Análisis económico del Control de Calidad realizado

Following on from the discussion about relational theories and approaches to research, the discussion now returns to the notion of ‘popularity’ and some of the literature discussed in the previous literature review. Utilising the work of Ken Gergen, this chapter suggests some

45

challenges to many of the studies of popularity. Firstly, these studies usually focus on certain traits or characteristics of popularity as a method to understanding the concept. This is often treated as though popularity is an accumulation of certain characteristics such as heterosexual attractiveness (Becker and Luthar, 2007), engaging in sport, wearing expensive and highly fashionable clothes (de Bruyn and Cillessen, 2006; Meijs and Cillessen, 2010), hanging out with other popular students (Dijkstra et al., 2010a) and high athletic ability (Dijkstra et al., 2010b). It is argued here that this is largely a product of the individualist approach adopted in this research and a static understanding of popularity employed by the researchers. Whilst this is most common in the more quantitative or psychological studies, the method of asking students to explain popularity and the characteristics of popular students is not only found in these studies. For example, Read et al. (2011: 173) write ‘in this paper we will be outlining our participants’ views on the qualities they perceived to be associated with popular and unpopular students’. There are of course many qualitative studies (including studies conducted by Read, Francis, and Skelton) which are much broader than this and do not simply study the characteristics of popular students in this way, however, this study serves as an example that the points raised here are not just limited to quantitative studies, particularly since Read, Francis and Skelton are some of the key writers in the field of qualitative popularity research.

As a starting point to this discussion, it is noted that the dominant approach in the popularity research is to identify the popular students and then to ask them to explain their status. For example, Francis et al. (2010) asked students to complete a survey as a way to identify who was ‘popular’, and then conducted research with these students using qualitative research methods. This seems to make sense; we should identify and talk to the ‘popular’ students to understand ‘popularity’. The dominant approach is then to interview students to gain an understanding of the characteristics associated with popularity and to observe students performing behaviours associated with popularity. Individual interviews assume a rather singular notion of popularity where ‘popularity’ is considered to be something about the popular individuals themselves. It assumes that a popular student is a person who is ‘popular’. However, given the earlier discussion about ‘relational being’ as opposed to individuals, a popular student is not a person who is popular without constructing these positions with others, since they are neither ‘popular’ nor ‘a person’ until relationships position and construct them as such. To express this difference, drawing on the work of Ken Gergen, this thesis introduces the notion of ‘relational popularity’. This does not simply refer to the social

46

construction of ‘popularity’ between individuals, but to the construction of both popularity and individuals through social relations. Shifting to the idea of ‘relational popularity’ proposed in this thesis involves a move away from popularity as being located or emanating from individuals, but instead suggests that it is useful to think of the concept as being created within relationships.

Gergen (2009a) argues that we do not construct our identity in isolation, rather identity construction is an outcome of social relations and thus is not a solitary activity. This does not imply that identity is merely words and we simply tell people our identity, as this would not be a relational achievement. Since any identity is not made necessary by ‘what there is’, then it is conceivable that any identity can be constructed, however there are constraints to this. As a relational achievement, identity needs to be constructed with others and alongside other relational constructions such as sex or age. Gergen (2012) suggests that, when we relate, it is like we are playing chess (however he notes the ‘tactics’ implied in this metaphor are not appropriate), however, he argues that we are never playing only one game, but multiple games simultaneously, and each move has implications for other simultaneous games. This understanding allows the idea of popularity as a static notion to be questioned and the fluid negotiation of popularity and identity to be considered.

Conceived in this way as a more relational achievement, this raises the question of where is ‘popularity’ located? The vast majority of popularity research to date, including sociological, qualitative studies, seems to suggest that popularity is something which is located in individual students or emerges from their performance of certain characteristics or behaviours. Whilst useful, this thesis argues that additional approaches and researcher conceptions of popularity could allow for different questions about popularity to be asked and new avenues to be explored. Rather than a focus on the characteristics and qualities of those students considered ‘popular’, this thesis seeks to consider the micro process through which characteristics come to be associated with (un)popularity, and the processes by which a student comes to position themselves and other as popular, or comes to be considered to have the characteristics associated with popularity in particular instances.

Although it has been argued that all meaning is co-created in relationships, this does not mean that our world seems in any way temporary or vague. ‘Through the process of co-action people create stabilized worlds of the real, the rational, and the good. Within these worlds

47

there can be very rigorous standards for what counts as accurate’ (Gergen, 2009b: 90). Therefore this is not to say that students are not popular or that popularity hierarchies at school are co-constructed and therefore have little impact on students. In relationships we construct important concepts of the real and notions of self and authentic selves and these can have very important implications for the way that students experience school and friendship. Considering ‘relational popularity’ allows for consideration of how these truths come into being and exploration of the ways in which these are reinforced and (un)successfully challenged. The approach of ‘ontological muteness’ (Gergen, 1994) is important here as it encourages consideration of certain aspects of popularity with a focus on how these emerge through relationships and constructions of popularity and personality without the requirement to then make claims about the ontological status of these aspects, as this is not the main focus and line of argumentation.

In addition to these stabilising factors of co-construction, considering ‘relational popularity’ allows for a consideration of possible flexibility in the term ‘popular’. Rather than understanding popularity as an absolute term which is a successful performance of a list of desirable attributes, relational popularity would suggest that since it is continually constructed, there is deviation, flexibility, and differentiation in the concept. As a result of the relational approach adopted in this thesis, it will be seen how students are simultaneously popular and not popular, how students can be popular at some levels or in some scenarios and not in others and how this popularity is not an automatic label which the individual carries around with them, but is constructed differently and more or less successfully in different interactions. As discussed earlier, using Gergen’s concept of ‘relational being’ (Gergen, 2009b) as a ‘descriptive concept’ (Shotter, 2010) allows consideration of popularity in a different light, and may allow aspects of this concept, which may otherwise go unnoticed, to be considered. In this case the consideration of ‘relational being’ and ‘relational popularity’ allows for a consideration of the questions raised above and the concept of popularity more generally from a relational perspective, which can add a new discussion to the literature.