• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Co-Production of Student School Rule-Breaking Behaviour

Posted on: Saturday, 18 February 2006, 03:03 CST

By Leung, Catherine Lai-yee; Lee, Francis Wing-lin

Rule-breaking behaviour of students is a common disciplinary problem in schools. Employing the constitutive perspective, which posits that every social phenomenon is co-produced by several constitutive units in a COREL (constitutive interrelational) set, this article presents the findings of a qualitative study of the phenomenon. Eleven constitutive units are identified: the rule- breaking student, the school Discipline Unit, the Counselling Unit, the Principal, the school social worker, the parents, classmates, the peers outside school, the research community, Hong Kong society, and the education policy of Hong Kong. As the degree of mutual influence of the units is different for each case, the intervention for each case is different. But we need to be clear in what direction and how we want the situation to be changed.

Key words School rules, Rule breaking, Discipline, Constitutive perspective, Disruptive behaviour.

The disciplinary performance of students has long been a source of trouble for the education profession. The school-rule breaking behaviour of secondary students has posed a great challenge to teachers. In concluding the findings of its survey from 1986 to 1989, the Standing Committee on Unruly and Delinquent Behaviour in School in Hong Kong stated that the school disciplinary problems of secondary students, although on the rise, were mainly less serious offences such as habitual lateness and failure to do homework, while rebellious behaviour such as fighting, vandalism and taking soft drugs comprised only a very low percentage (Chung, 1997). The findings of Western researchers have also suggested that the daily stressinducting problems which confront most teachers are 'trivial but regular incidents of misbehaviour' rather than serious offences such as violence (Docking, 1989, p. 13). As the objective of education is to help students to learn and develop their potential in a peaceful environment, any obstacle to this goal should be eliminated or reduced regardless of its seriousness. It has been commented that 'the failure of a large number of secondary schools . . . to support and care for young adolescents effectively is one of the most striking themes in the literature on the sources of dropout and on the nature of secondary school life more generally' (Hargreaves et al., 1996, p. 56). The research of Chan (1994) into the unruly pupils in a Hong Kong secondary school clearly indicated that both teachers and students are losers and victims in the power game, no matter whether they are upholding or violating school rules. Thus it is necessary to look into students' school rule- breaking behaviour because it hinders teaching and learning in the school environment. As noted by Atkinson, disrupting behaviour in schools is 'not a crisis but a cause for concern and a need for action' (Docking, 1989, p. ix). A deeper understanding of the process of the exhibition of such behaviour and the dynamics among the parties involved can help in the appropriate handling of the problems for their reduction and prevention so that students can have normal learning in schools.

The study

The discussion in this article is based on a study of disciplinary issues in a secondary school on an outlying island of Hong Kong. The study employed a qualitative research methodology that included in-depth individual interviews with the school headmaster (principal), vice-headmaster, school social workers (two), disciplinary teachers (six), counselling teachers (six), other teachers (eleven), students (twenty-two) and parents (five), non-participant observation in the school and archive reading of related documents in the school.

The education system in Hong Kong

As background information, it would be necessary to introduce the education system in Hong Kong. Formal education of children begins when they reach 4 years of age. This is the kindergarten. It normally lasts for three years (K1-K3) till the children reach 6 years of age. Then they enter government/government-aided/private primary schools that last for six years (P1-P6) when they normally reach the age of 12. Upon completion of primary education, students will be allocated placements in government/ government-aided/ private secondary schools according to their results in the Academic Aptitude Test (AAT) in P6. The secondary education is for five years (F1-F5), and it consists of two stages: junior secondary (F1-F3) and senior secondary (F4-F5). Upon completion of five years' secondary education, students are required to sit the Hong Kong Certificate of Education examination for entering the matriculation classes for two years (F6-F7). Then they could take a public advanced-level examination for application for admission to the tertiary institutes. Hong Kong has a nine-year compulsory education policy, that is, all children below 15 years of age, irrespective of sex, ethnicity, religion, family status and physical or mental ability, are entitled to enjoy nine years' free compulsory education (six years' primary education and three years' secondary education). All children aged below 15 should be in school and receive formal education, otherwise their parents/guardians will be prosecuted. It has been criticised that it is under this nine-year compulsory education that those who are not suitable for academic work are retained in school and have created disciplinary problems for the schools (Hirvela and Law, 1991).

