the theoretical framework 2 - rijksuniversiteit groningen · 2016. 3. 8. · the theoretical...

2The theoretical framework

In this chapter, Archer's theory on educational systems iselaborated into a framework for a more detailed analysis of the development of aneducational system, or a major part of it . The elaboration of this framework1)

starts with a critical look at the key elements of the original theory. As far as isnecessary, a more thorough foundation or redefinition of these elements is given.Building forth on these reformulations, a specification and operationalization ofthese elements is made. First, the analysis of systems is discussed both on the levelof educational systems and their subsystems. Second, the analysis of interactionis dealt with, divided into the definition and analysis of educational interest groupsand the analysis of the processes of interaction. Finally, the analysis of the relationbetween systems and interaction is looked at from the point of view of both theanalytical cycle, and the application of this cycle to the various phases ofeducational systems and their subsystems . Furthermore, some additional2)

hypotheses for empirical analysis are given. All changes with respect to theoriginal theory of Archer are as much as is possible in accordance with thefundamental assumptions of this theory. The resulting framework is supposed tobe theoretically well founded on the one hand, and fit for detailed empiricalanalysis on the other.

The analysis of systemsThe analysis of systems firstdeals with the definition of systems and the distinctionbetween system and environment. Consequently, thedefinition of educational systems is discussed.

Archer has defined a state educational system as anation-wide and differentiated collection of institutionsdevoted to formal education, whose overall control andsupervision is at least partly governmental, and whosecomponent parts and processes are related to one another. She has not given a definition of a system as such, but3)

placed her concept of an educational system withinBuckley's notion of a morphogenetic system. Before goingspecifically into educational systems, the system concept

The theoretical framework34

is investigated first. According to A. de Leeuw, the significance of a system

approach is based on two premises. The first is that thecollection of attributes, necessary for gathering informationabout an empirical object, contains an infinite number ofelements. The second is that the collection of attributes,which can be looked at in the scientific analysis of thisempirical object, has a limited number of attributes. Thisdiscrepancy leads to the conclusion that a completereproduction of an empirical object by an abstract object isimpossible. Models, therefore, are required in which asmany relevant objects as possible are represented. Thesystem approach is, therefore, a model approach of reality, or an ideal type as defined by Max Weber . Niklas4) 5)

Luhmann regards a system as a meaningful selection fromsocial complexity in an attempt towards order. The systemmodel aims for reduction of complexity on the one hand,in order to make the system operable, and maintenance ofcomplexity on the other, in order to handle socialcomplexity . A. Hall & R. Fagen have defined a system as6)

a set of objects, together with relationships between theobjects and their attributes . Objects are the components7)

of the system. Attributes are the characteristics orproperties of objects. Ludwig von Bertalanffy has defineda system as a set of interrelated elements. Interrelationmeans that the behaviour of an element in a relation differsfrom the behaviour of the same element in another relation.8)

In sociology, Parsons and Buckley, among others, havegiven definitions of systems. Talcott Parsons has defineda social system as a relatively coherent whole of socialactions, based on mutual expectations and relativelyseparated from the environment . Parsons has aimed at a9)

liaison between an action and a system approach byviewing lasting social action as a social system. Walter

The analysis of systems 35

Buckley has attempted to show the significance of thegeneral systems theory for sociology and particularly of themodern systems approach mainly developed in naturalsciences . Buckley has explicitly criticized Parsons'10)

systems theory, distinguishing between mechanical,organic, and morphogenetic systems . According to11)

Buckley, socio-cultural systems are morphogeneticsystems: they have developed a capacity for the processesof morphostasis and morphogenesis. Morphostasis refersto the processes which tend to preserve a system's givenform, organization, or state. Morphogenesis refers to theprocesses which tend to elaborate or change a system'sgiven form, structure, or state. The environment of asystem consists of a number of more or lessdistinguishable elements with a certain degree of variety.The relations between these elements are constraints .12)

A system develops characteristics in order to react to thevariety of the environment. This is called the mapping ofvariety and constraints. The system is then selectivelyrelated to the environment. Interaction within complexsystems depends on the degree of constraints, and on thedegree of freedom or variety.

The division between system and environment isessential in the system concept. The objects or elementsof a system are characterized by attributes, or a specificcombination of them, which do not belong to elementsoutside the system. A number of elements outside thesystem are relevant to the system, while others are not.The environment of a system consists of the elementspossessing a certain relevancy. In the words of Hall andFagen: "For a given system, the environment is the set ofall objects a change in whose attributes affect the systemand also those objects whose attributes are changed bythe behaviour of the system" . Together, system and13)

environment make up the universe of relevant objects.


Luhmann has also recognized the relation between systemand environment: "The structures and processes of asystem are only possible in relation to an environment, andthey can only be understood if considered in thisrelationship" .14)

In Archer's definition of an educational system, aspecific combination of attributes for specific objects isimplied. From the definition, a distinction follows betweenthe objects belonging to the state educational system andthe objects outside it. All institutions not devoted to formaleducation are outside the state educational system.Moreover, certain institutions devoted to formal educationare outside a state educational system if one or more ofthe following attributes is valid: a) they do not appearnationwide, b) they are not differentiated; c) they are notpartly controlled and supervised by the government, and d)their component parts and processes are not related to oneanother .15)

In the case of lower technical daytime education, asystem can be defined as the nationwide and differentiatedcollection of institutions devoted to lower daytimetechnical education, whose components and parts arerelated to one another, and are at least to some extentcontrolled and supervised on a central, national level. Thisdefinition excludes educational facilities for technicaleducation which are not at the lower level, or not providedin daytime. Furthermore, educational facilities for lowerdaytime technical education do not make up a system inthe case when one or more of the following attributes ispresent: a) they do not appear nationwide, b) they are notdifferentiated, c) they are not at least partly controlled andsupervised by the government, and d) their componentparts and processes are not related.

The distinction between education and its environmentcomes along with the rise of an educational system.

The analysis of systems 37

According to Archer, education was originally mono-integrated with and subordinated to one dominant group,which means that a sharp distinction between educationand environment was not yet present . After the16)

emergence of a state educational system, education wasmulti-integrated. It was at least partly related to thegovernment and to several other social institutions .17)

Therefore, from the point of view of the educationalsystem, an environment was distinguished, consisting oftwo relevant structures: a) the political structure, referringto the government, and b) the social structure, referring tothe other, non-political social institutions, such as thesystems of social stratification, religion, economy,sciences, technology, and culture. This distinctioncorresponds with the two kinds of interest groups Archerhas found outside the educational system, namely politicalgroups and external interest groups. Archer has alsomentioned conditions under which the interest groups haveto realize their desires. These conditions also refer to eitherthe political structure (accessibility of the political centre,relations between governing elites), or the social structure(availability of resources, relations between interestgroups). Archer has limited herself to those objects outsideeducation with a direct relevancy for the educationalsystem, namely the political structure and the socialstructure. An explanation of the relations within andbetween the political and social structures, let alone ananalysis of society itself, has not been intended. Thereduction of the complexity of the environment in Archer'ssystem model is coherent with modern systems theory asvoiced by Buckley: "If a system or organization is to adaptto or control its environment, it must contain at least asmuch variety as there is in the environment to becontrolled" . As the socio-cultural system maps the18)

environment, the complexity of the system model has to be


greater than the environment model's complexity.

