28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
International Schooling and Social Stratification in China’s Greater Bay Area
Ewan Wright, Anne Tang
Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China)
Presenting Author: Wright, Ewan
Introduction
The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) has emerged as an ‘education hub’ for international schooling, broadly defined here as schools offering international curricula at least partly in English outside an English-speaking country. In 2022, there were 168 international schools with 80,565 students and 11,458 staff across the GBA region (ISC Research, 2022). International schooling was traditionally associated with education for expatriate families (Hayden, 2016). One of the main social groups attending these schools was an affluent, cosmopolitan, and globally mobile social class of highly educated professionals, that is, the ‘Global Middle-Class’ (Ball & Nikita, 2014; Beach et al., 2021; Wright & Lee, 2019). However, the demographics of international schools are changing. The greatest demand in China and elsewhere has been from a ‘local’ base of middle-class families seeking an internationalised education that offers a pathway to overseas higher education and/or to ‘escape’ the local education system (Bunnell, 2020; Poole, 2020; Wright et al., 2022). Kim and Mobrand (2019) describe this pattern as ‘stealth marketisation’ in that the growth of an international schooling market for local families has happened without much fanfare or public discourse. Put differently, a growing number of local middle-class parents in China are capitalising on the changing landscape of international schooling. Nonetheless, there has been limited research into the implications of this change for social stratification in education.
We conducted a multi-site case study of five international schools in the GBA that primarily serve local students. Drawing on Brown’s (e.g., 2000) positional conflict theory, we had two objectives. First, uncover the motivations of local families for sending their children to international schools, experiences of attending an international school, and students’ post-high school trajectories, focusing on if and how international schools provide a pathway to join the Global Middle-Class. Second, consider the impacts of international schooling on social stratification. Overall, we sought answers to the question: ‘What are the roles of international schooling in (re)producing the Global Middle-Class in the GBA?’.
Framework
The framework was positional conflict theory (e.g., Brown, 2000, 2022; Kim, 2016). The approach is grounded in neo-Weberian notions of social closure that reject ideas of an open and fair contest within education. We move the analysis beyond the confines of the nation to consider the potential for competition on a global scale to join a privileged Global Middle-Class who are separate from national class structures. We apply Brown’s (2000) conceptualisation of three types of exclusion and inclusion – ‘Market’, Membership’, ‘Meritocracy’ – to investigate how local middle-class families mobilise resources to ‘get ahead’ in the race for class advantage through international schooling. Specifically, we examine if and how international schooling may create new forms of advantage for local students in terms of (re)producing a Global Middle-Class, especially in comparison to their peers in the local education system.
First, ‘Market’ rule is based on the price mechanism regulating the demand and restricting supply, including the cost of attending an international school (e.g., school fees). Second, the ‘Membership’ rule highlights group membership, demarcating eligibility based on socially-ascribed attributes. We consider how the international school experience may cultivate particular identities aligned with the Global Middle-Class (e.g., cosmopolitan worldviews, English proficiency, global networks) that are distinct from other local students. Third, the ‘Meritocracy’ rule is based on individual achievement. We explore how international schooling may present advantages to students in developing abilities and credentials, especially for elite higher education as a crucial entry point into the Global Middle-Class. Overall, we apply Brown’s (2000) positional conflict theory to illuminate the implications of expanding international schooling for class (re)production and social stratification in the GBA’s expanding international schooling hub.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research context was the GBA in Southern China. Encompassing nine major cities in Guangdong Province as well as Hong Kong and Macau, the region holds geo-political significance as one of East Asia’s most globally integrated and rapidly developing economies, standing at the forefront of China’s rising position in the world (State Council, 2019). The metropolitan centres in the GBA have witnessed a proliferation of international schools (Wright et al., 2022). To investigate the impact on social stratification, the research team conducted a multi-site case study of five international schools that primarily serve local students: two in Guangdong Province, two in Hong Kong, and one in Macau. The research focused on high schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, one of the most popular curricula offered by international schools worldwide.
