Higher Education

The Right to Knowledge and the Duty to Learn: Social

Representations of the Right to Higher Education

Serena Fasulo

April 30th 2010

Università di Bologna

Tesi di Dottorato in Psicologia Sociale, dello Sviluppo e delle Organizzazioni

Agenda Introduction

Open issues in existing literature and aims of the present research

Study 1: the shared field of social representations of the right to Higher Education

Study 2: Organising principles and social anchoring

General discussion and conclusions

Meritocratic principle

Intention

To reduce status

differences

Italian Constitution (Art. 34)

Universal Declaration of Human rights (Art. 26)

Effects

It enhances social mobility

but not social change

Analytical Report for the European Commission (2006): The social dimension of learning

The right to Higher Education Introduction

Social fields theory (Bourdieu, 1977).

Economic capital: material resources possessed by individuals

Cultural capital: mainly reflects possession of a high graded diploma

Augmenting the permeability of group boundaries favours social mobility rather than social change (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

The right to Higher Education Introduction

Are institutional definitions of the right to Higher Education reflected in students’ social representations?

Are these representations shaped by normative beliefs aiming at the maintenance or challenge of the existing social structure?

Are these representations anchored in students’ social positions?

Social Representations Theory (Moscovici,1961; 1976)

The social dynamic model (Doise, Clémence & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1992)

Research questions Introduction

Meritocracy in Higher Education Introduction

• Social representations of Higher Education– Knowledge, culture, diploma, qualification (Moliner,

1996);

– Intellectual objectives, employment benefits, effort required (Flament, 1999).

• Culturally- (Flament, 1999) and economically-dominant groups (Tafani, Bellon & Apostolidis, 2002)

• Culturally- and Economically dominated groups – a logic of social mobility

• Prestigious General High School degree - high self-esteem (Tafani, Bellon & Moliner, 2002)

Meritocracy in Higher Education Introduction

Mastery goals

Performance goals

Stronger effort (Darnon & Butera, 2005)

Other students as A source of information(Darnon & Butera, 2007)

Social comparison

Superficial study

Meritocracy within society Introduction

Equity theory (Deutsch, 1975; 1983)

Equity; equality; need

Economic productivity

Well being within relationship

Personal welfare

Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) → (Pratto, Tatar & Conway-Lanz, 1999)

System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji & Nosek, 2004) → (McCoy & Major, 2006)

Meritocracy as legitimizing myth (Major, 1994)

Justification and challenge in social representations

Introduction

Social myths “Be they called représentations collectives, social representations or social (...) stereotypes”

Which myths are considered as valid is affected by the individuals’ location within the social system (Tajfel,

1984)

Normative representations (Moscovici, 1984): Individuals and social groups are not passively driven by normative representations but they actively contribute to shape them

Justification and challenge in social representations

Introduction

To which extent and within which context do people justify or challenge dominant norms and values? (Augustinos, 1998)

Social representations of human rights (Doise, 2001)

→ Representations of society involved in opinions toward Solidarity-oriented social policies (Clémence, Egloff, Gardiol & Gobet, 1994)

→ Model of lay conceptions of society (Staerklé, Delay, Giannettoni & Roux, 2007)

Open issues

Higher Education as a right ratified by the Italian Constitution

The formulation of this right includes the concept that some rights have to be deserved

Relationships between Higher Education and the structure of the socio-economic system

Studies on the justification or challenge of inequalities did not consider Higher Education policies as a tool to enhance equality or to preserve the status quo

Open issues in existing literature

Aims

The shared contents of social representations of the right to Higher Education

Does social representations held by students reflect the institutional (meritocratic) formulation of the right to Higher Education?

Normative beliefs about the socio-economic system as organizing principles of positioning toward Higher Education policies.

Anchoring of social representations of the right to Higher Education in students’ social position and in the goals they pursue through university

Aims of the present research

Study 1Shared contents of students’ social representations of the right to Higher Education

Participants

16 students → 3 groups; Chemistry, DAMS (Drama, Arts and Music Studies), Education Sciences, Fine Arts, Political Sciences, Psychology.