The analysis of the system characteristics. After thereformulation of the concepts of (educational) system andenvironment, attention is given to the analysis of thestructure of the educational system and the systemcharacteristics. Besides, the cultural contents of systemsare considered alongside their structural characteristics.

Archer has named four tendencies of change for anyeducational system . These tendencies are called system19)

characteristics, as they can be used for a description of thesystem at any given time. Archer states that thesecharacteristics are present at the moment a stateeducational system has emerged. This means that beforethis emergence, these characteristics (at least in thiscombination) are not present. Archer does not reveal fromwhich theory the notion of these characteristics has beenobtained . In this study, the position taken is that the20)

presence of the four characteristics is inherent to thedefinition of a state educational system. In this definition,four attributes are ascribed to this object. Each of theseattributes corresponds with one of the systemcharacteristics, namely: a) a nationwide and b)differentiated collection of institutions refers to the systemcharacteristics differentiation and specialization, c) the atleast partly control and supervision by the governmentrefers to the system characteristic unification, and d) therelated component parts and processes refer to the systemcharacteristic systematization.

The reason why four, and only these four attributes arementioned, follows from the original definition of a stateeducational system. A system is a set of objects withspecific attributes and relations, which are distinct but notseparated from objects belonging to the environment. Fromthis definition of a system, it follows that each system has

The analysis of the system characterstics 39

relations between its objects and the objects outside thesystem, as well as relations only between the objectswithin the system. Therefore, a distinction appearsbetween external and internal relations of the system.Furthermore, two elements are present in these relations.In the first place, an element of correspondence exists.This element is inherent to the definition of theenvironment, namely as objects whose change results in achange of the system, or which are affected by a changein the system. If no element of correspondence existsbetween the system and an object outside it, this objectbelongs not to the environment of the system. In thesecond place, an element of distinction (diversity,differentiation) is present. This element also follows onfrom the definition of the environment as objects that donot have the same attributes as the objects belonging tothe system. As at least one essential attribute differs, anelement of diversity exists. The two aspects ofcorrespondence and diversity also hold for the objectswithin the system. The correspondence between objectsbelonging to the system stems from the attributes theyhave in common, and by which they are placed within thesystem. The diversity between objects stems from the factthat the number of attributes used in the system model islimited compared to all objects' actual attributes.Therefore, although not essential for the definition of thesystem, all objects have at least one uncommon attribute.

All systems, therefore, are characterized by twodichotomies. The first dichotomy is the distinction betweenexternal and internal relations. The second is the distinctionbetween elements of correspondence and elements ofdiversity. The combination of these dichotomies leads tofour sorts of relations of any system . These four21)

relations are: a) external relations of the system, signifyingthe correspondence between objects within the system and


objects outside the system, b) external relations of thesystem, accentuating the diversity between objects withinthe system and objects outside the system but within thesystem's environment, c) internal relations of the system,with respect to the correspondence between its objects,and d) internal relations of the system, with regard to thediversity between its objects. The four systemcharacteristics Archer has mentioned and included in thedefinition of a state educational system can now beredefined (see scheme 2.1). Unification refers to theexternal relations providing correspondence, differentiationto the external relations providing diversity, systematizationto the internal relations providing correspondence, andspecialization to the internal relations providing diversity .22)

dichotomies CORRESPONDENCE DIVERSITY

EXTERNAL unification (a) differentiation (b)RELATIONSINTERNAL systematization (c) specialization (d)RELATIONS

Scheme 2.1: The four characteristics of the structure ofthe system

Any system, consequently, is characterized by the foursystem characteristics. The reverse, that a system existsif these four aspects are present, is not valid in case oftemporary phenomena. The distinction between systemand environment, and therefore the definition of a system,is only significant when the system is able to maintain anddistinguish itself from the environment for a prolongedtime.

Following the derivation of the existence of four systemcharacteristics, the degree of their presence is established.It is assumed that this degree has quantitative or gradualaspects, as well as qualitative aspects. The qualitativeaspects refer to the relation's scope, the quantitative


aspect to its degree .23)

Unification concerns the incorporation or developmentof several institutions, activities, and personnel under acentral, national, and specifically educational framework ofadministration. This framework is usually provided for bythe state, and laid down in regulations. Unification'squalitative aspect regards its scope: the objects subjectedto regulation. Regulation can concern the structure andcontents of education, its control and supervision, and itsfinancing. The qualitative aspect is ordered by assumingthat the scope of unification starts on a general, formallevel, and develops into more specific, substantial levels.Unification's quantitative aspect concerns its strength: thelevel at which the regulation passes and its specificity ,24)

the percentage or the absolute amount of state financing,and the degree of supervisors' authority. It is assumed thatthe quantitative aspect of unification (its strength) and thequalitative aspect (its scope) appear, more or less, togetherhistorically. Consequently, little unification involves a weakdegree and a limited scope, while extensive unificationinvolves a strong degree and a wide scope.

Systematization refers to the nature and the strength ofthe relations between parts of the system. More relationsand stronger relations signify a more extensivesystematization. Its qualitative aspect concerns the objectsrelated. The more elements of the system's parts arelinked, the more extensive the systematization. This aspectis ordered by assuming that little systematization alsoregards only formal, external aspects, while extensivesystematization regards informal, substantial aspects. Itsquantitative aspect refers to the strength of the relations.This strength ranges from no relation, to a weak one, thento a global degree of correspondence, and finally tocomplete harmonization . With respect to25)

systematization, it is also assumed that the degree of


scope and degree of strength co-incide in practice.Differentiation refers to the increased formalization and

separation of education from other parts of society and,consequently, to the plurality of social institutions whosedemands are met by education. Little differentiation impliesthat the educational system serves only one socialinstitution, and is closely linked with it. A large degree ofdifferentiation means that the educational system servesmany social institutions, and is only loosely linked with aspecific institution. The qualitative aspect of differentiationconcerns the diverse educational demands the educationalsystem meets, ranging from a single demand to many. Thequantitative aspect refers to the degree to whicheducational provisions are engaged with education forspecific social institutions. It is assumed that the qualitativeand quantitative aspect of differentiation, in fact, co-incide.In this manner, the existence of few external educationaldemands goes along with a more intensive training forthese by many or all students, involving many schools andteachers. The existence of many external educationaldemands goes along with smaller numbers of students,schools, and teachers involved in training for a particulardemand.

Specialization is the internal differentiation of education,indicated by a variety of educational provisions, intake,processes, and output. The qualitative aspect ofspecialization refers to the part of education in whichspecialization is possible. This qualitative aspect rangesfrom an external and formal level of education in whichchoices exist, to an internal and substantial one. Thequantitative aspect of specialization refers to the momentduring the school career when choices are made. Littlespecialization means that a student only makes choices atthe end of the school career, while extensive specializationinvolves making choices at a relatively early stage. The


quantitative aspect is ordered to age or level of education(primary, lower and upper secondary education, highereducation). It is assumed that a small scope ofspecialization co-incides with a later moment ofspecialization and a large scope of specialization with anearly stage of first choices, subsequently followedrepeatedly by new times for choices.

Archer's theory of educational systems has onlyconcerned their structures and not their contents, asseveral critics have noted. Analysis of the system'scontents, besides analysis of its structure, adds importantinformation on a specific educational system. For instance,important differences with regard to goals, processes, andoutput existed between the centralized educationalsystems in France and the Soviet Union. Additionalconcepts for the analysis of the system's contents arenecessary. These concepts must fit in with the overalltheoretical framework.

Archer has given suggestions for the analysis ofeducational contents in later publications regarding theconcept of culture in sociology . These suggestions are26)

elaborated into a framework of the analysis of educationalsystems' cultural contents. Archer poses that a distinctionhas to be made between: a) the cultural system, whoseintegration depends on its logical coherence, and whichonly regards the consistency of the ideas belonging to aculture, and b) the socio-cultural system, whose integrationdepends on consensus as resulting in and appearing as aresult of the attempts to obtain social order by way of acultural system. Thus, integration of the cultural systemand socio-cultural integration are two different matters,which do not depend on each other. Their distinction leadsto four aspects of the analysis of the concept of culture.Cultural systems are analyzed to the degree of consistencyof cultural systems, and to the presence of alternative


cultural systems. Socio-cultural systems are analyzedaccording to the conditions of socio-cultural integration,and to the degree of social differentiation.

In this study, it is assumed that these four aspects ofcultural analysis are based on two dichotomies. The firstone is the distinction between external and internalrelations. This co-incides with the distinction betweencultural and socio-cultural systems. The internal relationsconcern the existence of cultural systems and theirconsistency. The external relations concern the degree ofsocial differentiation and social integration. The seconddistinction exists between elements of correspondence andelements of diversity. Correspondence adheres to socio-cultural integration and cultural consistency. Diversityrefers to alternative cultural systems and socialdifferentiation. As the principles of the four aspects are thesame as with the analysis of the system's structure, theangles of structural and cultural analysis can be combined.Scheme 2.2 presents both the characteristics of thestructure and the culture of a system.

structura CORRESPONDENCE DIVERSITYl /cultural

EXTERNAL unification / socio-cultural differentiation / socialintegration differentiation

INTERNAL systematization / cultural specialization / culturalconsistency plurality

Scheme 2.2: Structural and cultural characteristics of asystem

The four aspects of culture can be fully applied to theanalysis of the contents of any educational system. Boththe cultural system of education and the socio-culturalsystem, the degree to which students are brought intocontact with this culture, have to be examined. Within thisformal framework, the characteristics can be further


specified empirically .27)

The analysis of subsystems. Archer has analyzededucational systems as a whole, without giving specificattention to subsystems and the relation between thegeneral system and its subsystems. In practice, eacheducational system consists of several subsystems. Theobjects of a subsystem are the institutions for a specifictype of formal education, e.g. with respect to level(primary, secondary, tertiary) or contents (classical, poly-technical and so on). A subsystem is distinguished whentwo assumptions are met: a) a clear distinction betweenthe subsystem and its environment, and b) sufficientcomplexity of the subsystem to be able to maintain itselffor a prolonged time. Although a subsystem is a system initself, it involves another level of analysis. In this respect,one must be aware of what Wagner has calleddisplacement of scope. This displacement holds that aspecific level of analysis is studied in the same manner asanother level . Consequently, the theoretical model28)

presented this far has to be elaborated into a modelsuitable for subsystem analysis.

When a distinction between a system and one or moresubsystems is assumed, an extra level of analysis in thesystems theory is involved. From the point of view of asubsystem, the environment of the subsystem consists ofboth the general educational system and its environment.This implies a distinction between the characteristics of thesystem itself and those of the subsystem. The derivationof the subsystem characteristics is similar to the derivationof the general characteristics of the system. It starts fromthe assumption that the subsystem is characterized by thedichotomy of relations of correspondence, and diversity.The use of the second dichotomy of external and internalrelations needs modification. The external relations of a


subsystem regard the relations with the educational systemitself, as well as the environment of the educationalsystem. The environment of the subsystem, thus, includesboth the state educational system and the environment ofthis system. Hence, from the point of view of thesubsystem, three instead of two levels of analysis aredistinguished, namely the subsystem itself, the greatersystem to which it belongs, and the environment of thisgreater system . The combination with the distinction29)

between relations of correspondence and diversity leads tosix sorts of relations or subsystem characteristics (seescheme 2.3).

relations CORRESPONDENCE DIVERSITY

SUBSYSTEM WITHTHE ENVIRONMENT a bOF THEEDUCATIONALSYSTEMSUBSYSTEM WITHTHE EDUCATIONALSYSTEM

c d

SUBSYSTEM e fINTERNAL

Scheme 2.3: The six characteristics of the structure ofthe subsystem

Each subsystem characteristic is specified further bylooking at it from both a qualitative angle, regarding thescope of the relation, and a quantitative angle, regardingthe intensity or degree of strength of the relation.

The relations of correspondence with the environmentof the educational system (a) concern all subsystem'srelations of correspondence with any social institutionoutside the state educational system. Such a socialinstitution is at least the governmental, national,administrative centre for education. Other social

The analysis of subsystems 47

institutions, such as religion or the economy, may also berelevant, depending on the specific kind of formaleducation of the subsystem. The qualitative aspect of thisrelation refers to its scope, that is, the objects or elementsof the subsystem subjected to correspondence withexternal social institutions. The quantitative aspect refersto its strength: the degree to which these objects orelements are subjected to the external social institution.

The relations of diversity with the environment of theeducational system (b) refer to the autonomy of thesubsystem for establishing its own goals, input, processes,and output. Such relations occur when the subsystem hasrelations with many, unrelated social institutions at thesame time. The more different educational demands arefulfilled, the more autonomous the subsystem is from thedemands of one social institution in particular. Thequalitative aspect of this relation refers to its scope, thatis, the elements of the subsystem which are organizedautonomously. The quantitative aspect refers to thestrength of the relation, e.g. the number of students whoare engaged in general courses, compared to the numberengaged in courses specific to a particular educationaldemand.

The relations of correspondence with the educationalsystem (c) refer to the correspondence between thesubsystem and other institutions within the stateeducational system. The qualitative aspect of this relationrefers to the objects of the subsystem subjected tocorrespondence. For instance, little correspondence occurswhen the input is regulated only in terms of qualificationsacquired in another part of the system. A more extensivecorrespondence occurs when input, output, teachertraining, subjects, number of hours for each subject, andso on, are determined in relation to other institutions.Again, the quantitative aspect refers to the strength of the


relation.The relations of diversity with the educational system

(d) refer to the place of the subsystem within theeducational system. The more distinct a subsystem is, thegreater the diversity. The qualitative aspect of this relationconcerns the elements of the subsystem which arediscernible from other educational institutions. The morethe elements differ from each other, the greater thediversity. The quantitative aspect of this relation refers tothe strength of distinctiveness. The more a specific aspectis organized autonomously, the greater the diversity.

The internal relations of correspondence (e) refer to thesystematic correspondence of the relations between thesubsystem's elements. The qualitative aspect of thisrelation concerns the elements which are subjected to thiscorrespondence. The quantitative aspect regards thestrength of the correspondence between these elements.

Finally, the internal relations of diversity (f), refer to thepossibility of internal differences. More diversity is presentwhen a student can make a choice from amongst moreroutes or levels of education. A student's freedom ofchoice is accompanied by teachers' specialization. Thequalitative aspect of this relation refers to the scope ofpossible choices, for instance with respect to subjects,routes or levels of examination. The quantitative aspectrefers to the degree a specific aspect of this relation is leftover to the student's freedom of choice.

