“Exclusion From School” by McCluskey, and “Moments of Social Inclusion and Exclusion” by Lareau Coursework

Introduction

When it comes to conducting qualitative analysis of a particular sociological or educational issue, it is of crucial importance for the researches to ensure that this analysis provides readers with an objective insight onto the issue, throughout the course of its entirety. Therefore, while analyzing the subject matter, researchers must always strive to adjust their study to the principles of structural and semiotic appropriateness. In their article “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems”, Heinz Klein and Michael Myers state: “While we agree that interpretive research does not subscribe to the idea that a pre-determined set of criteria can be applied in a mechanistic way, it does not follow that there are no standards at all by which interpretive research can be judged” (1999, p. 68). In the same article, authors provide us with the set of principles, which must be observed by scientists, while exploring and interpreting qualitative subtleties of a researched subject matter. The most important of them are:

1. The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle (researchers must prove their ability to relate parts of the study to its overall conceptual premise).
2. The Principle of Contextualization (researchers must understand the full scope of how currently existing historical discourses affect study’s conclusions).
3. The Principle of Multiple Interpretations (researchers are being required to be able to critically assess their own interpretations, in regards to the researched subject matter, and to define what might account for the alternative ones).
4. The Principle of Suspicion (research must always consider a possibility of a collected field-data being affected by respondents’ personal agenda). In his article “The issue of quality in qualitative research”, Martyn Hammersley outlines another important criteria for ensuring the high quality of an interpretative research – namely, the principle of political disengagement: “There are quite a lot of qualitative researchers today who insist that research ought to be political in this sense: that it should aim at the eradication of social inequality of various kinds, that it should improve the lives of some group of people… It is not hard to see that this is likely to lead to incommensurable paradigms reflecting sharply divergent orientations” (2007, p. 294). In order for the qualitative study to be perceived as conceptually valid and fully ethical, researches must remain intellectually honest, during the course of conducting it. In is turn, this would require them to prove their non-affiliation with currently dominant political discourses.

In this paper, we will analyze whether the qualitative studies “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” by Gillean McCluskey, and “Moments of social Inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships” by Annette Lareau and Erin McNamara Horvat, comply with earlier outlined principles, which in its turn, would allow us to define the actual academic value of these two works.

McCluskey’s Study

The main goal of McCluskey’s study was to define whether educators’ attitude towards the practice of academic exclusion, as the ultimate tool of enforcing educational discipline, matches that of students, because it is namely the failure of British educational system to address students’ existential concerns, which author assumes to be the root of this country’s educational problems: “Indiscipline in schools in the UK continues to be the subject of fierce debate. The views of young people as pupils in these schools continue to be marginalized despite their centrality to this debate and their ability to offer a unique set of perspectives” (2006, p. 447). Such McCluskey’s hypothesis prompted her to choose in favor of conducting a qualitative analysis of students’ attitudes towards the issue of exclusion, as author had rightly concluded that the application of quantitative methodology in this particular case could hardly be considered fully appropriate, especially given the fact that the subject matter’s subtleties are being in the state of constant transition. Nevertheless, the elements of quantitative research methodology can be clearly defined in McCluskey’s work.

McCluskey proceeded with conducting the empirical part of her study as follows:

1. 46 students (25 girls and 21 boys) from Scotland’s four secondary schools were randomly selected to serve as study’s sample.
2. The sample was subsequentially divided on 4 groups with 9-14 students in each.
3. Students from each group participated in “disruption cards” and “concentric conversations” groupwork exercises.
4. After these exercises’ completion, students were presented with a behavioral questionnaire, in order to define the qualitative subtleties of their reactions to the issue of academic exclusion.
5. Study’s empirical data has been collected, analyzed, interpreted and consequentially utilized to provide McCluskey’s research project with sociological soundness.

After having completed an empirical part of her study, McCluskey was able to formulate study’s foremost conclusion, which can be articulated as follows: It is namely the fact that educators lack the insight onto students’ perception of exclusion, which contributes rather substantially to the rates of exclusion in Britain’s secondary schools being continuously increased: “This lack of success in bringing about effective and positive change raises a series of important and urgent questions about current approaches and understanding of the issues surrounding indiscipline and exclusion” (2006, p. 448). In its turn, this had brought author to suggest that, in order to deal with students’ delinquency effectively, teachers must go after such delinquency’s very roots – and, as it appears from study’s context, these roots are being concerned with the lack of multicultural tolerance within British system of education.

