Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Disparities across social identity groups (such as race, caste, and ethnicity) are a global phenomenon, where significant differences in wealth and other socioeconomic outcomes are observed. Although the contexts and historical roots of these differences vary by country, there are common factors—particularly arising at the intersection of social identity and social class—that help explain the persistence of these inequalities. This issue of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy examines various dimensions of inequality tied to intergroup disparities and social hierarchy, drawing insights from policy responses across different contexts, countries, and regions. The article introduces stratification economics as a framework to understand these shared global patterns. It further reviews the papers published in the issue that explore topics such as social mobility, labour market discrimination, social exclusion, the role of artificial intelligence, the challenges associated with the interpretation and application of the law, the importance of data collection, and the role of existing and potential policy interventions (e.g. affirmative action and reparations) to address these persistent inequalities.
Disparities across social identity groups (such as race, caste, and ethnicity) are a global phenomenon, where significant differences in wealth and other socioeconomic outcomes are observed. Although the contexts and historical roots of these differences vary by country, there are common factors—particularly arising at the intersection of social identity and social class—that help explain the persistence of these inequalities. This issue of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy examines various dimensions of inequality tied to intergroup disparities and social hierarchy, drawing insights from policy responses across different contexts, countries, and regions. The article introduces stratification economics as a framework to understand these shared global patterns. It further reviews the papers published in the issue that explore topics such as social mobility, labour market discrimination, social exclusion, the role of artificial intelligence, the challenges associated with the interpretation and application of the law, the importance of data collection, and the role of existing and potential policy interventions (e.g. affirmative action and reparations) to address these persistent inequalities.
PurposeInternationalisation in higher education (HE) has always been romanticised and idealised but there has been limited focus on the internationalisation of gender equality and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) certification and the role of international partnerships. Certification and Award Schemes (CAS), such as the Athena Swan Charter, can promote gender equality, best practices exchanges and foster institutional changes. Nevertheless, simply transferring strategies or frameworks without careful consideration of the nuances of the destination context can inadvertently lead to the perpetuation or exacerbation of gender inequalities and reproduce hierarchical relations between the Global South and North. Brazil's cultural and political context highlights the need for adapting the CAS framework to align with the unique conditions of the country, as well as institutional transformations in order to accommodate such a framework. This study aims to critically explore how gender equality and EDI certification can be internationalised in the Global South and how international partnerships can play a role in this process.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on a collaborative UK–Brazil funded project on advancing gender equality in Brazilian academia, we critically reflect on the assumptions of the funding call for operationalising international collaborations, and how we built solidarity – informed by our positionalities – against underlying colonial patterns. As part of our partnership, we were consulted to provide feedback on the introduction of an Athena SWAN framework in Brazil. We reflect on how the Athena Swan framework was “internationalised” in Brazil, especially in relation to its focus, the challenges of implementing gender equality and EDI efforts and the conditions required for such efforts to be meaningful in the Brazilian context. Thus, we assess and critically reflect on the current situation in Brazil, the role that certification can play for EDI and which conditions are required to enact change. In addition, we reflect on our positionalities and working practices as part of this collaboration as feminist researchers from different disciplinary and geographical backgrounds.FindingsWe trace colonial logics in the operationalisation of the funding scheme on setting international collaborations valorising the UK system and reinforcing geopolitical production of knowledge hierarchies between the Global North and Global South. Furthermore, reflecting on the Brazilian political, cultural context with a focus on HE we find similar challenges – to the UK – in implementing gender and EDI efforts. However, there are particular nuances in the Brazilian context that exacerbate these obstacles and make the implementation of an EDI certification framework in Brazil particularly challenging. Overcoming these barriers requires a collective effort from government, funding bodies, scientific associations and HE institutions, for the implementation of impactful and sustainable initiatives beyond mere rhetoric. Finally, while we had a positive collaboration, we felt ambivalent towards certain dimensions of the way the partnerships and the EDI internationalisation were operationalised.Practical implicationsWe provide insights and practical recommendations that enhance the understanding of the issues surrounding the implementation of EDI efforts internationally such as CAS in the Brazilian context.Social implicationsReflecting on the internationalisation of EDI can lead to more tailored context-sensitive frameworks and activities that have the potential to influence societal attitudes and expectations towards gender roles and inclusivity, contributing to a more equitable and just society at large. It also touches upon the dynamics of international partnerships and collaborations across different contexts that can have implications for how such partnerships should be developed and funded beyond a mainstream colonial approach of “mentoring less advanced institutions”.Originality/valueWe reflect and critically discuss the internationalisation of EDI certification in HE and the role of international collaborations towards this process, a topic that has not been often examined within the literature on the internationalisation of HE as a romanticised and positive discourse. From our experience, we explore how such efforts can bring up ambivalence in the way they are operationalised and have the potential to both reinforce and disrupt colonial hierarchies.
IntroductionThe medical school selection literature comes mostly from a few countries in the Global North and offers little opportunity to consider different ways of thinking and doing. Our aim, therefore, was to critically consider selection practices and their sociohistorical influences in our respective countries (Brazil, China, Singapore, South Africa and the UK), including how any perceived inequalities are addressed.MethodsThis paper summarises many constructive dialogues grounded in the idea of he er butong (和而不同) (harmony with diversity), learning about and from each other.ResultsSome practices were similar across the five countries, but there were differences in precise practices, attitudes and sociohistorical influences thereon. For example, in Brazil, South Africa and the UK, there is public and political acknowledgement that attainment is linked to systemic and social factors such as socio‐economic status and/or race. Selecting for medical school solely on prior attainment is recognised as unfair to less privileged societal groups. Conversely, selection via examination performance is seen as fair and promoting equality in China and Singapore, although the historical context underpinning this value differs across the two countries. The five countries differ in respect of their actions towards addressing inequality. Quotas are used to ensure the representation of certain groups in Brazil and regional representation in China. Quotas are illegal in the UK, and South Africa does not impose them, leading to the use of various, compensatory ‘workarounds’ to address inequality. Singapore does not take action to address inequality because all people are considered equal constitutionally.DiscussionIn conclusion, medical school selection practices are firmly embedded in history, values, societal expectations and stakeholder beliefs, which vary by context. More comparisons, working from the position of acknowledging and respecting differences, would extend knowledge further and enable consideration of what permits and hinders change in different contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.