Search results

This chapter investigates the relationship between heterogeneous social preferences and charitable giving under alternative prices of giving and types of subsidies. Using 10 allocation decisions, we categorize participants’ social preferences as self-interested, inequity averse, or social surplus maximizing. In subsequent charitable giving treatments, analysis of within-person decision-making gives support for several predictions consistent with social preference types: social surplus maximizers are most likely to give to a charity that increases production; inequity averters give more to charity than do other groups; all preference types give more when the price of giving declines; and social surplus maximizers are more responsive to the price of giving than are inequity averters.

Purpose – All modern societies are marked by unequal relationships between dominant and subordinate groups. Given that dominant group members often have the resources to determine if and how inequities might be dealt with, it is important to know when and how dominant group members will respond to inequity.

Approach – In this chapter, we present a new framework for how individuals experience inequality: the inequality-framing model. According to the model, individuals distinguish between inequities of advantage and inequities of disadvantage, which is predicted to lead to different experiences of inequity. We then review prior literature that indicates that perceptions of ingroup advantage and outgroup disadvantage can influence when and how dominant group members will respond to inequity. We specifically investigate hierarchy-attenuating responses to inequity, such as support for affirmative action policies, and hierarchy-enhancing responses, such as denial of inequity, disidentification from the group, the motivated construal of inequity, and the motivated use of colorblind ideology.

Research and practical implications – The model suggests that researchers and practitioners alike would do well to pay attention not only to the magnitude of inequity, but also to the way in which it is described. Importantly, dominant group members are more likely to have the power over how inequalities are discussed, which has ramifications for their experience of and willingness to remedy inequity.

Originality – This chapter provides an overview of research indicating that how inequity is described – advantage or disadvantage – can have implications for how dominant group members experience and respond to inequity.

Equity is an issue that pervades all aspects of primary care provision for children and as such is a recurring theme in the Models of Child Health Appraised project. All European Union member states agree to address inequalities in health outcomes and include policies to address the gradient of health across society and target particularly vulnerable population groups. The project sought to understand the contribution of primary care services to reducing inequity in health outcomes for children. We focused on some key features of inequity as they affect children, such as the importance of good health services in early childhood, and the effects of inequity on children, such as the higher health needs of underprivileged groups, but their generally lower access to health services. This indicates that health services have an important role in buffering the effects of social determinants of health by providing effective treatment that can improve the health and quality of life for children with chronic disorders. We identified common risk factors for inequity, such as gender, family situation, socio-economic status (SES), migrant or minority status and regional differences in healthcare provision, and attempted to measure inequity of service provision. We did this by analysing routine data of universal primary care procedures, such as vaccination, age at diagnosis of autism or emergency hospital admission for conditions that can be generally treated in primary care, against variables of inequity, such as indicators of SES, migrant/ethnicity or urban/rural residency. In addition, we focused on the experiences of child population groups particularly at risk of inequity of primary care provision: migrant children and children in the state care system.

This chapter examines the connections between race and class divisions and examines how they shape racial inequities in the distribution of resources, power and privilege. Throughout history, racial identity has been a key factor in determining a person's position in modern capitalist societies. As such, issues of race and class have preoccupied sociologists and other scholars with diverse ideological orientations. This is highlighted in debates around the nexus of race and class in the production of racial structures, laws and institutions that legitimate and perpetuate the normalisation and centrality of whiteness. This chapter summarises some of the historical and ongoing debates, providing a synthesis of how race and class divisions continue to shape contemporary intergroup relations and social policy. It delves into racial capitalism and how race intersects with other social identities to determine socio-economic hierarchy in many western countries.

This paper explores the National Study on Women in Higher Education and Student Affairs.

It includes a collectively written diary, archives, focus groups, and interviews with a diverse group of women leaders from across the country. The women are diverse in terms of their self-identified race, class, age, sexual orientation, position on college campuses, and additional identities.

The author’s feminist approach to the review of these materials highlights notions of pay inequity, intersectionality of identities, and the power of women’s groups in educational settings.

The author’s research identifies areas critical to intentional change in educational policy and programs that have the potential to increase access and equity for women in higher education.

Stakeholders often engage in actions aimed at either benefitting or punishing firms for their behaviour. Such behaviours can have very serious implications for various types of firm performance, including financial performance. Though one might expect that the investigation of possible precursors of such “stakeholder action” would be a priority of researchers in stakeholder theory, to date research within the stakeholder literature directed towards understanding stakeholder behaviour has been somewhat scarce. In this chapter, I present common themes and assumptions that prevail in the existing research on stakeholder action, identify certain important questions concerning such assumptions and suggest avenues for future research on stakeholder behaviour.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic condition with variable physical, cognitive, and quality of life impacts. Little research has investigated how MS outcomes vary by social identity (race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, and nationality) and social location (place within systems of power and privilege). However, emerging evidence points to racial and ethnic group disparities in MS outcomes. This chapter integrates core concepts from the life course perspective and an intersectional feminist disability framework to interrogate the role of diagnosis pathways in determining differential MS outcomes. MS diagnosis pathways (the time from symptom onset to the point of diagnosis) are a logical place to begin this work given the varying nature of symptom onset and the importance of a quick diagnosis for optimal MS outcomes. Whereas the life course perspective provides a framework for understanding disability transitions and pathways across the life span, an intersectional feminist disability framework centers disability within an axis of overlapping social identities and locations. The combination of both frameworks provides an approach capable of examining how MS disparities and inequities emerge in different contexts over time. The chapter begins with an overview of MS and current knowledge on disparities (mainly racial) in MS prevalence, diagnosis, and outcomes. The chapter proceeds to describe the utility of key concepts of both the life course perspective and intersectional frameworks when researching health disparities. Finally, the chapter ends with a theoretical application of an intersectional feminist disability life course perspective to investigate disparities in MS diagnosis pathways.

This study addresses resistance and its potential to achieve social justice. Discussion of oppression begins the essay, clarifying the concepts of structure, agency, and the interaction between the two. Next, class exploitation, white supremacy, male supremacy, and epistemological imperialism illustrate forms of oppression. Epistemological emancipation and resistance elucidate agency. A conclusion summarizes the argument that a structure-and-agency perspective best conceptualizes forms of oppression and resistance.

This introduction aims to set the context for the subsequent chapters that problematize various aspects of social justice, equity, and inclusion through particular lenses, and/or methodologies. This is done by presenting the ‘problem’ of social justice and equity in education, while simultaneously making links with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The term ‘social justice’ is appearing in numerous public texts and discourses within the education field, thus becoming a key concept in current education policy and practice. Moreover, the concept of social justice is crucial to theorizing about education and schooling, consequently being considered by politicians, policymakers, and practitioners in their thinking about the nature of education and the purpose of schools. Regrettably, education practitioners, researchers, and policymakers often utilize this umbrella term (social justice) while leaving out salient details about its social, cultural, economic, and political bearing. Notwithstanding the unanimous agreement on the desirability of social justice as an educational goal, this is complemented by a parallel contestation over its actual meaning and application in relation to schooling, that is, in relation to the formulation of policy and how it is to be included in practice. This chapter seeks to unravel the conceptual confusion around the terms social justice, equity, and inclusion in relation to schooling and education, through an exploration of the existing literature in the field.