Distributive rules

The first set of rules in the pedagogic device are the distributive rules, which Maton and Muller describe as ‘the ordered regulation and distribution of a society’s worthwhile store of knowledge’ (2006: 19). It is these rules that determine what knowledge is thought to be valuable. In Bernstein’s latest

version of the pedagogic device, he suggested that all societies had at least two ‘classes of knowledge’, the everyday, or mundane, and, the specialist, or

esoteric (2000). The distributive rules control who can access these different forms of knowledge, and more importantly, who is able to generate new forms of knowledge (Maton and Muller, 2006). Historically, Bernstein points out that the ‘gatekeeper’ to specialist knowledge had always been the church, however, in more recent times it has largely been the premise of the education system (2000). As his own ‘brutal simplification’ states, ‘In modern society, the control

of the unthinkable lies essentially, but not wholly, in the upper reaches of the education system’ (Bernstein, 2000: 29).

Singh provides a very useful account of how the lines between the esoteric and mundane have become increasingly blurred, or at least fluid (2002), a point also made by Bernstein, in that what was once deemed specialist knowledge may over time become everyday knowledge (2000). Singh’s main argument lies in relation to the way in which specialist knowledge is generated, both in volume and complexity (2002). He points out some important implications of this, which are particularly relevant to the HE context. This is that the specialist nature of knowledge often needs ‘translating’ before it can be pedagogised, adding that this is something those that generate the knowledge are not always able to do. Furthermore, that universal or public education does not necessarily provide automatic access to the relevant specialist knowledge, access can either be open to all, or, increasingly costly depending on who it has been generated by, and how.

Other considerations are noted by Singh as well: that our ability to grasp more ‘new’ knowledge is finite, yet the amount available to us, through various means, keeps on rising. It is also worth highlighting that when Singh wrote this in 2002, the public’s trust in ‘expert’ knowledge was waning (2002); a slide, it could be argued, that has not been reversed in the years since. All of which has led to greater levels of complexity around knowledge creation (Singh, 2002), or what has also been termed, ‘quantum leaps in the nature of and access to knowledge’ (Krause, 2009: 416). Krause (2009: 413) more recently has likened this to the ‘fragmentation of knowledge’, citing HE funding, institutional reward

and promotional structures, the performativity agenda, and other institutional policies, as some of the sources for this fragmentation. These subsequently impact on the availability, access and reproduction of that knowledge. Meaning that the generation of knowledge, something long considered the premise of universities, is now considerably more complex, compared to when Bernstein first introduced the pedagogic device and distributive rules.

As with the creation of knowledge, there has also been a corresponding shift in who is able to distribute, or reproduce, this specialist knowledge, particularly in the HE context. Whilst in 2000, Bernstein suggested that state involvement in HE had lessened, it had still maintained an indirect influence through the Higher Education Funding Council Executive (HEFCE). The highly influential block- funding that HEFCE once provided has since ceased, yet state involvement in the distribution of knowledge, who is able to teach what and under what

conditions, has increased in other ways and mechanisms. For example: the Higher Education Academy (HEA) accreditation scheme; the teaching

excellence framework (TEF); the research excellence framework (REF); along with other metrics such as the National Student Survey (NSS), and Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE), all of which are actors operating on behalf of the state. These, either collectively or individually, contribute to various institutional rankings that play a key role in the choices students make

regarding their place of study, and therefore also in the financial stability of the institutions, which in-turn influences the programmes of study available, taught by whom, and under what conditions.

These distributive influences might also be in conflict with other drivers, such as teaching qualifications or prerequisites set out by the professional bodies

accrediting degrees, as well as other political, economic or employment related organisations that can directly or indirectly influence who is able to teach what in HE. Krause, suggests that this creates, ‘a lack of stability in the configuration of HE institutions’, due to constant shifts in, ‘national policies, market forces, globalisation, third-mission imperatives and technological advances’, all of which place further challenges on the institutions and their academic staff (2006: 414). The above points make clear the hierarchical, or dominant relationship distributive rules have over disciplinary knowledge practices, by defining what is thought of as valuable knowledge, and how this then results in different identities of the HE institutions, their staff and students (Ashwin, 2012).

It is important to recognise here that some of the factors mentioned above that influence the distributive rules, can also be considered relevant as

recontextualising rules. What is apparent is that the ways in which the external forces are interpreted and prioritised by different institutions, under whatever set of rules, will be a major influence on the identity of those institutions. Ashwin actually points out how Bernstein’s recontextualising and distribution rules create a site of struggle in the relations between the HE curriculum and disciplinary knowledge practices (2012). With academic staff, their disciplines and institutions, professional bodies, employment, and government agencies, all being significant stakeholders, therefore exert power and influence. In this analysis the distributive rules have been taken as the factors that appear to originate externally to the university, whilst recontextualising rules are those deemed internal to the university, with the proviso that some of these can be

interchangeable. What is also apparent here is that the number of factors influencing HE since Bernstein last updated his pedagogic device in 2000, has increased considerably, from it being largely between the state and the

institutions, to now involving a wider range of bodies, organisations, as has been pointed out.

With respect to this study, the distributive rules will be helpful in identifying the external forces that are influencing issues around critical thinking. Tracing these forces down through the recontextualising and evaluative rules, into the

teaching-learning interactions.