Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

In the spirit of America's Shakespeare, August Wilson (1997), I have written this article as a testimony to the conditions under which I, and too many others, engage in scholarly discourse. I hope to make clear from the beginning that although the ideas presented here are not entirely my own-as they have been inherited from the minority of scholars who dared and managed to bring the most necessary, unpalatable, and unsettling truths about our discipline to the broader scientific community-I do not write for anyone but myself and those scholars who have felt similarly marginalized, oppressed, and silenced. And I write as a race scholar, meaning simply that I believe that race-and racism-affects the sociopolitical conditions in which humans, and scholars, develop their thoughts, feelings, and actions. I believe that it is important for all scholars to have a basic understanding of these conditions, as well as the landmines and pitfalls that define them, as they shape how research is conducted, reviewed, and disseminated. I also believe that to evolve one's discipline into one that is truly robust and objective, it must first become diverse and self-aware. Any effort to suggest otherwise, no matter how scholarly it might present itself, is intellectually unsound.

Acculturation and resilience of immigrant-origin youth: Do their school experiences reflect nonimmigrants' "native supremacy"?

The successful integration of immigrant-origin youth is a highly important issue for multiple stakeholders in many countries. It has important benefits both to countries of destination and countries of origin, as well as to immigrants and nonimmigrants. In this article, I examine immigrant-youth adaptation through the lens of a recently developed resilience model integrating acculturation and social psychological influences on adaptation. Who among immigrant-origin youth adapt well, academically, and socially, in the Greek school context? What is the role of acculturation in immigrant youth resilience? These questions are addressed using scientific evidence drawn from the Athena Studies of Resilient Adaptation (AStRA) project, a three-cohort, three-wave longitudinal project on immigrant-origin youth adaptation conducted in Greece, as well as from the international literature. Following an anti-racist research approach to understanding the AstRA findings, I will argue that the lived school experiences of immigrant-origin youth may be a reflection of societal-level xenophobic and anti-immigrant attitudes. Such systemic and structural racism is the key determinant of the difficulties they face in their adaptation. The findings presented reveal the need to promote an equitable and inclusive education that will be beneficial for all students promoting their well-being, and their sense of belonging to school and society.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non-race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non-race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non-race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Otolaryngology Department and Society Leadership: Evaluation of Diversity in a Nationwide Study

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Diversity in medicine positively influences healthcare delivery. As we aim to make otolaryngology more diverse, it is essential to analyze our current leadership.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

METHODS

A total of 262 department chairs and chiefs, residency program directors, and assistant and associate directors from 117 otolaryngology residency programs as well as 92 society leaders from nine otolaryngology national societies from 2010 to 2020 in the United States are included in this study. The position, academic rank, name, gender, inferred race (based on name and image), and h-index are collected and recorded from publicly available data. Fisher's exact test, unpaired t tests, and analysis of variance tests are used.

RESULTS

The ethno-racial breakdown of all otolaryngology residency leaders is as follows: 78.63% non-Hispanic (NH) White, 16.03% NH Asian, 2.29% Middle Eastern, 1.91% NH Black, and 1.15% Latinx. Male gender is found to be a predictor of full professorship title (P < .0001) with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.066. NH White male is also a predictor of full professorship (P < .0001) with an OR 3.05. When comparing h-index, males and females differ (P < .0001) across all residency leadership positions. There is a higher h-index among full professors compared to non-full professors (P < .0001). The ethno-racial breakdown of society leaders is 84% NH White, 11% NH Asian, 2% NH Black, 2% Latinx, and 1% Middle Eastern.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, otolaryngology leadership has an under-representation of women and certain ethno-racial groups. Continued efforts should be made to diversify our specialty's leadership.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2021.

Psychological Science Is Not Race Neutral

In their analysis in a previous issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, Roberts and colleagues argued that the editors, authors, and participants throughout subfields of psychological science are overwhelmingly White. In this commentary, we consider some of the drivers and consequences of this racial inequality. Drawing on race scholarship from within and outside the field, we highlight three phenomena that create and maintain racial inequality in psychology: (a) racial ignorance, (b) threats to belonging, and (c) racial-progress narratives. We close by exploring steps that journals and authors can take to reduce racial inequality in our field, ending with an appeal to consider the experience of scholars of color in race scholarship and in psychological science more broadly.

Open science, communal culture, and women's participation in the movement to improve science

Science is rapidly changing with the current movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, this article provides an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames of collaboration and prosociality, and representation of women in the open science and reproducibility literatures. Network analyses reveal that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently with few common papers or authors. Open science has a more collaborative structure and includes more explicit language reflecting communality and prosociality than does reproducibility. Finally, women publish more frequently in high-status author positions within open science compared with reproducibility. Implications for cultivating a diverse, collaborative culture of science are discussed.

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

Racial Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the Future

Race plays an important role in how people think, develop, and behave. In the current article, we queried more than 26,000 empirical articles published between 1974 and 2018 in top-tier cognitive, developmental, and social psychology journals to document how often psychological research acknowledges this reality and to examine whether people who edit, write, and participate in the research are systematically connected. We note several findings. First, across the past five decades, psychological publications that highlight race have been rare, and although they have increased in developmental and social psychology, they have remained virtually nonexistent in cognitive psychology. Second, most publications have been edited by White editors, under which there have been significantly fewer publications that highlight race. Third, many of the publications that highlight race have been written by White authors who employed significantly fewer participants of color. In many cases, we document variation as a function of area and decade. We argue that systemic inequality exists within psychological research and that systemic changes are needed to ensure that psychological research benefits from diversity in editing, writing, and participation. To this end, and in the spirit of the field's recent emphasis on metascience, we offer recommendations for journals and authors.

Promises and Pitfalls in the Integration of Intersectionality with Development Science

In this commentary, we use the manuscripts in this volume as source material from which to highlight what we view as critical issues in integrating intersectionality with developmental science. In reading and meditating on the manuscripts, we abstracted two key themes that were evident, to some extent, in all of the manuscripts: (1) the disciplinary use of intersectionality as a theory and (2) the nature of development for an intersectional developmental science. These two themes reflect the current state of the integration of intersectionality with developmental science, in that they represent both areas of strength and success, but also areas of challenge and weakness.

Afterword: In the Matter of Judging Scientific Merit

In this afterword, I suggest expanding upon some of the criteria for judging scientific merit that have been discussed in the two symposia on "judging scholarly merit in psychological science." I discuss in particular the value of creativity, analysis, common sense, and wisdom and ethics in scientific contributions and discourse. In the course of this discussion, I consider where the field of judging scientific merit has been, where it is now, and where it may go.