07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Sense and sensibility: the Intercultural Journeys of Chinese Students Undertaking Chinese Studies Abroad
Linghua CAI
Durham University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: CAI, Linghua
Chinese Studies, formerly known as Sinology, generally refers to scholarly research on China conducted by non-Chinese scholars, especially those from Western backgrounds (Hargrave, 2016). Consequently, it normally adopts an outsider’s perspective and tends to be inevitably Western-centred (Gu, 2013; Hou, 2021; Yu, 2019). In the past two decades, however, there has been a notable influx of Chinese international students into Chinese Studies programmes in UK universities, especially at the postgraduate level (BACS, 2021; Universitas, 2005). For these students, undertaking Chinese Studies courses abroad offers not only exposure to the host culture but also a unique external standpoint for introspection on their ‘own’ culture and ‘self’. This presents a valuable opportunity for them to develop the critical cultural awareness that is essential to their intercultural competence. This study aims to explore the intercultural experience of these Chinese students and understand how they make sense of it and how it relates to their identities. The following three research questions guide this research:
Q1: Why do Chinese students choose to undertake Chinese Studies abroad?
Q2: If, and how does their engagement with Chinese Studies influence their understanding of their ‘own’ culture?
Q3: How does their experience influence their perception of ‘self’ as being Chinese?
Existing studies in the field of intercultural communication and education have not linked research with programmes students undertake which aim to understand their ‘own’ culture – a gap this study seeks to address by focusing on Chinese Studies for Chinese international students. Unlike previous research in this field, which predominantly centred on acculturation or intercultural competence, this study adopts an interculturality perspective and focuses on their identity. Therefore, interculturality and identity, together with another closely related concept – culture, constitute the theoretical underpinning of this study, all understood through the lens of social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 2015), which guides this study as the overarching paradigm.
By interculturality, this study follows Dervin’s (2016) approach and believes it is ‘co-constructed, influenced, and somewhat determined by the presence of an Other (p.76), so it means a ‘ dynamic and critical process of making sense of intercultural experience in relation to people’s own backgrounds (Jin, 2021, p. 573)’. In other words, it is viewed as a liquid process of becoming intercultural, of acquiring intercultural awareness and sensibilities, sometimes with failures, exceptions, and instabilities. The term culture is comprehended within the field of intercultural communication, embracing a postmodern paradigm that recognises culture as fluid and socially constructed (Holliday, 2016). Likewise, the concept of Identity is approached from a social constructionist perspective, acknowledging its multiplicity, dynamism, and social construction (Risager & Dervin, 2015). Concerning the identity of ‘being Chinese’, this study does not confine it to national identity, although it focuses on Chinese students from mainland China. What is involved in interculturality is cultural identity, which means a collection of multiple identities (Zhu, 2016), though a nation as an external cultural reality usually provides a framing for identities(Holliday, 2010).
This study represents an initial exploration into the motivations and self-formations of Chinese international students engaged in Chinese Studies from an intercultural communication and education perspective. Beyond filling a research gap and contributing to existing literature and theory, this research offers practical implications for course designers, educators, and universities to review their policies, pedagogy, or services, thereby improving Chinese students’ overseas study experiences and satisfaction.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAiming to understand how Chinese international students make sense of their intercultural experience and how it relates to their identities when they undertake Chinese Studies in UK universities, the study adopts social constructionism as its philosophical underpinning, which is mainly concerned with human experiences and how people make sense of them(Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 2015). Accordingly, a qualitative interpretive approach is adopted, with an ethnographically inspired research design. This approach allows the researcher to study Chinese students in their natural setting and examine how they engaged in learning activities and how they interacted with peer groups or teaching staff from diverse cultural backgrounds in a way that value their own perspectives.
To obtain a rich and in-depth understanding, the study opted for a relatively small sample size, focusing on 21 Chinese international students. Data was collected from a range of sources, including participant observation, unstructured or semi-structured qualitative interviews, and document analysis (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Jackson, 2016). Several teaching staff and non-Chinese students were also interviewed to triangulate and add richness to the data from the main sources. Data collection spans one year, comprising six months of intensive fieldwork and an additional six months of follow-up contacts and interviews. The collected data was subjected to thematical analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) framework and supported by NVivo for the coding process.
The research was conducted multilingually, i.e. in English and Chinese (Mandarin), to capture nuanced and comprehensive data (Holmes et al., 2013). As a Chinese international student, my background facilitates rapport-building with the participants, which is essential for the data collection in ethnographic research (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). It also enabled me to undergo a transition from an outsider before entering the field to an insider afterwards, so I could approach the project from a fresh viewpoint as an outsider, and also understand my participants’ experience better and easier as an insider, thereby enhancing the construction and theoretical conceptualization of the narratives from them.
The research adheres to the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association(BERA, 2018), and ethical approval has been secured from the School of Education’s Ethics Committee before commencing data collection.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings highlight that Chinese international students tended to identify themselves more as ‘students’ rather than ‘Chinese’ when they engaged in China-related courses. Notably, they exhibited a remarkable level of tolerance to the course content, whether the speech delivered by the lecturer, opinions expressed in class, or assigned reading materials and videos. It appeared that they were able to, and willing to, accept a wide range of comments on China or Chinese issues, even including some critical voices, with a positive attitude of ‘good to know’ and very few students would bother to argue with others, whether in or out of class, even when they disagreed with the presented viewpoints. This inclination could be attributed to various factors, encompassing their motivations, language barriers, language sensitivities, cultural habitus, and self-censorship.
Simultaneously, these students attached great importance to the development of critical thinking skills, whether in terms of the Western discourse or the Chinese discourse, with some asserting that their most significant achievement from their experience of undertaking Chinese Studies abroad was the enhancement of their criticality.
Furthermore, the research unveils the intricate and conflicting dynamics of the Chinese international students' self-perception as sojourners. While consistently emphasizing their patriotism, they simultaneously exhibited a nuanced reflection on nationalism. In the UK, they experienced a sense of liberated self, yet demonstrated varying degrees of self-censorship, particularly concerning political matters. This dual perspective underscores the complexity of their identity, caught between bound and unbound expressions of their Chinese self.
ReferencesBACS. (2021). Report on the present state of China related studies in the UK.
BERA. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.). https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: a practical guide to understanding and doing. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education: a theoretical and methodological toolbox. London: Palgrave Pivot.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). An Invitation to Social Construction (Third ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921276
Gu, M. D. (2013). Sinologism, the Western World View, and the Chinese Perspective. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2213
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography : principles in practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Hargrave, J. L. (2016). Marco Polo and the Emergence of British Sinology. SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, 56ch(3), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1353/sel.2016.0029
Holliday, A. (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470903267384
Holliday, A. (2016). Studying culture. In H. Zhu (Ed.), Research methods in intercultural communication: A practice guide (pp. 23-26). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., & Attia, M. (2013). Researching multilingually: New theoretical and methodological directions. International journal of applied linguistics, 23(3), 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12038
Hou, Q. (2021). Reflections on the Research History of American Sinology. International Sinology, 3. https://doi.org/10.19326/j.cnki.2095-9257.2021.03.016
Jackson, J. (2016). Ethnography. In H. Zhu (Ed.), Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A practical guide (pp. 239-254). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119166283.ch16
Jin, T. (2021). Interculturality in learning Mandarin Chinese in British universities. Routledge.
Risager, K., & Dervin, F. (2015). Introduction. In F. Dervin & K. Risager (Eds.), Researching identity and interculturality (pp. 1-25). New York: Routledge.
Universitas. (2005). An evaluation of HEFCE’s Chinese studies initiative.
Yu, X. (2019). Haiwai Zhongguo Yanjiu Ruogan Cihui de Shuli ji Qifa (Inspiration from sorting out some terms in Foreign Chinese Studies). Foreign Theoretical Trends, 12, 112-117.