Conceptual framework

The study employed the constitutive perspective on deviance that emerged in the 1990s (Best and Kellner, 1991; Henry and Milovanovic, 1991, 1993, 1996; Rosenau, 1992; Holsein and Miller, 1993). This perspective proposes that deviance (school rule-breaking behaviour in this case) is a 'co-production' of the 'configuration of the social order', including the deviant/s (school rule-breaking students in this case), the victim/s (related teachers, students or others), the justice system (discipline system), related law (school rules), society (school) and the discursive region (education) (Henry and MiIovanovic, 1996, p. 171). This perspective contends that 'the analysis of crime (deviance) is not a matter of factors but a matter of the constitutive dialectics of power and control expressed and articulated through structurally coupled COREL (constitutive inter-relational) sets' (Henry and Milovanovic, 1996, p. 174). Many forms of school rule-breaking behaviour are not crimes when measured against the legal code of Hong Kong. Behavioural codes in schools and the law of society in fact belong to different contexts, the former being more micro and the latter more macro. But the breaking of behavioural codes in schools might have the possibility of leading the students to become lawviolating citizens, so the rule-breaking behaviour of the student has significance not only for learning and teaching in schools but also for their lives in society. With this perspective in mind, school rule-breaking behaviour can be regarded as 'crime' when it is conceived as the breaking of the behavioural codes of the researched school (a micro- society).

'Power', which implies 'creation and denial: the ability and the will to force others to comply' (Henry and Milovanovic, 1996, p. 174), is a central conception in the constitutive perspective. This study focuses on exploring how power creation and denial were exercised by various involved parties that co-produced school rule- breaking behaviour on the part of students.

The co-production process

In the following presentation, the code 'P' denotes the students and 'T' denotes the teachers. The co-production process of rule- breaking behaviour in school will be identified, but before introducing the dynamics involved, it is necessary to comprehend the role of school rules.

School rules: a source of power for control

School rules are explicitly documented as requirements for student behaviour. They clearly depict the manner in which students are expected to behave and what they are forbidden to do. In many cases observed in the researched school, the rules could not function well even though every student had a handbook in which the rules were included. The effectiveness of school rules depends on the power of the school to implement the listed requirements. A punishment system also has to be established to ensure student compliance. The rules of the researched school clearly state that a student has to 'sit at the seat arranged by their teacher' and Obtain permission from their teacher before speaking during the lessons'. Some students offered the following views during interviews:

I think that it is reasonable to prohibit us to eat in the lesson but it is unreasonable to prohibit us from leaving our seats and talking with our classmates. It is too boring not to talk during the lesson. [P12, an S2 student]

It is reasonable to prohibit us from leaving our seats during lessons, since it may disturb the teachers, but it is unreasonable to prohibit us from changing our seats. We are still sitting on the seats after changing. What is the difference? [P13, an S2 student]

Such prohibition constitutes the existence of power and control by the school. The school rules deny students the right to exhibit certain types of behavio\ur that the students consider reasonable. Students exhibited classroom rule-breaking behaviour as a form of resistance to those school rules that they found hard to follow. Two such views are cited below:

Some teachers have stopped us from leaving our seats and talking with other classmates, but we still continue to do so because we cannot control ourselves. [P6, an S1 student]

I always eat, talk and leave my seat in the lessons. I will not stop even though the teacher stops me. Sometimes I am required to go to the disciplinecounseling room. [P14, an S1 student]

One of the essential factors for the execution of school rules is the ability of teachers to implement them. In the above situations the school rules ceased to function if the teachers did not recognise the classroom rule-breaking behaviour, or if they could not punish the students according to the school rules. If the school rules were not implemented during lessons, the students could freely express themselves behaviourally. Then, instead of teachers exerting control over the students, the students exerted their power over the teachers.

School rules

Students' rule-breaking behaviour in school included basically three types. They were: being late to school, breaching of hair and dress codes, and smoking. According to the school rules, any student arriving at school later than 08:50 in the morning session or later than 14:00 in the afternoon session on normal school days would be regarded as late for school. The breaching of hair and dress codes included such behaviour as dyeing the hair, having too outstanding a hair or dress style, wearing colourful underwear, wearing ornaments or earrings, no stockings, no under-dress, no belt, no tie or no school overcoat. Rule-breaking behaviour related to smoking include smoking on campus, smoking in uniform off campus, buying cigarettes in uniform or bringing cigarettes to school.

