‘How Can a Dalit Student Write So Beautifully,So Nicely?’ Caste-Based Stereotyping and Its Implications for Dalit Students in Higher Education

Abstract

This paper presents a social-psychological study of caste stereotyping in higher education in India. It is about the lives of dalit students and their experiences of navigating through educational spaces with the awareness of being targets of stereotyping associated with their caste identity in the academic domain. With the help of in-depth interviews, the study delves into how dalit students respond to negative caste stereotyping, and what facilitates these responses. Fourteen dalit students (male = 8, female = 6) studying at two central universities in Delhi (India) participated in the study. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The analysis helped develop the following two themes: (1) The pervasiveness of caste stereotyping in the academic domain: ‘How can their handwriting be so good?’, (2) Institutional climate shapes responses to stereotyping: ‘this is not a personal issue, it is an entire group’s issue’. The analysis shows dalit students’ active efforts to navigate the negative caste stereotyping in educational contexts. Specifically, the analysis highlights the role of institutional climate in shaping these responses and transforming vulnerability (because of caste-based stereotyping and stigma) to empowerment and assertion. While the passivity and subordination of stigmatised groups such as dalits are taken for granted, this research demonstrates that given a conducive social environment such as a supportive institutional climate, dalit students’ experience of higher education may be positively impacted. The role of institutional climate in the empowerment of disadvantaged group identity and elements that promote such a climate are discussed.

Keywords

Caste dalit institutional context resistance social identity stereotyping

Introduction

Caste inequality is an endemic feature of Indian society. Though caste-based discrimination has been made a punishable offence according to the Indian constitution, caste is far from withered from our social reality. In its modern form, caste-based discrimination manifests in an implicit, psychologised manner (especially in urban contexts), making it challenging for the target group members to recognise and respond to (see de Lemus et al., 2017). The psychological process underlying caste-based discrimination is the negative stereotyping of low-status caste groups. Ironically, the remedy for this discrimination, in the form of quota or reservation (a type of affirmative action) in education and jobs was interpreted as more casteist than the discrimination itself (see Deshpande, 2013). Students who belong to caste groups not availing reservations (also called the ‘general’ category) are considered meritorious. Students who avail of reservation policy benefits are often labelled ‘lazy’, ‘unintelligent’, ‘underperformers’, etc. (see Deshpande, 2010). These stereotypes are often pervasive and may leave no group member unaffected.

Yet, a social-psychological analysis of caste, its underlying psychological processes, and their impact on intergroup relations have remained understudied in psychology. Specifically, the issue of how targets of caste stereotyping and discrimination respond to their predicament remains poorly understood. The contributions to the psychology of caste have been but recent additions to the social psychological discourse in India (see Dunham et al., 2014; Jaspal, 2011; Sawariya, 2021). More recently, Jogdand et al. (2016) and Jogdand (2023) presented a social-psychological analysis of the persistence of caste, the humiliation that comes with the experience of belonging to low-status caste groups and resistance to humiliation. In the context of stereotyping, Hoff and Pandey (2006) demonstrated how the public revelation of caste in the education context has a detrimental effect on the intellectual task performance of students (see also Hoff & Pandey, 2014). While these writings are significant contributions to addressing the gap in the study of psychology and caste, there remains a need for further research, given the extensive scale and profound impact of caste on the daily lives of individuals.

In this study, the main aim is to outline a social psychological framework to understanding the experiences of a negatively stereotyped caste group in higher education in India—the dalits¹ (official category Scheduled Caste or SC). This analysis includes an exploration of the understanding of caste discrimination in higher education by focusing on the psychological processes of stereotyping. Specifically, the study explores dalit students’ understanding of and possible responses to negative stereotyping in the higher education context.

Stereotypes and Their Modern Manifestations

Stereotypes are mental representations of a group, whereas stereotyping can be understood as the act of perceiving members of a particular group from a stereotypical lens (Augoustinos & Walker, 1998). Stereotyping is a process that operates within an intergroup context, and people who engage in stereotyping are acting as group members and not individuals (Simon, 2011). According to the social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986), a dynamic relationship exists between the larger social structure and individual psychological functioning. In this perspective, stereotyping goes beyond its role as a mere cognitive process facilitating the organisation of information about groups of people (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Leyens et al., 1994). Instead, stereotyping is conceptualised as a politically and ideologically rooted process that plays a significant role in the power struggle between groups and contributes to the perpetuation of systems of inequality (Augoustinos & Walker, 1998; Augoustinos et al., 1995; McGarty et al., 2002). As ideological and collective representations, stereotypes are not neutral cognitive categories but serve the purpose of justifying existing power relationships and maintaining the status quo that more often than not, serves the powerful and privileged groups (Augoustinos & Walker, 1998).

While intra- and inter-group processes of stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and stigma are closely related and often go hand in hand, social psychological research provides evidence that prejudice and stereotypes may not necessarily lead to discriminatory behaviour (Devine, 1989). People, especially in modern times, exert control over whether and to what extent they express their prejudicial attitudes and stereotypical beliefs depending on the social context and participants in the dynamic. This has implications for the present study because, in modern contexts, negative beliefs or stereotypes about another group may not necessarily result in overt discrimination. The ‘modern’ form of discrimination, as Ellemers and Barreto (2015) call it, is subtle and insidious, and may have the same effect of undermining the disadvantaged group members’ confidence as the blatant forms of discrimination.

Responses to Negative Stereotyping

Social identity theorists acknowledge that people use various strategies to respond to systemic disadvantage (Tajfel, 1981; van Laar & Levin, 2006). This variability in people’s responses stems from a combination of factors, including the nature of the disadvantage, the individual and situational factors. While one such response could be accepting the social devaluation, another group of responses centre around challenging the devaluation by society. For example, Wright et al. (1990) point out that responses to membership of a disadvantaged group could vary from acceptance of devaluation to collective protest. Tajfel and Turner (1979) propose a range of responses to identity threat—from indirect to more direct strategies. de Lemus et al. (2015) assert that responses to identity threat may be influenced by the factors such as identity content, norms and power dynamics between the groups. This interplay may contribute to divergence in people’s responses to the same disadvantage.

According to the social identity theory, individuals strive for positive self-esteem and to be positively differentiated from outgroups and outgroup members. These dynamics do not operate in a social vacuum. Asymmetrical power dynamics may mobilise individuals to change their subordinate position to attain a greater degree of self-respect and worth. This perspective points to two sets of factors that are critical to understanding how subordinate group members respond to their position. The first, that is, permeability ‘relates to individuals’ beliefs about their ability to improve their status despite their group membership’ (Haslam & Reicher, 2012, p. 157). The second factor—perceived security of intergroup relations has two parts to it—legitimacy and stability. The social identity theory posits that ‘individuals will be most inclined to resist domination when they share the view that inequality is both illegitimate and unstable and these views generate a set of cognitive alternatives’ (Haslam & Reicher, 2012, p. 157). They may use creative strategies such as highlighting their superior status in another domain, or getting in direct confrontation with the outgroup to demand equal status (see Tajfel, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Interactions among members from oppressed and privileged groups are embedded in the larger societal context, the relations and social processes within which are dynamic and constantly in flux. Thus, we posit that caste stereotypes are constantly subject to contestation and challenge. Aligning with this perspective, Jogdand (2023) suggests that members of oppressed groups may contest the meaning of social devaluation in an attempt to modify their relationship with the social reality, thus portraying an agentic view of oppressed group members. This meaning-making on the part of the targets of social devaluation (e.g., negative stereotyping) can be understood as a kind of resistance—a consequence of social influence processes that aim at challenging the status quo (Jogdand, 2023). Thus, belonging to groups can provide a basis for challenging systems of social inequality (Reicher, 2011; also see Leach & Livingstone, 2015).

Though mainstream psychology has emphasised conformity, given a conducive social context that aids the transformation of social identity to (politicised) collective identity, individuals may be able to confront and contest negative stereotyping.

Caste and Education

Caste continues to be a prominent institution in modern India and plays a crucial role in the organisation of social, political and economic life. Since educational institutions are integral components of the societal fabric; the social order that operates in society is reproduced in universities and other educational spaces, impacting the organisation of life in school and higher education (Deshpande, 2000, 2006). Historically, higher education in India has been dominated by privileged caste groups leading to the institutionalisation of caste in India. Stereotypes widespread in society also exist and operate in these spaces. Educational spaces, therefore, cannot be considered caste-less or caste-free. Because caste forms an inherent part of the socialisation of both privileged and low-status caste groups, both perpetrators and victims play their part in the intergroup dynamic of oppression and privilege. Even for well-meaning, privileged individuals, this could translate to implicit biases playing out in subtle ways. Target group members may accept, avoid, or confront the group’s devaluation.

Empirical evidence from the sociology of education suggests that certain caste groups that are viewed negatively face consequences ranging from snide remarks, ostracisation, exclusion and violence in educational spaces (Deshpande, 2006; Nambissan, 2002; Ovichegan, 2015; Rao, 2013; Thorat & Neuman, 2012). A survey of first-year students of IIT Bombay (Insight, Student media body, 2014) revealed that 56% of students belonging to categories such as SCs, Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) feel discrimination does exist in the institute, though in a subtle manner. Despite the evidence, many from privileged groups hesitate to acknowledge and at times refute that caste is a problem (India Untouched, Documentary, Stalin K., 2007). Many from the upper middle-class communities, in urban contexts, claim that caste does not exist, viewing it as something that subsists only in rural spaces, the non-modern sector of modernising India. This caste-divide within society, it seems, may not fade away and may get further strengthened in higher educational institutions. Caste stereotyping becomes the root of prejudice and discriminatory behaviours perpetrated on students belonging to low-status caste groups (e.g., Deshpande, 2010).

In the neoliberal educational context, the myth of meritocracy has attempted to defy the logic of the quota or reservation policy with the argument that caste has died out, undermining its role in life outcomes. The belief around the non-existence of caste injustice and equal opportunities leads people to attribute differences in group outcomes (e.g., academic performance) to individual differences in abilities. For this reason, any effort towards remediation has focused on the individual and their ability to cope with or manage the situation. Studying caste and dalit students’ experiences of caste from a psychological lens is critical for this reason. Far from being an individual-level problem, psychological research shows us that those who are more conscious of their group identity and their performance in the domain in which their group is stereotyped (Aronson et al., 1999) are more likely affected by the negative experiences around that identity. Thus, low-status caste group students who value the academic aspect of their identity and their image as competent persons may be more affected by the implicit discrimination that operates through negative stereotypes. Social psychological literature (in the context of race) has referred to this as a ‘threat in the air’, that has implications for shaping a student’s intellectual identity and determining how they perform on intellective tasks (Steele, 1997).

Despite extensive research on stereotyping, some issues remain unanswered, specifically in the context of caste. Specifically, how do the targets of negative stereotyping experience the modern manifestations of these stereotypes, and what determines the responses to negative stereotyping? In addressing these questions, the present study employs the qualitative approach, considered appropriate for answering exploratory research questions. Qualitative research helps garner richer insights into the problem being studied and enriches the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of interest, especially when dealing with vulnerable groups (Willig, 2013). This paper employs an exploratory research design to study the experiences of dalit students in institutions of higher education in Delhi. To answer the questions raised in this study an interview-based study was conducted. The analysis presented in this paper is informed by parts of data drawn out from a study part of a larger research.²

Method

Participants

Fourteen dalit students (male = 8, female = 6) studying in two central universities in Delhi participated in this study. The participants were enrolled in MPhil and PhD courses in various humanities and social science disciplines such as history, sociology, international studies, social medicine, regional development and psychology. Their age ranged from 24 to 30 years (M_age = 26.9; SD = 1.7).

Although considered a relatively small sample in comparison to quantitative research, scholars like Creswell (1998) and Morse (1994) suggest that for qualitative-based phenomenological studies a sample size ranging from five to twenty-five participants is appropriate. As noted by Smith (2018), ‘qualitative research is about examining people’s lives in rich detail, and to achieve that goal, small numbers of people are often chosen through purposive or purposeful sampling strategies’ (pp. 138–139).

Participants were recruited using snowball sampling, a non-probability sampling technique that has demonstrated advantages, particularly in the context of researching sensitive issues and reaching vulnerable groups (see Browne, 2005; Noy, 2008). Given the sensitivity inherent in studying caste, snowball sampling was deemed fit. The approach involved seeking introductions from friends and fellow researchers to students willing to share their experiences, following the referral chain or snowball technique of sampling. The first interview was conducted with a participant studying at UNIV A,³ introduced to me through a fellow researcher. Recruiting participants this way paved the way for open, honest and detailed responses.

Further, when recruiting from a purposive sample using snowball sampling the question of generalisability may arise. However, it is crucial to note that in qualitative research, the conceptualisation of generalisation differs from that of statistical probabilistic generalisability (see Smith, 2018 for a detailed review). In qualitative research, the primary objective is to gain theoretical insights into the phenomena, prioritising thick descriptions and theoretical richness over empirical generalisations of the statistical kind.

Setting

The site for this study was educational institutions in Delhi, a city that may be considered the epitome of urban India. For the present study, data were generated from interviews with dalit students at two central universities in Delhi. To maintain confidentiality, I do not provide the names of the universities. However, a description of both may help put the findings into perspective. Both institutions are of national and international repute and are known for their active student politics. The first university (henceforth referred to as UNIV A) is often referred to as a microcosm of society, drawing students from all parts of the country and every group and stratum of society. To many, UNIV A offers several growth opportunities. Scholars have observed that UNIV A draws students from diverse social backgrounds, thereby ensuring an inclusive campus (e.g., Martelli & Parkar, 2018). Students in this university bring parts of their struggles along with a spirit of defiance against established norms to the classroom. This is one of the reasons that learning and discussions about sources of oppression in society and how to engage with them are common. In designing the campus, it has been ensured that students’ hostels and faculty residences are infused with one another, and the annual students’ union elections are conducted entirely by students with fierce poster wars, verbal duels and competitive yet peaceful group meetings all year round. The second university (henceforth referred to as UNIV B) and UNIV A differ in terms of their political climate (among other things). UNIV A has been dominated by left politics whereas UNIV B has seen fierce competition between Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad or ABVP (a right-wing all India student body) and National Student Union of India (NSUI, a student wing of the Indian Congress Party). In the past few years though, each has tried to tread into the territory of the other.

Interviews

A semi-structured interview schedule was prepared with the research questions and objectives in mind (see Appendix 1). The interview schedule consisted of questions concerning various stereotypes about low-status caste groups in education, the everyday experience of dealing with these stereotypes, and strategies for responding to stereotypes and the discrimination it manifests in. This schedule was used as a guide to conduct the interviews, however, interactions flowed more like a conversation and the schedule was used minimally during the interview process. Both the interviewer as well as interviewees used Hindi and English as the medium of communication. Extracts from the interviews were translated and are reported in English. Each interview lasted from 50 to 90 minutes and was conducted within the university and college premises. Verbal consent of participants was taken before audio-taping the interviews. Due to the sensitive nature of the issue being discussed, participants were informed that they could leave the conversation if and when they felt like it. Participants were not pushed to speak about anything they did not want to engage with.

Analytic Strategy

Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019) which was chosen for its flexibility in terms of its applicability across theoretical and epistemological frameworks. Reflexive thematic analysis also seemed appropriate here because of the inherently critical, subjective, aware and questioning role it assigns to the researcher (Braun & Clarke, 2022). This becomes especially significant when dealing with sensitive issues, vulnerable groups, and when the identity or group membership of the researcher positions them as an outsider to the group being studied. My interpretation of data was underpinned by a social constructionist approach to understanding (social) stereotypes (Augoustinos & Walker, 1998), and informed by resistance and social protest scholarship in social psychology (e.g., Klandermans, 1997, 2014). According to this approach, individuals actively and consciously construct realities from meanings available to them. This paves way for reality to be understood as subjective, complex and multiple. Braun and Clarke (2006) provide a six-step procedure for thematic analysis. These steps, however, were not followed in a neat, linear fashion. The process of analysis was more cyclical, with a constant back and forth between steps. After transcribing the interviews, I spent time reading through the interviews several times to familiarise myself with the data. After this, I generated the initial codes for all the interviews at both the semantic as well as latent levels. Next, I tried to put these codes together into meaningful categories to form themes that would help answer the research questions. This initial grouping generated eight prospective themes (negative caste stereotypes are pervasive, negative caste stereotypes impact students, negative caste stereotypes make you want to hide, the subtle or implicit behavioural manifestation of stereotypes, some social contexts are different, education helps gain confidence, identity shifts from individual to collective, negative stereotypes can be confronted, confronting stereotypes feels good). Multiple revisions and refinement through writing resulted in the final analysis that comprised the following two themes: (1) The pervasiveness of caste stereotyping in the academic domain: ‘How can their handwriting be so good?’, (2) Institutional climate shapes responses to stereotyping: ‘this is not a personal issue, it an entire group’s issue’. The two themes together convey an overarching story of the experience of dealing with caste stereotyping, and the role that institutional context plays in developing a sense of collective strength among dalit students.

Reflexivity Statement

As someone with a relatively privileged upbringing, my first encounters with caste were the negative stereotypes I came across about certain caste groups during my early socialisation. I first got an opportunity to engage with the issue of caste academically as a student of educational studies. The course requirements included essential readings around caste, and I remember reading an English translation of Om Prakash Valmiki’s (2003) Joothan—an autobiography that provides a searing glimpse into the life of the dalit writer and his transition from being in a position of disadvantage to one asserting his identity and advocating resistance for social change. This was followed by many other readings and documentaries on caste. This exposure made me realise the erasure of caste from the psychological discourse and the relative neglect of caste throughout my bachelor’s and master’s degree courses in psychology. The absence of a discourse on caste in psychology and more specifically, the psychology of stereotypes was the major personal impetus for this study.

Analysis

The data shed light on dalit students’ experience of dealing with caste stereotyping in higher education. An all-encompassing characteristic of the data was the almost inevitable experience of caste stereotyping in higher education and the consequent feelings of vulnerability that it brought.

Theme 1: The Pervasiveness of Caste Stereotyping in the Academic Domain: ‘How Can Their Handwriting Be So Good?’

