LCT is a toolkit. It provides a means of analysing knowledge practices in education and beyond along a number of dimensions. LCT now comprises five dimensions: Autonomy, Density, Specialisation, Temporality and Semantics. The first four sets of papers below address one dimension of the theory: LCT(Specialisation). They echo the development of Bernstein's approach from educational knowledge codes to pedagogic device to knowledge structures, adding a second dimension to his approach to give specialisation codes, the epistemic device and knower structures. Further below papers explore LCT(Semantics), LCT(Autonomy) and the wider Legitimation Device.
A book elaborating many of the principal ideas of LCT(Specialisation) and LCT(Semantics) is in progress and will be published by Routledge.
SPECIALISATION
Maton, K. (2000) Languages of legitimation: The structuring significance for intellectual fields of strategic knowledge claims, British Journal of Sociology of Education 21 (2), 147-167.
Maton, K. (2000) Recovering pedagogic discourse: A Bernsteinian approach to the sociology of educational knowledge, Linguistics & Education 11 (1), 79-98.
These papers begin from the argument that the sociology of educational knowledge remains a sociology without a theory of knowledge. Through an illustrative study of the history of cultural studies, they highlight the significance of the structuring of knowledge for the development of intellectual fields and explores the conditions disabling the cumulative building of knowledge. Theoretically, they set out concepts that integrate the insights of Bourdieu and Bernstein by conceiving of knowledge and practices as 'languages of legitimation'. The underlying principles structuring these practices are conceptualised as legitimation codes, which brings together sociological and epistemological understandings of knowledge. The papers analyse the underlying principles of claims made for cultural studies as embodying a 'knower code' of legitimation, whereby knowledge is reduced to knowers. The implications of this code for the development of cultural studies is then discussed in analyses that accurately predicted the closure of its key centres of research, the dissipation of named degree courses in the subject, its fragmentation into a range of factional interests, and the move of actors and ideas into subjects such as sociology.
These papers were first circulated as a conference paper in 1998. 'Languages of legitimation' (LOL) shows how legitimation code brings together the insights of Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein. 'Recovering pedagogic discourse' (RPD) shows how they bring together Bernstein's concepts of 'educational knowledge codes' with his later ideas of different 'knowledge structures'. RPD also contains a fuller analysis of how a knower code develops over time.
Note: in these papers the concepts are termed 'legitimation modes'; they have since been reconceptualised as 'codes'. A revised version of LOL can be found as Maton, K. (2010) Analysing knowledge claims and practices: Languages of legitimation, in Maton, K. & Moore, R. (Eds.) Social Realism, Knowledge and the Sociology of Education: Coalitions of the mind. London, Continuum, 35-59.
The Epistemic Device
Moore, R. & Maton, K. (2001) Founding the sociology of knowledge: Basil Bernstein, intellectual fields and the epistemic device, in Morais, A., Neves, I., Davies, B. & Daniels, H. (Eds.) Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research. New York, Peter Lang, 153-182.
Building on LOL and RPD, this excavates beneath 'legitimation codes of specialisation' to hypothesise the existence of a generative mechanism which shapes the nature of intellectual production: 'epistemic device'. Analogous to Bernstein's 'pedagogic device', the epistemic device is the basis for setting legitimation principles for knowledge claims and practices. The paper uses legitimation codes to compare recurrent claims to renewal and rebirth in literary criticism with the extended epistemic community involved in solving Fermat's Theorem. This analyses how different settings of the device (legitimation codes) shape fields in particular ways to enable epistemic communites that are restricted or extended in time and social space. The epistemic device is posited as the foundational object of study for the sociology of knowledge.
Knowledge-Knower Structures
Maton, K. (2006) On knowledge structures and knower structures, in Moore, R., Arnot, M., Beck, J. & Daniels, H. (Eds.) Knowledge, Power and Educational Reform: Applying the sociology of Basil Bernstein. London, Routledge, 44-59.
