Exploring the paper Kleinman, S. and Copp, M., 2009. Denying social harm: Students’ resistance to lessons about inequality. Teaching Sociology, 37(3), pp.283-293.
Blog three of five, in a series by Dr Chrissi McCarthy.
The paper takes an interesting approach by basing the research on the 45years of combined teaching experience of the authors.
Both delivered sociology courses at large American universities, and, as an entry point to thinking about sociology, asked students to consider systemic and indirect harms that arise from inequality, particularly in relation to sexism, racism, economic inequality, and heterosexism.
The aim was to shift students away from thinking about harm as something one individual does consciously to another and toward an understanding of how everyday attitudes and behaviours may be seeped in inequality.
From these introductory lessons, the authors were struck by how similar students’ assumptions were, and it is the analysis of these shared beliefs that make-up this paper.
Research approach
The research employed an inductive approach, which means it began with observations and sought patterns and trends, rather than a deductive approach that starts with a theory and tests it.
If you are struggling with the difference, consider this: inductive reasoning is like an archaeologist piecing together clues to reconstruct what an ancient city might have looked like. In contrast, deductive reasoning is like an explorer following a map drawn in advance and checking that each landmark exists.
Induction generates theories from data, and deduction tests these theories against the data.
Where the evidence came from
The data was collected from discussions, group work and submitted work from students over the combined 45 years of teaching.
How the authors made sense of the students’ comments
The authors reduced the comments made over the years into four core beliefs that repeated consistently; these beliefs, referred to as “folk beliefs”, which we can understand as assumptions that we often fall back on. The beliefs were themed; they focused on the four main ideas that kept students from seeing how systems can hurt people.
Application
There are, of course, pros and cons to this approach. You might recall that the data came from class discussions and assignments.
The authors don’t tell us how many students spoke up or if they were given equal opportunity to do so, for example, did all students have access to discussion, essay, and group work?
It is also possible that the more privileged voices felt more confident in voicing their opinions, leaving the voices of others less clear.
This may have biased the findings towards privileged students’ voices.
However, since the authors found that the students in disadvantaged categories were more likely to be more informed about social harms, there is an implication that this was not the case.
Though I appreciate that there would be something to be gained from knowing more about the populations and how they gave their voice, the paper was written as a retrospective of learning. I firmly believe that losing that retrospective, in the pursuit of a traditional research method, would be far more damaging.
Can we apply this elsewhere?
The paper does not imply that the folk stories here are generalisable or transferable, only that they were repeated in both authors’ rooms and that they demonstrated barriers to understanding harm. By understanding these barriers and conducting further research to determine whether they apply in other contexts, we can broaden students’ perspectives on how the broader world impacts people.
Personal reflection
For me, papers like this are valuable. I fear much of what we learn in practice is lost, and there is real value to capturing these findings in a research environment.
Attitudes are changing, and our research methods are increasingly suggesting that the best way to understand how people respond is often not in a lab environment, where the realities of life have been stripped away, and we are only influenced by one variable.
Instead, there is now an increased understanding that the world around us shapes not only one singular attitude and behaviour, but also the ones we choose to act upon.
Later in the series, we aim to cover some papers that deal with cooperative and alternative research methods, prioritising the idea that research methods can prevent subjects from revealing their truths. The power held by researchers in interviews and focus groups can, by default, create an environment where people respond to please or protest, rather than genuinely sharing their voice.
In practice
Again, I remind the reader that this series focuses on papers that were important to me in my practice and research. I am not looking to sanitise or present myself as someone who was only impacted by a specific type of paper.
This paper explained my silence and opened a door for my understanding. However, imperfect the methodological approach, I question if the initial finding would have arisen in another context.
It has also impacted my practice. I enter rooms prepared for people not to recognise inequality, and more importantly, to understand this as a product of our environment, rather than a purposeful or malicious endeavour. It has helped me become a better facilitator and a kinder human.
Of course, this paper is not alone in this shift, but it is significant, and I thank the authors for taking the time to share their findings.
Please note, in my view, it is the responsibility of any researcher to examine existing research to generalise or dispute the findings of this paper before drawing an overall conclusion. One paper alone does not hold the truth.
