Journal of Social Issues最新文献

This study (extracted from a larger doctoral-level dissertation project) adopts a Critical Autism Studies (CAS) framework, and transformative mixed methods design, to examine lived experiences of Applied Behavior analysis (ABA) and to guide improvements in autism services. Autistic people have shared their lived experiences of the ways ABA has caused them harm due to the rigidly applied positive reinforcement and punishment procedures used to make them appear less autistic. Increasingly, ABA practitioners and researchers have responded by attempting to transform their practices to be more accepting of autistic ways of being. The four-staged methodology (surveys—interviews—analysis—participatory dissemination) responds to Milton's (2014) call for “interactional expertise” between non-autistic researchers and autistic people. The survey stage yielded 68 completed surveys from autistic people in Canada—22 respondents had received ABA and 46 had not but wished to express their views. Four participants who had received ABA—two with positive experiences and two with negative experiences—participated in semi-structured interviews and authorship of recommendations. Findings revealed diverse perspectives on ABA practices. Implications for policy and practice highlight the importance of authentically engaging with autistic communities to develop supports that are helpful and not harmful.

Autistic individuals encounter distinct barriers within the criminal-legal system, such as misinterpretations of their behaviors, a lack of accommodations, and systemic biases. Despite growing understanding of these challenges, research on how defense attorneys understand and advocate for autistic clients remains limited. This study explores how defense attorneys in the United States conceptualize autism and apply neurodiversity-informed strategies in their advocacy. Semi-structured interviews with 31 defense attorneys revealed that while most attorneys view autism through a medicalized lens, they acknowledge the need for better strategies to secure accommodations in court. Findings suggest that attorneys often rely on expert testimony and recognize the courtroom as primarily designed for neurotypical individuals. Gaps in training and understanding about neurodiversity may hinder effective defense strategies and limit access to justice for autistic defendants. This research highlights the urgent need for enhanced legal training and systemic reform to improve representation and legal experiences for autistic individuals.

This article will outline a genealogy of neurodiversity, highlighting the power structures and systems that brought about the neurodiversity movement and their implications. Understanding the neurodiversity paradigm from the politicized perspective of genealogy, it builds on this to conduct an intersectional analysis of the categories of neurodiversity in the present day. It draws attention to their “entangled” relations with other types of identity and political movements. In so doing, this paper proposes the concept of “neuroliberalism.” Finally, it applies this perspective to UK education and healthcare policy, critiquing policies, such as performance-related pay.

Neurodiversity, a complex phenomenon acknowledging natural variations in human brain function and behaviour, is predominantly conceptualised through a Western-centric lens. This narrow perspective excludes diverse understandings across different communities and contexts, significantly impacting equity and inclusivity for neurodivergent individuals. This paper, grounded in the African philosophy of Ubuntu, investigates the social effects of neurodiversity on African migrants and their families in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Key findings underscore the critical importance of relationality, connectedness, and diverse perspectives in understanding neurodiversity. The research reveals complex lived realities and challenges in accessing services and supports. Importantly, it highlights the profound impact of intersectionality on the everyday experiences of neurodivergent African migrants. This study argues for the urgent prioritisation of these intersectional experiences in conceptualising and implementing neurodiversity-affirming approaches across research, policy, and practice. Such inclusion is vital for creating truly equitable and inclusive societies where all neurodivergent individuals can thrive.

Not all people conform to socially constructed norms, nor should they have to. Neurodiversity, the natural variation in human brains and cognition, is fundamental to understanding human behavior, yet neurodivergent individuals in academia are often stigmatized, undervalued, or pressured to mask their differences. This position statement, authored predominantly by neurodivergent scholars, explores how aligning the values of the neurodiversity movement with practices of Open Scholarship (OSch) can foster greater research integrity, rigor, social responsibility and justice, diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility in academia. We review systemic barriers faced by neurodivergent researchers—from disclosure dilemmas and hidden curriculum expectations to intersectional disadvantages—and identify how OSch principles (transparency, accessibility, collaboration) can help mitigate these challenges. Drawing on lived experiences and current research, we propose concrete reforms, including adopting universal design in scholarly communication, promoting participatory research methods, and enacting supportive policies (e.g., flexible work arrangements, inclusive codes of conduct). By leveraging shared values of openness and neuro-inclusion, academia can become more just and epistemically equitable. Our recommendations chart a path toward an academic culture where neurodivergent scholars can thrive openly, to the benefit of scientific rigor and social justice alike.

In the United States, people of African descent have historically used different labels to express their collective racial identities. Scholars have traced these historical changes over time, which have shifted for various reasons, across different political and social movements, and with changing group dynamics. The purpose of this study was to examine contemporary racial identity label preferences among people of African descent living in the United States and explore the geopolitical roots and branches of those choices. In this study, an online sample of 451 people of African descent completed a survey about their racial identity label preferences and why they selected those labels. We hypothesized that selecting one's racial label for geopolitical reasons (vs. external or accuracy reasons) would predict how people of African descent see themselves (i.e., in terms of race and ancestry), how they perceive the world (i.e., perceptions of American racism), and how they act in the world (i.e., political activism). Overall, selecting one's racial identity label preference for geopolitical reasons was a consistent predictor of our outcomes.

This paper examines how geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geocultural dynamics shape the symbolic boundaries of Europe and the psychological and political consequences of those boundaries. We extend traditional models of social identification by arguing that claims to group representativeness - and the recognition of such claims - are deeply informed by geopolitical contexts often neglected in mainstream psychological theory. Drawing on data from three studies conducted in Romania, Serbia, and Türkiye, we explore how perceptions of Europe's boundaries are socially constructed and experienced in non-Western European contexts. Study 1 investigates how geopolitical positioning informs constructions of a superordinate European identity, revealing a dominant framing of Europe as a “Western” project. Study 2 shows how this framing influences national self- and other-stereotyping, demonstrating an internalization of low status among non-Western countries in Europe. Study 3 experimentally evidences how positive recognition can create more positive geopolitical attitudes toward various European supranational organizations. Together, these studies show that geopolitical inclusion and exclusion have meaningful psychological effects. We argue for a more explicit integration of geopolitical histories and conditions into psychological research on superordinate identity. In doing so, we contribute to the emerging field of geopolitical psychology and highlight the mutually reinforcing relationship between geopolitical positioning and psychological recognition in defining the boundaries of Europe.