Francis Kaklauskas PsyD
Outside In: The Group Psychologists in Today’s Complex Cultural Contexts
The article is adapted from Francis Kaklauskas’s Society for Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy Presidential Speech at the American Psychological Association Conference on August 6, 2024, in Seattle, WA. Stories and characters are amalgamations and do not represent any specific individuals or occurrences.
Being a group psychologist has always been a challenging and less-traveled path. Our overarching field of psychology has battled uninformed skepticism related to the validity of our scientific findings and the efficiency of our clinical work (Derksen & Field, 2022; Lilienfeld, 2012). The journey to acceptance has also been an uphill climb in our group psychology specialty. Despite repeated groundbreaking studies, the lay public is still unfamiliar with seminal work related to conformity, obedience, group decision-making, and more. Recently, many group psychologists have focused on the dynamics of bias, oppression, group affiliation, and identity that are barely known outside our field (Roberts, et al., 2020). In the clinical arena, many clinicians and clients try to avoid group psychotherapy, which can be falsely understood as a lesser form of treatment. The subgroup of group psychology is smaller than many other psychology specialties.
Group psychologists may be wired differently as we seek to understand the bulkier complexity of a large environmental gestalt. We are “we” people in a culture that increasingly has become “I” and “you” people. We prioritize ecological influences, cultures, and processes, which are of tertiary importance in other traditions. This essay explores some of the possible cultural dynamics that may impact our work and our global lived experience as a group psychologist in these complex cultural contexts.
Achievement and Competition
For some, the primary rubric is no longer the content of one’s character but rather the impressiveness of one’s vitae. At a recent gathering of colleagues, someone asked if any of us were willing to give one of their students a pep talk. Someone responded, “I will not do anything unless it goes on my vita.” As I pondered where I stood on this sentiment, I noticed others nodding in agreement.
At first, I saw this statement as a representation of individual values, but then I examined it from the group psychologist’s lens that much of our experience and behavior results from social and environmental forces. After all, one of our field’s fundamental principles is that behavior is impacted by group and cultural norms and contexts. In our embedded American neo-liberal capitalist culture, we are often pushed towards overwork and self-promotion (Han, 2015). We are increasingly competing for the limited resources of our field. A university may hire just one new professor, or a clinic may seek only two new therapists. In the consulting arena, we need to have a biography that stands out or above others to get the contract. As group therapists, how can we present our work and ourselves in a manner that will draw clients?
While altruism and volunteerism remain positive ideals with well-documented impacts and personal benefits (Xiao, et al., 2021; Enelamah & Tran, 2020), balancing generosity with individual responsibilities and life stressors remains challenging, particularly for mid-career professionals (Chambré, 2020). Even with altruistic intentions to lead a project, program, or organization, we still compete against other candidates. This dynamic may create an unhealthy self-focus of continually improving ourselves, trying to look positive to others, and experiencing others as a source of competition (Han, 2017, 2021). We have moved from Foucault’s disciplinary society of working hard to avoid trouble to a self-achievement society. The neo-liberal cultural myth suggests that anything is possible, and the only thing holding us back from accomplishments is our own shortcomings. (Monbiot & Hutchison, 2024; McCloskey & Mingardi, 2020). To succeed, we become tyrants to ourselves, pushing ourselves harder, competing, and burning out.
Recently, a couple I am friends with invited me to an Olympics watch party. The presented athletes’ biographies and even the commercials reflected this success myth (Han, 2015). Both individuals in the couple were serious world-class athletes in their youth. One had a significant injury several years before the Olympic trials and was able to recover and make the Olympic team. The other partner suffered an extensive injury two months before the trials. Their recovery was not smooth or seamless, and despite rigorous effort, they never returned to their previous performance level. At the party, people repeatedly asked, almost in disbelief, why their journeys ended so differently. Despite wishes, fantasies, or scripted cultural fables, not everyone gets what they want or even what they work hard to achieve. Most do not. However, their disparate outcomes appeared to create discomfort and tension in others. The partners have come to terms with how their athletic careers differed. They seem to live beyond the dyadic heuristic that only centralizes their athletic history of succeeding or failing, effort or sloth, fairness or injustice. and good fortune or bad luck.
This cultural myth is all around us. We are exposed to stories of others who somehow overcame obstacles to achieve what is presented as a wonderful life. We are inundated with the exceptions of the unhoused individuals who became rich or the lower-class child of a single parent who became a successful politician. The message is that our shortcomings hold us back, as opposed to the complex interplay with environmental factors, including oppression and lack of privileges. If we do not win, then we lose. Some may die trying to win, or at least limit the breadth of life and relationships trying to get the next medal in our field.
Burnout
I am sure many of us push ourselves beyond reasonable limits from internal and external pressures (Han, 2015). In a recent group, a new member reported that they never work on the weekends or religious holidays. The new members thought this was an innocuous statement as they introduced themselves, but it stirred the group into a storm of strong feelings. On one side, there was some support and appreciation of their boundaries and ability to have a lifestyle that compartmentalizes work. Others reported envy, even approaching disgust towards the other so different than themselves. Some members responded defensively and explained that their lives could never be similar as they have children, aging parents, and significant financial responsibilities to others. Another member mocked the new member’s employment as a shift pharmacist in an elder care facility as similar to meaningless factory piecemeal work. I had to step in strongly to demand that projections shift into reflections. Eventually, the members could examine their reactions, desire for less activity, and the internal and external stressors of their current lives in our systemic structures.
Burnout rates continue to increase (Antonsdottir, et al., 2022). While self-care has become a popular notion, personal responsibilities and societal pressures often leave it as an idea (Skovholt & Trotter-Mathison, 2014).Most of us have bills to pay, vitae to build, others who need our care, and the many tasks of daily living. For some, self-care becomes another task they cannot accomplish. Most remedies for burnout take time, energy, and some financial security. Regarding burnout in specific professions, research often suggests small environmental workplace changes but overlooks larger sociocultural influences (Edú-Valsania et al, 2022).
Near the end of Covid, I was excited to be invited to join a voluntary scholarly project with colleagues I admired. I could not wait to get to know them better. We all entered the initial Zoom room simultaneously at the exact top of the hour. The attendees started to greet each other, but the leader interrupted and set out the meeting schedule, tasks, and goals for our meetings.
About halfway through the meeting, the leader requested that we share ideas about the scope of one section of the project. One member suggested that we all have dinner at an upcoming conference that, hopefully, many of us would attend in person. The leader interrupted and firmly stated, “This meeting is not for making social plans.”
While I wanted to second the idea of dinner, the moment felt charged, and like all the others, I stayed quiet. After about 15 seconds, the leader directed us back to the discussion. This was a poignant moment when norms and visions for our work-team functioning were getting established. I believe that others in the meeting felt that team bonding and relationships would be enjoyable and could increase productivity and work quality (Oyefusi, 2022; García-Buades et al., 2020). The meeting went forward, covered the agenda, and we had many tasks to complete before the next meeting. The meeting was fearsomely efficient, but I had lost some enthusiasm I initially brought to the project.
As I embarked on my assigned tasks, I found myself caught. On the one hand, I was in Foucault’s disciplinary society and wanted to work hard to avoid trouble, punishment, or looking poorly in front of others. On the other hand, I was in Han’s achievement society mindset. I wanted to work as hard as possible on the project to be affiliated with the project and my esteemed colleagues. Somehow, the goal of helping the field move forward felt more distant. Over time, the project experienced ever-increasing administrative pressures and task creep; the workload increased beyond what I ever expected. It was interfering with essential relationships and my other work. I decided to step away from the project to better balance the many aspects of my life.
I have heard similar dynamics from colleagues in institutions, clinics, and organizations. The message is focused on achievement and task completion first, or perhaps singularly. I particularly see some early career colleagues unreasonably push themselves. When I see others with more boundaries, all the cultural cliches that promote workaholism pop into my mind but do not escape my lips. I worry the values our field propagates of connecting, relaxing, mutuality, and enjoyment are increasingly seen as passé ideals from a historical time of less efficiency. Even work/life balance can be seen as an ideal we must perfectly achieve. We live within this dialectic in search of a liberating synthesis. We are continually sorting through what we should do, what others want from us, and which of our desires are allowed, realistic, worth the sacrifices, and beneficial.
Polarization and Tribalism
For over a hundred years, social critics, artists, and philosophers warned that our modernist paradigm would shift cultural relational norms and our internal views of self and others (Froges, 2023; Goldberg, 2020,; Buchanan, 2020). The goal of the Enlightenment era was to progressively document and distribute truth. We were well on our way towards knowing everything, and the challenge was to see how fast we could do it. Science can have limited patience and distaste for differences and plurality. Certainty, not curiosity and humility, is the eventual final destination.
In place of the laws from previously oppressive yet stabilizing religious doctrines and order, new tribal groupings would arise with an impermeability in people’s myopic affiliations. The new certainty, feelings of belonging, and meaning provided by new tribalism gave rise to dismissive othering of difference (Forges, 2024; Freeman, 2020: Fukuyama, 2018). Of course, tribal battles around differing ideologies and identity affiliations have contributed to destructive, oppressive, and inhumane behavior as long as recorded history and continue with new waves of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and other populist belief structures. Group affiliation may provide some relief from the increasing alienation and loneliness generated initially by the Industrial Revolution, but these feelings have reemerged in our contemporary culture. Empathy and compassion have decreased in our culture for decades; some research suggests that empathy has become increasingly limited to those in our own identity groups (Mezzenzana, & Peluso, 2023; Miyazono & Inarimori, 2021). The counterbalance is that group affiliations, collective ideologies, and shared superordinate purpose across groups have been influential in promoting social change toward increased justice when used thoughtfully.
While I would love to think that dismissive othering happens only in larger sociopolitical contexts, our field may not be above such primitive thinking and behavior. Debates that some identify as wars have always been in our field. New paradigms and research have replaced many previous dogmas that contributed to injustice and oppression, but not without a fight (e.i. eugenics, criminalization of mental illness).
Even in our field, while we are all group psychologists, we are pressured to find our groups and simplify our identities. Are we researchers, professors, consultants, or clinicians? What is our area of focus or theoretical view? From these quick labels, we can place each other in various boxes. Identify a friend or a foe. Are you with us or against us? In our field, as in the larger culture, such labeling simplifies our complexity, potentially overly determining the possibilities of our connections, new learnings, and collaboration. We are pushed to have our 150-word biography and maybe even an elevator speech. How can we present with the perfect balance of not being too far away from norms but also somehow exceptional or unique?
In our culture and in our field, there has been an essential and influential invitation to diversity and differences (Gonzalez & Mutua, 2022; Leong, 2021). The long history of oppression towards groups and individuals with marginalized identities is continuing to be recognized. In the social justice and diversity work, ideas and approaches are dynamic and moving quickly. Guidance and ideologies emerge and get critiqued in a dialectic towards a new synthesis. A colleague shared that they aren’t sure if their ideas are behind the times or on the cutting edge.
Given that personal and sociocultural damage can be perpetuated, having a diverse range of perspectives is illuminating but can create uncertainty. In addition to the dominant cultural pushback towards social justice ideas, there are strong disagreements even within social justice psychology. Perhaps this is positive. If a singular view becomes dominant and solidified, other essential ideas may be missed, and our discoveries and understandings will stagnate. Our culture continues to change rapidly, and thus, so must our conversations, ideas, and practices. Ideally, diversity has diversity but also avoids mean and destructive actions against specific demographic identity groups. Group psychology remains at the forefront of studying dialogue and creating understanding across differences (Miles & Shinew, 2022; Kaklauskas & Nettles, 2019).
Current diversity initiatives risk getting commercialized in our capitalist backdrop. (Saha & Van Lente, 2022; Leong, 2021). While advertising agencies continue to include more diverse content, in actuality, demographic diversity in advertising and marketing leadership continues to decline (Collins, 2023)). My colleagues with oppressed identities report that they are repeatedly asked to join organizations that do not feel committed to diversity and they feel potentially exploited as a way to make the organization look better and increase their market value. Avoiding stereotyping or reducing identity to a handful of cliché representations is a specific challenge for us as individuals and as a collective. One colleague shared that diversity initiatives are often only make up on a pig or worse. One can bring their culture and uniqueness to this field, but maybe only in a particular manner. The reality of the complex intertwining cultures of most United States citizens may be missed by the push towards reducing us into singular demographic categories.
