Promoting inclusive school cultures and, more specifically, addressing inequality of opportunity is high on the European education agenda. Equipping teachers to be able to identify and address inequality of opportunity requires them to develop sensitivity, multi-perspectivity and agency, and these are complex attributes that require personal experiences and deep reflection. Following the principles of design research, five Dutch teacher-researchers developed IQ110 - a game that does just that. It helps both beginning and experienced teachers reflect on the hidden mechanisms of inequality, particularly on the effects of socio-economic status (SES), and it stimulates them to ad-dress these mechanisms. In the card game, that is played by 3-5 teachers, each teacher first draws a persona card: each player becomes a pupil with a given SES-background. Then the players, in turn, draw situation cards. These situations have three possible outcomes, each resulting in getting green (positive) or red (negative) chips. For each situation the other players discuss the most likely scenario and thus determine the pupil’s score. The persona cards are based on Bourdieu’s ideas on economic, cultural and social capital. The situation cards and scores are informed by SES research.The impact of the card game, both in terms of outcomes and its driving mechanisms, is now the subject of a study, funded by the Centre of Expertise Urban Education of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. To this end, the canvasses on which the individual participants record their learning outcomes are analyzed, and there is a retrospective questionnaire that is filled in after having played the game.The preliminary results are promising: especially identifying with low SES pupils and feeling the accu-mulation of negative experiences raises teachers’ awareness. The participants report that through the individual and collective reflections afterwards they are better equipped to address the issue.In our presentation we would first like to briefly demonstrate the game and then discuss the results and possible implications and applications. As we are now working on an international version of the game, we would also like to discuss with you the game’s potential outside of the Dutch context.
DOCUMENT
Are the so-called “new” business models focused on “sharing” actually promoting new behaviour or are they simply using old behaviour of the provider/consumer in a new technological environment? Are the new tech companies in the sharing economy with their “new” business models grabbing too much power, unnoticeably?
DOCUMENT
Cooperation is more likely upheld when individuals can choose their interaction partner. However, when individuals differ in their endowment or ability to cooperate, free partner choice can lead to segregation and increase inequality. To understand how decision-makers can decrease such inequality, we conducted an incentivized and preregistered experiment in which participants (n=500) differed in their endowment and cooperation productivity. First, we investigated how these individual differences impacted cooperation and inequality under free partner choice in a public goods game. Next, we calculated if and how decision-makers should restrict partner choice if their goal is to decrease inequality. Finally, we studied whether decision-makers actually did decrease inequality when asked to allocate endowment and productivity factors between individuals, and combine individuals into pairs of interaction partners for a two-player public goods game. Our results show that without interventions, free partner choice, indeed, leads to segregation and increases inequality. To mitigate such inequality, decision-makers should curb free partner choice and force individuals who were assigned different endowments and productivities to form pairs with each other. However, this comes at the cost of lower overall cooperation and earnings, showing that the restriction of partner choice results in an equality-efficiency trade-off. Participants who acted as third-parties were actually more likely to prioritize inequality reduction over efficiency maximization, by forcing individuals with unequal endowment and productivity levels to form pairs with each other. However, decision-makers who had a ‘stake in the game’ self-servingly navigated the equality-efficiency trade-off by preferring partner choice interventions that benefited themselves. These preferences were partly explained by norms on public good cooperation and redistribution, and participants’ social preferences. Results reveal potential conflicts on how to govern free partner choice stemming from diverging preferences ‘among unequals’.
MULTIFILE
Cooperation is more likely when individuals can choose their interaction partner. However, partner choice may be detrimental in unequal societies, in which individuals differ in available resources and productivity, and thus in their attractiveness as interaction partners. Here we experimentally examine this conjecture in a repeated public goods game. Individuals (n = 336), participating in groups of eight participants, are assigned a high or low endowment and a high or low productivity factor (the value that their cooperation generates), creating four unique participant types. On each round, individuals are either assigned a partner (assigned partner condition) or paired based on their self-indicated preference for a partner type (partner choice condition). Results show that under partner choice, individuals who were assigned a high endowment and high productivity almost exclusively interact with each other, forcing other individuals into less valuable pairs. Consequently, pre-existing resource differences between individuals increase. These findings show how partner choice in social dilemmas can amplify resource inequality.
MULTIFILE
Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on personal, social and societal life worldwide. The virus threatens the physical health, social contacts and financial and economic security of many. The pandemic has led to polarisation in society, to an increase in social inequality, to a threat to democratic rights and to international tensions. Social work has not been left unaffected either. Based on research conducted by the Centre for Social Innovation of HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Netherlands and financed by ZonMw, a concise ethical manual was developed for social professionals in crisis situations. It contains a series of questions for reflection that can be used to make the most important ethical challenges explicit and to take action. The guide is also suitable for carrying out a brief ethical review, as it were, individually or collectively, in the hectic day-to-day work.