When we take a closer look at how McCluskey proceeded with conducting her study, it will appear that she remained fully aware of the Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle, throughout study’s entirety, because in “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” the inductive and deductive principles of scientific inquiry are being applied interchangeably. After having researched the subject matter thoroughly, by the mean of carrying out a sociological experiment over the sample of secondary school students, McCluskey’s goes back to explain how her inductive research substantiates study’s initial thesis: “There is much to learn from these findings and how they might usefully offer comment on current understandings of ‘authority’ and ‘discipline’ in schools” (2006, p. 460). In other words, in her article McCluskey had proven herself fully capable of understanding the epistemological technicalities of how “part” relates to a “whole” and vice versa.

However, McCluskey’s study cannot be referred to as academically valid, for as long as the observation of other important principles of qualitative research is being concerned, due to author’s clearly defined affiliation with currently dominant ideology of neo-Liberalism, which implies that the particulars of students biological constitution have no affect on their ability to succeed in academia. Therefore, it is only within the context of a discourse that deals with “racism”, “institutionalized inequality” and the “evilness of euro-centrism”, that McCluskey’s interpretation of a collected sociological data may be thought of as being fully legitimate. However, the fact that promoters of this ideology have now realized themselves of position of designing socio-political and educational policies in Western countries does not mean that they will hold these countries’ governmental offices forever. Even study’s very introduction invariantly points out at author’s inability to discuss educational problematics as such that do not necessarily relate to current political trends: “In 1997, when the new Labor government came to power, it made a direct and powerful commitment to reducing social exclusion” (2006, p. 447). This line implies that there can be no alternative to New Labor governing, which in its turn reveals author’s unawareness of a simple fact that the body politics remain in the state of constant transition. Thus, there can be little doubt as to the fact that, during the course of her study, McCluskey had failed at observing the Principle of Contextualization.

As we have suggested earlier, “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” is being marked by a high degree of ideologization. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that in her study McCluskey has failed to provide readers with alternative interpretations of study’s findings. The foremost idea that author strived to promote, throughout study’s entirety, can be formulated as follows: there is no objectively existing difference between students that are being assumed “affected” by academic disruption and those who “cause” such a disruption. However, as we are well aware of, the paradoxical subtleties of a particular phenomenon imply that it is only by adopting a three-dimensional approach towards analyzing this phenomenon that researchers are able to endow their conclusions with theoretical soundness. Therefore, the absence of clearly defined difference in how “included” and “excluded” students acted, during the course of workgroup exercises , does not necessarily mean that they are being equally dissatisfied with the very practice of disciplinary exclusion as “thing in itself”.

The apparent sameness of study participants’ reactions can also be interpreted as the ultimate proof of researcher’s incompetence – it might very well be the case that McCluskey had simply failed to invest an adequate amount of effort in designing study’s procedures, which is why students were becoming confused, while being presented with improperly formulated questions in the questionnaire. Given the fact that McCluskey’s study does not offer alternative interpretations as to the actual significance of an obtained empirical data, we have no option but to refer to “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” as such that has been conducted without regard to the Principle of Multiple Interpretations.

The same can be said about author’s ability (or, rather inability) to follow the guidelines of Principle of Suspicion, while pursuing with the research. Apparently, McCluskey had failed at realizing a simple fact that there is no good reason for interpretative researches to assume that the answers they obtain from respondents do reflect these people’s actual opinions, in regards to the researched subject matter. Even though, there is a plenty of indirect evidence in the study as to the fact that, while reacting to presented questions, many students were driven by considerations of personal interest, it never occurred to McCluskey that the subtle indications of students’ insincerity, contained in “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?”, undermine the overall validly of her study’s findings. In its turn, this serves as the proof of author’s failure to observe the Principle of Suspicion, while conducting a qualitative research.

Thus, it appears that despite McCluskey’s apparent professionalism, in setting up a methodological apparatus for qualitative research, her study’s conclusions cannot be recognized as being academically legitimate, in full sense of this word, due to author’s clearly defined lack of academic integrity. Therefore, the ethical implications of “Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?” cannot be considered seriously, simply because they reflect author’s own political beliefs.