By definition, a subsystem is significantly related to thegeneral system. If not, the subsystem would be a systemof itself. The origins of a subsystem stem from either thegeneral system, e.g. as a result of a division of one of itsoriginal subsystems, or the environment, e.g. by theestablishment of new educational provisions linked to thealready existing ones. Once a subsystem has originated, itis conditioned to a large extent by the general system. The

The analysis of subsystems 49

more developed a system is, the greater the extent of theconditioning.

The definition and analysis of interest groupsAfter theanalysis of systems and subsystems and theircharacteristics, the interaction processes with regard tothese (sub-)systems are investigated . It is assumed that30)

the framework for analysis of the interaction processes onthe subsystem level is the same as for the general systemslevel. The first step in the construction of this frameworkis the determination of the types of relevant interestgroups. Archer has looked at relevant educational interestgroups in the phase of emergence of the state educationalsystem, and in the phase after this emergence. In the firstphase, Archer distinguishes between a dominant groupwith possession over education and other groups . The31)

other groups have advantage of this situation,disadvantage, or are neutral to it. Disadvantaged groupscan become assertive groups. Assertive groups have eithermaterial resources, in which case they follow a strategy ofsubstitution, or political power, in which case they followa strategy of restriction. After the emergence of a stateeducational system, Archer distinguishes between threekinds of groups . Political interest groups use power as32)

a means of negotiation. External interest groups usematerial resources. As a result of the acquired relativeautonomy of the educational system, personnel workingwithin the system is able to operate as an interest group,using professional expertise as their means. Such a groupis called a professional interest group. The question is whyonly three, and then these particular three interest groupsare relevant. Furthermore, it is questioned whether aspecific kind of interest group is defined by the use of aspecific sort of resources, or by some other criterium.

The interest groups are determined by looking at the


conditioning effects of the educational system's structure.This structure has consequences for the groups related toit. Due to their position, these groups have specificinterests which are transformed into specific attitudestowards education. These attitudes vary from totalrejection of the actual situation, as none of the owninterests are satisfied by education, to complete support,as all wishes are met by the existing education. In general,groups feel advantaged to some extent by actualeducation, and disadvantaged in other respects. All groupshave interests with regard to the system, either foradvocating a specific change, or for maintaining the actualsituation. Following the previous analysis of the system'sstructure, interest groups are distinguished into externaland internal groups. External groups are groups withorigins outside the system, belonging to the system'senvironment. As a result of their interests in education,they are a relevant group. Internal groups originated withinthe system. A second distinction follows this, with respectto the political structure and the social structure asrelevant parts of the environment. The polity mainlysecures the unifying and systematisizing effects of thesystem. The social structure mainly leads to differentiationand specialization. Groups from the polity are officialgroups, whereas those from the social structure are privategroups. The combination of the two dichotomies, externalversus internal, and official versus private, leads to fourkinds of interest groups (scheme 2.4): external officialgroups (in Archer's theory political groups), externalprivate groups (in Archer's theory external groups), internalofficial groups (not mentioned in Archer's theory), andinternal private groups (in Archer's theory professionalgroups).

The definition and analysis of interest groups 51

interest groups STRUCTURE STRUCTUREPOLITICAL SOCIAL

-> OFFICIAL -> PRIVATEGROUPS GROUPS

ENVIRONMENT ->SYSTEM-EXTERNALGROUPS

political groups external groups

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM->SYSTEM-INTERNALGROUPS

administrativegroups

professional groups

Scheme 2.4: The structural position of the four relevantinterest groups

Political groups are, for instance, Government,Parliament, Ministers, and the political factions inParliament. External groups are religious groups,economical groups such as organizations of employers andemployees, and socio-cultural groups. Administrativegroups are not mentioned by Archer separately, as she hasmade a combination of interest group and type ofresources. Administrative groups have no possession of aspecific kind of resources. Archer probably considers thesekinds of groups as non-relevant to the system, or as a partof the political groups. After the emergence of a stateeducational system, however, not only teachers havebecome more autonomous and apt to organize themselvesinto an interest group, but another breed of employees hasalso originated within the system, although not teachingthemselves, namely the educational officials. During theeducational system's development, this category expandsand, as it is engaged daily in the administration ofeducation, it becomes increasingly significant foreducational change. Although administrative interestgroups have no alternative definition of education, theyhold institutional interests. Even though they do notpossess a specific kind of resources for negotiation, they


have bargaining strength relative to other interest groups(relative to system-external groups they have professionalexpertise; relative to private groups they have politicalpower). Administrative officials, therefore, are neitherirrelevant to the educational system, nor merely a part ofthe political groups. Examples of administrative officials areschool supervisors, administrative committees oneducational affairs, national bodies for curriculumdevelopment, educational research, pedagogical support,and test construction . Professional groups are33)

organizations of teachers, boards of school administrationand, among others, pedagogues and educationists .34)

In a later publication, Archer has analyzed thesituational logic of a group's structural and cultural position

. In this, she has made two distinctions with regard to a35)

group's position in relation to other groups. The firstdistinction is between necessary and contingent relations.In case of necessary relations, groups are internally relatedto and forced to deal with one another. In case ofcontingent relations, groups have a large degree offreedom in engaging with other groups. In this study, it isassumed that official groups are usually characterized bynecessary relations and private groups by contingent ones.Moreover, external groups have relatively more contingentrelations and internal groups more necessary relations. Inconsequence, administrative groups have the least degreeof freedom and external groups the most. Political andprofessional groups have a position in-between. Thesecond distinction is between complementarities orcompatibilities on the one hand, and contradictions orincompatibilities on the other. In the former case, groupscan help one another's operations, while in the latter casethey can hinder them. The second distinction is assumedto be similar to the distinction between relations of eithercorrespondence or diversity. Scheme 2.5 presents the


conditioning effects of this situational logic of groups forboth socio-cultural and socio-structural actions . In the36)

case of contingent complementary relations, groups havea large degree of freedom. In the case of contingentcontradictory relations, groups compete with each otherand try to eliminate opponents. In the case of necessarycomplementary relations, groups protect one another andtry to re-inforce the actual relations. In the case ofnecessary contradictory relations, groups are forced tocorrect their major differences.

(situational logic) COMPLEMENTARY CONTRADICTORYsocio-cultural RELATIONS RELATIONSconditioning (social integration, (social differentiation,socio-structural cultural consistency) cultural plurality)conditioning

CONTINGENT RELATIONS cultural free play, cleavage(opportunism) (elimination)

sectionalism competitiondiversification

NECESSARY RELATIONS reproduction, re- repair, re-interpretation(protection) (correction)

inforcement compromisesolidarity,

Scheme 2.5: The conditioning effects of the relations ofinterest groups

After the derivation of the four types of educationalinterest groups and preceding the analysis of actualprocesses of interaction, further analysis is made of theaspects of interest groups relevant for these processes.Interest groups are analyzed according to the followingrespects: their views, conditions, resources, and aspectsof their activities.

It is assumed that educational interest groups havestructurally determined interests and that they actaccording to them. This does not mean that interest groupsare completely conditioned by the actual structure.


