Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1177/10892680211056320
Tuğçe Aral, Linda P. Juang, Miriam Schwarzenthal, Deborah Rivas‐Drake
Racism and xenophobia are not just the problems of the adult world. As systems of beliefs, practices, and policies, racism and xenophobia influence children’s perceptions and experiences at early ages. Because families can be significant sources of information regarding race and ethnicity, we focus on the family to understand the broader context of racism and xenophobia in childhood and adolescence. In this paper, we first provide an overview of research conducted among BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and ethnic/religious minority families that has focused on family ethnic–racial socialization to support children and adolescents’ capabilities for resisting racism and xenophobia. We then review research conducted among white and ethnic/religious majority families that has mainly taken an intergroup relations perspective and has examined associations between parents’ and children’s ethnic–racial attitudes, biases, and prejudice. Finally, we discuss the role of family for racism and xenophobia through the lens of family ethnic–racial socialization and intergroup relations perspectives, highlight areas that are currently understudied, and offer recommendations concerning future research directions.
{"title":"The Role of the Family for Racism and Xenophobia in Childhood and Adolescence","authors":"Tuğçe Aral, Linda P. Juang, Miriam Schwarzenthal, Deborah Rivas‐Drake","doi":"10.1177/10892680211056320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211056320","url":null,"abstract":"Racism and xenophobia are not just the problems of the adult world. As systems of beliefs, practices, and policies, racism and xenophobia influence children’s perceptions and experiences at early ages. Because families can be significant sources of information regarding race and ethnicity, we focus on the family to understand the broader context of racism and xenophobia in childhood and adolescence. In this paper, we first provide an overview of research conducted among BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and ethnic/religious minority families that has focused on family ethnic–racial socialization to support children and adolescents’ capabilities for resisting racism and xenophobia. We then review research conducted among white and ethnic/religious majority families that has mainly taken an intergroup relations perspective and has examined associations between parents’ and children’s ethnic–racial attitudes, biases, and prejudice. Finally, we discuss the role of family for racism and xenophobia through the lens of family ethnic–racial socialization and intergroup relations perspectives, highlight areas that are currently understudied, and offer recommendations concerning future research directions.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"327 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43571423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1177/10892680211046509
S. James, Helen Lorenz
This article shares choices made as part of an introductory decoloniality curriculum in a non-clinical community psychology M.A./PhD program where the authors are faculty members. We focus on the basics of decoloniality and decolonial pedagogies in two first-year foundational psychology courses: one course on implications of decoloniality for studying differing psychological paradigms, ontologies, and epistemologies, particularly relational ontologies that might reframe community environments, and another course on implications of decoloniality for post-humanist and indigenous qualitative research methodologies. We present currently emerging forms of theory, content, pedagogy, dialogue, artivism, and methodology in process in our work, as well as responses from students and our own reflections.
{"title":"Back to the Source: Moving Upstream in the Curricular Rivers of Coloniality","authors":"S. James, Helen Lorenz","doi":"10.1177/10892680211046509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046509","url":null,"abstract":"This article shares choices made as part of an introductory decoloniality curriculum in a non-clinical community psychology M.A./PhD program where the authors are faculty members. We focus on the basics of decoloniality and decolonial pedagogies in two first-year foundational psychology courses: one course on implications of decoloniality for studying differing psychological paradigms, ontologies, and epistemologies, particularly relational ontologies that might reframe community environments, and another course on implications of decoloniality for post-humanist and indigenous qualitative research methodologies. We present currently emerging forms of theory, content, pedagogy, dialogue, artivism, and methodology in process in our work, as well as responses from students and our own reflections.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"385 - 404"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46211095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-18DOI: 10.1177/10892680211048177
Decolonial Psychology Editorial Collective
Critics have faulted the project of general psychology for conceptions of general truth that (1) emphasize basic processes abstracted from context and (2) rest on a narrow foundation of research among people in enclaves of Eurocentric modernity. Informed by these critiques, we propose decolonial perspectives as a new scholarly imaginary for general psychology Otherwise. Whereas hegemonic articulations of general psychology tend to ignore life in majority-world communities as something peripheral to its knowledge project, decolonial perspectives regard these communities as a privileged site for general understanding. Indeed, the epistemic standpoint of such communities is especially useful for understanding the coloniality inherent in modern individualist lifeways and the fundamental relationality of human existence. Similarly, whereas hegemonic articulations of general psychology tend to impose particular Eurocentric forms masquerading as general laws, the decolonial vision for general psychology Otherwise exchanges the universalized particular for a more pluralistic (or pluriversal) general.
