Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research: An Ecological Model

Abstract

A considerable body of literature has explored the impact of individual and structural racism on the work of school psychologists; however, less research has focused on White privilege specifically. Moreover, much of school psychology’s current scholarship on White privilege has focused on issues in training and practice, with relatively less literature exploring its intersection with research activities. In this article, we describe the emergence of Whiteness studies and their relevance for school psychology. We outline an ecological model for conceptualizing White privilege across four stages of the research process: (a) research inputs, (b) transformations, (c) research outputs, and (d) applications of research to practice. We also describe macrolevel and microlevel influences that shape school psychologists’ research activities at each of these stages. Finally, we outline recommendations for dismantling White privilege across all stages of the research process.
Impact Statement
White privilege has a substantial role in shaping the research activities of school psychologists, including their research questions, access to resources, methodological preferences, publications, and applications to practice. Advancing equity and social justice in school psychology will involve interrogating and dismantling White privilege at all stages of the research process.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uspr20
School Psychology Review
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uspr20
Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in
School Psychology Research: An Ecological Model
Sally L. Grapin & Lindsay M. Fallon
To cite this article: Sally L. Grapin & Lindsay M. Fallon (2022): Conceptualizing and Dismantling
White Privilege in School Psychology Research: An Ecological Model, School Psychology Review,
DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
Published online: 22 Mar 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology
Research: An Ecological Model
Sally L. Grapina , and Lindsay M. Fallonb
aMontclair State University; bUniversity of Massachusetts Boston
ABSTRACT
A considerable body of literature has explored the impact of individual and structural racism on
the work of school psychologists; however, less research has focused on White privilege specifically.
Moreover, much of school psychology’s current scholarship on White privilege has focused on
issues in training and practice, with relatively less literature exploring its intersection with research
activities. In this article, we describe the emergence of Whiteness studies and their relevance for
school psychology. We outline an ecological model for conceptualizing White privilege across four
stages of the research process: (a) research inputs, (b) transformations, (c) research outputs, and (d)
applications of research to practice. We also describe macrolevel and microlevel influences that
shape school psychologists’ research activities at each of these stages. Finally, we outline
recommendations for dismantling White privilege across all stages of the research process.
IMPACT STATEMENT
White privilege has a substantial role in shaping the research activities of school psychologists,
including their research questions, access to resources, methodological preferences, publications,
and applications to practice. Advancing equity and social justice in school psychology will involve
interrogating and dismantling White privilege at all stages of the research process.
Building on the foundational work of school psychologists
of color1 over the last century (e.g., Graves, 2009; Proctor
& Truscott, 2012), the profession of school psychology has
become increasingly attuned to the structural and indi-
vidual racism that permeates its research, practice, and
training. Of the numerous ways in which school psychol-
ogists have challenged racial hegemony, many have
described the role of White privilege in framing the pro-
fession’s agenda and activities (e.g., Schumacher-Martinez
& Proctor, 2020). White privilege has been defined as
“unearned advantages and benefits that accrue to Whites
by virtue of a system normed on the experiences, values,
and perceptions of their group” (Sue, 2006, p. 17). These
unearned advantages are engineered to be seemingly invis-
ible to those who benefit from them; in fact, Neville et al.
(2001) described White privilege as an expression of power
that promotes dysconsciousness, or “uncritical ways of
thinking about racial inequity” (King, 1991, p. 5).
As school psychologists continue to disrupt racism in
their profession, there is a clear need to continue the inter-
rogation of racial privilege and school psychology research.
Thus, we elaborate on the role of White privilege in shap-
ing the conceptualization, execution, publication, and
translation of research in school psychology. Specifically,
we propose an ecological model for conceptualizing and
dismantling White privilege in school psychology research.
Although White privilege is a global phenomenon (Bonds
& Inwood, 2016), we focus specifically on its impact on
research in the U.S., given the unique evolution of racism
in this context (Roberts & Rizzo, 2021). We begin by
briefly reviewing the emergence of Whiteness studies in
the U.S. and describing contemporary conceptualizations
of Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege. We
then present an ecological model for understanding the
role of White privilege in shaping multiple stages of the
research process. Finally, we conclude with recommenda-
tions for dismantling White privilege at each of these
stages and discuss directions for future scholarship and
practice.
Before presenting this model, several acknowledgments
are necessary. First, this paper represents an extension of
the groundbreaking work of many scholars of color,
including researchers within and outside of school psy-
chology (e.g., Neville et al., 2001; Schumacher-Martinez
& Proctor, 2020; Thompson & Neville, 1999). As described
below, Whiteness studies first emerged from the intellec-
tual legacy of Black scholars across several fields; therefore,
our model represents an application of this work rather
© 2022 National Association of School Psychologists
CONTACT Sally L. Grapin grapins@montclair.edu Department of Psychology, Montclair State University, 219 Dickson Hall, 1 Normal Avenue, Montclair, NJ
07043, USA.
KEYWORDS
ecological framework, research,
school psychology, White
privilege
https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received April 1, 2021
Accepted July 30, 2021
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Prerna Arora
SPECIAL SERIES

2 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
than a wholly new or unique conceptualization of White
supremacy and privilege.
Second, we wish to acknowledge our positionality,
including the roles of our cultural and professional iden-
tities in shaping our approach to this work. Both the first
and second authors identify as White, cisgender women
who strive to apply a social justice lense to their research
in school psychology. As White researchers, our racial
identities ensure our unfettered access to the privileges
described herein. They also render us complicit in racism
and obstruct our view of the full scope of these privileges.
Thus, we realize that our work does not encapsulate the
totality of White privilege in school psychology research
nor the full extent of its historical and contemporary
harms. However, we hope that this model will contribute
to the systematic mapping of racial privilege as well as
ongoing efforts to dismantle it.
EMERGENCE OF WHITENESS STUDIES
Whiteness studies have been undertaken for more than a
century and emerged primarily among Black scholars as
a means for understanding the sociopolitical context of
the Black community in the U.S. (Schooley et al., 2019;
Twine & Gallagher, 2008). In fact, the emergence of
Whiteness studies illustrates the very essence of White
privilege; whereas White communities could remain obliv-
ious to Black culture with virtually no penalty for their
ignorance, Black communities needed to better under-
stand norms of Whiteness in order to navigate and survive
in their social environments (Twine & Gallagher, 2008).
Twine and Gallagher (2008) described this evolution
across three waves of scholarship. In the first wave, the
prominent sociologist and civil rights activist W.E.B.
DuBois is credited with providing the theoretical founda-
tions of critical Whiteness studies. DuBois observed that
the White elite of the 19th century consolidated political
power in the U.S. by incentivizing White laborers to
embrace racial solidarity rather than class solidarity with
individuals recently freed from slavery. These incentives
took the form of what DuBois (1935) described as a “public
and psychological wage,” or material and psychological
privileges that conferred a number of social advantages
for White people.
In the second wave, Black feminist, critical race, and
legal scholars such as Toni Morrison, Cheryl Harris, E.
Franklin Frazier, and James Baldwin, among many others
highlighted the ways in which institutional and cultural
norms proliferated White supremacy in the U.S. (Schooley
et al., 2019; Twine & Gallagher, 2008). They also under-
scored the fundamental incongruence of America’s out-
ward valuing of equal opportunity for all with its tacit
endorsement of White superiority and structural racism
(Myrdal, 1944). Finally, third wave Whiteness studies have
focused on the examination of racial socialization prac-
tices and the expression and development of White iden-
tity (Matias, 2013; Schooley et al., 2019). According to
Twine and Gallagher (2008), this work has explored the
ways in which Whiteness is shaped by other intersecting
identities, including ethnicity, socioeconomic status, reli-
gion, and immigration background. Overall, Whiteness
studies have enabled scholars, artists, and communities to
explore the simultaneous manifestation of racial discrim-
ination and privilege in the U.S. Specifically, these studies
have highlighted the ways in which Whiteness has been
normalized yet also made invisible to ensure its ubiquity
and longevity in American institutions, including public
education (Leonardo, 2004; Matias, 2013) and other set-
tings in which school psychologists serve.
RELATIONS AMONG WHITENESS, WHITE
SUPREMACY, AND WHITE PRIVILEGE
As described above, Whiteness has been conceptualized
in a number of ways across disciplines and over time.
Whereas Sue (2006) described Whiteness as a set of phys-
ical features (mostly light skin color) that, in and of them-
selves, conveyed a neutral valence, others have centered
social power in its definition. For example, Helms (2017)
defined Whiteness as overt and subliminal socialization
processes and institutions that favor White people. Still
others have defined Whiteness as a form of property that
is implicitly guarded by the U.S. legal system (Harris, 1993).
Regardless of how it is defined, the role of Whiteness in
contributing to racism must be understood in relation to
both White supremacy and White privilege (Sue, 2006).
White supremacy refers to the presumed superiority of
White identities in support of the cultural and political dom-
ination of other racial groups (Bonds & Inwood, 2016). The
term White supremacy strips notions of “innocence” from
the concept of Whiteness and underscores the ways in which
White people have dominated and exploited communities
of color ( both intentionally and unintentionally; Bonds &
Inwood, 2016; Leonardo, 2004 ). This domination includes
physical (e.g., police brutality), psychological (e.g., centering
of the White experience), and other forms of violence.
Collectively, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White
privilege comprise three interlocking forces that allow
White people to dominate communities of color without
outwardly acknowledging their individual or collective
contributions to such oppression (Sue, 2006). According
to Sue (2006), Whiteness transforms into racism when
combined with power and White supremacy ideology.
Thus, we can understand White privilege as a

Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research 3
manifestation of Whiteness and a product of White
supremacy. When framed in this manner, White privilege
can be conceptualized not only as a compilation of
unearned social advantages but also as a mechanism of
violence toward communities of color.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON WHITE
SUPREMACY AND RACISM IN PSYCHOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
Ideologies of White supremacy and privilege have a long
history of permeating research in school psychology and
other related areas (e.g., Newell & Chavez-Korell, 2017;
Winston, 2020). In describing some of psychology’s earli-
est research, Besag (1981) noted that “scientific study took
a very specific problem (e.g., perception)… out of its social
and psychological context, quantified it…and then
attempted to determine if a theory could be developed”
(p. 56). The very notion that psychological phenomena
could be properly studied only when isolated from their
social contexts implied the need for research to be “acul-
tural” in order to be rigorous. Moreover, this narrow
approach to research set the stage for psychologists to
focus on readily quantifiable variables (e.g., reaction time)
while ignoring more complex social phenomena such as
the consolidation of political power at the hands of
Whiteness.
White supremacist ideology was especially prevalent
among White psychologists of the early 20
th
century, many
of whom advocated the genetic inferiority of people of
color (typically Black children and adults) through intel-
ligence testing research (Besag, 1981; Pickren, 2009).
These pseudoscientific claims were further reinforced by
psychologists presumably investigating the “educability”
of Black youth, often through poorly-constructed com-
parative studies of Black and White children that failed to
account for structural inequities in their school experi-
ences (Winston, 2020). Notably, numerous Black scholars,
including Albert Sidney Beckham and Herman Canady,
vigorously challenged White supremacy ideology and sci-
entific imperialism through their own scholarship, which
highlighted environmental factors that shaped the perfor-
mance of racial minoritized children on intelligence tests
(Pickren, 2009).
As school psychology moved toward becoming a rec-
ognized profession, cultural deprivation ideology became
particularly popular among both scholars and practi-
tioners (Cole, 2013; Newell & Chavez-Korell, 2017).
Proponents of cultural deprivation theory believed that
racial differences in educational outcomes were attribut-
able to a lack of adequate exposure to White values, norms,
and customs among children of color (Newell &
Chavez-Korell, 2017). For example, following Brown v.
Board of Education (1954), educational inequities between
White and racial minoritized children were transferred
from segregated to integrated schools and subsequently
reframed as “the achievement gap” (Cole, 2013). Such
reframing positioned youth of color as falling short of the
accomplishments of their White peers due to inadequate
exposure to White social, behavioral, and linguistic norms
(Cole, 2013). This centering of the White experience as
the “default” or “gold standard” for academic and psycho-
logical functioning would ultimately influence research
narratives for decades to come and continues to surface
in contemporary school psychology literature (García-
Vázquez et al., 2020; Gutiérrez, 2008). Thus, there is a clear
need for historically-grounded, ecological perspectives
that account for the ways in which institutions, individu-
als, and cultural norms reify Whiteness in research
activities.
AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF WHITE PRIVILEGE
IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH
Ecological frameworks may be especially well-suited to
conceptualizing the manifestation of privilege in psycho-
logical research (Neville et al., 2001; Thompson & Neville,
1999). For example, the American Psychological
Association’s (2017) most recent multicultural guidelines
have called for psychologists to conceptualize their pro-
fessional activities (including their research) in the context
of dynamic, nested ecologies that transact over time. As
noted by Thompson and Neville (1999), ecological frame-
works account for continually evolving, reciprocal rela-
tions among individuals, groups, and environments.
Ecological frameworks also acknowledge the embedded-
ness of multiple, mutually influencing environmental sys-
tems that intersect in unique ways to influence behaviors
and outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Finally, they allow
for psychologists to account for the impact of historical
and contemporary social conditions, such as structural
racism and poverty.
In line with ecological frameworks, Neville et al. (2001)
contended that White privilege is shaped by both mac-
rolevel and microlevel influences. Whereas macrolevel
variables generally refer to institutional manifestations of
White privilege, microlevel variables refer to more imme-
diate individual and group-level manifestations. We extend
Neville et al.’s work by centering the research process as
embedded within these macrolevel and microlevel influ-
ences. In particular, research activities are shaped by a
range of proximal and distal influences, all of which can
reinforce dynamics of racial privilege and oppression
among collaborators, trainees, administrators, ethics

4 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
review boards, community organizations, publishers, edi-
torial boards, and other stakeholders. As a result, these
activities are fraught with power dynamics that inevitably
shape school psychologists’ conceptualization, execution,
and applications of research.
Grounded in the work of Neville et al. (2001), Figure 1
displays an ecological model of White privilege in school
psychology research. Notably, this model includes three
primary systems: (a) macrolevel influences; (b) microlevel
influences; and (c) the research process, which comprises
four stages. Various components of these systems interact
in a reciprocal manner to ensure the maintenance of White
privilege across all stages of the research process. Below
we describe each of the three primary systems of this eco-
logical model as well as the institutions and entities they
comprise. We also describe the four stages of the research
process and the ways in which they are shaped by mac-
rolevel and microlevel influences to reinforce White priv-
ilege. Because the breadth and influence of microlevel and
macrolevel factors on research activities are vast, each
section provides key examples of relations across systems
and their impact.
Macrolevel Influences
Macrolevel influences include entities such as political
systems, professional associations, funding agencies, aca-
demic journals and publishers, and other institutions and
structures that shape the norms and values of research
communities. They also include systems that influence the
execution of research, such as ethics review institutions,
PK–12 school systems (for school-based researchers), and
Figure 1. Ecological Conceptualization of the Research Process
Note. Adapted from Mintrom (2008) with permission from Taylor & Francis.

Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research 5
higher education. These institutions uphold systems of
privilege by standardizing White perspectives and pro-
moting values of meritocracy and individualism (Neville
et al., 2001; Thompson & Neville, 1999).
In higher education, for example, the tenure process
can uphold the myth of meritocracy by failing to account
for racism in the academy and operating under the
assumption that professional rewards are earned by those
who work hard (Griffin et al., 2013). Standards of “aca-
demic merit” are constructed by the dominant group
(often White scholars and administrators) and therefore
generally serve the best interests of those in power (Griffin
et al., 2013). Through incentives such as tenure and pro-
motion, institutions can implicitly promote certain types
of scholarship (e.g., large-scale experimental research
linked to major grant funding) while simultaneously mar
-
ginalizing others (e.g., highly contextualized qualitative
studies). In the social sciences specifically, this research
tends to include methods that emphasize “absolute objec-
tivity” as well as the reduction of complex social phenom-
ena (e.g., racial identity) to single quantitative variables
(Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008).
Political and legal systems also have a substantial role
in shaping the evolution of research priorities and the
steering of research funds. For example, the passage of the
Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) in 2002 had pro-
found implications for the steering of research activities
in the U.S. Designed to advance scientifically-based
research (SBR) in education, the ESRA stipulated guide-
lines for high-quality research, which mainly emphasized
post-positivist experimental methods as the gold standard
(Liston et al., 2007). At the time of their development,
these guidelines inevitably shaped the direction of govern-
ment-funded research, and they continue to influence
contemporary research programs within and outside of
school psychology (Gutiérrez, 2008, Liston et al., 2007).
Microlevel Influences
Microlevel influences are more proximal to the research
process and comprise the totality of immediate contexts
and resources (e.g., community partnerships and collab-
orative networks) that influence a scholars’ research
agenda over time (rather than specific inputs to research
projects, which are discussed in further detail below).
Microlevel influences comprise individual and group vari-
ables that can reinforce the presence of White privilege in
research activities.
Individual variables may include researchers’ theoreti-
cal and epistemological orientations, knowledge base, and
professional goals and priorities. For example, White
scholars who study topics that concern the welfare of all
children (e.g., social emotional learning and academic
interventions) but who fail to thoughtfully address struc-
tural racism in their work assert privilege by (a) passively
endorsing deficit-oriented views of children of color, and
(b) contributing to the systemic silence on which privilege
thrives. Even White scholars who study racial justice can
exert privilege through their work if it is executed perfor-
matively or it is driven largely by ulterior goals (e.g.,
research productivity and professional recognition).
At the interpersonal level, microlevel influences include
scholars’ research networks, partnerships with local com-
munities, and immediate professional settings (e.g., uni-
versity environment). An extensive body of literature has
documented the conscious and subconscious tendencies
of White individuals to seek out interactions with same-
race individuals, perhaps because these interactions do
not require them to broach the uncomfortable subject of
race or to acknowledge their unearned privilege (Public
Religion Research Institute, 2013). Coupled with the sub-
stantial professional and social capital that many White
scholars bring to their collaborations, these tendencies can
result in the formation of predominantly White research
networks that wield substantial power in shaping their
field’s emerging scholarship. This may be especially likely
in fields with majority White workforces, such as school
psychology.
Research Process
Although originally designed to guide the management of
university research functions, Mintrom’s (2008) model of
the research process is well-suited to understanding the
intersection of White privilege and school psychology
research. Comprising four major stages, Mintrom’s model
highlights the ways in which internal and external social
influences shape the goals, execution, and outcomes of
research activities. An adapted version of this four-stage
process is displayed at the center of Figure 1.
Below we describe each of the four stages of this adapted
model, including: (a) research inputs, (b) transformations,
(c) research outputs, and (d) applications of research to
practice. Each of these stages is fluid and mutually-influ-
encing, such that components and processes of one stage
are inherently linked to all others. Moreover, macrolevel
and microlevel influences shape all stages of the research
process. For example, funding agencies (conceptualized
as a macrolevel influence) set implicit and explicit stan-
dards for the “merit” of scientific studies by selectively
allocating financial resources, which can be crucial for the
initiation of research. However, funding agencies can also
influence the latter stages of research projects, including
their execution, where their findings are published, and

6 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
in what contexts (i.e., how, when, and where) their findings
are translated to applied settings.
We also highlight the ways in which White privilege
shapes research activities at each stage. Table 1 presents
examples of White privilege that may arise at each stage.
As noted previously, these examples do not represent an
exhaustive list of the many privileges that advantage White
researchers while harming scholars of color and their com-
munities. Rather, they are intended to illustrate the types
of privileges that White scholars exert and maintain in the
course of their research endeavors.
Research Inputs
Research inputs refer to the resources and materials that
support the initiation and execution of research activities.
As indicated in Table 1, such inputs may include specific
research questions, study protocols, and personnel, finan-
cial, and physical (e.g., laboratory space) resources. At this
stage, both macrolevel and microlevel influences have a
substantial impact on the preparation and initiation of
research activities.
As described above, macrolevel influences such politi-
cal systems and federal agencies can influence important
research inputs, such as the types of research questions
asked as well as the level of funding invested in particular
projects. They also can influence the development of study
protocols and ethical safeguards, which are critical inputs
of the research process (Mintrom, 2008). For example,
federal guidance on research ethics, such as the Common
Rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS), center institutional review boards (IRBs) as the
ultimate arbiters of ethically sound research with human
participants. While IRBs undoubtedly have a critical role
in protecting the welfare of study participants, they do not
address the ways in which research can uphold principles
of White supremacy and privilege (Tuck & Guishard,
2013). In general, IRBs tend to focus on the protection of
participants’ individual rights as constructed by White,
Western cultures; however, these entities are often less
oriented to protecting community and group rights, which
may be prioritized by Indigenous and other non-Western
cultures (Weaver, 2014). In general, White scholars can be
assured that IRBs will uphold ethical standards that protect
the well-being of their racial group, although this is not
necessarily true for scholars of color.
At the microlevel, White privilege can also surface in
research networks, which represent the totality of potential
collaborators, mentors, and other professionals to whom
a researcher may be connected. When collaborating with
scholars from other racial backgrounds, White researchers
can be assured that they will never be the targets of racial
discrimination, which can impact engagement and
well-being (Turner et al., 2008). Though sometimes unin-
tentional, such discrimination is commonly perpetrated
by White researchers, including those who consider them-
selves to be invested in promoting racial justice (Gorski &
Erakat, 2019). In fact, White racial justice advocates fre-
quently contribute to burnout among activists of color by
(a) exhibiting racist views, (b) undermining or taking
credit for the work of people of color, (c) exhibiting an
unwillingness to act when needed, and (d) displaying
White fragility (Gorski & Erakat, 2019). Although White
scholars may also experience burnout in promoting racial
justice, they will never experience academic burnout stem-
ming from racial marginalization.
Transformations
Transformations refer to processes through which research
inputs are translated into research outputs (see below) by
way of discipline-specific practices. Transformations are
guided by the researcher’s theoretical and methodological
perspectives as well as their epistemologies (i.e., approaches
to deriving knowledge), which in turn are shaped by larger
disciplinary norms (Mintrom, 2008). White researchers
who do not critically interrogate the nature of their meth-
ods may ultimately reinforce what Zuberi and Bonilla-
Silva (2008) described as White logic and methods. White
logic refers to “a context in which White supremacy has
defined the techniques and processes of reasoning about
social facts” (Bonilla-Silva & Zuberi, 2008, p. 17), whereas
White methods refer to “the practical tools used to manu-
facture empirical data and analysis to support the racial
stratification” (p. 18). For example, White logic may lead
researchers to characterize individual attributes (e.g., race)
as “causal variables” of psychological outcomes rather than
conceptualizing the social conditions around these attri-
butes (e.g., racial discrimination) as having causal effects
(Holland, 2008). Similarly, White methods can be seen in
color evasive (i.e., avoidance or denial of racial realities)
approaches to experimentation, in which White scholars
fail to (and generally are not expected to) explicitly account
for their racial positionality in evaluating study outcomes
(Appelbaum et al., 2018). These practices can have pro-
found consequences for communities of color; neverthe-
less, White scholars need not be concerned that the
scientific decisions or preferences of others may comprise
the overall welfare of their racial group.
Both macrolevel and microlevel influences contribute
to the proliferation of White logic and methods as well as
what Settles et al. (2020) described as epistemic exclusion.
Epistemic exclusion “occurs when individuals or institu-
tions devalue scholarship outside of the dominant disci-
pline (i.e., mainstream) and claim that marginalized
scholars (e.g., women of color and queer scholars) fail to

Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research 7
make contributions to the production of knowledge”
(Settles et al., 2020, p. 2). The existence of epistemic exclu-
sion necessarily implies the existence of epistemic privilege.
As in other psychology subfields, privileged epistemolo-
gies in school psychology scholarship generally include
post-positivist approaches that acknowledge research bias
while continually striving for objectivity and generaliz-
ability (Settles et al., 2020). These methodologies are priv-
ileged because they are widely believed to “allow us to
make better inferences about the natural world or generate
more reliable scientific knowledge” (Parke, 2014, p. 517).
Epistemic privilege and White privilege are distinct but
often mutually reinforcing concepts. Generally, White
scholars are more likely to produce research grounded in
dominant approaches (e.g., post-positivist traditions) than
research grounded in the traditions of minoritized racial
and cultural groups (e.g., intersectionality approaches con-
ceptualized through a social constructivist lens; Settles
et al., 2020). Thus, the privileging of these dominant
approaches occurs in part because of their popularity
among White researchers, who are less likely than scholars
of color to have their scientific credibility questioned
(Turner et al., 2008). Of course, research that emphasizes
post-positivist approaches (often quantitative in nature)
is by no means the exclusive domain of White researchers;
in fact, scholars of color routinely apply such
epistemologies in exploring a variety of topics related or
unrelated to racial justice (e.g. Worrell et al., 2019).
However, because these epistemic approaches are also
heavily emphasized among White researchers, they are
imbued with privilege in scholarly communities. As a
result, White scholars generally do not find themselves
needing to justify their epistemic lens, which may not be
the case for many scholars of color (particularly for those
applying a constructivist lens). In fact, White scholars can
even remain oblivious to other epistemological lenses and
experience virtually no penalty for it.
Research Outputs
Research outputs refer to the immediate and/or proximal
outcomes, products, and byproducts of the research pro-
cess (e.g., journal articles, book chapters, monographs,
research briefs; see Table 1). As are research inputs and
transformations, these products are influenced by both
macrolevel (e.g., priorities of journals and publishers) and
microlevel influences (e.g., professionals’ epistemic lenses
and professional networks), which impact what is pub-
lished, presented, or otherwise disseminated within and
outside of the field.
Success as a researcher (e.g., attainment of tenure and
promotion) is often judged based on the number and
Table 1. Privileges Embedded in the Research Process
Model Component Definition and Examples Examples of White Privilege
Research Inputs Definition: Resources that support the initiation and
execution of research endeavors
• I can be assured that university IRBs will uphold ethical standards
that protect the well-being of my racial group.
• When I nd my work or research collaborations to be emotionally
exhausting, it will never be due to being marginalized based on my
race.
• I am unlikely to have diculty identifying potential research
collaborators within or outside of my institution who share my
racial background.
Examples:
• Community partnerships
• Ethics review processes
• Personnel (e.g., research assistants), nancial (e.g.,
grant funding), and physical (e.g., laboratories,
technology) resources
Transformations Definition: Processes by which research inputs are
translated into research outputs by way of discipline-
specific practices
• If I choose to ground my work in research paradigms that represent
the traditions of my race, I can be relatively certain that I will not be
asked to justify this choice.
• I can remain oblivious to research theories and frameworks that do
not represent the traditions of my race (e.g., Indigenous methods)
and experience virtually no penalty for it.
• I can expect existing research in my chosen area to testify to the
experiences of my racial group.
Examples:
• Integration of existing theory and scholarship to
shape new research questions
• Application of methodological frameworks to develop
research designs
Research Outputs Definition: Immediate/proximal outcomes and
byproducts of the research process
• I can expect that the membership of journal editorial boards will
largely represent my racial background.
• I can expect that high-impact journals in my eld will value
research topics, paradigms, and methods that honor the traditions
and experiences of people from my racial group.
• If I frame my research to align with the “single story” valued in my
eld’s literature, I will not be questioned nor feel as though I am not
being authentic to who I am as a researcher.
Examples:
• Publications (e.g., journal articles, book chapters)
• New research skill sets
• Enhanced research capacity of emerging/future
scholars
• Reputational eects
Application of
Research to
Practice
Definition: Use of research to develop tools and services,
and support for implementation of practices in applied
settings
• If I develop tools/protocols well-suited for use with my racial group,
it is unlikely that I will be asked to justify their relevance or
generalizability.
• I can be assured that my research will not be translated to practice
in ways that encourage a decit-oriented view of children and
families who share my racial background.
• When new assessment protocols are developed, I can be condent
that my racial group will be represented in normative samples
Examples:
• Assessment instruments
• Intervention protocols
• Professional development resources

