Modern systems of knowledge production reinforce inequalities and coloniality, especially in the Global South. We investigated whether this was the case in contemporary social psychology. We examined manifestations of coloniality of knowledge (in the form of internalized Global North standards and practices) and critical awareness and reflection (historic and systemic attributions for collective disadvantages) in a survey of social psychologists in 64 countries (N = 232). Although colleagues in the Global South and Southern and Eastern Europe adopted Global Northern publication standards and tendencies, their compliance seemed motivated by institutional demands and pragmatic concerns rather than internalized inferiority or principled conviction. Regarding international mainstream publication practices, participants from all regions (most prominently outside the Global North) reported biases, under-representation, lack of relevance, and structural disadvantages. Participants offered mainly systemic attributions for these and other disadvantages. These findings suggest that social psychologists engaged with the international publication system are caught in a double-bind between collective systemic disadvantages and coerced compliance, especially outside the Global North. Discussion focuses on the mixed-motive tensions these social psychologists experience in publishing internationally under these conditions, and the implications of this status quo for knowledge production in the discipline.

中文翻译：

---

“来自遥远国家的一些无趣数据”：国际社会心理学出版物中的不平等和殖民主义

现代知识生产体系加剧了不平等和殖民主义，尤其是在全球南方。我们调查了当代社会心理学是否属于这种情况。我们在对 64 个国家的社会心理学家进行的一项调查中研究了知识的殖民性表现（以内化的全球北方标准和实践的形式）以及批判性意识和反思（对集体劣势的历史和系统性归因）（N= 232)。尽管全球南欧、南欧和东欧的同事采用了全球北方的出版标准和趋势，但他们的遵守似乎是出于制度要求和务实的考虑，而不是内在的自卑或原则信念。关于国际主流出版实践，来自所有地区（主要是全球北方以外）的参与者都报告了偏见、代表性不足、缺乏相关性和结构性劣势。参与者主要为这些和其他缺点提供了系统性的归因。这些发现表明，参与国际出版系统的社会心理学家陷入了集体系统性劣势和被迫服从之间的双重束缚，尤其是在全球北方之外。