Black on Black: The Vilification of “Me-Search,” Tenure, and the Economic Position of Black Sociologists

Harris, Jasmine L.

doi:10.1007/s41996-020-00066-x

Cited by 28 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, readers (including SRRers) should interpret these findings with some caveats. On the one hand, our findings validate concerns that disclosing a personal connection to one's research is viewed negatively in comparison to non-SRR (Linehan, 2020;Carey, 2011a;Harris, 2021). On the other hand, it is important to note that the means on the stigmatizing attitudes subscale were below the mid-point across SRR vignettes (which is typical for research on stigma and prejudice; Campbell & Brauer, 2021;Wood et al, 2014), meaning overall attitudes were not disapproving of SRR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…When considering that psychology has continued to struggle to gain adequate representation of these marginalized backgrounds in research (Callahan et al, 2018;Dimmick & Callahan, 2021;Miller & Orsillo, 2020), it becomes crucial that psychologists not also discriminate against someone for their personal motivations to pursue research. Along these lines, while this study has primarily discussed SRR on mental illness, we hope our arguments are also considered in the context of SRR on non-metal health topics and intersectionality (e.g., people with multiple disadvantaged identities), including scholars who use their experiences with their identities as motivation to pursue their respective topics (e.g., an African American/Black researcher studying health disparities among African American/black samples; Harris, 2021). 4.…”

Section: Accepting Srrers Connects To Diversity and Inclusion Efforts In Psychologicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

Devendorf¹,

Victor²,

Rottenberg³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers often have personal experiences that motivate engagement with a research topic. We performed the first systematic investigation of self-relevant research (SRR; “me-search”) among psychologists. The prevalence of SRR and attitudes towards SRRers were examined in a representative North American sample (N = 1,778) of faculty, graduate students, and others affiliated with accredited doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. Over half of participants had engaged in SRR. When judging experimentally manipulated vignettes, those who did not engage in SRR made more stigmatizing judgements of SRR and SRR disclosure than those who engaged in SRR. Psychologists and trainees had more negative attitudes towards SRR on mental health topics (suicide, depression, schizophrenia) than physical health topics (cancer). We discuss the implications of negative evaluations of SRR and mental illness on the health of applied psychology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Accepting Srrers Connects To Diversity and Inclusion Efforts In Psychologicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

Devendorf¹,

Victor²,

Rottenberg³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some scholars critique this level of social proximity and consider this embeddedness or shared identity (i.e., ‘me-search’) as problematic to the scientific process which demands objectivity (Ray, 2016). As Harris (2021) notes, this critique comes from a positivist paradigm and incorrectly assumes that researchers who do not share identities with research participants, or researchers who are predominately cisgender, heterosexual, and white, are objective because of their social distance. This presumption, which is not only erroneous but perpetuates gatekeeping as a mechanism to define who can and should do the research, ultimately upholds systemic structures of power and privilege of predominantly white research teams that Therborn’s (1999) framework elucidates.…”

Section: Impacts Of Successfully Diverse Equitable and Inclusive Team...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Research Teams: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the racial justice protests that followed, many institutions, including the academy, pledged their support for policies and practices that combat on-going racial injustice. Social justice and anti-racism initiatives abound on college campuses, including programming, hosting speakers, and proposing required ‘diversity’ classes for all students. For all this rhetoric, college and university administrators have remained silent when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as they relate to research. And yet, extant research documents the ways in which racial and gender biases have consistently shaped every level of research from the development of the research question, to the diversity (or not) of the sample, the availability of funding, and the probability of publishing. In this paper we focus on one aspect of the research process: the assembling (or not) of diverse research teams. We explore the benefits that diversity in research teams brings to the integrity of the data as well as the obstacles to both assembling a diverse research team and managing it successfully. Specifically, this paper focuses on the myriad ways in which diversity in research teams is treated as a set of boxes to check, rather than an epistemology that underscores positionality and power. We present a series of case examples that highlight the ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are successfully and unsuccessfully achieved in research teams, both in terms of outcomes and experiences. These case examples focus specifically on power relations along all forms of diversity, including race and gender as well as rank. The case examples also serve to unpack the ways in which research teams can rely on positionality as a tool for addressing power at three distinct levels: in conducting social science research generally, between the researcher and the “researched,” and among the research team itself.

show abstract

“…[But when the] work is entirely focused on U.S. or European white populations, it is not seen as biased, partial, or subjective” (p. 89). These patterns compound the disadvantages that scholars of color face because of structural racism embedded in research practice and the academy (Go, 2020; Harris, 2021; Reyes & Halcón, 1988; Sumerau, 2015). Meanwhile, white scholars are not criticized for conducting research about communities of color in the same way.…”

Section: The Discomforts Of Working Towards An Inclusive Intersection...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Engaging in anti-racist feminist praxis at the individual-level may also cause discomfort for scholars from communities that are underrepresented in the academy. Some from these groups may experience anger, resentment, or doubt regarding whether they can or wish to serve as spokespersons for members of their communities (Harris, 2021; Naffine, 1996; Nencel, 2014). In addition, contending with what Tsedale Melaku (2022) calls the inclusion tax , which includes the unacknowledged and uncompensated costs that people of color often pay for their inclusion, is exhausting and unpleasant.…”

Section: The ‘Personal Is (Still) Political:’ the Imperative Of Inclu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Personal is Political and so is Discomfort: Intersectional, Anti-Racist Praxis in Feminist Criminology

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phrase “the personal is political” is commonly associated with 1970s feminists, for whom it denoted the relationship between personal experiences and broad systems of inequality. However, considering bell hooks’ argument that feminists have lost the power analysis fundamental to the relationship between the personal and the political, we assess the relevance of the notion the ‘personal is political,’ to our work as feminist criminologists. Building on hooks’ insight, we argue there is a need to take up an intersectional and anti-racist feminist praxis that centers multiple forms of oppression in scholarship and seeks greater accountability for sexism, racism, and transphobia both within and beyond academic spaces. We elaborate our ideas by, first, outlining the intellectual history and evolution of feminist criminology. Second, we examine how the relationship between the personal and political figures in the work of minoritized scholars. Third, we discuss the necessary discomforts associated with working towards an intersectional and antiracist feminist criminology.

show abstract

Black on Black: The Vilification of “Me-Search,” Tenure, and the Economic Position of Black Sociologists

Cited by 28 publications

References 44 publications

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Research Teams: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Personal is Political and so is Discomfort: Intersectional, Anti-Racist Praxis in Feminist Criminology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About