Journal of Social Issues最新文献

The open science (OS) movement has the potential to fundamentally shape how researchers conduct research and distribute findings. However, the implications for research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) experiences present unique considerations. In this paper, included in the special issue on Reimagining LGBTIQ+ Research, we explore how the OS movement broadens access to and comprehension of LGBTIQ+ experiences while simultaneously imposing limitations on the representation of these identities and raising concerns about risks to LGBTIQ+ researchers and participants. Our research focuses on three facets of the OS movement. First, we examine practices related to open data, which advocates that data should be accessible to other researchers to analyze. Yet, providing access to such data challenges may compromise trust between the research team and study participants. Second, we examine practices related to open replicable research, particularly as it has the potential to both highlight and erase the experiences of groups within the LGBTIQ+ community. Finally, we consider how open access, making scholarly articles free to the public, may help educate a broader audience on the lived experiences of LGBTIQ+ people, but in regions where these identities remain heavily stigmatized and/or criminalized, access may be blocked or individuals could be penalized for retrieving this information.

LGBTIQ+ research acknowledges shared experiences of groups marginalized due to gender identities, sexualities, and sex characteristics. This universalist coalition approach has resulted in much affirmational research and progressive policy development. However, it risks homogenizing the unique experiences and needs of specific groups; a risk lessened by a particularist subgroup approach. In this theoretical paper, we reflect on the challenges of a coalition or subgroup approach by considering interdependencies and boundaries between sex, gender, and sexuality-based identities. Through tracing the historical development of LGBTIQ+ research and activism and using examples from intersex studies, intersectionality, and political actions, we explore tensions between the collective identities that make up the LGBTIQ+ acronym. We further offer suggestions for reimagining LGBTIQ+ research, advocating for community-driven approaches that respect the situated knowledge of LGBTIQ+ individuals, and use adaptable and inclusive research practices that bridge academia and activism that aim to improve the lives of the marginalized.

In social psychology these days it is commonplace to read or hear that liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists are every bit as “moral”; prejudiced and intolerant; susceptible to misinformation, “fake news,” and conspiratorial thinking; lax about upholding democratic standards; and prone to terrorism and political violence. Upon careful inspection, however, I conclude that every one of these claims is false or misleading. Liberal-leftists in the United States and elsewhere are demonstrably more committed than conservative-rightists to humanistic-egalitarian values, deliberative reasoning, and adherence to democratic norms. In Western societies, acts of authoritarian aggression, hate crimes, and political violence are overwhelmingly more likely to come from the right than the left. As a witness to Nazi atrocities, Kurt Lewin deeply understood the role of historical, economic, and political forces in human lives and the interdependence between democracy and social science. He rejected moral relativism and what I call “both-sideology” and offered a sophisticated critique of anti-democratic tendencies. There are perfectly understandable reasons why people—especially academics and journalists—would be tempted to draw parallels between the left and right, and indeed there are many similarities as well as dissimilarities between liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists. However, the uncritical adoption of both-sideology threatens liberal democracy itself and, with it, the only social science worth having. What we—as citizens and social scientists—need now is a renewal and revitalization of Lewin's critical-emancipatory legacy before it is too late.

This article addresses the complex issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection in workplaces, highlighting the intricate balance between fostering inclusion and mitigating potential harm and exclusion.¹ This tension manifests uniquely across diverse cultural, legal, and organizational settings. We review existing literature, offer practical guidance for decision-makers, and outline future research avenues. While SOGI data collection in workplaces can enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and elevate the visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ+) employees, challenges include the risk of discrimination, privacy concerns, and linguistic complexities. To address these, researchers and practitioners must consider the purpose, language, and cultural context of data collection, involving LGBTIQ+ stakeholders, and conducting reconnaissance studies. Future research opportunities lie in understanding employee willingness to share SOGI data, motivations of human resource (HR) and DEI professionals, and the impact on organizational culture. Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research to ease the tension between inclusion and protection, we conclude that responsible SOGI data collection demands a nuanced approach that prioritizes inclusion and equity while addressing privacy concerns and potential harm.

