ISPP Early Career Committee Newsletter — Issue 2, 2022
Welcome to our ISPP ECC Newsletter!!
For Issue 2, 2022, we continued with our previous format. Rather than having the full newsletter sent to your email (which can be rather long), you can now click to read more for each of the contributions, and you’ll be directed to the full version of the newsletter on Medium. Watch this space!
Chair’s Address
Dr. Tijana Karić (Philipps-Universität Marburg)
Dear Early Career Scholars,
Welcome to the ECC Newsletter! I am writing this letter in a very strange moment in time, from a quite cold office of my host university in Germany. Although each period can be considered challenging in its own way, it seems to me that the world does not stop forcing us to build thicker skin in increasingly uncertain conditions. Crises change, demands often exceed our resources, and we all work and live in uncertainty — some to a smaller, some still to a greater extent. That’s why I am glad that the topic of this newsletter, chosen by our editors Felipe and Jessica, is Desk rejections of diversity: The (not so) hidden barriers to diversity in Academia.
But I’ll get back to that. First, I want to express my gratitude for being given the opportunity to be the Chair of the Early Career Committee. Special thanks to current Chair Ex-Officio Julie Wronski for her guidance through procedures and her invaluable suggestions. I would like to introduce you to our existing and new team members: Fabian Neuner and Ruri Takizawa are in charge of Professional Development; for the Newsletter Felipe Vilanova and Jessie Gale; for Mentoring Lunch there are Rongbo Jin and Slieman Halabi; Web Resources are handled by Daniel Valdenegro and Islam Borinca. Special welcome to the new Chair-Elect Myrto Pantazi. Thank you for being such a good team!
In the past year, ECC organized several activities during the 2022 Annual Meeting in Athens. First, after three years of online conferences, we came to Athens eager for social interactions. We are glad we had the opportunity to meet some of you live during the ECC Social Hour. The Professional Development team organized three round tables: Opportunities and Challenges during Career Trajectories, The Dissertation is done, now what?, and Getting Started: Leveraging Your Research through Social Media. We hope you found these activities useful! After video calling for a couple of years, the Mentoring Luncheon was again organized in person, and we are happy to have received positive feedback from the mentees. We are now working hard to organize exciting events for the 2023 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada.
Now back to the topic of the newsletter. As someone who comes from a disadvantaged background, I am no stranger to experiences and research related to (lack of) diversity in academia. I have discussed these experiences with many colleagues, and I believe that it is extremely important both for science and for the young researchers themselves, that diversity is taken into account to a much greater extent. This is also one of my goals during the ECC Chairpersonship — opportunities like this mean a chance to advocate for changes so that the position of the disadvantaged can be improved.
In the following year, we will offer several online events and other ways you can be involved, to which you will be cordially invited. We believe that these events will be able to bring you something useful and facilitate networking with scholars from around the world. In the meantime, you can reach us on Twitter (@PolPsyISPP) or by email (ecc@ispp.org). If you have any ideas, suggestions, questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch.
I wish you a productive and joyful year! Stay safe!
Tijana Karić
ISPP — ECC Chair, 2022–2023
Late-2022 Theme: Desk rejections of diversity: The (not so) hidden barriers to diversity in Academia
By Laura dos Santos Boeira (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul)
Urgent action is needed to overcome both the structural barriers to publishing papers from the Global South and the desk rejections/dismissive reviews dispensed towards their authors. In early 2022, Diana Kwon [1] from Nature published a blog about a recent study [2] showing how open-access publishing fees deter scientific publication in the Global South. Yet another challenge faced by these researchers, alongside lack of funding, less opportunities for international networking and unequal English proficiency [3]. On top of that, Kassouf and Ronconi [3] addressed how journal editors seem to be biased towards publishing studies from well-known northern institutions (even if they are focused on topics that have long been explored), dismissing research by southern institutions, specifically the ones using nonexperimental methods. This seems to be the current modus operandi for drastically narrowing the diversity of people and knowledge that can be read in scientific journals.
There are simple ways through which journals could provide specific support to lower the impact of structural barriers, such as funding for proper translation of papers or publication mentorship programs (the early-career women mentorship from the Health Systems Global (HSG) being a great example). Nevertheless, we have still a long way to go in order to overcome the idea that researchers in Low and Middle-Income countries develop “poor quality” research.
