Publisher’s Note

This article is part of a collection of articles related to the December 2022 APS
Vote of No Confidence in the Editor-in-Chief of Perspectives on Psychological
Science. Please see the editorial [https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241246556] in
this issue for further details on the collection.
1240743
research-article2024
PPSXXX10.1177/17456916241240743RobertsPerspectives on Psychological Science

ASSOCIATION FOR
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: 2024, Vol. 19(3) 591­–601

© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
Science and Ideology sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17456916241240743
https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241240743
www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS

Steven Othello Roberts

Department of Psychology, Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity, Stanford University

Abstract
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.

Keywords
racial diversity, meta-science, racial inequality, psychology

The true tale of the lion hunt will never be told the editor-in-chief of Perspectives on Psychological
as long as the hunter tells the story. Science, Klaus Fiedler, and it focused on an article of
mine entitled “Racial Inequality in Psychological
—African proverb
Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for
the Future” (Roberts et al., 2020). In short, we analyzed
over 26,000 articles published between 1974 and 2018
I am mindful of the cliché that a collection of anec-
in top-tier psychology journals and found that in addi-
dotes, such as those presented in the following sum-
tion to most articles being edited and authored by White
mary, does not constitute reliable data. However, when
psychologists, White editors were less likely than editors
the issue at hand is whether or not ideology can be
of color to publish research articles about race, and White
kept separate from the production and reporting of
authors were less likely than authors of color to conduct
scientific research, I believe that anecdotal evidence
research with samples of color. In an effort to diversify
can be “fruitful and enlightening” and that it is, there-
and expand the intellectual reach of psychology, we
fore, a necessary part of a debate.
included several recommendations to the field (e.g., jour-
nals could include diverse individuals across all levels of
A Case Study the publication process and merit participant diversity in
the review process; authors could detail and justify the
Some time ago, I was invited to participate in a scien-
demographics of their samples and make clear the extent
tific debate on diversity. The debate was organized by
to which their conclusions generalize across samples).

Publisher’s Note: This article is part of a collection of articles related

to the December 2022 APS Vote of No Confidence in the Editor-in- Corresponding Author:
Chief of Perspectives on Psychological Science. Please see the editorial Steven Othello Roberts, Department of Psychology, Center for the
[https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241246556] in this issue for further Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity, Stanford University
details on the collection. Email: [email protected]
592 Roberts

The initial critique of Roberts et al. (2020) that alone, in a single commentary, to respond to the long
sparked the debate on diversity was entitled “Dealing list of claims and accusations put forth by Hommel,
with Diversity in Psychology: Science or Ideology?” Jussim, Stanovich, and Stroebe. And to be clear, as I
with Bernard Hommel as contact author and Editor address in detail below, these accusations were col-
Fiedler as editor. The central premise of the critique lectively unsound, unscientific, ad hominem, and racist.
was that Roberts et al. (2020) “showed worrying signs Nevertheless, because I believed in the merits of scien-
of ideological thinking and activism that has made its tific debate and because I desired to be a good citizen
way into science” and that “uncritically accepting and of the scientific community, I decided to submit a com-
introducing political activist arguments into science is mentary to the diversity forum. After all, it was my
likely to damage scientific freedom and independence” research that was being criticized by four other schol-
(Hommel, this issue). Editor Fiedler invited three ars, and I thought it my scientific duty to respond to
reviewers to evaluate the Hommel critique, and after those critics in a scientific forum.
expressing positivity toward their reviews, he decided I emailed my commentary to Editor Fiedler, copying
to publish their reviews as additional comments and the peer review manager for the Association for Psycho-
without having those comments be peer reviewed. logical Science, and then submitted it formally via the
This resulted in the publication of the Hommel cri- submission portal. When doing so, I reminded Editor
tique, plus three additional critiques by Lee Jussim, Keith Fiedler of his guarantee that no further reviews would
Stanovich, and Wolfgang Stroebe (i.e., the reviewers of be solicited because my submission was an invited
the Hommel critique). In their critiques, they expressed response to criticisms of my work. However, when Edi-
(a) that Roberts et al. (2020) “reflects much of what is tor Fiedler responded to my submission, this time out-
currently wrong with academia” and is “an almost surreal side of the formal journal portal, he copied Hommel
mixture of ideologically infused anti-racist activism in and informed me that he sent my submission to Hommel
science” ( Jussim, this issue), (b) that the recommenda- and that I had to respond to a long list of Hommel’s
tions put forth by Roberts et al. (2020) will “cause an complaints. Note that I never consented to my submis-
exodus from our discipline among those who value sion being shared with Hommel and that my submission
ideas over demographics” that will “harm our science” was explicitly classified by the journal as for review
(Stanovich, this issue), and (c) that the “need for diversity only. It was therefore inappropriate for Editor Fiedler to
among subjects in theory-testing research” is a “myth” send me a private email outside of the formal journal
(Stroebe, this issue). Of course, there are more layers to portal, stating that before he could accept my commen-
the criticisms, and I return to them below in detail, but tary I had to respond to complaints from a nonreviewer
for now, I brush here with broad strokes simply to make on my submission that was meant only for review.
clear the professional and editorial conditions of this In case the conditions that I am describing are still
diversity forum. Namely, Editor Fiedler, after having not clear, let me put them plainly. In a scientific debate—
made clear that he favored the reviews, chose to amplify and certainly in a scientific debate on diversity—there
the core message of the Hommel critique by inviting the should be balanced discussion and clear separation
three reviewers of that critique to emend their reviews between the editors, reviewers, and debaters. However,
and submit them as additional critiques, again, without those are not the conditions under which I was expected
additional peer review. He then chose to package those to participate. Editor Fiedler (a) identified favorable
four critiques and present them as a debate about diver- reviewers for the initial Hommel critique of Roberts et al.
sity. And it would be disingenuous of me to not point (2020), (b) invited those reviewers to revise their reviews
out that Hommel, Jussim, Stanovich, and Stroebe, along and submit them as additional critiques, (c) intended to
with Editor Fiedler, are all senior White men. publish those critiques without peer review, (d) pack-
As the structure of the diversity forum was revealed aged those critiques as a scientific debate on diversity,
to me, I expressed my concern that it was unbalanced. (e) employed Hommel as the final authority to evaluate
That is, I was concerned that Hommel was given two my critique of his critique of my research, (f) shared my
opportunities to comment, whereas I was only given commentary with Hommel without my consent, and,
one, and that I would be the only one of five debaters finally, (g) requested that I respond to the complaints
in a position to defend the rather long list of accusa- raised by Hommel, who already characterized my
tions made against me and my research group, which research as a “toxic mix of science and ideology” (Hom-
placed me in the clear minority position. I proposed a mel, this issue). If nothing else, this strikes me as insuf-
solution to make the debate more democratic (e.g., by ficient handling of conflict of interest in the review
giving Hommel and me equal opportunities to com- process and a clear violation of professional ethics.
ment), but that proposal was denied by Editor Fiedler. And it is precisely under such conditions that many
I remained concerned that the debate was unbal- scientists must manage to disseminate their research,
anced and felt that it was practically impossible for me and why many have no choice but to disseminate their
Perspectives on Psychological Science 19(3) 593

