Anti-Asian biases in federal grant reviews: Commentary on Yip et al. (2021).

IF 12.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY American Psychologist Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1037/amp0001337
Tiffany Yip, Kyle Lorenzo, Jiwoon Bae, Gordon Nagayama Hall, Charissa S L Cheah, Lisa Kiang, David Takeuchi, Vivian Tseng
{"title":"Anti-Asian biases in federal grant reviews: Commentary on Yip et al. (2021).","authors":"Tiffany Yip, Kyle Lorenzo, Jiwoon Bae, Gordon Nagayama Hall, Charissa S L Cheah, Lisa Kiang, David Takeuchi, Vivian Tseng","doi":"10.1037/amp0001337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior to the 2021 <i>American Psychologist</i> special issue \"Rendered Invisible: Are Asian Americans a Model or a Marginalized Minority?\" (Yip et al., 2021), only seven articles on Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) populations were published in the journal in 3 decades. The special issue interrogated sources of invisibility and marginalization of AANHPIs not only in the field of psychology but also in the broader national landscape. The current commentary provides a deeper dive into one of the primary drivers of AANHPI invisibility, anti-Asian biases encountered during the federal grant review process, which contributes to low funding rates and insufficient research on AANHPI communities. Despite comprising over 6% of the U.S. population, less than 1% of the National Institutes of Health's funding portfolio supports science on AANHPI populations. This qualitative study revealed thematic barriers encountered during National Institutes of Health grant reviews. A one-time survey was circulated to professional scientific networks to obtain open-ended responses regarding applicants' and reviewers' experiences proposing research with AANHPI samples, resulting in data from <i>N</i> = 16 respondents. Respondents were asked to indicate their role in the review process (e.g., investigator, applicant, reviewer, other) and to provide open-ended responses detailing experiences of bias. Thematic coding revealed six principal themes: (1) invalidation, (2) limited reviewer knowledge, (3) oppression Olympics, (4) White comparison groups, (5) model minority myth, and (6) homogeneity of AANHPI groups. Building off these themes, this commentary concludes with five actionable policy and institutional recommendations aimed at achieving a more inclusive national research enterprise for AANHPI investigators and communities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","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/amp0001337","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prior to the 2021 American Psychologist special issue "Rendered Invisible: Are Asian Americans a Model or a Marginalized Minority?" (Yip et al., 2021), only seven articles on Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) populations were published in the journal in 3 decades. The special issue interrogated sources of invisibility and marginalization of AANHPIs not only in the field of psychology but also in the broader national landscape. The current commentary provides a deeper dive into one of the primary drivers of AANHPI invisibility, anti-Asian biases encountered during the federal grant review process, which contributes to low funding rates and insufficient research on AANHPI communities. Despite comprising over 6% of the U.S. population, less than 1% of the National Institutes of Health's funding portfolio supports science on AANHPI populations. This qualitative study revealed thematic barriers encountered during National Institutes of Health grant reviews. A one-time survey was circulated to professional scientific networks to obtain open-ended responses regarding applicants' and reviewers' experiences proposing research with AANHPI samples, resulting in data from N = 16 respondents. Respondents were asked to indicate their role in the review process (e.g., investigator, applicant, reviewer, other) and to provide open-ended responses detailing experiences of bias. Thematic coding revealed six principal themes: (1) invalidation, (2) limited reviewer knowledge, (3) oppression Olympics, (4) White comparison groups, (5) model minority myth, and (6) homogeneity of AANHPI groups. Building off these themes, this commentary concludes with five actionable policy and institutional recommendations aimed at achieving a more inclusive national research enterprise for AANHPI investigators and communities. (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
联邦拨款审查中的反亚裔偏见:评论 Yip 等人(2021 年)。
在 2021 年《美国心理学家》特刊 "被隐形:亚裔美国人是模范还是边缘化少数群体?(Yip 等人,2021 年)之前,该杂志在 30 年内仅发表过 7 篇关于亚裔美国人、夏威夷原住民和太平洋岛民(AANHPI)的文章。这期特刊不仅探讨了亚裔美国人、夏威夷原住民和太平洋岛民在心理学领域被忽视和边缘化的原因,还探讨了在更广泛的国家范围内亚裔美国人、夏威夷原住民和太平洋岛民被忽视和边缘化的原因。本期评论深入探讨了造成亚裔美国人、加拿大人和澳大利亚人不受关注的主要原因之一,即在联邦拨款审查过程中遇到的反亚裔偏见,这导致了亚裔美国人、加拿大人和澳大利亚人社区的低资助率和研究不足。尽管亚裔美国人占美国总人口的 6%以上,但美国国立卫生研究院只有不到 1%的资金支持有关亚裔美国人和亚裔加拿大人的科学研究。这项定性研究揭示了在美国国立卫生研究院拨款审查过程中遇到的专题障碍。研究人员向专业科学网络分发了一份一次性调查问卷,以获得有关申请人和评审人员在提出使用 AANHPI 样本进行研究方面的经验的开放式回答,最终获得了 N = 16 位受访者的数据。受访者被要求说明他们在评审过程中的角色(如研究者、申请人、评审者、其他),并提供开放式回答,详细说明偏见经历。专题编码揭示了六个主要专题:(1) 无效;(2) 评审员知识有限;(3) 压迫奥林匹克;(4) 白人对比群体;(5) 模范少数群体神话;(6) AANHPI 群体的同质性。在这些主题的基础上,本评论最后提出了五项可行的政策和机构建议,旨在为非洲、亚洲和太平洋地区的研究人员和群体实现更具包容性的国家研究事业。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
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