Problematizing School Discipline

and Struggling for Verstehen

John J. Brent

Introduction

Admittedly, I was initially excited to write a chapter focusing on the contextual

matters of ethnographic research and to note the “why” of topic selection, the

relationship between the research and researcher, and the complexities associated

with fieldwork. After all, many would agree that these are all important aspects of

qualitative work. Interestingly, these issues often receive little attention in methodological

texts or are hidden from the routinized organization of peer-reviewed

articles. My initial enthusiasm, however, diminished a bit after asking myself “what

in the world could a new faculty member add to the already rich discussion within

qualitative criminology”—especially given the list of well-known and established

ethnographic scholars within this volume. The task, once exciting, quickly became

intimidating.

To get some bearing, I turned to my past work and looked through written field

notes, photographs taken from the field, recorded interviews, analytic notes, and

thematic coding strategies. I cringed at the number of misplaced interview questions,

premature topic changes during conversations, missed opportunities for follow-

up/

probing questions, and attempts to smoothly guide interviews. Nevertheless,

these data afforded tremendous insight into lived realities, emotive underpinnings,

and individual motivations. Perhaps more importantly, I saw that the ethnographic

process of discovery and understanding is much more dynamic and complicated

than the methodological “nuts and bolts” outlined in many textbooks and

publications.

For instance, criminological scholars often note the importance of verstehen in

qualitative research and ethnographic work (see Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).

J. J. Brent (*)

School of Justice Studies, College of Justice and Safety, Eastern Kentucky University,

Richmond, KY, USA

e-mail: John.Brent@eku.edu

30

Borrowing from Weber’s (1978) conceptualization, verstehen refers to the interpretive

process of gaining an empathetic understanding of the motivations that give

meaning to individual actions. Despite its significance, little work highlights the

complexities associated with achieving a culturally empathetic appreciation. That

is, outside of discussing ethnographic methods that facilitate verstehen, little work

addresses what this process may look and feel like. Further, few efforts outside of

positivistic criminology highlight how social, cultural, and political ideologies that

create and perpetuate realities play a significant role in gaining or hindering an

appreciative understanding.

Therefore, this chapter offers a self-reflection on the interpretive process of

gaining an empathetic understanding that is fundamental to ethnographic work.

More specifically, I draw on my experience conducting ethnographic work

exploring the institutional culture underpinning the punitive practices and policies

associated with contemporary school discipline. Therefore, the following

pages highlight the difficulty and complexity I experienced while attempting to

gain an empathetic appreciation of the ideologies behind exclusionary school

discipline—especially when the institutional systems of meaning were in opposition

to empirical evidence, standing theories, and my own personal

frameworks.

In order to accomplish this, this chapter first contextualizes qualitative research

historically and methodologically while also highlighting the significance of verstehen

for ethnographic methods. Afterward, I discuss how my interest in the punitive

currents of school discipline developed and became an object of study. The following

sections outline my experiences trying to gain an understanding of school discipline

from the perspective of both students and staff. These pages also acknowledge

the aforementioned complexities in trying to achieve an appreciative understanding

and avenues taken to better facilitate the process. Finally, the chapter concludes by

outlining how striving for verstehen, no matter how difficult, can lead to unexpected

findings, novel insights, and a true appreciation – even though it may conflict with
one’s own position.

Qualitative Criminology and Centering Verstehen

Though present during the nineteenth century, qualitative methods began to prosper

within the social sciences during the early twentieth century. During this time, criminologists

and sociologists within the Chicago School began moving away from

strict positivistic notions of science that emphasized pure objectivity, universal realities,

social determinism, value-free research, and studying objects from a distance.

