Peer Group Cultures and Social Identity:
An Integrated Approach to Understanding Masculinities
Nigel Stuart Sherriff, B.Sc.(Hons), PGCE(FE), MA
July 2005
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department of Educational Research
Lancaster University
Abstract
Sociological conceptualisations of the processes by which masculine identities are produced, maintained, and contested, offer important and useful frameworks for interpreting and understanding boys’ behaviour in schools. However, to date, little empirical work has considered the social psychological processes which are likely to be at work in such intergroup contexts. This research contributes to knowledge and understanding by assimilating sociological theories of gender identity (masculinities) with social psychological theories of intergroup relations (social identity theory), thus allowing the development of a fuller and more complex theoretical understanding of the differentiation and interplay between differential forms of masculinities. In doing so, this work draws on two main bodies of literature: intergroup relations and work on masculinities.
Empirically the thesis is based on data generated from two secondary schools in the north of England. A sequential ‘mixed methods’ approach was adopted in which a combination of self-report measures and semi-structured interviews were utilised to explore boys’ performances of masculinity as expressed through their peer group memberships. A total of 331 year 10 pupils completed two quantitative instruments (the ‘subgrouping task’ and Self-Description Questionnaire-II; Marsh, 1990b) of whom 34 went on to take part in a series of semi-structured interviews.
From a social identity framework (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975) the
results suggest social identity motives are likely to underpin many of boys’
masculinity performances in school. Discussion of results focuses mainly upon
the: i) theoretical and empirical advances which ensue from adopting a more
integrated approach to understanding masculinities and peer group cultures;
ii) benefits a mixed methods social psychological notions of intergroup processes
may have for gender work programmes in school.
Section One: Introduction and Literature Review
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Throughout the 1990s and into the start of the twenty-first century there has been an upsurge of media attention and academic literature relating to a so-called ‘crisis in masculinity’, both internationally and specifically within the United Kingdom (UK). Concerns about masculinity have not only spread to many countries but also into many fields (Connell, 2000), including health (for example, see Bruckenwell, Jackson, Luck, Wallace, and Watts, 1995; Robertson, 2003a, 2003b), crime (Hood-Williams, 2001; Messerschmidt, 1994), and education (Epstein, 1997; Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 1996; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Skelton, 2001). Health services for instance, have begun to acknowledge the relevance of the male gender to problems such as risk-taking, injury, diet, and sexual behaviours (Connell, 2000). Criminologically, work has examined why boys and men dominate violent crime statistics. Whilst in terms of schooling, boys are commonly denoted as being ‘in trouble’ with researchers and commentators raising specific concerns over deleterious attitudes to schoolwork, ‘underachievement’, bullying, violence, harassment, and homophobia, thought to result from social and cultural constructions of masculinity defined along essentialist lines such as ‘hardness’, power, and domination (see Connell 1995; Epstein 1998; Frank, Kehler, Lovell, and Davison, 2003; Mac an Ghaill 1994; Martino 1997). Research on masculinities is important because how we understand men, boys, and masculinities, may have far reaching implications for key areas such as health services, violence prevention, policing, social services, and education (Connell, 2000).
Broadly based within a sociological perspective and frequently grounded in (pro)feminist theory, the main thrust of much of this contemporary gender work has been to problematise constructions of masculinities. Key academic underpinnings often include a feminist analysis of gender as a structure of social relations (especially as a structure of power relations), sociological concerns with subcultures and issues of marginalisation and resistance, and post-structuralist analyses of identity construction. As a result, critical, social, and political analyses have provided rich nuanced insights into how boys and men construct and perform their masculinities within complex and contradictory discourses which are intersected by sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, and disability.
