Extending sociological theorising on high ability: the significance of values and lived experience

Abstract

Sociological work on high ability is framed by social constructionist theorising and/or takes a social justice approach, and hence particular analytical intellectual traditions are foregrounded. Whilst these approaches have contributed the main critique of essentialist psychological understandings of high ability, they can eclipse normative discourses and the ethically situated meaning of high ability for individuals. This paper explores why epistemological questions about high ability cannot be separated from values-based ones and assesses where this has happened in relation to sociological approaches to high ability. It suggests that a narrative approach is one way of enriching sociological theories and discourses of high ability and that this can progress not only sociological, but interdisciplinary theorising in the field.

Keywords:

• high ability
• social constructionism
• social justice
• gifted education
• values
• narratives

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Jim Campbell for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper and to an anonymous reviewer for posing some thoughtful, probing questions in response to it.

Notes

1. The paper primarily uses the term ‘high ability’, following the call for papers for this special issue. However, the terminology ‘gifted’, ‘able’, ‘high ability’, ‘high attainment’, ‘intelligent’, etc. is far from transparent. ‘Giftedness’ is commonly used in the academic literature to refer to childhood precocity and it was employed by the New Labour government in England in their national gifted and talented strategy (2002–2009). However, it is unpopular, particularly amongst practitioners and unsatisfactory in its appeal to ideas of god given gifts bestowed upon a lucky few. ‘High ability’ is not without its problems as ‘ability’ is itself a contested and problematic term, but it is employed for the sake of clarity, notwithstanding the fact that much of the argument is focused on the problematic nature of the concept. ‘Gifted’ and ‘giftedness’ are employed when reference is being made to research on these concepts specifically and ‘talent’, in the sense that it was utilised by the national strategy, is not dealt with here.

2. The argument in this paper is concerned with what can be broadly termed sociological approaches. It is the case that social justice arguments have been used to promote the interests of gifted children, for instance Winstanley (2004) and Eyre (2011), but these are not primarily drawing from scholarship within the sociology of education. Moreover, social justice approaches do not coalesce, taking differing pathways to arrive at their ends, for instance, Eyre through policy and practice and Winstanley through a philosophical approach.

3. This research is documented in full in the book Families, education and giftedness: Case studies in the construction of high ability (Mazzoli Smith & Campbell, 2012).The excerpts provided and information on the methodology employed are brief as the main argument of the paper is not based on this evidence. Rather it is being provided as an example of the kind of evidence which it is being claimed is often lacking in theories of high ability.