"Multiple embedded inequalities and cultural diversity in

educational systems: A theoretical and empirical exploration"

Verhoeven, Marie

ABSTRACT

This article explores the social construction of cultural diversity in education, with a view to social justice. It
examines how educational systems organize ethno-cultural difference and how this process contributes to
inequalities. Theoretical resources are drawn from social philosophy as well as from recent developments
in social organisation theory. It is argued that ethnic minority pupils face multiple sources of inequalities, of
a social (redistributive) and cultural (recognition) nature. The first section argues that these dimensions are
made more 'durable' through institutionalized patterns of norms and routines. The second section develops
this proposal at three empirical levels: the macrolevel of educational systems, where national narratives
interact with structural educational patterns to shape ethnic inequalities; the intermediate level of local
spaces of interdependency, where we scrutinize segregation and institutional discrimination; and, finally
in this section, we look at single-school policies of difference as the product of educational 'niches'. In the
last section, the author argues that these multiple embedded inequalities significantly determine pupils'
opportunities, identity and 'capability' building. New perspectives for multilevel approaches to inequality
and qualitative international comparison are suggested.

CITE THIS VERSION

Verhoeven, Marie. Multiple embedded inequalities and cultural diversity in educational systems: A theoretical
and empirical exploration. In: European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 10, no. 2, p. 189-203 (2011)
http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/163643 -- DOI : 10.2304/eerj.2011.10.2.189

Le dépôt institutionnel DIAL est destiné au dépôt
et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques
émanant des membres de l'UCLouvain. Toute
utilisation de ce document à des fins lucratives
ou commerciales est strictement interdite.
L'utilisateur s'engage à respecter les droits
d'auteur liés à ce document, principalement le
droit à l'intégrité de l'œuvre et le droit à la
paternité. La politique complète de copyright est
disponible sur la page Copyright policy
DIAL is an institutional repository for the deposit
and dissemination of scientific documents from
UCLouvain members. Usage of this document
for profit or commercial purposes is stricly
prohibited. User agrees to respect copyright
about this document, mainly text integrity and
source mention. Full content of copyright policy
is available at Copyright policy

Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/163643 [Downloaded 2021/10/20 at 17:15:11 ]

European Educational Research Journal
Volume 10 Number 2 2011
www.wwwords.eu/EERJ

Multiple Embedded Inequalities and

Cultural Diversity in Educational Systems:
a theoretical and empirical exploration

MARIE VERHOEVEN
Department of Social and Political Sciences, GIRSEF,
University of Louvain, Belgium

ABSTRACT This article explores the social construction of cultural diversity in education, with a view
to social justice. It examines how educational systems organize ethno-cultural difference and how this
process contributes to inequalities. Theoretical resources are drawn from social philosophy as well as
from recent developments in social organisation theory. It is argued that ethnic minority pupils face
multiple sources of inequalities, of a social (redistributive) and cultural (recognition) nature. The first
section argues that these dimensions are made more ‘durable’ through institutionalized patterns of
norms and routines. The second section develops this proposal at three empirical levels: the macro-
level of educational systems, where national narratives interact with structural educational patterns to
shape ethnic inequalities; the intermediate level of local spaces of interdependency, where we scrutinize
segregation and institutional discrimination; and, finally in this section, we look at single-school policies
of difference as the product of educational ‘niches’. In the last section, the author argues that these
multiple embedded inequalities significantly determine pupils’ opportunities, identity and ‘capability’
building. New perspectives for multilevel approaches to inequality and qualitative international
comparison are suggested.

Introduction
The focus of this article is the social construction of ‘cultural diversity’ in the field of education,
with a view to social justice. The argument builds on a number of theoretical and empirical
resources to discuss how contemporary educational systems deal with ‘cultural diversity’ – and
how they socially organize it. I will explore how and to what extent this social organization of
cultural diversity contributes to the reproduction of educational inequalities. Research results
drawn from several projects on educational policies regarding migrant pupils in Belgium and in
other European contexts (Verhoeven, 2001, 2002, 2003) and on ethnic minority pupils’ schooling
experience and identity building (Verhoeven, 2005, 2006, Verhoeven et al, 2007), as well as a
selective literature review on similar issues, will support my reflection.
Before going deeper into this discussion, three initial clarifications should be made.
First of all, analysing the social construction of cultural diversity in education requires a
sociological ‘pragmatist’ approach, not only concentrating on narratives or on normative
conceptions of multiculturalism and social justice being disputed in public arenas, but also looking
at the way culture and social difference are embedded within concrete social environments. From
such a perspective, cultural differences contribute to the organization of social environments and
institutions, and are in turn influenced or shaped by them. In other words, analysing the way
educational systems deal with ‘cultural diversity’ and how this process relates to the production of
social inequality has to go hand in hand with a pragmatic analysis of educational systems, policies,
institutional frameworks and daily routines within local schools. New theories of organizational

189 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2011.10.2.189
Marie Verhoeven

action (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) focusing on the organization’s ‘rationality’ and on the micro-
politics of organizations, as well as Charles Tilly’s (1999) contribution to the analysis of the
relationship between inequality and organisational categorization processes, will be used as
theoretical resources in order to discuss institutional discrimination and the production of ethnic
inequality or segregation.
Nonetheless, the political-philosophical normative debate on social justice in education may
serve as a normative foundation for framing the reflection. Recent developments in this field have
emphasized the multiple sources of inequality which have to be taken into consideration if social
justice is to be promoted. The well-known distinction between ‘redistribution’ (defined as unequal
access to resources), ‘recognition’ (cultural domination) and ‘power’ (ability to act), introduced by
social philosophers such as Nancy Fraser (2004, 2005), or more recently in the educational field by
Lynch & Baker (2005), can be used as a frame of reference. These authors remind us that dealing
equitably with cultural diversity in education embraces issues of a different nature which have to
be analytically distinguished. But I will maintain that these dimensions do not constitute clear-cut
‘sets of factors’ which would exert separate influences on educational equity as an outcome. In
sociological analysis, they have to be considered together, as they are most of the time profoundly
interwoven and embedded within social reality. In my view, what appears then to be interesting is to
examine the way these dimensions interweave in concrete social (educational) configurations.
Therefore, an interdisciplinary dialogue between social philosophy and contemporary sociology
can be meaningful.
Finally, these interwoven inequalities embedded within educational configurations constitute
unequal and contrasting spaces of opportunities which inform or shape pupils’ schooling
experience. Teenagers forge their identities, their social aspirations as well as their ‘agency’ (i.e.
their ability to act in a given society) by interacting with such contexts of socialization. Following
Amartya Sen’s capability approach (see e.g. Sen, 1990, [1987] 1993, 1999, 2000), and, particularly,
recent developments trying to reconcile this approach with a pragmatist sociological view
(Zimmermann, 2006, 2008), I will maintain that a theory of social justice must include a reflection
on the concrete conditions leading to enhancing or undermining the individual’s capability, defined
as the range of possibilities which he can actually reach – ‘what individuals actually can do and can
be’. In this respect, pupils’ capability is always embedded within educational contexts, whose
characteristics might have restricting or habilitating effects.
This article is divided into three sections. The aim of the first section is to contribute to
constructing a comprehensive theoretical framework on what I will call multiple embedded
inequalities, using the philosophical debate on social justice as an evaluative framework, but taking
advantage of recent developments concerning the organizational processes (re)producing ‘durable
inequalities’. In the second section, I explore this framework and empirically illustrate it, at three
different levels: the macro-level of educational systems (in their cultural and organizational
dimensions); the intermediate level, focusing on local spaces of interdependency between schools
and on institutional processes leading to segregation and institutional discrimination within
determined geographical areas; and finally, the local level of single schools’ micro-politics regarding
social and (ethno-)cultural diversity. In the third section, I briefly turn to the individual level of
pupils’ schooling experience, identity and agency building (especially as far as migrant pupils are
concerned). I maintain that unequal opportunities within local contexts and unequal schooling
paths shape unequal perceptions of opportunities and aspirations, leading to unequal capabilities.