In terms of the school environment, many writers interested in gender relations have articulated the importance of pupil peer group cultures, which are seen to provide a form of collective network in which boys’ masculine identities are constructed and enacted (see Connell, 2000; Cottrell, 1996; Gilbert and Gilbert, 1998; Harris, 1998; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Martino and Pallota-Chiarolli, 2003; see also Newman and Newman, 1976; Thorne, 1993). Peer groups are seen not merely as a collection of individuals, each constructing and performing their own version of masculinity; but rather as more of a collective endeavour whereby culturally shared values, norms, and interests provide a series of meanings or guidelines of what it is to ‘do boy’, and hence be ‘appropriately’ masculine in school (Dubbs and Whitney, 1980). Consequently, masculinity performances are enacted and reinforced within peer group situations and commonly reflect boys’ attempts to acquire power and prestige in their interactions with others (Keddie, 2000). These collective understandings of masculinity act as determinants for defining and measuring a boy’s status and worth within his peer group and against others. Ultimately, identification with the peer group means acquiring a sense of power through gaining acceptance and a place within the hierarchy or ‘pecking order’ of social relations in the school environment. This peer group acceptance means boys can use this resource as a means of asserting collective power and dominance, particularly when unable to dominate alone (Lowe 1998). This frequently involves displays of exaggerated masculine practice such as bravado, ‘acting hard’, and ‘saving face’ in front of peers.
However, despite this focus on the influence of the peer group in masculinity performances in school, researchers have failed to take into account the intergroup nature of peer group contexts. Consequently, I argue that current understandings of masculinities are limited and that there is a need to develop a more complete understanding of boys’ masculinities by examining the intergroup processes which are likely to be at work in such contexts. This thesis is therefore concerned with the social psychological processes involved in the performance of differential stylised versions of masculinities in relation to the performances of other forms of masculinities. I argue that for many boys, masculinity performances played out in peer group cultures are an expression of an aspect of their social identity or identities, which arguably locates the study of masculinities within the realm of social psychology, and thus, necessitates an analysis of intergroup processes.
1.0 Issues addressed in this Thesis
Throughout this research three important themes are explored. First and foremost, this thesis locates the importance of a social psychological framework, and more specifically a social identity perspective, for understanding the differentiation and interplay between boys’ emerging masculinities. By critically engaging with the literature, it elaborates on existing work that describes how social identity processes (including self-categorisation and social comparison; Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975) lead to the development of biased perceptions, and shows how such views are mediated by various psychological processes. It also explores the role of the peer group in constructions of masculinities and articulates why our understandings of boys’ behaviours can be furthered by the additional study of intergroup processes.
Secondly, broadly located within a (pro)feminist framework, the thesis advocates the use of a mixed methods approach to studying masculinities. It describes ways in which the use of quantitative and qualitative data gathering techniques can provide a beneficial method for exploring the range of masculinities on show in a particular setting. In doing so, masculinity performances (for example, in terms of the degree of differentiation and bias between differential versions of stylised masculinity) can be qualitatively and quantitatively explored.
Thirdly, the thesis draws attention to how the assimilation of social psychological notions of intergroup relations with sociological conceptualisations of masculinities, can proffer insights for the better development and implementation of gender work programmes in school. From an intergroup contact framework, it is suggested that the gender work programmes in school, which aim to assist boys in constructing alternative ways of being a boy in school, may benefit from taking on board the underlying social psychological processes at work in such intergroup contexts. Specifically, it is argued that carefully structured intergroup contact between groups of boys, and between boys and girls, may lead to improved peer relations in school.
1.1 Aims and Key Research Questions
The key over-overarching aim of the present research is to contribute to knowledge and understanding by incorporating sociological conceptualisations of gender identity (namely masculinities) with social psychological notions of intergroup behaviour (social identity theory). In doing so the research aims to assist the development of a fuller and more complex theoretical understanding of the differentiation and interplay between versions of boys’ emerging masculinities. By conceptualising differential forms of masculinity as distinct peer group cultures, and therefore important contributions to social identity/identities, an analysis of the underlying psychological processes at work in intergroup settings such as the school, can offer useful and valuable insights into our understandings of masculinity performances.
This research relies heavily on Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity framework, and draws upon literature pertaining to intergroup relations and work on masculinities. In doing so, this thesis addresses the following research questions:
1. What do pupil peer group cultures look like? For example, which groups are most (in)visible and (un)popular to pupils in the context of their schools?
