1. Who are Tukufu Zuberi and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva? How and why are they invalidated/devalued (i.e. not seen as credible/reliable) as researchers? 2. What do you think the authors mean by “white...

1. Who are Tukufu Zuberi and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva? How and why are they invalidated/devalued (i.e. not seen as credible/reliable) as researchers? 2. What do you think the authors mean by “white logic” and “white methods”? 3. How has white logic and/or white methods shaped /influenced how you think about psychological/social science research? 4. Psychologists, social scientists, researchers, etc. are human; therefore are also susceptible to letting their beliefs, assumptions, and values influence their research and work (known as bias). As a result, psychology is often regarded as "unscientific" because of the risk of subjectivity (in other words it is not neutral and objective like many of the other physical/natural sciences claim to be). How social phenomena are interpreted and perceived vary greatly from person to person, situation, to situation, and culture to culture; thus, many from the science/research community feel that in order to be a legitimate science, social scientists/psychologists must uncover universal human processes/trends/patterns/truths (findings that are generalizable and applicable to the majority). The inherent messiness is the challenge that each psychologist/social scientist faces in their research. The question for you is: Should we dismiss/disregard such science/social science research because it has its subjective side? Why or why not? Psychological phenomena are often culturally or situationally bound - is this evidence of lack of scientific rigor or the acknowledgement of the power of cultures and situations to influence how we perceive and respond to our social environments? What are your thoughts? 5. The Davidson et al. (2020) text discusses Indigenizing research in the context of higher education, but the underlying themes and main ideas also apply/relate to psychological research as well (in fact, we do find a great deal of overlap in higher ed/psychology scholarship). What are your thoughts about this particular reading? What do you identify as the major tenets/principles of this work? What are the main points you think the authors are trying to convey/illustrate/get across? 6. (This question is the same for both sets, so you only need to answer this once): Deficit thinking is pervasive in psychological research/literature and practice (and across other disciplines/fields). Such approaches focus on the perceived weaknesses of individuals or groups, such that the individuals or groups become viewed as “the problem.” This is even reflected in the "problem statement" of many research studies. To combat/counteract/resist this frame of mind, many researchers and scholars have turned toward strengths-based models to guide their research, such as Yosso's (2005) "Community Cultural Wealth" model, Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenberg (1992), and Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti's (2005) "Funds of Knowledge". What are your thoughts about deficit vs. strengths/asset based research? What are your thoughts about these particular models and their usefulness in the context of psychological research?