Beyond Bias to Western Participants, Authors, and Editors in Developmental Science
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Beyond bias in developmental science Beyond Bias to Western participants, authors, and editors in developmental science Running title: Beyond bias in developmental science *Yusuke Moriguchi Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshidahoncho, Kyoto, Japan *Correspondence should be addressed to Yusuke Moriguchi, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshidahoncho, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan Tel: +81-75-753-2852; E-mail: [email protected] Funding statement: This research was supported by grants from JSPS to the first author. Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest. Abstract In this commentary, I argue that study participants, authors, and editorial members in 1 Beyond bias in developmental science developmental science are biased toward Western populations. First, I analyzed the study participants and first authors of articles in Infant and Child Development between 2006 and 2010 and between 2016 and 2020. The results suggested that most study participants and first authors were from the Western population. However, since 2010, the number of study participants and first authors from non-Western populations have gradually increased. Second, I analyzed editorial members from journals in developmental science. The results indicated that most editorial members were Western researchers. Given these analyses, I discuss what we can do to increase diversity in developmental science. Keywords: diversity, developmental science, Western, bias Highlights: . Study participants, authors, and editorial members are biased toward Western 2 Beyond bias in developmental science populations. Most study participants and authors published in Infant and Child Development between 2006 and 2010 were Westerners; however, the situation has been gradually improving since 2010. Most developmental science journal editors are still Westerners. Introduction When I was a graduate student, my manuscript submission to an internationally renowned journal was rejected. This was partly because my sample did not include Western children, and I was required to replicate my results using a Western sample. I was astonished 3 Beyond bias in developmental science at the reason for rejection. Although there may have been other issues that contributed to the decision, the manuscript was about basic childhood cognitive development and did not address cultural issues of child development. If I were a Western researcher and collected data based on a Western sample, I would not be advised to replicate the findings among a non- Western population. This decision was unfair and reflected the inequalities in academic publishing in developmental science. Although this is an extreme case, it is common for non-Western developmental scientists to have similar experiences. For example, my non-Western colleagues and I have received reviewers’ comments indicating that our article titles should contain the country’s name, such as “Development of XXXX in (countries’ name) children.” Since most published articles in developmental science are from Western countries, these suggestions may indicate that our articles are based on less mainstream populations. However, if we must include race or culture in the title, other researchers should also have similar titles, such as “…in US- American children” or “… in UK children.” Therefore, I remain unconvinced by these suggestions. Simultaneously, however, the experience made me realize my own insensitivities toward racial or cultural issues, or diversity, in research practice. As a Japanese scientist, I generally read articles published by Western researchers, where study participants, authors, 4 Beyond bias in developmental science and even journal editors were mostly Westerners. However, I assumed that basic cognitive development would be universal and independent of race. Therefore, I naively disregarded how the study participants’ race or culture and stimuli can affect research results, how the authors’ race or affiliation can affect the structure and arguments in articles, and how the editors’ race or affiliations can affect editorial decisions. Over the past decade, the importance of diversity in developmental research practice has come into focus, and research has disproven my prior assumptions noted above. The predominant issue for race and culture concerns the study participants. Most psychological and developmental research is biased toward participants from Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) backgrounds, and such populations are not representative of all humans (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Regarding developmental science, basic cognitive development, such as attention, executive function (EF), social cognition, and brain development, can be affected by race or culture from the early stages of development (Duffy, Toriyama, Itakura, & Kitayama, 2009; Quinn, Lee, & Pascalis, 2019; Sabbagh, Xu, Carlson, Moses, & Lee, 2006). Such racial or cultural differences may occur owing to variances in environmental factors, such as parenting practices and cultural values and norms, as well as genetic variations (Keller & Kärtner, 2013; Oh & Lewis, 2008; Senzaki, Pott, Shinohara, & Moriguchi, 2021). 5 Beyond bias in developmental science For example, research has shown substantial quantitative and qualitative cultural differences in the development of EF. Schirmbeck, Rao, and Maehler (2020) reported systematic quantitative cross-cultural differences, particularly between children from East Asian and Western cultures, wherein East Asian children outperformed their Western counterparts in several EF tasks. However, some factors, such as bilingual experiences, were consistently related to children’s EF performance across cultures. Such cultural differences may reflect differences in socialization goals and practices, such as that Asian children may be taught the importance of self-control from a very early age. Moreover, there might be qualitative differences in EF development between Asian and Western children. Moriguchi, Evans, Hiraki, Itakura, and Lee (2012) examined whether Japanese and Canadian children showed different performances in two versions of rule- switching tasks. In the standard version, children were asked to sort cards according to one rule (e.g., color) during the first phase, after which they were asked to sort the cards according to the other rule (e.g., shape) during the second phase. In the social version, instead of sorting cards themselves during the first phase, children watched an adult model sorting cards according to one rule (e.g., color). Then, the children were asked to sort them according to the other rule (e.g., shape) during the second phase. Thus, in the standard version, the children needed to inhibit the rule they used during the first phase, whereas, in the social version, they 6 Beyond bias in developmental science were required to inhibit the tendency to use the rule followed by the adult model during the first phase. The results revealed that Japanese and Canadian children showed similar performances in the standard version. Conversely, Japanese children showed worse performances than Canadian children in the social version of the rule switching task. Japanese children were more strongly influenced by the model’s behavior on the social version than Canadian children. However, their ability to switch rules during the standard version was similar. The results were discussed based on independent and interdependent views of self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), by which Japanese children are socialized and educated to be dependent on each other. Therefore, the distinction between self and others may be blurred, whereas North American children are socialized to be independent, leading to the distinction between self and others. This example clearly shows the importance of culture and race in discussing basic cognitive development. Biases in study participants and authors Nielsen and colleagues reported that study participants in all manuscripts published in prestigious journals in developmental science between 2006 and 2010 were highly biased. Over 90% of the participants were from Western backgrounds (Nielsen, Haun, Kärtner, & Legare, 2017). Only 6.7% were from Asia, Africa, South/Central America, and Israel/the Middle East. Furthermore, a notable trend was observed regarding the first authors’ 7 Beyond bias in developmental science affiliations. That is, approximately 95% of the first authors were faculty members of institutions in Western countries. Only 4% were from Asia and Israel, and two articles were from first authors in Central or South America. None were from the Middle East or Africa. Thus, although some study participants were from non-Western countries, the research projects were mainly initiated by researchers in Western countries. I conducted the same analyses as in Nielsen’s study, focusing on the participants and authors published in Infant and Child Development between 2006 and 2010. I included original articles for the analyses of study participants and review and original articles for authors’ analyses. Editorials and commentaries were excluded. I coded participant information from the Method sections. If such information was not provided, I coded countries from the affiliations of first authors. I obtained results similar to those reported by Nielsen et al. (2017) (Table 1). About 90% of the participants, and over 90% of the authors, were from Western backgrounds. Moreover, I examined whether any changes had occurred recently