Disrupting Dehumanizing Norms of the Academy: A Model for Conducting Research in a Collective Space
Innovative Higher Education, ISSN: 1573-1758, Vol: 50, Issue: 1, Page: 107-134
2025
- 10Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures10
- Readers10
- 10
Article Description
Academic research and knowledge production are frequently pervaded by elitism (Torres-Olave et al., 2019), epistemic exclusion (Dotson, 2014; Settles et al., 2020), and racialization (Ray, 2019; Thelin, 2019; Wilder, 2013). These discriminatory, exclusionary, and biased systems delegitimize the work of minoritized scholars, stifle innovation, and deter progress toward less violent processes to engage in knowledge production. Literature documenting innovative efforts to advance these commitments is scarce (Creamer, 2004), further underscoring the need and urgency for additional research examining how scholars incorporate and center equitable approaches in knowledge production in the Academy. As such, the central purpose of this qualitative autoethnographic study is to examine our experiences as minoritized scholars who center equity in the U.S. South; a secondary purpose of this work is to document the confluence of place, counterspace creation, and linkages between humanization and scholarly knowledge production. This research revealed our different yet shared negative socialization experiences in the Academy and, centrally, how our research collective diverges from traditionalist and power-imbalanced collaborative research. We foreground how we purposefully elect to humanize our fellow co-researchers, support each other’s learning and growth, and prioritize healing for ourselves as scholars with minoritized identities and transformation of the social inequities that permeate higher education. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model of our research collective as a counterspace (Ong et al., 2018) to de facto scholarly socialization and dehumanization within the Academy.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know