5 ms·

That's a quote from Haidt, speaking from his memory of the policy. That's not the policy. He's hardly a neutral point of view.

mlyle 4y ago
https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-racism-through-programming-and-events https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra... "Evaluate the extent to which the submission advances SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism. To do so, please consider the equity statement as well as the submission as a whole. Submissions advancing equity, inclusion, and anti-racist goals may include (but are not limited to): * Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or underserved populations) * Diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity or engages underserved communities or scholars). * Diverse members of the research team (e.g., those from underrepresented sociodemographic backgrounds, from an array of career stages, from outside the United States, or with professional affiliations that are not typical at SPSP such as predominately undergraduate serving institutions, minority-serving institutions, or outside academia) * Presentation content (e.g., prejudice and discrimination, critical theories, cross-cultural research). " Note none of these things are required but will be considered. The text from the paper submission document has a large blank labelled: "Please explain whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP. This may include, but is not limited to: The research participants in the sample; the methods used in the research; the members of the research team(s) involved in the work (e.g., background, diversity, career stage, affiliation type); the content of the presentation (e.g., critical theories, prejudice, equity, cross-cultural research). "
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I... This seems pretty different than what Haidt is painting it as. This is saying sociology research should communicate if it engaged with communities that haven't been a part of this sort of research in the past.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial. Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).
    - ttpphd 4y ago
      There is never any such thing as neutral review. Someone always gets favored. The premise of neutrality existing in some golden bygone era is a myth.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        That's great, because my comment never assumed the existence of neutral review. It merely pointed out that some kinds of DEI input to review are almost certainly helpful to advancing science (e.g. ensuring we get reasonable samples in social research); some are controversial (e.g. favoring diverse researcher groups); and some are almost certainly harmful (e.g. determining whether the research can be published based on whether it makes a pro-DEI finding).
    - nequo 4y ago
      > Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. I honestly don’t understand your problem with this. Historically, the majority of humanity was not a part of social science study. For example, economics has a tradition of drawing conclusions about the labor market based on data only on American white males (literally). This has been changing and it reveals blind spots in our previous understanding of the economy. All that this policy change seems to be doing is encourage researchers in social psychology to work with a wider subpopulation than, for example, American undergraduates aged 18 to 22. It does not mandate anywhere what their findings should be. What is so bad about this?
      - 4y ago
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  Honestly, this just strikes me as typical of the the kind of heavy-handed, bureaucratic box-ticking that now dominates academia. One of the first things I had to do as a post-doc was complete a 4-page document on whether my chair was comfortable enough. I have been involved in major EU grant applicants that exceed 100 pages, and consist of excruciatingly obtuse questions as to how our project aligns with their institutional goals and byzantine definition of 'success'.

mlyle 4y ago

https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-racism-through-programming-and-events https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra... "Evaluate the extent to which the submission advances SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism. To do so, please consider the equity statement as well as the submission as a whole. Submissions advancing equity, inclusion, and anti-racist goals may include (but are not limited to): * Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or underserved populations) * Diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity or engages underserved communities or scholars). * Diverse members of the research team (e.g., those from underrepresented sociodemographic backgrounds, from an array of career stages, from outside the United States, or with professional affiliations that are not typical at SPSP such as predominately undergraduate serving institutions, minority-serving institutions, or outside academia) * Presentation content (e.g., prejudice and discrimination, critical theories, cross-cultural research). " Note none of these things are required but will be considered. The text from the paper submission document has a large blank labelled: "Please explain whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP. This may include, but is not limited to: The research participants in the sample; the methods used in the research; the members of the research team(s) involved in the work (e.g., background, diversity, career stage, affiliation type); the content of the presentation (e.g., critical theories, prejudice, equity, cross-cultural research). "

socialismisok 4y ago
I... This seems pretty different than what Haidt is painting it as. This is saying sociology research should communicate if it engaged with communities that haven't been a part of this sort of research in the past.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial. Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).
  - ttpphd 4y ago
    There is never any such thing as neutral review. Someone always gets favored. The premise of neutrality existing in some golden bygone era is a myth.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      That's great, because my comment never assumed the existence of neutral review. It merely pointed out that some kinds of DEI input to review are almost certainly helpful to advancing science (e.g. ensuring we get reasonable samples in social research); some are controversial (e.g. favoring diverse researcher groups); and some are almost certainly harmful (e.g. determining whether the research can be published based on whether it makes a pro-DEI finding).
  - nequo 4y ago
    > Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. I honestly don’t understand your problem with this. Historically, the majority of humanity was not a part of social science study. For example, economics has a tradition of drawing conclusions about the labor market based on data only on American white males (literally). This has been changing and it reveals blind spots in our previous understanding of the economy. All that this policy change seems to be doing is encourage researchers in social psychology to work with a wider subpopulation than, for example, American undergraduates aged 18 to 22. It does not mandate anywhere what their findings should be. What is so bad about this?
    - 4y ago
Emma_Goldman 4y ago
Honestly, this just strikes me as typical of the the kind of heavy-handed, bureaucratic box-ticking that now dominates academia. One of the first things I had to do as a post-doc was complete a 4-page document on whether my chair was comfortable enough. I have been involved in major EU grant applicants that exceed 100 pages, and consist of excruciatingly obtuse questions as to how our project aligns with their institutional goals and byzantine definition of 'success'.