{"title":"General Psychology Otherwise: A Decolonial Articulation","authors":"Decolonial Psychology Editorial Collective","doi":"10.1177/10892680211048177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211048177","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Critics have faulted the project of general psychology for conceptions of general truth that (1) emphasize basic processes abstracted from context and (2) rest on a narrow foundation of research among people in enclaves of Eurocentric modernity. Informed by these critiques, we propose decolonial perspectives as a new scholarly imaginary for <i>general psychology Otherwise</i>. Whereas hegemonic articulations of general psychology tend to ignore life in majority-world communities as something peripheral to its knowledge project, decolonial perspectives regard these communities as a privileged site for general understanding. Indeed, the epistemic standpoint of such communities is especially useful for understanding the coloniality inherent in modern individualist lifeways and the fundamental relationality of human existence. Similarly, whereas hegemonic articulations of general psychology tend to impose particular Eurocentric forms masquerading as general laws, the decolonial vision for general psychology Otherwise exchanges the universalized particular for a more pluralistic (or <i>pluriversal</i>) general.</p>","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"37 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138512538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-11DOI: 10.1177/10892680211050016
M. Verkuyten
There are various theoretical approaches for understanding intergroup biases among children and adolescents. This article focuses on the social identity approach and argues that existing research will benefit by more fully considering the implications of this approach for examining intergroup relations among youngsters. These implications include (a) the importance of self-categorization, (b) the role of self-stereotyping and group identification, (c) the relevance of shared understandings and developing ingroup consensus, and (d) the importance of coordinated action for positive and negative intergroup relations. These implications of the social identity approach suggest several avenues for investigating children’s and adolescents’ intergroup relations that have not been fully appreciated in the existing literature. However, there are also limitations to the social identity approach for the developmental understanding and some of these are discussed.
{"title":"Understanding Intergroup Relations in Childhood and Adolescence","authors":"M. Verkuyten","doi":"10.1177/10892680211050016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211050016","url":null,"abstract":"There are various theoretical approaches for understanding intergroup biases among children and adolescents. This article focuses on the social identity approach and argues that existing research will benefit by more fully considering the implications of this approach for examining intergroup relations among youngsters. These implications include (a) the importance of self-categorization, (b) the role of self-stereotyping and group identification, (c) the relevance of shared understandings and developing ingroup consensus, and (d) the importance of coordinated action for positive and negative intergroup relations. These implications of the social identity approach suggest several avenues for investigating children’s and adolescents’ intergroup relations that have not been fully appreciated in the existing literature. However, there are also limitations to the social identity approach for the developmental understanding and some of these are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"282 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47553923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1177/10892680211046518
J. Morawski
Psychology’s current crisis attends most visibly to perceived problems with statistical models, methods, publication practices, and career incentives. Rarely is close attention given to the objects of inquiry—to ontological matters—yet the crisis-related literature does features statements about the nature of psychology’s objects. Close analysis of the ontological claims reveals discrepant understandings: some researchers assume objects to be stable and singular while others posit them to be dynamic and complex. Nevertheless, both views presume the objects under scrutiny to be real. The analysis also finds each of these ontological claims to be associated not only with particular method prescriptions but also with distinct notions of the scientific self. Though both take the scientific self to be objective, one figures the scientist as not always a rational actor and, therefore, requiring some behavior regulation, while the other sees the scientist as largely capable of self-governing sustained through painstakingly acquired expertise and self-control. The fate of these prevalent assemblages of object, method, and scientific self remains to be determined, yet as conditions of possibility they portend quite different futures. Following description of the assemblages, the article ventures a futuristic portrayal of the scientific practices they each might engender.