2. Does intergroup bias exist between pupils’ peer groups, and if so,
what form does it take?
3. What social psychological motives might account for displays of intergroup
bias?
4. How might the knowledge gained from a more integrated approach to investigating
masculinities lead to ways of reducing bias and improving intergroup relations
in school?
These comprise the major questions addressed in this study. Although chapters
five and six outline in detail the research approach adopted in this study,
in the next section I provide a brief outline of the research design and the
research participants involved, in order to provide a context for what follows.
1.2 Research Design and Context
A mixed methods strategy was adopted in order to meet the research aim and
develop answers to the emerging research questions through the use of survey
instruments and semi-structured interviewing. This process was carried out in
two mixed comprehensive secondary schools in the north of England between March
and October 2003. The data were generated over two distinct phases: In phase
one a survey style subgrouping task (including Marsh’s Self-Description
Questionnaire II, 1990b) was administered to a total of 331 year 10 pupils on
two separate occasions between March-April 2003; in phase two, 34 boys (who
had also taken part in phase one) were purposively selected to participate in
a series of individual and focus group interviews during October 2003. This
combined (quantitative and qualitative) data set formed the empirical basis
of this thesis.
Whilst details of confidentiality and anonymity are discussed later in chapter
five, it is important to note at this point that prior to being interviewed,
the boys were informed that in the final report they would be given pseudonyms
to protect their anonymity. The pseudonyms chosen were not meant to be signifiers
of any sort, and were selected in a generally unsystematic way using a textbook
listing male names for soon-to-be parents. Throughout this thesis the boys are
referred to by their pseudonyms and where relevant, important identifying features
of them are provided in the main body of the text (characteristics of the sample
including ethnicity and social class data are given in the tables in appendix
L (p. 338). Moreover, short vignettes of interviewees’ details including
the pseudonyms used for them, age, and other useful identifying information
are also provided). The school names in this research (Attwood and Hawthorne)
are both pseudonyms.
1.3 Organisation of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into three parts: The first part consists of this introductory chapter and a review of the relevant literature in a further chapter, in order to provide the wider context within which the research aims and questions were formulated. The second part of the thesis presents two methods/methodology chapters, which explore how and why the research was undertaken in the way it was. Collectively, parts one and two not only set the scene for the empirical data that is to follow, but also outline the theoretical framework that underpins the entire approach to this work. The third and final part of this thesis outlines and discusses the main empirical findings in some depth, and in doing so, draws the work together. The two empirical chapters are cumulative in that the analysis from the first (‘Divisions of Friendship’) becomes incorporated in to the second (‘Othering Masculinities: In-group Love and Out-group Hate’). The closing chapter considers the extent to which the research aims have been met and outlines areas where further empirical work is needed. It also highlights some methodological limitations of the research and draws attention to the theoretical and practical implications arising from the empirical data.
The following paragraphs will now provide a brief synopsis of the following chapters:
Chapter Two – In this chapter, two bodies of existing literature are critically engaged with demonstrating how social psychological notions of intergroup relations, and more specifically social identity theory, can assist in developing current sociological understandings of boys’ masculinities. In the first part of the chapter, social identity theory is located as an important and useful theoretical framework for studying masculinities and peer group cultures in school. It explores the fundamental tenets of social identity theory (including self-categorisation social comparison, and self-enhancement), before explicitly mapping out how these core notions may provide valuable insight into boys’ masculinity performances. In the second part of the chapter, attention is drawn to some central limitations within the existing social identity tradition (for example, the use of artificial procedures and unrealistic groups), and points to how the adoption of a ‘mixed methods’ approach may provide a useful way forward. Finally, the various threads are drawn together to present a summary of the main arguments proposed in this research.
Chapter Three – The first part of chapter three defines the general orientating framework within which the study is located. In doing so, it discusses the epistemological and technical concerns involved in utilising a sequential mixed methods (quantitative-qualitative) approach to research. The chapter goes on to provide important contextualisation by delineating details of the regional locality in which the participating schools are situated, and defining characteristics of the two schools. Finally, details of the specific samples involved are presented.