Multiple Embedded Inequalities in the

Educational Field: a theoretical framework
Considering Multiple Sources of Inequality
The importance of considering both redistribution and recognition dimensions of social justice has
been largely demonstrated by social philosopher Nancy Fraser (2004, 2005). According to her, the
redistribution paradigm (framing injustice as unequal distribution of resources and as economical
exploitation) does not have to be overshadowed by the new saliency of the recognition paradigm
(insisting on cultural and symbolical forms of domination). Instead of confronting them in a sterile
opposition, a critical conception of social justice should be ‘bi-dimensional’, taking advantage of the

190
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

emancipating aspects of both frameworks (Fraser, 2004, pp. 151-152). Fraser also reminds us that
most of the time these two dimensions need to be analysed simultaneously. Although she
acknowledges the potential tension existing between these two rival interpretations of
contemporary social inequalities, she contests what she calls a ‘fallacious antithesis’, as she
maintains that in real life, these axes of domination interweave: every single situation of oppression
presupposes an unequal distribution as well as a denial of recognition – although in varying
proportions (Fraser, 2004, p. 155). This is especially true for ‘mixed’ social categories, such as young
people from migrant post-colonial backgrounds: most of the time they face problems of unequal
access to (educational) resources; but at the same time, they are also faced with recognition
problems (symbolical domination of cultural patterns, ethnic labelling, being systematically socially
despised, etc.). Promoting social justice must therefore be done pragmatically, by examining on an
individual-case basis how these sources of justice intertwine in social configurations. Fraser also
proposes the concept of ‘parity of participation’ as a cornerstone of such a bi-dimensional
conception of justice. This notion refers to ‘the status of fully-fledged members of society, on an
equal footing with others’, which guarantees the capacity to contribute positively to society and the
possibility of being recognized as such (Fraser, 2004, p. 157). According to Fraser, parity of
participation can be hampered by legal factors (such as citizenship status), by objective conditions
(such as the lack of economical resources, social exclusion, and so on), or by inter-subjective
conditions (such as institutionalized cultural patterns leading to symbolical domination and ‘denial
of recognition’). In other words, through her notion of ‘parity of participation’, Fraser ties
redistribution and recognition to power, defined as entitlement and ability to act within a given
social context.
These considerations are echoed in Lynch & Baker’s recent developments of social justice in
education, promoting a ‘holistic and integrated approach’ of equality (Lynch & Baker, 2005, p. 131).
Whereas sociology has traditionally focused on the problem of unequal access to educational
resources (and on the economical, social and cultural tools enabling individuals to actually acquire
them), the authors assume that other key dimensions of inequality should be taken into
consideration. Educational inequalities are undoubtedly related to unequal resources – particularly
to the ones which are tied to economical inequalities and to social class - but they also have to do
with recognition and respect (recognition of ‘differences’, such as gender or ethnicity), with power
(defined as the ability to act within a given context), and with care (emotional and affective
development) (Lynch & Baker, 2005, p. 134). Using a robust conception of ‘equality of condition’,
aiming at providing each pupil with equal conditions to pursue a ‘good life’, the authors argue that
promoting truly egalitarian educational institutions presupposes acting simultaneously on these
different dimensions. More fundamentally, pursuing social justice in education does not merely
consist of constructing ‘fair inequalities’ or ‘equal opportunities to become unequal’ (Lynch &
Baker, 2005, pp. 132-134); what has to be equalized are ‘real opportunities’ to live a ‘good life’. This
perspective reminds us of Sen’s critique of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (Rawls, 1997 [1971]).
According to Sen, Rawls’ liberal equal opportunity framework is not satisfying because it eclipses
the unequal ability of singular individuals to appropriate these resources and to convert them into
‘real freedom’. Promoting equality means enhancing the individual’s capability (i.e. real possibility
of accomplishing the life courses he has reason to value; Sen, [1987] 1993, pp. 216-218). ‘Having
greater freedom to do the things one has reason to value is (1) significant in itself for the person’s
overall freedom, and (2) important in fostering the person’s opportunity to have valuable
outcomes’ (Sen, 1999, p. 18). Interestingly, this project of enhancing capabilities or real freedom
presupposes an action on both individual and social resources and institutions and environments,
which opens stimulating perspectives for social policy in general (Bonvin & Farvaque, 2008;
Zimmermann, 2006, 2008) and for educational policy in particular (Verhoeven et al, 2009).

The Social Organization of ‘Durable Inequalities’

The sociological understanding of these multiple embedded inequalities can be enriched by Charles
Tilly’s work on ‘durable inequality’ (1999). Aiming to go beyond the intrinsic limitations of current
quantitative approaches dominating the social sciences arena, often based on an atomized
representation of social life, the author argues that different types of inequality (socio-economical

191
Marie Verhoeven

resources, or status inequality such as ethnicity or gender) should not be considered as separate
‘factors’ determining individual actors, but should be seen as embedded within institutional
configurations. According to him, inequalities become more ‘durable’ in so much as they are
enacted through institutionalized systems of values, organizational norms and social routines.
Social categorization plays a significant role in this process, since the social institution of
inequalities relies on what the author refers to as a process of ‘matching’ between organizational
categories and external – often ‘naturalized’ – categories (to the extent that culture or ethnicity can
be) (Tilly, 1999, p. 6).