8 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
impact of peer-reviewed journal articles one has published
(Schimanski & Alperin, 2018). School psychologists pub-
lish in a range of journals across many different specialty
areas; as a result, their research outputs may be susceptible
to the broader influences of structural racism and privilege
that pervade psychology and education journals more
generally (Roberts et al., 2020). Peer-reviewed publica-
tions, referred to by Burrows et al. (2020) as “academic
currency” (p. 829), must first pass through the gates of
editorial review boards, which are led predominantly by
White editors—not only in school psychology but also in
related fields (Roberts et al., 2020). Moreover, the dou-
ble-blind peer review process has been characterized as a
form of gatekeeping meant to weed out research deemed
“unscientific” or “insufficiently rigorous” by those in
power (e.g., reviewers, editors; Kumashiro et al., 2005).
As described above, those in power may implicitly or
explicitly favor approaches grounded in White logic and
methods over research paradigms that amplify the tradi-
tions and experiences of people of color (Bonilla-Silva &
Zuberi, 2008). Unsurprisingly, these preferences are also
reflected in many prominent journals’ aims and scopes,
which are often developed and maintained predominantly
by White researchers. In fact, scholars of color report that
their work is frequently dismissed as falling outside of
aims and scope of “mainstream” journals if it incorporates
frameworks and vocabularies that diverge from
Whiteness-centered conventions (Baffoe et al., 2014).
Given that formal reviewer training is often either over-
looked or performed in a cursory manner in many aca-
demic journals (Ferreira et al., 2016), editorial board
reviewers are likely to receive little if any professional
development in paradigms that center the perspectives
and experiential knowledge of people of color (Mavrogenis
et al., 2020). Collectively, these circumstances converge
to ensure that White scholars need never worry that their
racial worldviews will be devalued by peer-reviewed jour-
nals. Moreover, they are shielded from any psychological
distress that may arise from ongoing engagement with
journals that continually devalue their work, which may
be especially salient among faculty of color during their
pretenure years (Baffoe et al., 2014).
Furthermore, research outputs that take the form of
peer-reviewed journal articles inevitably reach a restricted
consumer base. Peer-reviewed articles are typically pro-
tected by paywalls and thus most readily available to indi-
viduals with access to institutional subscriptions (e.g.,
research faculty at university and academic medical cen-
ters), most of whom are White (Eaves, 2021). In order to
maximize their journal’s readership and impact factor, edi-
tors may choose to publish pieces that will be widely cited
and valued by this consumer base. Reflecting on this
dynamic, Baffoe et al. (2014) deemed the impact factor “a
new ‘firewall’ and post-modern exclusion paradigm” (p. 26).
At the microlevel, predominantly White networks of
researchers can sustain the prevalence of Whiteness on
editorial boards and in journal content. For instance, cur-
rent board members are frequently asked to recommend
new editorial review board members, which may promote
the continued dominance of researchers with similar epis-
temic perspectives (Baffoe et al., 2014). This gatekeeping
extends to other types of scholarly opportunities, such as
invitations to serve in guest editor roles and develop com-
missioned articles and commentaries. Baffoe et al. (2014)
warned that such dynamics reinforce hidden agendas to
sustain a “single story” in research, thereby systematically
excluding researchers who have critical innovations and
counternarratives to share.
Application of Research to Practice
For most school psychology researchers, the goal of their
work is to translate immediate research outputs (e.g.,
peer-reviewed journal articles and books) into practice.
Applications of research to practice may include the imple-
mentation of evidence-based assessments and interven-
tions in schools or innovations in graduate training.
Applications of research to practice are invariably linked
to research outputs.
Because the school psychology workforce is predomi-
nantly White (Walcott & Hyson, 2018), White scholars
and practitioners exert considerable influence over the
translation of research to practice. Thus, even innovations
envisioned, developed, and tested by scholars of color may
ultimately be subject to the filters of White scholars’ and
practitioners’ racial lenses, potentially resulting in a form
of Whitewashing. Examples of this can be found in
research on the recruitment of racial and ethnic minori-
tized students to school psychology programs. Much of
this work has been conducted by scholars of color who
have carefully and thoughtfully explored the perspectives
of prospective, current, and former trainees of color and
who are deeply committed to advancing social justice
through the diversification of school psychology’s work-
force (e.g., Proctor & Truscott, 2012). While many White
faculty earnestly share these goals, they may not always
effectively translate this work to practice. For example,
there is some evidence that faculty members may focus
more on boosting the numerical representation of students
of color in their programs than on ensuring that minori-
tized students’ perspectives are amplified and valued in an
authentic manner (Grapin et al., in press).
Regarding the implementation of school-based inno-
vations, White practitioners and researchers need not be
concerned that their racial group will be ignored,

Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research 9
underrepresented, or otherwise harmed in the translation
of research to practice. They are generally assured that
validity evidence for popular psychological tests will nei-
ther lag behind nor fail to exist for members of their racial
group and that any interventions they develop will not be
translated in ways that promote deficit-oriented views of
their racial group. For example, they need not worry that
interventions will be implemented to “fix” or “rectify cul-
tural deprivation” among members of their racial group.
As in any area of applied research, White privilege can
substantially impact the development and translation of
intervention research. Although scholars have developed
a number of high-quality adaptations of interventions for
youth of color (e.g., Graves et al., 2017), the very notion
that such interventions need to be adapted signals the cen-
tering of Whiteness in service delivery. Moreover, by
avoiding the subject of race, White researchers may pre-
sume their intervention work to be “race neutral” when in
reality it may reify Whiteness. For example, social emo-
tional learning (SEL) interventions that do not broach
issues of racial identity or systemic oppression cannot
simply be considered “race neutral”; in many cases, they
are implicitly coded “White” due to their denial of racial
inequities that impact children of color (Jagers et al., 2018).
Notably, a number of interventions have been developed
for youth of color by scholars and practitioners who share
their backgrounds and who aim to center their values and
lived experiences (e.g., Aston & Graves, 2016).
Although often thought of as impacting research inputs
and transformations, grant funding also plays a critical
role in shaping applications of research to practice.
Proposals for federal funding are more likely to be reviewed
by White researchers with a history of receiving grants
(Gallo et al., 2021) and to be awarded to White principal
investigators (PIs; Ginther et al., 2011). PIs leading funded
projects to develop assessment and intervention protocols
may be more likely to be approached by publishers to
translate their work for commercial distribution (e.g.,
development of curricula, textbooks, rating scales, and
apps). Once made commercially available, these products
may be more likely to be known, viewed as legitimate, and
implemented by PK–12 staff. As a result, assessments and
intervention protocols developed with the support of
major funding agencies may be more likely to enjoy wide-
spread dissemination, commercialization, and application
in PK–12 settings.
DISMANTLING WHITE PRIVILEGE IN SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH
Applying an ecological model for conceptualizing White
privilege in research may assist scholars in identifying clear
action steps for moving forward. Importantly, eradicating
structures that center Whiteness in research is the work
of all White school psychologists, including faculty mem-
bers, school-based practitioners, and other research col-
laborators and consumers (Schumacher-Martinez &
Proctor, 2020). In the sections that follow, we provide
recommendations for dismantling privilege at each stage
of Mintrom’s (2008) model of the research process.
Research Inputs
Taking measures to dismantle White privilege at this first
stage is critical, as inputs lay the foundations of all subse-
quent research activities. As noted above, a critical input
of the research process is formal approval from the appro-
priate ethics board(s). Although university IRB approval
may be required to initiate research activities, school psy-
chologists should consider a number of factors before
pursuing ethical review. In particular, they should be
knowledgeable about the ways in which historical and
contemporary research practices have harmed communi-
ties of color (Parker et al., 2019). Without such knowledge,
school psychologists cannot even begin to fathom the ways
in which their research might negatively impact these
communities, nor can they initiate community-based part-
nerships that actively challenge notions of White suprem-
acy and privilege.
School psychologists should also consider whether the
membership of university and institutional IRBs is repre-
sentative of the populations who will ultimately be
impacted by the research, especially if those populations
are minoritized racial groups. Researchers must carefully
consider the ways in which both participants (e.g., stu-
dents partaking in an experimental intervention) and
nonparticipants (e.g., parents of student participants and
students not receiving the intervention) may be directly
or indirectly impacted as well. Scholars must proactively
consider the extent to which these dynamics may compro-
mise the quality of services for racial minoritized students
while potentially prioritizing the educational needs of
White students.
Notably, White scholars and practitioners cannot be the
sole or even primary arbiters of decisions around ethical
research practices involving racial minoritized communi-
ties; these individuals must partner with such communi-
ties to ensure that they are meaningfully engaged in,
directly benefiting from, and protected from the potential
harms of research (Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
2012). In some settings, community-based IRBs and ethics
review boards (e.g., Bronx Community Research Review
Board) may be available to provide feedback on research
protocols; however, even when a formalized approval body