Rather, those within the Chicago School espoused a more interpretive philosophy of

social science that strived to understand peoples’ lived experience in their natural

settings. This alternative approach sought to uncover social constructions of reality

and appreciate culturally significant systems of meaning. As a result, the interpretive

social science championed immersive methods that advanced the importance of

J. J. Brent

31

uncovering lived experiences, individual subjectivities, theoretical developments

firmly grounded in data, and a sensitivity to perceptions and values. Since our relatively

young field is replete with scholarship enlisting ethnographic work, direct

observations, and depth interviews to study and understand the sociocultural, political,

and economic contours of crime (see Charmaz, 2006; Copes & Miller, 2015;

Ferrell et al., 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

At this point, one cannot help but to recall Jock Young’s (2011, p. 180) work as

he eloquently identifies two different epistemologies within criminology. Consider

the following excerpt from his book, The Criminological Imagination:

There are two criminologies: one that grants meaning to crime and deviance, one that takes

it away; one which uses an optic which envisages the wide spectrum of human experience:

the crime and law-abiding, the deviant and supposedly normal – the whole round of human

life, the other a lens that can only focus on the negative, the predatory, the supposedly

pathological...

It is important to note that Young moves beyond simply identifying two distinct

methodological paradigms—as many have. More importantly, he argues that each

paradigm reflects—and is shaped by—their discrete criminological purpose. That

is, he problematizes the quantitative canons of knowledge production in criminology

that abstract lived experiences into numerical form, forces them into existing

theoretical constructs, and analyzes them for statistical significance. In their place,

he discusses the importance of qualitative methods that seek an appreciation of

crime and its meaning, a qualitative criminology that attempts to understand the

variety of motivations and rationalities associated with crime and crime control.

This brief history and peek into the interpretive philosophy provides the context

to understand the concept of verstehen—one of the core components of qualitative

methods and ethnographic research. For Weber (1978), verstehen refers to the process

of gaining a deep empathetic understanding of social behavior. When studied

further, it represents an interpretive and systematic understanding of the motivations

and meaning that underpin individual’s purposive action. More specifically, Weber

states that “empathetic or appreciative accuracy is attained when, through sympathetic

participation, we can adequately grasp the emotional context in which the

action took place” (Weber, 1978, pp. 4–5). When situated in criminology, Ferrell

(1997, p. 10) writes that:

criminological verstehen denotes a researcher’s subjective understanding of crime’s situational

meanings and emotions…implies that a researcher through attentiveness and participation,

at least can begin to apprehend and appreciate the specific roles and experiences of

criminals, crime victims, crime control agents, and others caught up in the day-to-day reality

of crime.

It should come to no surprise then that—given their ability to uncover the emotive

frameworks, motivations, and situated meanings associated with crime and crime

control—ethnographic methods represent a cornerstone among qualitative methods

and interpretive-based research (Ferrell & Hamm, 1998).

Problematizing School Discipline and Struggling for Verstehen

32

Cultivating Interest in School Discipline

Whether a result of background factors, academic training, or personal interest, my

studies have generally tracked along two dominant threads. The first thread takes a

critical approach to studying and theorizing criminal justice and crime-control initiatives.
While an impressive literature tries to understand the why of crime, this

focus tries to understand the why of criminal justice. The second thread attempts to

uncover and note the cultural and structural conditions that give meaning, purpose,

and significance to “deviant” conduct. As someone who studies the mechanism of

social and formal control, I was fortunate enough—even lucky—to link up with a

number of mentors and colleagues examining the punitive shift in school discipline.

They were asking questions such as: What are the school- and student-level consequences

associated with punitive school discipline (see Kupchik, 2010)? How do

high-security environments in school impact family engagement and involvement

(see Mowen 2015)? What are the collateral consequences associated with

criminal justice-based policies in school? Are contemporary disciplinary regimes

impacting all students equally (see Hirschfield, 2008)? I, however, became interested

in exploring the institutional culture underpinning the punitive policies associated

with contemporary school discipline.

Knowing little about the subject and trying to get “on par,” I turned to the literature.

Already averse to punitive crime-control initiatives, it was disturbing to recognize

that the practices and policies once reserved for criminal justice had become

commonplace in schools around the country (Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder,

2013). At one level, schools were increasingly adopting invasive security measures

such as surveillance systems, metal detectors, armed police officers (or school

resource officers), and drug-sniffing dogs (Casella, 2006; Robers et al., 2013). At

another level, disciplinary measures appeared to be more punitive given the

increased use of zero-tolerance policies, expulsions, and in- and out-of-school suspensions

(Fabelo et al., 2011; Kupchik, 2010; Robers et al., 2013). Still further,

these trends were instrumental in creating a school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionately

impacted racial/ethnic minority youth, students identifying as a gender

and sexual minority, and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (see

Hirschfield, 2008; Losen & Martinez, 2013; Mitchum & Moodie-Mills, 2014).