MULTIFILE
This paper explores country-level macro-structural conditions that are associated with social capital, measured as individuals’ access to social resources. To explain differences in social capital across societies, we formulate hypotheses based on welfare state generosity, cultural orientations (collectivism vs. individualism), and income inequality. We test our hypotheses using data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2017, which comprises a total sample size of 50,010 individuals living in 33 countries. We use the position generator survey instrument to build two composite measures of social capital: the diversity and the socio-economic status of social contacts. Multilevel regression models reveal that diversity of social contacts is generally greater among individuals in countries with generous welfare states, while access to contacts of a higher socio-economic status is generally better among individuals in countries with higher levels of individualism. A country’s income inequality is not associated with the social capital of its citizens. However, the association between a person’s socioeconomic status and the diversity of their social capital is moderated by income inequality. As such, our study serves to demonstrate that macro-social conditions at the country level do influence individual social capital and have different implications depending on the dimension considered.
DOCUMENT
Cross-border commuting might be a way to improve an efficient allocation of labour resources, improve the economic performance of border regions and reduce economic and territorial inequality. This study explores the impact of a set of socio-economic, infrastructural or cultural explanatory variables that drive cross-border commuting in the EU and Switzerland for all outgoing commuters from living countries and for all incoming commuters towards their working countries. We find that cross-border commuters respond in general in the theoretically expected way to wages, unemployment, accessibility, language similarity and distance. But besides these general findings we also find that, in the end, cross-border commuting is a result of push and pull factors that seem to work out differently for different groups of commuters. This may reduce the inequality at the region level both between countries and within countries, although the effects are most likely small given the relatively small number of commuters. However, the results by gender, age, education and sector show substantial differences indicating that at the level of individuals and specific groups the reduction in inequalities might be very limited and may even increase.
LINK
This open access book states that the endemic societal faultlines of our times are deeply intertwined and that they confront us with challenges affecting the security and sustainability of our societies. It states that new ways of inhabiting and cultivating our planet are needed to keep it healthy for future generations. This requires a fundamental shift from the current anthropocentric and economic growth-oriented social contract to a more ecocentric and regenerative natural social contract. The author posits that in a natural social contract, society cannot rely on the market or state alone for solutions to grand societal challenges, nor leave them to individual responsibility. Rather, these problems need to be solved through transformative social-ecological innovation (TSEI), which involves systemic changes that affect sustainability, health and justice. The TSEI framework presented in this book helps to diagnose and advance innovation and change across sectors and disciplines, and at different levels of governance. It identifies intervention points and helps formulate sustainable solutions for policymakers, administrators, concerned citizens and professionals in moving towards a more just and equitable society.
MULTIFILE
All over the world, sport events are seen as significant tools for creating positive social impact. This is understandable, as sport events have the power to attract enthusiastic participants, volunteers and to reach large audiences of visitors and followers via (social) media. Outbursts of excitement, pleasure and feelings of camaraderie are experienced among millions of people in the case of mega events. Still, a fairly large section of the population does not care that much for sports. Some may experience road blocks, litter and noise disturbance from the events. Sport events generally require investments, often from local or national authorities. Concerned citizens rightfully point at alternative usage of public money (e.g. schools, health care). Thrills and excitement are good things, but does that warrant public money being spent on? Or is there a broader social significance of sport events? Can sport events help alleviate societal issues (like cohesion, inequality and non-participation), do they generate a social impact beyond what spectators experience during the event? In this report the authors have aimed to describe the state of play as regards the evidence for the occurrence of a social impact from sport events and the strategies that are required to enhance social impact from sport events. For the report, an extensive scan of the literature was performed and input was collected from a key group of international experts.
DOCUMENT
The guidance offered here is intended to assist social workers in thinking through the specific ethical challenges that arise whilst practising during a pandemic or other type of crisis. In crisis conditions, people who need social work services, and social workers themselves, face increased and unusual risks. These challenging conditions are further compounded by scarce or reallocated governmental and social resources. While the ethical principles underpinning social work remain unchanged by crises, unique and evolving circumstances may demand that they be prioritised differently. A decision or action that might be regarded as ethically wrong in ‘normal’ times, may be judged to be right in a time of crisis. Examples include: prioritising individual and public health considerations by restricting people’s freedom of movement; not consulting people about treatment and services; or avoiding face-to-face meetings.
MULTIFILE