ideas outside of the mainstream. As I and others have This article progresses in two major parts. The first
long argued (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2021; Graham, 1992; focuses on science (i.e., a system of knowledge obtained
Guthrie, 1974/2004; Jones, 2023; Roberts et al., 2020; and tested through the scientific method). It reviews
Settles et al., 2021; West, 2001), systemic racism exists the research on how science has been and continues
in science. There is a racialized power structure that to be colored by ideology. The second focuses on ide-
marginalizes research by (and about) people of color. ology (i.e., a manner or content of thinking character-
This case study demonstrates an intellectual echo cham- istic of an individual, group, or culture). It addresses
ber in which a single worldview held by the majority the worry that scientific discourse around diversity has
group (in this case, the editor, reviewers, and authors) been ideological and not scientific. Admittedly, both
formalizes itself in the permanent scientific record parts focus on science and ideology, as the two go hand
under the guise of a scientific debate. That single world- in hand, and both lead to the same conclusion; if we
view is then used as the scientific metric by which to are to deepen and expand the conceptual reach of our
evaluate opposing worldviews and to then accuse those science, and to evolve our science into one that is truly
opposing worldviews of being ideologically motivated objective and generalizable, we must open ourselves
and unscientific. By definition, then, what counts as to ideologies other than our own, and to examining our
“good” science is what only aligns with the ideological own ideologies. Because if we assume that we have no
needs of the dominant group (see West, 2001). ideology, or that our own ideology can see everything
This is why diversity is necessary. Without it, the across all space and time, our entire science will be
epistemologies of the marginalized will remain filtered colored by that ideology, and not only we will be
through systems of epistemic violence, aggression, and unable to see that there are more colors in the world
silencing (Dotson, 2011; Johnson et al., 2021; Ohito, than just one, we might even become hostile toward
2020; Settles et al., 2021; Veldhuis, 2022). It is time for any efforts to suggest that we are wrong.
psychological science to acknowledge that editors, as
well as reviewers and authors, are in an epistemological
gatekeeping position from which to govern what is (and
Science (and Ideology)
what is not) worthy of publication (see Roberts et al., Since the beginning, dealing with diversity in psycho-
2020). And given that editors are human beings with logical science has been an ideological affair. From
their own ideologies and assumptions, it is only natural pseudoscientific efforts to “prove” the superiority of
that those ideologies and assumptions shape their atti- White people to presenting research findings with White
tudes toward science, from determining which ideas participants as if they were generalizable to all of
are scientific and which are ideological, to determining humanity, how diversity is dealt with in psychology both
which ideas to amplify and which to silence ( Jasanoff, reflects and affects the ideologies of psychologists
2018). Ultimately, I hope the present case study makes (Buchanan et al., 2021; Jones, 2010; Winston, 2020). And
even clearer what the marginalized have known, and why should we expect otherwise? After all, psycholo-
felt, for too long. These are not the conditions of a gists are human beings, and research makes clear that
healthy, productive, and open-minded discipline. And ideological biases affect how human beings think about
the fact that these conditions exist in one of the most diversity (Allport, 1954; Richeson & Sommers, 2016). For
visible journals in psychology, one that prides itself for example, when members of the racial majority anticipate
being a member of the Committee on Publication Eth- increases in racial diversity, they often fear that their
ics, should raise questions as to the conditions under social status is under threat, which can trigger pro-in-
which race scholars, especially junior race scholars of group and anti-out-group reactions (e.g., stronger racial
color, must manage to disseminate their research and identification, increased racial resentment, decreased
advance their academic careers. support for racial diversity; Craig et al., 2018).
Below, I provide my complete and unedited response To ensure that psychological science is not limited
to the claims put forth by Hommel, Jussim, Stanovich, by any particular ideology, especially given that diverse
and Stroebe. In doing so, I hope to move beyond the researchers, methods, and participants are important
particulars of this collection of anecdotes to address for scientific innovation, replicability, and generaliz-
the broader, but not unrelated, ways in which science ability (Hofstra et al., 2020; Medin et al., 2017; Rozin,
and ideologies intertwine. 2009), psychological scientists have for decades docu-
mented the shortcomings of a discipline that lacks cul-
tural diversity, gender diversity, geographic diversity,
Overview political diversity, racial diversity, and more (e.g.,
Hommel (this issue) questions whether dealing with Arnett, 2008; Betancourt & López, 1993; Buchanan
diversity in psychology is a matter of science or ideol- et al., 2021; Cole, 2009; Duarte et al., 2015; Dunham &
ogy. The short answer is that it is both. Olson, 2016; Dupree & Boykin, 2021; Dupree & Kraus,
594 Roberts