Zhu, H. (2016). ‘Where Are You From?’: Interculturality and Interactional Practices. In A. Komisarof & H. Zhu (Eds.), Crossing Boundaries and Weaving Intercultural Work, Life, and Scholarship in Globalizing Universities (pp. 147-159). London: Routledge.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Inclusion and Exclusion - a Case-Study in Academia
Kerstin von Brömssen1, Tobias Arvemo2, Anita Beckman3
1202100-4052; 2202100-4052; 3202100-4052
Presenting Author: von Brömssen, Kerstin
The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of inclusion and exclusion in academia, with a primary focus on ethnicization/racialization within a local University in Sweden. The discussion about structural discrimination in the Swedish labour market has been going on in the public discourse for several decades. The main focus has been on the inequality between women and men in working life (see, for example, SOU 1993:7; SOU, 1998:6; SOU, 2014:81, but discrimination against non-Swedes and/or non-whites has also been noted, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree (see e.g. Mählck, 2013; Osman, 2021; de los Reyes, 2008; SOU 2005:56; SOU 2006:59). The question of how gender interacts with other categorisations, such as ethnicity and/or ‘race’ have been shown even less interest. Nor has discrimination in higher education attracted much attention, and Swedish as well as European academia is relatively little researched from critical perspectives on power, inclusion, and exclusion. However, the fact that academia, like other educational institutions, always includes aspects of power is nothing new (Ahmed, 2012; Bethoui & Leivestad, 2019; Hübinette & Mählck, 2016). To investigate these issues, the following four questions were in focus:
1) To what extent do employees perceive themselves included or excluded in relation to ethnicity/’race, class, gender/gender identity, religion, age, sexuality and disability.
2) What experiences and understandings of inclusion and exclusion processes do employees express?
3) In what contexts do employees perceive that inclusion/exclusion occurs?
4) How is ethnification/racialization perceived to interact with other social categorizations in relation to inclusion/exclusion?
Although ethnicity/’race’ has been the focus of the study, we also asked how these categorizations were perceived to interact with gender, age, class, religion and to some extent sexuality and disability. The employees we interviewed have also spontaneously highlighted the importance of how gender, age and class are perceived to affect such things as collegial treatment and career conditions.
As research has pointed out, these are complex processes of demarcation and exclusion that rarely allow themselves to be understood with the help of a social category belonging alone (see, for example, de los Reyes, 2007). Although there are experiences of exclusion that are perceived to have a clear basis in the person's ethnic origin or skin color, such orders cannot be said to be stable and unambiguous (cf. Lundström, 2017).Since norms and notions of ethnicity/'race' are mutually constituted by other power relations, and since social positioning is always context-dependent, we saw it as an analytical necessity to apply an intersectional perspective on the processes of ethnicization and racialization that we investigated. (cf. Mählck, 2012 p. 31). The concept of intersectionality can be traced to the work by black feminist researchers concerned with how oppressive power is embedded in societal structures and systems The intersectional theory concerns primarily how the exercise of power, through intersecting domination and oppression, affects individuals who face multiple social inequities, with consequent multiple marginalisations (Collins, 2019). This criticl social theory gave a lens to analyse understand inclusion and exclusion within a local university context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn the study, we chose to use both qualitative and quantitative methods, i.e. a "mixed method" approach. However, in this presentation we are only going to report from the interviews. Thirteen interviews were conducted with employees from all the university's departments (except for the administrative offices) with the aim of capturing as much variation as possible based on departmental affiliation, position and, where applicable, academic subject. The interviews have in most cases taken place on campus, but for some interviews, Zoom has been used. A large part of the interviews has been recorded with the permission of the interviewees, while a few informants chose not to allow it. During the interviews in which there were no recordings, notes were taken which were then summarised in writing. Interviews and analyses have, as we researchers perceive it, been conducted with sensitivity and respect (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2009). Analyses have been carried out using a thematic analysis (Gibbs, 2007). We were interested not only in the "what" (themes and content), but also in the "who", "when" and "why" (Riessman 2008, 53–76), and the process of analysis opens for questions about power, relationships, context, and diversity (Merrill & West, 2009). In the interview material, we