Autin, F.

Butera, F.

Frontiers in Psychology

Serveur académique lausannois

See	discussions,	stats,	and	author	profiles	for	this	publication	at:	https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291014832Editorial:	Institutional	Determinants	of	SocialInequalitiesARTICLE		in		FRONTIERS	IN	PSYCHOLOGY	·	JANUARY	2016Impact	Factor:	2.8	·	DOI:	10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02027READS112	AUTHORS:Frederique	AutinUniversity	of	Lausanne5	PUBLICATIONS			15	CITATIONS			SEE	PROFILEFabrizio	ButeraUniversity	of	Lausanne171	PUBLICATIONS			1,343	CITATIONS			SEE	PROFILEAll	in-text	references	underlined	in	blue	are	linked	to	publications	on	ResearchGate,letting	you	access	and	read	them	immediately.Available	from:	Frederique	AutinRetrieved	on:	26	January	2016EDITORIALpublished: 08 January 2016doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02027Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2027Edited and reviewed by:Douglas Kauffman,Boston University School of Medicine,USA*Correspondence:Fabrizio Buterafabrizio.butera@unil.ch†Present Address:Frédérique Autin,CeRCA, Université de Poitiers etCNRS, Poitiers, FranceSpecialty section:This article was submitted toEducational Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyReceived: 05 December 2015Accepted: 18 December 2015Published:Citation:Autin F and Butera F (2016) Editorial:Institutional Determinants of SocialInequalities. Front. Psychol. 6:2027.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02027Editorial: Institutional Determinantsof Social InequalitiesFrédérique Autin † and Fabrizio Butera*UNILaPS, Faculté des Sciences Sociales et Politiques, Institut de Psychologie, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne,SwitzerlandKeywords: social inequalities, institutions, education, social reproductionThe Editorial on the Research TopicInstitutional Determinants of Social InequalitiesTo understand the persistence of social inequalities, research in psychology has traditionallyfocused on individual determinants of the unequal treatment of social groups. For example, a greatdeal of work has situated the origin of inequalities in the discrimination produced by individualswho are biased by their negative beliefs and attitudes. And yet, several authors proposed thatindividuals’ action and psychological tendencies are grounded in (and foster) the social world (e.g.,Fiske et al., 1998). As a result, determinants of inequalities could be better analyzed by consideringthe way in which the social world is structured and shape people’s experiences (see Adams et al.,2008). In particular, institutions (e.g., educational systems, politics and the legal system, media) arean important structural element that shapes people’s experiences. Institutions reflect and promoteideas and values (e.g., equal opportunities, meritocracy, etc.), and thereby influence the way peoplethink about themselves, others and society. However, some scholars proposed that institutionsreflect the perspective of, and are structured to benefit the dominant groups (Jackman, 1994; Adamset al., 2008; Markus and Fiske, 2012). They convey ideas, promote norms, and legitimate practicesthat maintain and justify existing inequalities. Consequently, institutions participate in enhancingthe experiences of dominant group members, while hindering those of dominated group members.The present research topic in Frontiers in Educational Psychology proposes to bring togetherrecent research studying how institutions favor dominant groups and disadvantage dominatedgroups. It gathers contributions from educational sciences, social psychology, cultural psychology,and sociology. Various forms of inequalities are investigated, based on social class, gender,nationality group, and migratory status. A broad range of institutional factors are considered aspotential determinants of inequalities: national asylum policies and economic disparities, ideologiesand practices embedded in educational institutions such as schools, universities and museums,recruitment, and human resources practices.In an opinion piece, Sanchez-Mazas discusses the fundamental right of children to education,within the framework of migration. In particular, she analyses the asylum policies that might denymigrant such a fundamental right, with a focus on policies that trigger the disappearance of failedasylum seekers into clandestinity.The next four articles report research that investigates how some peculiarities of educationalinstitutions might contribute to inequalities. This research highlights barriers to the success ofwomen and low social class students that are embedded in the very structure of educationalinstitutions. Wiederkehr, Bonnot, Krauth-Gruber, and Darnon show that the widespread beliefin meritocracy at school (i.e., success depends on hard work) serves a system-justifying role forlow status students. This work points to the problem that schools might convey ideological beliefsthat reinforce low status individuals’ acceptance of their lower position in society. Jury, Smeding,and Darnon focus on the function of selection of educational institutions, that is their role in08 January 2016Autin and Butera Institutional Determinants of Social Inequalitiesidentifying the best students, rewarding them with degreesand guiding them toward the highest social positions. Theydemonstrate that merely reminding students of the selectionoperated at university hinders the performance of first-generation students. The function of selection would thuscontribute to the achievement gap between first- and continuing-generation