ANÁLISIS DEL COMPORTAMIENTO DEL CONSUMIDOR

The work of Basil Bernstein has been applied in a large number of empirical studies over the past four decades – see for example empirical work discussed in Atkinson, Delamont & Davies (1995), Bernstein (2000), Morais, Neves, Davies & Daniels (2001), Muller, Davies & Morias (2004), Moore, Arnot, Beck & Daniels (2006), Christie & Martins (2007), Vitale & Exley (2016). My focus in this section, however, will be on those Bernsteinian scholars who have been working at the theoretical edge, elaborating on and extending Bernstein’s problematic. In this I will be concentrating on developments that come closest to the work done in this thesis, dealing with curriculum knowledge (in the field of recontextualisation), but also looking at the relation curriculum knowledge bears to disciplinary knowledge in the field of production as the origin of the recontextualised curriculum.

I consider first the field of knowledge production, where Bernstein used the notion of

“grammar” (1999, 2000) to refer to the ability of horizontal knowledge structures to develop “’relatively’ precise empirical relations” (1999, p. 164) with the external world. However, this theoretical development was not done in a consistent way (O'Halloran, 2007). An example is Bernstein’s description of mathematics as the horizontal knowledge structure with the

strongest grammar, but with no empirical relations to the external world. Muller (2007) argues that Bernstein is using “grammar” to refer to an internal (rather than an external) feature of knowledge structures that constrains its tendency to proliferate languages or parallel theories.

39 Muller (2007) develops the notions of “grammaticality” and “verticality” to extend and refine Bernstein’s ideas of how a theory (or knowledge structure) grows. Verticality speaks to “the capacity of a theory or language to progress integratively through explanatory sophistication“ (p.71). This is a further description of the typical way hierarchical knowledge develops in its ability to subsume and integrate knowledge at less general levels (See Bernstein’s (2000) metaphor of the triangle). Whereas horizontal knowledge structures will exhibit some verticality within segments, the overall verticality is weaker because of the tendency of these knowledge structures to proliferate languages rather than to subsume them. Horizontal knowledge structures therefore progress by introducing new incommensurate languages that give fresh perspectives on issues. Grammaticality of knowledge structures refers to “the capacity of a theory or a language to progress through worldly corroboration” (Muller, 2007, p. 71). It speaks to how theory engages with the world, with how emphatically it is able to identify empirical referents. Hierarchical knowledge structures deal with competing theories differently from horizontal knowledge structures, because their strong grammaticality makes it possible to settle disputes empirically. This is not an option for typical horizontal knowledge structures, where competing incommensurate theories tend to remain sitting next to each other, growing the structures primarily horizontally. Muller’s contribution here is to use grammaticality and verticality together to describe the ability of both hierarchical and horizontal knowledge structures to progress and develop in the field of production.

A large amount of scholarly work has been done at the level of the curriculum, or the field of recontextualisation, to use Bernstein’s term from the pedagogic device. One of the interests in this study is the relationship between knowledge practices in the fields of production and recontextualisation. Further to Muller’s conviction that the form of the knowledge structure constrains the type of curriculum that can and should be developed from it, he develops the notions of conceptual and contextual coherence of curricula (Muller, 2009). He argues that “conceptuality” describes a quality analogous to verticality for curriculum coherence, and “contextuality” a curriculum quality analogous to grammaticality. Muller broadly links conceptuality to verticality along Biglan’s hard / soft binary, and contextuality to the pure / applied binary, and so it becomes possible to identify a particular curriculum with an overall logic of either conceptual or contextual coherence. According to Muller, curricula in regions tend to favour contextual coherence, or “contextual adequacy” (2009, p. 216), and those in “hard” singulars conceptual coherence, or “adequacy to truth (logic)” (p. 216). Crucial here is the point that the fundamental features of the disciplinary knowledge structure constrain the type of curriculum recontextualisation. The curriculum logic has to reflect the integrity of the

40 with a “vertical spine” (Muller, 2009, p. 219) if students are to avoid fundamental gaps in their knowledge, and master cumulative knowledge.

Muller visualises contextuality and conceptuality to apply along a continuum, and acknowledges that the continuum is complex. This is borne out by empirical work done by people like Suellen Shay and others (Shay, 2012; Shay, Oosthuizen, Paxton, & van der Merwe, 2011) which attempts to account for conceptual aspects present mostly in curricula with largely contextual coherence. This extends ways to think about curriculum: “Curricula are thus not either conceptually- coherent or contextually-coherent but they can be both or neither” (Shay, 2016, p. 773) . A further attempt at capturing the complexity of the nature of curricula is made in the next ‘generation’ of the development of Bernsteinian concepts. These sets of concepts are useful for the description of a continuum (rather than binary) of curriculum expression, and results in topologies (rather than typologies) of curricula (Shay, 2012). This is found in the work done by Karl Maton (2013, 2014; 2010b) in his development of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), which he calls “a conceptual toolkit and analytic methodology” (2014, p. 15). Maton developed a set of legitimation codes or dimensions to explore knowledge and curricula. In the context of this thesis, however, I will here refer to only one of these, namely Semantics, since it approaches aspects of the work explored in the thesis. Semantics consists of two sets of code modalities, semantic gravity (SG) and semantic density (SD). Each of these can vary in strength: SG+, SG-, SD+ and SD-. Semantic gravity refers to “the degree to which meaning relates to its context” (Maton, 2014, p. 110), and it varies along a continuum. Stronger semantic gravity (SG+) refers to a close relation between a concept and its “social or symbolic context of acquisition or use” (p.110). When semantic gravity is weaker (SG-), meaning depends less on context. Maton also uses the terms to talk about pedagogic processes: when there is a move from abstract ideas towards more concrete ones, semantic gravity is strengthened. Moving from concrete

