This thread includes the discussion from the recent debriefing session with Drs. Eleanor Seaton and Rebecca White. This session is a continuation of the conversation from the 6/30 SRCD webinar, "Becoming an Antiracist Society: Setting a Developmental Research Agenda."
If you missed the webinar, the recording is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_lGmFVkShw&feature=youtu.be
We encourage all community members to respond to any answers in this thread to keep the discussion going!
Welcome to the live debriefing session with Drs. Eleanor Seaton and Rebecca White. This session is a continuation of the conversation from the 6/30 SRCD webinar, "Becoming an Antiracist Society: Setting a Developmental Research Agenda."
Please submit questions to the experts by clicking "Reply" in the top righthand corner of this post. The experts will be monitoring submitted questions and will respond as soon as possible.
Please click the "Refresh" button of your browser periodically to see if any new posts have been added to this thread.
Once an expert has responded to a question, please feel welcome to reply to their answers and engage in further dialogue.
We hope to answer as many questions as possible during the debriefing session. However, we may not get to every question. After the session ends, we encourage all community members to respond to any unanswered questions collectively to keep the discussion going!
If you have any question during the session, please email Anna Kimura at firstname.lastname@example.org
I wanted to tag-in on @Margaret Caughy's response to this question. I think @Margaret Caughy raised some critical points about increasing the diversity of editors, associate editors, and reviewers and I agree with all of this. It is critical! Further, @Margaret Caughy's recommendations are consistent with the research of @Steven Roberts, @Carmelle Bareket-Shavit, @Forrest A. Dolins, @Peter Goldie, and @Elizabeth Mortenson that can be found here. This research showed that when a journal has a White editor, there are fewer publications that highlight race. Further, when the Editor in Chief was a person of color, the proportion of publications that highlighted race tripled. [Quick shout out to @Cynthia García Coll for her work as Editor of Child Development.]
So, one question to our current journal editors, incluidng @Glenn Roisman, @Judi Smetana, @Lynn Liben, and @Ellen Wartella, and the SRCD publications committee, incluidng @Deborah Rivas-Drake, @Christine Ohannessian, @Nora Newcombe, @John Colombo, @Tina Malti, @Martin Ruck, @Dawn Witherspoon, @Tiffany Yip, @Nicholas Alen, @Natasha Cabrera, @Lorah Dorn, @Steven Roberts, @Lynn Liben, @Judi Smetana, @Cynthia García Coll, @Ellen Wartella, @Laura Namy, is: what can we do, structurally, to make sure, when we do have a White Editor, that race, ethnicity, and other aspects of social positionality are not being ignored and overlooked? Because, our very own research [ https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620927709] tells us they will be.
Next, I want to add to this conversation by extending an invitation to White editors and reviewers to consider their roles in the review process. First, I want to invite us to consider the roles of race and social positionality when we review research with samples that are heterogeneous on race and ethnicity. Often, this type of research employs a colorblind perspective. Maybe the heterogeneity is ignored. Or maybe the heterogeneity is addressed with (theoretically unexamined) covariates for race/ethnicity. What are White reviewers saying or not saying about such approaches? What implications does colorblindness have for the quality of the science and the scope of the contribution? @Justin Jager, @Diane Putnick, and @Marc Bornstein have demonstrated, here, that heterogeneous convenience samples (which describe the bulk of developmental samples) have unclear generalizability and offer biased estimates (both in terms of population effects and subpopulation differences). In contrast, homogeneous samples offer clearer generalizability and greater accuracy. So, as reviewers, should we be happy with colorblind research with heterogeneous samples? Is accuracy something we care about? Why are we silent when we review research with ethnically and racially heterogeneous samples that fail to consider race and ethnicity? I think White reviewers need to work on being reliable about calling these colorblind approaches out and raising serious questions about what these approaches do and do not address in the developmental sciences. Can we, at a minimum, work on saying in every review of a colorblind piece that researchers need to be responsible for addressing the limitations of employing a colorblind approach in reserach with samples that are diverse on ethnicity and race in their discussion of limitations? Start there, and then begin to really think about what colorblind approaches do and do not address in developmental research and build on it.