Participants reported several stereotypes associating caste identity with the academic domain that are expressed in an implicit manner as well as (sometimes) blatant forms. As reported in the extract below, these stereotypes pertained to ideas about intelligence, ability and capability, and were invariably seen in association with the reservation policy in higher education. Almost all participant highlighted their awareness of underlying negative stereotypes about intellectual capability associated with their caste identity as shown in the extract below:

So the kind of notion that are attached to…immediately…firstly…if she is from (low status) caste that means she is benefiting from reservation, she…she’s not capable, she’s not so intelligent, she’s not so talented…and that these people are useless, they wouldn’t know how to work, they have got a job through reservation, they’re enjoying the benefits of that) …and they’re not capable. They’re not eligible to be here.

(Extract 1, Female, PhD student, UNIV B)

A participant underlined the prevalence and magnitude of the role caste stereotyping plays in the everyday experiences of dalit students by highlighting its consequences on academic achievement and expressing their disbelief at any claims of castelessness in a caste-ridden society:

I always felt that it has affected my marks. I can bet today…if someone says they have not felt it I don’t know what kind of social world they live in….

(Extract 2, Male, M.Phil. student, UNIV A)

Participants highlighted the consequences of negative stereotypes for other’s behaviour and judgement as well as their self-evaluation. They reported negative behaviour of teachers and peers and teachers doubting their abilities as well as their own self-doubts as shown in the extracts below:

And I think the way my supervisor behaves with me…one of the reasons maybe it’s because…she doubts intellect of mine…so she doubts my ability.

(Extract 3, Female, PhD student, UNIV B)

Vulnerable groups may internalise the negative stereotypes and be influenced by them (Zhang et al., 2023, p. 2). In the context of self-judgement as a consequence of a negatively stereotyped identity, a respondent stated that in the presence of classmates from privileged groups, their own stigmatised identity becomes more salient, which leads to self-doubts and self-criticism:

Yeah so when you go to that place (university), so your confidence becomes very low in comparison to and among those people. What happens there is, even if you have something within you, you can perform, but you’re playing at such a back foot, that you can’t…. This happens with your academic performance, you can’t work like that, it is pulling you back…you get into self-criticism that ‘maybe I only fell short somewhere’.

(Extract 4, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

Expressions of stereotyping were not always negative and disparaging. A few participants described experiencing caste stereotypes in a benevolent, ‘non-harmful’ manner of compliments—expressing surprise on seeing a dalit student do well in domains they are not stereotypically expected to:

If your handwriting is very good…my handwriting is good…so if handwriting is good then for that also, there is this thing in the mind that ‘how can their handwriting be so good?’ I mean, how can a dalit student write so beautifully, so nicely?

(Extract 5, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

It is important to note that although the stereotyping is seemingly positive, it curtailed the agency and creativity of dalit students. Language proficiency was an important domain of stereotyping. A participant narrated a relatively blatant expression of the stereotype about the lack of English language proficiency of dalit students:

So a seminar was going on…. This girl who was my classmate said—all the SC (Schedule Caste) students who come (to this university), they are all Hindi speaking, and because of that the university’s reputation goes down….

(Extract 6, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

Overall, the participants emphasised caste stereotyping manifesting in implicit ways in people’s behaviour. However, this is tricky to capture since modern expressions of stereotypes are often not as easy to recognise as overtly discriminatory behaviours (Ellemers & Barreto, 2015). This can be understood from the following extract where in their reflection of their past experience, the participant takes a while to go from reporting not experiencing stereotyping and discrimination ‘personally’, ‘in a place like Delhi’ to recounting implicit discrimination they have encountered:

In a place like Delhi, it has never been my personal experience, that someone has said something to me personally…yes, words like that aren’t used…. In practices, however, I feel that sometimes, for instance they don’t involve in the group, or even while eating food, if a person gets to know…this is my experience at my previous university, so if a person got to know or if I told someone ‘This is the caste I belong to’, so when they find out, they…earlier they would share a spoon with me, but then they stopped.

(Extract 7, Male, PhD student, UNIV B)

These experiences are not constrained to academic spaces like classrooms, etc., but spill over to hostels, cafeterias and other domains. This aligns with previous research on caste discrimination in schools (Balagopalan & Subrahmanian, 2003; Nambissan, 2006) and goes further to demonstrate the complexity of modern stereotypes and the implicit ways in which they manifest. It is important to acknowledge the inherent difficulty in detecting discrimination resulting from caste stereotypes because of their indirect and implicit nature.

Disengaging or distancing oneself from the group, hiding one’s threatened identity could be a possible means of coping with identity threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Major et al., 1998). Participants reported managing stereotyping by hiding their caste identity to avert any unpleasant confrontations. The extract below highlights the dynamic of ‘me’ versus ‘them’ in the caste context displaying that going alone may manifest in more non-confrontational strategies in dealing with stereotyping and discrimination. According to Ellemers and Barreto (2015), ‘there are important psychological and interpersonal costs associated with such strategies, which actually increase the likelihood of social rejection’ (p. 143, see also Newheiser & Barreto, 2014)

Till the time I was in *** (name of a University outside Delhi in which the participant studied previously) I used to feel that I should hide my identity…so that upper castes don’t comment on me or make me suffer, because I was not so confident till then…. I had not faced anything like this directly. So I felt that I will never tell anyone, otherwise every one (upper castes) will gang up against me and may say something which would make me feel bad…. I never confronted…. I always tried to be careful.

(Extract 8, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

The prevalence of this experience across the dataset suggests the ubiquity of caste stereotypes in higher education contexts that may be a reason for feelings of vulnerability among dalit students. However, as we elaborate in the next theme, responses to stereotyping may not play out in the same way in every context. Contextual characteristics such as institutional climate may determine how targets of stereotyping respond to stereotyping—on a continuum from avoidance to confrontation.

Theme 2: Institutional Climate Shapes Responses to Stereotyping: ‘This Is Not a Personal Issue, It Is an Entire Group’s Issue’

The second theme centred on the intersection of caste identity and institutional climate in determining dalit students’ experiences in higher education, more specifically their response to caste stereotyping. Many participants expressed that a conducive institutional climate aided in them responding to stereotyping in more agentic ways. An important observation here is that though participants from both UNIV A and UNIV B expressed their vulnerabilities associated with their caste identity, it was mostly students from UNIV B who shared that they go to great lengths to hide their caste identity:

I don’t tell everybody that I belong to this caste until and unless I am required to. I always hide it. Okay? And this is primarily because the moment I reveal it, I experience some sort of discrimination.

