Does Disciplinary Power enforce good or bad behaviour from students in York University Accommodation?
Introduction
When looking at Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power, we looked at our own expectations compared with our actual experiences of living in university run accommodation. With most students coming to university, it is the first time that they will live on ‘their own’, without the rules and restrictions that they had when living at home with their parents, therefore a degree of freedom and independence was expected. However, we noticed that our actions were restricted by the rules imposed on us due to the acceptance of the university run accommodation. From our own experiences, we witnessed students displaying bad behavioural characteristics through resistance. This led our group to investigate the impact that the rules have on students’ behaviours and the universities use of disciplinary power to ‘control’ students’ behaviour. We also wanted to determine from the student’s perspective, the impact these controls had on their behaviour.
Methodology
There has been a lot of research conducted to study the behaviours of students and their resistance to authority, however they were not written in the students’ perspective. By investigating the behaviours of students from their perspective, it allows us to have a more accurate account of their experiences and the impact that the university’s restrictions has on them. It also enables us to determine why students either conform or resist the power. Through using a qualitative approach allowed us to get a more gathering data of human emotions and opinions. As students we were well aware that we had an inside perspective and were actively living under the universities rules. We tried to limit our subjectivity by keeping an open mind throughout the research process, therefore reducing bias.
The methods of data collection that we used were interviews, questionnaires (see Appendix 1) and reflective diaries. The interviews we carried out were semi structured; therefore we were allowed to ask additional questions to probe the participant if more elaboration was needed. A semi structured format was selected as it enabled us to get a very explanatory study, which helped us to understand the variables in the relationship between disciplinary power and students’ behaviours (Finn, 2010). They were conducted in an informal setting as we felt that this would enable the participants to be at ease, therefore allowing us to get a more in-depth account of their opinions. We cared out 17 interviews over five of the seven colleges. By using personal diaries we could observe our peers behaviours over a long period of time, give us an accurate account of student behaviour. Through using a variety of methods for data collection we had a more comprehensive range of information and also allowed us to make observations in a natural environment.
Sprouse (as cited in Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999, p. 2) defines misbehaviour as, ‘anything you do at work you are not supposed to do’. However, for the purpose of this essay, the term misbehaviour refers to any deviation for the rules and regulations in the Terms and Conditions of Residence (2010). Furthermore, as we needed to specifically focus on whether enforcement of these rules was effective we used the word ‘misbehaviour’ over ‘bad’ behaviour due to ‘bad’ having more generic negative connotations.
York University Accommodation
Due to the university’s accomplishments in achieving academic excellence in both education and research, thousands of students from around the world apply for a place in the university every year; therefore it is important that there is adequate accommodation available. The University of York is a collegiate university, which helps ‘to foster a strong sense of community, providing members with opportunities to form friendships, take part in social and sporting events’ (What is college life like at York?, 2009) within their colleges. The university consist of eight colleges, of which, seven are available to undergraduate students, all providing accommodation of various contract lengths, prices and facilities (see Appendix 2). We used Foucault’s (1995) idea of disciplinary power to identify the control measures that the university has on the students living in the accommodation.
Power
Lukes (2005) illustrates the three dimensions of power. The first dimension demonstrates that ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’ (Dahl, 1957, pp. 202-203). This is considered to be a unitary power as all the power is held by one party, however, conflicts can arise if B resists against A’s instructions, therefore all conflict will be overt. The second dimension, referred to as ‘agenda control’ (Lukes, 2005, p. 111) uses unobservable behaviour to manipulate the shared information, for example, exercising power to keep issues off the agenda to avoid potential conflicts or resistance arising (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962). This demonstrates the monopolistic system as A has the control of the information available to B, further illustrating the nature of ‘power’ and ‘powerlessness’. At the third dimension, otherwise known as institutional power, issues are latent and unobservable. As identified