The research team undertook one-to-one interviews with the school principal, teachers, students, and parents between January and December 2022. We purposefully targeted final-year students, so they could reflect back on their international schooling and look forward towards their post-high school futures. The interviews were semi-structured, lasted approximately one hour each, and were conducted in the language preferred by the participant (English, Cantonese, or Mandarin). The interviews covered (1) international school choice, (2) international school experiences, (3) internationalised aspects of education, (4) preparation for higher education, (5) identities and worldviews, and (6) post-high school plans. After the interviews, the student participants completed a survey to gather information on their family background and confirm their post-high school plans.
The final sample included five school principals, 25 teachers, 51 students, and 25 parents. Each interview was transcribed and translated into English if required. As of January 2023, the research team are qualitatively analysing the interview data. ‘First cycle coding’ is being applied to generate codes as initial labels that assign symbolic meaning to the interview data. Afterwards, ‘pattern coding’ will group the first-cycle codes into broader themes or threads to tie together different parts of the interview data (see Miles et al., 2014). During the analytical process, we are seeking to illuminate the role of international schooling as a class strategy, especially considering if and how international schooling provides a pipeline to the Global Middle-Class. The analysis also aims to illuminate potential tensions, challenges, or limitations of international schooling. The next section briefly reports our initial findings, which will be discussed in more detail at the conference if the proposal is accepted.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe participants perceived international schooling as fundamentally different from local schools. A key motivation for attending an international school was a more internationalised education that would provide positional advantages for their futures. For many, this involved a pathway into an affluent, cosmopolitan, and mobile Global Middle-Class, which was perceived as blocked through the local education system.
The findings demonstrated how expanding international schooling for local students creates a new layer of social stratification. First, for ‘Market’ rules, international schooling was limited by economic barriers: high fees, schools in expensive neighbourhoods, and admission practices favouring students with overseas exposure and advanced English proficiency. Second, the participants described international schooling experiences as cultivating a globalised identity through worldviews, interests, and values beyond the nation and a capacity to ‘get along’ with others from diverse cultural backgrounds. From this perspective, the experience was aligned with cosmopolitan sensibilities for Global Middle-Class ‘Membership’. Third, for the ‘Meritocratic’ rule, international schooling provided privileged access to global higher education. Nearly all students planned to enter elite overseas universities that may offer a springboard to Global Middle-Class careers. The perceived advantages were not only the credential but a broader spectrum of talents via extracurricular pursuits (study trips, competitions, societies) to support applications.
Nonetheless, the findings highlighted tensions in international schooling. The participants perceived barriers to nationally-oriented futures in China related to rising nationalism and growing mistrust of the West (e.g., Weiss, 2019). They noted societal perceptions that international school students are ‘rich, lazy, arrogant’, lacking in Mandarin proficiency, and uncritically accepting of Western values. Consequently, international school students may face social closure in national class structures, underscoring evidence of career difficulties faced by Chinese returnees from Western universities (Xiong & Mok, 2020). Overall, the findings highlight the growing societal impact of international schooling, which warrants further research.
ReferencesBall, S. J., & Nikita, D. P. (2014). The global middle class and school choice: A cosmopolitan sociology. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(17), 81-93.
Beech, J., Koh, A., Maxwell, C., Yemini, M., Tucker, K., & Barrenechea, I. (2021). ‘Cosmopolitan start-up’capital: Mobility and school choices of global middle class parents. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(4), 527-541.
Brown, P. (2000). The globalization of positional competition? Sociology, 34(4), 633-653.
Brown, P. (2022). Higher education, credentialism, and social mobility. In J. E. Côté & S. Pickard (Eds). Routledge Handbook of the Sociology of Higher Education (pp. 351-362). Routledge.
