Journal of Social Issues最新文献

This paper explores the multifaceted experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or queer (LGBTIQ+) people in selected African countries within legal, health, and educational sectors, and the broader society. It further highlights efforts that address issues around inclusion and social injustice. In the selected African countries (e.g., Ghana, Namibia, Kenya, and Uganda), LGBTIQ+ related activities are constitutionally illegal, leading to social discrimination or criminalization. Discrimination and stigma occur in various institutions which promotes homophobic sentiments, self-harm and ostracization among LGBTIQ+ people. Notable countries like South Africa and Mozambique, have decriminalized same-sex relationships, but these have not necessarily halted incidences of homophobia, social alienation, and discrimination that persist across the continent. In this article, queer theory and sexual minority stress theory are applied as contextual tools to explicate the everyday experiences of LGBTIQ+ people in sectors such as law, education, and health. As a contribution to the discourse on LGBTIQ+ people and research in Africa, this article further explores how discrimination, stigma, compulsive survival coping strategies, and legislation impede the overall psychosocial wellbeing of LGBTIQ+ people. Although this paper's narrative is primarily restricted to a few selected African countries, the narratives are relatable to non-Western states with collectivist cultural orientations.

The 21st century has seen dynamic social, legal, and political change regarding the rights and acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) people. This article argues that social norm perceptions—perceptions of other people's opinions in a given social context—and the political dynamics that shape those perceptions are important for understanding differences in LGBTIQ+ acceptance across sociopolitical environments and time periods. Instead of emphasizing “actual” norms—people's opinions on average in different groups—we focus on norm perceptions since people often conform to the attitudes and behaviors held and endorsed by others to achieve social belonging and accuracy in their judgments. We review evidence regarding structural (e.g., laws and institutional decisions), group (e.g., social identities), and individual (e.g., ideology) factors that influence perceptions of, and conformity to, norms of LGBTIQ+ inclusion or exclusion. Drawing on this review, we consider how political dynamics—the ways that civic and political actors make salient, promote, and frame issues, values, and norms in contesting or maintaining the status quo—influence interpretations of, and responses to, norm signals, thus shaping differences in LGBTIQ+ rights norms across contexts and time periods. In conclusion, we chart future areas for research, policy, and practice.

By centering the margins through intersectional and cross-cultural perspectives, this article offers a reimagining of resilience by exploring individual versus collective (i.e., group-level) approaches and strategies adopted by transgender and nonbinary people of color (TPOC) to resist oppression. We address the dynamics of multiple group membership and recognize the profound effects of culture on how TPOC communities navigate resilience and resistance. Utilizing an international perspective, we examine risk and resilience by considering proximal and distal minority stressors such as discrimination and internalized stigma. We also address the utility of current models used to address TPOC resilience (i.e., minority stress and resilience theory, transgender resilience intervention model). Finally, we address tensions associated with the characterization of resilience and resistance for TPOC within the social sciences and across cultures. This article thus serves as a critical foundation for reimagining research with TPOC by presenting potential avenues for further research, theory, and community action globally.

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.