We often refer to the pyramid of evidence as a way to distinguish what good research is. But diversity in methods is key to address social challenges [4], and Global South researchers often adopt methodological choices that are more relevant to make sense of their countries pressing matters. As a Brazilian that works with knowledge translation, I constantly need to balance global and local evidence, systematic reviews and qualitative insights. The “best available evidence” is the one that allows me and my colleagues to provide context-sensitive briefs for policy-makers. If a randomized control trial shows that X intervention is super effective, but it goes against the culture and the values of my people… guess what? It is not as effective anymore. But while the trial gets published, the local studies that can help us understand how to best implement said intervention often don’t.
Power dynamics and coloniality of knowledge are very much a reality of scientific publication, and they need to be explicit so we can finally start to develop mechanisms to value Global South-led papers that depict local data. Promoting diversity in academia is a multi-level effort that starts in creating safe and transparent spaces for people to conduct their research, celebrating different contexts and methodologies. To improve gender and race representation in authorship of papers is also a must, since women [5,6] and people who are black or indigenous [7] are less likely to be invited to participate in writing a paper and rarely feature as first or last authors, specifically in high-profile journals [5]. There are efforts in place to enhance the visibility of structural racism and sexism in science [8], but there is a lot still to be done.
Adopting an equity-informed approach to how journals handle their editorial decisions, respond to submissions and give orientation to their reviewers is much needed. There is no ‘one-size fits all’ in scientific publication and we shouldn’t pretend it is equally easy for everyone to follow the strict rules and formats that we came to agree are the “golden standard” of manuscripts. If proper tools for quality appraisal and disclosure of the limitations of studies are applied, no journal would be sacrificing “prestige” by opening the doors to diverse types of methodologies and context-sensitive research. Isn’t scientific publication all about dialogue after all? What kind of message are we sending out to the world when we deem papers written by southern authors unworthy of the public eye?
It is long-overdue the recognition that the Global South is not a place of scientific scarcity or underdevelopment, but a creative force to be reckoned with. The whole world has much to benefit from the knowledge produced here and the way we challenge traditional academic models. Researchers shouldn’t renounce their scientific drives to fit into editorial lines that were designed to validate a Global North standard. If journals aim to be a platform for democratic scientific exchange, maybe they are the ones to change, by turning the knowledge world map upside down and opening up to the beautiful diversity of people, questions and methods from the Global South.
References
[1] Kwon, D. (2022). Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south. Nature, d41586–022–00342-w. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w
[2] Smith, A. C., Merz, L., Borden, J. B., Gulick, C. K., Kshirsagar, A. R., & Bruna, E. M. (2021). Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s “Mirror Journal” system. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1123–1143. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157
[3] Kassouf, A. L., & Ronconi, L. (2022) Obstacles that Southern Researchers Face in Publishing in Economics Journals, and Why the Research Community Should Care. PEP Working Paper Series.
[4] Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges (2022). The Evidence Commission report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers. Hamilton: McMaster Health Forum.
[5] Shen, Y. A., Webster, J. M., Shoda, Y., & Fine, I. (2018). Persistent underrepresentation of women’s science in high profile journals [Preprint]. Scientific Communication and Education. https://doi.org/10.1101/275362
[6] Ross, M. B., Glennon, B. M., Murciano-Goroff, R., Berkes, E. G., Weinberg, B. A., & Lane, J. I. (2022). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 608(7921), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
[7] Sereti, I., Akinyemiju, T., & Gianella, S. (2022). Probe how race and gender intersect in author attribution. Nature, 611(7934), 33–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03516-8
[8] Else, H., & Perkel, J. M. (2022). The giant plan to track diversity in research journals. Nature, 602(7898), 566–570. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00426-7
Advice Column
The Strange Case of Diversity in Perpetuating Academic Barriers
By Dr. Yasin Koc (University of Groningen)
“I enjoyed reading the article in terms of hearing the lived experiences and voices of men that we don’t know much from, i.e. gay men from a developing nation such as Turkey. This makes the research worthwhile. However…”
These were the first words of the rejection letter I read for my first ever paper submission. Both the editor and the reviewers had liked my paper, they had thoroughly enjoyed reading the quotes from my gay interviewees, and they had thought we needed more research like that in the field, but there was always a however in how they continued their argument. Even though this however is typical for any article submission, whatever came before and after the however was bothering me. Despite many strengths of my paper, the sample was the only thing the editor thought made my work worthwhile, highlighting their tokenistic viewpoint. On the other hand, despite other limitations of my paper, the sample was the main reason the editor thought my work was not publishable. After nine years of receiving this review, I continue to face similar comments whenever my data come from “exotic” disadvantaged groups or more simply from Turkey. Even though I work at an esteemed university in the Netherlands, my name, and the research topics, context, and methods I use make me identify more as a scholar from the Global South. In this post, I would like to outline where I see several barriers for actual diversity in academia, the underlying issues for these barriers, and finally, my own solutions that might be useful for some.