2021; Henrich et al., 2010; Honeycutt & Jussim, 2020; preregistered experiment, we found that one reason
Lin & Li, 2023a, 2023b; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; there might be fewer articles on race under nondiverse
Nielsen et al., 2017; Rowley & Camacho, 2015; Schmader, editorial boards is that those editorial boards signal to
2023; Wang, 2016). And in the specific domain of racial race scholars (but not to nonrace scholars) that their
diversity, psychological scientists have documented research is not valuable and that they should submit
such shortcomings for decades. their research to another journal for publication (Auelua-
Nearly half a century ago, Guthrie (1976/2004) Toomey & Roberts, 2022). Ultimately, this process could
observed that “even the rat was White,” detailing how reinforce racial inequalities by signaling who (and what)
even the smallest details in mainstream psychological is (and is not) published in the field’s most visible and
science are White-centric (e.g., from research methods impactful journals (i.e., it is not that race scholars do
being “standardized” exclusively by and with White not want to publish in these journals but that the lack
people to reifying racial differences by erroneously of racial diversity within those journals signals to them
conceptualizing racial categories as animal breeds and that they should not even try). Critically, under diverse
the “White breed” as the most evolved one of them; see editorial boards, we found no significant differences
also Gould, 1981). Graham (1992) documented how the between how race scholars and nonrace scholars per-
vast majority of research articles in mainstream psychol- ceived the journals. Rather, both groups had more posi-
ogy journals focused on White participants and that the tive perceptions of the journal, suggesting that diverse
few articles that included Black participants did so sim- editorial boards benefit both race scholars and nonrace
ply to compare them to White people—a heavily cri- scholars alike.
tiqued “racial comparative” approach that ignores We also examined how psychological scientists write
within-group variation and reinforces racial stereotyping about their samples and how that writing might reflect
(see also Azibo, 1988; Hartmann et al., 2013). Buchanan and reinforce racial ideologies. In an archival analysis,
et al. (2021) offered an overview of how this compara- we found that articles with mostly White participants,
tive approach persists today and described how a dis- but not articles with mostly participants of color, rarely
cipline that lacks racial diversity is limited in how it mentioned the racial demographics of the participants
conducts, reports, and reviews empirical research. For in the article titles (Roberts & Mortenson, 2023; see also
example, in a discipline with mostly White editors, Cheon et al., 2020). For example, articles with White
reviewers, authors, and participants, research with par- participants had titles that generalized their findings to
ticipants of color is often required to include a White all of humanity (e.g., “Do Infants Show Social Prefer-
comparison group, state the racial identity of the par- ences for People Differing in Race?”), whereas articles
ticipants in the manuscript title, justify the racial identity with participants of color had titles that constrained the
of the participants, and constrain any claims about gen- generalizability of their findings to the participants’
eralizability, whereas these standards are rarely applied demographic group (e.g., “Are Asians forgetful? Percep-
to research with White participants. Consequently, if tion, Retention, and Recall in Episodic Memory”).
mainstream psychology continues to privilege the per- Research suggests that this imbalance in scientific com-
spectives of White scientists and participants, it will not munication can reinforce the belief that research with
incentivize, cite, or reward research by or with people White participants is more valuable than research with
of color (Camacho & Echelbarger, 2021; Syed, 2017). participants of color (DeJesus et al., 2019). We theo-
My own research team has investigated how racial rized that the tendency to mark research with partici-
diversity affects psychological scientists and their sci- pants of color in article titles is rooted in a deeper
ence. In the one study that was commented on by Hom- conception of White people as nonracial (i.e., a “White
mel (this issue), Jussim (this issue), Stanovich (this = neutral” framework; Roberts & Mortenson, 2023).
issue), and Stroebe (this issue), we analyzed over 26,000 Indeed, in a series of preregistered experiments, we
articles published between 1974 and 2018 in the highest found that when psychology PhD students were pre-
impact cognitive, developmental, and social psychology sented with research that was conducted with White
journals and found that (a) most editors were White, (b) participants (vs. with participants of color), and subse-
under White editors compared with under editors of quently asked to generate research titles, keywords,
color there were significantly fewer articles that focused and summaries about that research, they were signifi-
on race, (c) the few articles that did focus on race were cantly less likely to mention the race of the participants
most often written by White psychologists, and (d) when the participants were White (Auelua-Toomey
White psychologists, unlike psychologists of color, con- et al., in press). But when we instructed PhD students
ducted research mostly with White participants (see also to mention (or to not mention) the participants’ demo-
Hartmann et al., 2013; Jones, 1983). In a subsequently graphics in their writing, we found that they mentioned
Perspectives on Psychological Science 19(3) 595

