Knowledge-knower structures and ‘gazes’

In building on the foundation laid by Bernstein and explained in the preceding section of this chapter, LCT has developed the concept of knowledge-knower structures in order to analyse both the epistemic relations of knowledge (drawing in and extending Bernstein’s work) and also the social relations of knowledge (drawing in Bourdieu’s field theory and concepts of habitus and capital). These structures are a necessary part of LCT because the concept of knowers (the social relation of knowledge) is important in a study of pedagogic practice, and it is necessary to locate these knowers within the knowledge structures and within the knowing itself. This is thus an important piece of the conceptual puzzle for this study. Further, drawing in and extending Bernstein’s concept of the ‘gaze’ is necessary because this is an intrinsic part of pedagogy – lecturers and students entering into ‘social interactional relationships’ (Bernstein 1999: 165) in which the disciplinary discourses are taught and learned both tacitly and explicitly. What the gaze is and why it is needed influences the pedagogic approaches lecturers choose to take.

46

Bernstein’s educational knowledge codes relate to the epistemic relation of knowledge; the what of knowledge. But what is less visible and discussed in his later work on pedagogy and knowledge structures is the who; who is the subject of the object which is knowledge. LCT’s knower structures speak into this gap, and provide a heuristic for making knowers more visible, and for beginning to look at the principles underlying the shaping and development of knowers in the disciplines.

Maton (2007: 87) claims that ‘for every knowledge structure, there is also a knower structure’; knower structures are explicitly linked to Bernstein’s knowledge structures. Maton (2007) argues that the Humanities, while operating (in the main) with horizontal knowledge structures, tend to have hierarchical knower structures. He defines a hierarchical knower structure as a systematically principled and hierarchical organisation of knowers based on the image of the ideal knower which develops through the integration of new knowers at lower levels and across an expanding range of different (innate and/or social) dispositions. It can be graphically represented in a similar way to the hierarchical knowledge structure, thus:

The hierarchical knower structures of the humanities, then, are linked to horizontal knowledge structures.

In terms of the natural sciences, Maton argues that, while operating with hierarchical knowledge structures they in fact tend to have horizontal knower structures. Maton (2007: 92) defines this knower structure as ‘a series of strongly bounded knowers, each with its own specialised modes of being and acting, with non-comparable habituses or embodied dispositions based on different biological and/or social backgrounds and histories’. This knower structure can be graphically represented in a similar way to the horizontal knowledge structure, thus (where k = knower): K1_{, K}2_{, K}3_{, K}4_{, K}5_…Kn_{. The horizontal knower structures of the sciences,} then, are linked to hierarchical knower structures.

LCT brings Bernstein’s knowledge structures together with these knower structures to create what is termed ‘knowledge-knower structures’ (Maton 2007: 87). Maton (2007: 93) posits that if we can understand the ‘discursive practices of intellectual fields’ in terms of these structures, and understand that these structures ‘specialise’ and position ‘actors and discourses in different

47

ways’ and that actors form different relations to both knowledge and knower structures as a result of this positioning or specialisation, then we can address the underlying principles of these practices of specialisation in terms of their specialisation codes. The important point being established here is that knowledge structures cannot be theorised and discussed in isolation from the knowers of that knowledge, and the roles they play in shaping pedagogic practice.

This idea that knowers can shape knowledge structures just as they can be shaped by them is taken forward by LCT in its account of ‘gazes’ (Maton 2013a). This is a useful part of a conceptual framework for this study because both disciplines that form the case studies are social science disciplines but they are quite different in terms of their knowledge/knower structures and specialisation codes: Law and Political Science. This may also mean that the way in which each discipline develops the appropriate ‘gaze’ to ways of knowing is different too, even though these disciplines, broadly, fall into the social sciences. The answer may lie in a more detailed account of knower structures in the humanities and social sciences. These, according to Maton (2007, 2013a), tend to be hierarchical in nature and so can be represented by the triangle. The point of the triangle is the ideal knower, and the base is all the different habituses that students bring with them, that need to be integrated and subsumed as the knowers ascend the triangle. The way in which knowers are integrated, and their habituses shifted and changed is through the development of the ‘gaze’. The gaze is essentially the means by which knowers can discern which knowledge counts as legitimate and which knowers are recognised as possessing legitimate knowledge. Possession of the gaze buys one access into the field and recognition as a knower.

6.2.1 Gazes

According to LCT, there are four possible gazes, and these all relate to varying strengths of social relations (SR) along a continuum because they relate to knowers and their dispositions, attitudes and ways of knowing rather than to the principled knowledge or procedures they acquire (see Figure 2.4 below). These four gazes are the born gaze, the cultivated gaze, the social gaze and the trained gaze (Maton 2013a).

Figure 2.4 Gazes and the SR continuum (adapted from Maton 2010: 166)

SR-________________________________________________________________________________________SR+ trained gaze↓ cultivated gaze ↑ social gaze↓ born gaze ↑

48

The born gaze calls to mind ideas of natural talent or genius (Maton 2010, 2013a). For example, think of Yo-Yo Ma, the famous cellist who began playing the cello at age four and began his public career at age five. He certainly has to practise, but it is arguably a large dose of natural or innate talent that has contributed to his successes. Many people could practise for years and not be able to achieve what he has (see yo-yoma.com, Bio). Thus the social relation (SR) is relatively stronger with the born gaze because very few people would have such a gaze from birth.

A social gaze is acquired by virtue of belonging to a particular social group, and is acquired by being a member of that group and sharing attributes that the group has in common (Maton 2010, 2013a). Possible examples could include Black feminists or White western crime writers. If you do not share the right attributes it would be difficult to acquire such a gaze, and so the social relation is relatively strong because the ‘club’ is hard to get into if you do not share certain attributes with existing members.

A cultivated gaze can be acquired through a long period of immersion in a particular field and its ways of knowing, valuing, thinking, reading, writing and so on (Maton 2010, 2013a). This gaze has a relatively weaker social relation because it can potentially be acquired by those able to be in such immersive relationships with those who possess the gaze – it can be taught and learnt. Think here, perhaps, of a historian whose particular approach to study and to the way they view the world is born of years of immersion in that field with those who possess a similar gaze. Finally, a trained gaze can be acquired by almost anyone willing to subject themselves to learning the procedures and processes related to knowing in that field (Maton 2010, 2013a). This gaze has relatively the weakest social relation because it is potentially the most inclusive in terms of a gaze being able to be taught and learnt.

On a continuum the gazes and related social relation or SR strengths could look as they do in Figure 2.4 (with ↓ and ↑ indicating relative strengthening and weakening, because there will be different gradations of strength and weakness as one moves up and down the continuum in empirical contexts). In other words, according to Maton (2013a), a trained and cultivated gaze as potentially more inclusive gazes tend to have weaker social relations (SR-) in terms of a code modality compared to a social or born gaze which are less inclusive gazes and have stronger social relations or are SR+ in terms of their code modality. But a cultivated gaze is relatively stronger than a trained gaze, even though both can be said to have weaker social relations compared to a social and born gaze. Thus, heuristically, a trained gaze would be SR-↓ and a cultivated gaze would be SR-↑ if you were to represent them using LCT’s shorthand for social relations.

49

Considering gazes as part of knowledge/knower structures and the bigger LCT toolkit for this study is useful because gazes are not acquired in isolation or through magical osmosis. Acquiring a trained or cultivated gaze, for example, is quite a deliberate process of being trained to do and know and think and see in ways that are unfamiliar to new students, but much more familiar to more senior and experienced academic lecturers and researchers in the different fields, in the case of this study Law and Political Science. The acquisition of a gaze is thus intimately related to the pedagogic relationship between lecturer and students, and also to the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge and ways of knowing.

What is important to take from LCT here, linked to the aims of this study, is an understanding of how gazes are acquired, and the role of the teacher as knowledgeable-insider in this process. In terms of the two case studies that have been chosen for this research, Law and Political Studies8_, it is most useful to explore more closely the cultivated gaze (SR-↑) and the trained gaze (SR-↓). With these gazes it is necessary to have a basis from which to make ‘intersubjective’ and rational judgements about what counts as legitimate knowledge or ways of knowing; in other words, a ‘canon’ of sorts that forms a ‘focus and basis for intersubjective debate’ necessary for cumulative development (Maton 2010: 171). This canon is not necessarily hegemonic or static, as it can be and is shifted and changed as it is worked with critically from within the field through the cumulative building of knowers (Maton 2010, 2013a). However, students come into learning and teaching at university with a range of habituses formed through their interactions with their social and educational backgrounds, and this canonical knowledge can often seem abstract and difficult to place within the wider field, or even the structure of a course or degree programme (Maton 2013a).

In order, therefore, to make the knowledge meaningful the lecturer or teachers needs to start with the students’ experiences and make the knowledge – and the gaze needing to be cultivated – relatable to where students may come from (Maton 2013a). However, and importantly, the teaching does not end with the students’ experiences. Rather, it ends with the teacher assuming a more clearly framed role of knowledgeable insider, not in a transmission mode, but in the sense of clearly framing what does and does not count as legitimate knowledge, and the ways in which this knowledge needs to be known and communicated in order to become a legitimate knower and holder of the gaze (see Maton 2013a; also Wheelahan 2010). Students need to understand which conversations they are joining, what these conversations are about and how they need to speak and what they need to speak about in order to join in, to put it into somewhat crude terms. The aim, following the triangle that LCT uses to represent a hierarchical

8 _{Note here that ‘Political Science’ refers to the discipline; ‘Political Studies’ refers to the department at}

50

knower structure, is a potentially inclusive one because the aim is to integrate an increasing number of students and their habituses into the conversations and teach them what to talk about and how to do so in order to be recognised as legitimate knowers.

Pedagogic relationships are the events through which these mechanisms in the form of knowledges and ways of knowing are activated, and through which, in the case of the social sciences, the ability to develop a field through the development of its knower structure is strengthened or weakened. Pedagogic approaches and methods can encourage cumulative learning, but can also result in fragmented or segmented learning, where knowledge-building over time is made more challenging.

LCT(Semantics) enables an analysis of the ways in which teaching and learning can either enable or constrain cumulative learning, which, as discussed in Chapter One (sections 2.3 and 2.4), is an important goal of higher education. It does so by examining, or ‘coding’ a different dimension of pedagogic practice using two different codes that underpin disciplines as fields of practice. These are termed ‘semantic gravity’ and ‘semantic density’. We turn to these concepts now, as they are a necessary part of a conceptual toolkit for this study, focused as it is on pedagogic relationships and practice.