Which of the following is a social structure?

Continuities

Introduction: Basics

Social structure is a concept and term used to capture the collective properties exhibited by social entities and to identify the characteristics of and specify the relationships among their component elements. It is widely considered to be one of the most important concepts/terms in the social sciences and a particularly central concept/term in sociology and important in other social sciences. However, writing on social structure has been scattered, piecemeal, and not particularly cumulative. Strangely, social theorists have been reticent in making their analyses of social structure more explicit [Callinicos, 2007; Crothers, 1996; López and Scott, 2000; Chew and Knottnerus, 2002].

There are at least four primordial images of social structure, which have to be somewhat separately attended to, although for adequate understanding each must be evoked:

Social Organization: Social structure is the concrete relations among concrete individuals and concrete groups, e.g., Networks.

Social Background Characteristics: Social structure is the relations among people sharing the same social background characteristics, or differing in terms of social background characteristics.

Institutional Structures: Social structure is the relations among people, categories, etc. laid down by ongoing organizations and cultural forms.

Underlying [Deep] Social Structures: Social structures exist [somewhat irrespective of the actions of those ‘carrying’ them] at deeper [and more abstract] levels.

With all these, they both constrain the possibilities for social activity and provide a structured range of opportunities.

The Origins of Social Network Ideas

Social structure has been one of the early key concepts in the social sciences. Social Network Analysis [SNA] is a recently developed set of formal methods for the study of social structures that draws on graph theory in which individuals and other social actors, such as groups and organizations, are represented by points and their social relations are represented by lines. The main theoretical underpinning of SNA is, as Wellman [1988] pointed out, that the structure of relations among actors and the location of individual actors in the network have important attitudinal, behavioral, and perceptual consequences both for individuals and the social structure as a whole. Visual imagery has played a significant role in SNA since its inception. Mathematical and computational models are at the base of more current applications.

Only in the first part of the twentieth century did a handful of social scientists begin to systematically theorize social relationships. Society as a whole was conceptualized as the very tissue of relations. Ferdinand Tönnies [1855–1936] categorized social ties as being either personal and direct [‘community’] or formal and instrumental [‘society’]. Herbert Spencer [1820–1903] made a similar distinction between premodern and modern societies by referring to ‘ordinary’ and ‘secondary relations.’ Emile Durkheim [1858–1917] theorized the specific structuring of groups as being responsible for the quality of emergent laws and morality, and Gustav Le Bon [1841–1931] was the first to examine the phenomenon of crowd behavior. It was, however, Georg Simmel [1858–1918], a German sociologist whose work stood out against macrolevel theories of scholars such as Max Weber [1864–1920] and Karl Marx [1818–83], who pioneered most explicitly the analysis of dyads [relationships between two persons] and triads [groups composed of three people] as building blocks of social life. Although he never used the term ‘social network’ as such, his ideas about microlevel structures prove to be a source of inspiration even for current day SNA. Simmel held the view that sociology was no more and no less than the study of interweaving actions in social encounters [Simmel, 1908/2009]. He suggested that a consideration of social dynamics caused by the simple addition of a third person could provide insights on society at large, that is, how large structures constrain individuals. While isolated dyads are characterized by individuality and intimacy, triads have a superindividual property: [informal] social pressures are activated, and the variance of behavior as well as interpersonal idiosyncrasies are reduced. Third-party effects may also involve two actors forming a coalition against a third, one actor disturbing the alliance between two others, or one actor even taking advantage of a conflict between two others [‘rejoicing third’]. It was Simmel's student Leopold von Wiese [1876–1969] who adopted a contemporary terminology of points, lines, and connections to describe social relations [von Wiese, 1924/1932].