the participants’ demographics at equally high (or low) Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie, and Mortenson
rates. And when we asked the PhD students if they (2020) . . . three hallmarks of the intrusion of activ-
would support a new policy that would require ist thinking into science are described: (1) blind-
researchers to mention the racial demographics of their ness to the multidimensional nature of diversity,
participants in their scientific communication, they (2) a failure to distinguish mechanisms from effect
showed high levels of support, suggesting that the next moderators, and (3) blindness to agency as an
generation of psychological scientists might support explanation for psychological observations.
new scientific standards to undo racial inequalities in
scientific communication. Here is one illustrative quote I next consider the scientific merit of these claims.
from a PhD student asked to share their thoughts on
such a policy: “Blindness to the multidimensional
I would endorse the institution of this policy. The
nature of diversity”
ways in which we produce scientific literature in The claim is that Roberts et al. (2020) neglected the
this field should be standardized and normed, and many other social identities that have implications for
that applies to article titles. To only mention the human behavior and that they were unjustified in focus-
race of participants when it refers to those who ing exclusively on race (see Hommel, this issue; Jussim,
are not White is to suggest that Whiteness is the this issue; Stanovich, this issue). Hommel (this issue)
default, and this seeks to perpetuate the continued writes:
marginalization of people of color, all the while
effectively un-racing folks who are White. Small The call for diversity was restricted to just one of
changes like this could seek to ameliorate systemic more than 100 possible personal features of
racism and oppression, but I think it is challenging already demonstrated psychological relevance. If
for academics to even acknowledge the many we are to report the race of editors, reviewers,
ways in which we contribute to such systems. authors, and participants, as Roberts et al. demand,
it seems logical to also demand reporting their
Indeed, it is challenging for academics to acknowl- cultural, religious, and economic background;
edge the many ways in which we contribute to such their political orientation, intelligence, and moti-
systems, as doing so would suggest that we need new vational structure; their needs, learning history,
scientific norms (e.g., ensuring that we do not selec- experience, and personality and traits; their body
tively present research findings with some samples as size, handedness, disabilities, and cognitive style;
more generalizable or valuable than others), incentive in addition to tens if not hundreds of other per-
structures (e.g., rewarding scientists who do not rely sonal features that might have affected the mea-
on traditional or easy-to-reach demographic groups), sures of interest in past studies.
and greater diversity (e.g., ensuring that the editors,
reviewers, authors, and participants are not all primarily This claim is false. Roberts et al. (2020) made clear
from one social group). Of course, these need not be that psychological science needs diversity across a wide
challenges. They can instead be opportunities to evolve array of domains and took care to not privilege race as
our science into one that is more comprehensive, an independent or primary vector of analysis:
nuanced, and self-aware (Stewart & Valian, 2018).
Although race was the focus in this research, inter-
sectionality is also vital to a healthy and represen-
Ideology (and Science) tative science (e.g., persons representing a wide
Calls for increased racial diversity in psychological sci- range of gender, political, religious, and sexual
ence have not been without criticism. The most recent identities). For example, it could be made clear in
are made by Hommel (this issue), Jussim (this issue), the positionality statement that the research ques-
Stanovich (this issue), and Stroebe (this issue), who tion concerns gender yet the research team con-
collectively argue that scientific discourse around diver- sists only of individuals who identify as male, or
sity has been ideological and not scientific. Hommel that the research participants are members of the
(this issue) summarizes the claims: LGBTQ community yet the research team consists
only of individuals who identify as heterosexual
The increasing use of political activist arguments and cisgender. If the researchers are making claims
and reasoning in scientific communication about about any social identity, their relationship with
diversity is criticized. Based on an article of Roberts, that identity could be stated. (p. 1305)
596 Roberts

This claim also misrepresents Roberts et al. (2020). The second issue with this claim is that it neglects
As made clear in the quote above, the argument is that the scientific evidence suggesting that because of racial
if a research topic is about a particular identity (e.g., biases, scientists of all racial backgrounds might con-
race, sexual orientation, political attitudes), researchers ceptualize research with White samples as more gen-
could make their relationship to that identity clear. If, eralizable and valuable than research with samples of
for example, the research topic involves people of color (Cheon et al., 2020; DeJesus et al., 2019; Roberts
color, but all of the researchers are White, readers might & Mortenson, 2023). Consequently, researchers might
benefit from this information being made transparent, be uninterested in (or dissuaded from) conducting
especially given the scientific benefits of conducting research with samples of color, examining or specifying
research with people rather than on them (see Cornwall the role of White identity in psychological processes,
& Jewkes, 1995). or challenging the norms that maintain the presumed
Another issue with this claim is that it suggests that racelessness of White people, all of which would rein-
if one does not study everything one cannot study any- force the idea that studying White people is sufficient
thing, which is unsound and unproductive. Scientists for studying humans (see Roberts & Mortenson, 2023).
must distinguish processes that generalize across The third issue with this claim is that it assumes that
domains (e.g., no matter their identity, researchers from diverse participants are useful simply for providing
minority identities might feel a lower sense of belonging insight into the generalizability of psychological pro-
in academia; Cheryan et al., 2009) from those that are cesses, but this misses the “other” perspective entirely.
more domain-specific (e.g., in the domain of political Namely, if mainstream psychological science consists
identity, in a left-leaning discipline that favors left- mostly of White editors, reviewers, authors, and par-
leaning research, conservative professors might be dis- ticipants, it might not even think to explore processes
couraged from researching politicized topics; Honeycutt that are outside of the perspectives, experiences, or
& Jussim, 2020). Stated another way, processes that gen- interests of White scientists (e.g., how to diversify a
eralize across domains are distinct from processes that White-centric discipline, or how to circumvent dehu-
are local to specific domains. manization and racial obstacles), which would leave
those processes in place and invisible to the benefit of
“Failure to distinguish mechanisms White people and the detriment of people of color.
Indeed, a homogeneous group of scientists might be
from effect moderators” unable to understand processes outside of their pur-
The claim is that Roberts et al. (2020) failed to acknowl- view, especially if the reason for their homogeneity is
edge that the mechanisms underlying psychological a motivation, either unconscious or not, to keep those
processes generalize to all of humanity and that research processes out of their purview. Stated another way, if
designed to test such processes does not require diverse a group of all-White scientists does not even acknowl-
or representative samples (see Hommel, this issue; edge that they are all White, they might become
Stanovich, this issue; Stroebe, this issue). opposed to any efforts toward racial diversity because
The first issue with this claim is that what it assumes such efforts would break their collective illusion and
to be true is itself an empirical question. That is, to force them to acknowledge that they are in fact all
make scientific claims about the generalizability of psy- White.
chological processes, one must scientifically demon-
strate that they do in fact generalize, and scientists have
“Blindness to agency”
for decades argued that the psychological processes
assumed to be basic, universal, or generalizable (e.g., The claim is that intentions and individual preferences,
moral reasoning, memory recall, spatial cognition, rather than circumstances and systemic obstacles, might
visual perception) are in fact subject to social and cul- play a role in the underrepresentation of people of
tural variation (e.g., Arnett, 2008; Henrich et al., 2010; color in positions of influence in science and that
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Wang, 2016). Indeed, there Roberts et al. (2020) neglected the former possibility and
is a long tradition of research revealing how our per- focused exclusively on the latter. This supposed “blind-
ceptions of the world are filtered through specific social ness” is interpreted as further evidence of the authors’
experiences and motivations (Heider, 1944; Ross, 1977). ideological biases and political activism (see Hommel,
Context matters, and race is a salient context. If our this issue; Jussim, this issue; Stanovich, this issue).
science focused exclusively on the few mechanisms The primary issue with this claim is that it reflects a
that generalize to all of humanity rather than the infinite lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals sur-
universe of mechanisms that vary within and between rounding race and racism. That is, if one does not
contexts, we would be left with a paltry science. recognize the systemic barriers that might cause the
Perspectives on Psychological Science 19(3) 597