{"title":"How to True Psychology’s Objects","authors":"J. Morawski","doi":"10.1177/10892680211046518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046518","url":null,"abstract":"Psychology’s current crisis attends most visibly to perceived problems with statistical models, methods, publication practices, and career incentives. Rarely is close attention given to the objects of inquiry—to ontological matters—yet the crisis-related literature does features statements about the nature of psychology’s objects. Close analysis of the ontological claims reveals discrepant understandings: some researchers assume objects to be stable and singular while others posit them to be dynamic and complex. Nevertheless, both views presume the objects under scrutiny to be real. The analysis also finds each of these ontological claims to be associated not only with particular method prescriptions but also with distinct notions of the scientific self. Though both take the scientific self to be objective, one figures the scientist as not always a rational actor and, therefore, requiring some behavior regulation, while the other sees the scientist as largely capable of self-governing sustained through painstakingly acquired expertise and self-control. The fate of these prevalent assemblages of object, method, and scientific self remains to be determined, yet as conditions of possibility they portend quite different futures. Following description of the assemblages, the article ventures a futuristic portrayal of the scientific practices they each might engender.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"157 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46728506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-27DOI: 10.1177/10892680211046507
S. Bhatia, K. R. Priya
We adopt a decolonizing framework in this article to examine how legacies of colonialism and coloniality continue to manifest in Euro-American psychology. The population of India is now over 1.2 billion people with over 356 million youth they make up the world’s largest youth population, but their stories remain largely invisible in Euro-American psychology. For this article, we draw on a growing body of research by decolonial theorists and our ethnographic research. We argue that Euro-American psychological science now reworks the old forms of imperialism and domination in neoliberal contexts of globalization. In particular, we analyze (a) how mainstream psychological knowledge of “culture” and “diversity” have reinforced a neoliberal self in postcolonial India; (b) the varied ways in which identities, values, and mental health experiences of marginalized communities have been silenced and ignored through the application of Euro-American psychiatric and colonial psychological knowledge; and (c) how persistent caste-based violence and exploitation in contemporary times reflects the “internal coloniality” of Indian society.
{"title":"Coloniality and Psychology: From Silencing to Re-Centering Marginalized Voices in Postcolonial Times","authors":"S. Bhatia, K. R. Priya","doi":"10.1177/10892680211046507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046507","url":null,"abstract":"We adopt a decolonizing framework in this article to examine how legacies of colonialism and coloniality continue to manifest in Euro-American psychology. The population of India is now over 1.2 billion people with over 356 million youth they make up the world’s largest youth population, but their stories remain largely invisible in Euro-American psychology. For this article, we draw on a growing body of research by decolonial theorists and our ethnographic research. We argue that Euro-American psychological science now reworks the old forms of imperialism and domination in neoliberal contexts of globalization. In particular, we analyze (a) how mainstream psychological knowledge of “culture” and “diversity” have reinforced a neoliberal self in postcolonial India; (b) the varied ways in which identities, values, and mental health experiences of marginalized communities have been silenced and ignored through the application of Euro-American psychiatric and colonial psychological knowledge; and (c) how persistent caste-based violence and exploitation in contemporary times reflects the “internal coloniality” of Indian society.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"422 - 436"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48741489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-25DOI: 10.1177/10892680211048174
Bert H. Hodges, J. Rączaszek-Leonardi
Values have long been considered important for psychology but are frequently characterized as beliefs, goals, rules, or norms. Ecological values theory locates them, not in people or in objects, but in ecosystem relationships and the demands those relationships place on fields of action within the system. To test the worth of this approach, we consider skilled coordination tasks in social psychology (e.g., negotiating disagreements, synchrony and asynchrony in interactions, and selectivity in social learning) and perception-action (e.g., driving vehicles and carrying a child). Evidence suggests that a diverse array of values (e.g., truth, social solidarity, justice, flexibility, safety, and comfort) work in a cooperative tension to guide actions. Values emerge as critical constraints on action that differ from goals, rules, and natural laws, and yet provide the larger context in which these can function effectively. Prospects and challenges for understanding values and their role in action, including theoretical and methodological issues, are considered.
