Journal of Social Issues最新文献

Inequity in health and well-being is driven by systemic, political, and structural forces that, along with social factors, influence the allocation, access, and impact of health resources across communities based on religion, gender, caste, sexuality, and ability. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, and plus (LGBTIQ+) communities, marginalized for subverting cis-gender norms, face heightened risks of poor health, well-being, and limited psycho-social, medical, and legal support. Understanding the challenges and triumphs of LGBTIQ+ individuals navigating oppressive and discriminatory legal, social, and structural forces can significantly contribute to improving their health and well-being. Additionally, such insights can inform public policy and legal structures to be more inclusive. This paper offers a commentary on the health and psycho-social well-being of LGBTIQ+ individuals, focusing on the systemic transitions in Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and India. The unique, intersectional identities of queer individuals make them particularly vulnerable to stigma and discrimination. While Pakistan has laws to protect transgender rights and India has decriminalized same-sex behavior, LGBTIQ+ individuals in these countries still face discrimination in housing, careers, and healthcare, similar to the experiences in Turkey and Russia, where no legal protections exist. The paper emphasizes the need to view queer experiences through an intersectional lens, acknowledging that advancements in one area alone may not suffice to transform their experiences from marginalization to inclusion.

Schools serving diverse and low-income communities tend to have disproportionately high numbers of low-quality or inexperienced teachers, thereby creating an inequality of access to high-quality teaching. Across two pre-registered experiments and one exploratory survey (N_total = 956), we investigated the factors associated with trainee teachers’ bias in school choices, and the role of teacher education in mitigating this issue. In Studies 1 and 3, trainee teachers demonstrated a preference for working in a school with average (vs. diverse/low-income) demographics, even though all other aspects of the school were equal. These disparities were most pronounced when trainees more strongly believed that (a) educational inequality can be attributed to external factors; (b) intelligence is fixed, and (c) schooling is truly meritocratic. Study 2 revealed that levels of equity-related input during initial teacher education vary hugely, but that, where implemented, it may better prepare trainees for the challenges associated with teaching in diverse and low-income communities. Finally, Study 3 revealed tentative evidence to suggest that a brief intervention that challenges teachers to think beyond the internal causes of inequality could reduce some of these troubling disparities.

Due to the role that schools play in determining the status of the future occupations of their children (i.e., the selection function of education), high socioeconomic status (SES) parents may not always be supportive of interventions that would reduce the SES achievement gap. In four experiments, we measured the support of parents (N_total = 1966) for implementing an equalizing (and, in Experiments 2 and 3, an inequality-maintaining) intervention. In Experiments 1 and 2, a negative association between subjective SES and support for the equalizing intervention was found when the selection function was made salient, an effect that was also observed in Experiment 4 but only for Right-leaning participants. In Experiment 3, where the salience of selection was held constant, we found a negative association between subjective SES and support for the equalizing intervention, but not the inequality-maintaining intervention.

This paper offers a case study of the Life History of the Word Gap (WG) Story, the most prominent deficit discourse of the contemporary era. Mindful of mounting critiques of deficit thinking and informed by Bakhtinian theory, we seek to understand the Story's ascendance by interrogating its evolving historical context. Where did the Story begin, what fueled its circulation, what were its consequences, and how does it end? We found that implicit biases of class, race, and method converged with sociopolitical developments to create a thoroughly flawed but remarkably resilient WG Story. Heedless of history, structural inequalities, and contradictory evidence from other disciplines, the Story spread across American research, policy, and media, attaining the status of received wisdom and infiltrating schools. Ethnographic studies revealed that the Story stigmatizes poor youngsters, shapes teachers’ and peers’ perceptions, and creates discriminatory programs and practices. We conclude by addressing obstacles to imagining new stories.

Inequalities and discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics remain pervasive worldwide. Scholars have collaborated to address structural and social barriers in LGBTIQ+ research, creating a substantial literature base. However, much of this work focuses on specific segments of the population, overlooks resilience- and strengths-based approaches, and is predominantly conducted in the U.S. and other Western countries. In this introduction article, we discuss how this special issue extends previous research by uniting scholars globally to collaboratively reimagine the lens through which scientists conduct LGBTIQ+ research. By exploring diverging needs across subgroups of LGBTIQ+ people, discussing the (dis)advantages of various methodological choices, and offering a better understanding of how unique legal and social landscapes affect LGBTIQ+ individuals globally, this special issue aims to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of research combined with concrete directions for redress. Given that barriers to conducting LGBTIQ+ research differ significantly by nation, we conclude this introductory article by calling for a research community that is more aware of unequal power dynamics within academia, willing to take action to reduce disparities in the global academic system, and inclusive of voices from underrepresented groups.

