- Teks
- Sejarah
CHAPTER 5Structural Effects in Educ
CHAPTER 5
Structural Effects in Education
A History of an Idea
ROBERT DREEBEN
There are strong reasons to believe that schools have an impact on the students who attend
them. How large and what kind of impact and how to formulate and interpret it are questions
that have drawn the attention of sociologists of education for several decades. This area of
inquiry has roots in the general sociological question of how to understand the influence of
social structure on individual conduct. The school effects example of this question has relied
heavily on a particular kind of structural effects argument originating with Durkheim and has
undergone conceptual elaboration since his time. In treating the problem of school effects, the
position I adopt places strong emphasis on school organization because the impact of schooling
on students occurs in an organizational setting, and much of the research explicitly or
implicitly takes that into account. This emphasis does not deny the importance of influences
whose origins lie outside of organizations, but it does explain why I do not focus on them.
Structural effects arguments are explanatory. They deal with structural arrangements,
their effects, and the mechanisms by which one influences the other; mechanisms are the heart
of the explanation. Explanatory arguments require selection among substantive ideas and evidence
about social phenomena, in the present case about what is organizationally important,
and among methods—design, logic, and measurement. These two considerations, substance
and method, although analytically distinct, are not wholly so in reality. There is tension between
them because some substantive formulations overburden the available methods, and
some methods limit the range of testable substantive ideas.
The problems that school organization, schooling, and their effects pose for explanatory
arguments include the following: capturing the work activities of teachers, school officials,
ROBERT DREEBEN • Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Handbook of the Sociology of Education, edited by Maureen T. Hallinan. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York, 2000.
107
108 Robert Dreeben
and students; the opportunities and constraints governed by time schedules, hierarchical and
collegial arrangements, spatial settings, and curricular agendas; the relation of school and
district organization to such lateral entities as the labor market for teachers and patterned
parental interest organized in communities and in households; and patterns of action and interaction
occurring in the context of these considerations. It has been easy to devise defensible
indications of school outcomes in individual students, harder to identify appropriate structural
properties of schools, and daunting to conceptualize and determine the mechanisms in play at
points where structure and individuals come together in the ongoing work of schooling. Sociologists
have approached school effects problems from a variety of perspectives using a variety
of methodologies, but it is not my purpose to review them. This chapter is about the history
of an idea—structural effects—that, I maintain, has held a pre-eminent position in efforts to
understand schooling.
The burden of the argument is to show how this formulation, derived from Durkheim,
flourished in the intellectual environment of the Columbia Department of Sociology from the
late 1930s to the late 1950s, became transformed over the next 10 years in Coleman's work,
and subsequently achieved long-term durability despite evidence of its limitations. The structural
effects formulation, although not unknown in other areas of sociology (e.g., Berelson,
Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Bulmer, 1984; Davis, 1961, 1966; Kerr & Siegel, 1954; Key,
1950; Kobrin, 1951; Lieberson, 1958; Schwartz, 1975; Shaw, 1924; Shaw & McKay, 1942;
Stinchcombe, 1959; Stolzenberg, 1978), does not appear to be as dominant elsewhere as in
studies of schools.
Two studies stand out for having made the structural effects formulation explicit. In 1959,
Wilson published "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High School
Boys." His analytic scheme, which treated social class at the individual and school levels,
became paradigmatic in the treatment of how schools influence aspirations, attainment, and
other life chances. Blau published "Structural Effects" (1960) in the same journal a few months
later. Both articles employed the same structural effects formulation but extracted it from
strikingly different origins. Blau's (1955, 1960) study derived from a Columbia sociology
tradition concerned with structural analysis; Wilson's came from work on stratification and
the social psychology of group influences on individuals. Blau expressed his formulation generally,
to apply beyond his study of public service agencies (1955); Wilson's dealt just with
schools. The principle underlying both was that net of the effect of an individual characteristic
believed to shape a pattern of conduct, a group property based on the aggregation of that
characteristic influences that conduct.
Wilson (1959) opened with three propositions. First, social classes differ according to
their value systems, a claim based on Hyman's study, "The Value Systems of Different Classes"
(1953), which argued that individuals tend to have value preferences related to their social
class membership, and that classes can be characterized according to their values. This position
held currency at the time, informing studies of class-based and ethnic-based patterns of
child rearing (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Miller & Swanson, 1958; Strodtbeck, 1958). Wilson
saw individual values originating in the value climate of school society (p. 836), based on
the class composition of residential neighborhoods, providing "a significant normative reference
influencing the educational aspirations of boys from varying strata . . . " (p. 837; my
italics). Second, according to early studies of status attainment (Kahl, 1953; Sewell, Haller, &
Straus, 1957), the educational aspirations of students are related to their social origins. Third,
consistent with evidence adduced by Asch (1952), Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), and Newcomb
(1958), individual conduct and judgment are shaped by hierarchic pressures from superordinates
structural Effects in Education 109
and by lateral ones from peers. Together these propositions identify Wilson's position on how
schools exert normative influence on individual aspirations.
