Author: Maggie JohnsonOne of our interns had an industrial psychology summer internship through which she received data on user experiences. When presenting her data to a group of board members of the sales division, one of the members asked if she could “make the retention numbers say something else.” In response, she gave them a clear no, as that was against her ethical and moral standards. This led her to question how often this is asked of employees and how often data fudging occurs. Many different industries fund research, so we wondered if this research is manipulated to show the companies that fund studies what they want to see. Because of this question, we are cautious to agree with data provided by privately funded studies without digging deeper. As such, we also wondered why people would manipulate their data to begin with.
We discussed the possibility of profit being the biggest motive. An article we read discussing this topic further suggests that many employees agree to edit data to fit what their employers want to see because they felt pressured or there was financial incentive to do so. Another story, however, mentioned a man who edited the background data of a client because they weren’t eligible for certain things, and this change in information allowed his client to get treatment and resources. Considering the pressure some employees may face, we understood why they may choose to fudge data. For example, if someone has a family to support and their job is in jeopardy, and they refuse to manipulate the data in a way that works best for the company, they could lose everything by saying no to the request. In terms of research in general, not in the realm of private funding, there is also the idea of “publish or perish”. In other words, there is a lot of pressure on researchers to publish a lot of articles, especially if they want to be considered for tenure (i.e., permanent employment) at an academic institution. This can be difficult, though, because journals that publish scientific findings tend to only want to publish significant results. So, even if research is being conducted for a full year, if those results are not significant or if your hypothesis does not align with your results, there is a strong chance that the data you’ve been working on won’t get published. In addition, it can be difficult to get funding if you don’t acquire enough preliminary data that shows strong evidence for potential results from a future study. In EEG research, like the research we conduct in this lab, there are a lot of different ways to process or prepare the data to be analyzed. Different filters can be used to process the raw data of the study and different filters can show different results. When reading articles, however, you can not necessarily see what filters a researcher used to achieve their results, nor how many times they may have changed filters to make their results significant. To avoid future data manipulation and “fudging,” we suggested a consistency in protocol in conducting research—especially EEG research. Methods used to process data should be mentioned in grants and preliminary stages of studies to lay down a path to conduct the research without variation. This way, we can understand what was used to process data and ensure data was not manipulated in a way that best suits the researcher.
0 Comments
Author: Ashlan CheeverRecruiting a diverse participant pool is essential for conducting meaningful and representative research. However, many research labs face challenges when trying to include participants from lower socioeconomic (SES) communities, underrepresented genders, and marginalized ethnic backgrounds. In our lab's recent discussion on inclusion in neuroscience, we explored strategies to address and overcome these recruitment disparities.
Understanding the Barriers To begin, we acknowledged the barriers that individuals from these populations often face in participating in lab research. These include:
Building Trust and Visibility Rebecca, one of our team members, reminded us that simply posting flyers is often insufficient for attracting participants from these populations. Flyers may lack visibility and the necessary information for potential participants to feel comfortable reaching out. Credibility and rapport are vital in recruiting from populations unfamiliar with research practices. We discussed the potential benefits of attending community events and setting up tables where people can meet lab team members, ask questions, and begin building trust. Rebecca also suggested taking outreach efforts directly into communities, such as laundromats and public housing neighborhoods. This approach emphasizes the importance of personal connections in establishing a strong recruitment pipeline. Partnering with Schools and Organizations Another strategy involves partnering with lower SES school districts. Danielle shared her experience of navigating the approval process with school superintendents and forming connections within the school system. Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Barriers Jackson highlighted the importance of leveraging our lab's diversity to communicate effectively with potential participants. To overcome language barriers, we plan to print recruitment materials in multiple languages, ensuring they are easy to understand and include clear contact information. Expanding Outreach Through Social Media Finally, Cecilia recommended engaging with specific Facebook groups and other social media platforms to raise awareness of our lab among potential participants. Social media offers a way to answer questions, understand the needs of these communities, and build a broader online presence that can enhance recruitment efforts. Conclusion Inclusive research requires intentional efforts to reach underrepresented populations. By understanding the barriers these communities face and implementing targeted strategies, research labs can create a more diverse participant pool. This not only enriches the research process but also ensures that findings are more reflective of the broader population. As we continue to refine our recruitment strategies, the goal remains clear: to make participatory research accessible and inclusive for all. Written by Ezra Wingard and Ashlan CheeverInclusion and belonging in social spaces are inherently important on an individual and population level. It is through the communities with which we are connected that determines the trajectory of our growth and evolution as people. Historically, the realm of science and the environments it resides in (workspaces, schools, research labs) have been inaccessible to the greater public. Now with the rapid expansion of internet connectivity, once separate and distant communities can now meet and collaborate.