The origins of structural research are, however, also located outside the disciplinary boundaries of sociology. Especially the work of scholars in educational and developmental psychology, who were interested in the ways small-group structures affected individual perceptions and actions had a structuralist flavor very early. Helen Bott, for example, set out to document every form of social interaction that occurred among preschool children [Bott, 1928]. In fact, she was one of the first to collect ego-centered kinship network data and calculate even network density measures. It is, however, commonly agreed that Jacob Moreno, a student of psychiatry from Vienna who immigrated to the United States in 1925 and championed the field of ‘sociometry,’ was the main driving force, together with his collaborator, Helen Jennings, in establishing SNA.

Moreno was deeply influenced by Gestalt psychology [Gestalt translates as ‘form’] developed by mostly German psychologists such as Kurt Koffka [1886–1941], Max Wertheimer [1880–1943], and Wolfgang Köhler [1887–1967] as a protest against behaviorist theories of their day. This school of thought maintained that innate and self-organizing operations of the brain influence the way we see. With respect to the visual recognition of figures, we tend to perceive, for example, whole forms instead of just a collection of lines and curves. Moreno transferred the idea that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ to the interplay between the social embeddedness of an individual and this person's well-being. He believed that many psychological problems stemmed from failed interactions and that the position of individuals within groups is highly significant for their mental health; Moreno and Jennings [1938] thus spoke of ‘psychosocial networks.’ Moreno's concern with social structure is mirrored in therapy forms called ‘sociodrama’ and ‘psychodrama,’ which aimed at exploring conflicts inherent in social roles. ‘Sociometry’ was developed as a powerful tool for assessing group dynamics and eliciting graphically subjective feelings between persons. Figure 1 illustrates typical ‘sociograms’ featured in the book Who Shall Survive? [Moreno, 1934], in which Moreno [and Jennings] probed the causes of runaways at the Hudson School for Girls in upstate New York. The crux of their argument was that the location in the social networks primarily determined whether and when someone ran away.

At first, Moreno's idea to make social structure tangible garnered a great deal of interest, although this turned out to be short-lived. By the 1940s, American social scientists had returned to their focus on the characteristics of individuals [Freeman, 2004].

In the 1940s and 1950s, research on social networks advanced on more than one front, mostly independently of each other. In fact, SNA can be seen as emerging from certain disciplinary trajectories [Prell, 2012], even if scholars working in the field of SNA always crossed disciplines. In the following, the developmental pathways of SNA are outlined in the key disciplines of psychology, sociology, and social anthropology.

18.7 Critical Realism

Against the background of socioeconomic systems as complex systems and the paradigmatic perspective on [economic] science and scientific development, a social science epistemology was developed under the label of critical realism [rather than critical rationalism explained earlier]. Its founding father was the British philosopher Roy Bhaskar who elaborated, for the social sciences, on the fundamental [ontological] distinction between individuals and society, and, accordingly, agency and structure. Although any social structure is inconceivable without individual agents, it usually has, as an emergent complex system, very different properties than its constitutive elements, the individual agents [e.g., Bhaskar, 1998/1979, 34ff.]. Note that this epistemological approach conforms to our analyses of complex and evolutionary economic systems as dealt with throughout this textbook [see, e.g., Chapters 6, 9, 11, or 14Chapter 6Chapter 9Chapter 11Chapter 14 for greater detail]. The epistemological approach here is the same as with all complex systems, including the complex socioeconomic systems that we have dealt with throughout this textbook.

A related fundamental aspect of critical realism is, thus, the rejection of both methodological individualism [see Chapter 5] and methodological collectivism, the latter regarding socioeconomic phenomena exclusively at the macro-level of the social structure.

Methodological individualism, the standard view of most mainstream economics, seeks to explain social phenomena entirely through the actions of individuals. Neoclassical economics exhibits this ontology, when all motions in their models are generated by the behavior of some utility-maximizing agent [see Chapter 6 for a critique of the neoclassical ontology]. Aggregation then takes place through the representation of the agents via one single representative agent. It therefore has been considered methodological reductionism.

