As efforts to end systemic racism gain momentum across various contexts, it is critical to consider antiracist steps needed to improve psychological science. Current scientific practices may serve to ...maintain white supremacy with significant and impactful consequences. Extant research practices reinforce norms of homogeneity within BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color) populations, segregate theories, and methods derived from BIPOC groups, apply disparate standards to the evaluation of research on white versus BIPOC populations, and discourage BIPOC scholars from pursuing research careers. Perhaps consequently, disparities persist on a range of psychologically relevant outcomes (e.g., mental and physical health). This article presents examples of how epistemic oppression exists within psychological science, including in how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. This article offers a needed contribution by providing specific concrete recommendations for different stakeholders, including those involved in the production, reporting, and gatekeeping of science as well as consumers of science. Additionally, a discussion of accountability steps are offered to ensure that psychological science moves beyond talk and toward action, with possible strategies to measure outcomes, stimulate progress, promote dialogue and action, challenge inequity, and upend the influence of white supremacy in psychological science.
Public Significance StatementChallenging systemic racism requires multisystemic change. In this article, potential solutions and measurable outcome metrics to eliminate white supremacy in psychological science are provided.
Because of their minority group status and underrepresentation, faculty of color (FOC) are tokens and as such, are highly visible within the academy. Paradoxically, token status may result in their ...being made to feel simultaneously invisible (e.g., accomplishments are unimportant, lack of belonging) and hypervisible (e.g., heightened scrutiny). Drawing from 118 interviews, we identified six themes related to how Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, and American Indian faculty members at a single, predominantly White, research-intensive university, describe issues of (in)visibility at work. FOC experienced hypervisibility when they were treated as Tokens and used to represent diversity within the institution, and they felt invisible when they experienced Social and Professional Exclusion and Epistemic Exclusion (i.e., lack of recognition for their scholarship and achievements) from colleagues. FOC responded to tokenism and exclusion using three (in)visibility strategies: Strategic Invisibility (i.e., disengaging with colleagues while remaining engaged with their scholarly activities) to remove themselves from negative environments; Working Harder to prove themselves, counter exclusion, and create positive visibility; and Disengagement (i.e., removed effort from work). Our analysis suggests that a lack of control over one's (in)visibility is problematic for FOC. In response, FOC may attempt to increase or decrease their own visibility to counter such experiences, often with some positive effects.
•Faculty of Color (FOC) experience hypervisibility as diversity tokens.•FOC feel invisible because of social/professional and epistemic exclusion.•Lacking control over one's (in)visibility results in distress.•FOC work harder to counter exclusion and create positive visibility.•FOC use strategic invisibility to remove themselves from negative environments.
Clinical science must begin to embrace the richness and nuance involved in centering social justice, intersectionality, and diversity and creating space for these topics to exist within scholars, ...clients, clinical work, theory, and research. In this article, we discuss why the field has resisted these frameworks and offer strategies for increasing their integration in training, research, practice, and the field more broadly. This shift will increase diverse scholars in the field, transform the nature and questions asked within our research, the manner in which we conduct clinical interventions, and the relevance of clinical science for the populations we serve.
Although intersectionality has become part of the everyday lexicon, the field of psychology has demonstrated resistance to the theory, which we argue reflects epistemic exclusion. Epistemic exclusion ...is the devaluation of some scholarship as illegitimate and certain scholars as lacking credibility. We suggest that intersectionality has been epistemically excluded because it challenges dominant psychological norms about the scientific process and has been most readily endorsed by psychologists from marginalized groups. We provide evidence that epistemic exclusion has occurred through formal means (e.g., exclusion from mainstream journals) and informal processes (e.g., repeated misrepresentation of the theory). We use visibility theory to highlight the role of disciplinary power in this process, such that dominant psychologists act as gatekeepers. Finally, we discuss how the epistemic exclusion of intersectionality is a barrier to social issues scholarship and social justice in psychology, and offer structural recommendations for intersectionality's epistemic inclusion.
