Academic bias

Last updated

Academic bias is the bias or perceived bias of scholars allowing their beliefs to shape their research and the scientific community. It can refer to several types of scholastic prejudice, e.g., logocentrism, phonocentrism, [1] ethnocentrism or the belief that some sciences and disciplines rank higher than others.

Contents

Conservative activists such as David Horowitz have argued that there is a bias against Christians and conservatives in academia. [2] [3] Barry Ames et al., John Lee and Henry Giroux have argued that these claims are based upon anecdotal evidence that would not reliably indicate systematic bias, [4] [5] [6] and that the divide is due to self-selection due to conservatives simply being less likely to pursue an academic career. [4] [7] Russell Jacoby has argued that claims of academic bias have been used to push measures that infringe on academic freedom. [8]

Studies on academic bias

An early audit study published in 1986 suggested that entrance into an American clinical psychology graduate program was negatively affected by whether the applicant was a fundamentalist Christian. [9] One study examined the comments made by members of an American medical school admission committee towards 21 Christian applicants. It concluded that applicants were more likely to be criticised when responding to a question on abortion with an anti-abortion response. [10] George Yancey says that academics are less likely to hire a colleague if they find out that the colleague is either religiously or politically conservative, and discrimination exists against fundamentalists, evangelicals and to a lesser extent Republicans, though only within certain cultural contexts. [11] [12]

One study sent a questionnaire to students and staff in a range of American universities. 44% of undergraduates and 27% of professors claimed that they had witnessed overt biases within the classroom. Respondents claimed that bias was directed at individuals because of their sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, sex, religion and class. The types of bias witnessed involved stereotyping, offensive humour, social isolation, slurs and insults. [13]

Jeff Colgan argues that, amongst international relations data, there can be interpretive biases by researchers depending on their nationality, with bias towards the United States being common due to a large number of scholars being from the US. [14] In this context, it has been proposed that implicit bias based on the region from which an Academic comes (e.g. it has been argued that when scholarly manuscripts are reviewed by peers the return address influences perceptions of Academic quality) can be counteracted by improved intercontinental Academic collaboration. [15]

One study of academic philosophers found that while half of respondents believed that ideological discrimination was wrong, a significant minority believed discrimination against individuals with opposing ideologies was justified. [16] A 2017 paper argued that left-wing ideologies had taken over criminology in the 1960s and 1970s, observing a massive increase in research around fields such as radical, Marxist and feminist criminology. The paper's authors argued this resulted in bias, as the ideology of scientists within the field influenced both the acceptance of certain theories and the rejection of others; criminologists of this period came to regard criminology as being about criticising the social structure of society and those who supported the status quo. The authors also argue that even in the modern day, much of the writing in criminology remains primarily political in both origin and purpose. [17] [18] A 2018 study argued that since groups seen as deviant from the norm are frequently seen as in need of explanation, if bias against conservatives existed, then conservatives and conservatism should be seen as more in need of explanation than liberals and liberalism, as a liberal-biased science would see them as deviant and that they would be described more negatively. This was confirmed by the results of the study. [19] [20] Other researchers also argue that political bias manifests in scientific research, influencing how ideological groups are described, what measurements are used, the interpretation of results and which results are published. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

A 2018 study found bias amongst criminal law students, with students engaging in motivated reasoning favourable to their political in-group and demonstrating bias towards their political in-group. [29] Mark Horowitz also argues that researchers' political views can bias their research. [30]

A 2005 paper argued that, controlling for student ability, there was no evidence of any disciplines being biased against conservative students in grading. In contrast, the researchers did find some disciplines, such as economics and business, where conservative students achieved higher grades than would be expected by student ability. The authors concluded that this was unlikely to be due to any explicit or implicit bias in these disciplines, instead arguing that it was likely due to differences in student interest in subject matter, as well as possibly due to differences in discipline teaching methodology interacting with student personalities and values. [31]

Justin Tetrault argues that research into hate groups relied too much upon stereotypes rather than rigorous analysis, likely because said stereotypes appealed to researchers' own beliefs. [32]

It has been argued that apparent evidence of a "prejudice gap" between right-wingers and left-wingers—the idea that right-wingers are more prejudiced than left-wingers—was caused by researchers having not measured groups that left-wingers would be prejudiced towards. It has been suggested that this was because this was not regarded as prejudice or was not seen as worthy of investigation. [33] [34] Christine Reyna argues that ideological bias can affect how scales are constructed and interpreted in multiple ways. [35] Lee Jussim argues that right-wing individuals were classified as "cognitively rigid", however he argues this label is misleading because what studies indicate is that right-wing individuals were less willing to change their beliefs and to be open to new experiences relative to left-wing individuals but this did not make them "rigid" in any absolute sense and that absent any absolute measure as to how cognitively flexible a person should be, labels such as "rigid" were meaningless. [22] [36] A 2019 study by the researchers measuring "actively open-minded thinking" noted that the researchers' original scale was biased against religious individuals due to test items, skewing correlations, and that the team had not realised this error for almost two decades, requiring a new scale. [37]