Methodological collectivism was first expressed by French sociologist Emile Durkheim, whose objects of investigation were solely social facts. These would influence the behavior and thinking of individuals and act as effective constraints on them [Durkheim, 1982/1895, 52]. In this way, social structure is the only source for explaining individual agency, while structure itself would exist entirely independent of the behavior of the individuals [loc. cit., 59].

Critical realism holds that social structure and individuals [and their agency] are interdependent. As stated by Tony Lawson, one of the leading representatives of critical realism [Lawson, 1994, 520]: “Structure and human agency, in sum, each presuppose, although neither can be reduced to, or explained completely in terms of, the other.” Critical realist theory, thus, considers individuals and society as two different ontological layers and the interplay between them is an important research object for critical realism. For instance, while individuals are acting according to their own reasoning, this reasoning is influenced by social circumstances, but, in turn, also contributes [generally as an unintended consequence] to the transformation of social structure [Lawson, 1994, 521].

Reality, which is considered independent of the single researcher, then consists of three different “domains” [Lawson, 1994, 513]: the experience of the state of affairs [i.e., the empirical domain], the objects causing the experience [the actual domain], and a domain including the underlying structures, mechanisms, powers, and tendencies [the nonfactual domain]. The most important task for economics is to explain the latter, because it allows explaining human activities and social structures by revealing the underlying mechanisms, which are not simply observable. By not reflecting on this distinction, neoclassical economics, unconsciously, would be concerned with the empirical domain alone and therefore be incapable of producing real insights into the functioning of the economy.

And as social structures [because of the constant process of mutual transformation with individual behavior] are space and time dependent, critical realists give priority to the explanation of behavior and structures over prediction as in the dominating mainstream methodological approach [see Section 18.4 on Friedman].2 Specifically, as social structures can be transformed by individuals, and individuals are considered reasoning subjects, agents may change their behavior, after socioeconomics provided them with reasonable new explanations for socioeconomic phenomena, and thus transform social structures [Lawson, 2003]. This additional feedback mechanism makes social systems and socioeconomic analysis, and in particular forecasting, even more complex. Some of the related phenomena are known under the labels self-fulfilling or self-destroying prophecy of new scientific knowledge.

Note, however, that the financial crisis and Great Recession 2007ff. has indeed been forecasted by complexity economists [in contrast to mainstream economists], such as Steve Keen, Mark Buchanan, or Ping Chen, who were running complex models of the economy.

Finally, critical realism elaborates on the other-orienting character of human practice. People do things because of their relation to other people, their own position in relation to the position of the other person. The employee, for instance, deals in a certain way with the employer because of the relative social positions the two are in in a certain socioeconomic system or structure [Lawson, 1997, 159]. The other-orientation exactly exists because of learned social rules and institutions, which reflects, at the epistemological level, the substantial analyses of the socioeconomic system and its processes in this textbook.

2.7 Impact of Information Communication Technology in Library Consortia Functioning

The social structure of science, the channels used, the selection of communication partners and the relationship of informal communication has influenced the research process. The convergence of the three technologies of computer technology, telecommunication technology and broadcasting has rendered the Internet as the greatest wonder of the century. It offers unlimited possibilities and capabilities in communication and dissemination of information in various forms [voice, graphics, data etc.]. These capabilities are prevalent in the present-day university libraries as avenues for speedy processing of and access to information in both remote and immediate databases to meet the information needs of their teeming users [Onyekwelu, 1999].

Information and communication technologies [ICTs] have transformed our world in many ways. Yet, informal scholarly scientific communication forms a sociotechnical interaction network in which communication is influenced by technology but defined by the social structures of scientists and their organizations [Kling, McKim, & King, 2003; Lamb, Sawyer, & Kling, 2000].

