Socioeconomic inequalities in education are defined as the disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes for learners caused by differences in their income and/or access to resources. The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on students’ academic performance (AP) has been discussed widely among social researchers since the Coleman Report in 1966 (Selvitopu & Kaya, 2021). After this landmark study, SES is one of the most used demographic variables in education research pertaining to students’ academic performance. Higher academic achievement usually leads to well-paying jobs post-graduation and better life satisfaction. As Liu et al. (2022) explain, “families with higher SES also tend to show more knowledge of education and have greater expectations about what education provides, which promotes children’s motivation to learn” (Liu et al., 2022, p. 2868).

Students from low-SES backgrounds are at a severe disadvantage compared to students from high-SES backgrounds. Their progress in academic development is slower, which results in lower test scores. They are also at higher risk of dropping out of school which leads to fewer career options. The students’ well-being and safety are also impacted according to research which has shown a correlation between socioeconomic inequalities and higher crime rates. The parents of a student play a big role in a student’s SES. Selvitopu and Kaya (2021) explain that “parental occupation, parental income, and parental educational attainment can generally be seen as three common indicators of the SES of students” (Selvitopu & Kaya, 2021, p. 768).

Video 1: Justice in the American Experience (2017, April 28). Effects of Socioeconomic Inequality on Education [Video]. YouTube.

As a software engineer who volunteered to tutor in the underserved area of West Side Chicago, I witnessed firsthand the realities of SES on students’ academic performance. For example, due to financial struggles, some students were not focused on their schoolwork and were instead doing odd jobs to contribute money towards their parents’ monthly rent obligations. These students would lack the energy necessary for absorbing any new learning material due to being too physically and mentally exhausted. Another reality I observed was that some of the students would not be consistent in attending learning workshops due to limited access to transportation. Such absences would delay the students’ learning progress. A single social or economic factor or a combination of both factors can significantly influence a student’s educational outcome. As seen in the bar graph below representing science achievement gaps, produced by the non-profit think tank Fordham Institute, the Black-White gap is best explained by household income, and the Hispanic-White gap is best explained by the mother’s education.

Fig. 1: Achievement Gap in Science: (Fordham Institute, 2024)

The aim of this paper is to do an interpretive analysis using interpretive methods to explore research regarding socio-economic inequalities in education within their social and historical contexts. A better understanding of why achievement gaps occur can assist in developing informed policies that promote opportunities for all students. It is of utmost importance to understand the meanings that individuals affected by such inequalities give to their experiences. These meanings are defined by Cope and Kalantzis as “the processes of making sense of the world using material media and their associated cognitive architectures; making sense of what we encounter in the natural and human-historical worlds; making sense to each other; our social and personal means of intending and acting; the patterns in these meanings and the traces they leave in the form of media artifacts; and the transpositions of meaning across different forms (text, image, space, body, sound, and speech) and different attentions to meaning according to its functions (reference, agency, structure, context, and interest)” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2020, p. 11). 

This paper sets the stage for further discussion on increasing the dedication to understanding the realities associated with socio-economic inequalities in the field of education. Otherwise, these same education systems/institutions and their practices will “reflect and entrench the disadvantages” associated with these inequalities (Terzi et al., 2023). Terzi et al. further explain that we must strive to first understand “the perspectives and nuanced experiences of poor children, and what they and their parents say about school, and secondly, for understanding the interconnection between macro, meso, and micro level political, economic, and socio-cultural relationships to produce and maintain poverty. attention to empirical research into the experience of children in poverty within educational contexts, can contribute to developing more nuanced and appropriate responses at school, community, national, and international levels to make education a means for addressing poverty, and redistributing power” (Terzi et al., 2023). An individual’s social class is inextricably linked to their access to social influence, education, extracurricular activities, physical places, and social networks, which ultimately provide employment opportunities and consequently these realities emphasize the need for “reflexive and mindful interpretations of social-classed differences” (Jones & Vangle, 2013, p. 131).