(Extract 9, Male, PhD student, UNIV B)

On the contrary, students studying at UNIV A did not share such experiences, and in fact, expressed how UNIV A has helped them overcome caste stigma consciousness:

When we come to UNIV A we learn how to (and that it’s good to) express our identity rather than hide it. Outside UNIV A, there was a fear that when I share my caste identity how will the other behave with us…in group or anywhere else…. In UNIV A that fear is not there

(Extract 10, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

For UNIV A, structural aspects of the institutional characteristics such as social and political climate, and diversity seemed to play a role in making students feel safe. A participant stated the importance of a liberal space and a supportive student union:

Because this space is quite liberal and also a little protective for oppressed communities…so for this reason I feel it is a little supportive and therefore beneficial…. I felt good after coming here, first of all the student union here is very active so that was very helpful…in filling up the form…during counselling…interview….

(Extract 11, Female, PhD student, UNIV A)

Participants also hinted at a deliberative process of engaging with the surroundings and characteristics of the institution. They described the important role that the educational and institutional context played in raising their social awareness and feeling confident in themselves:

So after coming here what I found was that we study Ambedkar, different scholars, different experience and we had interactions with lots of people, faculty, teachers, outsiders, insiders, even foreign university, foreign delegates, so it turned out such that ‘no now if after knowing so much about things also we do not express then there is no benefit of studying so much’…so this confidence developed on that basis…readings and critical discussions among peers, teachers….

(Extract 12, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

On the other hand, UNIV B’s lack of including critical literature on caste was highlighted by another respondent:

Yes…recently there was a struggle in UNIV B…. A faculty—he actually struggled to introduce Ambedkar in the syllabus and that too is an optional course not compulsory course, right?

(Extract 13, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

In contrast to UNIV A, a participant from UNIV B reported how any form of engagement on the issue of caste was avoided in the classroom or outside as it was perceived as controversial:

In our classes, caste was not usually discussed…in fact talking about caste is generally avoided as it is considered to be controversial…even our teachers avoided talking about it….

(Extract 14, Male, PhD student, UNIV B)

Further, UNIV A’s culture of debates and discussions among peer groups that often extend to spaces outside the classroom was highlighted by several participants. This practice of healthy debates and discussions is perhaps another feature of UNIV A that helps transform views around the issue of caste:

Some (students) were such that they would not know about a lot of things, like I had a friend, he did his graduation from UNIV B…and he was not very aware about society. In the beginning his social group in UNIV B included mostly upper castes. So he was taught regarding reservation policy—by relating it to cricket. That for general (category), the boundary is very big…for SC the boundary is smaller, and they can hit a sixer easily…he had this in his mind…he himself told us this. But when he came here—he discussed with us and everyone else…so all that he thought…the perceptions that he made in UNIV B…it got totally reversed…. So I have seen people change, now he is the most active/vocal in his stand for reservation policy.

(Extract 15, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

Moreover, the feeling of an inclusive community stood out as an important precursor in bringing about a change in participants’ experiences. A participant from UNIV A giving the reference of activities of a student’s political organisation that is often perceived as for and by oppressed community students only, shares that in reality students from diverse groups and not just low-status groups participate in its events:

If you check the videos of *****4 candidate interviews and the marches that happen…. You will see people from all castes and communities standing with *****. The propagation that ***** is only a dalit organization is a false propagation….

(Extract 16, Male, MPhil student, UNIV A)

In contrast, participants from UNIV B did not share such anecdotes. To the contrary, a participant stated that minimal interactions between students from diverse groups lead to silos, where interaction between members from different groups, when they are to happen often turn awkward and uncomfortable:

I feel that interactions between people from different backgrounds like caste, financial etc. is so limited here that ultimately there is sense of discomfort when interacting with others….

(Extract 17, Female, MPhil student, UNIV B)

Thus, interactions with faculty and peers, reading critical literature, watching informative theatre, engaging in debates and discussions with friends, a liberal and supportive campus climate, along with an active and socially meaningful student politics seems to play a role in altering students’ understanding of social issues such as caste discrimination as a larger structural issue, a collective problem, and not their personal issue. This was especially true for UNIV A:

‘this is their personal matter…they are teasing them…they are commenting on them…’ it used to feel like it is all personal but after coming here I began to feel that it is not personal….

(Extract 18, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

So somewhere I started to feel that—That this is happening to us and must be happening to others…so this is not a personal issue it is an entire group’s issue….

(Extract 19, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

This points to the crucial role that education holds in shaping the experiences of the members of disadvantaged groups. With the raised awareness of caste stereotyping being a shared problem of a group, a parallel development was also of letting go of self-defeating patterns of thought. Many participants spoke about the confidence that they developed because of being part of a group—their group and the support it brings:

But the student politics here is very different. We are together here, we talk, we discuss, we listen to and understand things…. Besides, a confidence develops…there is someone behind us also…this is one thing….

(Extract 20, Female, PhD student, UNIV A)

This process of psychological transformation enabled by an institutional climate wherein members have increased awareness of shared grievance(s) and participate in a power struggle as a collective is akin to what Simon and Klandermans (2001) have called the politicisation of collective identity. This politicisation has been shown to be related to feelings of empowerment, efficacy, solidarity and action tendencies. This is demonstrated in the extract below where the participant stated:

Earlier I would never be able to defend my caste group…. I would have kept to myself, but now I can speak particularly about that section. It is not just about SC or ST (Schedule Tribes), I can speak for any minority….

(Extract 21, Male, PhD student, UNIV A)

Overall, data suggest that the difference in the institutional climate of the universities is a key factor in caste manifesting differently in the two. Understanding institutional climate as a part of social context, it is clear that complexities of the social context allow certain psychological processes (like the politicisation of collective identity) to operate (Israel & Tajfel, 1972; Subašić et al., 2012) while certain other contexts may hinder the same.

Discussion

This study set out to explore dalit students’ experiences of caste stereotyping in the higher education context. Specifically, it looked at how caste stereotyping manifests and how dalit students respond to the same. The findings convey the overarching story of the coexistence of vulnerability and strength in the everyday experiences of dalit students when dealing with caste in the higher education context. The main takeaways of these findings are that (1) caste-based stereotyping is a pervasive phenomenon that manifests in implicit ways in modern societies and may have negative consequences for its targets, (2) stereotyping process may garner varied responses ranging from passive acceptance to active confrontation, and (3) institutional context plays a significant role in determining the response to caste-based stereotyping.

This study evinced the political and ideological nature of stereotypes that far from serving a neutral function can act as tools to maintain oppression (Augoustinos et al., 1995; McGarty et al., 2002) by their negative impact on the targets. Participants reported feeling vulnerable (at some point in time) because of the stereotypes associated with their caste identity and making attempts to keep their identity hidden. Though concealing one’s identity and distancing oneself from the group is a legitimate strategy of coping that may work in the short term, in the long run, it may have consequences for social support and well-being (Ellemers & Barreto, 2015). Previous scholars have debated whether ingroup identification acts as a source of vulnerability or strength for disadvantaged group members (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2010). Though some have reported that increased identification with one’s group puts individuals in a loop of vulnerability (Kaiser & Wilkins, 2010), others argue that threat to identity (e.g., in the form of rejection or devaluation from negative stereotypes) leads to a reassertion of ingroup identification and aids resistance to stigmatisation (Branscombe et al., 1999; Leach et al., 2010; see also Fritsche et al., 2013). Thus, the process of stereotyping may not manifest in the same response by target group members.

The analysis shed light on contextual factors that determine how dalit students respond to caste stereotyping. Evidently, in the two institutions that are both central universities in a metropolitan city, the manifestation of caste stereotyping differed significantly. Specifically, the role of institutional climate was highlighted. A difference in the two institutions that was reported by participants indirectly is that UNIV B—an epitome of modernisation may not have a culture of engaging with traditional or ascribed identities. As Jogdand et al. (2016) note, ‘…due to the spread of democracy, caste is now perceived as something antithetical to values of decency and civility in urban and modern parts of the country’ (p. 559). Thus, social life in this institution may not be governed as extensively by traditional identities such as caste as it is in UNIV A. However, an implicit focus on appearing modern and not engaging with caste does not guarantee liberation from this social ill. On the contrary, it is because of this precise reason that caste manifests in more sinister and implicit ways in such contexts. In addition, the stigma associated with caste implies that low-status caste group students in such institutional contexts remain obscure, thus hindering prospects of challenging or confronting negative stereotyping.

Participants’ perceptions of the institutional climate of UNIV A, on the other hand, present an important set of findings that may help institutions improve climate for diversity. Participants perceived UNIV A to be liberal and supportive. This was mainly attributed to active student politics, a culture of discussion among peers and faculty that was not diluted by ideas of power distance and hierarchies, and reading texts that enhance critical thinking instead of being limited to textbooks. Particularly, informal interactions outside the classroom serve as education in UNIV A for important lessons on group differences and diversity are learnt here. Additionally, it is well known that UNIV A had the provision of deprivation points for marginalised groups as part of its admission policy which is a reason for its diverse student composition. These findings indicate that elements of institutional structure and climate are linked with ideas of inclusion and determine perceptions of an institution as supportive.

Moreover, the characteristics of the institutions had an influential role to play in responses to stereotyping. UNIV A because of its specific structural characteristics made it conducive for a psychological transformation of social identity to collective identity which further evolves into politicised collective identity (Simon & Klandermans, 2001) because of elements of the social and political context. Participants highlighted the role of pedagogy, education, and a supportive institutional climate in the realisation that ‘I’m not in this alone’ (awareness of a shared grievance) may be a starting point for turning vulnerability to courage. For Dr Ambedkar, ‘education is what makes a person fearless, teaches him the lesson of unity, makes him aware of his rights and inspires him to struggle for his rights’. The first word in Dr Ambedkar’s clarion call ‘Educate Agitate Organize’ given at the All-India Depressed Classes conference in 1942, is Educate.

The educational background of the participants is a significant factor for the outcomes of the present study. It may be argued that the participants’ caste identity (dalit identity) intersecting with their institutional identity (students in premiere public universities in the national capital with a certain political and social climate) and academic identity (most participants were students of the social sciences and humanities who have engaged with critical texts and thinkers) sets them apart from the larger group of dalit individuals. Considering that these participants may take on professional positions in the future, they may become critical agents of change for the future.

Limitations of the Study

In spite of the contributions of this work, a limitation of this study includes the lack of a detailed analysis of how class and gender come to intersect with caste in shaping experiences in higher education. An intersectional framework (Crenshaw, 1991) may provide a more holistic account of participants’ experiences as well as an account of the psychological process of caste stereotyping that is more representative of our complex social reality.

Implications and Directions for the Future

These findings have implications for the psychological study of caste and policy interventions. First, this study attempts to fill the critical gap that exists in understanding the psychological dimension of caste discrimination in higher education by elaborating on the psychological process of stereotyping. In sum, the dalit students in this study highlighted that caste stereotyping has serious negative implications even when the harm may not be overtly visible. Future research may explore the impact of caste on health and social well-being.

The study also focused on dalit students understanding of and responses to negative stereotyping in higher education. Findings suggest that institutional climate as social and political context plays a significant role in shaping dalit students’ responses to negative stereotyping. Aspects of the institutional context such as informal discussions outside of the classroom are impactful in altering people’s perceptions of the issues around caste. While this is helpful, institutions may implement formal educational activities such as workshops and lectures to increase awareness about issues of diversity on campus. Participants also highlighted that the attitudes conveyed by faculty, peers and administration sets the tone for how the institutional climate is perceived. Institutions may invest in planning sensitivity trainings for staff and students, increasing meaningful contact between faculty and students (this would imply smaller class sizes), and fostering a democratic educational space.

Further, since institutional climate and structure have consequences for higher education experiences of marginalised groups, remediations may be directed at the social-structural level. Education policy interventions may consider the psychological consequences of being embedded in unjust structures and caste hierarchies for students from low-status caste groups. Institutional interventions to deal with caste discrimination may include both low-status and high-status group members in its purview and future research may study the interaction of efforts to reduce stereotyping on the perpetrator’s part and the efforts of the targets to deal with the problem. Since data evidenced institutional context and education to play an important role in helping students deal with their disadvantaged social status, future research can further explore what exactly is it about these that seems helpful (see Inzlicht & Good, 2006). Specifically, the role of critical pedagogy as an antecedent to consciousness-raising may be explored in the Indian context (see Giroux, 2022).

Recent reports such as the All India Survey of Higher Education (AISHE, MHRD, 2019) have suggested that the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education has increased over the years, yet the retention of students from diverse social backgrounds has remained an issue. One of the reasons for dropouts in higher education could be the perceptions of a hostile institutional climate and a cultural discontinuity between institutional context and students’ social background. With changes in education policies such as the National Education Policy (NEP 2020) where multiple exits are now formalised—it is all the more imperative that institutions invest in making campus climate more welcoming for students from diverse groups.

Conclusion

To sum up, this study contributes to the relatively scarce social psychological research on caste stereotyping in the higher education by providing a detailed analysis of the psychological process of stereotyping. The findings show that caste stereotyping is a pervasive phenomenon that manifests in covert ways in modern institutions and has a negative impact on dalit students in higher education. This research highlights the considerable variation in the responses of dalit students to negative stereotyping. This heterogeneity in response to negative stereotyping is a result of participants’ unique (caste) identity intersecting with institutional context which results in varying manifestations of caste stereotyping in higher education. Certainly, the stories of dalit students illustrate that a supportive institutional climate can have significant positive consequences (such as feelings of empowerment) for students’ experience in higher education thus implicating the larger system of social inequality and discrimination—the onus to transform which falls on our institutions and policymakers. It is my hope that by explicating the psychological process of stereotyping and the structural forces that influence it, we may begin to work towards building more inclusive and supportive institutions, and value institutions that help foster collective processes of agency and empowerment.

Appendix 1. Semi-structured Interview Schedule.

Interviewer: I’m interested in understanding experiences of students in relation to their caste identities. The news is full of incidents about caste-based atrocities in the society. However, I want to understand the issue specific to experiences in education and educational institutions and whether caste plays out here. 1.

Do you think caste-based discrimination exists in educational institutions? Have you heard of/experienced any such incident?

Do you think this happens in your college/university as well? Do fellow students/teachers etc. discriminate against students belonging to certain caste groups?

And does it affect their behaviour and interactions with these students? Is it reflected in that?

Why do you think this happens?

Can you think of any examples?

What are the factors, according to you that promote stereotypes?

Do you have any thoughts on why these stereotypes sustain?

Are these stereotypes justified in your view?

What about your own experience?

10.

Could you share some of your own experiences (may be in school or in college) where you felt threatened/discriminated in a particular situation because of your caste identity?

11.

Can you tell me an incident(s) that you may have experienced?

12.

Why do you think this happened?

13.

How did you feel at that time?

14.

Can you describe the context and how did you respond at the time?

15.

Can you think of what made you respond in this way?

16.

Do you often hear these kinds of comment about your group?

17.

Does it impact your academics in any way?

18.

How have you dealt with these situations? Does it bother you?

19.

Have you ever felt concerned about being judged by others?

20.

Do you think the university that you are studying in has anything to do with how you deal with such situations?

21.

How closely associated are you with students from your own caste group? Do you feel a part of your group? Do you like to see yourself as part of your caste group?

22.

How does it feel to be part of you group?

23.

Are you also active in campus politics?

24.

How is the political climate of the campus?

25.

Are there associations/student bodies that support the issues of students belonging to non-dominant caste and cultural background in your university?

26.

Do you think the political climate has any influence on students belonging to non-dominant caste?

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

I express my sincere gratitude to Dr Arvind Kumar Mishra (JNU) for his guidance in shaping this work. My thanks also to anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Lastly, I extend my heartfelt thanks to the participants, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Divya Padalia

References

Aronson

, Lustina

M. J.

, Good

, Keough

, Steele

C. M.

, & Brown

(1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 35(1), 29–46.

Augoustinos

, & Walker

(1998). The construction of stereotypes within social psychology: From social cognition to ideology. Theory & Psychology , 8(5), 629–652.

Augoustinos

, Walker

, & Donaghue

(1995). Social cognition: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Sage.

Balagopalan

, & Subrahmanian

(2003). Dalit and Adivasi children in schools: Some preliminary research findings. IDS Bulletin , 34(1), 55–62.

Barreto

, & Ellemers

(2010). Current issues in the study of social stigma: Some controversies and unresolved issues. Journal of Social Issues , 66(3), 431–445.

Branscombe

N. R.

, Schmitt

M. T.

, & Harvey

R. D.

(1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77(1), 135–149.

Braun

, & Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77–101.

Braun

, & Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 11(4), 589–597.

Braun

, & Clarke

(2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide . Sage.

10.

Browne

(2005). Snowball sampling: Using social networks to research non-heterosexual women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8(1), 47–60.

11.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review , 43(6), 1241–1249.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions . Sage Publications.

13.

de Lemus

, Bukowski

, Spears

, & Telga

(2015). Reactance to (or acceptance of) stereotypes. Zeitschrift für Psychologie , 223(4), 236–246.

14.

de Lemus

, Spears

, van Breen

J. A.

, & Telga

(2017). Coping with identity threats to group agency as well as group value. In Bukowski

, Fritsche

, Guinote

, & Kofta

(Eds.), Coping with lack of control in a social world (pp. 151–170). Routledge.

15.

Deshpande

(2000). Does caste still define disparity? A look at inequality in Kerala, India. American Economic Review , 90(2), 322–325.

16.

Deshpande

(Ed.).(2013). Affirmative action in India . Oxford University Press.

17.

Deshpande

M. S.

(2010). History of the Indian caste system and its impact on India today . California University Press.

18.

Deshpande

(2006). Exclusive inequalities: Merit, caste and discrimination in Indian higher education today. Economic and Political Weekly , 41(24), 2438–2444.

19.

Devine

P. G.

(1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 56(1), 5–18.

20.

Dunham

, Srinivasan

, Dotsch

, & Barner

(2014). Religion insulates ingroup evaluations: The development of intergroup attitudes in India. Developmental Science , 17(2), 311–319.

21.

Ellemers

, & Barreto

(2015). Modern discrimination: How perpetrators and targets interactively perpetuate social disadvantage. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 3, 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.001

22.

Fiske

S. T.

, & Taylor

S. E.

(1991). Social cognition . Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

23.

