A lot of what we know today on topics of prejudice, discrimination, and stigma, we owe to the work of scientists from marginalized groups.

For example, it was the work of the African American researchers Mamie Phipps Clark and Kenneth Bancroft Clark in the late 1930s that exposed internalized racism in young children through their famous doll studies. They found that Black American children showed a tendency to prefer White dolls over Black dolls. Their research went on to influence the landmark case, Brown vs. the Board of Education, which ruled that racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional in the United States.

Despite making important contributions to the study of prejudice, however, many prejudice researchers who themselves belong to marginalized groups routinely have the rigor, objectivity, and validity of their work questioned. They have reported that their work is routinely dismissed as “me-search” and they are accused of being driven by vested interest or personal agenda.

In contrast, prejudice researchers from marginalized groups might be in a unique position to answer questions about the nature and consequences of these different prejudices, owing to their first-hand experience.

My colleagues and I set out to investigate people’s perceptions about prejudice research conducted by researchers from within the marginalized group relative to the same research conducted by researchers outside the marginalized group. We conducted three studies, spanning the domains of weight stigma research, racism research, and sexism research.

In each study, we exposed participants to a brief profile of a researcher, like those seen on university faculty websites. These profiles included a short biography, representative publications, and a photograph of the researcher. Across the three studies, participants saw a profile of a researcher with a marginalized identity (either a larger-bodied, Black, or female researcher) or the corresponding non-marginalized identity (a smaller-bodied, White, or male researcher). The researchers were depicted as studying relevant domains of prejudice (weight stigma, racism, or sexism).

We asked participants to evaluate a few things about the research:

  • How much they thought the researcher was an expert on their research topic
  • How appropriate they thought it was for the researcher to be conducting this work
  • How much they thought the researcher had to gain from conducting this work, in other words a vested interest
  • How much they trusted the research
  • How much they viewed the research as legitimate (that is, important and deserving of attention or funding)

Marginalized Prejudice Researchers Face A Double-Edged Sword

Indeed, researchers who study the marginalization of groups that they belong to face a double-edged sword in how their research is perceived by the public.

On the one hand, authors from marginalized groups are considered to have greater expertise on the research topic and to be more appropriate for conducting this work, compared to researchers who conduct the same research but are not members of the marginalized group. Expertise and appropriateness were, in turn, associated with greater trust in the research, and greater perceived legitimacy of the research.

But, researchers who study the marginalization of groups they belong to are also perceived as having greater vested interest in their work, compared to researchers outside the group. Vested interest was associated with lower trust in the research, and lower perceived legitimacy of the research.

Thus, researchers who study the prejudice faced by their own group are seen as having the requisite knowledge and license to do so. However, their marginalized identity is also perceived to be a source of personal baggage that simultaneously undermines the validity and importance of their work. Thus, researchers with marginalised identities who are ‘insiders’ within the community they are studying likely face additional hurdles in academia and in their prospects for prestige in the public’s eye.

For Further Reading

Thai, M., Lizzio-Wilson, M., & Selvanathan, H. P. (2021). Public perceptions of prejudice research: The double-edged sword faced by marginalized group researchers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology96, 104181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104181

Ayoub, P., & Rose, D. (2016).  In Defense of “Me” Studies. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/04/14/scholarly-importance-studying-issues-related-ones-own-identity-essay
 

Michael Thai is a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Queensland. His research investigates intergroup relations and prejudice.

Morgana Lizzio-Wilson is a research fellow in social psychology at Flinders University. Her research examines how emotions and identity influence collective action and intergroup attitudes.

Hema Preya Selvanathan is a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on social change, peace and conflict, and intergroup relations.