Faculty of color experience a number of challenges within academia, including tokenism, marginalization, racial microaggressions, and a disconnect between their racial/ethnic culture and the culture ...within academia. The present study examined epistemic exclusion as another challenge in which formal institutional systems of evaluation combine with individual biases toward faculty of color to devalue their scholarship and deem them illegitimate as scholars. Using data from interviews with 118 faculty of color from a single predominantly White, research-intensive institution, we found that epistemic exclusion occurs through formal hierarchies that determine how scholarship is valued and the metrics used to assess quality, and through informal processes that further convey to faculty of color that they and their scholarship are devalued. In addition, there was variability in reporting these experiences by race, gender, nationality, and discipline. We found that faculty of color coped with epistemic exclusion by being assertive and by seeking validation and support outside the institution. Finally, participants described a number of negative work-related and psychological consequences of their epistemic exclusion. We discuss epistemic exclusion as a form of academic gatekeeping that impedes the recruitment, advancement, and retention of faculty of color and offer strategies to address this barrier.
Visibility at work, being seen fully and accurately by others, is important for individual self-determination and authenticity, and for organizational outcomes such as commitment and sense of ...belonging. Although there has been increasing attention in the organizational literature on marginalized groups' workplace experiences of harassment, discrimination, and identity-based microaggressions, little attention has been given to issues of invisibility and hypervisibility. We conceptualize invisibility and hypervisibility as additional forms of identity-based mistreatment that are in opposition to visibility for marginalized groups. This special issue expands the limited existing research in this area to advance theoretical and empirical knowledge around issues of visibility in the workplace. In this introduction to the special issue, we provide a framework for understanding visibility, invisibility, and hypervisibility through definitions and key features of the constructs. We also highlight the contributions that the special issue papers make to organizational research generally, and to research on visibility in the workplace specifically. We end with suggestions for future research related to visibility and organizational psychology.
Psychological science has been slow to incorporate intersectionality as a concept and as a framework for conducting research. This limits not only the potential for intersectionality theory, but also ...limits the potential impact of the research claiming to use it. Mennies and colleagues conducted a study of psychopathology and treatment utilization using a large racially diverse sample of youth and frame their work as intersectional because they compare across three social categories (race, sex, and social class) and consider social issues that may impact the groups studied. We argue that while this represents a preliminary step, it does not represent intersectionality theory and praxis. In this article we review intersectional theory and praxis, examine psychological science and its resistance to fully incorporating intersectionality, and highlight how research must shift to be truly intersectional. Finally, we issue a call to the field to integrate intersectionality theory and praxis and to resist the tendency to dilute and depoliticize intersectionality theory and disconnect from its social justice frame.
Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. ...Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of belonging, discrimination, social exclusion, and tokenism. Epistemic exclusion, scholarly marginalization rooted in disciplinary and identity-based biases, is theorized to act as another barrier to the retention of these faculty. The present study examines the effect of scholarly devaluation, a primary component of epistemic exclusion, on faculty workplace outcomes using data from 1,341 tenure-track faculty from a predominantly White, research-intensive institution. We found that women and underrepresented faculty of color reported higher perceptions of scholarly devaluation. Further, scholarly devaluation was associated with higher intentions to leave the university and this relationship was mediated by lower job satisfaction and poorer perceptions of the workplace climate. Notably, the negative consequences of perceiving scholarly devaluation were found for all faculty, not just women and faculty of color. We discuss the implications of these findings for retaining marginalized faculty and for institutions of higher education more broadly.
The path from undergraduate to the professoriate ranks is a running faucet for Black women in the academy. Of the nearly 800,000 full-time faculty at degree granting institutions, Black women ...represent only 0.8% of assistant, 0.5% of associate, and less than 0.3% of full professors. Racism, sexism, classism, and elitist beliefs about what constitutes a scholarly pedigree and appropriate research, populations of interest, and publication outlets permeate their academic homes. I reflect on my experiences as a mid-career, tenured, Black woman at a research-intensive, Big 10 university and discuss successes, missteps, and transformational moments.
Sexual violence is a devastating trauma with long-lasting effects on survivors’ health and well-being. Despite the substantial impacts of the last 25 years of research, the prevalence of sexual ...violence has remained stable. It will be necessary to reconceptualize our work, challenging our theories, methods, and strategies for dissemination and implementation moving forward. We outline an intersectional, community-engaged approach for sexual violence research to center the stories of survivors who face systemic oppression and inequity. Finally, we suggest applications of this approach for justice, healing, and prevention to inform our collective work to end sexual violence.
PDF
