Empathy has long been considered central to living a moral life. However, mounting evidence has shown that people’s empathy is often biased toward (i.e., felt more strongly for) others that they are close or similar to, igniting a debate over whether empathy is inherently morally flawed and should be abandoned in efforts to strive toward greater equity. This debate has focused on whether empathy limits the scope of our morality, but little consideration has been given to whether our moral beliefs may be limiting our empathy. Across two studies conducted on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk ( N = 604), we investigated moral judgments of biased and equitable feelings of empathy. We observed a moral preference for empathy toward socially close over distant others. However, feeling equal empathy for all people is seen as the most morally and socially valuable approach. These findings provide new theoretical insight into the relationship between empathy and morality, and they have implications for navigating toward a more egalitarian future.

No abstract

In engaging in research we draw upon and develop meanings and concepts that help to frame what we do, how we do it and the meaning we make of it. In the process of framing, we exclude other possibilities from our research practices. To do research, then, is to engage in the fashioning of conceptual boundaries. This article explores the dilemmas of boundary‐making in the context of a research project aimed at exploring the border literacy practices of students in UK further education, those boundary‐crossing practices which relate to the everyday and more formal demands of the curriculum. This discussion is related to wider debates in the social sciences on the significance of boundaries and borders and their powerful effects on identities and actions.

Challenges facing researcher development are explored in relation to three UK case study initiatives of building research capacity in Education. Drawing evidence from evaluations of these initiatives, we argue that expansive research workplaces build research capacity particularly effectively. The nature of expansiveness is dependent upon the range of learning opportunities, engagement with research communities and interpersonal support. The importance of inter-institutional collaboration to promote capacity across the academic discipline is also highlighted. We conclude that the development of, engagement with, and investment in inter-institutional, interproject communities is imperative to the effective building of research capacity.