Eun Ju Son

Academia values research that is quantitative, generalizable, or viewed as “objective” (centered research values), while research that is qualitative, concerned with marginalized groups, or social justice focused (marginalized research values) is often dismissed as subjective or less rigorous. We examined the relationship between faculty research values and the values they believe their departments prioritize, using survey data from 526 tenure-track faculty. We found that, for centered values, faculty–department research value incongruence did not differ by faculty race–gender, and both higher and lower endorsement of the values than the department were associated with greater epistemic exclusion. In contrast, incongruence in marginalized values varied by race–gender, with women of color faculty reporting the largest gap. Further, faculty endorsing more marginalized values than their department reported higher epistemic exclusion, whereas those endorsing less did not. In light of these results, we discuss how faculty–department research value incongruence shapes faculty’s academic experiences.

Anecdotal and empirical evidence underscores the importance of aligning major life decisions with one's true self. Yet, achieving this alignment is not always straightforward and appears to vary across cultures and individuals. Across 10 studies (N = 3,127), we investigated these variations by exploring (a) cultural differences in true-self-congruent job choices, focusing on North American and South Korean cultures, and (b) cultural and individual differences in endorsing the belief that following one's true self leads to positive outcomes, particularly increased competence in job choices, which we refer to as the "true-self-as-cause (TSAC)" belief. Study 1 revealed that a higher proportion of American employees reported truly loving their current job compared to South Korean employees. Studies 2-4 showed that North Americans were more willing than South Koreans to leave their current job for one that better aligns with their true self, even at the cost of job stability (Study 2), competence (Studies 3a and 4), financial benefits (Study 3b), or family happiness (Study 3c). Study 5 demonstrated that true-self-congruent job choices among North Americans were explained by their stronger TSAC belief endorsement compared to South Koreans, over and above a number of alternative mechanisms. Studies 6, 7a, and 7b provided causal-chain evidence by manipulating TSAC belief endorsement. The current research contributes to the literature on the true self and authenticity by shedding light on cross-cultural variability in making authentic decisions and its psychological underpinning. Implications and potential directions for future research on the role of TSAC belief endorsement are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation based on disciplinary and identity‐based biases within systems of evaluation. In two studies, we draw upon the theory of epistemic exclusion to explore potential biases shaping journal review and publication processes in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP). In Study 1, we coded 1293 manuscripts submitted to ASAP between 2016 and 2021 to determine if there were disparities in the review and publication of manuscripts centered on race/racism, gender/sexism, intersectionality, or other marginalized social identities/systems of oppression (focal manuscripts) compared to manuscripts not focused on these topics (non‐focal manuscripts). Results indicated both types of manuscripts were submitted to similar levels of scrutiny, and focal manuscripts were 1.85 times more likely to be published. In Study 2, we surveyed 106 authors who had submitted to ASAP to explore differences in experiences of epistemic exclusion across types of research and social identities (race and gender) and investigate whether epistemic exclusion was related to authors being published. Results indicated that researchers conducting marginalized research experienced less epistemic exclusion than their counterparts. Women experienced more epistemic exclusion than men, though Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, underrepresented minority, and White scholars experienced similar levels of exclusion. Experiences of epistemic exclusion were negatively associated with being published. Implications and future directions are discussed.