Principales procedimientos metodológicos para el análisis de la composición de la desigualdad educativa

  1. Valdés, Manuel Tomás 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Empiria: Revista de metodología de ciencias sociales

ISSN: 1139-5737

Año de publicación: 2020

Número: 48

Páginas: 115-145

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5944/EMPIRIA.48.2020.28073 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Empiria: Revista de metodología de ciencias sociales

Resumen

El estudio de la desigualdad educativa en España se ha visto dificultado por la carencia de información longitudinal sobre transiciones educativas. Como resultado, distintos procedimientos metodológicos habituales en el estudio de las desigualdades educativas en el ámbito internacional han sido escasamente desarrollados en el caso español, lo que contribuye a un importante desconocimiento de los mismos. El presente artículo pretende ofrecer una revisión pedagógica de tales procedimientos, ejemplificando su uso con la expectativa de transición a la educación postobligatoria tal y como fue manifestada por el alumnado participante en las pruebas PISA en el año 2015.En primer lugar, se presentan un conjunto de técnicas dirigidas a descomponer la desigualdad en una transición educativa (expectativa de transición en este caso) en un efecto primario (a través del rendimiento) y un efecto secundario (directamente sobre la toma de decisión). Aplicadas al caso de la expectativa de transición a la educación postobligatoria en España, tan solo el 40% de la desigualdad observada opera a través del rendimiento exhibido en las pruebas PISA. En segundo lugar, se introduce el método KHB, procedimiento dirigido a solucionar el problema del rescalamiento en modelos no lineales anidados y que, aplicado al estudio de la desigualdad educativa, permite poner a prueba la participación de mecanismos específicos de toma de decisión en la construcción de desigualdades. Tercero y último, se introduce el denominado modelo de compensación, donde los efectos secundarios del origen social no son constantes y se concentran en los niveles bajos de rendimiento. En efecto, se ha podido comprobar que la mayor desigualdad en la expectativa de transición a la educación postobligatoria se observa en la parte baja de la distribución de rendimiento, siendo que dicho mecanismo de compensación da cuenta del 20% de la desigualdad observada.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ALLISON, O. D. (1999): “Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups”, Sociological Methods & Research, 28(2), pp. 186-208. ht tps: / /doi . org/10.1177/0049124199028002003
  • BACHSLEITNER, A., BECKER, M., NEUMANN, M. y MAAZ, K. (2018): “Social Background Effects in the Transition to a Doctoral Degree – Empirical Evidence from a German Prospective Study”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 57, pp. 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2018.07.004
  • BARONE, C. y ASSIRELLI, G. (2020): “Gender Segregation in Higher Education: An Empirical Test of Seven Explanations”, Higher Education 79(1), pp. 55-78. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00396-2
  • BARONE, C., TRIVENTI, M. y ASSIRELLI, G. (2018): “Explaining Social Inequalities in Access to University: A Test of Rational Choice Mechanisms in Italy”, European Sociological Review 34(5), pp. https://doi.org/554-69. 10.1093/esr/jcy028
  • BERNARDI, F. (2012): “Unequal Transitions: Selection Bias and the Compensatory Effect of Social Background in Educational Careers”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30(2), pp. 159-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2011.05.005
  • BERNARDI, F. (2014): “Compensatory Advantage as a Mechanism of Educational Inequality: A Regression Discontinuity Based on Month of Birth”, Sociology of Education 87(2), pp. 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714524258
  • BERNARDI, F., y CEBOLLA, H. (2014a): “Previous School Results and Social Background: Compensation and Imperfect Information in Educational Transitions”, European Sociological Review, 30(2), pp. 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct029
  • BERNARDI, F. y CEBOLLA, H. (2014b): “Social Class and School Performance as Predictors of Educational Paths in Spain”, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 146, pp. 3-22. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.146.3
  • BERNARDI, F. y GRÄTZ, M. 2015: “Making Up for an Unlucky Month of Birth in School: Causal Evidence on the Compensatory Advantage of Family Background in England”, Sociological Science, 2, pp. 235-251. https://doi.org/10.15195/v2.a12
  • BERNARDI, F. y TRIVENTI, M. 2020: “Compensatory Advantage in Educational Transitions: Trivial or Substantial? A Simulated Scenario Analysis”, Acta Sociologica, 63(1), pp. 40-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699318780950
  • BOUDON, R. (1974): Education, opportunity, and social inequality: Changing prospects in Western society, New York, Wiley.
  • BOUDON, R. (1998): “Social Mechanisms without Black Boxes”, en Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 172-203.
  • BOURDIEU, P. (1979): La distinción. Criterio y bases sociales del gusto, Madrid, Taurus.
  • BREEN, R. y Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997): “Explaining Education Differentials: Towards a Formal Rational Action Theory”, Rationality and Society, 9(3), pp. 275-305. https:// doi.org/10.1177/104346397009003002