The goal of interpretive research is “to provide insight into individuals’ perceptions and consciousness of the human experience. As such, it can provide insight into the experiences of marginalized and underrepresented populations, and help researchers cast a critical eye on issues of equity” (Emery & Anderman, 2020, p. 221). Although used interchangeably with qualitative research, interpretive research is fundamentally different. Qualitative research may or may not be interpretive, depending on the underlying philosophical assumptions of the researcher and it does not predefine dependent and independent variables, but instead focuses on the complexity of human sense making as the situation emerges (Klein & Myers, 1999). Soden et al. (2024) explain that “it draws broadly on a wide range of humanist, sociological, and anthropological traditions. We look for rich descriptions of participant experiences, along with the context specificity and depth associated with how participants interpret and understand those experiences. We often approach obtaining this data by thinking of the researcher as a kind of “human instrument”, leveraging their unique identities and experiences as well as their human ability to navigate the subtleties of a social setting and collective practices of meaning-making with their participants in a way that a strictly structured survey or other kind of tool may not” (Soden et al., 2024, p. 41). The video below, produced by Purdue University, explains interpretive research along with its methods and approaches, and that in order to make the most of interpretation and meaning making for interpretive research purposes, researchers should rely on methods that study, observe, and analyze.

Video 2: PurdueLibraries. (2024, December 2). Introduction to Interpretive Research [Video]. YouTube.

Regarding interpretive research, Pervin and Mokhtar explain that “as a research paradigm, interpretive research is based on the premise that social reality is shaped by way of human experience and social backdrop, thereby making it well suited to do research on human behaviors which are related in the context of its socio-cultural issues. Interpretive researchers see social truth as embedded of their social surroundings and it's far not possible to summary from it due to the fact they "explain truth through a method of understanding in place of a hypothesis trying out method with the aid of using and integrating the participants’ subjective experiences, notions and beliefs of their respective social and cultural context” (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022, p. 421). In order to help others better understand the methodological foundations and potential of interpretive research, Klein and Myers proposed a set of principles as seen in the table below (Klein & Myers, 1999).

Fig. 2: Interpretive Research Principles: (Klein & Myers, 1999)

Bhattacherjee (2012) explains the roots of interpretive research in "in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics, and has been available since the early 19th century, long before positivist techniques were developed. Many positivist researchers view interpretive research as erroneous and biased, given the subjective nature of the qualitative data collection and interpretation process employed in such research. However, the failure of many positivist techniques to generate interesting insights or new knowledge has resulted in a resurgence of interest in interpretive research since the 1970’s, albeit with exacting methods and stringent criteria to ensure the reliability and validity of interpretive inference" (Bhattacherjee, 2012).

The following breakdown shows the differences between interpretive and positivist research according to Bhattacherjee (Bhattacherjee, 2012):

1. Interpretive research employs a theoretical sampling strategy, where study sites, respondents, or cases are selected based on theoretical considerations such as whether they fit the phenomenon being studied (e.g., sustainable practices can only be studied in organizations that have implemented sustainable practices), whether they possess certain characteristics that make them uniquely suited for the study (e.g., a study of the drivers of firm innovations should include some firms that are high innovators and some that are low innovators, in order to draw contrast between these firms), and so forth. In contrast, positivist research employs random sampling (or a variation of this technique), where cases are chosen randomly from a population, for purposes of generalizability. Hence, convenience samples and small samples are considered acceptable in interpretive research as long as they fit the nature and purpose of the study, but not in positivist research.

2. The role of the researcher receives critical attention in interpretive research. In some methods such as ethnography, action research, and participant observation, the researcher is considered part of the social phenomenon, and her specific role and involvement in the research process must be made clear during data analysis. In other methods, such as case research, the researcher must take a “neutral” or unbiased stance during the data collection and analysis processes, and ensure that her personal biases or preconceptions do not taint the nature of subjective inferences derived from interpretive research. In positivist research, however, the researcher is considered to be external to and independent of the research context and is not presumed to bias the data collection and analytic procedures.

3. Interpretive analysis is holistic and contextual, rather than being reductionist and isolationist. Interpretive interpretations tend to focus on language, signs, and meanings from the perspective of the participants involved in the social phenomenon, in contrast to statistical techniques that are employed heavily in positivist research. Rigor in interpretive research is viewed in terms of systematic and transparent approaches for data collection and analysis rather than statistical benchmarks for construct validity or significance testing.

4. Data collection and analysis can proceed simultaneously and iteratively in interpretive research. For instance, the researcher may conduct an interview and code it before proceeding to the next interview. Simultaneous analysis helps the researcher correct potential flaws in the interview protocol or adjust it to capture the phenomenon of interest better. The researcher may even change her original research question if she realizes that her original research question is unlikely to generate new or useful insights. This is a valuable but often understated benefit of interpretive research, and is not available in positivist research, where the research project cannot be modified or changed once the data collection has started without redoing the entire project from the start.

