Mind mapping the topic of social class
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of social
class is a main one in Social Sciences. This article makes use of the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the
knowledge structure of social class. The finding of the review exercise is that
its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of
basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c)
Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to
practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from
the social class literature review. The article offers some academic and
pedagogical values on the topics of social class, literature review and the
mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.
Key words: Social class, literature review, mind
map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach
Introduction
Social class
is a main topic in Social Sciences. It is of academic and pedagogical interest
to the writer who has been a lecturer on Social Sciences subjects for a
tertiary education centre in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents
his literature review findings on social class using the mind mapping-based
literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by this writer
in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number of topics,
such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and customer
relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not
particularly novel as mind mapping has been employed in literature review since
its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:
1.
Render an image of the knowledge structure of
social class via the application of the MMBLR approach;
2.
Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be
applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as social class.
The findings from this literature review
exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in
the topics of social class, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other
than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on
these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR
approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study social class is
presented.
On the mind
mapping-based literature review approach
The mind mapping-based literature review
(MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use
of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page
and the Literature on literature review
Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic
analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of
the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR
approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is
not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature
review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. The MMBLR
approach is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers
with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will
select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e.,
step 1 of the MMBLR approach). Also, to conduct the approach, the reviewer
needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer
gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including
e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings
from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided
based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on social class: step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on
the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this
is the social class topic. To prepare for the exercise, the writer gathers some
academic articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google
Scholar. With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a
literature review on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and
findings (called points here). The points from the social class literature are
then grouped into four themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded
in order to highlight the key concepts involved.
Theme
1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information
Point 1.1.
“Social class is fundamentally a concept
designed to elucidate large-scale social, political, and economic structures
and processes” (Milroy and Milroy, 1992);
Point 1.2.
“Social
class, or socioeconomic status (SES), refers to an individual’s
rank vis-a-vis others in society in terms of wealth, occupational prestige, and
education” (Piff et al., 2012);
Point 1.3.
“The most widely validated measure of social class, the Nuffield
class schema, developed in the 1970s, was codified in the UK’s National Statistics Socio-Economic
Classification (NS-SEC) and places people in one of seven main classes
according to their occupation and employment status” (Savage
et al., 2013);
Point 1.4.
“The very meaning of social class is founded
on the idea of inequality-of superior and inferior, higher or lower, better or
worse. Since social class involves the vertical ordering of members of society along
a prestige continuum, it is inherently comparative and invidious” (Rosenberg and Pearlin,
1978);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories and thinking
Point 2.1.
“…. the
upper class is understood as
consisting of various owner capitalists, as well as the top strata of employed
executives, managers and business professionals. This involves a partial
concession to the ‘managerialist’ position, that the rise of impersonal
ownership turned managers into the new upper class” (Flemmen, 2012);
Point 2.2.
“…social status derives, in its root, more from occupational differentiation than from
income. This is an ancient observation, dating to pre-Christian societies.
There has never been a perfect correlation between the social honor paid
different occupations and the income derived from their pursuit” (Coleman, 1983);
Point 2.3.
“Consumer behavior could hardly be understood without considering
social class. Our position in the social hierarchy has a powerful influence on
almost everything in our daily lives—where we live, what we
wear, where we travel, dine and shop, what we drive, and what media we consume.
Furthermore, whereas social class shapes consumers' judgments and choices,
consumers' choices in turn reproduce and reinforce their class belonging” (Shavitt, Jiang and Cho, 2016);
Point 2.4.
“....social class identity influences an
individual’s life circumstances and patterns of construal in ways that are
similar to other social identity constructs (e.g., ethnicity, nation of
origin)” (Piff, Kraus,
Côté and Cheng, 2010);
Point 2.5.
“… for the adult, social class is achieved (at
least in principle), whereas for the child it is unequivocally ascribed. From a
sociological perspective, then, the fundamental meaning of social class differs
for children and adults” (Rosenberg and Pearlin, 1978);
Point 2.6.
“… individuals with varying social class develop different styles of cognition as a reaction to
their sociocultural contexts. Most notably, lower-class individuals are shown
to be better at social-cognitive tasks involving contextual information than
higher-class individuals since individuals with low social class are encouraged
to be sensitive to social contexts” (Na and Chan, 2016);
Point 2.7.
