Socialization is one of my key interests. Though criticized, examining socialization carefully and broadly provides valuable insights into the reproduction and disruption of culture, and (class, race, and gender) inequalities therein.

In an effort to refine and broaden our understanding of socialization (including discrimination), I conducted three years of observations in two racially diverse U.S. elementary schools; one predominantly upper-middle-class, the other predominantly working-class. These observations were supplemented by interviews with students, teachers, and parents.

This research has yielded many findings. I am in the process of writing a book on this project. I have also published articles relating aspects of these findings, focusing on the effects of discrepant socialization on children’s embodiment and subjectivity.

Overall, I find that children are taught to see their position and direction in the world - or as I call it, their social station - in different ways. Children at the upper-middle-class school were taught to see themselves as always-already special. Conversely, students at the working-class school were taught that they are conditionally good. These different social stations are scaffolded by an array of skills, dispositions, and discriminations that reinforce children’s sense of their position and direction in the world, and make their attainment of them more likely.

These differences are built upon the unequal structural backgrounds of the students and of their teachers and parents. Such inequalities, manifested in varying resources and cultural proclivities, promote different socialization messages. They also encourage different forms of discrimination.

Current outputs focusing on socialization include:

Published Articles:

“‘Everyone Thinks They’re Special’: How Schools Teach Children Their Social Station.” American Sociological Review, 88(3): 493-521. (Non-paywalled pre-print here.)

“‘Make Sure You Look Someone in the Eye’: Socialization and Classed Comportment in Two Elementary Schools.” American Journal of Sociology, 127(5): 1417-1459. (Non-paywalled pre-print here.)

Dissertation:

“Learning Their Station: Socialization and Discrimination in Two Elementary Schools.”

I am also very interested in qualitative methods. Having conducted various interview and ethnographic projects, not least my three year observational study in elementary schools, I have a deep commitment to these methods. Defending the legitimacy of qualitative methods against ignorant or disingenuous criticism, while insisting that qualitative work reach rigorous standards, is an ongoing concern.

I have published one article on qualitative methods, but intend to write several more.

Published Article:

“Studying Children Using Ethnography: Heightened Challenges and Balancing Acts.” Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 146(1): 16-36 (co-authored with Annette Lareau). 10.1177/0759106320908220 (Non-paywalled pre-print here.)

Though not a true sociologist of religion, in a previous project I conducted interviews with Catholic priests living in the UK.

The Catholic priesthood is an interesting case of many things, not least a “profession” or “vocation” undergoing substantial change. (In this vein, I have also interviewed British doctors for a project that I will return to in the future.)

I sought to understand how cleavages between “liberal” and “conservative” priests were understood and maintained. Using the litmus test issue of women’s ordination I found, like others, that longer-serving priests are typically more liberal while newer priests are more conservative. But I found that priests supported these divergent beliefs and maintained liberal or conservative identities through various forms of identity work.

These pieces of identity work include: describing themselves differently in relation to the priesthood (i.e., as a man who is also a priest or as someone who is entirely a priest); referring to themselves differently (e.g., introducing themselves by their first name vs. preferring to be “Father”); and dressing differently (i.e., seeing clerical clothes as a uniform vs. a necessarily permanent statement of belief to be worn at all times).

Priests talked explicitly about practices being signals to others of their liberal-conservative stance. Choosing to wear a cassock was a deliberate, boundary-making process. In marking these boundaries, priests also strengthened them, like football fans bolstering rivalries by sporting their home team’s jersey.

These findings are more comprehensively laid out in the full paper:

Published article:

“It’s a Total Way of Life? Catholic Priests, Women’s Ordination, and Identity Work.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(3): 547-566. 10.1111/jssr.12530 (Non-paywalled pre-print here.)