Time is precious, so of course I have to be judicious about
when and for whom I do “free work,” i.e. uncompensated activities that fall
outside my specific job duties. I have historically devoted my free work time
to advance two major goals: 1) enhancing the diversity of researchers and
research topics in psychological science and 2) promoting open, transparent,
and reproducible science. I have done this because diversity and open science
are the two most central scientific values I hold.
The majority of my free work comes about in the context of
professional societies. I have been very intentional about the societies with
which I associate, choosing only ones that I feel align with my personal and
scientific values. For example, I have long shunned the American Psychological
Association (APA) because of their involvement with the U.S. Government’s detainee
torture program, their aggressive issuing of take-down notices for researchers
posting APA-published articles, and the myriad ways in which they unethically treat
students (e.g., not allowing them voting rights, the structure of accredited
programs that requires off-site internships), among many other reasons. I also have
not been a member of the largest organization in my subfield, the Society for
Research on Child Development (SRCD), for nearly 10 years. My move away from
SRCD was initially because I did not perceive them to value diversity in the
field, and was subsequently reinforced by their tepid response to the detention
and treatment of migrant children in the U.S. and their explicitly antagonistic
views on open science. I am frequently asked to serve on committees or work on
projects for both APA and SRCD, despite not being members of either, and always
decline while providing the explanation that the societies do not share my
values. I will not engage in free work for these societies.
This is all a long preface to say that I will no longer do
any free work for the Society for Research on Adolescence (SRA), a society for
which I have been an extremely active member since joining in 2003. I have been
to every meeting since 2004, have served on committees, chaired review panels,
given countless presentations, and met many great friends and colleagues
through the society. I owe much of my professional existence to SRA, which is
why I felt such betrayal at their recent actions.
SRA, along with a number of societies and publishers
(including APA and SRCD) signed
on to this letter to the U.S. President urging him to delay executive
action on open access of journal articles. Now, whether or not the President
should take this action is not the core issue—I understand that this is a complex
issue. But, signing on to this particular letter is inexcusable for a society
like SRA. The letter is essentially publisher propaganda, containing mischaracterizations
about the nature of intellectual property and the role of journals in the
scientific process. Moreover, it is deeply nationalistic, prioritizing the
benefits to the U.S. at the expenses of the rest of the world. This latter
point should have been a deal breaker for any society that positions itself as
valuing global science. The letter is a direct attack on two of my core values:
diversity and open science.
I have communicated with several people about this issue,
and they almost all give versions of the same two responses:
1) The issue is
complicated, decisions about this kind of action have to be made quickly, and
societies always have to balance multiple interests. I agree with all of
this, but also maintain that SRA should not have signed that letter. It should have
been an easy call to read the text of the letter and give a clear, not today Satan response. And there were
options. There
is another letter that, while I still disagree with the content, is much
less offensive (SRA did not sign that one; APA did).
2) This demonstrates
the need for me to stay involved in the society, work with them, and help
educate and promote open science and diversity. I agree with all of this as
well, but have chosen a different path. Time is precious, and I have to make
sound decisions on how to allocate it. SRA is a society structured by the past,
and is a society that is reluctant to change at the structural level, despite
any veneers of change. I have decided that is a better use of my time to support
new models for scientific exchange rather than try to change old, entrenched
models. I was always baffled by colleagues who would say, “I don’t really like
SRCD, but I just go because everyone else does and I like to see my friends.”
This is not why societies or conferences should exist. We should do more and
expect more, of societies and of our time. At SRA 2020 I was scheduled to run a
preconference on open science and was a chair for an invited session on open
science. I am withdrawing from both and will not attend SRA, devoting my
energies to initiatives and organizations that I fully believe in.
Finally, I am not claiming to be a pure, virtuous actor on
this topic. There are other initiatives to which I am devoting free work that
might seem counter to my previous statements. There are always reasons, but
those reasons do not violate my core values. Similarly, I will not judge those
of you who decide to stay with SRA, which will likely be all of you. I just ask
that you work to actually change and improve the way the society functions,
rather than reinforce the status quo.