Blau's (1955,1960) view of structure was more complex and nuanced than Wilson's, and
was not limited to normative force. The logic of structural effects reasoning in both works was
identical, but the conceptual development differed. Blau drew attention to Durkheimian social
facts. He distinguished social facts based on "common values and norms embodied in a culture
or subculture" from those based on "networks of social relations" (1960, p. 78) expressed
in social interactions organized around individuals' social positions and subgroup memberships.
Wilson (1959) expressed structure narrowly as normative climate, with his infusion of
school structure with normative meaning being entirely speculative. Blau extended the meaning
to include social cohesiveness and networks of worker interaction, within and across levels
of hierarchy and between workers and clients, and identified through empirical observation.
THE DURKHEIMIAN TRADITION
Juxtaposing collective and individual considerations to explain conduct is central to Durkheim's
analysis of social facts: "ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and
endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him" (Durkheim, 1895/
1938, p. 3). Social facts can include, for example, systems of currency, professional practices
(p. 2), technical methods of production (p. 3), "legal and moral regulations, religious faiths,
financial systems, etc." (p. 4), and forces external to individuals that constrain their conduct.
Social facts vary from the most to the least articulated and structured (pp. 8-12). He stressed
that even though individuals act freely according to their own dispositions, their conduct in
the context of social facts showed "astonishing regularity" (p. 94).
Durkheim, (1897/1951) employed the concept of social facts in Suicide, which contains
apposite examples of structural effects reasoning; namely, a state of society, a rate of individual
conduct, and a linking mechanism. For example, he examined the impact of family
circumstances on suicide rates, taking into account sex, marital condition, the presence of
children, and age (p. 197-198). To demonstrate the causative impact of social states, he showed,
against a baseline rate among the unmarried, in the relevant age categories, how the presence
of children reduced the suicide rate among husbands and widowers with children, compared
to those without children; the same pattern held among wives and widows, with rates differing
in magnitude by sex. His explanation for the prevention of (egoistic) suicide emphasized the
integrative state of domestic society (p. 201) and "the intensity of the collective life circulating
in it" (p. 202); it discounted one based on the affectionate feelings of parents for their
children.
Durkheim (1897/1951) did not observe social integration or the events of family life
indicative of it; he conjectured about them to identify a social mechanism that linked structural
properties of families with conduct (rates of spousal and parental suicide). He applied a
similar explanatory logic to analyze varying suicide rates in geographical regions that differed
in the proportion of Catholics and Protestants and to suicide rates in the military (as well as to
other topics), demonstrating the importance of both deviance from and conformity to social
norms (e.g., the proscription against suicide in both confessions). La
Structural Effects in Education
A History of an Idea
ROBERT DREEBEN
There are strong reasons to believe that schools have an impact on the students who attend
them. How large and what kind of impact and how to formulate and interpret it are questions
that have drawn the attention of sociologists of education for several decades. This area of
inquiry has roots in the general sociological question of how to understand the influence of
social structure on individual conduct. The school effects example of this question has relied
heavily on a particular kind of structural effects argument originating with Durkheim and has
undergone conceptual elaboration since his time. In treating the problem of school effects, the
position I adopt places strong emphasis on school organization because the impact of schooling
on students occurs in an organizational setting, and much of the research explicitly or
implicitly takes that into account. This emphasis does not deny the importance of influences
whose origins lie outside of organizations, but it does explain why I do not focus on them.
Structural effects arguments are explanatory. They deal with structural arrangements,
their effects, and the mechanisms by which one influences the other; mechanisms are the heart
of the explanation. Explanatory arguments require selection among substantive ideas and evidence
about social phenomena, in the present case about what is organizationally important,
and among methods—design, logic, and measurement. These two considerations, substance
and method, although analytically distinct, are not wholly so in reality. There is tension between
them because some substantive formulations overburden the available methods, and
some methods limit the range of testable substantive ideas.
The problems that school organization, schooling, and their effects pose for explanatory
arguments include the following: capturing the work activities of teachers, school officials,
ROBERT DREEBEN • Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Handbook of the Sociology of Education, edited by Maureen T. Hallinan. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York, 2000.
107
108 Robert Dreeben
and students; the opportunities and constraints governed by time schedules, hierarchical and
collegial arrangements, spatial settings, and curricular agendas; the relation of school and
district organization to such lateral entities as the labor market for teachers and patterned
parental interest organized in communities and in households; and patterns of action and interaction
occurring in the context of these considerations. It has been easy to devise defensible
indications of school outcomes in individual students, harder to identify appropriate structural
properties of schools, and daunting to conceptualize and determine the mechanisms in play at
points where structure and individuals come together in the ongoing work of schooling. Sociologists
have approached school effects problems from a variety of perspectives using a variety
of methodologies, but it is not my purpose to review them. This chapter is about the history
of an idea—structural effects—that, I maintain, has held a pre-eminent position in efforts to
understand schooling.