  • BREEN, R., y JONSSON, J. O. (2005): “Inequality of Opportunity in Comparative Perspective: Recent Research on Educational Attainment and Social Mobility”, Annual Review of Sociology, 31, pp. 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. soc.31.041304.122232
  • BREEN, R., KARLSON, K. B. y HOLM. A. (2018). “A Note on a Reformulation of the KHB Method”, Sociological Methods and Research. ht tps: / /doi . org/10.1177/0049124118789717
  • BREEN, R., VAN DE WERFHORST, H. G. y JÆGER, M. M. (2014): “Deciding under Doubt: A Theory of Risk Aversion, Time Discounting Preferences, and Educational Decision-Making”, European Sociological Review, 30(2), pp.258-70. https://doi. org/10.1093/esr/jcu039
  • BÜCHNER, C., y VAN DER VELDEN, R. (2013): “How social background affects educational attainment over time in the Netherlands”, en Determined to succeed? Performance vs choice in educational attainment, California, Stanford University Press, pp. 89-115.
  • BUIS, M. L. (2010): “Direct and indirect effects in a logit model”, The Stata journal, 10(1), pp. 11-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1001000104
  • CHOI, A. (2018): “De padres a hijos: expectativas y rendimiento académico en España”, Presupuesto y Gasto Público, 90, pp. 13-31.
  • CONTINI, D., y SCAGNI, A. (2013): “Social-origin inequalities in educational careers in Italy”, en Determined to succeed? Performance vs choice in educational attainment, California, Stanford University Press, pp. 149-184.
  • DIMAGGIO, P. 1982. “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students”, American Sociological Review, 47(2), pp. 189. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094962
  • ERIKSON, R., GOLDTHORPE, J. H., JACKSON, M., YAISH, M., & COX, D. R. (2005): “On class differentials in educational attainment”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(27), pp. 9730-9733. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0502433102.
  • ERIKSON, R., y RUDOLPHI, F. (2010): “Change in social selection to upper secondary school: Primary and secondary effects in Sweden”, European Sociological Review, 26(3), pp. 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp022.
  • FERNÁNDEZ-REINO, M. (2016): “Immigrant Optimism or Anticipated Discrimination? Explaining the First Educational Transition of Ethnic Minorities in England”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 46, pp. 141-56. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.08.007
  • GRÄTZ, M. y WIBORG, O. N. (2020): “Reinforcing at the Top or Compensating at the Bottom? Family Background and Academic Performance in Germany, Norway, and the United States”, European Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/ jcz069
  • HU, A. (2017): “Using a discretized measure of academic performance to approximate primary and secondary effects in inequality of educational opportunity”, Quality & Quantity, 51(4), pp. 1627-1643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0356-8.
  • ICHOU, M., y VALLET, L. A. (2013): “Academic achievement, tracking decisions, and their relative contribution to educational inequalities: Change over four decades in France”, en Determined to succeed? Performance vs choice in educational attainment, California, Stanford University Press, pp. 116-148.
  • JACKSON, M. (2013): Determined to Succeed? Performance vs Choice in Educational Attainment, California, Stanford University Press.
  • JACKSON, M., ERIKSON, R., GOLDTHORPE, J. H., y YAISH, M. (2007): “Primary and secondary effects in class differentials in educational attainment: The transition to A-Level courses in England and Wales”, Acta Sociologica, 50(3), pp. 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699307080926.
  • JACKSON, M., KHAVENSON, T. y CHIRKINA, T. (2020): “Raising the Stakes: Inequality and Testing in the Russian Education System”, Social Forces, 98(4), pp. 1613–1635. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz113
  • JERRIM, J., CHMIELEWSKI, A. K., y PARKER, P. (2015): “Socioeconomic inequality in access to high-status colleges: A cross-country comparison”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 42, pp. 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rssm.2015.06.003.
  • KARLSON, K. B. (2013): “Summarizing primary and secondary effects”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 33, pp. 72-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rssm.2013.01.001.
  • KARLSON, K. B., y HOLM, A. (2011): “Decomposing primary and secondary effects: A new decomposition method”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29(2), pp. 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2010.12.005.
  • KARLSON, K. B., HOLM, A., y BREEN, R. (2012): “Comparing Regression Coefficients Between Same-sample Nested Models Using Logit and Probit: A New Method”, Sociological Methodology, 42(1), pp. 286-313. https://doi. org/10.1177/0081175012444861.
  • KARTSONAKI, C. (2010): “DECIDE: DEComposition of Indirect and Direct Effects”, R package.
  • KARTSONAKI, C., JACKSON, M., y COX, D. R. (2013): “Primary and secondary effects. Some methodological issues”, en Determined to succeed? Performance vs choice in educational attainment, California, Stanford University Press, pp. 34-55.
  • KELLER, S. y ZAVALLONI, M. (1964): “Ambition and Social Class: A Respecification”, Social Forces, 43(1), pp. 58-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2575967
