EMDR Therapy Quarterly

Introduction

In Part 1 of this article, I discussed our responsibility as consumers of research to take a critical approach to reading, understanding and disseminating research outcomes to our therapeutic practice. I covered how we can raise awareness and develop an understanding of how the history of psychology has shaped the current evidence base, the consequent therapeutic interventions and practice-based evidence.  

In this article, I propose that we have an ethical obligation to always consider EEDI in the research that is commissioned and carried out. I highlight how drawing on diverse perspectives in research processes strengthens the validity and reliability of the research outcomes. Taking responsibility for this obligation rather than engaging in unethical practice involves continuous commitment, diligence, reflection and action as an individual, within teams and at institutional levels. I draw largely on the work of Fernando (2017), Francis and Scott (2023) and Katsampa (2023). Their work resonated strongly with me, and I believe it has a wide application in psychology research and practice. I would urge readers to read these primary sources. I agree with the authors that it is not acceptable to knowingly perpetuate the status quo where biased research is undertaken and the outcomes are implemented in training and guidance that inform the treatment of racially, culturally and other diverse and minoritised populations. This, of course, requires active work, such as deconstructing and reconstructing systems, rather than adding to or adapting current systems. A paradigm shift is needed to acknowledge and serve the global majority and marginalised or vulnerable individuals who have been grossly underserved.

Exploring and promoting the best EEDI practices in psychology research and practice can only be beneficial. If we all commit to broadening our knowledge and challenging the status quo, we can begin to unravel centuries of colonial bias. This article is not intended as an authoritative guide to decolonising psychology research. Rather, it is a primer intended to encourage readers to consider the essential elements of an EEDI research framework and to engage in further self-study.

The underlying principles

Equality

Equality in psychological research involves ensuring that all participants are treated fairly and without bias. This is tied to the code of ethics and conduct of the psychological accrediting bodies. These emphasise non-discrimination as a fundamental principle, which, of course, is now enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 and as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). There are also directives established by the European Union.

Practising equality suggests that psychological research should be designed and conducted in a way that respects individual differences and does not privilege certain groups over others. This is not always the case, perhaps due to unknown (and sometimes known) systemic prejudice and discrimination. Unconscious bias makes this tight tapestry, weaved over centuries, a challenge to unravel. It is time to develop an anti-discriminatory way of working that is fit for purpose and where inequality and diversity are overtly acknowledged and translated into the research.

Diversity

Diversity in participants helps to ensure representativeness and increase the internal and external validity of psychological research. A diverse research team can bring varied experiences, perspectives and skills, consequently enriching the research process and outcomes.

Diverse methods ensure that research is not narrow in its approach and conclusions. It also challenges researchers to be sensitive to cultural and individual differences in designing and conducting studies, interpreting findings and applying knowledge.

Inclusion

Inclusion is about actively embracing and valuing diversity. It is not merely about having diverse participants, researchers and methods. It requires creating conditions where diverse individuals and groups are included in the research process and their contributions are recognised and valued. Inclusion is closely tied to the ethical principles of respect for people and participation. It is about creating opportunities for individuals and communities who are traditionally underrepresented or excluded. Inclusion also means that, as much as possible, research should be designed and conducted in a manner that is accessible to people regardless of their characteristics, circumstances or difference.

Considerations in conducting research

Training

Francis and Scott (2023) argue that the lack of diversity and ethnic representation within the psychology profession impacts the structure and content of training courses. Recruiting and encouraging, through positive action, those from underrepresented communities into the profession and providing safe/brave places and space for challenging conversations to take place will help to change the structure and content of training. This might be achieved by incentivising diversity in research teams. Action might also include fostering an inclusive and collaborative research culture by engaging in challenging conversations, acknowledging biases and respecting difference rather than developing, perhaps an unknowingly defensive and biased response. This may include working across disciplines. Also, research teams might make a commitment to explore the current literature around decolonisation to understand whether and/or how it can be applied within training programmes.

The research questions

When thinking about the research question, Santoro (2023) suggests reflecting on whether the question being asked accounts for diverse experiences and backgrounds whilst being careful not to assume consistency across different cultural or social groups. Researchers should also check whether the research question includes historically marginalised groups.

Context

Developing an understanding of the context in which research takes place and using that to diversify the population sample is important and necessary. Marginalised groups are often excluded because they are ignored rather than hard to reach!