students. Autin, Batruch and Butera also studied thefunction of selection. Results showed that endorsing the idea thateducational institutions should select the best student predictsmore support for traditional assessment practices—althoughknown to disadvantage low status students—and less support foralternative assessment practices. Promoting the idea that schoolsselect the most deserving students would thus restrain changesin assessment practices toward greater equality. Finally, Sommet,Quiamzade, Jury, and Mugny propose to unravel institutionalobstacles to the success of both low and high status students.Their results suggest that a competitive academic context reduceslearning goal endorsement in first-generation students but thata less competitive context reduces learning goals in continuing-generation students. This work pleads for a greater considerationof the interaction between the students’ status and the structureof the educational institutions.Mukherjee, Salter, and Molina broaden the range ofeducational institutions and analyze museums as tools for historyeducation. They propose that the historical representation ofimmigration reflects the dominant group’s identity. Reciprocally,engaging in such representation of history shapes visitors’experience to favor the dominant group, for example byincreasing exclusive stances toward immigrants.The next two articles tackle the interplay between theeducational and the professional world. Jensen and Jetteninvestigate student’s professional and academic identitydevelopment. They question how the interactions organizedin universities foster or, on the contrary, restrain the creationof the social capital that facilitates identity formation. Theirresults show that interactions with other students facilitates theemergence of academic identity, but hinders interaction withteachers and the emergence of a professional identity. Goastellecand Ruiz focus on those students at the crossroad betweenschools and companies: apprentices. These authors highlighthow the criteria used to recruit apprentices, such as skills andknowledge not taught at school, tend to reproduce alreadyexisting social class inequalities.The two final articles widen the scope of the research topicby studying institutional inequalities in the corporate world.Maitner and DeCoster show that economic inequalities betweennations are transmitted to expected inequalities in paymentof individuals from these different nations, thus reproducingthe global hierarchy at an organizational level. Starmarski andSon Hing review the organizational determinants of genderinequalities in the workplace and propose a model of genderdiscrimination in human resources.Institutions are pervasive and powerful structures in everydaylife. The research gathered in this research topic questionsthe neutrality of these institutions in terms of power relationsbetween social groups. The different research streams pointout factors that contribute to social inequalities but are subtleand hard to identify as such because they are embeddedin the institutions that shape people’s experiences. The ideasand findings presented in this research topic offer severalcontributions to the growing literature on the institutionaldeterminants of social inequalities.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSFA drafted the manuscript and FB provided critical revisions.All authors approved the final version of the manuscript forsubmission.FUNDINGThis research was funded by a Sinergia grant of the Swiss NationalScience Foundation.REFERENCESAdams, G., Biernat, M., Branscombe, N. R., Crandall, C. S., and Wrightsman, L.S. (2008). “Beyond prejudice: toward a sociocultural psychology of racism andoppression,” in Commemorating Brown: The Social Psychology of Racism andDiscrimination, eds G. Adams, M. Biernat, N. R. Branscombe, C. S. Crandall,and L. S. Wrightsman (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association),215–246.Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., and Nisbett, R. E. (1998). “The culturalmatrix of social psychology,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol. 1,2, 4th Edn., eds D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (New York, NY:McGraw-Hill), 915–981.Jackman, M. R. (1994). The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class,and Race Relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Markus, H. R., and Fiske, T. S. (2012). “Introduction: a wide-angle lens on thepsychology of social class,” in Facing Social Class, eds S. T. Fiske and H. R.Markus (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation), 1–11.Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research wasconducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that couldbe construed as a potential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2016 Autin and Butera. This is an open-access article distributedunder the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the originalauthor(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journalis cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution orreproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 January 2016 | Volume 6 | Article 2027

Institutional Determinants of Social Inequalities

UNIL IRIS | Institutional Research Information System

https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_EDE22B35272F.P001/REF.pdf

Institutional Determinants of Social Inequalities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Serveur académique lausannois

UNIL IRIS | Institutional Research Information System