System-external groups also have other interests than withregard to education. Moreover, a group's interpretation ofits position and interests may be incomplete or evenslightly misplaced. A group may also choose to followother options than the ones that follow logically from theirstructural interests. Each interest group can be analyzedaccording to its wishes in changing education. Thesewishes usually involve not only a view on education itself,but also a view on the relation of education with itsenvironment, that is society. As the environment of theeducational system is distinguished from the politicalstructure and (in a wide sense) the social structure, it isassumed that an interest group has a view on the politicalstructure, in particular the desired role of the state towardssociety and education, and a view on the social structure,namely the desired relations within society. Together withits view on education, the opinions of each educationalinterest group are examined according to three aspects.These aspects are labelled as political (the desired role ofthe state), socio-economic (the desired social relations),and cultural (the view on education) .37)

Archer has mentioned several conditions as decisivewith respect to the actual possibilities for negotiations. Shenames separate conditions for the centralized anddecentralized systems. In a centralized system, theconditions are the accessibility of the political centre, therelations between governmental elites, and the internalorganization and superimposition of interest groups . In38)

a decentralized system, the conditions are the availabilityof resources for negotiation, the relations betweeneducational interest groups, and their internal organizationand superimposition . These conditions are combined to39)

one scheme of conditions for any interest group, regardlessof the degree of system centralization. This combinationresolves in three conditions, which correspond to the


distinction between political, economical, and culturalaspects. These conditions are: a) the availability ofresources, either the access to the political centre in acentralized system or the availability of all resources in adecentralized system (economical condition); b) therelations of the group with other educational interestgroups, either between governmental elites in a centralizedsystem, or between all educational interest groups in adecentralized system (political condition); c) the internalorganization and superimposition of an interest group(cultural condition). The combination allows for an analysisof any interest group according to these three conditions.

The next question is the availability of resources toeducational interest groups. In the phase of a stateeducational system's origins, as well as in the phase of itsoperation, Archer has regarded political power andeconomical wealth as relevant resources for attempts ateducational change. After the emergence of stateeducational systems, professional expertise has also beenused to change the actual state of educational affairs.Therefore, in all, three kinds of resources for struggle overeducation are distinguished. The question why only thesethree resources are distinguished is only answeredheuristically. Their distinction corresponds to the earliermentioned distinction between political, economical, andcultural aspects of social reality. As defining interestgroups by way of possession of one kind of resource hasbeen rejected in favour of a structural-logical definition ofinterest groups, new assumptions have to be made aboutthe relation between interest groups and resources. Inprinciple, any interest group can use all three kinds ofresources. However, not all resources are equally availableto any interest group as a result of their structural position.For instance, system-external interest groups barelypossess any professional expertise. On the other hand,


system-internal groups have rarely any possession ofeconomic resources. Furthermore, all interest groups canuse political power as a means of negotiations. Consideringtheir structural positions, the degree of availability of aspecific resource relative to others can be established forany kind of interest group. Political groups use politicalpower to a great extent, and, as far as they influence statefinances, material wealth too. External groups use materialwealth and to some degree political power. Administrativegroups use political power as well as professionalexpertise. Professional groups use professional expertise toa great extent and political power to some degree.

Following Blau, Archer has mentioned four aspects ofexchange of resources . These aspects regard the40)

possession of resources for an exchange, the existence ofalternative suppliers of desired services, the possibility ofcoercion towards an exchange, and ideologies to legitimatean exchange or its failure . The first aspect, the41)

possession of resources, has already been mentioned asone of the conditions for interaction. The other threeaspects regard the actual activities on basis of which anyinterest group can be analyzed. These, once again, areviewed as the economical, political, and cultural-ideologicalaspects of any exchange. The use of resources, relative tosupply and demand of services, is the economical aspectof activities, while the use of coercion the political aspect,and the use of educational ideologies the cultural one.

In all, each interest group can be analyzed for 1) itsviews, 2) the conditions for negotiation, 3) the availableresources, and 4) its activities. Each of these elements isdistinguished to a political, economical, and cultural-ideological aspect (scheme 2.6).


VIEWS CONDITIONS RESOURCES ACTIVITIES

the desired role relations with political power use of coercionof the state other interest

groupsthe desired the possession material wealth use of resourcessocial structure of resourcesthe desired organization and professional use ofeducation superimposition expertise educational

ideologies

Scheme 2.6: Analysis of interest groups

The processes of interactionAfter the analysis ofinterest groups, the processes of interaction between themare investigated . First, the possible processes of42)

interaction are defined. Next, the probability of relationsbetween interest groups is discussed. Finally, the relevanceof educational consumers' actions, that is primary action,is explored.

Archer has distinguished between three processes ofnegotiation: political manipulation, external transaction,and internal initiation . The question is why only these43)

three processes are relevant, and how these processes aredefined. The definition of these processes as the use ofany resource by a particular type of group has alreadybeen rejected. The alternative definition is that a processis defined by the use of a specific resource, regardless ofthe kind of interest group. This definition is more justified,but requires further specification. Three resources fornegotiation have been distinguished. Two of theseresources are only available for specific groups, dependingon their structural position. Material wealth is only used bysystem-external groups, and professional expertise is onlyavailable to system-internal groups. The third resource,political power, is available to any interest group. However,the manner in which political power is used, differs for


these groups, again depending on their structural position.The official groups have the authority to issue regulations.The non-official or private groups lack this authority. Thesegroups have the possibility to use political power only asa means of pressure. Therefore, four ways of usingresources are distinguished: a) political power forregulation or manipulation, b) political power for pressure,c) material wealth for transaction, d) professional expertisefor initiation. In fact, due to its structural position, anyinterest group has available only two of the four mannersof using resources. The combination of four types ofinterest groups and two available resources per groupresults in eight types of activities. This eightfold wholereplaces Archer's original threefold distinction. Each of theeight types of activities is labelled as presented in scheme2.7.

INTEREST GROUP RESOURCE ACTIVITY

political groups political power political manipulationpolitical groups material sources political transactionexternal groups material sources external transactionexternal groups political power external pressureadministrative groups political power administrativeadministrative groups professional expertise manipulationprofessional groups professional expertise administrativeprofessional groups political power initiation

internal initiationprofessional pressure

Scheme 2.7: Definition of the eight activities of interestgroups

So far, interest groups have been analyzed on theirown. In fact, educational struggle consists of relations ofexchange or negotiation between interest groups.Educational interaction takes diverse forms. The probabilityof relations between groups is examined on the basis ofthe analysis presented above. In theory, all four types ofgroups can use two types of resources towards any other

The processes of interaction 59

type of interest group. In practise, all relations are notequally probable. Any group can use power (either formanipulation or pressure) towards another group.However, relations based on the use of wealth or expertiseare limited to specific groups. Relations based on wealthare only possible for system-external groups, whilerelations based on expertise are only available for system-internal groups. Although external groups can exchangewealth, just as internal groups can exchange expertise, itis assumed that external groups primarily use wealthtowards internal groups, while internal groups primarily useexpertise towards external groups. Each group makes useof the resource it is facilitated with most, and is confrontedwith the resource it has least possession of.