The burden of the argument is to show how this formulation, derived from Durkheim,
flourished in the intellectual environment of the Columbia Department of Sociology from the
late 1930s to the late 1950s, became transformed over the next 10 years in Coleman's work,
and subsequently achieved long-term durability despite evidence of its limitations. The structural
effects formulation, although not unknown in other areas of sociology (e.g., Berelson,
Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Bulmer, 1984; Davis, 1961, 1966; Kerr & Siegel, 1954; Key,
1950; Kobrin, 1951; Lieberson, 1958; Schwartz, 1975; Shaw, 1924; Shaw & McKay, 1942;
Stinchcombe, 1959; Stolzenberg, 1978), does not appear to be as dominant elsewhere as in
studies of schools.
Two studies stand out for having made the structural effects formulation explicit. In 1959,
Wilson published "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High School
Boys." His analytic scheme, which treated social class at the individual and school levels,
became paradigmatic in the treatment of how schools influence aspirations, attainment, and
other life chances. Blau published "Structural Effects" (1960) in the same journal a few months
later. Both articles employed the same structural effects formulation but extracted it from
strikingly different origins. Blau's (1955, 1960) study derived from a Columbia sociology
tradition concerned with structural analysis; Wilson's came from work on stratification and
the social psychology of group influences on individuals. Blau expressed his formulation generally,
to apply beyond his study of public service agencies (1955); Wilson's dealt just with
schools. The principle underlying both was that net of the effect of an individual characteristic
believed to shape a pattern of conduct, a group property based on the aggregation of that
characteristic influences that conduct.
Wilson (1959) opened with three propositions. First, social classes differ according to
their value systems, a claim based on Hyman's study, "The Value Systems of Different Classes"
(1953), which argued that individuals tend to have value preferences related to their social
class membership, and that classes can be characterized according to their values. This position
held currency at the time, informing studies of class-based and ethnic-based patterns of
child rearing (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Miller & Swanson, 1958; Strodtbeck, 1958). Wilson
saw individual values originating in the value climate of school society (p. 836), based on
the class composition of residential neighborhoods, providing "a significant normative reference
influencing the educational aspirations of boys from varying strata . . . " (p. 837; my
italics). Second, according to early studies of status attainment (Kahl, 1953; Sewell, Haller, &
Straus, 1957), the educational aspirations of students are related to their social origins. Third,
consistent with evidence adduced by Asch (1952), Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), and Newcomb
(1958), individual conduct and judgment are shaped by hierarchic pressures from superordinates
structural Effects in Education 109
and by lateral ones from peers. Together these propositions identify Wilson's position on how
schools exert normative influence on individual aspirations.
Blau's (1955,1960) view of structure was more complex and nuanced than Wilson's, and
was not limited to normative force. The logic of structural effects reasoning in both works was
identical, but the conceptual development differed. Blau drew attention to Durkheimian social
facts. He distinguished social facts based on "common values and norms embodied in a culture
or subculture" from those based on "networks of social relations" (1960, p. 78) expressed
in social interactions organized around individuals' social positions and subgroup memberships.
Wilson (1959) expressed structure narrowly as normative climate, with his infusion of
school structure with normative meaning being entirely speculative. Blau extended the meaning
to include social cohesiveness and networks of worker interaction, within and across levels
of hierarchy and between workers and clients, and identified through empirical observation.
THE DURKHEIMIAN TRADITION
Juxtaposing collective and individual considerations to explain conduct is central to Durkheim's
analysis of social facts: "ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and
endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him" (Durkheim, 1895/
1938, p. 3). Social facts can include, for example, systems of currency, professional practices
(p. 2), technical methods of production (p. 3), "legal and moral regulations, religious faiths,
financial systems, etc." (p. 4), and forces external to individuals that constrain their conduct.
Social facts vary from the most to the least articulated and structured (pp. 8-12). He stressed
that even though individuals act freely according to their own dispositions, their conduct in
the context of social facts showed "astonishing regularity" (p. 94).
Durkheim, (1897/1951) employed the concept of social facts in Suicide, which contains
apposite examples of structural effects reasoning; namely, a state of society, a rate of individual
conduct, and a linking mechanism. For example, he examined the impact of family
circumstances on suicide rates, taking into account sex, marital condition, the presence of
children, and age (p. 197-198). To demonstrate the causative impact of social states, he showed,
against a baseline rate among the unmarried, in the relevant age categories, how the presence
of children reduced the suicide rate among husbands and widowers with children, compared
to those without children; the same pattern held among wives and widows, with rates differing
in magnitude by sex. His explanation for the prevention of (egoistic) suicide emphasized the
integrative state of domestic society (p. 201) and "the intensity of the collective life circulating
in it" (p. 202); it discounted one based on the affectionate feelings of parents for their
children.