Scientists use three categories of ICTs: embedded, coordination and dissemination. Embedded ICTs are communication tools built into scientific tools and experiments such as sensor networks, grid computing, remotely operated telescopes and observation devices, visualization and virtual reality tools and telemedicine tools. They are a primary part of collaborations and make the ‘big science’ research possible [Finholt & Olson, 1997]. Coordination ICTs, such as e-mail, telephone, web pages, instant messaging, chat, wikis and so forth constitute the general communication infrastructure that allows scientists to plan, share data and results, write papers and maintain contacts. Dissemination ICTs, such as electronic journals, popular media, weblogs and project websites transmit the findings to the audiences by way of broadcasting [Lamb & Davidson, 2005]. ICTs enabled more collaboration by reducing the cost, by replacing some travel and expensive telephone conversations, with low-cost ICT communication [Lievrouw & Carley, 1990].

With the provision of ICT, ILL can now be done through an electronic network. Networks are established as a means of sharing common resources, such as hardware, software, data etc. among several users [Ajayi, 1999].

The ICT has become omnipresent and ushered into a whole new era of teaching, learning and research [Welukar & Deshpande, 2002; Srinivas, 2009]. With the evolution of Online Public Access Catalogs [OPAC], which is a networked, universally accessible entity, it became possible to access the library collections without pulling the drawers of three-by-five cards [Butterfield, 2003].

Services to users of a library in the developed world can be on site or off site. The availability of information in machine-readable form has decreased the involvement of libraries and librarians in satisfying many information needs. With the breakthrough of the Internet, academic/research libraries in the developed world have begun creating an organized map of selected resources on the Internet. The so-called maps link the searcher to a set of finite sites of respectable quality, organized around a recognizable theme. With creation of such pathways, users navigate the Internet to find sources for required information [Martell, 2003].

According to Warnken [2004], new computer and telecommunication technologies have dramatically altered the means by which we acquire, organize and provide access to information. No library can fulfil all the needs of its users from its collection. Resource sharing through ILL is a necessity for the libraries. Access to the catalogue of partner libraries is crucial to ILL. Union catalogues, standardization and machine-readable catalogues are aimed at promoting resource sharing. Printed union catalogues and computer output on microfiche [COM] catalogues and CD-ROM are now being replaced by web OPAC and Web-based union catalogues. Librarians can now access catalogues of thousands of libraries across the world using the Internet. Developments in digital library and Internet technologies have made it possible to automatically update the catalogue records from member library systems, distribute searches by using a single-user interface and value-added services [Chauhan, 2004].

Today libraries are shifting their role from the custodian of traditional information resources to the provider of service-oriented digital information resources. Widespread use of computers, increased reliance on computer networks, rapid growth of the Internet and the explosion in the quality and quantity of information compelled libraries to adopt new means and methods for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of information. Library automation, development of digital libraries and application of innovative ICTs have tremendously increased because they provide enhanced user satisfaction, cost effectiveness, rapid responses and easier operational procedures. Libraries and information centres have been employing ICT and electronic information resources and services to satisfy the diverse information needs of their users. E-journals, CD-ROM databases, online databases, e-books, Web-based resources and a variety of other electronic media are fast replacing the traditional resources of libraries [Haneefa, 2007].

The Sociology of Persons and the Psychology of Institutions

Character and Social Structure [1953], which Mills coauthored with Hans H. Gerth, is a concise and systematic statement concerning the psychological nature of five major institutional orders: [1] political, [2] economic, [3] military, [4] religious, and [5] kinship orders. Here, Gerth and Mills not only consider how types of personalities are anchored in each of the institutional orders but also discuss how the institutional orders form social structures. Their goal is to construct a working model of persons and society by combining the sociology of persons with the psychology of institutions. This synthesis produces for Gerth and Mills a ‘social psychology’ through which they aim to achieve three objectives. First, they attempt to describe and explain the conduct and motivations of people in various types of societies and at various points in time. Second, they ask how the external conduct and inner life of one individual interplay with those of others. Finally, they seek to describe the types of persons usually found in different societies and then to explain them by tracing their interrelations with their societies.

