The views and opinions expressed in the Graduate and International Ambassador Blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Arkansas.
by Christina Barnes
In a time when we need to rely on scientific findings and research more than ever, I’ve been taking a hard look at how and why science is carried out. At its purest levels, science should be objective, impartial, and an unbiased observation of natural phenomena – but that is seldom the case.
In 2010, researchers Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, and Ara Norenzayan published an article challenging research practices in social sciences because they were unrepresentative. They used the acronym “WEIRD” to explain the primarily Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic population researchers often draw from. In today’s scientific world, many would argue that the W in “WEIRD” should also mean “white.” Traditionally, people of color have been pushed out and excluded from research. Most of the foundational studies in psychology that guide modern day theory happened during the height of segregation and only included white individuals.
Science and People of Color
People of color have also been wronged by scientific community. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment is one such example: researchers denied life-saving treatment to hundreds of Black men. These are the dark sordid details we try to say are a thing of the past, but in reality, racism exists in modern day research. Confronting the deeply embedded systemically racist practices in science is one of the best things we can do right now.
Among the modern-day systems, academia and scholarly publication journals are largely to blame for perpetuating racism in science. The merit-based system we currently operate under regards publication as one of the strongest indicators of success. As a result, this “publish or perish” culture inherently rewards those who collect the WEIRD samples that are simply easier to access and harms those who take the additional time to de-center whiteness in their research.
This has a trickledown effect where foundational research is used to build additional research that scientists then use to inform policy, develop technology, and make important judgements, despite the fact that it may not be representative of people who are non-white. Publication bias explains the role academic journals play in maintaining this cycle. Non-significant results often do not get published, which means replications of foundational studies using diverse samples are not likely to get published if the findings are different than the originals. In an ideal world, journals would be aware of this publication bias and universities would not base hiring and tenure decisions on number of publications; however, the onus is ultimately on us researchers to recognize that we do not need to continue operating under the same systems.
You can be the Catalyst of Positive Change
So how do we do that? The most obvious solution is to simply obtain a more diverse sample, but even before beginning to recruit participants, researchers should examine their methodology and stimuli. To get started, it is helpful to consider the following questions:
- Are your data collection tools functional for diverse people or are the methods you are using for data collection going to exclude anyone from a racially diverse group?
- Have you considered utilizing qualitative data in addition to quantitative data to ensure the research narrative aligns with participant’s experiences?
- Is the demographics section of your survey appropriately inclusive? Are you giving multiracial or multiethnic participants adequate options to identify themselves as they see fit?
- Do you know the historical policies that may still be at play and influence the interpretation of the data?
After checking for these factors, researchers should de-center whiteness in participant recruiting and try to bridge the gap between the researcher and other BIPOC communities. It will certainly not be an easy task, but to be truly anti-racist in research will require performing work that was not required in the past. However, by recognizing the impact that racism had and continues to have on our science, current and future scientists can avoid falling into cycles that produce findings that center whiteness as the absolute truth and harm communities of color. As scientists and researchers, we can be a part of the change for better outcomes in science and underrepresented communities.
