Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education

R. Brooks, M. McCormack, K. Bhopal, R. Brooks, M. McCormack, K. Bhopal

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137269874
• eBook ISBN: 9781137269881
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Administration

Some of the most prominent sociologists working in education todayhave collaboratedto address a wide range of empirical and theoretical issues. Adopting an international perspective, this book foregrounds cutting-edge research that highlights both the diversity and complexity of understanding education in society.

1

Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education: An Introduction

Rachel Brooks, Mark McCormack and Kalwant Bhopal

Introduction

Education currently assumes a central role in the politics and policies of many countries across the world. Indeed, despite the recent global economic crisis, it is significant that the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) annual report indicates that, of 31 industrialised countries with comparable data, only seven reduced spending on education as a response to the onset of recession (OECD, 2012). Moreover, in all but one of these seven countries, the actual share of national income spent on education grew – as a result of gross domestic product falling faster than educational spending (ibid.). In part, this can be explained by the assumptions made by policymakers – within governments of various different political persuasions – that education plays a critical role in preparing citizens for participation in the ‘knowledge economy’ and thus investment in education is essential for ensuring national competitiveness in an increasingly globalised market. The sociology of education offers an important critical lens through which to view such developments, allowing scholars to relate them to wider processes of social change beyond a narrow politics of economics. The aim of Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education is to bring together contributions from researchers across the world to demonstrate how such a critical lens can be applied to different stages of education: from compulsory schooling through to higher education and learning within the workplace, and to various cross-cutting themes, such as the use of new technologies in education and the role of international organisations in policymaking. Consonant with current scholarship, it emphasises the differential impact of educational policies and practices on specific social groups, paying attention, in particular, to differences by ethnicity, social class, gender and disability.

Although this book focuses very much on contemporary debates in the sociology of education, this introductory chapter considers the history of the sub-discipline since the middle of the twentieth century. In doing so, we argue that the focus and orientation of the sociology of education has been influenced by a variety of inter-related factors including theoretical developments in the social sciences generally; the political relationship between policymakers and sociologists of education; and the institutional context in which much sociology of education has been produced. In the three sections that follow, we discuss each of these in turn. After exploring this broad context, we then introduce the 12 further chapters that constitute Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education. We outline the main arguments that are made, and their importance in advancing sociological understanding of education.

Theoretical context

The nature and focus of the sociology of education has been profoundly influenced by the theoretical assumptions that have underpinned it; assumptions which have, themselves, changed significantly since the middle of the twentieth century. In what he calls his ‘disputational account’ of the sociology of education, Ball (2004) identifies three key ‘turning points’ or ‘disputational moments’ which have reoriented scholarship in the sub-discipline: the rise of interpretivism in the 1970s; the emergence of feminism and anti-essentialism in the 1980s; and the increasing dominance of post-modernism in the 1980s and 1990s. Drawing on this typology, we briefly discuss each of these three turning points and explore their significance for the place of sociology of education within society.

Prior to the 1970s, naturalism provided the theoretical underpinning for most of the research in the sociology of education. This approach views the social world as broadly equivalent to the natural world and aims to apply the same methods of enquiry. In the UK, naturalism characterised what is often called the ‘political arithmetic’ tradition and, in the USA, its counterpart, ‘educational sociology’ – both of which focus(ed) primarily on the ‘inputs’ to education (such as social class) and the ‘outputs’ which result (such as qualifications and employment) (Ball, 2004; Lauder et al., 2009). As discussed in more detail below, those working within the political arithmetic tradition (such as A.H. Hasley and his colleagues (1980)) enjoyed a particularly close relationship with politicians and policymakers, specifically in relation to their work on education and social mobility and the structure of the school system. Both groups – scholars and policymakers – shared common assumptions, based on naturalist premises, that ‘research-driven adjustments would produce desirable outcomes in terms of overall performance and social justice’ (Shain and Ozga, 2001, p. 113) and that the primary purpose of research was to change practice within the nation-state.

In the 1970s, this approach came under attack from three directions, all of which focussed sociologists’ attention on social processes within classrooms, rather than merely the inputs and outputs of educational systems (Yates, 2009). Firstly, neo-Marxists argued that through the actions of teachers (as well as the structure of the education system), class relations were being reproduced within schools (e.g. Anyon, 1981; Willis, 1977). Secondly, social interactionists focussed on the ways in which pupils’ and teachers’ identities were constructed through processes of social control and social selection within classrooms (e.g. Pollard, 1990). And finally, Michael Young (1971), Michael Apple (1979) and other contributors to what became known as the ‘New Sociology of Education’ emphasised the socially constructed nature of the curriculum and pedagogic practice, arguing that school knowledge should be seen primarily as the product of power relations (Bourdieu, 1971; Bernstein, 1971). (See Ball, 2004 and Lauder et al., 2009 for a fuller discussion of these influences.)