by Lukes (2005) manipulation and authority are two forms of power which receive little resistance. The lack of conflict and resistance against authority is contributed to a variety of factors, such as socials norms. Through social interaction, individuals understand the behaviours that are acceptable in society (Garrouste, 1999), therefore, understand that they should show respect towards people in authority. This could result in reduced resistance or conflict against them. In contrast, the use of manipulation forces individuals to unknowingly follow commands, contrary to their own interests. These two forms of power are used to prevent conflicts by shaping people’s perceptions and preferences so that they accept the existing order of things. However, ‘power is never without resistance’ (Fleming & Spicer, 2008, p. 306), as when people feel that their actions are being controlled, they may try to break free of the constraints imposed by those in power.
Disciplinary Power
Disciplinary power is an expansion on Lukes third dimension as it uses covert methods to control people’s behaviours through the use of norms. Foucault illustrates power to be a ‘set of tools which achieved their aims through disciplinary practices such as punishment, surveillance, coercion and assessment’ (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004, p. 837). To demonstrate Foucault’s ideology of disciplinary power, he uses the metaphor of the ‘Panopticon’, a prison with an observation tower in the centre. Designed by Jeremy Bentham, a famous philosopher, this design structure permitted guards easy surveillance of the prisoners, without them being aware of when they are being observed or not. People’s behaviours are influenced as ‘visibility is a trap’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 200), and when people feel that they are being observed their behaviour alters positively, due to the fear of punishment if caught misbehaving. Foucault (1995) applies the surveillance method used in prisons to other institutions, such as schools, hospitals and factories. Due to technological advancements, such as CCTV, power can be internalised into society, therefore allowing for control of entire communities from one platform. Through the use of manipulation and social norms, and also fear of punishment if caught misbehaving, disciplinary power provides an on-going omnipresent exercise of power, therefore constantly controlling individuals’ behaviours. Hierarchical Observation
The three primary techniques of control in modern ‘disciplinary’ society are hierarchical observation, normalizing judgement and examination. The first technique, hierarchical observation, refers to the exercise of discipline with the aid of apparatus enabling surveillance. Foucault (1995) determines that ‘the perfect disciplinary apparatus would make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly’ (p.173). The university uses CCTV to observe students behaviour in all accommodation buildings. However due to regulations, CCTV equipment cannot be used in the students residences’, where most misbehaviour occurs. Therefore the university has adopted a ‘new regime of surveillance’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 175) through the use of ‘supervisors’. An example of this is random room checks, where faculty members, using a duplicate key, enter your room and inspect all the facilities and that the students do not have any ‘forbidden’ objects, such as kitchen appliances. The university also has porters and security guards that patrol the areas around the university residences and also handle complaints from students. However, supervisory presence varies between the different colleges in the university depending on the location of the porters lodge in relation to the residence. Most colleges, have been constructed in a similar idea to the ‘Panopticon’ with the residence building being built around the porters lodges, therefore allowing them to supervise the students behaviours. However, Goodricke College is laid out differently with the residence buildings situated further away from the porter, therefore can only identify misbehaviour, when notified by other students. This allows the students in Goodricke more freedom and independence: We have been allowed to have parties [in our residence] with music playing after 12 without being told to turn down the music (Claire). Foucault (1995) goes on to explain that ‘although surveillance rests on individuals, its functioning is that of a network of relations from top to bottom’ (p. 176), indicating that supervisors are not the highest power and also need to be supervised. Normalizing Judgement
Secondly, normalizing judgement illustrates that for disciplines to be obeyed, expectable behaviours need to be identified, and consequences for poor performance need to be determined. Through the use of the Terms and Conditions of Residence (2010), the university has determined the standards that are expected from the students, and defines the concept of what is considered normal (Llamas & Manuel, 2006). The regulations are clearly stated, for example, smoking in the residence and possession of flammable materials, such as candles, are strictly forbidden in the residence due to the risk of fire. In addition the restrictions imposed on students, including no noise between 11pm and 8am, and no ball games outside, are illustrated in the Terms and Conditions (2010) and signs are visible around the accommodation.