The data collected for an interpretive research is obtained "using a variety of techniques. The most frequently used technique is interviews (face-to-face, telephone, or focus groups). Interview types and strategies are discussed in detail in a previous chapter on survey research. A second technique is observation. Observational techniques include direct observation, where the researcher is a neutral and passive external observer and is not involved in the phenomenon of interest (as in case research), and participant observation, where the researcher is an active participant in the phenomenon and her inputs or mere presence influence the phenomenon being studied (as in action research). A third technique is documentation, where external and internal documents, such as memos, electronic mails, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, websites, may be used to cast further insight into the phenomenon of interest or to corroborate other forms of evidence" (Bhattacherjee, 2012).

A qualitative study involving the Chicago Heights School District (SD) 170 done by Perrigo et al. (2022) found that “disparities in academic achievement have been well documented between low– and high-socioeconomic status (SES) students in the United States. Studies point to education-related parental involvement as a key factor in academic accomplishments, with higher parental involvement facilitating higher academic achievement” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 224). This study “involved a transdisciplinary research team of social workers, psychologists, and economists who collected primary qualitative data” from local parents (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 225). The study employed a method of individual interviews to identify parents’ individual definitions of parental involvement and processes that reflected their involvement relative to their children’s educational activities. This sequential approach allowed for confirmation of focus group findings through triangulation, as seen in the table below (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 225).

Fig. 3: Focus Group & Individual Interview Participants: (Perrigo et al., 2022)

The parents in this study were invited to participate in one-hour focus group discussions and were informed ahead of time that these discussions would center around their “educational-related parental involvement experiences” which included how they would define its practice (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 226). The questions presented to them were designed in a unique and semi structured manner with the goal to “elicit information about participants’ perceptions and experiences of parental involvement, as well as other germane factors related to their children’s academic-related functioning. Focus group questions were open-ended to enable participants to elaborate on issues they considered important or relevant” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 226).

These interviews allowed the researchers to explore the social phenomena of one of the most important factors in the academic achievement of low-SES students. These interviews also allowed the participants (parents) to be heard on this topic tied directly to their lived experiences, beliefs, and perspectives. The moderators in this study “encouraged authentic responses and elicited parents’ opinions about their education-related involvement. Primary questions included parents’ perceptions of their children’s academic performance, perceived contributions to children’s educational performance, the role of parental involvement, barriers and facilitators to parental involvement, and potential adjustments in response to limited socioeconomic resources. The individual interview questions were open-ended to enable participants to elaborate on issues they considered important or relevant” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 226).

The analysis of the interview transcripts (ranging from a phrase to several paragraphs), of which the focus groups were analyzed before the individual interviews, involved the assigning of specific codes that represented “emergent themes” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 227). The analysis also allowed the researchers to have an “immersed experience” since they did both the coding and the analyzing themselves. The researchers in this study held meetings to decipher the connections (or lack of) between the codes and used an analysis software called Dedoose to develop interpretive insights (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 227). This data helped in identifying broad themes. One such theme that was highlighted was how low-SES families defined and practiced parental involvement. The interviewed parents shared that they “relied on extended family networks, especially siblings in the household, to circumvent their own limitations and provide additional academic support to their children” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 232). Based on this feedback, the researchers suggest that “the concept of parental involvement should be more broadly defined to accurately capture the efforts of low-SES parents to directly support their children’s academic progress. That is, school leaders should weigh family involvement as a valuable aspect of parental involvement. This finding has implications for professional development at school sites. School social workers can provide trainings to broaden teachers’ and school staff sociocultural understanding of family needs in school community settings. Trainings can include different perspectives and limitations of conventional parental involvement definitions” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 232).

For additional insight into this paper’s topic, exploring socioeconomic inequalities affecting students, quantitative data, as seen in the study by Selvitopu and Kaya, shows that there is a significant correlation between SES and academic performance. They interpret these findings to indicate that “different types of SES measures have divergent impacts on the relation between SES and academic performance. While parental occupation produced the highest effect size, other variables produced lower effects” (Selvitopu & Kaya, 2021, p. 774).

Fig. 4: Effect of SES on Student's Academic Performance (Selvitopu & Kaya, 2021)

Although interpretive studies/research are valuable in understanding and making meaning of human experiences, they have several limitations. These can include challenges related to subjectivity, generalizability, and potential bias. As Pervin and Mokhtar (2022) explain “the notions of subjectivity and interpretivism complement each other because a researcher who uses an interpretivist approach must be interested in the subjective meanings of the participants because this gives an understating to other people and the world they live in; nevertheless, researchers have curiosity to discover and explore how people make sense of their surroundings, how they understand other people's activities, and how they perceive interpersonal-social relationships in the contest they are surrounded in” (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022, p. 424). This subjective nature can lead to varied/different findings of the same data by different researchers. In addition, a researcher can unintentionally influence a participant’s response through the nature of their interactions and questions/queries. One way to mitigate this challenge would be to implement the use of neutral language/questions. 

