Social Stratification Research – 4 generations
1
•Social stratification research (SSR) or social mobility research (SMR) has been established after
2WW
•The aim was to map and compare social structures of advanced societies
•SSR research is primary comparative and relational
–why?
•Nowadays  we can distinguished  4  generations in SSR
•Generations are delimited by
–research problems
–methods of data collection
–measurement procedures/ technics
–results
–time periods (but with overlaps)
•SSR is primarily quantitative
–
•

Social mobility – key concept of SSR
2
•Sorokin’s book Social Mobility has been printed in 1927
•first using of the concept of social mobility
•macro concept for social groups or higher aggregates
•it is not about individuals
•social stratification is not social mobility
•social mobility define openness of social stratification
•different social mobility lifts
–
•
•
•

First generation of SSR (I)
3
•1950 – 1960 time period
•Research committee for social stratification and inequality (RC28) has been established under ISA
•comparative research of social mobility
•the aim is to map the openness of social structures
•research question: how strong is OD connection?
•simple social class categories (usually 3 categories)
•simple statistical technics, proportions
–OD mobility (contingency) tables
•demonstration, percent, outflow, inflow percent
–structural vs net mobility, defined in theoretical level, in empirical level problems with
identification
•
•
•

First generation of SSR (II)
4
•key tested assumption: LZ hypothesis (Lipset, Zetterberg, 1956)
• „…the overall pattern of social mobility appears to be much the same in the industrial societies
of various Western countries.“
•
•LZ hypothesis has been a reaction to the prevailing assumption that in US we can find more
intergenerational mobility than in other western industrialized  countries
•LZ hypothesis has not been rejected
•In all nations the same level of social mobility
•LZ hypothesis says there is no linear relationship between industrialization and social mobility
•The industrialization means the rise of social mobility
•But only under certain level
•After that higher industrialization does not mean higher social mobility
•
•
•
•
•

Second generation of SSR (I)
5
•1960 – 1970 time period
•change from comparative social mobility research to status attainment process in a society
•turn to the continuous variables, SEI scores for occupations
•the aim is to map the social determinants of occupational status
•reformulation of research question
•no connection OD (first generation)
•but how O influences D directly and also indirectly via other variables, especially via E
•introduction of path models in sociology
•result: status attainment model or „social mobility piggy“
•
•
•
•

Second generation of SSR (II)
6
•representatives are Petr Blau, Otis Dudley Duncan: American Occupational Structure (1967)
•no difference between inter- and intra-generational mobility
•only one social mobility between O and D but O is starting position, no characteristic of parents
•tested assumption: industrialization promotes achievement and reduces ascription, the importance
of E increases in time •results: Yes - the effect of E is stronger in time and influences D with
higher intensity in time, American society becomes meritocratic society in time
•robust results but without comparative potency
•no social class divisions in this approach
•original concept of social mobility disappeared
•
•
•
•

Third generation of SSR (I)
7
•SEI or later ISEI has not theoretical justification, it is result of empirical analysis (c.f.
Ganzeboom construction of ISEI) •SEI or ISEI means reduction of occupation into contextual
variables that are income and education •third generation means comeback to social classes and
original concept of social mobility  but with proper statistical technics
•1970 – 1980 time period
•EGP social class scheme, later ESeC (ESeG)
•division between structural and net mobility – wrong distinction
•replace these concept by absolute and relative mobility
•absolute mobility indicated by percent
•relative mobility indicated by odds ratios (OR), log-linear models
•
•
•
•

Third generation of SSR (II)
8
•key tested assumption: FJH hypothesis (Featherman, Jones, Hauser, 1975), the same hypothesis like
LZ hypothesis, but in relative terms • „…there exists a cross-national similarity of social
mobility rates at the level of underlying relative mobility chances, such that in all societies
having a nuclear family system and market economy, the mobility pattern will be ‘basically the
same.“
•
•key test/book: Robert Erikson, John Goldthorpe: The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in
Industrial Society (1992)
•test of LTI vs FJH: opening vs no change
•results support FJH hypothesis: no change/ but difference among countries
•
•
•
•

Fourth generation of SSR (I)
9
•from 1990 up to now
•the fourth generation is defined by turn to substantive questions in SSR
•no statistical development any more
•statistical measures are very sophisticated in contemporary SSR
•connection of research questions and explanations of the second generation and statistical
measures of the third generation
•substantive research question
•key O-E-D triangle
•O-E: social stratification in education
•E-D: from education to labour market positions
•O-D: social mobility research
•key question: the effect of ascription in life results
•
•
•
•
•
•