Smoking, which is a common habit in the researched community, was prohibited in the researched school. It was regarded as a serious breach of the rules. Related students would be given big demerits whenever they were found buying, bringing cigarettes or smoking no matter inside or outside school. Smoking and at the same time adopting a rude attitude to teachers would be given two big demerits. Students' school placement might be terminated if they had three big demerits. However, some students found it difficult to observe this school rule. In total seventeen cases of rule-breaking behaviour concerning smoking involving nineteen students were recorded in the research period (three months). On the other hand, although dyeing the hair was not acceptable in school, it was not regarded as serious rulebreaking behaviour. Thus drawbacks rather than big demerits would be given to students who breached this school rule. However, concerned students were required to dye their hair black again before they were allowed back into the classroom. Lateness to school and breaches of the hair and dress codes were also regarded as minor forms of rule-breaking behaviour. Punishments such as marking the student's record or having to stand for a short period of time outside the classroom were imposed. It was clearly delineated in the working manual of the discipline unit that the unit would keep records on the rule-breaking of the students. No special punishment or action would be taken when a student was guilty of minor rule-breaking behaviour in school for the first time. But when a student committed a breach for the second or fourth time, the discipline teacher on duty would inform the student's parents. When a student transgressed a third and fifth time, the discipline teacher would give the student a drawback. Starting from the sixth time, the student would be given a drawback each time he or she was guilty of such behaviour. In addition the discipline unit would send a written notice to the student's parents. Starting from the seventh time onward, the student would be penalised by having to stand outside the classroom for a certain period and would receive a drawback.

The co-production of student school rule-breaking behaviour: a case illustration

Background

This was a case where a student (P23) was found in possession of cigarettes in his school bag. P23 was a male S2 student. He had numerous records for being late, conflicts with teachers, and smoking in school. He had five big demerits, twenty-two infractions and was late twenty times. The discipline unit, the school social worker, the class teacher and his mother, Mrs X, had tried to persuade P23 to improve his behaviour.

According to Mrs X, Mr X was a lorry driver who seldom stayed at home. Mrs X had to look after P23 and his sister by herself. Mrs X revealed that she had communication problems with P23, since the boy refused to share with her. She usually had no idea of his whereabouts or what had happened to him. P23 would sometimes stay out late at night or even overnight.

The class teacher and the discipline master had interviewed Mrs X several times and informed her on the unfavourable academic performance of P23. The school social worker also had provided counselling to P23 and Mrs X. However, the behaviour of P23 still deteriorated. He also had several conflicts with his female class teacher and the discipline master during the research period. He always thought that the two teachers were against him intentionally.

P23 had been caught smoking in the school toilet. The discipline unit arranged an interview with Mrs X. According to Mrs X, P23 presented a disrespectful attitude to the discipline master and class teacher during the interview. Mrs X said that her son insisted that the teachers had accused him wrongly but the teachers had concrete evidence. Since P23 already had a very bad conduct record in school, Mrs X signed an agreement with the request of the school agreeing to find another school for P23 if he committed serious rule- breaking behaviour that resulted in obtaining a big demerit again.

The incident

P23 was found in possession of cigarettes in school. After some investigations the discipline teacher arranged an interview with Mrs X. During the interview Mrs X was informed that P23 had supplied cigarettes to two classmates who were found smoking in school. P23 claimed that the pack of cigarettes did not belong to him. He only found it in his drawer. When his two classmates noticed that he had a pack of cigarettes, they each asked him to give them one. On being confronted, the two boys reported to the teacher that the cigarettes were given to them by P23. The penalty for bringing cigarettes to school was two big demerits. As Mrs X had signed a contract agreeing to find another school for her son if he committed serious rule- breaking behaviour that resulted in obtaining a big demerit again, P23 was penalised with suspension from lessons until the end of the school term. However, he was allowed to sit the final examination, in which he was absent in the last two days.