Key Research Questions

To sum up, the critical analysis of ethnic minority pupils’ schooling process in a perspective of
equality and social justice requires a holistic and multidimensional approach, combining issues of
redistribution, recognition and power or capability building. In what follows, I will try to examine
how these dimensions interweave and how they are embedded within social environments and
educational organizations. Shifting to a sociological disciplinary framework, two main research
lines can be drawn from these general considerations:
(1) the analysis of the complex and multidimensional structure of inequalities faced by pupils from
ethnic minority backgrounds, considering both inequalities of access to educational (legitimate)
resources and inequalities of recognition, and the way these two dimensions are interwoven
and embedded within educational configurations (such as national educational systems,
geographical areas or even single schools), through specific institutional and organizational
processes;
(2) the analysis and evaluation of these educational configurations with a view to social justice,
focusing on pupils’ empowerment and capacity building; considering redistribution and
recognition obstacles they have to face, to what extent are they made capable, throughout their
schooling process, of becoming fully committed members of the society, and of considering
themselves as such? What kind of social aspirations and social identities are they bound to
develop as they face such unequal ‘real’ educational opportunities?
In other words, young people from post-colonial migrant backgrounds encounter different sources
of social injustice throughout their schooling process. Unequal access to legitimate resources and
opportunities coexists with different kinds of misrecognition and denial of recognition. These
dimensions intertwine as they foster each other throughout institutionalized systems of values and
through organizational norms and routines. This complex process hampers these pupils’ capability
and aspirations of parity of participation.
In the next section, I explore empirically this idea of embedded multiple inequalities at three
separate – but interconnected – levels : the macro-level of analysis, focusing on how educational
systems organize ethnic inequalities through cultural and organizational patterns; an intermediate
scale of analysis, focusing on local spaces of interdependency between schools and on institutional
processes leading to segregation and institutional discrimination; and finally, the local level of single
schools’ micro-politics regarding social or ethnic and cultural diversity.

A Multilevel Empirical Exploration

Macro-Level Analysis: evaluating and comparing education
systems and their ability to deal equitably with cultural diversity
Let me first focus on the ‘macro-level’ of analysis. Regarding the evaluation and the comparison of
the way educational systems deal with (ethno-)cultural diversity, and of how this process relates to
the production of social inequality, two different ranges of factors have to be considered: on the
one hand, national culture and integration patterns or national ‘idioms’ (Brubaker, 1997[1992]), and
the way they influence schooling culture, curricula and educational policies; and on the other hand,
‘broader patterns of differentiation’ - that is, the global structure of inequalities within the system.
The first axis has to do with cultural legitimacy and therefore with recognition patterns, whereas
the second dimension has to do with unequal distribution of educational resources. But what I

192
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

would particularly like to emphasize is that these two dimensions interact and influence each other,
and therefore should be considered together in research models.
In this respect, the examination of recent developments in both research fields reveals
complementary movements towards the acknowledgment of the need for a bi-dimensional
approach.
On the one hand, a significant research line seeks to link the way educational systems
integrate pupils from migrant backgrounds to national cultural ‘idioms’ (Brubaker, 1997[1992]), or to
national integration models (Castles & Miller, 1993; Favell, 2001). These works have highlighted
the fact that educational policies regarding ethno-cultural diversity do not develop within a cultural
vacuum; they are underpinned by national integration philosophies, which provide the basis for
citizenship and frame the relationship between dominant and minority cultures within a national
public arena. These models establish the frame of reference for concrete political and pedagogical
measures which can be implemented within this given context. Three models are traditionally
distinguished: differential exclusion, illustrated by the German case, is characterized by national
closure, strong restrictions to naturalization, and a jus sanguinis ideology; republican assimilationism,
illustrated by the French model, resorts to a jus soilis conception of citizenship, defined as
participation in a public space, requiring the acquisition of the dominant national culture, presented
as universal; finally, pluralistic multiculturalism, implemented in countries such as Sweden, or to
some extent England, is a inclusive but non-assimilationist model, promoting cultural diversity
within a framework of common fundamental political principles.
These considerations have led to rather interesting conclusions in comparing national
educational policies. It has been demonstrated that these patterns influence the legitimacy of
‘ethnic markers’ within the public space as well as the saliency of ethnic and cultural categorization
in public (and educational) policy. For instance, in a comparative project of educational policies
regarding ethnic minorities in England and in the French-speaking community of Belgium
(Verhoeven, 2001, 2002, 2003), I assumed that the lateness and the relative weakness of educational
policies regarding ethnic-minority pupils in French-speaking Belgium could be attributed to the
influence of the French assimilationist republican philosophy of integration, leading to the
consideration of cultural diversity as a private matter. Taking into consideration these contrasting
integration models can help us to understand why the debate on the ‘Islamic hijab’ has become a
genuine national controversy in France as well as in French-speaking Belgian schools, whereas in
the English ‘multiculturalist’ context this issue has hardly been made visible, since the expression of
cultural and religious signs in the public domain is by no means considered to be irreconcilable
with a national sense of belonging.
However, such views have recently been criticised. These models appear to be far too rigid
and unable to explain historical change and local variations in national policies. They tend to
oversimplify the complex processes of social tensions and political struggles within each country.
Recent critical works (Jacobs & Rea, 2007; Joppke, 2007; Adam, 2010) have shown that if these
models are still partly relevant, they are constantly reinvented and transformed around political
lines, within regional and local configurations. In England, specialists in the history of education
(Grosvenor, 1997) have highlighted how the historical tensions between right wing and left wing
had direct consequences on the implementation or the undermining of multicultural and antiracist
education policies. In Belgium, the well-known differences between North and South in education
policies have probably less to do with cultural traditions than with political changing of games and
alliances (Adam, 2010). Similarly, my own research on educational policies of diversity in French-
speaking Belgium shows that the regional conception of culture and citizenship was enacted in
contrasting ways depending on the ‘socio-political networks’ organizing educational structures – as
‘public schools’, ‘state schools’ and ‘Catholic schools’ all observe different integration philosophies
and concrete measures.
In other words, focusing on ‘pure’ integration models or cultural patterns might be of little
use, unless they are integrated within a reflection on local political struggles and institutional
structures.
On the other hand, the scientific debate on social inequalities in education has been recently
renewed, as more attention has been paid to the specific effect of the structure of educational
systems on equity. Recent developments in comparative approaches (Crahay, 2003; Duru-Bellat et
al, 2004; Dupriez & Dumay, 2006), based on European databases such as PISA (OECD, 2001), have