The punishments for defying the rules are dependent on the seriousness of the breach, and range from fines, to referral of the matter to the college provost or termination from the residences (Terms and conditions of residence, 2010, pp. 17-18). Students are aware of the rules and the implications for not following them:
[We] sign a contract at the beginning of the year, if you break them then you get a warning, and then you get a fine if you break them (Steve).
Some students feel that ‘rather than fining for all the bad behaviour, we should have rewards too’ (George), however the university would argue that there is a reward and punishment system in place. This is because the residence with the cleanest kitchen in each college, at the end of each term, will get a reward, such as a bottle of wine. If the kitchen is considered messy by the cleaners, twice during a term then a fine is given to the residence. By setting a reward and punishment system, it allows the organisation to differentiate between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ students.
Examination
The final disciplinary technique is examination, such as a set task or trail, which allows one to judge the performance of individuals. The most obvious ‘examination’ of the students within the accommodation is the weekly kitchen cleaning, as there is a traffic light system in place. After the cleaners have cleaned the kitchen, they leave a notice on the kitchen door, rating the cleanliness of the kitchen prior to their arrival. A green notice signifies a tidy kitchen, and indicts the residences behaviour is acceptable compared to the universities expectations. An amber notice serves as a warning that the kitchen was not prepared to the universities expectations, and finally a red notice indicates that the cleanliness of the kitchen was not acceptable and the residence are identified as ‘badly’ behaved students. If any residence receives two red notices over one term then they will receive a fine as a punishment for deviating from the rules (see Appendix 3).
Resistance
As Lukes (2005) identifies, the university is a institutional power, with the advantage of authority figures enforcing the rules, resistance from students should be minimal. By the student ‘accepting this agreement you agree to abide fully by these terms and conditions’ (Terms and conditions of residence, 2010) and as the contract is legally binding, the power relationship between the students and university is unbalanced, with the university having more control. If students openly resist authority it could have severe consequences, such as, termination of residency agreement or exclusion from university (Terms and conditions of residence, 2010), supporting Manuel and Spicer’s (2006) argument that ‘students must go through the process of normalization to a greater or lesser extent and learn quickly the ‘rules of the game’ at university’ (p. 682).
In contrast, Foucault argues that ‘we are never trapped by power: it is always possible to modify its dominance in determined circumstances and according to the practice of strategy’ (as cited by Llamas & Manuel, 2006 p. 680). Fleming and Sewell (2002) support Foucault’s argument, by illustrating that resistance can be conducted covertly, by ‘doing just enough so that he appeared to be doing his duty and serving his own ‘interests’ without drawing sufficient attention toward himself’ (p. 863). Resistance is a form of power, similar to protests, as it allows students to speak against the university, with more people resisting together, the more influence they will have over the university.
Conformity
As it is an institutional power, it is a legitmate and authoritive power (Lukes, 2005), students will subconciously show respect towards authority due to their parental influences. From analysing the research, we have identified various reasons that student would demonstrate characteristics of ‘good’ behaviour, such as, peer pressure, fear of punishment, rewards and indifference.
Peer pressure can have a positive impact on behaviour as if others in the residence are considered to be ‘good’, then misbehaviour is unlikely to occur. This could be a result of not wanting to go against the behaviour that it considered exceptable within that residence. Our research identifies that some students do not want to cause conflicts or impose fines on others. One interview demonstrates this as they stated that they ‘don’t break the rules, not because of the rules, but for the other people I am living with’ (Fiona).
Another reason that students have desplayed conforming behaviour is due to the fear of being punished or having to pay a fine. ‘Students tend to have financial problems and fines would make their lives more difficult’ (George), therefore they do not want to break the rules. Also the punishments for breaking the rules can be quite strict, which could result in students conforming to the rules as it is the safest option.