Durkheim (1897/1951) did not observe social integration or the events of family life
indicative of it; he conjectured about them to identify a social mechanism that linked structural
properties of families with conduct (rates of spousal and parental suicide). He applied a
similar explanatory logic to analyze varying suicide rates in geographical regions that differed
in the proportion of Catholics and Protestants and to suicide rates in the military (as well as to
other topics), demonstrating the importance of both deviance from and conformity to social
norms (e.g., the proscription against suicide in both confessions). La
0/5000
CHAPTER 5Structural Effects in EducationA History of an IdeaROBERT DREEBENThere are strong reasons to believe that schools have an impact on the students who attendthem. How large and what kind of impact and how to formulate and interpret it are questionsthat have drawn the attention of sociologists of education for several decades. This area ofinquiry has roots in the general sociological question of how to understand the influence ofsocial structure on individual conduct. The school effects example of this question has reliedheavily on a particular kind of structural effects argument originating with Durkheim and hasundergone conceptual elaboration since his time. In treating the problem of school effects, theposition I adopt places strong emphasis on school organization because the impact of schoolingon students occurs in an organizational setting, and much of the research explicitly orimplicitly takes that into account. This emphasis does not deny the importance of influenceswhose origins lie outside of organizations, but it does explain why I do not focus on them.Structural effects arguments are explanatory. They deal with structural arrangements,their effects, and the mechanisms by which one influences the other; mechanisms are the heartof the explanation. Explanatory arguments require selection among substantive ideas and evidenceabout social phenomena, in the present case about what is organizationally important,dan di antara metode-desain, logika dan pengukuran. Pertimbangan ini dua, zatdan metode, meskipun analitis berbeda, tidak sepenuhnya begitu dalam kenyataan. Ada ketegangan antaramereka karena beberapa formulasi substantif membebani metode yang tersedia, danbeberapa metode membatasi berbagai ide-ide substantif yang diuji.Masalah-masalah yang sekolah organisasi, sekolah dan efek mereka berpose untuk jelasargumen meliputi: menangkap aktivitas kerja guru, sekolah pejabat,ROBERT DREEBEN • Departemen Pendidikan, Universitas Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637Handbook sosiologi pendidikan, disunting oleh Maureen T. Hallinan. Penerbit Kluwer akademik/pleno,New York, 2000.107108 Robert Dreebendan siswa; peluang dan kendala diatur oleh jadwal waktu, hirarkis dankolegial pengaturan, pengaturan spasial dan agenda kurikuler; hubungan antara sekolah danDistrik organisasi untuk entitas semacam itu lateral sebagai tenaga kerja pasar untuk guru dan bermotiforangtua menarik yang diselenggarakan di masyarakat dan rumah tangga; dan pola aksi dan interaksiterjadi dalam konteks pertimbangan ini. Sudah mudah untuk merancang dipertahannkanindikasi sekolah hasil secara individu siswa, lebih sulit untuk mengidentifikasi sesuai strukturalsifat dari sekolah, dan menakutkan untuk konsep dan menentukan mekanisme dalam bermain dipoin dimana struktur dan individu datang bersama-sama dalam pekerjaan sekolah yang sedang berlangsung. Sosiologhave approached school effects problems from a variety of perspectives using a varietyof methodologies, but it is not my purpose to review them. This chapter is about the historyof an idea—structural effects—that, I maintain, has held a pre-eminent position in efforts tounderstand schooling.The burden of the argument is to show how this formulation, derived from Durkheim,flourished in the intellectual environment of the Columbia Department of Sociology from thelate 1930s to the late 1950s, became transformed over the next 10 years in Coleman's work,and subsequently achieved long-term durability despite evidence of its limitations. The structuraleffects formulation, although not unknown in other areas of sociology (e.g., Berelson,Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Bulmer, 1984; Davis, 1961, 1966; Kerr & Siegel, 1954; Key,1950; Kobrin, 1951; Lieberson, 1958; Schwartz, 1975; Shaw, 1924; Shaw & McKay, 1942;Stinchcombe, 1959; Stolzenberg, 1978), does not appear to be as dominant elsewhere as instudies of schools.Two studies stand out for having made the structural effects formulation explicit. In 1959,Wilson published "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High SchoolBoys." His analytic scheme, which treated social class at the individual and school levels,became paradigmatic in the treatment of how schools influence aspirations, attainment, andother life chances. Blau published "Structural Effects" (1960) in the same journal a few monthslater. Both articles employed the same structural effects formulation but extracted it fromstrikingly different origins. Blau's (1955, 1960) study derived from a Columbia sociologytradition concerned with structural analysis; Wilson's came from work on stratification andthe social psychology of group influences on individuals. Blau expressed his formulation generally,to apply beyond his study of public service agencies (1955); Wilson's dealt just withschools. The principle underlying both was that net of the effect of an individual characteristicbelieved to shape a pattern of conduct, a group property based on the aggregation of thatcharacteristic influences that conduct.Wilson (1959) opened with three propositions. First, social classes differ according totheir value systems, a claim based on Hyman's study, "The Value Systems of Different Classes"(1953), which argued that individuals tend to have value preferences related to their socialclass membership, and that classes can be characterized according to their values. This positionheld currency at the time, informing studies of class-based and ethnic-based patterns ofchild rearing (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Miller & Swanson, 1958; Strodtbeck, 1958). Wilsonsaw individual values originating in the value climate of school society (p. 836), based onthe class composition of residential neighborhoods, providing "a significant normative referenceinfluencing the educational aspirations of boys from varying strata . . . " (p. 837; myitalics). Second, according to early studies of status attainment (Kahl, 1953; Sewell, Haller, &Straus, 1957), the educational aspirations of students are related to their social origins. Third,consistent with evidence adduced by Asch (1952), Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), and Newcomb(1958), individual conduct and judgment are shaped by hierarchic pressures from superordinatesstructural Effects in Education 109and by lateral ones from peers. Together these propositions identify Wilson's position on howschools exert normative influence on individual aspirations.Blau's (1955,1960) view of structure was more complex and nuanced than Wilson's, andwas not limited to normative force. The logic of structural effects reasoning in both works wasidentical, but the conceptual development differed. Blau drew attention to Durkheimian socialfacts. He distinguished social facts based on "common values and norms embodied in a cultureor subculture" from those based on "networks of social relations" (1960, p. 78) expressedin social interactions organized around individuals' social positions and subgroup memberships.Wilson (1959) expressed structure narrowly as normative climate, with his infusion ofschool structure with normative meaning being entirely speculative. Blau extended the meaningto include social cohesiveness and networks of worker interaction, within and across levelsof hierarchy and between workers and clients, and identified through empirical observation.THE DURKHEIMIAN TRADITIONJuxtaposing collective and individual considerations to explain conduct is central to Durkheim'sanalysis of social facts: "ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, andendowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him" (Durkheim, 1895/1938, p. 3). Social facts can include, for example, systems of currency, professional practices(p. 2), technical methods of production (p. 3), "legal and moral regulations, religious faiths,financial systems, etc." (p. 4), and forces external to individuals that constrain their conduct.Social facts vary from the most to the least articulated and structured (pp. 8-12). He stressedthat even though individuals act freely according to their own dispositions, their conduct inthe context of social facts showed "astonishing regularity" (p. 94).Durkheim, (1897/1951) employed the concept of social facts in Suicide, which containsapposite examples of structural effects reasoning; namely, a state of society, a rate of individualconduct, and a linking mechanism. For example, he examined the impact of familycircumstances on suicide rates, taking into account sex, marital condition, the presence ofchildren, and age (p. 197-198). To demonstrate the causative impact of social states, he showed,against a baseline rate among the unmarried, in the relevant age categories, how the presenceof children reduced the suicide rate among husbands and widowers with children, comparedto those without children; the same pattern held among wives and widows, with rates differingin magnitude by sex. His explanation for the prevention of (egoistic) suicide emphasized theintegrative state of domestic society (p. 201) and "the intensity of the collective life circulatingin it" (p. 202); it discounted one based on the affectionate feelings of parents for theirchildren. Durkheim (1897/1951) did not observe social integration or the events of family lifeindicative of it; he conjectured about them to identify a social mechanism that linked structuralproperties of families with conduct (rates of spousal and parental suicide). He applied asimilar explanatory logic to analyze varying suicide rates in geographical regions that differedin the proportion of Catholics and Protestants and to suicide rates in the military (as well as toother topics), demonstrating the importance of both deviance from and conformity to socialnorms (e.g., the proscription against suicide in both confessions). La
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
CHAPTER 5
Structural Effects in Education
A History of an Idea
ROBERT DREEBEN
There are strong reasons to believe that schools have an impact on the students who attend
them. How large and what kind of impact and how to formulate and interpret it are questions
that have drawn the attention of sociologists of education for several decades. This area of
inquiry has roots in the general sociological question of how to understand the influence of
social structure on individual conduct. The school effects example of this question has relied
heavily on a particular kind of structural effects argument originating with Durkheim and has
undergone conceptual elaboration since his time. In treating the problem of school effects, the
position I adopt places strong emphasis on school organization because the impact of schooling
on students occurs in an organizational setting, and much of the research explicitly or
implicitly takes that into account. This emphasis does not deny the importance of influences
whose origins lie outside of organizations, but it does explain why I do not focus on them.
Structural effects arguments are explanatory. They deal with structural arrangements,
their effects, and the mechanisms by which one influences the other; mechanisms are the heart
of the explanation. Explanatory arguments require selection among substantive ideas and evidence
about social phenomena, in the present case about what is organizationally important,
and among methods—design, logic, and measurement. These two considerations, substance
and method, although analytically distinct, are not wholly so in reality. There is tension between
them because some substantive formulations overburden the available methods, and
some methods limit the range of testable substantive ideas.
The problems that school organization, schooling, and their effects pose for explanatory
arguments include the following: capturing the work activities of teachers, school officials,
ROBERT DREEBEN • Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Handbook of the Sociology of Education, edited by Maureen T. Hallinan. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York, 2000.
107
108 Robert Dreeben
and students; the opportunities and constraints governed by time schedules, hierarchical and
collegial arrangements, spatial settings, and curricular agendas; the relation of school and
district organization to such lateral entities as the labor market for teachers and patterned
parental interest organized in communities and in households; and patterns of action and interaction
occurring in the context of these considerations. It has been easy to devise defensible
indications of school outcomes in individual students, harder to identify appropriate structural
properties of schools, and daunting to conceptualize and determine the mechanisms in play at
points where structure and individuals come together in the ongoing work of schooling. Sociologists
have approached school effects problems from a variety of perspectives using a variety
of methodologies, but it is not my purpose to review them. This chapter is about the history
of an idea—structural effects—that, I maintain, has held a pre-eminent position in efforts to
understand schooling.
The burden of the argument is to show how this formulation, derived from Durkheim,
flourished in the intellectual environment of the Columbia Department of Sociology from the
late 1930s to the late 1950s, became transformed over the next 10 years in Coleman's work,
and subsequently achieved long-term durability despite evidence of its limitations. The structural
effects formulation, although not unknown in other areas of sociology (e.g., Berelson,
Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Bulmer, 1984; Davis, 1961, 1966; Kerr & Siegel, 1954; Key,
1950; Kobrin, 1951; Lieberson, 1958; Schwartz, 1975; Shaw, 1924; Shaw & McKay, 1942;
Stinchcombe, 1959; Stolzenberg, 1978), does not appear to be as dominant elsewhere as in
studies of schools.
Two studies stand out for having made the structural effects formulation explicit. In 1959,
Wilson published "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High School
Boys." His analytic scheme, which treated social class at the individual and school levels,
became paradigmatic in the treatment of how schools influence aspirations, attainment, and
other life chances. Blau published "Structural Effects" (1960) in the same journal a few months
later. Both articles employed the same structural effects formulation but extracted it from
strikingly different origins. Blau's (1955, 1960) study derived from a Columbia sociology
tradition concerned with structural analysis; Wilson's came from work on stratification and
the social psychology of group influences on individuals. Blau expressed his formulation generally,
to apply beyond his study of public service agencies (1955); Wilson's dealt just with
schools. The principle underlying both was that net of the effect of an individual characteristic
believed to shape a pattern of conduct, a group property based on the aggregation of that
characteristic influences that conduct.
Wilson (1959) opened with three propositions. First, social classes differ according to
their value systems, a claim based on Hyman's study, "The Value Systems of Different Classes"
(1953), which argued that individuals tend to have value preferences related to their social
class membership, and that classes can be characterized according to their values. This position
held currency at the time, informing studies of class-based and ethnic-based patterns of
child rearing (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Miller & Swanson, 1958; Strodtbeck, 1958). Wilson
saw individual values originating in the value climate of school society (p. 836), based on
the class composition of residential neighborhoods, providing "a significant normative reference
influencing the educational aspirations of boys from varying strata . . . " (p. 837; my
italics). Second, according to early studies of status attainment (Kahl, 1953; Sewell, Haller, &
Straus, 1957), the educational aspirations of students are related to their social origins. Third,
consistent with evidence adduced by Asch (1952), Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), and Newcomb
(1958), individual conduct and judgment are shaped by hierarchic pressures from superordinates
structural Effects in Education 109
and by lateral ones from peers. Together these propositions identify Wilson's position on how
schools exert normative influence on individual aspirations.
Blau's (1955,1960) view of structure was more complex and nuanced than Wilson's, and
was not limited to normative force. The logic of structural effects reasoning in both works was
identical, but the conceptual development differed. Blau drew attention to Durkheimian social
facts. He distinguished social facts based on "common values and norms embodied in a culture
or subculture" from those based on "networks of social relations" (1960, p. 78) expressed
in social interactions organized around individuals' social positions and subgroup memberships.
Wilson (1959) expressed structure narrowly as normative climate, with his infusion of
school structure with normative meaning being entirely speculative. Blau extended the meaning
to include social cohesiveness and networks of worker interaction, within and across levels
of hierarchy and between workers and clients, and identified through empirical observation.
THE DURKHEIMIAN TRADITION
Juxtaposing collective and individual considerations to explain conduct is central to Durkheim's
analysis of social facts: "ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and
endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him" (Durkheim, 1895/
1938, p. 3). Social facts can include, for example, systems of currency, professional practices
(p. 2), technical methods of production (p. 3), "legal and moral regulations, religious faiths,
financial systems, etc." (p. 4), and forces external to individuals that constrain their conduct.
