Edit: the link was in the sixth paragraph, but it's much less damning than the article frames it.
“In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.’”
"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). "
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).
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?
> 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.
Even modest publication biases can dwarf true effect sizes in social research, and can create the illusion of consistent effects and scientific consensus when neither actually exists.
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).
Edit: it's actually sort of hilarious that Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory can't come up with any diversity angle. Is it foundational or not?
It's got the smell of someone selling a Grand Unified Theory being annoyed that they're asked to check off whether and how their research addresses gravity.
Imagine giving papers that described how they advanced Christendom priority.
Ironically, "saluting" DEI in academic papers has the opposite of the ostensibly intended effect.
Political alignment of professors favors the left by 9 to 1. If anything, favoring DEI will cement "academia's typical cronyism".
Unless you haven't actually explored the world beyond your backyard. I have typically found Haidt's moral foundations to be pretty interesting but because he's always sold it as cross-cultural. So this seems a bit odd, honestly.
Extremely likely to be a virtue-signaling publicly stunt, TBQH.
OTOH, it may get a little harder to publish research where your study population / sample is all-white-wealthy-undergrads.
Please cite how it is a "failing grade" versus not receiving the bonus for it. The bottom score is "not applicable", not "not satisfactory" like it is in other areas.
Reviewers did not receive the statements. The assessment of the statement was only a small input into the committee making final decisions primarily based upon reviewer feedback.
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'.
https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra...
Without both sides of the story it's impossible to deem the truth.