The Great British Class Fiasco: A Comment on Savage et al.

(2014) - Colin Mills

Journal: Sociology
Link:: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038513519880
DOI:: 10.1177/0038038513519880
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SocialClass #GBCS
Cite Key:: [@millsGreatBritishClass2014]

Abstract

Savage et al. (2013) claim they have produced a new model of the British class structure. They stress the innovative use of an internet survey, the BBC’s Great British Class Survey (GBCS), but it plays no serious role in the generation of their class typology. What they do is a theory free (though Bourdieu inspired) data dredging exercise. What they derive is an arbitrary typology determined by a contingent fact – the size of their sample.

Notes

·       A theory free (though Bourdieu inspired) data dredging exercise

·       An arbitrary typology determined by a contingent fact- the size of their sample

·       On typologies

·       Concepts are abstract entities

·       Typologies are closely related to concepts; they are the step we take to make abstract ideas more concrete

·       Typology is a practical tool. Inventing a typology for its own sake is pointless

·       That lifestyles, features of social networks, cultural differences and economic inequalities are correlated is not something that many would doubt but the demonstration of such a banal fact surely cannot be the principal objective et all’s efforts

·       What is clear is that their typology cannot have any role in explaining differences in the distribution of social and cultural capital for the simple reason that all these things are built into the definition of their typology

·       On sample selection

·       The GBCS is a self-completion questionnaire administered over the internet, internet surveys are known to be subject to self-selection bias

·       Managers and professionals are vastly over-represented

·       Despite having over 160,000 responses to the GBCS, the information that Savage et al base their empirical claims on is a quota sample

·       Flimsy source upon which to build their inductive edifice

·       To take just one example of the difficulties this creates, much fuss is made about the discovery of a social class category they call the ''elite''

·       The ''elite'' could, based on these data, be 3 per cent of the population, but it could also be 9 per cent of the population

·       The seven social classes that Savage et al find fall out of a so-called latent profile model

·       This means that the parameter estimates that determine how respondents are allocated to social classes are derived almost entirely from the quota sample

·       Calibration of the GBCS by the GfK only works for variables that have been observed in both surveys but it cannot make an appropriate adjustment for election in the GBCS on the basis of unobservable  In the population it is straightforward to calculate P(Y=1|X), the probability that Y equals 1 conditional on X. Now assume the following simple selection rule: there is a C> threshold T such that if T an individual will respond to an internet survey and if C <– T an individual will not respond. Further assume that X, C and T are all positively correlated. C> When we carry out an internet survey what we observe is P(Y=1|X, >T), – the probability that Y equals 1 conditional on X and that C is greater than the threshold value – and this will not, except in uninteresting cases, be equal to P(Y=1|X). The size of the difference will depend on the strength of the inter-correlation between X, C and Y and the point at which we set T.

·       Even if we correctly assign a GBCS respondent on the basis of the GfK to be a member of the ''traditional working class'' they would on average, have a 'curiosity' score that was higher than the average in their class and because C is correlated with Y they would also have a higher than average propensity to be a graduate than a non-graduate

·       To put it in a nutshell, it is highly likely than any comparison between Savage et all’s class categories with respect to variables contained in the GBCS but not used to derive the class categories  will be biased to a degree that may be substantively significant

·       On model selection

·       We are given no sense whatsoever of model uncertainty

·       The number of classes is a consequence of a decision about how much data to collect. This does not look like cleaving nature at its joints

·       Savage et al will no doubt claim that they are pursuing an open-minded inductive strategy, but this simply won’t do. A sensible model selection strategy must be based not only on formal statistical criteria but also on whether the model makes sense in terms of the configuration of variables that go into it

·       It is permissible to use external variables to validate a typology once you have made it, but peeking at them while making decisions about whether there are six, seven, eight, or 77 latent classes is having your cake and eating it

·       On measurement

·       Savage et all’s initial belief is wrong. We are told that one of the motivations for the project is that conventional class categories are inadequate for the sociological analysis of the sorts of cultural tastes and practices they are interested in. But when their own data show that they are mistaken, rather than abandoning their initial premise they carry on regardless

·       Savage et al are to be commended for acknowledging that wealth and not just income is important to their concerns, but they underestimate the difficulty of collecting reliable wealth data

·       On social classes

·       In fact, the interpretation and certainly the labels applied to the classes come from information quite extraneous to the latent profile analysis itself

·       However savage et all’s inductive method allows classes to be distinguished by tastes and activities that have a strong age gradient

·       In short, savage et al fail to take the content of their typology seriously. If they did, they would have to confront consequences which should give them cause to rethink their approach. For example, they would have to accept that people could change their social class at will simply by turning off the Beatles and turning on to Beethoven.