Gerth and Mills indicate how social structures shape the personalities of people as historical actors. In developing a social psychology that considers the objective social functions of institutional orders alongside the subjective meanings of institutional members, Gerth and Mills combine key concepts from the work of George Herbert Mead, Freud, Marx, and Max Weber. Simply put, in emphasizing the roles people play in various institutions, Gerth and Mills demonstrate how ‘character structures’ – personality traits and conduct patterns – are molded by the institutional orders to form historical types of social structures.

Consequences of Legitimacy of Authority

Legitimated social structures, procedures, and actions tend to remain stable. In the case of status hierarchies or authority structures, in some contexts, the legitimacy of authority relationships fosters stability, coordination, and cooperation in the interactions between members of the organization [Dornbusch and Scott, 1975; Zelditch, 2006]. The benefits of legitimacy often have downsides, however. Just as legitimacy helps to maintain order and stability, and prevent chaos in some situations, in other situations legitimacy upholds inefficient practices and contributes to the perpetuation of inequality within and among groups, organizations, and societies. Furthermore, while the benefits of legitimacy are greater for women and minorities, these individuals often have the most difficulty becoming legitimated. These consequences are taken in turn.

Some positive outcomes of legitimacy processes, in certain situations, are solidarity, cooperation, and productivity. Subordinates who perceive their superiors as legitimate authorities are more compliant and deferential, and they also perceive legitimate authorities as more effective and influential. These authority figures have a broader range of directives they may give to subordinates, assuming that these directives fall within the scope of their authority.

Legitimacy also fosters organizational stability because in conflict situations, legitimated authorities are more likely to elicit compliance by their subordinates, as opposed to authorities who are not legitimated who may have subordinates form coalitions or go above their heads to resolve the conflict [Johnson et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2006]. In addition, if members do not defer to high-status members in the group, they face the threat of informal sanctions from other group members. As a result, compliance with high-status members is expected and, in fact, is what typically occurs. This pattern of behavior, then, maintains the status quo [Correll and Ridgeway, 2003]. While the ability of legitimated authorities to avoid conflict in this manner may lead to better outcomes for those who have high status and greater cooperation within the organization, this also points to key problems caused by legitimacy: it may aid in the persistence of inefficient practices and inequality.

Legitimated authority structures have staying power, in part, because when individuals perceive a system is supported by others they are more compliant and engage in fewer observable efforts to change it. In fact, when a system is perceived to be authorized and endorsed, its stability and ability to elicit compliance persist even in the absence of individual propriety [i.e., personal support for the system]. Their persistence is related to the perception of collective support, rather than the appropriateness or effectiveness of the structure. This is not to say that individuals do not recognize practices as inefficient or unfair. Rather, the issue is the pressure to change the system is countered by pressures of legitimacy that negate attempts to change the structure [Zelditch, 2006]. These pressures include the appearance of consensus, making people think that the legitimated structure or practice is just ‘the way things are,’ and a system of sanctions for noncompliance. Sanctions may be formal or informal, ranging from actions such as negative evaluations from supervisors and stunted pay growth to having one's ideas dismissed publicly or social exclusion. In the face of seemingly widely supported authority, possible repercussions for noncompliance may appear too costly based on perceived prospects for success in changing the system.

An example of compliance even in the absence of propriety can be found in airport security. While individuals may be opposed to the procedures in airport security, or consider them an ineffective means of ensuring public safety, they are unlikely to act out against this system. Even when airline passengers are personally inconvenienced or perhaps feel violated by security procedures, they are likely to assume that other people agree this system is necessary to ensure their safety and these procedures are the most effective way to achieve that goal. Furthermore, going against the grain would likely have a range of negative consequences, formal and informal. Informal consequences could include upsetting or delaying other passengers by refusing to remove personal items or be screened, but formal consequences could include issues such as having personal belongings confiscated or being denied permission to fly.

On the positive side, the aforementioned benefits of legitimacy are greater for women and minorities in authority positions, because they are less likely to receive cooperation and deference when they are not legitimated. For instance, when female leaders receive institutionalized support and authorization, they have more influence than if they were assigned to leadership roles randomly or by task ability. These female leaders do not achieve the same influence levels as male leaders who were selected based on task ability, but it remains that disadvantaged leaders can attain influence comparable to other more advantaged actors when they have institutional support [Lucas, 2003].

