Symbolic Interactionism

Gordon et al (2005) believed ethnographic research involving education settings was based in the study of social interaction, influenced by symbolic interactionism. Gordon et al’s opinion accords with Kinney et al’s (2003) belief that researchers can investigate interactive processes in schools is by using the lens of symbolic interactionism. The research aims to ‘tell the story of the legacy of creativity’ through an education lens. The research is deemed to be based within a social interaction arena producing qualitative illumination of the case study institutions. Symbolic interactionism grounds the research with the researcher’s position viewed as ‘tentative, empirical and responsive to meaning’ (Rock, 2007).

Symbolic interactionism is primarily concerned with the study of society

through an interpretive approach, reflecting how individuals share meanings, constructed through social interaction. Human beings are perceived as active agents. Behaviour is seen as constructed, not predetermined (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969; Petras, 1975; Shibutani, 1988; O’Reilly, 2005).

Blumer (1969) stressed that researchers guided by a symbolic interactionist theoretical framework were required to focus on the motivations,

interpretations and meanings of the actors involved. He believed ‘human beings should be observed in their indigenous settings and human group life should be studied in terms of action of what the participants do together in units’ (1969: 92). Hammersley (1989) writes of Blumer’s approach as

‘portraying the social world, generated by social interaction among people;

interaction that itself produces, and is shaped by, participant’s interpretations of the world. This process is formative and creative; it is not composed of automatic responses to stimuli’ (1989: 104). Human beings from this

perspective have self-consciousness and therefore the ability to reflect upon the circumstances surrounding them. Responses to others and situations are constructed based upon reflection rather than mere reaction ( Hitchcock and Hughes, 1989).

Becker (1988) described the collective element of symbolic interactionism, and wrote of the continuing value of Blumer’s approach in relation to data gathering in research.

What is crucial is seeing how things are collective, how that fundamental fact about human society necessarily affects everything that goes on in it.

Indeed, Blumer long ago anticipated most contemporary criticisms of conventional research methods by seeing that those methods not only had to take into account the fundamentally collective character of human social life, but had likewise to take into account that research itself was a form of collective activity. His criticism of survey methods rested on that notion. So he always recommended gathering data by spending long periods of time gathering all sorts of information about one’s subject, gaining a thorough acquaintance with as well as knowledge of it in all its aspects.

(1988: 18)

According to Shibutani (1988) it was difficult to argue against Blumer’s belief in applying a symbolic interactionist approach in research - ‘his insistence that human agency be taken into account in explanations of social processes creates problems, but there seems to be no alternative to meeting them’

(1988: 24). Shibutani (1988) believed concepts existed in symbolic interactionism, with meaning being a key concept. He stressed that, ‘a

scientific study of human society would require the description and analysis of meaning, a task that has challenged many scholars in the humanities and the social sciences’ (1988: 28). Shibutani wrote of the difficulty of studying

something as nebulous as meaning, observing that whilst Mead's approach was behaviouristic (‘meanings can be observed - directly or indirectly - thus opening the door to empirical investigation’) Blumer by comparison rejected all mechanistic explanations. He believed Blumer’s repudiation of

behaviourism had hindered the empirical study of meaning within symbolic interactionism.

Sheldon (1988) describes three ‘fundamental premises’ underlying a symbolic interactionist perspective on research;

The first of these premises holds that an adequate account of human behaviour must incorporate the perspective of the actor and cannot rest entirely on the perspective of the observer alone. The second of these premises asserts the priority of social interaction and the derivative, emergent nature of both self and social organization from that social process. The third argues that self, or persons’ reflexive responses to themselves, serves to link larger societal processes to the social interactions of those persons. The first and last of these premises contain between them the justification for insisting that socially formed meanings that are aspects of the subjective experience of persons are not only legitimately but are necessarily part of observers’ accounts of the social behaviour of human beings.

(1988: 35)

Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds (1975) by contrast viewed symbolic

interactionism as a more general perspective on human behaviour and social life arguing ‘whatever influences that behaviour or structures that social life is a proper object of concern’ (1975: 120).

By seeking to employ a symbolic interactionist framework to my study, I believed my understanding and interpretation of the interactional processes involved in the policy legacy of creativity would be enhanced. In addressing my research questions, I approached my study acknowledging the duality of focus. The study was not primarily ‘about creativity’ or ‘about policy’. Rather the study focused on the relevance and importance of policy legacy in determining how social actors develop and sustain deeply held values and beliefs in the notion creativity in teaching and learning. I believed this could be achieved by studying their actions and interactions. Teaching and

learning at Enderby was considered to be a social reality or social dynamic in relation to the study. The reality or dynamic was not externally imposed on individuals but seen as constructed through the social actors’ interactions with each other (Stryker, 2008).

Considering theorists such as Blumer and Mead’s premise that we exist in world of meaningful symbols and that social life consists of creating, enacting, and responding to symbols, the study embraced the standpoint that

creativity could be considered a meaningful symbol by the participants. The theoretical premise that mutually engaged actors arrive at shared definitions of situations (Mead, 1934) and that social actors draw out responses in others potentially provided a theoretical foundation upon which the study could develop.

Symbolic interactionism offered a seductive theory and method for the study given the opportunity I was offered to enter into the social world of a school committed to creativity. I intended to research who the social actors involved were as they understood themselves to be ‘meaningful social objects’ along their journey of enacting policy legacy, as they self-appraised their

‘goodness, worthiness, and competence’ in the roles of educationalists and school partners (Mead, 1934). I wished to uncover the social actors’

involvement in Enderbys’ commitment to creativity within teaching and learning and how this was sustained through enactment of policy. I sought to discover and reveal how this was seen through the eyes of ‘significant others’, including the standpoint of the wider school community and policy makers.

