Editorial synthesis for 2 in 2023 a collaboration between IARR's two journals: Recognizing the need for greater inclusivity in relationship science

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q2 COMMUNICATION PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS Pub Date : 2023-02-06 DOI:10.1111/pere.12477
Ashley K. Randall, Melissa A. Curran
{"title":"Editorial synthesis for 2 in 2023 a collaboration between <scp>IARR</scp>'s two journals: Recognizing the need for greater inclusivity in relationship science","authors":"Ashley K. Randall, Melissa A. Curran","doi":"10.1111/pere.12477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The idea for this special issue came from the current Editors of the Journal for Social and Personal Relationships and Personal Relationships , who wanted to forge a collaboration between the International Association for Relationship Research's two journals. The timing of such collaboration came at a time when issues surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion were being brought to light in science, broadly defined. Stemming from such discussions, for this special issue, we asked 10 sets of authors to apply an intersectional lens—grounded in Crenshaw's (1989, 1991) definition of intersectionality and drawing from questions posed by Cole (2009)—in their systematic review of literature from the past 20 years (1992–2022) and to answer these three questions: (1) from whose vantage point is the research being conducted , (2) what types of questions are valued , and (3) who is included in the research vs. who is being left out/whose voices are missing . Reviews for the special issue include these topics: (a) affectionate communication, health, and relationships, (b) romantic relationship maintenance behaviors, (c) relationship maintenance among military couples, (d) relational sacrifices, (e) LGBTQ‐inclusive research, (f) stress, support, and coping for romantic couples, (g) daily stress and romantic relationship quality, (h) infidelity, (i) relationship dissolution, and (j) the longitudinal study of romantic close relationships. Across the reviews, authors noted many of the same patterns; most studies included samples from the United States, wherein participants identified as White, heterosexual, and/or female; however, military samples were dominated by men. The methods employed were largely quantitative, cross‐sectional, and/or with data coming from surveys. Observations during the review process included the role of positionality as well as greater knowledge gained about the critical framework of intersectionality, specifically acknowledging that elements of diversity in sampling methods are not an application of intersectionality; rather, intersectionality places central focus on (a) how multiply marginalized social identities have been historically oppressed and (b) how systems of power, oppression, and privilege construct, reproduce, and sustain those multiply marginalized social identities. Recommendations for future relationship science are presented, specifically in how our fields can benefit from learning from the lens of intersectionality.","PeriodicalId":48077,"journal":{"name":"PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12477","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The idea for this special issue came from the current Editors of the Journal for Social and Personal Relationships and Personal Relationships , who wanted to forge a collaboration between the International Association for Relationship Research's two journals. The timing of such collaboration came at a time when issues surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion were being brought to light in science, broadly defined. Stemming from such discussions, for this special issue, we asked 10 sets of authors to apply an intersectional lens—grounded in Crenshaw's (1989, 1991) definition of intersectionality and drawing from questions posed by Cole (2009)—in their systematic review of literature from the past 20 years (1992–2022) and to answer these three questions: (1) from whose vantage point is the research being conducted , (2) what types of questions are valued , and (3) who is included in the research vs. who is being left out/whose voices are missing . Reviews for the special issue include these topics: (a) affectionate communication, health, and relationships, (b) romantic relationship maintenance behaviors, (c) relationship maintenance among military couples, (d) relational sacrifices, (e) LGBTQ‐inclusive research, (f) stress, support, and coping for romantic couples, (g) daily stress and romantic relationship quality, (h) infidelity, (i) relationship dissolution, and (j) the longitudinal study of romantic close relationships. Across the reviews, authors noted many of the same patterns; most studies included samples from the United States, wherein participants identified as White, heterosexual, and/or female; however, military samples were dominated by men. The methods employed were largely quantitative, cross‐sectional, and/or with data coming from surveys. Observations during the review process included the role of positionality as well as greater knowledge gained about the critical framework of intersectionality, specifically acknowledging that elements of diversity in sampling methods are not an application of intersectionality; rather, intersectionality places central focus on (a) how multiply marginalized social identities have been historically oppressed and (b) how systems of power, oppression, and privilege construct, reproduce, and sustain those multiply marginalized social identities. Recommendations for future relationship science are presented, specifically in how our fields can benefit from learning from the lens of intersectionality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2023年的编辑综合:IARR两家期刊的合作:认识到关系科学需要更大的包容性
本期特刊的想法来自《社会与个人关系》杂志和《个人关系》杂志的现任编辑,他们希望在国际关系研究协会的两本期刊之间建立合作关系。这种合作的时机是在围绕多样性、公平和包容性的问题在科学中被广泛定义的时候。基于这样的讨论,在本期特刊中,我们邀请了10组作者,在他们对过去20年(1992-2022)的文献进行系统回顾时,运用交叉视角——以克伦肖(1989,1991)对交叉性的定义为基础,并借鉴科尔(2009)提出的问题——回答以下三个问题:(1)研究是从谁的角度进行的,(2)重视什么类型的问题,(3)谁被包括在研究中,谁被遗漏了/谁的声音被遗漏了。特刊的评论包括以下主题:(a)深情沟通,健康和关系,(b)浪漫关系维持行为,(c)军人夫妇之间的关系维持,(d)关系牺牲,(e) LGBTQ‐包容性研究,(f)浪漫夫妇的压力,支持和应对,(g)日常压力和浪漫关系质量,(h)不忠,(i)关系解散,(j)浪漫亲密关系的纵向研究。在这些评论中,作者注意到许多相同的模式;大多数研究包括来自美国的样本,其中参与者被认定为白人、异性恋者和/或女性;然而,军事样本以男性为主。所采用的方法主要是定量的、横断面的和/或来自调查的数据。审查过程中的观察包括位置性的作用以及对交叉性的关键框架获得的更多知识,特别是承认抽样方法中的多样性因素不是交叉性的应用;相反,交叉性将重点放在(a)多重边缘社会身份在历史上是如何受到压迫的;(b)权力、压迫和特权系统是如何构建、复制和维持这些多重边缘社会身份的。对未来的关系科学提出了建议,特别是在我们的领域如何从交叉性的镜头中学习中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Personal Relationships, first published in 1994, is an international, interdisciplinary journal that promotes scholarship in the field of personal relationships using a wide variety of methodologies and throughout a broad range of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, communication studies, anthropology, family studies, child development, social work, and gerontology. The subject matter and approach of Personal Relationships will be of interest to researchers, teachers, and practitioners. Manuscripts examining a wide range of personal relationships, including those between romantic or intimate partners, spouses, parents and children, siblings, classmates, coworkers, neighbors, and friends are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Constructing the meaning of human–AI romantic relationships from the perspectives of users dating the social chatbot Replika Self‐concept clarity and the evaluation and selection of incompatible dating partners Emerging adult perceptions of costs and benefits of using information and communication technology in dating relationships Relationship sustainability: Exploring the idea of sustainable marriages among Indian married couples “I did not expect that from you!”: Unforgiveness dimensions, attachment insecurities, and relationship under‐commitment following a relational transgression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1