Research on LGBTIQ+ populations has focused primarily on identifying problems in the community (e.g., health disparities) and their predictors (e.g., minority stressors, discrimination). Scholars have argued that the approach of highlighting “damage” or deficits has been helpful for advocacy but has also harmed this community by perpetuating stereotypes (e.g., LGBTIQ+ individuals are unhealthy), ignoring or devaluing positive LGBTIQ+ experiences, and contributing to negative interactions in healthcare settings. To evaluate the extent to which a damage-centered approach dominates the body of available research, the authors of this article conducted a content analysis of articles related to LGBTIQ+ health published in the Journal of Social Issues (JSI). The content analysis of 45 years of published manuscripts (1978–2023) revealed a strong emphasis on damage-centered themes. In response, this article advocates for structural changes that may lead to an increase in research that focuses LGBTIQ+ experiences more holistically, with the overarching goal of reimaging LGBTIQ+ research. Such suggested changes include concentrated research funding and publishing opportunities, medical training that emphasizes a strengths-based focus, and function-oriented and autonomy-promoting LGBTIQ+ research. This article suggests strategies to improve patient-provider interactions in healthcare and enhance the overall well-being of LGBTIQ+ communities. It advocates for a deliberate expansion towards a more holistic, less damage-centered body of research in LGBTIQ+ psychology.

Psychosocial research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ+) populations from Latin America is relatively recent. Initially, research focused mainly on prejudice, using qualitative techniques. Studies on LGBTIQ+ populations, using more sophisticated psychosocial theories such as those of Herek or Meyer, began in the mid-1990s. This study deals with surveys and scales based on non-probabilistic samples, LGBTIQ+ populations being the first studied. In the early 2000s, queer and/or LGBTIQ+ theories were introduced, and research has been much more interdisciplinary. This paper describes the theoretical frameworks used in LGBTIQ+ research in Latin America and examines distinctions in the findings from Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Future research must involve cross-cultural studies, systematic or scoping reviews, and studies on non-binary populations. Finally, the conditions for reimaging LGBTIQ+ research in Latin America are discussed.

Essentialism is an ontological belief that social groups share underlying “essences,” while social constructionism suggests social groups are formed and upheld by cultural understandings. We aim to highlight that essentialist and social constructionist beliefs regarding LGBTIQ+ identities underlie psychological evaluations of whether an LGBTIQ+ identity is real (social recognition of existence). These evaluations have tangible consequences for LGBTIQ+ people such that LGBTIQ+ identities considered real are (de)valued while those considered not real are marginalized. Central to our examination is the concept of “naturalness,” which often affords realness. This is reflected through essentialist thought at the individual level when evaluating the realness of LGBTIQ+ identities. However, while LGBTIQ+ people may embrace essentialist rhetoric to defend their identities as real, many draw instead on social constructionist notions. Lastly, we examine how essentialist and social constructionist rhetoric are evident in structural systems to either deny or legitimize LGBTIQ+ identities as real. By reimagining LGBTIQ+ research, we seek to expand the understanding of these identities.

Despite growing global interest in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) research, variations in measurement practices across countries have remained underexplored. In this work, we focused on two fundamental aspects of measurement vital to understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ+ people. Specifically, we documented current measures of sex, gender, and sexual orientation used in national mental well-being-related surveys and reviewed whether the mental well-being scales in those surveys have been validated for LGBTIQ+ people. We employed a stratified sampling strategy and evaluated national surveys from a list of randomly selected countries representing 10% of global nations (N = 21). Fewer than half of the countries measured sexual orientation and fewer than one-third measured gender beyond the binary in their national surveys. Among the countries that measured gender or sexual orientation, the response options and question phrasing were often not inclusive. In addition, most of the mental well-being scales lacked validity evidence for LGBTIQ+ populations. Finally, we outline recommendations for the future of reimagining LGBTIQ+ research in terms of measurement, highlighting the importance of research engagement with the global LGBTIQ+ community.