The term "neutral questioning" was first used by Dervin in 1981 to describe specific communication techniques taught at workshops for practicing librarians with the goal of enabling them to understand the question from the user’s point of view (Dervin & Dewdney, 1986, p. 508). This technique provides the participants “with control--with the freedom to unfold their stories in a human way” and allows them to direct “the interaction to the most pertinent aspects” of their experience (Dervin & Dewdney, 1986, p. 509). The diagram below shows the relationship between the three types of questions, which are all options that are appropriate depending on the circumstances (Dervin & Dewdney, 1986).

Fig. 5: Relationship of Closed, Open, and Neutral Questions (Dervin & Dewdney, 1986)

Other concerns that arise from interpretive research are potential harm to participants’ privacy and confidentiality. Measures need to be undertaken by the researchers to ensure that the studies are conducted in a respectful and ethical manner. Before any information is collected, informed consent must be obtained from each participant. Secure platforms should be used that has the ability to encrypt data and remove any identifying information. A data management plan should be implemented where only authorized individuals who have been trained in data protection procedures can access sensitive information. Any unnecessary data should be properly disposed of to prevent unauthorized access. Research review panels, e.g., Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), can serve as oversight committees to protect and manage risk to human participants in research.

There are many changes that need to be made to improve the educational outcomes of low-socioeconomic students. I think one of the main important themes that emerge after collecting data and analyzing it is that the quantification of such data is not necessarily perfect since it may not give an authentic picture of what’s really going on. For example, some parents assume that the fewer hours spent on parent-teacher communication is a good thing since they think it means their child is not having any issues and is doing well. Therefore, metrics like “family involvement measurements should not only quantify the amount of parent–teacher communication but also qualify how the communication contributes to child development and learning” (Perrigo et al., 2022, p. 232). We must demand the adoption of a “ethically informed, normative position on the desirability and the feasibility of intervening in our educational institutions, in ways that promote people’s real possibilities for leading a flourishing life” (Terzi et al., 2023, p. 60)

In conclusion, interpretive research tries to make meaning of social realities "through the subjective viewpoints of the embedded participants within the context where the reality is situated. These interpretations are heavily contextualized, and are naturally less generalizable to other contexts" (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Due to the heavily subjective nature, a specific set of standards is needed to assess the rigor of this type of research. The following outline was provided by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to accomplish this:

1. Dependability: Interpretive research can be viewed as dependable or authentic if two researchers assessing the same phenomenon using the same set of evidence independently arrive at the same conclusions or the same researcher observing the same or a similar phenomenon at different times arrives at similar conclusions. This concept is similar to that of reliability in positivist research, with agreement between two independent researchers being similar to the notion of inter-rater reliability, and agreement between two observations of the same phenomenon by the same researcher akin to test-retest reliability. To ensure dependability, interpretive researchers must provide adequate details about their phenomenon of interest and the social context in which it is embedded so as to allow readers to independently authenticate their interpretive inferences.

2. Credibility: Interpretive research can be considered credible if readers find its inferences to be believable. This concept is akin to that of internal validity in functionalistic research. The credibility of interpretive research can be improved by providing evidence of the researcher’s extended engagement in the field, by demonstrating data triangulation across subjects or data collection techniques, and by maintaining meticulous data management and analytic procedures, such as verbatim transcription of interviews, accurate records of contacts and interviews, and clear notes on theoretical and methodological decisions, that can allow an independent audit of data collection and analysis if needed.

3. Confirmability: refers to the extent to which the findings reported in interpretive research can be independently confirmed by others (typically, participants). This is similar to the notion of objectivity in functionalistic research. Since interpretive research rejects the notion of an objective reality, confirmability is demonstrated in terms of “inter-subjectivity”, i.e., if the study’s participants agree with the inferences derived by the researcher. For instance, if a study’s participants generally agree with the inferences drawn by a researcher about a phenomenon of interest (based on a review of the research paper or report), then the findings can be viewed as confirmatory.

4. Transferability: refers to the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other settings. This idea is similar to that of external validity in functionalistic research. The researcher must provide rich, detailed descriptions of the research context (“thick description”) and thoroughly describe the structures, assumptions, and processes revealed from the data so that readers can independently assess whether and to what extent are the reported findings are transferable to other settings.