Bunnell, T. (2020). The continuous growth and development of ‘International Schooling’: The notion of a ‘transitionary phase’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(5), 764-768.
Hayden, M. (2016). Institutional Interpretations of International Education in National Contexts. In Hayden, M., Thompson, J., & Bunnell, T. (Eds). SAGE Library of Educational Thought and Practice: International Education (pp. i-xiv). London: SAGE Publications.
ISC Research (2022). Data on international schools. https://iscresearch.com/data/
Kim, J. K. (2016). Global cultural capital and global positional competition: International graduate students’ transnational occupational trajectories. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 30-50.
Kim, H. J., & Mobrand, E. (2019). Stealth marketisation: How international school policy is quietly challenging education systems in Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(3), 310-323.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Poole, A. (2020). Decoupling Chinese internationalised schools from normative constructions of the international school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(3), 447-454.
State Council. (2019). Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hongkong- Macao Greater Bay Area. https://www.bayarea.gov.hk/filemanager/en/share /pdf/Outline_Development_Plan.pdf
Weiss, J. C. (2019). How hawkish is the Chinese public? Another look at “rising nationalism” and Chinese foreign policy. Journal of Contemporary China, 28(119), 679-695.
Wright, E., & Lee, M. (2019). Re/producing the global middle class: International Baccalaureate alumni at ‘world-class’ universities in Hong Kong. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 40(5), 682-696.
Wright, E., Ma, Y., & Auld, E. (2022). Experiments in being global: The cosmopolitan nationalism of international schooling in China. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(2), 236-249.
Xiong, W., & Mok, K. H. (2020). Critical reflections on mainland China and Taiwan overseas returnees’ job searches and career development experiences in the rising trend of anti-globalisation. Higher Education Policy, 33(3), 413-436.
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
Families vs State: One World, Regional Worlds, or Partisan Worlds of Educational Authority?
Anja Giudici1, Micha Germann2
1Newcastle University, United Kingdom; 2University of Bath, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Giudici, Anja
The distribution of educational authority between families and the state is a fundamental, and fundamentally contentious, topic of modern education. According to theorists, whether parents have a natural right to determine the scope and nature of their children’s education, and the extent to which states are justified to limit this right in the interest of either children or society, is one of the core normative dilemmas of democratic education (Barry 2001; Gutmann 1999).
Historically, opinions were split along partisan lines (Ansell & Lindvall 2021). Challenging the educational authority of parents (and churches) was an integral element of liberals’ quest for more equal and democratic societies. The resistance to this program, in turn, was fundamental in shaping the mobilisation of the modern conservative movement. The conflict over educational authority therefore constitutes a foundational moment that shaped both the emergence modern party systems (Lipset & Rokkan 1967; Kalyvas 1996) and regional variation in the institutionalisation of education systems.
The relevance, and partisan nature, of the debate over educational authority in the period leading to the establishment of modern welfare states are undisputed. The same cannot be said for the more recent decades, which have been characterised first by the expansion (1960s-1990s) and then by the retrenchment of welfare states (1990s-…). Some educational sociologists describe this as a period in which global norms and a-political approaches to education erased partisan and regional variations in educational views (Plank & Boyd 1994; Meyer, Kamens, Benavot 1991). Similarly, some political scientists argue that, especially since the 1980s, an inter-partisan consensus has emerged on the need to expand formalised (i.e, state-regulated) education (Jakobi 2011).
A second set of studies contests these findings. Several authors highlight that some of the most controversial debates of post-WWII education have revolved around educational authority, with issues such as the support (or opposition) to vouchers, religious schooling, or choice increasingly being integrated into dominant ideological programs (Apple 2006; Gingrich 2011). Others contend that the support for expanding formalised education is not as inter-partisan as it might seem at first sight. While left-wing parties are more positive towards increasing provision and regulation of compulsory education, the right’s focus on higher and further education largely targets adults, thus protecting family authority over children (Ansell 2010) – with some regional variation (Busemeyer 2015).