“A highly
influential scheme [of registering social class differentiation] is that
developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu …., which argues that there are
three different kinds of capital,
each of which conveys certain advantages. He differentiates between (1)
economic capital (wealth and income), (2) cultural capital (the ability to
appreciate and engage with cultural goods, and credentials institutionalised
through educational success), and (3) social capital (contacts and connections
which allow people to draw on their social networks). Bourdieu’s point is that
although these three capitals may overlap, they are also subtly different, and
that it is possible to draw fine-grained distinctions between people with
different stocks of each of the three capitals, to provide a much more complex
model of social class than is currently used” (Savage et al.,
2013);
Point 2.8.
“As previous research on
developed societies has found, youth
from affluent and well-educated families marry and have children later than
those from lower social classes because of a longer education. They also have a
much more extended search for a permanent partner in life and a lower incidence
of unintended pregnancy” (Sironi, Barban and
Impicciatore, 2015);
Point 2.9.
“Carey and Markus review research indicating that middle-class individuals share an emphasis on independence and working-class individuals share an
emphasis on interdependence. However, they argue that frequent exposure to the
mainstream U.S. cultural emphasis on independence shapes a hybrid mindset among
working-class individuals. Carey and Markus propose that social class
differences are cultivated at the level of individuals, interactions,
institutions, and ideas in mutually reinforcing cycles” (Shavitt, Jiang and Cho, 2016);
Point 2.10.
“Dennis Wrong ... asserted,
“The emerging social structure of post-bourgeois
industrial society can best be understood if, except for secondary purposes
and for historical analysis, we abandon the concept of social class and
re-define much of the work done under this label as a contribution to the
sociology of equality and inequality”...” (Langford, 2013);
Point 2.11.
“Mann
… identifies four elements in the Marxist
conception of class consciousness. The first is class identity, the
self-definition as working class. Next is class opposition, a perception of the
capitalist and their agents as opponents. Third is class totality, the belief
that class is the defining characteristic of society. Finally, there should be
a perception that things could be different, that is that an alternative type
of society is possible. In the Marxist framework, an escalation is expected from
class identity to the belief in an alternative society” (Surridge, 2007);
Point 2.12.
“Social space amounts to a relational ‘social
topology, […] an analysis of relative positions and of the objective relations
between these positions’ ….The structures of social spaces are shaped by the
distribution of, and relation between, various forms of capital; that is,
scarce resources that may be ‘invested’ in particular fields to gain
advantages. Capital may come in many variants, but the main forms are economic,
cultural, social and symbolic …. When agents are situated near each other in
social space, this means that they have similar capital profiles – their social
positions are similar” (Flemmen, 2012);
Point 2.13.
“The job imperatives are such that the work
of those in higher status positions is characterized by a high level of
occupational self-direction - an opportunity to make one's own decisions, to
exercise independent judgment, to be exempt from close supervision-in large
part because of the substantive complexity of the work” (Rosenberg and Pearlin,
1978);
Point 2.14.
“The social dimensions of residential choice
make explicit its relationship to social position .... These include concerns
over social reproduction as well as lifestyle, taste and aesthetics. In
particular, it has been well-documented that schooling is often a key
consideration within residential choice, with many middle-class families
including considerations over proximity to high-performing schools within these
even if this means significant trade-offs in relation to housing” (Benson, 2014);
Point 2.15.
“Vehicles and other means of transport
satisfy various needs and desires. These needs and desires can be practical as
well as symbolic .... They provide distinction vis-à-vis other classes (this is
especially the case with the visibility of cars), protection from observers
(e.g. cars with opaque windows) and differentiation between elites themselves,
as demonstrated by the world of yachts, helicopters and private jets” (Schimpfossl, 2014);
Point 2.16.
“Changing tastes and social
hierarchies are easily gleaned from how people dress .... According to Simmel
..., fashion is an excellent means
of achieving, on the one hand, cohesion or group identity, and, on the other,
differentiation and individuality. Through fashion people align with a certain
group and differentiate themselves from others, and at the same time fashion is
a widely understood way of expressing one’s status, wealth and power” (Schimpfossl, 2014);
Point 2.17.
