Unequal treatment under the flaw: race, crime & retractions

Abstract

Disciplines in social and behavioral science have become increasingly committed to promoting social justice activism at the expense of viewpoint diversity. The present study documents the impact of this ideological project on the literature on racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes. Evidence from a recent high-profile retraction suggests that elite gatekeepers are willing to disregard ethical guidelines to censor an article embraced by conservatives. Evidence from additional case studies illustrates selective application of methodological standards based on the political implications of the findings. Serious errors are less likely to be treated as fatal if the contribution supports the activist agenda. By contrast, methodologically sound contributions are labeled as flawed if they challenge the dominant narrative. Although this manner of conduct is consistent with the evolved morality of human tribes, it violates the established norms of science. Observations from recent literature suggest that the integrity of social science research is compromised by our collective failure to value and protect contrarian perspectives. To remedy the situation, I propose that the open science movement – which has been successful at reducing questionable research practices – expand its scope from the craft of doing science to the realm of ideas, assumptions, and viewpoints. In short, I advocate for an “open minds” initiative for the improvement of social science research.