Meritocracy and inequality – exploring a complex relationship
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEMeritocracy and inequality – exploring a complex relationship
Data publikacji: 30.12.2022
Sztuka Leczenia, Tom 37 (2022), Tom 37, Numer 2, s. 13 - 22
https://doi.org/10.4467/18982026SZL.22.009.16670Autorzy
Merytokracja i nierówności – badanie złożonej relacji
Ostatnie badania sugerują, że problem nierówności wydaje sięlegitymizowany przez postawy merytokratyczne. Choćtwierdzi się, że merytokracja uzasadnia nierówności społeczno-ekonomiczne poprzez definiowanie indywidualnych osiągnięći wysiłków jako przyczyn nierówności, często nie dostrzega się, jak działająmechanizmy leżące u jej podstaw. W niniejszym opracowaniu badano, jak merytokracja podtrzymuje nierówności. W swojej mieszanej, sekwencyjnej konstrukcji wyjaśniającej najpierw opiera sięna danych ilościowych pochodzących z kwestionariusza, stwierdzając znacząco pozytywnąi nieelastycznąrelacjęmiędzy akceptacjąnierówności a przekonaniami merytokratycznymi.
Następnie przeprowadzono jakościowy, systematyczny przegląd literatury, sugerując, że związek między merytokracjąa nierównościąmoże byćbardziej okrężny, niżwcześniej zakładano. Ponadto wyniki sugerują, że merytokratyczne postawy ludzi zależąbardziej od ich kontekstu społecznego niżod ich aprobaty dla merytokracji.
Recent studies have suggested that the inequality problem seems to be legitimated by meritocratic attitudes. Whilst it is argued that meritocracy justifies socio-economic inequalities by defining individual achievements and efforts as causes for inequality, it is often overlooked how underlying mechanisms work. This study investigates how meritocracy sustains inequalities. In its mixed methods explanatory sequential design, it first builds on quantitative data from an International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) questionnaire, finding a significantly positive and inelastic relationship between inequality acceptance and meritocratic beliefs. Subsequently, a qualitative systematic literature review is conducted, suggesting that the relationship between meritocracy and inequality may be more circular than previously assumed. Furthermore, the results suggest that people’s meritocratic attitudes depend more on their social context than on their endorsement of meritocracy.
Akbaş M., Ariely D., Yuksel S. (2019). When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 161, 114–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.02.014 (accessed: 10.04.2022).
Au W. (2014). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy, objectivity and inequality in US education. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2).
Barr A., Miller L. (2020). The effect of education, income inequality and merit on inequality acceptance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 80, 102276.
Creswell J.W. (2015). Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices. In S.N. Hesse-Biber,
R.B. Johnson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Iquiry (pp. 57–71). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Darnon C., Smeding A., Redersdorff S. (2018). Belief in school meritocracy as an ideological barrier to the promotion of equality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 523–534.
Fehr D., Muller D., Preuss M. (2020). Social mobility perceptions and inequality acceptance, Working Papers in Economics and Statistics, 2.
Granaglia E. (2019). Can market inequalities be justified? The intrinsic shortcomings of meritocracy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 51, 284–290.
Heiserman N., Simpson B. (2017). Higher inequality increases the gap in the perceived merit of the rich and poor. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(3), 243–253.
Hitt L.M., Wu D.J., Zhou X. (2002). Investment in enterprise resource planning: Business impact and productivity measures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 71–98.
Hogg R.V., McKean, J.W., Craig A.T. (2005). Introduction to Mathematical Statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
ISSP (2009). International Social Survey Programme on “Social Inequality IV”, https://www.gesis. org/en/issp/modules/issp-modules-by-topic/social-inequality/2009 (accessed: 10.04.2022).
Jiménez-Jiménez N., Molis E., Solano-García Á. (2020). The effect of initial inequality on meritocracy: A voting experiment on tax redistribution. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 175, 380–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.09.019 (accessed: 10.04.2022).
Kay J.S., Shane J., Heckhausen J. (2017). Youth’s causal beliefs about success: Socioeconomic differences and prediction of early career development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence: A Multidisciplinary Research Publication, 46(10), 2169–2180.
Lincoln Y.S., González y González E.M. (2008). The search for emerging decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research: Further strategies for liberatory and democratic inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(5), 784–805.
McCoy S.K., Major B. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 341–351.
Mijs J.J. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their implications for justice in education. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 14–34.
Mijs J.J. (2019). The Paradox of Inequality: Income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review, 0.
Mijs J.J., Savage M. (2020). Meritocracy, elitism and inequality. The Political Quarterly, 91(2), 397–404, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12828 (accessed: 20.04.2022).
Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., PRISMA Group*. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
Niehues J. (2014). Subjective perceptions of inequality and redistributive preferences: An international comparison. Cologne Institute for Economic Research. IW-TRENDS Discussion Paper, 2, 1–23.
Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372: n71, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Palinkas L.A., Aarons G.A., Horwitz S., Chamberlain P., Hurlburt M., Landsverk J. (2011). Mixed method designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 44-53.
Roex K.L.A., Huijts T., Sieben I. (2019). Attitudes towards income inequality: ‘Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy. Acta Sociologica, 62(1), 47–63.
Scully M.A. (2002). Confronting errors in the meritocracy. Organisation, 9(3), 396–401.
Solt F., Hu Y., Hudson K., Song J., Yu D.E. (2016). Economic inequality and belief in meritocracy in the United States. Research & Politics, 3(4).
Taylor M., O’Brien D. (2017). ‘Culture is a meritocracy’: Why creative workers’ attitudes may reinforce social inequality. Sociological Research Online, 22(4), 27–47.
Warikoo N.K., Fuhr C. (2014). Legitimating status: Perceptions of meritocracy and inequality among undergraduates at an elite British University. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 699–717.
Informacje: Sztuka Leczenia, Tom 37 (2022), Tom 37, Numer 2, s. 13 - 22
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Meritocracy and inequality – exploring a complex relationship
Maastricht University, Maastricht, Holandia
Maastricht University, Maastricht, Holandia
Maastricht University, Maastricht, Holandia
Maastricht University, Maastricht, Holandia
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana, USA
Publikacja: 30.12.2022
Otrzymano: 02.04.2022
Zaakceptowano: 19.09.2022
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: CC BY
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 704
Liczba pobrań: 1373