Despite the benefits of legitimacy for disadvantaged groups like minorities and women, however, individuals in these groups often have the most difficulty acquiring legitimacy. Barriers to legitimacy are often rooted in double standards women and minorities face in regard to proving competency [Foschi, 2000]. Gender and racial stereotypes associated with assumptions about competence make it more difficult for women and minorities to become legitimated in their positions. Yet, having legitimacy affords high-status group members the right to use dominance in groups to ensure compliance [Ridgeway et al., 1994]. Given that women and minorities are less likely to acquire legitimacy in groups, they are not expected or allowed to behave in dominant ways. If they do, they are often perceived to be overly directive. Women and minorities, then, are more likely to be perceived as assertive and strong willed than men and whites who employ the same behaviors and are considered competent [Eagly and Carli, 2007]. These findings show that low-status group members are more limited in the range of behaviors they can effectively engage in, even if they are placed in high-ranking positions. In addition, people who occupy positions of power without being legitimated also focus more efforts on attending to negative stereotypic attributes and information about their subordinates [Rodriguez-Bailon et al., 2000], presumably in order to justify their position and maintain the existing social structure. Thus, legitimacy plays a role in maintaining stereotypes.

Scholars also consider the effects of legitimacy when existing authority structures combine, as in the case of organizational mergers [Terry and O'Brien, 2001]. They find that when the organizations of varied status levels merge, and their status differences are legitimated, members from the low-status group are more likely to identify as members of the new organization, to view the new organization as a collective identity for members of both prior organizations, and to experience less threat and distress from the merger. Members of the higher status group, however, are less likely to see both groups as members of one common organization, and experience more distress during the merger. This pattern may emerge because high-status members are concerned that the merger may provide opportunities to challenge their status.

Structural and Structuralist Theorizing

The analysis of social structure has always been at the heart of sociological theorizing; and yet, there is still relatively little consensus over just what structure is in the first place and even less consensus over its operative dynamics. Early functional theories emphasized that social structure is a system of differentiated positions in diverse types of sociocultural formations, such as encounters and groups at the more micro level, organizations and social categories at the meso level, institutional and stratification systems at the macro level, and societies as a whole and intersocietal systems at an even more macro level. Conflict theories have also conceptualized societies as differentiated but the emphasis has been on the structure of stratification systems composed of social classes and on the institutional systems that generate the inequality that ultimately causes stratification. Interactionist and other microlevel theories have emphasized the interpersonal dynamics that ultimately are the building blocks of social structure and culture, while mesolevel theories have tended to focus on status dynamics in groups and organization, and on the operation of organizations in various institutional environments. Yet, all of these conceptions of social structure, while basically correct, have not led to a more unified and integrated view of social structure and its key dynamics.

There has been a whole intellectual movement lasting almost a century labeled structuralism that, unfortunately, did not clarify social structure – if anything, just the opposite. Drawing from Durkheim's view that social structure is the number and nature of parts linked together in some identifiable pattern through which resources flow, structuralism became conflated with, first of all, the notion of deep structures that dictate the formation of observable ‘surface manifestations’ of these deep structures. Later, the deep structures became the neurochemistry of the human brain as it directed particular types of cultural and social structural formations [Levi-Straus, 1979]. In the end, structuralism has failed at providing sociology with a clear definition of social structure, much less its dynamics.

Some like Anthony Giddens [1984] have sought to integrate at least the imagery of structuralism with microtheories by viewing structure as a set of rules and resources organized into structural principles that govern institutional formations that constrain, while also being influenced by, the agency of actors as they seek to meet fundamental needs in interactions with others. Yet, while this kind of approach makes structuralism more sociological, it does not clarify the nature and dynamics of social structures.