10 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
is not present, school psychologists must proactively
engage community members in evaluating the merit, rel-
evance, design, benefits, risks, and overall ethicality of
their research. School-based practitioners who are inte-
grally embedded in the communities they serve may be
especially well-positioned to facilitate this engagement.
As noted previously, project personnel and collabora-
tors are also critical research inputs. White school psychol-
ogists must be candid about how they exert and maintain
privilege through their interactions with other White col-
laborators and collaborators of color. In particular, White
school psychologists should reflect on their behaviors and
the ways in which they may be taxing their colleagues of
color, including by (a) taking credit for their work, (b)
expecting expertise in social justice issues, (c) framing
racism as an individual phenomenon, (d) exhibiting color
evasive behaviors, (e) viewing race as a Black–White
binary, (f) relying on them to bear a disproportionate bur-
den of university service, (g) questioning their epistemic
or scholarly credibility, or (h) exhibiting performative ally
behaviors or White saviorism (e.g., Gorski & Erakat, 2019;
Turner et al., 2008). Importantly, it is not sufficient for
White school psychologists to address these issues solely
in the context of their own behaviors and biases; rather,
they need to acknowledge and interrogate the ways in
which macrolevel and microlevel norms reinforce these
behaviors at the systems level. For example, scholars can
work toward disrupting these norms by taking actions
such as (a) providing direct and immediate feedback to
White scholars who engage in harmful behaviors, (b) serv-
ing on college and university-level committees (e.g., inter-
nal award and personnel committees) to challenge
practices that devalue the contributions of scholars of
color, (c) working with colleagues of color to identify,
remove, and/or absorb unwarranted service demands, and
(d) organizing with other White colleagues to promote
critical reflection and action related to the dismantling of
White privilege and supremacy in university and research
settings. In taking such action, White colleagues must be
sure to advocate with rather than for their colleagues of
color, who need not the “help” of White people but rather
the support, equitable partnerships, and space to influence
their field that they have long been owed but often denied.
Transformations
Dismantling White privilege at this stage involves part-
nering with scholars of color to ensure that a broad range
of epistemic and methodological perspectives are repre-
sented and valued in school psychology research. First, it
requires White scholars to interrogate their own
approaches to research and to acknowledge the ways in
which their scholarship may perpetuate “White logic,”
thereby causing harm (intentionally or unintentionally)
to communities of color. White scholars and practitioners
should also understand the ways in which paradigms such
as critical race theory (CRT), postcolonial theory, and oth-
ers rectify some of the conceptual and methodological
shortcomings of mainstream school psychology research.
We strongly recommend that all school psychologists
(including both producers and consumers of research)
educate themselves about methods such as QuantCrit,
community participatory action research (CPAR),
Indigenous methods, and others (e.g., Garcia et al., 2018;
Settles et al., 2020).
In addition to such self-reflection, White scholars must
collaborate with colleagues of color to intentionally make
and protect space for a variety of culturally responsive
research paradigms. These include paradigms and meth-
ods that actively engage and advance the interests of mar-
ginalized communities. Defying the logic of racial
privilege, White scholars must recognize that the devalu-
ing of such paradigms has dire consequences for the field
of school psychology and the communities it serves, even
if there do not appear to be any immediate consequences
for individual White researchers. There are numerous
ways in which White scholars can amplify these paradigms
and the works of scholars who use them. First, they can
make a concerted effort to cite work that centers these
theoretical and methodological traditions. Because this
work is often marginalized in mainstream journals, White
researchers may need to routinely follow a wider variety
of scholarship, including journals devoted specifically to
amplifying the voices of minoritized populations (e.g.,
Journal of Black Psychology). White scholars should also
intentionally cite their colleagues of color, regardless of
these colleagues’ epistemological, theoretical, or method-
ological orientations, which are wide-ranging and diverse.
If such work is not yet present in their respective areas of
research, they should be explicit about calling attention to
this gap and highlighting the ways in which the presence
of multiple epistemological and methodological perspec-
tives is not only beneficial but also essential for construct-
ing a more accurate and inclusive understanding of
psychological and educational phenomena.
White scholars should encourage aspiring and novice
researchers (e.g., doctoral mentees and early career schol-
ars) to explore, utilize, and value a wide range of tradition
-
ally marginalized epistemic and methodological
approaches, especially when those approaches are well-
suited to their protégés’ areas of interest (e.g., studying
children’s intersectional identities). For example, they
might encourage mentees to take relevant methods courses
or pursue external workshops designed for graduate

Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research 11
students. When such options are unavailable or unfeasible,
scholars can support their mentees by joining them in the
self-study process (e.g., compiling relevant readings and
working through them together). Regardless of whether
their protégés decide to implement traditionally margin-
alized methodologies themselves, White scholars must
explicitly acknowledge the intellectual legitimacy and
value of these methods as well as model humility in learn-
ing about research paradigms outside of their own.
Research Output
As in all stages, dismantling White privilege in research
output warrants both top-down and bottom-up
approaches, including change at the highest levels of jour-
nal leadership as well as among individual researchers and
contributors. In particular, this may involve revising jour-
nals’ “aims and scope” statements to ensure that a variety
of epistemologies, methodologies, and research areas are
valued and welcomed across journal content. Works that
represent the voices and traditions of marginalized groups
can be amplified in special issues but should also routinely
and broadly permeate journal content.
Dismantling White privilege at this stage also requires
the thoughtful and careful selection of editorial board
members. Efforts to ensure the numerical representation
of scholars of color are necessary but not sufficient; beyond
representation, board members must be valued for the
individual perspectives, expertise, and talents they con-
tribute to their journals. Scholars of color bring knowledge
and skill in a variety of areas and should not be presumed
to be experts on issues of race and social justice solely on
the basis of their cultural backgrounds. Trainings can be
developed and implemented to support board members’
knowledge of a variety of theoretical, epistemological and
methodological approaches; however, works grounded in
the intellectual traditions of scholars of color (e.g., critical
race theory) should be evaluated by individuals who have
deep knowledge and expertise of these traditions. Journal
leaders should also consider adopting mechanisms for
ensuring accountability and transparency in making prog-
ress toward these goals.
Individual scholars (particularly White scholars) can
work to decenter Whiteness in publishing as well. In col-
laboration with scholars of color, they can publicly advo-
cate for change through their work with professional
organizations, grant review panels, and journal editorial
boards. They can recommend their colleagues of color for
editorial board positions, guest editorships, and invitations
to develop commissioned articles. When asked to review
articles that embody worldviews, epistemologies, and
methodologies outside of their own, they should
acknowledge the legitimacy and merit of these works while
also recognizing that they may not have the expertise to
evaluate them properly. Such experiences leave White
researchers well-positioned to contact journal editors and
advocate for the addition of board members who possess
the necessary expertise to provide high-quality reviews of
these works. Importantly, White scholars should not dis-
miss these submissions out of hand because they do not
align with their own worldviews or methodological pref-
erences; rather, they should see this incongruence as an
opportunity for reflection and advocacy.
In addition, White researchers can amplify the voices
of scholars of color by citing their work in papers and
presentations as well as sharing it in the context of their
teaching, PK–12 collaborations, and professional networks
(with appropriate citations clearly indicated). They should
nominate researchers of color for awards, fellowships, and
other honors from professional and community organi-
zations. They should also ensure that scholars of color are
compensated fairly and generously for their intellectual
contributions (e.g., via honoraria). Moreover, practitioners
and other consumers of research should actively seek to
proliferate scholarship centered in different epistemologies
and methodologies and demonstrate mindfulness of what
types of research may be missing from peer-reviewed and/
or academic scholarship. Collectively, actions such as these
will allow for more than a “single story” to be told in
research, enriching the school psychology literature base
with a more diverse and inclusive range of perspectives,
epistemologies, and research designs (Adichie, 2009;
Baffoe et al., 2014).
Applications of Research to Practice
Finally, White school psychologists (i.e., scholars, practi-
tioners, and other consumers of research) must take steps
to disrupt privilege in the application of research to prac-
tice. Notably, efforts to dismantle White privilege must be
ongoing in all prior stages of the research process; if color
evasive methods or approaches steeped in White suprem-
acy are utilized in the first three stages, they will inevitably
impact research applications in the final stage.
White school psychologists must reflect on the ways in
which their worldviews shape their translation of research
to practice. They might ask themselves questions such as
(a) how does my racial positionality and worldview shape
the way I consume and interpret research?, (b) in what
ways might the research or evidence-based practices I aim
to implement be racially coded?, (c) did I (or the research-
ers who developed these assessment or intervention tools)
consider the role of structural racism in shaping youth
outcomes?, (d) are these assessment or intervention tools

