Analytical Discussion:
Contextualised assumptions, statistical data and theoretical concepts
Having provided
statistical data regarding the gender gap on both a national and local scale,
it is important to substantiate these statistics with theoretical evaluation.
This section focuses on how the relationship between socio-cultural context and
education can impact upon the issue of gender attainment comparison.
Many contributing factors determine individual interpretation of contextual features. The majority of this web resource has highlighted the influence that the media has on the social perception of the gender gap. However it is not the only contextual factor to consider. Gender roles can be influenced and embedded through many influential factors and not all sexes revert to stereotype (Giles et al, 2008; Haralambos and Holborn, 2008). Embodied cultural influences, as suggested by Pierre Bourdieu, are filtered from parent to child (Webb et al, 2002; Giles et al, 2008). However, the social, cultural and symbolic capital held by the parent is affected by many external influences and perceptions (Giles et al, 2008; O'Byrne, 2011). In can be argued that gender roles are a form of self-adaption through social interaction (O'Byrne, 2011). With this in mind the socio-cultural context of education provides a major contributing factor to the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of gender equality. Contextual factors are not watertight; they are interchangeable and occur in different epochs (Giles et al, 2008). Gender identity is also not a fixed form, femininity and masculinity can be seen on a sliding scale in both sexes (Giles et al, 2008; Connell, 2009). The complexity of contextual factors that impact upon self-identity often creates difficulty in indentifying singular influences (Giles et al, 2008; Mutton et al, 2010). Although biologically there are physical differences between sexes, socio-cultural similarities and differences can depend upon the surrounding contextual factors (Giles et al, 2008; Bee and Boyd, 2007). Current educational trends suggest that the gender gap is increasing (Department for education, 2013; Chisamya et al, 2012; Goodman and Burton, 2012). This is mirrored in the media representation of gender inequality in education; media reports highlight and often segregate boys' achievement in comparison to girls (Francis, 2010; The Telegraph, 2010; The Guardian, 2013).
It is almost given as fact that boys are outperformed by girls. However, this is limited to certain aspects of education, in science, mathematics and technology the suggestion is that boys outperform girls (Giddens, 2009). Theoretically, many views are available to suggest why this phenomenon exists. A functionalist’s view would suggest that commonly agreed values within society influence individual choices; this is appreciated in Emile Durkheim’s conscience collective (Giles and Middleton, 2008; Hendry, 1999). Socio-cultural context defines individual identity, assumptions made in a collective consensus often defines what human nature is (Giles and Middleton, 2008). If boys and girls are socialised within this conscience collective, this could influence what educational theme is desired based on preconceived gender roles (Glaesser and Cooper, 2012; Reilly, 2012; Bee and Boyd, 2007). Howard Becker would suggest that gender roles are formed through controlled socialisation. However, this interaction forms a hierarchy of power; those with power can influence individual identity of those without power (O’Byrne, 2011). In Becker’s labelling theory, identity is imposed on an individual through social interaction; the assumed roles created are incorporated into individual behaviour (ibid). An awareness of this theory could justify an idea that teachers’ own context and influences can be filtered through to their students (The Telegraph, 2010; Mutton et al, 2010).
However, if we are, as Herbert Blumer suggests, adopting our self-identity through social interaction, society should acknowledge that influential factors can result in an internal interpretation of gender equality (O’Byrne, 2011). Collectively, national interpretation of individual socialisation and gender roles can assert a more solid division (Giddens, 2009). Although evolutionally change has occurred since the 1950s of the stereotypical 'female housewife' and 'male 'bread winner', these traditional roles are still visible in modern society, although not to the same extent (Giddens, 1999; Hendry, 1999; Giddens, 2009). With more attention drawn to gender equality towards girls, boys have been overlooked as an academic minority (Giddens, 2009; Skelton, 2010). Fundamental biological differences between the sexes denotes different discriminations in educational preferences, this could mean that education does not meet the needs of its male participants (Giddens, 2009). A reflection of separate skills shown by different sexes is emergent from a very young age (Bee and Boyd, 2007). Skills such as problem solving are increased in boys and verbal tasks a particular skill of girls, these skills are often incorporated in early educational settings (ibid). However, at secondary school level, these differences are expected to be reduced and for both sexes to attain the same (ibid). If it could be viewed that boys and girls attain differently given different subjects, then perhaps the gender inequality portrayed by the media is not as severe as exemplified. Rather than comparing academic results such as English and Mathematics, based on the individual sex, it could be seen that each sex offers a diverse range of capabilities. It has been discussed that, biologically boys and girls are different and this does not cause as much media induced hysteria as the gender gap in attainment levels. Comparing the attainment of boys and girls is difficult as, with individualism, educational preference and genetics, each individual fulfils a role and tradition within their own socio-cultural community (Radford, 1998; Giddens, 1999). If viewed through an interactionist’s perspective, one might evaluate attainment levels in a contextual framework. Rather than a macro interpretive view of attainment, a micro interpretive view could highlight that each sex attains according to their individual socio-cultural context (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008).