There is an intersectional dominance and bias in psychological research that is acknowledged by the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK (ACP-UK) (2022). The ACP-UK points out that research is typically centred on “individual, white, European, able-bodied, heteronormative and neurotypical experiences” that need ‘decolonising’”. Angai and Gildea (2024) note that “despite only representing a small minority of the global population, most people who participate in behavioural science studies are from Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) backgrounds. These studies lead to an understanding of human psychology and behaviour specific to these ‘weird’ research subjects that does not represent the diversity of human experience.” The generalisation of such research to vast populations lacks validity and reliability, and in light of what is now known, might be considered unethical practice.

Exercising cultural sensitivity throughout the research process and being aware of culturally specific behaviours, beliefs and traditions, enhances the richness of the data. This might not be deemed suitable for quantitative methodologies, but this only serves to highlight the implicit marginalisation of underrepresented populations. Researchers might also consider the reasons for excluding certain individuals from research, which diverse group these individuals might be representing and how these individuals or groups may be marginalised again through the research process.

Language

There is undoubtably a need to be cautious about the language used in research to prevent additional biases from being introduced. Language is socially constructed, and over time, the language used evolves to meet the changing needs of that society. It is important to consider if the language used relates to the population being researched/explored.

Of course, what is meant by ‘white’ also calls for discussion. The term ‘white’ does not reflect diversity but rather continues to follow the race hierarchy developed primarily by botanist Carl Linnaeus in 1758. Linnaeus’ classifications were used to dehumanise people of colour and justify inhuman violence. Taking action to challenge centuries of discriminatory and prejudicial behaviour can prevent the silencing, rejecting and ignoring of those who continue to be underrepresented. The ignoring is demonstrated by the lack of education regarding events and issues, such as the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism and women’s health within the National Curriculum.

Language considerations for researchers

The use of clear and inclusive language and avoiding jargon and technical language that can exclude participants

Use culturally appropriate language for the population being studied

Use gender-neutral pronouns and language

Use non-discriminating and non-prejudicial language

Consider if Eurocentric terminology is being used and whether it is understood or applicable to the population being studied

Consider the cultural attunement within the research question

Careful use of language could encourage individuals to volunteer for the research, and having done so, to engage in open dialogue and authentically express perspectives and opinions without the fear of judgement and/or being misunderstood. 

Labels are often used to identify participants who do not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria or whose views differ or do not support the main body of evidence. Labels used might include extreme cases, deviant cases, negative cases or outliers. Reflecting on what appears to be deficit language with its negative connotations may support the identification of discrimination in research.  

Biases

Some researchers are starting to have uncomfortable and challenging conversations about how they can change harmful, oppressive and obstructive research practices that exclude a diverse range of people. Researchers might start learning about biases by conducting a historical literature review of their field through an EEDI lens or by considering their positionality and alerting the consumers of the research to their possible biases.

Positionality

Clarification of one’s positionality can be seen as an essential component of the research process. Being transparent about your research position will allow you to learn more and strive towards the ethos of decolonising your own research (Katsampa, 2023).

Positionality explicitly states where the author or researcher is coming from, i.e., their own world view, and how that could affect their research or paper. They highlight, through their disclosures, their intersectionality and experiences that have informed their work. The researcher’s positionality changes over time and is context-dependent (Rowe, 2014, cited in Holmes, 2020). Remember, researchers are also consumers of research, and their positionality impacts the research they choose to engage in and how; it also impacts their beliefs regarding the validity and reliability of other people’s research.

Collaborative working

Researchers would do well to consider communicating with different audiences and encouraging an open dialogue with different stakeholders to explore new possibilities that can be accomplished. This might include involving those from other disciplines who have expertise about diverse groups, co-constructing research questions and enabling collaboration with individuals from the communities we aim to better understand. Ensuring the centrality of research participants might be achieved by allowing people to define the desired level and frequency of their involvement in the research, encouraging them to influence all aspects of the research across its stages, and genuinely offering opportunities for true collaboration regardless of difference and accessibility needs.  