“We are now
entering a third phase in the analysis
of class and stratification. The first phase, which lasted to the 1980s,
saw the dominance of ‘moralising’ official measures of class, enshrined in
Britain in the Registrar General’s Class schema, in which ‘standing within the
community’ … was used to draw a six-fold class schema… The second phase, from
the 1970s, saw the triumph of this sociological critique, especially in the
elaboration of the influential model of social class developed by John
Goldthorpe and his associates at Nuffield College, Oxford University….” (Savage
et al., 2013);
Point 2.18.
“...the urban middle classes, often understood
in terms of their capacity to gentrify, are part of wider processes and power
dynamics within neighbourhoods and cities. Understanding the role of the middle
classes within these, and the constraints of these upon their choices,
illustrates such processes, which may equally be at work in the residential
experiences of other social groups” (Benson, 2014);
Point 2.19.
“Contemporary views of socioeconomic status consider a broader
range of variables …, defining social
class by measures that include income …, as well as occupation … and
educational attainment …. Taken together, these variables reflect a person's
available resources such as wealth, social capital, and professional
opportunities” (Shavitt, Jiang
and Cho, 2016);
Point 2.20.
“In 1954 Leon Festinger set forth his theory of
social comparison processes, holding that "there exists, in the human
organism, a drive to evaluate his opinions and his abilities.... To the extent
that objective, non-social means are not available, people evaluate their
opinions and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and
abilities of others" … One could add that it is not only opinions and
abilities but also social identity elements-groups, statuses, and social
categories-that are evaluated. The individual compares his own group or
position with that of other people. Nowhere is this more apparent than with
reference to social class” (Rosenberg and Pearlin, 1978);
Point 2.21.
“Relative rates of class mobility refer to the chances of
individuals from two different classes of origin being found in one rather than
the other of two different classes of destination” (Goldthorpe, and Jackson,
2007);
Point 2.22.
“Several studies have found a ‘health gradient’ whereby incrementally better outcomes are seen for those higher up
the socio-economic and occupational ladder ... This field of study has been extended to include well-being and mental
health where the gradient has been replicated ....
Further, several studies have suggested that these inequalities in mental
health may be worsening over time” (Richards and Paskov, 2016);
Point 2.23.
“The occupation
in which one is or has been employed is a reflection of one's place in
the socio-economic system; it influences various
dimensions of economic advantage and disadvantage: earnings, earnings
stability, career prospects, risk of unemployment, and access to the labour
market more generally. Thus class is largely concerned with the allocation of
economic advantage and disadvantage as well as reflecting the nature of the
employer-employee relationship” (Richards and Paskov, 2016);
Point 2.24.
“We
predict that, given their abundant resources and increased independence,
upper-class individuals should demonstrate greater unethical behavior and that one important reason for this tendency
is that upper-class individuals hold more favorable attitudes toward greed” (Piff et al., 2012);
Theme 3: Main research topics and
issues
Point 3.1.
“In contrast to the social causation hypotheses the health selection hypothesis suggests
reverse causality e that health determines social class .... From this perspective
membership in a lower social class does not cause the worse mental health, but
worse mental health makes people more likely to be in the lower-classified occupation” (Richards and Paskov, 2016);
Point 3.2.
“...we
suggest that a social class model
based on conflict, division and inequality best accounts for many of the
patterns of language variation uncovered by the detailed work of
sociolinguists, generally on phonological or morphological variables” (Milroy
and Milroy, 1992);
Point 3.3.
“‘Upper class’, like class itself, is a
contested concept. Opinions differ as to whom or what should be considered the
upper class in contemporary societies” (Flemmen,
2012);
Point 3.4.
“….class continues to be an important
part of social identity into the
millennium despite a range of prevailing discourses which constitute it as
irrelevant” (Reay, 1998);
Point 3.5.
“…recent evidence suggests that subjective socioeconomic status, typically assessed by asking
respondents to indicate their perceived social class, can be at least as
valuable an indicator as objective socioeconomic factors in examining the
impact of class on psychological functioning and behaviour” (Shavitt, Jiang and Cho, 2016);
Point 3.6.