Having attended high school in a time when hardly any of these features were used,

it was bizarre to read reports of students being removed from school under zero-tolerance

policies for relatively minor infractions. As Hirschfield (2008) and

Kupchik (2010) identified, the “criminalization of school discipline” reshaped disciplinary

climates that, in turn, helped reframe student misconduct as being a potentially

criminal matter.

From here, it was easy to question why schools were becoming sites of punitive

discipline and enhanced security. Many are quick to point out the occurrence of

highly publicized school shootings over the last two decades (see Addington, 2009),

J. J. Brent

33

while others are crystalized in the hearts and minds of many, such shootings include

Columbine High School, Colorado (1999); Red Lake High School, Michigan

(2005); Virginia Tech, Virginia (2007); Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut

(2012); and the University of California, Santa Barbara (2014). Even as this chapter

is being drafted, there have been shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High

School, Florida; Marshall County High School, Kentucky; and Aztec High School,

New Mexico. However, with school crime reaching near historic lows, scholars

have interpreted the criminalization of school discipline alongside structural-functional

theories, neoliberal conditions, shifting models of crime control, and

general fears and anxieties (for a thorough overview of theoretical explanations, see

Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011; Kupchik, 2010).

Overall, this body of scholarship had well-documented and theorized the escalation

of punitive disciplinary practices. Further, it exposed a host of negative outcomes

associated with contemporary school discipline. This literature had also shed

some qualitative empirical light on the perceptions and experiences with discipline

and security. However, little work had explored the institutional culture associated

with this new disciplinary regime. Relatedly, research had yet to gain an empathetic

understanding of the motives and rationalities driving established disciplinary

structures.

Pursuing an Empathetic Understanding

Reflecting on My Role and Disposition

For the discussed project, I conducted an ethnographic case study of a mid-Atlantic

high school which has been given the pseudonym Easton High. It is important to
note that my involvement within Easton began well before the start of the study.

That is, I volunteered at the school given its probationary status and imposed “at-risk”

label attached to many of its students. During this time, I had routine contact

with school administrators, teachers, staff, and students. Interestingly, the exclusionary

disciplinary practices associated with Easton’s school district had been

under scrutiny given its frequency and disproportionate application. As a result, the

school was forced to alter its disciplinary code and build in remedial measures. And,

as prefaced above, I went into studying school discipline with a certain knowledge

gained from the literature. The message was consistent and conveyed that current

disciplinary practices had increasingly relied on punitive sanctions that resulted in a

host of negative outcomes at the student and school level. This certainly bolstered

my own critical orientation toward examining the social and formal mechanisms of

punitive governance.

Problematizing School Discipline and Struggling for Verstehen

34

Discourses Against and For Punitive Discipline

Although I thought participants would be hesitant to discuss the disciplinary culture

of the school, they were often receptive to such conversations. Many participant

narratives, especially those from students, echoed the literature documenting a qualitatively

and quantitatively new disciplinary culture. Consider the following from

Ronnie—a student at Easton High:

Yeah man, it’s like they just want to punish you and go all hard all the time. They

are doing too much, being all extra with students.

Bree—a senior at Easton—also shared her perspective but spoke more broadly

about the school’s overall disciplinary climate:

If you see a good kid walking out in the middle of the street you’re gonna save them

or say don’t go out there. But, if it’s a kid you don’t like, you let them walk out

there and get hit. Instead of steering them in right direction, you are only punishing

them so you are not helping them or telling them to get out of the street.

You’re pushing them out there.

And Paul, another one of Easton’s students, offers a narrative suggesting that
discipline has become a chief organizational principle for the school:

This school is all about punishing kids. I mean the bad kids, they are going to get

more attention. But, the good kids aren’t getting enough good attention because

everyone is so focused on the bad kids or that Easton High is a bad school.

Even school officials, like Mrs. Brooke, seemed to critique the school’s standing

disciplinary practice in favor of more evidence-based and restorative approaches:

Yeah, sure, sometimes the discipline can be harsh. But you know what, sometimes

it’s needed. The issue is what is being taken away when we punish these kids.