drew attention to conditions, events and incidents of exclusion and inclusion as well as the interactions and consequences of such actions (Gibbs, 2007, 86–88). Ethical considerations according to the Declaration of Helsinki (2017) have been followed. In the project, the risks were judged to be primarily related to invasion of privacy. It can be sensitive to talk about experiences of inclusion and exclusion in working life, both if you yourself have been affected by such events and feel exposed, or if you have been/are a "bystander". It also poses challenges to study one's own organisation. Methodologically, this can be advantageous because there is already a pre-understanding of processes and structures in the context, but it requires a greater sensitivity than usual to know what can be possible to ask and discuss (Etherington, 2004). This meant that there had to be a great deal of information about confidentiality for the participants, as well as how participants, who experienced discomfort after talking about difficult events, could be taken care of (cf. Finlay & Gough, 2003; Israel & Hay, 2006). Occupational health services were contacted for support after the interview if needed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs a conclusion we note how the academia is characterised by both formal governance – through explicit policy documents and policies, and informal governance – through implicit social relations. This means that invisible sorting mechanism helps to subsume and place certain groups and individuals in certain positions in the hierarchy, resulting in privilege structures based on social ideas of appropriateness. Nevertheless, in the interviews it was confirmed by employees that they liked to be part of this university, that they felt included and experienced a strong sense of belonging. This is, however, not the case for all. Firstly, informants talked about the importance of allying with the ‘right’ people, with people with influence over contexts that affect working conditions and career paths. Groupings of such people mainly supported those who were the same as oneself, thus constituting homosocial groupings. Such homosocial reproduction in academia applies to the category of class, but also to gender and ethnicity/’race’ (Bethoui & Leivestad, 2019). Bethoui and Leivestad talk about homosocial reproductive patterns in the Swedish academia which is confirmed in our study.
Secondly, we see how the Swedish language serves as an additional marker of discernment in academia (Lundström, 2017; Bethoui & Leiverstad, 2019). Language, and notions of the importance of language, are important components in a complicated demarcation where disadvantage is constantly marked. The demarcation takes place in many ways, and one example is that incorrect Swedish is corrected, often in public contexts, while good language skills are praised.
Thirdly, we see how ethnicity/’race’ becomes important in different situations. Also, ethnicity/’race’ in intersections with other social categorisations like color, gender and religion positions people as not Swedish, creating feelings of non-belonging and of being ‘the Other’. As a conclusion, we claim that this university still reproduce a Swedish monocultural view as the norm.
ReferencesAhmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bethoui, A. & Leivestad, H (2019). The “stranger” among Swedish “homo academicus”. High Education, 77:213-228.
Collins, P. H. (2019). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Duke University Press.
Declaration of Helsinki (2017). https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher. Using Our Selves in Research. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic Coding and Categorizing. In: Analyzing Qualitative Data, https://methods.sagepub.com/book/analyzing-qualitative-data.
Hübinette, T. & Mählck, P. (206). The Racial Grammar of Swedish Higher Education and Research Policy. The Limits and Conditions of Researching Race in a Colour-Blind Context. Routledge.
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Inteviews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Pblications.
Lundström, C. (2017). The white side of migration: Reflections on race, citizenship and belonging in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 7(2), (2017),79-87.
Mählck, P. (2013) Academic women with migrant background in the global knowledge economy: Bodies, hierarchies and resistance. Womens’ Studies International Forum, 36 (2013), 65-74.
Osman, A. (2021). What is the elephant in the room? The experience of a black academic in Sweden. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 58(1), 63-85.
de los Reyes, P. (2008). Etnisk diskriminering i arbetslivet – kunskapsläge och kunskapsbehov. Landsorganisationen i Sverige. Tillgänglig: https://lo.se/home/lo/res.nsf/vres/lo_fakta_1366027492914_etnisk_diskriminering_i_arbetslivet_pdf/$file/Etnisk_diskriminering_i_arbetslivet.pdf.
Riessmann, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences, 53-76. Sage.
SOU 1993:7. Löneskillnader och lönediskriminering. Om kvinnor och män på arbetsmarknaden. Betänkande av Löneskillnadsutredningen. Kulturdepartementet. https://lagen.nu/sou/1993:7?attachment=index.pdf&repo=soukb&dir=downloaded 1993:7.