193
Marie Verhoeven

shown that structural elements such as the degree of ‘differentiation’ or ‘integration’ of the system
do influence educational outcomes in terms of equity. Integrated systems (providing a
comprehensive educational structure throughout a long period of time, and refusing to separate
pupils on the basis of their academic performance) tend to be more equitable than ‘differentiated’
systems – probably because they give more time to education to compensate for families’ uneven
cultural capital. On the other hand, several indicators of differentiation (such as the systematic use
of grade retention [holding back], an early differentiated curriculum or a significant ‘school effect’
revealing social segregation between schools) seem to have a significant impact on social
inequalities in educational outcomes. Finally, there is an important reflection on the effects of free
choice and quasi-market mechanisms on equity outcomes, especially regarding ethnic minorities’
performance (Gewirtz et al, 1995; Gomolla, 2006).
Following these recent developments, I maintain that analysing the way education systems
deal with ethno-cultural diversity cannot be separated from these ‘broader patterns of
differentiation’ within the structure of the educational system. These patterns have a significant
impact on educational opportunities for pupils from minority backgrounds; nevertheless, I would
assume that the way national integration models will actually be enacted in schools also depends
on this general structure of inequalities. In other words, these dimensions influence each other in
distinct ways, sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes counterbalancing or even
contradicting each other. For example, a country with a strong multicultural integration model and
very open policies of citizenship will probably not be so efficient at producing equitable outcomes
for pupils from migrant backgrounds if the educational system relies on a highly differentiated
structure or is based on selective school structures (Gomolla, 2006).
But more extensive and systematic comparative research on the specific effects of (national)
cultural patterns and of structural inequalities within educational systems, as well as on their
mutual interaction, is urgently needed. A recent interesting article from Hochschild & Cropper
(2010) deserves to be quoted here. The authors present an international comparative study on
migrant pupils’ incorporation and educational outcomes, in eight countries in the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). They examine the influence of schooling
regimes (measured through type of funding, selectivity regime, degree of differentiation, etc.) as
well as the role of immigration regimes (migration law, access to citizenship, etc). What they find is
that these dimensions are linked distinctively in each country and therefore produce contrasting
effects on pupils’ outcomes. Considering the complex configuration of these sets of indicators in
each country, they actually draw a much more subtle and complex picture than the one
traditionally contrasting ‘integrating’ Canada from ‘excluding’ France, for example. Unfortunately,
they do not include cultural patterns when they define ‘immigration regimes’ (since they stick to
legal and economical aspects).
To sum up, national cultural patterns do have an impact on the nature of educational policies
and influence the ‘saliency’ of ethnic and cultural dimensions in these policies – which might have
an effect on recognition issues. But the way these patterns will finally be enacted will also greatly
depend on structural dimensions, such as local political games or, more fundamentally, on the
general structure of educational inequalities. This idea opens stimulating research perspectives for
international comparison. But in order to examine how these dimensions interact, it is probably yet
more convincing to shift from the macro level to intermediate and even micro scales of
observation.

Intermediate Level of Analysis: examining segregation and

institutional discrimination patterns structuring local spaces
I will now turn to what recent work in the sociology of education has called local spaces of
interdependency between schools. The interaction between cultural patterns and the social
organization of inequalities can be easily observed at this intermediate level.
The notion of local space of interdependency, systematized by Joseph & Delvaux (2005) and
Maroy (2006) in Belgium, but broadly shared by other social scientists in several European contexts
(Ball, Bowe & Gewirtz, 1995; Delvaux & van Zanten, 2004; Broccolichi & van Zanten, 2004), refers
to a local segment of a given educational system in which several schools are mutually related

194
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

through formal and informal relationships of competition and/or collaboration. What is more,
these interdependent schools are linked to one another in both a symbolic and an objective manner
– that is, through a symbolical hierarchy, as well as through their objective positioning within the
distributive structure of schooling resources. Pupils’ mobility between schools or ‘circuits of
schooling’ (Ball et al, 1995) is used as a powerful indicator of such local structuring processes. In
other words, symbolic recognition issues and unequal redistributive issues jointly underpin the
structure of local spaces of interdependency. I would like to illustrate this assumption by
developing two arguments. The first one has to do with local segregation patterns; the second deals
with institutional discrimination mechanisms. I will try to demonstrate that segregation and
institutional discrimination patterns structuring these local spaces combine or ‘mix’ social,
educational and ethno-cultural forms of domination. I will therefore draw on data collected in
recent research I carried out with other colleagues from several Belgian universities, on migrant
pupils’ school careers (Verhoeven et al, 2007).

Multidimensional Segregation and Circuits of Schooling

The investigation, carried out in several towns of French-speaking Belgium, aimed at putting under
scrutiny the school careers of pupils from four different migrant backgrounds (Moroccan, Turkish,
African and East European backgrounds) in order to evaluate possible segregation and
discrimination mechanisms. One of the significant results of the survey was that these target
groups were all particularly confronted with complex and multidimensional segregation processes,
superimposing geographical, socio-economical, ethnic and educational dimensions. First, there is
empirically based evidence for ethnic concentration, since pupils from these groups are not
dispatched to all kinds of schools indiscriminately; on the contrary, they tend to be concentrated in
socioeconomically deprived geographical areas, and, within these areas, in specific schools
occupying the lowest positions within the educational hierarchy (with low indicators of socio-
economic composition, high grade retention rates, high scores for positive action measures, etc.).
However, interestingly, some ethnic groups are more affected than others by this segregation.
Economically and culturally dominated minority groups (such as Turkish migrant pupils, for
example) seem to be more ‘trapped’ in segregated low-achieving schools, while other minorities
seem to make more extensive use of their ‘parental free choice’ by developing strategies of mobility
to escape from segregated spaces or tracks.
Again, the notion of ‘circuits of schooling’ (Ball et al, 1995) can help to throw light on the
dynamics of this process. Circulating in those segregated spaces is in no way totally free or open
(despite free parental choice mechanisms), but basically follows determinate dependency paths, traced
from the existing symbolic hierarchy between interdependent schools. This symbolic hierarchy
draws on multiple criteria, integrating socio-economic aspects (intake composition), objective and
perceived academic attainment, prestige of different types of curricula and optional subjects offered
within the school, and, finally, cultural and ethnic composition. Unsurprisingly, our quantitative
data show that ethnic minority pupils from post-colonial backgrounds have their favoured paths, as
their proportion diminishes as we go up throughout the school years in the so-called achieving
schools – which are also often socio-economically advantaged - or else they tend to concentrate
within less prestigious options; and school changes and curricular reorientations operate essentially
downward (i.e. from most to less prestigious contexts). These observations are confirmed by
qualitative data drawn from in-depth interviews carried out with teachers, parents and pupils. The
material shows that this multidimensional symbolic hierarchy between schools is reflected in
actors’ representations and mental ‘maps’. When asked to describe their school and to situate it on
the local or on the urban scene, teachers tend to merge criteria that are theoretically as different as
the level of attainment in the school, the socio-economic resources of the neighbourhood and the
social and ethnic composition of the intake. Pupils’ in-depth interviews lead to similar conclusions.
Most of them seem perfectly aware of this symbolic hierarchy (the ‘good schools’ are mostly
assimilated with ‘white schools’, whereas ‘multiethnic schools’ seem to be equivalent to ‘ghetto’,
‘deteriorating’ schools). More interestingly, pupils were perfectly able to ‘map’ for us the common
pre-determined ‘paths’ you are supposed to follow when you are from such or such a minority
background. Pupils would give a common account of the circuits of schooling, agreeing that, when