As the scientific community becomes more interconnected with larger and more diverse populations, leaps have been made in discovery and gaps have been identified, but not always addressed. The history of unethical and exclusionary practices have left many populations (women, minority ethnic groups, and gender diverse individuals) without a place for their stories to be scientifically heard. As scientists, our primary role is to further our understanding of the world through practical and reliable measures. Without the inclusion of all, the full story can never be told. The need for inclusion in science may not be as apparent to some as others, particularly if you yourself are not a part of a scientific community. However, I encourage you to consider how you yourself can be an important contributor to scientific study so as to see why the exclusion of others can be so deleterious.
As we go through life, we each create a story, and we believe that no person’s story is more or less important than others. Including as many diverse chapters as possible is the closest we can get to understanding the full book that is the human story. By broadening our lab’s focus on inclusion, we are:
While the efforts to provide equity and justice in research may be different depending on the subject of interest and lab standards, we believe that all can make impactful contributions. Some may be able to direct their biological and chemical research to aid drug development for those with rare genetic mutations, while another lab may use their psychological findings to inform policymakers and influence new laws. With our lab’s focus on Neuroscience and Developmental research, we are in a prime field to be just writers of our many participants’ stories as they are being written. We aim to accomplish this by being stewards of lifelong learning and maintaining an open mind to the views, opinions, and possibilities we have yet to encounter. We recognize that the systemic barriers that have historically excluded certain participants will not fall so easily, but with the intention of making “small ripples of justice” through our daily commitment to inclusion, we believe change is inevitable. Author: Maya McCuneEarth is an incredibly diverse place that is lush with various cultures, languages, and values. I was once told that diversity was what made the world go round. To this day, I still believe this is true. However, as with any discrepancies between individuals or communities, differences in thinking are inevitable. With differences in thinking, come differences in the way we aid and perceive others.
Culture-Bound Syndrome is the term used to describe these differences amongst cultures in how people interpret mental and developmental disorder symptoms. As a lab, we took a closer look at the ways in which autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is misunderstood because of differing cultural customs around the globe. In Western cultures, eye contact is often so intrinsically ingrained into our societal norms that most Westerners do not think twice over it. However, for many neurodivergent individuals, naturally adhering to this norm can be quite a challenge. Consequently, “masking” is considered a common compensatory strategy for neurodivergent individuals. Masking is a way for neurodiverse individuals to conceal their neurodivergent traits to fit in with what is deemed “societally acceptable.” Given that we know neurodivergence is found throughout the globe, it raises the question, “How might the definitions of normal behavior and abnormal behavior differ around the globe?” The article, “How Cultural Differences Affect Autism Diagnoses” , provided by our intern Maggie, explains that while eye-contact is encouraged in children of European-American Families, it is not considered a universal sign of respect. As such, irregularities in maintaining eye-contact are not seen as a symptom of autism spectrum disorder in different cultures. For example, children in southern Egypt are classified as “shy” when averting their gaze in the face of authoritative figures. Taking these findings into consideration, we proposed a variety of ways to combat the challenges that cultural differences may present within our lab. Alongside acknowledging and becoming more aware of cultural differences, we discussed the possibility of dissecting our laboratory tasks for cultural significance. In other words, asking ourselves if a task is appropriate and applicable outside of our own culture. Additionally, we discussed measuring cultural background by asking questions like, “What is your first language?” and “How many years have you lived in the United States?” In doing so, we can create a more personalized experience for lab participants that will aid in establishing a more inclusive community and improving the applicability of our research.
|
|
Copyright: B-RAD Lab, Dr. Caitlin Hudac
|
Sitemap | Contact
|
Website updated: June 2024
|