Concept Of Meritocracy Research Articles

The role of social science in action-guiding philosophy: The case of educational equity

Education policy decisions are both normatively and empirically challenging. These decisions require the consideration of both relevant values and empirical facts. Values tell us what we have reason to care about, and facts can be used to describe what is possible. Following Hamlin and Stemplowska, we distinguish between a theory of ideals and descriptions of feasibility. We argue that when feasibility constraints are used to rank competing states of affairs, two things must be articulated. First, one must explain why one feasibility constraint is preferred over another. Second, because of empirical uncertainty, one must describe the upper and lower bounds of a specified feasibility constraint. The first case implies that different optima are possible depending on, for example, what one takes to be fixed about the world. The second case implies that different optima are always possible, and the upper and lower bounds of these optima will depend on the empirical uncertainty of an estimated feasibility constraint. We then describe three distinct forms of empirical uncertainty. Careful consideration of these sources of uncertainty can help to mitigate the risks of imprecision. The article closes by considering a case study whereby a meritocratic conception of fair equality of opportunity is considered alongside competing values of priority and parental partiality.

Educational Equality: Luck Egalitarian, Pluralist and Complex

The basic principle of educational equality is that each child should receive an equally good education. This sounds appealing, but is rather vague and needs substantial working out. Also, educational equality faces all the objections to equality per se, plus others specific to its subject matter. Together these have eroded confidence in the viability of equality as an educational ideal. This article argues that equality of educational opportunity is not the best way of understanding educational equality. It focuses on Brighouse and Swift's well worked out meritocratic conception and finds it irretrievably flawed; they should, instead, have pursued a radical conception they only mention. This conception is used as a starting point for developing a luck egalitarian conception, pluralistic and complex in nature. It is argued that such a conception accounts for the appeal of equality of opportunity, fits with other values in education and meets many of the objections. Thus, equality is reasserted as what morally matters most in education.

Meritocracy, elitism, and egalitarianism: a preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore's primary education review

Meritocracy functions in Singapore as the key principle of governance and educational distribution. However, the concept of meritocracy itself contains a number of inherent contradictions, most evidently witnessed in the tension between its egalitarian and elitist strands. This tension is documented in the recommendations of Singapore's recent primary education review, already accepted by the Ministry of Education and to be implemented in the coming years. This article considers these recommendations against the backdrop of a tentative movement towards egalitarianism in educational distribution. Specifically, it provides a preliminary and provisional assessment of how far they would go towards providing for greater educational equity and, therefore, in recovering the ideology of meritocracy in the nation-state.

Changing perceptions of meritocracy in senior women's careers

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to explore how an elite group of senior women in banking represent and describe their understanding and experience of the role of meritocracy, within the context of their own career.Design/methodology/approachSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with 33 senior female directors from six global investment banks. Template analysis was used in the qualitative analysis of the coding.FindingsThe paper found that the women's adherence to the notion of meritocracy diminished over time, as merit appeared to be less defined by human capital (ability and experience) and more by social capital (seen as political behaviour). The paper also reveals how the concept is construed on two levels: first, on a symbolic level, demonstrating how the organization defines and rewards success; second, on a personal level, how it affects the individual's cognitions, emotions and self‐belief.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the small literature on the concept of meritocracy in the management field, with an emphasis on the experiences of successful female directors in global investment banks.

Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore

The concept of meritocracy is unstable as its constituent ideas are potentially contradictory. The egalitarian aspects of meritocracy, for example, can come into conflict with its focus on talent allocation, competition, and reward. In practice, meritocracy is often transformed into an ideology of inequality and elitism. In Singapore, meritocracy has been the main ideological resource for justifying authoritarian government and its pro-capitalist orientations. Through competitive scholarships, stringent selection criteria for party candidacy, and high ministerial salaries, the ruling People's Action Party has been able to co-opt talent to form a “technocratic” government for an “administrative state.” However, as Singapore becomes more embedded in the processes of globalization, it will experience new forms of national crisis, alternative worldviews through global communications technology, and a widening income gap, all of which will force its ideology of meritocracy to unravel.

Gifts, talents and meritocracy

This paper investigates aspects of policy implementation that relate to ‘Excellence in Cities’, a UK government initiative. Local Education Authority (LEA) personnel and school teachers, responsible for implementing the Gifted and Talented (G&T) strand of that initiative, were interviewed. These co‐ordinators were involved in the selection of school students to participate in an interventionist programme, the Urban Scholars programme at Brunel University. The Urban Scholars programme has nine participating LEAs in the London region. The LEA co‐ordinator and one school co‐ordinator from each authority were interviewed through a semi‐structured interview schedule. They were asked the question: ‘What influenced your choice of school student for the Urban Scholars programme?’ This generated data on their definitions of gifted and talented and the way the register of pupils, selected as gifted and talented, was socially constructed. The analysis of the responses to this question suggests that the social construction of the G&T register is an example of what had been described in policy sociology literature as performativity and fabrication. Further, we found that the LEA and school co‐ordinators were struggling to align their educational philosophy with a selection process that offers particular children extra resources. The dissonance between policy and practice highlights the concept of meritocracy as problematic.

Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances

It is often supposed that the point of equality of opportunity is to create a level playing‐field. This is understood in different ways, however. A common proposal is what I call the neutralization view: that people's social circumstances should not differentially affect their life chances in any serious way. I raise problems with this view, before developing an alternative conception of equal opportunity which allows some variations in social circumstances to create differences in life prospects. The meritocratic conception which I defend is grounded in the idea of respect for persons, and provides a less demanding interpretation of fair access to qualifications; it nevertheless places constraints on the behaviour of parents, and has implications for educational provision in schools.

Desert, Effort and Equality

Abstract Desert theories of distributive justice have been attacked on the grounds that they attempt to found large inequalities on morally arbitrary features of individuals: desert is usually classified as a meritocratic principle in contrast to the egalitarian principle that goods should be distributed according to need. I argue that there is an egalitarian version of desert theory, which focuses on effort rather than success, and which aims at equal levels of well‐being; I call it a ‘well‐being desert’ theory. It is argued that this egalitarian conception of desert is preferable to a meritocratic conception, and that its adoption would encourage greater clarity in arguments over wage differentials and in debates about criteria for job and educational competitions.

Enhancing Minority College Students' Performance on Educational Tests

Tests, particularly standardized examinations, having been deemed important in the United States, prevail at essentially every level of formal education. Because standardized examinations are primarily norm-referenced, they are scored on the basis of how individuals perform in comparison to others taking the same tests-an example of competition in the clearest sense. But that structure lends to the intrusion of factors unrelated to content knowledge, such as testtaking sophistication and overall test-taking abilities; and, those factors create score differences beyond that accounted for by variances in knowledge acquisition. Nonetheless, competition plays a central role in this society, which Astin' described as containing essential trappings of a meritocracy. For example, rewards in a meritocratic society are allocated on the basis of performance, theoretically with the greatest share going to those who perform best.2 Although the concept of meritocracy is a generally accepted societal value, many minority students have not received the type of educational opportunities that allow them to compete equally in such a system.3 Accordingly, Astin contended that meritocratic practices pose the most serious obstacle to the educational progress of disadvantaged minorities. He further cited a fact that is widely known by educators: oppor-