Taken together, these new theoretical approaches had the effect of undermining the positivist framework that had underpinned sociology of education until this point (Hartley, 2007). Moreover, they suggested that quantitative analysis, which had been used extensively in sociology of education research and, notably, within the political arithmetic tradition, was problematic, and had the effect of reifying social phenomena ‘by treating them as more clearly defined and distinct than they are, and by neglecting the processes by which they develop and change’ (Ball, 2004, p. 5). In contrast, and in an attempt to understand what was going on in classrooms more fully, anti-naturalism researchers shifted away from quantitative analysis and moved towards qualitative methods of enquiry. This shift was characterised by ‘a dual commitment to realism (the discovery and representation of respondents’ meanings) and constructivism (the idea that social actors are active interpreters of the social world)’ (ibid.). This new theoretical orientation had implications for researchers’ relationships with both policymakers and teachers, as Shain and Ozga (2001) note:

The emergent new sociology of education carried with it, along with a commitment to social change, a degree of pessimism about its possibility through education. That theoretical turn produced a degree of alienation between sociologists of education and educational practitioners. (p. 114)

This alienation was exacerbated by concurrent political developments in the UK and other Anglophone nations of the Global North, which are discussed in more detail below.

By the 1980s, however, various assumptions made by those working within the New Sociology of Education were themselves coming to be questioned by feminist scholars and other researchers who adopted an anti-essentialist theoretical position. In this second ‘disputational moment’, the ‘academic mode of production’ was subjected to significant critique for adopting a fundamentally competitive and masculinist stance, and simple gender binaries were problematised by black and lesbian feminists (Ball, 2004). As a result of this particular turning point, increased emphasis came to be placed by many sociologists of education on diversity and, in particular, the complex interplay between different inequalities and oppressions, thus articulating ‘the gendered, sexualised, racialised and biographical contexts of teaching and learning’ (Coffey, 2001, p. 4). Qualitative research methods (such as in-depth interviews) were thought by many working within this perspective to be of particular value in giving voice to previously marginalised groups, and for exploring the different experiences of specific groups of pupils, students and teachers.

The third and final turning point identified by Ball (2004) is that of the shift brought about by the ascendancy of post-modernism, most evident in sociology of education from the late 1980s and early 1990s. Central to the sub-discipline until this point had been an assumption (sometimes explicit, at other times implicit) about the essentially redemptive purpose of education. Indeed, Dale (2001) maintains that education has frequently been understood by sociologists of education (as well as teachers and policymakers) as ‘both the dominant symbol and the dominant strategy for [the] mastery of nature and of society through rationality that has characterised the project of modernity from its origins in the Enlightenment’ (p. 8). Post-modernism raised fundamental questions about such redemptive assumptions. Indeed, as part of their challenge to the ‘deployment of totalising grand narratives’ (Ball, 2004, p. 8), post-modern scholars argued that all ontologies and epistemologies should be seen as historically contingent and, moreover, that educational processes should be researched as if they are a text or series of signs (ibid.). Methodologically, such scholars placed emphasis on analysing discourse and narratives, based on the assumption that language brings objects into being which have no prior essence. While some sociologists of education have argued that this particular theoretical shift has brought about an unhelpful relativism that further distances researchers from those for whom their work should have relevance (Shain and Ozga, 2001), others have welcomed the new possibilities it offers for both academic critique and political struggle (Griffiths, 1995; Kenway, 1997).

It is important to recognise that these theoretical shifts have not been linear: although post-modern approaches are now common within the sociology of education, positivist approaches continue to inform some research, and interpretivism remains popular with many scholars. Indeed, it could be argued that we are now in a fourth stage of pluralism (or perhaps even segmentation). A vivid illustration of this scenario is provided in Luke’s (2012) account of current debates taking place in the sociology of education. He argues that two eminent sociologists (Michael Young and Raewyn Connell) present very different perspectives on the direction they believe the sub-discipline should take. While Young (2008) provides a strong critique of constructivist and standpoint epistemology, and argues that the sociology of education needs to return to epistemological realism, Connell (2007) (who has been influential across the globe, but particularly among sociologists of education in Australia) highlights the limits of traditional Eurocentric theory and the epistemological challenges that are raised by the knowledge of indigenous groups. Similarly, while some high-profile educational journals that publish sociological research take a broadly post-structural approach (such as Gender and Education), others include a relatively small number of articles that adopt this theoretical perspective (e.g. Sociology of Education). This diversity in epistemological positioning is reflected in the contributions to this book. The 12 chapters that follow draw on a variety of different theoretical approaches and methodologies. This selection is not intended to be representative of the approaches that are currently dominant but, instead, give a flavour of the theoretical and empirical richness of the sub-discipline. We thus acknowledge that, as ‘the sociology of education is made up of a set of dynamic and located constructions ... any attempt to sum it up in a single framework is fraught with difficulties’ (Ball, 2004, p. 1).