Since the murder of George Floyd in 2020, a renewed and more mainstream attention to systemic racism emerged. Critical Race Theory (CRT) has permeated the larger public discourse around race more than ever before. Yet, social, scientific, and political backlash intended to silence conversations about the systemic and power-driven nature of racism have also characterized these years. 30+ years have passed since CRT's introduction as a critical analysis of how the legal system fails minoritized groups; 20+ years have passed since CRT's introduction into the social psychological field. Although psychology provides a strong foundation for the CRT tenets, incorporating CRT into the field of psychology has lagged behind many other fields (e.g., sociology, education). In two installments, this special issue (re)introduces psychological researchers to CRT and Psychological Critical Race Theory (PCRT), underscores CRT's importance and limitations in the context of psychological research, features novel applications and directions in CRT, and addresses the current political climate of opposition to discussions of CRT. This second installment looks outward highlighting psychological research applying (P)CRT frameworks to advance racial justice. We conclude with reflections on the history of CRT and PCRT and the shifts necessary in our scholarship-activism to dismantle systems of racial oppression.

Using autoethnography and a Critical Race Theory framework, I recount how I experienced racism denial in my son's school district during 2019–2020 (his kindergarten year). To build this counternarrative, I analyzed multiple data sources (e.g., field notes, personal journal entries, public documents) and, across three chapters, describe my interactions with key school district gatekeepers while advocating for racial equity-oriented school policies. These policies included: a school desegregation program (Chapter 1), a plan to incorporate critical race education into one school's curriculum (Chapter 2), and a district-level endorsement of critical race and ethnic studies K-12 curriculum in California schools (Chapter 3). In responding to this advocacy, the district professed surface-level support for racial equity, but I saw this form of support as racism denial merely masquerading as support for racial equity. I explain why I interpreted the district's responses in this way, and how I experienced these responses from my perspective as a mixed Black mother, scholar, and activist. I end by reflecting on how these experiences forced me to integrate my mother-scholar-activist identities in uncomfortable and productive ways, and with recommendations for how psychological researchers and K-12 schools can support racial equity.

Psychological Critical Race Theory (PCRT) was introduced in 1998. PCRT illustrates the integral connection of psychological research and theory to the legal framework of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Five tenets of PCRT were described: (1) Spontaneous and persistent influence of race; (2) Fairness is derived from divergent racial experiences; (3) Asymmetrical consequences of racial policies; (4) Paradoxes of racial diversity; and (5) Racial identity requires a multidimensional approach. These tenets are reviewed and updated. A new set of seven PCRT principles are proposed that provide a broad framework within which to examine the PCRT concept and its role in reframing critical approaches to racial justice. Principle 1: Race and culture make each other up; Principle 2: Meaning Matters; Principle 3: Multilevel analysis is critical to unraveling Systemic Racism; Principle 4: Activism is a lever for social change; Principle 5: Power drives racial inequality; Principle 6: Storytelling disrupts status quo narratives; Principle 7: Diversity does not ameliorate systemic racism. PCRT is a 100-year enterprise of psychological science, offering a complex and comprehensive framework for understanding and ameliorating persistent racial inequality. The comprehensive network of ideas, methods, goals, and strategies can engage and guide this work for years to come.

Increased anti-Blackness, including interpersonal racist encounters and macro forms such as extrajudicial killings by the state, have demonstrated that Black communities and their psychological well-being are in a precarious position. Extant research has revealed that increased encounters with anti-Blackness are related to excessive psychological stress. However, the role of stigma awareness, its relationship to anti-Blackness and psychological stress, and our understanding of the relationship among subgroup identities (e.g., gender) remain underdeveloped. Appropriately, the current work adopted critical race psychology and minority stress theory and explored Black individuals’ (N = 410) experience with anti-Blackness, stigma awareness, and their relationship to psychological stress. Results demonstrated that experience with anti-Blackness was positively associated with increased physical, emotional, and cognitive stress; however, stigma awareness mediated only emotional stress. In addition, among the sample, Black men and Black individuals with increased education (e.g., received a college degree) reported increased levels of psychological stress compared to Black women and less educated Black individuals.

Despite consensus that parent involvement is integral to children's educational success, Black parents’ involvement remains largely characterized from a deficits-based perspective. Using critical race and critical consciousness theories, this study explored parents’ analysis of educational inequities and their school engagement. Using interview data from a sample of Black parents (n = 20), emergent understandings of parents’ thoughts, motivations, and actions to engage with their child's school were explored. Findings revealed that Black parents held both critical and traditional views, expressed themes of internal and external efficacy in their motivation, and engaged critically and traditionally in their child's education. Results are consonant with literature on Black parents’ engagement and to the nascent understanding of how parents' beliefs about structural racial oppression within schools impacts how they engage in that space.