IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocxx/v16y2021i3p280-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social class inequalities in educational attainment: measuring social class using capitals, assets and resources

Author

Listed:
  • Roxanne Connelly
  • Vernon Gayle
  • Chris Playford

Abstract

There is a plethora of measures of social class, and social stratification more widely. Occupation-based measures are most frequently used in social stratification research, although more recently the propriety of such approaches have been questioned. An emerging school of thought advocates the use of more culturally based measures as the most appropriate indicators of an individual’s social class position, an argument predominantly influenced by the work of Bourdieu. In this paper, we evaluate the benefits of a social class measure with a Bourdieusian theoretical foundation compared with an orthodox neo-Weberian occupation-based social class measure, the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC). First, we assess how closely we can replicate the Bourdieusian social class measure reported in Savage et al. ([2013]. A new model of social class: Findings from the BBC's Great British class survey experiment. Sociology). Second, we aim to compare and contrast the capitals, assets and resources based social class measure with the occupation-based National Statistics Socio-economic Classification, in an analysis of inequalities in school GCSE outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Roxanne Connelly & Vernon Gayle & Chris Playford, 2021. "Social class inequalities in educational attainment: measuring social class using capitals, assets and resources," Contemporary Social Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 280-293, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocxx:v:16:y:2021:i:3:p:280-293
    DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2020.1805506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21582041.2020.1805506
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21582041.2020.1805506?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsocxx:v:16:y:2021:i:3:p:280-293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rsoc21 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.