“After
decades of research on both social class and self-esteem, it is somewhat
surprising to find so little firm knowledge about their relationship. Perhaps
this is because social class has commanded the attention of sociologists while
self-esteem has primarily concerned psychologists; or it may be that
investigators have considered it pointless to attempt to establish a conclusion
too obvious to require confirmation” (Rosenberg and Pearlin, 1978);
Point 3.7.
“Existing literature strongly
suggests that family and economic
domains are strongly interdependent, and the way in which they interact is
a key question in the study of transition to adulthood. Thus, a more consistent
approach should take into account the entire development of the trajectory of
economic independence and family formation” (Sironi, Barban and Impicciatore, 2015);
Point 3.8.
“It has
become almost commonplace to talk of an ‘impasse’ in class analysis, …. Debates have continued between those who see
class as largely outdated …, those who defend a ‘traditional’ form of class analysis
… and those who seek to ‘renew’ class
analysis … Class subjectivity is central
to these debates, playing a large part in distinguishing between perspectives”
(Surridge, 2007);
Point 3.9.
“Limiting class debates to the purely
economic sphere results both in the
marginalization of women and a neglect of the myriad ways in which social class
differences contribute to social inequalities” (Reay, 1998);
Point 3.10.
“Lower social class (or socioeconomic
status) is associated with fewer resources, greater exposure to threat, and a
reduced sense of personal control. Given these life circumstances, one might
expect lower class individuals to engage in less prosocial behavior,
prioritizing self-interest over the welfare of others. The authors
hypothesized, by contrast, that lower class individuals orient to the welfare
of others as a means to adapt to their more hostile environments and that this
orientation gives rise to greater prosocial behaviour” (Piff, Kraus, Côté and Cheng, 2010);
Point 3.11.
“Weber
emphasized the divergent sources of social
power among the propertied classes, ‘according to the kind of property that
is usable for returns’. This led him to differentiate the propertied class into
rentiers and entrepreneurs ….. Dahrendorf held that the emergence of
‘postcapitalist society’ pitted managers against owners, with a ‘decomposition
of capital’ fragmenting the upper class …. Parkin argued that the bourgeoisie
in capitalist society relied on two distinct exclusionary devices: education
and the institutions of private property” (Flemmen,
2012);
Point 3.12.
“Within
the study of class subjectivities, a
significant shift has taken place from the discussion of class subjectivities
as ‘consciousness’ to a discussion of ‘identity’ and even ‘ambivalence’. These
terms each imply rather different models of class belonging, from one which
articulates shared interests and, perhaps, struggles, through a sense of shared
culture and position to a sense of class belonging as irrelevant to people’s
self-understandings and world-views” (Surridge, 2007);
Point 3.13.
“Class
analysis typically deals with the relations between social classes. Relations within classes are less
frequently examined. Analyses that consider only inter-class relations may risk
treating classes as monolithic categories, neglecting their internal heterogeneity”
(Flemmen, 2012);
Point 3.14.
“In one study, individuals with
low trait ratings of social power—a
construct reflecting a person’s capacity to influence the outcomes of
others—reported greater investment in a relationship with a stranger and
reported higher levels of compassion in response to that stranger’s disclosure
of suffering” (Piff,
Kraus, Côté and Cheng, 2010);
Point 3.15.
“Structural class analysis of the 1970s and early
1980s had tended to be economistic and deterministic, with its Marxian variant
also characterized by a teleological theory of history” (Langford, 2013);
Point 3.16.
“There are no two ways about it: social class
is a difficult idea. Sociologists, in whose discipline the concept emerged, are
not of one mind about its value and validity. Consumer researchers, to
whose field its use has spread, display confusion about when and how to apply
it. The American public is noticeably uncomfortable with the realities about
life that it reflects. All who try to measure it have trouble. Studying it
rigorously and imaginatively can be monstrously expensive” (Coleman, 1983);
Point 3.17.
“Three major intellectual challenges have reoriented
and fragmented the subdiscipline of class analysis since the 1960s. For brevity
I refer to these challenges as (1) feminist/antiracist, (2) poststructuralist,
and (3) individualization” (Langford, 2013);
Point 3.18.
