Teaching with objects in Sociology and Social Policy

Since its inception there have been sociologists who have encouraged sociology to be more than the study of relations between people, more than the study of how individuals relate to grand social processes (Delanda, 2006; Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Tarde, 2012). Olli Pyyhtinen’s book More Than Human Sociology (2015) revies this tradition and makes the cases for a ‘new sociological imagination’. More Than Human Sociology, moves beyond an anthropocentrism that remains an issue for sociology (Pyyhtinen, 2015). An anthropocentrism that in an era of climate crisis must be challenged. This call resonates with moves in a number of disciplines that involve that centering of objects and materiality.

A sociological imagination that understands humans as inseparable, entwined, with their environments, objects and other humans, is desirable. We are very sympathetic to this endeavor and have sought to explore how we might change our teaching of sociology in response to it. It appears to be a perfect moment to bring object-based learning into dialogue with the teaching of sociology. We ask the question ‘what place should object based learning’ have in a sociology that must become more than human in its focus?

Materiality and education in an online world

Materiality has an obvious, organic place in many disciplines; fashion design, engineering, archeology, earth sciences – all require interaction with and sometimes creation or reproduction of objects and networks of objects. Bringing material culture to the fore, however, is more unusual in some areas of study, but tapping into it can bring huge benefits to the learning experience and complement the norm of studying in online spaces. Materiality has for some time now been discussed in sociology, but teachers of sociology typically spend little time exploring material objects with their students in classrooms. Our collaboration explores putting material objects front and centre in the sociology classroom.

The rise of ebooks before, during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, has deepened the connection between reading and the online space, with 49% of books in UK academic libraries now in ebook format and usage of physical books by students continuing to decline (SCONUL, 2024). Given the multipurpose nature of our personal devices, everyday experiences of study, life administration and leisure now have extraordinarily blurred lines. The apps and tabs that we rely on for work, leisure and survival, sit side by side on our devices; an online shop may vie for our attention whilst we read our emails, check bank accounts or proofread work. Reading has in many ways been encompassed into the immaterial as a contemporary digital experience (Citton, 2017).

Our online existences, however, are being continually edited and managed by large scale corporations who are actively making profit driven decisions on our behalf. Our choices are thus limited in an environment that purports to be limitless, because everything that we do is mediated and controlled by companies such as Amazon, Netflix and Spotify. These platforms rely on algorithms that enable access to culture in unprecedented fashions, but the curation of content often reflects the interests of the platform. This control is even in evidence in the academic sphere, with major publishers continuing to dictate terms to universities about access to knowledge and ideas – this despite the Open Access movement in academic publication. Digital transformation has simultaneously widened access to culture and engendered new forms of algorithmic control.

Depending on the nature of the objects we study, analogue objects are often freer from algorithmic control than digitally connected objects, such as mobile phones. A disposable coffee cup and lid for example, combine to become a single analogue tool. Using such analogue objects as a focus for learning can result in a multitude of unique conversations and outputs, all of which will be influenced by specific learning goals, the personalities involved and the environment in which the learning is taking place. There is something radical about returning to the analogue and material objects at a time of digital supremacy.

The functions of many analogue objects have been erased and replaced by our phones, tablets and other personal computers, whilst data centers and other parts of the digital infrastructure remain out of public view. The online learning environment might usefully be parked as students engage their senses to consider an object and questions relating to it. Emphasising materiality and our mutual entanglements through object-based learning encourages students to analyze the networks of physical and social relations that enable our day to day lives and encourages reflection on which objects are visible and which are not (Citton, 2017).

In our work with students of Sociology, we ask students to dissect period products, look at their composition, consider their functionality, packaging and consumption cycle. None of this requires input from personal devices, but the experience could be enhanced by them if we wanted students to take photographs of their investigation or find information about online marketing campaigns or statistics relating to period poverty. Placing the spotlight of the sociological imagination upon everyday objects encourages us to reflect on the social relations that produce, distribute and sell objects to us in thing-laden world. The world of things is maintained by social relations that we give little thought to in our day-to-day lives. In this way, objects both analogue and digital are ideal conduits for examining society both in temporary isolation from and alongside the modes of online learning that we now see as normal in universities. 