At the opposite end of the continuum of clarity and precision is a broader theoretical and research tradition on networks that has sought to conceptualize social structures in very precise and highly abstract terms as nodes connected in various forms by linkages or ties among the nodes, with the linkages viewed as carriers of various types of resources – information, power, affection, commitments, material goods, and virtually anything that connects individuals and the systems in which they are located. The goal of such theorizing is to conceptualize key properties of networks – number of nodes, number and density of ties among nodes, centrality of ties through particular nodes, formation of cliques of subdensities of ties in a larger network, brokerage and bridging nodes connecting networks, and the like. Depending upon the configuration of a network – from a simple network of friendships or family ties through ties among organizations in markets to ties among nation states, the form of the network is presumed to have certain dynamic properties that can be theorized – although the actual amount of theorizing has been quite negligible compared to the computer algorithms that have been developed to describe networks [rather than explain their dynamics]. There is a certain clarity achieved by more precise definitions of network forms and their measurements but thus far network theorizing has not fully realized its potential as an explanatory tool that can offer a more precise analysis of social structure. Thus, whatever the future of network theorizing, it can be safely stated that it has not realized its potential [but for works that do attempt to develop theory, see Friedkin and Johnsen, 2011; Burt, 1992].

Black: Controlling to Right a Wrong

In The Social Structure of Right and Wrong, Donald Black [1993; see also Black, 1976; 1984] defines social control as “any process by which people define and respond to deviant behaviour.” This definition includes law, arrest by police, lawsuit, punishment, compensation, and intervention in conflict by third parties. Black insists that social control should be conceived as a dependent variable to be explained and predicted by the characteristics of the setting in which it exists. The social stratification and the other dimensions of the social organization are important to explain and predict many manifestations of social control. Paradoxically, crime itself can be and in fact is social control, as exemplified by vengeance. Black distinguishes four styles of social control: compensatory, penal, therapeutic, and conciliatory. Conflict management is a major element in the social control of violence and takes on five forms: self-help [including vengeance, discipline, and rebellion], avoidance, negotiation, settlement, and toleration.

Often, third parties intervene in conflicts. Sometimes, they play support roles, including advisor, advocate, and ally. More importantly, these third parties may act as peacemakers and mediators, who refuse to take sides and seek a solution, typically through compromise. The arbitrators provide opinions, often designating who is right and wrong. The judge has the power to impose and enforce his decision. The importance of third parties for understanding violence, including homicide, lies in the fact that, in some social contexts, third parties take sides and encourage the fighters, which may contribute to the escalation of violence. In contrast, in other contexts, third parties strive to end the conflict and work to restore peace. In principle, the homicide rates should be low in societies where third parties have a tendency to act as peacemakers.

Mixing media and literacy domains

Because of the social structures of schooling, the teacher has a great deal of authority, both directly and indirectly, in deciding what kinds of digital literacies will be engaged in the classroom. In the study setting, the teacher—of a class specializing in visual arts—encourages the pupils to use YouTube and a variety of information modalities, such as images and maps in his written instructions. These activities of the teacher are aimed at supporting working with multimodal information in the school context. Even so, the teacher tells that using YouTube is not common in other classes in his school. On the contrary, it might be even forbidden, or at least restricted, as it is in many schools [Selwyn 2006].

Consequently, digital literacies that are multimodal and particularly visual are recognized in this classroom [Barton & Hamilton 2005, pp. 22-3]. In her production Laura, as youngsters in general [Fieldhouse & Nicholas 2008, p. 60], seems to prefer visual information and especially YouTube videos. In practice, she mixes textual, visual and audiovisual information. Moreover, in this case, using the web for searching information for a Religious Studies task, did not exclude using the textbook. The analog medium of the book and the digital medium of the screen [Kress 2003] were mixed. In the study setting, pupils’ activities involved using a variety of media forms. In addition to the Internet, both Laura’s friend Niina and the boy, Marko, who wanted to borrow Laura’s textbook, also use the book. In the middle of the lesson Niina, as an illustration, even reads aloud a short piece of text about her Christian teacher from the textbook.