Our purpose here is to educate students, create a safe environment, and help

develop good people. Hard discipline can get in the way of that. We have to learn

to make discipline an applied practice where students learn a lesson and know

that we care about what they are doing. I think that second part gets lost a lot. If

they know we care, then the discipline means something and it sinks in with

them. If they don’t know, then we punish them for no reason and we lose them.

I do not provide this small sample of narratives and data points to discuss what

the ethnography “found”—that is the task for articles. Instead, I highlight these few

excerpts to illustrate some of the individual positions, values, and experiences that

give meaning to the disciplinary climate of the school. More importantly, I highlight

these examples because they aligned with existing research, theoretical frameworks,

and my own acknowledged disposition toward punitive discipline. As a result, pursuing

verstehen—the interpretive process of gaining an appreciation of the subject

position—followed with little difficulty.

J. J. Brent

35

While narratives calling out and challenging Easton’s disciplinary regime were easy

to understand, there were other positions that were more difficult to empathize with.

For instance, many of the school staff expressed discontent with the changing nature

of school discipline. Disciplinarians often noted that Easton’s discipline “is watered

down,” “coddles students,” and “is a joke.” Mr. King, a teacher, argued that Easton

needed to move away from “soft” discipline if it wanted to correct its disciplinary

issues. More specifically, he stated:

I think that if our school, man…the District needs to let us drop the hammer on

these kids. I bet it would only take 3 months of getting real.

Mr. Jackson, a disciplinary official, similarly voiced that:

Everybody’s being babied nowadays. I mean, discipline is so watered down in this

building. I think we need to get back to real discipline.

These and similar conversations were interesting. One the one hand, it was

understandable that the shifting disciplinary mandates—due to the aforementioned

scrutiny at the district level—created some discontent. On the other hand, it was

difficult to understand the resistance toward practices and policies that were more

restorative and remedial.

Again, I do not highlight these data to demonstrate what was found. Rather, these

are presented to illustrate subjective positions that counter those above critiquing

school sanctions. And just as the interpretive social science asks that I understand

subjectivities challenging discipline, I too had to try and understand these. However,

I found it very difficult to empathize with those advancing exclusionary discipline.

It was tough to appreciate why school personnel would resist corrective and restorative

approaches that were empirically supported.

Agreeing with Versus Understanding

Of course, sociology and criminology are full of ethnographic studies in which

scholars study social phenomena they don’t approve of in order to better understand

them. And though it was one thing to be aware of this, it was another to actually feel

and navigate the disjuncture between agreeing with something and understanding it.

In the case of school personnel favoring punitive models of school discipline, it was

difficult to have empathy for something my training, empirical evidence, and own

disposition opposed. To overcome this, I began shadowing Easton’s disciplinarians,

following the daily routines of teachers, and talking further with school administrators—

in essence, engaging ethnographic and interpretive methods further.

After doing so, I started to recognize realities previously hidden and better understand

staff’s motivations. For instance, it became apparent that the disciplinary

culture

among much of the staff was structured by institutional inertia, resources,

and demands. Consider the following field note:

Problematizing School Discipline and Struggling for Verstehen

36

Today I spent a lot of time shadowing Mr. Jackson…He talked about how he and the

other SCAs serve as disciplinarians for the school while also being a social

resource for students. Interestingly, he discussed how he wants more time and

resources to build relationships with students, start community engagement initiatives,

and engage students in positive situations. While stressing this importance,

I asked what he was filling out. He replied “Oh about 75 referral slips for

detention, ISS, Saturday school, and time-out”….

This point was also brought up by Mr. Camp, another disciplinarian at Easton:

Sure, building relationships, outreach initiatives, and EBPs (evidence-based programs)

sound great. I would love to do those things. But I am forced to be a

disciplinarian first.

When asked whether new mandates were having an impact on his job, he

continued:

Yeah, I have to wear the hat as a SCA and counselor but how, with what, and when?

There is always a fight, skipped class, misconduct investigation, and mediation

to oversee. It’s always something that forces us into the discipline role.