SOU 1998:6. Ty makten är din…Myten om det rationella arbetslivet och det jämställda Sverige. Betänkande från Kvinnomaktutredningen. Utredning om fördelning av ekonomisk makt och ekonomiska resurser mellan kvinnor och män. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/1997/12/sou-19986-/
SOU 2000:47. Mångfald i högskolan. Betänkande från utbildningsdepartementet. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2000/05/sou-200047-/
SOU 2005:56. Det blågula glashuset-strukturell diskriminering i Sverige. Betänkande från utredningen om strukturell diskriminering av etnisk eller religiös tillhörighet. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2005/06/sou-200556/
SOU 2006:59. Arbetslivets (o)synliga murar. Rapport av Utredningen makt, integration och strukturell diskriminering. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2006/06/sou-200659/
Vesterberg, V. (2015). Learning to be Swedish: governing migrants in labour-market projects, Studies in Continuing Education 37(3): 302–316.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
A Study of Macro Distributive Justice in University Scholarships: Based on Survey Data from Chinese Universities
Tong Xiao
Xiamen University, China; École normale supérieure de Paris, France
Presenting Author: Xiao, Tong
Research Background
In the concept of resource distribution in higher education, elitism and egalitarianism compete with each other and promote the development of higher education. In addition, as the popularization of higher education in chinese society continues to deepen, whether the distribution within universities should be included in more diverse standards, and whether to pursue simple equality or complex equality, has also become an important topic of discussion. The distribution of university scholarships is a core issue in the distribution of resources in higher education institutions, which not only reflects the university's concept of distributive justice, but also characterizes the university's educational philosophy.
Folger Brickman distinguished between micro distributive justice and macro distributive justice. Micro distributive justice refers to the fairness of resources obtained by individuals, while macro distributive justice aims to explore the fairness of resource distribution at the group level, ensuring the overall needs and development needs of the community.
The study sorted out policy documents from fifteen universities in China. Research has found that the text for scholarship distribution emphasizes the value orientation of "procedural fairness" and focuses on the implementation of the "deserve" principle, but does not effectively explain the macro distribution status of scholarships. Therefore, this study aims to explore the issue of justice in the distribution of university scholarships from a macro perspective.
Research Questions
The three questions of this study are explored from the perspectives of "reality", "concept", and "necessity".
1.Distributive justice in reality: What is the current situation and characteristics of the distribution practice of university scholarships?
2.Distributive justice in concept: What are the views of students on the distribution justice of university scholarships? Does this conflict with the real situation?
3.Distributive justice in necessity: What distribution philosophy should universities be based on? What macro distribution principles should be adopted? In addition, what social issues and cultural logic do these distributive justice views reflect?
Theoretical Framework
The research refers to the higher education stratification system constructed by Martin Trow and the higher education diversity classification model constructed by Teichler Ulcer. The study proposes a macro distribution classification model for university scholarships, which mainly includes two dimensions:
Firstly, the "evaluation types" of scholarships: "Unity" and "Diversity". “Unity”, only covering academic performance. “Diversity”, in addition to academic performance, also includes types such as comprehensive qualities and social practice. Drawing on Walzer's theory of complex equality, it is believed that the distribution of educational resources should not rely solely on a single distribution standard, but should achieve equality in different fields and contexts while respecting individual differences.
Secondly, the “coverage areas” of scholarships: "elitism" and "egalitarianism". Scholarships are concentrated on a small number of high-performing students or spread over a larger group of qualified performers. The study draws inspiration from Cohen's principle of community theory, which suggests that focusing solely on the "deserve" principle will tacitly tolerate significant differences in outcomes, even if such inequality undermines the community. Therefore, based on Rawls' viewpoint, it is emphasized that "inequalities that cannot be weakened in the name of equal opportunities should be appropriately restricted in the name of the community".
Based on this, the macro distribution for university scholarships is divided into four types: "Unity-Elitism", "Diversity-Elitism", "Unity-Egalitarianism", and "Diversity-Egalitarianism".
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study used a mixed research method and selected 15 universities in China with different rankings for research. The samples were selected from 5 Type A universities (QS World University Rankings Top 200), 5 Type B universities (QS World University Rankings 500-800), and 5 Type C universities (QS World University Rankings 1500-2000).
In response to the question "Ⅰ Distributive justice in reality", the study analyzes the institutional texts and school data of the 15 universities, and examines the "evaluation types" and "coverage areas". The study also examines the distribution types generally adopted by different types of universities.
