‘There is no individual, no self, that is ontologically prior to power’ (Ball and Olmedo, 2013, p.87). This thesis has already critically evaluated the literature that surrounds the social construction of subjectivities; it is important for this study, though, that the formation of subjects is understood in relation to the theorisation of systemic and constitutive power and the dialectical relation between the two. The dialectical relation between systemic and constitutive power is essential for understanding the ways in
which social agents are formed as subjects. Butler argues: ‘power acts on the subject in at least two ways: first, as what makes the subject possible, the condition of its possibility and its formative occasion, and second, as what is taken up and reiterated in the subject’s “own” acting’ (1997, p.14). Social roles and subjectivities, as ideal types, are formed through systemic power, that is, they are socially structured. However, they are maintained, perpetuated or challenged through the constitutive level, whereby social agents either reject or adhere to certain subjectivities in specific contexts. Danaher, drawing from Foucault, notes that although agents are ‘the effects of power relations, we are not helpless objects formed and moved by power, but individuals constituted as subjects by governmental practices of power and normalisation, and we can choose to respond to, or resist, these practices’ (2000, p.128).
It is not possible to understand the formation of subjects without an understanding of both the individual agent and the social context in which they are situated:
Because the individual cannot have experiences, form beliefs, or perform actions, except against the background of a particular social context, therefore we have to examine the ways in which a particular context influences, limits, or determines the forms of subjectivity people take on (Bevir, 1999, p.357).
It is essential that the systemic formation of power is understood in this study; the subjectivities adopted by undergraduates are contextually dependent and the institutions in this study help to determine the subject positioning of undergraduates. Equally, though, the individuality of social agency is necessary for an integrated understanding of subjectivity within HE. Undergraduates are limited to what they can do and what they can be by the structural limitations of the institutions in which they find themselves. Evaluating the work of Foucault, Bevir says:
We must allow for agency if only because we cannot individuate beliefs or actions by reference to social context […] because different people adopt different beliefs and perform different actions against the background of the same social structures, there must be an undecided space in front of these
structures where individual subjects decide what beliefs to hold and what actions to perform for reasons of their own (1999, p.358).
The social construction of subjectivities constitutes how social agents behave; agents ‘develop expectations about what it is that one does, and what it is that one ought to do, in particular contexts’ (Hayward and Lukes, 2008, p.14). But the individuality of social agents allows them flexibility in whether or not they choose to act and behave appropriately in a given context, by adhering to the socially accepted subjectivity for that context.
Undergraduates within universities are constructed in particular subjectivities through a dialectical relation between systemic and constitutive power. On the one hand, they are positioned in particular subjectivities through systemic power and the encouragement to adopt socially constructed subjectivities which are context dependent. This involves internalising specific behaviours that are associated with particular social roles. All three subject positions being explored in this study are constituted through systemic power, and each has its own set of behavioural expectations that are deemed appropriate for the contexts in which they are normally applied. On the other hand, undergraduates are simultaneously in the process of adhering or rejecting the adoption of behaviours and expectations which correlate to these specific subjectivities at the constitutive level. Kitchener argues: ‘in addition to the strain arising from the incompatibility of expectations, role conflict may also arise from incompatible obligations and from different prestige and power associated with the roles’ (1988, p.218). As the findings of this study will illuminate, the conflict between the subjectivities that are encouraged within universities leads to incompatibility in terms of negotiating dispositional powers within interpersonal relationships with academics. The formation of subjects, then, is a cyclical process
between systemic and constitutive forms of power and, as I will discuss in later chapters, this process has led to multiple and conflicting subjectivities for undergraduates and as a result, multiple and conflicting power relationships.
4.5 Conclusions
This chapter has outlined a theoretical framework of power that is relevant to a HE context; this thesis has made use of a ‘cluster of concepts’ (Haugaard, 2010, p.427) in order to appropriately conceptualise power for understanding the power relationship between undergraduates and academics within universities. Making use of the ‘family
resemblance concept’ (Haugaard, 2010, p.424) in framing power goes beyond a
strong essentialist view of power and incorporates the most meaningful features for understanding power in HE contexts. As a result, this chapter has critiqued the prominent theorists in the power debate and explored why their conceptualisations were too limiting for this study and I have outlined a justification for the choice of alternative theories; I have considered the ways in which power can be both negative and productive and the importance of understanding how and why power is exercised through systemic and constitutive conceptions of power.
The dialectical relationship between systemic power and constitutive power is critical for understanding the ways in which undergraduates are positioned within specific subjectivities. I have outlined how the cyclical relationship between systemic and constitutive forms of power constitutes subject positions and how these subjectivities create conflict for undergraduates. Considering systemic and constitutive power alongside each other, making use of the cluster of concepts that overlap and interlink between the two, gives a richer and fuller depiction of how subjectivities and the
associated power relationships are established, maintained, reproduced or challenged in HE. I turn now to an exploration of the methodology chosen to complement and advance this theoretical framework.
5 CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODOLOGY
AND METHODS
5.1 Introduction
Understanding and explaining the theoretical framework utilised in this study requires a detailed methodology that corresponds with the main aim of this research: to examine how power relationships are being transformed through conflicting subjectivities that are constituted through both structure and agency. I have chosen methods that allow for a deeper understanding of the ways in which undergraduates are positioned in subjectivities through interaction with academics and through their specific institutional environments, and how these social agents perceive their positions and the relationships they negotiate. In this chapter, I detail the methods chosen and the justification for the choices, explaining the ways in which the data was collected and analysed. I then outline the critical realist meta-framework of this study and the ways in which it has been incorporated into my research design, before concluding with a reflection on important ethical considerations.