Clinical psychologists explicitly or implicitly communicate to patients the importance of their speaking as honestly and completely as possible, especially when asking and answering questions. And, expecting honesty and completeness, non-clinical psychologists regularly use surveys of various sorts to conduct their research. Given that honest and complete communication often requires courage and resolve, Cory J. Clark and colleagues (2024) wondered whether psychologists had sufficient grit and conviction to follow their own advice. Their study was important because the psychologist-participants were university professors-- meaning that they profoundly influence the current and future direction of psychologists, psychology majors, and students of all other majors enrolled in their classes. The candidate professors taught at “the top 100 universities and the top 100 psychology graduate programs in the United States according to U.S. News & World Report rankings.” The study was even more important because many, if not most, of these very accomplished students presumably will become leaders of American people and policies.
At the end of 2021, the investigators solicited participation of 4,603 psychology faculty members. Only about 10 percent (N=470) agreed to answer questionnaire items, and not all answered all questions. Moreover, even fewer participants (N= 417) revealed their demographic information. Most of these intrepid? psychologists / scientists apparently feared answering and/or accepting personal responsibility for answering at least some of the following questionnaire items:
“The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.”
“Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the under-representation of women in STEM fields.”
“Academia discriminates against Black people (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia).”
“Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people.”
“The social sciences (in the United States) discriminate against conservatives (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia).”
“Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans.”
“Men and women have different psychological characteristics because of evolution.”
“Genetic differences explain non-trivial (10% or more) variance in race differences in intelligence test scores.”
“Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence.”
“Demographic diversity (race, gender) in the workplace often leads to worse performance.”
The investigators asked psychologist-participants how much, if at all, they believed that the questionnaire respondents might not answer the “taboo” items openly due to concerns about:
Being ostracized by some peers
Career-damaging biases against me (e.g., in publishing, promotion, awards, grants, talk invites)
Being stigmatized or labeled pejorative terms
Disciplinary actions (e.g., losing classes, losing leadership roles, formal reprimand)
Guilt-by-association harm to my students and colleagues
Being fired
Being attacked on social media
Student boycotts
Threats of physical violence
Persons who remain curious about the study can fully access it via the reference that I cite below. Because its psychologist-participants lacked the courage to cooperate adequately, this study failed abysmally in its well-intended attempt to generate useful information. In the interest of brevity, I will not belabor you with the minutiae of this grossly inadequate study. My point is not to explain reasons for the cowardice, hypocrisy, or corruption of psychology, but to underscore contemporary threats to science, in general, even to the so-called “hard sciences.” (See Restoring the Sciences: Science Under Attack, 2023) I am sure that everyone reading this posting is quite familiar with the basic tenets of scientific inquiry. We have been taught since grammar school how it should proceed. In simplest terms, there usually is: Observation, Question Formulation, Hypothesis Development, Experimentation or Some Other Objective Valid and Reliable Means of Assessment, Data Collection, Analysis, Conclusion, Communication About the Issue and Conclusion, Peer Review and Replication, and, often, Theory Development.
Although in the typical explanation of the scientific method, only step eight specifies the word “communication.” However, communication is ubiquitous in real science—communication with other past and present scientists, if only via impersonal written, visual, and oral material. All this, of course, presumes that scientists honestly say what they mean when they mean it. Decide for yourself whether those qualities are common and pervasive in contemporary American (and Western) science. If you agree that the topics studied by Cory J. Clark and colleagues (2024) really should be “taboo,” ask yourself who will decide the next batch of taboos and whether you will agree with them.
There is an even larger national problem implicit in this study, however. We know that countries fail when leaders’ surround themselves with advisors afraid to tell them what they truly believe. That circumstance can lead to wars and to disintegration. I hope that the psychological study just reviewed is not the proverbial canary in the coal mine that signals American retreat from vigorous open and honest questioning and answering of all issues—scientific and otherwise—essential to our nation’s growth and survival. Do you care enough to speak against science and social censorship? If you do, consider following and/or joining the non-partisan free speech group, FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression at https://www.thefire.org/
References
Clark, C. J., et al. (2024). Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology ProfessorsPerspectives on psychological science. May 16 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3083-9179
National Association of Scholars (December 08, 2023). Restoring the Sciences: Science Under Attack. https://www.nas.org/blogs/media/video-restoring-the-sciences-science-under-attack
No comments:
Post a Comment