Some scholars, such as J. F. Zipp, have said that studies on the political orientations of professors are faulty, having focused on unrepresentative institutions and fields; when taken as a whole, they say that academia has become more moderate over time. [38]

Studies on self-selection

Studies have also suggested that one reason for the unwillingness of conservatives to pursue academic careers may be because conservatives prefer higher paying jobs [4] and are not as tolerant of controversial ideas as progressives. [39] Empirical support for self-selection can be found in the work of Neil Gross. [7] Gross conducted an audit study whereby he sent emails to directors of graduate study programs. He varied the emails so that some of them indicated the student supported the presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain, some of them supported the presidential candidacy of then Senator Barack Obama and some of them were politically neutral. He found that the directors of graduate study programs did not significantly vary in their treatment of the senders of the letters regardless of the implied political advocacy of that sender. His work suggests an absence of systematic discrimination against political conservatives. [7]

A 2019 study of European universities argued that while university professors were more left-wing and liberal than other professions, professors did not display a higher level of homogeneity in political views (aside from views on immigration) than other professions such as CEOs did, suggesting European universities are not exclusionary compared to other institutions. [40]

Commentary

Brent D. Slife and Jeffrey S. Reber assert that an implicit bias against theism limits possible insights in the field of psychology. [41]

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a conservative group, argues that course curriculums betray a progressive bias. [42] However, John Lee argues that this research is not based on a probability sample and uses a research design that cannot rule out explanations other than political bias. [5] Furthermore, research suggests little or no leftward movement among college students while they are in college. [43]

Academic bias has also been argued as a problem due to discrimination against conservative students. Research has indicated that conservative Christians may experience discrimination on colleges and universities, but these studies are anecdotal and rely on self-reported perceptions of discrimination. For example, the Hyers' study includes "Belief Conflicts" and "Interaction Difficulties" as discriminatory events. [44] [45] However, other work suggests that very few students experience discrimination based on political ideology. [46]

Phillip Gray argues that ideological bias in political science risks creating "blind spots", whereby certain ideas and assumptions are just accepted as normal and not challenged. Gray argues that this could mean that issues that concern the ideology of the dominant majority could receive a lot of focus, while issues that concern less prominent ideologies could be seen as less worthy of investigation and thus be consequently understudied. This risks resulting in a fairly ideologically homogenous field whereby certain "givens" are just accepted and thus not examined. In addition, Gray argues that this means that certain studies are not given adequate examination if they confirm the dominant group's ideological priors, even if the studies are flawed. Gray further argues that ideological bias in academia risks portraying other political groups not as another group of actors with their own beliefs but rather as a threat (too ignorant or prejudiced to know what is good) or menace (inherently inclined towards destructive acts and policies). This results in these groups being portrayed as dysfunctional and requiring diagnosis rather than understanding; while Gray does not believe political science blatantly "otherizes" its ideological outgroups, he does argue that there is an implicit "diagnostic" attitude towards groups that disagree with the majority's view. [47]

Asle Toje argues that while academic bias does not seem to make scholars dishonest, it does affect what questions are deemed worthy of research and what conclusions are deemed career-advancing. Toje also argues that the field of social science is filled with biased terminology that a priori discredits certain perspectives while lending credence to others. [48] Similarly, Honeycutt et al. argue that bias can affect not only what questions get asked but how they are asked – they observe that the debate of whether rightists were more biased than leftists or if the two were equally biased failed to consider if leftists were more biased as a possible debate point. [22] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Cofnas et al. argue that activism within social science can undermine trust in scientists. [53] Brandt et al. argue that bias can limit what topics are researched and thus limit scientific knowledge as a whole. In addition, political bias in social science can risk creating a perception amongst the general public that the scientific field is producing politically biased findings and thus not worthy of receiving public funds. [54]

Surveys show that a college education tends to have a "regression to the mean" effect whereby both left-wing students and right-wing students moderate their views. Students also become more supportive of dissent and free speech during their education. [55]

Related Research Articles

Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief. In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect. Conceptually, the term authoritarian personality originated from the writings of Erich Fromm, and usually is applied to people who exhibit a strict and oppressive personality towards their subordinates. Regardless of whether authoritarianism is more of a personality, attitude, ideology or disposition, scholars find it has significant influence on public opinion and political behavior.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

In psychology, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a set of attitudes, describing somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior. The prevalence of this attitude in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of worldview.

