TY - JOUR
T1 - Should social scientists be distanced from or engaged with the people they study?
AU - Nzinga, Kalonji
AU - Rapp, David N.
AU - Leatherwood, Christopher
AU - Easterday, Matthew
AU - Rogers, Leoandra Onnie
AU - Gallagher, Natalie
AU - Medin, Douglas L.
N1 - Funding Information:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Monnica Williams for her cogent comments and suggestions. This work was supported, in part, by National Science Foundation Grants DRL 1713368, BCS 1623555, and BCS 1647219 (to
Funding Information:
D.L.M.); Air Force Office of Scientific Research Grant FA9550-14-1-0030 (to D.L.M.); and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship 1000234799 (to N.G.).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/11/6
Y1 - 2018/11/6
N2 - This commentary focuses on two important contrasts in the behavioral sciences: (i) default versus nondefault study populations, where default samples have been used disproportionately (for psychology, the default is undergraduates at major research universities), and (ii) the adoption of a distant versus close (engaged) attitude toward study samples. Previous research has shown a strong correlation between these contrasts, where default samples and distant perspectives are the norm. Distancing is sometimes seen as necessary for objectivity, and an engaged orientation is sometimes criticized as biased, advocacy research, especially if the researcher shares a social group membership with the study population (e.g., a black male researcher studying black male students). The lack of diversity in study samples has been paralleled by a lack of diversity in the researchers themselves. The salience of default samples and distancing in prior research creates potential (and presumed) risk factors for engaged research with nondefault samples. However, a distant perspective poses risks as well, and particularly so for research with nondefault populations. We suggest that engaged research can usefully encourage attention to the study context and taking the perspective of study samples, both of which are good research practices. More broadly, we argue that social and educational sciences need skepticism, interestedness, and engagement, not distancing. Fostering an engaged perspective in research may also foster a more diverse population of social scientists.
AB - This commentary focuses on two important contrasts in the behavioral sciences: (i) default versus nondefault study populations, where default samples have been used disproportionately (for psychology, the default is undergraduates at major research universities), and (ii) the adoption of a distant versus close (engaged) attitude toward study samples. Previous research has shown a strong correlation between these contrasts, where default samples and distant perspectives are the norm. Distancing is sometimes seen as necessary for objectivity, and an engaged orientation is sometimes criticized as biased, advocacy research, especially if the researcher shares a social group membership with the study population (e.g., a black male researcher studying black male students). The lack of diversity in study samples has been paralleled by a lack of diversity in the researchers themselves. The salience of default samples and distancing in prior research creates potential (and presumed) risk factors for engaged research with nondefault samples. However, a distant perspective poses risks as well, and particularly so for research with nondefault populations. We suggest that engaged research can usefully encourage attention to the study context and taking the perspective of study samples, both of which are good research practices. More broadly, we argue that social and educational sciences need skepticism, interestedness, and engagement, not distancing. Fostering an engaged perspective in research may also foster a more diverse population of social scientists.
KW - Advocacy research
KW - Diversity
KW - Engagement
KW - Generalizability
KW - Insider bias
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056089721&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056089721&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1721167115
DO - 10.1073/pnas.1721167115
M3 - Article
C2 - 30397119
AN - SCOPUS:85056089721
VL - 115
SP - 11435
EP - 11441
JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
SN - 0027-8424
IS - 45
ER -