Researcher insight into the interrelationship between Enderby School, their partners and policy enactment was deemed by me to be very important in uncovering the policy legacy of creativity. Given this importance, a high value was placed by me on applying a symbolic interactionism approach to the study as an appropriate tool to uncover connections, experiences and social reactions (Mead, 1962; de Koster, 2010; Holmes, 2010). I believed data focused upon the actions, reactions and interrelationships in the setting would yield, through analysis, answers to the research questions.

Kleinman and Klob (2011) caution the researcher however on using such

‘appropriate tools’;

As sociologists, we may feel good about the tools we bring to a study. We’ve read Blumer, Mead, and other theorists; we’ve read what qualitative sociologists have written about methods; and we begin to read work in the topical area of our study. These are good things that unfortunately have the potential to trip us up, especially when we read work related to the setting or group….. the problem occurs when we read something related to our setting that is good—so good that it sticks with us and we embed our data in it.

(2010: 426)

Given Kleinman and Klob’s warning, I endeavoured not to ‘trip up’, within my exploration of human agency in the chosen setting. I recognised human agency primarily operated through interaction in the setting and as such believed symbolic interactionism was an appropriate method or tool to employ as I sought to analyse what the social actors i.e. the people, ‘were doing together’ (Becker, 1986). Symbolic Interactionism as a framework and tool acted as guide and prompt to me as a researcher in order to analyse not only what the social actors were using their agency for and the consequence of that agency in terms of legacy, but also to challenge my own agency in the field.

My goal was to understand and reveal the conditions that informed participants in my case study’s actions in relation to the policy legacy of creativity. This encompassed revealing their journey of sustaining and

embedding creativity in teaching and learning, against a backdrop of policy change and depletion of legitimacy for their agency. Understanding and uncovering the problems and challenges the social actors faced and how they fashioned responses was required, as my duty was to give the best analysis possible of their agency and engage in qualitative reporting within the thesis.

My challenge was to ‘do right’ by the participants in my case study (Beach, 2005) acknowledging that my reporting would primarily be interpretation.

According to Goffman (1959) the true or real attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of the individual ‘can be ascertained only indirectly, through his avowals or through what appears to be involuntary expressive behaviour’ (1959: 2).

Goffman’s opinion and the compelling researcher need to ‘do what was right’ informed my decision to engage with symbolic interactionism in my attempt to capture, analyse and interpret with authenticity, the participants’

agency and interactions. I believed this was possible through my presence in the field observing behaviour and gathering relevant data in order to reveal attitudes, beliefs and values in relation to the policy legacy of creativity. It was my responsibility as a researcher to develop arguments and build analysis to answer the research questions.

As a researcher, I was seeking to understand and reveal the dynamics of interaction at Enderby School and between the school and their partners in relation to the policy legacy of creativity. Collins (2004) provided an important critique on the notion of successful interaction believing certain elements must be present to achieve the ritual of successful interaction: two or more actors physically present; a mutual awareness between actors; a common focus of attention; and a shared emotional mood. Collins argued these features ‘set the stage for rhythmic entrainment’, wherein participants

synchronize their actions. Collins spoke of such synchronization leading to an increase in emotional energy, feelings of confidence, courage to action, and boldness in taking initiative. According to Collins, emotional energy made an individual feel ‘not only good, but exalted, with the sense of doing what is most important and most valuable (2004: 39). Opinion such as Collin’s offered an important insight into the dynamic of interaction that appeared relevant to my consideration of what might be revealed and captured in the study at Enderby School. Such insight arguably enriched my capacity as a researcher to build analysis and derive results from investigation of interaction in the setting. This was most pertinent to the sense of the social actors doing what they believed was right, important and valuable in relation to the policy legacy of creativity.

Employing a symbolic interactionist framework to the study exploited and explored the notion that ‘the meaning of an object is found in its use’ (Blumer, 1969). Within my analysis, I sought to reveal participants use and interpretation of ‘creativity’ in teaching and learning together with how this ‘worked’ in the school setting as policy legacy. I wished to uncover how participants used and potentially exploited creativity, with whom, and what they accomplished by doing so. The case focused on the meaning and value of creativity in a particular setting and timeframe, raising questions for data collection and analysis to further our understanding of policy legacy. Employing the framework invoked researcher-questioning including; how and why is

creativity supporting Enderby School in solving and resolving the challenges of curriculum delivery? Is creativity producing cohesion or conflict? Do participants own the notion or word? Do all participants embrace creativity or do some reject and evade the concept in teaching and learning? Such questioning shaped my data collection in the field and subsequent analysis.

Berger (1963) reminds us the ‘signature practice’ of fieldworkers employing a symbolic interactionist framework is to ‘see through the facades of social structure’ (1963: 31). Whilst I did not consider the setting I entered into

presenting a ‘façade’ as such, I was aware participants in the study operated within defined social structures. The study was clearly situated in a social structure and as a researcher I recognised my access to the setting and data drawn from the setting was filtered through what the participants wanted me to ‘see up close’ albeit with apparent transparency and no obvious ‘façade’.

The research approach is guided by the need to understand human agency in a particular social setting. Understanding the position of the participant is thought to be achieved by the researcher looking at the world alongside them. The researcher must understand the culture, capture and penetrate the meanings within that culture, as understood by its participants (Woods, 1990). The research design was therefore shaped and influenced by the need to “get close up” to those involved in the legacy of creativity, symbolic

interactionism providing an appropriate and valuable framework and theory underpinning the researchers actions and ability to “see up close”.