Epistemic exclusion: A theory for understanding racism in faculty research evaluations.

IF 2.9 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Isis H Settles, Martinque K Jones, NiCole T Buchanan, Kristie Dotson, Petal Grower, Michael O'Rourke, Marisa Rinkus, Kyjeila Latimer
{"title":"Epistemic exclusion: A theory for understanding racism in faculty research evaluations.","authors":"Isis H Settles, Martinque K Jones, NiCole T Buchanan, Kristie Dotson, Petal Grower, Michael O'Rourke, Marisa Rinkus, Kyjeila Latimer","doi":"10.1037/amp0001313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":12,"journal":{"name":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

认识排斥:理解教师研究评估中的种族主义的理论。
尽管各机构做出了努力,但有色人种教职员工人数的增长在很大程度上停滞不前,限制了研究创新和多样性带来的其他益处。在本文中,我们试图通过(a)详细阐述学术界的认识排斥理论,以及(b)将认识排斥理论应用于院系对学术研究的审查(如年度审查、晋升和终身教职审查)这一具体情况,来了解阻碍教师公平的结构性障碍。认识排斥是一种学术贬值形式,其根源在于对严谨研究质量的学科偏见和对边缘化群体成员能力的身份偏见。这些偏见共同作用,将边缘化学者(如有色人种、女性)系统地、不成比例地排斥在学术界之外。在院系评审的背景下,认识论排斥可能发生在正式的评估系统中,通过标准、度量衡和申请排斥来实现。它也可以通过合法性、贡献和理解排斥,在人际互动和交流中非正式地发生。在本文中,我们将详细介绍上述每种类型的排斥、它们之间的相互作用及其后果。我们认为,认识排斥威胁着学术界的多样化,并为高等教育中的公平评价实践和减少认识排斥提出了建议。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Chemical Health & Safety
ACS Chemical Health & Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety focuses on news, information, and ideas relating to issues and advances in chemical health and safety. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety covers up-to-the minute, in-depth views of safety issues ranging from OSHA and EPA regulations to the safe handling of hazardous waste, from the latest innovations in effective chemical hygiene practices to the courts'' most recent rulings on safety-related lawsuits. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety presents real-world information that health, safety and environmental professionals and others responsible for the safety of their workplaces can put to use right away, identifying potential and developing safety concerns before they do real harm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信