All processes of interaction mentioned so far haveconcerned the interest groups' activities. This correspondsto Archer's original theory. In a later publication, Archerhas distinguished between interactions in which interestgroups are engaged, and interactions in which unorganizedpersons are engaged . The first is called corporate44)

action, the second primary action. Besides corporateaction, primary action is significant, as its accumulatedeffects have great, unintended consequences for thedevelopment of the educational system. Archer has derivedthe concepts for the analysis of primary action from viewsof Craig and Spear . Primary action is analyzed for a) the45)

prior decisions of primary actors, b) the objectively definedoptions for use of education, c) the information available toprimary actors regarding these options, d) the perceptionand evaluation of these options in comparison to the needsof primary actors, and e) the final decisions of primaryactors with regard to the use of education. In this study,these elements are reformulated in terms of the analyticalcycle, namely a) analysis of the primary actors' originaloptions and the objective possibilities for education, b)


analysis of the actors' information and their evaluation ofit in relation to their needs, and c) the actors' new optionsand decisions. Due to this assumption, it is possible to linkthe analysis of corporate action with that of primary action,and to place both in the context of the structure of theeducational system. The objective possibilities, availableoptions, and final choices are directly related to thestructure of the educational system. According to Archer,the primary actors' motivation varies from positive,indifferent, to negative.

Analysis of the relation between corporate and primaryaction has been undertaken by Archer with the help of fourpoints of comparison. The four points are: a) the relationbetween 'context' and 'environment'; here, 'context' refersto the educational system, its educational provisions andthe related corporate groups, while 'environment' refers tothe information, options and decisions of primary actors; b)the relation between supply and demand of educationalprovisions; c) the behaviour of the primary actors; d) therelative weight of macro-influences (corporate action) andmicro-influences (primary action). The relation betweencorporate and primary action varies from domination bycorporate action, co-action between both types of action,to domination by primary action .46)

The distinction between corporate and primary actorsis not a stable one. Archer states that agency too issubject to morphogenesis . The morphogenesis of47)

agency in time consists of a) socio-cultural conditioning ofgroups and agents, b) group interaction both amongcorporate groups, and between corporate and primaryactors, and c) group elaboration, both by organization ofprimary actors and a subsequent increase of corporateagents, and a transformation of corporate actors.

The relation between system and interaction: the analytical cycle 61

The relation between system and interaction: theanalytical cycleThe definition of interest groups and theiractivities and the definitions of structural and culturalcharacteristics have been based on a distinction betweenexternal and internal elements, and one between elementsof correspondence and diversity. Scheme 2.8 combinesthese definitions and summarizes their derivation.

STRUCTURAL POSITION POLITICAL STRUCTURE SOCIAL STRUCTUREinterest group official groups private groupsresource -> activity power -> power -> pressurestructural and cultural manipulation changes towardschanges changes towards diversity

correspondence

ENVIRONMENT OFSYSTEM political groups external groupssystem-external political manipulation external transactiongroups political transaction external pressure

unification structuralwealth -> transaction

external changes

socio-cultural differentiationintegration social-cultural

differentiation

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMsystem-internal groups administrative groups professional groups

administrative internal initiationexpertise -> initiation

internal changes

manipulation professional pressureadministrative specializationinitiation cultural pluralitysystematizationcultural consistency

Scheme 2.8: The derivation of interest groups,their activities, and processes of change

The derivation of groups, activities, and processes ofstructural and cultural change has to be incorporatedwithin a sociological theory regarding their relations. Thismeans an introduction of the time factor. Archer haselaborated an analytical cycle from the combination of asystem approach, inspired mainly by Buckley's concept ofmorphogenetic systems, and an action approach, mainlyderived from Blau's exchange theory. This link has resulted


in an analytical cycle, which analyzes structural changeand the processes of interaction in three phases : a) the48)

analysis of a given structure, which conditions but doesnot determine the social interaction with regard to it; b) theanalysis of the social interaction regarding the system,which is partly conditioned by the former structure, butalso partly arises from unconditioned action orientations,and thus is independent from the original structure; c) theanalysis of structural elaboration as a result of bothprevious phases. The cycle is then repeated, that is, theelaborated structure is the starting point of a newanalytical cycle, leading to an even more elaboratedstructure . The analytical cycle meets the objections with49)

respect to a structuralist approach, resulting in downwardsconflation, as well as the objections regarding aninteractionist approach, resulting in upwards conflation .50)

A structuralist approach assumes a direct transition fromthe original structure (a) to the changed structure at a latertime (c), neglecting the social interaction engaged instructural change. An interactionist approach assumes thatan elaborated structure (c) arises solely from socialinteraction (b), neglecting the conditioning effects of theformer structure. Archer has compared her concept of amorphogenetic analytical cycle with Giddens' concept ofstructuration . Structuration refers to the dual character51)

of structures: structures are the result of the reproductionof social practices as well as their medium. Archer prefersthe concept of morphogenesis to the concept ofstructuration for the following reasons. Morphogenesisexamines the actors' degree of freedom, as well as theactual structural constraints. It solves the dilemma of theplace of time, by combining structural conditioning andchange with social interaction in an analytical cycle. Itsolves the relation between parts and the whole, bydistinguishing between different levels of analysis, and by

The relation between system and interaction: the analytical cycle 63

looking at their relations.From the theoretical framework constructed so far, two

major additions to the analytical cycle are derived . First,52)

next to a structural analysis of education, a culturalanalysis, that is, an analysis of the contents of educationhas been undertaken. This analysis is made possible bylooking at cultural plurality and the consistency of acultural concept. Second, besides an analysis of corporateaction, an analysis of primary action is made. The extendedanalytical cycle consists of: a) analysis of the educationalsystem's culture and structure at a given time in terms ofthe system and cultural characteristics, including theeffects on the demand and supply of education from thepoints of view of corporate and primary actors, b) analysisof the processes of interaction with regard to the originalstructure and culture, that is, the processes of corporateaction, and the evaluation and decisions by primary actorsas well as the elaboration of actors, c) analysis of theeducational system's elaborated structure and culture at alater time in terms of the system characteristics as a resultof both previous phases. Schematically, these elements arerepresented as follows (scheme 2.9 in which T1 - T4 standfor a certain point in time) .53)

a) structure and culture of the system T1 ---------------------------------------------------b) corporate action and primary action T2 ---------------------------------------------------- T3c) structural and culturalelaboration --------------------------------------------------- T4

Scheme 2.9: The extended analytical cycle

The interplay between these analytical steps is asfollows. Structural conditioning of interaction [a-->b]. Thesystem's original structure conditions the actor in several


ways. First, an interest group has a structurally determinedposition with regard to the system. Primary agents are alsodependent on the prevailing educational options. Second,all actors have a view on the existing educational systemand its relation to the environment, greatly conditioned bytheir positions in the system or its environment. Wishes tochange or maintain the system result from such a view.The direction of the desired changes varies. For instance,two actors may advocate the same change, oppositechanges, or unrelated changes. Third, corporate actors areconditioned by the availability of resources, their relationswith other interest groups, and their internal organizationand superimposition. Primary actors are conditioned bytheir availability of information as to the prevailingeducational options.

Elaboration of the system [a-->c]. An educationalsystem changes in-between two moments in time. Thechanges concern both its structural components and itscultural contents and can therefore be interpreted in termsof the structural and cultural characteristics. It is possibleto denote a change in the separate characteristics in termsof an increase or a decrease. Changes in the relativeweight of these characteristics are interpreted heuristically.