1 hour lenght;

Procedure

Recruitment: September – October 2008

Three-Phase scheme: Introduction; Discussion; Conclusion and Form filling in


Questions grid

1) We will start our group discussion talking about university: please, tell us about your own experience

2) Think back to your memories about the moment in which you decided to go to university. Which were the most important reasons leading you to this choice? How did the sentence “I am matriculating to university because ...” end for you?

3) What do you think about the admission test, selecting students for the entrance to some universities?

4) According to you, is access to Higher Education a right?


Analyses

Tape recorded and transcribed

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Kellehear, 1993)

Analysis of themata (Markova, 2003)

Agreement among two coders (Ryan & Bernard, 2000): 88%

Results

Five main themes:

University – University and society – Italian society – Admission test – Right to Higher Education.


Results – University

Reasons to attend university

External pressures – Personal culture – Job-oriented

“I felt morally obliged to attend university. Nobody said to me 'you have to do it' but (…) everybody in my family has got an academic degree”

“My parents did not got to university and my brother maybe will not. But I felt something insied that pushed me to study”

“If I had found a well paid job, I would not have attended university”


Results – Admission test

1st Thema: fairness vs. unfairness of the admission test

“For instance, Psychology has an admission test, so that all the people who matriculate to delay the moment in which they will start to work cannot enter. This can help society, in an utopian world. Personally I would put the admission test in every university”

“for example, if there are approximately 200 positions for psychologist, 200 students will be admitted to study Psychology”

“For example there could be a motivation test, instead of a knowledge-based test”

“The existence of an admission test is itself against the right to Higher Education”


Results – Right to Higher Education

2nd Thema: rights and duties of the individual vs. society

“We have no right which doesn't imply any duty. And the right to Higher Education implies the right to buckle down in study”

“Of course he has the right by nature, but it is simply useless for him, for university, and for society”

“I agree that one student's education is also finalized to the aims of society. For this reason, society has a duty toward that person. (…) it is also important to help students realize their potential”


Results – University and society

“Society cannot abstract itself from what appens within university, because we, the students, will be the future of society, we are the people who will pay taxes in the future”

“They get home and they say '(…) I'm noway interested in this subject, I will copy all homework'”“Superficiality invests all fields of social and work life, not only education”

“There ought to be a different society, not only a different university”


Discussion

Instrumental – mastery – pressures

High School (Flament, 1999) => Social representation of Higher Education after matriculation

Our results: The same dimensions also identify the goal pursued when decided to attend university


Discussion

Admission test FAIR vs. UNFAIR BUT NECESSARY

Less hard-working and skilled students don't have to gain

the same outcomes of most proficient ones → relative ability (Buttler, 1992; Urdan, 1997)

University ought to help students to realize their potential →

Task focused (Nicholls 1984)

Performance and mastery goals social comparison or co-operation partners (Darnon & Butera, 2007)


Discussion

Right to Higher Education

Duties-enhancing → everybody has the right to HE by nature but it has to be applied on the basis of deservingness

Rights enhancing → The right to HE is ratified by the Italian Constitution and institutions have to assure all the access and the best fruition possible of this right

Generalized agreement but limited application (Bechlivanou et al., 1990; Doise, 2002; Staerklé & Clémence, 1999)


Discussion

Institutions

Constitutional right → justify opposite positions

Selection is unfair → it limits the access to a right

Selection is fair → every right entails some duty

Lack of information: Meritocracy is not included in the definition of this right.

Reintroduced in the pro-selection discourse


Discussion

University and society

Negative tendency: get ahead without working

Meritocracy to embank this tendency

Meritocracy as the basis of a just and legitimate system (Major et al., 2002)

BUT

as a just and legitimate system to be pursued. The current one is not perceived as just nor legitimate.


Open issues

WHY DO THE SAME PREMISE DRIVE TO OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS?

WHICH RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE REASONS TO ATTEND UNIVERSITY AND THE DEFINITION OF THE RIGHT TO HIGHER EDUCATION?