12 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
grounded in strength-based, culturally affirming
approaches?, and (e) who will benefit from these practices,
and who will likely be marginalized by them? Ensuring
adequate representation of youth of color in normative
samples and intervention trials alone is insufficient; schol-
ars must implement tools conceptualized and designed to
empower youth of color rather than implementing tools
that have merely been tested on them.
White researchers must be able to scrutinize and cri-
tique their own work as well as demonstrate responsive-
ness to the critiques of others, especially in relation to
issues of race. Moreover, White practitioners and research-
ers must be prepared to call out research-based innova-
tions and products that perpetuate privilege and oppression
in their local and national contexts. This may involve
reaching out to colleagues individually to express concerns
or engaging in public advocacy to facilitate larger policy
change. In addition to their own advocacy, it is critical that
White school psychologists exhibit unwavering support
of their colleagues’ efforts to name and dismantle racism
in research and practice. No White school psychologist
may be exempt from this work, which is essential across
all stages of the research process.
SUMMARY
An ecological frame is essential for understanding the
manifestation of White privilege in school psychology
research. White privilege permeates all stages of the
research process via both macrolevel and microlevel sys-
tems; therefore, it must be explicitly named, addressed,
and dismantled at each of these stages and at each layer of
environmental influence. The action steps and advocacy
recommendations described above are by no means
exhaustive; however, they provide some possible directions
for producers, reviewers, and consumers of research seek-
ing to disrupt White privilege in school psychology schol-
arship. Moving forward, it will be essential for White
researchers to promote accountability and transparency
in their work; consequently, targeted data collection may
be critical. Such data collection may allow for the continual
monitoring of researcher demographics, journal content
and publication trends (e.g., via content analyses), and the
distribution of funding, awards, and other honors. In addi-
tion to these trends, data collection should capture the
feedback, insights, perspectives, and lived experiences of
scholars of color. At the individual level, White scholars
must engage in ongoing personal scrutiny and demon-
strate perseverance in grappling with the unsettling real-
ities of racism and privilege. Ultimately, persistence toward
dismantling oppressive systems in the face of an enduring
and powerful status quo will be critical for enacting mean-
ingful and sustained change.
NOTE
1. We use the term people (school psychologists, scholars,
communities, children, etc.) of color to refer to individuals
from ethnically and/or racially minoritized backgrounds.
The term minoritized refers to “being forced into a group
that is mistreated, faces prejudices, or is discriminated
against because of situations outside of one’s personal
control” (Proctor et al., 2017, p. 1).
ORCID
Sally L. Grapin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8119-3681
Lindsay M. Fallon https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0813-3337
REFERENCES
Adichie, C. N. (2009). The danger of a single story. https://www.
ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_sin-
gle_story/transcript?language=en
Albert Einstein College of Medicine. (2012). Community IRBs
& research review boards: Shaping the future of communi-
ty-engaged research. https://ccphealth.org/2021/02/22/com-
munity-irbs-research-review-boards-shaping-the-fu-
ture-of-community-engaged-research-2/
American Psychological Association (APA). (2017).
Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach to context,
identity, and intersectionality. American Psychological
Association. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultur-
al-guidelines.aspx
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E.,
Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting
standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA
Publications and Communications Board task force report.
The American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.
org/10.1037/amp0000191
Aston, C., & Graves, S. Jr. (2016). Challenges and barriers to
implementing a school-based Afrocentric intervention in
urban schools: A pilot study of the Sisters of Nia cultural
program. School Psychology Forum, 10(2), 165–176.
Baffoe, M., Asimeng-Boahene, L., & Buster, B. (2014). Their
way or no way: “Whiteness” as agent for marginalizing and
silencing minority voices in academic research and publica-
tion. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1),
13–13. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2014.v3n1p13
Besag, F. P. (1981). Social Darwinism, race, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3(1), 55–69.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737003001055
Bonds, A., & Inwood, J. (2016). Beyond White privilege:
Geographies of White supremacy and settler colonialism.
Progress in Human Geography, 40(6), 715–733. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0309132515613166
Bonilla-Silva, E., & Zuberi, T. (2008). Toward a definition of
White logic and White methods. In T. Zuberi & E. Bonilla-
Silva (Eds.), White logic, White methods: Racism and meth-
odology (pp. 3–27). Rowman & Littlefield.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of
human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Burrows, C. J., Huang, J., Wang, S., Kim, H. J., Meyer, G. J.,
Schanze, K., Lee, T. R., Lutkenhaus, J. L., Kaplan, D., Jones,

