“I am Working-Class”: Self-Identification as a Measure of Social Class in Educational Research

Governments around the world are trying to open up higher education to working-class people. For example, in January this year, the White House released a report titled: "Increasing college opportunity for low-income students: Promising models and a call to action."

In the context of this general push towards widening participation in higher education, my colleagues and I have been developing a research project that aims to investigate social class differences in social integration among students atuniversity. After all, we need to bring working-class people into our universities socially and psychologically as well as physically. Our Australian research team includes myself, Dr Nida Denson from the University of Western Sydney, Prof Sue Kilpatrick from the University of Tasmania, Ms Kelly Matthews from the University of Queensland, Dr Tom Stehlik from the University of South Australia, and Dr David Zyngier from Monash University.

As we developed our research project, we quickly realised that the measurement of social class is an extremely contentious issue, with different researchers often preferring different measures. In particular, we noticed that there was a clear divergence between social psychologists and educational researchers in the types of social class measures that they used. Following the recommendations of a 2006 American Psychological Association report on measuring social class, modern-day social psychologists use subjective, self-identification measures of social class alongside more objective measures of income, occupation, and education (for a good example, see Michael Kraus’ work). In contrast, educational researchers have tended to restrict themselves to objective measures and to ignore the more subjective aspects of social class (for a recent review, see Rubin, 2012; for a notable exception, see Ostrove & Long, 2007).

We have discussed this interdisciplinary discrepancy in a recent review article published online this month in Educational Researcher. In our article, we call for educational researchers to follow the lead of social psychologists and complement (not replace) their objective measures of social class with measures of subjective social class. We believe that subjective measures are not only valid and reliable but also more direct and sensitive in their assessment of social class compared with objective measures. Most importantly, subjective measures tap the social identity aspect of social class, and they give a voice to students’ own opinions about their social class.

For further information, please see the following article: 

Rubin, M., Denson, N., Kilpatrick, S., Matthews, K., Stehlik, T., & Zyngier, D. (2014). "I am working-class": Subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and socioeconomic status in higher education research. Educational Researcher DOI: 10.3102/0013189X14528373 

A self-archived version of this journal article is available here.

Let’s Show Them the Ropes: Why University Friends May Help Australia’s New Intake of Working-Class Students to Succeed

Like the USA and UK, Australia is currently attempting to increase the number of working-class students at its universities. I have recently published a short piece in Higher Education Research and Development in which I argue that Australia’s social and education researchers need to focus their efforts on identifying the best approaches towards facilitating these students’ success at uni (Rubin, 2012). In particular, we need to consider how to increase the social integration of working-class students at uni.

In a recent review of American research, I’ve shown that working-class students are significantly less integrated at uni than middle-class students (for more, see here). This is a problem because there’s clear evidence that social integration positively predicts academic performance and persistence.

Social integration is likely to be particularly important for working-class students because many of them are the first in their families to attend university and, consequently, they are less likely to get helpful advice from their parents about how to navigate university life. For example, when a working-class student falls ill and asks their parents what to do about their late coursework assignment, their parents may tell them to do the best they can and submit on time. But middle-class parents, who've been at uni, are likely to suggest applying for an extended due date. It’s for this sort of reason that I think it's vital for working-class students to make friends at uni. Uni friends can provide valuable informational and social support that helps fill the experience gap of working-class students. In short, uni friends can help show working-class students the ropes.

In my article, I argue that we need more research in this area in order to figure out the main causes of working-class students' social exclusion. The results of this research will inform the best approaches towards increasing working-class students’ social integration and give them a better chance of succeeding at uni.

For further information, please see the following journal article:

Rubin, M. (2012). Working-class students need more friends at university: a cautionary note for Australia's higher education equity initiative Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (3), 431-433 DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.689246 Free access available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/vfyypRnNZK27hiH5WDQ8/full 

Prejudice Against Migrants: Is It Because They're Too Hard to Think About?

In some recent research, my colleagues and I showed that bias against migrants is related to how easy people find it to think about migrants.

We asked research participants to imagine a situation in which people were randomly divided into two very abstract social groups called “Group A” and “Group B”. Participants then imagined that, through a process of random selection, some people stayed in their original group (i.e., non-migrant individuals) and some people changed to the other group (i.e., migrants). Surprisingly, even under these artificial conditions, participants were biased against people who changed groups. They rated migrants as possessing fewer positive qualities (e.g., honest, attractive, friendly) and more negative qualities (e.g., unintelligent, aggressive, rude) than people who stayed in their original group. In addition, people who found it difficult to think about migrants showed a stronger bias than people who found it easy to think about migrants. These findings suggest that migrant bias may be related to the ease or difficulty that people have in thinking about migrants: People may not like migrants, in part, because they find them more difficult to process cognitively.

For example, consider a Mexican man who is living in Mexico and who then moves to live in America (although it could be anyone who moves from their home country to go to live in another country). To begin with, the Mexican is located in a predictive context – Mexico– and so people find him easy to think about or cognitively process. However, after he has moved to America, he becomes a migrant and his residence in America puts him in a nonpredictive context which makes him relatively difficult to process.

Our research suggests that these sorts of differences in cognitive processing fluency may be at least partly responsible for bias against migrants: People may dislike migrants partly because they find them more difficult to process. This area of research is in its infancy, and an obvious next step is to investigate whether our results generalize from abstract, laboratory-based migrants to migrants in the real world.

For further information, please see the following journal article: Rubin, M., Paolini, S., & Crisp, R. (2010). A processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (1), 21-28 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.006

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DP0556908). However, the views expressed above are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.