The co-production dynamics

To analyse the incident of P23's possession of cigarettes as school rule-breaking behaviour, it is necessary to analyse not only why P23 (the rule-breaking student) possessed cigarettes in school, but also why possessing cigarettes in school was regarded as a school rule-breaking behaviour in the researched school. Without the latter, that specific behaviour of P23 would be regarded as normal rather than school rule-breaking behaviour. As suggested by the constitutive perspective, to analyse deviance (school rule-breaking behaviour in this case) is to analyse the constitutive dialectics of power and control in the constitutive relational sets which contain various constitutive units related to the exhibition of the studied behaviour. In this case, first of all, the power dynamics among Hong Kong society, the researched community and the education arena will be analysed to provide some background information. Then the discussion will focus on the roles played by different parties, including the Principal, the discipline unit, the counselling unit and the school social worker, in handling the case. After that, the power and control dynamics among P23, his mother (parents) and peers outside the school will be discussed to illustrate the acquiring of the smoking habit of P23. Finally, the power dynamics between P23 and his classmates will be delineated to illustrate the exhibition of P23's school rule-breaking behaviour - possession of cigarettes in school.

The power and control dynamics among the Hong Kong society, the researched community and the education arena

In Hong Kong smoking is regarded as undesirable but not illegal behaviour. Besides, the government prohibits cigarette advertisement in the mass media, and in some public areas and in facilities such as cinemas and mass transit railways smoking is also not allowed. However, smoking is still accepted in many public areas such as certain parts of restaurants, gardens and playgrounds. The dominant discourse on smoking in Hong Kong society is that it is undesirable because of its negative effects on health but it is not an illegal behaviour. The age of people who smoke has even been growing younger in recent years.

In the researched community, smoking is a popular habit. The researcher went to the researched school to collect information about two or three days a week for three months. It was observed that many residents in the researched community had the smoking habit. Since the researched community is an island, many residents had to travel beyond it to work every day. It was observed that the residents would immediately started smoking once they got off of the ferry. The researcher has also seen many residents smoking during her community observation. An Sl student who had been punished for smoking told the researcher that his mother had only advised him not to smoke too much rather than requir\ing him to give up completely when he was punished by the school for smoking. Thus smoking is not unacceptable behaviour for children in the researched community.

Everyone on this island smokes. My mother knows I smoke. She allows me to smoke after school. [S5, an Sl student]

In Hong Kong the government allows schools to formulate their own rules freely provided they do not contradict the law. As the dominant discourse in the education arena still holds negative views on smoking, no schools allow their students to smoke, for the sake of their health and the positive image of the school. As the aim of education in Hong Kong is to train responsible and law-abiding younger generations, students who do not conform to school rules must be disciplined and punished. Thus most schools will punish students' smoking or smoking-related behaviour such as the possession of cigarettes.

From the above discussion it can be recognised that in Hong Kong society the dominant discourse on smoking is that it is 'undesirable', but the dominant discourse of the researched community on smoking is that it is 'acceptable'. These attitudes are inconsistent with the discourse on smoking in the education arena, which is that it is unacceptable. However, the former two do not have the power to influence the decision of the third party - education/school. Hong Kong society does not have the power to convince the education arena to adopt a more lenient stance on students who smoke. Nor does the researched community possess the power to convince the researched school to accept smoking behaviour among the students as only a manifestation of the community culture. On the other hand, neither does the education arena have the power to influence Hong Kong society and the researched community to adopt a 'no smoking' policy. Therefore students, although members of Hong Kong society and the researched community which accept smoking, also being members of the education arena which prohibits smoking, do not possess the power to control either of the parties to argue for the permission of smoking. In terms of constitutive perspective, the students who have a smoking habit were denied the right to express their smoking needs under the policies of the researched school. As a result, the students who were under the control of the school by the school regulation might either accept the school no-smoking rule or resist it by exhibiting smoking behaviour or smoking-related behaviour.

The power and control dynamics among the Principal, the discipline unit, the counselling unit, the school social worker and P23 (the rule-breaking student)

The role of the principal is to ensure that the policies and regulations of the Education and Manpower Bureau are properly followed in the school. The role of the discipline unit is to ensure that students behave according to the rules that delineate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour on the part of students. The role of the counselling unit is to help students with minor problems in studying behavioural, familial and social aspects to improve their situations. The role of the school social worker is to help handle problematic cases and run educational programmes.

