Search

Faculty of color experience a number of challenges within academia, including tokenism, marginalization, racial microaggressions, and a disconnect between their racial/ethnic culture and the culture within academia. The present study examined epistemic exclusion as another challenge in which formal institutional systems of evaluation combine with individual biases toward faculty of color to devalue their scholarship and deem them illegitimate as scholars. Using data from interviews with 118 faculty of color from a single predominantly White, research-intensive institution, we found that epistemic exclusion occurs through formal hierarchies that determine how scholarship is valued and the metrics used to assess quality, and through informal processes that further convey to faculty of color that they and their scholarship are devalued. In addition, there was variability in reporting these experiences by race, gender, nationality, and discipline. We found that faculty of color coped with epistemic exclusion by being assertive and by seeking validation and support outside the institution. Finally, participants described a number of negative work-related and psychological consequences of their epistemic exclusion. We discuss epistemic exclusion as a form of academic gatekeeping that impedes the recruitment, advancement, and retention of faculty of color and offer strategies to address this barrier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As efforts to end systemic racism gain momentum across various contexts, it is critical to consider antiracist steps needed to improve psychological science. Current scientific practices may serve to maintain white supremacy with significant and impactful consequences. Extant research practices reinforce norms of homogeneity within BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color) populations, segregate theories, and methods derived from BIPOC groups, apply disparate standards to the evaluation of research on white versus BIPOC populations, and discourage BIPOC scholars from pursuing research careers. Perhaps consequently, disparities persist on a range of psychologically relevant outcomes (e.g., mental and physical health). This article presents examples of how epistemic oppression exists within psychological science, including in how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. This article offers a needed contribution by providing specific concrete recommendations for different stakeholders, including those involved in the production, reporting, and gatekeeping of science as well as consumers of science. Additionally, a discussion of accountability steps are offered to ensure that psychological science moves beyond talk and toward action, with possible strategies to measure outcomes, stimulate progress, promote dialogue and action, challenge inequity, and upend the influence of white supremacy in psychological science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite institutional efforts, growth in the number of faculty of color has largely plateaued, limiting research innovation and other benefits of diversity. In this article, we seek to understand structural barriers to faculty equity by (a) detailing a theory of epistemic exclusion within academia and (b) applying the theory of epistemic exclusion to the specific context of faculty departmental reviews of scholarly research (e.g., annual review, promotion and tenure review). Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation that is rooted in disciplinary biases about the qualities of rigorous research and identity-based biases about the competence of marginalized group members. These biases work in tandem to systemically and disproportionately exclude marginalized scholars (e.g., people of color, women) from the academy. In the context of faculty departmental reviews, epistemic exclusion can happen in formal systems of evaluation through criteria, metric, and application exclusion. It can also occur informally during interpersonal interactions and communications through legitimacy, contribution, and comprehension exclusion. In this article, we detail each of these types of exclusion, how they may interact with each other, and their consequences. We assert that epistemic exclusion threatens the diversification of academia and offer suggestions for equitable evaluation practices and reducing epistemic exclusion within higher education broadly. Public Significance Statement: Epistemic exclusion in academia is a type of scholarly devaluation rooted in disciplinary biases about rigorous scholarship and identity-based biases about marginalized group members. This structural bias has a disproportionately negative impact on marginalized scholars and occurs in the evaluation of faculty research through formal and informal processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which found examined whether racial differences in sexual harassment frequency in military settings were mediated by organizational status. Black men reported more sexual harassment than White men, the relationship being mediated by rank such that Black men were more likely to be enlisted personnel than officers. As harassment increased, it was negatively related to Black men's work performance but negatively related to White men's relationships with coworkers.

The current study examined differences in appraisal, harassment, and severity of posttraumatic Stress symptoms among 105 Black women who were sexually harassed by either a White (cross-racial sexual harassment) or a Black man (intraracial sexual harassment). Analyses revealed that women appraised cross-racial more negatively than intraracial harassment, despite there being no significant differences in the likelihood of experiencing gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, or sexual coercion. Further, cross-racial harassment was more likely to include racialized sexual harassment (harassing behaviors combining race and gender simultaneously) and higher status perpetrators. Finally, cross-racial sexual harassment had an indirect (but not direct) mediated effect on posttraumatic stress via participants' appraisals of their harassment. Specifically, the more negative appraisal associated with cross-racial sexual harassment was associated with increased posttraumatic stress symptoms. In light of these findings, consideration of perpetrator race and racially sexualized behaviors could prove significant additions to current models of sexual harassment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined data from U.S. military personnel (1,764 men; 4,540 women) to determine whether appraisals of sexual harassment as frightening mediate the relationship between perpetrator characteristics (perpetrator sex and rank) and three psychological/job outcomes (psychological distress, role limitations, and work satisfaction), and whether these relationships were stronger for women than men. Results indicated that frightening appraisals mediated the relationship between perpetrator rank and all outcomes for both sexes. However, frightening appraisals mediated the relationship between perpetrator sex and outcomes only for women. As predicted, having a male perpetrator or a higher status perpetrator was more strongly related to frightening appraisals for women than men. However, unexpectedly, the relationship between frightening appraisals and more psychological distress, more role limitations, and less work satisfaction was stronger for men than women. We discuss the results in terms of expectancy norm violations and sexual harassment as a form of dominance.

Research on workplace harassment has typically examined either racial or sexual harassment, without studying both simultaneously. As a result, it remains unknown whether the co-occurrence of racial and sexual harassment or their interactive effects account for unique variance in work and psychological well-being. In this study, hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to explore the influence of racial and sexual harassment on these outcomes among 91 African American women involved in a sexual harassment employment lawsuit. Results indicated that both sexual and racial harassment contributed significantly to the women's occupational and psychological outcomes. Moreover, their interaction was statistically significant when predicting supervisor satisfaction and perceived organizational tolerance of harassment. Using a sample of African American women employed in an organizational setting where harassment was known to have occurred and examining sexual and racial harassment concomitantly makes this study unique. As such, it provides novel insights and an important contribution to an emerging body of research and underscores the importance of assessing multiple forms of harassment when examining organizational stressors, particularly among women of color.