological thinking about education. For example, Weber’s ‘ideal-type’ organization with its hierarchical administrative structure, division of labour and procedural rules is seen as having translated to schools, whilst his work on the ‘charismatic leader’ has been regarded as a traditional model for school leadership.

Karl Marx 1818-1883

Like Weber, German sociologist, economist and political thinker Karl Marx did not write widely on education, but his theoretical perspective on the capitalist system and modern society has been used to understand the social function of education. Marx is seen as advancing a critical or conflict perspective on the role of schooling. According to Marx, education is run by and serves the interests of the powerful in society (the bourgeoisie), and both justifies and legitimises their wealth. Education therefore reproduces the class system and reinforces social inequality. Nevertheless, in Marx and Engels' 'Communist Manifesto' (1848), Marx wrote about the importance of education and advocated a new and reformed public education for the working class (the proletariat) to raise their consciousness of their position within society.

1940s-1970s

Between the 1940s-1970s, sociologists of education in England were seen as closely linked with policy makers, and as more or less as part of the educational establishment. Often these scholars worked from a weak structural functionalist perspective (grounded in Durkheim's ideas) and emphasised consensus rather than radical change in the schooling system. During this period, sociologists were involved in identifying problems or supposed ‘deficits’ in social groups that prevented them from succeeding in education. Invariably these individuals were those from working class backgrounds.

For example, in a famous yet controversial study, Basil Bernstein (1961) implied that working class children lacked the linguistic skills to be able to perform as well in school. He identified two types of language code: elaborated and restricted. Within the restricted code, Bernstein argued that speakers drew on background knowledge and shared understanding, whereas speakers of the elaborated code provided full and rich contextual detail. Bernstein made the correlation between social class and speech codes, with working class children seen as more likely to use restricted code and thus be at a disadvantage in education.

1960s-1980s

It was around the 1960s when a new generation of more critical sociologists of education began to emerge – leading to the development of what Stephen Ball (2003) calls the New Sociology of Education (NSOE). These sociologists were increasingly concerned with continuing differences in academic attainment, entrenched class inequalities and low levels of social mobility. Rather than seeing these problems as located within working class individuals themselves, these sociologists started to question the welfare system and capitalist society.

Research shaping the new sociology of education was seen as emanating from three core directions:

- Neo-Marxism: Neo-Marxists tended to focus on exploring the connection between schooling and labour market processes, and the reproduction of class relations.

- Interactionism: Interactionists studied students’ and teachers’ social identities on the micro-scale and theorised power, social control and selection. This was often done via school-based ethnographies.

- Sociology of Knowledge: Scholars concerned with the sociology of knowledge problematized the school curriculum and began to question what was taught in schools as ‘valid’ knowledge.

The NSOE was seen as being more radical and left-leaning than its predecessor the old sociology of education. Another key legacy of this turning point in the sociology of education was methodological; NSOE scholars began to break away from positivist assumptions and scientific methods (such as a reliance on large-scale statistical data relating to student attendance and attainment) and towards constructivist assumptions and qualitative methods (such as case studies and ethnographies). These were thought to allow sociologists prolonged participation in educational settings, so that they might understand social phenomena more deeply.

1980s-

By the 1980s, ‘standpoint theories’ began to come to the fore within both sociology and the new sociology of education – as espoused by gender, sexuality, ‘race’, and disability scholars. These sociologists argued that members of these social groups had been marginalised in academic scholarship to date, and sought to bring their concerns to the centre of analysis.

Gender and sexuality scholars:

Educational topics studied: gender stereotyping, gendered subject choice, the gender attainment gap, gendered peer cultures, masculinities and femininities, the feminisation of schooling, LGBTQ experiences and identities, sexual harassment and violence in schools.

Influential scholars: Dale Spender, Michelle Stanworth, Sue Sharpe, Alison Kelly, Mairtin Mac an Ghaill, Madeleine Arnot, Bronwyn Davies, R.W. Connell.

'Race' scholars:

Educational topics studied: racism in schools, racial stereotyping, attainment gaps amongst different ethnic groups, multiculturalism in education, teacher-learner identities.

Influential scholars: Heidi Mirza, David Gillborn, Paul Connolly, Paul Warmington, Gloria Ladson-Billings.

Disability scholars:

Educational topics studied: the labelling of SEN students, segregation and special schools, identity and the disabled body, inclusive education.

Influential scholars: Len Barton, Roger Slee, Julie Allan, Sally Tomlinson, Mike Oliver.

1990s-

Another key turning point in the new sociology of education has been the emergence of postmodernism. Postmodern theory took root in academic scholarship in the 1960s, but gained increased traction in the sociology of education from around the early 1990s onwards. Postmoderists challenge the assumption that all-encompassing and systemic ‘grand narratives’ – such as those espoused by Durkheim and Marx – can explain the social.

