**Review Papers**

Sean T. Stevens, Lee Jussim, and Nathan Honeycutt, in "Scholarship Suppression: Theoretical Perspectives and Emerging Trends", provide a wide-ranging discussion of suppression of academic scholarship as a result of both self-censorship and the action (or inaction) of other academics. While focused on the context and experience of academia in the USA, the theoretical discussion is wide-ranging, and the issues and events referred to will be recognised internationally. As J.S. Mill noted, merely offending people should not be a block to free speech, and all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility; suppression is distinct from justified objection even when pretending to be the same thing. While the reality of suppression and bullying is less extreme than during the era of McCarthyism, aspects of current society make them particularly visceral and personal. In the age of "outrage mobs" and social media, has free academic enquiry become a victim of free speech? How can scholars protect themselves and their work from disproportionate attacks from inside and outside the academy? Given that universities formally endorse academic freedoms, how are senior academics and administrators to be held to account when they fail to defend it when it is uncomfortable to do so? This Special Edition is premised on the ideas developed in this article: rejection of scholarship is quality control, even when imperfect, but suppression is a distinct phenomenon and one which impoverishes the knowledge base.

Rooshey Hasnain, Glenn T. Fujiura, John E. Capua, Tuyen Thi Thanh Bui, and Safiy Khan, in "Disaggregating the Asian "Other": Heterogeneity and Methodological Issues in Research on Asian Americans with Disabilities", offer a detailed and powerful critique of the common practice in both research and policy-making of treating "American Asians" as a homogenous category. While a similar case might be made in relation to other reified categories based on false premises which, in fact, mask massive internal variations, and also in relation to a number of distinct research and policy contexts, their particular focus is on how this false and misrepresented homogeneity has extremely negative real world consequences for many American Asians with disabilities. These problems are hardly surprising, since the multifaceted variations within the category are as wide as those outside it, and the authors argue for fine-grained community-based research and practice as the route to improved understanding and provision. In research and governmental systems, which increasingly deal in big data, how are key variations between particular social, religious, and ethnic groups to be represented and responded to? Particularly in a federal system, where the nature and quality of health and social care provision is substantially a matter for relatively local determination, how can wide variations between particular groups be understood and accommodated? How should research approaches and policy react to the reality of rapidly increasing heterogeneity in many national populations, driven by global upheavals and rising levels of precarity?