I think of a group member who described these pressures. He never felt he fit purely enough into the pre-defined cultural and demographic categories. As a Chilian and Japanese biracial man who immigrated as a child, he does not feel like he fits perfectly into any demographic. Beyond certain phrases, he only speaks English, which is what his parents pushed upon him. There is not a specific tribe for him as a gay man, an agnostic Christian, a psychologist, a lover of skiing, goth music, and border collies. In his agency employment, the administrators constantly pressured him to work with the clinic’s clients from oppressed identities, but his expertise and passion is in mindfulness. He is annoyed with the repeated stereotypical cultural transferences towards him that are different depending on the setting and what parts of his identity he is disclosing. He sometimes felt disloyal toward his various identity affiliation groups as he holds some different, and even contradictory, values and norms. He has mixed feelings about his advanced ability to code-switch. While individuals and the culture may fight against stereotypes, he reported that he feels competing conformity pressures that started with his parent’s guidance but are reinforced by our current culture.
In trying to find a professional home, he eventually built a private practice he enjoys. However, even within his specialty of mindfulness, his practice of using process groups to increase awareness and relationship skills is dismissed by some of his other mindfulness colleagues, who utilized the more manualized symptom-reduction approaches. He feels that his journey is to remain as authentic as possible to the complexity that he brings to his work, even if others struggle with some of the paradoxes.
Recently, in the group, he acknowledged his unique and complex life journey and continuing challenges. Most days he feels like he has to explain or defend himself. He has been waiting and working towards the cliché happily ever after moment, but now knows it may never come. Over the years, the group has been a robust container for exorcising many gaslighting remarks and messages. He repeatedly reported feeling like he was “a part of “ but also “apart from” the group. He feels like he is a tribe of one and is increasingly okay with that idea. He does enjoy others in the variety of his personal and professional circles. While his life has been exceptionally atypical, the other group members have resonated with the tension of wanting to be oneself and fit in more fully in our contemporary cultural contexts.
Intersectionality and Postmodernism
Kimberley Crenshaw’s (1991) intersectionality project has significantly impacted the law, public policy, and our field (Moradi et al., 2020). Intersectionality invites us to re-examine our metanarratives and historic demographic labels (Settles, et al., 2020). While structuralist categories are necessary to conduct science and make sociopolitical changes, we must explore the usefulness and limitations of the categories we employ.
Early in my career, I worked in community mental health, where the DSM diagnosis guided the primary understanding of my clients and the resultant treatment. At night, I led groups through the criminal justice system that had different taxonomies, including potential lethality, the severity of addiction, and recidivism risks. I also led a group of graduate students in the Naropa Buddhist Psychology program, where the goals focused on increasing awareness of the waves of mental processes, building more empathy, and developing critical thinking skills. If any of these group members were placed in a different system, they would be understood and engaged with in markedly different ways. No person is as simple as a DSM diagnosis or a previous criminal record or their gender, race, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, immigration status, ability, and onwards. Group psychology provides the needed contextual perspective for understanding others within systemic structures.
We primarily understand the world through language and it categories. but the language of our psychological and cultural demographic categories is limited (Demuro, & Gurney, 2021; Wittgenstein, 1953). Language was not created in a laboratory; words and labels developed haphazardly without a grand plan. Language is living and shifts to cultural influences and emerging perspectives. Often, individuals and groups with the most power and influence have impacted our demographic labeling and sociocultural structures (Kramsch, 2020). The dedicated efforts within our field to continue updating our conceptualization and the language we use are admirable. Still, we may always remain a step behind in a dynamic world and culture that is changing.
We have struggled to move beyond Plato’s world of forms and still seek the definitive and ideal. For millennia, we have wrestled with the ideas of essentialism, presence, and absence (Earle, 2021). Of course, applying or dismissing these abstract ideas is easier with triangles than with concepts of psychological, political theory, or the experience of identity. Depending upon what psychological categories we use and how closely our subjects align with these essentialist ideals may determine who will be in a research study and what type of treatment may be best.
Considerations and expansion of our theories, categories, and language may help us deepen our understanding of others and the world, but it has also come with challenges. While we examine our existing theories and deconstruct previous metanarratives, the number of potential and emerging perspectives continues to increase. We are experiencing wave after wave of continual data. It is an onslaught. It is impossible to become familiar with, albeit gain mastery of, all the ideas related to our field. Trying to learn it all will lead to burnout, and leaving some perspectives out may lead to inaccuracy and potential harm. We live in a postmodern condition of competing narratives and subjectivities and do not know who to trust.
Yet, we must persist in doing our best in our work. This is an unanswerable dilemma: When do we know enough and also know we are limited? This is a paradox in our contemporary profession. Can we live in the tension without extreme measures, resorting to absolute thinking and polarization?