The school social worker helps me to handle some difficult students and parents. [T9, a disciplinary master]

We have a successful parent education programme last month which was organised by the parent-teacher association, with the help of the school social worker. [Principal]

As mentioned in the previous section, smoking is unacceptable behaviour in the dominant discourse of the education arena, and it was also not acceptable in the researched school. The discipline unit set school rules prohibiting smoking, with the support of the headmaster and the teachers and with the assumed consent of the whole education arena. In the researched school, smoking and the possession of cigarettes were strictly prohibited. Students would be given two big demerits for violation of either rule. It was decided that students with three big demerits would be required to terminate their school placements. But discretionary treatment would be given to those under age 15 or who had not yet attained S3 standard. The school social worker would provide counselling to students who had broken the regulations, e.g. the non-smoking rule, of the school. However, the final decision on the type of punishment for the school rule-breaking students rested with the discipline unit, with the consent of the principal. The principal, with the discipline unit as his executive arm, possessed the ultimate power to punish students. The principal was the administrative head of the school. With the management board and the administrative units he was responsible for deciding major school policies. The principal was an important unit in influencing the rule-breaking behaviour of the students through determining the school rules and policies. As P23 was regarded as a difficult student, the counselling unit did not feel adequate to handle the case, so it passed the case to the discipline unit - a transfer of power. P23 already had nine big demerits before the present incident. The school social worker had also provided him with counselling for about half a year. However, P23 had shown no significant improvement in his control of smoking or smoking- related behaviour.

The confidence of the discipline unit in its function and the doubts about their own function on the part of the counselling unit can be observed from the following quotations:

The commonest rule-breaking behaviour of students is the breaching of hair and dress codes. The situation has improved since we started to require those rule breakers to stay after school. [T2, a teacher in the discipline unit]

There is no obvious indicator to prove the effectiveness of the counselling service. I think it should be regarded as successful if the students can discuss their problems with the counselling teachers. Students' behaviour is influenced by many factors that are out of control of the counselling teachers. [T3, a counselling teacher]

It can be recognised that although the school has power over the students in the school setting, it still could not control the students, no matter whether through tough measures such as a heavy penalty (by giving big demerits) or through soft measures such as counselling. P23 still exhibited the school rulebreaking behaviour of possessing cigarettes in school even though he was under the threat of expulsion.

The power and control dynamics among the mother (parents), P23 (the school rulebreaking student) and peers outside school

As stated in the previous section, Mrs X (P23's mother) had a very bad relationship with P23. She was unable to control P23's behaviour. She usually did not know the whereabouts of P23. As mentioned by Mrs X, P23 would quarrel with her and refused to return home with her when she found P23 in the video game centre or mixing with a group of peers on the beach at night. Mrs X's unfavourable relationship with P23 and the frequent absence of P23's father from home made P23's staying out behaviour become more serious. P23 always hung around with a group of peers who had smoking and drinking habits. They also used foul language. As indicated by the class teacher and the school social worker, P23's studying and behavioural performance had gradually deteriorated further since the beginning of the school year.

It can be recognised that the lack of proper parental guidance and control over P23 resulted in the increasing power of influence and control of P23 by his peers outside school. Thus P23's smoking habit became more serious the more he sought the company of the group of peers who also had the smoking habit.

The power and control dynamics between P23 and his classmates

As mentioned by P18, a classmate of P23, although he was a good friend of P23, P23 was a selfish person.

I use to share cigarettes with P23. We're friends and we usually share things, such as cigarettes, together, but he is selfish. [P 18, an S2 student]

P23 would not usually share his money and cigarettes with others. But he would ask his peers to share their cigarettes with him. P23 also owed P18 a sum of money. Many classmates in the school did not like P23. Therefore when P18 and another student were caught smoking by the teacher they did not hesitate to tell the teacher that the cigarettes had been given to them by P23. P23 was then punished by being suspended from class till the end of the term for possessing cigarettes in school.

From the above, it can be recognised that although the other students could not influence P23 to improve his selfish personality, they demonstrated their power to retaliate indirectly by revealing his school rule-breaking behaviour to the teacher although they knew that P23 would be expelled. Therefore the power and control dynamics between P23 and his classmates were also a factor that led to the school rule breaking of P23 which otherwise would not have been discovered.

Constitutive dialectics of power and control among various parties in the COREL sets of P23's school rule-breaking behaviour