underrepresentation of people of color in positions of articles published in such a journal numerically repre-
influence, one might naively assume that people of sented the demographic groups from the specific geo-
color are the sole cause of their underrepresentation graphical, socioeconomic, and institutional contexts in
rather than the systemic barriers that they are subject which those journals were located, one would not be
to (see Cimpian & Salomon, 2014; Nelson et al., 2012). justified in presenting the findings published in those
And research makes clear that those barriers are abun- journals as generalizable to all of humanity (see Cheon
dant ( Jones, 2023; Salter et al., 2018). To name a few, et al., 2020; Roberts & Mortenson, 2023). Relatedly, most
for scientists of color to ascend to positions of influence editors at top psychology journals are not only White
in science, they must overcome the stereotypes that but also male and from the United States (Lin & Li,
dissociate them from leadership, pay the “minority tax” 2023a, 2023b). How might base rates account for this?
that disproportionately burdens them and stifles their Third, this claim neglects the possibility that the repre-
research progress, and navigate a White-centric disci- sentation of White editors and authors is self-populating
pline that leaves them with few mentors, signals that (i.e., to the extent to which White psychologists interact
they have no future within the discipline, and displays primarily with other White psychologists, they might
open hostility toward any efforts to make science more selectively invite other White psychologists to such
diverse (Auelua-Toomey & Roberts, 2022; Avery et al., positions; Ibarra, 1995; Wimmer & Lewis, 2010).
2013; Campbell & Rodríguez, 2019; Marin-Spiotta et al,
2020; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008; Storage et al., 2016). Selective data. The claim is that Roberts et al. (2020)
Unless one presents evidence for the claim that people made unclear or arbitrary methodological decisions, such
of color are uninterested in positions of influence in that they focused exclusively on North American and
science, the null hypothesis should hold: All racial European journals, and that it is therefore trivial that the
groups are equally interested in positions of influence, editors, authors, and participants are primarily from those
regardless of the field, assuming that the field is equally regions (see Hommel, this issue; Jussim, this issue; Sta-
hospitable to all racial groups. novich, this issue).
Roberts et al. (2020) focused on these journals
because they were the highest impact journals within
Other claims worth addressing each discipline. The goal was to survey the “top” psy-
It is beyond the scope of this single article to address chology journals, not all journals. Roberts et al. (2020)
every concern raised in this discussion forum, in part stated this explicitly: “We queried two journals within
because they range from unsound and unfalsifiable each area to permit generalizations across areas (cogni-
arguments to arguments that suggest an inadequate tive, developmental, social), and we selected these jour-
grasp of the scientific literature on race and racism. nals because they have been in continual publication
However, I focus below on the scientific merit of three over the past five decades and are among the most
additional claims that I ought not leave unaddressed in prestigious in their subfields” (p. 1297).
the permanent scientific record. Further, my response to the “base rates” argument
applies here as well (e.g., how does this affect the find-
Base rates. The claim is that Roberts et al. (2020) failed to ing that the identity of the editor predicted the topic of
consider base rates, such that the representation of White study, or that these North American and European jour-
editors and authors might simply reflect the representation nals generalized themselves to all of humanity?).
of White people in the contexts in which those data were
sampled (see Hommel, this issue; Jussim, this issue). I Mules and horses. Jussim (this issue) writes:
agree, but this is irrelevant to the bigger argument.
First, how might accounting for base rates change To be sure, if some psychologists in some fields
the conclusions that an editor’s racial identity predicted wish to devote extra effort and attention to sam-
the content of the articles, or that White authors were ples of color, I have no objection. Special attention
more common in the general journals and less common to samples of color deserves a place in psycho-
in the specialty journals? Second, this claim neglects logical science. Let’s not pretend, however, that
the reality that Roberts et al. (2020) analyzed journals such samples are somehow inherently scientifi-
that generalized themselves to all of humanity (e.g., the cally more rigorous than ones that more closely
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology did not approximate the demographics of the underlying
advertise itself as the Journal of Personality and Social population. Scientists who wish to plow their
Psychology in the United States of America). Even if the fields with mules should be permitted to do so;
editors, authors, and participants involved with the they should not, however, pretend that those
598 Roberts

