RESEARCH IN SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION A TREND REPORT : KARUNA CHANANA
Studies in the sociology of education before the sixties were few and far between. N.V. Thirtha mentions them in the First Survey of Research in Education (1974). It was only then that interest in this area gained momentum due to the initiative taken by a few sociologists. However, this effort might have remained diffuse but for its consolidation at a seminar held in December 1964 at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay. This seminar was the sequel to a meeting of sociologists called by the Member-Secretary of the Education Commission (1964-66), Shri J.P. Naik, to discuss and outline the scope of sociology of education in India. It was jointly funded by the UGC and the Education Commission (Gore et al, 1967). In a way, it set the tone of all subsequent developments in this field. It was decided at the seminar to undertake a systematic study of education and its various dimensions from a sociological perspective and a coordinating committee was set up to operationalize it. The study was to be in two parts: a set of thematic papers, and field studies on the basis of a survey in eight states. The dimensions to be covered were the social background and social values of students and the occupational aspirations and satisfaction of teachers. The survey was conducted in Andhra, West Bengal, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab and Rajasthan. These studies were funded by the NCERT.
These efforts culminated in the publication of two general volumes, namely, Papers in the Sociology of Education in India in 1967 and Field Studies in the Sociology of Education in India in 1970. In addition, the surveys of the eight states were published separately. While a number of field studies using survey techniques have since been undertaken, the volume containing thematic papers have yet to be superseded.
Later. the ICSSR also contributed to promoting studies in this field by setting aside funds for studies in certain priority areas. The educational problems of the Scheduled Caste and Tribe students was one such area. This problem had a bearing on national educational policy as well as on the policy of positive discrimination which strove to provide equality of educational opportunity to the weaker sections of our society. Thus the newly emerging sociology of education came to be dominated by these concerns until very recently. In addition to the surveys in education in the first series, the ICSSR commissioned two surveys in the social sciences (the third one has just been commissioned). The first covered studies undertaken up to 1970 and the second up to 1980. Suma Chitnis undertook both these surveys.
Chitnis in the first survey classified the available studies under two broad heads, namely, (a) the education system as a sub- system or as a social system, (b) the structure and internal organization of the education system. These were then subdivided into three subareas each. N.V. Thirtha divided them under five headings, namely, (1) educational organization as a social system; (2) education and social change; (3) social problems; (4) cross-cultural studies; and (5) studies on group dynamics. He, further, Subdivided the first category to cover socio-economic and cultural background of Students and teachers; studies on inter-cultural linkage, studies on personality and prejudice; and values, attitudes, aspirations of students, teachers and other human participants in the process. The second category was sub-divided into three areas, namely, innovation in
RESEARCH IN SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION-A TREND REPORT 117
education and the nature of the diffusion process within the social system; impact of society and social change on education; impact of education on social change.
B. V. Shah, in the Second and Third Surveys of Educational Research divides the studies into the following five categories or areas: (1) Education and society (which includes the impact of society and social change on education); education and socialization; and education and advancement of knowledge. (2) The educational sub-system in relation to other sub-systems of society, namely, economy, polity, stratification, religion, and minorities and backward groups. (3) Social factors behind educability, personality development and activism of children and youths. This category included studies on family environment; caste and socioeconomic status of parents; rural/urban residence of parents; and peer group influences. (4) Sociology of educational institutions. (5) Problems such as juvenile delinquency, student unrest, and education of the handicapped.
Chitnis, in the Second Survey on Sociology of Education covering studies during the seventies, based it on two sources. First, questionnaires were sent to heads of departments of education and of sociology of all universities, IITs and IIMs, colleges of education and colleges of arts, and a few individual sociologists. Published sources were the second source.
