While men and women make up a similar number of COVID-19 cases, and are equally likely to know someone who has become ill due to the virus, the gendered and systemic implications of immigration during public health emergencies among minority groups in the United States are empirically underexplored. Using the SOMOS COVID-19 Crisis National Latino Survey, we conduct a series of intersectional analyses to understand the extent to which personal experiences with COVID-19, gendered structural factors, and spillover effects of US immigration policies impact the mental health of US Latina/os during a public health emergency. The results show that among Latinas, knowing an undocumented immigrant and someone ill with COVID-19 increases the probability of reporting worse mental outcomes by 52 percent. Furthermore, being a woman increases the probability of reporting the highest level of mental health problems by 30 percent among Hispanic people who know someone with COVID-19 and an undocumented immigrant. These findings indicate that the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak among US Latinas and Latinos are entrenched in gendered and systemic inequalities.

The COVID-19 health pandemic has fundamentally changed all aspects of American life, including for many, how we vote. We explore the question of who supports unrestricted absentee ballots during a pandemic? We argue that women are more likely to support absentee ballots because it allows for greater flexibility and to minimize the potential for exposure. We test this theory using the National Panel Study of COVID-19 (n=1,892) which asked respondents about their preferences for absentee ballots, worry about the coronavirus, and their household composition. Using multinomial logistic regressions, we find women are more likely to support allowing absentee ballots relative to more restrictive voting options and are more likely to say they support absentee ballots for all if they know someone who has contracted COVID-19. The policy implications for these findings are discussed along with other socio-demographic indicators in our analysis.

The authors explore whether mandatory, universal, in-person sexual misconduct training achieves its goals to build knowledge about sexual assault and harassment and increase intentions to report episodes of assault. The authors present results from three studies with quasi-experimental designs as well as interviews with students and staff members at a diverse public university in the western United States. The surprising finding is that participating in training makes women students less likely to say they that will report experiences of sexual assault to university authorities. The training produces some small positive effects: students gain broader definitions of sexual misconduct and are less likely to endorse common rape myths, and women students express less sexist attitudes immediately after training. This study raises questions about whether one-shot training helps reduce sexual violence and increase reporting on college campuses and whether universities should invest in these types of training.

International students face various hidden costs that pose potential barriers to thriving in graduate school. In this chapter, we lay out several types of hidden costs: (1) higher expenses and time needed for the international status, (2) adjusting to living in a new country and its cultural differences, and (3) biases and racism. We emphasize that the success and happiness of international students depend on the department and the committee’s understanding of these hidden costs. We highlight strategies that international students can take as well as point-by-point advice for the supporters of international students.

How can scholars conduct field research when there is limited access to the field? The paper first identifies how limited and uncertain field access can affect field research and then provides recommendations to address these challenges. We focus on doing field research in Japan because of our substantive expertise, but we think that problems and solutions we outline should be applicable to a broad range of countries. Our hope is that this paper contributes to the developing literature on conducting research during times of emergency and the larger literature on best practices for field research.