Chapter 2: Theoretical considerations and literature review
2.6 Legitimation Code Theory (LCT)
2.6.3 Maton‟s Legitimation Code Theory
framework thus requires further conceptual development (Muller, 2007, in Maton, 2009), which involves theorising “the underlying principles generating discourses, knowledge structures, curriculum structures and forms of learning” (Maton, 2009, p.45). This conceptual development is undertaken in Maton‟s Legitimation Code Theory.
In this study, the languages of legitimation embodied in the Marketing literature gives insight into what is considered legitimate in the academic discipline of Marketing in general. In the specific context of UKZN, these languages of legitimation arise in the viewpoints and beliefs of participants expressed during interviews and in documents that are used as an indicator of practices (or „position-takings‟) in the discipline.
In controlling legitimacy in a field, the legitimation device may be viewed as the underlying generative principle which is the basis for creating, reproducing, and transforming that field.
Control of the device enables one to make dominant in the field those principles of legitimation that fit with their own practices and attributes and that will entrench their status and authority in the field, thereby “hierarchically structuring relations between positions within the field” (Maton, 2005a, p.84).
The legitimation device comprises five dimensions of legitimation; four of these (Autonomy, Density, Specialisation and Temporality) were included in the original formulation of the device and one (Semantics) was added later (Maton, 2010b). These dimensions are built on the concepts of classification and framing which were developed by Bernstein (as described earlier).
Each dimension can be set to different modalities, which in combination form the legitimation code (Maton, 2005a). All five dimensions are now outlined. Because Chapter 4 includes an analysis of the discipline of Marketing using these dimensions of legitimation, in this section I focus on simply outlining the dimensions without making reference to Marketing.
Specialisation
Specialisation addresses the basis of differentiation in a field. Fields differ in terms of what they consider to be legitimate bases for membership, authority, achievement and status. This dimension is thus of great relevance to this study, as it enables insight into what is considered legitimate in the Discourse of Marketing and thus what is necessary in order to gain epistemological access to the discipline.42
While Bernstein shows how knowledge is specialised in different fields, Maton extends this by positing that intellectual fields can be specialised both in terms of knowledge and knowers, because “for every knowledge structure, there is also a knower structure” (Maton, 2007, p.88). He thus develops the concept of „knowledge-knower structures‟.
42 Accordingly, while the LCT analysis of Marketing presented in Chapter 4 draws on all five dimensions, greater attention is given to Specialisation given its particular relevance to one of the study‟s research questions.
Maton asserts that “in vertical discourse there is always a hierarchy somewhere” (2010c, p.164;
see also Bernstein, 2001; Hugo, 2004), and that the location of this hierarchy is key to how the field develops. He posits that in fields with horizontal knowledge structures (such as Marketing), the hierarchy is located in the knower structure. While fields with hierarchical knowledge structures, such as Physics, develop through verticality (subsuming and integrating knowledge, or building knowledge), those with horizontal knowledge structures (and thus hierarchical knower structures), such as Marketing, develop through sociality (subsuming and integrating habituses, or building knowers). According to Maton (2007), it is what is hierarchical in a field that strongly classifies and frames actors and discourses.
Knower structures can be differentiated according to the degree of sociality, which indicates whether they develop via “integration or accumulation of habituses” (Maton, 2010c, p.164).
Bernstein states that for horizontal knowledge structures, and especially those with weak grammars (such as Marketing), “„truth‟ is a matter of acquired „gaze‟” (1999, p.165). Maton (2010c) extends the concept of „grammar‟, that Bernstein applies to knowledge structures, by suggesting „knower-grammars‟ (strength of social relations). From strongest to weakest, Maton differentiates between the following types of gaze: „born‟ (which is based on natural or inherited talent), „social‟ (which is determined by social category or standpoint), ‟cultivated‟ (which is socialised or inculcated through education – and thus may be likened to Bernstein‟s notion of
„acquired gaze‟) and „trained‟ (which is acquired through prolonged training). Maton also reveals how “different knowledge structures (the epistemic relations) organise different types of knowers (the social relations) and vice versa” (Doherty, 2010, p.249).
Specialisation comprises two aspects: the epistemic relations to the knowledge structure and the social relations to the knower structure (Maton, 2007).
The epistemic relations (ER) refers to the relations between knowledge and its proclaimed object of study – in other words, what can be legitimately claimed knowledge of, and how (Maton, 2010a);
the social relations (SR) refers to the relations between knowledge and the subject/author who is making the claim to knowledge – in other words, who can legitimately claim to be producing legitimate knowledge in the field (Maton, 2010a).
Each relation displays relatively weaker (-) or stronger (+) classification (C) and framing (F). In each relation, Maton keeps the strengths of C and F aligned (for example, ER (+C, +F), which condenses to ER+), thus giving rise to four possible specialisation codes, as depicted in Figure 2.4. These codes represent different settings of the epistemic device (Maton, 2007).
