During our inclusion in neuroscience discussion in lab meeting this week, the B-RAD Lab discussed the APA’s guidelines for bias-free language. Bias-free language is essential to the advancement of science. Because psychological research often compares the prevalence of psychological variables between members of different groups – people of differing social, cultural, racial, ethnic, gender and economic backgrounds– it is important to establish standards for writing about people in an appropriate and respectful way. The APA has provided a unique section with guidelines on their website for writing about each of the following characteristics: historical context, age, disability, gender, participation in research, racial and ethic identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and intersectionality. Each intern at the B-RAD lab summarized one of these sections to present at our lab meeting.

Based on our discussion, it seems that there are a few concerns of upmost importance common across all of the characteristics mentioned:

• Use appropriate level of specificity – In relation to socioeconomic status, for example, a researcher should write something like “people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold” rather than “poor people”. (More specificity is usually better.)
• Avoid using potentially derogatory or pejorative terms – In relation to age, a researcher should write something like “persons over the age of 65” rather than “elderly people”.
• Use person-first language – In relation to disability, a researcher should write something like “people with intellectual disabilities” rather than “mentally challenged people”.
• Compare with care!
• Avoid using stereotypes.
• Avoid phrasing that implies people are victims or “at risk”.

​
These APA guidelines simply provide standards for the respectful and scientific discussion of unique people. The intersectionality section reminds readers that people are shaped by and identify with a vast range of social and cultural contexts; this means that people, identities, behaviors are complex and multi-faceted.

American Psychological Association. (2019). Bias-free language. American Psychological           Association. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language.
 
 

            This week in our SIG discussion, we catered our discussion towards gender inequality. B-RAD Lab interns Caleb Simon and Madeline Kirby chose the TED talk ‘“A seat at the table” isn’t the solution for gender equity’ by Lilly Singh. Our selectors this week chose this topic for DEI because we haven’t been able to talk much about this area in our SIG discussions this semester. Lilly’s segment outlined the obstacles and challenges she faced as an Asian woman, not only in her familial life but also in her professional life. In the TED talk, Lilly touched on several points that resonated with us! One of which is that women are often handed the workloads that men don’t want to handle. As a diverse discussion group, we all agreed that many times this is how it can appear to come across in a work setting. Lilly also talked about how in her family, her efforts went unnoticed because in her culture women don’t have a voice. So, she took us on a journey as she redesigned the narrative for women in her family and all over the world.
​
             In her TED talk, Lilly stated that people often think women should be simply ‘grateful’ for the opportunities they receive. She argued that although women can be grateful for an opportunity, women can also know what positions they deserve. So where is the line between being grateful for opportunities and knowing what you deserve? In our SIG discussion, Joshua Hernandez brought up an interesting point – he stated that there shouldn’t be a line and that you can be grateful for an opportunity while also knowing what you deserve. More often than not, women experience this controversy in professional settings.

            In our discussion session, we discussed how this type of gender bias is occasionally linked to the gender biases and norms we encounter in the world. It was brought up in our discussion that a lot of times people differentiate certain gender roles to women and to men. For example, Victoria Ward shared an example of her encounter with her car troubles. She stated how when a man sees her under the hood of her car, they make it a point to offer her help insinuating that it is a “man’s job”. It is also understood that though these instances could be an innocent offer of assistance, it can be taken like she is incapable of handling it on her own. This point also furthered our discussion of how there is a norm associated with what tasks women shouldn’t handle such as: taking out trash, fixing appliances, or working on cars.

            In conclusion, the biggest take-away from this discussion is to ensure and promote the equality of all genders. Also, it is extremely important to educate ourselves on topics like this and to keep an open mind, so we don’t offend our peers. It is our job to uplift individuals like Lilly who wants to rise against the biases set by their culture and to educate as many people as we can.

This week, the B-RAD research group discussed Julia Laible’s “A Loving Epistemology: What I Hold Critical in My Life, Faith, and Profession” for the Special Interest Group (SIG) topic. Julia Laible was a University of Alabama professor who was conducting research with Mexican American adolescent girls in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Julia was conducting this research for her dissertation and was interested in bringing light to educational practices that increased “success” for underrepresented students who experienced oppression in school. Julia was aware of her limitations, whether that was lingual or cultural, and kept a self-reflection journal to become aware of her own Eurocentric Biases. However, despite Julia’s efforts to be understanding and considerate, her entire research purpose- her definition of “success”- was racially biased. Her standards for success of these girls were based on her middle-class, Euro-American standards.  

