International Journal of Emerging Issues of Social Science, Arts, and Humanities
Vol. 2 No. 1; December 2023; Page: 79-88
Analyzing Dominance: Revealing the Interplay of Power and Knowledge in the Field of Social Psychology Beyond Traditional Narratives
Pan Chunqiu1*, Balan A/L Rathakrishnan2
1&2Faculty of Social Science, Arts & Humanities, Lincoln University College, Malaysia
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: panchunqiu@outlook.com
ABSTRACT
This study provides an examination of the dynamic relationship between power and knowledge within the realm of social psychology, surpassing conventional narratives. The field of social psychology has historically been shaped by prevailing narratives that serve to uphold and perpetuate established power dynamics. This study adopts a critical standpoint, interrogating the mechanisms through which power influences the generation of knowledge as well as the formulation of theories. This study aims to enhance this study’s comprehension of power and knowledge in the field of social psychology by engaging in the deconstruction of conventional narratives. This study employs a multidimensional approach to examine the diverse manifestations of power within the field, encompassing societal power structures, organisational dynamics, and personal viewpoints. Through the process of interrogating prevailing discourses and exploring alternative perspectives, this research uncovers latent power dynamics that influence the formulation of research inquiries, the selection of methodologies, and the interpretation of findings. Through the incorporation of a wide range of voices and perspectives, it becomes possible to cultivate a more comprehensive comprehension of power dynamics and generate knowledge that is equitable and fair in its social implications. This study enhances the author’s understanding of the dynamic relationship between power and knowledge within the field of social psychology, thereby enabling a transformative perspective on the examination of human behaviour and society.
Keywords: Social Psychology; Power and Knowledge; Conventional Narratives
Background
The intricate relationship between knowledge and power has become widely acknowledged as a fundamental area of inquiry within the field of social psychology. However, it is important to acknowledge that traditional narratives in the discipline have often overlooked or perpetuated existing power dynamics, thus limiting the author’s understanding of the complex factors involved. As stated by Alam, Mohanty & Alam (2020), the main aim of this study is to investigate the complex relationship between power and knowledge throughout the domain of social psychology. The objective of this study is to surpass conventional narratives through the adoption of a critical perspective. Throughout history, the field of social psychology has been shaped by prevailing narratives that prioritize specific perspectives while marginalizing others, thereby perpetuating existing power imbalances. As per the view of Anderson & Lemken, (2023), narratives play a significant role in influencing not just the selection of research questions and methodologies, but also the interpretation and communication of research findings. Through a critical examination of these narratives, an exploration of concealed power dynamics can be undertaken, leading to a more comprehensive comprehension of the functioning of power in the formation of knowledge.
As commented in the works of Biresselioglu et al., (2020), these dimensions encompass societal power structures, organizational dynamics, and individual points of view. Through critical examination of the presumptions and prejudices inherent in conventional narratives, this objective is to expand the comprehension of power and knowledge, while also shedding light on alternative viewpoints that contest prevailing paradigms. Through the examination of power dynamics and the acquisition of knowledge within the field of social psychology, this study aims to enhance the comprehension of human conduct and social interactions in a manner that is all-encompassing and conducive to change. Through the incorporation of a wide range of voices and perspectives, it is possible to establish a discipline that is characterized by fairness and social justice, thereby effectively addressing disparities in power and fostering substantial transformations (Savage, 2021). The primary aim of this research is to conduct a thorough examination of the dynamics of dominance within the realm of social psychology, with a specific emphasis on the intricate relationship between power structures and existing knowledge paradigms. This study aims to elucidate the impact of traditional narratives on research, emphasizing the potential for enhanced inclusivity and a deeper comprehension of power relations.
Research Question
How has the historical development of social psychology contributed to the establishment of dominant narratives within the field, and what are the key elements of these narratives?
What role does power play in shaping the dominant paradigms, theories, and methodologies within the field of social psychology, and how has this influenced the direction of research?
How have issues of diversity, inclusivity, and equity been addressed (or not) within the traditional narratives of social psychology, and what consequences have these narratives had on the field's development?
To what extent do institutional structures, such as academic departments and funding agencies, contribute to the maintenance of dominant knowledge paradigms within social psychology?
Can we identify instances of resistance or subversion against dominant narratives in social psychology, and what strategies have scholars used to challenge established power structures?
How have recent advances in interdisciplinary approaches, including critical and feminist perspectives, impacted the study of dominance and power dynamics within social psychology?