Elaboration of the system as a result of interaction [b-->c]. The activities of an actor are analyzed for a specificdirection of desired change of the original system, adirection which is reformulated in terms of a specificchange in the system characteristics, and for a specificamount of energy invested in this change. As many actorshave educational wishes and as their desired changes donot co-incide, educational struggle exists. Although theprimary actors act unorganized and unconsciously, theeffect of their actions is also interpreted in terms of one (ormore) direction(s) of change and a specific force ofchange. The combination of invested energies in several

The phases of educational systems and their subsystems 65

directions results in a (multi-dimensional) field of forces.Some investments are counteracted by the investments ofother actors in the case of conflicting interests. Someinvestments co-incide in the case of mutual interests, andsome re-inforce each other as actors decide to supporteach others', originally unrelated interests. In time, the fieldof forces leads to a resultant. If the strength of thisresultant is more than necessary to overcome the inertia ofthe system, the system changes. This change correspondswith the change desired by one group, if this group hasbeen able to employ enough activity to overcome thesystem's inertia, as well as all possible counteractions ofother actors. It is more probable, however, that the resultstarts from the desired change as a consequence of theunintended effects of the multi-directed activities ofinterest groups in which none has been dominant enoughto impose its wishes.

Archer has used her analytical cycle for two phases: thephase of origins of an educational system and the phase ofits elaboration. In this study, the extended analytical cycleis applied with two additional assumptions. First, the cycleis maintained for shorter periods than the two phasesArcher has used it for. No principal objections exist againstthis assumption. The only reservation is that structuralchange within the period of analysis has to be significantenough to make a shorter term analysis worthwhile.Second, the cycle is maintained not only on the systemlevel, but also on the subsystem level. As the cycle isindependent of level of analysis, this assumption is takento be justified.

The phases of educational systems and subsystemsTheextended analytical cycle can be used to review thedevelopment of state educational systems in terms of thepresented theoretical framework. The relations originally


assumed by Archer are partly reformulated, and extendedwith other assumptions. In the presentation of the relationsbetween structural and cultural change and conditioning onthe one hand, and the processes of interaction on theother, the analytical cycle is repeated three times. Thedistinction with respect to three phases is based onArcher's publications . The three phases are as follows.54)

1) The phase of origins of state educational systems. Thisphase has been dealt with in the original work by Archer.This phase is analyzed with the same concepts as forestablished educational systems. Here, the pre-state phaseis seen as a special case of the developed system . 2)55)

The phase of elaboration of newly arisen state educationalsystems. This phase has also been dealt with in Archer'soriginal publication. 3) The phase of well-developedsystems. This phase has been dealt with by Archer in alater publication, and is labelled as the phase of inflation

. It is noted that all assumptions concern a situation of56)

an expanding state educational system. Other processesand relations are likely in a situation of diminishingeducational systems.

The structural and cultural changes and conditioningconcern both the system level and the subsystem level.The interaction processes are regardless of level ofanalysis. Archer has not specifically dealt with thesubsystem level. In this study, the following generalassumptions are made. A subsystem may originate fromthe environment as well as the general educational system.In a newly arisen educational system, the system'sconditioning of subsystem origins is relatively little. Theopposite is true with regard to well-developed systems. Incentralized systems, a new subsystem originates moreoften on initiative of official groups, while in decentralizedsystems the initiative for new subsystems originates moreoften from private groups. In the first case, the subsystem

67

relations of correspondence are most pronounced, while inthe latter it is the subsystem relations of diversity. Afterthe origins of a subsystem, its further development isconditioned even more by the larger system. It is assumedthat in centralized systems the subsystem relations ofcorrespondence are most pronounced, even in the casewhere the subsystem has originated from private groups.In decentralized systems, the subsystem relations ofdiversity are most pronounced, even in the case thesubsystem has originated from official groups. The additionof subsystems to an existing educational system means anincrease of the system's size. Initially, the addition ofsubsystems leads to an increase of the relations ofdiversity. Depending on the centralized or decentralizedcharacter of the general system, a tendency of increasingcorrespondence follows. Hereafter, the assumptions withregard to the subsystem's changes and its relation with thegeneral system are presented according to the same threephases as those of the general system.

The original structural position of education issubordination to a dominant group. Education is mono-integrated with this group. This means that a distinctionbetween system and environment is not yet present. Theabsence of such a distinction does not mean that there isno education. It merely signifies that no permanent,relatively autonomous system has yet arisen. Neither arethe four system characteristics present. The distinctionbetween internal and external relations is not relevant, asonly the external relations are important. Neither does thedistinction between corresponding and diversifyingelements have any relevance, as only one group hascontrol over education. As a result of the subordination toone group, the contents of education is based on one,relatively consistent culture. In this phase, the distinctionbetween system and subsystem is irrelevant.


Disadvantaged groups, either in a cultural or a structuralsense, act as an assertive group and challenge thedominance of education. They use one of two types ofstrategies, namely restriction or substitution. Due to theirstructural situation, only two groups out of the fourdistinguished types are able to engage themselves in aneducational struggle, namely either political or externalgroups. The groups are usually only contingently related.The relation between the dominant and the disadvantagedgroups is of the incomplementary type. As three resourcesare distinguished but one of them, professional expertise,is only available to internal interest groups, only politicalpower and material resources are used. As education issubordinated to one group, educational struggle involves acompetition regarding this dominance. Consequently, onlytwo activities are probable instead of eight. Restriction isa special, extreme case of political manipulation, just assubstitution is a special case of external transaction. In thisphase, context dominates environment, supply shapesdemand, the original motivation of primary actors isindifference, their behaviour is atomistic, and primaryaction reacts to corporate action, so that macro-influencesare more important than micro-influences.

A state educational system originates as a result ofsuccessful struggle against a group's domination ofeducation. The relation with the state is the intendedoutcome of a strategy of restriction, while the relation withother social institutions is its unintended outcome. In thecase of a substitutive strategy, the relation of educationwith other social institutions is an intended result,however, the relation with the state is an unintendedresult. As the distinctions between external and internalrelations and between corresponding and diversifyingrelations are now significant, the four structuralcharacteristics are present. When a strategy of restriction

69

is used, unification and systematization are moreprominent. The educational system is then defined as beingcentralized. When a strategy of substitution is used,differentiation and specialization are more prominent. Inthis case, the educational system is decentralized. Aneducational system consists of subsystems, e.g. accordingto level and type of education. In the case of a centralizedsystem, the subsystems are characterized by strongerrelations of correspondence, most of all with respect to thegeneral system. In the case of a decentralized system,subsystems are characterized by stronger relations ofdiversity, especially with respect to the environment. Incentralized systems, consistency of the contents ofeducation is more important than cultural plurality, while indecentralized systems the opposite is true.

The origins of a state educational system conditions thesubsequent processes of interaction. Four sorts of groups,instead of the original two types, are engaged ineducational struggle. Two kinds of system-internal groups,administrative and professional groups, are also interestgroups. The relations between these groups tend moreoften to be of the necessary type with still ratherincompatible interests. Moreover, a third resource isrelevant, namely professional expertise. In all, eight typesof interest groups' activities are possible. In centralizedsystems, the use of political power (either for manipulationor pressure) is most important, while in decentralizedsystems it is material resources (for transaction) andprofessional expertise (for initiation). As education is nowrelated to several institutions, the cultural plurality andinconsistency of educational contents increases. Existingsubsystems are conditioned by the characteristics of theoriginal system. They follow the development of thegeneral system. The origins of new subsystems stem fromwithin the system or from the environment. Which way is


adopted, is relatively independent on the centralized ordecentralized character of the system as a whole, butrelatively dependent on environmental circumstances.