Maton K. (2007) Knowledge-knower structures in intellectual and educational fields, in Christie, F. & Martin, J. (Eds.) Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London, Continuum, 87-108 (page numbers marked).
These papers extends the framework to provide a means of understanding intellectual and educational fields of practice more generally. They introduce and elaborate the notion of 'knower structures'. Bernstein conceptualised the discursive formations of intellectual fields as 'knowledge structures'. These papers argue that an intellectual or educational field is more than just a structure of knowledge, it is also a structure of knowers. Such fields should thus be understood as 'knowledge-knower structures'. This idea is introduced through discussion of two very different cases: the famous 'two cultures' debate between CP Snow and FR Leavis, and studies into the unpopularity of school qualifications in Music. These very different cases are used to show how the concepts can be applied to both the fields of knowledge production and reproduction (curriculum), bringing the two into a single framework. (The 2006 paper is a much shorter and earlier version of the 2007 paper).
Knower Structures and Gazes
Maton, K. (2010) Invisible tribunals: Progress and knowledge-building in the humanities, in Singh, P., Sadovnik, A. & Semel, S. (Eds.) Toolkits, Translation Devices, Conceptual Tyrannies: Essays on Basil Bernstein's sociology of knowledge. New York, Peter Lang.
Maton, K. (2010) Progress and canons in the arts and humanities: Knowers and gazes, in Maton, K. & Moore, R. (Eds.) Social Realism, Knowledge and the Sociology of Education: Coalitions of the mind. London, Continuum, 154-178.
This paper addresses the conditions for knowledge building in the arts and humanities. Typically, theorising (including Bernstein's framework) has focused on analysing the sciences as the benchmark for integrative and subsumptive knowledge creation. This, however, neglects the specificities of the arts and humanities. The paper argues that to reach the same ends requires a different means; i.e. knowledge-building takes a different form in these fields. Its basis is theorised in terms of different kinds of 'gaze' that underpin legitimate insight in different disciplines. The substantive focus of the chapter is on debates over the role of canons in literary criticism. It shows how a canon can serve as the basis for democratic, inclusive and cumulative knowledge-building - defending the notion of canons against both conservative and 'radical' misunderstandings. An early draft paper was written for the Fourth International Basil Bernstein Symposium (2006, Rutgers, USA). The second paper above is an extended and revised version of the first.
SEMANTICS
Semantic Gravity
Maton, K. (2008) Gravité sémantique et Apprentissage segmenté, in Vitale, P. & Frandji, D. (Eds.) Enjeux Sociaux, Savoirs, Langage, Pedagogie: Actualité et fécondité de l'oeuvre de Basil Bernstein. Rennes, University of Rennes Press. This is to be published in English as: Maton, K. (2010) Segmentalism: The problem of building knowledge and creating knowers, in Vitale, P. & Frandji, D. (Eds.) Title To Be Finalised. London, Routledge.
Maton, K. (2009) Cumulative and segmented learning: Exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(1): 43-57.
This paper extends the focus on cumulative building of knowledge to address curriculum and pedagogy. It explores the problem of segmented learning, when pupils learn a series of discrete, strongly bounded ideas or skills over time rather than progressively building on their previous knowledge. The paper develops Bernstein's conceptualisation of discourses and knowledge structures, overcoming dichotomies in his model by focusing on 'semantic gravity' or the context-dependency of knowledge. This framework is used, in conjunction with legitimation codes, to analyse two contrasting examples of educational practices: 'authentic learning environments' in professional education at university; and 'The Journey' in secondary school English. These examples form the basis for a discussion of the educational consequences of segmented learning. (The French paper is an early version of the journal article).
Semantic Density
Maton, K. (2008) Grammars of sociology: How to build knowledge. Proceedings of the fifth international Basil Bernstein symposium. Cardiff, Cardiff University.
Maton, K. (2010) Knowledge-building: Analysing the cumulative development of ideas, in Ivinson, G., Davies, B. & Fitz, J. (eds.) Bernstein’s Sociology of Knowledge [Title to be finalised]. London, Routledge.