This essay sparked a conversation in the SIG group about our implicit biases and accountability in research. We talked about how Julia Laible thought she was being representative (attempting to be understanding of their opinions, their language) but that the methodology of research needs to be thoroughly considered when analyzing cultural differences. We are all biased from our own experiences, so there will always be a challenge in understanding what other people have been through. Laible’s intent was to help an underrepresented population, but in doing so, she may have victimized the people she was researching, and may have incidentally reinforced this idea of oppression. She was using her own frame of reference instead of the frame of reference of that specific community.  

A large take-away from this conversation is that it is always important to check yourself and the research you are conducting. Whether you are accidentally using non-inclusive language (ableist language, for example), or not asking the “right” research question (how does my definition of success differ from your definition of success?), you always need to be considerate of the people you are working with. Ways to be more considerate while conducting research may include doing your due diligence in background research (especially on arbitrary/bias topics), active and reflective listening to accurately captures someone’s voice/opinion, and self-reflection/introspection.  

Laible, J. C. (2000). A loving epistemology: What I hold critical in my life, faith and profession. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390050211574 

During the first week of February, our lab had the opportunity to discuss an informational video titled “Student Creates Black medical illustrations to improve education, health care.” The main idea of this video was to highlight the work of Chidiebere Ibe who has been re-illustrating medical textbooks to include black and brown skin tones. He discussed how because his country has a majority Black population (Nigeria) it did not make sense for textbooks to only show medical conditions on white skin. This is notably important when it comes to White doctors visiting Nigeria, or other majority POC nations, but having no background knowledge of how medical issues can appear on black and brown skin tones. Our lab was very impressed by his dedication (he’s a one-man team) but found that this an issue that truthfully never should have existed, especially in 2022. Reportedly only 4.5% of pictures or illustrations in general medicine textbooks include dark skin tones. Our lab found this to be a gross portrayal of negligence by the medical community and those in charge. Chidiebere also states that he didn’t want to eliminate White illustrations from textbooks completely, only juxtapose them with other skin tones. Joshua stated that they believed that maybe there shouldn’t be White illustrations and brought up the point that if we as a society were fine with an all-White textbook why can’t we celebrate and include textbooks with only POC. However, Dr. Hudac made the counterpoint that medical professionals need to know the full range of diseases, especially skin conditions, on all skin tones which is the main problem that this video tackles. Others in our lab brought up other instance of medical neglect committed against the Black community such as the dismissal of pain from doctors against POC, especially Black women. This led into a hard but important discussion about the increased morbidity of Black women when giving birth, the increased presence of postpartum depression, and the lack of diagnoses of postpartum depression of Black women when reaching out for help. Many of these problems could be alleviated with better training of racial biases within White medical professionals. While this video did not include the topic of psychology specifically, our lab brought up the lack of representation of POC in many other textbooks and academic materials and added to the argument that whiteness is often the focus of academia. Even beyond psychology, other colleges and departments have largely white-washed aspects of curriculum and foundations that are extremely difficult to change. Our lab decided to try to make some small goals of building trust within the Tuscaloosa community, trying to learn about different cultures, and trying to sit back and listen to POC voices in any space/topic. While it’s the structural changes that are needed it is our hope that through these steps we can grow as a laboratory and individual people to make important changes later on in life.

Team, F. O. X. T. V. D. (2021, December 13). Student creates black medical illustrations to improve education, health care. FOX 2 Detroit. Retrieved February 16, 2022, from https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/black-medical-illustrations-gain-popularity-with-textbook-publishers-thanks-to-student 