The first view suggests that, after 1945, the conflict over educational authority has essentially lost its relevance and partisan nature, whereas for the second, educational authority continues to constitute a contested dimension of educational politics and discourse. So far, however, we lacked the empirical data to discriminate between these two views and therefore to systematically answer questions such as: is the family vs state dimension still a salient issue of the contemporary political discourse over education? If it is, can we observe varying partisan-ideological and/or regional approaches to educational authority, or have these given way to an inter-partisan “wide-ranging societal support of education” (Jakobi 2011, 190)?
Our paper draws on a novel dataset to systematically investigate how parties, as the main representatives of contemporary political-ideological movements, have positioned themselves in the family vs state debate over educational authority since 1960 in 20 Western democracies (including 16 European democracies).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study investigates variation and change in the main historical party families’ discourse over educational authority since 1960. We define educational authority as the extent to which families, respectively the state, should determine: (1) how much formalised (i.e., state-regulated) education children must attend (extent); (2) the kind of education they must attend (kind); (3) individual pathways and exposure to educational content (individual exposure). Since we are interested in the age in which individuals are considered unable to protect their own interests, we focus on the debate concerning ages 0-18 and ignore discussions about state-involvement in further and tertiary education.
We use two methods to systematically analyse parties’ discourse over educational authority. Both are based on an original database that we call FamStat. This is a text database that includes all sentences related to educational authority as defined earlier mentioned in the electoral manifestoes and programs of the main liberal, conservative, left-wing (social-democratic and communist) as well as far-right parties in 20 Western democracies from 1960 to 2022. We code and analyse this data in two ways.
First, to systematically explore variation in views on educational authority across time, regions, and parties we perform a quantitative correlational analysis. For this purpose, we code, for each manifesto, whether it supports more family or more state involvement in regulating the extent of formalised education (extending/limiting period of formalised education), kind of formalised education (more/less involvement of families in decision-making and curriculum content), and individual exposure to formalised education (more/less rights for families with regards to school choice, private provision, and curricular exceptions). We then match this data with information on political ideology, government participation, and ownership of private schooling to assess potential drivers of systematic change and variation.
Second, we use qualitative content analysis to delve deeper into the meaning of partisan discourse on educational authority. This part of the study explores which specific topics are being politicised and the discursive nature of this politicisation. Relying on framing theory (Snow 2004), a specific focus is put on the justifications parties provide to support their views (e.g., labour market needs, social cohesion, equality) and how these relate to dominant political ideologies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsChildren are typically considered unable to protect their own interests, including their educational interests. This project explores to what extent political ideologies (and regional variations thereof) still shape views on whom should act in their lieu when it comes to education: their family and or the state.
Preliminary findings show that there is no one world of educational authority discourse. Unlike in the 19th century, parties now do largely agree that the state should be given a role either in providing and regulating education. Regardless of their ideological affiliation, parties also endorse the need for the state to ensure that schools convey specific types of content (and norms) to the next generations – be this religious education, national pride, or tolerance for minorities.
Other dimensions of educational authority, however, continue to be highly contested, and highly partisan. Ongoing – and increasing – disagreement exists on the need to expand formalised education to both older and younger children, with conservative parties recently joining far-right parties’ scepticism in this regard. Parties are even more divided when it comes to parents’ rights to determine the kind of education their own child is exposed to. Here, a more communitarian left-wing position opposes more individualistic and family-centred conservative views, with liberal and far-right parties taking a middle position. This suggests that ideologies still play a role in shaping educational views – and resulting education systems and worlds.
