From “Mesearch” to “Wesearch”: Perceptions of Researchers Studying Their Own Intersectional Marginalization

Michael Thai & Audrée Grand’Pierre

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin2026https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251412997article
AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.37

Abstract

Important scientific contributions regarding intersectional marginalization are often advanced by researchers who, themselves, hold the relevant intersecting identities. But how are these researchers perceived? In an experiment gauging the perspective of a demographically representative sample of U.S. Americans (N = 385), we found that research on Black women's marginalization was perceived as equivalently trustworthy and meritorious whether it was conducted by a Black woman, Black man, White woman, or White man. Our data suggested this was because a Black woman conducting this work was perceived ambivalently-positively due to her perceived standing and expertise, but negatively due to her perceived vested interest. In three follow-up experiments examining perceptions of Black American women, specifically (N = 243, 139, 182), we found a different pattern-Black women consistently evaluated this research more favorably if it was conducted by a fellow Black woman, prioritizing her standing, expertise, and commitment to the community.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251412997

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{michael2026,
  title        = {{From “Mesearch” to “Wesearch”: Perceptions of Researchers Studying Their Own Intersectional Marginalization}},
  author       = {Michael Thai & Audrée Grand’Pierre},
  journal      = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251412997},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

From “Mesearch” to “Wesearch”: Perceptions of Researchers Studying Their Own Intersectional Marginalization

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.