When I think about the acceptable and normative scientific practices in our field today, I always think about the concept of ordinary privilege. McIntosh (2012) defines ordinary privilege as an invisible package of unearned benefits that comes with being a privileged member of the White majority. Based on the lives and experiences of the majority, ordinary privilege establishes the normative way of being for practically everyone. It is undetectable, ongoing, and persistent, but rarely acknowledged. Relatedly, many scholars in the Global North assume their way of doing science, their theories, their research questions, and the samples they have are the only ways of doing and advancing science. Together with the structural advantages of being leaders in scientific associations, having access to large grants, and being editors of big journals, these scholars in the Global North act almost like gatekeepers and determine what could make it into the mainstream from the Global South. They are not aware of the difficulties faced by scholars from the Global South, and hence they cannot respond to them. Even though this is not necessarily intentional, it eventually maintains a one-sided perception of the world that is indifferent to non-Western realities.
More specifically, some of the concrete issues faced by non-Western scholars include continuous questions regarding the international relevance of our work, justifying the context of our research, establishing the importance of the content of our study above and beyond the scientific rationale and the research gap, and being asked to discuss how and why our work might diverge from the mainstream. However, these questions are predominantly asked to scholars outside the Global North. Any topics or research practise within the Global North are widely accepted as the norm, and anything else as a second-class science. In line with what Toni Morrison says about the function of racism, these issues distract us from doing our work as we are constantly occupied with explaining, justifying, and showing that our work is worthwhile given the non-Western context. I would acknowledge that this is not unique to scholars from the Global South, yet I reckon we experience this much more strongly and frequently. Even though individuals and some collectives make efforts within the field and our associations, we are far from reaching a solution. The main obstacle to the solution is the framing of the issue. Our research contribution to science should be framed as “scientific contribution” not as “diversity”. Otherwise, the concept itself belittles the rigour and importance of our work as if our work would not make it into the mainstream if it was not for the sake of diversity. This is because we seldom define the concept of diversity and assume everyone understands the same thing, which is unfortunately trying to fit scholarship from Global South into the mainstream without challenging certain assumptions The journals invite diverse teams of editorial board members; yet they do not seem to have a clear vision on how to achieve actual diversity. Similarly, they do not clearly communicate the expectations either to the team members or to the scholars who want to submit their work. Most editors and naïve reviewers still strive to uphold the (normative) expectations that prevail in our field and there is not much room for actual diversity of scholarship. Unless we have discussions of the issues and make clear decisions to overcome them, and communicate these within our field, a scholar from the Global South on the editorial team of a journal or a member of an executive committee in an association will not magically change the world. Moreover, with these performative actions of diversity, more pressure is put on the shoulders of the scholars from the Global South because they are held responsible if they cannot find their place in academia. However, if we do not address the structural issues, individual efforts will not be sufficient to change this system.