Word Count: 924
Many contributing factors determine individual interpretation of contextual features. The majority of this web resource has highlighted the influence that the media has on the social perception of the gender gap. However it is not the only contextual factor to consider. Gender roles can be influenced and embedded through many influential factors and not all sexes revert to stereotype (Giles et al, 2008; Haralambos and Holborn, 2008). Embodied cultural influences, as suggested by Pierre Bourdieu, are filtered from parent to child (Webb et al, 2002; Giles et al, 2008). However, the social, cultural and symbolic capital held by the parent is affected by many external influences and perceptions (Giles et al, 2008; O'Byrne, 2011). In can be argued that gender roles are a form of self-adaption through social interaction (O'Byrne, 2011). With this in mind the socio-cultural context of education provides a major contributing factor to the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of gender equality. Contextual factors are not watertight; they are interchangeable and occur in different epochs (Giles et al, 2008). Gender identity is also not a fixed form, femininity and masculinity can be seen on a sliding scale in both sexes (Giles et al, 2008; Connell, 2009). The complexity of contextual factors that impact upon self-identity often creates difficulty in indentifying singular influences (Giles et al, 2008; Mutton et al, 2010). Although biologically there are physical differences between sexes, socio-cultural similarities and differences can depend upon the surrounding contextual factors (Giles et al, 2008; Bee and Boyd, 2007). Current educational trends suggest that the gender gap is increasing (Department for education, 2013; Chisamya et al, 2012; Goodman and Burton, 2012). This is mirrored in the media representation of gender inequality in education; media reports highlight and often segregate boys' achievement in comparison to girls (Francis, 2010; The Telegraph, 2010; The Guardian, 2013).
It is almost given as fact that boys are outperformed by girls. However, this is limited to certain aspects of education, in science, mathematics and technology the suggestion is that boys outperform girls (Giddens, 2009). Theoretically, many views are available to suggest why this phenomenon exists. A functionalist’s view would suggest that commonly agreed values within society influence individual choices; this is appreciated in Emile Durkheim’s conscience collective (Giles and Middleton, 2008; Hendry, 1999). Socio-cultural context defines individual identity, assumptions made in a collective consensus often defines what human nature is (Giles and Middleton, 2008). If boys and girls are socialised within this conscience collective, this could influence what educational theme is desired based on preconceived gender roles (Glaesser and Cooper, 2012; Reilly, 2012; Bee and Boyd, 2007). Howard Becker would suggest that gender roles are formed through controlled socialisation. However, this interaction forms a hierarchy of power; those with power can influence individual identity of those without power (O’Byrne, 2011). In Becker’s labelling theory, identity is imposed on an individual through social interaction; the assumed roles created are incorporated into individual behaviour (ibid). An awareness of this theory could justify an idea that teachers’ own context and influences can be filtered through to their students (The Telegraph, 2010; Mutton et al, 2010).
However, if we are, as Herbert Blumer suggests, adopting our self-identity through social interaction, society should acknowledge that influential factors can result in an internal interpretation of gender equality (O’Byrne, 2011). Collectively, national interpretation of individual socialisation and gender roles can assert a more solid division (Giddens, 2009). Although evolutionally change has occurred since the 1950s of the stereotypical 'female housewife' and 'male 'bread winner', these traditional roles are still visible in modern society, although not to the same extent (Giddens, 1999; Hendry, 1999; Giddens, 2009). With more attention drawn to gender equality towards girls, boys have been overlooked as an academic minority (Giddens, 2009; Skelton, 2010). Fundamental biological differences between the sexes denotes different discriminations in educational preferences, this could mean that education does not meet the needs of its male participants (Giddens, 2009). A reflection of separate skills shown by different sexes is emergent from a very young age (Bee and Boyd, 2007). Skills such as problem solving are increased in boys and verbal tasks a particular skill of girls, these skills are often incorporated in early educational settings (ibid). However, at secondary school level, these differences are expected to be reduced and for both sexes to attain the same (ibid). If it could be viewed that boys and girls attain differently given different subjects, then perhaps the gender inequality portrayed by the media is not as severe as exemplified. Rather than comparing academic results such as English and Mathematics, based on the individual sex, it could be seen that each sex offers a diverse range of capabilities. It has been discussed that, biologically boys and girls are different and this does not cause as much media induced hysteria as the gender gap in attainment levels. Comparing the attainment of boys and girls is difficult as, with individualism, educational preference and genetics, each individual fulfils a role and tradition within their own socio-cultural community (Radford, 1998; Giddens, 1999). If viewed through an interactionist’s perspective, one might evaluate attainment levels in a contextual framework. Rather than a macro interpretive view of attainment, a micro interpretive view could highlight that each sex attains according to their individual socio-cultural context (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008).
Word Count: 924