{"title":"Ecological Values Theory: Beyond Conformity, Goal-Seeking, and Rule-Following in Action and Interaction","authors":"Bert H. Hodges, J. Rączaszek-Leonardi","doi":"10.1177/10892680211048174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211048174","url":null,"abstract":"Values have long been considered important for psychology but are frequently characterized as beliefs, goals, rules, or norms. Ecological values theory locates them, not in people or in objects, but in ecosystem relationships and the demands those relationships place on fields of action within the system. To test the worth of this approach, we consider skilled coordination tasks in social psychology (e.g., negotiating disagreements, synchrony and asynchrony in interactions, and selectivity in social learning) and perception-action (e.g., driving vehicles and carrying a child). Evidence suggests that a diverse array of values (e.g., truth, social solidarity, justice, flexibility, safety, and comfort) work in a cooperative tension to guide actions. Values emerge as critical constraints on action that differ from goals, rules, and natural laws, and yet provide the larger context in which these can function effectively. Prospects and challenges for understanding values and their role in action, including theoretical and methodological issues, are considered.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"86 - 103"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41926671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-23DOI: 10.1177/10892680211046508
Nicole C. Nelson, Julie Chung, Kelsey Ichikawa, M. Malik
This article outlines what we call the “narrative of psychology exceptionalism” in commentaries on the replication crisis: many thoughtful commentaries link the current crisis to the specificity of psychology’s history, methods, and subject matter, but explorations of the similarities between psychology and other fields are comparatively thin. Historical analyses of the replication crisis in psychology further contribute to this exceptionalism by creating a genealogy of events and personalities that shares little in common with other fields. We aim to rebalance this narrative by examining the emergence and evolution of replication discussions in psychology alongside their emergence and evolution in biomedicine. Through a mixed-methods analysis of commentaries on replication in psychology and the biomedical sciences, we find that these conversations have, from the early years of the crisis, shared a common core that centers on concerns about the effectiveness of traditional peer review, the need for greater transparency in methods and data, and the perverse incentive structure of academia. Drawing on Robert Merton’s framework for analyzing multiple discovery in science, we argue that the nearly simultaneous emergence of this narrative across fields suggests that there are shared historical, cultural, or institutional factors driving disillusionment with established scientific practices.
{"title":"Psychology Exceptionalism and the Multiple Discovery of the Replication Crisis","authors":"Nicole C. Nelson, Julie Chung, Kelsey Ichikawa, M. Malik","doi":"10.1177/10892680211046508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046508","url":null,"abstract":"This article outlines what we call the “narrative of psychology exceptionalism” in commentaries on the replication crisis: many thoughtful commentaries link the current crisis to the specificity of psychology’s history, methods, and subject matter, but explorations of the similarities between psychology and other fields are comparatively thin. Historical analyses of the replication crisis in psychology further contribute to this exceptionalism by creating a genealogy of events and personalities that shares little in common with other fields. We aim to rebalance this narrative by examining the emergence and evolution of replication discussions in psychology alongside their emergence and evolution in biomedicine. Through a mixed-methods analysis of commentaries on replication in psychology and the biomedical sciences, we find that these conversations have, from the early years of the crisis, shared a common core that centers on concerns about the effectiveness of traditional peer review, the need for greater transparency in methods and data, and the perverse incentive structure of academia. Drawing on Robert Merton’s framework for analyzing multiple discovery in science, we argue that the nearly simultaneous emergence of this narrative across fields suggests that there are shared historical, cultural, or institutional factors driving disillusionment with established scientific practices.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"184 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47937633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-22DOI: 10.1177/10892680211015636
Maarten Derksen, Sarah Field
In the replication crisis in psychology, a “tone debate” has developed. It concerns the question of how to conduct scientific debate effectively and ethically. How should scientists give critique without unnecessarily damaging relations? The increasing use of Facebook and Twitter by researchers has made this issue especially pressing, as these social technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for conversation between academics, but there is little formal control over the debate. In this article, we show that psychologists have tried to solve this issue with various codes of conduct, with an appeal to virtues such as humility, and with practices of self-transformation. We also show that the polemical style of debate, popular in many scientific communities, is itself being questioned by psychologists. Following Shapin and Schaffer’s analysis of the ethics of Robert Boyle’s experimental philosophy in the 17th century, we trace the connections between knowledge, social order, and subjectivity as they are debated and revised by present-day psychologists.