Students taking part in experimental workshops at the University of Leeds which introduced them to the concept and practice of working with objects, positively commented on the experience:
“[this is] not the kind of thing I normally get to engage with on my course. I usually look at quite dense, academic, theoretical books and articles, and mostly online, so this felt like a really interesting way to properly connect with the topics and context of the objects.” (Student quote).

Not only were students engaged by the materiality of the workshops, but they also found the experience of thinking with others in this context highly beneficial: “I think for group work, it is perfect. It gives you a sense of belonging and it is quite fun when you try to know something from scratch.” (Student quote). This conscious enjoyment of active critical engagement with peers, supports art historian Jules Prown’s assertion that: “Reality thereby resides in the interpretation, in the mind of the analyst, and interpretation is conditioned by, indeed limited by, the interpreter’s own cultural givens.” (Prown, as cited in Kingery 1996. p. 24). We’ll come back to Prown’s “...cultural givens” later, but it is worth considering that listening to, engaging with and responding to others when analysing objects, may signify students going beyond the confines of structured group work into a deeper and perhaps more organic way of working together (Prown, as cited in Kingery, 1996, p. 24).  

Social learning has multiple benefits when situated in the practice of learning with objects. Where students work together, they can explore contrasting perspectives and perceptions and begin to make visible our mutual entanglements. Walk through any social learning space and you will see this in action; students working physically alongside one another, the sharing of ideas and technologies feeding their sense of belonging and ability to tackle their learning. 

Multisensory learning

Learning with objects is not a mere novelty or pedagogical throwback. The benefits of multisensory learning and its contribution to wellbeing are clear (Candlin, 2017; Kador & Chatterjee, 2020) and there is strong anecdotal evidence that students find learning with objects highly memorable, with a higher-than-normal probability of retaining information relating to those experiences. 

In an on-campus context, the physicality of learning with objects brings a different dynamic to engagement in the discipline; whilst students of geology may be used to handling specimens and moving around a lab, being seated and static is more often the classroom default in university teaching in the arts, humanities and social sciences (with several notable exceptions such as textiles and fine art). Effective learning with objects is likely to involve moving around a room to enable participants to draw meaning from objects and interact with others. Sharing equipment such as a cutting mat or magnifying glass creates purposeful movement which is a natural product of the learning environment: not a gimmick to trick participants into engagement, but a necessity of involvement. In a world where our interactions are increasingly immaterial mediated through screens and phones, objects encourage reflection on our relationships with other people, and the objects that facilitate our day-to-day living. Object basing learning has the potential to encourage students to reflect on our mutual entanglements and dependencies, through asking questions such as: ‘Who made this object?’ ‘How did it get here? ‘Where do the materials come from?’ 

Rethinking sources of information

Textual information is created to be read, transmit messages to the reader and perhaps stimulate action. However, when we look at objects, their messaging and intentions may work quite differently. A workplace lanyard for example, transmits information about the wearer, their place of work, perhaps their name, pronouns and other signifiers (badges attached to the lanyard for example, which the wearer may choose to represent different aspects of themselves). Each lanyard has layers of meaning depending on the context in which it is being worn, by whom it is being worn and by whom it is being viewed. It may also allow the wearer access to spaces that would otherwise be closed, and as such it signals a level of privilege. Alternatively, it might signify hierarchy and reinforce concepts of status. A lanyard therefore is just as much a primary source of information as a diary or data log, but the methods by which we can understand and interpret it may vary considerably from textual sources.

In a teaching scenario, if we present sociology students with a lanyard or other type of uniform object, then what questions does it open? Questions of identity, power, hierarchy, status and belonging are likely to emerge. Given that objects are often traces of wider groupings, uniform shows the affiliation of an individual to an institution or organisation. The means by which a line of investigation and discussion about these issues with students is facilitated will often involve posing open and Socratic questions, in addition to focused tasks designed to elicit specific outputs. Questions that may be helpful include: 

What do you mean by that?

Why do you think that?

How could you investigate your idea?

What evidence do you have to back up your claim?