195
Marie Verhoeven

you fail in school A (ethnically ‘white’ and socially advantaged), you will have your chance in
schools B or C, which would probably be ethnically mixed, and probably a bit easier in terms of
required academic level; and if you come to fail again, you might well end up in a so-called ghetto
school, probably offering vocational or technical training, and with a ‘real curriculum’ quite distant
from the official curriculum… In other words, schooling paths can be identified in pupils’ cognitive
maps. Opposite upwards trajectories are possible, but they are scarcer, and experienced as unlikely
or exceptional. Pupils’ justifications about school changes are also very significant, as they often
combine or even merge elements related to cultural recognition with elements related to the access
to educationally legitimate resources. A meaningful illustration is given by this 17-year-old
Congolese living in Brussels, who has recently decided to leave a so-called ghetto school and to
enrol in a more prestigious and achieving white school. She appeals to two different registers of
justification simultaneously: she argues that she didn’t like the first school because of numerous
ethnic conflicts between ‘cliques’, which ‘won’t open your mind’; her second reason for
dissatisfaction was a perceived very low academic level. Interestingly, she partly attributes this low
achievement context to some side effects of the school’s ethnic composition: ‘Teachers are afraid of
pupils, here. Moroccan pupils [NDLR majority in this school] scare the teachers so that they won’t
teach what they should…’; and later: ‘… even teacher speak with a bad accent in French here,
cause they speak like their pupils!’ This girl concludes that ‘going on studying in this school would
not have allowed me to open my mind. I would not have reached the level, in language for
example, that I need to accomplish my dream – which is to become a lawyer.’ Other pupils, after
failing in ‘achieving schools’, would often justify their change by appealing to ‘cultural’ reasons
(they would say, for example, that they ‘finally actually prefer’ their new school, in spite of a lower
attainment level, because they feel more confident or more protected in this new multicultural
context). These examples show how symbolic recognition issues and access to legitimate
educational resources seem to be closely linked and influence each other in particular school
contexts.

Institutional Discrimination and the

Organizational Embedment of Multiple Inequalities
As I mentioned earlier, following Charles Tilly’s approach, inequalities become more ‘durable’
inasmuch as they are institutionalized within organizational configurations, through stabilized sets
of values, norms, rules and social routines. The question I will turn to now is: what are the sets of
values, norms and routines which contribute to this multiple segregation in local spaces? The
concept of institutional discrimination will help me sustain this exploration. Bataille (1999, p. 288)
relates this concept to ‘the existence of social norms or institutional rules that systematically
(although most of the time unwillingly) lead to disadvantaging some social categories’. After a
famous murder case in the 1980s in England (the ‘Stephen Lawrence case’), and the following
intensive public debate on its potentially racist nature, institutional discrimination has been
officially defined as the result of
the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to
people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be detected in processes, attitudes
and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance,
thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. (Macpherson
of Cluny, 1999, 6.3.4)
Unlike racism (usually related to individual attitudes), this notion ‘scrutinizes the organisational
structures and processes within the basic institutions of social life’ (such as housing, employment or
education) as potential ‘sources of discrimination’ (Gomolla, 2006, p. 48). These definitions
establish a bridge towards a pragmatic sociological approach, as it leads to the empirical
examination of how discrimination may pervade daily life culture and organizational routines.
Therefore, as Gomolla suggests from a neo-institutionalist perspective, research on institutional
discrimination purports to describe and explain the complex ways in which social and ethnic
differences are (re)constructed in education practices, rules and organizational structures; in other
words, the interesting question is ‘to examine how unequal opportunities for different (ethnic)

196
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

groups to fulfil their educational potential are affected by the institutional and organizational
structures of schools and their environment’ (Gomolla, 2006, p. 48).
In this perspective, our own research field (Verhoeven et al, 2007) reveals complex patterns of
institutional discrimination towards pupils from post-colonial minority backgrounds. Implicit or
informal rules and routines structure important processes within educational organizations, such as
enrolment rules, pupils’ selection, orientation or grouping in classes or optional subjects. We took
note of multiple examples of ethnic bias taking place during the enrolment process, such as the
implicit use ethnic criteria by this head teacher to estimate the degree of ‘social well-being’ that
minority pupils would feel within his predominantly white school ... and his resulting reluctance to
enrol them, leading to accentuated local segregation patterns. So, paradoxically, in their willingness
to avoid explicit situations of racism between peer groups, the school staff may introduce
institutional discrimination. Similar ethnic bias has been observed in the grouping of pupils
according to optional subjects or types of secondary education. For example, in this Walloon urban
area, we observed a significant concentration of Turkish girls in vocational training, particularly in
options such as sewing – and the official motive given to our research team was that, because of
culture and religious patterns, those girls were encouraged by their families to get married early
and therefore there was no point at stimulating them to pursue long studies in general orientations.
Legal and administrative rules can also be considered as indirect institutional discrimination.
Our data reveal that primo-migrant pupils are highly over-represented in what is referred to in
French-speaking Belgium as the ‘differentiated first degree’ – a special grade organizing the
transition between primary and secondary school for ‘late’ pupils (pupils having repeated more
than two years during their primary schooling). This rule does not take into account the linguistic
and cultural adaptation delay inevitably experienced by newcomers, who don’t get their Basic
Education Certificate ‘on time’ as often as their native peers do. We could therefore put this down
to institutional discrimination, inasmuch this mechanism unfairly traps primo-migrant pupils in a
less-valued schooling orientation, as a large majority of them won’t be allowed to pursue general
secondary education.
To sum up, multidimensional segregation patterns structure local spaces and circuits of
schooling, while institutional discrimination mechanisms contribute to enacting inequalities
through organizational rules and routines. In both processes, cultural patterns interact with the
social organization of redistributive inequalities (typically through the [restricted] access to
legitimate educational resources and/or paths). Recent investigations carried out in France (Payet,
1995, 2005, Lorcerie, 2003, Felouzis, 2003), in England (Gillborn, 1987) and in Switzerland
(Gomolla, 2006) lead us to similar conclusions.

Micro-Level Analysis: analysing single schools’ policy dealing with cultural diversity
I will now turn to a yet smaller scale of analysis – the school level. The interrelation between
cultural patterns and social organization of inequalities is also clearly visible through the ‘local
policy’ developed by single schools in order to deal with ethno-cultural diversity. Following the
paths of neo-institutionalism in organizational analysis (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991), I defend a
complex approach of organizational action and rationality, insisting on the limitations of limited-
rationality-based decision making, and emphasizing the importance of the organization’s culture
and micro-politics. Therefore, I refer to a single school’s local diversity policy as including several
dimensions. (i) A cultural integration dimension (what is the implicit or explicit ‘philosophy of
integration’ promoted by the school? Is the school tolerant towards religious and ethnic signs in
everyday life? Is the educational project open to multiculturalism? (ii) Curricular and pedagogical
dimensions (is the curriculum open to cultural diversity? In what subjects ? How close to the
‘official’ national curriculum is the school project? Are specific pedagogical intercultural approaches
implemented?) (iii) Organisational aspects (how does the school integrate pupils from migrant
backgrounds? Are they integrated in an inclusive education perspective, or unequally split
according to other hierarchical lines (between tracks, between types of training offered, etc.)? What
are the school’s selection and orientation strategies? What is its enrolment policy or its class
formation strategy? In other words, the way a local school deals with ethno-cultural diversity is
tightly interrelated with the way this school deals with social inclusion and educational difference.

197
Marie Verhoeven

The ‘local diversity policy’ cannot be separated from the micro-politics of the school – from its
broader strategy of organizing social difference and heterogeneity.
The notion of educational niche (Dupriez & Cornet, 2005) can be helpful in giving a better
account of this process, as it refers to the strategy of specification (or differentiation) developed by
each school in a local space of interdependency, and includes an instrumental or positional dimension
as well as a cultural, narrative dimension. I have argued (Verhoeven, 2003, 2010) that a single
school’s ‘local diversity policy’ results from cultural patterns and positioning choices which have to
do with this ‘niche’ effect. On the cultural axis, each school develops its own narratives, its own
conceptions about educational justice or about legitimate culture in multicultural societies; these
narratives are influenced by the single school’s history, by the philosophy promoted by its funding
source and/or by the national integration philosophy. On the positional axis, the school deals with
social heterogeneity and tries to position itself within a local space of interdependency (through
local enrolment, selection and orientation strategies). Both dimensions are co-present and interact
with each other in order to give multiple local compromises. In comparative research between
Brussels and Birmingham secondary schools (Verhoeven, 2003, 2005) based on eight in-depth case
studies, I observed that, in schools occupying a ‘strong’ position in the local educational ‘quasi-
market’, teachers and professionals tended to defend an individualistic, meritocratic conception of
school justice, promoting formal equality of treatment between pupils, as well as an
‘assimilationist’ conception of school culture – leading to a strategy of ‘indifference to differences’
and to a rigid focus on the national curriculum. On the opposite site of the local spectrum, schools
tending to occupy a more disadvantaged position seemed to refer to a more ‘differentialist’ and
compensatory conception of justice (based on differentiation mechanisms that compensate for
social and cultural unequal capitals); cultural diversity appears to be a relevant criterion for
pedagogy, and intercultural education is valued. But these considerations are also influenced by
specific philosophies of integration promoted according to national (British vs. French community
of Belgium) contexts or according to funding regimes (private Catholic or ‘state’ schools referring
to distinct philosophies).
This hypothesis of local school diversity policy being related to the school’s educational
‘niche’ must be complemented by an internal analysis of the micro-politics of the school. Each
single school seems to develop its own local way of dealing with social and ethnic differentiation –
through class formation, tracking or internal reorientation, etc. This process goes hand in hand
with what Charles Tilly (1999) calls an ‘opportunity hoarding process’ – that is, where the matching
of organizational categories or differentiation processes (options, sets, classes, etc.), social
differentiation and ethno-cultural categories tends to be naturalized. This matching process
contributes to making ethnic inequalities more ‘durable’ through education.

Individual Schooling Experience, Identity Building and Unequal Capability

These considerations about multiple embedded inequalities have considerable implications for
individual pupils’ schooling experience. Unequal local contexts, dealing with cultural ‘difference’
through differing strategies, constitute contrasting spaces of opportunities which inform or shape
pupils’ socialization and identity building. According to the ‘circuits of schooling’ they follow
within specific local areas and according to the specific local schools they frequent, pupils won’t
forge the same educational and social aspirations. In other words, concrete educational conditions
lead to the enhancing or undermining of individuals’ capability, defined as the range of possibilities
which they (think they) can actually reach.
Recent empirical investigations reveal the impressive multiplicity of singular schooling
trajectories for migrant pupils (Verhoeven et al, 2007). In a recent article (Verhoeven, 2011), I put
forward a tentative typology of minority pupils’ school careers, combining several dimensions: (i)
degree of school mobility vs. circuits of schooling trapped in segregated spaces; (ii) moment of
discovery of the ethnic stigma; (iii) type of obstacles to ‘parity of participation’ experienced by the
pupils (symbolic obstacles vs. redistributive obstacles); and (iv) identity strategies (essentialist vs.
complex). I will now briefly describe three typified careers from this typology.
A first type of school career is distinguished by ‘upward school mobility and importance of
objective conditions for parity of participation’. This career is typical of young people from ethnic

198
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

minority backgrounds who have developed, from the beginning, successful schooling, in non-
segregated, socially and ethnically mixed schools. Following Goffman (1975[1963], p. 32), I suggest
that such pupils have been made conscious of the existence of ethnic stigma (ethnic labelling) very
early on in their lives, since they have been regularly in contact with the larger society group; they
have been able to refuse this ethnic categorization through geographical and school mobility
(carefully avoiding segregated and ethnically stigmatized places) and by developing assimilationist
identity strategies. They constantly work ‘hard’ to remain in ‘achieving’ schools as they are
conscious of ethnic bias existing in schooling orientation. Their focus is on acquiring legitimate
educational resources (valued orientations and titles, efficient education, etc.) in order to pursue an
upward social mobility project. In terms of capability, these pupils seem to be able to project
themselves into a wide range of future social and economic opportunities, and develop all the
required educational strategies in that perspective.
A second school career could be described as a ‘career trapped in segregated spaces,
identification with stigma, insistence on recognition, low capability development’. On the opposite
of the spectrum, some pupils have accomplished most of their schooling in segregated schools
within deprived areas. If there has been some school mobility, it is within in a tight space, and
between schools with very similar ethnic and schooling conditions. These young people seem to
have a very different relationship to ethnic stigma, as they have always been socialized in
‘protected’ spaces, relatively isolated from the majority of society. As they didn’t have many
opportunities to visit other social spaces, they experience some difficulties in situating their social
group and their school within the socio-symbolic hierarchy. Their expectations are concentrated on
subjective recognition conditions (‘a cool place to be what you are’, ‘a school where teachers
respect your culture’), sometimes to the detriment of the acquisition of educationally legitimate
resources. It is in such conditions that ‘ethnic essentialist’ identity strategies have been mostly
observed, as an affective identification with ethnic community references often appears central.
These pupils’ capability development is much more restrictive and their social aspirations tend to
be more determined by local patterns.
Finally, a third type of school career refers to ‘unstable careers’, oscillating between
segregated spaces (which can be experienced as ‘refuges’ or as ‘prisons’, depending on single
trajectories and perspectives) and moments of confrontation with socially mixed and achieving
contexts. Such pupils develop more complex and multiple identity strategies, such as complex
abilities to deal with different cultural ‘registers’. The examination of their capability development
requires a single-case-based perspective.
These findings lead to two concluding observations: first, identity (including ‘ethnic’ identity)
is not a ‘given’ substance, pre-existing in biographical and contextual trajectories. I argue for a
constructivist approach to identities, paying attention to the power of contexts to build objective
and subjective spaces of opportunities; second, examining minority pupils’ schooling with a view to
equality concerns does not only require considering individual ‘capitals’ or abilities, or available
educational resources, but must include a pragmatic analysis of local spaces of opportunities; their
social and cultural organization contributes to building aspirations and capabilities.

