Research Background

In the concept of resource distribution in higher education, elitism and egalitarianism compete with each other and promote the development of higher education. In addition, as the popularization of higher education in chinese society continues to deepen, whether the distribution within universities should be included in more diverse standards, and whether to pursue simple equality or complex equality, has also become an important topic of discussion. The distribution of university scholarships is a core issue in the distribution of resources in higher education institutions, which not only reflects the university's concept of distributive justice, but also characterizes the university's educational philosophy. 

Folger Brickman distinguished between micro distributive justice and macro distributive justice. Micro distributive justice refers to the fairness of resources obtained by individuals, while macro distributive justice aims to explore the fairness of resource distribution at the group level, ensuring the overall needs and development needs of the community.

The study sorted out policy documents from fifteen universities in China. Research has found that the text for scholarship distribution emphasizes the value orientation of "procedural fairness" and focuses on the implementation of the "deserve" principle, but does not effectively explain the macro distribution status of scholarships. Therefore, this study aims to explore the issue of justice in the distribution of university scholarships from a macro perspective.

Research Questions

The three questions of this study are explored from the perspectives of "reality", "concept", and "necessity".

1.Distributive justice in reality: What is the current situation and characteristics of the distribution practice of university scholarships?

2.Distributive justice in concept: What are the views of students on the distribution justice of university scholarships? Does this conflict with the real situation?

3.Distributive justice in necessity: What distribution philosophy should universities be based on? What macro distribution principles should be adopted? In addition, what social issues and cultural logic do these distributive justice views reflect?

Theoretical Framework

The research refers to the higher education stratification system constructed by Martin Trow and the higher education diversity classification model constructed by Teichler Ulcer. The study proposes a macro distribution classification model for university scholarships, which mainly includes two dimensions:  

Firstly, the "evaluation types" of scholarships: "Unity" and "Diversity". “Unity”, only covering academic performance. “Diversity”, in addition to academic performance, also includes types such as comprehensive qualities and social practice. Drawing on Walzer's theory of complex equality, it is believed that the distribution of educational resources should not rely solely on a single distribution standard, but should achieve equality in different fields and contexts while respecting individual differences.

Secondly, the “coverage areas” of scholarships: "elitism" and "egalitarianism". Scholarships are concentrated on a small number of high-performing students or spread over a larger group of qualified performers. The study draws inspiration from Cohen's principle of community theory, which suggests that focusing solely on the "deserve" principle will tacitly tolerate significant differences in outcomes, even if such inequality undermines the community. Therefore, based on Rawls' viewpoint, it is emphasized that "inequalities that cannot be weakened in the name of equal opportunities should be appropriately restricted in the name of the community".

Based on this, the macro distribution for university scholarships is divided into four types: "Unity-Elitism", "Diversity-Elitism", "Unity-Egalitarianism", and "Diversity-Egalitarianism".

This study used a mixed research method and selected 15 universities in China with different rankings for research. The samples were selected from 5 Type A universities (QS World University Rankings Top 200), 5 Type B universities (QS World University Rankings 500-800), and 5 Type C universities (QS World University Rankings 1500-2000). In response to the question "Ⅰ Distributive justice in reality", the study analyzes the institutional texts and school data of the 15 universities, and examines the "evaluation types" and "coverage areas". The study also examines the distribution types generally adopted by different types of universities. In response to the question "II Distributive justice in concept", the study used questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and focus group interviews. A questionnaire with three sub-dimensions and 16 questions was developed and administered to 1,105 students from the 15 universities to examine their views on distributive justice. At the same time, the study conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews and 12 focus group interviews with 55 university students and 22 faculty members. To address the issue of "III Distributive justice in necessity", the study used the theoretical research method, focusing on the simple equality theories of Rawls, Nozick, and Dworkin, and the complex equality theories of MacIntyre, Miller, and Walzer to carry out an in-depth discussion.

First, Distributive justice in concept. Students have the lowest support for the distributional options of "Unity-Egalitarianism" and "Unity-Elitism", accounting for 8% and 16% of the overall proportion. The two programs with the highest support rate among students are "Diversity-Elitism" and "Diversity-Egalitarianism", with 27% and 49% respectively. Thus, Students are more supportive of diversity in scholarships, encouraging a variety of pathways for students. However, there is still controversy over whether these scholarships should be concentrated among a few elites or distributed equally to more students. Second, Distributive justice in reality. It is worth noting that there are significant differences in students' sense of belonging, sense of fairness and attribution of achievement among universities with different distribution types. Students in universities with "Diversity-Elitism" distribution type have lower sense of belonging and fairness, and are more likely to attribute their achievements internally, i.e., their achievements are only due to their own efforts. In contrast, universities with a "Diversity-Egalitarianism" distribution type have a significantly higher sense of belonging and fairness, and students place a higher value on the help of their classmates and faculty. Thus, different distribution types may lead to a compromised sense of solidarity within the community. Finally, Distributive justice in necessity. The study proposes that the distribution of scholarships should take into account the "community principle" in order to balance the tension between elitism and egalitarianism, talent selection and talent development. Equality should also be moderately balanced, so that the gap in the distribution of scholarships is kept within certain limits, and all students, at all stages and levels of development, have the opportunity to be recognized, while creating more "Moment of equal opportunity".

Ainscow M, Dyson A , Goldrick S, et al. Using collaborative inquiry to foster equity within school systems: opportunities and barriers1[J]. School Effectiveness & School Improvement,2016,27(1):7-23. Alves W M, Rossi P H. Who Should Get What? Fairness Judgments of the Distribution of Earnings[J].American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 84(3):541-564. Alwin S D F. Beliefs about Inequality and Perceptions of Distributive Justice[J].American Sociological Review, 1986, 51(1):30-46. Apple M W, Ball S J, Gandin L A. The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education[J].Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, 2010, 103(7-8):243–244. Arneson R J. Luck And Equality: Richard J. Arneson[J].Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 2015, 75(1):73-90. Bamfield L, Horton T. What’s Fair? Applying the Fairness Test to Education. [M].London: Fabian Society.2010. Bathmaker A M, Ingram N, Abrahams J, et al. Higher Education, Social Class and Social Mobility[M].Palgrave Macmillan UK,2016. Brickman P, Folger R, Goode E, Schul Y. "Microjustice and Macrojustice." In Melvin J.Lerner & Sally C.Lerne (eds.),The Justice Motive in Social Behavior[M].New York:Plenum Press.1981:178. Daniel B. On Meritocracy and Equality[M]. Public Interest.1972(29):29-68. Deutsch M. Education and distributive justice. Some reflflections on grading systems[J]. American Psychologist, 1979,34(5):301–401. Jackson M. Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School. By Jessica McCrory Calarco. New York: Oxford University Press[J]. American Journal of Sociology,2019,125(1):274-276. Jasso G, Trnblom K Y, Sabbagh C. Distributive Justice[J].Springer New York, 2016. Liebig S, Sauer C. Sociology of Justice[J].Springer New York, 2016. Sabbagh C, Schmitt M. Past, Present, and Future of Social Justice Theory and Research[J].Springer New York, 2016. Sabbagh D, Mountford-Zimdars A, Post D. Fair Access to Higher Education. Global Perspectives[J].University of Chicago Press, 2015. Skitka L J, Wisneski D C. Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective[M]Handbook of Psychology. 2012. Williams A P. Equity in groupwork: the social process of creating justice in a science classroom[J]. Cultural Studies of Science Education,2019,14(2):361-381.