Fritsche

, Jonas

, Ablasser

, Beyer

, Kuban

, Manger

A. M.

, & Schultz

(2013). The power of we: Evidence for group-based control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49(1), 19–32.

24.

Guru

(2001). The interface between Ambedkar and the Dalit cultural movement in Maharashtra. Dalit Identity and Dalit Politics: Cultural Subordination and the Dalit Challenge , 2, 160–94.

25.

Giroux

H. A.

(2022). Pedagogy of resistance: Against manufactured ignorance . Bloomsbury Publishing.

26.

Haslam

S. A.

, & Reicher

S. D.

(2012). Contesting the “nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology , 10(11), e1001426.

27.

Hoff

, & Pandey

(2006). Discrimination, social identity, and durable inequalities. American Economic Review , 96(2), 206–211.

28.

Hoff

, & Pandey

(2014). Making up people: The effect of identity on performance in a modernizing society. Journal of Development Economics , 106, 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.08.009

29.

Inzlicht

, & Good

(2006). How environments can threaten academic performance, self-knowledge, and sense of belonging. In Levin

, van Laar

(Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 129–150). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

30.

Israel

, & Tajfel

(1972). The context of social psychology . Academic Press.

31.

Jaspal

(2011). Caste, social stigma and identity processes. Psychology and Developing Societies , 23(2), 27–62.

32.

Jogdand

(2023). Ground down and locked in a paperweight: Toward a critical psychology of caste based humiliation. Critical Philosophy of Race , 11(1), 33–67.

33.

Jogdand

, Khan

S. S.

, & Mishra

A. K.

(2016). Understanding the persistence of caste: A commentary on Cotterill, Sidanius, Bhardwaj and Kumar (2014). Journal of Social and Political Psychology , 4(2), 554–570.

34.

Kaiser

C. R.

, & Wilkins

C. L.

(2010). Group identification and prejudice: Theoretical and empirical advances and implications. Journal of Social Issues , 66(3), 461–476.

35.

Klandermans

(1997). The social psychology of protest . Blackwell Publishing.

36.

Klandermans

P. G.

(2014). Identity politics and politicized identities: Identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Political Psychology , 35(1), 1–22.

37.

Lazarus

R. S.

, & Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping . Springer Publishing Company.

38.

Leach

C. W.

, & Livingstone

A. G.

(2015). Contesting the meaning of intergroup disadvantage: Towards a psychology of resistance. Journal of Social Issues , 71(3), 614–632.

39.

Leach

C. W.

, Mosquera

P. M. R.

, Vliek

M. L.

, & Hirt

(2010). Group devaluation and group identification. Journal of Social Issues , 66(3), 535–552.

40.

Leyens

J. P.

, Yzerbyt

, & Schadron

(1994). Stereotypes and social cognition . Sage.

41.

Major

, Spencer

, Schmader

, Wolfe

, & Crocker

(1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24(1), 34–50.

42.

Martelli

J. T.

, & Parkar

(2018). Diversity, democracy, and dissent: A study on student politics in JNU. Economic and Political Weekly , 53(11), 1–30.

43.

McGarty

, Spears

, & Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups . Cambridge University Press.

44.

MHRD. (2019). All India Survey on Higher Education 2018–19 . Department of Higher Education, Government of India.

45.

Morse

J. M.

(Ed.). (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods . Sage.

46.

Nambissan

(2006). Dalits and the rights to education. In Kumar

(Ed.), The crisis of elementary education in India (pp. 224–265). Sage Publications.

47.

Nambissan

G. B.

(2002). Equity in education? The schooling of Dalit children in India. In Shah

(Ed.), Dalits and the state (pp. 79–128). Concept Publishing.

48.

Newheiser

A. K.

, & Barreto

(2014). Hidden costs of hiding stigma: Ironic interpersonal consequences of concealing a stigmatized identity in social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 52, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.002

49.

Noy

(2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 11(4), 327–344.

50.

Ovichegan

S. K.

(2015). Faces of discrimination in higher education in India: Quota policy, social justice and the Dalits . Routledge.

51.

Rao

S. S.

(2013). Structural exclusion in everyday institutional life: Labelling of stigmatised groups in an IIT. In Nambissan

, Rao

S. S.

(Eds.), Sociology of education in India: Changing contours and emerging concerns (pp. 199–223). Oxford University Press.

52.

Reicher

(2011). Psychology, domination and resistance. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 7(2), 204–217.

53.

Sawariya

(2021). Caste and counselling psychology in India. CASTE: A Global Journal on Social Exclusion , 2(1), 189–201.

54.

Simon

(2011). Collective identity and political engagement. In Azzi

, Chryssochoou

, Klandermans

, & Simon

(Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 137–157). Wiley-Blackwell.

55.

Simon

, & Klandermans

(2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist , 56(4), 319–331.

56.

Smith

(2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 10(1), 137–149.

57.

Steele

C. M.

(1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist , 52(6), 613–629.

58.

Subašić

, Reynolds

K. J.

, Reicher

S. D.

, & Klandermans

(2012). Where to from here for the psychology of social change? Future directions for theory and practice. Political Psychology , 33(1), 61–74.

59.

Tajfel

(1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In Israel

& Tajfel

(Eds.), The context of social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 69–119). Academic Press.

60.

Tajfel

(1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology . Cambridge University Press.

61.

Tajfel

, & Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

& Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

62.

Tajfel

, & Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel

, & Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations . Nelson Hall.

63.

Thorat

, & Neuman

K. S. (Eds.)

. (2012). Blocked by caste, economic discrimination in modern India . Oxford University Press.

64.

Valmiki

(2003). Joothan: A Dalit’s life . Columbia University Press.

65.

van Laar

, Levin

(Eds.). (2006). The experience of stigma: Individual, interpersonal, and situational influences. In Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1–17). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

66.

Willig

(2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology . Open University Press.

67.

Wright

S. C.

, Taylor

D. M.

, & Moghaddam

F. M.

(1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58(6), 994–1003.

68.

Zhang

, Hu

, Zhao

, Wen

, Dang

, & Zawisza

(2023). Editorial: The psychological process of stereotyping: Content, forming, internalizing, mechanisms, effects, and interventions. Frontiers in Psychology , 13, 1117901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1117901