As illustrated by Foucault (1995) for disciplinary power to be affective there needs to be rewards as well as punishments. The reward and punishment system used by the university seemed to work as through our observations, we noticed that most of the students cleaned the kitchen prior to the cleaners arrival. This resulted in residences getting a green notice a majority of the time. However, the research is not conclusive on whether the students cleared the kitchen surfaces to get a green notice, or because they did not want to get a red notice and risk having to pay a fine.
The final observation that we made from our research was that a majority of the students that displayed ‘good’ behaviour, was due to their indifference, as the rules imposed by the university did not impact their behaviour. This could result from individuals upbringing as the standard of acceptable behaviour has already been determined. However this could be due to students not engaging in any forbidden activities, as one student expressed:
‘[the rules] don’t impact me personally because I don’t do anything really bad that I would get kicked out of halls or uni’ (Suzy).
Reasons for misbehaviour
Students understand that by deviating and resisting the rules, they are showing characteristics of ‘bad’ behaviour. Through analysing our research, we have identified numerous reasons that students misbehave, such as, peer pressure, unclear boundaries of the rules and lack of authority figures.
Behaviour is subjective; therefore an individual’s behaviour can be easily altered depending on the behavioural tendencies of their peers. Interviews suggested that a majority of incidents of misbehaviour were in the presence of others, with their peers also joining in on the misbehaviour. For instance, when asked about misbehaviour in their residence, one student stated that they ‘smoke in [their] room all the time, and… with friends’ (Mark). In addition, our own reflective diaries have illustrated misbehaviours in relation to peers, such as parties, noise after 11pm, vandalism and inappropriate use of the fire extinguishers. From these experiences, we were able to identify that in addition to peers, our behaviours are influenced by boredom.
Another large contributor of misbehaviour is that students are unclear about some the restrictions and the penalties associated with particular rules. From the research collected from the interviews, one student stated if they could change the rules ‘[they] would make the rules more clear in terms of punishment’ (Kyle) and another was ‘unsure what is too far to warrant a fine’ (Dan). Students also identified that the traffic light system in the kitchens ‘worked because there were clear boundaries for the punishment’ (Kyle), further supporting the students need for rules to be clearly defined so that they know the boundaries. Therefore misbehaviours could be a result of them testing the boundaries to identify the limitations.
The finally factor in students misbehaviour is a lack of authority figures and individuals enforcing the compliance of the rules. As most misbehaviour occurs within the student’s residence, their behaviour and actions are unobservable, therefore they are able to ‘get away’ with more misbehaviour.
I know the rules are there, but if I wanted to, for example, smoke in my room, they wouldn’t stop me (Mark).
This statement is not made because the student thinks that the authority figures in their college cannot stop him from smoking in his room, he is actually demonstrating that they would not know if he did, therefore they cannot discipline or punish him.
Conclusion
The result shows that most students have broken the rules and have shown slight tendencies to misbehave, however the rules that they break are very minor, for instance having bleach in their bedrooms. The research illustrates that student conform to the rules a majority of the time, therefore are considered well behaved. This would indict that the student’s good behaviour is a result of the disciplinary practices used by the university, therefore suggesting that the use of disciplinary power enforces good behaviour. However, as there are still a lot of students that demonstrate severe acts of misbehaviour, such as vandalism, it indicts that the practices of discipline are not completely affective. To increase the university’s control of the students’ behaviour, they need to ensure that the rules and punishments for breaking particular rules are clearly stated to eliminate confusion. Also they need to increase the level of power and presence that the authority figures have over the students, as if the possibility of being caught misbehaving increases, then the level of misbehaviour will decrease. In conclusion, the research suggests that the university’s use of disciplinary practices enforces good behaviour; however our results are inconclusive as they show high levels of resistance and conformity. To determine a definite conclusion, more research will need to be carried out, such as expanding on the circumstances surrounding the origin of the behaviour. Also we would need to take into account the ages of the students that participated in the research as level of maturity may impact their behaviour.
Appendix 1
Interview Questions
(before asking the questions you may want to define what is meant by the term, misbehaviour. Also you can change the order of questions, add or change questions depending on the participant if it will help you to get a better answer. But remember not to ask any leading questions.)