Social facts vary from the most to the least articulated and structured (pp. 8-12). He stressed
that even though individuals act freely according to their own dispositions, their conduct in
the context of social facts showed "astonishing regularity" (p. 94).
Durkheim, (1897/1951) employed the concept of social facts in Suicide, which contains
apposite examples of structural effects reasoning; namely, a state of society, a rate of individual
conduct, and a linking mechanism. For example, he examined the impact of family
circumstances on suicide rates, taking into account sex, marital condition, the presence of
children, and age (p. 197-198). To demonstrate the causative impact of social states, he showed,
against a baseline rate among the unmarried, in the relevant age categories, how the presence
of children reduced the suicide rate among husbands and widowers with children, compared
to those without children; the same pattern held among wives and widows, with rates differing
in magnitude by sex. His explanation for the prevention of (egoistic) suicide emphasized the
integrative state of domestic society (p. 201) and "the intensity of the collective life circulating
in it" (p. 202); it discounted one based on the affectionate feelings of parents for their
children.
Durkheim (1897/1951) did not observe social integration or the events of family life
indicative of it; he conjectured about them to identify a social mechanism that linked structural
properties of families with conduct (rates of spousal and parental suicide). He applied a
similar explanatory logic to analyze varying suicide rates in geographical regions that differed
in the proportion of Catholics and Protestants and to suicide rates in the military (as well as to
other topics), demonstrating the importance of both deviance from and conformity to social
norms (e.g., the proscription against suicide in both confessions). La
Structural Effects in Education
A History of an Idea
ROBERT DREEBEN
There are strong reasons to believe that schools have an impact on the students who attend
them. How large and what kind of impact and how to formulate and interpret it are questions
that have drawn the attention of sociologists of education for several decades. This area of
inquiry has roots in the general sociological question of how to understand the influence of
social structure on individual conduct. The school effects example of this question has relied
heavily on a particular kind of structural effects argument originating with Durkheim and has
undergone conceptual elaboration since his time. In treating the problem of school effects, the
position I adopt places strong emphasis on school organization because the impact of schooling
on students occurs in an organizational setting, and much of the research explicitly or
implicitly takes that into account. This emphasis does not deny the importance of influences
whose origins lie outside of organizations, but it does explain why I do not focus on them.
Structural effects arguments are explanatory. They deal with structural arrangements,
their effects, and the mechanisms by which one influences the other; mechanisms are the heart
of the explanation. Explanatory arguments require selection among substantive ideas and evidence
about social phenomena, in the present case about what is organizationally important,
and among methods—design, logic, and measurement. These two considerations, substance
and method, although analytically distinct, are not wholly so in reality. There is tension between
them because some substantive formulations overburden the available methods, and
some methods limit the range of testable substantive ideas.
The problems that school organization, schooling, and their effects pose for explanatory
arguments include the following: capturing the work activities of teachers, school officials,
ROBERT DREEBEN • Department of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Handbook of the Sociology of Education, edited by Maureen T. Hallinan. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York, 2000.
107
108 Robert Dreeben
and students; the opportunities and constraints governed by time schedules, hierarchical and
collegial arrangements, spatial settings, and curricular agendas; the relation of school and
district organization to such lateral entities as the labor market for teachers and patterned
parental interest organized in communities and in households; and patterns of action and interaction
occurring in the context of these considerations. It has been easy to devise defensible
indications of school outcomes in individual students, harder to identify appropriate structural
properties of schools, and daunting to conceptualize and determine the mechanisms in play at
points where structure and individuals come together in the ongoing work of schooling. Sociologists
have approached school effects problems from a variety of perspectives using a variety
of methodologies, but it is not my purpose to review them. This chapter is about the history
of an idea—structural effects—that, I maintain, has held a pre-eminent position in efforts to
understand schooling.
The burden of the argument is to show how this formulation, derived from Durkheim,
flourished in the intellectual environment of the Columbia Department of Sociology from the
late 1930s to the late 1950s, became transformed over the next 10 years in Coleman's work,
and subsequently achieved long-term durability despite evidence of its limitations. The structural
effects formulation, although not unknown in other areas of sociology (e.g., Berelson,
Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1954; Bulmer, 1984; Davis, 1961, 1966; Kerr & Siegel, 1954; Key,
1950; Kobrin, 1951; Lieberson, 1958; Schwartz, 1975; Shaw, 1924; Shaw & McKay, 1942;
Stinchcombe, 1959; Stolzenberg, 1978), does not appear to be as dominant elsewhere as in
studies of schools.