Concluding Comments and Perspectives

This article seeks to present an argument for approaching the social construction of ‘cultural
diversity’ in education with a focus on social justice. I explore how educational systems ‘organize’
ethno-cultural difference and how this process contributes to the production of inequalities.
Theoretical resources are drawn from social philosophy (especially Fraser’s theory of social justice
and Sen’s capability approach) – used as a broad evaluative frame of reference – as well as from
recent developments in theories of social organization. Looking at data from several empirical
investigations on ethnic minority pupils in the French community of Belgium and in other
European contexts, the article demonstrates that these pupils face complex and intertwined ranges
of inequalities of a social (redistributive) and cultural (recognition) nature: unequal access to
educationally legitimate resources combines with unequal access to opportunities to create
different kinds of misrecognition.

199
Marie Verhoeven

Even though the first section consists of a social philosophical discussion on multiple sources
of inequalities, the article is mostly anchored in a pragmatic sociological approach. The second
section examines how these dimensions of inequality intertwine, inasmuch as they are embedded
through institutionalized systems of values, norms and routines. Three empirical levels are
explored. At the macro-level of educational systems, I maintain that the acknowledgement of
specific (national) narratives must be connected to structural elements to understand the
permanence of ethnic inequalities. At the intermediate level, I scrutinize local spaces of
interdependency between schools and I show how segregation and institutional discrimination
contribute to make ethnic inequalities more ‘durable’, through socially stabilized processes such as
circuits of schooling and ethnically biased orientation rules. At the single-school level, local policies
of difference are presented as being tightly bound to local narratives, social positioning and
‘educational niche’ effects.
In the last section, I argue that these multiple embedded sources of inequality significantly
determine pupils’ objective and subjective opportunities and hamper their ‘capability’ building. A
tentative typology of three school careers is briefly presented, revealing contrasting – ‘mobile’,
‘segregated’ and ‘unstable’ - trajectories connected to different kinds of educational and social
aspirations (insisting more either on redistributive issues, on recognition issues, or on both of
them), and leading to different identity patterns.
In terms of educational policy, these findings indicate the urgent need to develop ‘non-
essentialist’ equal opportunity policies, insisting more on the local contexts of production of equal
capabilities than on predetermined cultures in search of recognition. In my view, efficient policies
regarding diversity in education cannot be separated from strong action on the structure of social
inequalities within a given system, or from the local processes contributing to their production.
As far as research perspectives are concerned, these developments show that the study of
(ethnic) educational inequalities still has a brilliant future. I shall conclude with three final
comments, of an epistemological and methodological nature, which, I argue, should orientate
future research, especially in the new context of crescent internationalization.
First of all, this article calls for an intensified dialogue between scholars working on
educational inequalities or educational policies, and migration and cultural diversity scholars. This
dialogue has been surprisingly weak in recent years, in a context of hyper-specialization of research
areas in the social sciences. Scholars tend to remain nested in their own field, constructing their
‘object’ within different scientific narratives – leading to an insufficient (or, worse, an un-reflexive)
transfer of knowledge from one field to another. Rather, a joint reflection is needed on the
comprehensive patterns of inequalities within educational systems, looking at transversal processes
such as the social categorization of cultural difference and the organizational patterns contributing to their
institutionalization.
Second, this article argues for multilevel approaches, examining national, intermediate and
local scales of analysis, as well as the interconnections between them. Here again, an excessive
partitioning between scientific specializations should be avoided, where, for instance, researchers
specialized in quantitative comparisons, manipulating international databases, are opposed to
ethnographers of education, focused on local socialization contexts or narrative cultural identities.
In that perspective, I have mentioned in the article that too few investigations try to incorporate
both the comparison of equality and efficiency indicators and considerations of migration regimes
or cultural integration models. The third section of the article suggests that (ethnic) identity
building cannot be properly understood without analysing the pupils’ positioning within the
educational system. It has to be related to the local configuration of inequalities as well as to the
patterns of recognition promoted within a single-school local policy. But undoubtedly, there is still
much to do in order to connect qualitative work on identities and capability building with broader
patterns of social differentiation. In this respect, the study of intermediate scales of observation –
such as local spaces of interdependency between schools – seems promising, as it offers a direct
access to the social construction of the reality as enacted in local processes.
Third, this focus on the local embedment of inequalities, embracing structural and symbolical
dimensions, has inevitable consequences for international comparison. Unfortunately, the
international field is largely dominated by quantitative comparisons based on large-scale databases
(such as the PISA programme) often built on de-contextualized indicators – which appear unable to
grasp neither the contextual significance of social and ethnic categorization, nor the social

200
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

construction of symbolic hierarchies within national educational fields. In this regard, if social
philosophy can definitely help in clarifying the normative conceptions of social justice, or of what
have to be considered as ‘legitimate’, ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ differences in education, social scientists are
definitely invited on a hermeneutical and ‘historical journey’ (Novoa & Yariv-Mashal, 2003),
comparing not only ‘facts’ or de-contextualized data, but local significations and local
organizational and symbolic configurations of social difference.

References
Adam, I. (2010) Beyond National Models? Immigrant Integration Policies of the Belgian Regions. PhD thesis
in Social Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Ball, S., Bowe, R. & Gewirtz, S. (1995) Circuits of Schooling: a sociological exploration of parental choice of
school in social class contexts, Sociological Review, 43(1), 52-78.
Bataille, G. (1999) Racisme institutionnel, racisme culturel et discriminations, in P. Dewitte (Ed.) Immigration
et intégration, l’état des savoirs, pp. 285-293. Paris: La Découverte.
Bonvin, J.-M. & Farvaque, N. (2008) Amartya Sen: une politique de la liberté. Paris: Michalon.
Broccolichi, S. & van Zanten, A. (2004) Espaces de concurrence et circuits de scolarisation. L’évitement des
collèges publics d’un district de la banlieue parisienne, Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, 75, 5-17.
Brubaker, R. (1997[1992]) Citoyenneté et nationalité en France et en Allemagne. Paris: Belin.
Castles, S. & Miller, D. (1993) The Age of Migration: international population movements in the modern world.
London: Macmillan.
Crahay, M. (2003) L’école obligatoire en Europe: des conceptions divergentes, Sciences Humaines, 142, 38-40.
Delvaux, B. & van Zanten, A. (2004) Les espaces locaux d’interdépendance entre établissements: une comparaison
européenne. Louvain-la-Neuve: research report Reguleducnetwork, Cerisis-UCL et OSC-Sciences-Po.
Dupriez, V. & Cornet, J. (2005) La rénovation de l’école primaire. Comprendre les enjeux du changement
pédagogique. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Dupriez, V. & Dumay, X. (2006) Inequalities in School Systems: effect of school structure or of society
structure? Comparative Education, 42(2), 243-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060600628074
Duru-Bellat M., Mons N. & Suchaut B. (2004) Caractéristiques des systèmes éducatifs et compétences des
jeunes de 15 ans: L'éclairage des comparaisons entre pays, Cahiers de l'Irédu, 66, February.
Favell, A. (2001) Philosophies of Integration: immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain. New
York: Palgrave.
Felouzis, G. (2003) La ségrégation ethnique au collègue et ses conséquences, Revue Française de Sociologie,
44(3), 413-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3323202
Fraser, N. (2004) Justice sociale, redistribution et reconnaissance, Revue du MAUSS, 1(23), 152-164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rdm.023.0152
Fraser, N. (2005) Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution. Paris: La Découverte.
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. & Bowe, R. (1995) Markets, Choice and Equity in Education. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Gillborn, D. (1987) ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Education: teaching and learning in multi-ethnic schools. London:
Routledge.
Goffmann, E. (1975[1963]) Stigmate: les usages sociaux des handicaps. Paris: Minuit.
Gomolla, M. (2006) Tackling Underachievement of Learners from Ethnic Minorities: a comparison of recent
policies of school improvement in Germany, England and Switzerland, Current Issues in Comparative
Education, 9(1), 46-59.
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/Issues/09.01/91_06_cice_fall2006_gomolla.pdf
Grosvenor, I. (1997) Assimilating Identities: racism and educational policy in post-1945 Britain. London: Lawrence
& Wishart.
Hochshild, J. & Cropper, P. (2010) Immigration Regimes and Schooling Regimes: which countries promote
successful immigrant incorporation? Theory and Research in Education, 8(1), 21-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878509356342
Jacobs, D. & Rea, A. (2007) The End of National Models? Integration Courses and Citizenship Trajectories in
Europe, IJMS International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 9(2), 264-283.