-------------------------------------------------
Definition of Terms:-
-------------------------------------------------
Misbehaviour: any deviation from the rules set out in the university’s terms and conditions for residences
-------------------------------------------------
Types of misbehaviour: include but not limited to………notices left by university staff, red kitchen notices, smoking in your bedroom or flat, position of bleach products, candles or kitchen electronics, etc.

1. What rules are you aware of in your accommodation? 2. How do they enforce the rules? 3. Do the rules impact your behaviour? And how? 4. Do you feel that the consequences for misbehaviour are fair? And why? 5. Have you witnessed anyone ‘misbehaving’? And did anyone else witness this behaviour?

Questionnaire Questions
-------------------------------------------------
Definition of Terms:-
-------------------------------------------------
Misbehaviour: any deviation from the rules set out in the university’s terms and conditions for residences
-------------------------------------------------
Types of misbehaviour: include but not limited to………notices left by university staff, red kitchen notices, smoking in your bedroom or flat, possession of bleach products, candles or kitchen electronics in the bedroom, etc.

1. What accommodation do you live in?

2. Is there any misbehaviour in your flat? If yes, briefly explain some of the event/s
If no, go to Question 4

3. What was the cause of this misbehaviour?

4. Have you ever misbehaved? If yes, briefly explain the event/s
If no, go to question 6

5. Have you ever been punished for misbehaving? If yes, what was the punishment?
If no, why do you think that you have not been punished? put an ‘x’ in the box that applied to you best
[ ] it was your first violation
[ ] you have not been caught
[ ] the misbehaviour was not severe enough to warrant further action
[ ] you have not misbehaved

6. Do you feel that the degree of punishment is adequate for the misbehaviour committed? And why?

7. What influences your behaviour? put an ‘x’ in the box that applied to you best
[ ] Peers [ ] rules [ ] punishment [ ] fines 8. Do you think that the rules imposed are fair when you are paying for the accommodation?

9. Are there any rules you don’t agree with? And why?

10. How often do you see your porters around your college?
[ ] frequently [ ] occasionally [ ] rarely [ ] never

11. Do you feel that your good behaviour is rewarded?

Appendix 2
As of the academic year 2009/2010, there are 3735 university run residences on or off campus available to first year undergraduate students. The colleges available to undergraduate students are Alcuin, Derwent, James, Goodricke, Vanbrugh, Halifax and Langwith. The residences are separated into bands, referring to namely Alcuin, Derwent, James, Goodricke, Vanbrugh, Halifax and Langwith,
The different room types include, single, twin, ensuite, studio flat, and couples rooms, all self-catering, however, Langwith, James and Derwent have the option of catered meals, and Fairfax House, part of Vanbrugh, offers breakfast. Furthermore, the lengths of contract are 33, 39 and 51 weeks, also single sex accommodation is available to females in Halifax. The price of accommodation range from £68.95-£163.87 per week, depending on a period of the contract, age of the accommodation building, room type, facilities and catering preferences Appendix 3

References
The University of York (2009) What is college life like at York? (2009). Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/about/the-2010/. [Assessed 5 May 2011]
Terms and conditions of residence. (2010). York: The University of York.
Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organisational misbehaviour. London: Sage Publication.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American political science review, 56(4), 947-952.
Buchanan, D., & Huczynski, A. (2004). Organizational behaviour: an introductory text (fifth ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral science, 2(3), 201-215.
Finn, R. (2010). Qualitative methids for accounting and management. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Fleming, F., & Spicer, A. (2008). Beyond power and resistance: new approaches to organizational politics. Management communication quarterly, 21(3), 301-309.
Fleming, P., & Sewell, G. (2002). Looking for the good solider, Svejk: alternative modalites of resistance in the contemporary workplace. Sociology, 36(4), 857-873.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Westminster: Vintage.
Garrouste, P. (1999). is the Hayekian evolutionism coherent? History of economic ideas, 7(1-2), 85-103.
Llamas, C., & Manuel, J. (2006). Technologies of disciplinary power in action: the norm of the 'good student'. Higher education, 52(4), 665-686.
Lukes, S. M. (2005). Power: a radical view (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.