Chitnis divides the studies into two areas: (1) the relationship of education to other systems and parts, and the objectives and functions it fulfils; and (2) the analysis of the structure and functioning of education as a system with a specific emphasis on innovation, change and problems within the system. Each of these is further divided into sub-areas:
1. (i) Objectives/functions of education in inde- pendent India
(ii) Education, economy and the polity
(iii) Education, modernization, change and development
(iv) Education, social equality and mobility
2. (i) Analysis of the system, its specific aspects and sectors
(ii) Structural change and innovation
(iii) Problems in education
(iv) Students
(v) Role and status of school and college teachers
(vi) Non-formal education media
In terms of thematic coverage, as we shall elaborate below, the themes of the studies included in the present survey do not seem to make a radical departure for the earlier surveys. We have therefore followed almost the same scheme of classification as they did, in which some amount of overlap is unavoidable. For example, studies on student unrest may be looked upon as problems or dysfunctions but may also be clubbed with studies on the political dimension of education since student unrest and indiscipline have been seen in that context. A further reason for retaining the old system of classification is that even in terms of theoretical framework and perspective adopted in the formulation of research design and data analysis, the studies being surveyed have made no departure from the earlier studies. This is true even of the selection of problem areas for study. The matter of perspective and theoretical framework must be seen in the light of global developments in the sociology of education. Studies of the sociology of education in India continues to rely heavily on the functionalist paradigm which presumes that education is an instrument of social change since it trains the manpower required for an industrializing and developing society. It is also expected to be a leveller of social differences through the provision of occupational mobility linked to educational skill and training. Hence, it is expected to promote equality of educational opportunity in a highly stratified society such as ours. This goal of equality was incorporated in our Constitution and some of the weaker sections like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were given the benefit of positive discrimination by reserving seats in the educational institutions and jobs in the public sector for them. This policy was a direct transplant from the industrial societies of the West, especially the USA, where great trust was placed on education or merit as a determining variable for occupational and the resultant social mobility. This expectation is derived from the American versions of the functional paradigm.
This belief in the efficacy of education for equalizing opportunity and levelling social differences, for ushering in social change and modernization in a traditional society influenced the development of the sociology of education in this country in the sixties. Thus, for example, some of the questions in which sociologists were initially interested were: Who are the children who go to school? What is their social background in terms of their caste, father's occupation and income? Which are the children who do not go to schools? How do students live and work? This indicated an interest in the social background of students in order to determine whether students from different castes and occupational back-
118 KARUNA CHANANA
grounds were joining the educational stream or education was still a preserve of those castes and social groups which had monopolized education in the traditional Indian society.
Later, interest in the reservation policy and equality of educational opportunity led to a critical evaluation of the policy by Sociologists. The Indian Council of Social Science Research sponsored a survey in fifteen states in the early seventies to assess the impact of the reservation policy on various sectors of Scheduled Caste and Tribe students like the extent and utilization of facilities offered under this policy, lacunae in its implementation, etc. Various state- level studies and a national study (Chitnis, 1981) came out as a direct result of these surveys. The ICSSR also made funds available to individual scholars for conducting research in this area and several studies were published in the seventies. They documented the inequalities of educational access among the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and the uneven utilization of facilities. Since these are covered in chapter 30 in this volume, we shall not discuss them here beyond underscoring the fact that research on the educational problems of the Scheduled Caste and Tribe students was a major area of study in the sociology of education in the seventies, apart from the continuing focus on the socioeconomic background of students in general, which was the predominant concern in the sixties.
The interest in both these problems was inspired by the belief that education was a leveller of social stratification. Sociologists wanted to examine ways in which the educational system related to social stratification, especially caste, in determining access to educational institutions. This concern, as mentioned earlier, was set in a theoretical perspective which viewed education as a tool for providing a literate, skilled and trained work-force. In the Indian context, this functionalist perspective was combined with manpower planning and a human-capital approach. This made the `social deter- minants of educational access' the dominant theme of the sixties. This, for reasons discussed earlier, was extended and expanded in the seventies to include the social background of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The seventies also witnessed an expansion of this theme in terms of dimensions covered. For example, cognitive and other psychological dimensions, in addition to the social dimensions, were included. We shall discuss the impact of the inclusion of these studies later. The social context was also expanded to include language, family size, parental aspirations, values, etc.
What is noteworthy is that this expansion did not bring about a diversity in perspectives, as it did in other countries. For example, in the USA, the reaction against technocratic and determinist functionalism led to the application of neo-Marxist perspectives. In the UK, this reaction against the functionalist perspective was led by sociologists who adopted an interactionist perspective, thereby shifting the focus from the `social determinants of educability' and from the study of the educational system in the sixties to the school and the classroom in the seventies. The areas of concern under the `new' sociology became the teacher in the classroom and the interaction of students and teachers in the classroom and the school. Besides, questions of the selection and transmission of knowledge through textbooks became foci of attention. Within this interactionist perspective, man was seen as the main actor. He created and defined his own social reality. This brought about a shift from the earlier method of social survey to observation. Thus, a shift in the theoretical perspective, the problems and the method was simultaneous. Later. the neo-Marxist perspective was also applied to the study of education. Once again, the focus was back on macro- sociology, and on the study of the educational system and its functions. But with a difference. The neo-Marxists looked at the functions of education as social control, the exercise of authority and reproduction of the class system. The dominant class controls the educational system and the selection of knowledge. While the functionalists assume that education promotes the interests of `society', neo-Marxists want to define society'. Besides, instead of being pure empiricists, the neo-Marxists underscore the importance of history in understanding contemporary social reality.
However, while there was a slight expansion in the dimensions covered by earlier studies and some new problem areas were also included, this expansion did not introduce diversity in perspectives, problem areas and methodology in the Indian context. While we have witnessed the failure of education to act as a panacea for inequality of educational opportunity, and an agency for promoting social change and development, this disillusionment has not given birth to a radical shift in the perspectives of sociologists of education. However, we do observe a departure in terms of perspectives in the study of women's education which is developing as a sub-area within the sociology of education. Another difference that is noticeable from the present survey is the use of history to study change, but such studies are very few. Coming back to women's education, we may men-
RESEARCH IN SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION-A TREND REPORT 119
tion that developments in this area indicate changes in perspectives and methodology. These studies use the patriarchal and the neo- 8Marxist framework. We shall not deal with them here since they are discussed in chapter 29 in this volume. However, we would like to emphasize that, next to the statewide surveys on the educational problems of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, this dimension or problem area has attracted the widest attention of sociologists in India. This has the potential of applying new perspectives in the study of women's education and its various dimensions. Whether it Will influence the sociology of education in general and determine the shift in themes, perspectives and methodology is an important question. But it seems that gender will no longer be ignored by sociologists in general and by sociologists of education in particular. Moreover, what is crucial is whether newer perspectives will be applied or whether a fusion of different approaches will be used to study the educational system in the future.
THE PRESENT SURVEY Thirtha (1979) and Shah (1974) give year-wise break-ups of studies in the sociology of education to which we have added the studies undertaken during the years 1982 to 1987 and also included studies conducted earlier Thus, the total number of studies excluding psychology, were nine up to 1960 and 45 in the seventies. Their number increases to sixty-eight in 1975 and to 121 in 1982. The present survey includes a total of 155 studies out of which 18 are institutionally sponsored research projects and 137 are doctoral theses, published and unpublished, submitted to various universities in India. Table 4.1 shows that fewer studies have been under-taken in the departments of sociology than in the departments of psychology and education. As mentioned by Chitnis (1970), more researches in so- ciology of education continue to be undertaken in the departments of psychology and education. The fact that the same trend continues in the late eighties is a matter which deserves attention.
Our main purpose here is to draw attention to research trends in the field. We shall try to provide an overall survey of the themes covered, the methodology and techniques used for sam-
1. Of these, some have been included here since they were not included in the earlier surveys, though they had been undertaken in the periods they covered.
Table 4.1
YEAR-WISE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDIES BY DISCIPLINE
Ph.D. Theses
Year Educ- Socio- Psych- Others Total Projects Grand
ation logy ology Total
Up to
1960 1 2 * 1 4 3(2) 7(2)
1961-70 13 8 *(2) 10 33(2) 11 42(2)
1971-75 21 18 5(1) 10(3) 58(4) 10 64(4)
1976-80 27(1) 38(2) 20(3) 6(3) 100(9) 19(2) 110(11)
1981-82 3(8) 25(6) 6(11) 1(1) 61(26) 9(2) 44(28)
1983-87 (43) (19) (27) (8) (97) (10) (107)
NOT
STATED - - - - - (1) (1)
Total for the
present
survey (52) (27) (44) (15) (138) (17) (155)
Notes: * Figures not given in Thirtha (1974).
i. Figures in parentheses indicate the number of abstracts
included in the present survey.
ii. Social anthropology included in sociology.
Sources: Up to 1970-N.V. Thirtha (1974)
1971-75-B.V. Shah (Second Survey)
1976-82-B.V. Shah (Third Survey)
Table 4.2
UNIVERSITY-WISE BREAK-UP OF DOCTORAL THESES
Universities No. of Theses Total
Agra 12 12
Punjab 9 9
Calcutta, Sardar Patel University 8 each 16
Bhagalpur 6 6
Delhi University, Madras, And. U,
Kashi Vidyapeeth, Alipore, MSU,
Meghalaya 5 each 35
Gauhati, Kerala, Lucknow, Avadh,
Ranchi 4 each 20
Jawaharlal Nehru University 3 3
Jammu, Osmania, SGU, Poona, NBU,
jamia Millia, Meerut, SNDT, Gujarat,
SVU, Banaras Hindu University 2 each 22
Karnataka, Udaipur, GNDU, Born'
bay, DAVV, Gorakhpur, Utkal, RSU,
Rajasthan, Kanpur, Kar. U, Mysore,
Garhwal, Vik. U., Jabalpur 1 each 15
Total: 138
pling, data collection and data analysis. We shall also try to indicate whether there is a shift in the themes covered and methodology used since we are expected to update the earlier surveys. There-
120 KARUNA CHANANA