The learning culture of Laura’s classroom community is very much based on pupils’ self-organized and collaborative studying. The teacher’s role is to give general instructions for carrying out learning tasks. This type of teacher role is often associated with classrooms that use digital technologies; the teacher is only one participant in the interaction, but not the centre, and is sometimes even at the periphery [Leander 2007, p. 36]. As it appears to be in Marko’s case, in this context, the textbook can be a medium that gives the information that pupils need more explicitly than the Internet, for instance, it makes it easier to pick out ‘what is important’. In the study setting, the teacher takes part in the activities of the computer classroom towards the end of the lesson. He gives final instructions by addressing the whole class: ‘Do not print the document. And remember that you are preparing a brief introduction. We are not interested in small details’. The teacher supervises individual pupils as well, and he gives Marko some advice: ‘You have a lot of information about the childhood of your character. But why is he a Christian teacher?’ After this discussion with the teacher, Marko comes to Niina to borrow Laura’s textbook again.

In addition to mixing modalities and media, Laura’s digital literacy practices mix the domain of school and the domain of home. The most concrete example of this is an event when Laura’s written school production moves from school to home via email [cf. Barton & Hamilton 2005, p. 23]. Besides multitasking [information searching, reading Wikipedia articles, watching YouTube videos, copying and pasting texts, image files and video links, organizing and formatting the text file], at one point of the lesson Laura opens one more window in the web browser and writes down a new address ‘www.hotmail.com’. She logs in to her email account and watches a Mother Teresa video from YouTube. Later, as the almost final activity in the lesson, and after the teacher’s ‘five minutes to go’ announcement, Laura goes to her email account again, attaches her production file to a message and sends it to herself. After the lesson Laura tells me that she is going to finish the task at home.

Following Barton’s and Hamilton’s [2005, p. 23] recontextualization point, it would have been interesting to study how Laura’s school product was recontextualized at home and how it had been changed when it came back to the school context. The teacher told me later that Laura tends to discuss Religious Studies tasks with her parents at home and that, in his opinion, her tasks are always carefully and thoughtfully done. I actually made observations in the next Religious Studies lesson in the classroom, but Laura’s Christian teacher was not discussed. In any case, in addition to recontextualizing texts, it is clear that digital literacies themselves move across contexts [cf. Barton & Hamilton 2005, p. 23]. In practice, Laura’s ‘doing schooling’ includes engaging digital literacies that relate to her out-of-school domains. In addition to multitasking and juggling Internet sites, the emailing event is an example of that.

Laura’s emailing activity also relates to Barton’s and Hamilton’s [2005, pp. 21-2] dynamic point. According to this point, literacy practices are dynamic activities that have both individual and social purposes for people. Therefore people’s literacy practices might vary in different social settings [Barton & Hamilton 2005, pp. 21-2]. Since Laura follows the manuscript of the lesson quite strictly, she does not face significant conflicts with digital literacies in the study setting. Perhaps she even avoids conflicts by acting according to the teacher’s instructions.

Nevertheless, as an observer was I surprised when Laura opened her email account, because I did not understand, at first, that her purpose was not to read her email but to save the text file in her email account in order to continue the task at home [following the suggestion in the teacher’s written instructions]. This event seemed to be against the instructions for the lesson and therefore confusing to me. But following the dynamic point, the reason for my confusion was the fact that I did not understand Laura’s purpose for engaging digital literacies in this context. Using email during the lesson did not directly relate to Laura’s general engagement with digital literacies in the setting, which was focused strictly on the school task. In other words, the emailing event broke the classroom code by challenging what is relevant for the ongoing assignment. So, it seems that relevance for a certain digital literacy event in a classroom context could be different from the perspective of the pupil than it is from the teacher’s perspective [see Erstad, Gilje & de Lange 2007, p. 197], which could cause conflict as well.