Subverting and Minding Boundaries: The Intellectual Work of Women

Gonzales, Leslie D.

doi:10.1080/00221546.2018.1434278

Cited by 57 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, disciplinary‐biases privilege certain research endeavors and devalue others. For example, assumptions about research rigor and contributions to the field inculcate objectivity, generalizability, researcher neutrality, and quantitative methodologies as gold standards for high‐quality research (Gonzales, 2018). Second, epistemic exclusion reflects biases against marginalized group members, such as Black, Latinx, and Native American people as unintelligent and lazy, Asian Americans as perpetual foreigners (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Sue, 2010), and women as less mathematically and intellectually adept than men (Heilman, 2001).…”

Section: Epistemic Exclusion Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two forms of bias—toward marginalized scholarship and toward marginalized scholars, work in tandem. Specifically, women and Black, Indigenous, and other people of color are less likely to conduct research using dominant approaches and are more likely to study populations (e.g., marginalized groups), topics (e.g., poverty, victimization, and educational inequities), and use methods (e.g., qualitative research and participatory action research) that fall outside of disciplinary norms (Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Gonzales, 2018). As a consequence, the scholarship of women faculty and Black, Indigenous, and other faculty of color is more often perceived to lack quality and rigor and is devalued as “me‐search” (De la Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1988, p.…”

Section: Epistemic Exclusion Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility

Settles

Warner

Buchanan

et al. 2020

Journal of Social Issues

126

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Psychologists' awareness of intersectionality continues to grow as the tenets of the theory and the term itself form part of the everyday lexicon. Nevertheless, intersectionality scholars maintain

show abstract

Section: Epistemic Exclusion Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Epistemic Exclusion Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility

Settles

Warner

Buchanan

et al. 2020

Journal of Social Issues

126

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an organizational structure, faculty hiring reflects a White-serving institution’s campus racial culture (Scheurich & Young, 2002; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017; Villalpando & Delgado-Bernal, 2002). For example, the organizational culture at a White-serving institution values epistemologies (e.g., postpositivism) and methods (e.g., correlational or causal analysis) that reflect linearity and objectivity, and practices and knowledge informed by the work of White men (Delgado-Bernal &Villalpando, 2002; Gonzales, 2018). Faculty search committee members exclude racially minoritized candidates by assigning racial meaning to the bodies, knowledge, practices, and experiences of Asian, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people that do not fit into their unspoken expectations of being a good colleague or reflect their competency criteria to meet job requirements (Liera & Ching, 2019; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017).…”

Section: Racialized Organizational Culture In Higher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Beyond a Culture of Niceness in Faculty Hiring to Advance Racial Equity

Liera

2019

American Educational Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study applies cultural historical activity theory to examine the experiences of 17 professors at a religiously affiliated private university who participated in a 10-month, inquiry-based intervention to change their culture around faculty hiring. The findings illustrate that professors who use race-conscious language and tools to interrogate their campus culture’s historical roots with racism rethought their hiring process. In doing so, faculty perceived racial equity work as an action-oriented, organizational effort to use equity-minded language and create a more equitable hiring structure. The study contributes to the literature on organizational change for racial equity by identifying faculty experiences with racism and critical knowledge about the organizational culture mediating faculty learning and agency.

show abstract

“…Throughout our article, when we refer to "psychology," we specifically refer to dominant approaches to scientific psychology-practices that privilege particular research endeavors as central to the field and as worthy of attention (e.g., Gonzales, 2018). Marecek (2019) critically examines the discipline as a social institution, offering feminist challenges to a number of thought styles that pervade dominant U.S. psychology.…”

Section: Participants In Psychological Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

What If Psychology Took Intersectionality Seriously? Changing How Psychologists Think About Participants

McCormick-Huhn

Warner

Settles

et al. 2019

Psychology of Women Quarterly

112

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using intersectionality to change how psychologists think about the demographic profile of their participants is one readily available change that psychologists across the discipline can implement to improve psychological science. In this article, we aim to provide a guide for psychologists who are not already engaged with feminist practices and/or are unsure of how an intersectional approach to participants applies to their research. We argue that by engaging with four perspective shifts of intersectional thinking: multidimensionality, dynamic construction, structural power, and outcomes of systemic disadvantage and advantage, psychologists can more accurately represent the “person” that psychology, as a discipline, seeks to understand. We suggest changes at the researcher, journal, and grant-making agency levels to support an intersectional reconceptualization of participants. As psychology continues to change, in order to foster reproducible science practices and research with relevance to real-world problems, there is opportunity to promote discipline-level change that would take intersectionality seriously.

show abstract

Subverting and Minding Boundaries: The Intellectual Work of Women

Cited by 57 publications

References 40 publications

Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility

Understanding psychology's resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility

Moving Beyond a Culture of Niceness in Faculty Hiring to Advance Racial Equity

What If Psychology Took Intersectionality Seriously? Changing How Psychologists Think About Participants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About