Recently, a dissertation student told me they are feeling overwhelmed. They said they did a YouTube search on how to deal with overwhelm and reported being overwhelmed by the thousands of videos and innumerable strategies. The feelings they described may even be familiar to seasoned professionals. They reported fearing they were an imposter, were not good enough, and wanted to give up. They were losing interest and inspiration as they recognized the complex inexactness of their topic. They reported feeling like they know but also do not know. A part of them wanted to quit, but despite some difficult feelings, a more significant part wanted to keep going.
Future
When I was a child, the predictions of the future had robots doing all our housework, computers doing all our research, and a glitch-free life. Technology would improve our future and give everyone more time to relax, connect, and follow their passion. However, it may not have turned out this way.
Technology has changed how we work and has become a topic of our work. As teachers, we attempt to understand how to work best in these new formats., As clinicians, we try to help our clients have a positive and non-destructive relationship with technology. Technology has launched a new central variable into our work and our world. We are curious if our previous theories and findings remain applicable in these current times.
With these new technology tools, new creative perspectives could flourish. However, one concern is that we are increasingly recycling the old instead of the new. While Fukuyama pondered the end of creativity around political systems, Fisher (2014) suggested that we live in a period of cultural nostalgia. We like reruns and spinoffs and avoid the radical differences. Current popular movies are often remakes and sequels. Other art forms, such as music, may only combine past approaches in new ways. When you do an internet search or use AI, you get what has been and not what is yet to be. Since I entered the field, countless others have quipped, “old wine in new models.”
Some see the combination of existing theories as detrimental. Others see integration as an essential step forward. We can combine mindfulness with CBT, psychoanalysis with social justice, and neuroscience with group behavior studies. Beyond the combinations, I find my students studying interesting topics I have never pondered; however, given the culture, they worry that if their dissertation is qualitative and does not use the gold standard of double-blind, randomly assigned methodology, will they ever get published or be hired as a professor? They report hearing messages that they should color within the lines and be unique only within a circle of homogeneity. However, luckily, the pressure of conformity does not always deter everyone.
If I were not in the field, I would likely have an idealized fantasy of group psychologist lives. They would be paid to contemplate social factors impacting our world, regularly have exciting conversations with colleagues, have great close relationships, and have financial security. I may believe that they acquire enough knowledge or wisdom that enable them to create a good life for themselves beyond challenging contextual factors. Surely, some group psychologists live that way, but it is not an easy time in our cultural context for most of us. Managing external and internal expectations, tribalism and polarization, competing metanarratives, service to others we care for, and financial survival can physically and emotionally overextend us. Even beyond our field, our cultural backdrop includes ongoing wars, a climate crisis, and daily accounts of injustice. Many around us often feel confusion, alienation, and despair but lean into hope the best they can.
The predetermined cultural script for such an article is that I would end by providing insights, behavioral recommendations, and guaranteeing their success. However, this minimizes the complexity of our time and oversimplifies each person’s uniqueness, personal and cultural histories, and complex contexts. We may have moved past the time of nomothetical recommendations because if we look closely, each of us must forge our ideographic paths. I hope that by considering some of these potential dynamics surrounding us, we can engage ourselves, others, and the world with more choices and celebrate our imperfect efforts to benefit others.
Humanity is waiting for something other from us than such an imitation, which would be almost an obscene caricature.
Franz Fanon
References
Antonsdottir, I., Rushton, C. H., Nelson, K. E., Heinze, K. E., Swoboda, S. M., & Hanson, G. C. (2022). Burnout and moral resilience in interdisciplinary healthcare professionals. Journal of clinical nursing, 31(1-2), 196-208.
Blaine, B. E., & Brenchley, K. J. M. (2020). Understanding the psychology of diversity. SAGE publications.
Buchanan, A. (2020). Our moral fate: Evolution and the escape from tribalism. MIT press.
Chambré, S. M. (2020). Has volunteering changed in the United States? Trends, styles, and motivations in historical perspective. Social Service Review, 94(2), 373-421.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.
Demuro, E., & Gurney, L. (2021). Languages/languaging as world-making: the ontological bases of language. Language Sciences, 83, 101307.