WHICH RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BELIEFS ABOUT SOCIETY AND SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO HIGHER EDUCATION?

Study 2Organising principles of social representations of the right to Higher Education and their social anchoring

Second and third phase: Organizing principles of interindividual differences and their anchoring in related systems of symbolic meanings (Doise et al., 1992)

→ systematic variations in the weight individuals or groups give to different dimensions underlying the structure of the representational field.

→ how social positions or social identities are organized and how they anchor people's representations (Doise, 1993)

Organizing principles as the articulation between individuals' social positions – anchoring – and their position toward institutional policies → model of lay conceptions of society (Staerklé et al., 2007)


SOCIAL ANCHORING

3 levels of analysis (Doise, 1992; 1993)

psychological – sociological – psychosociological

Reasons to attend universityPersonal cultureSocio-economic ascentExternal pressures

Belief in a fixed social reality

Faculty – High school degree


HYPOTHESES

1) Anchoring of normative beliefs

(A) Psychological → Reasons: socio-economic (Deutsch, 1975)(McCoy & Major, 2006)

(B) Psychosociological → Belief in a fixed reality: High (Chiu et al., 1997; Cunningham, 1987)

(C) Sociological → Faculty: Hierarchy enhancing (Haley & Sidanius, 2005, Dambrun, 2009)→ Involvement in human rights (Spini & Doise, 1998)

→ High school: General High School (Croizet et al., 2002; Tafani et al., 2002)

→ Region: North – Social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) – Social Dominance (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)


HYPOTHESES

2) Normative beliefs → position toward Higher Education meritocratic policies

Symboic tools to preserve or challenge the current social order (Staerklé et al., 2007; Staerklé, 2009)

Conservative social policies are predicted by the tendency to preserve the current hierarchies among social groups (Jost & Thompson, 2005)


HYPOTHESES

3) Social positions → position toward Higher Education meritocratic policies

(A) Reasons to attend university – socio-economic ascent (Deutsch, 1975)

(B) Belief in a fixed reality – High (Chiu et al., 1997; Cunningham, 1987)

(C) Faculty – Hierarchy-enhancing faculties

High School degree – General High School (Croizet et al., 2002; Tafani et al., 2002)

Region – North: preserve the status quo


Method

Questionnaire

Participants

395 students Agriculture (n = 38)

Economics (n = 100)

Engineering (n = 70)

Literature (n = 23)

Medicine (n = 9)

Political Sciences (n = 36)

Psychology (n = 87)


Method

Measures – Anchoring variables

SOCIAL POSITION WITHIN UNIVERSITY Faculty - High School

SOCIO-ECONOMIC POSITION Region of origin (Jost et al., 2005)

REASONS TO ATTEND UNIVERSITY

ad hoc scale 3 subscales

BELIEF IN A FIXED REALITY (Chiu et al., 1997)

Personal culture (Alfa= .60)Socio-economic ascent (Alfa = .64)External pressures (Alfa = .47)

3 items (Alfa = .88)


Method

Measures – Anchoring variables

SOCIAL POSITION WITHIN UNIVERSITY Faculty High School (Croizet et al., 2002)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC POSITION Region of origin (Jost et al., 2005)

REASONS TO ATTEND UNIVERSITY ad hoc scale 3 subscales

BELIEF IN A FIXED REALITY

Personal culture (Alfa= .60)Socio-economic ascent (Alfa = .64)Job-oriented (Alfa = .61)

Belief in a fixed reality scale (Chiu et al., 1997) 3 items (Alfa = .88)


MethodMeasures – Normative beliefs

Economic system justification scale (Kay & Jost, 2003)16 items (Alpha = .79)

Social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994)16 items (Alpha = .90)

Preference for the merit principle (Davey, Bobocel, Son Hing & Zanna, 1999)14 items (alpha = .66)

Positions toward Higher Education policies

Admission policies 9 items (alpha = .87)

Fruition policies 3 items (alpha = .53 → .60)