Methodologies

Researchers should make every effort to develop inclusive and culturally sensitive research methods. Adopting both qualitative and quantitative research methods may help capture a more diverse range of responses. Qualitative methods can provide valuable context and depth and can involve participants in ways that quantitative methods may not allow. Historically, quantitative research, with its objective, measurable data, has been considered more vital to the field than the subjective data derived through qualitative research. Quantitative research methods are deemed to be more objective, but these methods can be harmful to marginalised communities (Arellano,2022). The methods have been devised and implemented by the global minority and then generalised to large populations. This is arguably an unethical dissemination of unreliable research outcomes.

Rejecting qualitative methods limits research questions that can help minoritised groups and reduces the possibility of unearthing new psychological experiences.

Arellano (2022) states that for transformational change, people need to “hear the story” and “connect on a human emotion…that can only be conveyed via qualitative data.” However, certain scientific disciplines often do not appear to value all research methods equally (Katsampa, 2023). As a result, qualitative researchers continue to battle to acknowledge qualitative methods as valued and worthy methods of research. Now, more than ever, is the time to re-evaluate how we view qualitative research.

Some researchers are thinking differently about the way to conduct research. However, there is an ongoing risk that researchers will continue to reproduce scientific prejudice and discrimination because of systemic inequality. June Kim, editor of the Asian American Journal of Psychology, argues that researchers should not have to justify the importance of studying and researching the psychological processes of a specific racial or minoritised group, as there is an acceptance and understanding that all different groups are important. 

The Quantitative Critical Race Theory (QuantCrit) approach aims to help researchers develop alternative ways to think about their positionality, data creation and its dissemination by considering systemic inequities in society. The five key principles are that: 

• Racism is at the centre of scientific research 
• Numbers are not neutral 
• Categories are not natural 
• Data cannot speak for itself and instead requires voices and insight 
• Social justice and equity must be considered in research.  Cobanoglu (2023)

Results and analysis

As already mentioned, the researcher’s positionality will affect the interpretation of the data that is collected, but prospectively, researchers should ensure that the research method is culturally attuned. Analysis of the data should come from the stance of not knowing or presuming. If the researcher is not aware of cultural nuances, one should question the reliability of the data. If the norms of the researchers are being applied to those of the research participants, we should question how valid the research findings are and how ethical its dissemination is.  

Conclusion

Ensuring equity for all protected and intersectional characteristics in the research environment is an active and ongoing process. Katsampa (2023) maintains that self-reflexivity and reflective spaces can help to shape a researcher’s ideas and advocates for the provision of such spaces for both trainees and staff to explore their own identity, lived and generational experiences, and narratives, and how this impacts their development and practice.  

It goes without saying (while there feels a need to spell it out) that everything I have mentioned applies equally to the whole research team, including students and supervisors. Similarly, as consumers of research who engage in evidence-based practice, there is an obligation to reflect and develop an understanding of one’s own narrative and its influence on the interpretation and application of psychological research.

In conclusion, the four concepts of equality, equity, diversity and inclusion are interconnected and reinforce each other. EEDI in psychological research strengthens the scientific rigour and ethical integrity of the discipline and respects all human beings in their diverse realities. As we are aware, psychological research has a significant role in informing and shaping social constructs related to equality, equity, diversity and inclusion. Therefore, we all have an ethical obligation to consider EEDI in all the work that we do, which includes but is not limited to research, publication, correspondence and our therapeutic practice. We need to understand the impact the past continues to have in the present, acknowledge our role in maintaining oppressive practice through our research, and dissemination of research and work towards a truly inclusive future.

Positionality statement: I was born and brought up in South London. My grandparents were born in India and my parents in East Africa, from where they moved to the UK. Like many of my generation, I grew up in a working-class home and attended state schools. I grew up with others from minoritised groups. I identify as a heterosexual, cisgender woman, educated to postgraduate level, able-bodied, perimenopausal, multilingual, English-speaking individual who is neurodiverse and has her own learning differences. I am not a researcher but have engaged in and conducted research at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and have noticed barriers in my own research and professional journey. I am the co-founder of the Walden Model, supporting members in the community to provide an attachment-based therapeutic family on a long-term basis. Community psychology is of great importance to me, where I work with those who have been underserved in statutory and often voluntary services too. I am a counselling psychologist and EMDR consultant supervisor working with adolescents and adults in education, the community and with charities. I am a Board member and Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee chairperson at the EMDR UK Association. I work with the Association to infuse equality, equity, diversity and inclusion (EEDI) into practice, where voices and people are not ignored but are heard and responded to.