ReferencesAnsell, Ben W. 2010. From the Ballot to the Blackboard. The Redistributive Political Economy of Education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ansell, Ben W, and Johannes Lindvall. 2021. Inward Conquest. The Political Origins of Modern Public Services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Apple, Michael W. 2006. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Busemeyer, Marius R. 2014. Skills and Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gingrich, Jane. 2011. Making Markets in the Welfare State. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gutmann, Amy. 1999. Democratic Education. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jakobi, Anja P. 2011. “Political Parties and the Institutionalisation of Education: A Comparative Analysis of Party Manifestos.” Comparative Education Review 55 (2): 189–209.
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1996. The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. New York: Cornell University Press.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan, eds. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignment. New York: Free Press.
Meyer, John W, David H Kamens, and Aaron Benavot, eds. 1992. School Knowledge for the Masses. London: Falmer Press.
Plank, David N, and William Lowe Boyd. 1994. “Antipolitics, Education, and Institutional Choice: The Flight from Democracy.” American Educational Research Journal 31 (2): 263–81.
Snow, David A. 2004. “Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A Snow, Sarah A Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 380–412. London: Blackwell Publishing.
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
WITDRAWN- Small Worlds. Homeschooling and the Modern Family
Eric Mangez, Alice Tilman
UCLouvain, Belgium
Presenting Author: Mangez, Eric
It has become a truism to even mention it: the COVID 19 pandemic altered every single aspect of our lives globally – our work and leisure time, our rights and duties, our family lives, even our intimate relationships were impacted. One of the most noticeable perturbations has been the closing down of schools and the confinement of families inside their homes. A great many parents, those with young children most evidently, were suddenly assigned the task of organizing and supporting learning activities for their progeniture, while sometimes simultaneously working from home themselves. Unprepared, burdened with the new role forced onto them or disturbed by the virtual presence of teachers in their living room, many soon longed for the reopening of schools.
A small group chose instead to continue homeschooling their children even after the end of their confinements, thus contributing to raising the numbers of homeschoolers in many countries of the world. Though drastic in some cases, the increase resulting from the pandemic merely accelerated a pre-existing, more profound and earlier trend. Beginning in the 1970s in the USA and eventually arising in most industrialized countries of the world, the homeschooling movement has been growing and extending its scope ever since its first appearance.
In an attempt to better understand the sociological dynamics underpinning this increasingly global phenomenon, we examine them through the lenses of systems theory. We first discusses the turn to modernity, paying specific attention to the emergence of the modern family. We then reflect on complications arising from the functional differentiation of society and emphasize two potentially problematic dynamics – reductive and expansive – typical of modernity. Next, we examine how such dynamics play out in the specific case of the relationship between the family and school education. We then explore whether and why schooling may be perceived as a risk, and homeschooling as a solution, by some families.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedHomeschooling is typically practiced in these contexts with a highly developed educational system. The phenomenon first emerged in the USA where it has been growing regularly since the 1970s, and later expanded in most developed countries across the world, notably in Europe, where it is now growing at a faster rate (Tilman & Mangez 2021). Its expansion can therefore not be attributed to the lack of a formal system or to its underdevelopment. Instead it must be put in relation to the development of schooling itself. It develops from, and expands together with, education systems.
In order to better understand the phenomenon, we interviewed about 50 homeschooling families in Europe and in the USA. Qualitative structural analysis supported the analysis of the data. From the perspective of these families, going to schoolschool is not without risks. By attending school, one “is confronted for the first time and suddenly with a society that is no longer negotiated by the family” (Luhmann and Schorr 2000, 31). The differentiation of education and its organization in classrooms allows for the creation of a peculiar social order, strictly distinct from its simultaneously operating and turbulent environment. What children learn from their teachers and the ways in which they might be affected by being socialized with their peers escape family control (Tyrell and Vanderstraeten 2007). Luhmann’s observation (2000, 2006) that the individual has no choice, if she wants to participate in modern society, but to place her trust in systems and organizations to which she has in fact “ceded control” thus proves all the more relevant for school education, and helps understand why some families cease to trust the system and its organizations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA close examination of the relations between formal education and the private sphere of the modern family reveals the various ways through which school requirements increasingly penetrate family life and helps in turn to explain the need that some families now feel to gain back control.