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors by serving to make privilege normal. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy, which was assessed through two factors: support for group-based dominance and generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the ingroup's position in the power structure.

Aversive racism is a social scientific theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philip E. Tetlock</span> Canadian-American political scientist

Philip E. Tetlock is a Canadian-American political science writer, and is currently the Annenberg University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is cross-appointed at the Wharton School and the School of Arts and Sciences. He was elected a Member of the American Philosophical Society in 2019.

Symbolic racism is a coherent belief system that reflects an underlying one-dimensional prejudice towards a racialized ethnicity. Symbolic racism is more of a general term than it is one specifically related to prejudice towards black people. These beliefs may cause the subject to discriminate against black people and to justify this discrimination. Some people do not view symbolic racism as prejudice since it is not linked directly to race but is indirectly linked through social and political issues.

A number of studies have found that human biology can be linked with political orientation. This means that an individual's biology may predispose them to a particular political orientation and ideology or, conversely, that subscription to certain ideologies may predispose them to measurable biological and health outcomes.

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group. Recent studies have determined that "implicit bias" towards those of the opposite gender may be even more influential than racial implicit bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Critical theory</span> Approach to social philosophy

A critical theory is any approach to humanities and social philosophy that focuses on society and culture to attempt to reveal, critique, and challenge power structures. With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. Some hold it to be an ideology, others argue that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation. Critical theory finds applications in various fields of study, including psychoanalysis, film theory, literary theory, cultural studies, history, communication theory, philosophy, and feminist theory.

The political views of American academics began to receive attention in the 1930s, and investigation into faculty political views expanded rapidly after the rise of McCarthyism. Demographic surveys of faculty that began in the 1950s and continue to the present have found higher percentages of liberals than of conservatives, particularly among those who work in the humanities and social sciences. Researchers and pundits disagree about survey methodology and about the interpretations of the findings.

The term shooting bias, also known as "shooter bias", is a proposed form of implicit racial bias which refers to the apparent tendency among the police to shoot black civilians more often than white civilians, even when they are unarmed. In countries where white people aren't the majority, shooting bias may still apply, with different minority groups facing discrimination.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

Higher education in the United States is an optional stage of formal learning following secondary education. Higher education, also referred to as post-secondary education, third-stage, third-level, or tertiary education occurs most commonly at one of the 4,360 Title IV degree-granting institutions, either colleges or universities in the country. These may be public universities, private universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, or for-profit colleges. US higher education is loosely regulated by several third-party organizations.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

Outgroup favoritism is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives, outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. Specifically, outgroup favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of ingroup favoritism, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup.