“As
Helen Roberts’s review of the debates
surrounding social class over the last two decades makes clear, the focus
is firmly rooted in a view of social class as one of location; an issue of
where you are situated, rather than the processes that got you there” (Reay,
1998);
Point 3.19.
“In the last 15 years much work in
the field of class analysis has centred on the contrast between the service class, comprising professional,
administrative and managerial employees, and the working class, composed of
skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. This emphasis owes much to the employment relationship theory
developed by Goldthorpe and his colleagues” (Li et al., 2002);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues
related to practices
Point 4.1.
“...even though working class
jobs were not apparently deskilled on average as new middle class jobs
increased, Myles found “a polarized
skill distribution of skilled and unskilled workers” ... that led him to
recommend future research on the “good job” and “bad job” segments of the
working class ..... This was a more nuanced appraisal of changes in the
postindustrial class structure than generally found in an international
literature which claimed that good jobs were unambiguously replacing bad jobs”
(Langford, 2013);
Point 4.2.
“As far as cultural resources are concerned, Kohn, Slomczynski, and Schoenbach ... noticed that middle-class parents tend to give more importance to
autonomy when raising their children, whereas working class parents are more
focused on conformity .... Also, upper-class parents tend to talk to their
children more than working-class parents do, which favors analytical thinking;
therefore, higher-status parents prepare their children for higher education
and higher-status jobs” (Sironi, Barban and
Impicciatore, 2015);
Point 4.3.
“That working-class
Americans are "family folk," depending heavily on relatives for
economic and emotional support, was a story first forwarded in detail in
Working-man's Wife …. Further studies throughout the 1960s and 1970s found this
class continuing to depend on relatives-relying on kin for tips on job
opportunities, soliciting advice from them on purchases, and counting on them
in times of "trouble" (Coleman, 1983);
Point 4.4.
“In
a speech early in his second administration Tony Blair ...stressed the need to
promote mobility as being in
itself ‘the great force for social
equality in dynamic market economies’. Underlying this claim is the idea that
high rates of mobility can serve to
mitigate the socially divisive effects of the large inequalities in income and
wealth that such economies generate by restricting their intergenerational
continuity and, further, by providing them with some form of ‘meritocratic’
legitimation” (Goldthorpe, and Jackson, 2007);
Point 4.5.
“Lillian Rubin’s ... study of poverty in the USA details how the
child in the working-class
family understands that their parents are stuck with a life over which
they have relatively little control” (Skeggs and Loveday, 2012);
Point 4.6.
“The break-up of the Soviet Union left a vacuum in terms of what
constituted markers for social distinction. People were thrust into a context
in which many of their assumptions about status, professionalism and
respectability no longer held in their familiar ways” (Schimpfossl, 2014);
Point 4.7.
“The builders I observed were proud
working men, and any possible stigma of class was largely overlaid by their
autonomy in the workplace and by an over-riding cultural value placed on a traditional class-based masculinity” (Thiel, 2007);
Point 4.8.
“Cannadine
.... argues that British social classes
have never been culturally homogenous or politically aligned in any clear-cut
way, but that ‘class’ is a rhetorical device with which the British interpret
hierarchy. What Cannadine underplays, however, is how class rhetoric has
historically guided the social organization of hierarchy and, thereby
structurally reinforced its conceptual existence” (Thiel, 2007);
Each of the four themes has a set of
associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together they
provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the social
class topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the
writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the social class
literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the
readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on
these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on social class Facebook page for additional information
on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is an
exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s literature.
Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes[1]
and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to
move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2
finding, i.e., a companion mind map on social class, is presented in the next
section.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on social class: step 2 (mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR
approach step 1 on social class, the writer constructs a companion mind map
shown as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on social class,
the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four
main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified
in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent
the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in
the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map
renders an image of the knowledge structure on social class based on the
thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning
process on literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and
entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and
teaching material. This mind mapping exercise confirms the writer’s previous
experience using on the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to
the Literature on literature review
Facebook page and the Literature on
mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.
Concluding
remarks
The MMBLR approach to study social class
provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have
been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016).
