Precarious engagements and the politics of knowledge production: Listening to calls for reorienting hegemonic social psychology

← Back to papers

Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

Is Social Psychology Too WEIRD? A Call for Decolonizing the Field (But Light on Solutions)

This paper argues that hegemonic social psychology, with its Western-centric focus and emphasis on universal theories, creates and perpetuates precarity for marginalized scholars, especially those from the Global South. The authors propose a six-point lens for understanding precarity and offer several political-personal intentions for reorienting the field towards decolonial praxis and epistemic justice.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

None identified

Identified Weaknesses

Lack of empirical evidence

The paper primarily focuses on theoretical arguments and lacks empirical evidence to support its claims. While the authors raise valid concerns about the field of social psychology, the absence of empirical data makes it difficult to assess the extent to which these issues manifest in practice.

Unclear definition of "precarity"

The authors extensively discuss the concept of "precarity" but do not clearly define it. This lack of clarity hinders understanding and may lead to different interpretations of the term.

Limited practical solutions

The authors focus heavily on criticizing hegemonic social psychology but offer limited concrete solutions for addressing the identified issues.

Rating Explanation

This paper raises important theoretical concerns about hegemonic social psychology, particularly its Western-centric focus and the resulting precarity for marginalized scholars. However, the lack of empirical evidence, the unclear definition of "precarity," and the limited practical solutions offered weaken the overall impact of the paper. Therefore, a rating of 3 is appropriate, reflecting an average study with several limitations.

Good to know

This is our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →

Topic Hierarchy

Domain:

Social Sciences

Field:

Psychology

Subfield:

General Psychology

File Information

Original Title:

Precarious engagements and the politics of knowledge production: Listening to calls for reorienting hegemonic social psychology

File Name: