Testing the validity of the Goldthorpe class schema

Abstract

Goldthorpe's class schema is arguably the most influential conceptualization and operationalization of social class in European sociology. However, as of yet there is no study of the schema's validity. The aim of this paper is to test the criterion-related validity of the employee classes within the schema by examining their association with a range of relevant occupational characteristics. Using data from a British national probability survey it is shown that the schema predicts those characteristics—employment and payment conditions and future prospects—which are considered central to Goldthorpe's concept of class, as well as secondary distinguishing characteristics of classes; control over work activities, authority relations, and levels of pay. Moreover, the finding of a particularly strong association between class and indicators of employment conditions, is consistent with the key distinction—between a service relationship and a labour contract—embodied in the schema. Overall, the data provide support for the division of the schema into a hierarchy of service, intermediate, and working classes. In addition, it is shown that most methods of aggregation have only minor consequences for the validity of the schema, although in some cases there is a reduction in its predictive power. It is concluded that the schema operationalizes the basic principles of Goldthorpe's conceptualization of the class structure. The only minor deviation from the pattern of divisions embodied in the schema is the failure to find clear differences between the employment relations of skilled workers (class VI) and semi- and unskilled workers (class VII), and between classes I and II. This supports the strategy of aggregating those pairs of classes to form the ‘salariat’ and the ‘working class’.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 289 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.