Postmodernists believe that since the end of the nineteenth century, we have moved from the era of modernity to postmodernity – as denoted by changing social and cultural practices such as consumption, exchange value of appearance, pleasure and desire.

Translated into research practice in education, postmodern thinkers remain skeptical of authoritative accounts and truth claims. They are particularly interested in discourse, text, and how language is used to produce knowledge about topics. Key scholars in this field include Robin Usher and Richard Edwards, Patti Lather, and Elizabeth St. Pierre.

Structure versus Agency

The structure versus agency debate lies at the heart of the discipline of sociology. Structure refers to aspects of the social system on the macro-level, such as the socio-economic system and institutions such as the family, education, politics, religion and the media. Agency refers to individuals on the micro level, and their capacity for free will and autonomous action. Sociologists are particularly interested in exploring the relationship between social structures and individual agency – the key tension being the extent to which social structures constrain individuals and their behaviour, or individuals possess the capacity to make their own choices.

Translated into the realm of educational research, sociologists have often been interested in global, national and historically-situated educational policies on the structural level, and the implications these have for the distribution of resources (e.g. funding, knowledge) and practices of those working and studying in educational institutions.

Readings:

Shilling, C. (1992) Reconceptualising Structure and Agency in the Sociology of Education: Structuration Theory and Schooling, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13:1, 69-87.

Willmott, R. (1999) Structure, Agency and the Sociology of Education: Rescuing Analytical Dualism, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20:1, 5-21.

Social Relations

Sociologists are very interested in investigating social relationships between individuals, and how these relationships are embedded in social structures. Sociologists have sought to examine close personal and intimate relationships (e.g. partners, family members, friends), but also more impersonal social groupings (e.g. classrooms). For scholars adopting a symbolic interactionist or ethnomethodological approach, social interactions are of particular importance because reality is seen as created through social interactions on the micro-scale.

In the field of education, sociologists have often explored how children and young people interact in peer groups, and the impact friendship has on their academic achievement and happiness at school. Sociologists have also examined pupil-teacher relations, and teachers' professional interactions and networks.

Examples:

Francis, B., Skelton, C. & Read, B. (2010) The simultaneous production of educational achievement and popularity: how do some pupils accomplish it?, British Educational Research Journal, 36:2, 317-340.

Hargreaves, A. and Woods, P. (2019) Classrooms and Staffrooms: The Sociology of Teachers and Teaching

Routledge Revivals, Routledge.

Identity

The topic of identity has also played a central role in the discipline of sociology. Different sociologists define identity in different ways and draw on different theoretical approaches, but identity might generally be understood as the subjective sense someone has about who they are. Important facets of a person’s identity might be their gender, social class, ethnicity, age, dis/ability, sexuality and nationality.

In the field of education, those operating from a post-structural or postmodern perspective tend to emphasise the fluid and changeable nature of students' and teachers' identities. These researchers often explore individuals' identity formation and how this can shape one's educational experience and outcomes.

Examples:

Kehily, M. J. (2009). What is identity? A sociological perspective. In: ESRC Seminar Series: The educational and social impact of new technologies on young people in Britain, 2 Mar 2009, London School of Economics, UK.

Peters, S.J. (2010) The heterodoxy of student voice: challenges to identity in the sociology of disability and education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31:5, 591-602.

Baxter, A. & Britton, C. (2001) Risk, identity and change: Becoming a mature student, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11:1, 87-104.

Inequality

Sociologists are particularly interested in the notion of inequality and how power, prestige and wealth are unevenly distributed between both individuals and social groups in society. Focus has often been placed on examining the axes of inequality that set groups (e.g. classes, genders, ethnicities) against one another.

Education has long been constructed as a potential facilitator of social justice and equality of opportunity, but sociologists have been keen to highlight how the education system can be the source of, and reproduce inequalities. For example, scholars have explored attainment gaps by gender, class and ethnicity, as well as differential education-to-work transitions.

Examples:

Archer, L., Hollingworth, S., & Halsall, A. (2007). `'University’s not for Me — I’m a Nike Person’: Urban, Working-Class Young People’s Negotiations of `Style’, Identity and Educational Engagement. Sociology, 41(2), 219–237.

Youdell, D. (2003) Identity Traps or How Black [1] Students Fail: The interactions between biographical, sub-cultural, and learner identities, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24:1, 3-20,

Conflict Perspectives

• Based on the view that there is a conflict of interest between social groups in society - the powerful and the less powerful.

• A term often used to describe Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches.

