"Some uninteresting data from a faraway country": Inequity and coloniality in international social psychological publications.
Saved in:
| Title: | "Some uninteresting data from a faraway country": Inequity and coloniality in international social psychological publications. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Bou Zeineddine, Fouad (AUTHOR), Saab, Rim (AUTHOR), Lášticová, Barbara (AUTHOR), Kende, Anna (AUTHOR), Ayanian, Arin H. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Social Issues. Jun2022, Vol. 78 Issue 2, p320-345. 26p. 6 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Internal colonialism, Social psychology research, Theory of knowledge, Equality, Global North-South divide, Awareness |
| Abstract: | Modern systems of knowledge production reinforce inequalities and coloniality, especially in the Global South. We investigated whether this was the case in contemporary social psychology. We examined manifestations of coloniality of knowledge (in the form of internalized Global North standards and practices) and critical awareness and reflection (historic and systemic attributions for collective disadvantages) in a survey of social psychologists in 64 countries (N = 232). Although colleagues in the Global South and Southern and Eastern Europe adopted Global Northern publication standards and tendencies, their compliance seemed motivated by institutional demands and pragmatic concerns rather than internalized inferiority or principled conviction. Regarding international mainstream publication practices, participants from all regions (most prominently outside the Global North) reported biases, under‐representation, lack of relevance, and structural disadvantages. Participants offered mainly systemic attributions for these and other disadvantages. These findings suggest that social psychologists engaged with the international publication system are caught in a double‐bind between collective systemic disadvantages and coerced compliance, especially outside the Global North. Discussion focuses on the mixed‐motive tensions these social psychologists experience in publishing internationally under these conditions, and the implications of this status quo for knowledge production in the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Social Issues is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Modern systems of knowledge production reinforce inequalities and coloniality, especially in the Global South. We investigated whether this was the case in contemporary social psychology. We examined manifestations of coloniality of knowledge (in the form of internalized Global North standards and practices) and critical awareness and reflection (historic and systemic attributions for collective disadvantages) in a survey of social psychologists in 64 countries (N = 232). Although colleagues in the Global South and Southern and Eastern Europe adopted Global Northern publication standards and tendencies, their compliance seemed motivated by institutional demands and pragmatic concerns rather than internalized inferiority or principled conviction. Regarding international mainstream publication practices, participants from all regions (most prominently outside the Global North) reported biases, under‐representation, lack of relevance, and structural disadvantages. Participants offered mainly systemic attributions for these and other disadvantages. These findings suggest that social psychologists engaged with the international publication system are caught in a double‐bind between collective systemic disadvantages and coerced compliance, especially outside the Global North. Discussion focuses on the mixed‐motive tensions these social psychologists experience in publishing internationally under these conditions, and the implications of this status quo for knowledge production in the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00224537 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/josi.12481 |