Political context

In addition to changing theoretical paradigms, research in sociology of education has been strongly influenced by the political context within which it has been conducted (although here there are important inter-relationships with the various theoretical orientations outlined above). The first part of our discussion below is informed by Dale’s (2001) work, which has identified three distinct political periods that have led to profound shifts in the sociology of education. We then consider the political environment in the first decade of the twenty-first century and its impact on the intellectual agenda of the sub-discipline in this period.

During the 1950s and 1960s, in the UK, sociology of education assumed an important place both within academic institutions and public life more generally. In part, this is explained by the close political alignment of the Fabian reformers of the 1950s and prominent sociologists of education (e.g. Halsey et al. (1980), Goldthorpe et al. (1980) and others associated with the political arithmetic tradition). Both groups were concerned with addressing the social inequalities of the pre-war period through the developing welfare state, and education was assumed to play a key role in facilitating social mobility (Dale, 2001; Lauder et al., 2009). Both sociologists of education and policymakers were engaged in a common endeavour to map social inequalities within education – often placing emphasis on the selective nature of the school system (Whitty, 2012). Assumptions were made that research-driven changes to education policy would produce desirable outcomes in terms of both overall academic attainment and social justice (Shain and Ozga, 2001). Moreover, in this period, politicians and policymakers made significant changes to the way in which teachers were trained, and here too sociologists of education played an important role. In the 1960s, the number of teacher training courses grew considerably, and links between teacher training colleges and universities were strengthened with the aim of moving teaching towards a graduate profession. The academic focus and rigour of teacher training were increased – and the sociology of education assumed an important place within this new curriculum (Hammersley, 1996).

The rise of the New Right in many Anglophone countries in the 1980s and 1990s had a profound influence of the position of sociology of education, and brought to an end the close relationship between academics and policymakers that had characterised the preceding years. Radical reforms were made to the way teachers were trained, and optimism about education’s ability to bring about social change declined significantly. In the UK, specifically, the Conservative government of this period reversed many of the changes made to teacher training in previous decades, on the grounds that the curriculum was too theoretical and some of the content was too progressive (Hammersley, 1996). Moreover, severing the link between teachers and sociology of education research became a specific political aim of education ministers (Lauder et al., 2009). As a result, sociology of education was squeezed out of teacher training programmes and much greater emphasis came to be placed, instead, on practice within schools (Deem, 2004). Indeed, Shain and Ozga (2001) argue that the national curriculum for teacher education that was introduced at this time represented a ‘regime of surveillance and discipline that is not experienced elsewhere in higher education’ (p. 110). The theoretical developments within sociology of education during this period, which were discussed in the earlier section, also contributed to the weakening of links between researchers and policymakers in the 1980s. Within the New Sociology of Education, educational institutions came to be understood as vehicles for the reproduction of structural inequalities, rather than agents in charge of achieving social justice – and this more determinist emphasis, and its pessimism about the possibility of achieving social change through education – contributed to the growing disconnection between scholars and policymakers (Shain and Ozga, 2001). In response to this shifting political context, sociology of education found a new home within other courses such as professional doctorates and master’s degrees and, increasingly, broader-based ‘educational studies’ courses which do not lead directly to a teaching qualification (Deem, 2004). However, the political attack on sociology of education in the 1980s and 1990s was significant, in severing the previously close ties between policymakers and scholars, and no longer requiring those teaching within schools to have any knowledge or understanding of sociological analyses of educational processes.

By the beginning...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education: An Introduction
• 2  Globalisation and Sociology of Education Policy: The Case of PISA
• 3  Education Policy, Human Rights, Citizenship and Cohesion
• 4  School Type and Inequality
• 5  We Know What They Earn, But What Do They Learn? A Critique of Lifelong Learning through the Lens of Workplace Learning at the Bottom of the Service Sector
• 6  In a Class of Their Own: How Working-Class Students Experience University
• 7  Examining the (Em)Bodied Boundaries of High School Locker Rooms
• 8  Adolescent and Disabled or Adolescence Disabled? Education and the Construction of Gendered Identities among Adolescents with Intellectual Disability
• 9  Its How You Look or What You Like: Gender Harassment at School and Its Association with Student Adjustment
• 10  What Is So Liberal about Neo-Liberalism? Schooling, Law and Limitations of Race-Neutral Reforms
• 11  Fear In and About Education
• 12  Choosing Subjects: Sociological Approaches to Young Womens Subject Choices
• 13  Towards a Sociology of Education and Technology
• Index