NEED DISCUSSION IN 8 HOURS or LESS

After reading your colleague’s thoughts on the issues raised in the assigned article, consider the following in your reply:

• Did the same things stand out to you from the article, or did you notice different things than your colleague?

• Do you agree with your colleague’s ideas or suggestions about the issues? Please provide a rationale for your agreement or disagreement.

COLLEAGUE DISCUSSION 2 (LATACHA)

Surprising Information

I found the information in the article very surprising. At the beginning of class, we were introduced to quantitative research. If we look back at Chapter 8 of our textbook, one of the threats to external validity was the interaction of selection and treatment. It limits the characteristics of the participants, so it's difficult for the researcher to generalize their findings if the population does not share the same characteristics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As a reader, I put limits on the word "characteristics" by reducing it to basic demographics—age, male, female, etc. An action a researcher could take to lower the risk of interaction of selection and treatment is to "restrict claims about groups that cannot be generalized" (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), or the researcher can identify additional research they've conducted (or cite another researcher) with other groups who have the same characteristics (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In reading our case studies, I never questioned the generalizability of the study outside of the generic demographics assigned to the sample group of participants. The article was enlightening as I didn't consider diversity or culture as critical to ensuring generalizability.

Guidelines that stood out by the authors

In the article Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population, of the five guidelines addressed by the authors, the “Generalizability of the Findings” stood out. The concept of establishing the generalizability (or not) of a phenomenon BEFORE selecting a sample of participants (Rad et al., 2018) was eye-opening. In my opinion, it is reverse engineering your research. For example, if you start with the phenomenon and then identify the population to which you expect to apply (share) your findings, then your research questions could potentially change, and so will the criteria of your sample participants. This idea can be very impactful to one’s research, its replicability, representativeness, and generalizability.

With Western samples, the authors noted that rarely is other information given about the study’s participants, like ethnicity, education, or religion (Rad et al., 2018). WEIRD sampling appeared in their original study and in their most recent study; the authors found no significant difference between their studies’ findings (Rad et al., 2018). The lack

of consideration given to race, ethnicity, education, culture, and context is problematic because it can influence variability and external validity. Though the tide is slowly turning, as researchers, applying the authors recommended guidelines could help shift traditional research practices so that it is more reflective of the populations we seek to serve.

Suggestions for improving the representativeness and generalizability of research

As readers, and as research novices, we assume the results of one's research are generalizable unless there is some glaring reason to challenge the results. According to the article, Most people are not WEIRD, a survey conducted in 2008 indicated traditional methods dominated since only 12% of the world's population was represented among the top psychology journals (Henrich et al., 2010).

Before conducting a research study, section 8.01 of the Ethics code mandates Institutional Approval (American Psychological Association, 2017). So, I argue that the IRB plays an instrumental role in facilitating the practice of ensuring representation, diversity, equity, and inclusion when conducting research since the goal of research is to help humankind and improve the human experience for all. If the IRB gives consent to the researcher, then as part of the researcher's plan, it should include considerations in choosing non-WEIRD samples or defend why diverse representation is not relevant to the generalizability of their research.

The authors of Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population, suggest in recognition of the use of a non-WEIRD population sample by the researcher, a journal should issue a badge. They also suggest that since editors and reviewers work closely together, they could align on the idea that the diversity of samples contributes to a compelling paper along with "its theoretical contribution and empirical novelty" (Rad et al., 2018). Arguably, these gestures could serve as powerful incentives to using non-WEIRD samples by researchers, improving the representativeness and generalizability of their research.

Changed attitude in my research approach

Reading this article—and other suggested readings—has changed my attitude toward how I will approach my research. Over the years, I’ve often thought of my client base and its lack of diversity. It fits neatly into the WEIRD sampling pool. In 2500 families, our company served only one Hispanic family and three Black families. Perhaps it was the nature of the company’s service offerings or because, across the country, less than 7% of the older adult population move from their homes of 40 or 50 years into high-end retirement communities.

In my research, I will consider the recommendation of the authors to study the phenomenon and evaluate its generalizability prior to starting, even though it is

qualitative research. Adult caregivers exist in almost all populations, socioeconomic and educational levels, cultures, and ethnic groups. Because of this, I might choose three ethnic groups of adult caregivers. Initially, by default, I would not have looked beyond the current demographic of my client base. Our articles this week were very enlightening.

References American Psychological Association. (2017, January). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Ethics. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/indexLinks to an external site.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE. Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, & Ara Norenzayan. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD | Nature.466(29) https://www.nature.com/articles/466029a#citeasLinks to an external site.

M.S. Rad, A.J. Martingano, & J. Ginges. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population - PMC. National Library of Medicine, 115(45) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721165115