Phase 1 - Alternative Social Classifications

8. Alternative Social Classifications

8.1 Existing alternatives. The Committee was also asked to comment on alternative existing social classifications which might be evaluated in Phase 2. Partly in the light of the varying criticisms of current OPCS classifications, especially of RGSC, sociologists have created alternative social classifications and occupational scales which claim to be superior in both conception and use. At the same time, users of the RGSC in areas such as health and poverty research have attempted to find alternative indicators to provide what they see as improved analyses of the problems which they are investigating. Each of these is considered briefly in turn. Further details of existing alternatives are provided in Appendix 5.

8.2 Goldthorpe class scheme. The best-known sociological class scheme, and the one most widely used internationally, is that of Goldthorpe and his associates. While operationally similar to SEG (and therefore requiring information on occupational title and employment status, but also in some cases size of establishment in order to allocate people to classes) most sociologists regard the Goldthorpe scheme as superior, not least because of its clear conceptual basis and its more successful use in empirical research in areas such as social mobility and political behaviour. The full version of the scheme has twelve categories, but it is more commonly used in collapsed form as either a seven-, five- or three-category scheme.

8.3 Occupational scales. Apart from the Goldthorpe class scheme, a number of occupational scales have also been derived by British academics for use in studies of social inequality. The most recent of these are the Hope-Goldthorpe Scale and the Cambridge Scale. The Hope-Goldthorpe Scale was the first step in the Oxford mobility project and is related to the Goldthorpe class scheme. The Scale was derived from a survey of the social standing of occupations so that jobs were ranked in terms of their social desirability. In that sense, H-G is not a prestige scale but a cognitive judgement about the desirability of different occupations. Whereas the H-G scale is therefore a reputational evaluation, the Cambridge Scale (devised by Blackburn, Prandy and Stewart) is an associative one. Based on the scaling of survey respondents’ occupational friendship and marriage scores, the CS is regarded by its originators as a broad measure of social stratification and social inequality.

8.4 The Goldthorpe class scheme and the H-G and CS scales represent potential alternative measures to the RGSC, although the authors of the CS recognise that it needs updating. However, there has been little systematic, comparative evaluation of these various schemes. Clearly, one task for Phase 2 of the Review might be a truly systematic comparison and evaluation of alternatives, using appropriate existing datasets.

8.5 IPA Social Grade. While Goldthorpe’s scheme is the main social scientific alternative in Britain to the RGSC, there is also the IPA Social Grade (SG) scheme used mainly in market research. The SG is used for many purposes, such as defining target markets, planning and selling advertising, discriminating across markets and products, etc. Six grades (A, B, C1, C2, D and E) cover both the range of occupational groups and those on state benefits and pensions. The measurement of SG is based on employment status, current or previous occupation, organisation type, grade within the organisation, number of employees, number of people supervised or managed and qualifications.

8.6 Women’s occupational groups. Given the well-known problems of gender and social classification referred to earlier, we should also note the work of Martin and Roberts as part of the 1980 ED/OPCS Women and Employment Survey. For their research, Martin and Roberts produced a special classification of women’s occupational groups based on a modification of RGSC. This was designed to offer a more finely discriminating set of categories for women’s jobs and was achieved by sub-dividing those RGSC categories into which a large proportion of women’s jobs fall.

8.7 Non-occupational measures. Empirical researchers, especially in the health field, have also suggested alternatives to the RGSC, but generally through the construction of indices which summarise a range of relevant independent variables including RGSC. Researchers associated with the Child Health and Education Study at the University of Bristol are typical of this approach. Others (such as Fox and Goldblatt working with LS data) have noted the power of census consumption variables (such as housing tenure and car ownership) as alternatives to the RGSC in explaining mortality. On this basis, it has been suggested that other methods of classification could be more appropriate to studies of the mortality of women and the elderly, for example. The Committee has received a great deal of oral and written evidence from government departments, local government and academic users arguing for ‘non-occupational classifications’ for reasons we have already indicated and discussed.