Conceptualizing and Dismantling White Privilege in School Psychology Research 13
C., Bertozzi, C., Kiessling, L., Mulcahy, M. B., Lindsley, C.
W., Finn, M. G., Blum, J. D., Kamat, P., Choi, W., Snyder, S.,
… Laskin, J. (2020). Confronting racism in chemistry jour-
nals. ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 11(13), 1852–1854. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00377
Cole, M. (2013). Differences and deficits in psychological re-
search in historical perspective: A commentary on the spe-
cial section. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 84–91. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0029623
DuBois, W. E. B. (1935). Black reconstruction in America: An
essay toward a history of the part which Black folk played in
the attempt to reconstruct democracy in America, 1860–1880.
Harcourt Brace and Company.
Eaves, L. E. (2021). Power and the paywall: A Black feminist
reflection on the socio-spatial formations of publishing.
Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional
Geosciences, 118(2), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geo-
forum.2020.04.002
Ferreira, C., Bastille-Rousseau, G., Bennett, A. M., Ellington, E.
H., Terwissen, C., Austin, C., Borlestean, A., Boudreau, M.
R., Chan, K., Forsythe, A., Hossie, T. J., Landolt, K., Longhi,
J., Otis, J.-A., Peers, M. J. L., Rae, J., Seguin, J., Watt, C.,
Wehtje, M., & Murray, D. L. (2016). The evolution of peer
review as a basis for scientific publication: Directional selec-
tion towards a robust discipline? Biological Reviews of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society, 91(3), 597–610. https://doi.
org/10.1111/brv.12185
Gallo, S. A., Schmaling, K. B., Thompson, L. A., & Glisson, S. R.
(2021). Grant review feedback: Appropriateness and use-
fulness. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(2), 18–20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00295-9
Garcia, N., López, N., & Vélez, V. (2018). QuantCrit: Rectifying
quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13613324.2017.1377675
García-Vázquez, E., Reddy, L., Arora, P., Crepeau-Hobson, F.,
Fenning, P., Hatt, C., Hughes, T., Jimerson, S., Malone, C.,
Minke, K., Radliff, K., Raines, T., Song, S., & Strobach, K. V.
(2020). School psychology unified anti-racism statement
and call to action. School Psychology Review, 49(3), 209–211.
http://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020
Ginther, D. K., Schaffer, W. T., Schnell, J., Masimore, B., Liu, F.,
Haak, L. L., & Kington, R. (2011). Race, ethnicity, and NIH
research awards. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6045), 1015–
1019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196783
Gorski, P. C., & Erakat, N. (2019). Racism, Whiteness, and
burnout in antiracism movements: How White racial justice
activists elevate burnout in racial justice activists of color in
the United States. Ethnicities, 19(5), 784–808. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1468796819833871
Graves, S. L.Jr., (2009). Albert Sidney Beckham: The first
African American school psychologist. School Psychology
International, 30(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143034308101847
Graves, S. L., Jr., Herndon-Sobalvarro, A., Nichols, K., Aston,
C., Ryan, A., Blefari, A., Schutte, K., Schachner, A., Vicoria,
L., & Prier, D. (2017). Examining the effectiveness of a cul-
turally adapted social-emotional intervention for African
American males in an urban setting. School Psychology
Quarterly : The Official Journal of the Division of School
Psychology, American Psychological Association, 32(1), 62–
74. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000145
Griffin, K. A., Bennett, J. C., & Harris, J. (2013). Marginalizing
merit?: Gender differences in Black faculty D/discourses on
tenure, advancement, and professional success. The Review
of Higher Education, 36(4), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1353/
rhe.2013.0040
Gutiérrez, R. (2008). Research commentary: A gap-gazing fe-
tish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on
the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 39(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.5951/jre-
sematheduc.39.4.0357
Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review,
106(8), 1707–1791. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787
Helms, J. E. (2017). The challenge of making Whiteness visible:
Reactions to four Whiteness articles. The Counseling Psychologist,
45(5), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017718943
Holland, P. (2008). Causation and race. In T. Zuberi & E.
Bonilla-Silva, (Eds.). White logic, White methods: Racism
and methodology (pp. 93–109). Rowman & Littlefield.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2019.1705162
Jagers, R., Rivas-Drake, D., Borowski, T. (2018). Equity and
social emotional learning: A cultural analysis. CASEL. https://
casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/equity-and-SEL-.pdf
King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and
the miseducation of teachers. The Journal of Negro Education,
60(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295605
Kumashiro, K., Pinar, W., Graue, E., Grant, C. A. R. L., Benham, M.,
Heck, R., Scheurich, J. J., Luke, A., & Luke, C. (2005). Thinking
collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article
publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75(3), 257–285.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.75.3.h317564n18346928
Leonardo, Z. (2004). The color of supremacy: Beyond the
discourse of ‘white privilege. Educational Philosophy
and Theory, 36(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-5812.2004.00057.x
Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., & Borko, H. (2007). NCLB and scien-
tifically-based research: Opportunities lost and found.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022487107299980
Matias, C. E. (2013). Check yo’self before you wreck yo’self and
our kids: Counterstories from culturally responsive white
teachers? to culturally responsive white teachers!.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 68–81.
Mavrogenis, A. F., Quaile, A., & Scarlat, M. M. (2020). The
good, the bad and the rude peer-review. International
Orthopaedics, 44(3), 413–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00264-020-04504-1
Mintrom, M. (2008). Managing the research function of the
university: Pressures and dilemmas. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 30(3), 231–244. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13600800802155028
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma: The Negro problem
and modern democracy (2 vols). Random House.
Neville, H. A., Worthington, R. L., & Spanierman, L. B. (2001).
Race, power, and multicultural counseling psychology:
Understanding White privilege and color-blind racial atti-
tudes. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp.
257–288). Sage Publications, Inc.
Newell, M. L., & Chavez-Korell, S. (2017). Multiculturalism:
An interdisciplinary perspective. In E. C. Lopez, S. G. Nahari,
& S. L. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psy-
chology (pp. 3–17). Routledge.

14 School Psychology Review DOI: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998
Parke, E. C. (2014). Experiments, simulations, and epistemic
privilege. Philosophy of Science, 81(4), 516–536. https://doi.
org/10.1086/677956
Parker, M., Pearson, C., Donald, C., & Fisher, C. B. (2019).
Beyond the Belmont principles: A community-based ap-
proach to developing an indigenous ethics model and cur-
riculum for training health researchers working with
American Indian and Alaska Native communities. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 64(1–2), 9–20. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ajcp.12360
Pickren, W. E. (2009). Liberating history: The context of the
challenge of psychologists of color to American psychology.
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(4), 425–
433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017561
Proctor, S. L., & Truscott, S. D. (2012). Reasons for African
American student attrition from school psychology pro-
grams. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 655–679. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.002
Proctor, S. L., Williams, B., Scherr, T., & Li, K. (2017).
Intersectionality and school psychology: Implications for
practice. Communique, 46(4), 1–19.
Public Religion Research Institute. (2013). American values sur-
vey 2013. https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/
AVS-Topline-FINAL.pdf
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., &
Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological re-
search: Trends of the past and recommendations for the fu-
ture. Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the
Association for Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709
Roberts, S., & Rizzo, M. (2021). The psychology of American
racism. The American Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487. https://
doi.org/10.1037/amp0000642
Schimanski, L. A., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). The evaluation of
scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes:
Past, present, and future. F1000Research, 7(1605), 1605–
1620. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16493.1
Schooley, R. C., Lee, D. L., & Spanierman, L. B. (2019).
Measuring whiteness: A systematic review of instruments
and call to action. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(4), 530–
565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019883261
Schumacher-Martinez, R., & Proctor, S. L. (2020). Untangling
the grip of White privilege in education through consulta-
tion and systems change: Introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
30(3), 251–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2020.
1744447
Settles, I. H., Warner, L. R., Buchanan, N. T., & Jones, M. K.
(2020). Understanding psychology’s resistance to intersec-
tionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion
and invisibility. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 796–813.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12403
Sue, D. W. (2006). The invisible whiteness of being: Whiteness,
white supremacy, white privilege, and racism. In M. G.
Constantine & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Addressing racism:
Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educa-
tional settings (pp. 15–30). John Wiley.
Thompson, C. E., & Neville, H. A. (1999). Racism, mental health,
and mental health practice. The Counseling Psychologist,
27(2), 155–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000099272001
Tuck, E., & Guishard, M. (2013). Uncollapsing ethics: Racialized
sciencism, settler coloniality, and an ethical framework of
decolonial participatory action research. In T. M. Kress, C. S.
Malott, & B. J. Porfilio (Eds.), Challenging status quo re-
trenchment: New directions in critical qualitative research
(pp. 3–27). Information Age Publishing.
Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of
color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139–168. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0012837
Twine, F. W., & Gallagher, C. (2008). The future of Whiteness:
A map of the ‘third wave. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(1),
4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701538836
Walcott, C. M., & Hyson, D. (2018). Results from the NASP 2015
membership survey, part one: Demographics and employment
conditions [Research report]. National Association of School
Psychologists.
Weaver, H. N. (2014). Indigenous struggles for justice. In M.
Reisch (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of social
justice (pp. 111–122). Routledge.
Winston, A. S. (2020). Scientific racism and North American
psychology. In O. Braddick (Ed.), The Oxford research ency-
clopedia of psychology. (pp. 1–6). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.516
Worrell, F. C., Andretta, J. R., Wells, K. E., Cole, J. C., & McKay,
M. T. (2019). Time attitudes and mental well-being, psycho-
logical, and somatic symptomatology in final year high
school students. Current Psychology, 40, 4541–4552. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00386-8.
Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (Eds.). (2008). White logic, White
methods: Racism and methodology. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENTS
Sally L. Grapin, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Psychology
Department at Montclair State University.
Lindsay M. Fallon, PhD is an Associate Professor in School
Psychology at THE University of Massachusetts Boston.