The question of cultural capital

On a campus such as the University of Leeds, where international and ‘home country’ students learn together, the issue of cultural capital may present both challenges and an opportunities for learning with objects in sociology. Contrasting experiences and assumptions based on status, concepts of ‘value’ etc may make discussions about objects challenging, but also rich and fascinating. In the light of this, academic colleagues and learning designers have a responsibility to ensure that individual social and cultural positions are both respected and open to discussion. We have a duty to monitor the use of cultural capital by one group to put down or penalise another group. A certain amount of cognitive dissonance may be encountered by individuals and reflection on this as it occurs could be a useful learning point to draw out in teaching. 

Academic colleagues and learning designers should consider a range of factors to make learning experiences inclusive and productive including: 

1. Recognising that the selection of objects and the way in which they are situated within the curriculum have equal roles in enabling everyone within the learning space to make valued contributions. Are your objects potentially problematic or emotionally charged for example?  If so, is this useful to your learning objectives, or does it pose a threat to them?

2. Invite students to challenge cultural assumptions. A black cat for example, might signify good or bad luck in different cultures; are these interpretations made welcome and recognised as valuable to discussions?

3. Foreground and model active listening as an essential attribute of group communication.  If we only focus on our perspective, we lose the potential to learn from others.

4. Encourage students to consider a range of hypotheses and questions. Are definitive answers necessary or useful?

The way ahead

Bringing materiality into learning has demonstrable and recognised benefits across multiple disciplines at all levels of study (Barton & Wilcocks, 2017; de Kluis et al., 2024; Grafe, 2021). Objects have the potential to hold a special place in learning and teaching in sociology and learning with objects may enhance student engagement with the discipline and allow them to practice and develop personal and professional skills which may be challenging to do so in didactic teaching.   Working directly with objects can stimulate reflection on our relationships with the material and natural worlds and other people. Furthermore, in the digital age, soon to be accelerated by AI, learning with objects may deepen the learning experience, shifting our focus from the virtual to the material world; from received and regurgitated thought to ideas and hypotheses created by original critical thinking.

We believe that blending active and experiential learning with social theory and engagement with literature can provide a meaningful and dynamic learning pathway for students of sociology. Learning with objects will present academic staff and learning designers with novel ways of working together and with students.

Considerations for academic staff when considering learning with objects include:

1. Creating well defined, specific learning outcomes.

2. Grounding yourself in the pedagogy of active and experiential learning.

3. Involving learning developers in the design of modules and programmes.

4. Seeking out good practice in learning with objects and a pedagogical understanding of the area. 

5. Consider ways to ease students into the process of learning with objects with low risk and high reward activities. 

6. Develop a classroom environment which values collaboration and constructive discussion.

At the University of Leeds, a previously disparate community of staff practicing learning with objects is slowly coming together. Some colleagues have long been using the pedagogy without formally recognising it as such, and conversations with them and with new adopters demonstrate the diversity of application across disciplines.

In the School of Sociology and Social Policy, a new undergraduate module The Sociology of Objects launches in autumn 2024. Many aspects of the module have taken shape through conversations between the authors and peers with an interest in learning with objects. Crucial to the success of these discussions has been a culture of reciprocal respect for our specific areas of expertise, together with an openness and willingness to innovate and experiment with new ideas and pedagogies. As a side note, a particular joy of successful collaboration is the freedom to innovate without judgement and build on one another’s ideas – another good reason to actively seek out colleagues with similar interests and attitudes. 

At its heart, the Sociology of Objects module considers what it means to centre objects in the study of human society and the analysis of material culture. A combination of contemporary and unique historical objects provides a gateway for students to ask fundamental questions, such as: What role do objects have in enabling and disabling human relationships and interactions?  

Beyond 2024, we seek to expand our understanding of learning with objects by:

1. Engaging with local, national and international peers through dissemination and networking activities.

2. Researching student experiences of learning with objects in sociology.

3. Exploring further opportunities to build learning with objects into the curriculum and student research projects. 

4. Consider learning with objects in the context of a rapidly developing culture of AI in education.

In the same way that learning with objects requires a curious mindset, we seek to develop our understanding of and research into how this pedagogy can contribute to fostering that same mindset in our students. A successful university education should, after all, enable students to think well, see the world in different ways and challenge their own capabilities and assumptions.