Moments of social Inclusion and exclusion

In their study “Moments of social Inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships” by Annette Lareau and Erin McNamara Horvat strived to expose the factor of students’ racial affiliation as such that does not only affect their chances to attain high school diploma, but also as such that is being quite independent from social status, on the part of these students’ parents: “Since educators seek a positive and deferential role for parents in schooling, race appears to play an independent role in parents’ ability to comply with educators’ requests” (1999, p. 37). In order to substantiate the validity of this thesis, authors had chosen in favor of interviewing the parents of 12 White and 12 Black students in Quigley Elementary School, located in Lawrence (fictitious town of 25.000 in the Midwest), which according to Lareau and McNamara, represented a cross-cut sampler of town’s elementary school population: “A sample of 24 children was chosen for indepth interviews – 12 white children (5 girls and 7 boys) and 12 black children (7 girls and 5 boys). Separate two-hour interviews were held in the children’s homes with the parents and guardians” (2002, p. 40). The empirical data, collected during the course of a research, had brought authors to the following set of conclusions, in regards to how parents’ racial affiliation affects their children’s ability to succeed in studying:

1. The specifics of parents’ ethnic background signifies possession of dispossession of what authors refer to as “cultural capital”, on their part: “In particular, cultural capital includes parents’ large vocabularies, sense of entitlement to interact with teachers as equals” (1999, p. 42). In other words – the “darker” are students’ parents, the less they are being endowed with “cultural capital”: “We see being White as a cultural resource that White parents unwittingly draw on in their school negotiations in this context” (1999, p. 42). Therefore, Black students’ lowered intellectual capabilities are being rather biologically then socially predetermined – according to authors, the very fact of White parents’ “whiteness” establishes objective preconditions for them to be able to facilitate their children’s educational progress, simply because these parents do not experience any discomfort on account educational process in American elementary schools being utterly euro-centric.
2. Given the fact that the factor of race affects students’ chances to succeed in academia more than the factor of social stratification, educators must be able to recognize whether the parents of a particular student posses “cultural capital”. And, in case they do not, they still need to be treated as if they do: “Any form or type of capital derives value only in relation to the specific field of interaction” (1999, p. 50).
3. The process of designing educational policies must incorporate recent discoveries in the field of genetics, which leave no doubt as to the fact that students’ racial affiliation does affect their chances to attain social prominence, despite what it is being assumed by the hawks of political correctness. Therefore, children’s ability to succeed in studying should not be referred to as “thing in itself”, but rather as a complex derivate of socially-biological specifics, affecting the process of these children’s upbringing: “Each person through the skill with which he or she activates capital or plays his or her hand, influences how individual characteristics, such as race and class, will matter in interactions with social institutions and other persons in those institutions” (1999, p. 50). Instead of adopting “color-blind” attitude towards the students in classroom, teachers must acknowledge the fact that students’ ethnic background does play an important role in shaping up their social and educational attitudes.

Given the theoretical soundness of Lareau and McNamara’s study, there can be little doubt as to the fact that, while conducting it, authors never ceased observing the Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle – that is, authors’ empirical observations, in regards to the researched subject matter, correspond rather well to study’s theoretical premise. Nowadays, it is being assumed that the academic environment in American schools implies a certain inequality in how representatives of racial minorities are being treated by educators, which in its turn, explains “ethnically unique” students’ lowered commitment to studies. However, teachers’ deep-seated racialist prejudices cannot possibly account for the fact that the dropout rates among Black and Hispanic students in American public schools often accounts for as high as 40%. In its turn, this prompted Lareau and McNamara to suggest that there must be some hidden motivations, behind non-White students’ low rates of academic successfulness. These motivations have been assumed as such that had very little to do with colored students’ social affiliation – after all, White parents’ commonly higher social status does not guarantee that their children will succeed in academia: “Even wealthy parents cannot guarantee admission to an elite university, such as Harvard, if their son or daughter has a combined SAT score of 780 and a grade point average of 2.2” (1999. p. 48). In its turn, this observation had led authors to elaborate on the subject of “cultural capital”, while using the data, collected during the course of a research, to substantiate study’s overall soundness – thus, proving themselves epistemologically proficient.

Throughout study’s entirety, authors also remained fully aware of Principle of Contextualization – the very fact that they have chosen to discuss the concept of “cultural capital” within the context of race, rather than within the context of social environment, leave no doubt about the validity of such our suggestion, because by doing it, Lareau and McNamara had unwillingly distanced themselves from currently dominant neo-Liberal political discourse, which denies the importance of race altogether: “Much of the literature has identified important class differences in parents’ and students’ attitudes or behaviors toward schools and has shown that these class differences affect children’s progress in school. As valuable as this line of research has been, these theories do not always attend to individual interactions and interventions that more accurately characterize the students’, teachers’, and parents’ interactions in schools” (1999, p. 37). In other words, while pursuing with their research, authors were not solely concerned about attaining additional academic credits, as it is often the case with today’s “progressive” sociologists and educators, but also with constructing a methodological apparatus for the teachers to effectively address the issue of academic inadequateness among colored students.

Nevertheless, it appears that “Moments of social Inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships” does not contain even a hint as to Lareau and McNamara’s awareness of Principle of Multiple Interpretations, because in it, both authors had failed at providing readers with alternative explanations as to the actual significance of a collected field-data. The fact that non-White students often have a hard time, while pursuing with studies, authors explain by the lack of “cultural capital”, on the part of their parents. In its turn, this lack is being viewed by Lareau and McNamara as such that derives out of legacy of racism in America: “The climate of racial discrimination severely undermined some parents’ trust in dominant institutions, including their children’s school” (1999, p. 41). However, there is always an alternative interpretation as to non-White parents’ lack of “cultural capital” – their reduced ability to operate with highly abstract categories (low IQ), due to specifics of their racial makeup. In their book “IQ and the wealth of nations”, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen state: “There is a positive correlation between brain size and intelligence so the race difference in brain size suggests a genetic basis for the difference in intelligence… Black infants reared by White middle class adoptive parents in the United States show no improvement in intelligence, contrary to the prediction of environmental theory and consistent with a genetic explanation of the lower average IQ of Blacks” (2002, p. 1994). Thus, it is quite impossible to confirm that the Principle of Multiple Interpretations has been thoroughly observed in Lareau and McNamara’s study.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about Principle of Suspicion, within the context of an analyzed study – there is no indication of authors being critical towards respondents’ reaction to the presented questions. Apparently, Lareau and McNamara were not concerned about receiving honest replies from the respondents, as much as they were concerned about providing respondents with emotional comfort, during the course of an empirical part of their study: “A Black graduate research assistant conducted several interviews with Black families” (1999, p. 40). In other words – from the very beginning of their research project, Lareau and McNamara were firmly convinced that the opinions of Black parents represented an undisputed truth-value, which is why authors thought of their task as such that is being solely concerned with extracting these opinions, without much attention being paid to ensuring the objectiveness of interviewing process.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this paper can be summarized as follows: despite the fact that the authors of both qualitative studies had proven their ability to choose in favor of a proper methodology, while conducting a qualitative research, they nevertheless had failed at endowing their studies with an aura of intellectual integrity, which would have been the case if authors’ academic careers did not depend on their willingness to conform to the dogmas of political correctness. It appears that authors had consciously chosen in favor of stressing out the ethical aspects of their studies’ implications, instead of defining these implications’ metaphysical essence, so that studies’ conclusions would sound sophistically-innovative. In its turn this explains both studies’ low practical value – after all, the “legacy of racism” cannot possibly be held accountable for the full spectrum of educational problems in today’s multicultural classroom.

Bibliography

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London, Falmer Press.

Christensen, P & James, A 2008, Research with children: Perspectives and Practices. London, Routledge.

Clough, P 2002, Narratives and fictions in educational research. Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Cresswell, J 2008, Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. London, Sage.

Crotty, M 1998, The foundations of social research. Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London, Sage.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y 2003, Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. London, Sage.

Gadamer, H 1962, ‘The hermeneutic circle. In Alcoff, L. (ed). Epistemology: The big questions. London, Blackwell Publishers.

Hammersley, M 1993, ‘Research and ‘anti-racism’: The case of Peter Foster and his critics’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 429-448.

Hammersley, M 2007, ‘The issue of quality in qualitative research’, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 287–305.

Klein, H & Myers, M 1999, ‘A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems’. MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 67-94.

Lareau, A & McNamara, E 1999, ‘Moments of social Inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships’, Sociology of Education, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 37-53

Lynn, R & Vanhanen, T 2002, IQ and the wealth of nations, Westport, CT., Greenwood Publishing Group.

McCluskey, G 2008, ‘Exclusion from school: What can ‘included’ pupils tell us?’. British Educational Research Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 447-466.

Pring, R 2004, Philosophy of Educational Research (2 ed.). London, Continuum.

Sesardic, N 2000, ‘Philosophy of science that ignores science: Race, IQ and heritability’. Philosophy of Science, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 580-602.

Willington, J 2000, Educational Research; Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. London, Continuum.