Relying on systems theory makes it possible to identify the “form of the problem” (i.e. conflicting expansive-reductive systems) which is at work in these situations independently of its actual content (education and the family). In turn, it becomes possible to consider that the same form of problem or dynamic – Teubner (2011) calls it a dynamic of “regime-collisions” – might be at work with other systems and give rise to other social movements. To the extent that such movements react to highly advanced self-referential systems by ceasing to place their trust in their organizations (schools, hospitals, firms, courts, political parties, etc.), they will often take on the appearance of a retreat from modernity. The rise of self-referential and conflicting systemic perspectives in the domain of education or in other domains (the economy, health, law or politics, for example) tends to generate distrust of systems and their institutions and the emergence of particular “lifestyles” characterized by a form of withdrawal from the established systems.
To conclude, we suggest understanding the homeschooling movement as a specific case within a broader range of social movements through which modernity reacts to its own self-made problems.
ReferencesAriès, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. New York: Knopf.
Ball, S. J. (2000). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society? The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1-23.
Gaither, M. (2017). Homeschool: An American History. Revised second edition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kunzman, R. (2017). Homeschooling and religious fundamentalism. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(1), 17-28.
Lasch, C. (1977). Heaven in a heartless world. New York: Basic.
Luhmann, N. (1969). Normen in soziologischer Perspektive. Soziale Welt, 20(1), 28-48.
Luhmann, N. (1986). Love as passion: The codification of intimacy, Harvard University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Sozialsystem Familie. In Soziologische Aufklärung 5 (pp. 196-217). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems, Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N (1997) Globalization or world society: How to conceive of modern society? International Review of Sociology 7(1): 67–79.
Luhmann N., (2000), “Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives”, Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, 6, 94-107.
Luhmann, N. (2006), La confiance un mécanisme de réduction de la complexité sociale, Paris, Economica.
Luhmann, N. (2021). Education: Forming the Life Course. European Educational Research Journal, 20(6), 719-728.
Luhmann, N. & Schorr, K. E. (2000). Problems of Reflection in the System of Education (R. A. Neuwirth, Trans.). Münster: Waxmann.
Mangez, E., & Vanden Broeck, P. (2021). Worlds apart? On Niklas Luhmann and the sociology of education. European Educational Research Journal, 20(6), 705-718.
Murphy, J., Gaither, M., & Gleim, C. E. (2017). The calculus of departure. The Wiley handbook of home education, 86-120.
Teubner, G. (2011). Constitutionalizing polycontexturality. Social & Legal Studies, 20(2), 210-229.
Teubner, G. (1999). Drei persönliche Begegnungen. In: Rudolf Stichweh (Hrsg.) Niklas Luhmann - Wirkungen eines Theoretikers. Transcript, Bielefeld, 19-25.
Teubner, G. (2021). The constitution of non-monetary surplus values. Social & Legal Studies, 30(4), 501-521.
Tilman, A. & Mangez, E. (2021). L’instruction à domicile comme phénomène global. Éducation et sociétés, 45, 123-141.
Tyrell, H. (1987): Die ‚Anpassung‘ der Familie an die Schule. In: Jürgen Oelkers and Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (eds.) Pädagogik, Erziehungswissenschaft und Systemtheorie. Weinheim / Basel : Beltz, 102-124.
Vanden Broeck, P. (2020a). Beyond school: Transnational differentiation and the shifting form of education in world society. Journal of Education Policy 35(6): 836–855.
Vanden Broeck, P. (2020b). The problem of the present: On simultaneity, synchronisation and transnational education projects. Educational Philosophy and Theory 52(6): 664–75.
