Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong?

Abstract

The quality, quantity, and funding of ethnic minority research have been inadequate. One factor that has contributed to this inadequacy is the practice of scientific psychology. Although principles of psychological science involve internal and external validity, in practice psychology emphasizes internal validity in research studies. Because many psychological principles and measures have not been cross-validated with different populations, those conducting ethnic minority research often have a more difficult time demonstrating rigorous internal validity. Thus, psychology's overemphasis of internal as opposed to external validity has differentially hindered the development of ethnic minority research. To develop stronger research knowledge on ethnic minority groups, it is important that (a) all research studies address external validity issues and explicitly specify the populations to which the findings are applicable; (b) different research approaches, including the use of qualitative and ethnographic methods, be appreciated; and (c) the psychological meaning of ethnicity or race be examined in ethnic comparisons.

Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research

“…Third, the underrepresentation of minorities is a consistent limitation in the norm literature (as in almost all studies in this review). Such limited minority representation results in an inadequate understanding of ethnic differences in norm perception, as well as limiting the external validity of the research (Sue, 2000). Fourth, the norm interventions often contained other components.…”

The diversification of psychology: A multicultural revolution.

“…Moreover, a psychology based solely on the separation of science and spirituality and that uses primarily the segmented and reductionistic tenets of the natural sciences is one that may not be shared by three quarters of the world nor by the emerging culturally diverse groups in the United States. As Stanley Sue (1999) pointed out, psychological theories, hypotheses, and findings may possess internal validity (methodological consistency and purity) but may not possess external validity (relevance to the real world of human existence).…”

“…There is little doubt that the curriculum of psychology is woefully inadequate in its coverage of racial and ethnic minorities, women, sexual minorities, and the disabled (Chin & Russo, 1998;Conti & Kimmel, 1993;Fine & Asch, 1988;Madden & Hyde, 1998;Simoni, 1996). As a result there is the danger that culturally different students may feel oppressed and alienated or may develop a perspective that evaluates their own cultural group, gender, or sexual orientation as being less than desirable (Highlen, 1994; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999). For all students, however, it means their educational experience does not reflect social reality and is therefore derelict in preparing them, regardless of race, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender, to function in a culturally pluralistic and global society.…”

Socio-Cultural Imbalances in AIED Research: Investigations, Implications and Opportunities

“…In many situations, this is a totally acceptable consideration since research on psychology definitely has implications in, and can be beneficial to WEIRD societies. But Arnett and others (Sue 1999;Henrich et al 2010a) have noticed that many scholars commonly extend the applicability of their findings to humans in general either by not stressing clear restrictions about the validity of their findings to a target population or by more directly claiming a generalization to other groups. The fact that researchers do not clearly limit their findings or that they claim a universalism without proper care actually leads to a similar result; psychological findings are commonly extended to populations that they have not been tested on.…”