Search

Researchers have typically understood access to elite positions in the social structure either in terms of a structural-functional focus on ability or a class-reproduction focus on inheritance. This paper argues, and empirically demonstrates with a study of access to Harvard College, that a political- organizational perspective incorporates and goes beyond the insights of each of these perspectives. Using concepts such as cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977a) and organizational field (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), hypotheses regarding who gets into Harvard College are generated and tested. Political mobilization as well as historic ties among elites are both key factors in determining admissions outcomes. Though academic merit is a prime determinant of admission to Harvard College, there was evidence that affirmative action for legacy applicants, minorities (but not Asians), athletes, and working-class males was also in effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of social mobility has been a study of male mobility experiences. That is, not only have females been excluded by intention from these investigations, but, more importantly, it is argued that this omission is justifiable and legitimate. This is particularly so in relation to the British Isles where the heated defence of the traditional position, presently labelled the conventionalist approach, continues to rationalize and justify the exclusion of over one half of the British and Irish population. Drawing together recent North American, British and Australian research, this paper challenges both the theoretical and empirical assumptions of this conventionalist position. Arguing that a woman is neither simply a summation of domestic identities nor is her status one of complete dependency, national and international evidence on the unique and important contribution of women to the occupational attainments of husbands and children, as well as the class reproduction of families in general, is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The high point of research investment in mobility research was in the early 1970s, when three major national surveys of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland absorbed very substantial proportions of the spending of the SSRC on sociology. Only the Oxford Social Mobility Group retained a sufficiently large team of scholars to sustain active work on the data collected, although the number of publications that have subsequently made use of the three data-sets must now be several hundred in number. The dismal economics of large-scale survey research have since prevented ant similar follow-ups of mobility per se, but there have been some smaller specialist studies and new data have been derived from other sources. Both the range of articles featured in this paper, and the secondary analysis referred to, demonstrate how the original paradigm of mobility research and has become modified. Social mobility is now not so much a single area of sociology as four or arguably five connecting clusters of work. The first, not least in terms of paradigmatic dominance, concentrates on discovering and describing large-scale flows of people between social origins and social definitions. It is this which gives rise to our knowledge about patterns and rates of mobility.