particulars to abstractions, is a process of weakening semantic gravity. Maton emphasises that the code modalities apply to all three fields of the pedagogic device, and goes on to explain that in the field of reproduction, conceptualising learning in terms of sematic gravity may mean that students need to develop “the capacity to master semantic gravity, in order for knowledge to be decontextualized, transferred and recontextualised into new contexts” (Maton, 2014, p. 110, emphasis added) as a condition for cumulative learning. The notion of semantic gravity is therefore also used in the context of critiquing skills-based, context-bound vocational

knowledge to emphasise that powerful knowledge is knowledge that transcends context and can be abstracted to different settings. Here the argument is that stronger semantic gravity needs to be surmounted by weakening the semantic gravity in order to avoid segmented learning.

41 Maton re-conceptualises the notion of conceptuality as semantic density (SD) which “refers to the degree of condensation of meaning within socio-cultural practices (symbols, terms,

concepts, phrases, expressions, gestures, clothing, etc.)” (Maton, 2014, p. 129). The stronger the semantic density (SD+), the more meaning is condensed within practices, and the opposite for weaker semantic density (SD-). Strengthening and weakening the semantic density involves processes of ‘condensing’ or ‘unpacking’ meaning, usually in the context of pedagogic practice. Maton (2014) develops a “semantic plane” by combining semantic density and semantic gravity along perpendicular axes. As a result, four code quadrants are created that have been used productively by researchers to topologically investigate theoretical ideas, practices, curricula, resulting in semantic profiles and ranges that give insight into practices. Maton believes that semantics extends Bernstein’s theoretical ideas, since these can now be used to describe both internal and external relations.

There are two difficulties with using semantic gravity and density as the conceptual framework for the work done in this thesis. The first is the close proximity of the intellectual fields of science and engineering science. Both make extensive use of the same technical terms from thermodynamics, packed with meaning (stronger semantic density). In addition, mathematics (a language with high semantic density) is used in similar ways across the disciplines. It is

therefore difficult to see how semantic density will allow for significant distinctions to be made between science and engineering science. Semantic gravity at first glance seems more

promising: some will argue that engineering is the application of science, and therefore has stronger semantic gravity. However, the notion of engineering as applied science is not uncontested (see the discussion later in this chapter). Furthermore, ‘context’ as a concept has had to be interrogated in the theoretical work done in this thesis. Both science and engineering present knowledge in contexts, different contexts to be sure, but still rooted in contexts (the laboratory in the case of the sciences and the real-world problem context of the engineering sciences). There is a temptation to assign stronger semantic gravity to engineering science’s ‘real world’ context when compared to the controlled environment of the sciences. However, a counter argument can be made that both disciplinary fields have strong empirical referents in the ‘real’ world by which knowledge claims are validated (indeed, this is the hallmark of all hierarchical knowledge structures). The importance of empirical work in science ensures that knowledge in the sciences always has a contextual association, and technical knowledge in the professions will, by definition, have a contextual angle. The variation in strength of semantic gravity between science and engineering science may therefore be quite limited. Approaching semantic gravity from a different angle, it would be difficult to defend a claim that the

42 Secondly, the notion of semantic gravity has, in part at least, been developed to address a

particular knowledge problem in education, the “spectre of segmentalism” (Maton, 2014, p. 106). Segmented learning results in an inability to transfer knowledge to contexts beyond the one in which the knowledge has been encountered. Maton (2014) describes this as an inability to decontextualize, transfer and recontextualise knowledge in a new context. Empirical studies using LCT often document how sematic gravity needs to be mastered in education to ensure cumulative learning (Blackie, 2014; Macnaught, Maton, Martin, & Matruglio, 2013; Matruglio, Maton, & Martin, 2013). Semantic gravity therefore presents a helpful way of conceiving of pedagogic practice where the teacher makes use of ‘semantic waves’ (Maton, 2013) to ‘unpack’ complex concepts by strengthening semantic gravity, followed by abstracting the knowledge to increase transferability across contexts (weakening semantic gravity). However, the focus of the thesis is not pedagogy, but the nature of the curriculum knowledge. Semantic density and gravity may therefore not be discriminative or granular enough to allow for distinction between engineering science and science knowledge structures in curricula.