2022
DOI: 10.1111/jora.12814
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dismantling systems of racism and oppression during adolescence: An agenda for anti‐racist research

Abstract: The concept of anti-racism has been a staple of various disciplines and has been discussed in some public discourse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 102 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Given the smaller number of BIPOC scholars in HDFS, editors of HDFS journals can keep the peer‐review process anonymous but not anonymous to race (i.e., color conscious vs. evasive) (Annamma et al., 2017) by acknowledging and accounting for the racial identity of authors and reviewers in relation to the peer‐review process (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2021; Baldwin, 1984; Buchanan et al., 2021; Roberts & Mortenson, 2022). The central aim is for journals to avoid review processes that are a dominated by “White habitus” (Bonilla‐Silva, 2023; Bourdieu, 1991), where the review process is shaped solely by the lives and behaviors of privileged, well‐connected White scholars (see Abo‐Zena et al., 2022; Kia‐Keating & Juang, 2022; Paton et al., 2020; Wray‐Lake et al., 2022b). One approach to partially counter the negative effects of White habitus in the peer‐review process is for editors to exercise their authority and apply a race‐conscious approach to the process by striving—to the best of their abilities—to have racial diversity among editorial board members and reviewers.…”
Section: Purpose 3: Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the smaller number of BIPOC scholars in HDFS, editors of HDFS journals can keep the peer‐review process anonymous but not anonymous to race (i.e., color conscious vs. evasive) (Annamma et al., 2017) by acknowledging and accounting for the racial identity of authors and reviewers in relation to the peer‐review process (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2021; Baldwin, 1984; Buchanan et al., 2021; Roberts & Mortenson, 2022). The central aim is for journals to avoid review processes that are a dominated by “White habitus” (Bonilla‐Silva, 2023; Bourdieu, 1991), where the review process is shaped solely by the lives and behaviors of privileged, well‐connected White scholars (see Abo‐Zena et al., 2022; Kia‐Keating & Juang, 2022; Paton et al., 2020; Wray‐Lake et al., 2022b). One approach to partially counter the negative effects of White habitus in the peer‐review process is for editors to exercise their authority and apply a race‐conscious approach to the process by striving—to the best of their abilities—to have racial diversity among editorial board members and reviewers.…”
Section: Purpose 3: Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, these terms mischaracterize immigrants as a single group with uniform lived experiences set apart from the essentialized, nonimmigrant national group (Moffitt & Juang, 2019). It is noteworthy that since minority group scientists remain underrepresented in academic research, most of the studies on individual differences in immigrant youth adaptation are conducted by ethnic majority nonimmigrant researchers, who are in a position of relative power, and often perpetuate situated meaning (Spencer & Swanson, 2013; Syed, 2017; Wray-Lake et al, 2022).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The concepts and principles of this model (Motti-Stefanidi et al, 2012a; Motti-Stefanidi & Masten, 2017; Suárez-Orozco et al, 2018) are appropriate to organize and examine extant evidence on immigrant youth adaptation through the lens of anti-racist research (Wray-Lake et al, 2022). According to this model, resilience is not considered to be an attribute of the individual.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations