Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.675296
Title: Inequality in academic psychology : rethinking the basis of privilege and disadvantage
Author: Quick, Freyja
ISNI:       0000 0004 5370 938X
Awarding Body: University of Surrey
Current Institution: University of Surrey
Date of Award: 2015
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis aims to assess the extent to which inequality theories based on two prevalent conceptual themes can explain inequality in domains of UK academic psychology that are well represented by – and typical of –women and Black scholars. The two themes explored are, 1) the assumption that privilege and group disadvantage have the same origin that can logically be described either in terms of processes that lead to privilege or processes that lead to disadvantage, and 2) the attribution of inequality to automatic or passive processes. This thesis presents a series of studies that offer critical tests for equality theories connected by these themes. These theories include Tokenism (Kanter, 1977), norm theory (Kahneman & Miller, 1986), feminist critiques of science (e.g. Harding, 1986), and critiques of academic organisational structures (e.g. Deem, 1998). The studies begin by assessing gender inequality in psychology at the level of the academic organisation (Chapters 2 – 3) and shift to an analysis of gender and racial inequality at the social-cognitive level of research evaluation (Chapters 4 – 5). I argue that the theories of inequality for which the studies provide critical tests are connected by ideologies that impose ways of thinking that may divert attention from processes that underlie privilege and disadvantage; namely, that privilege can exert independent effects on inequality that are driven by ideology about privileged and disadvantaged social groups.
Supervisor: Hegarty, Peter Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.675296  DOI: Not available
Share: