Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or Anti-Racism Statements
In 2021, the SPSP Equity and Anti-Racism (EAR) Taskforce suggested that we ask people to indicate how their presentation advances the Equity and Anti-racism goals of SPSP. The SPSP Board of Directors agreed that we should do so.
For the 2022 Annual Convention, we asked people to write these statements during the submission process, but did not give them to reviewers (we required only the symposia, single presenter, and PD submissions to fill this out, posters were exempt). We requested the submitters to please explain whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP. This may include, but is not limited to: The research participants in the sample; the methods used in the research; the members of the research team(s) involved in the work (e.g., background, diversity, career stage, affiliation type); the content of the presentation (e.g., critical theories, prejudice, equity, cross-cultural research).
For the 2023 Annual Convention, reviewers scored submissions on scientific merit and content and evaluated EIA statements separately from the other criteria. In both phases of the pilot, those making final decisions about programming read the statements and considered them when choosing submissions rated around the borderline in traditional scientific criteria (alongside other criteria such as increasing coverage of disciplinary areas with fewer submissions).
After the 2023 Annual Convention, SPSP conducted a report to evaluate the progress of this pilot project and determine how it is affecting convention programming. Learn more about our key findings and read the report itself by referring to this announcement.
Based on the findings of the report, we are making the following adjustments to this process:
- One year extension of the pilot program to determine whether to keep EIA statements in the submission process and, if so, how best to institutionalize the collection and review of the responses to the prompt in the future.
- Clarify instructions and make evaluation criteria transparent and easily accessible (e.g., adding a word limit, providing examples, offering answers to FAQ).
- Adding the term "diversity" to the submission question, making the prompt more applicable to researchers outside the United States where terms like "anti-racism" may be less applicable.
- Require statements only for submissions that authors indicate do advance DEIA goals.
Collecting EIA statements enables the convention planning team to adopt a more holistic review of each submission when creating the convention program. We will continue to assess the progress of this pilot project and make adjustments to ensure that it is driving us toward our desired outcomes. We appreciate the support of SPSP's members and partners as we continue to search for ways to foster a more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and anti-racist field.
As you are preparing your Diversity, Equity, Inclusion or Anti-Racism (DEIA) statement, consider the following.
- You only need to write a statement if you respond yes.
- Submissions are not required to advance the DEIA goals to be accepted.
- Posters, research spotlights, and roundtable unconferences are exempt and will not be asked to provide a DEIA statement.
- When including researcher attributes or characteristics, you do not need to disclose specific identities to receive a high review score.
- Recommended Length: 500 characters-650 characters (including spaces)
- Maximum Length: 1,200 characters (including spaces)
Do you believe this submission advances the diversity, equity, inclusion, or anti-racism goals of SPSP? If so, please share how your work challenges traditional structures of power by, for example, elevating underrepresented voices, supporting scholarship that expands the generalizability of the field, supporting scholarship that is contextualized in historical time and place, and/or incorporating interdisciplinary approaches. This may include, but is not limited to: The research participants in the sample; the methods used in the research; the members of the research team(s) involved in the work (e.g., background, diversity, career stage, affiliation type); the topic of study (e.g., prejudice, equity, cross-cultural research).
( ) No
( ) Prefer Not to Answer
If yes, how?
Response Examples for Each Category
Topic of Study: "The present findings may be applicable to the extent that people make inferences about wealth based on a person's race."
Researcher Attributes or Characteristics: "The research team includes people minoritized based on their racial/ethnic, immigration status, and sexual identities across several career stages."
Participants: "The sample is diverse in many ways (race, gender, income)"
Location Where Project was Conducted: "…this research was carried out at a university in [location redacted], which can provide information about the research experience in this context that is underrepresented."
Informs Interventions that Promote EIA: "…to guide future interventions aiming to make sports more welcoming for all athletes."
Methodology Used: "Importantly, we used several analytic techniques that demonstrate the robustness of our conclusions."
Something else: "Our first author… is active in DEI work at the administrative level"
Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the submission advances SPSP's goal of promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, or anti-racism. Submissions advancing these goals may include (but are not limited to):
- Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or underserved populations)
- Diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity or engages underserved communities or scholars).
- Diverse members of the research team (e.g., those from underrepresented sociodemographic backgrounds, from an array of career stages, from outside the United States, or with professional affiliations that are not typical at SPSP such as predominately undergraduate serving institutions, minority-serving institutions, or outside academia. This can include providing research and training opportunities to students from underrepresented and/or marginalized backgrounds, even if they are not part of the author team).
- Presentation topics (e.g., prejudice and discrimination, critical theories, cross-cultural research).
- Rating Scale:
- 3: Exceptional- The submission clearly and strongly advances SPSP's goal of promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, or anti-racism.
- 2: Satisfactory- The submission slightly to moderately advances SPSP's goal of promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, or anti-racism. We expect that this rating will be the most commonly applied rating.
- 1: Not Applicable- The submission does not advance SPSP's goal of promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, or anti-racism or the submitter preferred not to answer.
- After the review process is complete, the decision-makers will use these scores to create the program.
- Symposia: Used to make decisions for research with equal scientific merit on the margin of acceptance alongside other criteria (e.g., increasing coverage of a topic area).
- Single-presenter podium presentations: Used to make decisions for research with equal scientific merit on the margin of acceptance; rely primarily on reviewer scores of DEIA; used alongside other criteria (e.g., increasing coverage of a topic area).
Supporting diversity and inclusiveness strengthens science, offering new perspectives that challenge existing ideas while extending long-overdue opportunities to those who are underrepresented in the field. The inclusion of these statements is the result of a thorough and intentional process that began in 2020, to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion while maintaining the highest levels of scientific integrity. Helping to cultivate a more diverse, welcoming, and inclusive field is a major priority for SPSP and we believe that the Annual Convention is an important opportunity to advance that goal.
This allows scholars the ability to not share if they are uncomfortable doing so based on their current situation.
Yes. Per the analysis of the 2023 convention program, submitters who indicated they did not contribute to EIA were not rejected at a higher rate than those who indicated they did contribute to EIA.
We will be extending the pilot program by one year to allow more time for us to adjust the process as needed. SPSP will continue to collect feedback from members and convention submitters to ensure that the pilot program is achieving the desired outcomes. For the 2025 convention, we will use all that we have learned to determine how this is institutionalized.