Derksen, M., & Field, S. (2022). The tone debate: Knowledge, self, and social order. Review of general psychology, 26(2), 172-183.
Earlie, P. (2021). Derrida and the Legacy of Psychoanalysis. Oxford University Press.
Edú-Valsania, S., Laguía, A., & Moriano, J. A. (2022). Burnout: A review of theory and measurement. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(3), 1780.
Enelamah, N. V., & Tran, T. (2020). Dimensions of altruism behaviors among Am Enelamah, N. V., & Tran, T. (2020). Dimensions of altruism behaviors among Americans in the general social survey. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(2), 213-227.
Fisher, M. (2014). Ghosts of my life: Writings on depression, hauntology and lost futures. John Hunt Publishing.
Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2024). The Tribal Mind and the Psychology of Collectivism. Taylor & Francis.
Forgas, J. P. (2023). The politics of insecurity: How uncertainty promotes populism and tribalism. In The Psychology of Insecurity: Seeking Certainty Where None Can Be Found, (eds. J. P. Forgas, W. D. Crano, & K Fielder), pp. 307-328). Routledge.
Freeman, M. (2020). Theories of ethnicity, tribalism and nationalism. In Ethnic Conflict, Tribal Politics (pp. 15-33). Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (2021). After the end of history: conversations with Francis Fukuyama. Georgetown University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
García-Buades, M. E., Peiró, J. M., Montañez-Juan, M. I., Kozusznik, M. W., & Ortiz-Bonnín, S. (2020). Happy-productive teams and work units: A systematic review of the ‘happy-productive worker thesis’. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(1), 69.
Goldberg, J. (2020). Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Nationalism, and Socialism Is Destroying American Democracy. Forum Books.
Gonzalez, C., & Mutua, A. (2022). Mapping racial capitalism: Implications for law. Journal of Law and Political Economy, 2(2).
Han, B. C. (2015). The burnout society. Stanford University Press.
Han, B. C. (2017). The agony of eros (Vol. 1). MIT Press.
Han, B. C. (2021). Capitalism and the death drive. John Wiley & Sons.
Kaklauskas F. J. & Nettles R. (2019). Towards multicultural and diversity proficiency. In F. J. Kaklauskas, & L. S. (Eds.) Core principles of group psychotherapy: A training manual for theory, research, and practice. (pp. 35-54). Allyn & Francis: New York.
Kramsch, C. (2020). Language as symbolic power. Cambridge University Press.
Leong, N. (2021). Identity capitalists: The powerful insiders who exploit diversity to maintain inequality. Stanford University Press.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67(2), 111.
McCloskey, D. N., & Mingardi, A. (2020). The myth of the entrepreneurial state. American Institute for Economic Research.
Mezzenzana, F., & Peluso, D. (2023). Introduction: Conversations on Empathy–Interdisciplinary perspectives on empathy, imagination and othering. In Conversations on empathy (eds. F. Mezzenzana, & D. Peluso). 1-24. Routledge.
Miles, J. R., & Shinew, H. J. (2022). A breakdown (and rebuilding) of intergroup dialogue. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 26(3), 274.
Miyazono, K., & Inarimori, K. (2021). Empathy, altruism, and group identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 749315.
Monbiot, G., & Hutchison, P. (2024). Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism. Penguin.
Moradi, B., Parent, M. C., Weis, A. S., Ouch, S., & Broad, K. L. (2020). Mapping the travels of intersectionality scholarship: A citation network analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(2), 151-169.
Oyefusi, F. (2022). Team and group dynamics in organizations: Effect on productivity and performance. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 10(1), 111-122.
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on psychological science, 15(6), 1295-1309.
Saha, A., & Van Lente, S. (2022). Diversity, media and racial capitalism: a case study on publishing. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(16), 216-236.
Settles, I. H., Warner, L. R., Buchanan, N. T., & Jones, M. K. (2020). Understanding psychology’s resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 796-813.
Skovholt, T. M., & Trotter-Mathison, M. (2014). The resilient practitioner: Burnout prevention and self-care strategies for counselors, therapists, teachers, and health professionals. Routledge.
van de Ven, B. (2021). The dawn of a new day: A psychoanalytic reading of capitalist realism.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958). Philosophical Investigation. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: MacMillan
Xiao, Y., Wong, K., Cheng, Q., & Yip, P. S. (2021). Understanding the better than average effect on
.altruism. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562846.