Chapter Four – In chapter four the research instruments and procedures employed in this research are discussed. Details are provided of the ways in which the subgrouping task was developed as a heuristic device for rendering visible pupils’ friendship groups in school and the associated differentiation and bias which so characterises real-world intergroup relations. Particulars of the extensive piloting of the subgrouping task are then presented, along with details of the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ-II; Marsh, 1990b) and interview schedules. Practical and theoretical concerns associated with the use of self-reported measures (such as those utilised in this study) are then discussed. The chapter then explores the use of qualitative interviewing, including ethical matters, and demarcates the researcher’s stance in this respect. Finally, the procedures employed in this research are outlined.
Chapter Five – The initial part of this first empirical results chapter is dedicated to the procedures employed in preparing the combined data set for statistical and thematic analysis. In doing so, preliminary findings and discussions from the research are presented, including the author’s reflective comments on the overall research process. The second part of the chapter, explores the range of masculinities/peer groups pupils rendered visible through the research instruments, and the value of utilising a quantitative data gathering technique in this respect is discussed. Particular attention is drawn to pupils’ perceptions of popular masculinities and their generally quite negative views of girls and femininities.
Chapter Six - In this second and final empirical results chapter, the existence of intergroup bias is explored in the form of out-(sub)group homogeneity, in-(sub)group favouritism, and out-(sub)group derogation. Throughout the chapter it is argued that boys’ masculinity performances in their peer groups can be explained, in part, by social identity processes, and that an understanding of these processes can assist in providing a more complex understanding of masculinities. It is argued that strategies designed to address and re-structure boys’ constructions of masculinity which recognise the range of sociological and social psychological processes at work are likely to be more effective than those that offer partial insights. As such, strategies drawing upon work on masculinities and upon social psychological theories of intergroup relations may be particularly effective.
Chapter Seven – In chapter seven, the main findings of the study in relation to the social psychological and sociological literature are discussed. This final chapter reviews the central arguments elaborated in the thesis, and outlines theoretical and practical implications of the research both for educational practices and for formulating policy. Limitations of the study are also presented, and suggestions made for ways in which future research might progress.
1.4 Summary
In summary, this thesis addresses three issues from a mainly social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) perspective. It explains the differentiation and interplay between boys’ masculinities in terms of underlying social psychological processes. It also argues that a mixed methods approach can be particularly valuable in investigating the range of masculinities on show in a particular setting, and can provide useful quantitative indications of the extent and strength of ‘jockeying’ displayed. Finally, the thesis provides additional insights into how gender work programmes in school might benefit from incorporating social psychological notions of intergroup relations to ameliorate peer group interactions.
This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number R42200154458) a source which is gratefully acknowledged.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Carolyn Jackson, my supervisor, having provided a firm base of encouragement during the writing of my master’s degree thesis, went on to encourage me to go further than I ever thought I could. Her holistic approach to academic and pastoral care, expertise, meticulous reading of my drafts, enthusiasm for my research, and seemingly endless patience, have been invaluable to the completion of this work while retaining my own sanity. Thanks also to Professor Colin Rogers, my second supervisor, and to Dr. Mick Green for advice on statistical modelling.
Appreciation is extended to my friends and colleagues residing in C31, particularly Dave Allaway, Neil Lent, and Ian Nichol for their insightful and yet often completely random comments, nights out, and musical debauchery in the form of C31 – ‘the band’. Thanks also to Stuart Matthews for the many hours of stimulating and critical conversations over various aspects of this work.
I would like to thank the staff and pupils of the two participating secondary
schools without whom this research would not have been possible. For help with
data collection, I would like to thank Aileen Hickey, Adam Rodgers, Gemma Hague,
Chris Graham, Vildane Berani, and Jacquelyn Drewett.
Thanks also to Chris and Bridget Giddens, and lastly, my heartfelt thanks go
to Boo for picking me up when I sometimes felt like falling down. She has patiently
supported me throughout this endeavour and has always been there for me when
the going got tough. Her absolute belief and confidence in my abilities has
never failed to amaze me.