This video outlines a classic study conducted by American sociologists Bowles and Gintis (1976). Working from a neo-Marxist perspective, they argued that the major role of education in capitalist society is to reproduce the division of labour. They introduce concepts such as the correspondence principle' and the 'hidden curriculum'.

Interactionism

• A loose term for a family of approaches that focus on examining interactions between individuals on the micro scale. For interactionists, meanings are thought to be derived from the everyday situations in which people find themselves.

• One famous tradition is symbolic interactionism, founded by US sociologist Herbert Blumer in the early to mid 20th century.

• The practical implications of symbolic interactionism are probably best understood through the work of Erving Goffman, although Goffman never referred to himself as a symbolic interactionist.

• Harold Garfinkel also took up the key insights of symbolic interactionism but developed them into a distinctive outlook that sought to examine individuals' social skills and interactional abilities - ethnomethodology.

This clip provides a brief intoduction to Goffman's notion of the performed self

Critical Approaches

• Broadly defined as a genre of social research that involves the problematisation and critique of knowledge and existing power structures in society.

• Knowledge is not seen as objective, but constitutive of social identities, practices and structures.

• An umbrella term used to encompass diverse traditions such as critical ethnography, feminist research, critical race theory, queer theories, disability theory, critical hermeneutics and post-colonial theory .

Feminism

• Not one distinct approach, but a set of theoretical perspectives that place girls' and women's experiences at the foreground of research inquiry.
• But all share a common goal to promote gender equality and social justice.
• Feminist research praxis - emphasises issues of power between the researcher and the researched.

Types of Feminist Approach

Liberal Feminism – change needs to take place within the existing structure, e.g. equal opportunities legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act.

Marxist Feminism – capitalism rather than patriarchy is the principal source of women’s oppression.

Radical Feminism - Society is patriarchal, dominated and ruled by men. Separatism can be part of the solution.

Difference Feminism - women are not a homogenous group. Since their problems are different, they require different solutions.

Postmodern Feminism - concerned with language (discourses) and the relationship between power and knowledge.

In this clip, feminist academic Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber discusses feminist research methods

Postmodernism

• Postmodernism is difficult to define - a term often used to describe late-capitalist society, but also the work of influential Continental scholars such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean Baudrillard.

• Associated with social research approaches such as discourse analysis, post- structuralism, social constructivism, feminist theories and queer theories.

• Postmodern researchers use a range of methods including textual analysis, deconstruction, interviewing and ethnomethodologies.

lose

Posthumanism and New Materialisms

• Emergent approaches - post-qualitative research.
• Terms used increasingly from around the late 1990s which refer broadly to a theoretical turn away from the dualisms apparent in modernist and humanist traditions.
• A desire to position humans amongst non-human actants.
• A turn to matter due to a growing disatistifaction with a focus on the linguistic.
• Key scholars: Stacy Alaimo, Susan Hekman, Karen Barad, Rosi Braidotti, Elizabeth Grosz.

You might like to watch this video of a workshop held by educational scholars at UCL in 2015 who discuss working with posthumanist and new material feminisms

Stephen J. Ball

https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SJBAL90

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/people/academics/qa-professor-stephen-ball

Stephen J. Ball is currently Distinguished Service Professor of Sociology of Education at the Institute of Education, UCL. He stepped down as Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education in 2015.

Research:

Ball’s research focuses on educational policy analysis and social theory. He has looked at the relationship between educational policy and social class, and has written extensively about the marketization of education. Ball's work has explored notions of competition between educational providers, the ‘choice’ strategies made by parents from different social classes, and the impact of ‘performativity’ on academic life. Ball draws on the theoretical ideas of scholars such as Michael Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu.

Selected works:

Ball, S.J. (2003) Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage, London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ball, S.J. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity, Journal of Education Policy, 18:2, 215-228.

Ball, S. J. (2015). Subjectivity as a site of struggle: refusing neoliberalism?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37 (8), 1129-1146.

Diane Reay

https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/people/staff/reay/

Diane Reay is currently Professor of Education at the University of Cambridge.

Research:

Reay’s research focuses on social inequalities in compulsory and higher education. She is particularly interested in social class and the intersections between this and gender and ethnicity. Reay has explored various topics including: boys’ underachievement; femininities and girls’ peer cultures; access to and participation in higher education; female management in schools; and students’ social identities. Reay often uses Pierre Bourdieu’s theoretical ideas about cultural capital and habitus.

Selected works:

Reay, D, Crozier, G and J Clayton (2009) Strangers in Paradise: Working class students in elite universities, Sociology, 43(6), 1103-1121.

Reay, D. (2006) The Zombie Stalking English Schools: Social Class and Educational Inequality, British Journal of Educational Studies vol 54, no 3, 288-307.