What are the ethical implications of perpetuating or challenging dominant narratives in social psychology, and how do these considerations affect research practices and outcomes?
In what ways can the field of social psychology evolve to promote more inclusive, nuanced, and reflective perspectives on power and knowledge, and what would be the potential benefits of such an evolution?
Literature Review
The relationship between power and knowledge has received considerable scholarly attention in the field of social psychology due to the recognition of the pivotal role that power dynamics play in influencing the construction of knowledge and the development of theories. As per the opinion of Boyd & Schwartz (2021), the conventional narratives prevalent in the field have frequently disregarded or perpetuated established power dynamics, thereby constraining comprehension of the intricate dynamics at play. This literature review critically analyzes the primary findings derived from prior research endeavors that have investigated the intricate interplay between power dynamics and knowledge acquisition within the realm of social psychology.
Figure 1: Various Dimensions of Power Dynamics in Social Psychology
(Sourced Haan & Norman, 2019)
Additionally, it underscores the imperative to transcend conventional narratives to advance scholarly understanding in this field. As mentioned by de Haan & Norman, (2020), the initial investigations in the field of social psychology primarily concentrated on comprehending individual behaviour along with cognitive processes, with limited consideration given to the wider societal alongside power dynamics that influence these phenomena. Nevertheless, it has been contended by scholars of a critical perspective that power is certainly not a value-neutral entity, but rather a pivotal factor that shapes social interactions and the generation of knowledge. Foucault's theoretical framework regarding the power-knowledge nexus underscores the notion that power is wielded through the mechanisms of institutions and discourses, thereby influencing the construction of accepted knowledge while simultaneously marginalizing dissenting viewpoints (Skubikowski, Wright & Graf 2023).
Researchers have endeavored to analyze and dismantle conventional narratives in the field of social psychology by drawing upon contemporary and critical theories. As commented in the works by Doucet (2019), these critiques highlight the significance of the societal creation of knowledge and the impact of power in shaping research inquiries, methodologies, and interpretations. Scholars endeavor to uncover the concealed power dynamics that influence the field by critically examining the presumptions and biases inherent in conventional narratives. Numerous scholarly investigations have been conducted to explore the impact of structures of power on research within the field of social psychology. Research has demonstrated the influence of dominant ideologies and social power imbalances on the scope and orientation of academic studies (Al-Tammemi et al., 2022; Mohammed et al., 2022; Mohammed et al., 2023). Research that centers on marginalized groups and other points of view has frequently been marginalized or disregarded within the field of mainstream social psychology. The perpetuation of this exclusionary practice serves to reinforce existing power imbalances and restricts the breadth of the author’s comprehension regarding diverse experiences.
The relationship between power and knowledge is significantly influenced by institutional dynamics. According to Escayg (2019), the interplay between power and knowledge has been a prominent focal point in the realm of social psychology for an extended period. Conventional narratives have exerted significant influence in molding the nature of this association, frequently concealing the fundamental institutional mechanisms that sustain specific power hierarchies. The present literature review aims to examine the important topics and scholarly works pertaining to the intricate interaction between power and knowledge in the domain of social psychology, with a particular focus on the impact of institutional dynamics on this interplay. The discipline of social psychology has undergone significant historical evolution, characterized by the creation of influential narratives that have played a pivotal role in shaping its theoretical frameworks and research goals. The initial ideas, namely behaviorism and psychoanalysis, were fundamentally influenced by the prevailing power dynamics of their respective eras. The review elucidates the enduring effects of these historical impacts on current scholarly endeavors and the generation of knowledge (Ramasubramanian & Banjo, 2020).
The concentration of power within a restricted set of scientists and organizations has frequently been observed in dominant paradigms within the field of social psychology. This section critically analyzes the ways in which these paradigms have established the parameters of the discipline, thereby marginalised other viewpoints and perpetuated prevailing power structures. The generation and distribution of knowledge within the field of social psychology are significantly influenced by institutional structures, such as academic departments, research funding bodies, and publication outlets. The literature review examines the ways in which these dynamics can either reinforce or contest established power disparities, as well as their impact on the selection of research inquiries and the utilization of research methods (Savage, 2021). Certain scientists and initiatives within the field of social psychology have exhibited a deliberate resistance to prevailing narratives, with the aim of dismantling established power dynamics. This section examines cases of resistance and subversion, emphasizing the tactics utilized by researchers to contest dominant knowledge paradigms and expand the range of investigation.