Study 2 Anchoring variables

Study 2 Normative beliefs

Factor analysis

Three factors – 51.25% of variance

1. Unequal distribution of resources (24.57% var): maintenance of social and economic inequities. M = 2.88 → alpha = .91

2. Hierarchic relationships among social groups (14.14% var): some social groups should dominate on others. M = 2.40 → alpha = .81

SDO: general anti-egalitarianism and group-based dominance (Jost & Thompson, 2005)

3. Meritocracy (12.54%); Individual achievement through the equity principle of distributive justice. M = 5.26 → alpha = .75


Anchoring of normative beliefs

Unequal distributionRegion Northern Italy 2.69a (.08)

CentralItaly 2.63ab (.17)Southern Italy 2.58b (.14)

High school General high school 2.74a (.09)Technical 2.51a (.13)Professional 2.28a (.19)

Subject studied Economic 2.66a (.13)Scientific 2.73ab (.12)Social Sciences 2.14b (.12)

Cultural reasons Not important 2.55a (.11)Important 2.46a (.10)

Socio-economic Not important 2.49a (.11)Important 2.53a (.10)

Job-oriented Not important 2.54a (.10)Important 2.48a (.12)

Fixed reality Low 2.37a (.11)High 2.65b (.10)



Hierarchic group relationshipsRegion Northern Italy 2.43a (.09)

CentralItaly 2.49a. (.18)Southern Italy 1.99b (.16)

High school General high school 2.40a (.10)Technical 2.38a (.15)Professional 2.13a (.21)

Subject studied Economic 2.30a (.14)Scientific 2.46a (.13)Social Sciences 2.14b (.13)

Cultural reasons Not important 2.33a (.11)Important 2.71a (.12)

Socio-economic Not important 2.09a (.12)Important 2.51b (.11)

Job-oriented Not important 2.14a (.11)Important 2.46b (.13)

Fixed reality Low 2.18a (.11)High 2.42b (.12)



MertocracyRegion Northern Italy 5.38 (.07)a

CentralItaly 5.49 (.13)aSouthern Italy 5.31 (.12)a

High school General high school 5.24 (.07)aTechnical 5.42 (.11)aProfessional 5.52 (15)a

Subject studied Economic 5.24 (.10)aScientific 5.47 (.10)aSocial Sciences 5.46 (.10)a

Cultural reasons Not important 5.32 (.08)aImportant 5.47 (.09)a

Socio-economic Not important 5.21 (.09)aImportant 5.58 (.08)b

Job-oriented Not important 5.34 (.08)aImportant 5.44 (.10)a

Fixed reality Low 5.30 (.08)aHigh 5.49 (.09)b

Study 2 Positions toward Higher Education policies

Factor analysis

Two factors – 52.59% of variance

1. Access policies (36.32% var): limitation of the access to university through the admission test. Higher Education to be reserved to the able and worthy students M = 3.78 → alpha = .74

2. Fruition policies (16.27% var): First-class Higher Education to the most able and worthy students. M = 3.32 → alpha = .52


Variabile B (SE) β t pStep 1 Subject studied 0,01 0,15 0 0,05 0,962

High school 0,1 0,17 0,04 0,57 0,571Region 0,46 0,17 0,15 2,68 0,008Cultural reasons 0,27 0,13 0,13 2,09 0,037Socio-economic reasons 0,29 0,14 0,13 2,11 0,036Job-oriented reasons -0,12 0,15 -0,06 -0,82 0,412Belief in a fixed reality 0,34 0,13 0,16 2,72 0,007

Step 2 Subject studied 0,14 0,15 0,06 0,93 0,352High school 0,07 0,17 0,03 0,42 0,678Region 0,35 0,17 0,12 2,06 0,041Cultural reasons 0,24 0,13 0,11 1,82 0,070Socio-economic reasons 0,2 0,14 0,09 1,47 0,142Job-oriented reasons -0,11 0,15 -0,05 -0,72 0,473Belief in a fixed reality 0,24 0,13 0,11 1,94 0,053Unequal distribution 0,51 0,14 0,24 3,66 0,000Hierarchic group relationships 0,04 0,14 0,02 0,29 0,775Meritocracy 0,25 0,13 0,12 2,02 0,000

