Journal of Social Issues最新文献

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.

This conceptual paper advocates for the recognition of neurodiversity within South African education policy as integral to the realization of inclusive education. Current policy discourses marginalize neurodivergent communities by conflating neurodiversity with disability, reproducing deficit-based framings that neglect intersectional realities. This underrepresentation has negative consequences for the participation and recognition of neurodivergent learners, particularly those with autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. We argue that policy reform is essential to reframe neurodiversity as difference, rather than disability. Drawing on the cultural model and intersectionality theory, this study undertakes a qualitative analysis of post-apartheid education policy documents and relevant scholarly literature. The analysis critically interrogates how neurodiversity is framed, the extent of its representation, and the implications of prevailing deficit-oriented conceptualizations for inclusive education in South Africa. Findings reveal that neurodiversity is largely absent from existing policies, and when referenced, it is mischaracterized through medicalized discourses that reinforce stigma. Such framings erase strengths-based perspectives, perpetuate negative perceptions of autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and constrain institutional capacity to develop inclusive practices responsive to South Africa's sociocultural context. We call for Afrocentric, intersectional, and community-driven policy reform. Reframing neurodiversity as human diversity would align with UNESCO's Salamanca Statement, enhance institutional inclusivity, and improve the educational experiences of neurodivergent learners across schools and universities in South Africa.

This paper investigates how the historical and geopolitical relationship between China and Japan has shaped collective psychology. Using language-based methods across three domains—public sentiment, political discourse, and academic literature—we conducted three complementary analyses. First, word embedding techniques applied to two large-scale Chinese text corpora show that sentiment toward Japan improved from the 1950s to 1980s before declining, a pattern that parallels Japanese sentiment toward China. Second, topic modelling of Japanese parliamentary records reveals that discussions of China over the past eight decades have been embedded in shifting global and regional geopolitical concerns, with recurring attention to war memory and maritime disputes. Third, a review of English-language psychology literature indicates that early studies (1940s–1980s) focused on war and stereotypes; after the 1990s, research emphasized historical memory and reconciliation, and more recently, topics such as Chinese students in Japan, cross-border mobility, and business relations—mirroring growing socioeconomic interdependence. Together, these analyses provide a multilayered view of how sentiment, identity, and historical memory co-evolve with the geopolitical landscape in Sino-Japanese relations.

The Japanese mental health system, marked by isolation and restraint, has been challenged by Tōjisha-Kenkyū, a peer-led research practice initiated in 2001 by Urakawa Bethel House members. Drawing from disability rights and addiction self-help movements, it addresses hermeneutical injustice by creating shared language for minority experiences. Autistics in Japan also face epistemic injustices due to biases that misinterpret autism as individual deficits. The author, diagnosed with autism in adulthood, used Tōjisha-Kenkyū to redefine autism based on the social model of disability, fostering accessibility and understanding. In 2011, the author founded a Tōjisha-Kenkyū group for neurodivergents, promoting diverse narratives and driving collaborations with medicine and technology. Despite contributions, testimonial injustices and tokenism persist in Japanese academia. To counter this, the Inclusive Academia Project fosters equity through mutual learning and solidarity. Ultimately, Tōjisha-Kenkyū serves as a bridge between minority communities and academia, contributing to a more inclusive and justice-oriented society.