In contemporary social psychology, there has been a notable trend towards the use of multidisciplinary methodologies, that encompass critical and feminist viewpoints. These methodologies provide new perspectives for analyzing the dynamic relationship between power and knowledge. The present literature review investigates the extent to which multidisciplinary involvement has contributed to the advancement of knowledge in the realm of dominance. The ethical considerations pertaining to the perpetuation or contestation of hegemonic narratives are of utmost importance. This paper examines the ethical ramifications associated with power disparities in the production of knowledge, encompassing concerns pertaining to inclusion, representation, and the adoption of responsible research methodologies.
This literature analysis highlights the necessity of a social psychology that is more comprehensive and introspective, recognizing the significant interconnectedness between power dynamics and the construction of knowledge. The passage concludes by emphasizing the possible advantages of adopting a range of perspectives and reassessing institutional frameworks to cultivate a more equitable and analytically rigorous comprehension of dominance within the discipline.
Figure 2: The existence of power dynamics within academic institutions
(Source: Júnior et al., 2023)
The careers and chances accessible to researchers are further perpetuated by power dynamics present within academic institutions, thereby contributing to ongoing imbalances. According to Júnior et al., (2023), the knowledge generated within the arena of social psychology is also influenced by the individual viewpoints and positionalities of researchers. Researchers inevitably bring their own subjective experiences, principles, and convictions into the investigation process, thereby influencing the formulation of research questions and the subsequent interpretations of findings. Academic scholars have placed significant emphasis on the concept of reflexivity, which entails recognizing the subjective impact of researchers' identities and roles of power on knowledge.
Scholars have proposed a variety of frameworks and techniques to move beyond conventional narratives. Intersectionality, as an illustrative example, provides a framework through which one can analyze the functioning of power within the intersections of various social identities. As stated in the works of Gone (2021), this framework unveils the intricate nature of power dynamics in influencing social psychological phenomena. The utilization of participatory research methodologies has been advocated to engage marginalized groups in the research process, with the aim of addressing power imbalances and fostering the creation of more inclusive knowledge. The existing body of literature pertaining to the dynamic relationship between power and knowledge within the field of social psychology underscores the imperative to transcend conventional narratives. Hartig (2021) said that through the process of deconstructing prevailing discourses, scholars have shed light on the pervasive impact of power structures across various domains, including society, institutions, and individuals. The mitigation of power imbalances necessitates a steadfast dedication to the incorporation of varied viewpoints, the interrogation of preconceived notions, and the advancement of inclusive approaches. By enhancing the researchers’ comprehension of power dynamics and the construction of knowledge within the field of social psychology they have the potential to cultivate a discipline that is more transformative and aligned with principles of social justice.
Methods
The methodology is organized in the following manner:
Database Search: Perform an extensive exploration of scholarly databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and pertinent social science databases, utilizing a predetermined collection of keywords and Boolean operators. It is essential to incorporate keywords pertaining to concepts such as "power," "knowledge," "social psychology," and "dominance" within the text.
Inclusion Criteria: Defining clear inclusion criteria for selecting relevant studies considering factors like publication date, academic rigor, and subject pertinence.
Preliminary Evaluation: Evaluating to exclude those not meeting inclusion criteria and documenting exclusion reasons.
Comprehensive Textual Evaluation: Carefully review selected articles for suitability, using a consistent data extraction tool to document research details.
Data Extraction: Extracting the key data from selected publications on power and knowledge dynamics in social psychology.
Thematic Analysis: Systematically categorised the extracted data, considering dominance, power, and traditional narratives in social psychology and identifying common themes.
Quality Assessment: Assess study quality, considering methodology, sample size, and theoretical foundations using appropriate techniques.
This narrative synthesis aims to summarise findings on power and knowledge in social psychology, highlighting traditional narratives' impact. It includes data from focus groups and interviews with diverse researchers to ensure inclusivity and intersectionality. The study employs a comparative analysis to explore power dynamics and transformative approaches, prioritizing ethical considerations through an iterative methodology for a comprehensive understanding. (Kent, 2022; Khan & MacEachen, 2021)
Discussion
Examining power and knowledge dynamics in social psychology beyond conventional narratives offers valuable insights and prompts critical inquiries. Lim et al., (2022) suggest that deconstructing prevailing discourses and exploring alternative viewpoints contribute significantly to understanding power dynamics and knowledge construction. Raji, Scheuerman & Amironesei (2021) emphasise that societal power disparities, including ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, impact research questions and viewpoint prominence, highlighting the need to address these dynamics for a comprehensive and inclusive knowledge portrayal. Institutional dynamics in academia significantly shape knowledge in social psychology, potentially perpetuating power imbalances. Mohajan (2022) advocates modifying research practices, funding allocation, and publication norms to foster a fairer knowledge production environment. Researchers' subjectivity, influenced by personal experiences and perspectives, impacts research questions, methodologies, and findings, emphasizing the importance of reflexivity (Khan & MacEachen, 2021).