It can be recognised that the inconsistent attitude to smoking of Hong Kong society, the researched community and the education arena affects the attitude to smoking of the researched school and the school rule-breaking student, P23. P23 chose to smoke while the researched school defined the behaviour as a serious breach of the rules and made it clear in the rules that students exhibiting smoking or smoking-related behaviour would be heavily penalised. The anti-smoking rule was implemented through the discipline unit with the support of the principal, the counselling unit and the school social worker. As P23 had committed various offences such as smoking and being disrespectful to a teacher, the discipline unit tried to stop P23's smoking or related serious school rule-breakin\g behaviour by punishing him and asking his mother to sign an agreement to withdraw his school placement if he was found breaking school rules which led to the penalty of receiving a big demerit again. On the other hand, the school social worker tried to help P23 to improve his behaviour through providing him counselling and solicited the co-operation of his mother to supervise his behaviour properly after school hours. Mrs X's inability to supervise P23's behaviour after school indirectly increased his chances of associating with the peers outside school who also had the smoking habit and, thus, further made P23's habit more serious. In order to buy cigarettes P23 was always borrowing money from his schoolmates but he seldom repaid the money. This made him disliked. So they revealed to the teacher that the cigarettes were given to them by P23 when they were caught smoking.

Eleven constitutive units are found to be of significance in influencing the school rule-breaking behaviour of the student. They include the rule breaker himself (P23), the discipline unit, the counselling unit, the principal, the social worker, the classmates, the peers outside school, the parents (Mrs X), the researched community, Hong Kong society, and the Hong Kong education arena.

The above discussion reveals that various parties/constitutive units influenced students' rule-breaking behaviour in school. In the constitutive perspective, deviance is 'co-produced by human subjects and by the social and organisational structure that humans develop' (Henry and Milovanovic, 1996, p. x). To analyse the co-production of the rule-breaking behaviour of the students is to analyse the power and control phenomenon of the units mentioned above. These constitutive units of the COREL set were mutually influencing each other and produced students' rule-breaking behaviour in school. All the mutual influences of the constitutive units in the COREL set would be difficult to account for in this arrticle, but diagrammatically they are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Constitutive interrelational (COREL) sets on P23, school rule-breaking behaviour. Notes a school rule-breaking student, b discipline unit, c principal, d counselling unit, e school social workers, f peers outside school, g peers in school, h parents, i researched community, j Hong Kong society, k education and schooling policies. All factors influence each other

Conclusion

It is found that the co-production of students' rule-breaking behaviour in the researched school was mainly a negotiation of power between the identified constitutive units. It should be pointed out that the degree of mutual influence among the units varied for different kinds of students' rule-breaking behaviour in school. The culture of the researched community also played a significant role in affecting the smoking behaviour of the students.

Ways to enhance learning and improve disciplinary problems in schools have been suggested (Hargreaves et al., 1996, pp. 64-76). But, as noted in this study, each case is unique in itself: ways to improve certain rulebreaking behaviours of one student may not be applicable to others. Every constitutive unit of the COREL set can be an entry point. The critical question is in what direction and how the situation should be changed before we decide on the points of intervention.

References

Best, S., and Kellner, D. (1991), Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations, London: Macmillan.

Chan, K. W. (1994), 'Unruly Pupils in a Hong Kong secondary School: a case Study', M.Ed, dissertation, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.

Chung, W. K. (1997), Α study on Whole-school Approach to Discipline in a Hong Kong secondary School', M.Ed, dissertation, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.

Docking, J. (1989), 'Elton's four questions: some general considerations', in N. Jones (ed.), School Management and Pupil Behaviour, Lewes: Falmer Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1984), 'The significance of classroom coping strategies', in A. Hargreaves and P. Woods (eds), Classrooms and Staff Rooms: the Sociology of Teachers and Teaching, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., and Ryan, J. (1996), Schooling for Change: Reinventing Education for Early Adolescents, London: Falmer Press.

Henry, S., and Milovanovic, D. (1991), 'Constitutive criminology', Criminology 29 (2), 293-316.

_____ (1993), 'Back to basics: a postmodern redefinition of crime', Critical Criminologist 5 (2-3), 1-2, 6, 12.

_____ (1996), Constitutive Criminology: Beyond Postmodernism. London: Sage Publications.

Hirvela, A., and Law, E. (1991), 'A survey of local English teachers' attitudes towards English and ELT', Education journal 2, 25-38.

Holsein, J., and Miller, G., eds (1993) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Rosenau, M. (1992), Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Troman, G. (1999), 'Models of the "good" teacher: defining and redefining teacher quality', in P. Woods (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning, London: Routledge.

Catherine Lai-yee Leung Hong Kong Baptist University

Francis Wing-lin Lee University of Hong Kong

Address for correspondence

Dr Francis Wing-lin Lee, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. E- mail fwllee@hkucc.hku.hk

Copyright Manchester University Press Nov 2005

Source: Research in Education

More News in this Category