Socioeconomic inequalities in higher education: a meta-method analysis of twenty-first century studies in Finland and New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Considerable academic attention has been placed on analysing whether, and to what extent, socioeconomic background affects higher education participation. However, the use of socioeconomic status (SES) is problematic as it may be constructed from various data sources. Similar issues can be inherent in study design-related operationalisation decisions. This paper proposes a meta-method analysis to deconstruct the concept of SES and to investigate the study designs in 31 studies reporting on socioeconomic inequalities in Finland and New Zealand. The paper highlights the key operationalisation decisions undertaken and the diversity of methodological approaches, calling into question the within- and cross-country comparability of the findings. The review also produces an improved understanding of limitations and strengths of the existing knowledge based in the two case countries and suggests avenues for further research.

KEYWORDS:

• Socioeconomic status
• tertiary education
• research methods
• comparative study
• inclusive education

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Some academic studies have argued that reasons behind the underrepresentation can be traced back to lower innate cognitive abilities of children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Deary et al. 2005). This perspective implies that socioeconomic disparities are the result of assortative mating (Plomin and Deary 2015).

2. The occupational status indices are often constructed based on the median/average income and education levels associated with particular occupation groups and are hence these are closely linked to other SES characteristics (Najman 1988; Davis et al. 1997; Hauser and Warren 1997).

3. The equality dimension was divided into two main groups, access and success. Access contains the likelihood of entering higher education, the proportion of students in the overall student body, and horizontal/qualitative differentiation. The second dimension, success, consists of equality of survival (e.g. degree attainment or attrition rates) and equality of achievement (e.g. GPA).

4. In this research ethnicity was not interpreted as an indicator of socioeconomic status.

5. The Elley-Irving and New Zealand Socio-Economic Index (NZSEI) scales assign occupations into SES groups based on the median education and income levels associated with each occupation (Davis et al. 1997). In Finland, the Classification of Occupations 1987 was in place until 2011 when it was changed from eight main categories to 10 main categories (http://tilastokeskus.fi/meta/luokitukset/ammatti/001-2010/index_en.htmlClassification of Occupations 2010).

6. This comparison was often based on the students' parents’ age group, typically defined as men aged 40–60.

7. A recent study that did not fall within the examination period indicates that these socioeconomic disparities are relatively minor (Korhonen and Rautopuro 2016).