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
When Education Meets Environmental Activism: Analysis of the Emergence of the “Outdoor Schools” Movement within French-Speaking Belgium
Benjamin Mazuin, Xavier Dumay, Virginie März
UCLouvain, Belgium
Presenting Author: Mazuin, Benjamin
For several decades, efforts to transform the grammar of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994) have proved to be little fruitful, producing at best marginal transformations (Mehta & Datnow, 2020). Today, however, we can observe in many countries that the omnipresent grammar of schooling is at the core of major debates regarding the future of education (Mehta & Datnow, 2020). Two tendencies can explain the rise of attempts to alter the conventional grammar of schooling. First, in the current context characterized by health, economic, ecological and social crises, concerns about our future and future generations have given rise to new educational imaginaries focused on the common good (Mehta, 2021; Taylor, 2017). They disrupt the taken-for-granted grammar of schooling through their particular philosophy, organization, governance structures, curriculum, pedagogy or type of students. Secondly, this tendency is also the result of new institutional pathways at the crossroads of the school institution and social movements, leading to a re-imagining of learning spaces and purposes (Taylor, 2017). As a result, the boundaries of organizations—i.e., what should or shouldn’t be incorporated—are increasingly permeable to issues that go beyond them. Normative references and routines are no longer self-evident, and new partnerships are being created between organizations in order to assume the diversification of their missions (Devos, 2020). One of the most pressing contemporary challenges facing humanity is the preservation of the natural environment and the mitigation of anthropogenic impacts on the planet’s ecosystems. Hence, individual actors and organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of incorporating environmental concerns into their operations and decision-making (Dunlap & Brulle, 2015). As such, a new level of responsibility is required of educators whose job it is to prepare children to meet these profound challenges (Taylor, 2017).
In this paper presentation, we will analyze the emerging reality of “outdoor schools” as an attempt to reconfigure the grammar of schooling. Outdoor schools propose an education “outside the walls” by practicing a nature-based pedagogy that aims to rethink the place of humans within ecosystems (Wagnon & Martel, 2022). However, outdoor schools are emerging and still quite marginal, diversified initiatives. Indeed, environmental issues aren’t self-evident within schools, just as there is no consensus on the best way to educate about the environment. Traditionally external to the school institution, these issues are today imported and shaped by social movements that make the ecological transition a driver for changes in society, including institutionalized fields such as the school field.
In order to understand the institutionalization of alternative educational models, and in particular the outdoor schools, we make use of an integrated conceptual framework, combining theories of new institutionalism and the sociology of social movements. This interdisciplinarity is necessary to understand and characterize “interstitial” spaces (Furnari, 2014; Zietsma et al., 2017) where environmentalist activism meets school institution, and whose cognitions and logics are constructed by a group of central actors (school actors) and a group of very heterogeneous actors who are also embedded in other fields (e.g., companies, associations, science, etc.). Moreover, an approach that more strongly integrates social movements into the dynamics of institutional change is needed to better understand when and how 1) fields are constituted around multiple and competing logics; and 2) multiple logics and contradictions “fuel” field-level change and the creation of new pathways (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedEmpirically, our study explores both social and cognitive dimensions of a potential field’s formation by tracing the evolution of representations and issues marked in discourses, and link them to groups of actors competing or collaborating to shape the “interstitial field” (including institutional entrepreneurs, collectives, associations, organizations, etc.). It will be circumscribed to the study of the field in the French-speaking community of Belgium, while taking into account its international scope. We will use multiple sources of online data, using media coverage (articles, press releases, social media, websites, etc.) and interviews with key actors until data saturation.
Regarding the social dimension, a sociocentric and mixed network analysis will allow us to study the structure and history of the interstitial field (Eloire et al., 2011). A mapping of the individual and organizational actors involved will be carried out, with particular attention to the interstitial actors (e.g., ecological education associations, platforms for the professional development of ecological education systems). By means of questionnaires and quantitative techniques (such as web crawler), network analysis will investigate structural properties of networks, such as their composition, strength and density (Saunders, 2007). Qualitative network analysis, using semi-structured interviews with key informants, will allow us to understand how actors characterize the structural aspects of the network and to explain how actors and organizations come to occupy certain positions (Crossley, 2010).