In response to the question "II Distributive justice in concept", the study used questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and focus group interviews. A questionnaire with three sub-dimensions and 16 questions was developed and administered to 1,105 students from the 15 universities to examine their views on distributive justice. At the same time, the study conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews and 12 focus group interviews with 55 university students and 22 faculty members.
To address the issue of "III Distributive justice in necessity", the study used the theoretical research method, focusing on the simple equality theories of Rawls, Nozick, and Dworkin, and the complex equality theories of MacIntyre, Miller, and Walzer to carry out an in-depth discussion.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFirst, Distributive justice in concept. Students have the lowest support for the distributional options of "Unity-Egalitarianism" and "Unity-Elitism", accounting for 8% and 16% of the overall proportion. The two programs with the highest support rate among students are "Diversity-Elitism" and "Diversity-Egalitarianism", with 27% and 49% respectively.
Thus, Students are more supportive of diversity in scholarships, encouraging a variety of pathways for students. However, there is still controversy over whether these scholarships should be concentrated among a few elites or distributed equally to more students.
Second, Distributive justice in reality. It is worth noting that there are significant differences in students' sense of belonging, sense of fairness and attribution of achievement among universities with different distribution types.
Students in universities with "Diversity-Elitism" distribution type have lower sense of belonging and fairness, and are more likely to attribute their achievements internally, i.e., their achievements are only due to their own efforts. In contrast, universities with a "Diversity-Egalitarianism" distribution type have a significantly higher sense of belonging and fairness, and students place a higher value on the help of their classmates and faculty. Thus, different distribution types may lead to a compromised sense of solidarity within the community.
Finally, Distributive justice in necessity. The study proposes that the distribution of scholarships should take into account the "community principle" in order to balance the tension between elitism and egalitarianism, talent selection and talent development. Equality should also be moderately balanced, so that the gap in the distribution of scholarships is kept within certain limits, and all students, at all stages and levels of development, have the opportunity to be recognized, while creating more "Moment of equal opportunity".
ReferencesAinscow M, Dyson A , Goldrick S, et al. Using collaborative inquiry to foster equity within school systems: opportunities and barriers1[J]. School Effectiveness & School Improvement,2016,27(1):7-23.
Alves W M, Rossi P H. Who Should Get What? Fairness Judgments of the Distribution of Earnings[J].American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 84(3):541-564.
Alwin S D F. Beliefs about Inequality and Perceptions of Distributive Justice[J].American Sociological Review, 1986, 51(1):30-46.
Apple M W, Ball S J, Gandin L A. The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education[J].Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, 2010, 103(7-8):243–244.
Arneson R J. Luck And Equality: Richard J. Arneson[J].Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 2015, 75(1):73-90.
Bamfield L, Horton T. What’s Fair? Applying the Fairness Test to Education. [M].London: Fabian Society.2010.
Bathmaker A M, Ingram N, Abrahams J, et al. Higher Education, Social Class and Social Mobility[M].Palgrave Macmillan UK,2016.
Brickman P, Folger R, Goode E, Schul Y. "Microjustice and Macrojustice." In Melvin J.Lerner & Sally C.Lerne (eds.),The Justice Motive in Social Behavior[M].New York:Plenum Press.1981:178.
Daniel B. On Meritocracy and Equality[M]. Public Interest.1972(29):29-68.
Deutsch M. Education and distributive justice. Some reflflections on grading systems[J]. American Psychologist, 1979,34(5):301–401.
Jackson M. Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School. By Jessica McCrory Calarco. New York: Oxford University Press[J]. American Journal of Sociology,2019,125(1):274-276.
Jasso G, Trnblom K Y, Sabbagh C. Distributive Justice[J].Springer New York, 2016.
Liebig S, Sauer C. Sociology of Justice[J].Springer New York, 2016.
Sabbagh C, Schmitt M. Past, Present, and Future of Social Justice Theory and Research[J].Springer New York, 2016.
Sabbagh D, Mountford-Zimdars A, Post D. Fair Access to Higher Education. Global Perspectives[J].University of Chicago Press, 2015.
Skitka L J, Wisneski D C. Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective[M]Handbook of Psychology. 2012.
Williams A P. Equity in groupwork: the social process of creating justice in a science classroom[J]. Cultural Studies of Science Education,2019,14(2):361-381.
|
