Vacancy

• MA/MSc degree in social psychology, interest in, and ideally some familiarity with sociology, network science, demography, or data science     
• Interest in the topic of social cohesion and in collaborating in a broad research consortium with academic and non-academic stakeholders
• Strong interest in interdisciplinary research, including analytical and theoretical dimensions
• Professional competence in English
• Competence in Dutch is a plus 
• Advanced quantitative data analytic skills and an interest in questions surrounding polarization, (educational) segregation and/or inequality 
• We look for team players who want to play an active role in an inter- and transdisciplinary research community and training programme

Educational differences have become one of the most consequential social divides in contemporary societies. Education shapes socio-economic status, political attitudes and group identities, and increasingly functions as a boundary around which cultural and political conflict is organized. This project aims to uncover how education-based segregation in personal networks emerges and how it contributes to political polarization, conflicts around issues such as climate change and migration and engagement in societal debates on the public good. Going beyond traditional explanations of segregation based on opportunity structures or similarity attraction, the project introduces avoidance as a theoretically and empirically underexplored mechanism. By combining register data, European comparative survey data and controlled experiments, the project will identify whether educational segregation results from contextual constraints or from deliberate preferences for (or against) contact with certain groups, and whether such segregation is related to socio-economic identities and political polarization. Ultimately, the project will generate new theoretical and empirical insights into how education-based identities and network homogeneity shape societal cohesion and conflict under conditions of inequality.

The Education Divide and Political Conflict

Education is an increasingly important divide in society. It is a major marker of socio-economic status, and those with and without tertiary qualifications often lead different lives. Education is also strongly related to political attitudes and voting, increasingly functioning both as a group identity (e.g., van Noord et al., 2023) and as the object of political conflict, as current debates about public goods such as higher-education funding, migration or renewable energy illustrate. This project examines how educational segregation comes about and how it contributes to education-based intergroup conflict – and ultimately whether and how people take part in societal debates on the public good (i.e., political participation and deliberation). We will systematically compare education-based divides to income-based divides: both may reflect inequality, but this project investigates whether and why education is the more important factor for identity formation, political attitudes and polarization.

Research Questions

Comparative analyses show that social closure by education – the extent to which social networks are educationally homogeneous – amplifies political divides (de Jong & Kamphorst, 2024). Yet the mechanisms producing closure remain contested. We aim to investigate the causes of educationally homogeneous networks and how they shape polarization and the willingness to engage in debates about the public good. Specifically, we ask whether educational segregation is a by-product of the economic organization of society or a consequence of the active avoidance of others with a different level of education, and whether it independently contributes to political polarization. Social cohesion within educationally homogeneous networks may be a key driver of current polarization if it impels attitudes to become more typical for one’s own educational group. Current political polarization could be related to such intergroup dynamics between education-based groups, fuelled by educational segregation.

This project will address the following research questions:

1. Do people show education-based avoidance in choosing whom to include in their personal networks?
2. Is the educational composition of networks related to identity and political attitudes, and if so, how?

Avoidance, Segregation, Identity and Political Polarization

We aim to introduce the concept of avoidance into theories of segregation and polarization. Avoidance of certain educational out-groups could lead to segregation at meso- and macrolevels. Traditional sociological work explains segregation through similarity attraction and opportunity structures, while social psychology highlights discomfort in out-group contact. Avoidance is an alternative mechanism, as it can operate without explicit conflict or discomfort. It may also have opposing consequences: on the one hand, avoidance can produce segregation that strengthens educational group identities, fuels polarization and reduces engagement with societal debates on the public good; on the other, it may reduce overt conflict by minimizing confrontation. Recent reviews highlight volition and avoidance as underexplored drivers of segregation and show that avoidance produces distinct patterns compared to other network mechanisms. Importantly, education is a relatively ‘legitimate’ axis of differentiation: studies document educationism – bias and avoidance particularly among the tertiary-educated toward the less educated. We advance the field by modelling avoidance as a mechanism that can operate without overt conflict and may lead either to polarization or to conflict reduction. The project will address the empirical questions of whether educational inequality heightens or dampens conflict and whether preferences favour or disfavour specific groups.

Education-based segregation may also simply reflect opportunities. People meet through education, work and neighbourhoods, so segregation may arise even without avoidance. It is therefore essential to distinguish preference-based contact and avoidance behaviour from contextual constraints. If contact patterns do not depend on education-based preferences, segregation is unlikely to be part of an identity-based intergroup process. It is also possible that avoidance is asymmetric, as some research suggests that the tertiary-educated avoid other educational groups more than the reverse.

Research Strategies

Preferences for social contact (who avoids whom?) can be investigated in several ways. Sociologists typically focus on opportunity structures for cross-group contact, while social psychologists emphasize individual preferences. We combine these perspectives using multiple data sources. First, we use register data from Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and we link these data to ego network information. Second, we analyse regional variation, using European Social Survey data (cross-sectional and longitudinal) combined with regional-level Eurostat data about educational population composition and inequality. Finally, to investigate avoidance in a controlled setting, we use experiments. All studies will investigate relations between segregation, socio-economic identities and political attitudes.

The proposed project aims to deliver new theory and data on educational segregation and its role in polarization around issues such as climate change and migration. It addresses the three levels distinguished in the SOCION programme (individuals, groups and institutions) and engages with societal challenges related to climate change and migration/diversity.

To address these questions, the project uses a multimethod, multilevel empirical strategy. First, Dutch administrative register data enable us to measure educational homophily in family, neighbourhood, school and workplace settings. By linking these opportunity structures to ego network data, we can identify whether actual networks reflect contextual constraints or preference-based processes. This combination of administrative and survey data provides a rare chance to disentangle structural and volitional mechanisms. We will also use these data to investigate the relation between network composition, socio-economic identities and political opinions on polarized issues such as climate change and migration.

Second, the project incorporates a comparative European dimension. Using the European Social Survey, we examine whether educational homogamy is stronger in NUTS2 regions with higher concentrations of tertiary-educated residents. These regions may be more deeply institutionalized ‘schooled societies’, where education plays a more significant role in interpersonal processes related to status and identity. This analysis links macrolevel institutional contexts to microlevel contact patterns, testing whether stronger educational institutions reinforce educational boundary-making.

Third, experimental designs will measure avoidance behaviour directly. Participants will make choices about whom they want to talk to, collaborate with or advise, based on minimal information about others’ educational backgrounds (among other background information). These controlled interactions make it possible to detect subtle avoidance, asymmetric patterns and decision processes that are difficult to observe in real-world data. Avoidance will be further related to socio-economic identities and political attitudes on polarized issues. While the observational analyses offer high ecological validity, these experiments offer high internal validity. Combined, they enable a comprehensive assessment of how avoidance, opportunity and preference interplay in shaping educational networks and how this relates to socio-economic identities and political attitudes.

Jong, J. de, & Kamphorst, J. (2024). Separated by degrees: Social closure by education levels strengthens contemporary political divides. Comparative Political Studies, 58(7), 1533–1568. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241271104

Van Noord, J., Kuppens, T., Spruyt, B., & Spears, R. (2023). When and why people prefer higher educated politicians: Ingroup bias, deference, and resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(4), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221077794