Reay, D. (2001) Spice girls, ‘nice girls’, ‘girlies’ and tomboys: Gender discourses, girls’ cultures and femininities in the primary classroom, Gender and Education, 13(2), 153-166.

David Gillborn

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/education/gillborn-david.aspx#policydetails

David Gillborn is Professor of Critical Race Studies at the University of Birmingham. He is also editor-in-chief of the journal Race Ethnicity and Education.

Research:

Gillborn’s research focuses on race inequality in education and the role of racism in schools. His work has explored race inequality as embedded in different levels of the system, from national policy to classroom interactions and everyday practices. Gillborn is closely associated with the approach ‘Critical Race Theory’.

In this short clip, you can see David Gillborn talking about his career and what inspired his research:

Selected works:

Gillborn, D., Rollock, N., Vincent, C. & Ball, S.J. (2012) ‘You got a pass, so what more do you want?’: race, class and gender intersections in the educational experiences of the Black middle class, Race Ethnicity and Education, 15:1, 121-139.

Gillborn, D. (2005) Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and education reform, Journal of Education Policy, 20:4, 485-505.

Gillborn, D. (2006) Critical Race Theory and Education: Racism and anti-racism in educational theory and praxis, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27:1, 11-32.

Gillborn, D. and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and equity, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Michael Apple

Michael W. Apple is the John Bascom Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Research:

Apple’s research focuses on the themes of culture, power and social justice in education. He is interested in educational reform and has written about globalisation, curriculum theory and critical teaching.

In October 2018, Michael Apple gave a lecture at Exeter's Graduate School of Education. You can listen to it here: https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/events/details/index.php?event=8354

Key works:

Apple, M.W (2013) Can education change society? New York: Routledge.

Apple, M.W (2011) Education and power. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.

Apple, M.W (1996) Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Apple, M.W (1979) Ideology and Curriculum. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Learning to Labour - Paul Willis (1977)

- Willis drew on Marxist sociology to explore the way education prepares working class boys for the workforce.

- Ethnographic study in one Midlands school in 1970s England on a working-class housing estate in an industrial town.

- Followed 12 working-class boys during their last 18 months at school and transition into work.

- Observation and participant observation in class and leisure activities; group discussions; informal interviews; diaries.

- The “lads” rejected academic work. They avoided lessons, did as little work as possible and resented school controlling their time.

- They preferred the 'adult' world - going out at night and earning cash through part-time work.

- They also displayed sexist behaviour towards girls and women, and held racist views.

- They wanted to leave school as quickly as possible to get full time jobs - any male, manual job – which they viewed as real work.

- Willis found similarities between the counter-school culture and the shop-floor workplace culture. There was the same sexism, racism and lack of respect for authority.

- Willis found that ways of dealing with the tedium and oppression of both schooling and working lives were similar e.g. "having a laugh".

- Willis concludes that, in some ways, the lads see through the capitalist system, but in other ways, they contribute to their own exploitation and subordination.

- The willing entry of the “lads” into manual work traps them into an exploitative situation.

Beachside Comprehensive - Stephen Ball (1981)

Ball carried out an ethnographic case study in one secondary school in England over a 3 year period from 1973–1976.

- His research methods included: participant observation; interviews; small-scale questionnaires (including sociomatrices); and analysis of official school records and registers.

- Ball’s research was conducted through his work as a supply teacher at the school, where he also attended school trips, invigilated exams, took registration periods and played for the staff cricket team.

- During this period, Beachside School transitioned to become a comprehensive.

- Ball became particularly interested in the process of banding and streaming and the impact this had on working-class pupils.

- He concentrated his attention on two groups of students; those who had been banded or streamed by ability (pre-comprehensivisation), and those who had been taught in mixed-ability classes (post-comprehensivisation).

- Ball found that when pupils were streamed by ability (i.e. grouped with others considered to be of similar ability for all subjects), or placed in higher or lower sets for specific subjects (e.g. English and maths), their attitudes towards school began to diverge.

- Working-class pupils seemingly gravitated towards the lower sets and then became increasingly apathetic and "anti-school".

- This resulted in children from less socio-economically advantaged backgrounds doing less well at school and leaving with fewer qualifications.

- Further, Ball found that mixed-ability teaching also reinforced social inequality; he observed that status groups formed within these classes based on social class hierarchies.

- These hierarchies were often produced through teacher behaviours.

- Ball concluded: "The mixed-ability form-group appears to reproduce a microcosm of the banding system, with the processes of differentiation and polarization taking place within each form-group […] as the distribution of middle-class pupils across the whole cohort creates a situation where it is possible for them to dominate" (Ball 1981:273, 274).

- Ball ultimately concluded that the comprehensivisation of Beachside School didn't necessarily bring groups together - as was originally envisaged.