Perspectives of researchers engaging in majority world research to promote diverse and global psychological science.

IF 12.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY American Psychologist Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1037/amp0001229
Vaishali V Raval, Philip Baiden, Graciela Espinosa-Hernandez, Lucía Magis-Weinberg, Amanda J Nguyen, Peter F Titzmann, Yao Zheng
{"title":"Perspectives of researchers engaging in majority world research to promote diverse and global psychological science.","authors":"Vaishali V Raval, Philip Baiden, Graciela Espinosa-Hernandez, Lucía Magis-Weinberg, Amanda J Nguyen, Peter F Titzmann, Yao Zheng","doi":"10.1037/amp0001229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Journal analyses have documented the historical neglect of research pertaining to the Majority World in psychological science, and the need for inclusivity is clearly articulated to ensure a science that is comprehensive and globally applicable. However, no systematic efforts have explored the perspectives of researchers working with Majority World communities regarding the challenges they experience in conducting and disseminating research and ways to address them. Our aim was to explore these challenges from the perspective of these researchers using an embedded mixed-methods design. Based on responses of 232 researchers who engage in psychological research with Majority World communities (68.1% from Africa, Asia, or Latin America, remaining from the Minority World), we identified challenges in three areas: (a) stemming from an inherent bias against Majority World research, (b) experienced by all researchers, which nonetheless are heightened for those engaging in research with Majority World populations, and (c) specific to researchers affiliated with Majority World institutions. Based on the findings, we recommend journal editorial teams and funding agencies: (a) acknowledge and address the bias inherent in the publication and funding process, (b) recruit editorial team members, program officers, and reviewers from the Majority World, (c) train editorial team members, program officers, and reviewers from the Minority World to thoughtfully evaluate Majority World research, and (d) provide resources for researchers affiliated with Majority World institutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001229","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Journal analyses have documented the historical neglect of research pertaining to the Majority World in psychological science, and the need for inclusivity is clearly articulated to ensure a science that is comprehensive and globally applicable. However, no systematic efforts have explored the perspectives of researchers working with Majority World communities regarding the challenges they experience in conducting and disseminating research and ways to address them. Our aim was to explore these challenges from the perspective of these researchers using an embedded mixed-methods design. Based on responses of 232 researchers who engage in psychological research with Majority World communities (68.1% from Africa, Asia, or Latin America, remaining from the Minority World), we identified challenges in three areas: (a) stemming from an inherent bias against Majority World research, (b) experienced by all researchers, which nonetheless are heightened for those engaging in research with Majority World populations, and (c) specific to researchers affiliated with Majority World institutions. Based on the findings, we recommend journal editorial teams and funding agencies: (a) acknowledge and address the bias inherent in the publication and funding process, (b) recruit editorial team members, program officers, and reviewers from the Majority World, (c) train editorial team members, program officers, and reviewers from the Minority World to thoughtfully evaluate Majority World research, and (d) provide resources for researchers affiliated with Majority World institutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从事大多数世界研究的研究人员的观点,以促进多样化和全球化的心理科学。
期刊分析已经记录了历史上对心理科学中与多数世界有关的研究的忽视,并且明确阐述了包容性的必要性,以确保科学的全面性和全球适用性。然而,没有系统的努力探索与多数世界社区合作的研究人员的观点,了解他们在开展和传播研究方面遇到的挑战以及解决这些挑战的方法。我们的目的是利用嵌入式混合方法设计,从这些研究人员的角度来探索这些挑战。根据232名研究人员对多数世界社区(68.1%来自非洲、亚洲或拉丁美洲,其余来自少数世界)进行心理研究的回应,我们确定了三个方面的挑战:(a)源于对多数世界研究的固有偏见,(b)所有研究人员都经历过,但对于那些从事多数世界人口研究的研究人员来说,这种偏见更为突出,(c)特定于隶属于多数世界机构的研究人员。基于这些发现,我们建议期刊编辑团队和资助机构:(a)承认并解决出版和资助过程中固有的偏见;(b)招募来自多数世界的编辑团队成员、项目官员和审稿人;(c)培训来自少数世界的编辑团队成员、项目官员和审稿人,以审慎地评估多数世界的研究;(d)为多数世界机构的研究人员提供资源。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Psychologist
American Psychologist PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
18.50
自引率
1.20%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.
期刊最新文献
Daniel Kahneman (1934-2024). Jean Maria Arrigo (1944-2024). A quasi-experimental study examining the efficacy of multimodal bot screening tools and recommendations to preserve data integrity in online psychological research. Ascribing understanding to ourselves and others. The free will capacity: A uniquely human adaption.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1