References

  1. ↑ Derrida, Jacques (1998). Of Grammatology. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 11–12.
  2. ↑ Horowitz, David (2006). The Professors. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. ISBN   978-0-89526-003-1.
  3. ↑ Horowitz, David (2009). One-Party Classroom . New York: Crown Forum. ISBN   978-0307452559.
  4. 1 2 3 Ames, Barry; Barker, David C; Bonneau, Chris W; Carman, Christopher J (2005), "Hide the Republicans, the Christians, and the Women: A Response to 'Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty'", The Forum, 3 (2), doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1075, ISSN   1540-8884, S2CID   14322810
  5. 1 2 Lee, John (November 2006), The "Faculty Bias" Studies: Science or Propaganda (PDF), American Federation of Teachers, archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-17, retrieved 2014-01-24
  6. ↑ Giroux, Henry A. (2006), "Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy", College Literature, 33 (4): 1–42, doi:10.1353/lit.2006.0051, ISSN   1542-4286, S2CID   143909432
  7. 1 2 3 Gross, Neil (2013), Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN   978-0-674-07448-4 , retrieved 2014-01-24
  8. ↑ Jacoby, Russell (2005), "So Universities Hire Liberal Faculty – This Is News?", The Nation , retrieved 2014-01-24
  9. ↑ Gartner, John D (1986), "Antireligious prejudice in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology", Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17 (5): 473–475, doi:10.1037/0735-7028.17.5.473, ISSN   1939-1323
  10. ↑ Gunn, Albert E; Zenner, George O Jr (1996), "Religious Discrimination in the Selection of Medical Students: A Case Study", Issues in Law & Medicine, 11 (4): 363–78, PMID   8934858
  11. ↑ Yancey, George A (2011), Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education, Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, ISBN   978-1-60258-268-2 , retrieved 2014-01-24
  12. ↑ Yancey, George (2012), "Recalibrating Academic Bias", Academic Questions, 25 (2): 267–278, doi:10.1007/s12129-012-9282-y (inactive 2024-08-22), ISSN   0895-4852, S2CID   143028367 {{citation}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2024 (link)
  13. ↑ Boysen, Guy A; Vogel, David L; Cope, Marissa A; Hubbard, Asale (2009), "Incidents Of Bias in College Classrooms: Instructor and Student Perceptions", Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2 (4): 219–231, doi:10.1037/a0017538, ISSN   1938-8934, S2CID   11334709
  14. ↑ Colgan, Jeff D. "American bias in global security studies data." Journal of Global Security Studies 4, no. 3 (2019): 358–371.
  15. ↑ Peppelenbosch MP, Ferreira CV (2021-04-08). "Implicit Bias in Region-Dependent Publication Potential Can Partly be Counteracted by Academic Collaboration". Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 20 (3): S1542-3565(21)00389-X. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.001 . PMID   3839275.
  16. ↑ Peters, Uwe, Nate Honeycutt, Andreas De Block, and Lee Jussim. Ideological Diversity, Hostility, and Discrimination in Philosophy.[ ISBN missing ][ page needed ]
  17. ↑ Wright, John Paul, Kevin M. Beaver, Jamie M. Gajos, and Catherine Sacarellos. "Three Strikes and You’re Out: A Short but Modern History of Biosocial Criminology." The Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Criminologyyou (2018): 237.
  18. ↑ Walsh, Anthony, and Lee Ellis. "Ideology: Criminology's Achilles' heel?." Quarterly Journal of Ideology (2004).
  19. ↑ Eitan, Orly, Domenico Viganola, Yoel Inbar, Anna Dreber, Magnus Johannesson, Thomas Pfeiffer, Stefan Thau, and Eric Luis Uhlmann. "Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79 (2018): 188–199.
  20. ↑ Michael Shermer, Is Social Science Politically Biased?, Scientific American, 01.03.16
  21. ↑ Jussim, N.H.L., Equalitarianism as a Primary Source of Scientific Bias.
  22. 1 2 3 Honeycutt, Nathan, and Lee Jussim. "A model of political bias in social science research." Psychological Inquiry 31, no. 1 (2020): 73–85.
  23. ↑ Chan, Linus, James D. McFarland, and Lucian Gideon Conway. "Political Contamination of Social Psychology: A Review of Crawford and Jussim’s (2017) Edited Book on The Politics of Social Psychology." Social Justice Research 31, no. 3 (2018): 323–333.
  24. ↑ Becker, Howard S. "Whose side are we on?." Social problems 14, no. 3 (1967): 239–247.
  25. ↑ Duarte, José L., Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim, and Philip E. Tetlock. "Political diversity will improve social psychological science 1." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38 (2015).
  26. ↑ Harper, Craig A. Ideological measurement in social and personality psychological science. (2020).[ ISBN missing ][ page needed ]
  27. ↑ Tetlock, Philip E. "Gauging the Politicization of Research Programs." Psychological Inquiry 31, no. 1 (2020): 86–87.
  28. ↑ Clark, Cory J., and Bo M. Winegard. "Tribalism in war and peace: The nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its significance for modern social science." Psychological Inquiry 31, no. 1 (2020): 1–22.
  29. ↑ Pietenpol, Annelise M. "Political Self-Identity and Views of Higher Education: A Study of Criminal Justice Graduate Students." PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 2018.
  30. ↑ Horowitz, Mark, Anthony Haynor, and Kenneth Kickham. "Sociology’s sacred victims and the politics of knowledge: Moral foundations theory and disciplinary controversies." The American Sociologist 49, no. 4 (2018): 459–495.
  31. ↑ Kemmelmeier, Markus, Cherry Danielson, and Jay Basten. "What’s in a grade? Academic success and political orientation." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, no. 10 (2005): 1386–1399.
  32. ↑ Tetrault, Justin Everett Cobain. "What’s hate got to do with it? Right-wing movements and the hate stereotype." Current Sociology (2019): https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392119842257.
  33. ↑ Forgas, Joseph P., Klaus Fiedler, and William D. Crano, eds. Social psychology and politics. Psychology Press, 2015, pp. 94–96[ ISBN missing ]
  34. ↑ Brandt, Mark J., and Jarret T. Crawford. "Worldview conflict and prejudice." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 1–66. Academic Press, 2020.
  35. ↑ Reyna, Christine. "Scale creation, use, and misuse: How politics undermines measurement." In Politics of Social Psychology, pp. 91–108. Psychology Press, 2017.
  36. ↑ Malka, Ariel, Yphtach Lelkes, and Nissan Holzer. "Rethinking the rigidity of the right model: Three suboptimal methodological practices and their implications." In Politics of social psychology, pp. 126–146. Psychology Press, 2017.
  37. ↑ Stanovich, Keith E., and Maggie E. Toplak. "The need for intellectual diversity in psychological science: Our own studies of actively open-minded thinking as a case study." Cognition 187 (2019): 156–166.
  38. ↑ Zipp, J. F.; R. Fenwick (2006), "Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?: The Political Orientations and Educational Values of Professors", Public Opinion Quarterly, 70 (3): 304–326, doi:10.1093/poq/nfj009, ISSN   0033-362X
  39. ↑ Cohen, Patricia (18 January 2010), "Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left", The New York Times , New York, p. C1, retrieved 2014-01-24
  40. ↑ van de Werfhorst, Herman G. (2019). "Are universities left-wing bastions? The political orientation of professors, professionals, and managers in Europe". The British Journal of Sociology. 71 (1): 47–73. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12716. ISSN   0007-1315. PMC   6973015 . PMID   31821548.
  41. ↑ Slife, Brent D; Reber, Jeffrey S (2009), "Is There a Pervasive Implicit Bias Against Theism in Psychology?", Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29 (2): 63–79, doi:10.1037/a0016985, ISSN   2151-3341
  42. ↑ American Council of Trustees and Alumni (May 2006), How Many Ward Churchills? (PDF)
  43. ↑ Mariani, Mack D.; Hewitt, Gordon J (2008), "Indoctrination U.? Faculty Ideology and Changes in Student Political Orientation", PS: Political Science & Politics, 41 (4): 773–783, doi:10.1017/S1049096508081031, ISSN   1049-0965, S2CID   145111919
  44. ↑ Hyers, Lauri L; Hyers, Conrad (2008), "Everyday Discrimination Experienced by Conservative Christians at the Secular University", Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8 (1): 113–137, doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00162.x, ISSN   1529-7489
  45. ↑ Rosik, Christopher H; Smith, Linda L (2009), "Perceptions of religiously based discrimination among Christian students in secular and Christian university settings", Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1 (4): 207–217, doi:10.1037/a0017076, ISSN   1943-1562
  46. ↑ Rothman, Stanley; Kelley-Woessner, April; Woessner, Matthew (2010), The Still Divided Academy: How Competing Visions of Power, Politics, and Diversity Complicate the Mission of Higher Education, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, ISBN   978-1-4422-0808-7 , retrieved 2014-01-24
  47. ↑ Gray, Phillip W. (13 June 2019). "Diagnosis versus Ideological Diversity". PS: Political Science & Politics . 52 (4): 728–731. doi: 10.1017/S1049096519000660 .
  48. ↑ Toje, A., "Sustainable Migration in Europe – the Significance of Culture", EMN Norway Occasional Papers, Oslo, 2019.
  49. ↑ Zigerell, L. J. "Left Unchecked: Political Hegemony in Political Science and the Flaws It Can Cause." PS: Political Science & Politics 52, no. 4 (2019): 720–723.
  50. ↑ Rom, Mark Carl. "A Liberal Polity: Ideological Homogeneity in Political Science." PS: Political Science & Politics 52, no. 4 (2019): 701–705.
  51. ↑ Wilson, J. Matthew. "The Nature and Consequences of Ideological Hegemony in American Political Science." PS: Political Science & Politics 52, no. 4 (2019): 724–727.
  52. ↑ O’Donohue, William. "Prejudice, Power, and Injustice: Problems in Academia." In Prejudice, Stigma, Privilege, and Oppression, pp. 15–37. Springer, Cham, 2020.[ ISBN missing ]
  53. ↑ Cofnas, Nathan, and Noah Carl. "Does activism in social science explain conservatives’ distrust of scientists?." The American Sociologist 49, no. 1 (2018): 135–148.
  54. ↑ Brandt, Mark J., and Anna Katarina Spälti. "Norms and explanations in social and political psychology." In Politics of social psychology, pp. 36–53. Psychology Press, 2017.[ ISBN missing ]
  55. ↑ Woessner, Matthew; Kelly-Woessner, April (2020). "Why College Students Drift Left: The Stability of Political Identity and Relative Malleability of Issue Positions among College Students". PS: Political Science & Politics. 53 (4): 657–664. doi:10.1017/S1049096520000396. ISSN   1049-0965. S2CID   225399119.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.