“Unavailable, insecure, and very poorly paid”: Global difficulties and inequalities in conducting social psychological research

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Fouad Bou Zeineddine, R. Saab, B. Lášticová, Arin H. Ayanian, Anna Kende
{"title":"“Unavailable, insecure, and very poorly paid”: Global difficulties and inequalities in conducting social psychological research","authors":"Fouad Bou Zeineddine, R. Saab, B. Lášticová, Arin H. Ayanian, Anna Kende","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers an exploration of research production in social psychology as a global endeavor from the point of view of Anglophone social psychologists (N = 232) across 64 countries. We examine social psychologists’ beliefs regarding the difficulties in conducting research in social psychology and the inequalities that they report between the Global North, South and East Europe, and the Global South. Across all regions, we found pervasive critical awareness of obstacles to conducting research – including underinvestment in the field, precarious and counter-productive labor conditions, and excessive and biased disciplinary standards. However, we also found that colleagues outside the Global North reported quantitatively and qualitatively larger obstacles to research. These included well-known historically-rooted inequalities but also contemporary systemic procedural and distributive injustices in material, human, and social-political capital. Non-Northern colleagues in particular critically reflected on how these inequalities and injustices are amplified by Northern hegemonies in social, institutional, disciplinary, economic, and political systems. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for social psychologists, social psychology as a discipline, and its situation within broader hierarchical systems and their intersectionalities.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper offers an exploration of research production in social psychology as a global endeavor from the point of view of Anglophone social psychologists (N = 232) across 64 countries. We examine social psychologists’ beliefs regarding the difficulties in conducting research in social psychology and the inequalities that they report between the Global North, South and East Europe, and the Global South. Across all regions, we found pervasive critical awareness of obstacles to conducting research – including underinvestment in the field, precarious and counter-productive labor conditions, and excessive and biased disciplinary standards. However, we also found that colleagues outside the Global North reported quantitatively and qualitatively larger obstacles to research. These included well-known historically-rooted inequalities but also contemporary systemic procedural and distributive injustices in material, human, and social-political capital. Non-Northern colleagues in particular critically reflected on how these inequalities and injustices are amplified by Northern hegemonies in social, institutional, disciplinary, economic, and political systems. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for social psychologists, social psychology as a discipline, and its situation within broader hierarchical systems and their intersectionalities.
“不可用、不安全、收入非常低”:开展社会心理研究的全球困难和不平等
本文从64个国家的英语社会心理学家(N=232)的角度,对社会心理学的研究成果进行了探索。我们考察了社会心理学家对进行社会心理学研究的困难以及他们报告的全球北欧、南欧和东欧以及全球南方之间的不平等的看法。在所有地区,我们发现普遍存在对开展研究障碍的批判性认识,包括该领域投资不足、不稳定和适得其反的劳动条件,以及过度和有偏见的纪律标准。然而,我们也发现,全球北方以外的同事在数量和质量上都报告了更大的研究障碍。其中包括众所周知的历史根源的不平等,但也包括当代物质、人力和社会政治资本方面的系统性程序和分配不公。非北方同事尤其批判性地反思了北方在社会、制度、纪律、经济和政治体系中的霸权是如何放大这些不平等和不公正的。讨论的重点是这些结果对社会心理学家的影响,社会心理学作为一门学科,以及它在更广泛的等级制度中的地位及其交叉性。
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
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Journal of Social and Political Psychology Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
43
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.
×
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