{"title":"The Tone Debate: Knowledge, Self, and Social Order","authors":"Maarten Derksen, Sarah Field","doi":"10.1177/10892680211015636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211015636","url":null,"abstract":"In the replication crisis in psychology, a “tone debate” has developed. It concerns the question of how to conduct scientific debate effectively and ethically. How should scientists give critique without unnecessarily damaging relations? The increasing use of Facebook and Twitter by researchers has made this issue especially pressing, as these social technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for conversation between academics, but there is little formal control over the debate. In this article, we show that psychologists have tried to solve this issue with various codes of conduct, with an appeal to virtues such as humility, and with practices of self-transformation. We also show that the polemical style of debate, popular in many scientific communities, is itself being questioned by psychologists. Following Shapin and Schaffer’s analysis of the ethics of Robert Boyle’s experimental philosophy in the 17th century, we trace the connections between knowledge, social order, and subjectivity as they are debated and revised by present-day psychologists.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"172 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42634107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1177/10892680211034461
Sari M. van Anders, Zach C. Schudson, Will J. Beischel, Emma C. Abed, Aki M. Gormezano, E. Dibble
Diversity-focused research can provide important insights about gender/sex and sexual diversity, including in relation to oppression and privilege. To do so, it needs to critically engage with power and include minoritized and majoritized participants. But, the critical methods guiding this are typically aimed at empowering marginalized groups and may “overempower” majority participants. Here, we discuss three diversity-focused research projects about gender/sex and sexual diversity where our use of critical methods overempowered majority participants in ways that reinforced their privilege. We detail how diversity-focused research approaches thus need to be “majority-situating”: attending to and managing the privilege and power that majority participants carry to research. Yet, we also lay out how diversity-focused research still needs to be “minority-inclusive”: validating, welcoming, and empowering to people from marginalized social locations. We discuss these approaches working synergistically; minority-inclusive methods can also be majority-situating, providing majorities with opportunities for growth, learning, and seeing that they—and not just “others”—are socially situated. We conclude by laying out what a diversity-focused research program might look like that includes both majority-situating and minority-inclusive approaches, to work towards a more just and empirical scholarship that does not lead to majorities who are even more overempowered.
{"title":"Overempowered? Diversity-Focused Research with Gender/Sex and Sexual Majorities","authors":"Sari M. van Anders, Zach C. Schudson, Will J. Beischel, Emma C. Abed, Aki M. Gormezano, E. Dibble","doi":"10.1177/10892680211034461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211034461","url":null,"abstract":"Diversity-focused research can provide important insights about gender/sex and sexual diversity, including in relation to oppression and privilege. To do so, it needs to critically engage with power and include minoritized and majoritized participants. But, the critical methods guiding this are typically aimed at empowering marginalized groups and may “overempower” majority participants. Here, we discuss three diversity-focused research projects about gender/sex and sexual diversity where our use of critical methods overempowered majority participants in ways that reinforced their privilege. We detail how diversity-focused research approaches thus need to be “majority-situating”: attending to and managing the privilege and power that majority participants carry to research. Yet, we also lay out how diversity-focused research still needs to be “minority-inclusive”: validating, welcoming, and empowering to people from marginalized social locations. We discuss these approaches working synergistically; minority-inclusive methods can also be majority-situating, providing majorities with opportunities for growth, learning, and seeing that they—and not just “others”—are socially situated. We conclude by laying out what a diversity-focused research program might look like that includes both majority-situating and minority-inclusive approaches, to work towards a more just and empirical scholarship that does not lead to majorities who are even more overempowered.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"3 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48542445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：