重新思考学生学位结果的因果关系和不平等

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH British Journal of Sociology of Education Pub Date : 2023-02-20 DOI:10.1080/01425692.2023.2179017
Duna Sabri
{"title":"重新思考学生学位结果的因果关系和不平等","authors":"Duna Sabri","doi":"10.1080/01425692.2023.2179017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Inequality in students’ degree outcomes has been a concern for the higher education sector and the UK government for more than a decade. Since its inception in 2018, the Office for Students in England has prioritised the need for evidence of causality through requiring institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of their initiatives as set out in Access and Participation Plans. This policy development responds to several reports which identify a dearth of evidence-based interventions and scant knowledge of ‘what works’. This paper traces the interplay between policy and research, focusing on the assumptions they make about causality. It concludes that unwarranted positions are taken in both spheres of practice, making progress unlikely. A conception of causality situated in extant formal theory on evidential pluralism and that draws on current practices would help us address inequality more effectively. Alternative framings of the problem of inequality in students’ degree outcomes is offered.","PeriodicalId":48085,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology of Education","volume":"44 1","pages":"520 - 538"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking causality and inequality in students’ degree outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Duna Sabri\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01425692.2023.2179017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Inequality in students’ degree outcomes has been a concern for the higher education sector and the UK government for more than a decade. Since its inception in 2018, the Office for Students in England has prioritised the need for evidence of causality through requiring institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of their initiatives as set out in Access and Participation Plans. This policy development responds to several reports which identify a dearth of evidence-based interventions and scant knowledge of ‘what works’. This paper traces the interplay between policy and research, focusing on the assumptions they make about causality. It concludes that unwarranted positions are taken in both spheres of practice, making progress unlikely. A conception of causality situated in extant formal theory on evidential pluralism and that draws on current practices would help us address inequality more effectively. Alternative framings of the problem of inequality in students’ degree outcomes is offered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Sociology of Education\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"520 - 538\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Sociology of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2179017\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Sociology of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2023.2179017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要十多年来,学生学位成绩的不平等一直是高等教育部门和英国政府关注的问题。自2018年成立以来,英国学生办公室一直优先考虑因果关系证据的需要,要求各机构评估其在入学和参与计划中规定的举措的有效性。这一政策发展回应了几份报告,这些报告指出缺乏循证干预措施,对“什么有效”知之甚少。本文追溯了政策和研究之间的相互作用,重点是他们对因果关系的假设。它的结论是,在这两个实践领域都采取了不合理的立场,不太可能取得进展。因果关系的概念位于现有的证据多元主义形式理论中,并借鉴当前的实践,将有助于我们更有效地解决不平等问题。提供了学生学位成果不平等问题的替代框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rethinking causality and inequality in students’ degree outcomes
Abstract Inequality in students’ degree outcomes has been a concern for the higher education sector and the UK government for more than a decade. Since its inception in 2018, the Office for Students in England has prioritised the need for evidence of causality through requiring institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of their initiatives as set out in Access and Participation Plans. This policy development responds to several reports which identify a dearth of evidence-based interventions and scant knowledge of ‘what works’. This paper traces the interplay between policy and research, focusing on the assumptions they make about causality. It concludes that unwarranted positions are taken in both spheres of practice, making progress unlikely. A conception of causality situated in extant formal theory on evidential pluralism and that draws on current practices would help us address inequality more effectively. Alternative framings of the problem of inequality in students’ degree outcomes is offered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: British Journal of Sociology of Education is one of the most renowned international scholarly journals in the field. The journal publishes high quality original, theoretically informed analyses of the relationship between education and society, and has an outstanding record of addressing major global debates about the social significance and impact of educational policy, provision, processes and practice in many countries around the world. The journal engages with a diverse range of contemporary and emergent social theories along with a wide range of methodological approaches. Articles investigate the discursive politics of education, social stratification and mobility, the social dimensions of all aspects of pedagogy and the curriculum, and the experiences of all those involved, from the most privileged to the most disadvantaged. The vitality of the journal is sustained by its commitment to offer independent, critical evaluations of the ways in which education interfaces with local, national, regional and global developments, contexts and agendas in all phases of formal and informal education. Contributions are expected to take into account the wide international readership of British Journal of Sociology of Education, and exhibit knowledge of previously published articles in the field. Submissions should be well located within sociological theory, and should not only be rigorous and reflexive methodologically, but also offer original insights to educational problems and or perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Wrestling with the ghost of deficit: exploring the experiences of trainee English further education teachers Care experienced students’ transitions to university: learning identities, prior educational experiences and socio-cultural contexts Exploring student support, class solidarity and transformative pedagogy: insights from Working Class Academics ‘It’s sharing a point in time’: the temporal dimensions of shared reading in families Do you speak Français? The hidden social structures of bilingualism at an international boarding school
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1