3 ms·
> Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. I honestly don’t understand your problem with this. Histori
by 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?
- mlyle 4y agoI feel like you didn't read my comment. It contained: > Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Which is in direct agreement with what you wrote in response. > Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial. But it also acknowledges there are aspects others may find controversial. The policy extends beyond sample selection and populations addressed in research, and e.g. favors researchers from diverse backgrounds. Personally, I think this is useful (more perspectives good; more inclusion in science good)-- within reason. > Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice). And it points out that if interpretation of the policy extends too far, that by only allowing certain types of outcome to publish, it could create distortions. The worry is that the latter criteria in the policy could reach here.