To start off this new semester, our lab discussed the research paper titled Upending Racism in Psychological Science: Strategies to Change How Science is Conducted, Reported, Reviewed & Disseminated by NiCole T. Buchanan, Marisol Perez , Mitchell J. Prinstein, and Idia B. Thurston. The paper was brought to the lab by Nicole Friedman, who appreciated the authors’ focus on addressing each of the different steps that are considered when conducting and publishing scientific data. She also appreciated the papers’ commitment to an action plan and its plausible solutions to different racist tendencies within the research world. Another one of our lab members, Caleb Simon, also appreciated the papers’ commitment to physical and systemic change rather than just discussing change. Our labs P.I., Dr. Caitlin Hudac, found that she related to the article in its aims for accountability. She related it back to a personal story of having an accountability partner that aided her in accomplishing her many goals, both personal and professional.
​
The next thing that we discussed within the paper is system centered language. This type of language tries to specify the identifiable factors that one is discussing and tries to commit to talking about individuals as multi-dimensional. For instance, the article used “most prohibited” instead of “vulnerable” and “exposed to additional harms” instead of “at risk.” We concluded that this system of language was very helpful in communicating the highly complicated dynamics that are present in BIPOC participants and White researchers. Caleb brought up the papers’ important aim of distinguishing between race and ethnicity, and the papers’ reiteration of race being a socially and politically defined concept. Dr. Hudac expanded upon this point to say that race and ethnicity may not be static concepts and could be spoken about or described differently in the future. Another one of our lab interns, Skyler Hughes, spoke about the papers’ statistic that BIPOC research (whether conducted by a BIPOC scholar or on majority BIPOC participants) is 12 times less likely to be approved for publishing in journals, and when BIPOC research is approved it often must include the race or ethnicity of the population in the article title. Our lab went on to discuss the unfair standards that are present within this scenario. White majority participant research does not have to specify the race of their participants in the article title, or if a BIPOC participant majority is present in the study, some journals require researchers to include a White counterbalance group for the research to get published. Our lab was furious with these statistics and found them to be very disheartening and racist.

Our lab then went on to discuss the lack of BIPOC individuals on review boards and the impact, such as microaggressions, that this might have. We discussed the need for BIPOC individuals in every space within the scientific publishing process and the importance of having that shift in perspective. One of our labs research assistants, Joshua Hernandez, made a counter point that expecting so much from BIPOC people and consistently asking them to be the voice or eyes of Black scholars can be exhausting and not really fair. They spoke about how BIPOC scholars are more than just a commodity for diversity and might have their own desires within the field outside of expanding diversity. Dr. Hudac and Joshua raised excellent points about fair expectations for researchers and if there should be a "quota” for diversity in participants and how much that “quota” should be. Joshua pointed out that finding participants for one’s research can often be difficult, especially considering the participant's environmental obstacles that a lab is not privy to. Dr. Hudac had the counter point that if a researcher truly desired diversity within their participants they could wait to publish until that diversity was met. Caleb then mentioned that within the paper there is a statistic that states that Black scholars receive NIH funding at half the rate of White scholars. There are many racist structural obstacles present, and this must come to an end. The last thing our lab ruminated on was a point brought up by Nicole: in shifting administrations, funding consistently shifts on what the administration wants. Research funding might never be “safe” because it is often dependent on who is in office and how they want to allocate funding.

Buchanan, N. C. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. (2020). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how our science is conducted, reported, reviewed & disseminated. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6nk4x 

During our SIG meeting this week, the B-RAD lab discussed an article written by Michelle Jones titled: “NINDS Strategies for Enhancing the Diversity of Neuroscience Researchers”. Michelle Jones works in the Office of Programs to Enhance Neuroscience Workforce Diversity (OPEN-WD) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The main goal of Jones’s work and this article is to enhance diversity in neuroscience. Basically, the article describes the methods used by the NIH to increase diversity, outlines an approach that other institutions should implement, and compiles useful resources. Additionally, the article provides suggestions that aspiring neuroscientists can use as a guide to attain success.  

Throughout the article, Jones emphasizes the evidence that diverse teams outperform homogenous teams due to the application of unique perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. Because of this fact, increasing diversity in neuroscience will benefit the field with increased problem-solving and ideal representation. To achieve this diversity, Jones advocates for a focus on mentorship and networking for young scientists at critical career transition points. This involves supporting, training, and recruiting trainees with the goal of making these careers more accessible. Finally, at the end of the article, Jones provides a 4-step plan that institutions can implement to increase diversity in neuroscience without abundant funding. Based on the data, the methods provided in this article appear to be successful so far.  
 
“Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance” -- Vernã Myers 
(A quote we loved) 

Jones-London, M. (2020). NINDS strategies for enhancing the diversity of neuroscience researchers. Neuron, 107(2), 212–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.06.033 