No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this
article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some
pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on social
class in the field of Social Sciences. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and
the image of the knowledge structure on social class in the form of a mind map
should also be of academic value to those who research on social class.
Bibliography
1. Benson, M. 2014.
“Trajectories of middle-class belonging: The dynamics of place attachment and
classed identities” Urban Studies
51(14), Sage: 3097-3112.
2.
Coleman,
R.P. 1983. “The Continuing Significance of Social Class to Marketing” Journal of Consumer Research 10(3)
December: 265-280.
3.
Flemmen, M. 2012. “The
Structure of the Upper Class: A Social Space Approach” Sociology 46(6), Sage: 1039-1058.
4.
Goldthorpe,
J.H. and M. Jackson. 2007. “Intergenerational class mobility in contemporary
Britain: political concerns and empirical findings” The British Journal of Sociology 58(4): 525-546.
5.
Ho, J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho
publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
6.
Langford,
T. 2013. “Five Decades of Class Analysis in the Canadian Review of Sociology” CRS/RCS 50(3), Canadian Sociological
Association: 306-336.
7.
Li,
Y., F. Bechhofer, R. Stewart, D. McCrone, M. Anderson and L. Jamieson. 2002. “A
divided working class? Planning and career perception in the service and
working classes” Work, employment and
society 16(4): 617-636.
8.
Literature
on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph,
K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
9.
Literature
on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K.
Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
10. Literature
on social class Facebook page,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-social-class-1058436350846574/).
11. Milroy, L. and J. Milroy. 1992.
“Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model” Language in Society 21, Cambridge
University Press: 1-26.
12. Na, J. and M.Y. Chan. 2016. “Subjective
perception of lower social-class enhances response inhibition” Personality and
Individual Differences 90, Elsevier: 242-246.
13.
Piff,
P.K., D.M. Stancato, S. Côté, R. Mendoza-Denton and D. Keltner. 2012. “Higher
social class predicts increased unethical behavior” PNAS 109(11) March 13: 4086-4091.
14.
Piff,
P.K., M.W. Kraus, S. Côté and B.H. Cheng. 2010. “Having Less, Giving More: The
Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(5), American
Psychological Association: 771-784.
15.
Reay,
D. 1998. “Rethinking social class: qualitative perspectives on class and
gender” Sociology 32(2): 259-275.
16. Richards,
L. and M. Paskov. 2016. “Social class, employment status and inequality in
psychological well-being in the UK: Cross-sectional and fixed effects analyses
over two decades” Social Science &
Medicine 167, Elsevier: 45-53.
17. Rosenberg, M. and L.I.
Pearlin. 1978. “Social Class and Self-Esteem Among Children and Adults” American Journal of Sociology 84(1)
July: 53-77.
18.
Savage, M., F. Devine, N. Cunningham, M. Taylor, Y.
Li, J. Hjellbrekke, B.L Roux, S. Friedman and A. Miles. 2013. “A New Model of
Social Class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey Experiment” Sociology 47(2), Sage: 219-250.
19.
Schimpfossl, E. 2014. “Russia’s social upper class: from
ostentation to culturedness” The British
Journal of Sociology 65(1): 63-81.
20.
Shavitt,
S., D. Jiang and H. Cho. 2016. “Stratification and segmentation: Social class
in consumer behaviour” Journal of
Consumer Psychology 26(4), Elsevier: 583-593.
21. Sironi, M., N. Barban and R. Impicciatore. 2015. “Parental
social class and the transition to adulthood in Italy and the United States” Advances in Life Course Research 26,
Elsevier: 89-104,
22.
Skeggs,
B. and V. Loveday. 2012. “Struggles for value: value practices, injustice
judgment, affect and the idea of class” The
British Journal of Sociology 63(3): 472-490.
23.
Surridge,
P. 2007. “Class belonging: a quantitative exploration of identity and
consciousness” The British Journal of
Sociology 58(2): 207-226.
24.
Thiel,
D. 2007. “Class in construction: London building workers, dirty work and
physical cultures” The British Journal of
Sociology 58(2): 227-251.
pdf version at: https://www.academia.edu/32038316/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_social_class
ReplyDelete