Figure 2.4: Specialisation codes Source: Maton (2010a, p.45)
The four possible specialisation codes are:
a knowledge code [ER+, SR-], which emphasises “the possession of explicit principles, skills and procedures” (Maton, 2009, p. 46). This code underpins hierarchical knowledge structures. In a knowledge code, what is important is what you know and how;
a knower code [ER-, SR+], which emphasises knower “attitudes, aptitudes and dispositions” (Maton, 2009, p.46) or gaze, that is, being the right kind of knower. In a knower code, what is important is who you are;
an elite code [ER+, SR+], which emphasises “both specialist knowledge and knower dispositions equally” (Maton, 2009, p.46);
a relativist code [ER-, SR-], which emphasises neither specialist knowledge nor knower dispositions (Maton, 2009).
In higher education, the knowledge and knower codes tend to be dominant (Maton, 2005a).
Different specialisation codes are associated with different possibilities and constraints; thus the specialisation code underpinning an intellectual field has implications for curriculum and pedagogy. For example, a knower code is likely to generate segmented instead of cumulative knowledge (Maton, 2008a).
In the Faculty of Management Studies at UKZN, as previously noted, Marketing is a major in the Bachelor of Commerce (General) degree in which students are exposed to a range of disciplines from both within and outside the Faculty, which may be underpinned by different specialisation
ER- ER+
SR- SR+
Elite Knower Relativist
Knowledge EPISTEMIC RELATIONS
SOCIAL RELATIONS
codes (bases of achievement).43 Students need to be made aware of what the bases for achievement in different disciplines and modules are and what is required of them in order to meet expectations in each discipline.
In addition, Baldwin (2010, pp.137-138) points to the importance of “aligning the dominant code in the curriculum with the code embedded within assessment tasks”. If this does not happen, the result is a „code mismatch‟ (Maton, 2009), whereby there is an attempt to achieve outcomes associated with one code (e.g. a knowledge code) using means associated with another code (e.g. a knower code).
Semantics
In Section 2.6.2, Bernstein‟s concepts of verticality and grammaticality were outlined. Verticality was said to relate to the ability of a field to progress through increasing integration, abstraction and generalisation, while grammaticality was said to relate to the ability of a field to gain empirical purchase on its objects of study. Semantics comprises two aspects that allow for “a more fine- grained analysis” of verticality and grammaticality in a field and how they impact on the capacity of the field to build cumulative knowledge (McNamara & Fealy, 2011, no page). These two aspects are:
semantic gravity (SG), which refers to “the degree to which meaning relates to its context” (Maton, 2010b, no page), where SG+ (stronger semantic gravity) signifies greater context-dependence and SG- (weaker semantic gravity) signifies greater abstraction;
semantic density (SD), which refers to “the degree to which meaning is condensed within symbols (terms, concepts, phrases, expressions, gestures, etc)” (Maton, 2010b, no page), where SD+ (stronger semantic density) signifies more condensed meanings and SD- (weaker semantic density) signifies less condensed meanings.
The code modalities of Semantics are shown in Figure 2.5.
43 The situation is similar for the Marketing students on the Howard College campus, who are registered for general degrees in the Faculty of Humanities, Development and Social Sciences.
Figure 2.5: Semantic codes44 Source: based on Maton (2010b, no page)
Maton (2009) states that cumulative learning depends on weaker semantic gravity, while segmented learning is characterised by stronger semantic gravity. However, it is not just the state of „stronger‟ or „weaker‟ that is important with regard to this dimension – also of significance to knowledge-building are movements along the continua, which represent the processes of strengthening or weakening semantic gravity and/or density (Maton, 2010b).
Autonomy
Autonomy addresses a field‟s external relations, or how insulated or different it is from other fields, thereby establishing its status. Higher autonomy has traditionally been associated with higher status. Maton (2005a) distinguishes analytically between positional and relational autonomy.
Positional autonomy (PA) refers to the relations between positions (agents, discourses) inside and outside the field. It has to do with the degree of insulation of the field from external involvement and control (e.g. from government or industry). The question to be asked is who runs the field, and whether they are from within or outside of the field (Maton, 2005b). PA+ signifies stronger external boundaries, and PA- signifies weaker external boundaries. In an academic field, positional autonomy can be understood as academic freedom (McNamara, 2007);
44 Maton (2010b, no page) states that “SG- is heuristically positioned at the top of the compass (where a „+‟
sign might be expected) to reflect the tendency to picture such notions as „abstract‟ or „decontextualised‟ as higher than „concrete‟ or „contextualised‟. Positioning here is not a statement of value”.
SG+
SG-
SD- SD+
SEMANTIC DENSITY
SEMANTIC GRAVITY
Weaker gravity;
stronger condensation
Stronger gravity;
stronger condensation Weaker
gravity;
weaker condensation
Stronger gravity;
weaker condensation
relational autonomy (RA) refers to the relations between principles of relation (ways of working) inside and outside the field. It has to do with the locus of control over the ways of working within the field (i.e. whether the ways of working in the field are drawn from inside or outside the field). In this case, the question to be asked is how the field is run i.e. on whose principles or values (Maton, 2005b). RA+ signifies stronger control from inside the field over the ways of working in the field, and RA- signifies weaker control.
Bernstein‟s concepts of external classification and framing (Ce and Fe) – which relate to the strength of external boundaries and to the locus of control across them – are used to give each aspect‟s nature in terms of its relative strength (+) or weakness (-). The four possible settings or codes for autonomy are reflected in the following figure.
Figure 2.6: Autonomy codes Source: Maton (2005b, p.698)
Temporality
Longer established fields with practices influenced by the past have traditionally been associated with higher status. Maton (2005a) identifies the following aspects of temporality:
Age refers to a relational position in a temporal field, from relatively younger (recently formed) to relatively older (long established);
orientation refers to agents‟ positions on a temporal field, or the direction faced, which may range from forward-looking to backward-looking
PA- PA+
RA- RA+
Strongly insulated;
autonomous principles
Weakly insulated;
autonomous principles Weakly
insulated;
heteronomous principles
Strongly insulated;
heteronomous principles
POSITIONAL AUTONOMY
RELATIONAL AUTONOMY
The interaction of the first two aspects gives rise to a third aspect, rate of change, which may range from stagnant to rapidly changing. Temporal equivalents of classification and framing (Ct and Ft) are used to give the nature of each aspect. The four possible codes relating to temporality are shown in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7: Temporality codes Source: based on Maton (2005a)
Density
Density addresses a field‟s internal relations, or the degree of diversity within the field, and thus relates to issues of “size, quantity and scale” (Maton, 2005a, p.88). Lower density/differentiation (for example, the university as “a small-scale, residential community offering intimate interaction between teachers and taught in the preservation of a single, common culture based on shared social and educational backgrounds”) has traditionally been associated with higher status (Maton, 2005a, pp.88-89). Maton distinguishes between material and moral density. The concepts of internal classification and framing (Ci and Fi) are used to give the relative strength or weakness of each aspect.
Material density (MaD) refers to the number of units in a context/category – for example a university‟s population, staff to student ratios or disciplinary inputs into curricula (McNamara, 2007) – and signifies how coherent or fragmented the field is in terms of its contents;
moral density (MoD) refers to the number of structuring principles in a field, or how homogenous or heterogeneous the field is in terms of its beliefs, value systems and habituses (McNamara, 2007).
-Ct [Younger]
+Ct [Older]
-Ft [Forward]
+Ft [Backward]
Neo- retrospective
Archaeo- retrospective
Neo- prospective
Archeo- prospective
AGE
ORIENTATION
These two aspects impact on a third aspect, differentiation, or the relation between the units in a field. The possible settings for density are reflected in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8: Density codes Source: based on Maton (2005a)
LCT has been used in several empirical studies of educational issues in a variety of disciplines – such as Sociology (Luckett, 2009, 2010a, 2010b), Nursing (McNamara, 2007, 2010a, 2010b), History (Shay, 2011; Martin et al, 2011), Music (Lamont & Maton, 2008), those falling under the umbrella of Design (Carvalho & Dong, 2008; Carvalho et al, 2009), Indigenous Studies (Kelly, no date), and even „Business Studies‟ (Doherty, 2008, 2010). However, I have been unable to find any studies that have been undertaken of the discipline of Marketing specifically.
In providing a framework for analysing how knowledge and practices are structured in academic disciplines, LCT enables conceptualisation of the „rules of the game‟ of the discipline of Marketing by “making explicit what is already known, at least implicitly, by members of the field” (Carvalho, Dong & Maton, 2009, p.501). This is crucial because, as outlined in Section 2.5.1, it is the tacit nature of many disciplinary practices, norms, values and knowledge that makes it difficult to induct students into disciplinary communities and to facilitate their participation in the disciplinary Discourse, thus impacting on the achievement of epistemological access. Using Bernstein‟s (2000) terms, students need to have „recognition rules‟ in order to be able to “identify the specificities of the discipline” of Marketing, as well as what meanings are relevant in this discipline; thereafter „realisation rules‟ “regulate how meanings are to be put together” in Marketing so that students are able to “practice and communicate according to the discipline”
(Carvalho et al, 2009, p.488). LCT, in conjunction with Discourse theory and „academic literacies‟
MaD- MaD+
MoD- MoD+
Large population;
heterogenous beliefs Large
population;
homogenous beliefs
Small population;
homogenous beliefs
Small population;
heterogenous beliefs MATERIAL
DENSITY
MORAL DENSITY
work, enables an understanding of what constitutes the recognition and realisation rules in the discipline of Marketing.