201
Marie Verhoeven

Joppke, C. (2007) Beyond National Models: civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe, West
European Politics, 30(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402380601019613
Joseph, M. & Delvaux, B. (2005) Les logiques d’action des établissements, reflets de leur position relative dans
l’espace local d’interdépendance, Recherches sociologiques, XXXVI(1), 7-27.
Lorcerie, F. (2003) L’Ecole et le défi ethnique. Paris: ESF & INRP.
Lynch, K. & Baker, J. (2005) Equality in Education: an equality of condition perspective, Theory and Research
in Education, 3, 131-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878505053298
MacPherson of Cluny, Sir W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Policy report.
http://www.archive.official-document.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/SLI-00.htm
Maroy, C. (2006) Ecole, régulation et marché. Une analyse de six espaces scolaires locaux en Europe. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Novoa, A. & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003) Comparative Research in Education: a mode of governance or a
historical journey? Comparative Education, 4, 423-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162002
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Knowledge and Skills for Life. First
results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publications.
Payet, J.-P. (1995) Collèges de banlieue, Ethnographie d’un monde scolaire. Paris: Méridiens-Klincksieck.
Payet, J.P. (2005) Les mondes scolaires sans qualités, La matière et l’esprit, 2, 113-132.
Powell, W.W. & DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds) (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rawls, J. (1997[1971]) Théorie de la justice. Paris, Seuil.
Sen, A. (1990) Justice: means versus freedoms: achievements and limitations of the market mechanism in
promoting individual freedoms, Oxford Economic Papers, 45(4), 519-541.
Sen, A. ([1987] 1993) Éthique et économie. Paris, PUF, Quadrige
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2000). Repenser l’inégalité. Paris: Seuil.
Tilly, C. (1999) Durable Inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Verhoeven, M. (2001) School Experience of Adolescents from Ethnic Minorities in Two Multicultural
Societies. A Comparison of Belgium (French Community) and Britain. Final scientific report, TMR
Marie Curie fellowship (unpublished).
Verhoeven, M. (2002) Ecole et diversité culturelle. Regards croisés sur l’expérience scolaire de jeunes issus de
l’immigration. Louvain-la-Neuve: Académia-Bruylandt.
Verhoeven, M. (2003) Modèles d’intégration nationaux, dynamiques d’établissements et processus
identitaires en contextes multiculturels: regards croisés Angleterre – Communauté française de Belgique,
Revue Française de Pédagogie, 144 (July/August/September), 9-17.
Verhoeven, M. (2005) Identités complexes et espaces publics contemporains: trajectoires scolaires et
biographiques de jeunes belges et anglais d’origine immigrée, Lien Social et Politiques, 53, 105-115.
Verhoeven, M. (2006) Stratégies identitaires de jeunes issus de l’immigration et contextes scolaires, Education
et francophonie, Special Issue: D. Gérin-Lajoie (Ed.) La contribution de l’école au processus de
construction identitaire des élèves dans une société pluraliste, 95-110.
Verhoeven, M. (2010) Politiques éducatives et diversité culturelle. Des philosophies d’intégration aux
compromis locaux, in J. Ringelheim & M.-C. Foblets (Eds) La diversité culturelle en Droit Belge. Bruxelles:
Bruylant.
Verhoeven, M. (2011) Carrières morales et épreuves scolaires. Se construire dans un monde scolaire
inéquitable, Education et Sociétés, Special Issue, J.-P. Payet & C. Lynch (Eds) Redistribution,
reconnaissance … justice, 1(27), 101-115.
Verhoeven, M., Dupriez, V. & Orianne, J.-F. (2009) Politiques éducatives et approche par les capacités,
Ethique publique, 11(1), 44-53.
Verhoeven, M. (Coord.), Rea, A., Martiniello, M. et al (2007) Analyse des parcours scolaires des jeunes
d’origine ou de nationalité étrangère en Communautré française. Rapport final de Recherche
commandité par le Cabinet de la Ministre-Présidente Marie Arena, en charge de l’Enseignement
obligatoire et de la promotion sociale.
Zimmermann, B. (2006) Pragmatism and the Capability Approach: challenges in social theory and empirical
research, European Journal of Social Theory, 9(4), 467-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368431006073014

202
Multiple Embedded Inequalities and Cultural Diversity

Zimmermann, B. (2008) L’enquête sur les capacités, in J. De Munck & B. Zimmermann (Eds) La liberté au
prisme des capacités. Amartya Sen au-delà du libéralisme. Paris: EHESS.

MARIE VERHOEVEN is a Professor of Sociology at the Department of Social and Political

Sciences of the University of Louvain (Belgium), and senior researcher at GIRSEF (Centre for
Interdisciplinary Research on Socialisation, Education and Training). Her main research interests
focus on the understanding of cultural and normative changes within the educational field in post-
industrial societies. She has been carrying out research on school norms and regulation, on ethno-
cultural diversity and identities, as well as on post-migratory issues in educational policy and
practice. She is co-author (with Jean De Munck) of Les mutations du rapport à la norme (De Boeck,
1997) and (with V. Dupriez & J.-F Orianne) of De l’école au marché du travail, l’égalité des chances en
question (Peter Lang, 2007).
Correspondence: Marie Verhoeven, Université Catholique de Louvain, Bâtiment J. Leclercq, 1/1
Place Montesquieu, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (marie.verhoeven@uclouvain.be).

203