This study highlights the importance of adopting alternative methods and frameworks to understand power and knowledge in social psychology. Pearson & Rose (2021) advocate for intersectionality to grasp complex power dynamics in diverse identities. Participatory research can challenge existing power dynamics, promoting inclusive and socially just knowledge. By questioning prevailing discourses, embracing diverse perspectives, and promoting inclusivity, the field can better comprehend human actions and societal dynamics, benefiting marginalised groups and fostering positive societal change (Persmark et al., 2019).
Limitations and Recommendations
Limitations
The examination of the relationship between power and knowledge in the realm of social psychology, beyond conventional narratives, provides significant and meaningful perspectives. However, it is crucial to recognize and confront specific constraints that could affect the applicability and breadth of this study (Walker & Baxter, 2019).
Recommendations
When considering the future trajectory of social psychology, it is crucial to move beyond traditional narratives and explore the complex interplay between power and knowledge. The utilisation of a multidimensional perspective can elucidate intricate dynamics that contribute to the establishment and maintenance of dominance. It is imperative to adopt interdisciplinary methodologies that integrate perspectives from sociology, neurology, and technology to attain comprehensive comprehension. Promote partnerships between academic institutions and industry sectors to leverage practical implementation. This paper argues for the importance of including ethical considerations and cultural sensitivity in research methodology. The proposed paradigm shift put forth by Rankin, Thomas & Erete (2021) aims to enhance the understanding of societal dynamics in a more complete manner. By liberating itself from conventional limitations, the discipline has the potential to undergo significant development, effectively tackling present-day obstacles and enhancing our understanding of the complex nature of human behaviour.
Conclusion
In the area of social psychology, studying dominance and how it works with power and knowledge has shown complex relationships that go beyond traditional stories. The historical background and the rise of dominant paradigms show how power structures have always had a lasting effect on the direction of research and the theoretical frameworks that support it. Institutional dynamics, such as academic frameworks and ways of getting money, play a big role in keeping information hierarchies in place. The literature study has found examples of resistance and subversion against these dominant narratives. This shows that the field is becoming more aware of the need for diversity and inclusion. Scholars have used a variety of methods to question existing power structures and promote different points of view that add to the conversation. Interdisciplinary methods, especially from a critical and feminist point of view, have helped to broaden the conversation about power and knowledge by giving nuanced insights and calling into question long-held beliefs. In this analysis, ethics play a big role, and the responsibility of researchers and organizations to deal with issues of inclusion, representation, and fairness in the production of knowledge is emphasized. The literature that was looked at shows that it is morally important to break down barriers that keep power imbalances going. This helps create a study environment that is both fair and reflective.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest: The authors acknowledge that their prior research and publications may have primarily centered on conventional narratives within the field of social psychology.
Acknowledgement: The authors express their gratitude for the valuable contributions made by scholars and researchers in the field of social psychology, particularly in the areas of power, expertise, and critical perspectives.