Maton, K. (2010) Theories and things: The semantics of disciplinarity, in Christie, F. & Maton, K. (eds.) Disciplinarity: Systemic functional and sociological perspectives. London, Continuum.
These papers extend the conceptual framework to analyse the form taken by theory building in sociology and education, drawing on the concepts developed in preceding papers and introducing the notion of ‘semantic density’ which addresses the process whereby descriptions are condensed into abstract concepts. These are used to analyse the modes of theorising of Bernstein and Bourdieu, focusing first on their internal languages of description and, secondly, on their external languages of description. This shows that in Bernstein’s mode these two dimensions are characterised by different degrees of abstraction (semantic gravity) and condensation of meaning (semantic density). It is argued this represents the key to creating cumulative knowledge that progresses towards greater generality and explanatory power. In contrast, Bourdieu’s mode of theorising is characterised by an internal language with weaker vertical relations of condensation and abstraction between concepts, and an external language based on a ‘cultivated gaze’ rather than an external language of description. This limits its capacity for enabling cumulative knowledge. The conference paper is a first draft and includes an introduction to the paper below (as they were originally conceived as two halves of one paper which then grew into two).
Cosmologies
Maton, K. (2008) Knowledge-building: How can we create powerful and influential ideas?, paper presented at Disciplinarity, Knowledge & Language: An international symposium, University of Sydney, Dec.
This paper builds on the ones above to address why these two modes of theorising enjoy contrasting fortunes within fields such as sociology and education. Using the same framework, the nature of these intellectual fields are analysed in terms of the logic of their knowledge-knower structures, and how this works to allocate the two modes of theorising to different poles of the field’s cosmology is explored. It concludes by discussing what this means for propagating Bernstein’s approach and transforming these fields from segmented to cumulative knowledge. This is available as a transcript.
AUTONOMY
Maton, K. (2005) A question of autonomy: Bourdieu's field approach and policy in higher education, Journal of Education Policy 20(6): 687-704.
The paper introduces a second dimension of LCT - Autonomy - by anchoring it in the theoretical approach of Pierre Bourdieu. It explores the concepts of 'field' and 'autonomy' for studying policy in higher education. It begins by showing how Bourdieu's 'field' approach enables higher education to be examined as a distinct and irreducible object of study. It then explores the value and limitations of this conceptualisation through analyses of policy during two contrasting moments of transition in the same field. First, the insights offered by a field approach are illustrated by analysing the new student debate over the creation of new universities in early 1960s English higher education. This shows how the field's relatively high autonomy shaped the focus and form of policy debates by refracting economic and political pressures into specifically educational issues. Second, considering contemporary changes in policy highlights how the erosion of the social compact underpinning higher education has increasingly fractured autonomy, necessitating development of Bourdieu's conceptualisation. A distinction between 'positional' and 'relational' dimensions of autonomy is introduced to capture an increasing disjuncture between the origins of actors running higher education and of the principles they are adopting, respectively. These concepts are utilised to illuminate the effects of current moves towards marketisation and managerialism in higher education on principles, practices and identities within the field.
THE LEGITIMATION DEVICE
Maton, K. (2005) The Field of Higher Education: A sociology of reproduction, transformation, change and the conditions of emergence for cultural studies. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Though often equated with 'LCT', most of the above papers have excavated only one dimension of the overall framework of Legitimation Code Theory, namely LCT(Specialisation). The wider framework from which this dimension is taken is set out in this PhD. The thesis outlines four of the five dimensions: Autonomy, Density, Specialisation and Temporality, which together comprise the Legitimation Device. (The Semantic dimension of semantic gravity and semantic density has subsequently elaborated a fifth dimension). This framework is developed through and used in a major empirical study of the changes in post-war British higher education that enabled the emergence of British cultural studies. The Legitimation Device provides the most complete analysis of symbolic structuring thus far.