Even though I believe in social change being more important than social creativity, I will propose a repertoire of solutions I developed myself over the years in case someone like me is looking for quick solutions. If possible, attend conferences and make friends. If this is not possible, have an online presence and interact with scholars across the world. Being known in the field increases your chances of having your voice heard. Do not mention the context or geographical area in the title of your work. They are known to be cited less. When you write or present papers, highlight the bigger picture. This helps other people to recognise the connections between your work and theirs. Unless there is a good scientific reason, avoid replicating the Western models in your non-Western context for the sake of it. This perpetuates the superiority of those models and conveys the idea that your research is secondary (which it isn’t). Defend new research questions and paradigms you have developed in your own context and get them noticed internationally. Perhaps for this, work with people who have power for a while. This could be through both horizontal and vertical networking at conferences. Finally, whenever possible, take active roles in organisations and journals. This helps with representation and increases others’ likelihood to put themselves forward. Besides, you can share resources and organise workshops to tackle these problems in academia. However, these solutions only address the symptoms, and we need to go beyond and change the way we function.
Overall, we have an obligation to make academia more diverse not through performative diversity initiatives or putting more pressure on the disadvantaged scholars, but through uplifting each other and making scholarship from the Global South an integral part of our scientific world. As long as we try to fit our work into the mainstream academic work, scholars from the Global South will need to make compromises that will continue to disadvantage us. To avoid this, we can actively work towards a set of goals through roundtable discussions at conferences, written contributions, and keeping an open conversation.
Kudos Column
By Dr. Anna Potoczek (University of Warsaw)
This year I had the honor to receive the Best Dissertation Award from the ISPP for my thesis entitled “The impact of lack of control on norm perception and conformity” written under the supervision of prof. Marcin Bukowski (Jagiellonian University) and prof. Immo Fritsche (Leipzig University). This was a wonderful experience and an important step in my career. In this short report I would like to briefly describe the research aim and main results of my thesis as well as to explain the role that ISPP played in my academic journey.
The question that guided my research was: what is the link between lack of personal control and compliance with social norms? A growing body of research shows that loss of personal control leads to increased conformity to salient social norms. However, not much is known about motivational processes underlying this effect. The aim of my thesis was thus to test a set of predictions, based on the theoretical assumption that norm conformity among control-deprived individuals can be strategic and goal-driven. More precisely, we believed that norm conformity will only occur when a group and its norms offer a chance of restoration of sense of control. We tested this idea in a set of 12 studies conducted in Poland, Spain, Germany, Chile and the USA, in the context of political engagement, ecological activism, as well as racial prejudice. We found that participants whose sense of personal control is (vs. is not) threatened are more strategic in their conformity to norms: they are more likely to follow norms only when they perceive a given group as efficacious, when it addresses the problem people deal with, and when its norms support problem-solving. Additionally my research shows that positive social norms may overcome social and political apathy induced by lack of personal control: when norms of a given group are effective and they give a possibility of restoration of control, threatened participants will follow them.
Results of this research were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Potoczek et al., 2022: Acting collectively against air pollution: When does control threat mobilize environmental activism?) and in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Potoczek et al., 2022: Walk This Way: Ingroup Norms Determine Voting Intentions for Those Who Lack Sociopolitical Control).
I had the opportunity to present my research at ISPP conferences twice: in 2021, during the virtual meeting, and in 2022, in Athens, Greece. This year I presented results of my current work in a very interesting symposium on affective components of collective action. I was lucky to be asked many inspiring questions and to discuss with other academics possible further steps regarding my research. This experience provided me with alternative explanations for the results I obtained in the research on alliances between women, men and LGBT+ community fighting abortion ban. I also took part in events organized for early career scholars, where I received academic advice from more senior researchers. The conference itself was very exciting, with many fascinating talks, panels and social events. I keep my fingers crossed for having the chance to present in Montreal, Canada next year!
ECC on the Web
The ISPP invites you to stay engaged with the ECC online through the society’s Twitter (@PolPsyISPP), Facebook(https://fb.com/PolPsyISPP), Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/intlsocpolpsych), blog (https://ispp.org/category/ispp-blog/) and medium (https://polpsyispp.medium.com/) sites. Stay up-to-date on conferences, publications, open positions, and discussions of interest to scholars in political psychology through our social various media!
We are always on the look-out for new and interesting articles to be featured in our ECC blog. Articles can range from communicating your research to a more general audience to writing about current social issues in the world through an interdisciplinary, political, sociological, and/or psychological lens. If you are willing to contribute, please get in touch with us through the e-mail address ecc@ispp.org.
