In the target article, Clark and Winegard (this issue) attempt to make the case that, in the context of the recent American political system, liberals and conservatives are equally “tribal.” They then use this argument to assert that the preponderance of liberals in social science makes it very likely that the research literature is systematically biased in favor of liberal ideas and perspectives and against conservative ideas and perspectives. To be clear, we are in favor of diversity along any dimension, including ideology. We believe representation matters, and that conservative scholars should be able to look around the field and see similar others and not feel disconnected or excluded. We also agree with the idea that liberals and conservatives working together on politically relevant topics can lead to more rigorous research, to the extent that these collaborations can improve practices such as the framing of research questions and hypotheses, the construct validity of measures, and the interpretation of results (Reyna, 2017). Both sides of the ideological spectrum—if they can work together collegially—can keep the other’s biases in check. However, we take issue with the specifics of the target article. In introducing their case, Clark and Winegard (this issue) state, “Much of this evidence will be limited, anecdotal, and unsystematic and therefore dismissible. Our hope, however, is that the total force of the evidence we marshal will be compelling enough to merit serious consideration” (p. 10-11). We are not satisfied with this statement. Clark and Winegard present more rhetorical argument than evidence, and the evidence that they do provide is imbalanced. They do not provide a fair service to their readers. In this commentary, we challenge the target article by asking two broad questions: First, are conservatives and liberals actually equally tribal? Second, assuming liberals are equally tribal, how consequential for social science is liberal overrepresentation? We pose these as questions because the evidence that would provide clear answers is heretofore lacking—as Clark and Winegard suggest—but we attempt to call on a broader range of evidence than presented in the target article with the goal of providing answers that are at least somewhat more definitive. Are Conservatives and Liberals Equally Tribal?

中文翻译：

---

部落已发言：社会科学中部落差异影响的证据是模棱两可的

在目标文章中，克拉克和温加德（本期）试图证明，在最近的美国政治制度背景下，自由派和保守派同样是“部落”。然后他们使用这一论点断言，自由主义者在社会科学中的优势使得研究文献很可能系统性地偏向于支持自由主义思想和观点而反对保守主义思想和观点。需要明确的是，我们支持任何维度的多样性，包括意识形态。我们认为代表性很重要，保守派学者应该能够环顾该领域并看到类似的其他人，而不会感到脱节或被排斥。我们也同意自由派和保守派在政治相关主题上合作可以导致更严格的研究的想法，在某种程度上，这些合作可以改进实践，例如研究问题和假设的框架、措施的构造有效性以及结果的解释（Reyna，2017 年）。意识形态谱系的双方——如果他们能在大学里合作——可以控制对方的偏见。但是，我们对目标文章的细节有异议。在介绍他们的案例时，克拉克和温加德（本期）指出，“这些证据中的大部分都是有限的、轶事和不系统的，因此可以驳回。然而，我们希望我们整理的证据的全部力量足以令人信服，值得认真考虑”（第 10-11 页）。我们对这个说法并不满意。克拉克和温加德提出的论据多于证据，而且他们提供的证据是不平衡的。他们没有为读者提供公平的服务。在这篇评论中，我们通过提出两个广泛的问题来挑战目标文章：首先，保守派和自由派实际上是否同样属于部落？其次，假设自由主义者同样属于部落，那么自由派的过度代表对社会科学的影响有多大？我们提出这些问题是因为迄今为止缺乏提供明确答案的证据——正如克拉克和温加德所建议的那样——但我们试图调用比目标文章中提供的更广泛的证据，目的是提供至少更确定一些。保守派和自由派平等吗？假设自由主义者同样属于部落，那么自由主义者的过度代表对社会科学的影响有多大？我们提出这些问题是因为迄今为止缺乏提供明确答案的证据——正如克拉克和温加德所建议的那样——但我们试图调用比目标文章中提供的更广泛的证据，目的是提供至少更确定一些。保守派和自由派平等吗？假设自由主义者同样属于部落，那么自由主义者的过度代表对社会科学的影响有多大？我们提出这些问题是因为迄今为止缺乏提供明确答案的证据——正如克拉克和温加德所建议的那样——但我们试图调用比目标文章中提供的更广泛的证据，目的是提供至少更确定一些。保守派和自由派平等吗？自由派的过度代表对社会科学的影响有多大？我们提出这些问题是因为迄今为止缺乏提供明确答案的证据——正如克拉克和温加德所建议的那样——但我们试图调用比目标文章中提供的更广泛的证据，目的是提供至少更确定一些。保守派和自由派平等吗？自由派的过度代表对社会科学的影响有多大？我们提出这些问题是因为迄今为止缺乏提供明确答案的证据——正如克拉克和温加德所建议的那样——但我们试图调用比目标文章中提供的更广泛的证据，目的是提供至少更确定一些。保守派和自由派平等吗？