8.1	Existing alternatives. The Committee was also asked to comment on alternative existing social classifications which might be evaluated in Phase 2. Partly in the light of the varying criticisms of current OPCS classifications, especially of RGSC, sociologists have created alternative social classifications and occupational scales which claim to be superior in both conception and use. At the same time, users of the RGSC in areas such as health and poverty research have attempted to find alternative indicators to provide what they see as improved analyses of the problems which they are investigating. Each of these is considered briefly in turn. Further details of existing alternatives are provided in Appendix 5.
8.2	Goldthorpe class scheme. The best-known sociological class scheme, and the one most widely used internationally, is that of Goldthorpe and his associates. While operationally similar to SEG (and therefore requiring information on occupational title and employment status, but also in some cases size of establishment in order to allocate people to classes) most sociologists regard the Goldthorpe scheme as superior, not least because of its clear conceptual basis and its more successful use in empirical research in areas such as social mobility and political behaviour. The full version of the scheme has twelve categories, but it is more commonly used in collapsed form as either a seven-, five- or three-category scheme.
8.3	Occupational scales. Apart from the Goldthorpe class scheme, a number of occupational scales have also been derived by British academics for use in studies of social inequality. The most recent of these are the Hope-Goldthorpe Scale and the Cambridge Scale. The Hope-Goldthorpe Scale was the first step in the Oxford mobility project and is related to the Goldthorpe class scheme. The Scale was derived from a survey of the social standing of occupations so that jobs were ranked in terms of their social desirability. In that sense, H-G is not a prestige scale but a cognitive judgement about the desirability of different occupations. Whereas the H-G scale is therefore a reputational evaluation, the Cambridge Scale (devised by Blackburn, Prandy and Stewart) is an associative one. Based on the scaling of survey respondents’ occupational friendship and marriage scores, the CS is regarded by its originators as a broad measure of social stratification and social inequality.
8.4	The Goldthorpe class scheme and the H-G and CS scales represent potential alternative measures to the RGSC, although the authors of the CS recognise that it needs updating. However, there has been little systematic, comparative evaluation of these various schemes. Clearly, one task for Phase 2 of the Review might be a truly systematic comparison and evaluation of alternatives, using appropriate existing datasets.
8.5	IPA Social Grade. While Goldthorpe’s scheme is the main social scientific alternative in Britain to the RGSC, there is also the IPA Social Grade (SG) scheme used mainly in market research. The SG is used for many purposes, such as defining target markets, planning and selling advertising, discriminating across markets and products, etc. Six grades (A, B, C1, C2, D and E) cover both the range of occupational groups and those on state benefits and pensions. The measurement of SG is based on employment status, current or previous occupation, organisation type, grade within the organisation, number of employees, number of people supervised or managed and qualifications.
8.6	Women’s occupational groups. Given the well-known problems of gender and social classification referred to earlier, we should also note the work of Martin and Roberts as part of the 1980 ED/OPCS Women and Employment Survey. For their research, Martin and Roberts produced a special classification of women’s occupational groups based on a modification of RGSC. This was designed to offer a more finely discriminating set of categories for women’s jobs and was achieved by sub-dividing those RGSC categories into which a large proportion of women’s jobs fall.
8.7	Non-occupational measures. Empirical researchers, especially in the health field, have also suggested alternatives to the RGSC, but generally through the construction of indices which summarise a range of relevant independent variables including RGSC. Researchers associated with the Child Health and Education Study at the University of Bristol are typical of this approach. Others (such as Fox and Goldblatt working with LS data) have noted the power of census consumption variables (such as housing tenure and car ownership) as alternatives to the RGSC in explaining mortality. On this basis, it has been suggested that other methods of classification could be more appropriate to studies of the mortality of women and the elderly, for example. The Committee has received a great deal of oral and written evidence from government departments, local government and academic users arguing for ‘non-occupational classifications’ for reasons we have already indicated and discussed.