Open Science and Multicultural Research: Some Data, Considerations, and Recommendations

Public Significance Statement Ethnic minority psychology research/cultural diversity science (EM/D) emphasizes empirical approaches that are responsive to the needs and experiences of people of color, whereas the current mainstream open science movement encourages open communications, democratic review process, and transparency of methods and data for critical scrutiny by other researchers. Findings from three studies showed that open science practices such as preregistrations, material and data sharing, and open-access publishing are not commonly adopted in EM/D, likely because of concerns about possible risks to ethnoracial minority scholars and study populations. We offer practical recommendations to bridge these gaps and suggest future directions to connect EM/D and mainstream open science movement to better understand the experiences of ethnoracial minority communities and benefit the lives of the diverse human population. Objectives: There are two potentially useful but nonintersecting efforts to help ensure that psychological science produces valid and credible information and contributes to the understanding of diverse human experiences. Whereas North American ethnic minority psychology research/cultural diversity science (EM/D) emphasizes cultural competency to yield contextualized psychological understanding of understudied and underserved minority populations, current open science (OS) approaches emphasize material and data sharing, and statistical proficiency to maximize the replicability of mainstream findings. To illuminate the extent of and explore reasons for this bifurcation, and OS's potential impact on EM/D, we conducted three studies. Method and Results: In Study 1, we reviewed editorial/publishing policies and empirical articles appearing in four major EM/D journals on the incentives for and use of OS. Journals varied in OS-related policies; 32 of 823 empirical articles incorporated any OS practices. Study 2 was a national mixed-methods survey of EM/D scholars' (N = 141) and journal editors' (N = 16) views about and experiences with OS practices. Emerged themes included beliefs about the impact of OS on scientific quality, possible professional disadvantages for EM/D scholars, and concerns about the welfare of and ethical risks posed for communities of color. In Study 3, we explored community research participants' beliefs about data sharing and credibility of science/scientists (N = 1,104). Participants were receptive of data sharing and viewed psychological science favorably. Conclusions: We provide data-driven recommendations for researchers to assemble the best tools for approaching the knowledge-production process with transparency, humility, and cultural competency.