In this dissertation, I explore several ways in which engaged scholarship may serve as a vehicle for epistemic exclusion, a process through which types of scholarship predominantly done by women and scholars of color are delegitimized and under-rewarded. I use faculty recruitment data from six disciplines across six academic years to (1) classify early career scholars who identify as engaged scholars; (2) explore the extent to which women and scholars of color are more likely to identify as engaged scholars; and (3) investigate race and gender disparities in the association between engaged scholarship and metrics of productivity commonly used in academic evaluations. These three aims comprise the three analytic chapters in this dissertation. My findings show that engaged scholarship is indeed primarily done by women and scholars of color—particularly female scholars of color. I also find that those who identify as engaged scholars are both advantaged and disadvantaged in different measures of scholarly productivity. However, scholars of color—again, particularly female scholars of color—tend not to have advantages when they otherwise exist for engaged scholars. This demographic is also the most disadvantaged when engaged scholars are disadvantaged, compared to other groups. These findings reiterate the importance of examining gender inequality in academia through an intersectional lens, as occupational devaluation occurs through both gendered and racialized processes simultaneously.Ultimately, I argue that these findings indicate that epistemic exclusion, like the devaluation of feminized work in other occupations, does not equally apply to all scholars who pursue engaged scholarship. Although some evidence suggests that engaged scholars are cited less and publish in lower impact journals—both indicators that such work is devalued—these effects are disproportionately shouldered by scholars of color (especially female scholars of color). In light of these findings, I propose that future research should examine the career consequences of this differential devaluation of scholars who engage in scholarship predominantly done by women and scholars of color, as epistemic exclusion stands as an important measure to understand women and scholars of colors’ continued underrepresentation and marginalization as academic faculty. Additionally, I suggest that future work on this topic should examine processes of epistemic exclusion in the context of graduate training in order to better understand how and why scholars pursue certain types of scholarship.