Note. For step 2, F inc

(3, 289) = .87, p = .000

Postitions toward Higher Education access policies


Variabile B (SE) β t pStep 1 Subject studied -,070 ,150 -,030 -,460 ,649

High school ,080 ,180 ,030 ,420 ,672Region ,450 ,180 ,140 2,430 ,016Cultural reasons ,070 ,130 ,030 ,499 ,618Socio-economic reasons ,500 ,140 ,220 3,520 ,001Job-oriented reasons -,050 ,160 -,020 -,340 ,734Belief in a fixed reality ,200 ,130 ,090 1,464 ,144

Step 2 Subject studied ,190 ,150 ,080 1,250 ,212High school ,050 ,180 ,020 ,296 ,768Region ,310 ,180 ,090 1,690 ,093Cultural reasons ,020 ,140 -,010 ,110 ,911Socio-economic reasons ,380 ,140 ,160 2,610 ,010Job-oriented reasons -,030 ,050 -,050 -,730 ,466Belief in a fixed reality ,090 ,130 ,040 ,660 ,510Unequal distribution ,340 ,150 ,140 2,250 ,025Hierarchic group relationships ,320 ,150 ,140 2,230 ,027Meritocracy ,320 ,130 ,140 2,420 ,016

Note. For step 2, F inc

(10, 295) = 1.27, p = .000.

Postitions toward Higher Education fruition policies


Regional origin Agreement withmeritocratic access policies

Unequal distribution of resources

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01

Z = 1.85; p < .05

.15**

.13* (.11)

.22**


Belief in a fixedreality

Agreement with meritocratic access policies

Unequal distribution of resources

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01

Z = 2.60; p < .01

.35**

.23** (.19*)

.17**


Regional originAgreement with meritocratic fruition policies

Hierarchic group relationships

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01

Z = 3.73; p < .001

.13*

.11* (.08)

.27*


Socio-economic reasons

Agreement with meritocratic fruition policies

Hierarchic group relationships

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01

Z = 3.73; p < .001

.31**

.18** (.13*)

.24**


Socio-economic reasons

Agreement with meritocratic fruition policies

Meritocracy

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01

Z = 3.73; p < .001

.22**

.18** (.16*)

.13*

Study 2 Discussion

1st Hypothesis: social positions → normative beliefs

Unequal distribution – region, high school, faculty, fixed reality

Hierarchic relationships – region, faculty, reasons (socio-economic, joboriented), fixed reality

Meritocracy – reasons, belief in a fixed reality. → high support regardless of socio-economic status and of status

within university

Study 2 Discussion

2nd Hypothesis:

Normative beliefs shape positions toward Higher Education policies. In line with social representations of social order (Staerklé et al., 2007)

Unequal distribution and meritocracy → admission

Social hierarchies → fruition (Jost & Thompson, 2005)

Study 2 Discussion

3rd hypothesis:

Partially confirmed. Two variables no relationship: Faculty and High school→ Students answered as citizens rather then referring to the educational context

Mediational analyses:

Regional origin → opposition to equality and group-based dominance → policies

Maintain existing inequalities

Socio-economic reasons → group based dominance and meritocracy → policies

Competitive perspective: achieve a dominant position within a hierarchicalsocial structure

Belief in a fixed reality → opposition to equalityHigher Education policies as a symbolic device to preserve inequalities

Study 2 General discussion and conclusions

Social representations of the right to Higher Education: shared contents, differences in interindividual positionings and their social anchoring

→ The meritocratic formulation of the right

→ same premises for different conclusions (the right to knowledge and the duty to learn)

→ Higher Education policies as symbolic devices to adfirm a specific conception of the socio-economic system – Higher Education as opportunity – mistrust in social change and meritocracy

→ The reasons to attend university as psychological anchoring

Limits: not representative sample; time is not considered; focus group analyses; the support for social change ought to be also explicitely considered

Documents

Higher Education