The actual processes of interaction are analyzed bylooking at the views, conditions, resources, and aspects ofactivities of the four types of interest groups. Manyinterest groups aim for partial change of the system. Thedesired direction of change by interest groups and thestrength of their drive for change result in a continuouseducational struggle. The activities of interest groups areanalyzed with the eightfold typology of activities. Incentralized systems, processes with use of political poweror pressure are most significant. In decentralized systems,all possible resources and thus all types of activities are ofequal importance. In this phase, context and environmentinfluence each other mutually, supply and demand re-inforce each other, the motivation of primary actors ispositive, their behaviour aggregative, corporate action andprimary action co-act, so that macro-influences and micro-influences are equally important.

After some time, elaboration of the state educationalsystem takes place. This elaboration appears from changesin its structural and cultural characteristics. In bothcentralized and decentralized systems, two directions ofchange occur. The first is the recurring necessity tomaintain the relation between the educational system andsocial structure by meeting specific demands ofeducational interest groups. Archer has called this processprogressive segmentation. It enforces the systemcharacteristics differentiation and specialization. It alsopromotes cultural plurality within education. The second isthe continuous defense of the acquired relation ofcentralization between the educational system and thepolitical structure. Archer has called this progressivesystematization. It enforces the system characteristics

71

unification and systematization. It also advances theconsistency of the contents of education. Both processesoccur in each type of system, although progressivesegmentation is dominant in decentralized systems andprogressive systematization in centralized systems. Theconsequence of these processes is that all four systemcharacteristics are more strongly developed. This meansthat the educational system grows. At the same time, theoriginal relation between the two pairs of characteristicsremains the same. In centralized systems, unification andsystematization remain dominant, while in decentralizedsystems differentiation and specialization remain. Althoughtendencies of convergence are present at some times, theoriginal character of an educational system does notchange.

In the case of origins of new subsystems by officialgroups, the subsystem characteristics of correspondenceare more strongly developed, and in the case of origins byprivate groups, the subsystem characteristics of diversity.The origins of subsystems contribute to the expansion ofthe general system. Initially, a new subsystem means anincrease of the system relations of diversity. The generalsystem has a conditioning effect on the development ofexisting subsystems. In the case of a centralizededucational system, the subsystem changes towardsstronger subsystem characteristics of correspondence,even when at its time of origins the other characteristicshave been more strongly developed. The opposite issupposed to be true in decentralized systems. In that case,the subsystem changes toward stronger subsystemcharacteristics of diversity, even when the characteristicsof correspondence were more strongly developed at itstime of origins.

As a result of the expansion of the educational system,the internal relations become more important than the


external ones. Subsequently, the system-internal groupsare more significant than system-external groups. Thegroups are even more often necessarily related. Theinterests of groups are usually complementary. Theexpansion of the general system also means an increase ofconditioning of subsystem origins and development. Themore centralized the system, the more probable it is thatnew subsystems arise on initiative of official groups. Themore decentralized the system, the more probable it is thatnew subsystems arise on initiative of private groups.

In the processes of interaction in well-developedsystems, the four types of interest groups and the eighttypes of activities remain relevant. The processes ofinteraction take the form of communicative transaction.They are characterized by an increase of the significanceof actions by system-internal groups. At the same time, theprocesses of interaction with the use of professionalexpertise are more important compared to other resources.Besides corporate action, primary action is more important.In this phase, environment dominates context, demandshapes supply, the motivation of primary actors is negativeand their behaviour associational, corporate action andprimary action interact, with more important micro-influences than with macro ones.

The resulting change of the state educational system isa continuous increase of all four system characteristics andthus an expansion of the system as a whole. The system'scomplexity, therefore, grows in relation to the system'senvironment. As a result, the internal relations are morepronounced than the external relations. Cultural unity tendsto be restored to some extent, in the sense thatprofessionals are increasingly successful in determining thecontents of education, and that the consistency of thiscontents increases. The growth of the system also meansthat the significance of the original distinction between

73

centralized and decentralized systems decreases, althoughit retains some significance. The distinction betweencentralized and decentralized systems is, therefore,supplemented by a distinction between a young, newlyoriginated and an established, well-developed system. Awell-developed system has a great capacity for changingits internal structure and culture, resulting in expansion anda decrease in the significance of external control anddemands. Archer has labelled this phase the phase ofinflation of educational systems.

The more expanded and developed a system, the morenew subsystems arise on initiative of system-internalgroups. For previously arisen subsystems, the externalrelations are less important. Moreover, in a well-developedand centralized system, the subsystem relations with theeducational system develop more strongly than the internalsubsystem relations. In the case of a well-developed anddecentralized system, the internal subsystem relationsdevelop more strongly than the relations with theeducational system. In this manner, a subsystem in well-developed and centralized systems is characterized bystrong relations of correspondence and strong relationswith the general educational system. A subsystem in well-developed and decentralized systems is characterized bystrong relations of diversity and strong internal subsystemrelations.

Scheme 2.10 summarizes the assumptions withdisregard of the distinction between centralized anddecentralized systems .57)


PHASE origins of state elaboration of well-developededucational state statesystems educational educational

systems systems

ORIGINAL mono- multiple integrationSTRUCTURAL integrationCONDITIONING

RELATION TO subordination to relatively highlyENVIRONMENT one dominant autonomous autonomous

group system system

SYSTEM no distinction 4 system 4 systemCHARACTERISTICS yet characteristics characteristics+ RELATIVE dominant internal relationsWEIGHT relations of become

either diversity dominantorcorrespondence

CULTURAL mono-culture cultural plurality restoration ofCHARACTERISTICS and cultural unity

inconsistency and consistency

RELEVANT political and 4 types of interest groupsINTEREST GROUPS external groups

only

MAIN TYPE OF contingent necessary necessarySITUATIONAL relations of relations of relations ofLOGIC contradictions contradiction complementariti

es

TYPE OF competitive collective communicativeCORPORATE conflict negotiation transactionACTION

RESOURCES power and power, wealth and expertisewealth only

RELATIVE WEIGHT either ext. 8 types of 8 types ofOF TYPES OF transaction activities, activities with aINTERACTION (substitution) or in centralized shift towards

pol. systems activities bymanipulation dominant system-internal(restriction) activities by groups

official groups

PRIMARY ACTION atomistic aggregative associational

INDIVIDUAL indifference positive negativeMOTIVATION

75

RELATION PRIMARY reaction co-action interactionACTION TOCORPORATEACTION

ORIGINS OF part of origins relatively relativelySUBSYSTEMS of general independent conditioned by

system from general general systemsystem

RELATION OF irrelevant contribution to contribution toSUBSYSTEMS TO system systemGENERAL SYSTEM expansion expansion,

(progressive adoption ofsegmentation) general system

characteristics

STRUCTURAL origins of state expansion inflationCHANGE educational (progressive

system systematization+segmentation)

Scheme 2.10: Summary of assumptions

the theoretical framework 2 - rijksuniversiteit groningen · 2016. 3. 8. · the theoretical...

Documents