Perspectives Of Education Inequality

Constructionist and Network Theory perspectives of Education Inequality

Introduction

In `Methods of Discovery` (2004) Andrew Abbott shows how dramatically different the social world and social phenomena seem through varying perspectives and ontological stances. With so many competing and strong perspectives it is no wonder that Sociology finds itself fragmenting as a social science (Fuchs, 1993). This brief essay takes an example of a social phenomenon - educational inequality - and views it through two of these perspectives - constructionism and social network analysis. In doing this it demonstrates how different approaches and perspectives result in differing perceptions of reality and research questions. However in order to avoid further fragmentation by siding with one side over the other, a synthesis of the two views is adopted as a way forward in viewing educational inequality.

Social Network perspective

The social network perspective focuses on the combined activities of, and on-going exchanges between persons in a social system. Here, rather than examining individual units (e.g. students, or schools) in isolation, a social network perspective would see them as part of interconnected relationships. It is these ties and relationships that provide both opportunities for and constraints on behaviour of those units - ultimately impacting the level of educational inequality (Kenis and Oerlemans, 2008).

In a typical `network-flow` model access to resources such as educational opportunities are dependent on the presence of a tie or connection with that group (Borgattie and Lopez-Kidwell, 2011). It is only with such ties / access that resources and opportunities will flow to some individuals whilst not to others. For example Adam Gamoran (2001) shows that parents from a higher-class income have access to more beneficial social networks, dramatically helping their children gain access to the right schools. Questions regarding the presence of these ties, and how these ties facilitate educational knowledge and opportunities would be initial ones to ask here.

In an intriguing feedback mechanism however those who attend better education, learn how to better exploit social networks. The article `The leverage of Weak Ties` contains a fascinating analysis of how the wealthier and better educated consciously exploit weak ties to better their access to more and further education (Golub and Lever, 2010). Here we not only aim to learn how certain network ties change educational inequality, but also how educational inequality can influence the exploitation of social networks?

How these actual networks are formed and how such influential ties are created is another key insight network theory offers. Through a homophily tendency, as explained by Granovetter (1973), individuals tend to have strong ties with people who are similar to themselves. Categories of gender, race, class, and even educational ability become synonymous with an individual`s social network. This is turn, according to Burt (1992), constrains and alters ego`s behavior - enforcing group conformity and restricting change in educational level. In one of numerous studies Psychologist Kadushin (2012) shows that students whose friends were taking Advanced Placement classes are far more likely to also take the classes and access the better colleges. Here questions regarding the type of `structural hole` - such as race, class, or gender - and their influence on educational inequality are raised. How do these social categories constrain and enable individual education?

Constructionist perspective

Through the perspective of constructionism however a far more critical and reflexive stance is taken. Here the essential and real independent categories just discussed (such as race) are rather seen as being "creatively produced by human beings". This portrayal of the human world as "non-inevitable" and "socially made or invented" - dramatically opens up the question of educational inequality to researchers (Scott and Marshall, 2009:698).

Indeed the critical analysis of key independent variables and causes of educational inequality, as social constructions, is a good starting point to make. How are these categories infused and embedded with reinforcing notions of educational performance? For example, in a critical response to the essential nature of gender differences in education inequality, Cordelia Fine (2010) shows that simply acknowledging ones gender at the start of an intelligence or IQ test subconsciously impacts the participants performance (girls underperforming to conform to gender stereotypes). Another example is found in class stereotypes. Early psychologists within the field of education inequality made the false causal connection between class and intelligence - painting a picture that those from an upper class background were innately and biologically smarter than those from the lower classes. Such rhetoric permeated into society, enforcing and reinforcing notions in individuals regarding their ability.

The plasticity of educational inequality through a constructionist perspective is also shown in micro-sociological theory. The now infamous educational experiment performed by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), showed that individuals in a classroom setting naturally performed better when there were perceived by the teacher as being smarter. Social stereotypes of race, gender, class etc therefore can be understood as key determinants and influences regarding inequality of education.

But constructionism doesn`t just stop at a critical analysis of external variables. Through this lens one can`t help but also reflexively ask what we mean by `educational inequality` and indeed why are we even concerned with educational inequality. With regards to the first - questions regarding how we measure this concept, and who defines what `educated` is, are raised. Pierre Bourdieu (1977) points out that our very notion of academic ability is defined and used by dominant social classes as a way to legitimate class inequalities. Here measures and definitions of educational efficacy are predisposed to favor those from a particular class habitus. With regards to the second question however our very concern of `educational inequality` is seen as historically contingent. Indeed it would have been extremely unlikely for a sociology paper in the early 1900s to be concerned with such a phenomenon - not because it didn`t `exist` but rather because it wasn`t seen as a problem. In their extensive piece Constructing Educational Inequality (1995), Foster et al. argue it only became a `sociological problem` in the 1960s (ushered in with the `new sociology of education`). In this stance why should we be concerned with educational inequality? And what right do we have in trying to homogenize society academically? This critical and almost paralyzed perspective is the ultimate expression of a constructionist perspective. As a slightly exasperated Ian Hacking exclaims in his analysis of constructionism, "why ask what?" (1999:1).

Synthesis and Conclusion

In analyzing a concept such as educational inequality through these two different and often-competing views, we are able to identify a more holistic and critical perspective on the issue - with such debates being the "richest resources for new ideas" (Abott, 2004: 42). It would therefore be a mistake to completely discard one or other. Following from Foster et al. critique this paper would take a constructionist perspective and gain "sufficient distance to obtain a reflexive stance" (1995:23). Critical notions of how we arrive at conclusions regarding education and inequality, and how our social setting is dictating our approach would form the base theoretical level - Abend`s (2008) third theoretical stance. However, in order to actually make possible notions of progress and development within the field of educational inequality, a network analysis model would be used (Abend`s theory 1 and theory 2). In doing this we are able to take the highly pragmatic and positivist approach adopted through network analysis, implement direct questions and solutions, whilst simultaneously being critical and reflexive over what we are doing.