Two studies stand out for having made the structural effects formulation explicit. In 1959,
Wilson published "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High School
Boys." His analytic scheme, which treated social class at the individual and school levels,
became paradigmatic in the treatment of how schools influence aspirations, attainment, and
other life chances. Blau published "Structural Effects" (1960) in the same journal a few months
later. Both articles employed the same structural effects formulation but extracted it from
strikingly different origins. Blau's (1955, 1960) study derived from a Columbia sociology
tradition concerned with structural analysis; Wilson's came from work on stratification and
the social psychology of group influences on individuals. Blau expressed his formulation generally,
to apply beyond his study of public service agencies (1955); Wilson's dealt just with
schools. The principle underlying both was that net of the effect of an individual characteristic
believed to shape a pattern of conduct, a group property based on the aggregation of that
characteristic influences that conduct.
Wilson (1959) opened with three propositions. First, social classes differ according to
their value systems, a claim based on Hyman's study, "The Value Systems of Different Classes"
(1953), which argued that individuals tend to have value preferences related to their social
class membership, and that classes can be characterized according to their values. This position
held currency at the time, informing studies of class-based and ethnic-based patterns of
child rearing (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Miller & Swanson, 1958; Strodtbeck, 1958). Wilson
saw individual values originating in the value climate of school society (p. 836), based on
the class composition of residential neighborhoods, providing "a significant normative reference
influencing the educational aspirations of boys from varying strata . . . " (p. 837; my
italics). Second, according to early studies of status attainment (Kahl, 1953; Sewell, Haller, &
Straus, 1957), the educational aspirations of students are related to their social origins. Third,
consistent with evidence adduced by Asch (1952), Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), and Newcomb
(1958), individual conduct and judgment are shaped by hierarchic pressures from superordinates
structural Effects in Education 109
and by lateral ones from peers. Together these propositions identify Wilson's position on how
schools exert normative influence on individual aspirations.
Blau's (1955,1960) view of structure was more complex and nuanced than Wilson's, and
was not limited to normative force. The logic of structural effects reasoning in both works was
identical, but the conceptual development differed. Blau drew attention to Durkheimian social
facts. He distinguished social facts based on "common values and norms embodied in a culture
or subculture" from those based on "networks of social relations" (1960, p. 78) expressed
in social interactions organized around individuals' social positions and subgroup memberships.
Wilson (1959) expressed structure narrowly as normative climate, with his infusion of
school structure with normative meaning being entirely speculative. Blau extended the meaning
to include social cohesiveness and networks of worker interaction, within and across levels
of hierarchy and between workers and clients, and identified through empirical observation.
THE DURKHEIMIAN TRADITION
Juxtaposing collective and individual considerations to explain conduct is central to Durkheim's
analysis of social facts: "ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and
endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him" (Durkheim, 1895/
1938, p. 3). Social facts can include, for example, systems of currency, professional practices
(p. 2), technical methods of production (p. 3), "legal and moral regulations, religious faiths,
financial systems, etc." (p. 4), and forces external to individuals that constrain their conduct.
Social facts vary from the most to the least articulated and structured (pp. 8-12). He stressed
that even though individuals act freely according to their own dispositions, their conduct in
the context of social facts showed "astonishing regularity" (p. 94).
Durkheim, (1897/1951) employed the concept of social facts in Suicide, which contains
apposite examples of structural effects reasoning; namely, a state of society, a rate of individual
conduct, and a linking mechanism. For example, he examined the impact of family
circumstances on suicide rates, taking into account sex, marital condition, the presence of
children, and age (p. 197-198). To demonstrate the causative impact of social states, he showed,
against a baseline rate among the unmarried, in the relevant age categories, how the presence
of children reduced the suicide rate among husbands and widowers with children, compared
to those without children; the same pattern held among wives and widows, with rates differing
in magnitude by sex. His explanation for the prevention of (egoistic) suicide emphasized the
integrative state of domestic society (p. 201) and "the intensity of the collective life circulating
in it" (p. 202); it discounted one based on the affectionate feelings of parents for their
children.
Durkheim (1897/1951) did not observe social integration or the events of family life
indicative of it; he conjectured about them to identify a social mechanism that linked structural
properties of families with conduct (rates of spousal and parental suicide). He applied a
similar explanatory logic to analyze varying suicide rates in geographical regions that differed
in the proportion of Catholics and Protestants and to suicide rates in the military (as well as to
other topics), demonstrating the importance of both deviance from and conformity to social
norms (e.g., the proscription against suicide in both confessions). La
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- last name name
- CHAPTER 5Structural Effects in Education
- Namun lidah saya kaku saat megucap ejaan
- Do not say
- screen name
- Sakit banget ini
- Structural Effects in Education 129by a
- Emang mau kemana?? Sama siapa.. yang dim
- Structural Effects in Education 129by a
- password recovery Question
- Namun lidah saya kaku saat mengucap ejaa
- Hide
- Structural Effects in Education 129by a
- answer
- Anak lelakimu
- Relakan yang terjadi,Takkan kembali
- Jangan berkata
- They are so cool and bloodly. It awesome
- However my rigid tongue when giving his
- Relakan yang terjadi takkan kembali
- Olgun
- CHAPTER 5Structural Effects in Education
- Structural Effects in Education 129by a
- Semoga sukses
