This article reviews some of the ideological forces contributing to the systematic exclusion of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) in clinical neuroscience. Limitations of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and other methods systematically exclude individuals with coarse or curly hair and darker skin. Despite these well-known limitations, clinical neuroscience manuscripts frequently fail to report participant race or ethnicity or reasons for excluding participants. Grounding the discussion in Dis/ability Studies and Critical Race Theory (DisCrit), we review factors that exacerbate exclusion and contribute to the multiple marginalization of BIPOC, including (a) general methodological issues, (b) perceptions about race and disability, and (c) underreporting of methods. We also present solutions. Just as scientific practices changed in response to the replication crisis, we advocate for greater attention to the crisis of underrepresentation in clinical neuroscience and provide strategies that serve to make the field more inclusive.
Recent years have seen a spirited debate over whether there is linguistic injustice in academic publishing. One way that linguistic injustice might occur is if gatekeepers (e.g., peer reviewers and editors) judge the scholarly quality of academic writing more harshly if the writing does not meet expectations for international academic English, even if the content is good. We tested this with a randomized control study in which scholars judged the scientific quality of several scientific abstracts. Each abstract had two versions with identical scientific content, such that the language in one version conformed to standards for international academic English, and the language in the other version did not (but was still comprehensible). While the data are preliminary and the effects statistically inconclusive, both pre-registered and exploratory analyses of the data suggest that scholars may give abstracts lower ratings of scientific quality when the writing does not conform to standards of international academic English. These results suggest that linguistic bias may occur in academic peer reviewing and motivate further study to better understand and address this phenomenon.
Purpose The speech-language pathologist's (SLP's) role for the specific language impairment (SLI) population is to provide specialized intervention targeting underlying deficits. However, children with SLI are often underrepresented on caseloads despite a high prevalence of the disorder and known long-term impacts. This study explored how SLPs use research to inform clinical decision making for SLI under neutral workplace circumstances. Method A national web-based survey was distributed to SLPs ( n = 563) to investigate assessment and intervention clinical decision making for individuals with SLI. Vignettes portrayed various clinical profiles of SLI across dimensions of affectedness (child characteristics). Respondents made clinical decisions under neutral workplace conditions to remove confounds of work setting, policies, and caseload/time management constraints. The influence of child and practitioner characteristics on clinical decision making was explored. Results Variation across the vignettes emerged for the clinical decisions of SLP service recommendation, service delivery, intervention contents, specific treatment goals, and a monitoring approach. Practitioner characteristics had little influence, while child characteristics influenced responses across the clinical decision-making process. Assessment standard scores and percentiles were most strongly associated with SLP service recommendation. Conclusion The use of vignette methodology was demonstrated for the discipline of communication sciences and disorders. SLPs recommended services for individuals with SLI at higher rates than in actual practice; however, variation across the clinical decision-making process occurred. Implications include the reduction and removal of constraining workplace characteristics and increasing SLP competency for identifying the diagnostic profile of SLI.
Purpose: Open science that is truly accessible and transparent to all will enhance reproducibility. However, there are ethical and practical concerns in implementing open science practices, especially when working with populations who are systematically excluded from and marginalized in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) research, such as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) from clinical populations. The purpose of this article was to discuss these concerns and present actionable steps to support open science in CSD research with BIPOC. Conclusions: In the movement toward open and reproducible science, the discipline of CSD must prioritize accessibility and transparency, in addition to the implementation of individual scientific practices. Such a focus requires building trust with BIPOC not only as research participants but also as valued leaders of the scientific community.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.