当前位置: X-MOL 学术Perspect. Psychol. Sci. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment
Perspectives on Psychological Science ( IF 12.6 ) Pub Date : 2022-07-15 , DOI: 10.1177/17456916211072851
Sakaria Laisene Auelua-Toomey 1 , Steven O Roberts 1
Affiliation  

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non–race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non–race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non–race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.



中文翻译:

编辑委员会多样性对种族学者及其奖学金的影响:实地实验

心理科学在识别和消除维持和加剧种族不平等的思想、感受和行为方面处于独特的地位,但心理科学能够做到这一点的程度取决于心理科学对种族奖学金的支持程度。我们的理论是,主流期刊编辑缺乏种族多样性可能会阻碍种族奖学金的发展,因为这会向种族学者发出信号,表明他们的研究不受主流期刊的重视,他们应该将研究提交到其他地方发表。事实上,在一项有 1,189 名心理学博士的预注册实地实验中。学生们,我们发现在全白人编辑委员会的领导下,种族学者比非种族学者更不可能 (a) 相信该杂志重视种族多样性、种族研究、或他们自己的研究;(b) 相信期刊会发表他们的研究;(c) 愿意将他们的研究提交给期刊发表。然而,在种族多元化的编辑委员会下,我们发现种族学者和非种族学者之间没有区别。事实上,我们发现,与全白人编辑委员会相比,在多元化的编辑委员会下,种族学者和非种族学者都对期刊有更积极的看法。我们认为,种族多元化的编辑委员会对种族学者和他们的奖学金以及更广泛的领域都有好处。我们发现种族学者和非种族学者之间没有区别。事实上,我们发现,与全白人编辑委员会相比,在多元化的编辑委员会下,种族学者和非种族学者都对期刊有更积极的看法。我们认为,种族多元化的编辑委员会对种族学者和他们的奖学金以及更广泛的领域都有好处。我们发现种族学者和非种族学者之间没有区别。事实上,我们发现,与全白人编辑委员会相比,在多元化的编辑委员会下,种族学者和非种族学者都对期刊有更积极的看法。我们认为,种族多元化的编辑委员会对种族学者和他们的奖学金以及更广泛的领域都有好处。

更新日期:2022-07-18
down
wechat
bug