mules are horses or suggest that, unless others is either a matter of science or ideology), as doing so
give up their horses, they are doing something is unsound (false dichotomy fallacy). And they should
scientifically suboptimal. certainly not invoke claims about the characteristics of
other scientists, the credibility or track record of those
I will grant Jussim (this issue) the benefit of the scientists, or truncated media articles about those sci-
doubt and assume that he chose this “mules vs. horses” entists and their research, as such arguments focus on
metaphor to advance the argument that studying one the scientist and have no direct bearing on the actual
form of diversity (e.g., racial diversity) is not as com- scientific arguments (ad hominem fallacy). 1 It should
plete as studying all forms of diversity. However, this go without saying that critiquing a single scientific
metaphor is scientifically not necessary to advance that article does not license one to draw conclusions about
argument, and it is startling because it explicitly paral- the ideologies of those scientists, nor does it license
lels people of color with mules (i.e., the sterile offspring one to draw conclusions about the entire scientific lit-
of a horse and a donkey), which is a well-documented erature that one has failed to review.
racist trope used to dehumanize people of color. As Of course, no scientific claims should be immune
one historian put it, “mules and African Americans from critical inquiry. In fact, disagreement presents a
shared close ties in the minds of white southerners,” powerful opportunity for learning. However, how we
who conceptualized and portrayed them both as unin- express disagreement is critical. Balanced discussion,
telligent, inefficient, and inferior “beasts of burden” that sound arguments, and scientific evidence advance
belonged in the field and away from their masters understanding. Hyperbole, talking points, hostile or
(Ellenberg, 1998, p. 387). Again, I grant Jussim (this dismissive language, personal attacks, and shaming do
issue) the benefit of the doubt, but given the present not. I hope that this commentary serves as an oppor-
question of the intersection between ideology and sci- tunity to advance our collective understanding of the
ence, it is important to make crystal clear that the sci- intersections between science and ideology and that it
entific consensus is that racial categories are social inspires future generations of psychological scientists
categories, not animal categories, and that conceptual- to work toward a more democratic, self-aware, and
izing racial categories as if they were animal categories productive science. And to that future generation, I
is an essentialist worldview that predicts (and is pre- close here with words of wisdom from Toni Morrison
dicted by) stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (1975):
and a decreased interest in contact with individuals
from diverse racial backgrounds (Haslam et al., 2000; The very serious function of racism is distraction.
Mandalaywala et al., 2018; Williams & Eberhardt, 2008). It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you
Depicting people of color as mules is a historically out- explaining, over and over again, your reason for
dated, inaccurate, and dangerous concept that reflects being. Somebody says you have no language and
and reinforces the belief that White people are better, you spend twenty years proving that you do.
purer, and more productive (Davis, 1991; Ellenberg, Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly
1998; Roberts et al., 2022). People of color are not so you have scientists working on the fact that it
mules, and they are no longer required to plow fields. is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge
They should not require special attention or extra effort that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms,
from some psychologists in some fields. People of color so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary.
deserve the same amount of attention and effort as There will always be one more thing.
White people, and they deserve to be represented across
the entirety of our science as full human beings. There will always be one more thing.

Transparency
Conclusion
Action Editor: E. J. Wagenmakers
In a scientific debate about diversity, scientific argu- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
ments should not be presented without evidence (e.g., The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of
claiming that political activist arguments are increasing interest with respect to the authorship or the publication
in science), as doing so shifts the burden of proof to of this article.
the reader and pretends that the claims are established
facts (burden of proof fallacy). Scientific arguments ORCID iD
should also not be framed within dichotomous “either/ Steven Othello Roberts https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5337-
or” scenarios (e.g., claiming that dealing with diversity 870X
Perspectives on Psychological Science 19(3) 599