  • KLOOSTERMAN, R., RUITER, S., DE GRAAF, P. M., y KRAAYKAMP, G. (2009): “Parental education, children’s performance and the transition to higher secondary education: trends in primary and secondary effects over five Dutch school cohorts (1965-99)”, The British Journal of Sociology, 60(2), pp. 377-398. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01235.x.
  • KOHLER, U., KARLSON, K. B. y HOLM, A. (2011): “Comparing Coefficients of Nested Nonlinear Probability Models”, The Stata Journal: Promoting Communicat ions on Sta t i s t ics and Sta ta , 11(3) , pp . 420-438. h t tps : / /do i . org/10.1177/1536867X1101100306
  • LEHTI, H., EROLA, J. y KARHULA, A. (2019): “The Heterogeneous Effects of Parental Unemployment on Siblings’ Educational Outcomes”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2019.100439
  • LONG, J. S. y MUSTILLO, S. A. (2018): “Using Predictions and Marginal Effects to Compare Groups in Regression Models for Binary Outcomes”, Sociological Methods & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799374
  • LÖRZ, M., NETZ, N. y QUAST, H. (2016): “Why Do Students from Underprivileged Families Less Often Intend to Study Abroad?”, Higher Education, 72(2), pp. 153- 174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9943-1
  • MARE, R. D. (1980): “Social Background and School Continuation Decisions”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(370), pp. 295-305. https://doi. org/10.2307/2287448.
  • MARE, R. D. (1981): “Change and stability in educational stratification”, American Sociological Review, 46(1), pp. 72-87.
  • MARTÍNEZ GARCÍA, J. S. (2011): “Género y origen social: diferencias grandes en fracaso escolar administrativo y bajas en rendimiento educativo”, Revista de la Asociación de Sociología de la Educación, 4(3), pp. 270-285.
  • MIZE, T. D. (2019): “Best Practices for Estimating, Interpreting, and Presenting Nonlinear Interaction Effects”, Sociological Science, 6, pp. 81-117. https://doi. org/10.15195/V6.A4
  • MIZE, T. D., DOAN, L. y LONG, J. S. (2019): “A General Framework for Comparing Predictions and Marginal Effects across Models”, Sociological Methodology, 49(1), pp. 152-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175019852763
  • MOOD, C. (2010): “Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It”, European Sociological Review, 26(1), pp. 67- 82. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006
  • MORGAN, S. L. (1998): “Adolescent Educational Expectations: Rationalized, Fantasized, or Both?”, Rationality and Society, 10(2), pp. 131-162. https://doi. org/10.1177/104346398010002001
  • MORGAN, S. L. (2012): “Models of College Entry in the United States and the Challenges of Estimating Primary and Secondary Effects”, Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1), pp. 17-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124112440797.
  • MORGAN, S. L., SPILLER, M. W., y TODD, J. J. (2013): “Class origins, high school graduation, and college entry in the United States”, en Determined to succeed? Performance vs choice in educational attainment, California, Stanford University Press, pp. 279-305.
  • NEUGEBAUER, M., REIMER, D., SCHINDLER, S. y STOCKÉ, V. (2013): “Inequality in Transitions to Secondary School and Tertiary Education in Germany”, en Determined to succeed? Performance vs choice in educational attainment, California, Stanford University Press, pp. 89-115.
  • NEUGEBAUER, M., y SCHINDLER, S. (2012): “Early transitions and tertiary enrolment: The cumulative impact of primary and secondary effects on entering university in Germany”, Acta Sociologica, 55(1), pp. 19-36. https://doi. org/10.1177/0001699311427747.
  • PARKER, P. D., JERRIM, J., SCHOON, I. y MARSH, H. W. (2016): “A Multination Study of Socioeconomic Inequality in Expectations for Progression to Higher Education: The Role of Between-School Tracking and Ability Stratification”, American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 5 3 ( 1 ) , p p . 6 3 2 . h t t p s : / / d o i . org/10.3102/0002831215621786
  • PRIX, I. y EROLA, J. (2017): “Does Death Really Make Us Equal? Educational Attainment and Resource Compensation after Paternal Death in Finland”. Social Science Research, 64, pp. 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.012
  • SCHINDLER, S. (2017): “School Tracking, Educational Mobility and Inequality in German Secondary Education: Developments across Cohorts”, European Societies, 19(1), pp. 28-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2016.1226373
  • TJADEN, J. D. y SCHARENBERG, K. (2017): “Ethnic Choice Effects at the Transition into Upper-Secondary Education in Switzerland”. Acta Sociologica, 60(4), pp. 309- 324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699316679491
  • TROIANO, H., TORRENTS, D. y DAZA, L. (2019): “Compensation for Poor Performance through Social Background in Tertiary Education Choices”, Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1666262
  • VALDÉS, M. T. (2019): “Efectos primarios y secundarios en la expectativa de matriculación universitaria: la desigualdad como reto del siglo XXI”, Revista Prisma Social 25, pp. 332-358.
  • WILLIAMS, R. (2009). “Using Heterogeneous Choice Models to Compare Logit and Probit Coefficients Across Groups”, Sociological Methods & Research, 37(4), pp. 531-559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124109335735
  • ZIMMERMANN, T. (2020): “Social Influence or Rational Choice? Two Models and Their Contribution to Explaining Class Differentials in Student Educational Aspirations”, European Sociological Review, 36(1), pp. 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/ jcz054
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet