2.1. Why Legitimation Code Theory?
This study utilises Legitimation Code Theory (henceforth, ‘LCT’) to investigate how knowledge is enacted in the writing3 of doctoral dissertations and how this differs across subject areas in what is commonly known as the ‘social sciences’ and the ‘humanities’. Chapter 2 highlighted the need for approaches to doctoral writing that can look at the written product as an object of study (rather than experiences of writing, for example), while at the same time indicating the need for a focus beyond the surface features of language. In this sense, what is needed is a way to look at the knowledge practices informing the surface features of texts. This places attention on the forms taken by knowledge in writing, including an examination of why particular kinds of knowledge are chosen, as well as how those knowledge practices are enacted in writing.
LCT provides a particularly appropriate theoretical framework for conceptualising doctoral writing due to its ability to analyse the organising principles that give rise to knowledge practices. By making these organising principles explicit, LCT is effectively able to reveal the ‘rules of the game’ for any practice in any context. In terms of doctoral writing, this means that the basis of achievement of dissertations can be identified, analysed and better understood – meaning that more informed understandings of doctoral writing and the knowledge work involved therein can be generated. In this sense, the analytical tools provided by LCT can be used to analyse why particular choices are made in doctoral writing, as well as to illuminate how these knowledge practices are enacted in the writing. Uncovering the basis of achievement in this way is a necessary first step for developing effective pedagogy to better support doctoral candidates – in other words, the what of pedagogy needs to be identified and understood before the how can be considered. Importantly, making the rules of the game explicit also means that access to this level of candidature can be opened up to more diverse candidates in that the ‘rules’ can be made available to all. Developing tools that can go beneath the surface to analyse the organising principles of practices – i.e. the basis of knowledge practices – is also necessary to systematically explore change and similarity/difference in dissertations without getting lost in the endless variation of what candidates write about – i.e. the focus of the knowledge.
From a social justice perspective, the use of LCT is also pertinent for understanding doctoral writing, as so often – particularly in contexts like South Africa with diverse candidates – academic literacy practices are misinterpreted as resulting from unprepared candidates, rather than interrogating the nature of academic practices themselves (Boughey & McKenna, 2016). This is particularly detrimental for practices such as doctoral writing where the learning is also expected to happen heuristically. Maton and Moore (2010) highlight that this problem of ‘misdiagnosis’ is a feature of education more generally, claiming that an ‘educational dilemma’ has resulted from research placing greater focus on the process of ‘learning’ rather than on the ‘this’ being learned, as well as the focus on the socio-cultural nature of ‘the learner’ rather than on the ‘the learner faced with this’ (p.6) [emphasis in original]. There is thus a need to bring knowledge – as an object of study in its own right – back into the centre of analyses of doctoral writing in order to understand the complexity of discourse at this advanced level of higher education. LCT provides the starting point for developing conceptual tools to do this work.
2.2 An introduction to LCT
LCT is a theoretical framework offering a conceptual toolkit and analytical methodology. It was conceptualised in conversations with Social Realism in the 1990s insofar as adopting a social realist ontological positioning, viewing knowledge as incorporating both social and real qualities. This is important given that the field of higher education has been characterised as experiencing ‘knowledge blindness’ due to a ‘false dichotomy’ between positivist absolutionism and constructive relativism (Maton, 2014b). This dilemma relates to the either/or distinction between, on the one hand, treating knowledge as a decontextualized, value-free, detached and certain entity (positivist absolutionism) – essentially treating knowledge as essential Truth – and, on the other, knowledge being treated as socially constructed within cultural and historical conditions that reflect dominant social values (constructivist relativism) – reducing knowledge to the practice of ‘knowers’ (Maton, 2014b). Social realism reverts this juxtaposition to incorporate ‘both/and’, acknowledging the rational objectivity that knowledge does exist while at the same time recognising knowledge as a social phenomenon that is fallible rather than absolute or relative (Maton & Moore, 2010).
LCT offers a ‘sociology of possibility’ (Maton, 2014b, p. 3) that embraces the ‘both/and’ perspective of Social Realism, considering relations to and importantly, relations within knowledge. In this sense, it provides a realist way of thinking while at the same time maintaining the social character of knowledge. The theory incorporates and builds primarily on the work of Bernstein’s code theory and Bourdieu’s field theory, amongst others. It is multidimensional in that it comprises five different dimensions: Specialization, Semantics, Autonomy, Temporality and Density. Each dimension explores one set of organizing principles of dispositions, practices and fields, conceptualized in LCT as legitimation codes. An analysis of legitimation codes explores ‘what is possible for whom, when, where and how, and who is able to define these possibilities, when, where and how’ (Maton, 2014b, p. 18). The codes are defined by Maton (2016, pp. 238–243) as follows:
Specialization explores practices in terms of knowledge-knower structures whose organising principles are given by specialization codes that comprise relative strengths of epistemic relations and social relations. These are mapped on the specialization plane and traced over time on specialization
profiles. Specialization also includes the concepts of the 4-K model,
including insights, gazes, and lenses.
Semantics4 explores practices in terms of their semantic structures whose organising principles are given by semantic codes that comprise strengths of
semantic gravity and semantic density. These are mapped on the semantic plane and traced over time on semantic profiles.
Autonomy explores practices in terms of relatively autonomous social universes whose organising principles are given by autonomy codes that comprise relative strengths of positional autonomy (PA) and relational autonomy (RA). These are mapped on the autonomy plane and traced over time on
autonomy profiles.
Density is a dimension of LCT that has not yet been fully explored and developed. Temporality is a dimension of LCT that has not yet been fully explored and developed.
The codes’ principle modalities are further summarised in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1. Basic summary of legitimation codes (Maton, 2014b, p. 18)
Codes Concepts Principle modalities
Autonomy positional autonomy, relational autonomy PA+/–, RA+– Density material density, moral density MaD+/–, MoD+/– Specialization epistemic relations, social relations ER+/–, SR+/– Semantics semantic gravity, semantic density SG+/–, SD+/– Temporality temporal position, temporal orientation TP+/–, TO+/–
Embracing Bourdieu’s relational way of thinking and extending Bernstein’s code theory, these concepts are seen in relational terms, on a continuum rather than as typologies. For this reason, LCT’s concepts are represented in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses on a Cartesian plane.
4 Important to note here is that the LCT concept of ‘Semantics’ (always capitalised) is imbued with technical
meaning within the framework of LCT. It therefore holds different meaning, and thus should not be confused with, the definition of ‘semantics’ in a linguistic sense. Semantics within linguistics is broadly concerned with meaning; Semantics in the LCT sense is specifically concerned with the context-dependence (semantic gravity) and complexity (semantic density) of meaning, not meaning itself.
Of interest to this study are the dimensions of Specialization and Semantics. Each of these dimensions will be explained in more detail in Sections 2 and 3 of this chapter and their practical application will be addressed in Chapter 4, Methodology.
2.3 Why LCT is well suited to address the research questions
LCT has been adopted in a number of studies to investigate a range of educational concerns, particularly in South Africa where the social justice imperative of opening access to higher education for diverse candidates is a priority. Research drawing on LCT in this context to date has largely focused on issues of disciplinary teaching and learning and literacy work in higher education in general (for example, Clarence, 2016; Clarence & McKenna, 2017; Luckett, 2012; Luckett & Hunma, 2014) as well as in specific subject areas such as engineering (Wolff & Hoffman, 2014). It has also been applied to studies focused on curriculum reform (for example, Kilpert & Shay, 2013; Luckett, 2016; Shay, 2015) as pressure mounts to not only open access to more candidates but to also de-colonialize the curriculum of South African higher education institutions. Such concerns for making the ‘rules of the game’ explicit so that access can be opened to a greater number of candidates is central to the research at hand. The select set of examples given here is evidence of the suitability and appropriateness of a framework such as LCT to explore these concerns.
Importantly, the substantive concerns of opening access as well as the theoretical application of LCT is not isolated to the South African context alone. LCT has been, and continues to be, used extensively internationally. For example, it has been used to interrogate teaching and learning practices in science education in Australia (see, for instance, Georgiou, Maton, & Sharma, 2014), as well as to investigate a variety of knowledge-building issues in secondary school classrooms, particularly in English literature (see, for example Christie, 2016; Maton, 2014b) and history (Martin, Maton, & Matruglio, 2010). It has also been used to look at issues of meaning-making in higher education contexts in the United Kingdom (for example, Clegg, 2015). LCT is also being used to explore knowledge-building issues outside of education, as evidenced in the work of Poulet (2016) on freemasonry in France and Thomson (2014) on language, diversity and social inclusion in the Australian Defence Force. A more extensive list illustrating the diversity of LCT-based research can be found on the LCT website (http://www.legitimationcodetheory.com).
Each unique empirical problem will necessitate varying theoretical requirements, meaning that an exhaustive LCT analysis using all five dimensions is not necessarily beneficial or appropriate. The nature of the empirical problem at hand – doctoral writing – calls for close analysis of knowledge enacted through writing. In particular, it investigates what type of knowledge is valued and why, as well as how it is enacted in the writing on a practical level. To analyse these features, the dimensions of Specialization and Semantics are deemed the most suitable – as the remainder of this chapter will demonstrate. Specialization affords a focus on both epistemic relations to practices and their object, as well as social relations between practices and their subject. This enables insights to be gained about what kinds of knowledge are valued in different doctoral dissertations and what kinds of knowers are considered legitimate. This affords insights into the disciplinary nature of doctoral writing whilst avoiding dichotomising knowledge ‘types’, as commonly found in the literature. Semantics enables the forms taken by knowledge, as enacted through writing, to be analysed. Semantics can thus be used to analyse and understand how candidates build knowledge through their dissertations on a practical level, such as moving between highly abstract, theoretical, complex knowledge to instances of concrete, simple and highly contextualised knowledge. In order to demonstrate the appropriateness of each dimension, Specialization and Semantics will now be considered in more detail in turn.