Regarding the cognitive dimension, a topic modelling analysis will allow us to identify the discourses within the field. We will use content analyses of the documents presenting the missions and objectives of the main actors involved, aiming to identify the diagnostic and “prognostic” frameworks linking the climate crisis to education (Hannigan & Casasnovas, 2020). Our analysis will distinguish between two distinct elements in the discursive interactions of an emerging field (Augustine & King, 2017): the shared understanding of the issues that matter in the field (discursive coherence) and the shared opinion about these central issues (discursive agreement).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe combined analyses of the network of actors and topics will allow us to identify 1) the multiple populations within the “interstitial field” and the relationships they establish between them; 2) how the issues are framed, and 3) the interrelationships between the social and cognitive dimensions of the field, i.e., how the diversity of these connected populations and the competing institutional logics potentially influence the definition of problems.
Our preliminary results tend to show the heterogeneity and horizontality of the actors within this interstitial space, challenging the dichotomy of the theoretical categories “insiders” and “challengers” (Schneiberg & Lounsbury, 2017). Indeed, this interstitial space brings together a diversity of actors who can all be considered activists, to varying degrees, interrelated by a common object that is outdoor education. Moreover, our ongoing analysis tends to show that cognitions and networks are interrelated. Indeed, this population diversity within the interstitial field accounts for the multiple forms of rationality; these inform the decision-making of the field’s actors and induce struggle and contestation. The framing of what “outdoor schools” are, and the inclusion or exclusion of issues, continually redefine the boundaries of the interstitial field. They are thus influenced by the actors involved and also influence the flow of entry and exit into the field.
ReferencesAugustine, G., & King, B. G. (2017). Behind the Scenes : A Backstage Look at Field Formation within Sustainability in Higher Education. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 15788.
Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social Activism In and Around Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 671‑727.
Crossley, N. (2010). The Social World of the Network. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Elements in Social Network Analysis. Sociologica, 1, 0‑0.
Devos, L. (2020). Le partenariat entre écoles et acteurs éducatifs externes. Différenciation et adaptation dans un contexte d’expansion éducative et organisationnelle. Les cahiers de recherche du GIRSEF, 122.
Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (Éds.). (2015). Climate change and society : Sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Eloire, F., Penalva Icher, É., & Lazega, E. (2011). Application de l’analyse des réseaux complets à l’échelle interorganisationnelle : Apports et limites. Terrains & travaux, n° 19(2), 77‑98.
Furnari, S. (2014). Interstitial Spaces : Microinteraction Settings and the Genesis of New Practices Between Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 439‑462.
Hannigan, T. R., & Casasnovas, G. (2020). New Structuralism and Field Emergence : The Co-constitution of Meanings and Actors in the Early Moments of Social Impact Investing. In C. W. J. Steele, T. R. Hannigan, V. L. Glaser, M. Toubiana, & J. Gehman (Éds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (p. 147‑183). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Mehta, J. (2021). Reimagining American Education : Possible Futures. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(5), 54‑57.
Mehta, J., & Datnow, A. (2020). Changing the Grammar of Schooling : An Appraisal and a Research Agenda. American Journal of Education.
Saunders, C. (2007). Using Social Network Analysis to Explore Social Movements : A Relational Approach. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 227‑243.
Schneiberg, M., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer, The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (p. 281‑310). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Taylor, A. (2017). Beyond stewardship : Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene. Environmental Education Research, 23(10), 1448‑1461.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The « Grammar » of Schooling : Why Has It Been So Hard to Change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453‑479.
Wagnon, S., & Martel, C. (2022). L’école dans et avec la nature : La révolution pédagogique du XXIe siècle. (ESF, Éd.).
Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or Fields? Building the Scaffolding for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391‑450.
|