Author Note Camacho, T. S., & Echelbarger, M. (2021). Decentering white-

ness: Rethinking instruction of undergraduate research
When this manuscript was drafted, I identified as a Multiracial
methods within developmental science. Infant and
German American.
Child Development, 31(1), Article e2272. https://doi.org/
10.1002/icd.2272
Acknowledgments Campbell, K. M., & Rodríguez, J. E. (2019). Addressing the
I thank the many friends and colleagues who helped me put minority tax: Perspectives from two diversity leaders on
this response together. You know who you are. building minority faculty success in academic medicine.
Academic Medicine, 94(12), 1854–1857. https://doi.org/
Note 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002839
Cheon, B. K., Melani, I., & Hong, Y. (2020). How USA-centric
1. Hommel (this issue) argues that Roberts et al. (2020) are
is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions
political activists who represent the intrusion of activist argu-
of generalizability of findings to human nature based
ments into science, thereby focusing his critique on the alleged
on origins of study samples. Social Psychological and
characteristics of my research group. Jussim (this issue) critiques
Personality Science, 11(7), 928–937. https://doi.org/
another paper coauthored by me (i.e., Roberts & Rizzo, 2021),
10.1177/1948550620927269
arguing that it is further evidence of “activism-infused research”
Cheryan, S., Plant, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009).
and a “flagrant disregard for truth,” thereby focusing his critique
Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender
on my scientific track record. Stanovich (this issue) critiques a
participation in computer science. Journal of Personality
media article in which I spoke about racism in psychological
and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/
research, arguing that it is further evidence of my illogical think-
10.1037/a0016239
ing, thereby focusing his critique on what I said in a truncated
Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuris-
media article. These claims go beyond the scientific arguments
tic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world
presented in Roberts et al. (2020) to make claims about me and
and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism.
my research group, which is by definition ad hominem.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(5), 461–480. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002197
References Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychol-
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison- ogy. American Psychologist, 63(3), 170–180. https://doi
Wesley. .org/10.1037/a0014564
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%, a challenge to psy- Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory
chology’s philosophy of science. American Psychologist, research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676.
64, 571–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S
Auelua-Toomey, S. L., Mortenson, E., & Roberts, S. O. (in Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2018). The
press). Identifying and dismantling the white = neutral pitfalls and promise of increasing racial diversity: Threat,
framework in how psychological research is communi- contact, and race relations in the 21st century. Current
cated. American Psychologist. Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 188–193.
Auelua-Toomey, S. L., & Roberts, S. O. (2022). The effects https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
of editorial board diversity on race scholars and Davis, F. J. (1991). Who is Black? One nation’s definition.
their scholarship: A field experiment. Perspectives Pennsylvania State University Press.
on Psychological Science, 17, 1766–1777. https://doi DeJesus, J. M., Callanan, M. A., Solis, G., & Gelman, S. A.
.org/10.1177/17456916211072851 (2019). Generic language in scientific communica-
Avery, D. R., Volpone, S. D., Stewart, R. W., Luksyte, A., tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Hernandez, M., McKay, P. F., & Hebl, M. M. R. (2013). USA, 116(37), 18370–18377. https://doi.org/10.1073/
Examining the draw of diversity: How diversity climate pnas,1817706116
perceptions affect job-pursuit intentions. Human Resource Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking prac-
Management, 52(2), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tices of silencing. Hypatia, 26(2), 236–257. https://doi
hrm.21524 .org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.0117.x
Azibo, D. A. (1988). Understanding the proper and Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., &
improper usage of the comparative research framework. Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social
Journal of Black Psychology, 15(1), 81–91. https://doi psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38,
.org/10.1177/00957984880151010 Article e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x14000430
Betancourt, H., & López, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, Dunham, Y., & Olson, K. R. (2016). Beyond discrete catego-
ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American ries: Studying multiracial, intersex, and transgender chil-
Psychologist, 48, 629–637. dren will strengthen basic developmental science. Journal
Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, of Cognition and Development, 17(4), 642–665. https://
I. B. (2021). Upending racism in psychological science: doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1195388
Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, Dupree, C. H., & Boykin, C. M. (2021). Racial inequal-
reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, ity in academia: Systemic origins, modern challenges,
76(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905 and policy recommendations. Policy Insights from the
600 Roberts

Behavioral and Brain Science, 8(1), 11–18. https://doi Jones, J. (2010). I’m White and you’re not: The value of unrav-
.org/10.1177/237272220984183 eling ethnocentric science. Perspectives on Psychological
Dupree, C. H., & Kraus, M. W. (2021). Psychological science Science, 5(6), 700–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456
is not race neutral. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 91610388771
17, 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620979820 Jones, J. (2023). Surviving while Black: Systemic rac-
Ellenberg, G. B. (1998). African Americans, mules, and the ism and psychological resilience. Annual Review of
Southern mindscape, 1850–1950. Agricultural history, Psychology, 74, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
72(2), 381–398. psych-020822-052232
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. W. W. Norton Jussim, L. (2024). Diversity is diverse: Social justice repara-
& Company. tions and science. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were white and 19(3), 564–575.
middle class:” Trends in published research on African Lin, Z., & Li, N. (2023a). Contextualizing gender dispar-
Americans in selected APA journals, 1970–1989. American ity in editorship in psychological science. Perspectives
Psychologist, 47(5), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/003- on Psychological Science, 18, 887–907. https://doi
066X.47.5.629 .org/10.1177/17456916221117159
Guthrie, R. V. (1976/2004). Even the rat was white: A histori- Lin, Z., & Li, N. (2023b). Global diversity of authors, editors,
cal view of psychology. Pearson Education. (Original work and journal ownership across subdisciplines of psychol-
published 1976) ogy: Current state and policy implications. Perspectives
Hartmann, W. E., Kim, E. S., Kim, J. H. J., Nguyen, T. U., on Psychological Science, 18, 358–377. https://doi.org/
Wendt, D. C., Nagata, D. K., & Gone, J. P. (2013). In 10.1177/17456916221091831
search of cultural diversity, revisited: Recent publication Mandalaywala, T. M., Amodio, D. M., & Rhodes, M. (2018).
trends in cross-cultural and ethnic minority psychology. Essentialism promotes racial prejudice by increasing
Review of General Psychology, 17(3), 243–254. https://doi endorsement of social hierarchies. Social Psychological
.org/10.1037/a0032260 & Personality Science, 9(4), 461–469. https://doi.org/10
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist .1177/1948550617707020
beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Marin-Spiotta, E., Barnes, R. T., Berhe, A. A., Hastings, M. G.,
Psychology, 39(Pt. 1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1348/ Mattheis, A., Schneider, B., & Williams, B. M. (2020).
014466600164363 Hostile climates are barriers to diversifying the geo­
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal cau- sciences. Advances in Geosciences, 53, 117–127. https://doi
sality. Psychological Review, 51, 358–374. https://doi .org/10.5194/adgeo-53-117-2020
.org/10.1037/h0055425 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140 Medin, D. L., Ojalehto, B., Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2017).
525X0999152X Systems of (non-)diversity. Nature Human Behavior, 1,
Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Galvez, S. M., He, B., Jurafsky, Article 0088. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0088
D., & MacFarland, D. A. (2020). The diversity-innova- Morrison, T. (1975, May 30). Public dialogue on the American
tion paradox in science. Proceedings of the National dream theme. Portland State University, Black Studies
Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(17), 9284–9291. https:// Center Public Dialogue.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas,19152=378117 Nelson, J. C., Adams, G., & Salter, P. S. (2012). The Marley
Hommel, B. (2024). Dealing with diversity in psychology: hypothesis. Denial of racism reflects ignorance of his-
Science or ideology? Perspectives on Psychological Science, tory. Psychological Science, 24(2), 213–218. https://doi.
19(3), 558–563. org/10.1177/0956797612451466
Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2020). A model of political bias Nielsen, M., Haun, D. B., Kärtner, J., & Legare, C. H. (2017).
in social science research. Psychological Inquiry, 31(1), The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychol-
73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840.X.2020.1722600 ogy: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social cir- Psychology, 162, 31–38.
cles in managerial networks. The Academy of Management Ohito, E. O. (2020). Some of us die: A Black feminist research-
Journal, 38(3), 673–703. https://doi.org/10.2307/256742 er’s survival method for creatively refusing death and
Jasanoff, S. (2018). Science, common sense, & judicial power decay in the neoliberal academy. International Journal of
in U.S. Courts. Daedalus, 147(4), 15–27. https://doi.org/10 Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(6), 515–533. https://
.1162/daed_a_00517 doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1771463
Johnson, V. E., Nadal, K. L., Sissoko, G., & King, R. (2021). Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R.,
“It’s not in your head:” Gaslighting, ‘splaining, victim & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How
blaming, and other harmful reactions to microaggressions. diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(5), 1024–1036. in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and
https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211011963 Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10
Jones, J. (1983). The concept of race in social psychology: .1037/0022-3514.94.4.615
From color to culture. Review of Personality and Social Richeson, J. A., & Sommers, S. R. (2016). Toward a social
Psychology, 4, 117–150. psychology of race and race relations for the twenty-first
Perspectives on Psychological Science 19(3) 601

century. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 439–463. Stanovich, K. E. (2024). Toward a psychology of ideas rather
https://doi.org/10.11446/annurev-psych-010213-115115 than demographics. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., 19(3), 580–584.
& Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychologi- Stewart, A. J., & Valian, V. (2018). An inclusive academy:
cal research: Trends of the past and recommendations Achieving diversity and excellence. MIT Press. https://
for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9766.001.001
1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709 Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S.-J. (2016).
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., Kteily, N., & Gelman, S. A. (2022). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching
Beyond Black and White: Conceptualizing and essen- evaluations predicts the representation of women and
tializing Black-White identity. Cultural Diversity and African Americans across field. PLOS ONE, 11(3), Article
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/ e0150194. https://doi.org/10.137/journal.pone.0150194
10.1037/cdp0000490 Stroebe, W. (2024). The myth of the need for diversity among
Roberts, S. O., & Mortenson, E. M. (2023). Challenging the subjects in theory-testing research: Comments on “Racial
White = neutral framework in psychology. Perspectives Inequality in Psychological Research” by Roberts et al.
on Psychological Science, 18, 597–606. https://doi.org/ (2020). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(3), 576–579.
10.1177/17456916221077117 Syed, M. (2017). Why traditional metrics may not adequately
Roberts, S. O., & Rizzo, M. T. (2021). The psychology of represent ethnic minority psychology. Perspectives on
American racism. American Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487. Psychological Science, 12(6), 1162–1165. https://doi
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000642 .org/10.1177/1745691617709590
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcom- Veldhuis, C. B. (2022). Doubly marginalized: Addressing the
ings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz minority stressors experienced by LGBTQ+ researchers who
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. do LGBTQ+ research. Health Education & Behavior, 49(6),
10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press. 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981221116795
Rowley, S. J., & Camacho, T. C. (2015). Increasing diversity in Wang, Q. (2016). Why should we all be cultural psychologists?
cognitive developmental research: Issues and solutions. Lessons from the study of social cognition. Perspectives
Journal of Cognition and Development, 16(5), 683–692. on Psychological Science, 11(5), 583–596. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2014.976224 10.1177/1745691616645552
Rozin, P. (2009). What kind of empirical research should West, C. (2001). A genealogy of modern racism. In P. Essed
we publish, fund, and reward? A different perspective. & D. T. Goldberg (Eds), Race critical theories: Text and
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 435–439. context (pp. 90–112). Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01151.x Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological concep-
Salter, P. S., Adams, G., & Perez, M. J. (2018). Racism in the struc- tions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundar-
ture of everyday worlds: A cultural-psychological perspec- ies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6),
tive. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033
150–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417724239 Wilson, A. (1997). The ground on which I stand. Callaloo,
Schmader, T. (2023). Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. 20(3), 493–503.
Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 219–243. https://doi Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial
.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052 homophily: ERG models of a friendship network docu-
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. mented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology,
(2021). Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation 116(2), 583–642. https://doi.org/10.1086/653658
that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity Winston, A. S. (2020). Why mainstream research will not end
in Higher Education, 144(4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10 scientific racism in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 30(3),
.1037/dhe0000174 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320925176