Is academic Psychology more tolerant today?

It was pleasing to read the notice that the British Psychological Society has awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award to Professor Michael Billig, an extremely erudite, highly skilled, and insightful scholar in the social sciences, who has contributed a unique perspective on the methods and the history of his discipline.

However, something that Billig said at the time of receiving the award deserves comment: that over the course of his career, he had seen academic psychology become increasingly tolerant. He added that 'Journals are now publishing negative findings and trying to counter the self-defeating search to obtain statistically significant results at all costs'.

As one who still labours in the vineyards of journal publishing and who is working in the political factories that now trade as 'universities', I wonder if I live in the same environment as Michael Billig.

A case can certainly be made for there being a more open and tolerant attitude to research which does not adhere to methods which rely on randomised control trial experiments (c.f. Cook,2018; Diener et al., 2022). But there is clear evidence of debate and controversy within psychology, and especially within Billig's own sphere of social psychology, that bias and restraint exist in the conduct and the publication of psychological research. Colin Fraser and I published a 1971 article identifying the research, available at that time, which identified bias in the ways that research on diversity was conceived and presented.

While this paper had little impact, recent years have shown much more attention to the possibilities that arise when research is carried out by individuals who are significantly more likely to adhere to particular political ideologies and who are more likely to hold positions within the university system (e.g. Crawford & Jussim, 2018). A recent paper (Clarke et.al, 2023) formulates a strong case for why censorship exists within the social sciences, biasing the profile of the papers which are published and accepted.

Those who continue to read the journals, and also attempt to get their work past the gatekeepers, know only too well that methodological bias continues to exist. Dictatorial editors continue to accept the beliefs and opinions of the referees (the ones that they themselves appointed) requiring substantive changes to manuscripts to 'fit' the goals of the journal and the mainstream beliefs that are prevalent at a particular point in time.

Acceptance of an article for publication often is the result of the authors making substantial changes to the context within which the paper is read, making one wonder who is the author – the original executors of the research, or the referees who impose their expectations on what they read and believe. It is a strong author who takes on the opinions and expectations of an editor, as the recent developments leading to the premature resignation of the editor of the Association for Psychological Science premier journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science, demonstrate.

A dissenting voice needs to be registered about the state of bias and tolerance in contemporary psychology, a position that would surely be accepted by Michael Billig himself.

J M Innes
Australian College of Applied Professions, Churchill College, University of Cambridge

References

Clarke, C.J., et al. (2023). Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. PNAS.
Cook, T.D. (2018). Twenty-six assumptions that have to be met if single random assignment experiments are to warrant 'gold standard' status: a commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Social Science and Medicine, 210, 37-40.
Crawford, J.T. & Jussim, L. (Eds.)  (2018). The politics of social psychology. Routledge.  
Diener, E., Northcott, R., Zyphur, M.J. & West, S.G. (2022). Beyond experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1101-1119.
Innes, J.M. & Fraser, C. (1971). Experimenter bias and other possible biases in psychological research.  European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 297-310.