References
Alam, A., Mohanty, A., & Alam, S. (2020). Anthropology of Education: Discourses and Dilemmas in Analysis of Educational Patterns and Cultural Configurations towards Pursuit of Quality Education. Palarch’s Journal of Archaeologyof Egypt/Egyptology, Netherlands, 17(9), 7893-7924. https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/download/5675/5575
Al-Tammemi, A. a. B., Nheili, R., Jibuaku, C. H., Al Tamimi, D. a., Aljaberi, M. A., Khatatbeh, M., Fakhouri, H. N. (2022). A qualitative exploration of university students’ perspectives on distance education in Jordan: An application of Moore’s theory of transactional distance. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.960660
Anderson, M. H., & Lemken, R. K. (2023). Citation Context Analysis as a Method for Conducting Rigorous and Impactful Literature Reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120969905
Biresselioglu, M. E., Demir, M. H., Kaplan, M. D., & Solak, B. (2020). Individuals, collectives, and energy transition: Analysing the motivators and barriers of European decarbonisation. Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101493
Boyd, R. L., & Schwartz, H. A. (2021). Natural Language Analysis and the Psychology of Verbal Behavior: The Past, Present, and Future States of the Field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x20967028
de Haan, D., & Norman, L. (2020). Mind the gap: the presence of capital and power in the female athlete– male -coach relationship within elite rowing. Sports Coaching Review, 9(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2019.1567160
Doucet, F. (2019). Centering the Margins: (Re)Defining Useful Research Evidence Through Critical Perspectives. William T. Grant Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED609713.pdf
Escayg, K.-A. (2019). “Who’s got the power?”: A critical examination of the anti-bias curriculum. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 13(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723- 019-0062-9
Gone, J. P. (2021). Decolonization as methodological innovation in counseling psychology: Method, power, and process in reclaiming American Indian therapeutic traditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000500
Hartig, T. (2021). Restoration in Nature: Beyond the Conventional Narrative. Nature and psychology: Biological, cognitive, developmental, and social pathways to well-being, 89-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_5
Júnior, J. R. D. O., Limongi, R., Lim, W. M., Eastman, J. K., & Kumar, S. (2023). A story to sell: The influence of storytelling on consumers' purchasing behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 40(2), 239-261. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21758
Kent, J. L. (2022). The use of practice theory in transport research. Transport Reviews, 42(2), 222– 244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1961918
Khan, T. H., & MacEachen, E. (2021). Foucauldian Discourse Analysis: Moving beyond a Social Constructionist Analytic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211018009
Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2022). Past, present, and future of customer engagement.
Journal of Business Research, 140, 439-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014
Mohajan, D., & Mohajan, H. (2022). Feminism and Feminist Grounded Theory: A Comprehensive Research Analysis. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/114914/1/MPRA_paper_114914.pdf
Mohammed, L. A., Aljaberi, M. A., Amidi, A., Abdulsalam, R., Lin, C.-Y., Hamat, R. A., & Abdallah, A. M. (2022). Exploring Factors Affecting Graduate Students’ Satisfaction toward E-Learning in the Era of the COVID-19 Crisis. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ., 12(8), 1121-1142. https://www.mdpi.com/2254-9625/12/8/79
Mohammed, L.A., Aljaberi, M.A., Anmary, A.S., Abdulkhaleq, M. (2023). Analysing English for Science and Technology Reading Texts Using Flesch Reading Ease Online Formula: The Preparation for Academic Reading. In: Al-Sharafi, M.A., Al-Emran, M., Al-Kabi, M.N., Shaalan, K. (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Intelligent Systems . ICETIS 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 573. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20429-6_50
Pearson, A., & Rose, K. (2021). A Conceptual Analysis of Autistic Masking: Understanding the Narrative of Stigma and the Illusion of Choice. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1). 52-60 https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0043
Persmark, A., Wemrell, M., Evans, C. R., Subramanian, S. V., Leckie, G., & Merlo, J. (2020). Intersectional inequalities and the U.S. opioid crisis: challenging dominant narratives and revealing heterogeneities. Critical Public Health, 30(4)–398-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2019.1626002
Raji, I. D., Scheuerman, M. K., & Amironesei, R. (2021). You Can’t Sit With Us. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 515-525 https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445914
Ramasubramanian, S., & Banjo, O. O. (2020). Critical Media Effects Framework: Bridging Critical Cultural Communication and Media Effects through Power, Intersectionality, Context, and Agency. Journal of Communication, 70(3), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa014
Rankin, Y. A., Thomas, J. O., & Erete, S. (2021). Black Women Speak: Examining Power, Privilege, and Identity in CS Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 21(4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3451344
Savage, M. (2021). The Return of Inequality: Social Change and the Weight of the Past. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0iEsEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Analyzing+ Dominance:+Revealing+the+Interplay+of+Power+and+Knowledge+in+the+Field+of+Social+Psychol ogy+Beyond+Traditional+Narratives&ots=GEja-PObnq&sig=xRkTLRMyMe1FvgymOgDIPRSbCBk
Skubikowski, K., Wright, C., & Graf, R. (2023). Social Justice Education: Inviting Faculty to Transform Their Institutions. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vMTJEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1970&dq=Analy zing+Dominance:+Revealing+the+Interplay+of+Power+and+Knowledge+in+the+Field+of+Social+Ps ychology+Beyond+Traditional+Narratives&ots=- dC09mkqmB&sig=Et4oPvV3sQ6WsxVcKCWz4LZLRxo
Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2019). Method Sequence and Dominance in Mixed Methods Research: A Case Study of the Social Acceptance of Wind Energy Literature. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919834379