Mr. Vincent similarly explains:

Not all schools have the resources so they are forced to use what they have. There

might be best practices or EBPs but those are not feasible with what’s going on

here. These reforms mandate supportive climate initiatives but to make that transition

requires a lot of resources we don’t have.

Coming from more attentive methods, these data suggest that staff’s subjective

positions and rationalities were intimately bounded by their experience with institutional

constraints. Stepping back further, this also suggests that students’ often negative

take on school discipline was also likely bounded by their experience with

institutional currents and dictates—an insight that may have gone unnoticed.

Discussion

The pages above reflect on an ethnographic case study examining the institutional
culture underpinning school discipline and punishment. More specifically, it sought

to offer personal experiences related to the interpretive process of gaining verstehen—

an empathetic understanding that is fundamental to ethnographic and qualitative

work. In doing this, one can realize that the process of appreciating lived

experiences, emotive frameworks, and individual motivations is much more

dynamic and complex than often written about in texts, publications, and peer-reviewed

articles. One can also see how the relationship between the researcher and

research topic can impact this process. Likewise, it is evident that various ideological

positions and institutional constraints have a significant ability to structure individual

realities, narratives, and systems of meaning that must be considered.

J. J. Brent

37

Given this, the task of acquiring a deep empathetic understanding may be more

difficult, value laden, and complex than often written about or discussed within

publications. For instance, I found it challenging to empathize with agents advancing

exclusionary discipline and punitive sanctions. I also found it tough to appreciate

why school personnel would resist corrective and restorative approaches that

were remedial and empirically supported. Consequently, it was difficult to have

empathy for something so opposed. However, by recalling prior ethnographies facing

similar issues and engaging ethnographic methods further, I was able to better

appreciate where participants were coming from—though still being at odds with

many of their practices and policies. And though I was able to move closer to understanding

and gain an appreciation, I still question the degree to which I would be

able to fully grasp their subjective positions.

Though difficult, pursuing this interpretive-based understanding was significant

along a number of lines. First, and already alluded to, it afforded greater clarity as

to how individual and institutional level factors produce, and are impacted by, normative

structures of discipline and punishment within schools. Second, and related,

these grounded data—without doubt—helped develop organizing concepts and

theoretical frameworks that can be beneficial for research and practice moving forward.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, these grounded insights speak to opportunities
for policy implication, openings for meaningful change, and chances to

alter negative conditions so as to create better outcomes for those mostly affected by

current disciplinary regimes.

References

Addington, L. A. (2009). Cops and cameras in public school security as a policy response to
columbine.

American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1426–1446.

Casella, R. (2006). Selling us the fortress: The promotion of techno-security equipment for schools.

New York: Routledge.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.

London: Sage.

Copes, H., & Miller, J. M. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of qualitative criminology.

New York: Routledge.

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M., Plotkin, M., Carmichal, D., Marbanks, M., & Booth, E. (2011).

Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success

and juvenile justice involvement. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center and

Public Policy Research Institute.

Ferrell, J. (1997). Criminological verstehen: Inside the immediacy of crime. Justice Quarterly,

14(1), 3–23.

Ferrell, J., & Hamm, M. S. (Eds.). (1998). Ethnography at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field

research. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J. (2008). Cultural criminology. London: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Hirschfield, P. (2008). Preparing for prison: The criminalization of school discipline in the USA.

Theoretical Criminology, 12, 79–101.

Hirschfield, P., & Celinska, K. (2011). Beyond fear: Sociological perspectives on the criminalization

of school discipline. Sociology Compass, 5(1), 1–12.

Problematizing School Discipline and Struggling for Verstehen

38

Kupchik, A. (2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York: New York

University Press.
Losen, D. J., & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of school and off track: The overuse of suspensions in

American middle and high schools. Los Angeles: The UCLA Center for Civil Rights Remedies

at the Civil Rights Project.

Mitchum, P., & Moodie-Mills, A. C. (2014). Beyond bullying: How hostile school climate perpetuates

the school-to-prison pipeline for LGBT youth. Washington, DC: Center for American

Progress.

Mowen, T. J. (2015). Parental involvement in school and the role of school security measures.

Education and Urban Society, 47(7), 830–848

Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013.

Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and US Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Young, J. (2011). The criminological imagination. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.