In our SIG meeting today, we discussed a guide published by Lietsel Richardson (BRaIN Lab at the University of Central Florida) and a Webinar hosted by Black in Neruo. Our lab has decided to upload the guide to better understand the nuances of the document and to offer up Lietsel’s fantastic research to a wider audience. From the guide we understood that the protocols and recommendations that she developed were much more applicable in nature than other articles we have discussed in the past. The Black in Neuroscience online seminar specifically discusses the guide as well. They highlight letting the participant know about the mechanics beforehand (as to try and schedule their sessions on wash days), have more education in research spaces on textured hair, and better understanding of hair as something that is culturally significant and should be treated as such. The online seminar was specifically curated by two POC EEG researchers and two POC hair stylists. A specific problem presented by one of the researchers trying to get a grant to study textured hair was that because there was no specific research suggesting that that was a problem in neuroscience, many grants did not end up funding her. Right now, there is a certification that hairstylists can go through to work with textured hair, and EEG researchers are in the process of making instruments that are better applicable to those with textured and curly hair.  
​
Our discussion centered the many ways in which we as white researchers could and have failed those with textured hair. We discuss how many times the biggest errors in EEG research are internal in nature (having to deal with the lab system) rather than environmental. Our assumptions about research and our participants can in fact impede our research. We agreed that research should be applicable to anyone, or at least by using it to help many diverse people. Also, there is no reason that those with textured hair should be receiving less quality medical care. Our lab discussed adding additional information in our outreach to participants and communicating with participants more. We think it is best to not leave all the hair altering or fixing to the participants. Instead, ask the participants what they are comfortable with and do what you can to make them feel most comfortable. Another great suggestion is potentially incorporating training on textured hair by a local hair stylist. Overall, we are very committed to uplifting inclusion in our lab and every other research space in our country.  

Black in Neuro. (2021). Hair, Community, & Eeg. [Video] YouTube.com. Black in Neuro. Retrieved 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuCwdp9uYFA. 

Richardson, L. (2021, October 27). Eeg hair project - hello brain lab: The UCF Brain Lab. hello brain lab: the UCF BRaIN Lab - Helen J. Huang's Lab. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://hellobrainlab.com/research/eeg-hair-project/. 

For this week’s SIG, the lab discussed “‘Health equity tourists’: How white scholars are colonizing research on health disparities” by Usha Lee McFarling, which details the problems surrounding research in the health equity field. McFarling presents many issues that researchers in the field have been dealing with since it has gained popularity after a recent influx of funding. These new resources, while seemingly great on the surface, have led to many researchers from other fields flocking to health equity without taking the time to understand the field and its nuances first. These newcomers are taking up resources and publications from those that have been in the field their entire careers working to be seen and have their work taken seriously. McFarling presents the commentary of a few minority researchers who feel that their work is being once again overshadowed by white researchers who cannot truly understand the barriers they face.

Some questions that arose through our discussion included: Is there any retribution when contributing authors aren’t credited in publications? Should demographic information be collected and/or factored in when large organizations choose researchers? Is equal opportunity enough, or should we be doing more to ensure equal representation in research? Should the ‘best’ professionals be identified by their previous accomplishments, which may have been influenced by privilege and bias, or by their potential?

Overall, the consensus among lab members was that our generation needs to focus on being the change we wish to see in the field. The status quo and current power dynamic in research is not acceptable and it is up to us to do something about it. We are committed to prioritizing diversity and inclusion in our research and any future endeavors.
 
McFarling, Usha Lee, et al. “How White Scholars Are Colonizing Research on Health Disparities.” STAT, 23 Sept. 2021, https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/23/health-equity-tourists-white-scholars-colonizing-health-disparities-research/.

This week, the lab discussed an article by Olivia P. Matshabane titled, “Promoting diversity and inclusion in neuroscience and neuroethics.”  In this article she stresses the need for more inclusion in neuroscience and neroethics specifically throughout different countries and continents like Africa. She stressed that Africa was ready to be more involved in research. The lab agreed that there should be more inclusion throughout different continents and countries and that in an ideal world, each research participant pool would be made up of the proportion of each country as it relays to the world population.

The lab discussed how inclusion is not only about who we include in research but the questions we ask. One example was brain stimulation treatment. Most people in the world are not going to have access to such advanced technology so although it is fascinating, should more research be aimed at techniques that are more widely applicable?

The main critique the lab had was that the paper was too conceptual. The author did a beautiful job at laying out the problems in the research society but gave little emphasis on how society should go about fixing these problems. The lab came to the conclusion that it would be a long process that would most likely have to start with more communication between researchers and countries as well as more open dialogue between multiple people and dynamics. We also discussed how these conversations and the start of research integration would look different for each continent, country, and city in the world since all have different languages, cultures, and normalcies.


Matshabane, O. P. (2021). Promoting diversity and inclusion in neuroscience and Neuroethics. EBioMedicine, 67, 103359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103359